Hansard — Wednesday, October 17, 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		8577

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8578
	Eradication of poverty
	J. Brar
	Tynehead Hall
	D. Hayer
	Eid-ul-Adha festival
	H. Bains
	Tuning Into Our Teens conference
	M. Polak
	Child poverty
	R. Austin
	Early childhood services in Squamish
	J. McIntyre

Oral Questions		8580
	Lobbying activities of Graham Bruce
	C. James
	Hon. M. de Jong
	L. Krog
	B. Ralston
	J. Horgan
	M. Farnworth
	Treatment of seniors in health care facilities
	D. Routley
	Hon. G. Abbott

Point of Privilege		8584
	L. Krog

Second Reading of Bills		8584
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. G. Campbell
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. L. Reid
	C. Trevena
	J. McIntyre
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. G. Abbott
	S. Simpson
	B. Lekstrom
	M. Karagianis

Hon. T. Christensen: Many members of the House will be very familiar with the good work done at Covenant House in Vancouver. In fact, Covenant House opened its doors in Vancouver ten years ago tomorrow. Since that time, more than 10,000 street youth have been helped off the street by the folks at Covenant House.

Today we are joined by three guests from Covenant House. We have with us the executive director Krista Thompson, and her communications and media relations director Michelle Clausius. They are joined by a very special guest, one of their many success stories and alumni, Sheldon Vance.

Ten years ago Sheldon was having a difficult time leaving the streets of Vancouver. Thanks to the good works of Covenant House, he was put on a very strong path. Today Sheldon is finishing his master's degree in child psychology. He is the director of the Okanagan Youth in Care Network and runs a program called the circle of courage at Métis Children and Family Services.

He is married and has two small children and has a continued passion for youth participation by supporting many youth-driven activities within the city of Kelowna. He is definitely making a difference to youth in his community. That is, in part, thanks to a good start at Covenant House.

I would ask that all members of the House please welcome these three very special guests.

C. James: Joining us today is Mr. Bill Cross, who's travelled here from Chemainus. Bill is a resident of a long-term care facility in Chemainus and is sharing his story with all of us today. I'd ask all the members to please make him welcome.

M. Polak: Today in the House we are joined by a group of very amazing women. They are members of Soroptimists International of the Langleys. I'd like to introduce Edwina Lounsbury, Evelyn Hohmann, Sharon Fisher, Noreen Straker, Victoria Wilhelmsen, Diane Summers and Donna Van Beek. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to rise today and introduce a resident of Cariboo North. It's with great pleasure that I introduce my wife and longtime friend. I would ask the House to please make my wife Sheila most welcome.

S. Hawkins: On behalf of Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to welcome and introduce 14 teachers from across British Columbia. They've been selected to participate in the fifth B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. They are with us in the gallery today, and they'll spend the remainder of this week expanding their knowledge of our parliamentary and political systems. They're joined by three of their peers who are acting as facilitators: Miss Tamara Malloff, Mr. Gordon Cumming and Ms. Lisa Marshall.

I trust many of you will have the opportunity to meet with them during the institute and specifically this evening, as the Minister of Education has a reception for them. So would the House please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

C. Wyse: As I introduce my other two guests, one of them is going to thoroughly enjoy how I've gone ahead with the introductions.

It is also my pleasure to introduce to the House today both my daughter and my grandson, who have come from Red Deer to see both their father and their papa in action. I'm sure Clayton in particular will quite enjoy what happened. I would ask the House to also make them welcome.

C. Puchmayr: I have two guests in the House today, Carol Riviere and Reid Johnson from the Health Sciences Association. Please make them extremely welcome.

R. Fleming: I want to join the member for Kelowna-Mission and introduce one of the delegates from the Teachers Institute. Kirk Longpre is here. He's a teacher-librarian at Mount Douglas Secondary in the school district that I represent. He's here with the B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy.

There are two other constituents here I wish to introduce to the House: Margaret Asch and Jean McBean. We met before lunch. We discussed housing issues. They're very well informed on these issues.

For the other members, they are armed with hall passes, so they'll be around this afternoon as well. Please, would the House make them feel welcome.

J. Rustad: I'd ask that the House make welcome Elizabeth Andersen and Don Bassermann from the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition, who are down here meeting with the government caucus today.

J. Horgan: I know all members will have noticed an improvement in the cuisine in the parliamentary restaurant, and that's a result of Lonnie McLaren doing her co-op program from Camosun College.

Joining us here today in the gallery to, hopefully, hold down their lunch during question period is her grandmother from Victoria, Alleen McLaren, aunt Betty Richards and her husband Al Richards from Kelowna. Will the House please make them welcome.

J. Brar: Today is a very important day in the history of humankind, and it reminds all of us about our commitment to eradicate poverty in our community. October 17 marks the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty.

In a province such as B.C., we have the worst poverty rates in Canada — a shameful title that B.C. has now held in each of the last four years. In 2004 B.C.'s child poverty rate was 23.5 percent. Nearly one in every four kids lived under poverty. What these numbers tell us is that for a quarter of our kids, B.C. is definitely not the best place on earth to grow up in.

The estimated number of poor children in B.C. in 2004 was 196,000. That was almost the same as the entire populations of Nanaimo, Kelowna and Williams Lake combined.

British Columbia also has the worst income gap between the rich and the poor among the provinces. The number of homeless people in the GVRD and many other communities has doubled during the last few years.

The question we need to ask ourselves is: why, at a time when B.C. has a record surplus, is the number of children and families living in poverty and the number of homeless people growing? Why is everyone in B.C. not benefiting from the economy?

The record surplus and 2010 Olympics challenge our political will to develop a practical poverty reduction strategy to demonstrate to the rest of the world that in B.C., everyone matters.

D. Hayer: One hundred years ago the pioneers of Surrey-Tynehead got together to build a heart to the community. That was the Tynehead Hall, and it still stands today as a place to meet, to come together and to share the hopes and dreams for the future. Well, in Tynehead the dreams live on, and the legacy they gave to the community is thriving.

Along with members of the families, I joined with them last month to celebrate the 100th anniversary of this historic community hall. Pride and purpose went into the building of Tynehead Hall, and that pride lives on today in our historical community of Surrey-Tynehead.

Pioneers and their volunteers were significant contributors in the preservation of Tynehead Hall's heritage. Some of the volunteers included Mrs. Zina York, president of Tynehead Pioneers; Judy DeVries, secretary; Mr. Rob Terris, president of Tynehead Community Association; Mrs. Leonor Bradley, vice-president; Kim Adamson-Sharpe, secretary; Cathy Poole, treasurer; Maxine Wilson, director; Richard Bishop, past president; Mabel Bishop, past treasurer and secretary; Rob Poole, past president; Andrea Terris, president of Tynehead Women's Auxiliary; Liz Milligan, president of Tynehead Historical Society; Joan Parolin, descendant of the pioneer Bothwell family; George Hoffman and family; and many other volunteers and members of the Tynehead community.

I ask all members in the House to join me in remembering our pioneers and the families they established in British Columbia from around the world. It is their effort that makes our legacy, which has made our province one of the most vibrant and dynamic provinces in Canada and ultimately the best place in Canada.

H. Bains: Last week Muslims all across the world celebrated Eid, marking the end of the fasting month of Ramadan. Eid is a time of forgiveness, contemplation and spirituality. Ramadan is a period of fasting, reflection, devotion, generosity and sacrifice observed by Muslims around the world.

Through increased charity, Muslims develop feelings of generosity and goodwill towards others. They believe a person's wealth will never be diminished by charity.

During Ramadan, every part of the body must be restrained. For example, the tongue must be restrained from backbiting and gossip. The hand must not touch or take anything that does not belong to it. The ears must refrain from listening to idle talk or obscene words. Therefore, fasting is not merely physical but is rather the total commitment of the person's body and soul to the spirit of the fast.

I was most fortunate in Surrey to receive invitations to several Eid celebrations where I was welcomed into homes of my constituents to celebrate the breaking of the fast. I enjoyed the celebration and the food, but I enjoyed even more the message that came with it — the message of peace, harmony and forgiveness.

I'm always so proud to live in a country and in a city where multiculturalism is so established that people from all countries and faiths come to Canada to live in peace and harmony with one another. It is wonderful to be able to celebrate with people and learn from their culture, customs and religion.

I would like the House to join me in wishing the Muslims in our province, in our city, a belated Eid Mubarak.

M. Polak: Our universe is a place of extraordinary mystery. Great wonders abound that inspire our imagination. How were the great pyramids of Egypt built? What was the purpose of Stonehenge? Is there life on Mars? But to parents everywhere, there is nothing as mysterious as the mind of a teenaged girl. [Laughter.] Yeah, it's a delayed laugh, but if you have a daughter, you know what I'm talking about.

Fortunately for Langley parents, Soroptimists International of the Langleys hosts an annual conference called Tuning Into Our Teens. Moms and dads and their daughters spend a day together attending workshops on topics such as body image, safe Internet use,

The conference brings awareness to teenaged girls of the challenges, dangers and opportunities ahead of them in today's world and makes parents aware of those same issues. Parents and teens explore these issues together, building an understanding of each other's perspectives on some difficult subjects and creating a healthy dialogue.

This year's special guest speaker was Miss Teen B.C. 2008, Langley's own Katrina Dorn. The unique format of the conference uses informative, interactive and fun workshops along with a wide array of speakers, displays and resource materials. In keeping with the focus of Soroptimists International, which is improving the lives of women and girls, Langley Soroptimists have once again shown their talent for community outreach.

The success of the Tuning Into Our Teens conference has inspired other Soroptimists clubs across Canada to present similar events using the Langley conference as a model. In a world that often drives parents and their daughters apart, the hard-working, dedicated women who belong to Langley Soroptimists club are providing a unique opportunity for parents and their daughters to connect and to learn from one another.

I ask this House to join me in congratulating them on their hard work and another successful conference this year.

R. Austin: This month is Foster Family Month to recognize and honour the dedication of this province's foster parents. As a former foster parent, I understand both the joys and challenges of providing a home for youth coming from crisis situations.

A great deal is said about the work that foster parents do, but I would also like people to know this is not a one-way street where all the accolades inevitably go to those who open their hearts and homes to a child in need.

On the contrary, I would like to also acknowledge the incredible gift of knowledge and awareness that comes from being a foster parent, through learning to deal with new situations and the inevitable change in family dynamics that takes place in a home when a child from difficult circumstances enters one's life.

I believe that natural children also have a profoundly positive experience by being raised with children whose experiences in life are different. As legislators, we deal with many challenging public policy issues. The fact that we have so many children in care, a disproportional percentage of whom are first nation, should be sufficient cause for us to ask ourselves why.

People often cite children's safety as the primary reason for children to be taken into care. Problems with alcohol, drugs or family violence are used as justification to protect children. Of course, this is often the case. But perhaps these issues are the symptom rather than the cause.

A person's capacity to deal with the problem varies from one to another, as indeed it does from one family to another. How many of us in this chamber, most of whom have been born to privilege, would like to cope with the underlying stress of the greatest challenge — poverty?

While not all kids in care are in poverty, my experience tells me that if families had a little more support — financial, educational and life skills support — they would indeed be able and most willing to care for their own children. It is the rising wealth gap and the inevitable marginalization that have exposed so many children to family trauma. It does not matter how good a foster parent is. The fact is that it is better for kids to be raised by their natural family.

I hope that one day we in this chamber will address the real issues of how our wealth is distributed in our society and begin to realize that while all children deserve a start in life that does not handicap their emotional, social and intellectual growth, it is only through changes in government policy that we will encourage a fairer society for all its citizens.

J. McIntyre: I rise to inform the House of two new government-supported services for Squamish families with preschool children. On October 2, I attended the grand opening of the Sea to Sky Early Learning and Child Development Centre. The next morning I was helping to officiate, along with school board dignitaries, at the opening of the StrongStart B.C. centre, located in a newly renovated classroom at Squamish Elementary.

Both of these centres showcase the power of community partnerships and serve as a testament to the importance of providing a strong foundation for our youngsters. The early learning and childhood development society, supported by a major capital grant from our government, will now provide 21 new licensed child care spaces and a number of integrated early childhood intervention services from a community hub model. This centre includes an early childhood development office, infant development programs and an occupational and physiotherapist all on site, offering both convenience for the families and, of course, cost-effectiveness for the care providers — a win-win.

The StrongStart centre at Squamish Elementary already has over a hundred children along with their parents and caregivers participating in the program, with hundreds of visits in the first two weeks — indeed a strong start. The opening of this centre is phase 3 of a $5 million program that will provide up to 80 StrongStart centres around the province. Families and children can come together with Lynn Bouchard, the early childhood educator, and her Sea to Sky program team to develop the skills children need to be successful as they enter school.

These two centres cover the bases of local child care needs and deliver alternatives to young families in

the community, whether it's for working parents or parents and caregivers who attend with children.

Today I'd like us to recognize the valuable work the Sea to Sky Community Services Society performs in their association with both of these centres. Also, a warm thank-you to all the partners involved in working to improve family life in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Could I remind members that the two-minute statements are meant to focus mainly on their ridings and are to be as non-partisan as possible.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, the Members' Conflict of Interest Act is clear. The executive council and its members must not knowingly award or approve a contract that benefits a former cabinet minister until two years has passed. Graham Bruce, a former cabinet minister, walked into the Premier's office, lobbied for money, including enough to cover his own salary, and a few months later he got it. Based on the answers we got yesterday, an entire room full of cabinet ministers doesn't think that this is a problem.

My question is to the Premier. When he met with Graham Bruce, didn't it even cross his mind to ask whether he was in violation of B.C.'s conflict-of-interest laws, and why didn't he immediately put an end to his friend's efforts to cash in on his credits?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition and members of her caucus made some very serious allegations concerning activities by Mr. Bruce and the Cowichan First Nation. The Cowichan First Nation have today responded to those allegations, and in light of what the Leader of the Opposition had to say yesterday, along with some of her colleagues, I believe it's appropriate to read those remarks into the record of this chamber.

C. James: Well, Mr. Speaker, the only people who should apologize to the Cowichan Tribes are this government and this Premier and this House Leader. What we always see from the other side is that they point fingers absolutely everywhere else except looking at themselves, because they are the problem in this instance.

The legislation is very clear. The executive council, which includes the Premier and every single minister on that side of the House, is in conflict when they "award or approve a contract with, or grant a benefit to, a former member of the Executive Council or former parliamentary secretary, until 24 months have expired."

The Premier met with Graham Bruce. The current Minister of Community Services met with Graham Bruce. The current Minister of Children and Family Development met with Graham Bruce. What was the result of those meetings? Mr. Bruce secured funding for which he was lobbying, including money to fund his own contract. The executive council approved it. Mr. Bruce benefited from it.

My question is again to the Premier. Was it a deliberate attempt to line the pockets of a Liberal friend, or was it simply a bunch of Liberal ministers brushing off the conflict rules and saying once again: "They just don't matter for us and our friends"?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member across the way stood up yesterday and said he stands with the Cowichan. Very clearly, the Cowichan do not stand with him or any member of the NDP.

The important point is that there is actually an agency that makes decisions on these matters, proper officials. It's not me. It's not actually the Cowichan.

And thank goodness it isn't the irresponsible Leader of the Opposition and her caucus, who are more interested in politics than getting things done.

C. James: Perhaps I need to spell it out once again for the House Leader. I'll spell it out very clearly for the House Leader.

For the House Leader once again: this is about the conflict of interest, this is about a former cabinet minister, and this is about this government ignoring the conflict-of-interest rules.

We know that this government likes to plead ignorance. Let's put it out again. A former cabinet minister walked in. He asked for money. He had access to information about Treasury Board, and he got the funds to pay for his own contract.

In his own words, Graham Bruce said he was calling in his credits with the Premier and at least two other cabinet ministers who are still at the cabinet table. It's time for the Premier to give some answers.

My question once again is to the Premier. He met with Graham Bruce. He approved the funding. How on earth would a former cabinet minister get information about Treasury Board and then benefit from it, and how is that not a conflict of interest?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me, in light of her performance and that of her colleagues yesterday, if I don't place a lot of stock or have a lot of confidence in what she advises this House.

Yesterday members of the opposition were talking about funding $3 million that was being secured. There were allegations about the misappropriation of treaty moneys. I think that came from the member for Nanaimo. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant had similar allegations of that sort.

You know, I can actually help the Leader of the Opposition because at a federal-provincial meeting of sports ministers, an agreement was reached. An agreement was reached, establishing a funding framework for the 2008 North American Indigenous Games that actually did involve a commitment from British Columbia for the amount of $3.5 million. Guilty, Mr. Speaker.

Here's the problem for the Leader of the Opposition. That announcement was dated January 2003.

L. Krog: It's wonderful that the NDP weren't responsible for establishing the pie or responsible for how it's cut up, but let's talk about how the pie was cut up.

In his own words, it's Graham Bruce that has implicated the Premier and his cabinet in an apparent conflict. On Monday, July 19, 2006, he told the Cowichan Tribes: "I will be self-funded. At the last council meeting I stated there was a Treasury Board submission that went in and was approved, and those funds can be called for, but right now they can't be called for until matters have been handled or until I call for them."

Mr. Bruce clearly had inside information, and he benefited from it. That's the very definition of a conflict of interest.

My question is to the Minister of Community Services. She met with Mr. Bruce in his lobbying efforts. Does she know how Mr. Bruce got inside information about Treasury Board?

Hon. M. de Jong: I always listen very carefully to the hon. member's questions, and I did so yesterday.

Hon. M. de Jong: Oh, I can assure members that I listened carefully today too.

Yesterday the member for Nanaimo said: "I say to the Premier, 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…?" Very specific assertions. Very specific accusations.

I didn't hear him make those same accusations outside. That's when I get suspicious — when a member is prepared to say something in this chamber and not say it outside.

We've already established that the provincial part of funding for the games was announced in 2003, and we go to the Cowichan statement of today's date to confirm the following: "Graham Bruce was asked…"

Hon. M. de Jong: "…by Cowichan Tribes to assist in ensuring the local contribution of $3 million was met. These dollars are being raised locally from local governments, corporate sponsors, registrations and Cowichan Tribes through a sponsorship program."

The one entity that Mr. Bruce wasn't going to was the provincial government because we already committed the money.

L. Krog: Mr. Bruce, in his own words, is crystal-clear: "A Treasury Board submission went in and was approved, and those funds can be called for, but right now they can't be called for until matters have been handled or until I call for them." "Until I call for them."

He then told the Cowichan Tribes that he was "calling in my credits with these ministers." These aren't made-up words. These are Mr. Bruce's words: "Calling in my credits with these ministers."

One of those ministers was the current Minister of Children and Family Development. Maybe he can explain how Mr. Bruce had access to inside Treasury Board information and how he knew he was going to be "self-funded."

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I understand how uncomfortable the hon. members opposite are with the answers. But I'm going to keep giving them and, in the process, reveal the shoddiness and recklessness of an increasingly desperate Leader of the Opposition who is throwing any sense of responsible leadership into the garbage can in favour of playing pure politics.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yesterday this member and others in the opposition held up a bunch of documents and purported to quote from them. Included in the accusations they made was that there was misappropriation of treaty moneys from the Treaty Commission.

Now, it's not for that member and not for me to decide whether those moneys are appropriately spent. We expect them to be, as government, and the Treaty Commission expects them to be.

But what I find offensive is that about two pages further on in the same document…. The Cowichan had a lawyer, their counsel, who provided them with a legal opinion that they were doing everything in accordance with the terms of the B.C. Treaty Commission. This opposition chooses to selectively draw from a document when they should be revealing all of the facts, if that's the document they want to rely upon.

Hon. M. de Jong: …let him make it out there, or let him make it to the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner.

B. Ralston: Judging from the shrill tone of his answers, the only one who's desperate here is the Government House Leader.

B. Ralston: My question is for the Minister of Finance. She's had a couple of days with the evidence of an apparent breach of Treasury Board. She's the proper authority. What steps has she taken to find out how a former cabinet minister apparently used the Treasury Board information for personal benefit?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yesterday it's misappropriation of funds, but I haven't heard a lot about that today. I wonder why. It was allegations of breaches of the lobbyist act.

No one apparently took the time to consult the actual legislation that includes what appears, on the face of it at least, to be a blanket exemption for those purporting to work with and for first nations governments. But let's not let those mere legal details stand in the way of pursuing what might be a good political story.

I don't take anything seriously from an opposition who would stand in this chamber, cloaked in the veil of immunity, and refuse to make the same assertions outside, knowing that that's where they'll be held accountable.

We continue to stand with the Cowichan First Nation. If this member has an allegation to make involving the Conflict of Interest Act, if he'd like to sit down with me, I'll even walk him through the procedure you have to follow to file a complaint. But that's where the complaint should be made, Mr. Speaker.

B. Ralston: In his own words — Mr. Bruce's words, not the words of the Government House Leader — he lobbied multiple ministers, he set up his own payment scheme, and he had the inside track on Treasury Board. If Mr. Bruce is to be believed, someone in government was playing along, and the executive council was in conflict.

Will the Minister of Finance commit today to release the relevant Treasury Board documents so we can get to the bottom of the potential damage to the financial integrity of the province?

Hon. M. de Jong: We are working with the Cowichan First Nation and their representatives to ensure that they have the means at their disposal to present the best-ever North American Indigenous Games.

We are working with the Cowichan First Nation to in a meaningful way address a housing crisis that has gone unresolved for far too long. We are working with the Cowichan First Nation to address, as we are with

But to use the words of the Cowichan themselves, the only people who are putting that good work, that courageous vision at risk are the members of the NDP and their reckless comments in this chamber.

J. Horgan: It's lamentable that the Minister of Finance is going to allow Graham Bruce to call in chits and to call for release of Treasury Board funds while she sits there idle, and the "minister of defence" banters on about the Cowichan people.

Let me report here from the Cowichan minutes: "If council approves for Graham to explore these concepts, then Graham's costs associated to these initiatives will be covered by the government of British Columbia." By the government of British Columbia.

The former minister calls in some chits. He sits down with the Premier. He says: "I'm okay. I've got Treasury Board covered. They're going to pay my bills." If that's not a conflict, I don't know what is.

Will the Minister of Finance stand in this place and protect the integrity of the treasury of British Columbia? Who's in charge — her or Graham Bruce?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, based on some years of experience, I can say with a degree of confidence that the best way we can preserve the integrity of the treasury in British Columbia is to make sure those guys never get their hand on the treasury again.

Hon. M. de Jong: …are the words of the Cowichan. This was a statement they released today. "Graham Bruce was asked by the Cowichan Tribes to assist in ensuring the local contribution of $3 million was met." So I don't know what part of this the member doesn't get.

An agreement was announced in 2003 that included a funding component from the federal government, a funding component from the provincial government and a funding component from local officials — the local organization, the Cowichan themselves. They brought Mr. Bruce on apparently, based on what we've heard and the documents we have, to assist them with collecting that local component.

If the member doesn't believe the Cowichan First Nation, then stand up and say so, because they sure don't believe him.

M. Farnworth: The release the Government House Leader talks about says that in 2003, agreement was reached. Mr. Bruce was sitting around the cabinet table at that time. He knew the money was coming. He went to the Cowichan and got the money from them, knowing full well the government was providing funds. He used inside information, and then Treasury Board….

M. Farnworth: The money…. The announcement wasn't made until '06. Mr. Bruce was aware and used insider information, and after he left, he lobbied government ministers. He lobbied the Premier. The act is very clear. He breached the conflict guidelines.

I'd like to ask the Premier: does he stand by the comments he made in 1994 that the government has an obligation to take care of the public trust as well? If we're always waiting for the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner to act, that is hardly a star for the government's behaviour. Does he still stand by those comments?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I must confess I've been set back on my heels. When I leave this chamber, the first thing I shall do is send a memo to the public affairs bureau and advise them that when they issue a press release, people read them.

D. Routley: The Premier has said that health authorities must treat seniors like their own parents. Well, that isn't happening. Bill Cross, a 71-year-old constituent of mine and a person who is living in conditions that no one would want for their parents, is going through the most despicable shortage of service.

Mr. Cross lived independently for many years. Earlier this year Bill moved to The Steeples, a publicly funded assisted-living facility in Chemainus. Mr. Cross was left for 108 days without a bath, and that's not all. Steeples is locked at night. Three times, Mr. Cross has

fallen at night. Each time, the ambulance crew was left outside waiting, unable to get in. Treatment like your own parents….

My question to the Minister of Health: is it acceptable for seniors to live in such unacceptable conditions?

Hon. G. Abbott: We do take these matters very seriously. While I would discuss matters of this character in this Legislature with the greatest reluctance, I will answer the member's question.

First of all, it's important to note that The Steeples — which is a new facility in Chemainus, constructed and opened in 2006 — is an assisted-living facility. It's not a residential care facility. It's an assisted-living facility. It deals with the needs of often vulnerable seniors, but nevertheless seniors who are capable of living independently with periodic supports from the health care system.

Again, I don't propose to pursue this in any detail. I think it is remarkably unfair to do that within the bounds of this chamber. But there have been extensive discussions between Mr. Cross and the Vancouver Island Health Authority. It is clear that the care needs that Mr. Cross has exceed those that are meant to be offered at The Steeples. I understand that those discussions have been about finding suitable alternatives and that those suitable alternatives have been declined.

D. Routley: Mr. Speaker, this is not acceptable. It was on VIHA's advice that Mr. Cross sold all of his possessions and moved into The Steeples. The Steeples has failed to meet the level of care they advertised to Mr. Cross. One hundred and eight days without a bath goes well beyond the answer that the minister just gave us. But now Mr. Cross has been advised he must move out.

Again, I'm going to put the question to the Minister of Health. How much longer do seniors in British Columbia need to suffer before his government, this Liberal government, and this Health Minister take action to end this oversight?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, it is with the greatest reluctance that I use this chamber to respond to questions that should have been addressed to me in my office by this member, because the member fully understands this situation. The member should fully understand that the care needs of this individual exceed what can be offered within the facility called The Steeples in Chemainus.

Again, it is with the greatest reluctance that I note to this House that I am advised that a shower unit is in Mr. Cross's unit at The Steeples, that the shower unit is regularly used. There is not provision for a bath, but there is a shower unit that is being used.

I don't like to discuss matters of this character in this House, but the member is impugning a system. He is impugning the people who work there, he is impugning the people who manage it, and I think it is most unfortunate that he should do so.

L. Krog: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reserve my right to raise a matter of personal privilege.

D. Chudnovsky: I am proud to stand today and speak in support of the Tsawwassen treaty. The Tsawwassen people deserve this treaty, and I congratulate them for their historic achievement.

They have negotiated hard and in good faith to resolve longstanding issues of self-determination, of land ownership and of economic independence. The Tsawwassen First Nation can now look forward to the possibility of a brighter future, secure in the knowledge that they will have a much, much greater say in shaping their own destiny.

It's a good day for the Tsawwassen people, and it's a good day for British Columbia, and it's a good day for Canada, because this treaty speaks to the hopes and the desires and the dreams of a first nation and of a province and of a country. That's not to say that I don't have concerns — serious concerns — about this treaty and about this legislation, and I want to talk about those concerns in some detail in a few minutes.

You might know, Mr. Speaker, that I am a social studies teacher. I've been a social studies teacher for many, many years. So I think it's important to begin by looking at some history. This treaty is one step, and certainly not the last step, in a chain of events which began more than 500 years ago when Europeans first began to colonize what they called the New World. That was soon after those same Europeans claimed that they had discovered the lands beyond the western sea.

It's instructive that even the language they used to describe their exploits tells us a lot about what was going to happen in the ensuing centuries. Of course, the world they found wasn't new at all. The Tsawwassen people, for example, had lived in what is now the lower mainland of British Columbia and on the Gulf Islands for thousands of years before any European managed to arrive.

History and reality in what we now call the western hemisphere didn't begin when an Italian businessman

financed by a Spanish queen stumbled on a Caribbean island. Economic development was already a reality.

Culture and language and law and art and foreign relations and democracy and dictatorship and industry and agriculture and mining and fishing and forestry — all of these were thriving in the territory that became the Americas. It didn't have to be discovered by anyone. It was already here.

The history of the ensuing 500 years was the history of the forced undermining of that already existing economic development. It was the history of the calculated theft of thriving cultures, the history of the destruction of dozens of languages. It was the history of the murder of countless thousands of human beings and the history of the sometimes deliberate ruining of the health of entire nations of people. It was the history of the economic exploitation that enriched Europe and the Europeans who came to live in these lands and impoverished the first nations who had been living here for thousands of years. In short, the first nations were victims of colonialism.

A corollary of colonialism is racism. To exploit and oppress people in the way that first nations have been for all these years, it was necessary to think of them as somehow less worthy, less normal, less human than their exploiters, and that's what happened. We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that such racism is a phenomenon only of the past, that we have somehow transcended such backward ideas and behaviours, because tragically, we haven't yet.

The Leader of the Opposition, when she spoke in the House on this legislation, itemized just some of the results and outcomes of this history of colonialism, racism and exploitation. It's worthwhile recalling some of that and repeating some of it, because it's very instructive.

It's very instructive to look at the current situation of aboriginal peoples in our province. They, 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 the rest of the population. Rates of diabetes are triple what others of us face. Alcohol-related deaths are four to nine times higher for aboriginal people. Drug-related deaths are two to four times higher. The hospitalization rate in our province for aboriginal people is 40 percent higher for aboriginal men and almost 80 percent higher for aboriginal women. Six times as many teen pregnancies.

The poverty rate for aboriginal children is twice the rate for non-aboriginal children, and we know that the poverty rate across the province for children and their families is unacceptably high. Between 1997 and 2005 the number of aboriginal children in care increased by more than 50 percent. Only 16 percent of aboriginal children in care graduate from high school. Aboriginal youth are seven times more likely to be in prison than their non-aboriginal counterparts.

On the education front, an area that is of particular interest to me, only 47 percent of aboriginal students complete high school, compared to 82 percent of the rest of the population. I can speak to that problem from my own experience of over 30 years in the classroom, teaching many, many aboriginal students wonderful kids, bright kids, as bright as any other kids in the system, as caring, as motivated as any other kids in the system but with enormous obstacles to success. The statistics go on and on.

What's important here is that we not blame the victim. These appalling conditions of life are the result of 500 years of colonialism and racism that first nations people never asked for and over which they had almost no control. So it's little wonder that first nations have struggled, resisted, organized and used all kinds of strategies to find some redress. One of those strategies, but only one, is the treaty process.

Seven years ago the Nisga'a people made history by concluding the first modern treaty in B.C. That treaty — a treaty fiercely opposed by many of the members opposite — was negotiated and ratified under the governments of Premier Harcourt and Premier Clark. Why is it that seven long years have elapsed between the Nisga'a treaty and the Tsawwassen treaty? I believe it's because that process was stalled and resisted and opposed.

The main reason that the treaty process was stalled is the policies and actions of this Premier and of the B.C. Liberals. They saw demonizing treaties, and the Nisga'a treaty in particular, as a convenient way to gain power. Under this Premier's leadership, the then Liberal opposition opposed the Nisga'a treaty at every turn. This Premier and the B.C. Liberals saw political opportunity in dividing British Columbians.

This Premier and many of the Liberal members who sit in this chamber today saw nothing wrong with sacrificing the treaty process and aboriginal people to naked and crass political ambition. They brought a suit against the federal and provincial governments and the Nisga'a Tribal Council to try to quash the treaty. They sought to have the court declare the treaty unconstitutional. The court saw no merit in their case, and in 2000 their application was dismissed. Yet they appealed to the B.C. Court of Appeal.

Then there was the referendum. This Premier, once he formed government, insisted on holding an expensive and ultimately meaningless referendum on treaties in 2002. First nations condemned him. Polling professionals ridiculed the questions and the methodology and the process. Everyone who understood the reality of the history of aboriginal people in British Columbia was appalled.

Now, finally and happily, the Premier and his government have changed their tune, but the political opportunism remains. How else can one describe the government's decision to use public funds to take Tsawwassen people to Nisga'a territory to observe the results of a treaty that this Premier and this government opposed so enthusiastically? But the Premier knew that the Tsawwassen people would see the evidence of progress. He knew that they would see the pride and optimism of a Nisga'a people who hold their own destiny in their hands, who run many of their

own affairs and pass their own laws. Tragically, the Premier didn't understand any of this a decade ago when he did everything he could to keep the Nisga'a treaty from becoming a reality.

I said earlier that even though I'm proud to support the treaty and the legislation, I have real concerns about some of its elements. Many people are concerned about the treaty, and many are even critical of it. That shouldn't surprise us. Together with the debate around this treaty, some of our most cherished principles are put into stark relief. There are tensions and conflicts between and among them.

The treaty process, the ALR, self-government and self-determination, local and municipal governance, protection of the environment, redress and reconciliation, food security, social justice. Each of these is, for me, a touchstone, a measuring stick, a way to figure out where I stand and how I should behave. Like others, when those principles don't all line up in one direction, I have to struggle to find a way forward.

Chief Baird, in her address to this House a few days ago, told us a simple truth that helps to reconcile these principles. She reminded us that the treaty is a compromise. While many of us have concerns about elements of the treaty, sections that give us less comfort, it's the same with the Tsawwassen people. There are parts of the treaty that they don't like and that they would have liked to be different. It's a compromise.

Notwithstanding the truth that it's a compromise and notwithstanding the fact that in the end it's a treaty to be proud of, I want to look at those criticisms that have been put forward by many and try to understand them.

There are some who say that the Tsawwassen treaty is an attempt by this government to make an end run around the ALR. I think they're right.

Many say that the treaty is a way the government hopes to get around municipal concerns regarding control over development in Delta. Critics assert that the treaty is being used by the Liberals to avoid their responsibilities to sustainability and the environment — to protect, for instance, the Fraser estuary and the Georgia Strait. They argue that the treaty is all about massive expansion of Deltaport.

My view is that we should take every one of those criticisms seriously. I think there is merit in each of them. There's no doubt that the Tsawwassen people's legitimate interest in self-determination and in economic development is being used by a cynical government to push a project that is far more important to them — the government — than the Tsawwassen people or any other first nation in B.C. — namely, massive expansion of Deltaport and a socially and environmentally irresponsible version of economic development.

How do we deal with these reasonable and very worrisome criticisms of the treaty? I think Chief Baird's comments last Monday are very, very helpful in this regard. I want to quote her because I thought it was right to the point.

Well, I'm not sure the critics have really ignored this point. They certainly aren't convinced by it, but I am. Let me put it another way.

We have benefited immensely, over hundreds of years, because we have had the ability to exploit our resources. Our privilege and wealth is a result of our decisions, many of them bad decisions, based on the legal and economic power we have had. They, the Tsawwassen, want and deserve that same legal and economic power.

There's no doubt that the wealth and privilege I'm talking about, which we have, have been distributed in an obscenely inequitable way. In other opportunities in this House, past and present, I will speak strongly to that inequity. But the fact remains that the Tsawwassen, as a community, as a people, as a nation, have not had access to that wealth and privilege.

Now, I hope that the Tsawwassen Nation will make better decisions than we have when they, as a result of this treaty, get the legal right and power to determine their future. But I believe that it would be a continuation of those 500 years of colonialism for us to refuse them that right, to which they are entitled by law, to make those decisions.

The Tsawwassen people have had no ability to control land use decisions on the vast majority of their traditional territory, and even though the ALR is one of the great treasures of our province — brought to this province, in this House, by the New Democratic Party and by Premier Barrett — the Tsawwassen people had no control over the creation of the ALR or its relationship to their traditional territory.

Despite the legitimate criticisms, I cannot reject the treaty on these grounds precisely because it is the treaty which will provide the Tsawwassen First Nation the possibility, finally, to participate in determining their own future.

We, who have done such a poor job in ensuring social justice and environmental sustainability, have a lot of nerve denying them the right to try to do better than we here — even on their land, and even if they make some mistakes.

I want to say, though, two additional things about the criticisms which have been put forward, especially around the ALR issue. First, I want to make clear that this opposition, this side of the House, did not negotiate that treaty. If we had, I think it would have looked a lot different, but we didn't.

Second, I want to alert us to the fact that this government may think they have found a way around a whole series of public policy principles that they have

been looking for, for years. What about protection of parkland? What about offshore oil and gas drilling? We, all of us, native and non-native, need to be on our guard to protect against a wholesale onslaught against the very protections which we support and cherish in common.

This is a treaty with three parties: the Tsawwassen First Nation, British Columbia and Canada. That's a very important point. The B.C. Liberals are not a party to the treaty. Even though this government negotiated it — the B.C. Liberal Party government negotiated it — and even though we on this side would have done this deal very differently, and even though I accept many of the concerns and the criticisms, I am acutely aware that the treaty is a test of our will and our morality.

If we were to reject the treaty now, it would be another broken promise. It would be another betrayal. It would be just another example of the way first nations have been treated since their lands were invaded, stolen and occupied. In short, to reject the treaty now would be another chapter in the sordid history of colonialism.

So I stand today in support of this treaty. I congratulate the Tsawwassen First Nation, their leaders, their elders and their people. I thank them for their patience, resolve and courage and the patience, resolve and courage of their ancestors who came before them.

I wish for them, and for all of us, a future in which we share, together, social justice, environmental responsibility and peace.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to rise today in the traditional territories of the Songhees and the Esquimalt first nations and in this place that we call the Legislature, the parliament, the voice of the people, of all British Columbians, to say without equivocation that I am in favour of this first modern urban treaty with the Tsawwassen First Nation as it opens the door for a brand-new future.

This is a treaty that breaks through the barriers of dependence and is founded on two words: self-determination. Within those two words are the strength, the vision, the independence, the optimism, the responsibility and the opportunities for the Tsawwassen First Nation. It opens the door to a future which they have imagined, which they have decided on and which they are ready to pursue.

As I stand here today, I do think it's important for us to reflect on the long road that the Tsawwassen First Nation has travelled. In 1912, I think it was, a Tsawwassen chief actually petitioned the government to acquire the rights and title to their lands. That great leader left behind him a sense of responsibility and hope for the first nation that he led. His name was Chief Harry Joe. He did that in 1914 to the McKenna-McBride commission. Today I am pleased to be in the presence of his great-granddaughter, Chief Kim Baird.

Chief Baird reminded us when she came and spoke in this House on behalf of her first nation that this treaty reflects the Tsawwassen's vision for their future. This treaty reflects the work of the elders, the councillors and the negotiators of the Tsawwassen First Nation with negotiators from the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada. Most importantly, this treaty is an inspiration to future generations of the Tsawwassen First Nation which reminds them of all they can be and all they will be in British Columbia.

For her leadership, let me say thank you on behalf of all British Columbians, for she is not just an exceptional chief of the Tsawwassen. She is an exceptional British Columbian and a truly great Canadian.

This is a treaty that is a triumph of negotiation, of reconciliation and, above all, of self-determination. It is about a first nation that has said: "We will make our own future. We will take command of the decisions that we make as we build the kind of future we want for our children and for their children that will follow them."

Together we say, across our province, that this is a very important beginning. This is the first treaty to be brought to this House for ratification under the B.C. Treaty Commission process. It has been a long and an arduous process. It has taken patience, it has taken persistence, and it has taken true drive. It has taken a first nation that was willing to examine not just the strength of their ancestors, not just to reflect on the wisdom of their elders, but to talk about how they can grab hold of the opportunities that today and tomorrow may represent for that first nation.

This is about negotiation. It's about an effort to reconcile differences that may exist, and it has started with an open mind — with the willingness to listen; with the willingness to learn from one another; with the willingness to give as much as we take; and with the willingness to talk openly and to find ways that we can act together in harmony, to find ways that we can build understanding. That is why it is so critical that we continue the path of negotiations with those first nations who choose to follow this course of action.

We heard this week from some first nations leaders that this was not the course that they may decide to follow, and that is totally within their realm of responsibility to decide for each of their first nations. But this treaty is what the Tsawwassen chose for themselves, and this treaty gives us an opportunity to work with them, to put the days of confrontation and litigation behind us and to look forward as we build new days of reconciliation in the future of the province.

We should all be proud of what the Tsawwassen have accomplished with our negotiators. Today, as I congratulate Chief Baird and her negotiating team, I also want to congratulate the negotiating team from the federal government and the provincial government who worked to put into effect an agreement that could be approved and that could be brought to this House for ratification. They have done yeoman's work, hon. Speaker.

The Tsawwassen started this process in December of 1993. In the fall of 2002 chief negotiators of all three parties agreed to work towards completion of a draft agreement-in-principle. In 2003 that draft was initialled. In March of 2004 the Tsawwassen First Nation, British Columbia and Canada signed the agreement-in-

Tsawwassen initialled the final agreement with B.C. and Canada in December of 2006, which was taken to their members for a vote on July 25, 2007. It was an open vote that encouraged all members to participate, to discuss, to debate and then to decide. Hon. Speaker, 69.5 percent of the Tsawwassen First Nation voted in favour of ratification.

I am confident that this treaty, this final agreement, will receive strong endorsation from this House, and I am confident that it will continue to receive strong support as it travels the thousands of miles from here to Ottawa, where the House of Commons will be asked to provide its approval of the official treaty.

This is a treaty that is about reconciliation, and reconciliation is a process of coming to an understanding between the government of Canada, the province of British Columbia and first nations.

Reconciliation is ongoing. It does not start with this treaty. It is simply the beginning of a journey of reconciliation — a journey that will build understanding, a journey where we find new ways to work with one another, to listen to one another, to learn from one another and to act in concert for the benefit of all those who will follow.

Reconciliation is an opportunity to bridge the gulf that has separated B.C.'s first citizens from the rest of our citizenry since this province was first founded. That gulf has divided us. It has impoverished aboriginal Canadians. It has consigned them to a fate that still stands as the biggest blight on our national history.

For too long first nations have been a third solitude — a third solitude that we often did not pay attention to. We barely noticed as a country, as a society.

I can tell you that in this province we welcome and embrace the first nations of British Columbia as one of our defining cultures, as many of our defining cultures — as people who will add to the quality of life of all British Columbians, enrich our lives, enrich our future. We will be a province that bridges the divide that has kept us apart and builds a future for every British Columbian, first nation and non–first nation alike.

There has been a gulf of opportunity, understanding and standard of living wrought by policies that kept us apart and denied the very existence of Canada's first founding nations as full and equal partners in our Confederation. It was a gulf of hope and equality, but it is a gulf that we must now span.

We have started that journey with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which sought to change that. For many years the path towards reconciliation seemed to be broken by litigation, by confrontation. It was only after those years that we discovered — through the advocacy of our courts, through the advocacy of our first nations leadership — that the true path to the future, to reconciliation, was through negotiation.

The courts consistently told governments across Canada that their legal, moral and fiduciary obligations under the constitution required us not just to recognize but to respect aboriginal rights and title and aboriginal cultures across our country. They have told us we must consult and we must accommodate first nations where their unique rights and title are affected. They have also told first nations that they, too, have obligations in helping governments to respect their rights and in advancing the goal of reconciliation.

We want to move to a society of reconciliation, not because we must but because respect, reconciliation and recognition will enhance all of our lives in British Columbia and in Canada. When we acknowledge each other and when we respect one another and seek a shared vision, there is so much more that we can accomplish as a society. Recent history has proven that when we work together, when we are open to new ideas, when we are open to new approaches and to new dialogue, we can make real progress.

As I have travelled on this journey in public life and listened and learned, I have become more and more convinced that there are many roads to reconciliation. Treaties are only one of those paths to reconciliation, but they are the ultimate vehicle to get us closer to that goal. Treaties help define and entrench constitutionally protected rights that provide greater certainty and confidence for all. They leave less doubt as to our respective obligations — what they are and what they are not. They provide and answer the questions of land title and rights that flow with them.

They are the ultimate of a mutual affirmation and a constitutionally binding expression of what we understand, and how we can pursue and liberate the opportunities for all of us. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that this government, this party supports treaties that work for all British Columbians — first nations and non-first nations alike.

Over the last number of years, I have had the opportunity to build many personal relationships with first nations leaders across our province. As I have listened and learned and reflected on their aspirations, I have shared their hopes and have tried to map a course that will help us reach our mutual goals and realize the dreams of their people. Understanding and flexibility is a key to making progress, for it is the key to negotiation. Understanding and wholehearted acceptance of the fact that there are different ways of doing things is a critical component of building the long-term future of our province and our country.

One side doesn't always achieve all that it wants. Reconciliation is a process that involves give and take, that obliges all parties to stand up for what they believe in — and I underline to stand up for what they believe in — but also to do their part to honestly try and find a resolution. That's what the new relationship is all about.

It's a sincere commitment from this government to find additional paths to reconciliation that can complement and, hopefully, also help advance the treaty process. Treaties are not the only way to forge that new relationship, because the new relationship is grounded on mutual respect, recognition and healing that ensures that we honour the legal rights of aboriginal Canadians.

Treaties are not the only way to help close the gaps in health care, education, housing, economic opportunity. They're at the root of our legal obligations. Believe me, I have learned a lot since my days as opposition leader when the Nisga'a treaty was brought to this chamber. I have not always been correct in my views, but I have always been, and I will continue to be, willing to learn and to listen to the voices of goodwill that drive a better British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this today. The Nisga'a treaty has not divided us from one another as I had once feared. It has helped bring us together. It has helped build a better future for the Nisga'a First Nation, and that's something we should all applaud.

I want to stress this. I am proud of the distance that we have travelled together, notwithstanding the challenges that it presented. I am more convinced than ever that the road to reconciliation cannot be imposed or achieved by shutting down debate or by trying to silence those who have different views.

The treaty before us is not a perfect document. As Chief Baird pointed out to us the other day, she has decided to pursue the good. The Tsawwassen people have decided to pursue a better future, not a perfect future. They are not willing to let the pursuit of perfection drive out the good in the lives of their children and their grandchildren for the future, and neither are we in British Columbia.

As we discuss and debate this treaty in this House, I would hope that every single member of this assembly has the right to speak their minds for their constituents and, most importantly, to speak their hearts for British Columbia, because it is only by opening this chamber to full discussion and full debate that we will provide the solid foundation for a future which every member of the Tsawwassen First Nation deserves.

There should not be a penalty for members of this House standing and speaking about what they believe. It is no more appropriate for that to happen in this Legislature, this House of the province of British Columbia, than it would have been for Chief Baird to say to her people in the longhouse: "You may not disagree."

You must be able to stand up for your beliefs if we are to build the kind of future that we have. This is the place for an unfettered expression of people's sense of what we can do in British Columbia, and I would hope that every member feels and has that opportunity to speak in British Columbia.

I have had the privilege of being the Premier of this province for just a short period of time. But in that time, I have tried to learn, and we have tried as a government to reach out and find new opportunities to share with first nations people. In 2001 we invited the First Nations Summit to come and meet with the cabinet — something that has been ongoing since that time. We established First Citizens Forums in 2002.

In 2003, in one of my prouder moments as a Premier, I travelled on behalf of British Columbians and Canada to Prague with the leaders and the chiefs of four first nations — the Squamish, the Tsleil-Waututh, the Lillooet and the Musqueam — to encourage the international community to award us the Olympic Games, and I am proud that every one of those four first nations remains committed and are active proponents of Canada's Olympic Games.

In 2003 it was this government that issued this statement of regret during the throne speech. It said:

"The future will be forged in partnership with first nations, not in denial of their history, heritage and culture. It will be won in recognition of first nations constitutional rights and title, not lost for another generation because we failed to act. It will be earned through reconciliation and mutual respect. It will be built with bold new approaches that will materially improve first nations quality of life before and after treaties are concluded."

In March of 2005 our government signed The New Relationship accord with leaders of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the First Nations Summit and the Assembly of First Nations based on mutual respect and reconciliation, and recognition of aboriginal rights and title.

That same year, in Kelowna, we signed the transformative change accord. That transformative change accord outlined a path we would take to close the gaps in health care, education, housing and economic opportunity. We committed ourselves and our government to try and close those gaps by 2015. I again salute the First Nations Leadership Council for the drafting of that accord and for the cooperation in building that accord as we look to the future.

What's happened since that time? We have almost three dozen educational enhancement agreements with first nations and school boards across this province, and they're showing real results. We signed Canada's first education jurisdiction agreements with the First Nations Education Steering Committee and the federal government recognizing the right of first nations to make decisions about the education of their children.

We developed a $65 million aboriginal education strategy to help aboriginal students start, stay and succeed in post-secondary education and training. We have an aboriginal internship program here in the government of British Columbia to encourage young aboriginal people to become a full part, an active part, in our public life here and in the public life of their first nations.

We have worked to close the health gap. We have had the first-ever national health summit of aboriginals right here in British Columbia, the first-ever tripartite aboriginal health plan between the federal government, the provincial government and first nations — a plan drafted by first nations. We appointed the province's first-ever aboriginal health officer. We are going to close the health gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians, because we are dedicated to doing that. We launched the $6-million ActNow B.C. program to promote aboriginal health.

On top of that we have, as a government, launched an effort to close the housing gap. The $60 million to create 292 additional housing units in ten communities

across the province was in addition to the transfer of 3,000 housing units to aboriginal health authorities so they can decide how they are going to provide for aboriginal people across this province.

On top of that, four long-term agreements with the Blueberry River First Nations to support aboriginal participation and economic certainty in northeast B.C.'s oil and gas, minerals, mines and forest industries.

Land use plans with the Squamish First Nation, the In-SHUCK-ch First Nation, the central coast first nations, first nations in the Morice planning area. Those are going to create economic opportunities. They are going to establish a sound social base, and they're going to protect cultural assets and environmental values.

Forest and range agreements with 130 first nations, which provide $166.5 million in revenue, 24.4 million cubic metres of timber.

Reconciliation is a process that is done one step at a time, but it is done consistently. Last year we resolved for the first time in the history of the province and settled with the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations their claim relating to the lands upon which these legislative buildings sit.

An agreement-in-principle with the Tsay Keh Dene and the Kwadacha nations because of the flooding that was caused and the impacts by the Bennett Dam in the northeast.

At the end of the day, this treaty is, as I mentioned, about self-determination, and there are so many reasons to support it. The most important is that the Tsawwassen people support it. It is their new lease on life, their ticket to the future. This treaty will provide the Tsawwassen people with land, finances, governance, resources to move forward and build a future for their children, and it will provide certainty and economic stability for their lands.

They have considered their history, their elders and the generations before them who struggled and said: "We must find a better way for our children." By taking control of their own destiny, they have found a better way. The treaty gives the Tsawwassen self-determination to reclaim their past traditions and carry those forward to their children.

The Tsawwassen were and continue to be accomplished fishers. Salmon and sturgeon were mainstays of their traditional diet. This treaty recognizes the established right of the Tsawwassen First Nation to harvest fish for food, social and ceremonial use. It includes a long-term renewable harvest agreement for the commercial allocation of salmon and crab, and it gives them the authority to make laws to regulate their fish harvest, determining who participates and how harvested fish are distributed amongst its members.

It will provide them the land base and the cash necessary to build economic stability and security for their people. It will expand their land base from 290 hectares of their former reserve land to 724 hectares in the treaty. A total of $70.1 million in land and cash value for the treaty provides a foundation for them to move forward on their own.

The Tsawwassen First Nation know what is best for their people, and they will now have the governance model that enables them to make the best decisions for themselves, their land and their resources, the education of their children, their health services, child and family services, peace and order, and traffic and transportation.

Treaties are about accepting personal responsibility by all levels of government and its citizens. It's about stepping up to the plate and asking: what can we do to build a better future? Are we willing to work and to take action today for the benefit of our children tomorrow? Are we willing to think long term? Are we willing to go beyond next week and next year and think about the next generations?

In British Columbia and Canada we all share a common goal: to build a better future for the next generation to come, one where hope and prosperity are the norm and not the exception.

On Monday when we came to the House, I was given this special pin by the Tsawwassen First Nation. It's a heron. On the land looking out to the sea — and these are the people of the land looking to the sea — the heron line those banks. If you think of the Tsawwassen for a minute, I just want you to think of those herons. I don't know how many of you have ever watched a heron. The heron stands on the shore, and it looks out and it waits, and it waits, and it waits.

The Tsawwassen people waited, and they waited, and they waited. But the Tsawwassen people, like the heron, are about to take flight to a future that is full of abundance, full of opportunity, full of hope, full of the vision of their leaders that says that they can be what they want to be where they have always lived and build the future for their children that they deserve.

I am proud to stand here today in support of ratifying this treaty. I am proud of the Tsawwassen First Nation. I am proud of their leadership. We are all British Columbians. We are all Canadians. We can build a better future for everyone by following their example. [Applause.]

C. Puchmayr: First, I would like to raise my hands to the Chief of the Tsawwassen First Nation. It's been, I know for her, about 14 gruelling years of this process, and I would certainly like to raise my hands to her council, her people and also to the ancestors that could not be here today to see what is going on. They are here in spirit.

I would like to thank the Songhees and Cowichan. We are on their territorial land, and I think that needs to be mentioned.

It's a great honour and privilege to rise here in this chamber for this momentous occasion as I speak in favour of Bill 40, the Tsawwassen First Nation agreement. It was also a great honour for me recently to witness the swearing in of the first aboriginal Lieutenant-Governor, Steven Point, at Government House. Oh, the bagpipes will never sound the same as those drums resonate through Government House for the next five years.

This debate has some special significance for me. This treaty has been in progress for many, many years. I believe it was around 1996 when I was first elected to city council that I attended the Tsawwassen First Nation…. I was on their reserve for the signing protocol of the final stages of the negotiations, which culminated in the recent ratification by 70 percent of the Tsawwassen people. It seems like a long time for me. It must seem like forever for the Tsawwassen First Nation.

The territory of Tsawwassen…. We talk about the land that is in the resolution, and we talk about the lands that were originally their territory. It's quite significant the difference between where we are now and where they were 100 years ago.

Tsawwassen means "land facing the sea." The traditional territory was up the Fraser River and into Pitt Lake. It was into the Pitt Lake watersheds. It included Pitt Meadows. It included parts of New Westminster, where my family and I reside, and my constituents. It includes Burns Bog. It flows out to Galiano Island, Pender Island, Saltspring Island, Saturna Island. It includes Point Roberts in the United States, and it includes the Serpentine and the Nicomekl watersheds.

It's important to note that Tsawwassen have never surrendered the rights to their original territory, yet this treaty is just a fraction of what was taken from them over the years by the settlers.

In my community, the first capital of the colony of British Columbia, the Qayqayt Salish were there to help nurture the settlers. They were there to help them through extremely harsh winters. They taught them how to survive in the new land so far from European civilization. They taught them how to fish. They taught them how to gather.

The Qayqayt First Nation even paddled their canoes on the Queen's birthday with lit torches up and down the Fraser River, celebrating with the settlers the tradition that the settlers had brought. Sadly, the Qayqayt have been depleted, moved, oppressed from their land. All of their traditional lands have been stripped from them. Chief Rhonda Larrabee is truly a chief without a land, and she is one of the last remaining members of her nation.

History is not written that truly explains the treatment and the abuse suffered by the first nations in my community by the hands of the settlers, but the effect of that history shows today. It shows in the fact that there are virtually no Qayqayt peoples left in my community.

I was on the Kwantlen reserve a couple of years ago, and I spoke with Chief Marilyn Gabriel. She told me about the thousands of people that are missing and unaccounted for, that only their spirits remain along the banks of the Fraser River. They were victims of abuse through racism, through residential schools, through the criminal justice system. What an oxymoron that is for a first nations person: criminal justice system.

Even as the other side boasts of the new relationship, we see many first nations where nothing has changed. I'd like to quote the new relationship comments from the Auditor General. He says: "Until the province clarifies the link between the new relationship and treaty negotiation policies, the wait-and-see attitude of some first nations will contribute to the slow pace of negotiations."

If you look at the 200 outstanding claims that this province has, the rate of resolve — if we've resolved two in seven years, and you have about 200 outstanding — is around 1,400 years. We'll have had B.C. Rail back for 400 years.

There is a historical overlap in some of the claims and in some of the treaty negotiations. First nations often had different hunting grounds, and they had different fishing grounds. They would use fishing grounds when the fish were in abundance. They would use hunting grounds when the game returned. They had different spiritual grounds as well.

This treaty is very progressive, and I'm amazed at how much of this treaty actually is a template from the Nisga'a agreement. The Nisga'a agreement was quite clear in looking at addressing the overlaps, because the overlaps were certainly a significant issue in dealing with treaties. Without dealing initially with the overlaps, you could run into a lot of issues. The overlaps were dealt with in the modern Nisga'a treaty with wording that's identical, other than it says "Tsawwassen" instead of "Nisga'a."

"Canada, British Columbia, and Tsawwassen First Nation are consulting with neighbouring first nations and will continue to work to resolve any remaining overlap issues. The harvesting areas set out in the final agreement are not exclusive, and other first nations and the general public may fish and hunt there as they now do on provincial Crown land."

This is very significant. I think a lot of people don't understand that relationship and that context of the agreement. This allows for resolve but does not extinguish the overlap jurisdictions under the constitution of Canada. This agreement has been a long time coming: 150 years ago lands were being settled with no consideration for the cultural, social or economic impacts of the original inhabitants.

Fifty-seven out of 202 first nation bands are now engaged in around 47 treaty tables as of July of 2006. There is a great and understandable frustration by many of those tables. I understand the frustrations of many first nations, who are not being treated fairly in the treaty process. Some have elected to engage in the treaty process, and some have elected to use new legal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court of Canada has made some rulings which say that aboriginals do have claims on resources, on lands, whether a treaty has been resolved or not. Some first nations are using that to negotiate resources and compensations on the lands that they claim.

We respect the directions they make, because they are made in a manner that respects the democratic process. They elect their councils. Their councils have an ability to make those decisions. Those decisions are made on behalf of those councils and on the peoples that are laying claims to those lands. I am, however,

concerned about the pressure put on first nations to attempt to get something for the resources that are leaving their traditional lands.

This treaty also has some other significance to me, as someone who has pulled together in a 150-kilometre canoe paddle called Pulling Together. It was started by a former RCMP officer, Ed Hill, about ten years ago. He took a replica canoe. It was actually fibreglass, but it looked like a cedar west coast canoe. They paddled into the remote first nations communities. They paddled in to bring apologies for the way the RCMP treated first nations people historically, for the way that the RCMP were forced to enforce laws against their potlatches, laws against them speaking their native tongues, laws against them engaging in their cultures. He felt that this was an important step to a form of reconciliation quite a few years ago.

It has now grown into an annual canoe journey with RCMP officers and other police detachments. I believe there were eight or nine different detachments last year that went on this journey, along with first nations people, adult and youth — and not necessarily all first nations.

I've been on the journey twice now. The canoe that I travelled in was one of the few actual cedar canoes, which was a project of the Circle of Eagles Lodge, a youth project, where they carved a 1,300-pound cedar canoe out of a log. We paddled that canoe many, many kilometres. I can certainly understand how first nations people get back into the spirit of their culture and a lot of the culture that they have lost over history. They were able to stop at the different first nations territories and start to share and to learn some of those cultures back again.

Last year New Westminster hosted Pulling Together, and I was able to make a presentation at the Tsawwassen longhouse. I left a message for Chief Baird from my leader, the official opposition. The message was that we understood what they were facing, and we could understand that there was some anxiety with the people on the Tsawwassen First Nation land with respect to the upcoming vote. The message from my leader was that we support any direction that they take.

Most of our stops on the journey were on first nations lands. It opens one's eyes to see the poverty of some of the first nations reserves. Tsawwassen, I found, was one of the more progressive and modern lands that we stayed on. I commend Chief Baird and the work that her council have done in that regard.

In some territories we saw poverty and despair. In some we saw gang graffiti. We saw youth alcoholism, drug use. We saw hopelessness even by the leadership trying to deal with the crisis. I saw what's called broken window syndrome, where the graffiti was taking over and buildings were overgrown with weeds. People seem to have lost hope.

We stopped at Tsawwassen. We stopped at Tsawout over here on the Island. We stopped at Tsartlip; we stopped at Songhees. They were all great hosts. We presented them with gifts, and we received gifts. We listened, and we shared the teachings. We sat long into the night in the traditional longhouses. The culture is that when you enter the longhouse, you don't leave until the business is done, until the last person is finished speaking.

You can imagine, after eight hours of paddling a 1,300-pound cedar canoe and sitting till two in the morning while people are sharing their experiences and teachings, that it makes for an early morning the next day as we paddled some more. I slept in a longhouse at Songhees. I found it very moving, very spiritual.

Still, not a lot has changed for many of the first nations. In the wake of the new reality, there is still a long way to go.

On one journey a couple of years ago we went from Sliammon, north of Powell River, on an eight-day journey down to Vancouver. As we stopped at a provincial park, a young employee with a big walkie-talkie, a student, was putting up a sign on the outhouse letting people know that we couldn't use it. We had toilets brought in, and we saw areas that were cordoned off, because it was supposedly for the regular people.

I felt that that was offensive, yet the first nations people I was with didn't see it that way. They just moved on with it. Maybe it's from a life of experiences such as that. I found it quite offensive.

By the time we stopped in Sechelt, the same experience in the stores. I would see how certain people would be served and treated quickly, whereas the first nations people seemed to have to wait longer and didn't achieve the service.

We do have an absolutely long way to go. Unless people live it, they don't see it, so we have large steps to take. I think a settlement such as Tsawwassen is a beginning in that process. But again, I must stress that we can't do these every seven years. We need to expedite them.

We need to allow people to have some autonomy so that they can ensure that their children are looked after, that their children will have the tools and resources to go forward and build a life for their children and their grandchildren.

A recent trip to Prince George. I've been to Prince George quite a lot in the last few years. My other job used to take me up there often. I've seen such a change in homelessness, in poverty, and so much of it is first nations.

Again, this new reality, this new vision — it isn't working. It isn't working in the streets. You see the poverty in the streets. You see the drug addiction. You see the young women engaged in prostitution, trying to survive. We're seeing more of a change from alcoholism to drug use, methamphetamine, and that is extremely troubling. They're both drugs, but it's certainly troubling to see young people who feel so much despair that they're taking that journey instead of the proper journey.

One of the most positive experiences that I saw during last year's journey was Tsawout First Nation over here on the island. They had a youth council and a youth chief that paralleled the adult council and the

adult chief. They were bright. They were energetic. They were engaged in youth activities and in fundraising for youth activities.

The Tsawout had even recently built their own cedar canoe. It's interesting to see how many first nations are starting to build their own cedar canoes to get back in touch with the culture that was taken away from them, that they've lost over the years.

Back to Tsawwassen, there's certainly some concern about the farmland. We're not going to not talk about the issue of farmland. Farmland is very crucial to the survival of this planet. It's very crucial to have farmland so that you can develop your own food for your own people.

Just as the first nations do, we need food as well. We cannot start to depend on foreign countries to provide us with food. It may look advantageous today, but it could be a disaster for us in the future.

There's no doubt that there are some concerns, and I'm sure the concerns could very well be from some members on the other side who boast about growing in B.C. and boast about farmland. I'm disappointed that I'm not hearing the actual concerns about the agricultural land reserve. They are valid concerns, and they are real concerns.

When the Agricultural Land Commission and the land reserve were brought in under the Dave Barrett NDP government…. We look today at what we have in preserved farmland, which is always under threat, always in jeopardy. We wouldn't have that today had there not been that vision in the past. So there's no doubt that there is some concern when you start to lose farmland.

The land component of the Tsawwassen treaty is irreplaceable. The land component is something that has more value than any amount of money that you can print. Once that land is gone, once the title is gone…. Once that land is sold, 50 years from now or 100 years from now or 500 years from now, people will be wondering what happened to that land.

It is of such extreme value to any future first nations that it has to be respected and it has to be treasured. I feel confident that Tsawwassen First Nation has considered that. There is going to be immense pressure on Tsawwassen First Nation to liquidate, to sell some of that land.

If you look where they're situated between the long jetty driveway to the ferry and the other one to Roberts Bank and the massive container and coal port…. When you look where it's situated, you can understand the pressures that they are going to be experiencing with somebody wanting that land for industrial development. I mean, it's inevitable. I know that Tsawwassen will be strong and that they will certainly listen to their people before any decisions are made on something that is absolutely not replaceable.

One only needs to look at some of the American history with respect to land claims where land was actually purchased. It wasn't purchased for a lot, but in those days — in the '40s and the '30s — what was a lot? With inflation, what was a lot of money? Today there are people with no land again, and that land has been extinguished from them forever because it has been sold. So that is certainly a concern on this side of the House.

I look at how long the Tsawwassen First Nation has been attempting to get a treaty to be able to acquire its lands, to be able to resolve its issues. They go back almost a hundred years if you go to 1912, but I would imagine that their lands were at risk way before 1912.

I would say that the Tsawwassen lands are so important to them and the agricultural land is so important to us, but had those land claims been resolved when they should have been resolved, there wasn't even a dream of the agricultural land reserve. This is something that came in modern times, in the early '70s. So my concerns…. While I think they're very valid, I do think that the history trumps those concerns to some degree.

Working with neighbours is very important, and this government has in 2002 taken and sort of restructured a treaty advisory committee. The treaty advisory committees were certainly very beneficial to the treaty process. That's the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the lower mainland treaty advisory committees and the major treaty advisory committee for the regional districts. The role that they played was that….

Even though the municipalities couldn't negotiate land claims issues, they could sit at those tables as observers. They could sit there, and they could share ideas. They had staff that could do some research with respect to infrastructure and shared infrastructure. It was a very important component, in my opinion as a previous city councillor, of a building of a relationship, of being able to not only sit down and participate in some discussion but also be able to sort of build a bond of mutual needs and mutual infrastructure needs when you had a land claim that bordered a municipality.

The funding has been cut, and it has been replaced with unpredictable spot funding. That certainly isn't as effective. There needs to be some continuity in that process.

If all that comes out of that process, at the very least, is an understanding from municipalities of what is required when heading into a new relationship with a neighbouring first nation which will now acquire the structure of a municipality, that's a very positive thing to have. That's something I think this government needs to reconsider. They need to put in predictable funding that is sustainable and not just have spot funding when they desire to put spot funding in for issues such as land claims with respect to shared infrastructures.

I guess it was about early 1982 that I was up in Kamloops. I think the sun was coming up, and I was looking out of my motel. My kids were in a gymnastics tournament up there. It was a Saturday morning. I saw a church way down in the valley. I could see the steeple. It looked like an old historic building. I got in the car. The sun was just coming up, and I drove down until I found this church. It looked like it was possibly on reserve land.

There was this beautiful church that had been restored. It looked like it was built around the late

1800s. There was a cemetery, so I thought I'd take a walk through the cemetery and read some of the headstones of the first nations people that were buried there. It really struck me how many young people were buried there.

My colleague from my side that spoke before me gave those statistics. I think some of us have been showing the statistics about infant mortality rates of first nations peoples. It really struck me. Not only did it strike me when I looked at the lavish church, all nicely painted — I'm sure that inside it would have looked quite beautiful as well — but to see little steel pipes sort of screwed together as a crucifix…. Those were the grave markers.

Some of the graves were very elaborate, as in many cemeteries, but most of them were written on a wooden sign or on 2-by-4s that were hammered into the ground. It really hit home — the contrast between those that came to re-educate the first nations to be good Christians and how they ended up passing on into the other world and how most of them couldn't even afford a decent identifier for the loss of their loved ones.

It's still like that today. It's like that when you go onto first nations lands and look at their cemeteries. A few will be very elaborate. Most of them…. You can tell that through poverty people can't even afford to identify properly the markers of loved ones that have passed on.

It's great to talk about the new relationship, but I caution everyone that we have so far to go. I praise Tsawwassen, and I honour Tsawwassen for what they have done. They are among the few fortunate ones that have been able to achieve that final stage.

I know it will pass in this House. I hope it passes unanimously, but I know that it will pass in this House. I hope that it passes in Ottawa and that it's a go-forward. I truly don't want to see another seven years before there's another settlement. There needs to be a better way of achieving a quicker resolve.

I spoke about this once before — this changeover, this transformation that has happened on the other side. Excuse me for being a bit cynical. I read the Hansard. I read so much Hansard about the Nisga'a debate that I'm absolutely shocked at the makeover that has happened on the other side. Excuse me for being cynical.

Not taking anything away from Tsawwassen…. Seeing the template of Tsawwassen and Nisga'a makes me very proud, but I don't want this to be something that someone trumpets and uses to prevent further land claims, because we need to expedite the land claim issue. The courts have ruled that you can't extinguish them. The courts ruled after the attempts from the other side to do referenda, even to challenge it in the courts.

Businesses were rattling their sabres and saying: "We're going to leave this province. We're going to go and invest somewhere else unless you deal with this land issue." So excuse the cynicism.

Let's go forward now, and let's show a true commitment from the other side by actually working towards dealing with other land claims, expediting other land claims and going forward, not only for the benefit of the people of Tsawwassen and the people of Nisga'a but for the people of Qayqayt, the people of Kwantlen, the people all over the province.

Hon. L. Reid: On October 15, 2007, Chief Kim Baird of the Tsawwassen First Nation addressed the B.C. Legislature as debate began on the first urban treaty in modern-day British Columbia.

There will be no more historic words spoken than the words that the Chief brought to us yesterday. I feel absolutely privileged to enter into this debate. I certainly give thanks to the Songhees and the Esquimalt First Nations for the territory we currently visit on a very regular basis, and I rise today to pay my respects to the Chief.

It is absolutely outstanding, a remarkable achievement — the perseverance through incredible obstacles along this amazing 14-year journey. I can tell this House and, certainly, Chief Kim Baird that it absolutely warms my heart to see her in this gallery and to see her daughters, ten-month-old and four-year-old children.

For me, treaties are about babies. As parents — and I'm the parent of two small children myself — nothing is more heartwarming than the dreams and aspirations we carry for our children. To see the Tsawwassen First Nation carry these dreams and aspirations as they go forward…. What I wish for my children and what I wish for the babies of this province is the wishes, the dreams, the aspirations that the people of the Tsawwassen First Nation carry for their youngsters.

I thank you for coming. I thank you for being here. I thank you most sincerely. I give great thanks to what I perceive to be remarkable perseverance, amazing perseverance. You have succeeded. I'm enormously proud of the leadership you have shown, and I celebrate the leadership of the Tsawwassen First Nation.

To go first is amazingly challenging. I give you enormous accolades. I celebrate with you. I think what you have done is remarkable. I think the opportunities that will now be available to each and every member of the Tsawwassen First Nation will be opportunities that will change how this province goes forward and, frankly, will allow this province to move forward.

In the Chief's words, people are tired of poverty. As an educator, I abhor the conditions which have confronted aboriginal Canadians for more than a century. Certainly, there is work before us. The conditions which affect aboriginal Canadians today are unacceptable to me.

Dear friends of mine, their families, individuals who have ties to aboriginal communities. I care deeply. They care deeply about the nurturing of children in our society.

I am not proud of what has transpired around the care of aboriginal children. Governments across the land have made terrible mistakes. The connection a child has for his or her parents and the connection a parent has for a child are sacred and profound. I respect that.

Aboriginal young people need opportunities long denied. I was enormously moved ten years ago to see the first aboriginal Canadian medical doctor graduate from the University of British Columbia. That event indeed warmed my heart.

We have a wonderful opportunity today to make a difference in the way we govern and in the way we enhance inclusiveness for all members of society. That opportunity has been fully embraced by this government and by the Tsawwassen First Nation.

This is about partnering. This is about building. This is about learning from each other as we go forward, and it's truly, truly important that we get on with the business of building and doing. This debate — vitally important. The reconciliation actions of this government — equally important in terms of how we make better where we have been and, frankly, where I believe every single member of this chamber would wish us to go. It is about respectful engagement.

When I heard Chief Baird speak in Richmond many months ago, talking about the Tsawwassen First Nation occupying the land for 4,200 years — enormous moment. The ability to work that process through and to understand the legacies, the gifts of those that have come before and to carry that message for the length of time that that message has been carried is absolutely outstanding, truly outstanding.

As we go forward, I want to talk about the work of this government, the work that we have done with aboriginal communities in British Columbia. This is not about us imposing; this is about us partnering with. I can tell you that the work we have done over the past six years in aboriginal early childhood development — vitally important. It's work that matters, and it's work that's done quietly in myriad communities across British Columbia.

I can tell you that I've had the absolute privilege to be in an array of different communities across this province and to make a regular visit to Tsay Keh–Kwadacha, to Alert Bay, to Bella Bella, to Bella Coola and, frankly, to New Westminster and Vancouver to see how it is we can take what we want to improve upon, make it better, make it livable, make it durable and make resilient change in British Columbia.

That's the issue. At the end of the day, this is about resiliency. Do the programs we put in place matter in the life of a child? I will tell you today that I believe we are on the road to true reconciliation, that we indeed have done our best to learn as we go forward and to put in place programs that matter to children and families in British Columbia.

Certainly, we want very much to partner with community as we go forward. This is about mentoring. It is about parenting. It is about sharing what we value.

I've had the absolute privilege to work with Diana Elliot, who is the first-ever aboriginal infant development coordinator for the province, a member of an aboriginal community in British Columbia who understands the nature of trust, the nature of respect and the nature of building relationships that have durability to last over time. We have amazing programs in British Columbia in this regard, and in 2002 we had the absolute privilege of making the very first appointment as we went forward.

We have many, many consultants today working with approximately 500 aboriginal children through the aboriginal development programs in British Columbia, serving on- and off-reserve communities and urban, rural and remote areas in a number of programs continuing to grow and expand across this province. The programs receive funding from a variety of sources — provincial, federal and band-sponsored. Again, a partnership that matters in the lives of British Columbia families. The B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres is currently hosting that office and allowing the reach of that program to move across British Columbia — incredibly important.

This work is reconciliation. This is expanded opportunity for parents and their children. It is about the babies. The infant development program in British Columbia provides home-based services through 52 agencies; 66,000 infants across the land continue to do better and have more opportunity to be better prepared for learning as they go through the school system. They reach the school system. They cross the threshold into their first kindergarten classroom better prepared because aboriginal communities and non-aboriginal communities are partnering to deliver services that matter in the lives of young people.

Opportunities often don't exist for professional development in many rural communities in British Columbia. It's difficult to travel — weather constraints. We have indeed put dollars in place so families can hire individuals to come and work with them in the communities in which they reside. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been put to that effort over the last six years, and it's making a difference. It's truly making a difference.

Supported child development in British Columbia — 5,500 children, birth to 12 years, who have a special need. Many of those children are aboriginal today, and today they are receiving services that they have not received in the past as a result of a partnership, as a result of a relationship that's building across British Columbia. It is about respectful engagement, and it's vitally important that we continue that work.

Each year these programs continue to grow. An additional 25 new initiatives are coming on line for aboriginal supported child development — hugely important. They come on line. They work because of partnership. They work because of respectful engagement. They work because there's a plan to build and expand and enhance and embrace the true, on-the-ground actions of reconciliation.

Again, this is not about imposing a belief system, imposing a strategy. This is about collectively coming together to understand what works best for aboriginal people with aboriginal people and, frankly, creating opportunities for training so that aboriginal people can have those opportunities within their own communi-

ties. I want that in the strongest possible language, hon. Speaker. I want us to ensure that we create with aboriginal communities in British Columbia the opportunities for them to care for their children. We have not done the best job of that. We need very much to move forward on that.

We've had a number of initiatives across the province where we have asked people to come together and work collectively to enhance opportunities for children, like the Success By 6 initiatives — ongoing work across British Columbia where coalitions and tables and individuals, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, come together to build something that matters, to build programming that's durable for youngsters, to wrap the families of British Columbia in a support system that makes sense for them, to ensure that they have tools in the toolbox, have strategies.

Again, this is quiet, dignified work that typically happens in family resource programs, happens in all kinds of aboriginal friendship houses, happens across the land, where parents are supported to do the most incredibly important work ever to effectively parent children. For us to have a common set of outcomes, for us to believe fundamentally in the opportunities that should be available for all children is what drives the work that we do.

We have a program in British Columbia called Building Blocks. The initiative supports a wide range of services, with an emphasis on building parental capacity. Projects funded include an array of programming for infants, toddlers, home visiting, parent support — the things that matter. Honestly, there are no perfect parents in the province. All of us can continue to enhance our skill, can continue to do better as we go forward.

We certainly want to continue to focus on how we partner more effectively. We have much to learn. There are many lessons still before us, but I am pleased to say that the work we have done in terms of supporting on-reserve/off-reserve aboriginal British Columbians is vitally important. In a meeting yesterday with the first nations we talked about the dollars we put towards child care construction in first nations communities in British Columbia. I can tell you that it was news that was well received.

We certainly have done and put towards aboriginal communities…. Almost 20 percent of the funding for capital construction in British Columbia has gone to on-reserve child care. It's gone to Windermere, Victoria, Lillooet, Burns Lake, Agassiz, Williams Lake, Port Alberni, Merritt, Delta, Atlin, Telegraph Creek, Fraser Lake, Sechelt, Moberly Lake, Brentwood Bay, Penticton, D'Arcy, Mount Currie, Greenville, Kitkatla. There are opportunities for us to work well with aboriginal communities and to demonstrate a profound respect for the work that they will do and have done that has brought them to the point of the Tsawwassen First Nation.

It's a remarkable time in history, hon. Speaker. It's a remarkable time to know that there is opportunity to partner, to build, to plan, to expand, to enhance what families want for their children. To have the ability to see that embraced in the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty, the first urban treaty in modern-day British Columbia, is a remarkable moment in time.

There are all kinds of opportunities available today. I had the absolute privilege to be with the Splats'in First Nation probably three or four weeks back to see a graduating class of 16 early childhood educators. All of them had jobs before they concluded the training. Four of them were retained by the agency that had the child care centre, which knew they would need staff once they completed their renovation.

They took the initiative to create that training program, to graduate 12 additional folks who would go off and support child care centres in the surrounding areas. They offered those positions to those individuals before they had completed their program — 16 successful graduates, led by the Splats'in First Nation. Amazing commitment, amazing direction, amazing initiative to ensure that they could staff what they had built.

I am absolutely charmed by the level of thoughtfulness that goes into how we work together to ensure that we can deliver on what we believe to be important. That work is underway in the province, and it continues to warm my heart.

I've touched on the aboriginal infant child development pieces and talked about professional development as we go forward — all of these pieces with the First Nations Education Steering Committee, the Aboriginal Head Start Association of British Columbia. I believe we have embraced, touched as many different agencies as we possibly can in British Columbia to ensure that the babies of this province, of which there are 42,000 born each year, have opportunities as we go forward.

Every single baby born in this province deserves the opportunity to succeed, to have choice, to have ability, to have opportunity, to have friendships, to play on teams, to learn life skills, to be involved in relationships and to gain gainful employment. Those are all tracks that parents would wish for their children. To be successful, to have an enjoyable childhood, to have friendships that endure, to find life partners — all the things that we believe, and understand fundamentally, help create strong community. Why would we wish less for any British Columbian, hon. Speaker?

The work that's underway, I believe, is doing its part to strengthen the new relationship in British Columbia. A piece I'm particularly proud of is aboriginal early childhood development research innovation chairs. Thompson Rivers University and Malaspina University College received grants in the amount of $2.5 million each to establish and recruit aboriginal early childhood development research chairs. The leading-edge endowment fund is matching the funding, to be used solely for the purpose of funding the research chair.

Malaspina University College is working in partnership with aboriginal communities on Vancouver Island and beyond to research and develop early childhood development training and child care programs. The Thompson Rivers University research focus is aboriginal maternal and-child health, with a focus on preventable health disorders — important work that

That work will continue. That work will strengthen community. That work will strengthen the knowledge base, the research base and the understanding that members in this House bring to their work but will broaden the understandings that communities bring to the services they provide, to the agencies they fund, to the directions they provide to their communities. All of that work is vitally important.

The B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres — in 2007 a $2 million allocation to ensure that they could branch out and do the work that they wanted to do. The initiative supports off-reserve aboriginal child care programs and services which are inclusive of first nations. It also supports aboriginal early childhood development programs and aboriginal family-strengthening programs. It supports other community-based child care providers in accessing, understanding and providing aboriginal cultural components within community child care.

It is about cultural relevance. It is about language immersion in first nation languages in British Columbia. It is about retaining that legacy for generations which come after. This is generational work — of that, there is no doubt — but we want the gifts today to be carried forward for future generations.

Proposals that received support for urban aboriginal literacy are jointly funded by the Ministries of Education, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, Employment and Income Assistance and Advanced Education. The Premier was clear that he wanted cross-government integrated strategies in early childhood development.

I'm pleased to say that as colleagues we have worked well to ensure that that outcome was delivered upon. The provincial urban aboriginal literacy strategy aims to increase literacy among aboriginal families in British Columbia living off reserve and is focused on enhancing literacy programs and services at the 24 friendship centres in British Columbia.

Key principles of the proposal include development of a comprehensive capacity-building and awareness campaign, including coordination of programs and services involved in aboriginal family literacy. You won't find better programming when it comes to strengthening family.

This work, whether it's a language immersion program in New Westminster or in Prince Rupert, is indelibly imprinting on families, on communities, on leaders everywhere how important it is that families have the ability to carry forward their traditions, ceremonies, language and celebrations. That is what makes communities unique. It is how we value communities in British Columbia, and we celebrate communities in British Columbia in exactly that way.

As we go forward, I'm pleased to tell you we are doing our best to work with the human early learning partnership as they attempt to better understand aboriginal communities in British Columbia and to develop more culturally sensitive tools and strategies. It's vitally important that the research value every single person in British Columbia and be seen and actually do the work that we would like.

We are going to be guided by the best research of the day as we go forward. We will ensure that the best tool in the toolbox is culturally sensitive as we go forward. I am pleased to assure the House that that is the direction we will take.

The human early learning partnership is working with first nations schools and organizations to gather data on all children in the province. To date, band schools are joining and moving forward with us. The data has been collected, and the data is not owned by the government. It's not owned by the university. It's owned by the community from where it was collected. It should go back to those communities, and then they will make the decisions on how best to go forward. That work is underway today.

We have community development underway in British Columbia. I am pleased to tell this House that we have had enormous success with the Roots of Empathy program with aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities across British Columbia. The Seeds of Empathy program, a program for three- and four-year-olds, has 16 sites. We're working with the aboriginal advisory committee to explore the development of new aboriginal sites. By 2008 there will be a total of 50 Seeds of Empathy sites in British Columbia — enormous growth to teach empathy, communication and cultural understanding as we go forward, and to begin with very young children.

Currently there are 46 aboriginal-supported child development centres in the province. There is work underway, and we have hundreds of service delivery agencies whose work is all about supporting aboriginal British Columbians in partnership. Again, to build, to plan, to better understand how we should go forward is vitally important.

I want very much to leave this House with the notion that this is partnership. This is respectful engagement. This is the opportunity for us as we go forward to understand that a first nation who has occupied land on this coast for 4,200 years has achieved a historic milestone in terms of this treaty — an absolutely historic milestone.

What I presented to you today is just a snapshot of the work that's underway in British Columbia — a snapshot of our commitment to reconciliation with respect to early childhood development and child care. Each minister of this government will provide and can provide the work that's underway in each of their areas, because it is a cross-government integrated strategy.

We will go forward. It is about the babies in British Columbia. We are a government of partnership, hon. Speaker, and I believe that this treaty will make us better.

C. Trevena: I'm proud to stand in this House for second reading of Bill 40, in support of the Tsawwassen treaty.

Self-determination and reconciliation are essential for B.C.'s present and B.C.'s future. Settling first nations treaties is a human rights issue, and it's long overdue. Settling first nations treaties is a way to provide stabil-

ity and security for everyone in this province, and it takes away many uncertainties.

I've been listening to the debate over the last couple of days and heard history, rhetoric, passion and personal stories. But underlining what this debate is really about, I think, is the need for honest treaties which give first nations rights.

It was an honour to hear Chief Kim Baird on Monday — and I know she's been listening to this debate throughout its evolution — talk about true reconciliation in which reasonable people right historic wrongs.

This treaty is a move towards that reconciliation for the Tsawwassen people, but the Chief was honest enough to say that the treaty isn't perfect. I take the liberty to quote her. "Even though we completed our treaty, there are still parts of it that I find offensive. But in answer to whether it was worth it, yes — a resounding yes," she said.

That's an object lesson to those of us in this House who have concerns about the treaty. My colleague from Delta North gave a heartfelt plea for retention and protection of agricultural land. He will not be alone in that.

The ALR was an innovative and inspired approach to land brought in by the NDP and embraced by the people of B.C. As our concerns about climate catastrophe and food security increase, we should all be conscious of each piece of agricultural land and find ways to protect it.

Objections to the treaty also come from other first nations who are challenging it because of their serious concerns about unresolved overlapping claims. Throughout B.C. first nations claims on territories do overlap. This should be recognized, and it should be dealt with.

Many people realize this is not a perfect treaty. The Chief of the Tsawwassen First Nation recognizes that, but it's a treaty which the majority of the Tsawwassen First Nation believes will be good for them. It's a treaty which has been hammered out through 14 years of negotiations, and it's a treaty which I and many others will support.

But it's taken many years to get to this stage, to be approved by the Tsawwassen people, now in this House and hopefully soon going to the House of Commons. It's taken many years from the first modern treaty brought about through the NDP's leadership, the Nisga'a treaty. It's taken many years to work it through under the terms of the British Columbia Treaty Commission, also developed by the NDP.

Earlier today the Premier talked of his Pauline conversion to first nations issues, to the treaty process and to his apparent commitment to treaties. However, when the Nisga'a treaty was debated in this chamber nine years ago, the then Leader of the Opposition, now our province's Premier, said: "It will constitutionalize inequality. It will enhance and increase cultural friction. It will not create economic self-sufficiency or materially benefit the vast majority of the Nisga'a people. It will create more dependency, new economic uncertainty and not a single job for anyone, save more bureaucrats and lawyers."

I think many first nations would take those words to describe their situation without treaty. They are not equal. They are not economically self-sufficient. Few get material benefits. There's huge dependency and huge economic uncertainty. The lawyers and the bureaucrats still get the jobs because they are still at the treaty table. Sadly, many others do not have jobs.

North Island, the constituency which I'm very honoured to represent, has a large first nations population. A huge proportion of them live in poverty, both on and off reserve.

If you walk through some of the reserves, you have a sense that you're not in British Columbia in the 21st century. You have a sense that you are in the Third World. You see dusty roads, houses in disrepair, poor children, and people who have lost a lot of hope.

Talk to teachers in the schools in the towns and cities about the kids who are coming to school hungry or poorly clothed. Talk to the health care workers about the ill health, about the addictions. I think we all know of the abhorrent poverty in which many first nations across the province live. We know those grim statistics of early deaths, addictions, illness, low high school graduation and much lower post-secondary completion.

Treaties won't solve all of that. Treaties won't be the magic wand. The Tsawwassen people know they have a treaty, but it doesn't mean an end to the environmental degradation around their reserve. Treaties don't suddenly get the kids out of care or into college. But treaties are a huge step in reconciliation and a major leap in having rights recognized.

Treaties do not just deal with land issues, fishing rights, voting rights or economic benefits. They help create self-respect for all members of the community — for elders, for leaders and for youth.

First nations want to move on. They want their rights recognized. They want their traditional territory protected. They want a chance for themselves and for their children. Despite all of this government's grandiloquent statements about the historic treaty, the first urban treaty, there doesn't seem to be any commitment from it to the many others who want to talk.

Before this Tsawwassen treaty was introduced in the chamber on Monday, those who were frustrated about the treaty process stood outside this building protesting and voicing their concerns. People stood outside this building protesting the lack of action on treaties, protesting what they see as a complete lack of commitment by this government that says it is supporting the treaty process.

There are 48 treaty tables that are still waiting for a commitment similar to that put into the Tsawwassen treaty. First nations are frustrated by a process which has stalled and which they see is failing them. Their negotiators have shown immense patience. Many signed on to the treaty process in the early '90s, at the same time as the Tsawwassen treaty.

On Monday we heard from Chief Baird about how long it took her — from a young woman of 20 to a woman of 37, as she said — working, working, working to get the treaty. She was able to push forward. Many others have not been able to do that, because they've not been given an opportunity by this government.

How are the talks for those other first nations going? A quick barometer is to look at the webpage of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. The treaty section — each section looking at each first nations treaty — has a negotiations calendar. Click on the negotiations calendar. They're empty for the 2007 period — a TBA. Maybe a better barometer is to talk to the first nations negotiators in communities.

There are 17 first nations in the north Island. Most are at the treaty table as part of the group or individually. All but the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h', who are part of the Maa-nulth treaty negotiations, are in stage 4 of the treaty talks. They've been stalled in stage 4 for years.

First nations chiefs and negotiators want talks to continue. First nations chiefs and negotiators want resolution. They want to be treated as equals, not as minor players in the schemes of Victoria or Ottawa. They want to be respected. They want to sit down in government-to-government talks.

I ask first nations leaders what the problem is, and they look at me and say: "When we sit at the treaty table we have a mandate, and we can make a decision. But we are sitting opposite people who can't. We need to sit opposite people who have the decision-making ability. We are in a position where we are talking to people who have to refer to others. We are not in an equal position. We are not in a respectful position. We need to have government-to-government talks."

Their frustration is huge. They do not see this government — the government of B.C. No matter how many words the government of B.C. talks about its commitment to first nations and to a new relationship, they do not see that treaties are being taken seriously.

This Tsawwassen treaty — Bill 40, which we're speaking to today — is a historic event. There is no question. The first urban treaty — it's a historic event. But most first nations feel left out in the cold. They feel that their needs are being ignored.

Their frustration undermines the hope that they placed in the new relationship. And let's not doubt it; there was a lot of hope placed in the new relationship. We saw a lot of first nations talking about the new relationship, talking to their own people and to others, wanting to see a new relationship occur, wanting to see a move forward and wanting to see this commitment that was there on paper — signed by our Premier — put into effect.

There was hope in those days. It seemed to be a new way of doing things. Sadly, while the words may have been very positive, they haven't been translated into reality, and they have not been translated into the treaty language. This would have been an ideal opportunity.

We have a new relationship. We have new ideas about how we should be working with first nations, how we should be dealing in partnership and how we should be respecting aboriginal rights. Instead, we have a treaty that does not reflect that relationship. We have a treaty that is good for the Tsawwassen people, that the Tsawwassen people have accepted and that we will accept here in this House. But it is not the treaty that is needed for other first nations.

While the government has been talking to the Tsawwassen people, stage 4 negotiations drag on for others. They drag on, and they drag on. I ask, when I call up, "How are things going?" in a general chat. And they say: "Well, you know. Yes, we're still hoping for talks."

Their frustration, as I've said, is very clear. It's very palpable. It's mounting, because first nations feel trapped. They feel trapped by the treaty process. They were accepting of it. They want to take part in it, but they are not moving on. They feel trapped because in not moving on, they are facing huge financial liabilities.

First nations are financially committed to the treaty process. If they decide to pull out because their frustration is so huge or because they see that there is going to be a lack of progress…. If they pull out of the treaty process, they immediately have to start to repay the moneys that have been loaned to them to work on treaty. But the treaty isn't going anywhere.

They would end up, if they pulled out, bankrupting their bands, bankrupting their nations, leaving themselves not with simply no treaty but with nothing — absolutely nothing. Hundreds of thousands of dollars would need to be repaid if a first nation gives up on the treaty process because of the stubbornness of this government. First nations are trapped. First nations cannot afford to pull out. No wonder they feel there is no end in sight.

There is, understandably, a cynicism among many first nations. Members of the Winalagalis Treaty Group said to me: "If you can't see a forward movement, there's no use borrowing all this money." A member of the Hamatla Treaty Society told me that he saw first nations being picked off one at a time. The way that this government measured progress was if the first nation agreed to what this government wants.

The Hamatla Treaty Group is part of the first nations unity protocol, which is calling on the government here in Victoria and the government in Ottawa to work with them to move the treaty process on by basing it on common principles. The unity protocol now represents roughly 50 first nations and more than 25,000 people. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs has also signed on to the unity protocol, which now represents about half the first nations of B.C.

In a letter from Robert Morales of the unity protocol to the Premier, he said…. This is a letter from June 2007 to the Premier and to the Prime Minister, and as far as I know, it has still not been responded to. In this letter Mr. Morales says:

I hope that the Premier has read this letter and has taken it on board because this is extraordinarily serious. This is representative of half the first nations in

British Columbia, who are so worried about what is going to happen about the treaty process.

There was talk around Nisga'a about a template treaty, and I have heard again in this debate about whether this treaty is a template, whether it's following a template or whether it should be a template. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, we must work with first nations to move all treaties on. If this treaty — no matter how good for the Tsawwassen First Nation — is to be the template, that might not be able to happen.

This treaty is right for the Tsawwassen First Nation, an urbanized first nation trapped on what Chief Baird describes as a postage stamp reserve. The Tsawwassen people don't have access to land. There's no forestry; there's no hunting. They need the space provided; they need the money. For many other first nations, it's different. Many others have huge traditional territories covering vast stretches of land.

A number of first nations are deeply concerned about the loss of their aboriginal rights through the treaty process. If this is truly a time for reconciliation, it should be a time when those rights should be protected, when you do not hear talk of people fearing loss of birthright.

This is reflected in the new relationship. The new relationship talks about government-to-government relationship based on respect, recognition and accommodation of aboriginal title and rights. It talks of a commitment to reconciliation of aboriginal and Crown titles and jurisdictions. Yet this is not built into the treaty language.

It would be a huge opportunity to enshrine these tenets and rights into a document of reconciliation, but at the moment that is lost. What remains is band offices and treaty offices, or more broken promises.

First nations I talk to believe in the Supreme Court decisions, which mandate consultation and accommodation in Taku, in Haida and, of course, in their landmark first decision, which found that aboriginal title exists in Canada — Delgamuukw. They believe they have every right to have meaningful discussions and for their concerns to be accommodated fully before something happens in their territory.

Sadly, many first nations are so overwhelmed by the number of requests for consultation, have so many issues to respond to that it's impossible for them to do so. We are talking of small, poor bands, often with limited capacity, deluged with the requests about logging, hydro plans, aquaculture, historical artifacts, zoning — all of which could have an impact on their traditional territories.

Because they are unable to respond fully, they sign off on an agreement or time elapses and an environmental assessment gets passed. Soon a company moves in and starts to work in their territory, effectively undermining that first nation's claim and that first nation's right. While the treaty process drags on, the companies make individual deals with first nations in which resources in their territories are undermined.

Under the Environmental Assessment Act of 1996, representatives of first nations whose traditional territory included the site of a project would be part of a project committee to provide advice and recommendations. In the current process, first nations are now just stakeholders. They have no authority in the decision — so much for consultation and accommodation.

I have raised in this House, and separately with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and the Minister of Forests and Range, one of the latest examples of this failure of consultation and accommodation, the removal of land from TFL 6 — the removal of land which is 8 percent of the Kwakiutl traditional territory.

The Kwakiutl, a Douglas treaty nation, were not meaningfully consulted. There were a few e-mails and one meeting, and now letters from the Minister of Forests and Range saying that as far as he's concerned, there has been full consultation.

The most recent correspondence from that minister stated: "I am confident my ministry has fulfilled the obligation to consult the Kwagiulth people on the land." The Kwagiulth people do not agree.

What is clear is that what is meaningful for this government and what is meaningful for first nations are obviously vastly different. Unless the Crown takes consultation and accommodation seriously on these individual issues, how can first nations have any hope that the Crown will take the concept of treaties seriously?

True reconciliation must happen. B.C. is a province divided, with a huge underclass. True reconciliation takes effort on all sides, but it takes recognition of our roles and our responsibilities.

We talk about how important treaties are. But we have to look at the comparative recent history as well as the longer imposition of western government systems. Those first nations who were removed from their traditional territories into smaller patches of land…. In Port Hardy a small overcrowded reserve is the home of two blended nations, the Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw, who were removed from the mainland coast in the 1960s — two peoples put together in a small patch of land on another first nations traditional territory. The societal stresses were inevitably going to be enormous and continue to prove to be so.

In Campbell River the Homalco sit on a small patch of land away from their traditional territories at Church House in Bute Inlet on the mainland. A first nation which based its life on the waters now is located on a hill by an airport — first nations removed from their traditional territories, elders offering guidance in alien communities, youth dislocated.

Treaties are vital, and that's why I will support this treaty in Bill 40. But we all know — too much, too sadly — about the history, about the residential school system and the legacy for many first nations people.

My colleague the Minister of State for Childcare mentioned that she has often been to Alert Bay. As you arrive in Alert Bay, the stark red brick of the residential school there looms large. There's been much debate about tearing it down, removing the physical evidence of its existence, or converting it. The 'Namgis people have chosen the latter. They have chosen to keep the building there and to use it.

Next door to that building full of ghosts is a modern structure, the U'mista Cultural Centre. This is a building filled with inspiration, the potlatch collection of 'Namgis reclaimed, returned piece by piece from museums and collections around the world. It's also a centre of first languages, first nations reclaiming their voice through their language. Both these buildings — their memories, their collections — a part of our collective history in British Columbia — the settlers' legacy, the first nations traditions and ways of moving forward.

Further down the coast is Tsa-Kwa-Luten Lodge on the southern tip of Quadra Island. The lodge was built on lands where the Coast Salish people first met Captain Vancouver. The Coast Salish people were later driven out, and the land is now part of Wei Wai Kai territory. There is a sad irony that the lodge on those lands where Vancouver met first nations was, up until this year, a native healing centre out of the summer tourist season, a centre to deal with the wounds and damage done to first nations who were marginalized by society, a traditional centre run by other first nations people.

What is perhaps sadder is that a lack of grant moneys means that the healing centre won't be open this winter. But it's not all gloom. It's not all depression. First nations are working very hard despite the lack of treaties. There are shining examples.

In my own constituency, Laichwiltach Family Life in Campbell River has superb programs for elders through to youngsters. It offers support and pride and heritage to the many urban first nations in the city.

Likewise, Family Place in Port Hardy is doing an excellent job in assisting very poor, very marginalized families there. On reserve, too, there is a strength of community and a recognition of aboriginal voice through language, music, dance, culture, Head Start programs and schools.

In early summer there was an inspiring ceremony in Kyuquot, a ceremony of all the Nuu-chah-nulth who had graduated from high school this year. There were about 60 names on the list. They came from across the Island to mark their success, their survival, their hope for themselves and their hope for the future of their communities.

These efforts are part of community survival, part of community growth and part of community pride. But these efforts will only work if they are a part of a greater whole, and that whole must include treaties.

While Canada failed to sign on to the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people, and while the B.C. Government, for all its avowed commitment to first nations, refused to push Ottawa to do so, we are the signatories of the UN declaration of human rights. If we in B.C. are to be true to that declaration, we have to commit to working on making it a reality. For first nations that should be through a genuine effort, a true effort, to agree: treaty.

I will support this treaty. I will be very proud to do so. But when we vote in this House on this treaty, I hope this government will be committing to those dozens of outstanding treaties, those thousands of other first nations peoples and that this government gives them the priority they deserve too.

J. McIntyre: I rise this afternoon with great personal pleasure to speak in favour of this bill that enables the historic treaty with the Tsawwassen First Nation to take effect.

B.C.'s first modern urban treaty — what a proud achievement. As British Columbians, we should admire the results of 14 long years of hard work with the Tsawwassen band coming to fruition, a particularly proud moment for Chief Kim Baird, her community and both the provincial and federal governments.

I commend all those who contributed to this momentous feat for their dedication, their perseverance and their commitment to doing the right thing to assist the band to take their rightful place in society and to enter the social and economic mainstream of Canada, as the Chief referred to on Monday in her inspiring address to the Legislature.

What I can't understand is why the NDP opposition took so long to finally show their support and why opposition members cannot freely speak their views in this House as government members are free to. I'm completely amazed. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the nerve to question our Premier's commitment to this?

It's our government, under the Premier's leadership, that's been determined via a variety of mechanisms and agreements to redress the wrongs of the past and to respectfully and effectively bridge the socioeconomic gaps between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities in this province. This is evidenced by the progress we are just beginning to make in areas such as health, education, apprenticeships, tourism, resource-sharing and historic land use agreements.

Madam Speaker, this doesn't happen overnight. This just doesn't happen. But these are the first steps on a long journey to ensure that first nations people in this province are no longer left behind. Much of these efforts are about the future, the future of the first nations children who account for a very large proportion of the B.C. aboriginal population today. Through this treaty the Tsawwassen band members, 70 percent of whom supported this treaty in their July vote, will take meaningful steps to achieve their independence with access to significant land, to cash and to resources.

Importantly, as Chief Baird remarked, her community would no longer be tethered by the federal Indian Act — in fact, as she says, free from the constraints of the Indian Act for the first time in well over a century. This is a powerful statement, no doubt reflecting first nations sentiments across this entire country. I'm proud to be part of a provincial government that has worked hard to make a breakthrough for aboriginal citizens in our province and our country.

People should finally be acknowledged as equals and be given the opportunities and the tools to be able

to become self-reliant, to take personal responsibility and to achieve their goals in life just as you and I, our children and our grandchildren are free to do.

Our unwavering commitment to reconciliation has been exemplified in this treaty. It defines the Tsawwassen First Nation's rights regarding the ownership and management of lands and resources throughout their claimed territory. It includes self-government provisions and a phase-out of tax exemptions as well. By doing so, this agreement will add much-needed certainty to the band and to the surrounding municipalities and their residents.

I understand that this treaty involved many compromises, as you would expect, as anyone would expect. Many would agree, and have agreed, it's not perfect. The Tsawwassen have years to go to catch up, and British Columbians have contributed. They've given up significant amounts of money, land, and a share of natural resources, including precious agricultural land. But what it does is represent hope, optimism and the spirit of cooperation to actually try to make this work.

There's finally some concrete action being taken, as laid out in the treaty, as we take steps together down this path of genuine reconciliation. Our government is not going to give up trying, despite the opposition criticisms. No, we're not giving up.

I'd now like to take a few moments to share with the House my observations on the many successes we're having in furthering the new relationship with first nations in my constituency of West Vancouver–Garibaldi — hopefully, soon to be "West Van–Sea to Sky." I'd just like to make the comment that not all first nations feel left out of the processes, as the NDP Leader of the Opposition and others are enjoying portraying here all week.

I'd like to start by acknowledging the strong support of two of the four host first nations that reside in my area, the Squamish and the Lillooet nations, for their assistance in securing the bid for all of British Columbia for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. We, in close partnership with our local governments, have been working faithfully and diligently to honour the terms of the 2002 agreement, which is now producing economic and land transfer agreements that have benefited these first nations.

I have to say and I'll admit that it's not been a road without a few bumps. Nonetheless, it is producing agreements, workable agreements, and relationships that we can all be proud of as British Columbians.

Some outstanding examples of this unprecedented level of cooperation. Let me start with, first of all, the historic legacy land agreement that was just recently approved by the resort municipality of Whistler, by their mayor and council. The Sea to Sky Highway accommodation agreement, which we signed with the Lillooet Nation just last December, and a similar agreement just nearing completion with the Squamish Nation.

It has also resulted in an historic partnership among the provincial government, the private sector and these same two first nations to build the amazing Squamish Lil'wat cultural centre in Whistler, which I've spoken about several times in this House. It's going to be an amazing, world-class tourism opportunity to showcase our rich first nations heritage to the world, which they're hungering for.

In the spirit of the new relationship, we're also very close to completing the Sea to Sky LRMP, the land and resource management plan, with signings this summer with the In-SHUCK-ch Nation and the Squamish Nation.

The Lil'wat Nation, we're hoping, is not far behind in adding both their input and their signatures to this high-level plan for the Sea to Sky region that will guide land use for many, many years to come. First nations are fully engaged in the process. It's a very, very beneficial thing for all of us.

This LRMP is a culmination of many years of work — well before my time — with many stakeholders working in good faith to sort out the complexities and many competing demands for precious land and water resources in our spectacular area of the province.

I'm also very hopeful that we are close to signing a treaty with the In-SHUCK-ch Nation, who have signed an agreement-in-principle and are currently engaged in final agreement negotiations at this very moment. Like the Tsawwassen treaty, this will be a wonderful triumph of perseverance and commitment and should provide social and economic opportunities for the In-SHUCK-ch Nation long into the future.

I'd also like to take the opportunity today to point out that I cherish the personal relationships I've had the privilege to build and develop with members of the first nations communities in my role as MLA. For me, it's been one of the most rewarding parts of my first few years in office. There are too many to name now, but a number of these people I'm pleased to call my friends.

I really believe from the bottom of my heart that the work we're doing across the province, and specifically in my region, truly matters. Whether it's in child care; in K-to-12 schooling; in improving access to post-secondary education; in health care; in arts and culture; in language preservation; in policing; in jobs; and in training for young adults, such as the apprenticeships that are going on in my region in the forests and on the highways…. Opportunities now abound where there were none.

Land and other resources are being shared generously in new ways. We're forging a path that's new to us all, and we're learning together as we proceed.

Yes, there's no doubt we have a long way to go. I don't think anyone's pretending otherwise. Some of the statistics regarding the quality of life for first nations in B.C. are sad. But it's our government that has actually stepped up to the plate in unprecedented fashion to try to undo the misdeeds of the past and ensure a self-reliant future for our aboriginal partners.

Our opposition has not been quick to do so, however. It's our work being applauded across the country. We're genuinely attempting to close the socioeconomic and health gaps that have existed for over a hundred years. Our opposition made no such comparable progress in their ten years of rule.

The work on treaties and the other successful arrangements, including the land use and economic agreements, bode well for the future of this province. There are many paths. It's the outcomes that will be the measure of our success.

I just want to say I am very honoured and privileged to be a member of this House at this time in history that affords me the opportunity to stand up here today and publicly support this landmark Bill 40, which represents progress on a longstanding issue which will affect us all for generations to come.

Before I close here, I just want to say I am optimistic. I am not a doom-and-gloom pessimist like many in the opposition benches are. I have already seen…. I've witnessed firsthand the positive results in my region among the first nations. I'm looking at unemployment rates that have gone from well over 80 percent to 20 percent and moving on down by the day.

I see almost 200 young people snowboarding. Some of them are aiming to be on that podium in 2010. Think for a moment what that does to the lives of those 200 young people just in the Sea to Sky corridor.

We have unprecedented economic development in construction, the forests, mining, the arts, resort development, power generation — on and on.

The challenge will be capacity-building as first nations actually take full advantage of all these new opportunities. But working together, I believe we can be successful. Where there's a will, there's a way.

N. Macdonald: I am…. [Applause.] Thank you. Save it for the end. We'll see at the end.

I am proud to rise today and speak and participate in the Tsawwassen treaty debate. I have told my constituents that I will support this treaty. I am proud to do that. I am, in fact, really proud to do that.

The speech by Chief Kim Baird given at the Bar here at the Legislature at the beginning of the week was a tremendous speech. It was real, it was honest, and I enjoyed listening to it. I understand that Chief Baird is still with us. I know that she has stuck around for 14 years of negotiations. Her commitment to stay through all of the speeches is, I think, an equal commitment of will. I hope that at the end of it she'll feel I said something as meaningful as she did here at the Bar.

There were a few things, as we go through the speech, that I'm going to refer to that I thought were meaningful. In particular, they were messages to me.

I want to fully recognize that there are a host of issues that needed to be considered when I was forming my position on this treaty. I am glad that we, on this side, had a very long and comprehensive debate on the treaty, and that debate was based on principles. We had a long conversation. It was meaningful, it enlightened me, and it was thorough. It served to confirm my support for the treaty.

With any negotiated settlement involving three parties, it is obvious to me that there is going to be compromise, the compromising of important interests. I want to applaud the people who worked through the process, in particular those that worked for 14 years.

It is a long time to devote to anything, especially something where the outcome is uncertain. It is not only going to be unavoidably contentious at a provincial level, but there are going to be difficulties at a personal level with people that are your neighbours. As you work and try to get what is best for them, there are always going to be a variety of opinions as to what that is.

I come from Manitoba originally. There are many here that are from Manitoba originally or have lived there for some period of time — many of us. There have been treaties in Manitoba for over a century. I think what has been said here many times during this debate bears repeating: treaties do not end challenges for first nations. They have not in Manitoba. I've worked on a reserve in Manitoba, and treaties are not an end in and of themselves.

The other side of it is that the lack of treaties here in a large part of British Columbia has not stopped some incredible first nations successes, both individually and for individual first nations. There are some incredible stories of success here.

Treaties do not and probably can never correct past injustices. First nations and many speakers have chosen to recognize those past injustices. We heard about the residential schools. We heard about the taking of land that was truly first nations'. A treaty will not correct those grievances.

Treaties are, however, significant. They represent, especially at this time — and Chief Baird spoke about it…. They represent dignity, they represent self-reliance, and they represent opportunity.

Even the government minister responsible for this file talked in his speech about his trip up to Nisga'a and the Nisga'a territory, and he spoke about the tremendous pride they have in the treaty that they signed seven years ago. So there's no question that treaties at this time need to be associated with those things — dignity, self-reliance, opportunity.

Of all the provinces of Canada, we are in the province that has not reached even the basic stages of so many things, including addressing the land issue. We live in a province where land issues have not reached even the first stage of a treaty in a large part of this province. That is almost unique to British Columbia, and it's something that very clearly needs to be worked on far more energetically than we have to date.

By every standard, moral and legal, the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia must negotiate with first nations to resolve land use issues. Many first nations have chosen to enter the B.C. treaty process, and with the completion of the Tsawwassen treaty, there is reason to celebrate.

Now, many others have chosen not to participate in that process, and as has been said here before, I respect that decision as well. I did mention there were a few things that really struck me with the speech from the Bar here, and one was something that Chief Baird said on Monday. It was that from her perspective, there

were parts of the negotiated settlement that she did not like. She made that really clear.

But despite those concerns, she has reminded those she is responsible to that overall, the benefits outweigh the concerns. It is a difficult thing for any political leader to do, and yet she did it, and she did it very successfully. Chief Baird made an agreement. She earned the support of her community, and they supported it with an overwhelming endorsement. Over 70 percent, by any standards, is overwhelming.

I think we also need to recognize when we look at this agreement that at a provincial level, as one of the three partners in the treaty process, there are compromises made by provincial negotiators that must be weighed when looking at the final negotiated settlement that is here before us.

I recognize those compromises. I have considered them, and after doing that, I can say clearly that I support this treaty. I will tell the people I represent, as Chief Baird did, that it is a treaty that demands support and that needs to be supported.

It is my genuine hope that this treaty will allow the Tsawwassen people to have a greater ability to make decisions on their own and to have the resources and opportunities to improve their lives. I hope that is the result, and more than that, I believe that will be the result.

From my own experience I can tell this House that I find it particularly galling, coming from rural B.C., to have decisions that impact my community made at a distance and without the degree of say that I think we should have. There is little I find more profoundly wrong about our system.

With this treaty, the Tsawwassen get greater control, and for that I congratulate them. I think that's a wonderful thing. So I strongly support the control this treaty will give the Tsawwassen and their ability to make decisions for themselves. It is difficult enough to have so many of your decisions that affect you made here in Victoria. I can only imagine what it would be like to have Ottawa making decisions for you. Fundamentally, the closer to home that decisions are made, I believe, the better and more democratic those decisions should be.

Despite what the Premier said here today, it is absolutely clear to me that the current Premier had shown no interest in first nations issues, and was in many ways a destructive force in first nations relations, right up until 2004 and, arguably, to the present. I would say there's no question that that was the case.

There was a realization, presumably from the current Premier's perspective, that if he wanted to give clear title to land to different corporations that needed to get it, he was obliged legally to deal with the land claim issue. There were other considerations, I'm sure, to make sure that the Olympics went smoothly.

I'll say clearly on this that I do not trust that the Premier or his inner circle have fundamentally changed in their views, and I do not see any sincere interest in addressing the fundamental problems for first nations. I do not see any interest at all from this government in addressing justice issues for any people who lack power.

First nations, despite the important and highly symbolic choice of Mr. Point as our Lieutenant-Governor, lack political power. They are not at the top of business, they are not at the top of unions, and they are not present in large numbers in the professions. They remain, I would suggest, of little political interest to this government.

The Premier and his inner circle represent the province's entrenched elite, and I think all know that. This is the entrenched elite that they represent. It was Adam Smith who said that there was a vile maxim of the entrenched elites. He said that for the masters of mankind, the maxim is: "All for ourselves, and nothing for everyone else." We see that daily here in the province as the Premier puts that maxim into to practice.

The Premier has consistently hurt the powerless and disadvantaged in British Columbia with his government's policies. When he did that, he disproportionately hurt first nations individuals.

When the current Premier cut child care funding and ordered a reorganization of that service at the same time, it hit first nations hardest. We were all witness to that in the House in the first session two years ago. Everyone in the province knows that. First nations were hurt with that decision. There are numerous examples of how health, education, housing and other public policy failures by this government hit first nations hardest and often first.

I had the opportunity to watch part of the demonstration outside on Monday. The treaty upsets some because it is motivated by the government's desire to move ahead with the Deltaport expansion. That was clearly seen by many to be the motivation behind moving with this treaty. Chief Stuart Phillip, head of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, described the government as working towards — and he used an unparliamentary term — "a sleazy backroom approach to port development." I think we would all recognize that that is one of the factors that is part of pushing this deal forward first.

As I said, I don't believe there is genuine concern for first nations issues with the Premier or with many of the people in the Premier's office, such as Martyn Brown. I just do not see that they have genuinely changed and are concerned with first nations issues. It is something else that motivates the Premier, and likely, it is the Deltaport expansion.

I want to be clear that the Premier's motivation is really beside the point in considering whether to support this treaty or not. Nothing that the Premier or the government does — none of their motivation — should take away from the honourable work of the people negotiating on behalf of the Tsawwassen First Nation. Whatever the motivation, we ultimately need to judge by results in this particular issue. Reaching a negotiated settlement is a positive step for the province.

The Tsawwassen were clear in accepting the treaty. That is to be acknowledged and to be celebrated. The challenge for others is: if we do not have a motivation such as Deltaport, will our treaties be dealt with in as

It is my hope that the Ktunaxa in my area will reach a negotiated settlement, that the settlement will do the same things for the Ktunaxa as this treaty will do for Tsawwassen and that the settlement for the Ktunaxa will enhance the Kootenays and give people in my area an opportunity to thrive and to control their destiny more completely. It's my hope that that will happen soon.

I also recognize that there are other first nations in my constituency who have chosen a different route on the settling of land issues, and I respect that choice too.

Ms. Baird said another important thing about the ratification of this treaty. She talked about the importance of having the people of British Columbia, through their elected officials, strongly endorse the work of the people who negotiated on the province's behalf. That doesn't mean that questions should not be asked. But in the end, the support means something to her, and she was clear on that.

I've heard very clearly from people involved in the Nisga'a treaty debate how disillusioning it was to watch our current Premier and other B.C. Liberal politicians play games with the agreement so that the current Premier could pull in the B.C. Reform vote. Martyn Brown, of course, was the director of the Citizens' Voice on Native Claims when our current Premier pulled him into his circle back in 1996, and his hand was clearly evident in the handling of the Nisga'a debate from the B.C. Liberal side.

I remember what I saw from a distance when I was back in Golden and what others experienced here in the Legislature. The current Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, chose to play a very cynical type of politics. Most recognized it at the time, as our current Premier played to emotions, put out information that has shown itself to be inaccurate and raised fears that were never found to have any grounds, to have actually been accurate in any way. He did that without regard to the impacts that would have on individuals. All that mattered to him at the time was the opportunity for political power.

As an aside to that, it was strange to look back at those debates in Hansard and to see some of the individuals that were involved, like the former Attorney General, and to see them now involved with the treaty process. It certainly was strange to see what they said seven and eight years ago, and to see them now paid and participating in the treaty process.

The Tsawwassen First Nation treaty is the first treaty since Nisga'a. That it has taken so long, I would say, sits squarely on the shoulders of the current Premier. He delayed Nisga'a, and when he had power, he conducted a referendum that was described to me by first nations in the Kootenays as meaningless, cynical, mean-spirited.

The referendum on treaty-making was, in my view and in the view of most, intended to achieve some political purpose. The current Premier would clearly have known that the $9 million referendum was going to hurt first nations people. The current Premier knew that careless words during that referendum would incite and hurt. It did not really matter to him at that time, and he went ahead with it. In the end, the referendum was a bit of a farce.

Before that, there was the B.C. Liberal court challenge. Again, that ended in a bit of a farce, but while it went on, it was destructive and unnecessary.

I want to say really clearly that I'm proud to have a leader who knows what her principles are and knows her beliefs and is not flexible — not flexible in the way that the current Premier is. I have a leader that wakes up in the morning and ten years from now is going to think the same thing that she does now. It's not going to change as the wind changes.

Nevertheless, I come back to the end result, and the end result is this: the treaty is a good thing. First nations need to have land issues settled. As I wrap up, I want to close with that sentiment. This is a good thing. I'm proud to support the treaty.

I commend the work of Chief Baird and her associates. This outcome is a testament to their tireless and honourable work.

It is, as I've said, my hope that we will see many more treaties in this House be ratified, including that of the Ktunaxa people. That it would take seven years is clearly unacceptable. We are already a century behind other provinces.

The treaty has also reminded us that we have work to do on agricultural policies, because clearly, that is part of the debate that we've had around this treaty. We treat the agricultural land reserve like a land bank for developers and simply don't provide conditions that allow people to grow food and make money. We do not do that in the province, and that should be of deep concern to everyone in this House.

The treaty also provides me with an opportunity to remind the House of a couple of issues that are of importance to me and related to the Ktunaxa. I have spoken clearly about the importance of the east side of Columbia Lake. This is an area of great natural, spiritual and historical significance. The Ktunaxa have provided wonderful leadership on that issue. I want to say clearly — and echo what they have been saying — that the spiritual, environmental and historical significance of Columbia Lake need to be properly recognized.

Finally, I have also spoken about putting in place legislation that provides real protection for first nations heritage sites. At the same time, it gives landowners the security of a clear and straightforward process laid out in legislation.

Every time I have the opportunity to stand and to speak, it is a special moment. I realize that this is a historic moment, as well, and the opportunity to speak on it has been an honour to me. With that, I thank the House and Madam Speaker for the opportunity.

Hon. G. Abbott: It is a great pleasure and a great honour to rise and join in the debate on Bill 40, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act.

This is indeed a great moment in the history of British Columbia. It is a privilege to be a part of it and a privilege to be able to look up in the gallery and see Chief Kim Baird and her family and supporters, who are here witnessing the debate, this tremendous achievement for her and for the Tsawwassen First Nation. It is wonderful to be a part of it.

I am somewhat of two minds with respect to the comments of the previous member. He is normally a thoughtful and generous individual. I had the privilege to work with him in local government and elsewhere, and normally I don't take offence to his words. I know he is attempting to convey some concerns with the treaty and, at the same time, to say that overall, they are supportive of it. I think it is unfortunate at best that some of the intemperate words and phrases he used in his speech were a part of his contribution, because as I say, normally one wouldn't expect that from him.

In particular, I want to say this. While it is always difficult to be in opposition and to be in a position of conveying opposition to a proposition and at the same time supporting it, it's important how one sets about doing that. Then again, I'm sure I've been guilty of it myself at times.

I think some of the calculated and indeed tortured ambivalence that we see in the chamber from opposition members in respect of the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty has been well evident here. I'm sure all members of the opposition will be relieved when this debate has passed and they can move on to other things.

That's probably enough on that subject, because I don't want to say a lot of negative things in the context of this debate. I think this is such a remarkably positive moment for the Tsawwassen First Nation and for other first nations in British Columbia as well.

I do appreciate that not all first nations, as indeed not all British Columbians, look to this treaty as a great achievement, but I think most do. Some of those that oppose, I'm sure, do so for all the best of reasons.

It is a special moment in our history. It is a special moment in the evolution of our province. Our province — I think we would all agree with this in this House — does not have a proud history nor a proud legacy in respect of our treatment of first nations in British Columbia. Since the time of first contact, now well over 150 years ago, our history has not been a proud one.

Since we joined Confederation, certainly, the first nations in this province were treated, at best, as subservient, were not extended the same political and other rights that were extended to other British Columbians and in so many ways were treated as second-class citizens. There is a sad and unfortunate legacy that flows from that.

I think there is much to be done. There's no question about that. Again, I think all members of the Legislature would agree that there is much to be done in terms of the issues that still face first nations communities and still face governments as they attempt to build better relationships with first nations communities and to build better opportunities and outcomes in those communities.

If we look at things like education, it is a sad fact that first nations graduation levels from our high schools still continue to be lower than for the general population. I know the Minister of Education and others have been working hard to try to improve those. And we are improving those.

There are a number of success stories around the province, including my own constituency of Shuswap. There have been quite remarkable successes in improving graduation rates among young aboriginal students in Shuswap. We can be proud of that, but we can also recognize that those successes need to be repeated a thousand times before we can be satisfied that we've done the job we need to do.

In areas like employment opportunities or economic opportunities, there have been far less of those among first nations and first nations communities than we need. Again, there have been some sustained efforts to try to change that — not all by our government, certainly by the former NDP government, by the Social Credit government before them. Things like the first citizens fund and other mechanisms have been used for a long time to try to improve the lives of first nations. So there are things we can be proud of, but we've got a long way to go.

In health — and I'll talk a bit more about that presently here — we certainly see outcomes lagging. Again, we've got a long way to go. We've done a lot of work to start moving things in the right direction, but we've got a long way to go.

I think that we would all recognize — or at least, I hope we would all recognize — that remediation of that legacy of more than 150 years of, in some cases, shameful history can't happen overnight. It likely won't even happen in a decade, but we can make progress in a decade, and that's what we always need to be aiming for. Continuous improvement and progress are things that often will come one step at a time. It is too infrequently and often too slowly that we see those steps come, but they do come.

The Tsawwassen First Nation treaty that we are celebrating here today and celebrating in this debate, which I'm sure will extend over several days, is a huge step towards a better future for first nations in British Columbia, a huge step forward. I think we all salute that. We all congratulate that huge step forward by the Tsawwassen First Nation.

In particular, I want to congratulate Chief Baird. I acknowledged her earlier, but I do want to underline just what exceptional leadership she has displayed on behalf of the Tsawwassen First Nation. This was not a babe that was born easily. Perhaps I shouldn't use that analogy, given that perhaps there have been babes born relatively recently that….

The drive towards a successful conclusion to those 14 years of treaty discussions didn't come easily. It took enormous courage on the part of Chief Baird and her council to hang in there in the face of what is always a serious but lively, spirited debate about whether to proceed with these things. But she displayed the cour-

I think she has also displayed, along with her council, great foresight in terms of what she and the band and the first nations at Tsawwassen believe are the keys to their future, and we have to salute that foresight. Clearly, persistence and patience were a part of the recipe for success here as well, and Chief Baird must have those ingredients in spades to have been able to maintain for as long as she has the drive towards a successful conclusion to this.

I also want to thank and congratulate the band council, obviously, the Tsawwassen people who have been so supportive of their chief and of this process, those who negotiated on behalf of the band and also those who negotiated on behalf of the federal and provincial governments. These successful conclusions to treaty discussions happen too infrequently. They are enormously challenging, but we are here celebrating success.

Hopefully, the Tsawwassen are also building a base of success which now can be shared in other corners of the province and can see us move ahead with more successful treaties and more opportunities for other first nations communities as we move forward in time.

I've been very fortunate, as a member of this Legislative Assembly, to have a number of cabinet roles that have provided opportunities to work with first nations, to build relationships with first nations leadership and citizens. I do appreciate the opportunity to bring a little bit of that to bear in my comments today.

As Minister of Aboriginal Services, later as Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and now as Minister of Health, I've been proud to be a part of a government that has undertaken a broad range of initiatives that were aimed at improving and building opportunities and improving outcomes across the province for first nations people.

Things like, for example, the annual First Citizens Forum, which I think we got…. The first one was underway in 2002. Along with the annual meeting between the leadership of first nations, this is an opportunity to invite just the citizens, the regular folk, to come and talk about the issues that they have at First Citizens Forum.

The major expansion of the first citizens fund. It's something that had been around since the days of the Social Credit government but which we expanded. I think it has been a very useful mechanism to provide bursaries and scholarships to aboriginal students, to support native friendship centres, to support economic development among first nations. In a whole range of ways it has been a great fund and very useful.

One that I particularly was proud of and remain proud of today was the development of FirstVoices, which is a computer-based program that we launched probably in about 2003, in that area. It aims, first of all, at preserving but also at protecting the unique heritage of first nations languages that we have in the province.

I think many of you may already know this, but there are close to three dozen unique first nations languages in British Columbia. I think it's more than all of the rest of Canada put together. Some of those languages were in danger of disappearing. Some were down to just the last few speakers who could explain and understand the language. FirstVoices was our attempt to assist in protecting and preserving those languages, and it's been a great success.

Finally, on land and resource management planning, in which I succeeded the now Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts and the great work he had done previously. For the period I was there, it was very exciting to work with first nations around issues like the north coast plan, the central coast plan, the creation of the spirit bear conservancy and so on. There were a lot of issues that I was fortunate to be a part of, and it was an exciting time. I think we can look back and be very proud of that.

I think we can look back and be proud, as well, of the first nations health plan. This is something that we as a government launched with the First Nations Leadership Council back in November of 2006. It is the first-ever first nations health plan that embodies the approach to deal with the health-status gap between first nations and other British Columbians.

I'll go into a little bit more detail on this. In areas like type 2 diabetes…. The general population is seeing a dramatic rise in the incidence and prevalence of diabetes, type 2 diabetes particularly. Among the first nations population it is even dramatically higher than in the general population.

The plan looks at closing the health gap, and it looks at it not only from the perspective of health but poverty, housing, employment, economic opportunities — all of those things — as areas that affect first nations. The plan sets into action British Columbia's commitments under the transformative change accord, which was signed back in November of 2005.

What needs correcting that the first nations health plan will address? As an example, first nations in British Columbia live, on average, seven years less than other British Columbians, and that is a dramatic and compelling statistic. First nations people's risks of developing health conditions like diabetes, pneumonia and HIV/AIDS or of experiencing injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents is also greater.

We've taken the step, through the first nations health plan, with 29 initiatives in four areas where first nations and the province will collaborate, to close that health-status gap between 2007 and 2015. For example, we have a first nations or aboriginal-specific ActNow B.C. program, an aboriginal mental health and addictions plan, improved access to primary health care services in first nations health and healing centres, primary health services programs and patient self-management programs to help manage chronic health conditions as well.

These priorities were jointly developed, I should note — and this is important — by British Columbia and the First Nations Leadership Council in the spirit of the new relationship. First nations and regional health authorities will develop and implement programs that will address adult mental health, substance abuse, youth suicide, maternal health and programs

to help manage chronic health conditions that first nations face, such as diabetes and hepatitis.

The first nations health plan builds on work already underway in British Columbia. For example, since 2001 we've been updating the provincial health officer's report on the health and well-being of aboriginal people to focus efforts in eight key areas for health authority and provincial government action.

We've been encouraging the designation of aboriginal health leads in each regional health authority to ensure coordination and integration of aboriginal health services into the overall planning and delivery of health. We've provided targeted funding to support aboriginal health programs through regional health authorities. We've led the way with provincial-level initiatives such as Honouring Our Health, an aboriginal tobacco strategy for British Columbia.

We funded $2.25 million for a chair in aboriginal environmental health at UNBC, and we've funded $1.5 million for the aboriginal nursing strategies since 2002, one of our strategies to try to ensure that more first nations become aware of and participate in health care opportunities in British Columbia.

Since November 2006 we've already delivered on a number of the action items set out in the first nations health plan. For example — and, again, I'm very proud of this — in April 2007 the province appointed Dr. Evan Adams as its first-ever aboriginal health physician adviser.

We also provided $9.5 million to the First Nations Leadership Council to improve first nations health. The plan talks about building a health centre in Lytton. I'm happy to say that in July 2007 I was there to see the official groundbreaking for the new Lytton Health Centre.

The plan also committed a first nations aboriginal-specific ActNow B.C. program with a particular focus on children, and in March 2007 a grant of $6 million to support development of first nations ActNow B.C. was provided to the National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health.

In June 2007 the First Nations Leadership Council, the federal government and the province signed Canada's first-ever first nations tripartite health plan, and this builds on our bilateral first nations health plan to close the health gap between first nations people and other British Columbians.

In closing, as I've noted, there are many challenges to overcome in our province in its relationship with first nations people. The challenges are many, and the challenges are daunting. Nevertheless, I think there are works underway in a range of areas that provide promise and hope for the future.

I think we can be proud of what has been achieved, but we can also recognize that there is much, much more to be achieved, that we have a long way to go until we can say that that path we launched towards recognition and reconciliation has been completed.

The Tsawwassen First Nation treaty is a huge step in the right direction. It is evidence that persistence pays — so well demonstrated by Chief Baird and the Tsawwassen in this case. It is also a treaty which demonstrates that if you approach challenges thoughtfully, respectfully, energetically and courageously, as have the Tsawwassen First Nation, there is much that we can achieve, and we can pave a path towards success.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to stand today to contribute to this important debate in regard to this treaty. First, I do want to acknowledge that we are having this debate on the traditional territories of the Songhees and Cowichan people.

This is a historic debate, and it's a debate that centres on the agreement between the Tsawwassen First Nation and the governments of British Columbia and Canada. This is an important and groundbreaking event. It is the first treaty completed under the B.C. Treaty Commission.

It follows on the first modern treaty that was negotiated with the Nisga'a by the NDP government, and it will help set the foundation for future work of the Treaty Commission and hopefully for the settlement of other treaties with other first nations from across our province.

This treaty deserves our support, and I am pleased to offer mine along with that of my colleagues in the official opposition. Support for this treaty is a recognition of 14 years of negotiations by the Tsawwassen people. Support for this treaty is an acknowledgment of the commitment, the persistence and the patience of the Tsawwassen people in their endeavour to achieve the tools and authority required to be able to set their own vision for the future and to pursue that vision on their own terms.

This agreement brings a number of new resources and tools to the Tsawwassen people. It provides about 724 hectares of land, some $30 million in funding and an additional $2.8 million of annual ongoing funding for services and programs. The treaty includes important self-government provisions and will phase out tax exemptions the Tsawwassen people currently have.

I am very hopeful and confident that these tools and resources, along with the skill, determination and commitment of the Tsawwassen people, will allow them to build the future they envision for themselves and for future generations. Chief Baird and her people deserve our support, and that will best be demonstrated by our support for their efforts and consequently for this treaty. I'm proud to support Chief Baird and the Tsawwassen people by supporting this treaty.

The road to this treaty has been eventful, with many bumps along the way. It was part of a process that was initiated by an NDP government under Mike Harcourt. It was followed by the settlement of the Nisga'a agreement, outside the treaty process, under the leadership of Chief Gosnell and Premier Clark.

We know the Nisga'a agreement was not celebrated by all British Columbians. The current Premier, then opposition leader, condemned the agreement in July 1998, saying: "The agreement looks like it's going to entrench some things that are an anathema to Canadians." He went on to challenge the treaty in the courts.

Thankfully, the courts dismissed the Liberal attempts to overturn that first treaty as frivolous and unfounded.

Sadly, when the Liberals came to power, they continued to persist with their assault on the rights of first nations to realize a future that would be of their own making. They initiated a referendum that challenged the treaty process and the rights and aspirations of British Columbia first nations — a referendum with a suspect question and a dubious outcome.

Thankfully, the government abandoned the referendum shortly after it was completed — I assume because of the degree of ridicule and criticism they received for having gone down this road in the first place.

The Premier and Liberals were fundamentally wrong in their positions on our first nations. They were fundamentally wrong to condemn and challenge the Nisga'a treaty, and they were fundamentally wrong in initiating and proceeding with the referendum.

I will say that I am pleased that we heard the Premier today acknowledge that he was wrong on these matters, that he's had a second thought, and that his government has learned lessons from these actions.

A key aspect of the change in the Premier was his announcement in December 2005 of the new relationship. This is based on a document that is based primarily on the stated recognition of aboriginal rights and title. Many first nation leaders signed on to that document with great hopes that it would be the foundation for their aspirations. Unfortunately, almost two years after the signing of the new relationship, there is a growing frustration that the results are not reflective of the good words of the new relationship document.

In April of this year the Auditor General pointed out three key areas where the new relationship has failed. He called the document undefined. He criticized its lack of vision and stated that he believed it was falling far short of the original hopes that it had created.

We are hearing similar messages from many bands across British Columbia who are not seeing the words of the new relationship put into action to support their efforts to make their lives better.

In too many cases our aboriginal people are living in Third World conditions and facing challenges that none of us in this place can really comprehend.

This is especially true for aboriginal children. Fifty percent of kids in care are aboriginal, even though they constitute only 7 percent of our population. That number is too high. Sadly, the number is growing, not diminishing. In 1997, 31 percent of children in care were aboriginal. Today that number is 50 percent. While the number of non-aboriginal children in care has been dropping, the number of aboriginal children has grown significantly and dramatically.

Only 47 percent of aboriginal children finish high school. For aboriginal children in care, that number is 16 percent. This compares with 82 percent of non-aboriginal students. We are failing these children.

Aboriginal people are projected to live seven years less than non-aboriginal citizens in British Columbia. Infant mortality rates for first nations are two to four times higher than for non-aboriginals. Diabetes rates are triple, and deaths from HIV/AIDS double. Hospitalization rates are 39 percent higher for aboriginal men and 77 percent higher for aboriginal women.

Unemployment rates are more than double for aboriginals than for non-aboriginals in B.C. Aboriginal youth are seven times more likely to be incarcerated than their non-aboriginal counterparts.

These facts, and the reality of substandard housing, often-contaminated water supplies and poor or non-existent services on reserve, are tragic. While we can be very proud of the Tsawwassen treaty, we cannot be proud of the circumstances too many of our first nations are facing.

The Auditor General also raised the issue of the 48 treaty tables where negotiations are stalled, lacking the necessary staff or mandates to move forward. There is a growing frustration among first nations, and that's reflected in the increasing momentum of the unity protocol, a movement of B.C. first nations that is challenging the treaty process. The first nations supporting the unity protocol have merit to their concerns, and they need to be heard, and they need to be listened to.

While we can and should celebrate this treaty with the Tsawwassen people, we do need to look at the process and, together with the first nations, determine if the treaty process as it's currently structured and resourced is meeting the challenge of treaty negotiations.

I want to touch just for a second on an area that is of particular concern to me in relation to this, which is the environment. We know that first nations' frustrations around a number of environmental issues are increasing. We've seen that around issues of resource extraction on traditional territories, where first nations have not felt like they've been involved and participated and consulted in the way they should.

We've seen that frustration around fish farm approvals. We've seen that frustration around land use decisions. In all these cases what I hear is an anger that the first nations don't feel that they're being respected in the fashion that they should be.

I want to just touch on one piece of that, where changes were made by this government. The environmental assessment process was changed in 2002. Back when the act was first adopted in 1996, there were a number of key provisions in that legislation that were particularly relevant and pertinent to first nations. Part of the purpose of the act was a clause to provide participation for groups, specifically naming the first nations among those groups.

Representatives of first nations whose traditional territories were included in the site for a project….

Representatives of those first nations joined and were members of a project committee. The purpose of that committee was to provide advice, recommendations and support to the environmental assessment process.

In the definition of effects they included environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage and health effects — all things that are linked to concerns the first nations had. The project approvals of applications were required to include information and to be distributed and consulted around, including very specifically the need to consult with first nations.

When the act was changed in 2002, all of those requirements were excluded from the new act. There is no legislated requirement regarding the first nations in our environmental assessment process today. They are treated as a stakeholder, as every other stakeholder is treated.

There are, in total, three references to first nations in the current act — one as a possible proponent and as a possible party to consult with. In the current process, as I said, first nations are stakeholders. They have no particular power or authority over the design of the process and certainly no significant or substantive additional input into the decisions.

The environmental assessment office doesn't have authority to negotiate on behalf of the province with respect to accommodation of infringement of aboriginal rights and title, yet the environmental assessment office is deemed by the province to be its agent with first nations in terms of undertaking consultation. It has no authority, but it is the agent.

Finally, we know that resources and funding are not being provided to first nations to allow them to effectively participate in these consultative processes. I'm hearing from first nations across the province who are frustrated by that process. If we truly want to deal with important issues of rights and title, and if the environmental assessment process is going to be one of the key tools for that, then that process has to accommodate and respect the rights of first nations. The 2002 legislation simply doesn't do that.

All of us in this chamber and around British Columbia know that there was one particularly challenging issue related to this treaty. That is the transfer of some 207 hectares of land out of the agricultural land reserve for other uses. This is a legitimate and substantive issue. It is an issue that challenges New Democrats and many others who believe in social justice and the need to look forward.

It is an issue that puts two competing and strongly held principles in conflict: the commitment to negotiate fair treaties with our first nations, and the protection of our farmland and dealing with food security. In this instance, it has been a conflict. Chief Baird made reference to that when she spoke to us, when she addressed this House earlier in the week. She recognizes that challenge as well, but I think she makes a very compelling argument.

I must say that I have a great respect for those in our communities and in this House, like the member for Delta North, who have grave concerns about the diminishing supply of quality farmland and the impact that it has on our food security. I share the concern that, as we look at the growing reality of climate change, our attention to farmland and to food security issues must become increasingly paramount.

There must be a commitment on the part of the government to redouble its efforts to ensure that productive, quality farmland is protected in this province and to ensure that that farmland is designated for food production purposes. It's a pretty important part of our future, and there is diminishing confidence that this government shares that concern.

I'm particularly concerned that this government has little true interest in the agricultural land reserve. I'm concerned that it's happy to embrace opportunities and strategies to turn our farmland over to other uses. Many have suggested that the strategy behind this agreement had an awful lot to do with the expansion of the Deltaport and the land requirements of the Deltaport.

I am concerned that this government will see the agricultural land reserve as a convenient land bank for settling claims and treaties. That would be wrong. Those on this side of the House would not be supportive of methodical efforts to radically diminish the agricultural land reserve and our future food security.

When we look at, as Chief Baird said, this treaty isn't perfect. But having said that, on balance the treaty with the Tsawwassen First Nation, with the ALR component, still certainly does deserve our support.

The treaty is a serious effort to meet the legitimate aspirations of the Tsawwassen people. It's a treaty that they negotiated freely and fairly, and it's a treaty that they've supported with significant numbers. I must say that when all is said and done, I am confident that the Tsawwassen people and Chief Baird will prove themselves to be fine stewards of the land, as our first nation people do.

Once again, I do want to congratulate Chief Baird on her leadership and determination. I want to congratulate the 358 members of the band, who have lived with this negotiation and now have the challenge of building their future. I want to congratulate and honour their ancestors, who may no longer be with us but who played a great role in this accomplishment. Through the wisdom that they have installed in the current leaders, like Chief Baird, they continue to play a key role.

This is an important day for British Columbia, and we all can celebrate this treaty. But we cannot do that without remembering the challenging and often desperate situation that too many of our other first nations are facing and living with day to day. We need to think about those folks around our province, the thousands of first nations, the bands where the challenges on those reserves are very deep and very compelling. We need to think about our first nations people who are living off reserve.

In my community in Vancouver-Hastings, I have probably the largest urban aboriginal population of any constituency in British Columbia. I know from meeting with the first nations people who live in

communities in my constituency that they face very unique and different challenges, and they face challenges that are outside of this process.

I know when I speak to the leaders in those communities — the leaders who are working with young people, who are working in social services, who are working in the housing field around aboriginal first nations housing — that they all express a frustration, as well, much like the frustration that I outlined earlier regarding environmental issues, much like the frustration I know is felt with many bands about the lack of opportunities that they see for their children and their futures.

In my community, in an urban area, the frustrations are that they feel they're outside of this process. I know from discussions…. I've had those discussions with the last couple of Ministers of Aboriginal Relations, and I know they've acknowledged that this is a challenging issue for the off-reserve aboriginal people in our urban areas.

I guess the point I would make is that we do need to find ways to begin to meet those challenges. They are different. They are not the same challenges, and the frustration is that the folks in those communities, much like many of our other aboriginal people, feel that they're not being heard.

We need to find ways, and the government needs to find ways, to open up that dialogue with our urban folks in a much more significant way and begin to deal with their issues. I do have a concern that that hasn't occurred to date in a substantive or satisfactory way, certainly for people who live in Vancouver.

I know, for example, when we talk about child apprehension in Vancouver, that there are a number of concerns there. An example is the frustration that the agencies there have — that they don't have the resources to be able to provide the workers to work with families where children are apprehended. Too often the families don't understand why it has happened. They don't grasp what they need to do to protect their interests, to advocate for their children, to look after how they get their children back.

Sadly, the agencies like the friendship centre and others don't have the resources to be able to put the staff in place to work with those families, to make sure they have the information and the support — and the advocacy, when it's warranted — to be able to go out and help deal with people who are often feeling, obviously, angry and frustrated and scared in cases where their children have been taken away from them.

Certainly, as I mentioned earlier, we know that those are very big issues. When you look at the number of children in care who come out of the first nations communities versus what the provincial standards are, the numbers are dramatically different. We do need to deal with those issues and try to deal with them in an effective way.

Again, I do want to congratulate Chief Baird, as I think many others have said in this House, on her leadership, her determination to make this work and the courage that she had to step out and move this process forward. I certainly wish her all the best on the major challenges that she faces now as she looks to build, along with her community and the members of her community, that very vibrant and exciting future that I know she envisions.

I know that with hard work and determination, she and the people of the Tsawwassen Nation will achieve it. We can all be proud that we've had a small role to play in that as we move forward to approve this treaty over the coming days.

On this side of the House, as I've said, we will be voting very proudly for this treaty. But at the same time, we will not rest on this side until those other challenges and aspirations of our other first nations are addressed in a fair and just manner.

This treaty is a good first step. It's an important first step. But there is much, much more to do. There are many wrongs that need to be righted, there are many injustices that need to be addressed, and there is much more attention and effort and respect that needs to be paid — respect that we all need to redouble our efforts to commit to, I believe.

With that, I'm very pleased to support this treaty, and I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and moving on to be able to vote on this in the very near future.

B. Lekstrom: I rise today to take my position in the second reading debate of Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, a piece of legislation that we are here in the Legislative Assembly discussing — and will be, I believe, for a number of days yet.

I will start and make it clear that I do not support this treaty and will not be casting my ballot and my vote in favour of it, but I am going to make it clear as to why. I want to lay those reasons out, and I think I have a duty to do that as an elected official.

I support treaties, and I do want to make that clear. I do not support this treaty. I'm going to go into some depth and talk about the treaty itself — what I have read as I have gone through that treaty, what I have seen and the concerns that I have.

But like my other colleagues in the Legislative Assembly — and this may seem strange to some — I'm going to pass on my congratulations to Chief Kim Baird, a lady who, I think, obviously has great leadership skills and made some difficult decisions and worked hard on behalf of the people she represents to bring together a treaty that I'm sure they had much debate about amongst themselves.

They reached agreement that they would move forward, and we've seen that by way of a 70-percent vote in favour of it from the Tsawwassen First Nation. Because I stand here and speak against this treaty does not mean I don't have a great deal of respect for the Tsawwassen people and their leader, and I want to make that very clear today.

Many wrongs were done over the years. I don't think that should go without saying. I think all British Columbians recognize that. All Canadians recognize that. We can see it. Reconciliation is extremely impor-

tant, and I think we're doing a job that is trying to bring all people together. They have an amazing culture, our first nations of British Columbia. It's something I learn about and will continue to learn about for a lifetime. I certainly don't call myself an expert. I learn when I deal with my chiefs in Treaty 8, or I learn from different bands I have the opportunity to meet with at different functions that we attend. It's truly amazing. All you have to do is look at the history, and it's rich in culture.

There are some concerns that I have and I do want to point out. I would think that most British Columbians probably won't have the time to go through the treaty itself. This is the treaty. This is the harvest agreement, the tax treatment agreement and the real property tax that go with it. These are the appendices that go with the treaty itself, and it is quite a read. I encourage people, if they're interested, to go through it.

It raises questions. It has for me, and I look forward to the committee stage. Probably one of the most important issues that jumps out at me, which I obviously disagree with many of my colleagues from both sides of the House and the Tsawwassen people on, is the issue of self-government.

There's obviously debate on the referendum that took place in this province. There was a question asked of the people of British Columbia: "Who supported a municipal or delegated style of government?" I believe the vote was in the 82-percent range to say: "Look, we understand we need to have treaties in British Columbia, but we would like to see it go this way."

I didn't base my view on that vote. I based it on something that I hold inside myself, and that's my personal belief. First and foremost, I'm here not just to represent Peace River South or British Columbians because of who they are — what nationality they are, whether they're first nations or non–first nations. I'm here to represent everyone equally, and I will do that as long as I serve in this Legislative Assembly.

The law-making authority that's given within this document is beyond what I accept as far as a treaty. The law-making authority given includes such things as child protection services, adoption, health services, K-to-12 education, post-secondary education, child care services, wildlife management, forest resources, land management and environmental management. In some cases, these laws and the law-making authority matches that of the province and the federal government. In others, it supersedes it.

I can't bring myself to work towards a better British Columbia in the sense that to me it seems like we're dividing, and obviously I see that differently than most. I accept that. There is a preferential harvest agreement for wildlife and fish, migratory birds. I think we're all British Columbians. I think we're all Canadians. I think we have to work together, and I'll continue to do that.

I do expect this treaty to pass in this Legislative Assembly, and I'll accept that. I have no problem with that. The issue under the lands, under the agreement that's written, gives away subsurface rights, something that other British Columbians don't have and don't enjoy. It's something, again, that I fundamentally disagree with. I believe our resources are there for the benefit of all to help us build a better British Columbia for health care and for education and for our social programs. I'll continue to work towards that.

As I indicated, there is no doubt in my mind after hearing the speakers that this treaty will overwhelmingly pass. I'm proud to tell you that I'm going to stand on what my beliefs are, just as the Chief has stood on what her beliefs are and brought forward, just as each and every one of you who has spoken already has. Certainly, I believe the ones in the future who speak to this will speak on what they believe is right — what they accept within themselves and what they think is in the best interests of this province.

Taxation. When I read the taxation portion, I obviously have some differences there. Yes, after eight years, after the implementation of this treaty, the Tsawwassen First Nation individuals will begin to pay sales tax. After 12 years they'll begin to pay income tax. After 12 years they will also pay property tax.

After that there will be a remittance to the Tsawwassen First Nation government: 50 percent of the PST is returned to them. That to me is not equal to what other British Columbians enjoy. I think I'm trying — and I can't stress this enough — to build one British Columbia for all of us to have a better life.

The Agricultural Land Commission. Chief Baird spoke about this. This is not a political issue for me. It never has been; it never will be. I support the ALR, but I'm not opposed to land coming out of it for the right reasons. I don't think it's realistic to expect that every acre that's in the agricultural land reserve today will remain there.

I'm as strong an advocate for agriculture as any person in this province. I recognize the importance of our ability to supply our own food, and I don't think that most people pay enough attention to that, to be honest with you. I don't think there's anything more important than our ability to feed ourselves, and I'll continue to work on behalf of the people I represent in that right.

Having said that, the ALR isn't an issue for me. I look at it. The issue is how that land will come out. We will, upon voting on this treaty — should it pass, and again, I'm quite confident it will — exclude 207 hectares of agricultural land by way of legislation versus the process that everyone else goes through, which is an application through the Agricultural Land Commission. They look at it. They make a determination, they make a recommendation, and they make a move whether that stays within or comes out of the agricultural reserve.

The process is something I'm concerned about. I also ask myself about the affordability question, and many people say: "Should you bring that into it, Blair?" I think I have to when I look at the overall issue that we face as British Columbians, as governments — whether it's our government today, previous governments or governments in the future.

I'm torn on this one because I'm not sure that it is affordable, if I extrapolate what I see here today and

look at what we have to do and the work that has to happen yet to gain treaties for all of our first nations in this province. So that's a concern.

On page 133 of the Tsawwassen treaty, if you read, we give veto power to the Tsawwassen First Nation's government. That veto power is over both provincial and federal projects. That's something we actually, as a government, recently took away from our local governments, in a sense. That concerns me as well. Again, I'm going to build, and I'm going to work to build, one British Columbia, one strong British Columbia, and this isn't the way to do it in my mind.

I think — and many people may or may not see this — that we're building individual nations within our own province in the sense that we're creating a number of provinces within the province of British Columbia. If we have the ability as municipal government — and I'll speak to that somewhat — to make laws and bylaws that govern our communities, that's a delegated or municipal style of government.

If we have the Crown, as the government of British Columbia, having the ability to make laws on behalf of all of the people that live in British Columbia and then have a treaty — and possibly more treaties as the years move forward — that allows each of the first nations to develop laws that will in some cases supersede the provincial laws, I'm pretty positive I don't accept that as building a better province.

That's where obviously there's a profound difference between myself and many of my colleagues on both sides of the House. I have a vision, and that vision is a strong, united British Columbia built on recognizing the cultural differences that we all have. The importance of that recognition is enjoying and learning from each other. I think we'll do that, regardless of what I say here today, but I won't abdicate my responsibility to the people I represent and cast a no vote without first standing and explaining myself here in this Legislative Assembly.

I'm not going political, but I'm somewhat surprised at what I've heard from a number of speakers. I obviously have different views on this treaty, and I have different views than my own Premier on this treaty. What's somewhat hard — and I guess that's politics, that's the part of it I don't like — is I've heard members speak about how, you know, the Premier is doing this almost for political gain.

I mean, I've had the opportunity to work with this gentleman, like many of you, for the last six and a half years. I guess it takes a strong leader, from wherever and whatever party you're from, to say…. I heard him say today that he's changed his mind on the position he took on Nisga'a. Good for him.

Going back to the issues, I'm not here to say I'm right and, gosh, everybody else is wrong in their view on this. I'm here to tell you my view and why I don't support this treaty the way it's written. I'm also here to tell you and stand up for many people…. I'm sure I'll get calls from my friends and maybe even my mom to say: "My God, are you still in the government, Blair? You're standing up."

But I'm going to say this, and some people may choose not to believe it: the Premier has been the biggest supporter of the ability for me and other members to stand up and say what they believe is right. For that I am thankful.

Again, you do have to make it clear that we obviously see this issue differently. It's not the first time. I think it's healthy to have, whether you're the B.C. Liberal caucus in government or whether you're the New Democrat caucus, the ability to bring your views to the table, to have open discussion and let people know where you stand on an issue. That's democracy, and I'm proud of British Columbia. I'm proud of all of us and the ability for us to have that right.

In closing, I do want to say a few things. I look at British Columbia with eyes that we're all equal residents here. I will do everything I can to improve the quality of life for each and every person here.

I will work on behalf of children who need help, whether they're first nation or non–first nation. I will work on behalf of the families of this province, whether they're first nation or non–first nation. I will do everything in my power to improve the quality of life for those who are less fortunate.

I do respect the Tsawwassen First Nation in their support for this treaty and the reasons that they have for that support. I would hope that the Tsawwassen people will respect my views in return.

It's never easy to stand up and sometimes speak differently than what 78, for all I know, may say in this chamber, but I do want to thank my colleagues here for allowing me the opportunity to not only speak to them but to the people that are watching, and lay out my view of what I think should and shouldn't be in a treaty.

I'll stand by that. It doesn't mean that I won't live and learn each and every day, but for the reasons I've outlined, I will be voting no at second reading and on this treaty.

Again, I wish the Tsawwassen people all the best of luck. I wish all of our first nations the best of luck. I believe in their hearts, like in my heart, they want the best for their children and their families, and we're going to find a way to get there together.

M. Karagianis: It was very interesting listening to the previous member outline his position here. In stark contrast to that, I'm actually very proud to stand here today and to talk about my support for this treaty and, in fact, to acknowledge that this is the first treaty under the B.C. Treaty Commission framework, but really the second great treaty in recent history here in British Columbia.

I know that this is a great opportunity for the Tsawwassen people. They have negotiated hard and fairly to resolve longstanding issues of self-determination, land ownership and economic independence for themselves. I know that this treaty offers a future for their community and offers hope for their young people growing up in the community. This

treaty offers an optimistic future for the young people growing up in the Tsawwassen community, and it lets this community chart its course independently.

I think that it will be a very momentous day for the Tsawwassen community when the treaty finally goes through all the levels of government ratification that it needs. I certainly hope that it moves through the federal process with alacrity. I think the Tsawwassen people deserve this and are to be congratulated for the achievement.

Certainly, I know that Chief Baird has committed to sit here in the Legislature and listen to the debate. I appreciate her need to hear these debates and to hear the language and the tone of the debate for her community regarding this treaty.

In addition, I know we're talking about all first nations and treaties for all first nation communities. I hope that the Chief will take with the greatest of respect my further comments here as I voice my concerns about the government's actions leading to this day here in the House and the government's approach to treaty-making — their past record and the current reality for many first nations communities, especially those who are not engaged in the treaty process — and also stand here and voice my concern for the longer-term future for all first nations communities and aboriginal people here in British Columbia.

Seven years ago, when the Nisga'a people made their historic treaty here in British Columbia, it was with a great deal of debate. Certainly that's been the tone and content of many of the comments made here so far in the debate on this treaty.

Of course, it gives me a great sense of pride to know that the Nisga'a treaty was an accomplishment of a New Democratic government. In fact, it was under the government of both Glen Clark and Mike Harcourt that the framework of the B.C. Treaty Commission was developed and that the Nisga'a treaty, after fierce debate, was actually brought through and passed in this House under the hands of the previous Premier, Glen Clark.

I also know that this treaty was really fiercely debated and opposed by many members on the other side of the House that are here today. I would say that if it weren't for the process of a New Democratic government establishing the Nisga'a treaty and the framework for that, we probably wouldn't be standing here today talking about a modern-day treaty for the Tsawwassen people.

I am immensely proud of the context for this treaty, the fact that it was built on the success of a New Democratic government. I also want to raise some of the other serious and troubling concerns I have here, and many of them stem from the history that brought us to today.

It's important for us to look at that history so that we can clearly learn from it, as we always do from history, ways to enlighten ourselves as we move forward into the future. I think history tells us that this treaty and indeed all treaties in British Columbia have been delayed by the very government that is bringing this treaty forward, both in opposition and in government.

Sadly, and I think shamefully, the costs of the delays have been borne primarily by the aboriginal people in this province — those who have been waiting for treaties, many of them for years, and who have been misled into believing that there was a genuine willpower on the part of government for reconciliation while its very actions defied those words.

While the rich economy is benefiting some in British Columbia, first nations communities are not having a share of that largesse. I think one of the main reasons is because of the long delays in reaching treaties. Many of those delays lie very much with the policies and actions of the current Premier and the B.C. Liberal Party.

For many years the Premier and his party steered a fairly wilful and determined course of obstructing the treaty process here in British Columbia. It's sort of mystifying to look back and say: why did that occur? Especially juxtaposed against what we're debating here today.

I think the Premier while in opposition saw that the Nisga'a treaty was in fact a political tool to be used in the opposition leader's fervour to form government and become the Premier. As part of that process I believe that the B.C. Liberal Party engaged in what will be recognized in history as a very shameful episode of politics here in British Columbia.

Under the Premier's leadership, the Liberal opposition began a concerted opposition campaign to the Nisga'a treaty, making untrue claims, fearmongering and fanning the flames of racism in this province, setting back the progress of fair and honourable treaties in the process and being politically opportunistic in the worst kind of way.

The Premier and many of the Liberal members who sit in this chamber today participated in this shameful campaign and saw nothing wrong with sacrificing the Nisga'a treaty process and all of the aboriginal people in this province to their political ambition. I think that's a shameful piece of history, and I think the historians are not going to treat that part of our history well. I think they are going to expose it for what it was, and we are going to look back with shame on those days in this province.

Throughout that, the first nations of British Columbia became the collateral damage in the political battleground that occurred here. They are the people for whom treaties represent a genuine opportunity for change, to escape from the poverty and hardship that have been the lot of aboriginal people in this province for far too long, a legacy they have been given by a succession of governments. Again, that's part of our shame here in British Columbia.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the grim reality for aboriginal people today, in 2007, here in British Columbia. They will live seven years less than the rest of the population. Their infant mortality rate is two to four times greater than the rest of the population. HIV and AIDS rates are higher. The rate of diabetes is triple that of the rest of the population. Alcohol-related deaths are up to nine times higher than for the rest of the general population. Drug-related deaths are two to four times higher.

The poverty rate for aboriginal children is twice the rate for non-aboriginal children in this province. Given the deplorable rate of child poverty in British Columbia, where one in four children lives in poverty in this province…. We have the worst record in the country for the fourth year in a row, in part because of the poverty that aboriginal children live in. It is a huge component of that statistic here in this province.

Fifty percent of the children in care are aboriginal children. My previous role as the critic for Children and Families gave me an opportunity to look at the reality of what that means here in British Columbia. Only 16 percent of those children will graduate from high school. In fact, only 47 percent of aboriginal students will graduate from high school. As a general population, only half of them will make it through high school.

With those outcomes, it's no surprise that aboriginal people are not doing as well in the workforce as they should. At a time when the job market is crying out for workers, unemployment for aboriginal people is double the rest of the population. Interestingly enough, Today's News ran an article by Stephen Hume. I'll just read a couple of lines from it, mindful of the time as well. This says:

Then let's go back to the previous statistics, where we talked about how only half of them will graduate from high school and only 16 percent of the children in care will. These will be the young people emerging into this demanding world of jobs and a job market.

I move adjournment of debate and reserve my right to complete my remarks in the future.

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.