Hansard — Thursday, October 18, 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		8631

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8631
	Immigrant women in B.C.
	K. Whittred
	Persons Case
	S. Hammell
	Galore Creek mine project
	D. MacKay
	Covenant House Vancouver
	J. Kwan
	Flood prevention volunteers
	J. Rustad
	B.C. members of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
	S. Simpson

Oral Questions		8633
	Lobbying activities of Graham Bruce
	L. Krog
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Health Ministry audit
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Vancouver Island forestry issues
	J. Horgan
	Hon. R. Coleman
	B. Simpson
	Musqueam treaty negotiations
	S. Simpson
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Highway of tears
	G. Coons
	Hon. J. Les
	Meat industry regulations
	C. Wyse
	Hon. P. Bell
	D. Routley
	N. Macdonald
	K. Conroy
	C. Evans

Tabling Documents		8638
	Final Report of the 2007 British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission
	British Columbia Judicial Justices of the Peace Commission, report recommendations, 2007

Second Reading of Bills		8638
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. J. Les
	B. Ralston
	Hon. P. Bell
	G. Coons
	D. MacKay
	J. Brar
	Hon. S. Bond
	D. Cubberley
	R. Hawes
	D. Routley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never again could anyone argue that women were not persons and could not play their full part in the public life of Canada, Britain or any other country in the empire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I do note, however, that in section 2 of the act, under the heading "Restrictions on application of Act," it reads: "This Act does not apply to any of the following persons when acting in their official capacity."

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

Hon. M. de Jong: It does not apply to members of the Senate or House of Commons, Members of the Legislative Assembly, employees of the government of Canada, members of a municipal council or regional district board, employees of bodies representing municipal councils and "(e) members of an aboriginal governing body, however organized and established by aboriginal people…."

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

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

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

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

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

A. Dix: As the minister will know, it's a very serious matter. Hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts have gone out of this section of his ministry. The concerns involve not just an assistant deputy minister but his appointee to the e-health initiatives committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the member really wants to perhaps follow up, she should check with a fellow member of her caucus. I've actually got a letter to the editor here, dated September 27, from the member for Cariboo South, where the member says: "I apologize for any part I played in giving the impression that the new regulations would put them out of business." Check with your fellow member.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm obliged to make some observations on the reports concerning the compensation of judges and judicial justices. Under section 6(1) of the Judicial Compensation Act, when the reports that I have just tabled are tabled, I'm obliged to advise the assembly that pursuant to section 6(3) of the act, if the assembly does not resolve to reject a recommendation contained in these reports within the time lines established by that act, then the judges and the judicial justices will receive the salary remuneration and benefits that are recommended in the respective reports beginning April 1, 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a belated recognition of the wrong that was done in the past and of the obligation to make amends for the treatment. It's an act of redress, of compensation and reconciliation and, in my view, provides a real opportunity for the Tsawwassen First Nation to participate in the social, political and economic life of the region without drastically damaging the region's economic and political success.

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

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

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

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

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

The task ahead for the Tsawwassen is a daunting one. I recently had the occasion as a member of the Finance Committee in Terrace to meet with the leadership of the Nisga'a Nation — the chair and the secretary-treasurer, their CEO and their chief financial officer — as they were headed to a meeting in Victoria. What they expressed was that achieving a treaty — although it's an arduous journey to achieve one — is only the beginning of another process of self-government. It's devising the policies, understanding one's leadership, hiring the right people, getting the right advice, planning and building the first nations' capacity to engage in the kind of economic and social development that this treaty sets the stage for.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a concern expressed by someone as distinguished as Grand Chief Edward John about the future of the new relationship. He goes on to also talk about the impacts. He has questions about the impacts of the negotiation of this treaty with neighbouring first nations who are not in negotiations with the government. He has concerns about the impact of the interests of first nations in southern Vancouver Island, those who entered into the so-called Douglas treaties that I referred to at the outset of my remarks, and perhaps most significantly, his concern about how this agreement will be used in future negotiations with other first nations who are presently in the treaty process. Will it serve as a template or not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Auditor General sees the side deals. The Liberal trinkets and blankets of the new relationship are providing a disincentive for many first nations to either enter or move quickly within. I'm quoting from the report: "Until the province clarifies the link between its new relationship and treaty negotiation policies, the wait-and-see attitude of some first nations will contribute to a slower pace in negotiations."

At the end of the day, many of the elements of the new relationship seem like this government is going through the motions and stalling real progress. I've talked with the Haida, Tsimshian, Nisga'a, Heiltsuk, Nuxalk and Kitasoo about the new relationship.

Actually, I was optimistic. Quite often people think that I'm not optimistic, but I was optimistic about the new relationship. It was in this House two years ago in November 2005 that I talked about the honour of the Crown. I referred to the new relationship when I talked about the first anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada decision and the cases of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation and the Haida.

I talked about aboriginal people being stewards of their territory, here for over 10,000 years. I referred to the Crown's duty to act honourably. I talked about the past year as being monumental for first nations in B.C. as a Supreme Court decision, along with the new relationship document, had spurred great optimism throughout the province.

I was optimistic. I stood in this House, and I had hope. I continued in November 2005 and said that there is anticipation that new life will be injected into treaty negotiations.

First nations were optimistic about the new relationship. I was optimistic about the relationship. This side of the House was optimistic about the Premier's new relationship. I said that our agreement in this House to work together in this new relationship will achieve strong governments, social justice and economic self-sufficiency for first nations and will benefit all British Columbians.

But we hear concerns from the ground. We hear concerns from the Auditor General. We, the opposition, have raised concerns. Then we discover that the Premier created a committee on new relationship coordination obviously from the other side of the government — which will be exempt from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Little is known about this new committee, which was kept under wraps until this government passed an order-in-council exempting it from FOI.

The new relationship is tarnished. It undermines the treaty process and is a real disappointment to those who had hope and optimism.

The riding I represent encompasses close to 50-percent first nations. The schools in my riding repre-

sent over 50-percent first nations in the schools. There are many struggles. There are many issues we have to deal with, whether it's health care, education or services.

I came across that when the Premier had his Conversation on Health. The closest one within the North Coast was Smithers. There wasn't one at all in the boundary of the North Coast, so I held my own. I held about 12 or 14 of them throughout my riding and in each of the four villages of the Nass Valley. I held four of them on Haida Gwaii. I held a couple on the central coast.

I talked about issues. I listened and I learned. I learned about the devastation, the concerns in first nations villages and the work that needs to be done. I'd like to take a moment to look at what life is like for aboriginal people in British Columbia. If we look at the stats, they're not a pretty picture, but they convey the challenges faced by aboriginal communities throughout B.C.

On average, aboriginal people live seven years less than the rest of the population. Infant mortality rates run between two and four times the average for non-aboriginals. HIV/AIDS rates are twice as high for aboriginal people. Diabetes is triple the rest of the population. Alcohol-related deaths are four to nine times higher. Drug-related deaths, two to four times higher. The rate of aboriginal teenage mothers is almost six times the rate among the rest of the population.

The poverty rate for aboriginal children is twice the rate for non-aboriginal children. When you consider that British Columbia is number one in child poverty, this is a devastating statistic. Between 1997 and 2005 the number of aboriginal children in care increased by more than 50 percent; 50 percent of children in care are aboriginal.

We look at education. Of the aboriginal children in care, only 16 percent of them graduate. Forty-seven percent of aboriginal students complete high school, compared to 82 percent in the rest of the population.

For 28 years I taught high school in Prince Rupert. I taught at alternate schools in Prince Rupert for eight or nine years. I worked closely with children with lots of needs, the majority of them first nations children. The alternate school that I taught at for about eight years was one of the schools closed under this Liberal government, in their closing of dozens and dozens of schools throughout the province.

With poor health and educational outcomes, it comes as no surprise that aboriginal people are not doing well in the job market. Unemployment has more than doubled in the rest of the population. Within the riding I represent, the Skeena Native Development Society region has a shocking 61.85 percent unemployment rate in first nations villages.

The government likes to trumpet an economic boom, but clearly aboriginal people are not feeling its effects. The government must recognize the dire situation in which Canada's first nations people are mired. I came across this in my conversations on health throughout the eight or nine first nations communities that I went to and talked to and listened to.

This government must realize and acknowledge that conditions in many first nations communities are unacceptable. Addiction, poverty, family breakups, violence and unemployment have become the norm. We live in an economically prosperous province and country. In many ways we're a global leader, yet among us are people who are not able to enjoy the benefits that are available to most British Columbians.

Last week I attended a government-to-government forum which is sponsored by the UBCM and the First Nations Summit. It's a process to get together first nations communities and other communities — whether they're regional districts or cities or villages — to discuss issues. The Central Coast regional district was there. The chiefs and representatives from the Nuxalk, the Heiltsuk, the Kitasoo, the Wuikinuxv were all there.

I was there, as I said, to listen and to learn and to see where we can help in the situations — in the villages and with the first nations. A litany of problems was discussed and looked at, whether it was inadequate housing, deep-engrained poverty or a lack of community infrastructure. Most first nations villages, most communities, are expected to move forward within the new relationship, and they don't have the infrastructure to do that. Serious physical and mental health concerns are in the villages. The services aren't there, and we see that quite often in the north.

We see young aboriginal people going into other communities for appointments, for groceries, to visit friends, and the mode of transportation is hitchhiking. We talked about the highway of tears today. We talked about Lisa Krebs. On Saturday her one-year funding runs out as the coordinator for the 33 recommendations for the highway of tears.

I talked to Lisa on Monday, and we were optimistic: "Oh, the funding will come through. You'll hear from the minister." Tuesday, Wednesday, today she contacted me. She had not heard from the minister responsible about the funding to continue her position as the highway of tears coordinator.

Not only that, the whole highway of tears…. We've got to look at the root causes — poverty, violence, and most of it against young aboriginal women. One of the recommendations was to hire two coordinators because the region is so big. The one-year funding for one came through, and I guess that was a good start. Recently, as we had heard, the highway of tears…. They've added more names to the list and extended the region down to Kamloops.

I'm going to approach the minister about the two coordinators now that the region is bigger. I hope the minister takes it seriously that there is a problem and that the recommendations need to be funded.

I also asked the minister today about the highway of tears legacy fund, which was one of the key recommendations, to help out in the communities as far as awareness, as far as travelling out and getting input by listening to what's happening in communities.

This side of the House will continue the questions. We will continue to push for strategies and for the

Again, I'm going back to the litany of problems that I found, which were discussed with me at my government-to-government forum. Lack of elder centres. I work closely with SHIP, the Skidegate-Haida immersion program, and there are many problems there.

Hon. Speaker, I see I'm coming to a close here. There is much to talk about. We've got the Port of Prince Rupert and the Lax Kw'alaams, who are looking for reconciliation, and the rights and titles being recognized by the federal government and for phase 2 for the provincial government. It's a big step, and that's not been concluded yet.

There's lots to celebrate today as we move towards ratifying this treaty. I wish the Tsawwassen people great success in making this treaty work and to build a better future for their children. I acknowledge their accomplishment and that they finally have a chance to get out from under the oppressive weight of the Indian Act and all other shackles that have held them together.

I will vote to make this treaty a reality and hope optimistically that this government is fully committed to a proper and lasting reconciliation with the first nations of this province.

Hon. M. Coell: I would like the House to join me in welcoming two visitors — a colleague from my office, Lynette Butcher, and a friend of hers, Hitomi Akiba, who is from Japan and is working in Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. MacKay: First of all, before I get into the treaty that's before us in this House today, I would like to spend a couple of minutes and talk about the issue of free votes in this House.

We are elected — 79 of us — to represent our constituents in the ridings that we represent throughout this province. We have our views. None of us think exactly the same. We all have different views on different issues, but most of us want to make life better for the people of British Columbia, and that's what we do in this chamber. It doesn't mean we all think exactly the same on every issue.

As elected officials, I believe we have an obligation to express our views, whether it agrees with the government of the day or not. I'm in the House today representing a large riding called Bulkley Valley–Stikine. The views that I'm going to express in this chamber today about the Tsawwassen treaty represent the people from Bulkley Valley–Stikine — not everybody, but a large majority of the people who live in the riding that I represent, as well as my own personal views.

So when I'm going to talk today, I'm going to talk about I and me, but I actually mean we. I've had phone calls from around the province expressing concerns about treaties in British Columbia and what they're going to do for the future of our people here.

Now, I think it's a shame that the opposition members have not been afforded the right to stand up and express their views, whether they agree or disagree with their leader.

D. MacKay: Madam Speaker, the NDP will be given an opportunity to speak. There is one member who sits next to me, from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, who has actually been kicked out of his caucus because….

Deputy Speaker: Member, no personal attacks, and keep your comments to the bill.

My comments today are going to be a representation of many of my constituents from within the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine and from others around the province who have contacted me. I have the opportunity as a government member to vote with or speak for or against the treaty that's here today, and I will be speaking against and voting against the treaty for the reasons that I will lay out as I go through the next 30 minutes.

Before I do that, I should qualify where I'm coming from. For the past 46 years I have worked with native people in British Columbia in a variety of roles: first of all, for 28 years with the RCMP; nine years as a coroner; and for the past six and a half years as the MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

I understand the poverty that is out there and the hopelessness. I understand that. I've seen the poverty and the hopelessness of some of our aboriginal communities as they struggle and fall further behind mainstream Canadians.

The problem, as I see it, is the isolation of living on a reserve. They live on a reserve though it separates them from the rest of us in society. Stop and think for a moment what we're going to do as we go through this treaty process over and over again. We are going to continue to isolate our aboriginal community from the rest of us. Call it a reserve; call it treaty lands. It is still going to isolate them from the rest of us.

I don't know if that's what they want. It's going to do that for perpetuity, and I don't think I want that. I don't think I want my children to experience some of the challenges that we face today. I don't think we want or need that. We do not need that, and I don't think many aboriginal communities want that either.

Madam Speaker, I've got to go back to 2002. One of the reasons that attracted me to the B.C. Liberal Party years ago was the fact that we have free votes. Private members have free votes, unlike our opposition members.

In 2002 a provincewide referendum went out to the people of this province. Question 3 talked about how hunting and fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians. The response we got back was that 93.14 percent supported that question.

Question 4: parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians. Again, 94 percent of the people who responded to the referendum said that yes, they should be protected for everybody.

On question 6, which is the aboriginal self-government, we asked the question: should it have the characteristics of local government, with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia, as provided in our constitution? The response was yes — 87.25 percent.

Question 8 dealt with taxes: should existing tax exemptions for aboriginal people be phased out? And 90.1 percent of the people of the province said that yes, they should. Now, there's an interesting sidebar to that, and I'm going to discuss that in a moment.

You know, in this chamber today and yesterday and the day before, I've heard a number of people talk about the treaty. I agree that we have to do something to resolve the problem that has been left with us in this day and age from our forefathers. I've heard about the problems, and I understand that we've got to do something to resolve those problems to make life better for people like Kim Baird, who is up there with her children.

She has done a remarkable job. She has done a remarkable job for her children and her people. I as an elected official want to do the same thing for my children and my grandchildren who live in this province.

We're not going to do that going down this road, with some of the provisions that are contained within this treaty. I do support the treaty in some ways, but it's what is in the treaty that I have a problem with.

I wonder just how many people have actually taken time to read that document that took 14 years or 17 years to get us here today. How many people in this room have actually read it and understand it?

Well, I tried to go through it because it was of interest to me. It is a confusing, complicated document to go through. Just to give you some example of just how complex and complicated this rather lengthy document is, let me read one section of this. It comes from page 185, and the section number is 21.

I would ask you to listen carefully. I'm going to read it slowly. See if you can understand what this says, because I don't understand it and I've been reading it for weeks.

Do you want me to read that again? I don't think I can read it because I don't understand it, and I'm sure most….

D. MacKay: Three more times? I read it a hundred times, and I don't understand what they're saying there.

So I would have to ask and question just how many people understand why we're in this chamber today. That is to move a treaty through this House, and most of us don't understand what's in there. So that is really, really confusion.

I talked about the referendum and the tax exemptions that were there. On page 184 of the treaty it allows for another eight years with respect to transaction taxes. It also allows for another 12 years for personal property, which includes income earned.

So again, I tried to go through that rather lengthy document, and I had a bit of a problem. I went to the Treaty Commission update to help me understand what's in there as it relates to taxes.

It's rather interesting, and I would ask you to listen to this. This is one of the areas that I have a problem with. This is a quote from an update from the B.C. Treaty Commission, and it relates to the Tsawwassen treaty: "For example, the income tax of any person, first nation or non–first nation, who resides on treaty lands or treaty settlement lands will flow to the first nation government no matter where they earn their income. The first nation government will also receive 100 percent of the GST generated and 50 percent of the PST generated on treaty settlement lands."

So that means all the income tax for people who reside in those apartment complexes as you get off the ferry in Tsawwassen will be paying their income tax not to the federal government and not to the province. That money will be generated and left with the Tsawwassen First Nation.

Taxes are what pays for the social programs that we all enjoy in this country, including our aboriginal communities. So how does that work? That doesn't make things equal. I'm sure there's a lot of communities throughout the province of British Columbia that would love to get the income tax that all of us pay in the communities in which you live.

I think the community of Smithers, where I live…. They're lucky if they get $3 million a year income from property tax to run the community — $3 million. That's not very much money. But all this revenue is going to be going back to the Tsawwassen band with the exception of 7 percent.

I found out the 7 percent because I read another document that I got my hands on. It was a survival guide to the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement. It was a document that was prepared, I'm assuming, by the band as they tried to explain to the Tsawwassen people about the complexity of this treaty that is before the House today.

There's a number of interesting things in there about the Indian status. It says, under Indian status: "First and foremost, you will still have your status card if you have one now." On social assistance, it says: "You will not notice any negative change on how your social assistance is administered." Under medical and dental, it says: "Under the new treaty, Tsawwassen members will still have medical and dental benefits as provided by Canada." So they're going to have the best of both worlds.

If the treaty is ratified, the elders over 60 will receive $15,000 cash. Everybody else will get a thousand dollars cash. As you progress and get older, according to this document, once you hit the age of 60, you will be entitled to another cash settlement of $15,000.

I would like to have had someone give me $15,000 when I reached the age of 60, but that didn't happen.

There are a number of other things in this survival document. It talks about subsurface resources. It says the Tsawwassen First Nation will own subsurface resources such as gravel, sand, minerals and petroleum under Tsawwassen lands. Nobody else does that. None of us owns the resources underneath the homes that we bought and paid for and continue to pay taxes on. We don't own the subsurface rights. The ranchers that live in the area where I come from don't own the subsurface rights there. But we want to give these to the Tsawwassen First Nation.

On page 152 we talk about self-government provisions. On 152 they talk about the sale and the manufacture or consumption of liquor, and on page 153 of the treaty it gives the exclusive right to sell liquor and buy from the Liquor Distribution Branch. This creates a rather interesting question. Natives are exempt from taxes, and the sections on page 184 extend the non-payment of taxes for another eights years, as I said earlier.

So I have to ask the question: will our aboriginals living on Tsawwassen lands challenge the taxation on liquor, which we know makes up the majority of the cost of the liquor that we buy today? What do you think? They are exempt from taxes. I don't know the answer.

As I said, most new taxes paid by members, once they do start paying taxes, will be returned to the Tsawwassen community. There was an interesting comment within that survival guide from whoever wrote it that talks about none of us liking to pay taxes. I think I can say that I agree with that. None of us likes to pay taxes.

But when you read this document that was provided to help the aboriginal community understand the complexity of this rather extensive document, it says here that…. I'm just trying to find it. It talks about the fact that none of us likes to pay taxes. But it's nice to know that the money will be spent on medical and education for the people who live on the reserve or on the treaty lands.

Well, that is an interesting concept, because I don't know if people understand just exactly how much money we spend on health care in our province. We spend about $13 billion a year. We spend all the revenue from the Forests Ministry, all the revenue from the natural gas royalties, all other taxation sources, social services tax, corporate income tax, personal income tax, other revenues, including MSP premiums and B.C. Lottery revenue. That's just to pay for health care in British Columbia.

The Tsawwassen band are going to be contributing 7 percent of their tax to the province and to the federal government. I don't think that will quite cover the cost of health care and dental, because they're going to continue to receive that from the federal government. They're going to continue to receive all the benefits that they have today, with some other add-ons to it.

Let me talk about what's happening in the workforce today in the area where I live. It just shows that we can't go down this road, because we're not going to be equal at the end of the day.

Two people working side by side on a reserve doing exactly the same job, one native, one non-native. The native Indian, because he's tax-exempt while he earns income on a reserve, takes home $19,000 a year more than the person who is working beside him and is non-aboriginal. Is that fair? I guess if the money is earned on the lands that were set aside for the benefit of our native population…. I guess if he wants to work there and pay taxes, so be it. But that's the difference it makes — $19,000.

I hear about these in my office, and I don't have the answer. But if we don't come to some means of being able to share in taxation and in the cost of delivering services to all of us, we're going to have some problems down the road.

Now, I also understand that the taxation exemptions that are provided for the Tsawwassen band are going to be extended to the Nisga'a peoples. With the large increase in our native population…. I don't think anybody will argue with the fact that we are seeing our aboriginal community grow at a phenomenal rate, and our population is actually declining.

If we continue to allow them to pull back on the taxation and spend it within their own treaty lands, who's going to be paying for the services down the road? I can't get my head around that to understand how that is going to bring us together when we still have this reserve system — call it treaty lands or reserve system — in place with special exemptions for aboriginal people who live there.

I guess this is probably why I'm speaking against this. This is me speaking now, not the people in the riding. As elected officials, we are expected to be accountable for public funds, and I want to just run through a couple of examples of areas where I think we are totally lacking in accountability when we deal with public funds.

B.C. Rail trust fund was a $15 million fund that we provided to the aboriginal communities who lived along the B.C. Rail line. Well, the $15 million is gone. I actually tried to follow up on one file. I found out where a cheque for $180,000, I believe, had gone into a treaty office. That cheque was immediately distributed into three names.

One of the three people — I was able to track it down — put the cheque in his bank account. It didn't benefit the native people that that money was intended to benefit. Three people benefited from that — at least in the one case, because he put the cheque in his account. That was lack of accountability on somebody's part, but I haven't been able to get much response to it.

The $100 million trust fund is another one. We don't know where that money is going to be spent, with the taxpayer's money. It's not FOIable. I hope it's well spent. I hope it does what it was intended to do, but I'm not going to be able to find out. The taxpayers won't know either.

We've tried a number of different projects to create some employment opportunities for the aboriginal community. A hemp farm in the Hazelton area was designated to create employment. It failed. A longhouse on Highway 16, near the intersection of Highway 37, has been under construction for a number of years. The sign that was put up to show what this thing was going to look like when was finished has actually fallen down now, because it's been under construction for so long that the paper is starting to blow in the wind. Another failed experiment.

The C GED sawmill at Kitwanga. They owe the province back taxes for stumpage. It's not operating today. There was no oversight. Another failed example.

A ski cabin. Crown land in the community of Smithers was provided to a native band to build a log cabin on it so that they could create some employment opportunities and sell the cabin. It never got finished. The Crown finally sold the property.

Accountability with public funds for education. Now, I've been to the Kispiox reserve, and I've seen the poverty there, the poor state of some of these homes and the poverty within the homes. I went there once and found out that the children of that school were going on a field trip, and I was excited for them. I thought: Great. They're going to come down to Vancouver, or they're going to go to Victoria. They didn't go to either of those places. A bunch of them went to Thailand on a school trip. This was a field trip with public funds. It could have been better spent building up some of the homes that these people were living in.

There's a guide territory in the northwest part of our province. It was identified by a man interested in opening up a guide territory. It was denied because it may be the site of a future land claim.

Placer claims in the small community of Atlin. A gentleman up there kept a placer claim in good standing for years, working the claim. He went up there one day, and there was a cabin built on it several years ago by the Taku River Tlingit. I was up there this past summer, and the insulation is blowing out of it now. It's full of beer cans. It was never finished. I don't blame the aboriginal community for this; I blame people within government, and I blame ourselves for that.

Whoever is handing out this money to create these employment opportunities…. That cabin was supposed to have been built for the elders for some site, but it was never finished. There are so many stories of waste of money where we have tried to make life better for the aboriginal community, and we've failed.

The federal budget for the Department of Indian Affairs is around $7 billion. This may come as a surprise to our government members. I did some research, and I found out that our government has provided over $700 million since 2001 to our aboriginal communities to try to make life better. Has it improved their lives in any way? I'll let you be the judge on that one.

The bill that we're going to be debating in this House is called Bill 40. It's ten pages long — ten pages — yet the document that it relates to took 14 years to get us here. It's got 21 sections in it. I have to say, when I go through it, I have a bit of a problem tying this document back to the treaty itself, so I'm going to be interested as we get into the committee stage on this particular bill.

This treaty offers benefits to the Tsawwassen people that are not afforded other Canadians. We can't keep doing this, and this is one of the reasons why I'll be voting against the treaty.

Self-government and, in some cases, laws that would exceed federal-provincial authorities. Once it's constitutionalized within the treaty, we'll never be able to change it.

Hunting and fishing examples. We have a provincial law that gives all of us the right to hunt and fish in the province. What happens when we start providing allocation, when we start giving a percentage of the fish or wildlife, when we start including these within treaties?

Let me tell you what happened up in my part of the province, thanks to the Nisga'a treaty. The open season had to be cancelled this year because the moose are in such a dramatic decline. They're going to allow for a limited-entry hunt, and they're only going to allow for 70 animals to be taken.

Out of those 70 animals, Nisga'a will get 46. They're guaranteed a percentage of the numbers within their treaty, so they're going to be allowed to take 46 out of 70 animals. Well, the aboriginal people are not the only people who hunt to put food on the table for their families. I have a large number of people who are non-native, who live in my part of the province and who hunt to feed their families through the winters as well.

We have overlap issues up there with the Gitanmaax and the Gitanyow. You can be sure they're going to get their animals, as well, so it doesn't leave very much for everybody else.

Fishing is another one that's rather complicated. The allocation table in there for the Tsawwassen band is quite complex. After all, sockeye salmon are the most sought-after because of the value attached to that species.

Think about this for a moment — or longer, if you like. If every native band situated on the Fraser River and the bands on Vancouver Island and along the coast were allocated the same number as the Tsawwassen band, there would not be a public recreational or commercial fishery — period. End of fishing for everybody except natives. That's for the Fraser River sockeye run.

This treaty will give them a commercial priority over the rights of other Canadian citizens. This is a race-based fishery, and I cannot and will not support it.

This treaty also allows the trade and barter of fish, despite the Supreme Court of Canada's rejection of the trade and barter of salmon in two cases: Regina v. Van der Peet and Regina v. Smokehouse. The Supreme Court of Canada did protect food fishing rights, because these rights were an integral part of aboriginal societies, but this treaty grants constitutional protection to a commercial activity that Canada's highest court held was unconnected with aboriginal societies prior to European contact.

There are overlap issues. We said as a government that we would not entertain treaties that had overlap issues. There are eight other bands that claim the same territory that the Tsawwassen band has within this treaty, and you can be sure there are going to be problems as we go down this road.

Eight other treaties will be coming into this chamber from those eight bands that also claim territorial rights to that property.

What have we learned from the past? We know that the reserve system has failed the people it was designed for. So what are we doing in treaties? Treaties are necessary to resolve this ongoing problem.

Will those in need benefit from this new treaty? Women and children on reserves are the most at risk, and I don't think they're going to benefit from this. I hope they do. I really hope they do, and I hope the treaties will carry on. But we've got to get rid of some of those provisions that I've just talked about. The treaties are going to be the final answer.

Let me close with this. We are all Canadians, all of us, and we should all live under the same laws, pay the same taxes and be governed the same way. We should have the same obligations and benefits and all contribute taxes to look after those less fortunate. We cannot and must not continue down this road that is race-based, in my view, and affords one group of people benefits and privileges that are there because of their race. It's wrong.

I will not support any legislation that attempts to keep this invisible wall between all of the people of this great province and country. I do not support this legislation for the reasons that I have explained and will be voting against it.

J. Brar: It's a real honour for me to stand up in this House and speak to this historic and extremely important debate on the Tsawwassen First Nation agreement.

But before I proceed, I would like to comment. During the last few days, when we have been debating this issue in this House, I've heard comments from the other side of the House about this new-found obsession with democracy and freedom of speech.

I got the opportunity to come to this House after winning the by-election during the last term. The first thing I found when I came here was that not one, not two but three members elected by the people of British Columbia were kicked out from the caucus of that side of the government.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Can I remind the member that we're debating the bill. If we could direct our words towards the bill, the House would appreciate that. Thank you.

I want to make it very clear at the very beginning that I will be speaking in support of this treaty. But I also have feelings of great concern about this government's approach to treaty-making — past, present and future.

But before I go there, first of all, I would like to congratulate the people of the Tsawwassen First Nation for their hard work and patience in waiting for seven years to reach this treaty. My special thanks to Chief Kim Baird for her exceptional, bold and creative leadership toward the successful outcome of this treaty. The people of British Columbia are proud of you. The people of the Tsawwassen First Nation must be proud of you, and we are certainly proud of you, Chief Kim Baird.

I feel proud to support the Tsawwassen treaty. I have five short stories that send my message as to why I support this historic treaty. My first story is…. I call it: "What happened to you, my brothers and sisters, our first nation?"

When I came to this country in 1991 and started listening to the stories about the South Asian community and their existence in this country, what I learned from the people was that the South Asian community started coming to this country at the end of the 19th century.

By the year 1907 there were about 7,000 people in Vancouver from the South Asian community. That was enough of a number at that time to create waves. The local politicians at that time were concerned, and the issue was raised that the right to work for these people should be taken away, and they succeeded.

Finally, legislation was passed in 1908 to take the right to work away from the South Asian community, as well as some other minority communities at that time. Subsequently, public policy was made to bar

those people to not buy property in some very selected areas called elite areas at that time.

Subsequently, the ship Komagata Maru came to this country and was sent back in 1914 after waiting for two months to land. My sincere thanks to the very progressive forces in this country at that time — namely, CCF and organized labour — who stood with us and fought for equality and justice.

It took us, the whole community, 40 years to get back the right to vote in 1947. When India became independent on the other side, the right to vote in British Columbia was given on this side as well.

The first South Asian person ever elected in Canada was elected in the 1950s in Mission as a councillor. His name was Narjan Grewall. Then it took 30 more years to select the first MLA in Canada, who was elected here in British Columbia in 1986 and is a person we all know, Moe Sihota. We also successfully selected the first South Asian immigrant as the Premier of this province in 2001.

If we look around this chamber today, we have seven MLAs representing the South Asian community, including the very powerful position of Attorney General. In addition to that, the people from the South Asian community are doing very well in all other sectors of the community.

Mr. Speaker, I told this story to convey a very special message, and the message is this: the South Asian community was able to achieve the success that I explained to you in just 100 years. The first nations people and the people from the Tsawwassen First Nation have been here for centuries, and I see them nowhere close to the level achieved by immigrant communities who came to this country just recently.

The question we need to ask ourselves is: what happened to them? They were not able to walk with us because they don't have a level playing ground. They were not able to walk with us because they don't have the resources they need to succeed in life and compete with the rest of us. As Chief Baird stated in her speech to this Legislature last Monday:

So think about that. A successful story of an immigrant community that came here only in the last 100 years, and the majority of them came only during the last 30 years, and the story of first nation people who have been here for centuries. That's why I am proud to stand in this House and support this treaty. They need opportunity, like everybody else has in this province, in this country. They need resources to create opportunity. They need to succeed in life, like all of us.

My second story is a message to the people of the first nations: we want you to walk with us. Let me tell you why I'm saying what it means. Many speakers before me have spoken about the situation and the challenges the people of first nations face. But if you look at the stats that are available to all of us, they will tell you a very different story, as compared to all of us.

First nations people on average live seven years less than the rest of the population — seven years; a long time. HIV/AIDS rates for aboriginal people are twice as high as compared to the rest of the population. Alcohol-related deaths are four to nine times higher for first nations people; drug-related deaths, two to four times higher. The rate of first nations teenage mothers is almost six times the rate among the rest of the population. The poverty rate for first nations people is twice the rate for non–first nations people.

Between 1997 and 2005 the number of aboriginal children in care increased by more than 50 percent; 50 percent of children in care are aboriginal people. Only 16 percent of first nations children in care graduate from high school. The first nations youth were seven times more likely to be in prison than their non-aboriginal counterparts. Unemployment among aboriginal people is more than double the rest of the population.

I got the opportunity last year to go to a symposium in Prince George, and that was about the highway of tears and the missing young females of the highway of tears. There were people from different first nations. About 400 people came to that symposium, and it was very shocking and painful to hear the stories of the parents, of the families and family members who lost their loved ones.

We were talking about nine young females. They have no information as to what happened to them. They have been trying to find out what happened to them. Recently we found out it's not only nine. It is actually 18. I can say that if there would have been 18 young women missing from the non-aboriginal community, the response would have been much, much different.

Knowing the above-stated disturbing statistics numbers, why did the members of the other side refuse to support the Nisga'a treaty in the first place? Why are the first nations people not benefiting from the economy we have in this province? Why have we failed the first nations people in catching up with the rest of us?

I am very, very surprised — it's shocking for me — that some members still have the guts to stand up in this House and oppose the treaty. That is not acceptable; that's shameful.

Let me show the members of the first nations that we, the members on this side of the House, want to walk with you. That's why I support the treaty. It will be a very special day, a historic day, for the Tsawwassen people when this treaty is finally ratified with all parties and comes into effect. It will be a genuine cause for celebration.

Once again, my sincere thanks to Chief Kim Baird for her leadership and hard work, and for listening to us for the last three days. Particularly as a young father, I can say to you that you and your children have done a marvellous job cooperating with each other and

listening to us. That's extraordinary. Thanks for your presence in the House. I'm sure that this treaty you have been able to reach will serve the Tsawwassen First Nation as a springboard for you and your future generations to make a kangaroo jump to a beautiful future.

My third story is: "We are always with you." If you look back at the history of the treaty process, seven years ago the Nisga'a people made history by concluding the first modern treaty in B.C. I would like to point out for all members present that both the Nisga'a treaty and the B.C. treaty process were achievements of the NDP government.

The Nisga'a treaty, a treaty opposed by many members on the other side of the House, was negotiated and ratified under the governments of Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark. The B.C. treaty process was put in place by the government of Premier Mike Harcourt. I am absolutely sure that we wouldn't be here today preparing to ratify this treaty without the treaty process put in place by the government of Mike Harcourt many years ago.

I can proudly support this treaty and acknowledge the important role successive NDP governments have played to make the treaty process a reality. We were committed to the process, we are committed to the process, and we will be committed to the process. We will not change colours — whether we are in opposition or we are in government — like the other side did.

My fourth story is: "Justice delayed is justice denied." One of my concerns when we talk about this treaty is the delayed process which has taken place during the last seven years. The question we need to ask is why it took seven years between the Nisga'a treaty and the Tsawwassen treaty. What were the barriers?

This assembly needs to reflect on how this treaty and indeed all treaties in British Columbia were delayed unnecessarily by the Liberal Party, both in opposition and in government. I believe we could have concluded this treaty much sooner if it had not been for the cynical tactics employed by the B.C. Liberal government over the last many years.

Sadly and shamefully, the costs of that delay have been borne mainly by the first nations people, who have been waiting for this treaty to help them escape from the conditions in which they are forced to live. We need to commit ourselves to do it sooner rather than later.

My fifth story is: "I love the land." I'm sure you do too. One of the issues where I have concern with this treaty is the issue of the ALR. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that under this treaty the government has decided to remove 207 hectares of land from the agricultural land reserve in order to conclude this treaty. This is the shameful Liberal record of playing politics with first nations and the treaty process. It is the unilateral removal of 207 hectares of land out of the agricultural land reserve.

Essentially, this government has done an end run around the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the legislation that protects the farmland in B.C. Everyone knows that that land is needed to further develop Deltaport as part of Gateway. The government also knows it could never get away with nakedly removing the land for that purpose, so it chose the back door, using the treaty process as a tool.

I do not deny the Tsawwassen people the right to land under the treaty far from it. I also do not deny the right to use those lands as they see fit — subject, of course, to applicable laws. But I believe the people of B.C. deserve a better, more transparent process than the one pursued by this cynical government. Once again, this government has demonstrated where its priorities lie.

I would like to conclude my comments. I support the treaty. I feel proud to support this treaty process. There's much to celebrate today as we in this chamber move to ratify the Tsawwassen First Nation agreement. I wish the Tsawwassen people great success in making this treaty work to build a better future for themselves and their children.

I will vote to make this treaty a reality, but I cannot do so and at the same time ignore the reality underpinning this treaty. This government has to stop paying lip service to the first nations people. They need to show they are fully committed to a proper and lasting reconciliation with the first nations of this province.

If I can remind all members of the House to please direct their comments towards Bill 40.

I am delighted today to be able to stand in the House and speak to Bill 40. First of all, I want to say how much we appreciate being on the traditional territories of the Songhees and the Esquimalt people. It is important that we always take the time to recognize that as we are in this incredible place.

I think it's somewhat ironic, in fact, that at the same time that this debate goes on in the Legislature we have teachers from across British Columbia actually here in the precinct, spending time learning about how to better engage our students as citizens. We are hoping that as teachers come together to learn more about the parliamentary procedure and how this place operates, they'll return to classrooms across the province and help teach our children to be more engaged in the democratic process.

In the House today there is an example of democracy in action. I want to say very clearly that on this side of the House, we are incredibly proud of the fact that we have a leader that allows all members on this side of the House to stand up and speak with the passions of their views and beliefs.

While some of us might agree to disagree, we agree to work together as colleagues to express the differing views of the constituents that we represent. I am proud of that, and I thank my colleagues who have spoken to the opposite view that I will take in just a few minutes.

I'm proud of that leadership, and I'm proud of the members who have stood to express their views, though they might be different than the ones I'm about to express. I appreciate that.

Again, I know that everyone, as they have spoken, has paid tribute and recognition that is certainly due to the Chief of the Tsawwassen band, Kim Baird. Yesterday as I listened to the Premier speak about her history, I thought about how incredibly proud her great-grandfather would be today. I think about that because I can only begin to imagine what his thoughts were, not dissimilar to Chief Baird's views here at the Bar of the Legislature Monday. I can only begin to think of how proud he is of the work that has gone on.

I want to pay tribute, as well, to those people who have worked tirelessly to ensure that the treaty reached the floor of the Legislature. I want to begin by quoting Chief Baird, in fact. She said: "Our treaty is the right fit for our nation."

Today I'm proud to join many of my colleagues on this side of the House and others on the opposition bench in supporting a treaty that has been difficult to bring to the floor of the House. As many have stated, it is not perfect. We understand that. But we also recognize how absolutely essential it is to move forward with the treaty process in British Columbia when it best fits a particular nation. From our perspective, we are proud of the accomplishments of those people who have worked so hard to bring this progressive step to the Legislature within our province.

More importantly, as we have heard speaker after speaker talk to us and to British Columbians about the importance of equity of access for aboriginal people in this province, I think there's just one thing that I continue to be particularly sad about. That's the fact that there have been references to a move and a step in our history as progressive and as significant as this as a photo op, as political opportunism. I can't begin to tell you how fundamentally wrong and unfair that is.

This is a government led by a Premier who has stood up not only in British Columbia but across this country to lead what we expect to be the absolute necessity for governments to recognize and appreciate and make progress in ensuring that aboriginal people across this land have equity of access, have equity of opportunity. That's our goal, that's our plan, and that's precisely what we're working toward as a government.

We know that one of the most significant things that will make a difference for aboriginal people in British Columbia is a great public education, an opportunity for children in this province to learn and to experience all of the amazing things that should happen when a child has the opportunity to have an education. I can tell you that we can list initiative after initiative, not just in education but in health care but in all of the ministries of this government. Initiative after initiative has been put into place to ensure that aboriginal people have the opportunity to have equity of access in British Columbia.

In fact, we are working aggressively to close the gaps that exist for aboriginal people today. It is unacceptable that in British Columbia today, 53 percent of our aboriginal young people do not graduate from high school. This isn't a government that's stepped back from that. We have said consistently and aggressively that that is not acceptable, that the gap needs to be closed, and we have strategies in place to see that change.

We've seen improvement. Has it been enough? Absolutely not. We've actually seen a 5 percent increase in the number of aboriginal young people completing high school, but is that good enough? No, it isn't.

As a government, we actually believe that we have to hold school boards accountable for completion rates for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal children. What did we do about that? If this is just about a photo op, what did we do about that?

Well, we brought legislation to the floor of this House to ensure that accountability and aboriginal outcomes were monitored by school boards. There were plans put in place for each child in this province and, while I hate to do this, I need to remind the members opposite that they voted against that legislation, which actually looks at aboriginal achievement outcomes in British Columbia. How is that progressive or positive, by any stretch of the imagination?

We're proud also of the fact that in July of 2006, with our aboriginal partners, we signed a historic tripartite agreement between the First Nations Education Steering Committee, the province and the federal government. I want you to know that that is something aboriginal people in British Columbia have been looking for, for far longer than a decade. That was not delivered during the 1990s.

I can assure you of this, that it was delivered in British Columbia. We look forward to the day that the piece of legislation which brings that tripartite agreement to life lands on the floor of the Legislature, because it is just one more step in an aggressive strategy to ensure that aboriginal young people in this province get the educational opportunities they deserve.

The Tsawwassen treaty is just another step in our strategy, one of the symbols of the relationship that has developed in British Columbia, the new partnership that we have with first nations and other aboriginal peoples in this province. We know and we believe that education is at the heart of the new relationship. It's something I've certainly heard about in my travels, when talking with first nations educators and leaders across the province.

Just as my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation was profoundly affected by his visit to the Nass Valley and the Nisga'a people, I too was deeply affected. I had the opportunity to meet with the President, the Speaker and members of the Nisga'a Lisims Government in their legislative chamber.

The Nisga'a President shared with me his view that education is one of the ingredients of success for his people. The President and members talked with me about their concerns and successes, about the difficulties of ensuring that Nisga'a students that live outside

I was so warmly welcomed. I was treated to an incredibly wonderful lunch, complete with a performance by a musical and cultural group that had incredibly talented children who shared with me some of the amazing history of the Nass Valley and the Nisga'a people.

I enjoyed my time in the Nass Valley, but more importantly, I learned a lot. I can assure you that what I learned will influence the directions that we take in order to ensure that aboriginal young people in this province have equity of access and, certainly, that we close the gap in the outcomes between aboriginal and non-aboriginal children.

Our government has already taken important steps to recognize aboriginal culture in the curriculum, to protect first nations languages and to improve learning opportunities for aboriginal learners. We promised to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent, and that can't happen until aboriginal learners have the same level of success as other British Columbian students.

More aboriginal students, as I said, are completing high school than they were in 2000-2001. While that is encouraging, unfortunately aboriginal results still significantly trail the provincial average. Our government is working to be a leader in aboriginal education by working together with B.C. first nations.

Forty-seven percent of aboriginal students completed high school in 2005-2006, down 1 percent, in fact, from the previous year. But we have seen a 5-percent increase since 2000-2001. We've said, and we will continue to say, that it is not about aboriginal children. It is about a system that is failing to meet the needs of those children.

Chief Baird talked about residential schools and how as a country we worked to deny first nations people their culture and their language. We all know and feel the tragedy that residential schools represented for first nations people, but I'm proud today to stand here and talk about the improvements in education for first nations students as a result of the ministry, school districts and first nations people working together.

Our aboriginal enhancement agreements are beginning to show incredible results. We have 35 aboriginal agreements signed today in British Columbia, and we expect every school district in this province to have one in place. An enhancement agreement involves a process not that dissimilar from the discussions that take place when you're negotiating a treaty. It brings together all of the partners to the table. In the case of an enhancement agreement, it's an agreement between a school district, local aboriginal communities and the Ministry of Education to work in partnership to improve the success of all aboriginal students.

The key to improving first nations student achievement is the integration of aboriginal culture, language and traditions into schools. Enhancement agreements make a difference. School districts with agreements have seen significant improvements in completion rates for aboriginal learners.

In the Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district, aboriginal high school completion rates have increased by 20 percent since their enhancement agreement was first signed. They're now in their second five-year agreement.

In Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, completion rates improved by 24 percent between 1998 and 2002. They're now in their second five-year agreement.

The Delta school district has an enhancement agreement involving the Tsawwassen First Nation. They did that in 2005.

Let's look at some of the other results that we have for aboriginal students as we talk about how important the educational foundation is for these students. Foundation skills assessment has the support of our aboriginal partners, and with good reason. You see, foundation skills assessment is helping communities measure achievement and also track progress.

Let's look at the Kamloops-Thompson school district, for example. They have made significant gains in grades 4 and 7 reading, writing and math since signing their initial enhancement agreement.

In the Comox Valley, grade 4 aboriginal numeracy increased by 28 percent, and grade 7 writing results went from 73 percent to 82 percent after an agreement was signed.

That is real, measurable progress, and that results from the ability of people to work together, to sit down at a table, to sort out what the priorities are and to move forward. Again, not unlike the treaty process.

In the Cowichan Valley school district, aboriginal students in grade 7 have seen improvements in all three of the foundation skills areas since their agreement was first signed. Next year those same Cowichan Valley students will be in the world spotlight when Cowichan Valley hosts the North American Indigenous Games. What an amazing opportunity to showcase first nations heritage and culture.

We've also worked with B.C.'s aboriginal communities to create the pilot Elders in the Classroom. It's a resource for schools. This program offers the gifts of elders' stories, knowledge and tradition to first nations students and non–first nations students.

One of the things that I heard from many first nations people on my school district visits is that it is hard, in many communities, to preserve their language. There aren't many speakers left in many, many cases. That's why we're working to preserve first nations languages.

My colleague the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services recently announced $250,000 in funding to support the electronic preservation of first nations language. The project provides necessary support to digitally archive first nations languages, some of which are currently known only among a few first nations elders.

Interactive teaching tools will then be accessed on line by first nations or other persons interested in learning traditional languages. Imagine that. We're trying to work together to preserve aboriginal languages, and we've now got the technology, the funding and the resources in place to make sure we can preserve those

Right now in British Columbia only one-third of our aboriginal students take English 12. We want to change that. So what did we do? We worked in partnership, as we have with initiative after initiative in this province.

We worked with first nations educators and with FNESC to develop a new English course that will be as rigorous as English 12. In British Columbia, starting next September, students will also be able to take English 12 First Peoples in place of English 12 for graduation. It's being piloted right now.

English 12 First Peoples encourages greater participation by bringing aboriginal culture, novels, poetry and literature into the classroom, benefiting all students and helping to spark the interest of aboriginal students. When students are engaged in what they are studying, they are far more likely to stay in school and succeed.

Perhaps one of the most beneficial things of the visits that the Premier and I undertook last year as we travelled to every school district in British Columbia is that we have seen the magic that takes place in schools when first nations students learn more about their culture, heritage and language. I want to share a few of those examples with you.

In New Aiyansh I met elder Herbert Morven in his classroom. He showed me the most beautiful blankets his students were working on, and he shared with me how O Canada was translated into Nisga'a. In another room Dee-Dee Morven had her kindergarten class learning the words for colour in the Nisga'a language.

In Bella Coola Lance Nelson showed me his Nuxalk language and culture class, where he teaches art, stories, language, song and dance. At the high school they have a carving program, and I was given an incredible gift: the first carving ever done by Willis Johnson. It is a raven dance mask. I absolutely treasure that wonderful gift, and it sits in my office today. I promised him that I would bring that back and display it in my office in Victoria, and indeed, that's where it is today.

You see, all of these programs incorporate the opportunity for first nations students, whether they be adults or children, to learn in a climate and a culture that includes their language, their traditions. That is essential if we're actually going to have first nations children be successful in British Columbia.

To suggest that this isn't a government that has actually led this country in terms of the initiatives for aboriginal people…. We've also provided additional resources for students. Funding for aboriginal students will increase. The per-pupil funding will go from $950 per student to $1,014 per student, for a total additional increase of $3 million.

Aboriginal funding will increase from $48.1 million in 2006 to an estimated $51.1 million in 2007-2008. This funding will support aboriginal culture programs and programs aimed specifically at improving student achievement.

Within the Ministry of Education we're also providing funding to support literacy in aboriginal communities. We've just recently given $35,000 to the Lil'wat nation, the Mount Currie Indian band, to develop a model that supports the unique needs of a small, isolated village by combining face-to-face instruction and on-line instruction.

We've given $39,000 to the Victoria area Tseycum First Nation, which will provide three 12-week programs for up to ten adults from that traditional territory; $40,000 to the Prince George Native Friendship Centre for aboriginal students in Prince George whose literacy and numeracy skills are at the elementary level. It will include communications, basic math, critical thinking, problem-solving and teamwork. In fact, $38,500 to the Moricetown band in northwest B.C., as they work to improve their literacy levels. Also, they will look at small-group work, tutoring by peers and six volunteer tutors.

The list goes on and on and on, as we have over the last number of years, led by a Premier who believes passionately in ensuring that aboriginal people have equity of opportunity in this province. We have put together a strategy to close the gap in health care, to close the gap in education, to build economic capacity within first nations communities across this province.

I can't say it any better than the words that were uttered by Chief Baird, when she stood. As members opposite have stood up and questioned the reality that happens with this treaty…. How can we, when we listen to the words of Chief Baird? "My presence here today is symbolic of true reconciliation. Our reconciliation was born of hard work and hard-fought compromises, so very painful to my community."

I've reflected on other recent events — not simply a treaty, I add, but a series of things — that have made a difference to aboriginal people in this province. The Hon. Steven Point's recent appointment as British Columbia's 28th Lieutenant-Governor is one of these recent events, a significant step in our history. I think we've actually had members opposite suggest that it was an opportunity to take advantage of political opportunities. The appointment of Steven Point in British Columbia is long overdue. It is historic, and we are proud and will continue to celebrate that.

How happy I am, as well, with this comment: "Even the covering up of the murals offensive to so many is important, because in my view, true reconciliation is the culmination of steps where we try our best to better understand." That doesn't come easily. There are literally thousands of British Columbians that we need to work with to help them better improve their understanding. We've been on a journey. Our Premier's been on a journey. It's about learning. It's about adapting. It's about believing what's best. It's about the ability to change your mind and to make sure we do the right thing. That's exactly what we're going to do.

To finish her quote: "Reconciliation is a culmination of steps where we try our best to better understand and accommodate each other. Though we try our best, accommodation comes through change that can…be painful and rocky."

Yes, the journey has been painful and rocky, but I can assure you, Chief Baird, that members of the government of British Columbia want to say to you today that we want to try our best. We will continue to try our best so that this is not the only treaty that is settled in British Columbia, so that it is the first of many.

Today we pay you a great compliment. There has been nothing more wonderful over the last few days than to see you with your children in your arms, to hear their voices from time to time, to watch them clap though they know not what they're clapping for, but to watch them so freely express themselves in this place where we get to express our views as well.

We promise that we will try our best to ensure that this is the first of many. We thank you for your leadership. You are an inspiration to many of us who serve in this House for the work that has been done on behalf of the Tsawwassen people.

I can't begin to tell you — as Chief Baird said — how honoured she was to address the Legislature. I can tell you that as we stand and have the opportunity to address the Legislature, whichever side of the question you're on, whichever side of the House you're on, this is historic. It is an honour, and it is a significant day in the history of British Columbia. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

D. Cubberley: Thank you to the assembly for the opportunity to speak today. It's a pleasure to have a chance to speak to Bill 40, and I'll be speaking in favour of this historic treaty.

Let me begin, probably as everyone has, by acknowledging Chief Kim Baird and by noting how much I enjoyed and was moved by her words and her presence in the House earlier this week. I was resolved already, as is my caucus, to support this treaty, and I'm proud to do so. But I was yet further strengthened in that resolve upon hearing the words of Chief Baird, who said, in part: "For the Tsawwassen people this is a time of great hope and optimism, a challenging yet exciting time. It's a time for revival and renewal. It is a time when we will take back our rightful place as a community equal to others through our treaty."

The Tsawwassen people's desire and determination to take back their rightful place as a community is at the very core of this treaty, and it fuels their commitment to agree to a negotiated settlement. It's a matter of self-determination, of taking responsibility, of seeing a small fraction of what was taken returned in a form that will, with tremendous courage and effort, allow the Tsawwassen First Nation to reassume its autonomy, repair its economy, reassert its power to decide a future for itself and re-establish in a way that opens possibilities of a new and brighter future their culture so that it can again enjoy the confidence of self-expression it took as a birthright before European contact and that it held from time immemorial.

A community equal to others. So much lies embedded in that phrase that those of us who are enabled by dint of our birth into non–first nations communities or by dint of immigration into this society — for most of us are part of the newcomers — take for granted as a convenience or as a right of entitlement or even as a whipping boy and a vehicle for grumbling and complaint.

Their historic community, as with other aboriginal groups across this province, was wrenched from them — their culture blown asunder, their lifeways impugned, their presence marginalized and, in some cases, their very persons actively despised. Their traditional access to resources was hemmed in, undermined, taken away. They saw themselves out-competed on a severely tipped playing field for access to the very goods that sustained their core being, the goods that enabled them to be who they were — out-competed by industrial machinery operated by possessive individuals armed with confidence and intent fuelled by the lure of gain.

In the rush for spoils so intense, in a resource-rich province bordering a mighty and generous ocean, first nations culture, rights, language, history and economy were trampled as incidental impediments that could simply be rolled over by forces that were larger than themselves. We who come from the successor communities, to the despoilers who did the rolling, can only imagine what it must have been like to have the world turned so upside down that one's very being was called into question.

All the more reason why — when one hears a chief speak with such openness and candour and with more regret and sorrow than bitterness, after all her people have been subjected to — however one may feel about the specifics of a treaty, one is impelled to feel admiration for the courage, poise, openness and generosity of a leader representing a people who have been downtrodden and have suffered and who now see hope and the opportunity a treaty offers for renewal and revival.

It's a moving experience to hear such words heavy with resolve, yet not born of anger and enmity and ill will. I'm not certain — had I been placed in the cramped space where this people have been forced to live, with the soot and noise of trains raining down on my home — that I'd be capable of such openness and goodwill.

On behalf of my constituency, Saanich South, which bears the name of one of the great Salishan cultures, I want to express my admiration and gratitude to Chief Baird and her people and, through her to all first nations, offer an apology for what's been done and express my commitment to work harder for re-creation, just settlement and renewal.

Treaties will always be about land and resources, seeking to return some small measure of a power of self-determination through these media. Chief Baird noted early in her speech: "For thousands of years we used and occupied a large territory that was abundant in fish, shellfish, wildlife and other resources." It's quite easy at the centre of a society based on a global division of labour, mass production and consumption of

goods, and private ownership of land — where substantial elements, increasingly all elements of personal choice are determined outside the individual, the family and the local community — to thoughtlessly see this statement as an expression of arcane interest. It is not.

If we are at the putative apex of civilization in terms of quality of life, then this gigantic pyramid we're part of rests squarely and firmly on primary relationships of just this kind, based on access to resources in a particular place. For, in point of fact, access to fish, and to shellfish in particular, lies at the very base of all modern human evolution in providing for the first time in our long history a stable basis for permanent settlement and an abiding relationship to a specific territory — what we might today, from the centre of a culture that negates its importance, romantically call a landscape, or more prosaically, a region.

I want to quote, from a cultural anthropologist, a statement to support this. "Seafood harvesting, unlike other hunter-gatherer activities, encourages people to stay put, and that leads to more social interactions."

It's at the very base of culture-forming, of stable relationships and arrangements, of the development of a feeling for ancestors, buildings, cooperation on an expanding scale, increasing population, greater security and collective freedom and, above all, of an abiding sense of place, which as we know — or should know if we've forgotten — is intimately linked to an ongoing collective sense of self.

In an individualistic society that encourages unbridled self-interest, the expression of a collective interest of this kind in land and resources may seem threatening to some. Some may even be ideologically opposed to it, believing that it's a recipe for Big Brother in embryo. They may have to stifle that feeling to some extent in order to open themselves fully to treaty-making that serves the interest of first nations communities. It certainly applied to some in the '90s, perhaps some in this House, and one senses how hard it must be for them to adopt a new stance of openness. Happily, neither I nor my caucus are of that ilk.

A sense of self in relation to place — these are two things that modern global societies appear sometimes to believe they can live without, although individuals within them struggle daily to find ways to reinvent the relationship because they are central to our being as people.

These mingled senses of community, self and place, perhaps frustrated, impeded, suspended or put on hold due to the machinations of the dominant colonial society, continue to animate first nations in British Columbia in the most vibrant and telling ways. Those senses were present in that speech. They spoke to each of us who yearn in some way for a renewed sense of place anchored in true stewardship rather than in short-term gain and who hope, for the sake of their children if not for themselves, for a brighter and sustainable future.

Chief Baird also signalled an important fact about this treaty, one that applies to all treaties yet to come and that was the basis for our only prior modern treaty — that of Nisga'a. To paraphrase her: true reconciliation means real action and tangible change — not simply words on paper, as in an important yet abstract declaration of intent of a determination to establish a new relationship. Rather, it is concrete evidence of the will to translate a determination into negotiated settlement, to give effect to intent through the transfer of land and resources.

A treaty is indeed tangible proof that a modern society can negotiate an agreement that corrects the mistakes of the past and settles historical wrongs. For when "reasonable people," to use Chief Baird's phrase — which echoes Chief Joe Gosnell's remarks at the Bar of this House nearly a decade ago — take a reasoned approach to negotiation, set aside negative emotion and approach each other as equals with an openness to hearing, the chances are good that they can get to yes.

Even when the matters under negotiation are infinitely complex, as all things pertinent to the continuation of a unique culture and people must be, if reason governs and reasonable people approach the table in a spirit of good faith and accommodation, a reconciliation can be achieved.

Chief Baird is right to be proud, and I and others here are humbled at her generosity in sharing that with us, the representatives of British Columbia, without any rancour.

As an aside, I have to compliment her, as well, on the patience she's shown and the resolve to negotiate over such a long period of time and to see the cast of characters and the ground rules change numerous times.

To possess somehow that well of optimism and determination so deep that she was able to work through a time in which minority rights — your people's rights — were made subject to a referendum in a society that has shown such long indifference to injustices and by a party that worked to stir up emotions against exactly the outcome you are aiming at, led by a man who took it upon himself to do everything in his power to block the very first such modern agreement negotiated in British Columbia to the point of actively contesting it in the courts….

I have never been personally involved in any work of progress analogous to what you and your people have undertaken and achieved, and I stand in awe of determination of that order. I know I wouldn't have been capable of the patience you've shown at such a young age, and I want to thank you for your persistence in the face of titanic forces set against exactly what you have aspired to achieve.

The face of reaction in British Columbia was dead set against you and against all first nations in this prov-

ince, and organized to defeat your efforts to see injustice righted in a misguided belief that its licensed access to resources, even after so much taking and plunder, had a preordained right to continue precedence over anything you might claim or attempt to achieve in compensation. There is no adequate compensation for what was taken.

The world as it was known for millennia has changed fundamentally, and the one that replaces it, while rich in many respects, is vastly impoverished in others — not least in its stewardship of the land, air and sea and their once vast, apparently inexhaustible and now threatened bounties.

How hard it must be to come to a table to negotiate for some offsetting conveyance of land and resources on which to found hope that a new voyage of self-determination can at last be launched when so much has been manifestly lost. It's akin to undertaking a great voyage on an unknown ocean in a very small boat with provisions for an undetermined number of days, not knowing exactly where safe harbour lies, not knowing what nature will deliver as challenges along the way but with a determination to get there in the company of your own and to one day reach the other side. It takes a great leap of faith to embark on such a journey.

Great courage is being shown by your people's agreement to a treaty which — let's be clear — gives you some resources but also, by doing so, limits and defines rights to resources and thereby delimits the Crown's responsibilities, which may have been undefined but, as the courts have repeatedly stated, were nonetheless real and could not simply be ignored. In other words, we get something in return.

It's a momentous event, this first treaty, however one feels about any of its specifics. It was negotiated in the face of opposition that reached fevered pitches in the election of 1996 when the now-governing party's campaign included a "one law for all British Columbians" slogan. That was post-Delgamuukw. It was humiliating for those who were committed to and trying to engage in treaty-making to see a modern political party try to whip up right-wing opinion against aboriginal peoples for its own short-term political gain. It was reprehensible.

First nations understand, I believe, that political power is at times like a drug for those who crave it. When values are lacking — positive values of community — the political outcomes can be disconcerting. It felt at times, when hearing statements made by some who now occupy the front benches of government, that B.C. might morph into something rather ugly.

Fortunately, even then the people did not respond to the promptings. They did not rise to the bait. They did not become passionate and set their faces against settlement and reconciliation. To be sure, some very powerful interests in our society did.

I had the opportunity to serve in the 1990s for a brief time as assistant to the Minister of Forests in the era of the Forest Practices Code when we were trying to clean up some so of the excesses of clearcut logging. Of course, industrial forestry was in the front rank of using resources to which first nations had some right of claim.

It was the determination of the Harcourt government and my minister Andrew Petter to see some redress incorporated into logging's advance. The vehicle for that was negotiation within a very narrow framework to try to initiate the inclusion of first nations in processes affecting the viability of resources in what was claimed as part of their traditional territories.

I recall so clearly how much some members opposite objected to what were called at that time interim agreements. When, under the newly minted Treaty Commission — which brought the dominant society much closer to the realities of first nations lives on reserves and to the implications of inviting negotiations — it became evident that there was an enormous assumption about the capacity of first nations to engage in complex negotiations — often mind-numbingly complex, involving so many trade-offs, requiring so much research and legal counsel and representation — and just how much capacity-building was actually required in order for a first nation to approach the table with a case and argue it, and the representatives to bargain hard in its interest…. It became obvious at that time that resources had to be gotten to first nations to help them build capacity and that we had an obligation to enable them to do this and to show some patience, ourselves, if we hoped to induce them to come to the table.

It's not a given that first nations are holus-bolus willing, ready and able to approach the Treaty Commission table. The demonstration against the words on paper of the new relationship, that event here at the House on the day Chief Baird spoke to us signals to us all that there is far from unanimity of resolve to negotiate on the terms set by the commission — an expression that Chief Baird must have found particularly difficult to accept on a day confirming her determination to settle the matters in dispute and to which she responded, again, with poise and character.

That demonstration reminds us of how long the road is, how far we have to travel and how important the step is that we're taking here. The demonstrators, like Chief Baird's address, remind us how subjugated first nations actually are and how impatient they're becoming with the lack of progress, the lack of tangible expression of a determination to address injustices.

I recall quite poignantly how vehemently opposed some members opposite were to the idea of negotiating interim agreements with first nations — agreements that, without fettering treaty negotiations, attempted to confer some rights to consultation and aspects of determination and a share in the jobs and the spoils of industrial exploitation of their lands that were part of their traditional territories, and agreements that moved a small share of resources into the hands of impoverished communities constrained to watch their birthright, their traditional territories, their culturally significant lands and all the living resources they supported decimated by clearcut logging.

How vehemently some members opposite opposed those small steps, those signs of good faith and intent to seek reconciliation through negotiation and deliver resources that could be used to offset poverty, create work and develop new capacities in communities suffering from exclusion. Those attitudes truly made the '90s dark days for first nations.

Fortunately, Nisga'a came to this House at a time when government was receptive and supportive of what the vast majority of British Columbians wanted to see done and so was resolved, this House, to pass the first, great step forward after the delay and denial of so many decades, and despite what the members opposite organized to see done, which was literally to stop it dead in its tracks.

It took the courage and poise of Nisga'a, the resolve of government and a leader, Premier Glen Clark, to see that treaty through the many minefields set down by the then Leader of the Opposition, who continued to try to dispute resolution through negotiation, to dispute what the courts had determined with clarity and which should have led, then and there, to the abandonment of the politics of denial, which was that aboriginal title was not extinguished, however undefined it was, and that it had to be given shape by fair negotiation between legislators and first nations.

The attitude of the rush to spoils and the arrogance of the use of the instrument of ceded rights to Crown land for the purposes of industrial exploitation continued its illegitimate efforts to block frank recognition of injustice and attempts at reconciliation and renewal. It's no wonder it has taken so long to produce the first treaty through the commission, given the active resistance to the very idea of settlements that confer independence and self-government on first nations, opposition given voice and face and force by a major party in this province, a party that now governs and claims to be a fervent believer in working together for healing.

I still feel ashamed when I think of it, shame compounded by the referendum on minority rights that no one but the ideologues opposite and the powers they represent actually wanted and which, thankfully, sank into oblivion like the giant millstone freed from the neck around which you wanted to place it.

I'm astounded today by the lack of contrition on the part of those who speak in the name of a new relationship and preach the values of recognition, the lack of sincere apology for the damage wrought by their actions over more than a decade before they finally reversed course.

We on this side welcome their reversal. No matter what reasons of calculated interest moved that party finally to change course, be it staring straight into the financial abyss of court-ordered settlements and the uncertainty of a looming revolt against their intransigence and refusal to negotiate….

For whatever reasons, the tide turned. Strange conversions on the road to a New Jerusalem of reconciliation occurred — continue to occur. They are important to the future of this province despite being effected without an appropriate degree of atonement. And through all of that shoddy history, Tsawwassen First Nation continued to negotiate.

The patience and persistence shown by that first nation now has the distinction of bearing fruit in the form of a first treaty from our Treaty Commission. In the face of so little understanding and goodwill, a momentous victory is in the offing. We offer our congratulations and our firm support for the treaty.

Chief Baird also did this Legislature a service in calling attention — in the context of discussing the agricultural land issue, the crux of controversy in this treaty, as she noted, and outside it — that this treaty contains elements that are humiliating for her and her people to accept.

She wasn't raising doubt as to whether she should be accepting the treaty, not revisiting the decision to say yes. She was expressing the ambiguity that's inherent in settling for something less than one's ideal.

There is true maturity of leadership in that statement which in no way contradicts her commitment to the end in view or her recommendation of the agreement to her own people, a maturity that consists in recognizing that negotiated agreements always involve compromise for both parties to it, especially if they're to be successful, because no one gets 100 percent of what they want through negotiation.

It stands in stark contrast to me to the cheap and easy politics we've often seen from the other side regarding the trade-offs with protected agricultural land. I know this is an issue that doesn't matter particularly to them, if at all. I think developers, by inclination and by practice…. They view the land reserve as an impediment to growth and something to be gotten around.

That was evident in the first remarks concerning the land issues at the very beginning of this debate. These remarks were the more worrisome to me because the government is already taking the compromise established for this treaty as a precedent, possibly a template, for future treaties regarding the handling of agricultural land. That is unacceptable to me, to my party and to British Columbians.

It's not unexpected, though, because there's no vision of protecting food-producing lands on that side, and there never has been. If they thought they could get away with it, they'd dump the Agricultural Land Commission immediately and entirely. But how convenient it was, given the aspirations for development at Deltaport, to contrive just this kind of settlement.

Agricultural land matters to my party. That will come as no surprise. We were responsible for….

D. Cubberley: We were responsible for the tool that secures its continuation, and we try to be vigilant about protecting it against growth pressures.

As a local councillor for more than a decade in Saanich, I was and remain a staunch defender of urban

containment that limits outward sprawl and a strong supporter of the flourishing farming on high-quality lands protected from shortsighted urban development. It was a difficult step for me and for many members on this side of the House to elevate the value of attaining settlement above the probable loss of some of these lands to future industrial growth.

I find no fault with the aspirations of the Tsawwassen people to enjoy opportunities afforded every other community in the lower mainland. I have no difficulty seeing farming lands transferred to Tsawwassen for their use — none whatsoever.

D. Cubberley: I believe, Madam Chair, that I'm trying to speak in the spirit of Chief Baird's remarks, not in the spirit of the members opposite.

I personally find it difficult to accept the loss of farmlands as farmlands because of stewardship and responsibility on my part. And I find it offensive that the provincial government is unconcerned and ready to precedent a transfer out that doesn't even commit to or discuss equivalent replacement.

The fact that we debated this issue as a caucus, that we took significant steps to try and learn about it and inform ourselves by hearing and considering arguments from people on both sides, who know more than we do and who care passionately about both aspects of this issue, is not a weakness or a lack of leadership on the part of a party that aspires one day to govern. That's a discharge of a responsibility to the citizens of this province, who are far more open to seeing the complexities of negotiated settlements and who do not benefit from politics that pretends there are no issues and suppresses discussion simply because the government of the day wants an expanded port and doesn't give a hoot about agricultural land.

It may have taken us a long time to deliberate, and I'll acknowledge that we may need to do that more quickly, but I'm proud of the fact that we took it seriously and considered it carefully, and that we reached the right decision for British Columbia, which is to welcome, endorse and support this treaty.

D. Cubberley: Madam Chair, when the member has the floor, I believe he should speak.

I'm proud of that, and I do endorse and support the treaty. I'm proud of that in the way that Chief Baird expressed her pride in the achievement, if not with all aspects, of the settlement. As she said, and perhaps the members opposite will hear this: "Make no mistake that my community has had to make a number of compromises too."

I share Chief Baird's desire that our collective mutual objective of reconciling aboriginal rights and title with Crown prevail. I wholeheartedly support this treaty on behalf of my constituents.

I remind you of what Chief Joe Gosnell said: "To us, a treaty is a sacred instrument. It represents an understanding between distinct cultures and shows a respect for each other's way of life. We know we are here for a long time together."

D. Cubberley: "A treaty stands as a symbol of high idealism in our world…. Has this been worth it? I would have to say a resounding yes."

R. Hawes: I'm proud to take my place today with a few brief comments to speak also in favour of this treaty and this piece of legislation.

First, like others before me, I'd like to congratulate Chief Kim Baird for her persistence and for her leadership on behalf of all of the people she represents. Her community is definitely going to be the beneficiary of her wisdom and her persistence.

As we've sat here for a couple of days talking about this and Chief Baird has sat in the gallery, often you hear the cry or the voice of a baby. I think that 20 years from now, that baby — although not knowing today — will be speaking, saying: "I was there on that historic day." Maybe that baby will be saying that sitting in one of the seats here in the Legislature, because this is the kind of reconciliation that brings aboriginal people into a place where they can truly, truly join our province and represent all people. This is a treaty of reconciliation.

On Monday I was drawn first to the protest that took place outside of the precinct here — a respectful protest by aboriginal people who are not in favour of the process or this treaty but who respectfully understood the desire of the Tsawwassen First Nation. When it came time for Kim Baird to lead a procession on to the precinct, they stood down and very respectfully allowed that to happen.

It's that ability to voice different opinions that's very important, I think, in this whole debate. For some, the treaty process and making treaties is the right thing, and the time is now. For others, clearly, the time is not now. The time is going to come for all aboriginal people. It's leadership like we've seen from Chief Baird that will show the way for all first nations to see that this is the route to not just reconciliation but to self-sufficiency — to being allowed finally to enjoy the great bounty that this province offers. This bounty is truly a heritage that belongs to first nations and that, as speakers before have said, has been suppressed for years and taken from them.

I serve in the capacity of government Whip. It's my responsibility to make sure not just that our party wins votes but that when there is a matter of confidence, to make sure that all of our members vote the same way in favour of our legislation. At the same time, we have taken great strides to open our government, to make

some parliamentary reform that actually allows our members to truly express themselves and the views of their constituents by allowing free votes whenever there is a matter that is not either a vote of confidence or something that is directly from our party platform during an election.

I'm very proud that so far we've had two members of our side of the House, on the government side, that have expressed their difference with this piece of legislation and have been able to say why they were not able to completely support this legislation and would be voting against it. That is an expression of their democratic right to speak on behalf of their constituents.

This is a right that we took away, I think, and we suppressed in the first nations for years. For years aboriginal people weren't allowed to vote. Today, through actions like this treaty, aboriginal people truly are being brought into the democratic process, and we're speaking as equals now. We're speaking on a government-to-government basis.

I've heard the members opposite talk. One was talking about the road to Damascus and the transformation, etc. I'm going to just mention the Premier's speech of a couple of days ago. The Premier mentioned the stand that was taken on the Nisga'a treaty, and he said: "I was wrong." I think true leadership is the ability to look at your actions in hindsight and say: "I was wrong. I've changed my mind. I have been convinced by arguments, by the passage of time, that what I was thinking previously was the wrong way to think, and I've changed my mind." I call that leadership.

You know, Madam Speaker, it's absolutely remarkable that so few people who serve in political office have the ability to ever say: "I was wrong." Never. It's rare that you hear it, and it takes a true leader to say those words. I was very, very proud to hear our Premier say that, and I think that the aboriginal community throughout British Columbia wanted to hear those words and is very grateful to the Premier for saying them.

Madam Speaker, I'm trying to understand why the Leader of the Opposition would suppress the democratic right of anyone to express a point of view.

R. Hawes: I am keeping to the bill, Madam Speaker, and I'm going to tie this….

R. Hawes: My comments are strictly about the bill and about not just our right but the right of the aboriginal community to speak freely in this place, of all places, where we express the view of our constituents.

Madam Speaker, let me say this. The previous speaker spoke about the kinds of…. I'm just trying to remember his words, but how there was almost hatred in this province, over years, how the denial was across the province. There has been a transformation in our province.

I served at the local level for many years, and I know what my constituents said 15 and 20 years ago about the movement towards treaty-making, about aboriginal right and title. Today's community thinks and speaks very differently.

We have evolved as a people, and a great deal of that evolvement comes from the teaching that we're picking up from first nations — the patience, the persistence. When you see that kind of patience and persistence and not really out there doing a whole bunch of wild protesting, but just quietly moving ahead, that teaches, and has taught, many of us who are non-aboriginal peoples that we need to move down this road of reconciliation.

When I see that movement and the ability, then, for all of us to come forward, here in this place, and express the views of our constituents, I think that speaks volumes for the democratic process.

When we run into a situation such as we have here where we have a member of our Legislature whose voice is suppressed….

This is someone who wishes, I think, to express the views of his constituents. It happens to be someone who sits in a riding neighbouring mine. I'm very familiar with the views of the people he represents, that member's constituents. I am sure that that member's constituents would like to stand here in this House and express their views on this treaty, but they cannot do that, because they have only one elected member.

Their voices, then, have been silenced, and I think: shame. Shame on those that would silence those voices, those who would not remember what went on in this province for 200 years with the aboriginal community, the silencing of the aboriginal voice. Now we have the silencing of voices that would express an opinion respectfully.

R. Hawes: I am directing my comments to the treaty, Madam Speaker, just as speakers before me have.

R. Hawes: Bill 40 has many, many ramifications. Speakers before me have talked about the injustice to the South Asian community that took place in this province over the last 50 years. Speakers before me have expressed their view on how somehow our government, our political party, has done a lot of things that were improper in their view.

Madam Speaker, those words are not directly related to the bill, other than the way that they tried to relate them. I guess what I'm trying to do is to say that

this piece of legislation, for me, in a great way is about allowing voices to be heard that were not previously heard. The voices of the Tsawwassen First Nation were not heard for many, many years.

They patiently worked towards achieving a place where they could speak out through having economic opportunity, economic equality, where they could speak out from a position that at least was equal to those who would have suppressed them for so many years. That's about freedom of expression. How else could suppressing a voice not have something to do with this particular piece of legislation?

This legislation is about rights. This is about the democratic process, and that's what we're talking about here — most of us. There are 77 of us who are going to be able to speak; 77 of us are going to be allowed to express our view and our constituents' views on this piece of legislation. And one voice is to be silenced.

I am speaking here in favour of this treaty, clearly. I'm imploring them. In the interests of allowing a freedom of expression for all peoples, I'm imploring the Leader of the Opposition to rethink her position.

Mr. Speaker: Member, take your seat for a second. When we're discussing the bill, we want to make sure that the focus is on the direction of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I will give you lots of latitude, but make sure that we focus in on the bill.

R. Hawes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll bear that in mind, then, with my concluding remarks.

R. Hawes: Oh, they want more. The Opposition House Leader, I think, wants about five minutes more. In conclusion, I want to say that this treaty has taken an awfully long time.

The treaty process. There are those who say that the treaty process is so flawed as to be unworkable and that it should be scrapped. I've read so many times in the newspapers about how much money has been spent. "Billions of dollars spent; no progress." But treaty-making is an incremental process.

I know that it takes patience and perseverance such as that which has been expressed or shown by the Tsawwassen First Nation, by Chief Kim Baird, by the elders and by the entire Tsawwassen community. The Tsawwassen First Nation community has been extremely patient for decades. There have been people who have, through the process, lived their entire lives moving towards this day, this treaty, and did not live to see its conclusion.

Future generations are going to remember this. Future generations are going to remember the day that we all in this House got up and spoke our views on how we supported or, in some cases, didn't support this particular treaty.

I just, in conclusion, wish that there was an opportunity for all members of this House to say what they really feel about the treaty, and how they support it or don't support it. So with that, I'll conclude.

D. Routley: I am very honoured and pleased to rise, but also noting the time, I realize that there are several members who would like me to make this very short, and then there are those who would even prefer that I don't reserve my spot to speak again. But I'm afraid I can't satisfy the second requirement.

I do have enough time to offer immediate congratulations to the Tsawwassen people and to Chief Kim Baird, and a heartfelt sense of pride to be in a place of history at a historical moment to share with the Chief.

One of the most pleasing things we can do here is welcome school groups. I always tell the children that this place, in all of its ornate beauty and all of its incredible impressiveness, is not built to raise up the station of the captains of industry or to add more power to an elite that already holds those levers of power.

In my mind, what I want to tell those children and what I want to communicate through the Speaker to the Tsawwassen people is that this is our House. This is our House, and all of it was put here to uplift the interests of ordinary people to the highest place possible, and that includes all of us. It always is a huge honour to speak in this House, but particularly at a moment like this.

You know, it's going to be frustrating for me in a way because I'm saying the nice part about the treaty, about the Chief, about the people and about why we're here, but I am saving some concerns for later. So if you'll all help me with the balance here, this is the positive three minutes. I'm sure there are many more positive minutes coming, but there are concerns with this treaty and the way it was negotiated.

But first, I will be speaking about how proud I am and about the very positive aspects of this historical first agreement under the B.C. treaty process.

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.