2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 22, Number 12
|
|
||
|
CONTENTS |
||
|
Routine Proceedings |
||
| Page | ||
| Introductions by Members | 8687 | |
| Statements | 8687 | |
| Maa-nulth First Nations treaty
|
||
| Hon. M.
de Jong |
||
| Introductions by Members | 8687 | |
| Tributes | 8687 | |
| Norman Joe Sr. |
||
| D. Routley
|
||
| Statements (Standing Order 25B) | 8687 | |
| Breast Cancer Awareness Month
|
||
| C. James
|
||
| Land use agreements in Sea to Sky
area |
||
| J.
McIntyre |
||
| Waste Reduction Week |
||
| S.
Simpson |
||
| Captain George Vancouver Week
|
||
| J. Yap
|
||
| School libraries |
||
| D.
Cubberley |
||
| Small Business Month and Langley
business awards |
||
| M. Polak
|
||
| Oral Questions | 8689 | |
| Removal of land from tree farm
licences on Vancouver Island |
||
| C. James
|
||
| Hon. R.
Coleman |
||
| J.
Horgan |
||
| B.
Simpson |
||
| Treatment of seniors in health
care facilities |
||
| C. Wyse
|
||
| Hon. G.
Abbott |
||
| G.
Gentner |
||
| Eviction of tenants in Fernie
|
||
| N.
Macdonald |
||
| Hon. R.
Coleman |
||
| Withdrawal of housing subsidy for
Vancouver tenant |
||
| J. Kwan
|
||
| Hon. R.
Coleman |
||
| Petitions | 8694 | |
| S. Fraser |
||
| C. Wyse |
||
| Committee of the Whole House | 8695 | |
| Adult Guardianship and Planning
Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 29) (continued) |
||
| C.
Trevena |
||
| Hon. W.
Oppal |
||
| L. Krog
|
||
| Reporting of Bills | 8703 | |
| Adult Guardianship and Planning
Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 29) |
||
| Third Reading of Bills | 8704 | |
| Adult Guardianship and Planning
Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 29) |
||
| Second Reading of Bills | 8704 | |
| Tsawwassen First Nation Final
Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued) |
||
| D.
Routley |
||
| Hon. T.
Christensen |
||
| M.
Sather |
||
| Hon. C.
Hansen |
||
| C. Wyse
|
||
| R. Lee
|
||
| R.
Chouhan |
||
|
|
||
[ Page 8687 ]
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007
The House met at 1:34 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Introductions by Members
C. James: It is my great pleasure to introduce two very special women who have travelled a long way to be with us today. Phelda Kayola and Matilda Mwenda are part of a larger group of African grandmothers promoting the Stephen Lewis Foundation's premiere of the documentary entitled Women: The Face of AIDS.
Phelda Kayola, whose husband died of AIDS, is the mother of six children and also cares for her late brother's children. She is a registered nurse, a midwife trained in palliative care and the manager of Ranchod Hospice in Zambia, where she looks after dozens of children.
Matilda Mwenda is the mother of seven children and cares for eight orphans in her home. She has lost two children, four brothers and one sister to AIDS and HIV. Matilda is in charge of the children's day care centre at Ranchod, where she looks after over 60 children. She is trained as an HIV/AIDS counsellor and home-based caregiver. Both Phelda and Matilda are involved with Busy Bees, a support group of grandmothers engaged in income-generating activities and peer support.
Accompanying Matilda and Phelda today are Margaret Wright, the director of operations for the Stephen Lewis Foundation, and Linda Hallett, a former volunteer with Stephen Lewis Foundation who now works with the organization Carry On Grannies here in Victoria. Please welcome them and thank them for their amazing work.
Hon. W. Oppal: I would like to introduce Ab Berar, president of the Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce and director of the Fraser River Port Authority. Ab is a prominent member of the South Asian community and the community at large. His family has been in British Columbia since 1907. Will the House please join me in welcoming Ab Berar.
M. Sather: Joining us is in the gallery today is Harold Steves. Harold is a longtime city councillor in the city of Richmond and really is the architect of the agricultural land reserve. There's a really interesting story of how that came about, starting with the application to renovate the family's farm. His father made an application way back then. It's a very interesting story, and I hope somebody writes a book about it someday. Will the House please join me in welcoming my hero Harold Steves.
Statements
MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS TREATY
Hon. M. de Jong: Just to indicate that we are celebrating today notification last night that the five member nations of the Maa-nulth treaty negotiating team have successfully ratified their treaty.
Congratulations to the Huu-ay-aht, Toquaht, Ucluelet, Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h' and Uchucklesaht Nations. We'll look forward to seeing their legislation and them here in Victoria.
Introductions by Members
S. Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two constituents from Qualicum Beach. I had the pleasure of having lunch with Karen Graham today for the first time, and she's accompanied by Neil Horner, who I've known longer. He's the assistant editor of the Parksville Qualicum Beach News. It sounds like a desk job, but when he does a story on a mountain that needs protecting, he climbs it, or a cave that needs protecting, he reports on it from a kilometre underground.
With that in mind, not just a welcoming — it was Neil's birthday yesterday. Would you please join me in wishing a happy birthday to Neil Horner.
D. Cubberley: Today in the gallery, with us from Pacific Christian School in sunny Saanich, is Mr. Tim Kamsteeg and 12 of his grade 11 students. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.
Tributes
NORMAN JOE SR.
D. Routley: It's with sombreness and sorrow that I bring to the House the news of the passing of another Cowichan elder. Norman Joe Sr. passed, and it's particularly sad for me, as I've known Norman since I was a pup. His son Norman Jr. and I were dear friends in school and still are very close. The Cowichan people are struggling to regain their language and reconnect their young people to their culture. Norman Joe Sr. was a real beacon in that effort. It's with great sorrow that I announce his passing.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
C. James: Every year an estimated 23,000 women in Canada are diagnosed with breast cancer, and 5,300 will die from it. Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer among Canadian women, and there are few lives that this disease has not touched.
In my own family, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer two years ago. My mother is a survivor, and she fought cancer with grace, with wit and with determination. Like other women, my mother benefited incredibly from the work of dedicated health professionals, from a strong network of family and friends, and from organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society, which has done so much to raise awareness of this disease.
[ Page 8688 ]
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Throughout British Columbia and Canada, communities are coming together in the fight against breast cancer and to support women facing the struggle of their lives. I was proud to participate in the Victoria Run for the Cure that was held on September 30 at the University of Victoria. We were joined by thousands of British Columbians in ten other communities that raised $3.4 million for breast cancer research and awareness.
In that effort, I want to remind women about what they can do to ensure early detection and treatment. The Canadian Cancer Society recommends that women have a mammogram every two years if they are between the ages of 50 and 69. Younger women should talk to a health professional about their risks and the benefits of mammograms.
In addition, if you're over 40, it's important to have a clinical breast exam by a trained health care professional at least every two years. Just as importantly, all women should take care to know their bodies and breasts and report any changes to their doctors.
The fight against breast cancer can and will be won. I ask all members of this House to join me in acknowledging October 2007 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
LAND USE AGREEMENTS IN
SEA TO SKY AREA
J. McIntyre: I rise to ask the House to join me in celebrating the fact that two historic land use agreements were signed in July of this year to help harmonize the Sea to Sky land resource management plan, or LRMP, with the vision of first nations for land stewardship.
A new land use agreement in partnership with the In-SHUCK-ch Nation — which are the Douglas, Skatin and Samahquam, who are in the final agreement stage of treaty negotiations — will protect sensitive areas for the establishment of cultural management areas and conservancies and will provide both a kick-start and greater certainty for economic development in the plan area.
Similarly, a land use agreement was signed with the Squamish Nation to protect cultural areas through the establishment of new conservancies and by creating a framework for collaborative and sustainable land management. Government-to-government negotiations with the Squamish Nation continued for almost two years, developing a common vision for land use in their traditional territories. The plan protects first nations interests and establishes certainty principles for the natural resource sectors in the plan area.
Complementary to the land use agreement, the Ministry of Environment and the Squamish Nation signed a collaborative agreement for the management of protected areas in their traditional territory. It sets up a collaborative process for management of protected areas as well as for the existing provincial parks. One of the highlights, of course, is that the uniqueness of the Squamish wild spirit places was recognized.
These two agreements represent important steps along the path of reconciliation, and they illustrate the extent to which our new relationship can be effective in achieving common goals. Completion of discussions with other first nations shortly will allow the province to complete the LRMP plan and move to implementation. So all the stakeholders, who put in years of effort and dedication to develop a sustainable common vision for the region, deserve our heartfelt thanks.
WASTE REDUCTION WEEK
S. Simpson: October 15 to 21 this year was Waste Reduction Week in Canada. Waste Reduction Week, whose slogan this year was "Too good to waste," is all about reducing the production of solid waste and reducing the waste of water and energy. Much of the focus of Waste Reduction Week is about the three Rs — reduction, recycling and reuse — as well as the promotion of composting.
Over 20 municipalities in B.C. adopted proclamations supporting these efforts this year. These included communities as small as Hudson Hope and up to and including Vancouver. These proclamations recognize the following: that the generation of solid wastes and the needless waste of water and energy are significant global environmental problems; that municipal governments have an important role to play in promoting waste reduction, recycling, composting and other conservation measures; and that many communities, businesses and organizations across Canada have committed to working together to raise awareness on these issues.
Local governments were not alone in their efforts. Many businesses also joined in with initiatives, including waste audits of their own operations and the promotion of better practices by both their employees and customers. Schools also joined in with waste audits of their own and programs that helped kids to learn more about the importance of conservation and waste reduction.
I am sure that I speak for all MLAs when I say congratulations to all the municipalities, businesses, community organizations and schools that initiated and hosted events for Waste Reduction Week. B.C. has done well, but we can do better.
I would encourage all MLAs to promote Waste Reduction Week 2008 with their local governments as well as business, community groups and schools. Let's increase participation with these important efforts, and all of us will benefit.
CAPTAIN GEORGE VANCOUVER WEEK
J. Yap: I rise today to bring attention to an event I was proud to be a part of this past summer. It was a great honour for me to announce on behalf of the provincial government that the week of June 22 would be proclaimed Captain George Vancouver Week in British Columbia.
It's easy for us to recognize the impact of Captain Vancouver. All we need to do is look at the Island we are now on or the city many of us represent. His exploration and discoveries helped to shape where we live
[ Page 8689 ]
today, and it only seems fitting to bestow this honour upon him.
I was proud to be able to present the official proclamation to the British High Commissioner on the 250th anniversary of Captain Vancouver's birth at the June 22 celebration at the Vancouver Maritime Museum. But none of this would have come to fruition without the passion and dedication of one of my constituents, maritime artist John Horton.
A professional artist for the past 40 years, John is a world-renowned marine artist with a passion for highlighting Captain Vancouver's accomplishments. His love for depicting the high seas led him to become a founding member of the Canadian Society of Marine Artists. He has the special distinction of having had one of his drawings, The Ketch, made into a special edition ten-cent coin by the Royal Canadian Mint.
A truly talented artist, John became recognized for his realistic portrayals of historical maritime events. This led him to begin a series of paintings focusing on Captain Vancouver's historical discoveries along our coast, presenting the natural beauty and wonder of discovery on canvas. It was John Horton's respect and admiration for Captain Vancouver that brought attention to this important anniversary that properly paid respect to the great explorer.
I'd like to thank John Horton and all those who continually remind us of the importance of our heritage.
SCHOOL LIBRARIES
D. Cubberley: On Friday I had the opportunity to join over 700 people at the Speaking of Kids Conference at Killarney Secondary. The place was bursting and the buzz infectious as we waited to hear from Henry Winkler — a.k.a. the Fonz — about his unhappy days growing up with dyslexia.
Winkler, now a co-author of best-selling children's books, handled the topic of struggling kids with wit and self-deprecation but pointedly reminded us, with the defiance of one long baited as dumb, that every child has talents that can be released.
Winkler's plea for the arts as a vehicle for learning was deeply moving. But the high point of my day actually came in conversation with a young teacher-librarian keen to express his enthusiasm for kids' learning potential. A self-described techie who teaches distance education courses, Aaron Mueller's true passion is the library, which he was eager to show me.
Being pro-D day, the place was strangely still, without the animation of kids excitedly searching in the cornucopia of choices around them. What an impressive library. How sad that Aaron cannot be a full-time teacher-librarian, his true passion.
Why, I ask provocatively, do we need physical libraries at all? Why not just have kids go on line?
"Because," he said, without missing a beat, "the library is the hub of learning, the place where kids come to discover new books and resources, to seek guidance on where to look and what to find. I wish you could experience it with the kids here," he said with pride. "I love every minute I get to spend connecting kids to learning."
Today is National School Library Day, a time to honour the role libraries play on the road to literacy and lifelong learning, to honour those whose calling it is to engage young readers. It's also a time to ask whether, for the sake of literacy and the love of reading, we can't do more to put a physical library with a skilled librarian within reach of every child in B.C. — not a 0.2 or 0.4 librarian, not a clerk to handle the book returns, but a living, breathing, full-time teacher-librarian.
SMALL BUSINESS MONTH AND
LANGLEY BUSINESS AWARDS
M. Polak: October is Small Business Month, and in B.C. there's an awful lot to celebrate about small business in this province.
In Langley we're celebrating business excellence. This past Saturday night I was privileged to attend the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards. Hosted by Gloria Macarenko, members from Langley city and the township of Langley gathered to honour the best and brightest of small business in our community.
Congratulations are in order for Sarah Vandekerkhove of Feminine Form, who was the winner of the New Entrepreneur Award; Langley Toyotatown, winner of the Customer Service Award; Harbour Air seaplanes, winner of the Small Business of the Year Award; Super 8 Hotel Langley, winner of the Medium Business of the Year Award; and Otter Co-op, winner of the Large Business of the Year Award.
But the Greater Langley Chamber recognizes that business excellence is not just evident in the financial success of an enterprise. True success includes dedication to the community and a dedication to outstanding business excellence. The George Preston Memorial Businessperson of the Year Award recognizes an individual who has displayed these exceptional qualities. This year Brian Bury of Brian Bury Photography was recognized for a seemingly endless list of contributions and innovative programs that benefit our community.
I ask the House to join me in recognizing these outstanding Langley businesses and indeed all small business owners as we celebrate Small Business Month in B.C. and remember that in B.C., small business is big business.
Oral Questions
REMOVAL OF LAND FROM
TREE FARM LICENCES
ON VANCOUVER ISLAND
C. James: In 1999 there was a thorough public consultation about the proposed release of private lands from tree farm licences on Vancouver Island. Here's what the Forest Practices Board had to say in opposition to that proposal. There would be no protection for community watersheds. There would be no guarantee
[ Page 8690 ]
of public involvement in managing those lands. There was no guarantee of sustainable forest management. And the last one: "Once land is in private hands, there is no turning back."
The overwhelming response from the public was no, and the lands weren't released.
My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. Who did he consult before he released Western Forest Products private lands, creating the mess that we have in Jordan River today?
Hon. R. Coleman: Under the Forest Act, companies can ask for removal from tree farm licences. Each request is examined on its merits. My staff looked at this and made a recommendation to the minister, which was to allow this exclusion. Part of the consideration taken at the time was, quite frankly, that there are 3,300 people working for a significant company on the coast as it's trying to restructure its company and save those jobs in British Columbia.
If the Leader of the Opposition doesn't care about those 3,300 families and their jobs in British Columbia, that's sad. I do.
In addition to that, the member should be aware that anything that happens with these lands outside of forest management will go through a public process just like any other piece of land through a community would for any rezoning or community development.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.
C. James: Well, it's a bit rich for the minister to talk about public consultation. Public consultation means just what he did — gave the land away without any discussion with the communities. None.
In 2003 senior officials advised the then Minister of Forests against releasing over 70,000 hectares of land, because the law didn't allow it. So what did the government do? They changed the law so they could actually start giving away the land. This created a nightmare for Port Alberni, forcing the minister to send in a team of consultants to deal with the mess that his government created.
Knowing that, who did the Minister of Forests consult with before he released thousands of hectares of land in Jordan River to Western Forest Products?
Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe you could actually couch your statement with regards to removal from a tree farm licence, because nobody gave away any land here. The land belonged to Western Forest Products. It's private land. It's owned by that company and not by the Crown. You should actually get your terminology straight on this particular.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. R. Coleman: The considerations are there. The minister can make the considerations. My staff reviewed it. They made a recommendation to me, and I followed through on that recommendation.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.
C. James: While the minister sits and looks at his terminology, the communities are the ones that are suffering because of this government's decisions. In 1999 the Forest Practices Board said that once private lands are released, "any ability to ensure protection of public values and benefits to local communities will be lost forever."
We know the minister chose not to consult. Why did he choose not to consult? Because he knew what the answer would be back from the public. The answer would be no, don't give away those lands.
My question, again, to the minister: will he commit to act in the public interest — the public interest that he seems to have forgotten in all of this issue — stop the sale of lands in Jordan River and actually consult with first nations communities and workers in those communities?
Hon. R. Coleman: None of the 3,300 jobs at Western Forest Products are being put at risk by this. In fact, it may actually enhance their stability long term, but the company is not doing any cutbacks because they happen to have some land come out of a tree farm licence.
The reality is that I know you don't like the fact that maybe some company and private land rights exist. I know you may not like the fact that maybe 3,300 people's jobs are important to the economy of the coast of British Columbia and those communities. I believe they are….
J. Horgan: Well, we know why the minister didn't consult — because he knew what the answer was going to be. It was going to be a resounding no.
In 1999 the Forest Practices Board said the following: "While government has some say in the transfer of rights to harvest timber on public lands, it would have no such input once the lands become private. Any ability to ensure protection of public values and benefits to local communities will be lost forever." That's the Forest Practices Board.
The minister says that he took advice from staff. Well, a briefing note in 2003 to the former Minister of Forests said they preferred option 3, which was: "Defer consideration of a Weyerhaeuser deletion request. Do not follow through." The minister of the day ignored that advice.
We get a third briefing note. I'd like to quote from it, but it's heavily severed. I'll read the following for our first nations friends. Maybe the minister will have something to say about that. "The province's position is that it is not obliged to consult with first nations regarding issues arising on private land. However, the provision of notice to potentially affected first nations is prudent, considering the fact that the Hupacasath and the Tseshaht First Nations commenced legal proceedings against the province when we deleted it last time."
[ Page 8691 ]
My question to the minister is…. You didn't consult with anybody because you knew what the answer would be. Give us one group, one first nation, one community that you talked to before you sold the farm.
Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have the list in front of me, but I will provide it to the member after question period. Consultations with all the first nations took place, and they had an opportunity for input.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
J. Horgan: You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the minister to provide documents. You gave me the same commitment six months ago. I haven't seen a blank piece of paper from your office, so I won't hold my breath.
Perhaps the Minister of Community Services might want to get in the game. She'll be well aware of the lack of capacity to manage development growth on southern Vancouver Island. I've raised it with her numerous times since I was elected in 2005. The CRD board is saying they want a moratorium on development. The communities are saying they need governance structures in place.
Can the Minister of Community Services say that she stood up in cabinet and said to the Minister of Forests: "Are you crazy? What are you giving this land away for?"
Hon. R. Coleman: You know that local government controls zoning. You know that they can decide what they want to do with the land.
I find it absolutely incredible. You don't want any land out of the private forest land that might go for some development that could actually create some opportunities in housing in British Columbia, yet you'll carry on about the fact. You don't want anything affordable.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. R. Coleman: The next thing out of your mouth is…. You say you need to do some more subsidies in housing, but because it's too expensive to have a home on southern Vancouver Island…. Why don't you get these people to plan for some densities and make changes so we can have a future in housing in British Columbia as well?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Just take your seat, Member.
Just to remind members: listen to the question, and listen to the answer.
B. Simpson: I have to say that's rich — that all of a sudden the Jordan River land…
Interjections.
B. Simpson: Yeah. No pun intended.
…release is all about housing and building housing in British Columbia. It helps me understand the relationship between Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing. I've been confused about that ever since the minister was appointed.
Aside from that fact, prior to this housing announcement we got in here today, the minister's only justification for disregarding the public good in this case was his heartfelt concern for 3,300 jobs at Western Forest Products.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
B. Simpson: It was so heartfelt that in the letter to Western Forest Products on January 24, there is — shock — absolutely no mention of securing investment in British Columbia or securing the jobs — no mention whatsoever in the letter.
My question to the Minister of Forests is this. What guarantee did he get from Western Forest Products that the money from the land sales will be invested in British Columbia and that Western Forest Products will be able to continue to employ those 3,300 jobs that he cares so much about?
Hon. R. Coleman: I said the next thing you would be doing is talking to me about housing. I didn't say it was relative, necessarily, to Jordan River by itself.
The fact of the matter is — and I know you don't like this…. I know you don't like the fact that Western is trying to restructure its business to save jobs on the coast of British Columbia. I know you don't like that. I know you don't like the fact that somebody is going to do something with some private land. I don't know why you're so opposed to people being able to do something with land they own in this province.
I don't know why you don't admit that any logging that would take place would still be governed under the Private Forest Land Act, and it has to still meet the environmental issues and all the rest of it. It's because you want to focus on one little issue and forget those 3,000 people on Vancouver Island who need this company to succeed.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
B. Simpson: What I don't like, what we don't like on this side, is a minister who fails to act in the public interest. What we don't like on this side is a minister who continues to say whatever he wants to say in this House and then does not translate it into action outside of this House. That's what we don't like.
Mr. Speaker, not only did the January 25 letter mention nothing about investment in British Columbia or holding jobs, two weeks later — two weeks after these lands were released — Western Forest Products closed down the New Westminster mill, a profitable
[ Page 8692 ]
mill, and 300 people were put out of work. Again, no guarantee for what he says he cares about.
My question is this: if he cares so much, will he attend a public meeting in Shirley tonight, stand in that public hall and explain to people why he did not act in their interest, stand in that public meeting and say that he will hear what they have to say and will stop this sale now so that they can have a say?
Hon. R. Coleman: We removed some lands from a tree farm licence that were private lands. I'm not selling them. The reality is this. You know, the member goes out and goes on about the thing in New Westminster. Why don't you also admit to the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith that at the same time that mill was closed, they opened another mill in Cowichan-Ladysmith and put jobs there because they're repositioning their company to protect the base of 3,300 jobs on the coast?
TREATMENT OF SENIORS IN
HEALTH CARE FACILITIES
C. Wyse: Retirement Concepts sent a letter to all residents and families warning that complaining to the proper authorities could result in consequences.
About four weeks ago Judy Alsager used to take her mom Irene to a Williams Lake facility. Why is Irene no longer welcome? Judy complained to the facility about the quality of her mom's care, and now her mother can't go back.
My question: will the minister order an independent review regarding seniors care in facilities operated by Retirement Concepts and in that review include why Williams Lake seniors care became a monopoly?
Hon. G. Abbott: I have a copy of the letter from Retirement Concepts that I understand was distributed to the families of clients in their residences in British Columbia. I am glad to share a copy of the letter with the member. He may not have the full letter. I'll leave it to others as to whether the language is appropriate or inappropriate. As I understand from the operators, it was a letter that was intended to be constructive, but as I say, I'm glad to share the letter with the member and have people form their conclusions.
It's interesting that very recently in the Williams Lake Tribune there was a letter published from the staff at Williams Lake Seniors Village which says, among other things, what the Leader of the Opposition is doing, and that is: "Turning these allegations against Retirement Concepts into a political crusade."
To continue a quote from the letter: "Her statement calling for an investigation into all facilities run by Retirement Concepts, and then look at seniors care in B.C. in general, is no better than scapegoating for the sake of getting her face in the news."
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
The member has a supplemental.
C. Wyse: The issue here is looking after the care of our seniors, regardless of where they may be in British Columbia. That responsibility rests here amongst the 79 of us and directly with the Minister of Health.
In addition to the previous case, the Mitchells of Williams Lake describe the treatment Marlene's mother received at Retirement Concepts up to Eva's death in September 2006. The letter describes inadequate bathing, inadequate feeding and dehydration. They describe hallways that reeked of urine and feces. The Mitchells were told that if they complained too much, they would be told to take their mother elsewhere.
My question: does the minister agree that families should not fear their loved one's level of care being reduced if they complain publicly and, further, that he order an independent investigation into the level of care for seniors, including how seniors care became a monopoly in Williams Lake?
Hon. G. Abbott: As I've said in the House a number of times now, anytime we have a complaint or an allegation against a facility, it is followed up in the most rigorous and comprehensive way by the licensing officials at the appropriate health authority.
In the case of Williams Lake Seniors Village, I understand from Interior Health that there have been for the last 18 months no substantiated concerns that have been raised in that facility. In terms of the facility itself, though….
Also in the Williams Lake Tribune of October 16, a letter by Cynthia Wilson, whose mother is in care at Williams Lake Seniors Village. I'll just read a short extract from it: "My mother lives at the Seniors Village in the comprehensive care area in a suitable room subsidized by the government. She enjoys the home environment. The staff are kind, caring, helpful, empathetic and quick to respond to her needs. The nurses and staff have communicated with me often on site and at home when there was a need or a health issue."
G. Gentner: Oh, the ghosts of Bill 29. Seniors across this province are suffering at the hands of this government. But now seniors are being gagged. After the opposition brought to light the tragic situation at Beacon Hill Villa, Retirement Concepts wrote its victims and their families advising them to "raise concerns with us first."
The letter went on to tell seniors and their families that if they took their concerns to licensing authorities, this could "lead to a delay in our efforts to address concerns and improve the quality of our care at our sites."
My question to the Minister of Health is simply this. Does he condone this type of bullying?
Hon. G. Abbott: As I said to the member for Cariboo South, I am glad to share this letter with him, with members of the press gallery and with every member of this House. Again, I will leave it to them
[ Page 8693 ]
to decide whether the language used in the letter is appropriate, inappropriate, constructive or unconstructive.
What I think is entirely inappropriate and entirely unconstructive is the deplorable rhetoric that I hear from that member on that side of the House. It is entirely inappropriate.
As the staff said…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. G. Abbott: …at Williams Lake Seniors Village: "The allegations against the staff at WLSV are not only petty but unfounded and unsubstantiated. The people that are making these claims are doing so for their own personal gain. To make these claims against WLSV is nothing short of slander."
The member should keep those kinds of things in his mind when he makes his deplorable statements.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Just wait a second. Continue, Member.
G. Gentner: What is deplorable is the neglect, the abuse and the intimidation that seniors are undergoing through this province. Perhaps the minister should rename Retirement Concepts to "retirement consequences," because that's what's happening in this province. This has got to stop.
Home and community care service agreements clearly state that residents have a right to raise their concerns without fear of discrimination. That's not what's happening in this province. So my question to the Minister of Health is this. Is he so concerned about Retirement Concepts' bottom line that he won't tell the care provider chain to follow the rules?
Hon. G. Abbott: I am entirely indifferent to the bottom line of any operator in this province.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Just take your seat, Minister.
Continue.
Hon. G. Abbott: Whether the bottom line of any given company is good or bad is not a concern of ours. The care they provide to the often vulnerable seniors that they provide for is exactly what we are concerned about on this side of the House.
The members on that side can rail on disgracefully as they are, irresponsibly as they are, about the exceptional care that seniors receive in this province. They can try to prompt fear in the heart of every senior in this province, entirely inappropriately. Every complaint, every allegation that is tendered in this system is followed up rigorously, thoughtfully and comprehensively. For the member to suggest otherwise is untrue and entirely irresponsible.
EVICTION OF TENANTS IN FERNIE
N. Macdonald: My question is for the Minister for Housing. On October 31, 50 renters in Fernie are being evicted. This is because their apartments are being changed into what are essentially condominiums, using a loophole this government very deliberately created. These are people born and raised and working in Fernie, and they're being pushed out by this government.
My question to the minister is this. What is the minister going to do to close the loophole, or like his compatriot there, is he indifferent to the situation?
Hon. R. Coleman: The situation in Fernie…. There are 24 units in a building. The landlord wants to renovate. There are six people left that are working with B.C. Housing to rehouse during the period of time that the renovations would take place. The rest, I understand, have already found accommodation. We are working with them. When the building is completed, if they wish to move in and the rent goes up, we will help them with rental assistance.
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.
N. Macdonald: I do. What the minister knows or should know is that these will not return to a rental market. They will go to hundred-year leases, something that this minister deliberately allowed to take place. There's nothing local government can do to stop that — again, something this minister deliberately put in place.
You have two cousins living together in those apartments. They will not be going back there. Raised in Fernie and working in Fernie. The Dairy Queen they work for needs them. There's a shortage of workers there.
A mother and adult son. They have lived in Fernie for 23 years. They will be gone. The minister knows that or should know it.
These evictions are directly the result of this minister's policies — directly the result. So what is the minister going to do to stop these evictions now?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. R. Coleman: To the member: I might caution him on telling me what I did and did not do. He might want to go and check out with regards to 99-year lease and strata leases. They are governed under rules with regards to conversion that municipalities deal with, with regards to allowing those to take place. Those have not been changed under this government.
[ Page 8694 ]
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
WITHDRAWAL OF HOUSING SUBSIDY
FOR VANCOUVER TENANT
J. Kwan: My constituents Mila Kwan and her son lived in a B.C. Housing subsidized apartment for 13 years. Ms. Kwan's subsidy was withdrawn in July 2007 because the affordable housing society judged her family income to be "not sufficient, as it is not possible for two people to live and go to school on $325 a month."
After Ms. Kwan was deemed to be too poor to receive a housing subsidy, her rent was re-increased from $190 to $947. When she could not afford her new rent, she was evicted.
I thought the role of B.C. Housing's rental subsidy program is to assist low-income people and not to throw them out on the street. Can the Minister for Housing tell us why B.C. Housing allowed affordable housing to withdraw Mila Kwan's rental subsidy so that she's faced with a 400-percent rent increase?
Hon. R. Coleman: I am very disappointed in this question coming from this member, because this member has been made completely aware of the entire chronology and the issues regarding this tenancy.
She has been aware of the chronology. She's aware of the fact that the individual has not met the rules that are laid out in the contract with regards to the disclosure of income and that they have been repeatedly asked to do so. We have given them assistance to try and accomplish that. Affordable housing, who operates the facility, went through the proper legal processes.
We actually tried to deal with this item, and the member knows that. It's fine to bring it up in the House, but I am disappointed knowing that she knows how it is unfair if somebody refuses to produce income statements in affordable housing in British Columbia — why they think they should be allowed to do that when other people are asked to do it because they only get charged 30 percent of their income in rent. It is not a big stretch to ask people to follow the rules, and the member knows very well that B.C. Housing and everybody else has been very, very diligent in trying to solve this issue.
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.
J. Kwan: The minister is dead wrong with that information. Mila Kwan and her family submitted the information with her bank statements, the cheque stubs — all the information that was required to ensure that she gets her subsidy.
But you know what? I wrote to the minister asking for assistance. Two letters were sent. Telephone calls were made, and the minister chose not to respond. The B.C. Supreme Court ordered that the order possession that was issued for Mila Kwan and her family be stayed. Affordable housing chose to ignore that court order. She is now sleeping in a car and in shelters, and her son is surfing the couches with friends.
The homelessness rate has more than doubled under this government. Instead of increasing the rate of homelessness, will this minister tell affordable housing to abide by the law and follow the court order? And will this minister commit today to reinstate Mila Kwan's housing subsidy retroactive to July so that she can afford to live and go back to her home that she's been in for 13 years?
Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite knows that on March 6, 2007, the DIA was requested. It wasn't responded to. Additional letters were sent later on in July of 2007. Information was not provided.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
Hon. R. Coleman: She's aware of the fact that the process that affordable housing went through is relative to the operating agreement that these non-profits are to abide by. She's aware of all that. She also knows that we've tried to work with this individual unsuccessfully, and I'm sure that we will try and find a solution for Ms. Kwan, in addition to having to deal with protecting the other people who pay their rent in British Columbia according to the rules.
[End of question period.]
S. Fraser: I seek leave to submit a petition.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Petitions
S. Fraser: I have a petition with thousands of signatures from across the province in support of the promotion of safe antifreeze bill, to join 15,000 other signatures already in here that may or may not be listened to.
C. Wyse: I seek leave to present three separate petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
C. Wyse: First petition: 83 names seeking a fair and stable price for gasoline.
The second petition: 413 names from Ashcroft seeking relief from the bylaw banning smoking in legions, given the expense invested in creating non-smoking areas in their building.
The third petition: 234 names from the Chilcotin requesting basic health care of a doctor, clinics that are open and a working ambulance.
[ Page 8695 ]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. de Jong: Just a reminder to all members that we don't need leave to present petitions at this stage in the proceedings. They can just be presented.
I call committee stage debate on Bill 29, Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, to be followed, if we get there, by second reading of Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act.
Committee of the Whole House
ADULT GUARDIANSHIP AND PLANNING
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 29; S. Hammell in the chair.
The committee met at 2:28 p.m.
On section 4 (continued).
C. Trevena: I'd like to pick up where we left off on Thursday, on section 16 and the Attorney's reference in this. We were very concerned about what "best intentions" meant and who was going to make the decision.
At that stage, the Attorney kept talking about the fiduciary duty of the guardian. But we are here talking in section 16, the powers of a personal guardian, and referring to section 20, there are no fiduciary duties in the personal guardian. There are fiduciary duties, in section 21, of a property guardian. I would therefore like more clarification from the Attorney General on this section.
Hon. W. Oppal: There's a difference between personal guardian and a person who has a fiduciary duty. This section 20 sets out the duties specific to a personal guardian. It states that the personal guardian must comply with the latest pre-expressed wishes or instructions made by the adult, when capable, unless it would be inconsistent with a court order.
The duty, section 20(3), talks about: "If there are no pre-expressed wishes relevant to the decision to be made, a personal guardian must act in the adult's best interests, taking into account…." Then the subsection relates to certain factors that they must consider.
The duty to act in the adult's best interest is well established in case law. The provision expands the duty by establishing a test for determining the best interests, including the requirement to take into account the adult's known beliefs and values, which follows modern guardianship principles. If additional criteria are required, then they can be added by way of regulation.
C. Trevena: I just wanted a clarification because at the last discussion of this at the end of last week, the Attorney was saying that the personal guardian had fiduciary duties, and now it's very clear that the personal guardian doesn't have the fiduciary duty. The personal guardian is acting in the best interests, and best interest is defined by case law.
Hon. W. Oppal: As well as the factors that are set up in section 20.
L. Krog: Again, on section 4, part 16. In that section it talks about in subsection (2): "Unless the court provides otherwise, a personal guardian must not…interfere with the adult's religious practices."
I'm just wondering: what's the opinion of the ministry on the constitutionality of that section? It strikes me that no court could ever provide that a person's religious practices could be interfered with, and the very wording of that section seems to contemplate that.
Hon. W. Oppal: I think the words of the section, perhaps, are instructive. It states that unless a court provides otherwise, a personal guardian must not give or refuse consent on the adult's behalf to any type of health care prescribed under the sections or interfere with the adult's religious practices, unless there is a court order to do so. I think that's the best way I can answer that question.
L. Krog: I understand that's the point, but I'm questioning the constitutionality of a section that would purport impliedly to give the court the power to interfere with a person's religious practices.
Hon. W. Oppal: I'm afraid I don't understand the question from the perspective of the constitutionality of the section. Is the member referring to property and civil rights under section 92 of the BNA Act? Is that the question? Perhaps the question could be clarified.
L. Krog: Well, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to practise one's religion in this country. This section says that unless the court provides otherwise, a guardian must not interfere with the adult's religious practices. By implication, it's saying that the court could make an order that allows a guardian to interfere with a person's religious practices. That, to me, offends the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that's my point.
Hon. W. Oppal: I think what you have to do is look at the spirit of the legislation and the basic philosophical basis of the legislation, and that is that the guardian has a duty to act in the best interests of the adult. It says that unless the court provides otherwise, a personal guardian must not interfere with the adult's religious practices. There may be rare instances — giving of or taking of a blood sample or matters of that nature — that, while they may contravene someone's religious practices, may be in the best interests of the person as far as the health and well-being of that person is concerned. I'm speculating.
[ Page 8696 ]
I would assume that the purpose of the section, the import of this section is to give the court the power to deal with the best interests of a person where religious practices may interfere with that. In other words, you've got a clashing of the two objectives. One is that we have to care for the best interests of the person involved, but that may contravene or run counter to his or her religious practices, and this gives the court the power to deal with that.
L. Krog: I think I've made my point about this section with the Attorney General. I think it's going to provide some legal difficulty down the road, and it is going to get challenged.
With respect to section 4(17), this is a new provision and very specific, and I understand the purpose of it. Subsection (5) on page 11, that a property guardian may make a gift or loan or charitable gift, etc., if the court order permits it or if the adult will have sufficient property remaining, "the adult, when capable, made gifts or loans, or charitable gifts, of that nature, and (c) the total value of all gifts, loans…" etc., is less than the prescribed value….
I read this section as saying that if dad was giving a thousand bucks every Christmas to his children, then the property guardian would be entitled to do the same thing. But what I'm looking at — and it's my criticism from the other day when we discussed this bill — is that it's being left to cabinet to decide what is the prescribed value.
Can the Attorney General give me any assistance today as to what we're looking at in terms of a prescribed value — what range? I mean, if I'm Bill Gates, perhaps a million bucks at Christmas isn't a lot of money; but if I'm Sally who's living on a $10,000-a-year pension, perhaps $500 is.
Hon. W. Oppal: Before the regulations are adopted, there will be public consultation. The regulations will take into account the total value of all the gifts, loans, etc., — that the "gifts in a year is equal to or less than a prescribed value," as the words suggest. So these are things that will be addressed with consultation with all stakeholders in adopting regulations.
The Chair: Member, on paragraph 17.
L. Krog: With particular reference to sub (9) on page 12, which says: "A person must not deliver, to an adult's property guardian, a will made by the adult if the adult has given instructions to a lawyer who holds the adult's will, or the will contains instructions, prohibiting delivery of the will to the property guardian." I'm just wondering: why does this section apply only to lawyers, as opposed to, say, trust companies or notaries or other persons? If so, what's the point?
Hon. W. Oppal: Well, sub (9) reflects the standard practice that is in place now.
L. Krog: I don't wish to belabour the point, but what practice, what statute, governs this standard practice? It just strikes me that if I've given instructions to a notary or trust company and a will has been prepared, why would this only apply to those in the control of a lawyer as opposed to a trust company, who are often appointed by wealthy individuals?
Hon. W. Oppal: The legislation is as it is. It may well be that after experience, it may be necessary to insert the words "or a trust company or any other person of similar standing."
L. Krog: Referring specifically to the section on accounts — that's section 4, paragraph 22 on page 14 — it provides that a property guardian must apply to pass the accounts before the court, if ordered to do so, or the Public Guardian and Trustee, if ordered to do so by the court or requested in the form required.
Do I take it that this section will allow the Public Guardian and Trustee to pass accounts of guardians, as opposed to the law as it is now, which requires that if accounts can be passed, they be passed by the registrar of the court pursuant to court order? In other words, is this a somewhat easier out, and will property guardians be able to deal now strictly with the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee?
Hon. W. Oppal: This really is a provision to streamline and modernize the statute. It may be that it will be required in a particular case to go before a court, but the purpose is to give the authority to the Public Guardian and Trustee so as to expedite matters.
The Chair: Member, on paragraph 22.
L. Krog: No, I'm actually on paragraph 24 now. I don't intend to drag the Attorney General through every section of the bill this afternoon, much as I know he would be interested in doing so.
The Chair: Member, on paragraph 24.
L. Krog: On 24 it says that a personal guardian "must not be remunerated for acting as the adult's personal guardian," except for expenses, but provides that a property guardian may be remunerated. Again, it talks about "in accordance with" the regulations if it's the Public Guardian and Trustee or in accordance with the regulations generally.
I'm wondering: is the Attorney General contemplating a different fee scale between the Public Guardian and Trustee's office and individuals who are appointed property guardians?
Hon. W. Oppal: I would expect it to be the subject of further consultation because there is a likelihood that there would be a difference in the fee schedules. This would be something that we would be consulting on.
L. Krog: My second question on this section is: why are we going to remunerate someone who is looking
[ Page 8697 ]
after property, but someone who may be spending a great deal of time providing direction and assistance around the adult's personal care isn't going to be remunerated, other than to simply allow for the payment of expenses?
Hon. W. Oppal: The section states that a personal guardian cannot be remunerated for acting as guardian but may be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred while acting as guardian. The section also protects against for-profit personal guardians, but a property guardian may be remunerated, unless the court orders otherwise. The regulations will establish the amount of the fees, and there may in any particular circumstances be reimbursement for reasonable expenses.
L. Krog: In reference to what is section 4. That's division 5, section 30, on page 20. This provides that if they have reason to believe that a guardian has failed or is about to fail to comply with the guardian's duties, the Public Guardian and Trustee may conduct an investigation and, after conducting an investigation, may apply to the court for a review.
I'm just wondering: can the Attorney General give some assistance as to what he would see as an example of the lowest standard that would give the public guardian reason to believe…? In other words, can I simply make a phone call to the Public Guardian and Trustee? Is it a letter? What's contemplated by this that would, in fact, hopefully initiate this process?
Hon. W. Oppal: The Public Guardian and Trustee, as the member well knows, is an officer of the Legislature. There is discretion…. I'm sorry; I stand to be corrected. If he has sufficient reason to believe that a guardian has failed in his or her duty or is about to fail, then the guardian, upon whom we place trust, may conduct an investigation into circumstances. There's no minimal standard as such, except that the words "has reason to believe" I think are instructive in that he cannot do it capriciously, at a whim or for reasons that cannot be articulated.
L. Krog: With respect to section 31 on page 20, it says: "Subject to any limitation or condition set out in the regulations, a person who (a) is authorized by judgment, decree or order of a court or tribunal to act outside British Columbia in a manner similar to a guardian, and (b) complies with any prescribed requirements may exercise powers and perform duties in British Columbia in respect of the adult for whom the person is acting…."
I'm wondering: is the government contemplating some kind of registry? I mean, how does one start to exercise one's authority in British Columbia?
My concern is this. For instance, you have someone in Alberta who has been declared incapable under what we'll call the equivalent of the existing Patients Property Act. The daughter, who is appointed, brings them home to British Columbia. The daughter is appointed in Alberta, and everything has been brought into British Columbia now. Is there going to be some kind of process, or can they automatically assume, or do they have to get a legal opinion? In other words, how is this process going to work that a guardian, if you will, from outside the province gets to act in British Columbia safely and in compliance with our law?
Hon. W. Oppal: Again, this provision will modernize and streamline the practice. It allows a guardian authorized under an extrajurisdictional guardianship order to act in B.C.
You see, right now an order-in-council is required to do that. This will remove the necessity for a guardian to obtain an order-in-council to deal with B.C. assets or a B.C. court guardianship order if the adult is moved to B.C. The regulations establish the requirements to be met for the guardian to be able to act.
We would expect that the regulations will provide that the scheme for such recognition would be based largely on the recommendations of the B.C. Law Institute. What the purpose here is that the framework would permit orders from other Canadian jurisdictions to be registered in B.C. under the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act. However, the order would have to be confirmed if the adult moved to B.C.
This really is a section that deals with cross-border issues. That's the purpose of this. As I said a moment ago, now these types of scenarios and these types of issues have to be dealt with by way of cabinet order.
L. Krog: I want to confirm my understanding of the Attorney General's response, which is that it will be dealt with by way of regulations. In other words, I'm not going to have to go to court or make a court application or petition the court or apply for an order-in-council. It will be a regulatory scheme, I would presume, administered by the Public Guardian and Trustee's office. I'm just wondering if the Attorney General could comment.
Hon. W. Oppal: That's a correct interpretation. That is, it would be done by way of regulation, and there will be no need to administer it. Again, it's a move towards streamlining the practice.
L. Krog: Moving on to section 4, paragraph 32 on page 21…. That's part 2.1, statutory property guardians. It says: "If a person has reason to believe that an adult may be incapable of managing the adult's financial affairs, the person may (a) if the person is a health care provider, request a qualified health care provider to assess the adult's incapability, or (b) in any case, notify the Public Guardian and Trustee of the person's belief, and the Public Guardian and Trustee may request a qualified health care provider to assess the adult's incapability."
It then goes on to talk about if you receive a report under (2)…. We discussed this indirectly around the definition section in section 4, as to who was a qualified health care provider. What we're saying is that those opinions will in fact possibly be from individuals other than medical practitioners, in theory, because they will be prescribed by regulation.
[ Page 8698 ]
In other words, the existing law — not practice, the law — is now that I have to get the opinion of two members of the B.C. Medical Association, qualified College of Physicians and Surgeons, to certify. What we're saying is that now this is opening up the possibility of, in fact, it being some nurse or some other qualified health care providers.
Hon. W. Oppal: As the member quite correctly notes, this legislation will obviate the necessity of going through the procedures that are now set out in the Patients Property Act of requiring two medical practitioners to make the order.
Here, the new section will permit an assessment to be made where an adult is incapable of managing the financial affairs, to be completed by a qualified health care provider upon request by the provider or the Public Guardian and Trustee. The assessment must be done in accordance with the procedures that will be set out in the regulations and will capture the best practice, including a test of incapability. That will be the governing factor.
If an adult is, for instance, incapable, the health authority designate — it may be a director of the mental health centre — may complete a certificate of incapability and forward that to the Public Guardian and Trustee. There are five criteria that must be met before a certificate is issued. The trustee may accept the certificate of incapability, whereupon the trustee becomes the adult's statutory property guardian after those steps have been complied with.
The section will not apply, obviously, if the adult has a property guardian appointed by the court. So in those circumstances, it wouldn't apply.
L. Krog: With respect further to paragraphs 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, I read this scheme, and I'm simply asking for confirmation, to say that the Public Guardian and Trustee — having received an assessment, if you will — will step in and can step in automatically as a property guardian for that individual if there's a certificate of incapability issued. Then the statute is essentially contemplating that at that point — perhaps because it's an emergency situation, for instance, although it doesn't have to be — some other person can apply to be appointed as property guardian.
The reason I raise this — and with great respect to the Public Guardian and Trustee's office, much as I appreciate the good work they do — is that there are often family members who do not see it that way and would prefer to actually act on behalf of a person who's been declared incapable. The way I understand this section is that we're essentially saying that the Public Guardian and Trustee can step in without the necessity of a court application, but then I'm certainly free as a family member or an interested party to step in and have the Public Guardian and Trustee replaced, if you will.
Hon. W. Oppal: The section obviously deals with replacing a statutory property guardian. Subsection (3) states that the application may be granted if the Trustee is satisfied that the applicant is suitable and a plan submitted under (2)(b) is appropriate to manage the adult's financial affairs. This section is obviously put in so as to provide more flexibility and provide a change if a change is warranted for whatever reason.
L. Krog: What I understand from these sections, particularly 36 and 37, is that now the only way you could step in as an individual is if a court appoints you to be a committee of a patient, whereas this statutory scheme, as proposed in this bill, allows the Public Guardian and Trustee to step in and become a property guardian. Then if they're satisfied that the son, the daughter, the wife, the husband, the cousin or the best friend is capable and has a plan, the Public Guardian and Trustee on their own, without application to court — without a court review, if you will — can in fact appoint that person who would have all the same authority as a court-appointed property guardian and be able to carry on managing those affairs.
Further, as I understand it, if it is granted by the Public Guardian and Trustee, the Public Guardian and Trustee, also in section 37 sub (1) on page 25, can rescind the grant of that authority. In other words, the Public Guardian and Trustee's office becomes a bit of a mini-court in comparison to what we're doing now.
Hon. W. Oppal: The short answer is yes. This section is obviously put there so as to avoid the necessity of going to court when a change is necessary.
L. Krog: I just want to confirm. In discussions — and I presume they took place with the Law Society of British Columbia, Society of Notaries Public, etc. — was there support for this particular revision and reform, if I may call it that?
Hon. W. Oppal: There was extensive consultation, and the proposed legislation was exposed for public consultation for two years. There were no objections to this provision.
L. Krog: Further on section 37, particularly sub (6) and (7), which provides a continuance of the property guardian's authority in the case of a deceased patient, if you will, until such time as letters of administration or whatever are granted. It then goes on to talk about: "If no letters probate of the will or letters of administration of the estate of the adult are granted, the statutory property guardian may apply to court for an order that subsection (6) does not apply."
I'm just wondering. What's the scheme that's contemplated here? We have a situation where the estate is small, for instance, and probate is not required or letters of administration are not appropriate. It's not necessary. In other words, why go to the expense? Is it contemplated, then, that the property guardian will be enabled, if you will, to then simply wind up the affairs of the estate in accordance with the will, if any, or in accordance with the Estate Administration Act,
[ Page 8699 ]
without further court order or application, or is a court order going to be required?
Hon. W. Oppal: A person may apply to the court for an order, but it's not mandatory. The sufficient safeguards are there by having the…. Well, the section contemplates an avoidance of having to resort to go to court.
Sections 4 to 16 inclusive approved.
On section 17.
L. Krog: Referring to section 17, in particular, paragraph 62.2 on page 29: "Nothing in this Act (a) limits the inherent jurisdiction of the court to act in a parens patriae capacity, or (b) deprives a person of the right to ask the court to exercise that jurisdiction."
It then goes on to say: "On application by a guardian, the court may (a) give directions regarding the scope of the guardian's powers and duties, and (b) make any order in the best interests of the adult."
Do I take it from my reading of this section that in fact, in theory, the Supreme Court could override the specific provisions of this act, exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, or is the reverse true? If it is prescribed by the act, then in fact the court's power is limited?
Hon. W. Oppal: What this subsection does is affirm the overarching authority of the court in relation to the protection of incapable adults and clarifies that there is nothing in the legislation that stops a court from acting in this particular capacity.
Really, it clarifies that the Supreme Court maintains its parens patriae jurisdiction. That's what it does.
L. Krog: On paragraph 63, this runs for literally four pages and gives Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act. I can't let this section pass, as I've emphasized in this and other bills before this House.
Remarkable authority is given to cabinet under this section. I say "remarkable" in the sense that we all understand the power of cabinet to make regulations pursuant to a statute that's passed by this House and proclaimed into law. None of what will be approved by cabinet is going to come back before this Legislature. There will be no public debate. There will be public consultation as promised. There will be discussion, but candidly, it will not endure the question of opposition members. It will not endure the kind of public view that this Legislature is supposed to bring to regulations.
I want to say to the Attorney General that I can understand the ease that it may provide to government. The public service may enjoy the ease of not having to pass things up through the channels and get them approved by cabinet and get them submitted to the House. But at the end of the day, to use that timeworn phrase, it is taking out of public scrutiny matters which I would suggest to the Attorney General are important.
When we reviewed section 4, paragraph 16, which gives, very specifically, remarkable powers to a person who is appointed guardian, including the right to physically restrain and move the adult and decide whether or not they can associate with other people…. All of the regulations that may flow from all of this are never going to see the light of the Legislature, if you will.
Before we pass this section, I want to go on record saying that I think this is a bad practice. It is bad legislative practice. It is not in the interests of British Columbians, and I would encourage the government to reconsider its position when it's bringing bills of such importance to this House. Whether those bills are seen as a reform or not, it is not, in my view, what legislatures should be doing.
Having said that, I've concluded my questions on sections 17 and 18.
Sections 17 and 18 approved.
On section 19.
C. Trevena: It's section 19 in "Planning Statutes Amendments," and the question is about advance directives. I've got a number of questions about advance directives and just, really, wanted some clarification. Initially, I think, in section 19(b) on the definition maybe the Attorney General will be able to help me on a number of my questions by telling me whether there is a specific form used or how the advance directive is written so that it is consistent for every individual.
Hon. W. Oppal: The issue regarding the use of a mandatory form was discussed, and the conclusion that we came to was that it would be too restrictive. It would be too limiting and would perhaps prohibit effective planning.
As well, no other jurisdiction imposes a mandatory form, just as none will be required for other planning instruments, representation agreements and enduring powers of attorney. This will help ensure accessibility, that advance directives are easy to make.
It should be noted that Bill 29 does require an advance directive to meet certain content and certain requirements, so there is a statutory requirement scheme. It also provides for authority for standard optional forms to set out in its regulations, and standard forms will be developed with the benefit of consultation. That may be of some assistance to people who are contemplating this. They may well provide guidance, as I expect they would, for those who wish to avail themselves of their use.
C. Trevena: So the Attorney is saying that there isn't a standardized form, but there is a form for guidance that could be used for people?
Hon. W. Oppal: There's no mandatory form, but there will be a standardized form that I would expect would be useful to persons.
[ Page 8700 ]
C. Trevena: I wonder if the Attorney could explain, then, what would be in the form. What would be expected to be there in an advance directive?
Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the standard form will, of necessity, refer to those matters that are set out in 2.1, and the forms would be developed after meaningful consultation.
C. Trevena: So it would just be giving guidance for somebody to fill in on behalf of someone else. But what would be expected to be included — everything we've been discussing previously about the ability to move someone, and so on? What is it we are exactly talking about?
Hon. W. Oppal: We're talking here about advance health directives. That's what we're talking about here.
C. Trevena: I realize that, but I was wondering if the Attorney could explain a little bit more about what would be included there that an advance directive, the guidance for people…. What would have to be included in this to make sure that it was going to be followed with the security that the person who was not capable of enunciating their own wishes — that we're going to have that security there? As I understand it, this is a large part of what this bill is about.
Hon. W. Oppal: I think the best way I can answer is that only a capable adult can complete the documentation, can complete the directive.
C. Trevena: I will move on. I don't think I'm really clearly explaining myself very well here, because I wanted to know what the sort of prescriptions would be within the advance directive.
Maybe if we move on section 19.6, page 38, the changing of the advance directive. We're obviously talking about people who need to hand over some authority to someone else for their needs, and often it's going to be for their health care needs. They have to basically say at a certain stage: "I'm not going to be capable. I want this to happen." What I wanted to know in my previous question was: what issues would be included in that? What would be included in the advance directive?
I'll move on to 19.6, where we have the issue of somebody changing the advance directive unless they are "incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the change or revocation." How would an advance directive be changed by somebody who doesn't have the capacity to change it themselves?
Sections 19 to 28 inclusive approved.
On section 29.
L. Krog: This does set, in my view, the power of a person to make an advance directive unless incapable, but the standard set it talks about is: "Unless the adult is incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the proposed advance directive." Then it goes on to define what that is. It says in sub (2): "An adult is incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the proposed advance directive if the adult cannot understand (a) the scope and effect of the health care instructions set out in the advance directive, and (b) that a person will not be chosen under section 16 to make decisions on behalf of the adult about the health care described in the advance directive except in the circumstances set out in section 19.8."
Who is going to make the determination, if you will, that a person is capable or incapable within the meaning of that section? Are we looking at a doctor? Are we looking at a health care professional? Are we looking at assessments, opinions? Or is it just a judgment call?
If I am, for instance, an admitting person in a long-term care facility and a new patient has arrived, am I going to be in a position to sit them down with it, satisfy myself, and if I'm satisfied, then away they go? Because my understanding, and the concern of this legislation, is that there have been persons signing these advanced directives when there was no statutory authority for them and that the passage of this bill will in fact, if you will, legitimize documents that have had heretofore no legal basis. What I want to determine is: who's going to make that decision?
Hon. W. Oppal: Well, there's a presumption of validity, and if that presumption is…. It requires two witnesses. It's presumed that the person who makes the advanced directive is capable.
In 19.8 it sets out the factors as to when an advanced directive does not apply, and it sets out certain circumstances that a health care provider should not follow directions of an advanced directive if the provider believes that the instructions are not relevant or not clear; that the wishes of the adult have changed once a directive is made; that since the adult made the directive, significant medical advances are relevant to the care and might substantially benefit the adult; and any number of factors that are set out in 19.8.
[K. Whittred in the chair.]
L. Krog: Referring to 19.5, and in particular on page 38, it provides that if the witness is a member of the Law Society — in other words, a lawyer — or a member of the Society of Notaries Public, then only one individual is required to witness. I can appreciate the logic behind that, assuming the notaries will have some training in the area.
It then goes on to say: "The following persons must not act as a witness to the signing of an advance directive: (a) a person who provides personal care, health care or financial services to the adult for compensation, other than a practising member of the Law Society of British Columbia or a member of the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia; (b) a spouse, child, parent," etc.
When I'm reading that section, I read it to mean that if a person is providing personal care — I would take it that would include, for instance, staff at a facility — they can't witness it, as opposed to reading it in
[ Page 8701 ]
conjunction and saying a person who provides personal care to the adult for compensation.
Hon. W. Oppal: This is deliberately done in order to address the concerns of those persons who came to us and were concerned about undue influence being exercised by health care providers.
What this section does is set out the requirements for a directive, which are basically the same as those for a representation agreement and enduring powers of attorney. It sets out, you will notice, that the directive be in writing, signed by an adult and two witnesses. To summarize, it is there to prohibit undue influence and to prohibit certain persons from acting as witnesses because of that.
L. Krog: Just to be clear, my point is this. If you look at (5)(a): "…a person who provides personal care, health care or financial services to the adult for compensation…."
In other words, I read it to mean that a person who provides personal care…. So if I'm in a public facility, we'll call it, or a non-profit, anyone who works there cannot be a witness. Anyone who provides health care to me can't be a witness, or any person who provides financial services to me for compensation — in other words, my mutual fund manager — as opposed to reading it to say that if I provide personal care and I'm paid for it, I can't do it. But if I just provide personal care and I do it for free, then I could be a witness.
It's a linguistic and grammatical issue, but I just want to understand that my reading of this section is correct.
Hon. W. Oppal: It's a person who provides care to the adult for compensation, other than a practising member of the Law Society or a notary public.
L. Krog: Over to page 39. That's 19.7(3). "A health care provider is not required to make more than a reasonable effort in the circumstances to determine whether the adult has an advance directive or a personal guardian or representative."
I'm just wondering: is the government contemplating some kind of registry, like we have with the wills registry now, with the division of vital statistics, which unfortunately, because of the charge that is levied, is ill-used by the public generally in British Columbia? Is a central registry contemplated so that people could, in fact, register the creation of a health care directive and its location?
Hon. W. Oppal: Registry options will certainly be considered, but not necessarily a registry. There will be something that will be considered.
L. Krog: I think the ghost of Mackenzie King is inhabiting the chamber — conscription, but not necessarily conscription. If I may say, I am satisfied with taking us through to section 37.
Sections 29 to 37 inclusive approved.
On section 38.
L. Krog: I'm making reference in particular to section 38, paragraph 12. That's the power to make an enduring power of attorney unless incapable. The test set out there provides that an adult "is incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the proposed…power of attorney if the adult cannot understand all of the following." It goes on to list a number of things — the property he has, the approximate value, obligations to his or her dependents, etc.
I'm just wondering: is there any precedent in any other jurisdiction for this new definition section? I would support it, frankly. It seems to me to be a reform, but is there some precedent for the language that is used in this section?
Hon. W. Oppal: This test really adopts what's the practice now in Ontario. It has been in force for over a decade. The test is clear, then, that recently decided on in relation to an old section 8 case relating to an enduring power of attorney by the B.C. Court of Appeal…. So it clarifies what the Court of Appeal said in a case called Egli v. Egli.
L. Krog: Referring to, again, subsection 38(16). This provides that subject to subsections (2) to (6), which allow a power of attorney to be witnessed by a member of the Law Society or notary public…. It says simply that an enduring power of attorney must be in writing, signed, dated in the presence of two witnesses and both present in the presence, much like we execute a will. It then goes on to talk about other provisions.
This is a fairly dramatic change. Right now I can wander into my bank, and I can sign a power of attorney and allow someone to, you know, look after my bank account. But this change contemplates that the document now that would give me authority, if you will, to deal with a person's assets must be signed in front of a notary public or a lawyer, the presumption being that there would be some kind of advice or explanation given. But the way I read this is that I can sign it now in front of two of my neighbours, who may not be the brightest bulbs in the candelabra. That's my reading of this section.
I just wonder if the Attorney General can confirm that. If so, has he considered what I think could be the fairly disastrous consequences of people doing self-help legal work or being influenced, if you will, by unscrupulous parties saying: "Look, you really should have one of these. Every lawyer says you should"? So I'm going to trot down to the stationery store, pick up the form and have it witnessed by my two friends, who happily get me to sign away my authority to manage my affairs.
Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the current practice is that only one witness is required. So the objective is to avoid the possibility of some wrongdoing. What this legislation will do is mandate two witnesses to provide an added safeguard against financial abuse. However, if there's a lawyer, then one will be required, and only one witness is required if the witness is a practising member of the Law Society or is a notary public. As well, if an enduring power of attorney is to be effective,
[ Page 8702 ]
then the Land Title Act must be considered, and there an enduring power of attorney must be executed, witnessed in accordance with the provision of that act.
L. Krog: I just want to confirm…. Further on in subsection 38(24) it talks about an "attorney must not be compensated for acting as an adult's attorney unless the enduring power of attorney expressly authorizes the compensation and sets the amount or rate." I take it that would not apply retroactively but will apply to any powers of attorney that are made hereafter.
In other words, if you take on the job and it doesn't provide for payment, you're not going to be paid, even though you may be acting in historically "a trustee capacity," if you will. It seems to me the Trustee Act now provides, and the presumption is, that you're acting in a trustee capacity.
Hon. W. Oppal: There's no provision here for retroactivity. If any act is going to be retroactive, then of course it must be spelled out in clear and concise terms.
L. Krog: I am satisfied, unless some other members wish to raise questions, that we pass sections 38 through 44. I understand there is an amendment to be made to 45.
Sections 38 to 44 inclusive approved.
On section 45.
Hon. W. Oppal: I move the amendment to section 45 standing in my name on the orders of the day.
[SECTION 45, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:
45 Section 7 is amended
(a) in subsection (1) by adding “made under this section,” after “In a representation agreement”,
(b) by repealing subsection (1) (a) and substituting the following:
(a) the adult’s personal care;, and
(c) by repealing subsection (2.1) and substituting the following:
(2.1) A representative may not be authorized under this section
(a) to help make, or to make on the adult’s behalf, a decision to refuse
life-supporting care or treatmenthealth care necessary to preserve life, or(b) despite the objection of the adult, to physically restrain, move or manage the adult, or authorize another person to do these things.]
On the amendment.
Hon. W. Oppal: This amendment would make a technical change to the provision that limits the authority of a representative acting under section 7 of the Representation Agreement Act to refuse life-sustaining treatments.
The purpose of the amendment is to make the language about this kind of treatment consistent with that language under the proposed section 9 of the Representation Agreement Act and with the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act.
Amendment approved.
Section 45 as amended approved.
Sections 46 to 51 inclusive approved.
On section 52.
Hon. W. Oppal: I move the amendment to section 52 standing in my name on the orders of the day.
[SECTION 52, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:
52 Section 13 is amended
(a) by repealing subsection (1.1) (b) and substituting the following:
(b) all certificates required under this section and sections 5, 6 and 12 are completed.,
and(b) by repealing subsections (2), (3.02), (3.1) and (5) to (6) and substituting the following:
(2) A representation agreement must be signed by the adult and
(a) if the representation agreement appoints more than one representative and the representatives must act jointly, each representative,
(b) if the representation agreement appoints only one representative, that representative, or
(c) if the representation agreement appoints more than one representative but each may act independently, at least one representative.
(2.1) Before a person may exercise the authority of a representative granted in a representation agreement, the person must sign the representation agreement.
(3.02) Only one witness is required if that witness is a practising member of the Law Society of British Columbia or a member of the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia.
(5) The following persons must not act as a witness to the signing of a representation agreement:
(a) a person named in the representation agreement as a representative or alternate representative;
(b) a spouse, child, parent, employee or agent of a person named in the representation agreement as a representative or alternate representative;
(c) a person who is not an adult;
(d) a person who does not understand the type of communication used by the adult, unless the person receives interpretive assistance to understand that type of communication.
(6) A witness to a representation agreement made under section 7
, or signed undersubsection (4) of this section,must complete a certificate in the prescribed form., and(c) by repealing subsection (4) (d) and substituting the following:
(d) in the case of a representation agreement made under section 7, the person signing the agreement and each witness complete a certificate in the prescribed form.]
On the amendment.
Hon. W. Oppal: This amendment would remove the requirement for a certificate to be completed by a person who signs a representation agreement on behalf of an
[ Page 8703 ]
adult who is making the agreement and who is physically unable to sign the agreement on his or her own.
The purpose of this amendment is to make the execution requirements similar to those proposed for advanced directives and enduring powers of attorney.
Amendment approved.
Section 52 as amended approved.
Sections 53 to 73 inclusive approved.
On section 74.
L. Krog: This section, as I understand it — and I just want to confirm with the Attorney General — provides that, essentially, if there is a specific gift under a will and it's disposed of by an attorney or a statutory property guardian or other person during the testator's lifetime, then the beneficiary who would normally have received that item will, in fact, be entitled to proceeds unless the disposition was made at a time they were capable or contrary intentions were expressed in the will. So I take it this will now give, if you will, a statutory right to lay claim to proceeds of an item that has been disposed of during the testator's lifetime, but I'm wondering what the Attorney General's view is.
Let us assume for a moment that the proceeds are disposed of during the testator's lifetime, and let's assume the value, for example, is $10,000. So you've sold a car that I was supposed to get, and the deceased's estate at the time of death, after payment of taxes and funeral and testamentary expenses, is $5,000. So I'm not getting my $10,000. Is this creating a statutory right for me to make a claim against the guardian or the power of attorney?
Hon. W. Oppal: The scenario presented by the member would be addressed as follows. The question would be dealt with in the same way, as though there were insufficient funds in an estate. In the circumstances, succession law would be applicable.
Sections 74 to 86 inclusive approved.
On section 87.
Hon. W. Oppal: I move the amendment to section 87 standing in my name on the orders of the day.
[SECTION 87, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:
87 Section 46 (1) (a) is amended
(a) in subparagraph (iv) by repealing clauses (A) and (B) and substituting the following:
(A) if the power of attorney is not an enduring power of attorney, the individual had, at that time, no knowledge of the mental infirmity of the transferor, or
(B) in the case of an enduring power of attorney, the individual had, at that time, no knowledge of the suspension or termination of
his or herthe authority of the corporate attorney under any enactment,, and(b) by adding the following subparagraph:
(iv.1) each change to the authority of an attorney under an enduring power of attorney has been filed with the registrar under this Act or a copy, certified under section 51 (4) as a true copy of those changes, has been filed, and.]
On the amendment.
Hon. W. Oppal: This amendment would make a technical correction to the consequential amendment to the Land Title Act to ensure that the appropriate reference is made to a corporate attorney.
Amendment approved.
Section 87 as amended approved.
Sections 88 to 97 inclusive approved.
On section 98.
L. Krog: This is a significant revision, and it will permit the notaries to draw representation agreements, advance directives, powers of attorney, enduring powers of attorney. I want to inquire of the Attorney General: was consultation made with the Law Society of British Columbia, and if so, what position did they take on this?
Hon. W. Oppal: There was, surprisingly, no objection from the Law Society, even though the notaries are getting more work here.
Sections 98 to 112 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 3:51 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Reporting of Bills
ADULT GUARDIANSHIP AND PLANNING
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007
Bill 29, Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete with amendments.
Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read as reported?
Hon. W. Oppal: With leave of the House, now.
[ Page 8704 ]
Leave granted.
Third Reading of Bills
ADULT GUARDIANSHIP AND PLANNING
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007
Bill 29, Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Richmond: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act.
Second Reading of Bills
TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION
FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)
D. Routley: It's my privilege to rise in this House again to speak on Bill 40. I had the brief privilege for three minutes on Thursday afternoon to close debate. I did have time enough to wish Chief Baird the best in her people's pursuit of reconciliation, and I'll offer again congratulations to the Tsawwassen people, who have shown patience, strength, dignity and loyalty to purpose and principle.
I also think we should thank all of the negotiators, all 15 years' worth of them, many of whom we consulted in the opposition caucus before arriving at a conclusion about this treaty.
[K. Whittred in the chair.]
I am proud to speak of the treaty in this historic place on this historic occasion. I am always struck by the import of this place and its ornateness, its beauty and its elegance. I always remind students who visit this place that all of that was not put there to uplift the station of the powerful — to make the elite more elite — but in order to raise up the interests of ordinary people to the highest place possible. That's what we're here to do — to lift up the interests of ordinary British Columbians to that highest place equally.
I offer my support for this treaty, but with significant qualifications. Before reaching a conclusion on the treaty, the opposition caucus heard from former MLAs — one of whom I see entering the chamber now, Mr. Harold Steves, who was one of the original architects of the ALR.
We've heard many first nations' voices. We've heard from those who told us we would be foolish to support and foolish not to. We've heard from all angles, and it was with the most careful of considerations that the officers and caucus reached their conclusions.
It's unfortunate that we've heard detrimental comments from many government members towards the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has a parent who is Métis. She herself is Métis. Her husband Al Gerow is a noted first nations artist and member of a first nations band. So that places this issue at the highest level of importance for the Leader of the Opposition. Our leader feels this issue in her blood, and it's unfortunate that Ms. Baird, the Chief of the Tsawwassen people, who has sat through all of these debates, has been forced to listen to such a politicization.
Before arriving at my conclusion, I spoke to many of my constituents, and I promised all of them that I would bring their voice to this place. So that's what I intend to do.
I spoke to the elders of the Cowichan Tribes and the elders of the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group. The elders remind us of much. They hold on tightly to some well-earned cynicism when it comes to the words of politicians, particularly white politicians. It's unfortunate that they've had to learn through the bitterness of disappointment not to take political pronouncements seriously. No, they look for material improvement. They look to the deed as proof of the word. I'll have more to say about that momentarily.
The chiefs of my constituency are talking to me about overlaps. Chief Shaver of the Penelakut Nation, Kuper Island, is completely engulfed by this treaty. The interests of the Cowichan people overlap this treaty both in terms of harvesting and resource extraction.
They talk to me about consultation and accommodation. They talk about the word they heard from the Supreme Court when it comes to their inherent and inalienable rights. They wonder how this treaty could have gotten to stage 4 and then ratification without the smallest consultation, without even a phone call.
When they glance at the paper and they look to this House and they hear words from politicians, perhaps even words in throne speeches, they compare that to the disappointment of the elders — the disappointment of the elders and a cynicism born through experience. Then they look to the word of the Supreme Court, which has instructed the treaty process to consult and to accommodate competing interests and overlaps, and they see a failing of that word.
So, Madam Speaker, the words of this House have not materialized into real benefit in the lives of first nations people in my riding. It's not only Stuart Phillip and nations outside the treaty process who are concerned. The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group and their chief negotiator Robert Morales have fought for the establishment of the unity protocol.
I'd like to read one excerpt from a letter from Mr. Morales. This letter was sent to the Premier and to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. This letter was sent on June 1, 2007. Mr. Morales says:
"As we write to you today, the leadership of many treaty negotiating first nations faces enormous pressure from our memberships to consider withdrawing from a process that is not only viewed as a failure, but as a further and deliberate victimization by the Crown. While the process is being deliberately stonewalled, the lands and resources of our territories are being extracted at an alarming rate. The level of anger and frustration is reaching levels of which you have
[ Page 8705 ]
been repeatedly warned, levels that our leadership may no longer be able to control."
That is a very sad sign because despite all the injustices of the past, despite all the deprivations, despite all the poverty — the numbers that I'll speak of later that place first nations people from childhood to adulthood and the seniors, the elders, in incredibly vulnerable circumstances…. All of that and yet we still have willing partners on the other side of the table. We still have a situation that has not devolved as in other jurisdictions, in other nations, to violent conflict and to a turning of the backs to one another.
No, we have good partners but only as long as we treat them with respect. Mr. Morales warns of a diminishing patience, of a patience overstretched by hundreds of years of promises broken, of a patience stretched and a patience broken by the past few years of increased poverty and increased degradation of the living conditions of people in my own riding, on the reserves and in the communities of my own riding.
The young people. In Cowichan, the largest band in B.C., more than 70 percent of the population is under the age of 26. How have their interests been protected? How was their voice heard, and how will it be heard in the treaty process as it exists today?
At a time of a demographically driven labour shortage, this government is foolish in not making the absolute best of its youth. But what do we see? We see a government that has underfunded school districts and caused them to cut at the very programs that affect so many vulnerable first nation students.
How will those young people judge this government? They will judge as a failure the fact that B.C. spends the least of any province on community-based literacy programs. They will judge this Liberal government as failures, as students in inner-city schools have lost their lunch programs. Vulnerable students have lost services, languishing in classrooms without assessments and receiving no support.
This is not the way to address the low graduation rates of our first nation students, and this is not the way to achieve reconciliation. This points to more words and more vacancy of meaning in those words. This points to a circumstance that is abominable and makes galling the pantomime that we see on the other side of this House when it comes to reconciliation.
The broader community in my riding is concerned about the sustainability of this treaty as template. Will the next wave of effort at removing land from the ALR be driving the treaty process, or is it already driving the process? This government has done nothing to protect the ALR, from meat-processing regulations that are defeating the efforts of small farmers, to this treaty, which allows the severing of the most productive lands of our province. These Liberals now, and before when they were Socreds, have done everything possible to break down the ALR and turn it over for development.
What commitment is this? It was pragmatism that opened the door to treaty for the B.C. Liberals. A certainty for development drove the B.C. Liberals. The marriage of convenience to principle that the Premier has embarked on when it comes to reconciliation has its roots in a pragmatic need for a deal.
The aspirations of reconciliation go much further than the pragmatic and include the notions of principle. The difficulty of separating the treaty and its implications in terms of its historical significance from the history of the abuse of the lives of first nations by this government is very difficult. The difficulty of separating its pragmatic consequences from its consequences on politics and principles is equally challenging.
How will this affect the pursuit of the higher goals of reconciliation? Now that those tribes, those bands, those nations that have the lever of negotiating power over this government are removed from the process, how will the critical mass that's needed to pursue the higher goals of reconciliation be affected by this fragmenting, this fractioning off of those with the power of negotiating levers — like the need to expand a container terminal, like the need for our Premier to act as land agent for some of the biggest business people in this province?
It's sad that only the pragmatic could cause the B.C. Liberals and our Premier to open the door to this process that he himself and this party, the B.C. Liberal Party, denigrated with the lawsuit against the Nisga'a agreement and the terribly divisive referendum on treaty rights.
Yet somehow this Premier's flip-flop is seen as thoughtful, and now our friends on the other side would have us see that as leadership. There's never been a tokenism more revolting to me than the spectacle of this so-called free vote on the other side.
There are four difficult areas: the historical, the pragmatic, the political and the principled, and the political wedge, the political bludgeoning instrument for which this treaty has been used. Historical, yes. This treaty is historical. But will it stand on its own in history? Will this and other recent agreements serve to dissolve that critical mass? Will we wind up in a paralysis because this as a template is not sustainable?
As I mentioned, one of the architects of the ALR is sitting behind me. Without the ALR, the riding I live in would look nothing like it does today. It would look like the sprawl that surrounds Vancouver, but instead we have small farms, an active agrarian economy and a lifestyle that people pursue from all around the world.
That's true of the whole province. What would this province look like without the ALR? What would Richmond look like without the ALR? What would the Fraser Valley look like without the ALR? What would Vancouver Island look like to its residents had we not had the ALR?
In terms of political issues and principle, the effect of this treaty…. The UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people is something the federal government refused to support. The UN declaration sought to address both individual and collective rights, cultural rights and identity, rights to education, health, employment, language and others. It outlaws discrimination against indigenous people and promotes their
[ Page 8706 ]
effective and full participation in all matters that concern them. It ensures the right to remain distinct, to pursue their own visions of economic, social and cultural development. The declaration explicitly encourages harmonious and cooperative relationships between states and indigenous peoples.
Yet when our federal government failed to endorse that declaration, we did not hear a peep from the B.C. Liberal government. We did not hear a peep from the Premier, who supposes to be in pursuit of reconciliation. How can that be so? How can that be so from a government that claims to be committed to these higher principles and this new relationship?
The Auditor General's report on treaty negotiations lists three main concerns: (1) the new relationship is not defined, (2) the breakthrough strategy takes away from the negotiation process, and (3) economic deals reached outside the treaty process may prove to be a disincentive to successful negotiations. That is because in a political pursuit of a pragmatic goal, this government trod all over the concepts and principles of reconciliation. This government trod all over the higher purposes that Stuart Phillip speaks of when he describes this treaty process as minimalist treaty-making.
So we're going to now somehow celebrate this government and their simple-minded, pragmatic approach that ignores a couple of generations, a couple of centuries of pursuit of justice.
I wonder how Chief Baird feels now about her partners, after witnessing this government and this Premier use her nation's pursuit of a treaty as a political bludgeon. It has been a simple tool that they have stood up one by one in order to attack in the most denigrating fashion the Leader of the Opposition rather than speak to the values of this treaty.
On this side of the House, Madam Speaker, you've heard thoughtful debate about all the potential implications of this treaty. You've heard the pronouncement of a belief that we have to go further. We've heard the voices of British Columbia on this side of the House. On the other side, I heard the member for Peace River South say that the opposition were acting almost as if the Premier used it for political gain. Imagine that. We've heard leadership jabs from every government member. How does Chief Baird feel about her partners now?
We've seen an outburst of political immaturity. The very people who have decimated the lives of so many British Columbians now offer the pretence of reconciliation. The member for Delta South spoke of relationships we can be proud of. How proud can the Chief be of a political program that has starved the poor of relief, has condemned so many of her own people to live homeless on our streets — a program brought to us by this B.C. Liberal government with a heartlessness felt most severely by first nations, particularly first nations in our urban centres?
The deprivation of these policies was not reserved for the downtown core. First nations who couldn't find housing, who couldn't find social services flooded back to reserve. The cup of inner-city deprivation flowed over into the reserve, where federally supported services were overwhelmed and paralyzed.
The gall of this pantomime. How does Chief Baird feel about her partners now? Now that she sees this posturing amongst the wounded, how does she feel about this Premier's marriage of convenience to these principles?
The current history. Well, the Cowichan, my own constituents, have engaged a lawsuit opposing the territorial and resource provisions of this treaty. The current history is one of a huge underclass. Employment rates, homeless census, imprisoned rates, teen pregnancy, addiction rates all point to a downtrodden people and a failure by this government to make material changes in their lives.
Currently aboriginal people live seven years less on average than non-aboriginal people. Infant mortality is at four times the non-aboriginal rate. HIV and AIDS infection rates are double that of the non-aboriginal population; diabetes, three times. Drug- and alcohol-related deaths, four to nine times greater than the non-aboriginal population. Teenage motherhood, six times greater. Child poverty, two times greater. Aboriginal children in care have increased by 50 percent, as our leader pointed out, between 1997 and 2005.
Aboriginal youth are seven times more likely to be imprisoned, while only ten years ago that number was three times. That's the measure of progress that my constituents see every day — not the lofty words of a throne speech but the lack of a home, the lack of good food, the lack of opportunity.
The Chemainus band in Ladysmith — over 90 percent unemployment. There isn't one person of aboriginal descent from the Chemainus band working in the town of Ladysmith. That's the reality today.
High school education. If you have a high school education in this province, your average hourly wage has increased by 6.2 percent in the last three years. If you're an aboriginal worker with a high school education, your average hourly rate has gone down by 30 percent in that time.
Adding it all up, one could forgive those elders for clinging to that cynicism, couldn't one? One could forgive them for turning a blind ear to what's being said in this House.
An Hon. Member: A deaf ear.
D. Routley: A deaf ear, pardon me. Deaf ear, because they can't turn a blind eye to what they see in their homes every day and on the streets of their reserves — unlike this Liberal government, who can return to comfortable homes and slap themselves on the back for having negotiated a pragmatic treaty in the face of deprivation, poverty, early death. Those are the facts.
How did she feel when the Liberal government members said that the NDP never made any progress on treaties in ten years? No progress? We initiated the current treaty process under Mike Harcourt. We settled the Nisga'a treaty.
[ Page 8707 ]
Ignorance of the past is no foundation for understanding today. It is the Premier of this B.C. Liberal government who went to court to contest the Nisga'a agreement. It is the Premier of this province who initiated the divisive referendum on the rights of aboriginal people. How can she feel?
How did the Chief feel when the Premier engaged in his insulting legal challenge of that treaty? I don't know how she was feeling about her people's pursuit, her treaty, her rights, the referendum. All of that, and now she witnesses this theatre of the absurd. A government which danced with the devils now parades with the saints. It's too much.
Are we, through our actions past and present, committed to the real notion of reconciliation? Or is this Liberal government only engaged in a heartless pantomime?
The Health Minister cautioned us to be careful as we oppose parts of this bill. He said that we should not say a lot of negative things. Well, how does she feel seeing her treaty used as a bludgeon politically by the government members? How does she feel seeing her new partners degrade this document in such a coarse way?
The leader of the loyal opposition in our caucus took the time to study all of the interests. We have had experts and citizens from all sides come to speak with us.
The ALR and the treaty process are two of the great achievements of the NDP. We treat them both as our most cherished accomplishments.
It was only after the deepest consideration and difficult, well-thought discussion that we've been able to come to our consensus. That is what you have heard here, Chief — a debate characterized by thoughtfulness, respect and seriousness on this side.
Conversely, from the government….
Hon. J. Les: Through the Chair.
D. Routley: Would the member from the government, the Solicitor General, deny that I should turn to the Chief, as every one of the government members has, pleading for her support while they bludgeon the other side in the most coarse way? Or should I address my comments to the Solicitor General?
Conversely, from the government side we've seen a pantomime, an absurd posturing. It is as if those who started the blaze — the social cuts, increasing poverty rates and exploding homelessness rates, particularly amongst first nations — now appear at the fire holding an extinguisher.
Finally, we need the permission of the Chief to celebrate her people's achievement but also to be a responsible opposition. We have a duty to point the harshest finger of criticism toward the many irresponsible acts of politicization and deprivation through policy that have characterized this government's management of and effect on the relationship — not the new relationship, just the ongoing relationship.
The continuing relationship is connected to the old relationship. We can't escape its history with a few words in a throne speech. The obligation to reconcile historically is just now being confronted, at such distance from the origin of the injustices.
At the same time that we begin to recognize our own responsibility to reconcile, we recognize the depth of continuing injustice. The injustices wrought on the lives of aboriginal people by the policies of the B.C. Liberal government and this Premier, on the other hand, offer a much more current claim for reconciliation. I wonder how far the Premier and his government will have to get from their own conquest-driven damage before they are ready to reconcile with it.
Hon. T. Christensen: I am fiercely proud, privileged and thankful to have the opportunity to stand and speak strongly, proudly and fully in support of Bill 40, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act.
I acknowledge that we are today gathered on the traditional territory of the Esquimalt and the Songhees First Nations, two first nations who earlier this year came to their own agreement in respect of a long outstanding dispute with the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada in respect of these lands that these magnificent buildings sit upon.
First and foremost, Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Tsawwassen people; their chief, Kim Baird, and her council; previous chiefs and council members, all of whom have set out a strong vision for their community, all of whom have persevered to pursue that vision, to find a path forward towards reconciliation — a word that somehow gets bandied about in this place from time to time, but a word that is at the heart of the work that is necessary if we are to truly make progress in this province.
This treaty between the Tsawwassen First Nation, the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia is a remarkable achievement, an achievement that has only come because of perseverance, patience, clear and consistent vision displayed by the Tsawwassen people and leadership both for the Tsawwassen people, as well as at the national and the provincial level, to find the compromises necessary to reach a tripartite agreement.
When I think of the leadership that we have seen from the Tsawwassen people in respect of coming to this final agreement, I think we can all in this House agree that it bodes well for implementation of this agreement, because we can all recognize that coming to the agreement is certainly a monumental and important step. But it is the implementation of the agreement and the opportunities that the agreement provides and the harnessing of those opportunities that is actually going to provide for a better life for the Tsawwassen people and a better future, a better shared future, for the Tsawwassen people and all British Columbians in a true spirit of reconciliation.
This treaty is the culmination of many years of negotiation. I would be remiss if I didn't thank the negotiators for the Tsawwassen First Nation, for the province of British Columbia and for the government of Canada, all of whom have been sent to the negotiat-
[ Page 8708 ]
ing table with mandates that they sought to achieve and with the need to find where those mandates could be massaged, where those mandates needed to be massaged, in order to find that final agreement that is so often elusive.
As a former minister responsible for treaty negotiations when I was Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, I had some small opportunity to experience the challenge of negotiating treaties directly, the challenge of the give and the take that's necessary if we truly want to reach these tripartite agreements. As Chief Baird has rightfully pointed out, there are parts of this agreement that she finds offensive. There are parts of this agreement that she needs to hold her nose at. Similarly, there are parts of the agreement that both the province of British Columbia and, I'm sure, the federal government look at and say: "You know what? That's not what we set out to achieve initially."
But that is the nature of a negotiated agreement. It is one where all parties need to determine: what are the most critical elements to find a positive path forward together? What are the compromises that we are each prepared to make, notwithstanding that we hold principled views on what we would like to see in the agreement? And what are the compromises we're not prepared to make?
That is the nature of the negotiation at the table, and I am thankful to all the negotiators who have provided those of us who were the principals that were to provide direction to them with their wisdom from the negotiating table, their wisdom of the history of the matters at hand, and who assisted all of us as the principals to find the way forward.
I think it is worth repeating that this is truly a monumental achievement, particularly when it's taken in the historical context of 150 years, more or less, of outright denial of aboriginal rights, title in the province and very, very little progress in that 150 years towards true reconciliation. This is a monumental and historic step forward.
I've listened carefully to some of the opposition debate and the lecturing that those of us on the government side have tried to endure. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, it's hard to determine whether the opposition is supportive of this treaty or not. In fact, in my own personal opinion, I have found a number of the comments of the opposition to be quite offensive.
The member who spoke before me, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, characterized this treaty as an instrument being used to bludgeon the opposition. I can think of nothing more offensive than to characterize this historic agreement that has been reached through the leadership of the Tsawwassen First Nation, together with the province and the federal government, as an instrument, a political instrument, that is being used to bludgeon the opposition.
This is a hard-negotiated agreement, the first agreement in a process that has been around since 1992 — the B.C. Treaty Commission process — and it is a credit to all of the people at the negotiating table, all of the participants that have contributed to coming to this final agreement that we are there.
Of course, we know the opposition wasn't until recently sure themselves about whether or not they wished to support this agreement. There was a complete lack of any leadership on an issue that is critical to the future of the Tsawwassen people and is critical to the future of all British Columbians.
As elected members in this House, we speak on behalf of our own constituents, and we are here to represent the people of British Columbia. For this agreement to be endorsed by this House, this agreement needs to be good, in my view, for the people of British Columbia, whether they live in the Okanagan, where I'm from, and which is quite a ways away from Tsawwassen or the treaty lands that are involved here, whether they live in the north, on the Island or in the east Kootenay.
We need to be satisfied in this place when we stand up and vote that this is an agreement that is good for our constituents, and I am certainly satisfied of that, as this is an agreement that is good for the people of British Columbia as well as the Tsawwassen First Nation.
[S. Hammell in the chair.]
I can't help but be struck by the inconsistency I hear in the opposition submissions in debate of this historic legislation. I am told, although it's difficult to tell from the debate, that the opposition supports the treaty. But I also hear that if it were up to them, they would not agree to some of the core decisions necessary to arrive at this agreement. I speak of the decisions to remove some of the treaty lands, as part of this legislation, from the agricultural land reserve.
The NDP members, the members of the opposition, have quite consistently stood and spoken — on the odd occasion somewhat eloquently — about the importance of the agricultural land reserve, and I agree. Agricultural land in this province is important. My constituents agree for the most part that agricultural land in this province is important.
But it would be the height of arrogance, in my view, to say to the Tsawwassen people that the province agrees to certain lands being included as treaty lands but that as a condition of that inclusion, the province isn't prepared to allow the Tsawwassen people to make decisions about the use of that land — none of it. It would also, in my view, be a complete abdication of leadership on an important issue of land use in the context of treaty-making in this province.
I think we need to remind ourselves that in all parts of this province, when we are negotiating to find agreements in the treaty process, one fundamental part of that negotiation is about land. In many cases, it's one of the first things that is discussed and one of the most critical — certainly not the only critical issue, but land is a critical issue in treaty negotiations.
I think it's fundamentally inconsistent for us to say as a provincial government that we wish to negotiate land agreements, treaty agreements involving land, but
[ Page 8709 ]
that we're not prepared in this place to make the difficult decisions around land use that are necessary to support coming to agreement.
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised. We have seen nothing from this opposition to set out their ideas for supporting treaties. We have seen nothing of how they believe reconciliation may be truly achieved in this province. We have seen no leadership whatsoever to set out what their vision for the future of treaties is here in British Columbia. Instead, we have members questioning how Chief Baird might feel about this agreement.
Now, I don't propose for a moment to tell Chief Baird how she should feel. I do know that if I were in her shoes, I would feel fiercely proud of what has been achieved through a long process that has been guided by her clear vision to find agreement within the context of the treaty process.
It's not easy. There's a reason it has taken 15 years now to come to final agreements within the treaty process. It's because you don't just sit down and five minutes later say: "Oh, we can all agree on this. Away we go." These are complex agreements that deal with complex issues that require a degree of compromise, understanding and goodwill from all parties in order to find a path forward.
Unfortunately, the opposition has taken the opportunity of this debate on the Tsawwassen treaty to underline their pessimistic view of the current state of relations between the province and first nations. To listen to the negativity and the pessimism coming from the opposition bench, one gets a sense of how most other people in the province were feeling throughout the 1990s about this province. But thankfully, we're no longer in the 1990s. We're instead living in a province that exudes optimism, hope and confidence in the future.
To be sure, we have made unprecedented progress in the positive development of relations between the province and first nations and other aboriginal people across British Columbia. Let us just for a moment look at some of the advancements and the agreements that have been reached only in the last two and a half years.
In early 2005 the First Nations Leadership Council was established, and it embarked upon a discussion with the provincial government — a discussion that is ongoing and that is not without disagreement. I'm not sure anybody would be surprised by that; they certainly shouldn't be. It is a respectful discussion that has enabled progress on a number of other fronts.
It is through the leadership of the government of British Columbia that the Kelowna accord was reached in November of 2005. Notwithstanding that there have been changes at the federal level that have meant, unfortunately, that the Kelowna accord has not been pursued with the same vigour that we expected, here in British Columbia we continue to work with the federal government and with the First Nations Leadership Council to find the means to implement the direction provided by that Kelowna accord.
If you speak, Madam Speaker, with first nations leaders and others who were in the room in Kelowna at the end of November of 2005, they will tell you — I don't need to tell you — that it was the Premier of this province who was a leader in that discussion, ensuring that there were outcomes from that meeting. In pursuance of the principles of the Kelowna accord, we've reached the first nations health plan — the First Nations Leadership Council and the province of British Columbia — to set a path forward to improve health outcomes.
The member who preceded me in this debate spoke of some of the statistics, the shameful statistics that we are all too familiar with when it comes to health outcomes for aboriginal people, to educational outcomes for aboriginal children and youth. Yet I hear nothing from the opposition benches in terms of how it is they would propose to address those issues.
Rather, what I see on this side of the House is a government that is committed to addressing those issues and is committed to working with first nations communities, first nations leaders, aboriginal people across British Columbia to make sure that collaboratively we can make a difference in addressing those statistics, in reversing the trends and in ensuring that an aboriginal child who is born in this province today can look to the future with the same optimism that a non-aboriginal child born in this province today can look to.
We completed the education jurisdiction agreement between the First Nations Education Steering Committee, the province of British Columbia and the federal government, which recognizes first nations jurisdiction over education for their children and puts us on a path to recognizing that jurisdiction and working together to ensure that educational outcomes for aboriginal children improve.
We have seen the Métis Nation relationship accord, which provides a foundation on which the government of British Columbia is working more closely with the Métis Nation British Columbia.
We've seen long outstanding legal disputes resolved. I think of the dispute arising from the creation of the Williston reservoir that had been there for decades now while the Tsay Keh Dene and the Kwadacha people faced the negative consequences of that flooding. It is this government, in the last two years, that found resolution to that long outstanding dispute.
I think of the settlement with the Songhees and the Esquimalt First Nations that I referred to at the beginning of my remarks. Again, a long outstanding dispute that was dependent on the leadership of this government to work with the Songhees and the Esquimalt First Nations to find resolution.
We have economic benefit agreements with the Blueberry First Nation in northeast British Columbia. We have forest and range opportunities agreements with numerous first nations across this province. We have the new relationship trust, an unprecedented $100 million investment by this government where we have put that funding into the control of first nations so that they can decide the priorities necessary to build capacity within their communities so that they may start to
[ Page 8710 ]
address the challenges outlined in the Kelowna accord as well as embrace some of the economic opportunities that are increasingly available to first nations across British Columbia.
Let us look at the progress within the B.C. Treaty Commission process. We have, I believe it is now, seven agreements-in-principle reached under that process in the last four or five years. We have three final agreements that have been voted on by first nations. We have a ratification of a treaty by the Tsawwassen people and, just over this weekend, something we can all celebrate — news that the Maa-nulth final agreement on the west coast of Vancouver Island has been ratified by the five first nations that are party to that agreement.
These are just a few of the agreements and accords that have been reached in the last couple of years, providing concrete examples of a new relationship in action. They're indicative of a provincial government working constructively to resolve long outstanding claims and working with aboriginal people to pursue a brighter future. It is that spirit of working together to address challenges of common concern that is fundamental and at the heart of the new relationship.
It's been interesting in the course of debate to note that often members opposite have made the mistake of referring to the ministry of aboriginal affairs. We don't have such a ministry in British Columbia. We do have a Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. That may seem like a strange thing for me to point out, but it's a critically important distinction, in my view. A ministry of aboriginal affairs suggests to me one of managing the affairs of aboriginal people — one of oversight, interference — whereas "relations and reconciliation" reflects a distinctly new and progressive approach to working with aboriginal leaders, people and communities across British Columbia.
The first time that the importance of those words came to my attention was shortly after the ministry was first created in 2005, when I had an opportunity to be in Ottawa. Many people that followed first nations and aboriginal issues in Ottawa were somewhat abuzz about the inclusion of the word "reconciliation" in the title of the ministry and about the use of the word "relations" in the title of the ministry. They were abuzz because it set a wholly different tone in terms of what this was about.
It is about building relationships, because improved relationships are fundamental to any concept of reconciliation. Improved relationships, constructive relationships, collaborative relationships must be at the heart of any progress that we may hope to make between aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians to address the challenges that aboriginal British Columbians have told us that they want to address. I think it acknowledges that our progress is dependent upon improving relationships based on valuing the contribution of aboriginal peoples and that reconciliation truly is the goal.
As Chief Baird so eloquently put it last week when she spoke here at the golden Bar, it is the concept of reconciliation that holds the greatest promise for our collective future, aboriginal and non-aboriginal citizens alike, in this province.
It is improved relationships and the goal of reconciliation that are truly at the heart of the work that the Ministry of Children and Family Development is engaged in with first nations, the Métis nation, aboriginal service providers and communities across the province. Our work today is rooted in the Tsawwassen accord and the memorandum of understanding signed in the fall of 2002 that really set a foundation for working with aboriginal leaders, service providers and communities to improve outcomes for aboriginal children and families.
Over the last few years we have worked closely with aboriginal partners through the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee, which is jointly chaired by myself as minister and the leaders of the United Native Nations, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the First Nations Summit, the Assembly of First Nations and Métis Nation B.C. on a rotating basis. We are working jointly to pursue the changes necessary to improve outcomes for aboriginal children and families across the province. What JAMC really does is provide a forum for joint dialogue regarding general and systemic issues relating to the safety and well-being of children and families.
It has an impressive membership. It is intended to be inclusive, and at the risk of actually not mentioning everybody that attends the JAMC meetings, I do want to mention where some of the representation comes from. We have representatives from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the First Nations Summit, Métis Nation B.C., the United Native Nations and the Assembly of First Nations. Those are the political leaders among the broad aboriginal community in the province.
But we also have critical representation from those directly involved in providing services to aboriginal children and families: the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, a critical voice at that JAMC table; the Federation of Aboriginal Foster Parents, another critical voice; the Aboriginal Health Association of B.C.; the Aboriginal Chairs Caucus; Healing Our Spirit, the B.C. Aboriginal HIV/AIDS Society; the B.C. Aboriginal Network on Disabilities Society; the planning chairs for the aboriginal authorities; the Métis Commission; the first nations agencies directors' forum representation; and of course, representatives from the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
JAMC has played a significant role in allowing us to collectively reach the point of establishing two interim aboriginal planning authorities, one on Vancouver Island and one in the Fraser Valley. On June 8 an initialling ceremony took place involving MCFD and the Vancouver Island Aboriginal Transition Team, establishing an interim planning authority for the Vancouver Island region. That ceremony was an important step, as it did establish the interim aboriginal planning authority for Vancouver Island and was the first region to take this significant step forward in what has been a lengthy process initiated in Tsawwassen in 2002.
As an interim planning authority, they are now involved in the planning and designing of service
[ Page 8711 ]
delivery for aboriginal people on Vancouver Island. Shifts in service delivery will be phased in as capacity to deliver services is built, and will be supported by MCFD and the government through that process. The interim planning authorities will use an inclusive planning process with thorough and appropriate consultation with aboriginal communities to ensure that the permanent authority being developed meets the unique needs of aboriginal communities that the authority will serve.
The ministry and the province have strongly supported aboriginal people to lead the design and implementation of child and family development services for aboriginal children, youth and communities. The development of the interim planning authority really is a demonstration of the province's commitment to do things differently and to do things collaboratively with aboriginal people in the service of aboriginal children and families, as we recognize that the province's full potential will only be realized when aboriginal people have an effective voice and a leadership role in the social and economic fabric of the province and that it is critical that there be meaningful aboriginal participation and direction in the delivery of services to aboriginal children and families.
It was unfortunate that in June, as this authority was being established, the opposition issued a news release in which the critic described the move to aboriginal authorities as a failure. For the opposition to characterize this incredibly important and ongoing work as a failure is belittling to the process, but most shamefully, it's belittling to the many people involved in getting to that step.
It is one of a number of steps forward, all of which are critical to developing reconciliation in this province, to developing improved relationships. It is a further example of the steps being taken that are consistent with Bill 40, which is before us today. I am proud that when we celebrated the establishment of the Fraser Valley authority, it was in the Tsawwassen longhouse. Chief Baird was able to join us there, again expressing the support of the Tsawwassen people to ensure that services to their children and families are improved and a commitment to work with the ministry and the authority to ensure that in fact we recognize that goal.
M. Sather: I would like to thank the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations for sharing their traditional territory with us today.
I'm speaking against Bill 40 and against this treaty. It saddens and angers me to be in the position where I feel compelled to vote against the second treaty in modern-day British Columbia.
I don't agree with all the decisions made by the majority of the Tsawwassen First Nation. However, I do not blame the TFN. I know they have struggled long and hard in the white man's world to provide the best deal possible for their people.
I do not know what was discussed at the treaty table. I wasn't there. But I do know about talking to white people. They are relentless. They never give up. Sometimes the only options they offer are highly unpalatable.
We in the white man's world really have no comprehension of who aboriginal peoples are. We cannot really respect those we do not understand — these people of the land looking out to the sea. The relationships that aboriginal peoples have are foreign to us. We don't know these relationships.
A couple of weeks ago I was speaking to a band councillor of the Moberly First Nations in the upper Peace River drainage. We were talking about a mining company executive who was upset that their proposal had been stymied, and he was talking about the first nations of the area. The mining company executive said: "These people say they talk to bears. How can you deal with people like that?"
I heard the member for Okanagan-Vernon saying a few minutes ago that as a result of the Williston dam and the damage it had caused to the Tsay Keh Dene and the Kwadacha people, the government had worked to resolve those issues. I don't know how one can resolve the issues of the destruction of one's homeland.
As the Premier has said, we're going to be embarking — and the government's going to be embarking — upon serious discussions about the further flooding of that drainage, the further flooding of that river with the Site C dam. I'm hopeful that the government will think long and hard about the West Moberly First Nations and about the Saulteau First Nations and what that would do to their way of life — what that would do to the destruction of the moose, which is at the centre of their culture.
Getting back to the mining company executive, the implication of what that person was saying is that there must be something wrong with these people. Are they mentally ill? Talking to bears, talking to the salmon, talking to the whales is not a mental illness. It's an expression of an understanding that there is no separation between us and them, between the earth and humankind, between the sea and humankind, between the animals and humankind.
That same member of the West Moberly First Nations was telling me how difficult it is for his people to relate to the white man's concept of ownership. To own something, one must be separate from it. It is implicit in the concept of ownership. How can you own something that is part of you?
It's as silly to first nations as saying that I own my arm. Indeed, it is my arm, but I don't think of myself as owning my arm. It's simply a part of me, although sometimes I think that the way things are going, we will soon be legally encapturing the dollar value of our very body parts.
The broader culture and the culture of first nations remain worlds apart. I heard this dichotomy expressed in a different way on the lawn of the Legislature last week. One of the first nations leaders said to his brothers and sisters: "How do you know who you are? How do you know that your rights will never be extinguished? Because you have a name."
[ Page 8712 ]
This is a highly sophisticated concept that is very difficult for us to understand. It's not a part of our culture. What I hear first nations saying is that there is an indivisibility between humans and the earth.
We, on the other hand, have been separating ourselves from nature for over 2,000 years. We have set ourselves up on a pedestal. We are superior to nature. We look down on nature. We are at war with nature. We look for winners and losers. They look for harmony.
We have our god and our saviour. Money is our god. Technology is our saviour. But there will be no technological fix for what ails us. We are in a state of denial, and our denial is harming us badly.
We are, in fact, no different than aboriginal peoples. We too come from the earth. We come from the sea. There will be no true reconciliation with indigenous peoples until we effect a true reconciliation between ourselves and nature.
We must speak what we believe. I do not believe this treaty was born of a whole relationship or of true respect, and I must speak against it. We could go back hundreds of years to talk about the beginning of this treaty, or we could talk about more recent events, like the construction of the B.C. Ferries terminal in 1960 and the construction of the Roberts Bank superport in 1970.
Those latter events had a very negative effect on the marine life upon which the Tsawwassen people depend, the rich crab fishery where the people could step out of their boat in the shallow waters and pick the crabs off the ocean floor — a bounty that the Tsawwassen people shared with their white neighbours…. My friend Harold Steves has told me about going there when he was a child in Richmond and picking those crabs up and enjoying that bounty as well.
The port development in particular has fouled the kitchen of the Tsawwassen First Nation. I was talking to a member of the TFN Band Council who said their people will harvest crab sometimes, only to come home, remove the shells and find the meat is black. He said he does not recommend that his people harvest in the area.
In 2002 the TFN launched a lawsuit against Vancouver Port Authority, B.C. Ferries, the government of British Columbia, the government of Canada, B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and B.C. Rail over the destruction of their environment. In 2004 the TFN and the Vancouver Port Authority signed a memorandum of agreement and a settlement agreement that set the stage for tripling of the port and for the development of a container handling facility on 350 acres of agricultural land in the agricultural land reserve.
That land had to be removed from the ALR to complete the deal. This treaty removes that land, along with another 150 acres. Normally any land, whether in a treaty or not, has to meet the approval of the Agricultural Land Commission before being removed from the ALR. That did not happen in this case. Everything changed between the signing of the agreement-in-principle and the signing of the final agreement.
Whereas under the agreement-in-principle, removal of lands from the ALR in conjunction with this treaty would remain under the jurisdiction of the ALC, under the final agreement, in section 9 of Bill 40, the provincial government removes the jurisdiction of the ALC over those lands.
In my community the owners of Formosa Nursery are suffering the effects of the loss of their agricultural lands for another Gateway project. The Minister of Agriculture and Lands, in reference to that law, said that it's a slippery slope when you overrule the ALC.
My question is: what kind of slope is it when the government completely removes the jurisdiction of the ALC in order to remove land from the ALR? I guess that would be moving from a slippery slope to an avalanche.
The agricultural lands in question in this treaty were originally expropriated in 1968 for development of a port that was to stretch from Roberts Bank to Hope. The creation of the agricultural land reserve in 1974 has prevented those lands from being developed by the port.
The port and the governments that support their expansion at Roberts Bank have waited 39 years to get those agricultural lands back for port expansion. They finally found a way to do that, and that was to sanitize this assault on agriculture by attaching it to a treaty with a first nation. It's sadly ironic that the Tsawwassen First Nation went to court over the destruction of their environment by the port and ended up with more destruction by the port.
Who is so determined to expand the port? Not the TFN, I wouldn't think. After all, they're the ones who launched a lawsuit over the environmental damage caused by the port. The Vancouver Port Authority certainly has an interest in expanding, as shown by the Deltaport third berth expansion, the planned terminal 2 and the container-handling facility on the ALR that will come to pass with this treaty. It is clear from this treaty that the provincial government is supporting the port expansion and all the damage that it is causing.
People sometimes ask me why I'm so concerned about the loss of 500 acres of agricultural land. There are several reasons, including loss of food security and reduced ability to fight global warming.
A recent report by the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, entitled B.C.'s Food Self-Reliance, says that B.C. farmers produce only 48 percent of the meat, dairy and vegetables that we consume. Maintaining even that level of food self-reliance in 2025 will require a 30-percent increase in agricultural production.
The problem is that climate change is causing more drought, which makes water availability a real, limiting factor on agricultural production. In addition, declining oil supplies will dramatically drive up the price of oil and increase the cost of importing food products. In all likelihood, we are going to need our food lands a lot more in the future.
There's another reason that I'm concerned about the loss of 500 acres of some of the best farmland in North America. The loss of the crab fishery, mussels and clams is the loss of the food and sustenance that is the way of life of the Tsawwassen people. The loss of
[ Page 8713 ]
agricultural land is the loss of food for all of us and the loss of the way of life for the farmers that work that land. As one of those farmers said to me: "Remember, blacktop is the last crop."
Some who are supporting the treaty point out that non-aboriginal people have turned huge tracts of what was once agricultural land into other uses and that, therefore, we cannot say to first nations that they cannot do the same. There are serious ramifications in accepting this argument. For example, where I live in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, agricultural land is constantly threatened by residential development. Proponents of this development say to me: "Most of our area that has houses on it was once agricultural land or was suitable for agriculture. How can you deny others the same right to develop on agricultural land?"
If we accept that argument, we can kiss goodbye to sustainable urban development and to ending urban sprawl. We will be giving up on producing our own food — a risky proposition, especially in this age of global warming — and we will be forsaking the best tool that we have to fight urban sprawl, the agricultural land reserve. I have no quarrel with first nations gaining title to agricultural lands, but we need to keep our agricultural lands in production, whether held by aboriginal or non-aboriginal people.
Similarly, if we look at global warming, we see that this is a problem for everyone in the world. Some have suggested that countries like China and India should not have to meet the same requirements to fight global warming that the more developed nations do because they are not responsible for as much of the problem. But global warming doesn't know boundaries, and even though it is not fair, we must all do our part to fight the problem.
In the same way, it can be argued that it is not fair that first nations should have to protect food lands. But as the member for Delta South is always saying, we all have to eat to live, and we all have to work together to protect and manage our agricultural resource wisely.
I want to talk about the process that led to this treaty. The treaty process, as shown by the actions of the provincial and federal governments, was not respectful of first nations. First nations had been treaty-making long before the white man came to North America. They have been working out how to share resources between their territories down through the ages. They have a respectful process to do that, which includes consultation between hereditary chiefs, elders and now band councils.
This process was not followed with this treaty. Three bands in the neighbouring Sencoten Alliance noted in their petition to the Supreme Court of British Columbia that despite repeated attempts to engage with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation in 2005 and 2006, the first formal consultation meeting with representatives of the minister did not occur until May 29, 2007, almost five months after the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement was initialled.
Similarly, the Semiahmoo people from White Rock and surrounding areas wrote in their petition to the court: "After signing the agreement-in-principle, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation did not engage in any consultation with the Semiahmoo, notwithstanding that they had notice for at least the previous 11 years that the Tsawwassen statement of intent encompassed Semiahmoo traditional territory."
This is an insult to aboriginal peoples. This is not the way they do business, but they have been forced into this box by a government that doesn't truly respect their ways. Many of those first nations were on the lawn in front of this building last week. They called for a just treaty that takes into account fully the rights of first nations whose traditional territories overlap the traditional territory of the Tsawwassen First Nation.
I'd like to talk now about the effect that the port expansion, which is facilitated by this agreement, is having on the environment at Roberts Bank offshore of the current Tsawwassen reserve.
Roberts Bank is at the centre of a coastal ecosystem. It is of international significance in its importance to waterfowl and shorebirds. Up to five million birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway in this area. It is the winter home for the highest number of waterfowl and shorebirds in Canada. The area of Roberts Bank, Boundary Bay, Sturgeon Bank and South Arm Marshes is designated as an important bird area of global significance. Of 597 important bird areas in Canada, this area is listed as number one.
The endangered southern resident killer whale feeds on salmon on Roberts Bank, sometimes between the port and ferry terminals. Expanding the port will increase commercial shipping traffic near this area, despite the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' national recovery strategy for resident killer whales — which is to reduce human threats, including noise and pollutants.
Looking at the continuing assault of port development on this area, I can only conclude that food lands do not matter; birds do not matter; endangered whales do not matter. Port development matters.
We have to do better than this in future treaty negotiations. First nations and many non-aboriginal people demand it. Nature demands it. We can do better, and I believe we will.
In closing, I would like to extend my best wishes to Chief Kim Baird and the Tsawwassen First Nation for success and harmony in the years to come. Thank you, Madam Speaker, all my relations.
Hon. C. Hansen: I just want to start by acknowledging that as we speak in this Legislature, we are on the traditional territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.
I can remember that a week ago today, when Bill 40 was first introduced to this Legislature, similar acknowledgments were made by those who spoke, including Chief Kim Baird when she made her remarks at the gate of the legislative chamber.
[ Page 8714 ]
As she was speaking about the traditional territory of the Tsawwassen First Nation, she talked about how they set out across the straits to Galiano Island and to Saltspring, Pender and Saturna islands.
She also talked about trade. The barter system was in place, and the specialized services were also exchanged with their neighbours. Chief Kim Baird's ancestors, thousands of years ago, must have interacted with the peoples of the Songhees and the Esquimalt First Nations in their economic activities at that time.
What we are talking about today is how we give independence back, how we actually give the right of self-determination back to a people, to the Tsawwassen First Nation, in a way that respects that ancestry and respects the heritage that has been part of the Tsawwassen people for thousands and thousands of years. Chief Kim Baird, in her remarks, said that true reconciliation signifies real action and real, tangible change.
In my remarks today, I want to talk about some of the things that are happening within government to generate that real action and real, tangible change in ways that assist first nations in all parts of the province to be part of the mainstream of our economic activity, to benefit from the economic activity that takes place in British Columbia today — the same as other British Columbians have been able to benefit over this last very short time of British Columbia's history, compared to the very long period of time that the first nations have made this part of the world their home.
I was in a discussion with a first nations leader. I guess it was probably about two or three years ago. We were talking about some of the economic activities that were taking place in that particular part of the world, and it was around the possible development of natural resource projects. He said something to me that has been embedded in my mind ever since. He said to me that I should not forget that the royalties to first nations are very important. But, he said, if they didn't result in job opportunities for their young people in the future, then he wasn't interested.
He was very much interested in being part of the economic activity in that region. If this particular project was going to be developed, it wasn't going to be good enough that all of the workers who would come into that particular project would come in from southern British Columbia to populate those jobs and that the first nations communities would be denied access to the employment opportunities that that particular project would generate. The key to it in his view, which I wholeheartedly endorse, is around training and education opportunities.
It's not just a case of saying: "Let's start these new opportunities, and let's allow for whoever is ready to fill those jobs to fill them." It really is a case of anticipating what kinds of jobs are going to be generated and what kinds of training opportunities have to be put in place so that first nations communities, particularly the young people in first nations communities, can benefit from those economic opportunities.
As a result, through the Industry Training Authority, which I have responsibility for, we have rolled out a whole series of new initiatives to make sure that first nations young people around the province have access to the training that they need to be part of that labour force of the future.
The ITA has just recently hired a new full-time representative, a director of aboriginal apprenticeship programs. His name is Gary McDermott. He started with the ITA on August 13 of this year, and he is going to be part of leading the development of the strategy around aboriginal training programs with a goal to doubling the aboriginal participation in apprenticeship training by the year 2010. That is a significant increase, and it is also one that will really open doors for aboriginal communities around the province.
He comes with a very excellent background. He was previously the director of policy and legislation for the aboriginal services branch at the Ministry of Children and Families. He has worked throughout British Columbia with aboriginal peoples and has lived in various first nations communities around the province. We are very much looking forward to what he can bring to help us develop aboriginal training programs that are sensitive to the needs of aboriginal communities in the province.
One of the other initiatives that I was pleased to be able to roll out in this last year was a mobile trades training program, which is a program that takes training into smaller communities in northern British Columbia.
It's not primarily aimed at first nations, but we know that first nations communities will benefit considerably from the kind of programs that this mobile trades-training unit can bring to their communities.
It actually means that young first nations residents of those communities can have access to things like welding programs, which will be essential if they are going to benefit from the job opportunities that new pipeline construction is going to bring. It's going to bring in things like plumbing and piping programs, which we know are in demand around the province, and a whole range of trades that will really allow them to get the training they need to be part of the future workforce.
This year we also rolled out the WorkBC initiative, which was tabled in April of this year. It sets out a very important component that is focused specifically on aboriginal communities around the province.
We know today that the aboriginal population in British Columbia is the fastest-growing population in the province. About half of the aboriginal people in British Columbia today are under the age of 25, and we want to make sure that they have all of the opportunities possible to become part of that workforce of the future.
I just wanted to share with you some of the initiatives that are flowing from the WorkBC initiatives that we unfolded. I already mentioned the doubling of the number of aboriginal participants registered with the Industry Training Authority. There is also support for an aboriginal foundation and employment skills program with the Yekooche First Nation.
There is the establishment of reclamation and prospecting teams to provide aboriginal youth with
[ Page 8715 ]
instruction in mineral prospecting and elevation and cleanup of abandoned exploration and minesites. This is a program that's centred out of Smithers, British Columbia, and one that I have heard great feedback on, not only from individuals that have participated in it but also from community leaders in that area, who are very, very supportive.
There's also the development of an aboriginal mining training strategy in partnership with Northwest Community College. This also is based out of Smithers. Through this strategy the college is delivering mine-related training to our aboriginal people living in northern communities.
There's also the development of an aboriginal internship program. It's one that actually provides internship opportunities within the public service in British Columbia so that more first nations young people can be part of our public service in British Columbia.
There is the development of partnerships agreements between employers and aboriginal training organizations to make sure that those programs are developed in a way that actually meets the needs of first nations communities.
There's the expansion of the aboriginal business and entrepreneurial skills training program, as well as the expansion of what is called Empowered to Work, which is a women's mentoring program aimed at assisting aboriginal women to get into the workforce.
Those are specific programs that we are pursuing. We have also brought onto staff within the Ministry of Economic Development an individual who has specific responsibility for the expansion of those programs.
There are also projects that are rolling out across the province to help first nations communities celebrate their culture and really be part of the dynamic tourism sector in the province. I particularly wanted to highlight four of them of significance that have either been developed or announced in recent years.
One is the Qay'llnagaay centre, which is at Skidegate on Haida Gwaii. This is the Haida Heritage Centre, which has been built and completed. I had the pleasure of being there in July of this year, when they finally finished the construction. Over this coming year they are going to be fitting that out with all of the displays, exhibitry and programming that will really make that one of the destination places in British Columbia. I urge every member of this House to seize an opportunity to travel to Haida Gwaii to see this tremendous new cultural centre, because it'll really give you inspiration about the richness of the Haida culture.
The other one is the Nk'Mip centre in Osoyoos, which I also had the pleasure of being at the official opening of a little over a year ago. It is a heritage centre and a celebration of the culture of the Osoyoos Indian band and one that we were pleased to be able to provide financial assistance to.
The third one is at Whistler, which is the Squamish Lil'wat cultural centre. I've had the opportunity to drive by that recently, and it is a phenomenal architectural celebration of the Squamish-Lil'wat people. They are in the final stages of completing the building, and I know that, too, will be a destination that will attract people from around the world to witness and to celebrate the rich cultures of the Squamish and Lil'wat peoples.
The other one is one that's quite recent, and that is the announcement that we will be assisting in the funding of the Tsu-ma-as transformation centre in the Alberni Valley. I had the pleasure of meeting with the mayor of Port Alberni along with Chief Judith Sayers as they showed me the site that this facility will be built on. I can tell you that they are quite excited about the opportunity there to celebrate their culture.
This will actually be part of heritage centres around the province. If you think of other centres that have existed previously, it will really create a destination. I am confident that visitors from around the world will come to British Columbia to gain an appreciation and understanding of the rich first nations cultures and the diversity of the first nations cultures that we have around British Columbia today.
In the remarks that Chief Kim Baird made when she spoke to the Legislature, she said: "The treaty is…a framework that ensures we can enter the economic and political mainstream of Canada. Now, as equals, we enter the economic, political and social mainstream with all the rights and all the responsibilities." I was very struck by the presentation that Chief Baird made on that day. It was an inspiration, I think, to all of us. I just pulled out a couple of quotes from it, because I think it speaks to the fact that the Tsawwassen people, as a result of this agreement, are going to be able to take their rightful place as inhabitants of this part of the world, as they have been for thousands and thousands of years.
This is an agreement that actually allows the Tsawwassen First Nation to really choose their own economic destiny as they go forward. It gives them the tools with which to do that, or probably a better way to put it is that it gives them back the tools with which to determine their own economic destiny, because the Tsawwassen people have cared for their land in their traditional territory for thousands of years.
I would like to ask all members to ask themselves this question: who are we today to say to the Tsawwassen people that we don't trust them with the care and custody of their lands, after they have demonstrated for these thousands and thousands of years that they have been custodians of their land in a way that is in the best interest of all?
To again quote from Chief Baird's remarks:
"The Tsawwassen treaty…emphasizes self-reliance, personal responsibility and modern education. It allows us to pursue meaningful employment from the resources of our territory for our own people or, in other words, a quality of life comparable to other British Columbians.
"To everyone, it provides economic and legal certainty and gives us a fighting chance to establish legitimate economic independence, to prosper in common with our non-aboriginal neighbours in a new and proud Canada."
The initialling of this treaty concluded 17 years of negotiation, but this is not the end of a process. It is the
[ Page 8716 ]
beginning of a process; it is the beginning of a new era. It's the beginning of a new partnership between the Tsawwassen First Nation and the rest of us in British Columbia. It is the beginning of new hope and opportunity for the Tsawwassen people.
Madam Speaker, in government we are proud to stand up and to work with first nations in terms of education programs, training programs and economic development opportunity programs, and we are pleased to work with the first nations communities around the province as we develop these programs going forward.
Most importantly, in the context of Bill 40 and the treaty with the Tsawwassen people, I stand proud to say that I fully support this treaty. I look forward to going forward and working with the Tsawwassen First Nation as they try to realize their dreams and ambitions for the future.
C. Wyse: I rise today in the traditional territory of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, Madam Speaker. It is indeed my pleasure to be here today.
I wish to begin by publicly stating that I will be supporting the Tsawwassen treaty. Later I intend to return to share my views regarding the present government's approach to treaty-making, including the manner in which the two parties are approaching the vote on this most significant event for all British Columbians. However, now is the time for me to share my feelings of pride in supporting the treaty.
It is indeed time to celebrate with the Tsawwassen First Nation community. Last week I had the privilege to hear Chief Kim Baird address this House from the Bar, only the second time the honour has been extended to an individual. In addition, I had the honour to personally speak with other members of the Tsawwassen First Nation leadership.
These individuals shared with me their pride and optimism for the future of the Tsawwassen people with B.C. I am proud to support the Tsawwassen treaty. It will be a momentous day for the Tsawwassen people when this treaty is finally ratified by all parties and comes into effect. It will be a genuine cause for our celebration.
The Tsawwassen people deserve this treaty, and I congratulate them for their historic achievement. They've negotiated hard and fairly to resolve longstanding issues of self-determination, land ownership and economic independence for themselves. They can look forward to a brighter future, secure in the knowledge that they will have a much, much greater say in shaping their own destiny.
The Tsawwassen treaty makes history by becoming the first treaty to be successfully concluded under the B.C. treaty process. I am also proud to belong to a caucus that considers the Tsawwassen treaty a matter of confidence for a government. The Tsawwassen people ratified the treaty by an overwhelming majority. The Tsawwassen people have personally suffered the consequences of inappropriate treatment at the hands of the governments of the day. The treaty must surely satisfy the Tsawwassen First Nation. For that, they deserve the right to vote on the proposed treaty individually. It must meet their cultural needs.
I argue that once the treaty was accepted by the Tsawwassen Nation, it then became a matter of confidence for the senior levels of government. Did not both the provincial and federal governments negotiate in the same good faith that the Tsawwassen First Nation negotiated? Where would relationships be with first nations with a treaty ratified by the first nation community but not endorsed by the provincial government or rejected by the federal government?
I assume the government of the day knew what was occurring at the treaty table. I assume that at least the Premier and his cabinet were briefed on the process. The province was party to the discussions. This side of the House where I sit only has the results to review and the process leading up to the treaty. We were not privy to the actual discussions, to the give-and-take of negotiations. It is within this context that I will continue my address.
However, all of this having been said, individually, I am proud to support the Tsawwassen treaty and what it means to the Tsawwassen people. I hope I may bring the same high quality of wisdom and understanding that Chief Baird shared with the Legislature last week in her address — indeed a high bar for me to attempt to achieve.
Seven years ago the Nisga'a people made history by concluding the first modern treaty in B.C. history. Indeed, it was this historic occasion when Chief Joe Gosnell of the Nisga'a people became the first person to address the Legislature from the same Bar that Chief Baird spoke from last week.
I would like to point out for all my colleagues present that both the Nisga'a treaty and the B.C. treaty process were accomplishments of NDP governments. The Nisga'a treaty 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. If it wasn't for that process, we wouldn't be here today preparing to ratify the Tsawwassen treaty. As mentioned, I proudly support this treaty, and I acknowledge the important role of successive New Democratic governments in making it a reality.
As I mentioned earlier, while I support the treaty, I cannot do so without raising some serious and troubling issues. Why is it that seven long years have elapsed between the Nisga'a treaty and the Tsawwassen treaty? This assembly needs to reflect on how this treaty — indeed, all treaties in B.C. — was 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 tactics that were employed over the last several years. The costs of that delay have been borne primarily by aboriginal people who have been waiting for treaties to help them escape conditions in which they were forced to live.
The other issue we need to examine is more specific to the Tsawwassen treaty. It has wide-ranging and
[ Page 8717 ]
disturbing implications. It is the issue of how this government came to remove 207 hectares of land from the agricultural land reserve in order to conclude this treaty. I will come to this in due course, but first I wish to repeat my question: why is it that seven long years have elapsed since the Nisga'a treaty and the Tsawwassen treaty?
The main reason is the policies and actions of this Premier and the B.C. Liberal Party. For years the Premier and his party steered a course of obstruction in the treaty-making process in British Columbia. Did they do so on principle? Did they do so because they genuinely believed their actions would lead to a better outcome for aboriginal people in B.C.?
In my opinion, the answer is no. They did so because they saw demonizing treaties — and the Nisga'a treaty, in particular — as a convenient way to pave their path to power. The Premier knew that his strategy would set back the treaty process for years. He knew that many treaties would be delayed unnecessarily — delayed by the campaign against the Nisga'a treaty, delayed as he challenged the Nisga'a treaty in court, delayed as he conducted his meaningless referendum on treaties at a cost of $9 million to the taxpayers of B.C.
Who has borne the brunt of this strategy? It was aboriginal people. It was the first nations of British Columbia. They became the collateral damage of this drive to power. These are the people for whom treaties represented genuine opportunity to escape from the conditions in which they were forced to live, to escape the prison of the Indian Act and the daily homelessness and despair that characterized the lives of far too many aboriginal people. Yet the Premier saw fit to undertake a deliberate political strategy that would delay their aspirations.
Later I intend to bring forward some examples from my riding to expand upon these points, but at this time let me take a few moments to take a closer look at what life is like today for aboriginal people in B.C. in a general nature. The statistics I am going to quote are shocking enough in themselves, but they only begin to convey the challenges faced by aboriginal communities throughout B.C.
Let's begin with the basic health indicators. They indeed paint a grim picture. Aboriginal people, on average, live seven years less than the rest of the population. Aboriginal infant mortality rates run between two and four times the average for non-aboriginals. HIV and AIDS
rates for aboriginal people are twice as high. The rates of diabetes are triple the rest of the population. Alcohol-related deaths are four to nine times higher for aboriginal people — a situation that once more, most unfortunately, occurred in Cariboo South on the weekend in which five members from three different nations and four different communities lost their lives.
Drug-related deaths — two to four times higher. The hospitalization rate is 40 percent higher for aboriginal men and almost 80 percent higher for aboriginal women. 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, and between 1997 and 2005 the number of aboriginal children in care increased by more than 50 percent. Some 50 percent of children in care are aboriginal, according to the Representative for Children and Youth.
Only 16 percent of aboriginal children in care graduate from high school. Aboriginal youth were seven times more likely to be in prison than their non-aboriginal counterparts. That's up from ten years earlier, when they were only — and I use the word "only" in quotation marks — three times more likely to be in prison.
On the education front, the situation is not a good one either — something that from my career of the last three-plus decades, I must attest to from a personal nature. Only 47 percent of aboriginal students complete high school, compared to 82 percent of the rest of the population.
[J. Nuraney in the chair.]
With poor health and educational outcomes, it comes as no surprise that aboriginal people are not doing very well in the job market. Unemployment among aboriginal people is more than double the rest of the population. For those with just a high school education the average hourly wage for non-aboriginal workers rose by 6.2 percent between 2004 and 2006. Yet during that same period, average wages declined by 30 percent for aboriginal workers. While we like to trumpet an economic boom, clearly the aboriginal people are not feeling its effect.
Earlier I made reference to talking about specific situations from Cariboo South. You see, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, statistics only tell part of the story. I wish to share some situations that exist that describe conditions facing first nations communities in my riding. In Cariboo South there are 13 first nations communities. Over the last two years, anticipating that I may be in this House addressing this particular important vote, I have spoken with many of the leadership of first nations in my community.
I wish my colleagues to know that the first nations leadership in Cariboo South advised me to respect the agreement that the Tsawwassen people have accepted in spite of the challenges and attitudes that continue to face them.
It was announced about a year ago that there were 25 first nations communities that were on a boil-water advisory in B.C. Nine of these first nations communities are in the ridings of Cariboo North and Cariboo South.
Some of these communities have been on such an advisory for years. About two weeks ago my friend from Prince George–Omineca along with the MP for Cariboo–Prince George were in Williams Lake to announce a federal-provincial grant that allowed the community of Alexis Creek to address concerns about the Alexis Creek water system — good news, no doubt, for Alexis Creek residents, and an announcement I am pleased happened.
However, let's put this announcement in the context of today's discussion. Should these two individuals have driven out to Alexis Creek, in actual fact, they
[ Page 8718 ]
would have driven right by a first nations community that likewise has been on a boil-water advisory for years. I am absolutely certain that the Tl'etinqox-t'in–Anaham First Nations community would have been very pleased to have a similar announcement made.
Last year in this House I raised water issues that first nations communities face in my riding. In the Cariboo ridings these communities remain on boil-water advisory.
A second example is the High Bar First Nation of the Clinton area. Existing reserve land is simply not suitable to provide the necessary housing required for that community. The High Bar leadership continues to address this ongoing concern.
If the High Bar First Nation is to relocate back home, they require further additions to the traditional territory that has been assigned to them. Presently, that particular property is able to satisfy about two residents — quite unsatisfactory.
My third example is the Xeni Gwet'in of the Nemiah Valley. They have a case in front of the B.C. Supreme Court regarding land claims of the Brittany Triangle. The Xeni Gwet'in have chosen litigation over treaty negotiations. In addition, the leadership of the Chilcotin national government have advised me that they have determined that the courts are their method of choice in resolving their various claims.
Litigation rather than negotiation is also one of the methods that has been chosen in the area that I have the privilege to be representing here. Many representatives of first nations communities of the Shuswap, Chilcotin and Carrier Nations in both the Cariboo and Chilcotin have raised concerns regarding their fishing rights and how any treaty along the Fraser River may affect their entitlement to fish stock.
It is equally important to mention one more time that, again, each first nations community that I spoke with also defended the rights of the Tsawwassen community to do what they considered best for them. These people who live in the riding that I've been elected to represent have kindly spent much time showing me the complexity of resolving the matters of first nations and the issues that have developed over the centuries by their treatment by the governments of the day. Regardless of that complexity, regardless of their situation, regardless of the method each community has chosen to resolve their claims and issues, the advice to me was: respect the decision of the Tsawwassen people.
I think you can understand why I'm so proud to speak in favour of the treaty itself. However, I had mentioned there were two shoes that I was going to be walking in today. It is now the second shoe that I intend to slip on, and that is the process leading up to this historic treaty and the parts that trouble me.
I have cited statistics, and I have shared stories more in sadness than in anger, but there is an element of anger in my heart. These conditions are being perpetuated in large part by the absence of fair and honourable treaties. Many first nations see treaties as a key component of their efforts to escape these conditions.
The government understands this. One needs to look no further than their decision to pay for members of the Tsawwassen First Nation to visit the Nisga'a treaties this past summer. This government knew that the Tsawwassen people would see the evidence of progress, that they would see the pride and optimism of a Nisga'a people who held their own destiny in their hands, who are running their own affairs and passing their own laws.
The government understands this today. What is so disturbing is that they also understood it a decade ago while in opposition, yet they chose to try to derail the very process that offers hope to first nations. The Premier and the B.C. Liberals used every method at their disposal to delay treaties, using the Nisga'a people as their scapegoat.
First, they mounted a campaign of distortions and fearmongering. They claimed, for instance, that the Nisga'a treaty would create a third order of government, in violation of the constitution, despite the fact that no credible constitution expert could be found to back them up. If they were right then, then the Tsawwassen treaty creates the third order of government today, in violation of the constitution. Nisga'a didn't then; Tsawwassen doesn't now.
Second, the B.C. Liberals took the matter to court in 1998. They brought the suit against the federal and provincial governments and the Nisga'a Tribal Council to try to squash the treaty. They sought to have the court declare that the treaty was unconstitutional, in part on the basis of some of the specious claims I have mentioned. The court saw no method in their case, and in 2000, their application was dismissed. Yet it was appealed to the B.C. Court of Appeal. They only stood down when they formed government and realized, I assume to their embarrassment, that the Premier and the Attorney General could not sue themselves.
Third, the Premier insisted, once he formed government, on holding an expensive and ultimately meaningless referendum on treaties in 2002.
I'm looking at my time, Mr. Speaker, and I'm attempting to determine which are the more valid points to be made. I'm going to move on past that point rather than developing it further, because I do wish to leave myself time at the end to return to the actual treaty itself and get off the process.
All these tactics — opposing the Nisga'a treaty both in court and in the court of public opinion, and the promise of a referendum — had one aim and one aim only: to promote the political futures of the Premier and the Liberal Party. It was political opportunism of the worst kind. What was achieved through all those years of cynical obstruction? Not one thing, in my estimation, except that this treaty and the many others that will follow were delayed without any necessity whatsoever.
Once you make allowances for it being an urban rather than a rural treaty, the Tsawwassen treaty is in almost all major respects no different from the Nisga'a treaty — the Nisga'a treaty that this government while
[ Page 8719 ]
in opposition opposed with all its might. Meanwhile, as I have mentioned earlier, the conditions of aboriginal people throughout this province continue to rival those found in some third world countries. It is our shame, and the shame here is what the government has done to perpetuate these conditions even one day longer than necessary.
It is not just the way that the government has played politics with treaties in the past that is a problem, but it is their current handling of treaties that leaves much to be desired.
The Auditor General has been critical of this government's approach to treaty negotiations. He has noted how slow negotiations have been, partly as a result of enormous cutbacks that this government implemented in their first term which resulted in an emerging lack of senior staff capable of leading these complicated negotiations — negotiations with complexity that colleagues on both sides of this House have readily admitted were part of this process.
This seems in turn to have contributed to the government's breakthrough strategy in treaties. The logic goes that if you put your resources into making treaties happen on a few fronts where the prospects of success are more favourable, the gains will provide an incentive for other first nations to be next in line.
Granted, the Tsawwassen is an example of such a breakthrough, and I do wish to congratulate and acknowledge the government for it. Earlier today, we had an announcement that we are hopeful that we'll be dealing with another treaty, also in front of the House, next month. It would be negligent on my part if I didn't recognize the successes.
However, returning to the aspect of the process of how we have got here, and the delay, this was not a strategy. It was necessity as the mother of invention.
The Auditor General also singled out the government's new relationship as an impediment to moving quickly on treaties. The new relationship seems to me to be little more than a slogan desperately in search of a vision.
There is no vision in the new relationship. It is a hodgepodge of side deals devoid of any purpose except to bide time, create an illusion of progress and forestall criticism of a lack of progress where it matters — in treaties.
We have had reference to the forestry range agreements and their more modern name as being one of the successes brought forward in the House for these side agreements along the way. I report to the House that in the riding of Cariboo South there is a mixed reaction to forest and range opportunities and the forest and range agreements. Some first nations communities have benefited, while others seek agreements for a longer term of financial stability for their communities.
At the same time that first nations worked diligently to try and arrange these agreements over long periods of time, the government has been busy giving land away to large forest companies over the objections of first nations. Since 2004 almost 120,000 hectares have been given away and turned into private land, which takes them off the table as part of treaty negotiations.
Also, the government's environmental record has negatively affected first nations since 2001. Fish farms have expanded in first nations territories. Reduced regulations to protect ecosystems and groundwater have resulted in the degradation of land and resources in first nations territories. The sale of B.C. Rail has reduced rail safety, resulting in increased derailments and environmental damage.
[S. Hammell in the chair.]
The government gutted the Environmental Assessment Act, in the process shutting first nations out of that process. Under the old NDP legislation, they were guaranteed a voice in the process. Now they may be lucky enough to be consulted.
Now I wish to turn to the portion of the treaty that gives me great concern. It is the unilateral removal of over 200 hectares of prime farmland of the agricultural land reserve. Essentially, this government has done an end around the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the legislation that protects farmland in B.C. That legislation, by the way, was enacted by this government in 2002 and represents a weakened version of the old Agricultural Land Reserve Act, the Land Reserve Commission Act and the Soil Conservation Act.
The old legislation was weakened at the behest of the government's developer friends, who seem intent on paving over every last acre of the lower mainland. But even with the weakened legislation, they knew they could never remove the land we are discussing here. Another method was needed, and it turned out to be executive fiat.
The ALC Act will become a quaint sideshow for those with no influence. It is truly the thin edge of the wedge, and it is of grave concern to myself and the New Democratic caucus. If the government insists on going this route, I would implore the Premier to make sure their solution is subject to a full and frank public debate.
Another aspect of this I wish to cover is how nicely the government's action dovetails with their grandiose Gateway project. Everyone knows that land is needed to further develop the Deltaport as part of Gateway. The government also knew it would never get away with nakedly removing the land for that purpose.
I do not deny the Tsawwassen people a right to land under the treaty — far from it. I also do not deny them a right to use these 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 government.
In closing, Madam Speaker, there is much to celebrate today as we in this chamber move to ratify the Tsawwassen treaty. I wish the Tsawwassen people great success in making this treaty work to build a better future for themselves and their children. I share in their delight in finally having the chance to get out from under the oppressive weight of the Indian Act and all the other shackles that have held them in
[ Page 8720 ]
virtual bondage for far, far too long. I will vote to make this treaty a reality, but I cannot do so and at the same time ignore the realities underpinning this treaty.
The government has to stop paying lip service to aboriginal people. The government, and in particular the Premier, have got to show that they believe in more than slogans and half-measures. They need to show that they are fully committed to proper and lasting reconciliation with the first nations of this province.
I thank you for the privilege of having risen in this House to support the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty.
R. Lee: It's an honour for me to rise today in this House in the traditional territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations to support Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act.
This act, if passed in this House, will lead to a similar act put before the Canadian House of Commons for approval. If it's passed in the House of Commons, this Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement will be the first treaty reached under the B.C. treaty process.
I would like to congratulate Chief Kim Baird and the members of the Tsawwassen First Nation for their vision and courage in engaging in this modern treaty process. It shows that when stakeholders such as the first nation, the provincial government and the federal government put aside their differences and engage in sincere negotiations, agreement can be reached to benefit all.
Although in this case it took almost four years to reach this stage — since December 2003, when the Tsawwassen First Nation entered the modern treaty process — it's a relatively short time in view of the long period of time when there were no treaties between the Tsawwassen First Nation and the federal and provincial governments.
The Tsawwassen First Nation is completely controlled by the Indian Act. The Tsawwassen First Nation treaty will free the people of the Tsawwassen First Nation gradually from the Indian Act, creating a better environment for them to manage their own affairs.
This treaty will help the Tsawwassen community develop its economy, create jobs and provide a better quality of life for its members. Moreover, I believe that it will also reduce the conflicts between the aboriginal people and others. If disputes arise in the future, this treaty will provide a process for timely and practical resolution, as indicated in chapter 22, "Dispute Resolution."
This treaty will also allow the Tsawwassen First Nation to function as a government, to make laws on treaty settlement lands to protect its culture and language. It defines the rights and responsibilities of the Tsawwassen people in their traditional territory.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
This treaty clarifies who owns what and who has the legal authority over the resources and land. Hence, it provides certainty to business transactions, and it certainly will enhance the confidence of the investment community, which will lead to economic benefits for all British Columbians.
Under the Indian Act, inequality is common between aboriginal people and other Canadians. This treaty will lead to greater self-reliance for the Tsawwassen First Nation community and will help to close the social and economic gaps between them and other British Columbians, while it continues to be governed by the Canadian constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the criminal laws of Canada.
Under this agreement, the Tsawwassen First Nation will receive cash, land, natural resources and funding for self-government. As in any negotiation, the final agreement may not give 100 percent of what one party wants. Rather, it's a process involving gives and takes.
The final agreement may not be the perfect agreement, as we can hear from the feedback from the aboriginal communities as well as from the non-aboriginal communities, but I believe that this treaty is a landmark for future treaties in British Columbia as the province moves forward to a new relationship with the first nations based on mutual respect, reconciliation and recognition of aboriginal rights and title.
I believe the success of this new relationship policy is largely due to the vision and the leadership of our Premier and the First Nations Leadership Council. Concrete actions such as the $100 million new relationship trust, established in March 2006, and the Kelowna accord, in November 2005, will go a long way to close the gaps of the first nations communities with other British Columbians.
I have personally witnessed some of the gaps in the aboriginal communities. When I came to Canada in 1971 with my parents, we lived in the east end of Vancouver, downtown. I realized the challenges faced by the aboriginal people in the urban area.
My family actually has a long association with the aboriginal people. My grandfather came to Canada in 1913 as a farmer. Before he retired in the 1960s, he leased a piece of land in the Musqueam Indian Reserve near the University of British Columbia and farmed there for at least 15 years. The income generated by his hard work supported his family outside Canada.
In the early 1990s I had the opportunity to visit Mount Currie reserve, and I was impressed with the hospitality of the first nations community there. I was shocked, however, to see the condition of their houses and the living environment. I can understand why the younger generations of the aboriginal people have mostly left their reserves to live in the urban area, where they probably faced unexpected cultural and economic challenges due to gaps in education.
Recently, statistics in the Ministry of Education regarding aboriginal student education have shown some improvement in the graduation rates, but there are still many opportunities for improvement. As an MLA, I have the honour to participate in many activities in the aboriginal communities. Over the years I participated many times at the Native Education
[ Page 8721 ]
Centre in welcoming new students and in seeing them receive their diplomas and graduation certificates.
I have attended meetings of the Urban Native Youth Association and the Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre Society and listened to the discussions on the issues facing aboriginal youth and the needs of the aboriginal people making a transition to the urban community, especially on housing problems. I am impressed by the programs offered and the entrepreneurial spirit shown by the Aboriginal Mother Centre in Vancouver.
I visited the ten-megawatt run-of-the-river hydro power project with Chief Gibby Jacob at Furry Creek in the Squamish Nation traditional territory. I have met with many aboriginal people in meetings of the natural resource sectors such as forestry, mining, and fishery. I understand the aspirations of the first nations in economic development.
In conclusion, I would like to offer my strong support for this bill. I wish the Tsawwassen First Nation the best in its future economic education and cultural development.
R. Chouhan: I want to extend my congratulations to Chief Kim Baird and the Tsawwassen people for negotiating this treaty. I'm pleased to express my full support for the Tsawwassen treaty.
Chief Baird honoured us when she made her remarks the other day from the Bar, and she continues to honour us with her presence in the gallery.
Chief Baird talked about the frustrations and concerns of the Tsawwassen people. I can understand her frustration. They had to wait for so long because of the cynical politics played by this government to delay the treaty process. She talked about the legitimate right the Tsawwassen people have over their land and resources, and we thank her for her remarks.
I can stand here for hours and quote all the data, the statistics and the history of suffering and exploitation and all the excuses made by the European colonizers and their current supporters to justify their claim over a land which never belonged to them. But I won't do that, because many of the comments I wanted to make have already been made by my colleagues on this side of the House.
Like so many other first nations, the Tsawwassen people have been denied their legitimate right to their land. They had to struggle for far too long to get to where they are today. However, I would like to say: thank God the Tsawwassen people have finally got what they should have had a long time ago. I have full confidence in the Tsawwassen people to make all the right decisions to utilize their land and resources to benefit themselves and to protect the environment.
Like many British Columbians, the ALR is very near and dear to my heart, and we must do everything to protect the farmland from the land developers. To protect this planet, we must protect the farmland, which is shrinking so fast. Fortunately, people who will be in charge of managing this farmland that we are talking about, removed from the ALR under the treaty, have done this for thousands of years. No one else knows better than the aboriginal people how to take care of the land and the natural resources.
As a society we have the right to express our concerns over the removal of 270 hectares of farmland from the ALR. As a society we can express our hope that this land will continue to be used only for farming. But we don't have the right to impose our will on Tsawwassen people.
For hundreds of years the European settlers and then the Canadians have done just that — imposing their will on aboriginal people and Tsawwassen people. The history of the European settlers in Canada is a history of shame and embarrassment for us all. It was a history of theft and destruction of cultures and traditions, a shameful history of the murder of thousands of innocent people.
By colonizing the aboriginal people, they did it to enrich themselves and made the natives poor for generations to come. The white man systematically plundered the resources owned by the indigenous people. They made the native people think that somehow they were not equal to their oppressors. It was nothing but an outright racism.
Their children were taken away and placed in residential schools. Their populations were decimated by smallpox and other diseases. Aboriginal people were forced from their traditional lands and confined to reserves, denied any meaningful opportunity to make their way in the mainstream economy.
Although one may wish to think that this happened only in the past, the ugly reality is that racism still exists. There are people who still think that aboriginal people should not be allowed to get their land back. There are people who still think that people of colour are not equal to white people and are somehow less worthy and less normal.
Some people have done everything in their power to stop and delay the treaty process, but now they are trying to portray themselves as the champions of this treaty. I laugh at the phoniness of these champions. Who are these phony champions? They are no other than the B.C. Liberals, and some of them who were on the front lines denying the native people their rights are still members of the government benches.
Seven years ago when the Nisga'a people were making history by signing the first modern treaty in B.C., the B.C. Liberals did everything to oppose it. They opposed it at every turn. The Premier was the most outspoken against the Nisga'a treaty. He, on behalf of his party, filed a suit against the provincial and federal governments and the Nisga'a Tribal Council.
I want to quote some of the statements that the Premier made in those days. This is from the Vancouver Sun, July 25, 2000. It names the Premier, but I'll say: "The Premier said." I think he was opposition leader at that time. He said: "The party will challenge the judgment in the B.C. Court of Appeal, and if necessary the Supreme Court of Canada." He said: "The ruling opens the door to demands by first nations across Canada for
[ Page 8722 ]
new native governments with unlimited powers. If this judgment holds, we'll be living in a profoundly different Canada than we did 24 hours ago."
Another quote from the Vancouver Sun, July 25, 1998. He said, again the opposition leader: "The Liberals will take the government to court over the constitutional aspect of the deal, if necessary using public funds within the Liberal caucus budget to foot the legal bill." He continues: "We are creating a whole new third order of government. We are creating new rights. We are entrenching inequality based on race."
Now the same people are standing here thumping their chests, trying to take credit as if they are the only ones who have done all that. The fact is that it was the New Democratic Party under the premiership of Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark who started the process and completed and concluded the first modern treaty with Nisga'a.
If that was not enough, the Premier insisted on holding referendums. He insisted, once he formed government, on holding an expensive and ultimately meaningless referendum on treaties in 2002. Respected pollster Angus Reid called the referendum "one of the most amateurish, one-sided attempts to gauge the public will that I have seen in my professional career."
At a cost of $9 million to B.C. taxpayers, the government sought answers to eight simplistic questions, most of which would be described as motherhood statements with which few British Columbians would be likely to disagree. In agreeing with the proposition in the referendum, British Columbians were doing little more than endorsing positions that were already a feature of treaty-making.
Only one-third of eligible voters responded. So what was the point? It was simply to fulfil an election promise. Once elected, demonizing treaties was not high on the agenda for the Premier. In fact, he knew it would be counterproductive since he was on the hot seat to deal with the uncertainty created by a lack of treaties, and the last thing he wanted was to be hemmed in by the real opinions of British Columbians, especially those to whom the Premier's own previous fearmongering appealed.
In the end the referendum results gave the Premier what he wanted: free rein to negotiate treaties more or less as they had been negotiated before he took power.
For him to say now that they have learned their lessons is nothing but crocodile tears. The courts did not agree with the Premier and the B.C. Liberals, but their tactics delayed the treaty process for years. As a result, the Tsawwassen people had to wait seven years to conclude their treaty.
Now these champions have changed their tune, but the political opportunism continues. They have changed their tune not because they are sincere in helping the Tsawwassen people but because they need land to expand Deltaport. Their priority wasn't a treaty with the Tsawwassen people; it was the expansion of Deltaport. I doubt, like many other people, that the Tsawwassen would have a treaty today if it weren't for Deltaport.
No one blames the Tsawwassen. They wanted to negotiate a treaty, and they deserve one. But the political opportunism of this government continues. British Columbians have legitimate concerns about the removal of farmland from the ALR, but let's not forget that the Tsawwassen had no say in the creation of the ALR and its outcome. This land is their land, which was taken away from them.
The Tsawwassen will manage their land and resources to suit their needs. No other persons better understand the importance of farmland and natural resources than the aboriginals. They have done this for thousands of years. They know that farmland is crucial for the survival of this planet.
Let's move forward, and let's work together to ensure that all pending treaties are concluded on time. Let's again congratulate the Tsawwassen people and say thank you to Chief Kim Baird for her leadership.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.
R. Chouhan moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
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.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright ©
2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN: 1499-2175