Hansard — Tuesday, October 23, 2007 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		8733

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		8733
	Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43)
	Hon. K. Falcon

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8734
	Columbia River Treaty
	B. Bennett
	Violence against South Asian seniors
	J. Brar
	Canadian troops in Afghanistan
	V. Roddick
	Government support for small business
	G. Robertson
	Seniors service organizations in Burnaby
	R. Lee
	Fundraising efforts inspired by Stephen Lewis
	N. Macdonald

Speaker's Statement		8736
	Rules for public bills in the hands of private members

Oral Questions		8737
	Removal of land from tree farm licence in Kootenay area
	C. James
	Hon. R. Coleman
	B. Simpson
	C. Evans
	K. Conroy
	Compensation for businesses affected by construction of Canada line
	G. Robertson
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Hon. C. Taylor
	B. Ralston
	Distribution of booster seats to low-income families
	C. Trevena
	Hon. L. Reid
	M. Farnworth

Petitions		8742
	G. Robertson

Committee of the Whole House		8743
	Securities Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 28) (continued)
	L. Krog
	Hon. W. Oppal

Report and Third Reading of Bills		8748
	Securities Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 28)

Second Reading of Bills		8748
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)
	H. Bains
	H. Lali
	D. Thorne
	J. Horgan
	R. Austin
	A. Dix

I'd first like the House to welcome Chief Vern Jacks of the Tseycum First Nation. I look forward to meeting with Chief Jacks this afternoon with the Attorney General and, also, the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. Chief Jacks is accompanied by his wife Cora and friend Alec Sam. Would the House please make them welcome.

I would also like to welcome Cindy Oliver, who's the president of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators. She's here today with the FPSE's presidents council from the colleges and institutions from around the province. I met this morning with Cindy and the council, and I know they're meeting with other members of the Legislature this afternoon. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today we have 26 students from grades 5 and 6 of Chartwell Elementary School in West Vancouver, accompanied by their parents and teacher Ms. Jessye Labaj.

Chartwell School serves approximately 260 children. The school population currently represents children from 28 different nations. Its diversity makes Chartwell a unique learning community for children, parents and staff. They take great pride in this multicultural diversity and the learning experience it offers.

D. Routley: I, along with several of my colleagues in the opposition, would like to welcome several of the members of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators to the precinct. They have come to discuss the many challenges that our public post-secondary institutions face in addressing enrolment issues and funding issues.

R. Cantelon: Please welcome friends of this House. Councillor Jeet Manhas and his wife Kaajal are with us today in the gallery. If I may, I would like to correct a grievous and potentially fatal mistake, because for the second time my dear wife Shelly is in the gallery today, and I hope your warm welcome will save me from further retribution.

L. Krog: I hate to correct the member for Nanaimo-Parksville, but he's left out one of the most important members of the Manhas family, their son Arjan, who is also with us in the gallery.

J. McIntyre: I also have students here today from West Vancouver. It must be a busy day. There are 37 students — I hope they're here now — arriving at the Legislature this afternoon.

They're from Rockridge Secondary School, which is something particularly special for me because it's where both my children attended. In fact, my daughter was in the very first class of grade 7 at Rockridge when it started off as a middle school.

I'd just ask the House to make them feel welcome today, and I look forward to seeing them after QP.

Hon. G. Hogg: In defence of my colleague from Nanaimo-Parksville, he did not forget to mention Arjan. He was leaving it to me because I wanted to be able to recognize the great Arjan Manhas, who's such a great devotee of the member for Nanaimo-Parksville and of government in general. Would the House please make him most welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 43 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today I am introducing Bill 43, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007. On April 26 of this year I introduced Bill 36 of the same name. Time did not permit for the House to consider that bill during the spring session. Consequently, it remains on the order paper for this session.

Bill 36 contained certain amendments that were time sensitive and had to be enacted earlier this year to be useful. That obviously did not happen. With the exception of minor changes that reflect stakeholders' input and the timing changes, I can say that most of Bill 43 is identical to Bill 36.

At this time I would like to read my first reading statement from April 26, 2007, as a means of outlining the cornerstones of Bill 43. In 2006, I appointed an independent panel of three eminent British Columbians to review the governance and structure of TransLink, to seek input from stakeholders and the public and to submit recommendations to me.

The major amendments contained in this bill will implement most of the recommendations of the panel and will put in place a new planning framework and governance structure, and balanced, sustainable funding measures that will build a solid foundation for an expanded, high-quality public transportation system in the lower mainland.

Major features of this bill include the creation of a mayors council to maintain accountability of TransLink

to taxpayers, and the creation of a professional board of directors who will have the skills and background necessary to oversee the operation of TransLink.

It will include the creation of an independent commissioner, who will enhance transparency and due diligence regarding TransLink's plans and initiatives and who will authorize any proposed fare increases. And, finally, the creation of a substantially improved planning process.

The name of the authority is also amended to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority to reflect the fact that as our population and economy continue to grow, we will need a transportation authority that services the broader region and not just the Greater Vancouver area. Implicit in this, I request that Bill 36 be removed from the order paper.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 43, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

B. Bennett: I participated in a panel discussion on Friday in Castlegar on the Columbia River Treaty. Although this treaty brought huge benefits to B.C. and to Canada, the flooding of our valleys also brought some of the worst government heavy-handedness in the history of our great province.

The stars of this panel discussion were Lloyd and Ruth Sharpe, who are constituents and friends of mine. Both of them are in their 80s. They remember very well in 1940 when a total stranger drove up to their ranch house and told them that the Kootenay River valley would be dammed up at Libby, Montana, and there was nothing they could do about it. For over 20 years the Sharpes and their neighbours were subjected to rumours about imminent dam construction and periodic unannounced visits from shadowy men in suits.

One day in the 1960s, after years of being stonewalled by governments, another stranger arrived at their door and ordered them to tear down their barns and fences and move their livestock to higher ground. The beautiful little community of Waldo, nestled along the fertile bottom land of the valley, was to be abandoned. Ranches forged out of the wilderness in the late 1880s would disappear forever.

Lloyd kept on fighting for over a decade, and in fact, he's still fighting for justice. The Sharpes' story has been covered by all the major Canadian media — the news networks, television news networks and the national newspapers — but the dam got built. The Sharpes will tell you today that the benefits have helped everyone in B.C., even though the cost was borne by a few.

I told the Sharpes the good news that the government is working closely with the people of the region through the Columbia Basin Trust to ensure that basin voices are heard as we approach the important treaty renewal decision in 2014. That's important to Lloyd and Ruth Sharpe because this time around their children and their grandchildren will be consulted. The people of the Kootenay River valley this time around will get their say.

J. Brar: Surrey has recently seen a spate of violent attacks on South Asian seniors. It seems more and more that we can no longer dismiss the problem by saying that these are isolated cases. To demonstrate my point, here is a list of recent incidents involving seniors.

In October 2007 a busload of farmworkers was attacked. Some of these workers were reportedly seniors. In the same month two Indo-Canadian men in their 70s were attacked by a group of men in Bear Creek Park early in the morning. Again in October of this year, a senior was attacked using a paintball, injuring his eye. In addition to these recent attacks, the July 2005 tragic beating and deaths of Mewa Singh Bains and Shingara Singh Thandi have been imprinted on the community's psyche.

I have had countless calls from constituents who want to draw attention to the fear these attacks are creating among South Asian families and seniors. They deserve to have the reassurance that we are taking their concerns seriously.

I also want to emphasize that we should be very careful before labelling a crime as racially motivated, but at the same time, if there is a pattern of a particular group being disproportionately impacted, we have an obligation to give it the attention it deserves.

These seniors come to our wonderful province with the hope to lead a better and more secure life, but these attacks have certainly shattered their confidence about their safety. There are growing calls to examine our current legal structure and look at bringing in changes that would lead to appropriate punishments for crimes of such a cowardly nature.

I urge every member of this House to condemn these attacks on seniors and do everything possible to ensure that our seniors feel safe in their homes and neighbourhood.

V. Roddick: Support our troops. The Canadian Armed Forces has always been an exemplary contributor to world safety and peace. Afghanistan is no exception.

Jim Short is a Ladner United Church reverend who departs in January for Afghanistan to serve as chaplain team leader. The role of chaplain was transformed by Woodbine Willie during the First World War whose motto was: "Live with the soldiers. Go everywhere they go. Take cigarettes in your haversack and lots of love in

your heart. You can pray with them sometimes, but remember to pray for them always."

Jim's daughter Katy, 23, is currently in Afghanistan working as a civilian member of The Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency. Another prominent local troop supporter and member of White Rock Rotary is Clifford Grant. He and his team filled a warehouse in Delta South with a touch of home.

A container was packed with items that troops missed from home, most prominently 3,500 rolls of soft toilet paper — not military issue. Bryan's Book Store in Ladner donated pocketbooks. Others donated lots of Tim Hortons coffee certificates and loads of pens, pins and other small items for the troops to hand out as they not only provide security but help rebuild that nation.

As Clifford so aptly put it:"We are not talking about the war or whose side we are on. We're talking about helping our children and grandchildren who willingly chose to leave their comfortable homes behind and defend the everyday values we take for granted." This is from one Canadian to another — no politics here, Mr. Speaker: support our troops.

G. Robertson: October is Small Business Month in B.C. There's no doubt that we have a vibrant sector powered by entrepreneurs, as the CFIB says.

G. Robertson: We're blessed with talent and tenacity that puts us at the forefront of small business success in Canada, but it's hypocritical to name days, weeks and even months after causes that are intentionally underserved.

Small business represents 57 percent of the jobs in B.C. We are talking about a majority of our business sector and our economy. Does small business get a majority of the support from all levels of government? Not even close.

As a small business owner, I join a number of my peers in demanding fairness, a level playing field for small business which we don't have today in B.C. The brutal plight of the small businesses along the Cambie line corridor is a clear example. Big business is enjoying billions in cash flow from the privatized project, but the true cost of construction has been downloaded on the merchants.

The pattern is repeated provincewide. The Jordan River land giveaway and softwood lumber agreement are benefiting the huge multinational forest companies. The softwood agreement, for example, is having a devastating impact on lumber remanufacturers in the value-added sector. Whether it's huge subsidies to oil and gas corporations, the most profitable in human history, or the mining giants, via electrification of Highway 37, or big liquor retailers getting deep discounts, the deck is stacked for big business, which is all the more reason to praise our small businesses who succeed despite the lack of respect and the billions of dollars in subsidies, incentives and P3 contracts.

Imagine what our entrepreneurs could achieve with a level playing field. That would be a real measure of fairness, respect and foresight, and it would also provide good reason for small business to celebrate the whole month of October.

We've done so well for the start of the week, Members. I want to remind that private member statements are to be non-partisan.

R. Lee: As the winter season falls upon us, wet air blows around the city and temperatures sink in the long night. It's the warmness of the family that fills our hearts.

In our society a family unit usually consists of two generations: parents and children. But in many cultures, a family is home to three or four generations. Seniors and extended families share their wisdom, time and energy with the younger generations and receive care from them.

When seniors live independently from their children or grandchildren, they need more services from the community. In Burnaby we have a wide range of seniors services provided by the Fraser Health, the city of Burnaby and many non-profit organizations.

Of government's 5,000-bed commitments, 1,400 are in the Fraser Health. Fraser Health offers home and community care services, which include nursing, rehabilitation and long-term care, flu clinics, diabetes education, mental health and addiction services and a fall-prevention mobile clinic that travels around the Fraser Health area providing education to seniors on how to prevent falls.

The city of Burnaby and citizen support services offer Seniors Active in Living — SAIL — a phone buddy program, a volunteer visitor program, outings for the elderly, Burnaby Partners in Seniors Wellness and Living a Healthy Life with Chronic Conditions.

We are very fortunate to have volunteers providing so many seniors services. In the Seniors Well Aware Program, a counsellor visits seniors who have problems with alcohol, medication or other drugs at their home. The Burnaby Seniors Outreach Services Society

promotes emotional health and trains peer counsellors to support seniors through difficult times.

We are also home to the Burnaby Meals on Wheels, North Burnaby Retired Society, Seniors South Asian Friendship Society, Burnaby Fall Prevention Society, care givers support groups and Burnaby Hospice Society.

N. Macdonald: On Sunday I joined over 600 Kootenay residents in Cranbrook to hear Stephen Lewis speak. Members will know that Stephen Lewis has a tremendous list of accomplishments, including his work as the United Nations representative in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

If members have not already done so, I highly recommend reading his book Race Against Time, which builds on the work he did for the Massey Lectures. It is a powerful read, and I'm hoping that a number of you have already read it.

The opportunity to hear Stephen Lewis speak — and he was in Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler as well, so maybe many of you attended that — is a compelling example of the power of spoken word. He is a tremendous speaker.

It is inspired by those words that…. You have the organization Grandmothers to Grandmothers and, if you remember, at the beginning of the week we had visitors from Zambia that were part of that organization.

Last spring I had a booth at the Golden trade fair, and beside me you had a group of Golden members of the Grandmothers to Grandmothers. I saw my mother-in-law, the person who rents me the office for the constituency office, and a group of friends and neighbours who were working together with grandmothers on the other side of the world to make a difference with the difficulties created by the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Walking home at a different time I met Kara Hunt, inspired by Stephen Lewis, who is a teacher in the area. She is working with her class and other students in the area to raise money for Africa.

Last year a group of Selkirk Secondary students in Kimberley were organizing for July 7 of 2007, which is of course the 07/07/07. They had been inspired by Stephen Lewis. They had read the book, they discussed it, and they met to put together an event to raise the issue of Canada's lack of meeting the objectives set by Lester Pearson for 0.7 percent of our GDP going towards international development.

If you've not read the book, it's there in the library for us. I would invite all members to take the time to read it.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, there appears to be some uncertainty in relation to the longstanding practice of debates on public bills in the hands of private members. Such bills have strict limitations procedurally, and in this regard, I refer the members to Standing Order 67 and to the considerable body of jurisprudence emanating from the standing order.

Public bills in the hands of private members have, on innumerable occasions, been introduced and permitted to proceed to second reading notwithstanding that such bills are flawed, preventing the adoption of the measure. As purely a matter of courtesy, the proponents of such bills have been permitted to speak briefly to a second reading outlining the thrust of such a bill.

But on a point of order being raised or in the absence of such a point of order being raised, it's the Speaker's duty to advise the members that the bill in the hands of the private member cannot proceed further, and the bill is accordingly ruled out of order.

Members will understand that it would be totally inappropriate for the Chair to allow a bill to proceed to a vote on second reading when the bill itself contained a fatal flaw as prescribed in our standing orders and innumerable Speakers' rulings in this House.

Many jurisdictions in the Commonwealth do not even permit such a bill to proceed beyond first reading, and such bills are removed from the order paper after introduction. No opportunity to speak to second reading is provided. The practice of this House has been somewhat more benign, and as I stated earlier, the proponents of such flawed bills, as a matter of pure courtesy, have been permitted a limited time to speak on second reading before the bill is ruled out of order.

The Chair is prepared to continue this practice as long as members clearly understand that the bill in the hands of a private member which does not conform to the well-established rules of the House cannot proceed to a vote. As there are several grounds on which a public bill in the hands of a private member may be out of order, sponsors of that bill may wish to check with the Clerks before second reading to see if the bill contains one of the flaws which would prevent the bill from moving forward.

Let it be clear, however, that it is the Speaker and the Speaker alone who has been given the authority and the responsibility to rule the bill out of order on procedural grounds.

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise on a point of order and pursuant to Standing Order 9.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yesterday the following remarks were attributed to the Leader of the Opposition, who was referring to proceedings yesterday morning in a press release issued under the banner "The New Democratic Party" and in her name, the following statement: "The Liberals today cut off debate." In a radio report they quote: "They" — referring to the government — "won't even allow us to debate it."

The remarks are inaccurate, and they fundamentally misrepresent what took place yesterday in the chamber. Worse….

Hon. M. de Jong: Worse, Mr. Speaker, they challenge the very integrity and impartiality of the Chair.

J. Horgan: I am curious as to whether we're correcting press releases in the Legislature from this point on. If that's the case, I've got a list of press releases that I'd like to bring forward for debate as well.

Hon. M. de Jong: The Chair, the Speaker, is elected by all hon. members to apply the rules that govern proceedings in this House. Yesterday the Chair was performing those duties when he issued his ruling on the private member's bill in question — on his own accord and not at the behest of any government member, who was ready, willing and able to engage in the debate, had it continued.

The suggestion advanced by the Leader of the Opposition that the government or Premier cut off debate or stifled debate is blatantly false. As is the custom in this House, I invite the Leader of the Opposition to apologize to all hon. members, including the Premier, and to the Chair, whose impartiality she impugned.

M. Farnworth: I thank my colleague across the way for his clarification, but I would like to remind you, hon. Speaker, that points of order are for matters that are in debate when inside this chamber.

C. Evans: We're joined in the gallery by my friend and former neighbour Bari Blackhart. She wasn't here when we made introductions; she's just come in the room. Bari's here with the Post-Secondary Educators. She's the president of Local 21. She is my former neighbour. She lives in Vancouver, much to our chagrin, but she comes back to Winlaw every year to whip the entire neighbourhood at ping-pong.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we established that the Minister of Forests failed to consult with communities around the release of private lands from tree farm licences in Jordan River and Port Alberni. The minister's only defence that we heard yesterday was that companies can sell whatever private land they have.

Well, what he's not saying, what he's hiding is that tree farm licences across this province were created with private and public lands to establish permanent forest opportunities to benefit communities.

What the minister ignores and chooses to ignore, as well as the rest of this government, is that those are social contracts that were put in place. Companies received access to forest lands and in return benefited financially from public tax exemptions and subsidies. When the minister allows those companies to sell vast chunks of land, he's breaching that social contract, and the public gets nothing — no compensation.

Today there's another example in the Kootenays. Will the minister please confirm: has he released or is he about to release 16,000 acres from tree farm licence 23 in the Arrow Lakes and Boundary region?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know if the heckling is worse on my side or the other side.

No, there has been no release of lands from TFL 23. The member knows that under the Forest Act, companies can apply to have lands removed. I understand that there is an application coming through. I have not seen it. It's going through first nations consultation, which is ongoing. Until my staff has completed the work, it wouldn't come to my desk.

C. James: The minister may say that he hasn't seen it, but it appears that Pope and Talbot have already decided what they're doing. Pope and Talbot have actually listed 35 properties. Thirty-five properties have actually been listed, consisting of 15,800 acres, on the Colliers International website. They've already listed

these properties for sale. They've already decided that the minister is going to release them.

I'd like to ask the minister now. If that's not the case, then will the minister stand up now and tell Pope and Talbot to actually remove those properties from the listing?

Hon. R. Coleman: What you didn't say is that the advertisement says: "Subject to removal." If it isn't removed, it can't be sold. There's no recommendation from the minister. There's been no conversation between myself and Pope and Talbot in this regard. Until recommendations come through, I will not be actually prejudging recommendations or making a decision.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter if it's Jordan River, it doesn't seem to matter if it's Port Alberni, and it certainly doesn't matter to the minister now that it's the Kootenays. This Minister of Forests is more interested in million-dollar giveaways than the people in communities and what matters to them.

The minister says he hasn't made a decision yet, even though the company is already spending dollars advertising, even though spokespeople for the company have already made statements publicly, saying they're looking forward to selling these lands off for development. If the minister hasn't actually made a decision yet, would the minister commit today to say to Pope and Talbot: "Withdraw those ads"? And will the minister commit to go into the Kootenays and talk to the people before a decision is made?

Hon. R. Coleman: I realize the member opposite is a little frustrated because I won't make a commitment on what my decision will be before I see the information. I get the fact that she doesn't like the fact that we're consulting with first nations. I get the fact that she doesn't want to admit to the fact that somebody has some land up, subject to removal, and if it doesn't get removed, it can't be sold. I get all that, which is fine.

The reality is that I don't know what the recommendation of my staff will be until I see it. They are going through a process, which is what they did in the last removal and made a recommendation to say yes. I will wait for that recommendation from my staff because — I hate to break the news to you — every area of the province has an amount of land available for forestry, and it's a whole lot different from area to area. They'll make that recommendation on its merit, and at that time I'll make my decision.

B. Simpson: In 2004 the previous Minister of Forests was told by his own staff not to release the private lands in the Weyerhaeuser private land release. That established a precedent, because the minister released them over the express opinion of his senior staff. So it doesn't appear to make any difference what the staff say.

He released the Western Forest Products lands, and he seems to think these are just private lands that the company has unfettered access to and should be able to sell. I think that's what Pope and Talbot are presuming.

So my question to the minister is this. Two and a half years into the file, can he tell us what schedule-A private lands have on them as restrictions when they are in a tree farm licence? What restrictions are there on those schedule-A lands?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows well that they're governed by the Forest Act and other laws that are the same as on Crown lands. I get the fact that the member doesn't like the fact that the Western exclusion took place after a recommendation from my staff.

What I don't get — the fact is this — is when this opposition will admit to the rest of British Columbians that they don't believe people should have rights on private land. They don't like to see….

Hon. R. Coleman: That's right. You don't like to see investment in British Columbia, which we have at record rates in this province today. You'd rather stifle that investment. The fact of the matter is you would rather see….

Hon. R. Coleman: I know you're getting excited because…. You know what? It's that left-leaning thing that says people should never have a right to do anything on land and build a future in British Columbia. I happen to believe that if the recommendation is there, we make the right decision at that time. We made the right decision at the time on the Western lands.

B. Simpson: The minister has already said that when those schedule-A private lands are in a tree farm licence, they are de facto Crown land with all of the obligations of Crown land. The company has got control over other Crown land because they brought those private lands in. These are not fee simple private lands. They're de facto Crown lands with three constraints. They cannot be sold. They cannot be given to a third party. They must be governed under the Forest Act.

Pope and Talbot has its schedule-A private lands up for sale. They are breaking the agreement that they have with the government on tree farm licence 23 right now. They are breaking that by trying to sell these lands.

My question to the minister is this. Will the minister commit today to tell Pope and Talbot that until such time as he has consulted with the people of the Kootenays…? Until such time as he's done that consultation, will the minister tell them to take those properties off the Colliers International website until the people of the Kootenays make the decision, and not this minister?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the member knows that under the Forest Act the company can ask for removal. The member knows that it has to go through consultation with the first nations. The member knows that it has to go through a process before it hits the desk of the minister.

He also knows, which is where he's being disingenuous, that you cannot sell the lands while they're in the TFL. That's why it says in the sale document: "Subject to removal." If the recommendation comes back and it doesn't support that removal, those lands won't get sold. It's that simple.

Hon. R. Coleman: …for the process to take place, which will take place. It will take place and come to my desk at the appropriate time after my staff…. My professional staff, whose integrity you continue to question, are going to do their job in a professional manner and come back with a recommendation that is appropriate to the minister.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I think, at least for the benefit of the folks at home, we should maybe explain what schedule-A land means, so this isn't too esoteric.

There are two kinds of what we call land-based tenure in B.C. One is woodlots, for little people — farmers, ranchers, loggers — and one is tree farm licences, for big corporations. They both have schedule-A lands, like Bari's sister and brother-in-law, who are loggers. They went and bought some private land and then put it in with some Crown land to make a large enough amount that they would be given a woodlot. Now, Bari's sister can't sell the private land without losing the woodlot. That's the way it is for the little people of British Columbia.

My question for the minister is…. Bari's sister lives 50 miles from Pope and Talbot's for-sale sign. How come your rules are different for her family — the little people, the logging people — than the big corporation who wants to pay American banks with our land?

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks for the diatribe from the member for Nelson-Creston.

The fact of the matter is that under the Forest Act, they can apply. It goes through a process. It comes to the minister's desk. Nobody has made a decision on these lands today, and a decision will not be made until a process is complete.

C. Evans: …of chunks of southern Vancouver Island because it protected jobs, gave Western Forest Products capital to build a mill and restructure and put money in.

Pope and Talbot is not in that situation. Pope and Talbot is under bankruptcy protection. They aren't building mills; they're selling them. The loggers I represent in Nakusp and Edgewood…. The contractors are having meetings because they're afraid of not getting paid.

My question is: will the minister go and meet the contractor community of Nakusp before he decides on whether or not Pope and Talbot can sell the equity that we want in our community? It is a question of people's wealth — all of you guys, all of you folks, your wealth.

C. Evans: The minister will decide to sell it to the United States or give it back to the loggers of Nakusp, according to what he wants to do.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't mind matching my diatribe up against the member for Nelson-Creston's at any time, because it's part of the debate of this House.

I tell you what, though. The lands can, under the law, be requested to be removed, and it goes through a process before it gets to the minister's desk. It's not there yet. The decision has not been made.

Hon. R. Coleman: We will see what happens as it comes through the process. I'm sure the concerns the member has raised will be reviewed by my staff before they bring me the recommendation.

K. Conroy: It's interesting. Yesterday the minister's justification for releasing Western Forest Products land was that he cared so much about Western's 3,300 workers that he wanted to ensure the company remained viable.

However, to the Minister of Forests: does he have a guarantee that the estimated $40 million that Pope and Talbot will pocket from the sale of these lands will ensure the long-term viability of Pope and Talbot and secure the hundreds of jobs that are at risk in the Kootenays?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's no decision in front of the minister. There's no opportunity for these lands to be sold unless they were removed. All the things you're saying will be looked at by my staff before they bring a recommendation to the minister, including the consultation with first nations.

At that point in time, I will see the information and make a decision, but not until then. You can prejudge what you think I'm going to do, but you don't know what the decision will be until we see a recommendation from my staff.

K. Conroy: What my colleague said is indeed true. Pope and Talbot is in serious trouble. Three of their mills are shut down right now. They're looking for a buyer. Pope and Talbot can only be cost-effective if they can tow logs down the Arrow Lakes.

I'm giving the minister some education here. In a single tow, they can tow hundreds of truckloads of logs. The land they have up for sale is the land that they use for log sorts and dumps. If they sell those lands, the mill is no longer viable. The mill is no longer attractive to any buyer that's going to come in and take over the running of that mill.

What we want today is that the minister, if he is so concerned about jobs in the forest industry, come up to the Kootenays, that he talk to the people in the Kootenays — that he talk to all of those people who are interested in securing their jobs, in securing our children's future. Come up to the Kootenays and engage in a public consultation.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member opposite would like me to tell her what the decision is or what the recommendation is or what's going on when it's in the very early stages of discussion.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know that side of the House advocates interference in process. All you have to do is look at the history of the Carrier Lumber lawsuit in British Columbia and how you decided to influence decision-making. In actual fact, I'm not going to do that. I am going to let it go through the legal process to get to my desk before I make a decision.

G. Robertson: The Canadian Federation of Independent Business released the shocking results of their Canada line construction impact survey yesterday. The damage is irrefutable. The impacts on small businesses and the families that own them are staggering — dozens of businesses closed, half of the jobs in the corridor are lost, and tens of millions of dollars in losses for the small business owners.

The denial stage is over. The blame game must stop. This is the largest infrastructure project in B.C. history. Of course, the provincial government has primary responsibility.

To the Finance Minister: will the government take urgent action to compensate small business owners along the Canada line corridor?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite knows full well, or should know full well, that TransLink is responsible for mitigating any impacts of this project. It is rather amazing to me that what this member wants to do, for reasons that escape me — except for the fact that perhaps he wants to run for mayor of Vancouver…. But that's another issue. It amazes me that the member would expect the province, rather extraordinarily, to step up to the plate on a project that is not our project — we are a major funding partner, but it is not our project — and deal with this issue.

The fact of the matter is that TransLink is responsible for mitigation. They came up with a multi-million-dollar plan, I understand, in cooperation with the business owners. Apparently, they're saying that's not good enough. It's their responsibility to figure out what mitigation is appropriate for those affected businesses.

G. Robertson: Well, the Transportation Minister has literally been out to lunch on Cambie for a couple of years now.

To the Finance Minister again: this government denied the impact until a few short months ago, led by the Transportation Minister. In late July the Finance Minister finally acknowledged the impact and cast doubts upon the privatization scheme that her gov-

ernment had insisted on for the project. Then she blamed TransLink, as the Minister of Transportation has done.

It's no mystery that this project, from the beginning, was driven by the Premier's office. This government even passed legislation specifically to amend the GVTA Act for this project. The project simply would not be happening if it hadn't been driven by this government.

G. Robertson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm heartened. Maybe they are taking responsibility here.

Despite the unprecedented impact on these small businesses, none of the funding partners are taking the lead on compensation for the small business owners due to construction. Will the Finance Minister today commit to leading the funding partners on compensation to these devastated merchants?

Hon. C. Taylor: The "Small Business" report, which was referenced in the question, supports what many of us have been saying for some time, and that is that the choice of construction method made by TransLink has caused enormous disruption to some of the small business owners.

I have been — government has been — encouraging TransLink, since it is their project…. They did name the independent board of Canada line. Since they chose the method of cut-and-cover rather than burrowing, which had initially been assumed to be happening, it is their project. They should step forward.

They've already agreed to mitigation, because they set up business committees. They gave $1 million directly and another couple of million to help the small businesses, and it's time for TransLink now to stand up with this report in hand and take action.

B. Ralston: The Minister of Finance is on her feet, but it seems to me the cut-and-cover is her cutting and running from this question.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business asked a question in their report that I'd like to pose to the minister. Is it okay to wreck a business that someone has spent years building up and relies on to support a family?

Hon. C. Taylor: When TransLink initially talked about the project with many of the business owners — and I was in the community at that time — the idea was that this would be done as a burrowed tunnel. When they in fact decided to go to an RFP and chose the proponent, they chose the cut-and-cover method.

Even at that time, there was a broad understanding in the community that the cut-and-cover would be done three blocks at a time so that the disruption would not be as long as it has turned out to be. TransLink, in choosing the cut-and-cover method…. They would have to defend or say why they chose that method, but it has resulted in enormous disruption along the line for a lot of business owners.

I think that this recent "Small Business" report just is additional material that TransLink should look at. They have already set up a mitigation process. They should look at this material and sit down with the businesses.

C. Trevena: My question is for the Minister of State for Childcare. Her government spent a quarter of a million dollars this year to promote booster seats and child safety along with BCAA.

C. Trevena: The money is going for a public education campaign and to buy booster seats for low-income families. The BCAA obviously wants as many low-income families as possible to get these seats, so it's distributing them through MLA constituency offices. The only MLAs who got these seats for distribution are Liberal MLAs.

C. Trevena: My question to the minister is: how does she justify using child safety for partisan ends?

Hon. L. Reid: I am pleased to tell you that we are a government of partnership. I just happen to have in my hand the report of the B.C. Family Resource Program, and I will read it to you.

A very, very comprehensive report, and one that I'm happy to share with the member opposite.

C. Trevena: I do. My question to the minister was: did these seats go to only Liberal MLA constituency offices?

Hon. L. Reid: Again, I am pleased to comment on the success of the partnership. The B.C. Automobile Association….

Hon. L. Reid: I'm pleased to commit to the record the partnership we had underway with the B.C. Automobile Association. They had a number of dispatch points across the province, and I can tell you that 2,000 booster seats have indeed reached their way across British Columbia and are today assisting 2,000 incredibly vulnerable families with the cost of the purchase of a booster seat.

M. Farnworth: Well, judging from that answer, what is pretty clear is that they only did go to Liberal MLA constituency offices, and that's shameful. It also says that I don't think I'd want that minister in charge of the distribution of defibrillators or wheelchairs.

My question to the minister is straightforward and clear. If she is so confident in her report, if she is so confident that this was done fairly and without partisanship, will she release a list of MLAs who received seats for distribution, and will she release a list of groups who received seats from MLAs? Commit to that in this House today.

Hon. L. Reid: Only the members opposite would somehow find fault with the booster-seat campaign. Honestly.

In terms of the number of seats that have gone: for the Fraser Valley, 345 seats; for the interior, 420 seats; for the northern region, 196 seats; for Vancouver coastal, 398 seats; for Vancouver Island, 390 seats. It reached across the province of British Columbia.

Certainly, the partnership between the British Columbia Automobile Association and the B.C. Association of Family Resource Programs is one that we on this side of the House are intensely proud of.

M. Farnworth: Only this government would use children's safety as a partisan issue, and that is shameful. The minister will clearly not answer what is the truth, which is that only Liberal MLAs received seats for distribution.

So will she at least have the guts to table in this House the list of MLAs that received seats for distribution and a list of the groups that got those seats?

Hon. L. Reid: I have a report of many pages, and indeed distribution points include Tri-Cities Child Care Resource and Referral, Austin Avenue in Coquitlam; Tri-City Family Place, 3435 Victoria Drive in Coquitlam.

Hon. L. Reid: There are distribution points across British Columbia, and the program is going to keep children safe in the province. Hundreds and hundreds of child deaths will be prevented as a result of this incredibly important program.

Surely the members opposite can understand the importance of keeping children safe.

Hon. L. Reid: I would caution the members opposite that the partnership between the B.C. Automobile Association and the B.C. Association of Family Resource Programs does not deserve your censure.

G. Robertson: I have over 2,000 signatures here today calling for compensation for the Cambie small business owners.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to introduce a lunch date I had today with a proud Métis from my constituency, who actually paid money to have lunch with me and

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 28, Securities Amendment Act, to be followed by continued second reading debate on Bill 40.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 28; K. Whittred in the chair.

L. Krog: We were completing this before the lunch break. This section, just so I'm clear, as discussed previously will now apply, as a result of the court decisions the Attorney General was talking about, to any person anywhere who has dealings in British Columbia around the securities exchange commission. Is that fair comment?

L. Krog: This section talks about documents that may be records, information, etc., that may be reasonably required for a hearing. I'm just wondering: is there any part of this that would apply, in fact, to a person who may or may not be reasonably held to know that there's a hearing or a review or an investigation coming?

In other words, if I know I'm doing something wrong but I'm not aware I'm being investigated, and I'm not aware that anyone is out there looking for it, but I destroy it…. Would this section in fact apply to a person who destroys it who didn't reasonably know that a hearing, review or examination is to be conducted? It talks about "is to be conducted," so I assume that's referring to the future tense.

Hon. W. Oppal: The member, I think, is making reference to knowledge. Subsection (2) deals with that particular concern — that is, if the person "knows or reasonably should know that a hearing, review, investigation," etc., is conducted.

I would assume from that that the doctrine of wilful blindness would apply. In other words, the legislation is designed to catch those people with actual knowledge and those persons who are reasonably expected to know.

L. Krog: I want to draw the Attorney General's attention to the wording in subsection (2), which I do understand and have read. It talks about "should know that a hearing, review, investigation, examination or inspection is to be conducted" — not "may," which it seems to me is a term that would encompass any knowledge of any wrongdoing at any time when you're talking about a hearing that is to be conducted.

It seems to me you're really contemplating something forward-looking as opposed to something that is both present, past and forward-looking. In other words, "may," it seems to me, would be the appropriate word.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the logical interpretation of this section is that where a person has done something wrong or committed a wrongdoing in the marketplace, and he or she is reasonably expected to believe that whatever he or she has done is wrong, then under those circumstances it would constitute an obstruction of justice to destroy documents that may be relevant in proving whatever took place.

L. Krog: I don't wish to belabour the point overly, but with great respect to the Attorney General, language has meaning. Goodness knows there are enough high-priced counsel in Vancouver who have been able to allow people who by general standards would be regarded as scoundrels and crooks to escape the purview and just deserts they'd receive under the securities exchange commission.

It seems to me when you you use the language: "A person contravenes subsection (1) if the person knows…." If the phrase was "person knows, knew or ought to have known," and then used the term "may," it seems to me that you would be covering off those people who are conscious of the fact they're doing something wrong but don't reasonably expect a hearing.

Otherwise, I think some clever lawyer is going to stand up in the securities exchange commission and convince the counsel that, in fact, you can't get him for the past activities. You can only get him if they actually thought they were going to get caught.

I think that is a loophole, with great respect. I want to point it out to the Attorney General. I don't want to make bets in the chamber, but I suspect that will be a defence at some point in the future. Having said that, I'm happy to see the section pass, but I think that's the case.

L. Krog: Section 16 provides defences, essentially. I'm wondering why the bill is providing defences for people who the Securities Act is meant to literally catch. Why are we acknowledging defences for people instead of letting the securities exchange commission accept what may be a reasonable defence at law as opposed to statutorily creating a defence for someone?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the section recognizes a system of due process. In other words, it's not a strict liability offence. So the section really is amended to

add a defence against civil liability for a misrepresentation found in forward-looking information that is clearly identified as forward-looking information and a prospectus if there is a reasonable basis for it.

Now, this change is there to protect issuers and those responsible for their disclosure from being held for forecast projections or statements that merely turn out to be incorrect. The defence is similar to that defence that's contained in the Ontario legislation. In other words, the import of this section is not to penalize those people who merely make inadvertent errors.

L. Krog: The whole point of the statute is to ensure that business is conducted with certain standards, that investors can have assurances that what they're investing in is appropriate. What this legislation is essentially doing is ensuring that there is some kind of out, and, I would argue, it is almost an encouragement to continue to use something beyond salesmen's puffery.

In other words, if you can somehow generate some view that there's an honest belief that you weren't doing anything wrong, and if you're still trying to essentially sell something that isn't really deserving of the qualities that you say it has, that's essentially what you're doing here. You're providing a defence in a civil action which would otherwise not be the case.

It talks about if you use "reasonable cautionary language identifying the forward-looking information," identifying material factors, etc. Why, for heaven's sake, would we want to encourage anyone to use language to induce people to invest in something that may well turn out to be, in fact, not what is being sold?

Hon. W. Oppal: What this does is provide a defence for those people who may provide information that may be incorrect due to no fault of their own. It really deals with the reasonableness of the assumptions used at the time of the making of the representations.

In other words, assume for a minute that representations are made in order to promote a stock, and some unforeseen incident takes place that renders the forecasts or renders the assumptions incorrect by the benefit of hindsight. Then this would provide a defence.

To put it in a nutshell, this means that in the vagaries of business there are some things that are beyond the knowledge and beyond the ability of the person to forecast as to what could take place in the future. It addresses inadvertent errors that are made at the material time.

L. Krog: I'm not trying to rush this along unnecessarily, but sections 17 and 18 both are designed, I gather, to harmonize with defences available to civil actions in Ontario and bring us in line. I take it that this brings us in line with other jurisdictions that have passed similar changes.

We are providing a set of statutory defences to civil actions at a time when we're trying to create confidence in enforcement so that business and investors can make investments in British Columbia with some assurance that they're going to be protected from unscrupulous practitioners. Again, it troubles me that that is the case.

If the Attorney General can confirm: does this bring us into line with just Ontario, or does it bring us into line with the other provinces that are attempting to bring a harmonized regime into being?

Hon. W. Oppal: There's no question that the philosophy or the intent of the legislation is to protect investors. Having said that, if the information turns out merely to be incorrect, then that will provide a defence.

The second part of the question relates to other jurisdictions. We are harmonizing this with all jurisdictions including Ontario, which made the same amendment when adding secondary market liability to its act.

L. Krog: Arguably, this is the guts of this bill, I think it fair to say. This is the creation of a civil remedy now for misleading disclosures. This does not provide anything other, as I understand it, than the right for a person aggrieved to bring a claim by way of a civil suit, presumably in Supreme Court. Is that correct?

L. Krog: I'm reasonably advised that counsel in Vancouver now say that a suit under a hundred thousand isn't worth pursuing anymore, when you look at the costs of doing so. I can't imagine how this provision really represents some improvement in ensuring that business of this nature is conducted properly in British Columbia.

Very few British Columbians, and an increasingly smaller percentage of British Columbians, are going to be in a position to be able to afford to hire counsel to pursue what is in fact a very narrow area of the law. It requires complex litigation, a significant ability, in order to pursue these kinds of claims through the court process.

I realize the Attorney General is anxious, but I haven't quite finished yet. All this section is doing is saying: "Look, you can take your matter to court. You can sue." Admittedly, that is arguably an improvement over a situation where you don't have any recognized right to sue, but it is not going to do anything to enhance the enforcement around the Securities Act generally. It is not providing some stiffer penalty that might actually frighten people.

If I'm an unscrupulous individual or working through some corporation, I know that if I can bilk 300 investors of $100,000 each — so I've gotten away with 30 million bucks — not one of those investors is going to go to a lawyer in Vancouver and be told: "We've got an ironclad case, and it's a hundred thousand bucks,

but you know what? I don't care, because it's going to cost you too much to pursue it."

That's an example I want to throw out to the Attorney General and have him comment on, because that's really what we're talking about. Unless you're a significant investor with a significant pool of cash to hire counsel, this remedy is in fact empty.

Hon. W. Oppal: There are two ways of answering that. The first is that 95 percent of the trading that takes place in secondary markets takes place in the scenario that the member has made reference to. The concern raised by the member is a good one, and that is access to the courts. Because 95 percent of the trades take place in an amount under $100,000, it is our view that the market will be mindful of that fact, and the persons who are involved in the business will be aware of this. This legislation will serve as a general deterrence.

On the second part regarding access, the record of the B.C. Securities Commission is strong. Over the past six years they've processed over 10,000 calls and opened 2,500 files. As far as a civil liability to a small investor who has lost money and cannot afford to hire a lawyer is concerned, which is a specific issue raised by the member opposite, the civil liability framework will allow affected investors to join together in a class action for misleading disclosure.

We are now seeing in the Supreme Court more and more class action lawsuits. I would expect that a number of investors with a hundred thousand dollars or less in losses will join together and commence class action lawsuits. That's the real remedy for small investors.

L. Krog: With respect to what the Attorney General says, I appreciate it, but it seems to me that the more appropriate step to have taken on behalf of the government would be to strengthen the Securities Act generally with respect to penalties, investigation and financing. My suspicion is that this remedy, as I've said, will not in fact provide the kind of relief that is expected.

Arguably, the very people who are most likely to be taken in are the ones who will not be sophisticated investors — someone that is more easily persuaded, if you will, to invest. You won't have a major investment firm getting taken in. They know the reputation; they know the insiders; they know how the marketplace operates, etc.

It will be the mom and pop from Kelowna who went to enhance their retirement income and sank their savings into it. That's the kind of person who you're leaving to pursue this civil remedy. They, again, will not have the funding to pursue that kind of remedy.

Hon. W. Oppal: I can advise the member opposite that since the end of 2006 in Ontario, four lawsuits have been started on a class action basis under this section, which is similar to ours.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to hear that four class action lawsuits have been started in Ontario, but we're talking about a province of roughly ten million people with the major exchange in the country, where literally hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of shares are traded on a daily basis. It strikes me that four class actions are not a significant amount. But I don't wish to belabour the point.

Trying to deal with this in some logical order, as it's all section 20, and going on to section 140.2, it says that this part doesn't apply to the purchase of security offered by a prospectus during the period of distribution, the acquisition of an issuer's security pursuant to a distribution that is exempt from section 61, the acquisition or disposition, etc. I wonder if the Attorney General can literally just explain: what sort of scenario does that mean? I'm just an unsophisticated country lawyer, so I require his advice in this.

Hon. W. Oppal: The section does exclude specified securities transactions from the remedies. An example would be that new remedies do not apply to the purchase of a security offered by a prospectus or the purchaser's sale of a security under a takeover or an issue or bid. Remedies already exist for misrepresentation in a prospectus or a takeover bid or an issuer bid discount. So it would be redundant to have further legislation on that point.

L. Krog: Reviewing section 140.3, this refers to the right of a person to make claim against a number of parties: the responsible issuer, each director, each officer, each influential person, each expert where, etc.

Again, is that the same language that has been used in Ontario and other jurisdictions? If so, how long has that language been relied on in jurisdictions? In other words, if we can, who's the father or the mother of the language in the provincial system?

Hon. W. Oppal: The same remedies, a same section, came into effect in Ontario early in 2006, and more recently in Alberta and Manitoba.

L. Krog: Going to section 140.6, the liability is described as being proportionate as opposed to joint and several. That's the way I certainly read that section.

What it means, as I understand it — and the Attorney General, I'm sure, will correct me if I'm wrong — is that if I am successful in my suit, but the proportionate liability is, say, 75 percent to some individual or person who has nothing in their pockets and 25 percent to someone who does, then notwithstanding my moral victory in the courtroom, I will collect, if I'm lucky, 25 percent. I can kiss the other 75 percent goodbye. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: The defendant is really held liable only for the portion of damages caused by that defendant, unless the defendant acted knowingly. Each defendant who acted knowingly is liable for the full amount of the damages and can claim contributions from any other defendant or third party who acted knowingly.

What this does is modify the rule of joint and several liability in certain circumstances. The provision is the same one that is in effect in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.

L. Krog: My understanding is that if I'm found liable as part of a group of, say, ten defendants, and I've done it knowingly, and I'm the person with the deep pockets, then the plaintiff can collect from me entirely and the other co-defendants can…. Then I can sue, if you will, the other co-defendants or claim over — third-party them — for my contribution.

If I don't meet the test of knowing and it's just proportionate liability because I'm at a lower standard, then what I said in my previous question would, in fact, apply. If it's proportionate and 75 percent is apportioned to the defendant with no pockets, nothing in their jeans, then I'm going to be out 75 percent of my judgment. The person who has got deep pockets, and I'm successful against them, is liable for 25 percent of the portion. I'll collect that.

L. Krog: Then my point is…. What it means is that instead of encouraging parties involved in a scheme to sell, to be very scrupulous about who they're working in conjunction with, I can be a little slack because if I'm innocent and I don't know, I'm not going to be held to that higher standard. In other words, there's not going to be an incentive for persons working in conjunction to ensure that their business partners, if you will — or their co-conspirators more likely….

There's not going to be an incentive for me to ensure I'm working with honest and decent and respectable people, because it's only if I've got knowledge, if I know that I'm going to be held to the higher standard and be stuck, potentially, with the full bill, even though I'm the one with the deep pockets, whereas if I'm fairly innocent and don't investigate thoroughly, then I may be only held liable for the proportionate amount.

The word "may" gives the court some discretion in determining the outcome based on the particular fairness of the case.

L. Krog: I appreciate what the Attorney General is saying. But, again, if I'm a somewhat innocent investor, and I know that George, who is a respected member of the business community, is involved in this company, and I'm relying on him, and I can't prove that George knew one of his business partners was unscrupulous, then I've got no guarantee that George who has the deep pockets is the one I can recover from.

Because his unscrupulous partner takes me in too, and I've been innocent, if I'm George, I'm not going to have a remedy as a plaintiff, essentially, in this — that's what I'm saying — or I'm going to have a proportionate remedy as opposed to a full remedy, which is what pure, straightforward joint and several liability would afford me.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think perhaps the best way of approaching this is to…. This a balanced remedy, a balanced approach, if you will. What this does is it means that responsible directors or responsible officers would not be willing to serve on these boards and would not be held liable for actions of a third party without their knowledge — keeping in mind the wording of subsection (2).

L. Krog: Moving on to page 20 of section 20, part 140.91, the restriction on discontinuous action. I'm just wondering: what's the point of this section? What remedy is it designed to provide?

Hon. W. Oppal: This restriction, if you will, isn't different from other actions that may be dismissed. What it does is provide certain conditions under which an action may be dismissed or discontinued. It states that it may only be discontinued, abandoned or settled with the approval of the court and on the terms a court considers appropriate.

It is intended to prevent settlements that would be out of proportion to the evidence of misconduct and discourage actions without merit from being brought. When deciding whether the court ought to grant leave, the court is required to consider certain factors about the misconduct that has been brought under the act. This requirement is intended to preserve the integrity of the caps on damage.

L. Krog: If we can just go back to 140.8 on page 19. My reading of this is that you can't start such an action unless you have leave of the court. In other words, I can't just go into my lawyer's office…. Assuming I do have deep pockets and can afford to commence this litigation, I have to go to court and ask for leave in order to commence the action. I read it to refer to what is essentially the whole remedial section of this bill, which is liability for secondary market disclosure.

I just wonder if the Attorney General can confirm that that's the case. In other words, it's not like an ordinary lawsuit. I have to get leave first, and if I get leave, then I can proceed.

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes, leave would be needed. This really prevents an action from being commenced

without leave of the court and is intended to prevent actions without merit from being brought in. It protects the defendants. It's the old "Frivolous and vexatious" section that's there now in the Supreme Court rules.

L. Krog: When courts have legislation in front of them, they take direction from that legislation. They follow; they interpret. The provisions relating to frivolous and vexatious actions…. The last time I checked they were still in the Supreme Court rules. That remedy is still available for anyone commencing an action in British Columbia.

It strikes me that when this Legislature includes a specific provision related to this newly created statutory right, you in fact are expanding, if you will, the blockades to someone commencing an action. In other words, you're putting one more procedural roadblock in front of what the Attorney General is telling us today is a new remedy which is good for business and good for investment. I mean, this is an extra roadblock to bringing an action that I would submit is already covered by the Supreme Court rules.

I just want to hear the Attorney General tell me if I'm wrong or right, and I'm always delighted to hear whether I'm wrong or right.

Hon. W. Oppal: This section is really there to create a balance. In fairness to those people who may be defendants, it prohibits an action from being commenced without leave of the court, if the defendant is frivolous, particularly in this era of contingency fee agreements. It's protection against frivolous lawsuits.

I recognize that the rules in the Supreme Court allow for a similar remedy, but the fact is that we are harmonizing our legislation with other provinces, and other provinces have this same provision.

L. Krog: I come back to, and I won't belabour much longer, my point about the type of plaintiffs who will be discouraged by this. This is just one more roadblock. I'm already a dope. I gave you my half-million bucks, I gave you my life-savings, and now, you know, some bigwig down in Vancouver on Howe Street in an ivory tower tells me: "Oh, by the way, I can't even sue the guys who snookered you last week unless I get specific leave. This is just a special protection that the Legislature of British Columbia passed to protect these guys who have been operating in this province year after year."

I mean, this isn't like suing neighbour George for coming on to my property and cutting down a few trees. In order to go after the big guys, the big shysters and the big crooks, I've got to go into court and ask for specific leave to get to them. That's what this section is saying.

I think the Attorney General needs to understand that frankly, I suspect, for the average British Columbian who has been ripped off, this is not going to be a very palatable bit of advice to receive from a lawyer who they already probably can't afford because they've given all their money to this unscrupulous character anyway.

Hon. W. Oppal: It's not intended to protect shysters and all of those people who have wrongfully defrauded people from their money. This is to protect legitimate corporations or legitimate people who raise money on the market, to protect them against frivolous lawsuits.

It's a remedy for fairness. Nobody is suggesting for a minute that people who have legitimate claims will fit into this category.

L. Krog: I appreciate what the Attorney General has to say. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada herself has made it clear that the costs of litigation are becoming so prohibitive that Canadians can't afford to pursue civil remedies.

The whole premise of this is to add a new civil remedy. On one hand, you've given us a civil remedy, which I suggest is too weak anyway. It should be statutory. Its enforcement should be through the Securities Commission. On one hand, you give us a civil remedy, and on the other hand, you put another legal roadblock in front of it when I'm already in a loss position.

The Attorney General can profess to believe that this is designed to protect — how shall I say? — honest people, honest directors, but the fact is it will be used by high-priced legal talent, many of whom appeared in front of him when he was a judge. It will be used by them to defend unscrupulous individuals and keep ordinary plaintiffs away from the remedy. That's the way I read it.

The one thing that gives me some comfort in this is section 140.92 on page 20. It says: "The commission may intervene in an action…and in an application for leave under section 140.8."

Do I take it that that would give the power to the Securities Commission to step in as a plaintiff on behalf of individuals? Or how is that section intended to operate?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know if I can say anything more useful to the first part of the question raised by the member opposite, except to say that I think we have to give some credit to the persons — that is, the judges — before whom these applications will be brought that they'll be able to recognize the difference between a legitimate lawsuit and a frivolous lawsuit. We do that now, and I think we have to place some faith in the judges that they'll make the appropriate orders.

As far as the second part of the question is concerned — the power of the commission — the answer to that is yes, 140.92 would permit the commission to intervene in any action under the expanded liability provisions, and they would intervene in their role as a regulator of disclosure and as a defender of the public interest. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has a right to appear in similar actions in the United States.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, the bill notes talk about it clarifying "the intent currently reflected in the Act," and that it "is consequential…." But my understanding is that it removes provisions preventing an individual from withholding, destroying, concealing or refusing to give or produce any record.

Is that to follow on the previous provisions in the bill that we've reviewed today? Or is this in fact a weakening, if you will, of the statute by removing a prohibition that would otherwise continue to exist?

L. Krog: The answer, I trust, on my question on section 26 would be the same as for section 27. Is that fair to say? In other words, it's been replaced?

Hon. W. Oppal: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 28, Securities Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call continued second reading debate of Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act.

H. Bains: First of all, right at the outset, I must say how proud and honoured I feel to stand here to speak in support of this treaty. First, I will take this opportunity to congratulate the Tsawwassen people and Chief Kim Baird, who was with us right through the debate, for being able to negotiate a deal that they believe will bring a brighter future and will pave a path for future generations to achieve their goals in life.

Although it took them 14 long years, I do have to say that I have the feeling of pride and optimism for the future of the Tsawwassen people. It's something that they deserve and was long overdue.

I just hope that the other first nations waiting to have their treaties concluded do not have to go through such a long and arduous journey as the Tsawwassen people went through. It will be a proud day not only for the Tsawwassen people but for all British Columbians when this treaty is finally ratified in this House and in Ottawa and comes into effect.

I commend the Tsawwassen people and Chief Kim Baird for negotiating hard and fairly to resolve longstanding issues of self-determination, land ownership and economic independence for themselves. They can now control their own destiny and look forward to a future with full knowledge that they will have a real and effective say in shaping their community for themselves and their future generations.

The Tsawwassen treaty makes history by becoming the first treaty to be successfully concluded under the B.C. treaty process.

I want to talk not so much about what's in the treaty but rather how we got here. I want to talk about the destructive role this Premier and the government played when he was in opposition and then as Premier in treaty negotiations. In opposing the Nisga'a treaty, some of the most poisonous and vitriolic comments came out of this Premier's mouth and from other Liberal members of this caucus. They are….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Order, please. I remind you that the topic we are discussing here is the treaty at hand.

H. Bains: That's exactly what I'm going to talk about. I'm leading to how we got here, as I said originally.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Member. Member, your comments are unparliamentary. Will you please direct your comments at the issue that is being debated.

No wonder it took seven years since the Nisga'a to negotiate another treaty — the Tsawwassen treaty that is before us. Seven years ago the Nisga'a people made history by concluding the first modern treaty in B.C. history.

I say with pride that both the Nisga'a treaty and the B.C. treaty process were the accomplishment of NDP governments. The Nisga'a treaty — as I said, a treaty fiercely opposed by many of the B.C. Liberal members, including their leader, the current Premier — was negotiated and ratified under the NDP 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 weren't for that process and the vision of those NDP governments, we wouldn't be here today preparing to ratify the Tsawwassen treaty. I can proudly support this treaty and at the same time acknowledge the important role of successive New Democratic governments in making it a reality.

When I first entered this hall — the great hall, the chamber representing democracy in this province — I felt proud and fortunate that my constituents put faith in me to bring their issues to this House and to be their voice in this House where decisions affecting their lives are made. They sent me here to participate in debates and help pass legislation that would help improve everyday lives of our citizens.

At the same time, I would also have the opportunity to stand and oppose legislation brought before us that, in my mind, will not work for my constituents. I will engage in debates to help establish and enshrine rights for our citizens — that they never had or were taken away from them by previous governments — and to ensure that every member of the society benefits from the resources of this province, where no one is left behind.

While I was excited by this enormous opportunity to make a difference in the lives of my constituents and British Columbians, I must say that I also had time to reflect back on the history of this House and decisions made by those who occupy the chairs before us — some very recent decisions where workers' democratic rights were stripped away by this Premier and the Liberal government, and in other cases, decisions made long before us, like hundreds of years ago. It reminded me of some of the dark pages and blights in the decision-making history of this House, which otherwise had a proud tradition.

It reminded me of people who sat in these chairs and debated legislation that dealt with issues such as whether certain members of our society should be treated equally or not, whether they should have the same democratic rights as the rest of us. For example, should they be allowed to purchase properties in certain parts of certain cities, or can they practise in their chosen professions? Are they allowed to continue to own properties that were passed on to them by their ancestors for generations? Can they even keep their own children with them?

It's sad to know that, judging from the written records of these decisions in this House, for whatever reason, those who were here before us decided that certain members of our society will have fewer rights than others.

Both political parties of the day, Liberals and Conservatives, while deciding on those very important issues, took the positions based on what was popular to stay in power or to pave a path to power rather than making a decision based on what was right. Decisions were made in these very chambers to deny for decades the right to vote to aboriginal people, Chinese, Japanese, people from India and other people of colour.

After decades of struggle, Chinese, Japanese and people from India were given the right to vote, but our native population was still not considered equal and was not afforded the same right until some ten years later in the late '50s. Although members of different communities were denied some of the very basic, fundamental democratic rights in this House, first nations suffered for much, much longer and endured pains of greater magnitude. In fact, they were made to suffer for generations.

They suffered systemic denial and forced-through legislation of their very basic existence for generations. They were made landless in their own homes. They were separated from their children. And the list goes on.

When I listened to this Premier's diatribes during the Nisga'a treaty, I asked myself: has much changed? The answer is very clear.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Member. I caution you once again about the tone of the language that you are using when addressing this bill. I remind you that we're talking about Bill 40, the Tsawwassen treaty.

H. Bains: While preparing for this speech, I logged on to one of the websites of the Tsawwassen people, and I came across some writings where they are trying to express their feelings, describing the profound, long and lasting effects that the historical denial of their rights has left on this community. I would like to read part of that to put it on record, to give us a flavour of what these people went through for generations and continue to suffer.

Madam Speaker, you can see the permanent scars of pains left on this community when you read this from their website. For a community that suffered for so long and so deeply…. I'm so proud and glad that I'm coming from one of the groups that I mentioned earlier, who once was also denied the right to vote, and will be able to play a part in restoring the rights of those that have been neglected and denied basic human rights and equality. This treaty goes a long way to achieving that for the Tsawwassen people.

But I want to talk about a couple of concerns that I have. While I support this treaty, I must say that there are some very serious and troubling issues that I'd like to talk about. We must question why it is that seven long years have elapsed between the Nisga'a treaty and the Tsawwassen treaty. This assembly needs to reflect on how this treaty and many other treaties in B.C. were delayed unnecessarily by the Liberal Party, both during their days in opposition and in government. I believe we could have concluded this treaty much sooner if it had not been for the cynical and reckless tactics employed by this Premier over the years.

Sadly, the costs of that delay have been borne primarily by aboriginal people, who have been waiting for treaties to help them escape the conditions in which they were forced to live.

The other issue we need to examine is the ALR, which has wide-ranging and disturbing implications. The issue of how this government came to remove 207 hectares of land from the agricultural land reserve in order to conclude this treaty….

This Premier's action both during the opposition days and as Premier caused a grave hurt to our first nations population. His divisive comments during the Nisga'a treaty can still be heard within the walls of this House and outside. Here are some of those comments.

"There is no question we are creating a whole new third order of government. We are creating new rights. We are entrenching inequality based on race," the Premier was quoted in the Vancouver Sun. Then he went on to say: "If the Nisga'a have a right to vote through referendum, it seems appropriate to me that all the rest of us should have the right to vote through referendum as well."

Their Aboriginal Affairs critic wasn't to be outdone by this Premier and was just as harsh and destructive in his comments. He went on to say: "The Liberal government won't ratify another treaty until we receive instructions from people." No wonder it took us seven years since the last treaty was negotiated.

The Premier went on to say: "This will establish a precedent for dozens of other gated communities."

Hon. J. Les: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is not addressing Bill 40. I would ask that you call him to order.

Deputy Speaker: Member, to remind you that you should keep your comments to the bill.

H. Bains: I just want to talk about how I support Bill 40 and the treaty that is before us, and I want to talk about how we got here.

The Premier continued to say that it is a vision for treaties that will carve up our province into 50 or 60 gated communities forever divided by ethnicity and culture.

Hon. J. Les: A point of order, Madam Speaker. You have just cautioned the member opposite that he is not addressing Bill 40. I would ask that you bring him into order.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please keep your comments to the bill and refrain from becoming personal.

H. Bains: I just want to talk about the positions of different people, how we support this treaty and how we got here.

On the one hand, we see the Premier say how he's proud and wants to do the reconciliation but on the

other hand continues to talk about…. When you look at what this Premier's actions were, whether this Premier is actually serious about reconciliation…. He went on to say: "We have now retained counsel and will be pressing our case in court. We will do what we must, make government live within the letter of the law and our Canadian constitution, because this is our province, our future, our constitution, and our…."

Hon. R. Neufeld: Point of order. Actually, we can either get through this debate in a reasonable way, I think…. I know it's important to each one of us, regardless of which side of the House we stand on. But the issue before us is Bill 40.

The issue before us is to discuss Bill 40. The issues that the member is talking about are far removed from Bill 40. Madam Speaker, I would hope that the member — I know he means well — would stay to the discussion at hand, which is Bill 40.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you are to keep your remarks to the bill. You are on the borderline of being critical of another member, so would you please keep your comments to the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Member. Just to be clear: making personal comments about a member.

H. Bains: I would not make personal comments against any member of this House, but I will talk about what's on record, and it is in the Hansard.

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to talk about how we got here so that we have this treaty that we are debating and we will be voting on. I will be supporting that. I just want to talk about…. Some members of this House made some comments to bring us to where we are today.

The member went on to say that the agreement looked like it's going to entrench some things that are anathema to Canadians. We are going to have people that are on reserve lands, are on treaty lands who are not going to have rights to vote for government, for taxation, for laws that they are going to be governed by.

Another member continued to say, on the ratification of the Nisga'a land claim agreement, that it will not be a rubber stamp. The people don't want special status created in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Point of order. Look, I've tried to be as polite as I possibly can. But the member tends to actually go back to his notes. I would hope that by now he could actually deliver a speech without having to read all the notes and stay pertinent to Bill 40, as he should stay.

A. Dix: Just in response to the point of order. Aside from the really inappropriate use of points of order to interrupt speeches on very important issues, I make this point.

When you're discussing the Nisga'a final agreement and the Tsawwassen agreement, which share so many commonalities — and perhaps if and when the minister reads the treaty, he might discover those — and if you look at the commonalities point by point, paragraph by paragraph, you'll see that one had some inspiration for the other.

It is totally in order at second reading to make those points, to make those debates and to talk about how we came here. For the Minister of Energy to interrupt consistently a speaker in this House with these points is simply out of order in its own right.

H. Bains: Here's another quote: "This is a new, third order of government. There is no government in Canada, other than the one proposed in the Nisga'a treaty, that establishes a new government which paramounts powers over provincial and federal government in various areas of jurisdiction." He continued on: "There's no municipal government in Canada that can make laws that are paramount over federal and provincial laws. That's what the Nisga'a government can do."

The point I'm making is that both of these treaties are built on the same basic principles. If they were wrong then, they are wrong now; if they were right then, they are right now.

He continued on to say that it's a vision for treaties that will carve up our province — 50, 60 gated communities, on and on and on.

Here is what the previous critic for Forests said: "Right now expectations of some first nations are through the roof. I think their expectations will come down under a B.C. Liberal government."

The critic for Aboriginal Affairs at that time said that Canadian taxpayers will continue to be submitting upwards of $35 million a year, and there will be no accountability for those taxpayers. "There are reasons for concern. It's a big chunk of change. It will be taxpayers who end up footing the bill."

Member after member continued to talk against the Nisga'a, talk against the same principle that we are talking about here. That just talks about their integrity and their record. I'd like to put it on here.

For years this Premier and his party steered a course of wilful and knowing obstruction of the treaty-making process in British Columbia. One would ask: why would they do that? 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.? No, they did not. 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 — clearly a case of politics by demagoguery.

R. Hawes: Madam Speaker, last Thursday I rose to speak in the House. You corrected me on numerous occasions to bring me back to speaking about the treaty.

I've been listening, and this is so far away from the treaty — much further than I strayed. I was corrected repeatedly. I'm wondering, Madam Speaker, if there is going to be a correction coming for this member, who is straying so far from the treaty. Could he be brought back into line?

I have been listening to both sides of the debate, and I have been listening over time to both sides of the debate. The debate is to be on the treaty and on the bill. I'm listening, and I am assuming the responsibility for the debate, and the debate is within those parameters.

Hon. Member, just like I asked you to keep to the bill, I'm asking the member to keep to the bill.

H. Bains: Madam Speaker, if their own positions weren't enough, they went on to hire Mr. Martyn Brown as a special adviser, who was the executive director of the Citizens Voice on Native Claims. The Citizens Voice styled itself a grass-roots movement, but it was no such thing.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Point of order. Actually referring to people that work for government in talking about Bill 40 in the manner that the member is, is not in tune with what you, Madam Speaker, just said. The member should stay to Bill 40. That's the debate that's ongoing now, not Martyn Brown, who has no ability to defend himself in this House about something that happened during the Nisga'a agreement.

M. Farnworth: On the point of order, I'd like to remind the Chair, and I'd like to remind this House, that second reading debate is traditionally wide-ranging, that comments and quotes from this House are very much part of the topic for debate in the context of legislation — in fact, have always been that way. We may not like the quotes, but they are part of the debate process in this House. As long as quotes are relevant to the bill, then they are perfectly in order.

As well, hon. Speaker, the mention of the names of individuals, as long as they are not members of this House, is also perfectly in order in the debate.

H. Bains: The Citizens Voice styled itself a grass-roots movement, but it was no such thing. It was created by deep-pocketed and influential individuals who deeply opposed the Nisga'a treaty. Some of them happened to be the friends of this government.

This Premier and Mr. Martyn Brown together mounted one of the most distorted and nakedly political campaigns of fearmongering this province has ever seen. They did so in full knowledge that their claims were not true. They did so….

Hon. J. Les: Madam Speaker, I fail to see one iota of relevance to Bill 40 in the member's comments. Bring him to order, please.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you are dangerously close to a personal attack. I would ask that you refrain from going that close and keep to the order of the bill.

H. Bains: What was the reason behind this? I think they saw a political opportunity in dividing British Columbians. The Premier and many of the Liberal members who sit in this chamber today saw nothing wrong with sacrificing the treaty process and aboriginal people to their political gains.

Who has borne the brunt of this cynical, exploitive strategy? It was the aboriginal people. It was the first nations of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Madam Speaker, I just want to raise this point for your consideration.

As we know, Bill 40 is a very important piece of legislation before us. As we know, it took many years for the aboriginal people, for the Tsawwassen people, to bring this bill to this floor where we can actually engage in this debate and, hopefully, see it finalized — which I have no doubt we'll see.

I also want to just simply make this point: without visiting the history of the past, the long journey in which aboriginal people fought for justice so that we can have this bill in this House, we would be doing injustice to the debate of the bill. I just want to bring that to the House's attention.

H. Bains: It was the aboriginal people, the first nations of this province, who bore the brunt of this cynical strategy. These are the people for whom treaties represent a genuine opportunity to escape from the conditions in which they were forced to live, to escape from the walls and burden of the Indian Act and from the daily hopelessness and despair. Yet the Premier saw fit to undertake a deliberate political strategy that would delay their aspirations.

I want to talk about…. I had a long list of what our aboriginal people actually go through on a daily basis, the kind of life that they live. I will not go through it, but there are a couple of things that I want to mention here, and you have heard those lists read here in this House by other members.

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 of non-aboriginals. These statistics make you sad and make you angry.

The Premier and the B.C. Liberals used every method at their disposal to delay the treaties, using the Nisga'a people as their scapegoats. First, they mounted a campaign of distortions and fearmongering. They claimed that the Nisga'a treaty would create a third order of government, in violation….

Madam Speaker, for what must be close to the umpteenth time, I rise on a point of order. The member is not addressing Bill 40. He is clearly launching a personal attack.

M. Farnworth: That's not a point of order. It's a difference of opinion on matters that have occurred in the past around debate. As I pointed out a moment ago on a point of order, debate is wide-ranging on second reading, and it is perfectly legitimate to visit past debates in this House as they relate to current legislation. As long as they are relevant to the bill and the principle of the bill, they're perfectly in order.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I've been listening very carefully to the debate, and I'm monitoring the debate. In second reading there is a wide range that you can take the discussion to, but I am monitoring very carefully that we don't go on to personal attacks by members.

H. Bains: They claimed that the Nisga'a treaty would create a third order of government in violation of the constitution, despite the fact that no credible constitutional expert could be found to back them up.

If they were right then, the question arises: is the Tsawwassen treaty creating a third order of government today, and is it in violation of the constitution? They knew the answer then, just as they know now. Nisga'a didn't then, and Tsawwassen doesn't now. The Premier and the B.C. Liberals claim that the non-members of the Nisga'a.…

This has gone on and on with points of order from both sides. Now, either you're going to bring your comments relevant to the treaty, or you're not going to continue.

It is important that we understand that we're dealing with the Tsawwassen treaty. We're not dealing with the Nisga'a treaty. As the Opposition House Leader indicated, there is a broad range that is allowed in second reading, but the broad range does not extend to the extent that you have gone to.

H. Lali: I seek a point of clarification, if I may. This House has a lot of history. Also, the rules that are governed by how we speak or how we govern ourselves are actually instituted by the members here in this chamber, and we work on a lot of tradition. There's a lot of convention that has gone on before us, and most notably is the precedent that has been set before us.

So if we look at the Nisga'a treaty, which is a precursor to this in terms of how a debate was organized here in this chamber, I would ask the hon. Speaker to keep in mind that there was a lot of latitude and wide-ranging debate allowed as a part of the Nisga'a treaty that was put forward in this House in 1998.

Members opposite — there are at least a dozen of them here in this chamber today who were present at that time — talked at great lengths about so many things that were actually not a part of the Nisga'a treaty but had some wide-ranging debate relevance attached to them.

I would ask the Speaker to keep that in mind and provide some clarification that the comments that the member is making are no different from the comments that members opposite made when they were on this side of the House when they debated the same treaty based on the rules that were set by this House. Precedence has already been set, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the member that I reprimanded a member of the government side last week, or earlier this week, about straying off from where it was. Yes, there were lots of members that were here previously. But we are dealing with the Tsawwassen treaty, and that is where we're going to focus. We're not going to broad-range so far out that we start on personal attacks.

So I'll allow the member to continue. But as I've warned you, if I ask you again, it will be the last time.

H. Bains: There are some major concerns, as I said, and one of them is removal of land from the ALR. It is the unilateral removal of 207 hectares of prime farmland out of the agricultural land reserve. Essentially, this government has done an end run 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 represented 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 hectare of the lower mainland.

But even with weakened legislation, they knew they could never remove the land we are discussing here today. For those with influence, contributors to the government party, friends and so on, there will be a new process. Developers will know they need only come up with a persuasive set of special circumstances,

and they will get their wish. They will rightly anticipate a hearing from their friends in the government caucus, in cabinet and in the Premier's office that will be, in their view, more than fair.

This is truly the thin end of the wedge, and it is a grave concern to the New Democratic caucus and me. 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 want to cover is how nicely the government's action dovetails with their grandiose Gateway project. Everybody knows that land is needed to further develop Deltaport as part of the Gateway. The government also knew it could never get away with nakedly removing the land for that purpose, so it chose the back door, using the treaty as a pretext.

I do not deny the Tsawwassen people the right to land under the treaty. Far from it. I also do not deny them the right to use those lands as they see fit — subject, of course, to applicable law. But I can't help feeling that the Tsawwassen people are being used by this government to push on with a project that is of far more importance to them than the Tsawwassen people or any other first nations in B.C. — namely, their version of progress.

All of this makes you wonder why Tsawwassen was chosen as a breakthrough table when government was prioritizing which treaty to pursue most vigorously. Why choose a table that has such a problematic issue as the major stumbling block to completion? The answer, of course, is obvious. Their priority wasn't the treaty with Tsawwassen per se; it was the expansion of Deltaport. The Tsawwassen treaty was merely a means to that end.

I have serious doubts that the Tsawwassen would have a treaty today if it weren't for Deltaport. I don't blame the Tsawwassen people. They wanted a negotiated treaty, and they deserve one. I blame this government, which once again displayed its base cynicism in its dealing with the first nations. Once again, this government has betrayed its utter lack of principle. Once again, this government has demonstrated where its priorities lie.

In conclusion, there is much to celebrate today as we in this chamber move to ratify this treaty. I wish the Tsawwassen people and Chief Kim Baird great success in making this treaty work to build a better future for themselves and their children. I share in their delight at finally having a chance to get out from under the oppressive weight of the Indian Act.

H. Lali: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 40, on the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty. Before I begin my remarks, I want to salute Chief Kim Baird of the Tsawwassen First Nation and their band for having negotiated this treaty and the future that they're looking forward to. I want to start off by saluting the Chief and the first nation from Tsawwassen.

Before I get into the nuts and bolts of the treaty itself, I just want to talk a little bit about the special relationship that I particularly have had with aboriginal people in my constituency, and vice versa. I want to talk about some of the time before 1991.

I live in Merritt in the Nicola Valley, as you know, hon. Speaker, having been a member of this House since 1996 yourself — and myself, since 1991. While I was growing up in elementary school and then in high school, I had a lot of aboriginal friends. We played together, we fought together, and we played on sports teams together. There were a lot of Indo-Canadian, aboriginal and also kids of European descent. In a small community like Merritt, we got along quite fine.

At one point the Indo-Canadian population was about 20 percent in Merritt. About one-third was aboriginal, and the rest were people of European descent. We got along quite well. That's not to say we didn't have our problems initially, but I got to know aboriginal people quite well.

I particularly remember a couple of aboriginal youths in high school. Harold Aljam, who is now Chief of the Coldwater Indian Band, was a good friend of mine and a darn good soccer player, I must say. Casey Holmes is another individual that I grew up and graduated from high school with. He was another really good soccer player. I really got to know the culture quite a bit.

In my constituency of Yale-Lillooet there are 29 first nations bands. That's actually more than any other constituency in the province, and I feel quite fortunate, actually, having such a strong contingent of aboriginal people in my constituency.

When Mike Harcourt and the NDP were coming up to an election in '91, our party put out a document called A Just and Honourable Settlement of the Aboriginal Land Question. That was our mission statement of how Mike Harcourt and the NDP believed in treaty-making.

During the election, I got a phone call from Chief Roger Adolf of the Fountain Indian band near Lillooet, and he talked to me on the phone. He said that he's never voted in his life. Basically, he put it to me to give him a reason why he should vote. I talked to him at length and told him I'd meet with him when I came to Lillooet as well. After talking for at least half an hour or 45 minutes, we talked about A Just and Honourable Settlement of the Aboriginal Land Question. I think it was called a White Paper at that time in terms of how we would do treaty-making. At the end, he said that he's going to vote for the first time.

I remember in 1994 when the St'at'imc First Nation tribal police was being instituted at the time, and Chief Roger Adolf got up on the stage. It really brought tears to my eyes when he said that I was the first politician who not only visited aboriginal people at election time but also came to visit them on reserve in between elections as well.

You know, the member from Kamloops may make all sorts of jokes he wants, but I read the member's Nisga'a treaty debate. He talked about how he got

personally involved with aboriginal people and how he felt, and it made his heart swell as well. He didn't find me making jokes to that. I think he should be cognizant of that and afford the same courtesy back.

In any case, I think it was about three or three and a half years ago that the Conayt Friendship Society in Merritt celebrated its 30th anniversary. At the civic centre in Merritt, the room was full — 300 guests from all over, not only my constituency but around the province as well. At the end they were handing out traditional aboriginal handcrafted drums to some very special people, and there were a lot of aboriginal people, about half a dozen to ten people, who received one.

As I was sitting there, again, another instance where it brought tears to my eyes, because I was the only non-aboriginal person who was given a ceremonial drum, somebody who worked with the Conayt Friendship Society over a number of years dating back to the '80s. It really made me feel proud of my accomplishments in terms of dealing with aboriginal people, especially since I was the only non-aboriginal person who was afforded that courtesy or that honour at that moment.

I want to talk about the government's new relationship and reconciliation. I won't go into any detail. I know a lot of press releases, etc., have been put out by the government on that already. But you know, they like to pride themselves in terms of talking about the Tsawwassen treaty in the context of how this has come about as a result of their new relationship or the reconciliation. They seem to be very proud of that.

But I just want to read into the record what the aboriginal people themselves are saying about the reconciliation. Chief Stuart Phillip, who is the head of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, says that…. And I'm going to quote from Justine Hunter in the Globe and Mail on October 13, 2007. She says that he's very frustrated with the progress in terms of treaty-making.

This is what Chief Phillip is saying: "In the beginning there was great hope based on the statements from the Premier that we were going to make some significant progress through the new relationship. However, that has not been the case. There is tremendous frustration and anger welling up in our communities as a result of the progress."

Of course, I know the Premier talked in his statement on the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty about the Nisga'a. He talked about the reconciliation.

Here's what Grand Chief Doug Kelly of the Stó:lô Tribal Council says on the new relationship: "If the Premier" — and he uses the Premier's name; I'm not allowed to use that here — "is serious about establishing a new relationship with first nations, then he should start by kicking some butts in his own bureaucracy to create the political will to break the roadblocks here." This is from The Province of March 8, 2007.

I also want to read from a UBCIC press release on the treaty process. This is from October 11, 2007:

I also want to put on the record from the Times Colonist of May 12, 2007…. This is an op-ed piece by Robert Morales, who is chair of the First Nations Summit chief negotiators. He says: "The new relationship has not translated into treaty language. Treaties represent the vehicle where the true new relationship must be established. The combined effect is one of significant power imbalance. In the face of public and business support for treaty-making, governments continue to act in the manner of the school bully who insists that might is right."

Another one in terms of the new relationship. I know the Premier talked very proudly about the new relationship in his comments on the Tsawwassen treaty being debated here. I read from a statement from Grand Chief Edward John on the "New relationship? Old relationship?"

So in the words of aboriginal chiefs themselves, the new relationship and reconciliation has been a miserable failure.

You heard a number of members opposite in the debate on Bill 40 talk about all the great things they're doing not only for aboriginal people but non-aboriginal people. They talk about economic prosperity, some of them. I know the Premier has talked about it, as well, in his remarks on Bill 40.

But the truth is that when you talk about this and you talk to aboriginal people and you look at aboriginal bands, unemployment amongst bands is the highest in the province and hasn't changed in the last six and a half years since this government has taken office.

In some communities, the unemployment…. Up in Peace River country, where the hon. member across the way is from and the other hon. member to my right

here, some of those bands have as high as 90 percent to 95 percent unemployment. But most aboriginal bands have between 50 percent to 75 percent, so you can tell the economic prosperity of the new relationship has not worked for them.

Poverty levels, as I've said, go with the unemployment. They're the highest in the province for aboriginal people. Child poverty rates are triple that of what they are in mainstream communities. If you look at health, child deaths, the incidence of HIV/AIDS, the incidence of suicides and teen pregnancies…. They are multiples of what they are in mainstream society.

Alcohol and drug abuse is another area. Also, education levels are the lowest in the province, especially in post-secondary education.

This is a government that talks about reconciliation, talks about treaty-making as part of reconciliation. I've heard the Premier talk about Bill 40 in relation to the reconciliation, the new relationship. It has done absolutely nothing for aboriginal people in terms of improving their social and economic welfare. Yet hon. members are sitting across the way. Every time, they get up to talk about it and say how proud they are in terms of the results of the reconciliation. Well, it's not working.

I also want to talk about the position of the NDP, the traditional position that we've had in terms of treaty-making. Traditionally, the NDP has always been supportive of treaty-making. If you look at 1992, we had the just and honourable settlement of aboriginal land questions as our official policy for the party, which Mike Harcourt drove when he was in opposition. We put that into effect by actually consummating the British Columbia Treaty Commission in 1992.

Then again in 1996, the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle, which became a treaty in 1998, came into effect as a result of our efforts, even though it was an ongoing process before the BCTC, the B.C. Treaty Commission, came into play. I remember all of these individuals on the other side — well, not all of them. Some of them weren't here. But those that were here lined up against that treaty at that time.

I also want to point out that I was the vice-Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs of the Legislature at the time. Ian Waddell, who was the member for Vancouver-Fraserview at the time, was the Chair. The Government House Leader was on that committee, as well as myself.

If I am not mistaken — and I think some of the members opposite may correct me — the only two members still in the House here today who were members of that committee that went around the province were the member who is the House Leader for the Liberals, and myself.

Now, I stand here. I could be corrected. But as memory serves me — and it does fade the older you get — we're the two folks….

H. Lali: That's it. I think he's going to shut me down. The Speaker was the other one. There you go. The hon. Speaker, sitting on his chair. I never see him as a member over here because he's in his chair, but I stand corrected. There are three of us here — the Speaker too.

It was the most widely travelled of all the committees in the history of this province. I believe we went to 27 communities, some of them more than once. In total we had 31 visits across the province as a part of that agreement-in-principle for the Nisga'a that we took around the province for comment from people.

I know that the Premier has talked about the Nisga'a in relation to Bill 40. So in following up on the Premier's comments, I want to make some comments in terms of what happened with the AIP at that time. I know that side of the House, the government, actually was allowed for the first time by the government of the day — Glen Clark was the Premier — to put forward a minority report, which they did, along with the Reform Party. One member, Jack Weisgerber, who is not here anymore, served this House for almost 15 years.

As a part of the minority report, I couldn't believe how, really, the Liberal opposition of the day took over the Reform position. Whereas before they never believed in a referendum, in the minority report the Liberals said they would actually support a referendum, and they were actually against self-government.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I just wanted to sort of say, in reference to the comments that both the Premier and the House Leader for the Liberals have made, that these comments of mine are actually flowing from those.

I know they stood up here in this House and spoke very proudly of the treaty-making, but at that time…. I wanted to say in relation to Bill 40 and the comments from the government side on the Nisga'a that they were actually on the other side of the fence and opposed virtually all of those things such as title, self-government — wanted a referendum — and all of those things that go with it, to the point that they even put forward a court challenge for the treaty itself. Even at that time, when the court challenge failed, the Premier wanted to appeal it.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I did all this work, and I know the Speaker has had a change of heart since last week. He's going to rule all this research that I did out of order — and all of the comments that members opposite had made regarding treaty-making and the Nisga'a treaty at the time. I knew he would rule me out of order. So the hon. Speaker is not going to allow me….

H. Lali: Well, I was going to talk about the comments that the Premier had made on self-government.

H. Lali: But I can't say that, because the Speaker will rule me out of order. These were really juicy comments that the Premier had made, which were actually opposite of what they are now.

He also talked about…. I can't read these comments, but I just want to say there was a juicy comment from CFTK-TV news, July 23, 1998, but I can't read that into that record. It was on referendums.

There's another by the Premier that was on CFAX on July 29, 1998 on referendums. I can't read that into the record either.

The Premier talked about court actions in the province on July 25, 2000. I'm not allowed to read that into the record either. The comment itself might be seen by members opposite saying that I am attacking the Premier somehow.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member. Now, I'm giving you lots of leeway, but please don't abuse it.

The Premier had made some comments. I put my paper down. I'm not going to read them into the record, but there seems to be a lot of — in terms of the members opposite, a whole bunch of them — hostility, really, towards a previous government that negotiated a previous treaty.

But they seem to have changed their tune. Some of the other members who are in this House are the member for Shuswap, the member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman, the member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman again and also the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. I will put those away.

I'm going to be stretching for time here. But you know, the Premier says that he has now changed. He said that in his speech. He said he's changed his opinion. He says he is now in favour of self-government.

The Premier stood up in this House in relation to Bill 40. When he was talking, he said he's a changed man. He's changed his opinion. He's in favour of treaty-making. He says he's in favour of self-government and all of those other things. And so have every one of these people, because the muzzle is on the Liberals opposite from actually speaking their minds in this House. They did that also when they were in opposition. The muzzle was on. The muzzle was on, and that's why they won't. They've been told to toe the party line.

You know, as much as the Premier's crocodile tears and members opposite…. But, hon. Speaker, I've got to say to you: leopards do not change their spots overnight as much as they'd like to say.

H. Lali: The hon. member should actually read his own speech on the Nisga'a treaty if he wants to talk about somebody making nonsense, hon. Speaker. Thank you very much.

I know members on this side of the House are supportive of the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty that was consummated with the federal government and the provincial government, and there are some areas that I'd like to talk about.

I want to talk about the agricultural land reserve. It was called the Land Commission Act, which was introduced by Dave Barrett's government in 1973, on February 22 to be exact, and the bill was actually eventually passed with several amendments on April 17, 1973. Also at that time, if any landowners who were affected by it wanted to exclude some applications that may have been rejected in terms of getting land out of the land commission, they could appeal to the cabinet's Environment and Land Use Committee, called ELUC.

Under the Social Credit when they came into office, Socred Environment Minister Jim Nielsen said they made some changes whereby they allowed a citizen of the province the right to appeal to an elected representative rather than be denied such avenue of appeal by a board that was appointed. That was the reasoning he used at the time.

What also ended up happening at the time was that tens and hundreds of applications came in for golf courses as a result of some of the changes and the watering down that the Social Credit did. Then in 1991 Mike Harcourt's government, which I was a member of, actually moved to rescind the 1988 order-in-council that the Socreds had passed in terms of the golf course exemptions that they made.

Some of the other changes to the ALR rules during the 1993 cabinet…. It brought in a Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, which actually removed the cabinet's ability to overrule commission decisions at the time. Also, a provincial interest reference process was introduced at that time.

In June 1999 the Agricultural Land Commission was merged with a newer Forest Land Commission to improve the integration of our land planning processes. The legislation, as I said, was passed in June of 1999.

I just want to read you a comment from this document called ALR Erosion, BIV 786, by Gordon Price. "The ALR also became the basis of the green zone that currently constrains sprawl in the lower mainland —

one of four pillars that make up the livable region strategic plan, passed under" — and he names the present Premier — "his leadership of the GVRD in 1996."

I want to bring that back in a few minutes — how he thought at that time, as opposed to how he's thinking right now.

In any case, in April 2002 the Liberals introduced the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which was actually intended to make the ALR system, as they say, more efficient, effective and regionally responsive by providing for regional commission panels and expanding delegations. In other words, they regionalized the Agricultural Land Commission.

They also merged the ALC with the Forest Land Commission. Sorry. The merger that was brought in at that time was also repealed by this Liberal government.

In essence, the Agricultural Land Commission is now composed of six regional panels with three members each, and each panel includes a vice-chair, who also belongs to an executive committee with the commission CEO.

The regional restructuring meant that the decisions impacting a particular area would be made by commissioners residing in that region. As one Vancouver Sun contributor wrote: "The promise of jobs or the threat of withholding them, the promise of economic growth that seems enormous in a small town but is small in a provincial scale all take on greater weight the further down the power structure they occur." It would be much easier, in other words, for a development lobby to influence a municipal council than it would be an independent commission, the writer also wrote at that time.

Most recently, the David Suzuki Foundation actually released a report with several recommendations, including a call for the revision of the ALC Act and the commission's annual service plan to ensure they are consistent and clear in their commitment to protect farmland from other types of development. That report by the Suzuki Foundation also suggested that the reserve had grown to an all-time high of 4.76 million hectares, but mainly due to the addition of less productive land in northern British Columbia. The Suzuki Foundation criticized the loss of land in more fertile areas.

I also want to read into the record the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands report from 2006 called B.C.'s Food Self-Reliance: Can B.C.'s Farmers Feed Our Growing Population? I quote from page 2:

I also want to let folks here and also in my constituency know that what has happened in terms of Bill 40, the Tsawwassen treaty, is that there's a bunch of Crown land that is agricultural that has been removed from the ALR without going through the process of the Agricultural Land Commission. There are 207 hectares of that. In other words, what the government has done is say that as a part of this treaty they don't have to go through that regular process in terms of taking land out.

On December 8, 1998, the Premier, in question period at the time, stated into the record: "The minister's own experts have told him this: at the present rates treaties would likely consume the majority of Crown ALR — approximately 2.5 million hectares." That's what the Premier said at that time.

D. Thorne: I'm pleased to rise today to speak in support of the Tsawwassen treaty. This is indeed a momentous occasion for the Tsawwassen people and their Chief Kim Baird.

Chief Baird has shown unusual strength and tenacity during the long negotiation period. She has never, at least in public, wavered in her quest for a better life for her children and for her community. Soon this treaty will be ratified — a momentous day for the Tsawwassen people, a historic achievement, not just for them but for all the residents of British Columbia.

The Tsawwassen have negotiated hard and fairly to resolve longstanding issues of self-determination, land-ownership and economic independence. They can now look forward to a brighter future, secure in the knowledge that they will have a much greater say in shaping their destiny. They make history by becoming the first to sign a treaty under the B.C. treaty process.

Before I go further, I'd just like to mention a little about the small first nations community in my constituency of Coquitlam-Maillardville. It's my connection to the first nations community, and it's very important to me.

The Kwikwetlem band currently has about 30 members, a very small first nation band who reside on the two reserves nestled against the Coquitlam River. Their Reserve 1 in my constituency lies close to the mouth of the Coquitlam River where it drains into the Fraser and is about 6.5 acres in size. Reserve 2 in Port Coquitlam, further up the Coquitlam River, is about 202 acres. It is there that future development is planned to encourage more members to move back home.

The Kwikwetlem have not yet started their treaty negotiations, but they have started reaching out to the surrounding community and building support there, building partnerships with others who support their goal of rebuilding the fishery in the Coquitlam River.

The name Kwikwetlem means "red fish up the river," and band members traditionally supported themselves by fishing. However, gravel mines and a Hydro dam further up the Coquitlam River, as well as many new housing developments and other intrusions, have nearly extinguished their fishery. The band is also concerned about the effect that construction from the

Gateway program might have on the river and the adjacent lands beside the Port Mann Bridge.

The Kwikwetlem may be small in numbers, but I know them very well from my nine years as a Coquitlam councillor, and they are very big in heart.

Last spring I joined many other Coquitlam residents in what became an amazing show of community support. We spent several evenings sand-bagging the reserve against the flood threats that were occurring around that time.

I want to say and read it into the record that I and the rest of the people in my caucus wish the Kwikwetlem well in their future endeavours and in their treaty negotiations, which hopefully will resume soon for them. If there's any way that I can assist them to accomplish their stated goal, I would be very happy to do that.

Madam Speaker, even though I am speaking in support of this treaty, I must state that I have grave concerns about certain aspects of the treaty and also the way in which this government has approached treaty-making. For me and my caucus, the issue of how this government came to remove 207 hectares of land from the ALR has caused a dilemma of unimaginable proportions.

The ALR, created in the early '70s by NDP Premier Dave Barrett, has been and is one of the most admired policy achievements of any political administration anywhere in the world. Government commitment to the ALR should be unshakeable, not just because it makes highly developed regions of our province livable but because it is where we grow our food.

Food security has become a major issue of concern in the last few years and nowhere more so than in the southern part of British Columbia. Not only do we need clean air to breathe, but we need safe food to eat, or we really, in totality, have nothing to leave our children. And that means all of our children.

I do not deny the Tsawwassen people the right to land under their treaty or the right to use these lands as they see fit. After all, it was their land to begin with. Soon they will be part of the joint land use planning within Metro Vancouver regional district, subject to the same parameters as all other municipalities. I do truly believe as an ex–city councillor that this will be a wonderful opportunity not just for the Tsawwassen people but for the rest of Metro Vancouver, where I live. I think it's going to be a wonderful, wonderful opportunity.

I may never know if we could have avoided the removal of this ALR land, but right now I'd rather focus on the good news — that the Tsawwassen people have achieved what they deserved.

On a personal note, I would like to say before I finish talking about the ALR that I have not appreciated having to choose between two of my most strongly held beliefs and values. I believe that treaties must be completed and certainly more quickly than we have done in the past, but I also believe that the agricultural land reserve must be preserved, particularly in southern British Columbia with all the urban development. I felt as if I was being blackmailed, and because of that, I ask now that another 207 hectares of land be added immediately to the ALR in the Metro Vancouver regional district to make up for this loss.

I'd like to say a little bit about the past. The B.C. treaty process started during the governments of Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark, and without this process, we would not be here today. I want to acknowledge the role of successive NDP governments in making this wonderful day a reality.

But I ask: why has so much time elapsed between the Nisga'a treaty and the Tsawwassen treaty? We need to look at how this treaty and all treaties were delayed unnecessarily by this government while in opposition and since they have been in government.

I believe we could have concluded this treaty much sooner if not for the tactics employed by this government over the years. Sadly and shamefully, the costs of that delay have been borne primarily by the aboriginal peoples who are waiting for treaties to help them escape from their own form of bondage.

This government mounted one of the most distorted and nakedly political campaigns of fearmongering against the Nisga'a treaty that we have ever seen in this province, in the full knowledge that the claims were not true. They did this knowing that their rhetoric and actions would fan the flames of intolerance. They saw political opportunity in appealing to people's basest instinct and by doing so set back the treaty process for years.

The speeches of the last week on this subject have brought back to mind one of my predecessors as MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the hon. John Cashore. As many on both sides of this House will remember, John was the MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville for 15 years, from 1986 to 2001, when he retired. He was appointed B.C.'s Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in 1993 and was the signatory to the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle, the foundation for the first treaty signed in modern times in British Columbia. While he was minister, the B.C. Treaty Commission was opened, in 1994, to negotiate further treaties with first nations, and it continues its work to this day.

John's Cashore's support and advocacy for first nations, of course, began way before that day, back in the 1960s, when he served for four years as a United Church minister in remote Port Simpson. He also worked as a consultant on native affairs for the United Church and worked out of Queens Avenue United Church, an urban setting for many aboriginals whom he became very close friends with and is still friends with to this day.

During the '90s, when he was Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, John Cashore was the target of many personal attacks from the official opposition and from special interest groups who opposed treaty-making. Not everybody may know this, but during the 1996 provincial election campaign an unknown group plastered signs throughout my riding of Coquitlam-Maillardville that read: "A vote for John Cashore is a vote for apartheid." It was unbelievable. It was sickening. One can only imagine how hurtful this was to a

I might just mention that if anybody is interested in looking back at those times and seeing where all this treaty process actually began, John gave quite an excellent speech at the second reading of the debate around Nisga'a early in December of 1998. I would say that that could be good bedtime reading for just about anybody in this House, particularly at this historic time.

During the 1990s the official opposition — many members who now sit on the other side, on the government side of the House — fanned flames of intolerance for the sake of political expediency. Therefore, I was especially pleased last week to hear the Premier acknowledge that the Nisga'a treaty "has not divided us from one another as I had once feared. It has helped bring us together. It has helped build a better future for the Nisga'a First Nation, and that's something we should all applaud."

However, I do believe that this statement does not go far enough to atone for the despicable attitude and contempt for first nations and treaty-making that was displayed by him and his party at that time. An apology would go a long way to truly make this a new beginning and a new relationship.

An apology should be made, at least, to the Nisga'a people for the many efforts made by the Premier in the 1990s to subvert their desire for a treaty — efforts which tarnished the celebration when it was finally signed in 1998, after nearly 100 years of work and legal battles by successive Nisga'a leaders.

In addition, it would be good to hear current government members acknowledge the work done in the 1990s by the First Nations Summit, the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia to set up the process of treaty-making which has led to today's debate on the Tsawwassen treaty and many others which will follow.

John Cashore recently commented to me that it seems now like there were ten lost years in the 1990s when so much more could have been accomplished if the official opposition, which now sits on the other side of the House, had at that time, instead of last week, acknowledged the values of treaty-making. Instead, they worked as hard as they could to arouse uncertainty and even hostility among B.C. residents.

While John is glad to see the 180-degree turn on this issue taken by the members opposite, John cannot help but wonder whether we would now be debating the fourth or the eighth or even the tenth negotiated treaty, instead of the first, if there had been mutual cooperation and respect from both sides of the Legislature in the 1990s.

I guess that history will ultimately judge the actions of the official opposition during that time period. We know who bore the brunt of this exploitive strategy. It was the first nations people of British Columbia who suffered the collateral damage, people for whom treaties represent a genuine opportunity to escape from the conditions under which many of them are forced to live.

I'd like to take a closer look now at what statistics have to say about what life is like for many aboriginal people — shocking statistics that only begin to convey the challenges faced by aboriginal communities throughout this province. The health indicators themselves paint a grim picture. I'm just going to read quickly through these statistics. I think some of my fellow members have already quoted them, but unfortunately, my memory doesn't serve me to remember which ones.

Aboriginal people, on average, live seven years less than the rest of the population. Aboriginal infant mortality rates are two to four times higher than the average. HIV rates for aboriginal people are twice as high. Rates of diabetes are triple the rest of the population.

Alcohol-related deaths, drug-related deaths are all two to four times higher, as is the hospitalization rate for aboriginal men. And it's almost 80 percent higher, to our shame, for aboriginal women.

The rate of aboriginal teenage pregnancy is six times the rate and the poverty rate for children is twice that of non-aboriginal children. Between 1997 and 2005 the number of aboriginal children in care increased by more than 50 percent.

Madam Speaker, 50 percent of children in care are aboriginal. Of those children, only 16 percent — it's such a shocking figure that I almost think I typed it incorrectly, but apparently, it's true — of aboriginal children in care graduate from high school. These statistics are so shocking that we should just hang our heads in shame.

On the education front, the situation is not much better. Only 47 percent of students complete high school, compared to 82 percent of the rest of the population.

With poor health and educational outcomes, it comes as no surprise that aboriginal people are not doing very well in the job market either. Unemployment among aboriginal people is double the rest of the population. For those with just a high school education, the average hourly wage rose by only 6.2 percent between '04 and '06, yet during the same period average wages declined by 30 percent.

The government likes to trumpet an economic boom in British Columbia, but clearly, aboriginal people have not been feeling its effects.

Naturally, the first nations people see treaties as a key component of their efforts to escape these conditions, and in the last few years it appears that the Liberals are finally ready to acknowledge this. One only has to wonder why.

It was obvious to me that the political tides were turning after the 2001 referendum, at a cost to the taxpayer of $9 million. The only result of this referendum did nothing more than endorse positions that were already a feature of treaty-making. Then we were all

privy to the "new relationship," which has often been called a slogan in search of a vision.

This process has been singled out by the Auditor General. He called it an impediment to moving quickly forward on treaties, a hodgepodge of side deals devoid of any purpose except to buy time, create an illusion of progress and forestall any criticism of a lack of progress where it really matters — at the treaty table.

The Auditor General sees the side deals coming out of the new relationship as providing a disincentive for many first nations to either enter or move quickly within the treaty process. If I may quote from his report, the Auditor General says: "Until the province clarifies the link between its new relationship and treaty negotiation policies, the wait-and-see attitude of some first nations will continue to contribute to the slow pace of negotiations."

At the end of the day, many of the elements of the new relationship seem like little more than modern-day trinkets and blankets, paternalistic efforts to stall any real progress. But when the government paid to send members of the Tsawwassen First Nation to visit Nisga'a territories last summer, I knew for sure that we were in a new political reality — sending people to see evidence of progress because of a treaty they themselves had vehemently opposed and to see the pride and the optimism of the Nisga'a people, who hold their own destiny, run their own affairs and pass their own laws.

Here we are today in this esteemed chamber. Before I became a member of this Legislature, I represented the city of Coquitlam on the lower mainland treaty advisory council. I have to say that during that difficult and lengthy process I honestly thought sometimes that we would surely never reach this point. I'm sure there are other people in the chamber that know what I'm talking about. Many issues, such as overlapping claims and the ALR issue, remain as roadblocks and challenges to settling treaties, especially urban treaties.

The settlement of treaties is one of the major issues facing us in Canada and especially in British Columbia. Reconciliation requires that we all take a non-partisan, open-minded attitude and that the process itself be non-partisan and open-minded, because it is the solution to an injustice that began hundreds of years ago in our colonial history and that we now in this House have the opportunity to fix. I believe we will not prosper as a society unless everyone is on board, equals under the law, with justice and fairness for all of our children.

J. Horgan: First, I'd like to acknowledge that this discussion is taking place on the traditional territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt people, as well as the Coast Salish communities that stretch into my constituency, people that have been friends of mine for many, many years.

It's a pleasure, a privilege and indeed an honour to stand in this place to speak about a treaty in British Columbia. It's a pleasure and a privilege to address Chief Kim Baird at this time, as well as other members of the House and those that are paying attention at home.

I was proud to be a part of the government in the 1990s that put together the treaty process. I was proud to work for Mike Harcourt, a man who had vision, a man who had an understanding of the impacts of colonialism and oppression that had been put upon British Columbians of aboriginal ancestry for a century. He came to power, he acknowledged that something had to be done about it, and he did something about it.

I also was proud to be a staff person working for a government that had the courage to address the Nisga'a issue. To see Joe Gosnell stand at the Bar of this place from the public galleries was indeed a moving experience. But I also want to tell you about what it was like to sit in this place while Kim Baird stood at the same place that Joe Gosnell had eight years earlier. It was deeply moving. I want to thank her for her words. I want to thank her for her perseverance.

It's not without controversy. She understands that. She's been listening to debate in this House. She's been listening to those on this side of the House who are trying to grapple with conflicting and competing values of importance to New Democrats and to all British Columbians: the agricultural land reserve as well as social justice for our first nations.

Those competing values have been grappled with by those on this side of the House. The government members have used the term "muzzle." They've said that members on this side of the House are muzzled. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Clearly, if anyone thinks there is muzzling going on, they haven't met the member for Delta North. I don't believe there is a muzzle large enough to keep him off of this issue. He's proud to stand here and make his case, and I have looked forward to hearing it at committee stage as well.

I think that it's ridiculous — it borders on the absurd — to believe that 79 of us could come into this place with our different backgrounds, different philosophies and different views and say that we are uniform in support of one issue or another. Whether it be the treaty, social policy or economic policy, we have differences of opinion. That's why we're sent here. That's why this place is supposed to work.

The democratic process is best served by independent thinking, critical thinking and people who are prepared to stand up for their beliefs and their values. I was proud to see Chief Baird do that very thing in this place not two weeks ago.

J. Horgan: You know, it's ironic. We have this notion of this as a non-partisan issue and a non-partisan debate. This is supposed to be about a new day for first nations, and certainly a new day for the Tsawwassen. But the government members just can't resist poking, poking.

We can't talk, apparently, about the Nisga'a treaty during this debate. We can't talk about the two-faced attitudes of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey in the 1990s versus his attitudes today. That looks like a muzzle to me

I direct that to the member for Vernon. If I can't stand in this place and talk about the views of other members, then what's the point of having a debate? Exchanging ideas — that's what we're supposed to be doing.

J. Horgan: I'm disagreeing that elements of this debate should be off limits. That's what I'm disagreeing with. I'm disagreeing with the members on that side of the House who claim that we are muzzled over here.

They rejoice in the fact that we're not allowed to talk about the member for Point Grey's epiphany, that member's realization that the exact wording — the template — for self-government in the Tsawwassen treaty is identical to the template from the Nisga'a treaty. That apparently is off limits. That's out of bounds.

I could quote the member for Point Grey in his discussion here. He made reference to the Nisga'a treaty, but apparently, those on this side of the House are being muzzled, and we're not allowed to say what's on our mind.

I'm going to carry on for the next little while. I hope I'm entertaining for Ms. Baird, because that's generally what I tend to do when I have half an hour of time on my hands to talk about issues of importance to British Columbians, unlike those on that side of the House.

I talked about competing values: the ALR issue versus the reconciliation and addressing social justice for first nations in British Columbia. I want to touch on the reconciliation for a moment because a wise person, who's very near me right now, said to me: "No problem can be solved until all problems are solved."

That was the attitude of the opposition of the day when the Nisga'a treaty was brought forward. That was their attitude. "No, no, no. We can't provide social justice for the Nisga'a people after 125-odd years of oppression because we have other problems we need to solve. We have to solve all the problems before we can make progress." That was their view then.

Apparently, it's not their view now, at least most of them. Well, good for them. There are some that are going to vote proudly against this treaty, and good for them. They have their own opinions, they have their own constituents, and I respect them for that.

I'll be darned if I'm going to stand here and listen to people on that side say that we are muzzled. There's no such thing going on here. Every member on this side of the House is speaking freely and proudly about their views on these important issues.

I'm certain that Chief Baird recognizes the challenges that we have on this side of the House — she has talked to our leader; she has talked to members of this place — in the challenges between competing values. I guess if you have no values, as the member for Comox, you don't have to worry about competing values.

Before anyone asks me to withdraw that, I do withdraw that, but the point is well made. If you can't talk about differences of opinion in this place, where can you?

J. Horgan: Thanks for that valuable contribution, Member for Kamloops–North Thompson. I'm convinced that Chief Baird is deeply moved by that representation of discourse and debate.

I want to read a letter that was recently printed in the Victoria Times Colonist. I believe it's an important letter. I'm not certain if many of those on that side of the House were able to take a look at it, so I'm going to enter it into the record now. It goes as follows in the Victoria Times Colonist from a couple of days ago.

J. Horgan: This is relevant, hon. Speaker, because it speaks to the contradiction between….

J. Horgan: It speaks to the contradictions with the treaty that we're discussing here in Bill 40.

With respect to traditional plants, we've got whole appendices to the treaty that speak to the importance of plant life. I was just getting a briefing from the member for Delta North on the various plants and animals that are affected by the treaty.

With respect to the lands sales recently in my community, the people of Beecher Bay, the first nations of Pacheenaht and the T'sou-ke First Nation have addressed berry patches and the best tall grasses on Vancouver Island. It's important, as I know Chief Baird will understand, and anyone else who pays any attention to aboriginal culture — very important to the people in my constituency.

It was just given away by this government — just handed away. There's reconciliation for you. "Your traditional lands now belong to Western Forest Products. Best of luck. See them in court." That's recon-

ciliation. That's helping to establish and build culture on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

I wanted to say that the author of that letter was Jane Munro, who happens to be the granddaughter of the painter of the murals out front. I wanted to get her on the record because she is a proud supporter of the first nations in my community. I spoke to her last night about the Tsawwassen treaty. She is a proud supporter of that.

She also supports her grandfather, who happened to be an average painter in the 1930s who put some murals in the hallway that are now draped. There's reconciliation for you.

"Let's put some drapes up. Let's not worry about the berry patches. Let's not worry about the wild grasses that are used in the aboriginal cultures on the west coast of the Island. That's incidental. We'll put some drapes up, and everything is going to be fine."

Pish posh. If members on that side of the House want to come to my constituency and talk to the first nations of Malahat, talk to the Cowichan Tribes, talk to the T'sou-ke Nation, they'll find that the reconciliation isn't going too terribly well.

In that respect, I'd like to read a letter from Grand Chief Ed John about that very issue. I believe it's relevant to Bill 40 inasmuch as the whole focus of treaty-making in this province, established by Mike Harcourt proudly in 1992, was to have some reconciliation with our first nations people and the people that dwell in this residence here, the Legislature of British Columbia.

Chief John addressed his correspondence to the Premier, who, I believe, was the member for Vancouver–Point Grey when he was opposing the Nisga'a treaty in the 1990s. It goes as follows:

These are the Douglas treaty groups that I spoke about earlier, the Tsartlip, the Pauquachin, the Tsawout and the Tseycum on the Saanich Peninsula.

There's an opportunity for an aside. I know Chief Baird's going to want to hear about my days as a lacrosse player with Chief Chris Tom, who was participating in the rally on the 15th. I didn't have a chance to talk to Chief Tom, but he is a representative. His people, the Saanich people, have significant concerns about the Tsawwassen treaty, and I want to raise those in this place because it goes back to the point I made earlier that no problem can be solved until all problems are solved.

The view of those that are opposing this treaty, with respect to overlapping claims, is that if we allow the Tsawwassen people to carry forward with their right to self-determination, their right to self-government and their right to express their destiny for their people, we're somehow compromising the rights of other people.

I don't believe that. I disagree with that, and I have an opportunity to stand here and say that. I'm one of the luckiest British Columbians there is because not everybody gets that opportunity.

Everybody on this side of the House is going to stand and speak. Sometimes we'll be called to order; sometimes we won't. Sometimes we'll make reference to the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition in the '90s. Sometimes we won't.

We may well point to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I was in a longhouse ceremony with him at the Tsartlip First Nation. He spoke eloquently about reconciliation and the new relationship. He spoke to the Tsartlip people. He said to them: "We're on your side. We're going to help you." Then two weeks later on Bear Mountain, not 15 kilometres from here, a sacred cave absolutely vital to the Tsartlip people was turned into a parking lot.

J. Horgan: Exactly — he did nothing. Oh, he attended a longhouse ceremony. He was sure to phone the media and tell them how it went, but two weeks later when the asphalt was poured over top of a sacred site: "Sorry, can't help you. We're done." There's the new relationship for the people on south Vancouver Island.

I know Chief Baird's aware of these issues, and I know she has sympathy and respect for the people in these communities. The challenge we have as legislators is when we have competing values, when we have issues coming forward that we have to grapple with. Well, that's what we get paid for — apparently, 29 percent more than we did before. We get paid to make these decisions.

We get paid to articulate the views of people who approach us, who correspond with us, who talk to us. I have an obligation as a member of this place, knowing the first nations in my community that are concerned about this treaty, to raise those issues.

I have a responsibility for those who are concerned about the impact on the agricultural land reserve to raise those issues. I listen very carefully when people come to me and they talk about the importance of agricultural land.

We have, again, an epiphany-riddled Premier who thinks that climate change is the big challenge of the next decade. I think we all agree with that. Well, then why in goodness' name did they give away 28,000 hectares of land on the west coast of Vancouver Island to contribute to urban sprawl? Why would you do that? It's the contradictions, and it's that contradiction in Bill 40 that I'd like to speak to — that contradiction in values.

We have the ALR on one side, and we have social justice and responsibility on the other. That's a chal-

lenge. It's a conundrum. I'm thinking that, perhaps, during the 1990s when that side of the House was over here doing everything they could to resist progress, because no problem could be solved until all problems were solved, that was a challenge for them.

Now we have Bill 40 before us where we on this side of the House have competing values. We are proud to have been the party that brought in the agricultural land reserve. Every single member in this House will slap this desk right now because they're so darn proud.

We are proud that this side of the House created the B.C. Treaty Commission, so that we could stand here and assist justice for the first time for Kim Baird and the people of Tsawwassen Nation. That's a great honour. That's a great responsibility.

I'm curious. If the same contradictions that we're grappling with, these significant values to all British Columbians: agricultural land and retribution for wrongs over the course of 150 years of European expansion…. What was the problem in the 1990s for the people on that side of the House? Politics. "Got to get the Reform Party on board. The only way to get the Reform Party on board is to say: 'No problem can be solved until all the problems are solved.'"

New levels of government. I look at the template in the Nisga'a treaty with respect to self-government, and I look at the template in the Tsawwassen final agreement, and they're identical. How did that happen?

I'm not allowed to talk about their views on self-government in the 1990s. But they're all, except for those proud enough or courageous enough to stand up and have a differing view from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey — the same view he happened to have in the 1990s…. Why is that? How did that happen? How did that come about? What happened along the way?

We had the referendum. We've talked about that. "It's not relevant to Bill 40, so we shouldn't talk about that." These are monumental issues. This is a monumental debate. We have Chief Baird here listening, enduring this debate. Why not talk about…?

J. Horgan: Again, I thank my friend from Kamloops–North Thompson for giving me the opportunity to take a drink of water. Keep talking, and something interesting might come out of your mouth.

I want to go back, if I could, to the new relationship and how it's supposed to make the world a better place. My colleague from Maillardville said, I believe: "It's a slogan in search of a vision." Well, it's certainly how it feels to those first nations on south Vancouver Island — the Douglas treaty bands, in particular.

The Songhees people have reached some agreements with respect to this building and the land that it sits on, and I think Chief Robert Sam has done a tremendous job representing his people to the government in the interests of bringing forward policies and initiatives that will improve the lives of the people on the Songhees reserve.

I've got to talk to you about that sacred cave. I believe it's relevant, again, to Bill 40 with respect to the impact of western development, European expansion on the traditional activities of first nations in and around south Vancouver Island.

I had a meeting in my office. It was with the land manager from the Songhees band and the land manager from the Tsartlip band — two young women in their 30s. They were saying to me that they needed to do something to protect this cave.

I had gone for a walk with Chief Tom up Bear Mountain, before the security guards were brought on to ensure that nobody touched their sacred….

I'd gone for a walk, and I said: "Where is the cave?" Chief Tom said: "I can't tell you that." I said to him: "Well, I can't help you if I don't know what we're trying to save."

That speaks to the importance of a sacred site, and I know Chief Baird knows of what I speak.

After going for a walk and seeing burial cairns that were obvious to anyone who'd spent even five or ten minutes walking in the Douglas fir forests and the arbutus forests of southern Vancouver Island…. These were burial grounds. These were burial sites for first nations who had travelled the highway between Saanich Inlet and the Sooke Basin for centuries.

Centuries — that's what we're talking about. This isn't about partisan politics. It's about a way of life that was compromised and violated when our ancestors showed up here in the 1850s.

It's pretty important. It's not trivial, and it's not something that should be stifled or muzzled because the member for Vancouver–Point Grey doesn't want to be reminded of his misadventures in the 1990s.

However, I went back to my office — I know that sometimes I diverge from my topic — and I was sitting with these two young women. One of the women, from the Tsartlip band, was about to tell me something about the sacred cave that would have revealed its location. The look of panic on the face of the woman from the Songhees was palpable. "Don't tell him."

It's not like they saw me as an enemy. They had come to me for help and assistance. They looked upon me as an ally and a friend, someone who was there to aid them in their quest. But they were not going to reveal to me the location…. Or they shouldn't reveal to me the location of that sacred cave.

Weeks later it was discovered by construction workers on Bear Mountain, formerly known as Skirt Mountain. The top was ripped off it. Tires were thrown in it. Two weeks after that, when the Minister of Aboriginal Relations had come to the longhouse, it was filled up with mud and covered with asphalt.

That was a sacred site. It's now gone. I know that Chief Baird will understand and feel the pain of the Tsartlip and the Songhees people that that happened.

Traditional bathing had taken place in that cave for centuries, but because it wasn't identified by the arche-

ology branch as an archeological site, the developer had no recourse but to carry on. There were no repercussions for destroying a sacred site.

It would be like going to the Sistine Chapel and saying: "That's the worst painting I've ever seen. We should put some drapes over top of that."

Can you imagine going to any of the splendid cathedrals in and around Victoria or Vancouver and just saying: "I think this is a better parking lot. And whip — off you go." I wonder what Rome would say about that. What would the Vatican say about that?

I know the United Church would strike a committee, because that's my church. We'd look at it. But I digress.

As much as I like to have sport with the members on the other side and as much as I think that highlighting the hypocrisy of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey is something we all want to do and we'd all planned to do, I think it's probably been done enough. I do want to instead look at some of the positive steps that we can take or that have happened in recent memory that can put us on a track and a road that will lead to a better British Columbia.

Firstly, I had the good fortune to be in attendance at what I believe was the first official function of His Honour Steven Point, the new Lieutenant-Governor. Myself and the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin attended a rally for families of service people serving at sea or in Afghanistan. It was Steven Point's first official function, I believe.

He and his spouse were there in attendance. There was a large crowd of well-wishers and family members of people in the services. It was called Red Shirt Day. This is something that happens, apparently, across the country. People wear red shirts to signify their support for military families.

Steven Point, who went to the microphone for his first official conference, said: "As a red guy, you all know that red is my favourite colour." He slipped the shirt over top — much applause, lots of laughter. His genuineness just had the crowd captivated. I believe that he is going to be an absolutely outstanding ambassador for all British Columbians, particularly for first nations in British Columbia. [Applause.]

So there's the first step on this road to reconciliation. How do we deal with the challenges that this treaty has, Bill 40 has, with other bands — with the Semiahmoo, the Tsartlip, the Tseycum and the Cowichan peoples. How do we deal with that? That's a big challenge, and I think it speaks in large measure to the need — as our member from Port Alberni has said — for a reconstruction of the aboriginal affairs committee of this place.

We've made some progress, and I'm proud to stand here saying that I will support, happily and with great, great respect, this bill when it comes to vote. But we have challenges with the process. I think you'd be awfully obtuse to think there were not challenges.

One thing that we can do as legislators is sit down with first nations, collect ourselves in committee and start addressing some of those shortcomings. But I say to those in the public and those that have been taking shots at this side of the House and, for that matter, at that side of the House, the notion that we can't solve a problem until all the problems are solved is just patently false. It's wrong. No progress will be made until we realize and recognize that the need to reconcile, truly reconcile, with first nations needs to be a top priority.

Again, I go back to the giveaway, the huge land giveaway on the west coast of the Island, in my constituency. Those who are worrying about the relevance to Bill 40 should rest easy. It speaks again to the importance of certain plants, of certain activities in and around traditional territories.

These are now enshrined in Bill 40 for the Tsawwassen people, and that's a great day. That's a great thing, but what about the T'Sou-ke Nation? What about the Beecher Bay Nation? What about the Pauquachin? What about them? What about the rest of the first nations in and around this region?

We need to take a hard look at what our negotiators at the provincial level and the negotiators at the federal level are doing at the table. We need to balance. We need to send new orders to the provincial negotiators that they have to start bringing treaties in that are fair and just for not just those at the table, but for all first nations.

We need to send a message to those negotiators, particularly at the provincial level, that rights, title and other aboriginal rights need to be acknowledged. They've been acknowledged by the courts. They need to be acknowledged by our negotiators. They're acknowledged by our Premier. They're acknowledged by the Leader of the Opposition. Why can't we get the negotiators to do that? Why can't we indeed?

I'm almost at the end of my time, I believe, as I look to the clock. I know now that you're in the chair, hon. Speaker, I can carry on with some comfort that I can speak about the 1990s without fear of retribution.

One of the issues that I've heard throughout this debate…. I've been following it closely on both sides of the House. Periodically, when members on that side get up and have something interesting to say, I'll cock my head, and that will pass, and I'll go on to other activities.

But I've been listening very closely to speeches on this side of the House, very closely indeed. The public has been left the impression by those on that side of the House that there's some sort of a division, a schism, a huge rift between myself and other members of this caucus. Well, it's patently false. It's not true — competing values. Families have competing values. Neighbours have competing values. Communities have

competing values. This place has competing values. Not just across the floor, but up and down as well.

I am proud to stand in this place and speak in favour of the Tsawwassen final agreement. I am proud to do that. I don't do that because it was started in 1992-93 by Mike Harcourt. I don't disparage it because it was concluded by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I rejoice and acknowledge the hard work and effort of the Tsawwassen people to get to this point in time. I acknowledge and rejoice in their desire to sit here and listen to this debate.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak here about social justice and reconciliation, not just for the Tsawwassen people, not just for the Nisga'a before them, not just for the Maa-nulth who will be coming forward later in this month, let's hope, but also for the people in my community: the T'sou-ke people, the Malahat people, the Cowichan people, the Pauquachin, the Tsawout, the Tsartlip, the Tseycum and the Pacheenaht.

Those people need reconciliation. They need help now. We've heard the litany of woes on the reservation. We don't need to hear it again from me, but I've seen it firsthand. I've been to Port Renfrew. I've been to Sooke. I've seen the tragedy, the abject poverty, the hopelessness and the despair on those reserves. We have an obligation and a responsibility to do something about that.

I'm proud to take one small step for the Tsawwassen people. Let's take large steps for the rest of the nations of this province as soon as we possibly can.

R. Austin: It is an honour and a privilege to rise today to join with my colleagues and speak to Bill 40, the final agreement and treaty ratification between the Tsawwassen First Nation, the province of British Columbia and Canada. As the representative for Skeena I will be endorsing this treaty and would like to begin by congratulating Chief Kim Baird and her fellow councillors and negotiators for having reached this historic milestone on the way to reconciliation for her community.

I'm going to speak to a number of issues that pertain to this treaty and to treaty negotiations in particular, but I would like to say at the outset that notwithstanding all or any of the so-called controversial parts of this treaty, it is nonetheless a good treaty overall, as it reflects the desires, hopes and dreams of the Tsawwassen First Nation and has been negotiated over some 20 years. As has been noted in Chief Baird's speech, there has been accommodation and compromises on both sides.

It is also the first urban treaty to be completed under a system designed ten years or so ago. While I would like to have seen more progress shown under this system, at least we are moving forward. I'd like to acknowledge today that we have another treaty coming forward, the Maa-nulth, and that is more good news. Hopefully, we'll see that introduced into the House in the next couple of weeks. There are good reasons, of course, why there have not been more treaties, and I will speak to that in a few minutes.

I would like to begin in the first portion of my remarks to lay out my beliefs as to what this treaty means in today's context. Like many British Columbians, I have spent most of my life in Canada living in three of the great urban metropolitan centres that make up this incredible country — namely, Toronto, Vancouver and here in Victoria. Like many other British Columbians, I did not have a great deal of contact with first nations people until a decision to move to northern B.C., 12 years ago.

This move to a northern community changed my life in many ways, not the least of which was the introduction to a variety of rich and complex cultures as demonstrated by the people of the Nass Valley — namely, the Nisga'a — as well as two tribal groups that inhabit the Skeena Valley all the way from Prince Rupert and east of my home community, along Highway 16 — namely, the Tsimshian and the Gitxsan. I have also been fortunate enough, through my role as MLA, to visit and learn about the Haisla, who live across the beautiful Douglas Channel from the city of Kitimat.

I was listening last week to the speech made by the Government House Leader in which he delicately made his way to an apology for his reaction in the late '90s to the Nisga'a treaty and for his role in opposing that treaty as vigorously as he did.

In his remarks he alluded to the fact that his decision was largely made out of a lack of knowledge and awareness of what treaty-making means to first nations people and how this is just a new beginning in reconciliation for 150 years of oppression on the part of the western Europeans who arrived in this country approximately 200 years ago. Then, of course, they proceeded to create one of the most wealthy nation-states the world has ever known on the backs of enormous resource wealth that was duly expropriated from the indigenous people who had lived here for thousands of years.

The Government House Leader's comments reminded me that he did not — and he is not alone — previously have an understanding of Canada and British Columbia's history. I think that this is at the core of moving forward and redressing some of the injustices that have taken place since European contact. He spoke of a recent trip to the Nass Valley as part of a contingent of Tsawwassen First Nation and government officials who were exploring the results of the Nisga'a treaty.

I want for a moment to speak of the historic success of the Nisga'a treaty and what it has meant to its people. I'd like to acknowledge that my colleague from the North Coast represents the Nisga'a in this chamber, but I would like to share my experiences, as I have spent a lot of time in the Nass and have many friends and acquaintances there. In addition, almost all the economic activity that has been generated since the successful completion of the Nisga'a treaty has directly influenced the economy of Terrace.

The Nisga'a treaty has given the people who inhabit the four villages an incredible sense of pride. After being told for the best part of 200 years that their culture, their language and their spiritual beliefs were not worthy, or not as worthy, as that of the dominant culture….

Mr. Speaker: Member, can I remind you that we're dealing with the Tsawwassen treaty?

R. Austin: Yes. I understand that. But you know, I live in Terrace, and the Nisga'a treaty is a part of the history of where I live. They are an integral part of our community, and I believe that it's important to recognize that all treaties reflect what's happened in previous treaties. I'm not being partisan here. I'm just speaking about….

Anyway, after being told for the best part of 200 years that their culture, their language and their spiritual beliefs were not worthy, or not as worthy, as that of the dominant culture, the Nisga'a have now discovered that by reverting back to their traditional beliefs and ways, they are in every aspect an important part of the multicultural diaspora that is Canada.

I believe that that same success that has overtaken the Nisga'a will also be reflected in the Tsawwassen First Nation's people as they move forward and see the results of this treaty. Think, hon. Speaker, of what it does to a people to finally be allowed to practise their ways and to have their own feasts and to bring back the traditional hereditary systems that worked for thousands of years prior to European contact. They can finally enact their own laws and introduce ideas from their Ayuukhl or traditional laws. The Nisga'a have taken control of resources on their lands as well as looking after wildlife habitat and fisheries in concert with DFO and the province.

In Terrace our economy was bolstered by all the activity that took place after the treaty came into effect, and as forestry has been in the worst downturn we have ever seen, it was the success of the treaty that kept many people working in Terrace and enabled us to look to a different kind of future. If the opposition of the day had succeeded in derailing the treaty in any way, none of us in northwestern B.C., first nations or non–first nations, would have been able to move forward in a positive manner.

As a British citizen by birth who grew up on a former British colony in West Africa and with a mother born and raised in another British colony, I have been raised to recognize the effects of colonialization that created the wealth and power of the once-mighty British Empire. I saw the consequences of this when I was just a kid, the extreme inequality of growing up surrounded by black people while living myself in an enclave of luscious privilege and having others, all of whom were black, wait upon and serve our every need.

I also heard stories from my mother, who fled her country of birth at 24 due to ethnic and nationalist violence that engulfed her country as they threw off the yoke of imperial power and began the long journey to reconciliation and self-governance. In that particular case, Ceylon was once again becoming its own master and reverting back to its original name of Sri Lanka. We have witnessed, unfortunately, years of civil war. That is the legacy of colonialism for that particular country.

Let us all hope that here in British Columbia, at the cusp of the 21st century, we can learn from the dreadful mistakes of others and not have a situation that leads to violence or public disorder.

Those were some of my early experiences in life, but it was not until moving to northern British Columbia that I saw first hand the dreadful effects of colonialization that had been imposed on the indigenous peoples of this country.

And yet we saw a week last Monday, as we were here in this chamber basking in the complete joy of all the members of the Tsawwassen First Nation who were here to witness the beginning of this historic debate, that there were other first nation members and their leadership out on the lawns of the Legislature protesting against the treaty process. If we cannot satisfy all the first nations' aspirations and come up with a better and more timely process, unfortunately I believe we are going to see civil disobedience as communities take things into their own hands to get some satisfaction.

The Government House Leader last week alluded to our own record in this province, of how we tried unsuccessfully to extinguish not just the rights of the first nations of B.C. but tried to destroy them and, if not actually remove them from this province, then certainly tried to destroy their culture and their very soul so that they would conform to our ways, the western ways, which were always demonstrated — falsely, I would add — to be far superior to theirs.

Of course, colonialization took place in a different historical context than we have today, and it has largely been shown to be exactly what it was — namely, the subjugation by a dominant power of other people who were demeaned and thought to be of lesser value, at least in the eyes of the dominant power. Once British Columbians understand this incredible imbalance of power and how one group can beat, cajole, humiliate and destroy another group of people largely to take advantage of them in an economic context…. I believe that as more British Columbians learn through our school system and through the processes and actions such as treaty-making, they will understand that giving a little bit back of what has been taken and allowing people to control their own destiny is simply the right thing to do.

Terrace, where I live, is the community which was most deeply affected by the signing of the Nisga'a treaty, outside of Nisga'a lands themselves. I was fortunate enough to watch the workings of treaty negotiations first hand, as I was then the catering manager at the Terrace hotel, where the negotiations took place over a number of years. I know just how hard Chief Baird's job has been, because I saw the incredible work that was undertaken by those on all parts of the tripartite teams — the first nations, the province and the federal government. Once all the political people agreed to something, of course it all had to be translated into

legal language that would stand up not only in a court of law but also to the ultimate challenge of a constitutional challenge.

I can remember the day in 1999 when then Premier Glen Clark came up to Terrace and entered the Skeena banquet room in the hotel where I worked just after round-the-clock negotiations resulted in the agreement-in-principle for the Nisga'a treaty. You could cut the air with a knife as all the people in the room realized that history was being made that day. All the negotiators were tired beyond belief. Most had not slept for more than a day, yet in their exhaustion there was a strange euphoria, as nearly 30 years of negotiations were coming to an end, and a proud people were finally achieving their rightful place in B.C. and Canada.

I am sure that Chief Baird experienced that same exhilaration at the end of her journey. I think she said that she was 20 years old when she started this and 37 when it finished. I'm sure she has a sense of relief at finally achieving this goal. I want to personally congratulate her for all the work and determination in taking this through to its final destination.

Chief Baird also mentioned in her speech that she's been there for 20 years, and I would like to talk for a second here about the treaty-making process. As we know, in the case of the Nisga'a, they had been negotiating. They had a first big decision in 1973, which led eventually to a final treaty in 1999, but let's not forget that the Nisga'a started their fight long before Frank Calder took that case to the Supreme Court of Canada with the help of Tom Berger. They were able to rewrite the rules of the game as to how first nations would be treated from there on, here in British Columbia and in Canada.

As an aside, I'd like to note that the fight for self-governance that has been fought by first nations in this province has had a profound effect right around the world. In Australia, for example, where indigenous people had been meted out the same treatment first nations had to endure over here, there was a major legal decision known as the Mabo decision. I believe it took place in 1992. It was the Calder case right here in British Columbia that was cited as precedent for concluding that their indigenous population also had a land tenure system that was equivalent to private property rights, given the social and historical context of the time.

In both cases of successful negotiations, we have seen first nations wait for 20 or 30 years to reach a final agreement. In my mind, it is simply crazy that this is taking so long.

I have five first nations bands that I represent in Skeena. They are part of either the Tsimshian or Gitxsan treaty tables, and nothing has been achieved since the late '90s in moving their claims forward. In addition, I represent the Haisla, who are negotiating at their own table.

Negotiations are taking place at a snail's pace while their young people sit and wait in appalling social conditions for their lives to get a little better. I want to call on this government, a government that is led by someone who has acknowledged that he made a terrible mistake in opposing the Nisga'a treaty, to strike the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and give it a mandate to look at the current treaty process and find solutions to speeding it up.

I've been here for two and a half years in this job, and I've seen no dramatic changes in the social or economic well-being of the first nations people that I represent. I would like to take a moment to speak about what life is like in the aboriginal communities I represent. The statistics that I'm going to quote are, frankly, very sad, but I want people to know that these are not mere statistics, that they represent real people, real families and real struggles.

As we know, aboriginal people live seven years less than the rest of the population. They have rates of HIV/AIDS that are twice as high, and of diabetes that are triple those of the rest of the population. In Kitwanga Chief Williams took me on a tour a few months ago and told me what it was like for the many people in his community who live on $185 a month. That is the difference between social assistance rates and what is taken to cover shelter costs by the band. Can anybody in this House even begin to know what it would look like to live for 30 days on $185 a month?

At one time the local Kitwanga band had their own sawmill. They were given a forestry licence that only lasted a few years. The banks, needless to say, were reluctant to lend money to a band that didn't have long-term forestry tenure. As the forestry industry is so capital-intensive, it became impossible for the Kitwanga band to retain production in their mill. It has been over ten years with the unemployment rate being around 90 percent. This is simply one example of why it is so important for all British Columbians to support our efforts to reach treaties in this province.

Unemployment is still between 60 and 90 percent, with the best economic performance being on Haisla territory and the worst being in Gitanyow and Gitwangak. Meanwhile, truckloads of logs go through their territories on logging trucks, moving the wood either to ports in Prince Rupert and Kitimat or along the major highways to mills out of the area. These are money and jobs that belong to the first nations of the area, or at least a portion of this wealth belongs to them, and yet it seems that another generation of young people are going to be denied a chance to join Canada and have access to economic opportunities that are necessary for them to successfully complete their journey of healing.

As a result of this delay in negotiations, frustrated first nations are resorting to side agreements to try and get some economic activity happening in and around their territories. We have seen small forestry tenures being given to bands, some revenue from mining exploration or a piece of the action in terms of jobs. But the problem with these side deals or interim measures is that they bring a disincentive to work on the hard issue, which is reaching a true final treaty and bringing closure and certainty to something that should have been settled years ago.

Just last week I met with one of the treaty negotiators for the Kitselas band, a gentleman by the name of Mel Bevan, who I believe has been working on treaties for 20 years. He told me that it's his great desire, as he is now getting on in years, to conclude a treaty so that his children and grandchildren are not sitting at the treaty negotiating table for another generation.

He also handed me a document, and it was an outline of what they are looking for from the government to try and get some economic activity in absence of not having treaties. I read this document this week. I'm afraid that even though they are looking for this, it is the same kind of interim measure, and it's taken only as a result of them being unable to really reach final treaty.

I hope that we will see more treaties come forward as quickly as possible. The Auditor General, as has been noted in many speeches here, has stated clearly that while he can see the short-term merit that is driving first nations to work with industry and create these interim measures, it is really a sign of failure on the part of the treaty process and will, in the end, only prolong the discussion. I would like to see this government take action here and look at the treaty process in its entirety to see how it can be improved.

If treaties are to be successfully concluded, then all people in British Columbia need to be brought on side and recognize their value and how it is only right that there be a sense of justice and fairness allowed in order to redress the wrongs of history. How can anyone think that a billion dollars spent and two treaties — except for today, I guess, now three treaties — in place are a positive thing? And that has taken how many years, Mr. Speaker?

Now we are in a place where both sides of this House are in agreement that treaties are the right way to go. Surely, the Premier should take advantage of this and find ways to improve the system. I often hear this Premier speak of measurable outcomes. At this rate, my grandchildren will still be discussing treaties, and for the first nations in particular, that is not good enough.

I listened intently to the Premier's speech last week in this chamber. As someone who watched the Nisga'a treaty at a close distance, I want to say that his position was appalling at the time. I also want to acknowledge, though, that he did a difficult thing in this chamber last week.

Apologizing, for some people, is not an easy thing to do. Doing it in a public forum such as the legislative chamber was not only the right thing to do, but I thought was an honourable thing to do. I hope it has been a cathartic experience for the Premier.

I look forward to him admitting to other mistakes on other issues, particularly things that are very important to the first nations of this province, the most marginalized group in our society, which the Premier has acknowledged — things such as creating a greater divide between those who have and those who are struggling, and giving tax breaks to people who did not need them or to corporations which were competitive without them.

Maybe he'll one day apologize to all those families who were involved in the Ministry of Children and Family Development who saw service cuts that decimated the ability of the ministry to do its work. While we have seen money put back into some areas, there is still a great deal of chaos in the civil service in British Columbia.

R. Austin: The relevance to Bill 40 is that we are dealing here with a marginalized population, and that's what I'm speaking to.

I listened intently to my colleague from Peace River South, who has decided — as is his right — to vote against this treaty. In essence, I interpreted his argument as being that while many racist policies were used to create the divide between first nations and other British Columbians, he doesn't want to see any solutions in modern treaties that are race-based.

As examples, he cited the Tsawwassen first nations not immediately paying taxes or property taxes, which will be levied but a portion of which will be returned to the Tsawwassen first nations for their own community needs.

My reply to this would be that for over 150 years first nations in this province were disadvantaged and that making the playing field completely level at the stroke of a pen does not necessarily give them the tools to create equality. I would argue vociferously that they need a special hand up in order for them to one day close the gaps that exist in our society on a whole host of social indicators.

The Premier has stated clearly that he wants to redress the imbalance in health outcomes, in educational outcomes and, frankly, in income. I do not see how this is ever going to be achieved without British Columbians making accommodations that recognize that first nations need a little extra help. When you consider what has been done in our recent past, I think that most British Columbians would accept this as being fair.

I would like to speak for a minute about the fisheries aspect of this treaty, and I will be asking more questions in the next stage of this debate. It is important to note that the Tsawwassen first nations have historically lived off the oceans. While all first nations have a constitutional right to a food fishery, they have often had to fight long and hard to make any living on the commercial side of our fishery.

As the Tsawwassen first nations were largely a fishing-based community, at first glance at least, I can understand why they have negotiated for a small piece of the commercial fishery. They are, after all, located at the mouth of the Fraser River, where the fishery is one of the main forms of economic activity. It is only natural that they would seek access to a portion of that.

I presume that it is now up to governments to purchase that quota from those who hold the licences, in order for the Tsawwassen First Nation to take over

those licences. When I am able to ask more detailed questions in the committee stage of this bill, I will make further comments as to the fisheries portion.

In regards to another controversial aspect of this treaty, namely the removal of ALR lands, I would like to be clear that I believe an NDP government would have negotiated this aspect differently. I don't believe that we would have used ALR lands essentially as a land bank in which to exchange agricultural land rather than money, other lands or access to economic activity by other means. In a world of climate change, where half of our food is trucked from distances as far away as California, it makes no sense to remove not only more land from the ALR, but probably the most productive land in all of British Columbia.

I don't want my comments to be misjudged by the Tsawwassen First Nation, because at the end of the day they had every right to negotiate the best deal for themselves. While I believe the ALR is one of the great public policies created in this province, we must remember that when it was created in the early '70s, the government of the day did not get permission from the first nations of this province to put land in the ALR in the first instance.

The government speaks often of a new relationship, and who could argue with that not being a worthy goal? So far, however, it has largely been a slogan. Needless to say, they are supportive of this treaty. When I talk about the Kitselas people…. First nations have the right to negotiate their own treaty.

I had a conversation last week about the so-called new relationship with the Kitselas, and they've told me that it is very slow going. They have seen no action, and they are waiting for it. I was told that in their eyes it is nothing more than a PR exercise. They had hoped that many things would change, but frankly, they're upset at the lack of meat that should be put on the bones of the plan of the new relationship.

Because there is no vision in the new relationship, it has become a hodgepodge of side deals devoid of any purpose except to buy time, create an illusion of progress and forestall criticism of a lack of progress where it really matters: at the treaty table.

I hope that Chief Baird will understand that I am very much supportive of this treaty. The people of Skeena are very supportive of this treaty, as they were of the Nisga'a treaty. I look forward to the next stage of this debate.

A. Dix: It's indeed an honour to rise in this Legislature and speak to Bill 40. I think that there has been some discussion and debate this afternoon about the Nisga'a treaty and its relevance. I remember being in this Legislature and watching the second reading of that treaty be debated and passed in the Legislature. It was a historic moment. It was a great moment for the province. To some degree what we're doing here today is an extension of that effort, that dream we want to continue to pursue in the future.

Let me put it very simply. The courts of this country have put it less simply than this, but this is the thrust of what they've said. It has taken enormous effort and enormous courage by Chief Baird and many other people throughout this province to change our perception of this debate.

But it's very simple why we're here, why we're negotiating treaties. That is that aboriginal people were here first, their lands were taken away, and that's illegal. We have an obligation. This is, in fact, the great unfinished business of our province. Let me say it again. Let's be simple. It applies as much in the case of the Tsawwassen as it did in the Nisga'a and as it does in the case of other aboriginal people in British Columbia. They were here first. Their lands were taken away, not just against the principles of aboriginal law but against the principles of law that we uphold in this province as fundamental to who we are.

Aboriginal people were here first. Their lands were taken with no treaty, and that's illegal. We are here, in the case of the Tsawwassen, to respond to this, to try and change it and to try and build a better future. I'm proud to stand in the Legislature today and speak in favour of Bill 40 and this treaty.

That's what treaty-making is about as well. It is about a past of which we can't be proud, not just in the case of the Tsawwassen people but in the case of all aboriginal people in British Columbia. It's about meeting the challenge of reconciliation and making things better.

Members of the House have talked about the health status of aboriginal people and compared it to the health status of British Columbians. How did we get there? Because I don't think those statistics…. They're important to talk about. They don't do justice to our history. In 1700 there were 300,000 to 400,000 aboriginal people in British Columbia — 300,000 to 400,000 at that time. The first settlers came in 1774. A hundred years later there were 40,000.

How do we as a people not respond to that? How has it taken us so long to respond to it? In fact, the founders of our province did not respond to that by a drive for justice, as I hope we are today. They responded to it by piling on.

Let me just read, from 1866…. Think of the debate we're having today. Think of this, because this statement by Joseph Trutch, the Chief Commissioner of Lands for the newly united colony here in British Columbia…. Five years before we joined Confederation, he said this.

Think about this in 1866, because it was very much provincial policy for more than a hundred years after he said it. He said: "The Indians have no right to the lands that they claim, nor are they of any actual value or utility to them, and I cannot see why they should either retain these lands…or be allowed to make a market of them either to the government or to individuals."

Governments in the remaining period, continuing really into the 1990s…. Whatever gloss they put on that, that was the position of British Columbia, in spite of the fact, as I say, that those lands were taken away in a manner that was not just unjust but illegal and has now been found to be illegal by the courts.

What happened next? In 1872 legislators here in this place withdrew the right to vote from aboriginal people. In 1884 the government of Canada banned the potlatch. In 1912 the aboriginal population of British Columbia had declined again, to 20,000 people.

This is an important time. This is a time that we have a record. There's been talk about how this process began 13 or 14 years ago, but in fact this process began long before that. Chief Harry Joe of the Tsawwassen people addressed the McKenna-McBride royal commission, and what did he say? The member for Surrey-Whalley talked about this earlier.

He made the case for the expansion of the small parcel of land that his people had, the small percentage of their traditional territories that they at that time were being allowed. He made the case for expansion.

Hon. Speaker, think of those comments and think of the results of those commissions — in fact, the taking away of more land in British Columbia from aboriginal people. Those were the results of the commission. Take away the land, push people into small parcels of land, and then take more.

It continued after that. Imagine in 1927 the Parliament of Canada denying the right of aboriginal people to hire lawyers. Imagine that in this country. You don't have rights. If you pursue your rights, we'll pass a law taking away your right to hire lawyers.

This is how we got to where we are today — an effort that has been described by some, in effect, as genocide. If you look at the sheer numbers of it and its impact on aboriginal people, that is not an unfair description. Policies for a hundred years after this province became part of Confederation denied rights to aboriginal people.

The laws and the parliamentary debate don't tell the half of it. We are talking about chiefs arrested and pursued for the potlatch. We are talking about people being denied fundamental rights and about veterans coming home from war and not being given rights to the same moneys and pensions as other veterans. We are talking about a history that has had an enormous impact on this province. It's so much a part of our history and really why we have to come here today and say that some effort has to be made not just at reconciliation but at justice and at the expansion of the rights of aboriginal people.

Let's take it through from that time. That's part of the sweep of history that has gone on in British Columbia. That tells us a little bit of why we are here, why the Tsawwassen people are here fighting for those rights, why they have successfully negotiated this treaty.

I want to say this, though. Imagine that history and then being involved in a process as Chief Baird and others were for 13 years. Imagine that history and still wanting to be full partners in our country and our community. Imagine that history and showing the courage to show up day after day at treaty negotiations. Imagine that history and actually signing a treaty that says we're going to become part of it and eventually pay taxes to this country that has done so much to decimate and to undermine aboriginal communities. That is grace. That is courage. This treaty is a reflection of that grace and that courage, and that's another reason why I'm so proud to support it.

As I said, I was here in the 1990s working for a previous MLA for Vancouver-Kingsway who signed the Nisga'a treaty and who led that debate in this House. I want to say a few words about that and about how far we've come. We've talked about how far things have come in a hundred years. How far have things come in ten years? I think the Legislature of British Columbia had the longest debate in the history of the modern B.C. Legislature on the Nisga'a treaty.

If you compare the Nisga'a treaty and the significant parts of that debate, which were at the time — and members who were there will recall this, but others may not — principally about concerns around chapter 11 of the Nisga'a treaty, which is very similar and parallels chapter 16 of this agreement, what that section talked about was self-government. The case made against the Nisga'a treaty and that provision, which parallels the Tsawwassen provision, was that, first of all, it would create a third order of government.

In spite of all that history, by creating a third order of government, creating what were defined as special rights, the main preoccupation of the time of criticism of the treaty was that it would be unfair not to aboriginal people but to other people — that in fact it was unconstitutional and that by providing special rights and by acknowledging the very particular nature of ownership amongst aboriginal people, it was wrong. Many people said it at the time.

I'll just give you one of the statements. This may seem absurd today, but someone rose in this Legislature — a member who is still here today — and said: "Powers that can be used to enforce compliance" — by non-aboriginal people — "with aboriginal customs, practices and traditions." It was absurd, but that was the level of the debate.

It wasn't just, you know, marginal people saying this stuff. Let me continue on. Another major leader speaking on this said that the treaty was "based on socialist economics and the collective ownership of land and resources." Socialist. They said: "We believe that it is not only fundamentally wrong but also unconstitutional."

Two of those comments came from the then Leader of the Opposition, and one from the Leader of the Op-

position in Ottawa. I'll leave it to people to guess who said what. I think it does show how far we've gone.

Of course, the other objection at the time — in the case of the Tsawwassen treaty, we're not having a referendum either — and that was a major objection, was that there should be a provincewide referendum on aboriginal rights. That was in spite of the fact that some of the same members campaigned in the 1996 election against a referendum, but they were in favour of a referendum on aboriginal rights.

What's happened today? Well, it wasn't a direct route, it has to be said. It wasn't a direct route to where we're sitting today. I think it's fair to say that there are some echoes of those views in this Legislature today and in B.C. society but that those views have been marginal in this debate. Who held those views at the time? Major media enterprises, the B.C. Liberal Party, the Reform Party, the Reform Party of Canada, which was the official opposition and held a majority of seats in our province. Those are the people that held those views at that time.

What it says to me, because I think people went forward bravely…. Certainly, Joe Gosnell went forward bravely, because remember, there was lots of controversy in aboriginal communities, as well, about the nature of treaty-making and what it would mean to be first. There were lots of concerns about that. Certainly, he went forward bravely, just as Kim Baird has gone forward bravely here with this treaty. People went forward bravely, and they defended principles that were important.

Remember what I said earlier about aboriginal people — that their land was taken away, and that's illegal. But remember what else was taken away. What else was taken away without discussion? The notion of self-government. It's as if people who oppose the treaty at this time and who continue to oppose self-government for aboriginal people — which is inherent in chapter 16 of this agreement, as it was in chapter 11 of that agreement — seemed to purport that this is a new idea. But aboriginal people, be they the Tsawwassen or the Nisga'a or many other aboriginal people, have been governing themselves for a long, long time. This isn't a new idea. It's a new idea in treaties, maybe, in this particular form, but it's not a new idea.

Imagine. We went through a period that followed the Nisga'a treaty to today, and we went there by way of referendum. I'm just going to say things. I wanted to read this comment about self-government in the context of what Joseph Trutch said in 1866. I want to read this quote. It was a significant quote that took place in the life of this government.

It said: "In my opinion the Nisga'a chapter 11 on self-government" — which, remember, is virtually the same as chapter 16 of this treaty — "should not be in the treaty, and that will not happen in the future. You cannot have self-government for 150 people, 50 percent of whom are FAS or FAE." That statement wasn't made by a marginal figure in British Columbia. That wasn't made on some website. That was the position taken by the Attorney General of British Columbia not a hundred years ago but six years ago.

We then had a referendum. I just want to say what Tom Berger, who is a great British Columbian, a leader, said about that referendum, because we then had, to our dismay, a referendum on aboriginal treaty rights. At the time Justice Berger said this: "What the government is, in effect, saying is: 'We don't care what the constitution says about your rights. We don't care that the courts have affirmed your rights. We are going to ask the people of the province to give us a mandate to treat your rights as non-existent. As far as we are concerned, you have no inherent right to self-government.' This is a stance that should trouble us all."

Indeed it did. But people of good faith and courage took steps anyway. The Tsawwassen First Nation, the Nisga'a First Nation, aboriginal people across the province and political leaders like Glen Clark and John Cashore and Andrew Petter took steps anyway.

It's the best of all possible worlds. We've changed the frame of the political debate so that today these notions, which again, were mainstream notions…. A majority of people, in polls anyway, supported the Nisga'a treaty, but a significant minority opposed it, including extraordinarily powerful interests in the province — interests that would become more powerful with the 2001 election, when the party that was expressing those interests had 77 seats.

These ideas were so powerful that they overcame that, and here they are in this treaty. Aboriginal people, the Tsawwassen people never gave up their right to self-government. They never gave up their lands. This treaty is a reflection of that, and I am proud to say that those provisions, those steps, are sitting here in this legislation. There is a right to self-government, and it's given expression in this treaty.

What a wonderful thing. What a wonderful recognition. What an important recognition. Because if we are going to overcome…. If Chief Baird and her people are going to overcome this legacy, they need the power and the resources to do it.

I want to come to the issue of land, because there are some people who think that the treaty should have been different — that we should have given cash instead of land. Some people are making that argument out there in British Columbia.

I want to speak to that, because this treaty is about the land too. It is about the land too. It is fundamental to who the Tsawwassen people are — absolutely fundamental.

The lands neighbouring the Tsawwassen reserve were, in fact, available. They were not in private hands. In the negotiations both sides essentially had accepted that lands that were in private hands wouldn't be negotiated.

Those lands were available, and it is not enough to confine a people as great as the Tsawwassen people to a small postage stamp of land. It is not acceptable to confine them to that small postage stamp of land and say: "Here is" — it doesn't matter; you put the number in — "$100 million," or "$200 million," or "$500 million."

It's not good enough to say: "You can buy other land." This is their land, which they are getting back in this treaty. It's not all of it, but it is part of it. That's

another reason why I support the treaty. This is their land. This is what the treaty process should be about, and if we have the opportunity, given the nature and the frame of these negotiations to do that, we should do it.

What this treaty says to me is that people made the right decision in 1997-98 to sign that treaty, to pass it through this Legislature. They changed the frame of the debate.

On the issue of agricultural lands, it's a good lesson for all of us. It is a good lesson for all of us that if something is important, if something is compelling, then we have an obligation to change the frame of the debate.

Not far from my riding is the former women's prison in Burnaby. They are beautiful lands. They were controlled by the province of British Columbia. We are putting an industrial park on those lands — lands that could be farmed.

What we need to do in British Columbia is what people in 1998 did around the aboriginal negotiations. We need to do the same thing for the agricultural land reserve. We need to say that these issues are important, that this isn't about competing rights.

We're not just going to speak out and talk about the agricultural land reserve at times when there are treaty negotiations. This is too important to us. Food security is too important to us. Let's set the marker out. Let's increase the agricultural land reserve. Let's fight for those rights.

We don't have any lessons to give on that question. We do not have any lessons to give — no lessons whatsoever. So if people in British Columbia believe that the agricultural land reserve is important — I think they do — let's set the bar high. Let's set the bar high for food production here. From this moment on, let's set the bar high.

Let's set the bar high for treaty negotiations. The Leader of the Opposition said in her speech that we should resolve the outstanding treaty issues in ten years. Let's do that together. We need to do better.

Judy Sayers and others were speaking in the newspaper today and talked a little bit about the challenges of the current treaty process. Clearly, if we're going to resolve the many issues before us as a province, we need to put more resources in.

Tony Penikett and others who have written on this subject have said that we need to try alternate methods. We need to bring mediators into treaty talks. We need to provide more resources, not fewer resources, to the Treaty Commission. We need to commit ourselves as legislators to resolve these problems.

These should be the big lessons from this treaty — that when you aim high, you can change the frame of the ideological debate. Ten years ago people thought that what we were doing in this treaty was about socialism in this province — and not in the least people. Ten years ago they thought it was "race-based government." That's what they said ten years ago. That's what they campaigned on ten years ago.

Setting aside their motives, in ten years we have dramatically changed the frame of that debate. Let's continue to do that. Let's build on that. I think if we do that, whether it's the issue of agricultural land, which is of great concern in this House, or whether it's the issue of treaty-making, we can make great things. If not now, when?

We have seen the consequences of colonialism wreak havoc on aboriginal communities, and we have to come back from that. I think these debates sometimes can be difficult in this Legislature, but I say that what we're doing here today is fundamentally important only if we continue on — only if it's five treaties, ten treaties next year.

We have to provide resources, and we have to break through the logjams. We have to do better. You only have to look at it — any problem you're looking at in British Columbia, the legacy of that history — to know that if we do better, we can address some of those problems.

Not that it's easy, hon. Speaker. Not that it's easy to address those problems, but it seems to me that the provisions of this treaty, of this bill, start to do it. What's been negotiated here gives aboriginal people, and particularly the Tsawwassen band, some very important things.

It gives them land to expand their community, and their community needs to be expanded. It gives them an opportunity to improve economic development on their own terms, making their own choices like everybody else does, like other communities do. They don't have to ask Ottawa.

It's a fact that people weren't able to buy and sell property. It's a fact that people weren't able to make wills in this country. Think of the importance of that. Aboriginal people were not allowed to do these things, not in some long ago time but very recently. How can you imagine that these problems can be resolved if you don't take steps to improve that circumstance?

That's why it's so important that this legislation and this treaty also give the Tsawwassen people and their leadership the rights to make decisions about education, about child protection and about health. These are critical decisions that communities make everywhere in British Columbia. Surely none of us could imagine that the Tsawwassen people could do any worse than we have on these questions.

Therefore, the provisions of this treaty, which are on balance — more than on balance…. Let me say this. There are provisions that I strongly support, that give the Tsawwassen people hope for the future.

It's been a long, long time coming, as the song goes, but a change is going to come for the Tsawwassen people because of what we're doing here today. It's been a long time coming, and you have to give a tribute not only to Chief Baird but to so many people in that community who have fought so long for this.

I encourage all hon. members to read the text — the Hansard, if you will — of the royal commission from 1914. Read that. Read the aspirations then, so long denied. It's been a long time coming, but a change is going to come. It's going to come because people are going to have the power to make change over their

lives. It's going to come because there's a vision in that community. It's going to come because a treaty has been ratified. Just as it will be ratified democratically in this Legislature, it was ratified overwhelmingly by the Tsawwassen people.

Hon. Speaker, it's been a long time coming, but this treaty is about justice. It's about fairness. It's about ending poverty in our province. It's about improving the lives of aboriginal people, and it's about cultural and economic expression.

It's about all those things. It's about turning our backs on a history that has done all of us so much disservice. This treaty, this bill, is about justice. It is about the Tsawwassen First Nation, and it is about time.

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.