Hansard — Wednesday, October 24, 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		8775

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		8775
	Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 39)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2007 (Bill M223)
	M. Karagianis

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8776
	New Vista Foundation
	C. James
	Volunteers
	D. Hayer
	Kootenay region United Nations Association
	K. Conroy
	Environmental leadership in North Vancouver
	K. Whittred
	Diabetes
	A. Dix
	Steelhead
	R. Sultan

Oral Questions		8778
	Distribution of booster seats to low-income families
	C. James
	Hon. L. Reid
	C. Trevena
	G. Coons
	H. Bains
	M. Farnworth
	School district funding
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	Call for audit of tree farm licence land removals
	B. Simpson
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Employment practices at Retirement Concepts seniors facilities
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Musqueam treaty negotiations
	S. Simpson
	Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills		8783
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)
	G. Robertson
	J. Kwan
	M. Farnworth
	C. Evans

Standing Order 45A (Speaker's Ruling)		8793

Second Reading of Bills		8793
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)
	C. Evans
	R. Fleming
	J. Nuraney
	N. Simons
	S. Hammell
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007 (Bill 41)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	S. Fraser
	Treaty First Nation Taxation Act (Bill 42)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	S. Fraser
	Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43)
	Hon. K. Falcon

Hon. G. Abbott: It's Diabetes Day in the Legislature today. We have in the gallery, and I know elsewhere in the precincts, representatives and volunteers from the Canadian Diabetes Association. They have been discussing the many serious challenges we have with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with members on both sides of the House and with staff here in the buildings. They're here to share the latest developments in diabetes management, healthy living and prevention of diabetes complications.

I'd like the House to join me in welcoming three representatives. There may be more, but I want to welcome these three. They're the ones I've been advised are with us today: Jean Blake, who is the executive director for the Pacific area; Dr. Karen Philp, vice-president for public policy and government relations; and from my own constituency of Shuswap, Nel Peach, who is a marathoner extraordinaire as well as the president of the Salmon Arm–Shuswap branch of the Canadian Diabetes Association. Please join me in welcoming all of our guests.

R. Lee: Joining us in the Legislature today are 80 grade 10 students from Burnaby Central Secondary School accompanied by their teacher Mr. Axford. They are here to learn about legislation as well as how government operates. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

J. Nuraney: My colleague just introduced a school in the gallery, and I want to make particular mention of a teacher par excellence. I had the pleasure of attending her wedding not too long ago. She's Dana McKay. Welcome to the Legislature, Dana.

R. Chouhan: I would like to introduce a couple of very important people in the Legislature, in the gallery today: Pat Kasprow, the CEO of New Vista Care Home; and Sandra Price, chair of New Vista Foundation. Please join me to welcome them.

M. Karagianis: I see an old friend of mine here today on behalf of the diabetes campaign. He left my constituency just recently but has been a longstanding supporter of Esquimalt-Metchosin, and that's Mr. Des McCambridge. Could we all please give him a good, hearty welcome.

I. Black: I have two introductions to make today. The first is a couple of people here on Diabetes Awareness Day. Diabetes educator Ellen Kirk-Macri is from the great riding of Port Moody–Westwood, along with Keith Lee. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

Second, it's a distinct honour to introduce the mayor of Port Moody. Joe Trasolini is with us today, meeting with us here discussing the interests of the Tri-Cities in general, particularly focused on transportation.

J. McIntyre: I also have the pleasure of introducing a constituent today who's here for Diabetes Day, Geoff Goldsmith-Jones. I don't know if he's used to this, but probably his distinguishing characteristic these days is that he's the husband of the mayor of West Vancouver, Pamela Goldsmith-Jones. I ask the House to welcome him today too.

J. Kwan: It gives me great pleasure to ask the House to welcome Byron Plant, who was a former intern with the opposition caucus in 2004. I've said in this House many times that the smart interns that were assigned to our caucus during those incredible years actually saved my life and that of Joy MacPhail. So I would ask the House to please welcome Byron, coming back to visit us from Saskatchewan.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I would like the House today to welcome Lynn Kelsey, visiting from Penticton. She's here with the folks from the Canadian Diabetes Association. Would the House please make her feel very welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. W. Oppal: I am pleased to introduce Bill 39, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2007. This bill follows a commitment made by the government this past September to request the Legislature to give the current Electoral Boundaries Commission instructions and a new framework to ensure that voters in all regions of the province have an effective voice in the assembly and the required authority to provide for effective representation and better voter parity, as required under the Canadian constitution.

This bill provides the commission with legal tools, direction and the flexibility to ensure that no region in the province has less representation under the new electoral map and that people living in growing population centres also gain the representation to which they are entitled.

The bill achieves these objectives by directing the commission to keep the current number of electoral districts in the three most sparsely populated regions of the province that the commission identified as the north, Cariboo-Thompson and Columbia-Kootenay. To achieve this goal, the commission has authorized for these three regions to go beyond the population deviation rule contained in the act and to provide for eight, five and four constituencies respectively.

To help the commission better achieve the goal of representation by population or voter parity, the bill also increases the total number of districts to be proposed by the commission to 87, which is two more than was unanimously approved by this Legislature under the current maximum under the act.

The commission made it clear that they could not meet our goals of protecting regional representation while also providing fair representation for growing regions with the six seats originally allocated. Therefore, under the new legislation, the commission will be given an additional eight seats in the Legislative Assembly.

We believe this new framework provides a balance and flexibility and gives the commission the necessary room and flexibility to achieve a parity of voting power and effective representation without a massive increase to the size of the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. W. Oppal: I also want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that it was never the government's intention, nor the Legislature's intention, to reduce the existing levels of regional representation in British Columbia. Reducing rural representation is unacceptable.

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

Bill 39, Electoral Boundaries Commission 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.

M. Karagianis presented a bill intituled First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2007.

M. Karagianis: I move that the bill intituled First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2007, be read for a first time today.

M. Karagianis: I'm honoured to introduce the First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2007. This bill will better protect first nations heritage objects and sacred sites.

The bill amends the heritage protection act to include a process by which first nations can trigger protection orders when heritage sites, objects or remains are discovered. I believe that this bill amends the heritage act to provide a better set of guidelines and tools that first nations, local government and the province need in order to implement protection, stewardship and conservation of first nations heritage and culturally significant areas, their artifacts and their sacred history and, as well, provide for the creation of a program to accomplish that goal. I ask that all members please review the bill and support this.

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

Bill M223, First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation 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.

C. James: I rise today to recognize the New Vista Foundation and to acknowledge New Vista's CEO Pat Kasprow and the New Vista Foundation chair, Sandra Price, who've joined us in the gallery today.

This organization was founded in 1943 by Ernest Winch, a Burnaby MLA and one of the founders of the CCF. New Vista is a not-for-profit society and charity which is dedicated to providing support and housing to senior citizens. New Vista operates a residential care home and an adult day program, and provides housing for low-income families and seniors on its 17-acre site in Burnaby. Its mission statement is to provide a progressive, dynamic non-profit society dedicated to enriching the lives of seniors, families and community members.

Last week I was proud to attend and speak at New Vista's annual gala fundraising dinner to raise money for their therapeutic garden. Therapeutic gardening enables seniors to participate in group and one-on-one programs. Residents who otherwise might appear lonely and isolated are engaged in meaningful activities that contribute enormously to their quality of life.

The fundraiser brought people together from all walks of life to show their support, and at the gala dinner I heard many other stories about incredible programs that New Vista offers. In particular, I was really pleased to hear about the camping trip that they took a number of seniors on.

It's wonderful to hear about a seniors care facility in this province that understands that quality of life for seniors doesn't stop at the door to a care home, that

seniors in care can live enriching and rewarding lives in a supportive and caring atmosphere. I would ask all members of this House to join me in celebrating the amazing ongoing work of the New Vista Society.

D. Hayer: The true heart of a community is its volunteers, and in my community there are many. Without volunteers, the elders would not be well looked after or cared for, pioneers would not be remembered and heroes would not be honoured. For that matter, many of us in this House may not have been elected had it not been for the diligent work of many volunteers.

Assistance provided to the province and to its citizens by those who volunteer, who give so generously of themselves and their time, is priceless. I doubt that the economy could ever generate the funding to adequately pay for the services that volunteers give from their hearts.

I'm always honoured at the services provided by the volunteers in my riding. I meet with groups every week that are driven by the contribution of volunteerism. There are dozens and dozens of these volunteer organizations in Surrey-Tynehead, and I try to meet with all of them as often as possible.

Some of these volunteer groups I have met with include the community associations of Guildford, Port Kells, Fleetwood, Fraser Heights and Tynehead. Along with those, I have met with the Rotary clubs of Surrey, Guildford and Cloverdale and many other groups representing communities of German, Scottish, Irish, Indian, first nations, Chinese, French, Ukrainian, Dutch, African, Jewish, Filipino, Italian, English, Korean, Métis, Vietnamese, Danish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Spanish, Greek, Pakistani, American, Caribbean, Mexican, South American, Fijian and many other societies and service organizations.

The list of those who help others as devoted volunteers is almost endless in my community, and I am certain that in every other region of this province, the worth of volunteerism is boundless. I ask the House to join me in offering heartfelt thanks to hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who so generously give their time and skills and volunteer for our province.

K. Conroy: Today is United Nations Day. The UN does so many things worldwide that it is difficult to focus on the magnitude of what they do in a two-minute statement. Due to the contributions of many Canadians, Canada has been an instrumental force in shaping the international system.

Stephen Lewis, Canada's former ambassador to the UN, was the UN Secretary General's special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, a position that continues to influence his work today. As well, there was John Humphreys, who helped to draft the UN declaration of human rights, and Lester Pearson, who won a Nobel prize for his peace-brokering during the Suez crisis — to name a few.

However, I want to bring it closer to home and talk about a local individual and group that are closely aligned with the United Nations. In the Kootenays we have the Kootenay region branch of the United Nations Association in Canada, which we refer to as KRUNA. They sponsor three annual events: the UN Environment Day on June 5, the Hiroshima remembrance on August 6 and the UN International Day of Peace on September 21, as well as rallies and vigils for domestic and international developments as needed.

This group has many amazing people involved in the organization, and I want to acknowledge the good work they do. I want to touch briefly, though, on the work of J.J. Verigin Jr., the president of KRUNA and executive director of the Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ. J.J. is the son of the present-day leader of the Doukhobors and the great-grandson of Peter Lordly Verigin, the original leader of this peace-loving group of Russian immigrants.

The Doukhobors followed the belief: "Toil and a peaceful life. The welfare of the whole world is not worth the life of a single child." J.J. takes this philosophy literally and puts his beliefs into actions. He is well known in the United Nations circle in New York as well as across Canada, especially by those actively involved in the peace movement. He is an individual who continues to make the United Nations the viable organization it is today.

Without the unity and cooperation and a forum to discuss international issues, the world would be a much worse place. The clear impact of the United Nations and the advancement of human rights will never, ever go away. Today in the chamber, I ask all members of the House to join me in wishing the United Nations a happy 62nd birthday and many more to come.

K. Whittred: Today I rise to congratulate the city of North Vancouver for their commitment to creating a green and healthy community. As a fitting tribute to their leadership in this area, the city of North Vancouver was this year's winner of the province's inaugural Green City Awards for a population of 25,000 to 100,000 people.

Along with providing substantial cash awards to local governments, the Green City Awards provide provincewide examples of municipal leadership encouraging healthy lifestyles, energy conservation and beneficial environmental practices.

The city of North Van is quickly increasing its density, yet it maintains easy access to green space. The city is planned to encourage and enable people to leave their cars at home. Projects like the Green Necklace are creating green cycling and walking trails in the heart of high-density residential areas, which enable residents to get to their destinations while leaving the car at home.

The Lonsdale Energy Corp. is an award-winning creation of the city. The LEC provides high-efficiency heating systems which reduce carbon dioxide emissions and can in the future be powered by alternate energy sources such as solar. In fact, the city is a

pioneer in public solar power usage and will have solar power in its new library.

Congratulations to the city of North Vancouver for its leadership in promoting healthy living and innovative conservation practices.

A. Dix: Today in the Legislature is Diabetes Day, and I want to acknowledge all the volunteers and staff of the Canadian Diabetes Association who are here with us. We learned today that there are 250,000 people who suffer and deal with diabetes every day in British Columbia and that that number is expected to grow dramatically over the next few years.

We learned that people with diabetes are twice as likely to die early, that their life expectancy is on average 13 years less than the average person's and that diabetes is a leading cause of heart attacks, strokes, kidney failure, adult blindness and limb amputation. I know many members on both sides of the House met with people today. We also saw many people who are expressions of hope in how to deal with this disease.

We met with Heather Van der Geest of Victoria, who is a champion rower and who spoke to us about her efforts and her life dealing with type 1 diabetes. We met with David Sky of Vancouver, who has struggled for 40 years with the disease. David is blind and on dialysis, and he lives with two prosthetics, but his story of courage and determination shines through.

We met with Sheila Jack from Langley, who works for the Langley school district with aboriginal people and who has type 2 diabetes. She not only deals with her own disease in a courageous way but also works with aboriginal people, who have suffered an epidemic of diabetes in British Columbia.

I think their stories tell us that it is important for us all to work together to help people with diabetes manage their disease. I have the disease. Good health care helped me achieve many of my dreams. I hope all of us will work together on this day as legislators to ensure that we help all people with diabetes achieve their dreams.

R. Sultan: I propose that we should declare that the magnificent steelhead is our provincial fish. Steelhead are big, muscular, good-looking, self-reliant, loyal to their origins and demanding of a clean environment — just like other British Columbians. They thrive in fast, clear water from Haida Gwaii to the alpine meadows of Sustut and Johanson.

As we look forward to 2010, we should also recognize that steelhead are aquatic Olympians, travelling farther and faster than any other salmonid — almost to Asia. They are not preprogrammed to spawn and die. They travel back and forth up our waterways and back to sea, always searching for the most favourable domicile — just like other British Columbians.

Are there other contenders? Well, of course. Some advocate the salmon. Now, salmon have achieved iconic status prehistorically on totem poles and on our dinner tables. It would add little to their lustre to name them now.

Some advocate for white sturgeon, relics of the preglacial period. True to their creed, members opposite point out that sturgeons qualify on grounds of seniority. But we must disqualify them as hardly handsome.

Finally, there's the stickleback, where males of the species prepare a spawning site and court passing females who tarry a while and then take off, leaving the males to raise the children. While some might relish such role reversal, we cannot recommend it.

C. James: Yesterday it was revealed that the Minister of State for Childcare chose to politicize child safety. Instead of using government service agencies like the Employment and Income Assistance offices that are located in communities, instead of using her own ministry's regional offices which are located in all communities, the minister instead chose 12 Liberal constituency offices. Instead of putting trained caseworkers across this province in charge of getting booster seats to low-income families, she chose partisan photo ops.

To the Minister of State for Childcare. The BCAA made it very clear to the media that the decision was made in her office. So my question is: why did she put photo ops and politics ahead of child safety?

Hon. L. Reid: I understand the public perception around this issue, and in retrospect we probably would do the distribution differently. But the facts remain. Every region of the province benefited from this program.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to repeat it. Every region of this province benefited from this program fairly and equitably. In fact, 53 percent of the family resource programs which received seats in this province were in opposition-held ridings. It was done with the full support of the Automobile Association and the Association of Family Resource Programs, and they, in fact, chose the families who were to receive the seats.

Let me also remind the opposition that they were the ones who voted against the funding when they voted against the budget.

C. James: The one thing the minister said that was accurate is that the facts are clear. The facts are very clear that this minister chose partisan politics over child safety. If she now is saying that she would have done things differently, will she take responsibility, admit her mistake and step down?

Yesterday one unnamed Liberal MLA actually said to the media: "I asked what the hell was going on. They said, when they arrived, 'Just give them away.'"

David Dunne of the Traffic Safety Foundation told the media that it was the minister's office that provided the list of Liberal-only offices.

The minister made the decision to politicize this. Only Liberal offices got the booster seats. Only Liberal MLAs passed them out and got the photo ops.

Again, my question to the minister of state: will she admit that she was wrong? Will she stand up in this House and say that she was wrong to put Liberal politics ahead of child safety?

The promotion of child safety is a government initiative in British Columbia. The objective of this program was met in terms of distribution. All regions of the province received seats.

In fact — and I will repeat for the interest of the Leader of the Opposition — 53 percent of the family resource programs that received seats were in opposition-held ridings. Vulnerable families who needed seats received them, hon. Speaker.

C. James: The Minister of State for Childcare wants us to believe that politics had nothing to do with this. Well, Mr. Speaker, what she forgets to say is that those booster seats were handed out to agencies from Liberal MLA constituency offices only. That's the only place they were handed out from.

It doesn't explain why Liberal MLAs, including the Premier himself, actually had photo ops handing out booster seats. Amazingly enough, his office wasn't listed on the distribution list that was passed out by the minister yesterday. But on the top of his own website was a picture of the Premier passing out booster seats — on his own website.

Of course, in the last 24 hours the Premier's website has had that picture removed. It's incredible. I'm happy to say that the Premier can't hide from Google. We found the picture of the Premier.

Again, to the minister of state: it's very clear that the Premier is embarrassed by this entire incident. The Premier is so embarrassed that he removed the picture from his website of himself handing out a booster seat. Why isn't the minister herself embarrassed by this situation?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to state again that I understand the perception around this issue. Certainly, we would do distribution differently in the future. I am happy to put that on the record.

I'm also happy to say we're proud of the partnership we have with the B.C. Automobile Association. We've achieved the purpose of the program — child safety seats into vulnerable families in British Columbia.

The provincial distribution objectives for the program were met. Certainly, the B.C. Automobile Association, the B.C. Association of Family Resource Programs…. I want to assure you and other members of the Legislature that all of the family resource program members in the province were invited to submit requests for seats specifically for families who could least afford the added expense. Family resource programs located in communities throughout the province submitted their requests, and the list was sent to David Dunne at the British Columbia Automobile Association.

C. Trevena: I'd like to quote the Premier, who said when he was Leader of the Opposition: "Let's forget about how parents voted. Let's try and provide the facilities for the kids where they need it."

Unfortunately, his minister really didn't live up to that statement, because while she may say that we have 53 percent going to NDP-held areas, we have very strange instances where some areas got almost none.

I represent North Island. North Island got five booster seats in Port McNeill. Campbell River got none. I'd like to ask the minister why she did choose to use Liberal offices to really score political points, when certain communities didn't get any seats. She could have used the government infrastructure, MEIA offices or MCFD offices, to ensure that these seats got thoroughly distributed.

Hon. L. Reid: We achieved geographic reach across British Columbia. In terms of the distribution centres….

Hon. L. Reid: In terms of the distribution centres selected — Kootenays, Kamloops, the lower mainland, Peace River, Prince George, Surrey, Burnaby, Mission, the Sea to Sky corridor — a pretty effective reach across British Columbia.

In fact, have we indeed achieved the distribution objectives of this program? Yes, we have.

Hon. L. Reid: Are children today safer as a result of this program? Yes, they are.

C. Trevena: I find the minister's understanding of geography a little confusing and her geographic reach somewhat confusing. The North Island constituency covers about half of Vancouver Island, and we have had five seats distributed there. I know that in other instances there have been no seats distributed.

Yesterday the minister of state produced a list which showed that 12 offices of Liberal MLAs served as these distribution points. We have heard that the Premier got to hand out booster seats. His office wasn't on that list.

The Minister of Employment and Income Assistance, the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, the member for Delta South and the Attorney General also got booster seats, and they weren't on the minister's own distribution list. They got the booster seats, and as people have been saying, they were able to boost their political profile.

I ask the Minister of State for Childcare yet again: why did she put partisan politics ahead of kids' safety for every child in this province?

Hon. L. Reid: The member opposite seems to have a particular interest in Vancouver Island. I am more than happy to put the entire distribution for Vancouver Island on the record.

Black Creek, 20 seats; Courtenay, 15 seats; Duncan, seats; Gabriola Island, seats; Ladysmith; Nanaimo, Pacific Child and Family Enrichment Society; Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Vancouver Island; North Island Community Services in Port McNeill; Saanichton; Saltspring Island; Sidney; Sooke; Victoria. This may be of interest to the members opposite. We certainly have the UVic Family Centre, James Bay Community Project…

Hon. L. Reid: …Burnside Gorge Community Association, Blanshard Community Centre, Capital Families Association and Oaklands Community Centre.

G. Coons: I find it interesting that the minister put on record today that all areas of the province were treated fairly and equitably and that all regions of the province received seats. The minister of state wants us to believe Liberal offices were used out of fairness, but not one booster seat made it to the Queen Charlotte Islands.

She could have sent booster seats to the Ministry of Children and Family Development office in Queen Charlotte City. She could have sent booster seats to the Employment and Income Assistance office in Masset. That's where professionals who work with low-income families work.

Again, to the minister: if this wasn't about politics, why didn't she use her own regional ministry offices to get these booster seats to people who need them the most?

Hon. L. Reid: I believe the member opposite perhaps has missed the point about how the distribution was done. I'm happy to put it on the record.

Hon. L. Reid: He continues to speculate that indeed the seat distribution was not done by professionals who understood vulnerable families in the communities of British Columbia. Again, the B.C. Association of Family Resource Programs….

Hon. L. Reid: …and other members of the Legislature that all of the family resource program members in the province were invited to submit requests for seats, specifically for families who could least afford the added expense. Family resource programs located in communities throughout the province submitted their requests, and the list was sent to David Dunne at the B.C. Automobile Association.

H. Bains: This minister is desperately trying to make us believe that this is not about partisan politics, but she forgot to tell that to BCAA. When one of the opposition MLAs in Surrey contacted BCAA to get some booster seats for that office, during the discussion she was asked if her MLA is a Liberal MLA. Guess what. That MLA did not get any booster seats after requesting them.

This minister clearly shows that she was using taxpayers' money and children's safety to boost Liberal political gains. What she finally can do — the least she could do — is stand up and apologize to the families of B.C. who were left out because of her politicization of children's safety.

Hon. L. Reid: As I've said, the promotion of child safety is a government initiative. In terms of the Fraser Valley distribution: 345 seats — Coquitlam, Delta, Hope, Langley, Maple Ridge, New Westminster. In Surrey….

Hon. L. Reid: Options: Services to Communities Society in Guildford, one in Clover Valley, one in Newton and one in Whalley, so very close to 60 seats for Surrey.

M. Farnworth: The minister wants to stress that they went fairly, but she misses the central point — that it was done through partisan political offices, and it was done deliberately….

M. Farnworth: It was done deliberately through Liberal constituency offices. That's a partisan political decision — when it was not done anywhere else.

M. Farnworth: I guess the members didn't listen to what the minister said, because she herself said that perhaps she should have done it differently.

Well, guess what. She should have done it differently. She took what was a great idea, debased and botched it through incompetence. She should apologize to the Premier, who was so embarrassed he had to take it off his own website.

More importantly, will this minister apologize to the hundreds of capable civil servants and government employees working in British Columbia, in distribution centres paid for by the taxpayers of this province, who work with low-income people every day and who could have done that job very, very effectively?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm not sure there was a question there, but it gives me a great opportunity to talk about the program.

Hon. L. Reid: The British Columbia Automobile Association will continue to distribute seats in British Columbia, as will the family resource programs in British Columbia. I can assure the member opposite that we on this side of the House…

Hon. L. Reid: …don't believe the constituency offices are partisan. Nor do we believe that booster seats are political.

D. Cubberley: School districts in British Columbia trusted the minister and her deputy minister when they said, time and again, "The money is the money," and they planned their current school year accordingly. They absorbed the loss of fee revenues and the held-back money. They offset as best they could the lack of support for special needs kids, and they got on with the job of delivering a quality education to all our children — until last week when they received a directive cancelling stable funding for kids taking fewer than eight courses in high school. Boom — just like that.

My question to the minister: why did the minister make yet another unilateral change to school funding without notice, without consulting and without calculating the impacts on school district budgets?

Hon. S. Bond: One thing I am absolutely certain about is that in British Columbia today, the public education budget is higher than it has ever been in the province. In fact, in March this government said that it would send a record $4.34 billion in operating funds to school districts, and as of today and as of tomorrow and as of the months that lie ahead, that will not change. Every dollar that we committed in the budget will go to education in the province.

D. Cubberley: Well, the minister didn't actually answer the question as to why she cut the stable grant in the course of a current school year. Cutting the base grant for every student and replacing it with a per-course grant will cut funding to schools and districts facing declining enrolment.

The minister must be aware that many kids don't take eight courses in high school in a school year for all kinds of reasons. For schools with a lot of those kids, this is a funding cut, pure and simple. So why spring it without warning, without guaranteeing no net loss of funding? Why make it retroactive with the year already in progress?

If the intent isn't to disrupt and destabilize the system, will the minister immediately rescind the order and agree to consult with trustees and identify the impacts before implementing funding changes?

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps now we have a much clearer understanding of why the 1990s ended up the way they did when the NDP do math like that. In fact, let's be clear.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, there was inequity in the funding system. On this side of the House we actually believe that we should fund students appropriately, but we should not double-count students. That's exactly what was happening. Every single dollar that was committed in the budget — over $4.34 billion, the highest amount ever — will go to education this year. We're proud of that record, and that will happen as it was said it would.

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, tree farm licences were issued in this province in the 1950s. Here's what the 1956 royal commission on forestry says was the fundamental reason a tree farm licence was awarded: "First, the stability of employment in dependent communities and, second, establishment of permanent forestry on private lands." That was the social contract — community stability and permanent forestry, not tax-free status until the time was right to sell the land for other uses.

Today the environmental law clinic, on behalf of a host of injured parties, has asked the Auditor General to conduct an investigation into the Minister of Forests's failure to get fair compensation for the people of British Columbia. As we know, the Auditor General, as a result of Liberal budget cuts, has limited resources.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister of Finance ask the director general to conduct an audit into all private land releases to determine what compensation the province of British Columbia should have received?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll take the question on notice for the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker.

A. Dix: Lynanne Beck has been an acute care nurse for over 30 years. She has a master's degree in health studies. On September 30, as the Minister of Health will know, she wrote to the minister and the appropriate licensing branch of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, raising concerns about a health care facility that she was working in as an agency nurse. Subsequent to writing that letter, she was fired from her position from We Care.

Does the Minister of Health agree with me that that is a completely unacceptable way to treat people in British Columbia, especially people who are bringing issues of serious concern to the attention of the proper authorities? Will he condemn this action, and will he take steps to ensure that she is reinstated?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. Ms. Beck did send a letter to my constituency office, I think, in very late September. It was received in my Victoria ministerial office on October 2. On October 3, Vancouver Coastal Health contacted Ms. Beck, and on October 4 the licensing official from Vancouver Coastal Health visited the site and began a review in respect of the allegations that had been tendered by letter by Ms. Beck.

I should note for the member that Ms. Beck is not a government or a health authority employee. I understand that she is employed by a private firm. I do not know the contractual basis of her relationship with that firm. But if Ms. Beck has an issue with respect to her employment or termination of her employment, I'm sure she will avail herself of the employment standards branch, the Labour Relations Board or other appropriate authority to remedy the matter.

A. Dix: The minister's position appears clear. "If you have issues with Retirement Concepts, don't bother me. I'm only the one responsible. Take them up with Retirement Concepts."

If you bring issues that are appropriately the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health to the attention of the Minister of Health, you are in fact subject to firing in British Columbia. This is a shocking situation. Doesn't the Minister of Health agree with me?

Isn't this an argument for independent reviews? Isn't this an argument for whistle-blower protection so that people don't have to suffer this kind of attack when they simply do what they have to do, what they are obliged to do as registered nurses, which is to protect standards?

Shouldn't sending a letter to the Minister of Health get you some respect in British Columbia, when you do it appropriately, rather than being fired?

Hon. G. Abbott: Anyone who has a concern or an allegation to make in respect of the operation of a care home or indeed some other facet of health care delivery in this province should absolutely bring those forward. It is always tempting to want to submit political judgments for legal or other judgments, but I think it would be most inappropriate.

I'm sure members opposite would be the first to say, were I to attempt to substitute political judgment for the legal rights of Ms. Beck, that I was wrong. I'm sure they'd be the first to say that.

We have to ensure that these matters are adjudicated appropriately. Clearly, if there is an employment or contractual issue between Ms. Beck and her private employer…. Again, she is not a government employee; she is not a health authority employee. If she has an issue, she should take it up with the appropriate authority.

S. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, recently on Voice of B.C. the Minister of Aboriginal Relations confirmed that about 35 acres of Pacific Spirit Park are involved in the discussions with the Musqueam at this point.

Could the minister confirm for us whether it is now the position of the government that parkland, whether it be provincial or regional, is now potentially on the table for negotiations — and for treaty negotiations? And if that is the case, when did he plan to have a discussion with the people of British Columbia about putting parkland on the table for negotiations?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member — and I thank him for his question — that as I indicated on the program that he has referenced, there have been discussions taking place for some time involving the Musqueam. I think that is well known and in the public domain.

Those specific discussions have focused on a parcel of land, approximately 13.8 hectares — whatever the conversion on that is — which is stranded from the main part of Pacific Spirit Park. It is on the south side of Marine Drive, and there are discussions. It is a parcel of land that the Musqueam have had an interest in for some time, and as I indicated on the program, it has been the subject of the discussions and negotiations that are ongoing.

For the second time this week the Leader of the Opposition has made accusations that are simply without foundation. I am prepared to accept….

Hon. M. de Jong: Earlier in question period — and perhaps if members making comments don't know the rules, they will take the time to find them out; I did not interrupt proceedings during question period, as is the practice in this chamber — the Leader of the Opposition prefaced her remarks by making reference to a particular photograph on a website. Her statement was incorrect. I am reliably advised that it is simply incorrect.

I am prepared to accept, for the purpose of this discussion, that she did not purposely mislead the House, but I do think she owes this chamber the duty of ensuring that her information is accurate and, where it is not, to accept at face value what I am telling her and to apologize for providing information that is inaccurate.

M. Farnworth: That's not an official standing point of order, and we stand by the information that was presented.

S. Hammell: I'd like to acknowledge both June and Joe Laitar, who are in the chamber. June is the president of Kla-how-eya Aboriginal Centre, and Joe is one heck of a supportive husband. They make that place sing, and they do wonderful work for the first nations and aboriginal community in Surrey and Delta. So would the House please make them welcome.

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

G. Robertson: It is indeed my honour to speak today to Bill 40. To begin with, I want to recognize our presence today in the traditional territory of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill 40 and, specifically, the Tsawwassen people, who have worked long and hard for this agreement. I congratulate, first and foremost, Chief Kim Baird and all of the people in the band for this most historic achievement.

Generations of Tsawwassen people have negot-iated tenaciously to resolve these issues of self-determination, land ownership and economic independence. Kudos go to you all — from those who have

passed on to join the ancestors, to Chief Baird and her community. Today you can all look forward to a brighter future, knowing that your children and your grandchildren have far more control of their own destiny.

The great injustice of this land, of this province, is the outrageous theft of land and self-determination from the first nations by the people who came here in modern times. It has not been resolved. It continues to haunt this province, to hold us back as a society, as an economy, as human beings. Today we take another small but important step in addressing that injustice, but as important a day as this is for the Tsawwassen people, we must recognize that the legislation we're passing into law is imperfect, and the litany of injustices affecting the first nations of this province are anything but solved.

So in addition to recognizing the Tsawwassen people, I will take this opportunity to address those imperfections and injustices, in the hopes that we can redouble our efforts to settle treaties, to improve the substance with all future treaties and to ensure that the words in this House translate into meaningful action for all aboriginal people in this province.

I'm the fifth generation of my family to live on this coast, to share the land and sea with the first nations who have lived here for countless generations. For my family, this coast was like a homecoming. Driven from our ancestral lands in Scotland and Ireland by war, by religious and ethnic persecution, we were given sanctuary and a new beginning in this country. We were able to escape injustice and oppression, but we gave up our homeland to do that. Fortunately, we were welcomed here by the first nations.

Eventually my family came west to this coast — a coast that's quite similar to where we originally come from in Scotland and Ireland, loaded with salmon, loaded with nature's abundance. My people were a minority here in B.C. for some decades, but were treated as if we had every right to be here and to build better lives. We had the advantage of many generations of experience with the wheels of progress, living right next door to the English.

We were equipped, therefore, to capitalize on the fast-evolving economy, to seize the opportunities that this province had in spades. The resources and the population growth created mind-boggling economic potential which was realized by those who could adapt or had a hand up at the start, and we did.

Much of this happened at the expense of the first nations. Despite attempts by some immigrants — new citizens of Canada and B.C. — to support aboriginal people who welcomed them here, the tables turned all too fast. The tragic history of epidemics, loss of traditional territories and cultural traditions, ruthless discrimination and expropriation is something that every British Columbian must acknowledge and lament.

Acknowledging our history and this sordid history is the first step in reconciliation. Even more important, though, is accepting that a great deal remains to be done today. A great deal remains the same for many aboriginal people in B.C. as the inequity continues.

The deplorable standard of living for many aboriginal people has been described in great detail by my colleagues here in the Legislature in this debate. Some of the statistics are incredibly shocking.

HIV and AIDS rates for aboriginal people are twice as high. Rates of diabetes are triple the rest of the population. Alcohol-related deaths are four to nine times higher for aboriginal people. The teen pregnancy rate is six times higher. The imprisoned-youth rate is seven times higher. Child poverty is double the rate. Unemployment is double the rate of the rest of the population.

These numbers are staggering. They roll off the tongue like any other number, but the true impact on human lives and communities is brutal. These conditions did not exist before the onslaught of immigration from Europe and Asia. They're certainly perpetuated by the absence of fair and honourable treaties.

First nations rightly see treaties as a crucial component of their efforts to eliminate these conditions. We must be steadfast and determined to settle treaties and to expunge the injustices and inequities in this province. I trust that this agreement will go a long way to address this for the Tsawwassen people, but I fear that it may not go far enough. In fact, it may compromise the critical treaty process for other first nations.

I'm greatly concerned, as well, that the focus on treaties alone won't do it. There's a big disconnect between the endless mumbo-jumbo of protracted negotiation, debate and law-making between all of these governments and the incredible need for action on the ground in communities.

The B.C. Treaty Commission process has cost us as taxpayers a billion dollars to date and has produced only one treaty. That must change. Treaty-making in B.C. must have a sense of urgency, but beyond the treaty-making is the need for implementation. In their comprehensive review of treaty-making in the Americas, the United Nations special rapporteur concluded that the greatest failure in treaty-making was the failure of colonial governments to fully implement what they had negotiated with first nations — to make it real.

Here we are in 2007 with only one modern treaty in place through the process and a painfully slow treaty process grinding along, with intolerable living conditions a daily reality for far too many aboriginal people. We have a substantial agreement before us to debate, and concurrently, we have a raft of interim measures — stripped-down business deals, if you will — in place to drive some economic growth.

No doubt, there's lots of room for improvement, so I will focus my comments on how to go about this improvement. I'll start where this agreement falls short, regretfully, and then address some of the broader needs of our treaty process.

The Tsawwassen agreement is very significant in that it is the first treaty to be successfully concluded

under the B.C. treaty process. It's a good thing that it's being concluded, but there are dangerous precedents within it that must be reckoned with.

At its core this is not a treaty. This is a business deal. There's no mention of the word "treaty" in the agreement. My support for this legislation shouldn't be mistaken as approval of the business deal as such.

There are many problems with the deal — there has been great compromise — and I will voice these in the hopes that these mistakes are not made again. If these mistakes are perpetuated and compounded, the consequences will multiply exponentially, and the treaty process could be hopelessly compromised.

Tragically, the agreement fails to recognize aboriginal rights and title. This agreement purposefully embraces modification rather than recognition of aboriginal rights and title, which is a key element of reconciliation. There's been much talk about reconciliation, but business transactions, by their very nature, cannot address true reconciliation.

Any modification of constitutionally recognized rights in an agreement that comes before this Legislature is of great concern. By failing to recognize these rights specifically, this agreement flirts with denial or even extinguishment of aboriginal rights and title. We in this House must be vigilant to ensure that this modification is not, in fact, the new relationship, and we must demand those assurances from the government.

At the core of reconciliation is the recognition of the existence of aboriginal rights and title. This was the basis for the new relationship document and the Kelowna agreement. This recognition was expected to result in changes to legislation, policy, regulation and ministry service plans and budgets. These are the tangible products of the provincial government, but this isn't happening. It's not in this agreement, and the commitment to recognize aboriginal rights and title hasn't made its way into the legislation, policy or regulation emanating from this government.

What we have from this government and within this agreement are business deals, resource agreements, program agreements, interim measures. There's no sign of the Premier's commitment to recognize aboriginal rights and title, which essentially means the adversarial approach continues. Talk about a missed opportunity. Here was the first chance to combine the B.C. Treaty Commission process with the new relationship to achieve true reconciliation, but the recognition of rights and title is missing, and modification appears to be the de facto substitute.

This glaring omission is an ongoing source of frustration and mistrust for many first nations, who continue to have to resort to protests, blockades and even legal action against the provincial government to pursue true reconciliation. Does this sound like a new relationship? Does this sound like a genuine commitment from the provincial government to reconciliation? No.

It's very important to consider this agreement in the context of the new relationship, but this is challenging, particularly given the lack of clarity about how the new relationship will catalyze real change and the contradictions between this document and the ongoing actions of the Premier and his government.

B.C.'s Auditor General is critical of the lack of definition around the new relationship, which only leads to more uncertainty. The Auditor General is also critical of the so-called breakthrough strategy, where negotiators concentrate on a few tables at the expense of all others. The April 2007 report from the Auditor General also points out that these business deals being done outside of the treaty process may prove to be a disincentive to successful negotiations.

The failure to follow through on the new relationship commitments is notably evident in the Premier's refusal to speak out against the government of Canada's shameful rejection of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Only three countries in the world voted against this declaration, with 144 supporting, and B.C.'s Premier was silent on this outrageous stance. This belies the trust of the first nations and is a total embarrassment for British Columbians and all Canadians.

The Leader of the Opposition asked some very important questions about the new relationship. Has the Premier signed the document? Has the accord fundamentally improved provincial mandates on aboriginal self-government? Has the new relationship improved the day-to-day lives of aboriginal people? The answer to these three questions is no. So much for transformative change.

The commitments of the Premier in the new relationship document must be solidified and honoured by this government. Rather than cutting more business deals, they must focus on true reconciliation.

Now, this agreement is very specific to the Tsawwassen First Nation, and it will no doubt bring positive change for the people, but it falls short of the crucial commitment to true reconciliation. Beyond this missed opportunity to achieve reconciliation, there are other important concerns about this agreement, concerns that have been expressed by other first nations. I'll address those now.

There is the potential for negative impacts on the rights and title of neighbouring first nations who aren't currently in negotiations with government — first nations such as Semiahmoo and Sencoten and all of the first nations on southern Vancouver Island who entered into treaties with the Crown under Governor Douglas. This government is obliged to provide clear assurances to those first nations, and legislation would be the most unequivocal way to provide this. Will this be forthcoming from this government?

There is great concern about this agreement serving as a template for future agreements or treaties. Again, the failure to explicitly recognize aboriginal rights and title comes into the picture. The absence of this and the potential that this agreement creates a limit or ceiling on other negotiations or agreements are both very problematic.

This is particularly troubling due to the "me too" clause in this agreement that ensures the Tsawwassen

First Nation that any improved terms in future deals will automatically be imported into this agreement. Although this certainly makes sense for the Tsawwassen people, it has the potential to have a chilling effect on other agreements as negotiators insist that they can't exceed the terms that are comparable to those within this agreement. The consequences are potentially disastrous for the treaty process if, indeed, this is the resulting impact.

With all of these concerns with this final agreement and its shortcomings as an actual treaty, I want to return to the issue of business deals. In many ways this agreement walks and talks like a business deal, but it is many steps beyond the typical business deals being done around the province with first nations, most of which are referred to as interim measures or accommodation agreements.

Given the snail's pace of the treaty process and uncertainties about the eventual results, it's totally understandable that first nations pursue interim measures. It's an opportunity to get a share of the resources that were taken away, but these business deals are not alternatives to treaties.

These interim measures give industry access to resources in first nations traditional territories. They generate revenue to the provincial government, to the treasury, and create some benefits for first nations, but they don't settle either the land or governance questions that are the very reason for treaty negotiations. They certainly don't address aboriginal rights and title. Therefore, they are not alternatives to treaties.

Rather than taking a bold step forward and negotiating a treaty that recognizes the fundamental issue of aboriginal rights and title, my profound concern here is that this government insisted on an agreement that more closely resembles a business deal. By doing so, a great opportunity was purposefully averted by a government with a long history of disrespecting first nations.

The most troubling element of this business deal approach by the government is the inclusion of lands from the agricultural land reserve in this agreement. The precedent for removing 207 hectares, about 500 acres' worth, from the ALR from this agreement is of great concern to many British Columbians, as this could intensify our enormous challenges with food security.

As hard as it may be to imagine, food security is paramount to survival. Most of us here in B.C. are well insulated from this threat, but our survival hinges on the daily arrivals of food from far away. This is a dangerous dance we do, and if we ignore it, we ignore it literally at our peril.

As a former farmer, as someone who has made a living from land, raising my kids from the bounty of the farmland along the Fraser River, the potential loss of excellent farmland to industrial use is very disturbing. My hopes are very high that the Tsawwassen people will steward this land for its highest purpose, which is supporting life. It is incredibly productive land, whether as cropland for humans or forage and habitat for other species.

The Tsawwassen took care of this land for thousands of years before either industry piled up at Deltaport or the ALR was created. There's no reason to assume they would sacrifice such precious soil for a short-term cash flow. That hasn't been their way, but stranger things have happened and certainly happen every day with non-native communities.

It's assumed that some development will occur on this returning land base to accommodate the Tsawwassen people and to develop their economic base. This is certainly reasonable, given the limited space and unacceptable conditions that they've been living in for generations. But the hope for many of us is that the prime agricultural land won't be lost to industrial development.

The Tsawwassen people are in an unfortunate predicament. The vast majority of their lands have been taken up by third-party interests. They need living space, they need working space, and they need to create a local economy. The limited area there on the delta includes a significant proportion of ALR.

The solution put forward in this agreement by this government is unacceptable to many British Columbians, who fear the worst, who assume that the exceptional soil will be paved for industry. Loss of this land to industrial usage for Deltaport expansion would be a travesty. It would be the antithesis of sustainable development.

Again, the blame lies squarely on this government and their approach to negotiating this agreement. The government could have come up with other proposals for economic development that minimize or eliminate the potential for industrial development on the productive farmland. There should have been a solution that prevented the removal of fertile farmland from the ALR.

The fact that removal of ALR is in the agreement stirred up a great deal of debate within our caucus and within the New Democratic Party and, more broadly, in the communities that we serve. Indeed, it should. This is a huge dilemma — the prospect of settling a treaty but potentially losing farmland from production permanently.

This forced us to grapple with our core values: social justice and stewardship of the land. We don't accept that this trade-off is necessary. The government could have taken a different approach. This is their scheme, and it does create a dangerous precedent for future treaties.

We must raise our voices to prevent further loss of lands in the ALR. We must be vigilant in all dealings to protect this critical resource. It is our lifeline. Despite over half of our food being shipped in from hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of miles away, the time will very likely come again when we are far more dependent on our local food supply.

It's only a matter of time, because the one-time burndown of stored energy on our planet will result in a world where the mass movement of goods won't be physically possible. This will happen in concert with the depletion of soils, making any remaining productive soils invaluable for life as we know it. This is just common sense. Most of our food comes from the soil. We sacrifice it at our own demise.

The ecological case against putting ALR at risk of industrial development is very clear. I have yet to hear

a compelling case for paving farmland or estuaries. What's the upside? Maximizing short-term profits for faceless shareholders somewhere? These shareholders would need to share the wealth with the stewards of the land — in this case, hopefully, the Tsawwassen First Nation.

But if those resources are ultimately what's needed, destroying the land is an unconscionable price to pay. If this transpires, it won't be much different from business deals that get done all over the world every day. Trade off a viable future for short-term needs, pave the land, degrade the ecosystems — all in the name of progress, profit and paycheques.

Again, I'm hopeful that the Tsawwassen people have a very different vision for their lands. That is the hope of our caucus. We trust that the Tsawwassen people will take care of their land and recognize that this is once again their land for countless generations to come. It was their land before the ALR and industry appeared, and it's surely in their own best interests to steward this land for its highest purpose.

We will continue to fight hard to protect the ALR. We are calling for every precious acre of land that is removed from the ALR to be replaced immediately with land of comparable productivity in the same bioregion. That call certainly applies to these 207 hectares, and failure to do this is truly jeopardizing the lives of the generations to come.

I just want to make some conclusions in terms of really impacting the lives of aboriginal peoples in a positive way through the treaty process. Things have to kick into gear in a big way. A more public, nimble and creative treaty process is needed. Some excellent suggestions to improve the process have come forward, and I will echo them here.

Give ordinary citizens access to treaty negotiations. Make public the so-called secret formula that the federal and provincial governments use, based on so much land and money per citizen. Open-source it. Let first nations debate whether it is fair. That could only speed up the process.

Expand and strengthen B.C.'s negotiating teams to staff more treaty tables. Encourage the B.C. Treaty Commission to actively employ mediation and alternative dispute-resolution tools to resolve difficult issues such as overlapping first nations claims to traditional territories.

Stop trying to impose municipal forms of self-government on first nations communities. Instead, facilitate agreements between first nations and neighbouring municipalities. Grant the Treaty Commission more independence so that it can better play the roles of facilitator, mediator and adjudicator.

Explore alternative kinds of final agreements rather than imposing one model of settlement. Draft all treaties in plain language so that every British Columbian can read and understand them. Finally, let's see a firm political commitment to complete all B.C. first nation treaties within ten years. Just some ideas to improve the process.

With the greatest respect for the Tsawwassen people, I am extremely disappointed in this Premier and his government for not finding better solutions. We can always do better, with solutions that are all about true reconciliation and that recognize aboriginal rights and title, solutions that don't compromise other first nations or the treaty process itself, solutions that respect the Tsawwassen and the ALR. The combination of settling treaties and resolving land use is among the toughest challenges we face as a society, but we should be setting the bar high.

Nevertheless, a deal's a deal. The Tsawwassen people have negotiated in good faith. I raise my hands to Chief Baird and her people. Their patience and goodwill are remarkable. I congratulate them on this achievement and wish them well in their important decisions on stewarding their lands.

J. Kwan: I rise today to give my support to the Tsawwassen treaty. I stand in solidarity to support the Tsawwassen people and their quest for justice, reconciliation and equality. I would also like to take the time to commend the courage of Chief Kim Baird and the people of Tsawwassen, whose story of resilience is an inspiration to all of us.

To be a 37-year-old female chief to her people is an accomplishment unto itself. The fact that we're here today debating this bill is a testimony to her resolve to never waver from her desire to conclude a treaty and move forward for the Tsawwassen people and, no doubt, for future generations. I've watched her in this House as she listened to the debate with her babies in this Legislature.

This is not to say that there are not issues with the treaty process or this treaty in particular. Certainly, what gives me cause to reflect and critically examine this particular treaty has been this government's tepid and, I dare say, hypocritical and reckless approach to relations with aboriginal people.

Let us recall that not many years ago British Columbians were going through an unnecessary referendum on aboriginal rights. It was not only an embarrassing moment in the history of our province; it was reckless, divisive and mean-spirited. The policies of this government were designed to divide people across the province. I often ask myself the question: why and how could such a racist policy come about? Is it because the Premier thought that he could get away with it without much accountability?

After all, in those days there were only two opposition members. I and Joy MacPhail were in the House to oppose the Premier's mean-spirited agenda. When you think you can get away with something truly nasty, like a race-based referendum on minority rights, and you actually go through with it, isn't that moment in time a true snapshot of your true self? British Columbians still want to know if the Premier thinks that reconciliation with aboriginal people has suddenly become politically fashionable or if he's genuine in his commitment to this new relationship.

In 2001 the Liberal government commenced an unprecedented assault on civil society in British Columbia. Under the leadership of this Premier the province suffered massive cuts to social services, social housing programs were cancelled, and people were put on the street. The rich became richer, and the poor became poorer. Aboriginal people had to endure a fundamentally racist position on aboriginal land claims that did not reflect the court rulings that had recognized aboriginal title and the need to negotiate.

The treaty process, as a result, was delayed and set back years as the Premier conducted his meaningless referendum at a cost of $9 million to the taxpayers of British Columbia. Aboriginal people, the first people of this land, bore the brunt of this shameful act. Had it not been the policy of this Premier from 2001 to 2005 to fight the aboriginal people every which way for reconciliation, Bill 40 would have been before this House much sooner.

Contrary to the Premier, I am proud to stand here as a member of the NDP with a consistent position in support of aboriginal people.

Treaty-making is the form we have created to deal with the very important issue of aboriginal reconciliation. As imperfect an instrument as it may be, when it works, it is emblematic of our resilience and our collective ability to reconcile historical injustices.

History, trauma and memory are embedded in our contemporary Canadian culture. This year, actually, marks the 100th anniversary of the anti-Asiatic riots that took place in my constituency in 1907. Today, as a Chinese Canadian, I have the great honour and good fortune of being an elected member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, where I have the opportunity to represent my constituents.

All injustices must lead to some kind of reconciliation and political expression. It is the essence of a developed democracy. The drums that beat for justice should never go silent, and it is the job of government and policy-makers to accommodate these tensions and bring people to the table as equals.

The legacy of colonialism and the arrogance of institutions, which quite frankly we are still fighting today and will for many generations, is deeply entrenched. Trying to address these questions in an open and honest way should be central to our identity as Canadians and British Columbians.

Treaty-making is about rights, land rights, justice, reconciliation and self-determination. It is about an obligation to future generations. Too many lives have been lost and damaged by the institutions of colonialism, from the residential schools, such as Alert Bay, to countless apprehensions of first nations children that still happens disproportionately today, to the poverty cycle and addictions cycle that is so very prevalent amongst aboriginal people. We are still fighting those injustices in our communities across British Columbia today.

History reminds us that people were taken from their villages by the RCMP and sent by Union Steamship to Alert Bay from places like Bella Coola, Bella Bella, the Haida Gwaii and all along the northern part of the B.C. coast and the interior. Even at a reunion a few years ago, people were still kneeling over and crying from the pain of that experience.

Madam Speaker, it is said that everything is connected. Did you know that the U'mista Cultural Centre in Alert Bay plans to take over the old St. Michael's Residential School building and teach the traditional language of Kwak'wala?

Former Chief Joe Gosnell graduated from that residential school in Alert Bay, and he went on to negotiate the Nisga'a treaty, the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia, which this Premier and his caucus and the Liberal Party fought every step of the way.

Out there in Alert Bay, while whales dance in the ocean and eagles soar overhead, first nations carvers build canoes and totem poles on Sunday mornings. Up the hill at the big house the support beams are held up by the Sisiutl, a Zen-like symbol of balance with two serpent-like flickering tongues. They say that its glare can cause a man to die by turning him to stone and that one must have balance in one's life to stare it in the eye and live to tell the story.

People should be coming from around the world to visit Alert Bay and take a look at this monumental statue. Some say it is paradise on earth, but how can we invite the world to come to British Columbia when so many British Columbians don't even know our fascinating history? I hope that one day soon this history of injustice and successive governments' role and attempts and failures to reconcile our history will be taught to every student in British Columbia.

In my constituency too many young first nations people leave rural reserves for the life of the downtown east side. While it is a community with a great many strengths, it is also a community with a great many challenges. We in our community need socioeconomic justice. The treaty process may be part of that answer, to be sure, but it certainly is not the whole answer.

We need comprehensive and long-term plans to bring justice to the aboriginal communities. There's an urban native youth centre which is looking to build a longhouse in my constituency, a proposal that is once again being lost amidst the finger-pointing between the provincial government and the federal government.

Programs like BladeRunners place young aboriginal people onto a construction site where they can earn over $20 an hour, no matter what their background or the complicated nature of their lives. Yet there are not enough of those BladeRunners workers working on Olympic construction sites today despite an inner city inclusivity agreement.

The missing women in my constituency who lived life on the margins, in poverty, who were in the sex trade and not respected by people…. Many of these women are aboriginal, yet organizations such as PACE cannot get the adequate funding to engage in the kind of outreach work that they need to do with sex trade workers to ensure that they have access to health care services and options.

The totem pole project, which teaches young aboriginal youth to carve totem poles and commemorates the missing women in the downtown east side, is in dire need of financial support. We have an obligation to engage with our citizens no matter what led them here, yet our government continues to sit on the sidelines without so much as lifting a finger to offer assistance.

Why is this relevant, Madam Speaker? Because on the issue around treaty-making, we need to also ensure that there are ongoing long-term programs that support aboriginal people on and off the reserves.

Women who are fleeing violence and looking for a safe place to rest their weary bodies, an advocate to give them voice, a place that they could call home, are left wanting, for women's centres across the province have been cut severely. In my own community the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre continues to run a temporary shelter where dozens of women sleep every night because of the piecemeal funding from this provincial government.

The dangers of street life disproportionately affect women. We're in grave need of permanent housing solutions and program support from this government, and so far all we've gotten are band-aid solutions.

Drug addiction continues to destroy lives. Heroin and crack cocaine — drugs that make people run away from their pain — leave people looking for a daily fix, yet programs designed to support this segment of the population are chronically underfunded.

The Helping Spirit Lodge, which provides an array of programs to the urban aboriginal, has yet to receive support from this government for its capital campaign. More than that, they've just lost their funding for a successful employment program run by aboriginal people for aboriginal people.

The Aboriginal Friendship Centre continues to struggle on year-to-year funding, which does not allow them to plan ahead. There remains a great need for aboriginal-specific housing projects and shelters.

When Miloon Kothari, the UN special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, came to Vancouver a couple of weeks ago, one of the areas he was looking particularly closely at was housing for aboriginal peoples. Why? Because aboriginals are overrepresented in the homelessness rate. The UN would not be looking at housing for aboriginal peoples if the federal government and the provincial government were adequately dealing with the situation.

Madam Speaker, this gives you a glimpse into the struggles of many urban aboriginals, and to understand the essence of our history is to understand the kind of investment that is necessary to break the vicious cycle that has been brought to bear upon first nations people.

Perhaps our official recorded colonial history makes us a young province, but there are many myths and legends that beat with the narrative of this geography, this amazing place, this electrifying history that is begging to come to life. These stories are timeless and borderless, and they evoke genuine desire for empathy and understanding.

It is said that the last war fought on Canadian soil was in the Chilcotin plateau. It was an era of goldminers, prospectors, gamblers and roadbuilders. The blood of 14 men was spilled in the Homathko River before dawn on the morning of April 29, 1864. By the end of May, 19 roadbuilders, packers and farmers were dead. It is the deadliest attack by aboriginal people on immigrants in western Canada before or since.

They were killed because the white people were coming up and building a road into the Chilcotin and they were raping the first nations women. They were feeding the workers from the first nations only scraps, and above all, they threatened them with smallpox.

The leaders at the time felt that they had no other recourse, so a raiding party went out and unfortunately, a number of people were killed. Within six weeks, over a hundred men were in the field to hunt down the leadership of the Tsilhquot'in. Soon after, the chiefs were persuaded to give themselves up, and they went to attempt to make treaty in Quesnel. Instead, they found themselves being put in jails.

On September 28, 1864, Chief Klatsassin and eight others went to trial, and by October 26 they were hanged at Quesnellemouth at 7 a.m., with 250 people in attendance, after being sentenced by the notorious Judge Begbie, the infamous hanging judge.

Today the Tsilhquot'in elders work with anthropologists to bring their oral histories into the courtroom, where they bring to life their connection and history with the land, all for reconciliation and justice. B.C. will become best place on earth when we reconcile our history with the reality of our colonial past.

To this day the Tsilhquot'in people are still looking for the graves of the chiefs that were hung in Quesnel somewhere. It is quite probable that the hospital is sitting on them. They're using very sophisticated means to try and find those bodies. It is very important to the peace of mind of those people that they find the leaders.

Madam Speaker, this story is still so compelling, this colonial story of tensions and land rights, that Stan Douglas, an artist who lives in my constituency, made an art film few years ago where Chief Klatsassin was the subject. To this day it is part of our history that still resonates, still connotes meaning and still is being fought in our courts.

In those days, there was a different way of dealing with things. In 1910 some chiefs in the Secwepemc region met with Wilfrid Laurier. At that time, the Chief said:

Those were the words of the Chief, and those are the lessons that we should have actually embedded in our hearts and minds, not just today but back in 2001 and beyond. In fact, governments before that, conservative governments who did very little to advance aboriginal rights….

Hence, we're here today dealing with Bill 40 in the year 2007. But had we learned the lessons of the words of the Chief much earlier, would we have had Bill 40 before us much earlier than today?

In the interior, where people were looking for justice and reconciliation, we had the untold horrors of places like St. Joseph's Residential School. Over 100,000 children across Canada attended residential schools. Reconciliation and treaty-making must consider the injustice of institutional racism, of unjust laws and inequality, the trauma of dispossession and the ongoing attacks on aboriginal identity.

Through acts of government we put aboriginal people on reserves, denying them their rights, and somehow we expect them to live some other way than the way we are living. The aboriginal people, the Tsawwassen people, have negotiated hard and fairly to resolve longstanding issues of self-determination, land ownership and economic independence for themselves.

The Tsawwassen treaty will be the first treaty concluded under the B.C. Treaty Commission process, a process started under the NDP government. Let me add that it was the NDP which concluded the Nisga'a agreement, which many members opposite opposed vociferously and, I might add, irrationally and without thought or deliberation. They certainly did not look at the history of the past to try to learn from those lessons.

The B.C. Liberal Party wanted to divide British Columbians and unite the right wing in this province in a dangerous agenda that did not acknowledge court decisions and the tide of history which was screaming out for reconciliation. The Premier and the Liberal Party played politics with this very important issue, and by virtue of that, they played with people's lives.

In July of this year Valerie Cross-Blackett, a Tsawwassen band member who was involved in the negotiations, said:

I stand in support of this treaty for the Tsawwassen people because of people like Valerie Cross-Blackett — who has spent so much of her life seeking reconciliation and a chance to move forward — and many people like her. People like Ms. Cross-Blackett remember when the highway was built out to the ferry and how it split her community in half.

The opportunity to break out of the governance of the Indian Act is of fundamental importance. When the treaty comes into effect, the Tsawwassen people will own their land outright, and there will no longer be reserves. The final agreement sets out law-making authorities which the Tsawwassen may exercise on their own lands. It will also allow the Tsawwassen government to become a member of Metro Vancouver and appoint a director to sit on the regional district board.

We have a rich and detailed history of not dealing with our past in British Columbia. When Chief Pontiac organized a pan-Indian resistance to fight the British occupation and took all but one of the British forts,

the government in London responded with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. It affirmed the tribal ownership of lands and recognized tribal governments and public negotiation of treaties before settlers could purchase the land. Of all the British colonies, only British Columbia rejected this policy.

Although James Douglas, the colonial governor in Victoria, made treaties on Vancouver Island, beyond an extension of Treaty 8, as we now know, no more treaties were made until Nisga'a. It is through the heroic efforts of Thomas Berger and the many, many others that were here talking about the important process of reconciliation: people like Frank Calder — just to take a moment to remember him — who brought forward the case and even sat in this Legislature for a period of time; people like Mike Harcourt, who set up the treaty process; people like Glen Clark, who was the Premier that was not afraid to sign the Nisga'a treaty in spite of vicious, vicious opposition from the Premier and the Liberal Party.

As with any compromise and negotiation, there are heartbreaks and difficult decisions. The ALR is, of course, a difficult part of this deal — what some are calling the port expansion through the back door.

I support the ALR. I support local food production and the B.C. agriculture industry. We know that there is a need for more irrigated land in the fruit, vegetable and dairy production area and for more broadly applied pasture and forest management practices. The ALR is the land belt that has put the borders on suburbia. It has become the model for people like Portland. People come from around the world to study it and to emulate it.

The Liberal introduction of the Agricultural Land Commission Act has opened up farmland for development. This government's record on protecting farmland is the worst in almost four decades. I am a committed supporter of the ALR land, as is our caucus. Frankly, the best thing for the ALR would be to defeat the Liberal government in 2009.

Tony Penikett, the former Premier of the Yukon and the former deputy minister in charge of negotiations for the B.C. government, recently wrote a book on first nations treaty-making in B.C. I was at his book-launching. He included ten recommendations for policy-makers, which I'd like to put on the record now.

Bury colonial attitudes about aboriginal institutions with a new commitment to accommodation, reconciliation and treaties.

Open up negotiations by tabling government land and money, negotiating mandates.

Do not use interim measures as substitutes for treaties. Use alternative dispute resolution techniques, and bring mediators to treaty tables. Allow first nations to litigate disputes when necessary.

Respect the aboriginal right to self-government but invest in aggregation — democratic, efficient and effective institutions of governance.

Build a truly independent British Columbia Treaty Commission to fund negotiations.

Create options for fast-tracked treaties and high-level dialogues on co-jurisdiction.

Show the political will to complete Canada's reconciliation with aboriginal peoples through treaties and other agreements.

University of Toronto scholar Thomas Homer-Dixon called what we have an ingenuity gap. Escaping the bulk of bureaucratic inertia and passive-aggressive behaviour requires imagination.

If we want to move forward on treaty-making, do what the United States has done, to a degree. When Robert Kennedy became Attorney General of the United States in 1961, he hired more lawyers and gave them mere months to settle hundreds of outstanding land claims. That is political will.

I believe that social justice, economic prosperity and reconciliation depend on expeditiously negotiating long-term aboriginal land claim issues. British Columbia can do that, and the Premier can show that he truly has found the new relationship in his heart.

Invest in the negotiation process. Study from others what they have done. Take some of the suggestions and the recommendations from Tony Penikett. Look at what the former Attorney General of the United States has done, and invest in that.

Above all, come into this House and apologize to the aboriginal people for the shameful acts between 2001 and 2005 and for the delay of this Bill 40, which we could have seen in this House, had the government taken a different approach with aboriginal people and its relationships with them and moved forward for a truer, brighter future for the aboriginal people, the Tsawwassen people and British Columbians.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in this historic debate on Bill 40 and to offer some comments around Bill 40 and the importance of settling the Tsawwassen treaty land claim and why it's so important that we ratify it.

I want to welcome Chief Baird to these deliberations. I can let her know that we are nearing the end of second reading debate. Then we will be on to the committee stage in subsequent days ahead. In terms of second reading debate, we are nearing the end of that.

I think it's important to reflect on a number of things that have been said during this particular debate. I heard the member for Prince George North comment: "Well, what did you do?" I just want to talk about that briefly.

We're a party that has firmly, historically supported treaty negotiations and the land claims process. As has been mentioned already, former Premier Mike Harcourt set up the B.C. Treaty Commission. He was very much involved in that process, and it was very much a highlight during our two terms in office.

M. Farnworth: I hear muttering from the bench. Perhaps they don't like to acknowledge the role that former Premier Harcourt played, but he played a significant role, and it's worth noting.

M. Farnworth: Again, I hear natterings from the opposition. It's unfortunate that they don't want to….

M. Farnworth: And it will be a very long day, hon. Member. It can be a shorter day, or it can be a very long day. The choice is up to the government minister.

The point is that the work culminated with the historic Nisga'a treaty in the term of Glen Clark. I stood in this House at that time and spoke in favour of that. I was proud to do so then, and I'm proud to stand in support of this treaty now.

M. Farnworth: The member says "leadership." Well, it is leadership. We took leadership in the '90s in negotiating a treaty with the Nisga'a. It's unfortunate that the member who made those comments wasn't able to show that same leadership and support that treaty back then in the '90s.

We're debating Bill 40 here today, and Bill 40 deals with the Tsawwassen treaty. I am pleased that members across the way have had that epiphany, that they have seen the approach they had was wrong and that the right approach is the treaty process — to negotiate a treaty with the Tsawwassen. That's what is here today.

In going through this treaty, a number of things struck me. One is the similarities between this treaty and the treaty with Nisga'a in terms of how we deal with so many issues in terms of local governments. That tells me that the principles then were right, around the Nisga'a treaty, and the principles today around this treaty are the right ones. That's why I'm proud to support it.

We've heard a lot about the history in terms of colonialism, the impact of Joseph Trutch, various treaty commissions — the McKenna-McBride commission in the '20s and how lands were taken away. I'm not going to dwell on those.

I want to talk, for people who are not involved intimately with treaties, about why this is so important in my mind — why it's important that we settle treaties, why it's important that we resolve land claim issues. We are the last province to do so. As such, I think we have a responsibility not only to ratify this one but to get other treaties to this House to be ratified as well.

It means the end of an economic situation. It means the end of a paternalistic relationship with both the province and the federal government for the Tsawwassen. It means they truly are in control of their own destiny. There have been a lot of speeches raised in this House that deal with what's gone on, but I really do think we need to focus on just how important this ability to control one's destiny is economically, politically and culturally. We often miss some of the importance of that.

There are members in this House who have spoken against that treaty, and that's their right. Some have raised important concerns on both sides of the House, and again that's their right. But when you look at it from the perspective of the Tsawwassen, you realize something.

Since the 1870s, since the times of Joseph Trutch, since the era of colonialism, they have lived under a paternalistic system on what historically was their land — not just a few generations but going back hundreds of generations. When people raise concerns about how the land is going to be used, how are they going to organize themselves, how do we know that this is the right thing to do…. It is the right thing to do.

We have to put our trust in the Tsawwassen. We have to put our trust in them that they know the right thing to do from their historical perspective, their cultural perspective and the economic opportunities that this treaty puts forward.

Think about it: Chief Baird and the rest of the Tsawwassen on that current piece of land that makes up the reserve and, when this treaty passes, the adjacent lands, who will be part of no longer a reserve but their own lands. They've been walking those lands for thousands and thousands of years.

If you're a member of the Tsawwassen, you're not just looking at a piece of land. You're not just looking at a field. You're not just looking at a piece of coastline or a mud flat. You're looking at land where you know your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents and generations and generations and generations going back were born. They lived, they walked, they looked, they laughed, they cried, they fought, and they died on those pieces of land.

You cannot destroy that connection or take away that connection. That's a very profound tie to a piece of land — to look at something and know that your ancestors lived their entire lives there. They fished there, they played with their children there, they collected berries there, they made tools there, they built houses there, they built homes there, they built societies there, they built a culture there, and they built a history and a heritage.

If people take the time to think about that, they will understand that there can be no argument that the land that this agreement…. The Tsawwassen will do what's in the interest of the Tsawwassen, and it will respect all those things that went before. It will respect all those ancestors, all their history, all their heritage, all their culture and all who went before — before Europeans came, during the time that colonialism took place, during the time that the struggle for rights and treaties took place. It will serve as a base and a foundation for the future of the Tsawwassen nation.

That to me is the underlying strength of this treaty and why, once it's passed, it will succeed. It is such a powerful claim and link, which very few of us in this room are able to understand and have a direct connection with.

I think this treaty is a remarkable document that is full of promise and hope and opportunity, which deals with injustices and wrongs and relegates them to where they belong — to history, not to be forgotten, not to be pushed away but to be remembered and to be learned from along with that rich tradition, history and culture that the Tsawwassen have always had, maintained and remembered to build a strong foundation and a strong sense of hope for the future.

Hon. Speaker, there will be, in committee stage of this bill, an opportunity to deal with a lot of specific issues. We will be addressing those at committee stage — specific questions around issues that the public has and that critics have, around ALR lands, around subsurface rights, around issues of consultation, how a new seat with local government for the Tsawwassen will work.

All those technical questions will be dealt with in committee stage of this bill, but the fundamental question on the justness of this treaty, on the rightness of this treaty, we deal with in this debate in second reading.

To me, this is a culmination not just of the Tsawwassen's efforts but of aboriginal peoples across this province for so long. I hope when we pass it that we truly celebrate it, that we recognize what it means and how important it is. It is another piece of the reconciliation puzzle that's in place.

It means there's still a lot more to do, but we are well and truly on that path, and there is no turning back. There is only one way, and that is forward.

I said that my remarks would be brief. I look forward to hearing the remarks of my colleague the member for Nelson-Creston. As I said to Chief Baird, this is a tremendous debate, a tremendous treaty, and I look forward to its passage.

C. Evans: I rise today to speak on the subject of the Tsawwassen treaty. I'd like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the Chief for her efforts thus far and for attending the debate; also to the negotiators, who I think for more than a dozen years struggled to create a document that all parties could agree to; and to the members for their debate. I'd like to express my appreciation for the elevation of the discourse.

I would like to congratulate the government, not necessarily for this treaty, but for their quite monumental, historical reversal of their position on treaties in general and their willingness to negotiate.

I cannot vote for the treaty; neither can I vote against it. This speech is intended to explain and, hopefully, to defend that position.

Before I begin, earlier in the debate the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi rose and expressed what she said was some sadness that the opposition members had been gagged from expressing their honest views on this subject. I've never been gagged by anybody in many years in this place. One Premier tried once. He didn't succeed.

I'd like to prove that to you now and prove it to the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi.

Hon. Speaker, I ask all-party unanimous support for a suspension of the rules to allow me to speak until I'm finished expressing my views. I would request an extension on the 30-minute rule. I'll take my seat while you ask for permission.

Hon. R. Neufeld: On a point of order. Actually, I see the Speaker coming in, so we'll just wait a minute.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I know the member for Nelson-Creston has asked the House a question to leave or suspend Standing Order 45A, which affects time limits for members when speaking to bills and motions before the House.

The accepted procedure for amending a standing order is by way of motion, on notice of which a motion would state clearly the amendment desired. Such a motion, when called, would be debated by the House and passed or defeated in a normal way.

The time fixed for Standing Order 45A is quite specific and applies equally to both sides of the House. It's my respectful opinion that it would be inappropriate to request a significant amendment to the standing orders in the course of second reading of a bill.

I therefore decline in these specific circumstances to put the question of leave of the House to grant the member an exemption from the application of Standing Order 45A. All members are bound by the provisions of the existing standing order, and so I rule.

C. Evans: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Let the record suggest, then, that on this day, dealing with tremendously important issues for which I feel quite deeply and have the desire to express my historical context for my position…. I asked for the time, and it is not rejected by the opposition, who has not gagged me. It is decided by the House that I will be limited to 30 minutes.

I'd like to start with a bit of history on the subject of the Delta lands in question and Tsawwassen — not first nations history. My objection to the content of the treaty and the method of its negotiation has to do with government history and what has happened in Delta over the time of the existence of this parliament and the various governments that served here.

I'd like to discuss the development of the history of Roberts Bank, starting with the ferry issue. As we all know, everybody rides the ferry. How did it come to get there?

In the 1950s the route from Vancouver Island to the lower mainland was via steamships — this is from a document by the Vancouver Port Authority — that stopped at towns on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland.

In 1958 the employees went on strike. The government of the day, Social Credit, responded to the strike by invoking the Civil Defence Act and nationalizing the steamship properties for as long as was necessary and then, led by Premier W.A.C. Bennett, announced that it would establish a ferry service between the Saanich Peninsula on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland.

The location chosen for the ferry service, nationalized by Social Credit, was to be Tsawwassen, which was selected as the most favourable route — between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay, between the lower mainland and Victoria.

Then, after the ferry came coal. That is the next development that this building imposed upon the people at Tsawwassen. In the mid-1960s Kaiser Resources — that's a California company — agreed to buy the coal rights from a coal operator in southeastern B.C., somewhat near my constituency, only if a contract to sell coal to a Japanese buyer could be negotiated.

Again according to the Vancouver Port Authority's own document, in 1968, as a result of securing rail transportation, Kaiser Resources signed a 15-year sales agreement with a large Japanese steel producer, Mitsubishi. In the sales agreement, Kaiser Resources committed to ship coal by 1970. This meant that construction of both the coal port site and terminal facilities had to be thought up, designed and built within 16 months.

The south Roberts Bank location was chosen over other locations because it best fulfilled all requirements for a new port location: direct, uncongested railway access for all railway operators; large areas of undeveloped land immediately adjacent to berth areas; direct access for vessels for deep water, with no tidal or other navigational delays; water depths of at least 20 metres and the possibility that it could be increased by dredging; and "remoteness from densely populated areas to minimize impacts on occasional air, water, and noise pollution and direct access to a principal highway system."

At no point did anybody ask the opinion of the Tsawwassen people who lived there. Then, to coal and ferry service, we added a general port, an industrial dream. I quote from Vancouver Sun, March 15, 1968: "Highways Minister Phil Gaglardi has been given authority by the provincial cabinet to acquire some 2,000 acres of land needed for the creation of Deltaport, by expropriation if necessary. A cabinet order-in-council gave the authority needed to begin land acquisition for the development of a superport at Roberts Bank."

At no time, and I did considerable research, could I find considerations of the Tsawwassen people in any of those three activities in the 1950s and 1960s — a moral and a legal and a political failure that I think we are struggling here to reverse today.

It was W.A.C. Bennett's vision and dream to develop an industrial port — called a superport in the Vancouver Sun — expropriate the farmland in the back for what was called backup lands. Backup lands meant backup industrial lands for factories, essentially from the water back to the highway, to feed the port as storage and for industrial activities. Some 4,056 acres were expropriated from the families who had diked the land and farmed the land for generations.

That expropriation and the idea of that level of development on the edges of Vancouver became the political issue of the day. There was an election in 1972. Every political party in that election had the protection of farmland in some form in its platform. New Democrats opposed the superport idea and the expropriation.

Expropriation itself became a political issue. In 1972 New Democrats won. They had a mandate — in fact, a requirement — to then deal with the farmland issue right in Delta. Delta was the centre; Delta was the point. Delta was the apex of the protection-of-farmland issue. This very land that we're debating here today was the land that created the political issue in 1972 that created the agricultural land reserve, which became law in February…. The Agricultural Land Commission Act was tabled here on February 22, 1973.

All of the land expropriated — 4,056 acres in Delta — then was halted as industrial activity. It was put into the agricultural land reserve. The point is that this land that we're debating here today is the paradigm, the symbol of agricultural land all over the province in every single one of these members' constituencies of whatever political party.

But W.A.C. Bennett's vision was not dead. Although it was defeated in this room, the Harbour Board and the railroad maintained the vision of the superport that they would like to see built one day.

In fact, B.C.'s Harbour Board says in a letter in 1976, after the Agricultural Land Commission was created: "Since its inception, it has been board policy to keep all lands suited for the purpose of port development in agricultural production where they were not required for development in association with port development."

In other words, they desired to keep them in agricultural production but not private ownership in order that they could get on with industrial development someday. It remained expropriated from the families that owned it and farmed it for decades. Then former Ombudsman Karl Friedman in the 1990s, on behalf of the farm families in Delta and led by former Speaker

Joan Sawicki, argued that the land that had been expropriated for the superport ought to be returned to the families that it had been taken from, because it was out for 30 years and never used for the purpose that the government in this room expropriated it for.

In 1996 I actually became the Minister of Agriculture. Against the wishes of almost the entirety of the legal apparatus and Treasury Board and all the big heads that work here, I thought it would be a good idea to return the land to the people that owned it.

Negotiations began with cabinet, with the Tsawwassen people and with the farmers themselves. On August 24, 1998, the following press release was issued: "The majority of the Roberts Bank land held by the Crown will be made available for sale and a further portion for long-term lease. Approximately 25 percent of the expropriated lands will stay as provincially owned land under relatively short-term leases, pending settlement through first nations treaty negotiations."

So 2,688 acres of the cutoff lands were sold back to the owners, 694 acres were leased, and 1,197 acres were withheld to negotiate the treaty. It was my job to go to Delta and say to the families who weren't going to be allowed to buy their land back that we had decided that they couldn't have their farm back because we wanted to save that land to solve treaties.

One family sent their grandchildren up to me — little kids crying — who handed me a letter that said: "Why won't you return my granny's property?" It was my job to say: "It is meet and right, as it says in the Bible, that we should withhold this land to solve treaties. I'm not going to let you guys have it back, because we've got to do this treaty, but it will stay as farmland."

That position was backed up on April 5, 2001, in a letter offering 315 hectares to the Tsawwassen people as farmland.

"April 1, 2005. Dear Chief Baird: On January 25, 2001, British Columbia made a presentation that outlined its view of the land and cash components that should be included in a joint treaty settlement counterproposal to the Tsawwassen First Nation."

I'm just reading elements of the letter, hon. Speaker. "These provincial Crown lands would be transferred to the Tsawwassen First Nation with existing land use designations, including, where applicable, the agricultural land reserve. Any application for removal of this designation would have to follow the policy and procedures of the Land Reserve Commission, which is responsible for administering these lands."

I might also say, hon. Speaker, that the Tsawwassen people participated in the negotiations of the resale of the land and accepted $1 million as good faith against the return of this land.

I left office in 2001 believing that we had paved the way in negotiations and in law for an honest and fair settlement that would see land transferred to the Tsawwassen people, and any future development would go through the Agricultural Land Commission.

My first clue after that election that the government had no intentions of proceeding in the way that we had believed we had laid the groundwork for was when they fired Christine Hunt from the Agricultural Land Commission. The first first-nations person who ever sat on the Agricultural Land Commission and who was there to begin to develop the culture of the commission to deal with the issue of treaty — fired.

Of course, it's the government's right to fire anybody they want when they become government. I accept that. But did they replace Christine Hunt with another first nations person on the Land Commission? No. Not then, not since — no attempt whatsoever on the part of the government or the Land Commission to have its membership incorporate folks of the culture who were going to receive agricultural land in future. I was not involved again in the lands at Delta until 2006.

I was out in Maple Ridge. I was trying to sort out a wonderful farm family. Ting Wu and Risa Lyn grow blueberries, and the government wanted to put a road through the middle of their blueberry farm. I was struggling out there, and I couldn't understand why we couldn't just put the road on the edge of the farm. It seemed to me that common sense had gone down, and it seemed like there was something else going on.

When I asked questions, I began to hear about something called Gateway. I didn't have the slightest idea what Gateway was. People said it meant a whole bunch of new roads. They said it would pave 241 acres, and it was essentially a road network that would go from the Fraser Valley out to this port.

Then I began to hear about the Tsawwassen treaty and the role of the Vancouver Port Authority, and how it might someday pave the land that we had set aside for treaty. I learned that in November of 2004, unbeknownst to any of us, an agreement had been signed by the Tsawwassen people and the Vancouver Port Authority that said: "The Vancouver Port Authority and the TFN agree that development of a container handling facility shall be a priority" — remember, this is 2004 — "project for a joint investment of the joint venture investment fund. Should a project proceed, the parties will work jointly to ensure that the TFN settlement lands that are required for the project are expeditiously transferred to the TFN and removed from the application of the agricultural land reserve designation."

It began to seem to me at the time that the Vancouver Port Authority was governing. The Vancouver Port Authority appeared to have signed a document that committed cabinet to remove lands, and then further in the same document it says: "If the effective date of the final agreement" — which we're debating here today "is not within two years of the settlement date, the Vancouver Port Authority and the TFN will request the province of British Columbia to transfer the amount of land needed for a container handling facility to the TFN from the proposed settlement lands and will request Canada to establish the land as TFN reserve."

Then on January 20, 2007, I was invited over to Delta to visit the farm of Peter Guichon, one of the farmers I had helped to return land to. I thought we would have a pleasant conversation. Instead, he showed me a letter from B.C. Rail. What did it say? It

said that B.C. Rail was now going to expropriate 200 metres of the land that we had sold back to put five more rail lines on.

Then he showed me another letter that said: "Oh, and by the way, we're going to make so much noise and so much dust on your land that you'd be better off…. Instead of farming two sides of the rail line, just sell us your whole farm."

It turns out that it isn't just him. It's his neighbours. I quote from the Delta Optimist of that time. It says: "The rail company wants to buy more than 175 hectares of privately held farmland adjacent to this treaty land that is slated for removal from the agricultural land reserve once the agreement is finalized."

The member for Delta South is quoted as saying: "The B.C. Rail can expropriate if necessary, but that's not the government's intention." I'm standing here to wonder: what is the government's intention?

When I was a little boy, my dad, who had lived through Joe McCarthy, the McCarthy era, said to me: "You know, son, if you're going to come home and say you were somewhere else — you're going to tell me a lie — tell me a big enough lie that I can't imagine it. Don't tell me some little…. Tell me a really big one so I can't wrap my head around it."

That's what's happening here. I think the government's intention here is W.A.C. Bennett's little 4,000-acre dream times ten. I think the backup lands, the industrial development from the port back, is going to go all the way to Maple Ridge. It is unfathomable. It's Formosa. It's the Gateway idea. It's CN or BCR expropriating the farmers' land there and then buying them out, and then it's also the treaty land.

It is so big I can't wrap my head around it, and I don't understand how we're supposed to deal with it in 30 minutes of speeches here in this building. It's not just 4,000 acres of industry and port development. It's industrial development and commercial development. It is a slurb, from the sea to the Fraser Valley, and it isn't upfront.

W.A.C. Bennett walked in this room, stood over there and said: "I expropriate." He took the heat for it and sent Phil Gaglardi over to stand there and say: "I'm taking your land." Here we're saying: "Oh, no. At Formosa farm, that was the fault of Maple Ridge." Maple Ridge said it's the fault of the Land Commission. In this room we're saying that this little 1,000 acres is treaty.

The railroad is now federally regulated so that's not our fault. Gateway: that's all really about a bridge to get people out of their cars. There isn't an ounce of dignity and honesty and integrity in the whole thing.

W.A.C. Bennett said: "I'll take it away." Here we're doing it all under the cover of social justice and good ideas and other institutions. I just think that if we're going to have a debate and talk about stuff, we should talk about the truth. We should cop to what we're doing.

There's a great line. A great Canadian folk singer wrote a song, and he said: "A scheme is not a vision." W.A.C. Bennett had a vision, and I think what we're debating here today is a scheme.

I am not against a treaty with Tsawwassen. I am deeply against the unfathomable totality of what we're doing to farmland and human settlement and dignity and integrity all the way from the port to the Fraser Valley.

I want to talk a little bit about what will happen to the land reserve when we're done doing this. Part of the job of the Minister of Agriculture…. I walked in his shoes once. It's a wonderful job and a hard job, and I certainly appreciate the gentleman. The Minister of Agriculture always has to go out to Kelowna or to Delta or someplace where a farmer could make a million bucks selling the farm and say: "No, you can't. I am defending agriculture. I am defending the fact that we've got to grow crops on this land, and you can't make a million dollars."

It's hard. I've done it in 16 towns. It's a tough job. I appreciate the Minister of Agriculture for doing it. He's got to go out and say: "You cannot sell except to another farmer." Hon. Speaker, if it's okay now in treaties to remove land, then what's the Minister of Agriculture going to do? You're stripping all of his strength away. You're creating the impotence of public office.

How is he going to go to Smithers or up to Cowichan or over to Creston, where I live…? How is he going to say to the cherry grower or the apple grower: "No, you can't sell, but we can. Maybe we'll do a deal for treaty"? And then it just comes out.

What's he going to say when he goes to Saanich or Sooke? There are first nations there. They're in negotiations. What's he going to say in Comox or Kelowna? Now, there's the heart of the beast. There is the development project. There's treaty.

What's he going to say in Kelowna? What's he going to say in the Cowichan Valley? We've got negotiations. We've got farmland. The minister's job is to defend. I'm glad I work over here now, because when we're done with this debate, that's going to be the toughest job in British Columbia — unless we're finished with the land reserve, unless the vision or the scheme is actually even bigger than I can comprehend.

I read in the newspaper that New Democrats, my team over here, are too weak, too slow. We took all summer and fall to try to wrap our heads around this idea. We're too slow to deliberate on these issues. I read we have competing values on this side, and that's difficult….

I am proud — let me say it on TV — to be a part of a political movement that has two competing, principled, deeply felt values. We moved heaven and earth to try to create a process in this room to do treaty and the protection of agricultural land. People all over North America and, in fact, Europe come here and try to figure out how they could….

I am proud to be part of a party that takes six months to try to debate how to resolve this issue. I would be humiliated not to be. I'd quit this team if they thought this was easy — either side. I am surprised that we even managed to come to conclusion by the time I walked in this room.

Something that has been growing since 1958 when some people decided to start building a ferry system and a coal system and finally a port system and expropriate 4,000 acres of land, and hundreds of years of the inability to resolve treaties…. The fact that six months later we're actually here and on the edges of resolving this issue…. I think that's incredible speed, and I'd like to say I appreciate all the members, regardless of their position.

I want to say to the Tsawwassen, if I was chief…. Democracy is kind of my religion. If I was chief and my people voted for this, I'd walk in this room and I'd defend it and I'd make it happen, because that's how I understand democracy. I'm just making this argument because I represent a bunch of different people, and I've got to go home and say: "I don't care that you grow apples. You can't sell that land, because we've made a social decision that that's not okay in British Columbia." I'm afraid we're building an end run around it and making that position impossible.

Hon. Speaker, I can't vote for this treaty, because I think it's manipulated. "Manipulated" is too gentle a word. I would almost say it's written by the Vancouver Port Authority, the Vancouver Board of Trade and B.C. Rail, not by the members of the executive council with responsibility for this file. I think that the Tsawwassen people negotiate to repair their culture, and I think this particular scheme is negotiated to pave mine.

Neither, however, can I vote against this treaty. Chief Baird had the right to defend her culture in the only arena we offer. There's no other deal. There's no other place to go. She did what she had to do to defend her culture and to enhance the future for her people. The best that I can do for the people I represent is to try and stand here and tell the truth as I understand it.

I want to talk a tiny bit about the fact that I do not intend to vote against the treaty. I work — we all do, I think — in a fairly immature political culture, which is understandable, because we're kind of a pioneer political culture. I am, as many of us are, an immigrant to this culture. Because we're a little bit immature, I think, were I to vote against the treaty, the relatively facile analysis that passes for thought would interpret that as ego or personality. They would talk about power struggle and political positioning, and my thoughts are about land. The only way I could see to change a conversation in this immature political culture was to try to make a discourse about land and history.

I accept whatever criticism will go with not voting for this treaty, for making this speech and also for not voting against it. But I ask in exchange that you consider the words and the ideas rather than the person or the politics behind my position.

R. Fleming: It's a pleasure to rise today in the assembly and speak in favour of the Tsawwassen treaty. Before participating in this debate on Bill 40, I want to express my respects to the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations upon whose traditional territories this Legislative Assembly rests.

In supporting this treaty, I want to say at the outset that it's not because I support every last clause contained within it. It's because I respect the process that was developed, beginning in the 1990s, to resolve treaties and negotiate with aboriginal people for self-government, to join the other provinces and territories in this country that have also resolved land issues, and for British Columbia to not be the last jurisdiction in Canada to have dealt with that issue.

When we talk about the conditions that first nations people live in, when we talk about how to advance that and how to achieve equality…. We have arrived at a treaty process because we see that as intrinsic in our ability as a government, as a state, to deal on a nation-to-nation basis and as the most significant way to advance that agenda in terms of first nations people catching up to the health outcomes that the rest of society anticipates and expects, to provide the same form of economic security, to provide the same educational opportunities and life chances.

We have come to the position in recent times, very recent times, that to do all of that we need a self-government framework, and that is where the treaty process was born from.

I'd like to congratulate the Tsawwassen people for successfully negotiating agreement. They, of course, are the first to do so. It was a long, arduous treaty-making process in which that was accomplished, and it is a significant historic occurrence.

A former professor of mine from the University of Victoria, Dr. John Lutz…. He's one of B.C.'s more interesting historians and well versed in Pacific Northwest history. His specialty is around post-contact history of people in this part of the coast and in the U.S. states immediately to our south. He observed of the Coast Salish people that they believe the most important knowledge that a culture could have is knowledge of history. "Only the 'worthless' people did not know their past. Without knowledge of the past of this place, it can never be home."

I think and I hope that is what the Tsawwassen Nation has achieved through negotiations with the governments of B.C. I congratulate Chief Kim Baird. She's still here taking in second reading debate of Bill 40 and the treaty her nation negotiated. I commend her for the leadership that she's provided to her people and for dedicating virtually her entire adulthood to that task.

It's amazing that she has been able to conclude what generations of leaders in her community began and that she has brought it to this stage. Again, my congratulations to Chief Baird for that success.

The Tsawwassen want a future where they have the resources and where they have the ability to achieve great things for themselves and to achieve great things collectively. They want to strengthen their identity, and they want, as do all first nations in British Columbia, to ensure that their culture continues to flourish and that it continues to flourish and change with the dominant culture, because no culture stands still.

But cultures are indeed threatened — minority cultures in all parts of the world. When one discusses

in some detail the challenge that we have in British Columbia around preserving first nations languages, I think it's easily understood exactly what I'm speaking of.

The Tsawwassen and other bands that are involved in the treaty process don't want to be left behind in British Columbia any longer. They understand that they're part of a broad, diverse cultural landscape that makes up our province, that makes up a multicultural country like Canada, and they want to be part of that identity.

I think the treaty needs to be seen and self-government needs to be seen in that light, because they haven't always been seen in that light. In fact, that's a fairly recent consensus, if I can call it that. Many of the major political parties and their leadership, legislators in this place, up until very recently have rejected that outright.

It's quite an accomplishment, I think, that legislators today — and I've followed the debate over the past week and a half — have expressed a variety of opinions in a variety of different ways. They have come to different reasons to, by and large, in the main, overwhelmingly support what has been achieved in this agreement.

Through this treaty, the Tsawwassen are going to have a much greater say in shaping their own future tomorrow, a greater role than they have had in the past.

It is an urban treaty. It is unique in that regard. People have talked about some of the characteristics of the treaty and some of the challenges. Those have been the major contentious points of debate, of course — about that interface in an urban environment — and that's what made it difficult, I think, in this treaty process in particular.

We have not been successful in expeditiously approving treaties. I think there was a tremendous amount of hope in 1993 when Premier Harcourt set out to make that a legacy of that decade. The political opposition was fierce. It was bold for the time. It eventually prevailed, in the Nisga'a agreement. I'll talk about that a little bit later on. I think the point is that even with the Tsawwassen treaty — and perhaps with another treaty to come maybe in the lifetime of this parliament, and hopefully more — progress is still incredibly slow.

This province potentially has a number of agreements that need to be reached before we get to the stage that other provinces in Canada have been in for a much longer period of time. I think that in supporting this treaty, we shouldn't in any way — and I know the Tsawwassen would not wish this on their fellow first nations — become complacent about achieving what is indeed an historic accomplishment.

I'm proud, Madam Speaker, to belong to a caucus that considers the Tsawwassen treaty a matter of confidence for a government. The Tsawwassen people ratified this treaty by an overwhelming majority.

In the years following contact with non-aboriginals, their colonies and subsequent governments, the Tsawwassen people have suffered all manners of indignity and injustice: forced relocation; prohibitions on hunting, fishing and traditional activities like the potlatch ceremonies; exclusion from the voting franchise until very, very recently, the 1960s; exclusion from participation in mainstream society; and worst of all, the breakup of their families and the separation of Tsawwassen members from their own children.

This treaty has apparently satisfied the Tsawwassen First Nation and their long struggle. They have now exercised their right to vote on the proposed treaty individually. I think that in interpreting the results of that vote, the treaty has clearly satisfied their concern to have an agreement that respects their cultural needs and will allow them to prosper.

I think that once that treaty was accepted by the Tsawwassen Nation, it then became a matter of confidence for the senior levels of government. The provincial and federal governments negotiated in the same good faith that the Tsawwassen First Nation negotiated.

How can a government build relationships — or a new relationship, if that's what you want to call it — with first nations people when a treaty ratified by a first nations community is then not endorsed by a provincial government? I don't think it can be done. It is a confidence issue for a government that is engaged in leading and directing the treaty process.

The social and economic indicators tell us that we have an incredible amount of work to do before we can proudly say that aboriginal and non-aboriginal people and communities enjoy equality with one another in this province.

I think that legislators in this place should all be committed equally to a province in the future which is a place where the kind of shocking inequalities that we see between our aboriginal and non-aboriginal children…. That we move to a place where we have the same life chances and the same opportunities to contribute, to achieve and to succeed as one another is what all of us should be committed to in this place.

That's not a dream that was shared by previous members who sat in these very same chairs as us. That's not a dream they aspired to, unfortunately. Quite the opposite. The history of our province is littered with policies and laws drawn up in the highest political offices that were used to keep first nations people in a state of dependency and in a disadvantaged position.

It's really only in the last quarter-century that this perspective really began to change and that the old, dominant views began to be challenged. Unfortunately, I don't think B.C. in the 21st century has completely left behind the politics of fear and ignorance. Let's remind members that it was only a few years ago that this government spent millions of dollars on a very divisive, fearful and completely distasteful referendum that was designed to isolate and intimidate the first nations minority from pursuing self-government.

With the Tsawwassen step forward, I sincerely hope that the government is not going to try and move us backwards again in the future. We're a long way from achieving equality by nearly every indicator that measures health, wealth and opportunities. First nations people are behind the rest of the province in all of those indicators and more.

Self-government and the tools and resources for sustained investment in those areas — health care, the social partnerships that are needed and capacity-building to bring equality into being — are exactly what British Columbia needs to pursue and to have a strong consensus on. That's why we have to use the political process to ensure that modern treaties — which enshrine indigenous self-government, land, resource-sharing, educational agreements and service agreements — are the central part of a strategy so that British Columbia can make giant steps towards equality.

On the Tsawwassen reserve the statistics I've seen show that the average family income for Tsawwassen members is $20,000. In neighbouring Delta it's $67,000 per family. About 40 percent of the Tsawwassen people are on some form of social assistance. Their unemployment rate is 38 percent. Delta's is 5 percent or 6 percent. The high school graduation rate on the reserve is 47 percent. Delta's, next door, is 77 percent.

That's what inequality means. That's what living side by side but across an incredible divide looks like. Probably all of us who have grown up in British Columbia can remember when we first became aware of these inequalities with our fellow aboriginals.

I can certainly remember travelling to my grandparents on Thetis Island and the shared ferry with Kuper Island. As a child, you noticed things and asked the adults questions about why things are the way they are. I can clearly remember there were two waiting rooms in the ferry. One was used by Thetis Island residents, who were almost entirely white, and the other was for the Kuper Island residents. Of course that wasn't written or explicit or anything like that.

As a child, you certainly notice that first nations kids — their shoes are not as good, their clothing… They live in a completely separate world. When that ferry would dock on Kuper Island, the first thing you could see was the remains of the residential school there, run by the church, looming in the background of the ferry terminal.

I'm sure other members had the experience, too, with their parents or whatever, when they were children asking about why that was the social condition in British Columbia. I think that as we move into positions of influence, which legislators are, you really have to ask yourself why we're here if we're not here to make life better for British Columbians.

I think that when it comes to confidence in the treaty process and the ability to negotiate in our province, to turn a new page, to embrace a new century where those kinds of inequalities aren't tolerated, where they aren't shushed and not discussed….

Those of us in positions like we are in here today have to be responsible, take responsibility and provide leadership so that we pursue the opportunities to make a real difference in the lives of first nations people.

The history of our province and the history of Canada is marked with milestones of all kinds, turning points that mark progress and times of utter cruelty and betrayal in the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

The last quarter of the 20th century was a time when governments in B.C. generally began to become more sympathetic to aboriginal peoples' goals, certainly in contrast to the first half of that century. It was a time when the province, it would probably be more accurate to say, was openly hostile and even pursued failed policies, like assimilation, that resulted in the destruction of first nations' identity and culture.

I think in debating this treaty others have discussed some of the context, the historical background. Obviously, this was a major point of negotiations between the different levels of government. But it's important to look at the history of what the Tsawwassen actually have endured as a people and as a nation in the lead-up to where we are today, discussing this treaty.

Next year the province is going to celebrate its 150th birthday — not quite the date of joining confederation, but our prior political construction — the sesquicentennial. I think that British Columbians will celebrate that in different ways depending on their different experiences as British Columbians. There's no doubt about it.

I'm sure that the Tsawwassen will look back at a century and a half ago and look at the conditions that they enjoyed then. They lived in a beautiful area with an abundance of food. They had in place an indigenous economy that worked for them. They had specialized services and trades and very distinct craftsmanship that has been commented upon by those who made contact with them and recorded those first contacts. That was what it was like 150 years ago.

By 1874 the Tsawwassen people's lives had changed dramatically. They now lived on a reserve of 490 acres, a fraction of their traditional territory. By 1890 about 40,000 acres of surrounding land was already developed by non-aboriginals. There was development of all types: industrial, commercial, residential and agribusiness.

When Chief Baird spoke at the Bar the other day, she reminded us of the tremendous industrial and marine development that has occurred around their small reserve in just the last five decades. In 1958, B.C. Ferries, I suppose, was the most significant alteration to the landscape and the marine environment in modern times that the Tsawwassen have endured.

There was a new mainland central terminal in the middle of the reserve land — split the nation in two.

You look at the newspaper clippings of the day, and there was a tremendous struggle when that was going on. The government said that a longhouse had to be torn down in order to make way for that expansion. That was done. There was resistance, of course — rightly so. But ultimately, the traffic access of the majority culture prevailed in that decision, I suppose.

The terminal has grown in size and volume ever since. It was expanded twice in the 1970s, again in 1991. During all that time the Crown entity consultation with the Tsawwassen people took the form of announcing what would be happening. That's what consultation was like.

The Tsawwassen endured the Roberts Bank superport. It was originally built in 1968. Today it's a man-made island fill of hundreds of acres that's serviced by B.C. Rail. It's a busy, noisy, dirty, fully illuminated, 24-7 facility. It handles coal and containers from around the world non-stop.

All this cost the Tsawwassen access to their beaches. It changed irrevocably their nation's ability to live and work off their marine ecosystems. It is a dead body of water today, plagued by algae blooms and red-tide warnings. The crabs, the clams and the other shellfish that once flourished are long gone.

In order to understand where we are today, I think it's important to look back just seven years ago to the Nisga'a treaty. The Nisga'a treaty indeed made history, as well, by concluding the first modern treaty in B.C. history. I think there was a tremendous expectation that that was going to be the beginning, not necessarily of expediting but of generating, momentum to sign more and more treaties.

That was certainly the view of Premier Harcourt, who put his political energy and intention into that occurring. But something happened, I think, in the ratification of that treaty around 1999-2000. We didn't move towards resolving more treaties. In fact, we entered a new political phase that has to be considered a huge setback.

Government changed, and the course of government mandate around treaties changed dramatically. We had a new government that pursued a partisan and very divisive course, which was generated when they were in opposition and carried on into their early days as a government.

When you look back at the Nisga'a treaty debate, there was some extremely disturbing, reckless rhetoric. There was a concerted political effort to destroy and put off course and defeat the Nisga'a treaty. First nations people remarked that they felt like they were being used as a punching bag in the political arena at the time. I think it was attacked as "an NDP treaty" rather than as an honourable agreement concluded by the province of B.C.

I think there have been some people who are opposed to the Tsawwassen treaty. While they haven't coordinated their efforts and they haven't had the support of a parliamentary party represented in here, there are some people who would dismiss this as a Liberal treaty. They're wrong. This is no more a Liberal treaty than the Nisga'a was an NDP treaty.

Political parties have become more responsible. Mine has. We've always been at the forefront of aboriginal people's fight for self-determination. That party hasn't.

Just as we can take steps forward, we can quickly take steps back, as we saw with the referendum that I mentioned earlier. Imagine the signal that that sent out to first nations people in 2002.

It was incredible that the government that had denounced so-called race-based agreements….That was the term the now Premier used in the late 1990s and the term he used in 2002 as a rationale for pursuing that referendum. That's the kind of reckless rhetoric that was being thrown around just a few short years ago.

I mentioned at the outset that I don't necessarily agree with every single clause in the treaty. I think others have very articulately expressed concerns that they have around the agricultural land reserve, and I think that's fair.

I've been very pleased, actually, with the response that has come outside of this place from the Tsawwassen First Nation's leaders around that issue. I think that a lot of those concerns have been addressed.

I was pleased to see that the mayor of Delta and the Tsawwassen First Nation are actively in communication around post-treaty — when this becomes law, after it goes through the House of Commons — and how they will carry on and mutually benefit from this arrangement and from the investment that it's going to bring.

I think it's a fair point and one that some of my colleagues have made about whether there is a precedent here. Is there a use at the treaty table? Is there pursuit of a political or a development agenda for projects that is going to repeat itself in other treaty negotiations?

You can remember the fear and hysteria that the Liberal Party used when they were trying to oppose the Nisga'a treaty over this being a "dangerous template." The resources and the ability to have economic development and to create laws consistent with the laws of the land that governed part of the territories were seen as terrible things. Some even called it apartheid. The attempt to put first nations people, finally, on an equal footing was disgustingly mischaracterized that way.

There's been a complete reversal from the then Leader of the Opposition, now Premier, on what he said in those days. I'm pleased to hear that, because we know where that rhetoric will take us. It will take us nowhere as a province.

But I am concerned. It's not just to say that we need treaties. When you look at the agreements and at how the Treaty Commission has changed under this government and how this treaty itself was changed over 14 years from different items that were on the table…. A very different agreement was initially stated in the goals of both the provincial negotiators and the Tsawwassen band itself than the outcome we're at today.

People are right to ask questions about how that turn of events unfolded. It became less about cash — which was always anticipated in urban aboriginal agreements, the land challenges being what they are, and there are more of these to come — towards the end of the process and more about agricultural land.

I think that those who have raised it as a constituency issue or as a matter of public policy in these debates were absolutely right to do so. I think it's an appropriate caution for where treaty negotiations are going to be heading, hopefully, in this province, which is to successfully conclude others.

In 1993 Mike Harcourt thought that by next year we would have concluded 15 treaties. It's interesting how things turned out.

I think the reasons for that were really five or six lost years where the political uncertainty of whether there was a commitment to pursue negotiating treaties in good faith in this process and where…. Really, some

had felt emboldened to move from ambivalence to active hostility of the Treaty Commission, to use the referendum to try and dampen the political expectations of first nations people and the leadership in this province.

I wonder where we would be today had those politics not been played by the government that we have? We'll never be able to know, but it's an interesting question to pose.

It absolutely took away the momentum that was generated in the late 1990s — 1990-2000 — and the culmination of the Nisga'a treaty, where there was active interest from business, government, first nations, from those who longed for a commitment to human rights in this province, from international observers at the United Nations and others who wished to see Canada fulfilling obligations in statements that it had agreed to with other nations. We went backwards in such a short time.

I would like to say, hopefully once and for all, that this province isn't going back any further. In voting for this treaty, I think again that we're generating the kind of momentum we need to resolve these outstanding agreements with first nations people and move us towards equality.

J. Nuraney: I stand this afternoon to support Bill 40, which recognizes the completion of a treaty with the Tsawwassen Nation.

I must admit, right off the bat, that I am amazed and shocked that not everybody understands what a happy day this is. I just heard the remarks from the member for Nelson-Creston. It reminded me of the old debate that took place in the British Parliament in the 1940s when they were talking about the independence of India. The same arguments were offered at that time too from some of the members in England — that we should not give back to Indians what really belongs to them.

What we are here for today is to celebrate the signing of this treaty. It is a happy occasion. It is a time at the end of a long journey, the arduous journey — very long, frustrating and disappointing with periods of despondency at times that the people of Tsawwassen have felt over the past 100 years. This, to me, is truly an accomplishment, and we must celebrate that.

Having said that, we must also recognize the fact that the signing of this treaty does not mean it's the end. This is a new beginning for the people of the Tsawwassen Nation. It's a new beginning for them to start structuring themselves, for them to start building infrastructures so that they can have the machinery and the organization to govern themselves and to start addressing some of the challenges that that community has been wanting to for many, many years.

In that process, I think we should ourselves offer help if and when asked. It is a process in which they have to be careful that some unscrupulous and opportunistic people do not take advantage. They should be able to distinguish between greed and greatness.

The signing of this treaty, many have said, perhaps is not totally perfect. Is the treaty perfect? Is this document perfect? Perhaps not. It is a good, sensible compromise, and it was alluded to by Chief Kim Baird in her opening remarks in front of this House that this perhaps is not a perfect treaty but it is a good compromise.

Compromise is the very essence of our existence. We compromise every day of our lives with different aspects, with different things, between our dreams and the reality, between what we think should be and what is.

Compromise is what is so important in this treaty — that both people have seen a common ground and arrived at signing this treaty. The beneficiaries of this treaty may perhaps feel that it is not enough, and the people who offered the settlement may perhaps have thought we gave too much of it.

I submit that this treaty is not just about land and money. This treaty goes beyond that concept. This treaty is justice. This treaty is about restoration of dignity. This treaty is about the restoration of respect. And this treaty is allowing them the ability to control their own destiny.

In the course of this debate we also heard criticisms levelled against our Premier. Our Premier very eloquently, and in all honesty, spoke in this House and said that yes, he has had a change of heart. This is an admission, and this is an acknowledgment that should be applauded, for this is the very crux of nature. To bend with the wind is the law of nature, to be able to say: "Yes, I now understand and realize the difference between right and wrong, and I've taken the path to what is right."

I have a lot of admiration for the Premier for having done this. I have a lot of admiration for this government for concluding this treaty that the nation has been asking for, for a hundred years. It is a time of celebration. It is a time that we should all be happy about.

To Chief Kim Baird, who is sitting in this House and has endured all our regurgitations of arguments from the other side, I say: the torch is lit. Carry it with pride, and take your people to the path of prosperity and happiness. May God and all the spirits of your elders be with you.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some very special guests visiting our Legislature. They are Dinesh Khanna, community leader in Vancouver and proud owner of North American Mailing Service Ltd.

Joining Mr. Khanna are some very special guests from India: Guru Swami Mohandasji Vairagi; Radhe Jain; Balbir Kumar; Dinesh Kumar; Sashi Jain; Baba Mohan Dass Ji; Miss Vanita, the superintendent of police in Jaipur, India, from Rajasthan; Mrs. Asha Sharma from Toronto; Dr. Vinod Gujral and Mrs. Sonita Gujral

N. Simons: Let me begin by acknowledging we are on the traditional territory of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, and for that I give them my respects.

I would also like to acknowledge the presence of Chief Kim Baird in the gallery. I raise my hands for the commitment and the dedication she has shown to her people in what must be one of the most difficult jobs. But she has done it with grace, with fortitude and with all the qualities that are necessary to further the goals and the aims of her people.

The last couple of days I've been sitting and listening, as Chief Baird has, to deliberations. In my case, I was listening to the deliberations of a coroner's inquest into the death of yet another young aboriginal child. In a certain way, it's difficult to find the relationship between this historic moment, this historic time in the House, and the inquests — we've had two in the last three weeks — into the deaths of young aboriginal girls.

But there is a link, a very definite link. That link is between our goals for the betterment of the social, economic and cultural — but mostly the conditions of the people of first nations heritage in this province — and the need to make sure that what we do in this House is always working for the betterment of all our cultures.

I congratulate Chief Baird. I congratulate the treaty negotiators. I think it's a historic treaty. It's one that I'm very proud to support without hesitation. I believe that every chief in this province is dedicated towards improving the life of every one of their band members, whether they live on reserve or off reserve. That's the goal. That's what they've been elected to do. That's what Chief Baird has done admirably.

Maybe it is 14 years of negotiation, but this is, in a way, a beginning. It's not the end of anything; it's the beginning of something. It's the beginning of something for the Tsawwassen people — who, I point out, were not unanimous, but they were overwhelmingly supportive of Chief Baird's efforts and of her commitment to bettering the lives of her people.

I mentioned the coroner's inquest, which has taken up a lot of my time in the last few days, and the relationship between the need to improve the life of aboriginal children and all children in the province, the relationship between that self-determination that's been…. It hasn't been given. I heard one member from the government side of the House saying that we're giving it back. "We're giving back the right to govern. We're giving it back."

We're giving nothing back. We're agreeing that the past injustices were just that: injustice. Injustices, illegal moves, illegal land grabs. We're acknowledging, more than anything else, that there needs to be a way for our communities to co-exist, to share the strengths of both communities in a way that shows a little bit more parity.

I see people mentioning the vast inequalities in our communities, whether you mention suicide rates, child-in-care rates, prison incarceration rates, death rates or infant mortality rates. You name any social indicator, and we can talk about those.

Really, what makes this an emotional issue for some people, what makes this such a significant step, is that it's taken so long. We haven't even been able to address so many of those conditions outside of the treaty, and I'm hoping that within it maybe some of those conditions will be addressed.

This idea of self-determination…. There's nothing that gives a community greater autonomy than having authority over how they raise their children and care for their children and protect their children.

What I'd like to see and what I would hope that the Tsawwassen Nation is able to do is to reassert that authority that they have had over the care of their children. Whether this happens directly under the provisions of the treaty or it happens in some other way, the strength that this agreement gives the nation stands it in good stead to assert those authorities.

It is, in fact, a momentous occasion — the first urban-based treaty in British Columbia. It has broken ground in many ways. It's a historic document, and many people are looking at it very closely — people from Tsawwassen, people from other first nations across the province, non-aboriginal communities, various interest groups.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. Everyone has a right to express that opinion. I'm proud to belong to a party where we recognize that like a dinner table with a family, there are going to be disagreements. We hash it out. We come to an agreement. Nothing wrong with that.

I worked for nine years in a first nation that has self-government, the first band in the province to achieve self-government. My boss was the chief, my boss was the province, and my boss was the federal government. For eight years I tried to negotiate circumstances, from the two non-aboriginal government levels, where we would have the ability and the capacity to offer services that would actually benefit the community in a way that was seen by the community as potentially beneficial.

That struggle between having to adhere to provincial ways of doing things while the community's needs were different is a significant problem in any governance structure. What I hope that this treaty will do for the Tsawwassen people is to allow the decision-making processes around social programs and conditions that affect their day-to-day life to be made in a way that's sensitive to the needs of that community — because clearly, without a doubt, the needs of the community haven't been met by the external governments.

I wouldn't suggest there haven't been efforts, but many of the efforts have been misguided. Many of the efforts have been heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. I would say that that is my only reservation

in the atmosphere in which this treaty has been finalized — the apparent disconnect between what's being said and what's being done.

My hope is it will be shown to me that, in fact, all that's promised and all that's seen as promising in this treaty will be actualized, and the Tsawwassen people will be empowered and will have the self-determination that they rightfully deserve in areas that affect their lives.

As the member for Burnaby-Willingdon mentioned, we do have occasion now to celebrate the good that has come and that will come of this historic agreement. Our intention is to celebrate along with the Tsawwassen people.

I'm no expert; that's for sure. But one thing that I learned working with first nations is that opinions, even when they're in conflict with each other, are respected and are heard and are considered.

I hope that in this chamber at certain moments we'll allow ourselves to recognize that we can agree on something. Even if they are parts of things, we can agree. We can say to the first nations people in this province that we have, in fact, said we no longer adhere to the most disruptive type of policies. We no longer want to be attached or associated with some of the actions of previous governments of all stripes and all polka dots. We're here today because we agree it's time to move in a direction that will give first nations the authority that they rightfully never relinquished and rightfully should assume.

On behalf of the constituents in my communities, I would like to say to Chief Baird and her people that this is, indeed, a historic time, and I appreciate so much the fact that the Chief recognizes that differences of opinion — and conflicts of opinion, in fact — are both appropriate and acceptable in this venue of debate.

S. Hammell: It's an honour to rise in the Legislature and speak to Bill 40. I want, first off, to acknowledge that I'm speaking from the traditional land of the Songhees and the Esquimalt First Nations, relatives of the Tsawwassen First Nation and members of the Coast Salish family.

I also want to acknowledge the presence of Chief Kim Baird, her children and the other members of the Tsawwassen First Nation in the gallery. The significance of the Chief of the Tsawwassen band bearing witness on behalf of her nation to every moment of this debate is not lost on the members of this chamber.

Your presence here has made a difference to every one of us and signals loudly and clearly the ownership you have of this treaty. But as many have said before me, first and foremost, we must celebrate. We must celebrate with the Tsawwassen people for, in the words of Chief Baird: "For the Tsawwassen people, this is a time of great hope and optimism, a challenging yet exciting time. It is a time for revival and renewal. It is a time when we will take back our rightful place as a community equal to others through our treaty."

I am rising to support this treaty. We should all be overjoyed — the first modern treaty negotiated under the Treaty Commission process. Every one of the people in this chamber, everyone should be celebrating the success of this agreement, because each and every one of us has a small piece of it. One government set up the process, and another government completed a settlement.

No negotiated settlement meets perfectly everyone's need, and like Chief Baird has said: "Even though we completed our treaty, there are still parts of it that I find offensive."

There is one part of this treaty I wish had been handled differently by the government, but I will speak more of that later. What I marvel at is the tenacity of Chief Baird and her council remaining at the task through new governments, both at the provincial and the federal levels; new leaders; new ministers; new policies; new processes; and a growing and changing community around her. The patience and stubbornness needed to continue the work for the past 17 years through all these changes are a tribute to her and her community's struggle for justice.

Their commitment to their ancestors to right the wrongs of the past and to implement a vision for the future of their nation…. The new future for the Tsawwassen Nation began with the 70-percent ratification of the treaty by the Tsawwassen people and will continue through this debate and approval in this Legislature and the Parliament of Canada.

Living in Surrey and being the executive director of Kla-how-eya Aboriginal Centre for a number of years allowed me to meet Chief Baird on a few occasions. I remember her sharing with me some of the moments she experienced as she managed some of the projects her nation has developed in the past number of years.

Now that the reserve will be recognized as a level of government similar to that of a municipality, she will join the other governments of Metro Vancouver region, a first nations first, and she will find many of the barriers gone as a consequence. Clearly, this treaty is true reconciliation signifying real action and tangible change.

Kim Baird's words to us at the Bar describe what we all know, that prior to contact, the first nations of B.C. and Canada operated within highly sophisticated societies. On the coast they were accomplished fishers. As mentioned, salmon, sturgeon, oolichan and crab were the mainstays of the Tsawwassen traditional diet. These are the fish of the Fraser and the Boundary Bay shore, and they are familiar to all of us who have grown up in this area. I remember catching the oolichan, called the candle fish, as a youngster on the Fraser with my family.

The Tsawwassen people were also skilled hunters. Elk, deer, black bear and beaver were hunted, as mentioned by Kim Baird, as well as ducks, mallards and loons, and sea mammals such as porpoises, seals and lions.

But the Tsawwassen people were also builders and traders. They built homes, canoes, clothing, ceremonial gear, and the trade and barter system was in place.

They had specialized services that they exchanged. These were all in the words of Chief Baird. She also described their governance, because they were governors. So they were fishers, they were traders, they were hunters, and they were governors.

I remember a time when, as Minister for Women's Equality, I was touring the northern area of B.C. and visiting one of the reserves in the area.

After some intense discussions with the band about their strategy of focusing on health and education and the problems they faced on the reserve — they had high unemployment, alcohol abuse; they were dealing with suicide — one of the women, an elder, said to me: "Our history, the history of my community, is one of hard work, not of welfare and social assistance. In the past, our men hunted and trapped to provide for their families, and our women tanned the hides and gathered the food. The men were often weeks in the bush before they returned with their game. Everyone worked hard. Our whole community worked hard. What has happened to us?"

Well, there was contact. Chief Baird did not rest here for long, but we in the House need to review the history of that contact — of contact with our western culture.

In the mythology of the western culture, there is a metaphor to me that is horrifying — the image of the four horses of the Apocalypse, the horses of famine, war, pestilence and disease roaming the land, leaving behind them pain and devastation. That anguish and terror is intended to foreshadow the coming of Armageddon — images from our western culture.

The numerous horses unleashed by contact with Europeans on the peoples of the first nations can be and were as devastating as any imagery and descriptions from the Book of Revelation that one could imagine.

Disease was the most destructive of the horses of contact. The arrival of infectious diseases began as early as 1775 with a number of smallpox epidemics sweeping the coast. These epidemics continued until the vaccines arrived in the 1860s.

After this time, other diseases brought by British miners and their families were equally as devastating. Measles, influenza and tuberculosis took their toll on the aboriginal communities.

The consequence of contact on the health of the first nations continues today, as many members have described during this debate. Aboriginal people, on average, live seven years less than the rest of us. Infant mortality rates are two to four times higher than average, HIV rates for aboriginal people are twice as high, and the rates of diabetes are triple that of the rest of the population.

In 1700 there were 300,000 to 400,000 aboriginal people in British Columbia. A hundred years later there were 40,000 — the population of Surrey gone, except for one town centre. Clearly, the consequences of the depopulation of the first nations community were of devastating proportions. Many communities lost more than 80 percent of their members. Elders were lost, infants and children were lost, and whole families died. No community escaped the hooves of the horses of disease.

As the population of Europeans increased and the population of aboriginal communities decreased, the reliance on the indigenous culture diminished and the relationship became a stronger colonial one. Few if any cultures on this planet have survived a colonial relationship intact unless they had the population to resist. The nature of that relationship is dehumanizing.

Further horses were unleashed. The European colonialists outlawed the first nations culture of ceremonies, languages and self-government.

As mentioned, prior to contact, the aboriginal people had vibrant societies, with their own system of governance, fishing, hunting, defence, art, education, teaching and languages. Today the art of the west coast people is known worldwide and is described to be on a par with the art of any civilization.

After contact, the first nations were not allowed to speak their language or engage in their spirituality and the ceremonies of the longhouse. They were arrested for holding potlatches or practising their religion, and these ceremonies went deep underground. They became criminals within their own culture.

The horses were not yet tethered. Buildings were being built, and a plan was being hatched. Residential schools were being constructed across the land by the churches and the government. Colonialists took children from their homes, from their families — their fathers and mothers — and put them in residential schools, where they suffered further abuse.

In the villages of the aboriginal communities there were no children, no childlike activities, only families devastated by the loss of their young ones. What we did was break the chain of parenting, the chain of passing one parenting system on to the young of the next.

In my understanding and my look at history, the last residential school was closed in British Columbia in the '70s. After the culture and the children the last thing we did was steal their land.

To hear Chief Baird describe the results — and I will quote her at length — is devastating. She says: "Today we have a tiny postage stamp of a reservation, a small fraction…of the traditional territory fronting a dead body of water trapped between two…industrial operations. Our land and our aquatic system have been fouled beyond human comprehension." The causeway, Deltaport — 24 hours of coal on one side, thousands and thousands of cars on the other.

This industrialization was done with no consultation and no respect for their culture. As a western culture, if we did not steal all the land, we forced most of the nations to small tracts of land at the mouths of rivers.

In this House we often talk about living in the greatest province in the greatest country in the world, but we do have one little dirty secret. Our country's past has been riddled with racism, from our treatment of the Chinese, the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany and the South Asians of the Komagata Maru to the appalling conditions and colonization of our first nations people.

I know those of us who did not participate directly in the actions tire of assuming responsibility for something we did not do. But these are the facts of our collective heritage, whether we were born here or whether we have immigrated here. Taking ownership is an act of nation-building.

In the past number of years we have collectively, through our governments, acknowledged these wrongs and are acknowledging our part, to reconcile with our past. Maybe sometime in the future we can truly say that this province — and this country — is one of the best in the world, but we do have some unfinished business to do.

Part of our reconciliation with our past is to make things right in the future. We have the Nisga'a behind us, we're participating in the Tsawwassen treaty, and we have another treaty coming forward. Clearly, these treaties are important to all of us. They bring us together. They acknowledge the wrongs that were done, and they are trying to make our future right.

On behalf of my community and the people I represent, I would like to again say I'm pleased to be supporting this treaty. The Tsawwassen people are clearly on the move and need the wind at their back. I wish them every success for the new future that they are moving toward.

Hon. M. de Jong: To all the members who participated in what has been, I think, appropriately referred to as a historic debate, I do very much appreciate the contribution that has been made to the discussion by members on both sides and — as many speakers have observed — in the presence of the elected representative of the Tsawwassen First Nation, Chief Kim Baird. I think for much of this she has been kept company by Councillor Laura Cassidy and of course Sophia, her daughter.

I haven't had a chance to speak to Kim Baird since the debate began, and it's been almost two weeks of second reading debate. I don't know for certain what she may have been thinking, what thoughts may have been going through her mind and the minds of the members of the Tsawwassen First Nation as this rather unique exercise has unfolded here in the Legislature. Perhaps she has been thinking of all of those community meetings and consultations and discussions that have taken place within the family that is the Tsawwassen First Nation.

It's interesting — isn't it? — that we speak in this chamber, in this building not that dissimilar even physically from big houses or longhouses, depending on where you are in B.C. — those gathering places that aboriginal peoples have for generations gathered in to express views and opinions.

Whether the rules that govern those deliberations are recorded in writing — as they are here in this chamber — or not, there is a custom that has developed around the manner in which those discussions take place. We've seen that at play here over the course of the past couple of weeks as well.

Our discussion, our debate in this chamber was, I think, kicked off in rather remarkable fashion by the words of Chief Baird herself, who described the document we are charged with debating and voting upon as an instrument of reconciliation. That word — happily, in my view — and that theme was something that Chief Baird returned to time and time again.

It means a great deal to me to know that that is uppermost in her mind, in the minds of her treaty negotiation committee and the people of the Tsawwassen, who have wrestled with what the treaty and the final agreement represents and who have come to the conclusion that it is something they believe can form the basis for them moving forward in partnership with the province of British Columbia, with Canada and with their neighbouring communities.

I think it is important, as well, at the conclusion of this second reading debate, to emphasize the fact that the process that has gotten us here — and there are a couple of things I want to say about that, but insofar as the Tsawwassen First Nation is concerned — has very much been an exercise in the practice of self-determination.

One can imagine, as we have wrestled with these issues in this chamber, what must have gone on within that community in terms of deciding along the way how to instruct leaders to take positions and whether or not, at the end of the day, the package was something that was worthy of overall support.

In many ways the struggles that we have seen that have taken place on the part of governments, but more particularly here in this chamber, where we have seen members give expression to some of the competing thoughts that they have wrestled with…. In many ways that must have been even more amplified within the context of the community that Chief Baird represents. One can try to imagine the intensity of the debate that would have taken place and the challenge that people would have faced in coming to a resolution.

Yet as we were here last Monday and the legislation was introduced, I couldn't help but notice…. I don't pretend to be intimately acquainted with all of the members or even the majority of members within the Tsawwassen First Nation, but it was interesting to me, knowing what I do know about the community and where some of the people have stood and where some of the concerns are, that some of those people who in the past have expressed concerns were here.

That process of reconciliation, I think, has already begun, thanks in large measure to the leadership of Chief Baird and her councillors understanding that the success of this instrument, this agreement, will be achieved within the community and with the relations that exist on the ground with neighbouring communities and the governments who are signatories to this deal, to this final agreement.

The debate. I don't want to go on at length because we have some more work to do in terms of the committee level debate, where we'll get a chance to go through

in a more focused way some of the specific provisions of the final agreement. I thought that in many instances the discussion was very elevated, passionate to be sure, but that there was, in many cases, an attempt to acknowledge the history and the challenges associated with getting to this point and the significance of the moment we live in as it relates to this agreement.

Interesting, as well, that between the time that we have begun this debate last Monday and today, when we are going to vote on second reading, five other first nations have signalled their preparedness to move.

I am hopeful that within a matter of weeks this chamber will have an opportunity to engage in a similar process with the Maa-Nulth First Nations. We'll never know for sure to what extent the events of the past week or so here may have influenced those votes. I know that there has been tremendous leadership shown amongst the five first nations that comprise the Maa-nulth. But one likes to think — at least I do — that they and their communities derived some sense of comfort from the fact that the Tsawwassen and Chief Baird were prepared to step out — and step out first — and make this important decision.

I don't want to dwell on this second part, but it is my opportunity to do so, so I will, quickly. Some of the debate made me sad. I understand the passion that guided some of the statements. But at times when people were genuinely conflicted — and I think there were such situations; we may have heard one of those speeches today, in fact — I tried to understand that. I only really become troubled because at a time when I think we should be talking about reconciliation as between parties, within groups….

I was saddened a little bit when there was discussion, commentary attempting to question people's motives or suggest that there was something other than a genuine desire to move forward. It's not improper, in my view, to point to positions or statements that people have made in the past where they have articulated…. And I have certainly played a very small but I think relevant role in past discussions on this issue. The Nisga'a treaty is one that many people have mentioned.

However, I do like to think that, in this chamber especially and amongst elected leaders within our province, the admission that people's approaches and thoughts about a matter have changed or have been influenced and have taken them in a certain direction would not form the basis for ridicule or derision but rather would be regarded as a positive step.

So I'll only say this. When I acknowledge openly that there was a time when I was concerned that final agreements of this sort might actually drive us further apart as Canadians…. And then I'm prepared to say: no, that's not actually what has happened when one looks at the Nisga'a situation.

In fact, everything I have seen…. I'm lucky. I've had a chance to make some direct observations. Precisely the opposite has happened, and I'm convinced now that precisely the same thing will happen here, that this is an opportunity for us to come together as British Columbians and as Canadians. I would hope people would accept that and maybe celebrate that fact instead of, as a few people did, choosing to single that out as somehow worthy of criticism or ridicule.

There has been another feature to the debate that I want to comment upon, because I think for some members it has been a difficult issue. That relates to the land question and the ALR. I'm certainly not going to change anyone's mind, and that is not my intention in referring to the matter here and now.

People know my view and know the government's view that this represents a reasonable and fair approach, that the decisions around the use of this land must ultimately rest with the Tsawwassen First Nation. I have confidence that they will make decisions that take into account the interests not just of their community but of the environment within which they live, and I'm convinced of that. Time will tell, of course, and be the judge.

I am less skeptical or cynical than some who have suggested a degree of manipulation or concoction or that some other means to an end is at play here. I can only say in this chamber that that is not so, that the decision is rooted in the acceptance of the notion that for the Tsawwassen to move forward, they must have a land base upon which to operate and make decisions as they see fit, in the same way that every other community in the province — and I dare say in the country — has had an opportunity to make those decisions.

I said a moment ago that I didn't think these final closing words were going to convince anyone, but if I can leave the issue on this point…. After Chief Baird opened the debate, I tried, because I thought it was appropriate to do so, to pay tribute to a number of the individuals within the Tsawwassen First Nation, starting with Chief Baird and others who have contributed to the evolution of the processes and discussions that have brought us to this point.

One of them is the contribution of a former government and a former Premier in that government, Mr. Mike Harcourt. I'm not sure anyone in the debate used this term, but I think it is fair to say that insofar as former Premier Harcourt was instrumental in the creation of the Treaty Commission process from which this agreement emerges, to a certain extent to call him a father of the process is perhaps not a stretch. So I at least assign some value to the some of the commentary he has offered since then. He, of course, was a Treaty Commission commissioner.

He, too, has addressed the issue of the land and the ALR, and he has resolved that matter and provided very specific commentary. My purpose today is not to offer quotes on the record, but he has suggested that the issue has been resolved in a way that he finds reasonable and defensible. For members that are, I suspect in some cases, genuinely troubled or conflicted, I merely offer that observation from a British Columbian who played a leading role in the province, a leading role in the creation of the Treaty Commission process and later as a commissioner himself on the commission.

There are lots of issues, and Chief Baird indicated from the outset that the pursuit of perfection would have condemned us to failure. This is not perfect, but it is a start.

I'm thinking of when we had Shawn Atleo out here, as some of you may remember, last Monday. It is big stuff. He used the term [Nuu-chah-nulth was spoken], which apparently means "big stuff." You said that when you were going out whaling. I'm not introducing a new issue to the debate, Mr. Speaker, but this is big stuff.

It is important. It is a new beginning, an instrument — not the only instrument, but a means by which we can begin to forge that new relationship, that respect and that reconciliation, those elusive concepts that we talk about but that have, for too long, unfortunately eluded us.

It's not a long document, but the document from which the notion of the new relationship emerges begins with this rather profound but simple phrase, which is: "We're all here to stay." Well, we've all been here to stay for a long, long time. That hasn't always been a happy circumstance for the Tsawwassen.

I think that's changing. I think that thanks to the leadership of a great many people. And I'm proud, I will say, to be here on this day in this place as a member of a government that is playing a role along with others in forging that new relationship — a new relationship between us and a bright future, I predict, for the Tsawwassen. Not a future without hard work and challenges, but a future brighter because people of goodwill with passionate beliefs were able to sit down and forge an agreement that I think will serve the Tsawwassen well and, by extension, all of us well.

With that, I say well done, I thank members, I say congratulations to the Tsawwassen and Chief Baird, and I move second reading of this bill.


	YEAS — 62

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Bell	van Dongen
Roddick	Hayer	Lee
Nuraney	Whittred	Cantelon
Thorpe	Oppal	de Jong
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Penner	Neufeld
Coleman	Hogg	Sultan
Bennett	Mayencourt	Polak
Brar	Fleming	Farnworth
James	Kwan	Ralston
B. Simpson	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Routley	Fraser	Hawes
Yap	Horgan	Dix
Trevena	Bains	Robertson
Karagianis	Krog	Austin
Chudnovsky	Chouhan	Wyse
Macdonald	Conroy	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 3

Jarvis	Lekstrom	MacKay

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill 41, Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007.

Hon. M. de Jong: This bill contains consequential amendments related to the Tsawwassen Final Agreement Act and the Treaty First Nation Taxation Act. There are consequential amendments to 46 other statutes contained within its provisions. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that provincial legislation gives effect and is consistent with the final agreement.

I should say to members that the approach used in drafting this bill was to use terminology that will capture not only the Tsawwassen First Nation agreement but also the Maa-nulth and any future final agreements to the degree that those subsequent final agreements may reflect the provisions in the Tsawwassen agreement.

That will reduce the need in the future to amend acts as new agreements come along. It does not prescribe what those future agreements might look like, but where there is consistency, it will ease the process of giving statutory effect to them. With each new agreement in the future, consequential amendments will only be required to incorporate changes where there are differences — and there may well be — with the Tsawwassen First Nation agreement.

S. Fraser: I'll be speaking briefly again, as the minister was, on Bill 41, Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007.

As the minister noted, this is largely a housekeeping issue, although a fairly hefty housekeeping issue that covers a lot of ground and, as the minister mentioned, 46 other statutes. This is a necessity for enact-

ment of the Tsawwassen treaty, Bill 40, and as such, consequential subsequent to Bill 40 and obviously a necessary part of this process that we are supporting on this side of the House — along with Bill 42, which I believe will follow.

There are issues that will be raised with Bill 41, the Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007. I understand that the time to raise issues from Bill 41 can be at committee stage of Bill 40, for instance, and/or potential committee stage of Bill 41, which may follow.

I have heard some concerns with this. As I said, it is a necessity to bring this in for enactment of the treaty. That being said, as the minister has stated, it does have farther-reaching effects than just for the Tsawwassen treaty and the Maa-nulth, which we hope will follow in this fall session.

Where I've heard concerns is around, again, consultation. I have heard that there are fears that there may be farther-reaching effects from the Consequential Amendments Act. It raises concerns for first nations inside the treaty process that are maybe not at the stage we're seeing with Tsawwassen, certainly, or those outside of the treaty process that are concerned their inclusivity in the process was not necessarily sought.

That being said, I welcome the act being brought forward as an essential part of the Tsawwassen treaty process, and I look forward to the ensuing debate that will come with committee stage of Bill 40.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 41, Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The purpose of this bill is to specifically address the commitments in the real property tax coordination agreement between the province of British Columbia and the Tsawwassen First Nation. Although the Treaty First Nation Taxation Act is required to give effect to the Tsawwassen final agreement, its provisions and consequential amendments will also enable other first nations in the treaty process to enter into real property tax coordination agreements if they choose to do so, and on terms that they choose to negotiate as parties to a table.

The final agreement provides Tsawwassen with authority to tax its members. The real property tax coordination agreement expands on Tsawwassen's authority to tax its own members by providing the Tsawwassen First Nation with authority to levy property taxes on non-members on treaty lands and coordinating Tsawwassen's taxation authority with British Columbia's tax system.

The consequential amendments in the Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007, which we were just talking about, that relate to this bill are the Assessment Act, Assessment Authority Act, Community Charter, Home Owner Grant Act, Hospital District Act, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act, Local Government Act, Police Act and Taxation (Rural Area) Act. We can explore those in further detail again in committee.

S. Fraser: I will be even briefer with this one — Bill 42, Treaty First Nation Taxation Act. I see it as an essential part of self-governance, and certainly as an essential part of the treaty itself for the Tsawwassen people. I look forward to the continuing debate that will ensue with Bill 42, Bill 41 and, of course, committee stage of Bill 40.

Karagianis	Krog	Austin
Chudnovsky	Chouhan	Wyse
Macdonald	Conroy	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 3

Jarvis	Lekstrom	MacKay

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 42, Treaty First Nation Taxation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call Bill 43, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007.

In 2006 I appointed a three-person independent panel to review TransLink's governance and funding structure, to seek input from stakeholders and the public and to submit recommendations to me. During its mandate the panel received more than 120 written submissions and held more than 30 meetings with stakeholders.

The panel of esteemed British Columbians concluded that TransLink's current governance structure is no longer effective as it stands, that its financing is not sustainable in the long term and that planning processes needed substantial improvement. Here are some of the more important observations that were made by the panel.

They noted that less than half of the municipalities in TransLink's service region are even represented on TransLink's board at any given time. The one-year board terms, as currently provided for, are not at all conducive to effective long-term planning and make it difficult for all board members to gain an understanding of TransLink's complex operations. The public generally has no clue who their representative on TransLink is, and who the TransLink board is, at any time.

It's not at all clear who the ultimate decision-maker is — whether it's TransLink or the GVRD. These two organizations have been on opposite sides of some key transportation issues, such as Gateway and the whole debate over the Canada line and the Evergreen line, just to name a couple.

The expenditure side of TransLink plans are often fully developed while the sources of revenues that would be necessary to fund those plans are usually not identified beyond the immediate short-term requirements. In fact, under the current plan TransLink will be running a $200 million deficit by 2012, thereby jeopardizing the organization's very existence.

For these and other reasons, the current TransLink model is no longer effective, and the government has a duty to update the TransLink governance and funding structure to meet the growing and more complex transportation needs of the future.

Bill 43 addresses and implements most of the review panel recommendations. The major amendments contained in this bill will put in place a new planning framework, a new governance structure and balanced, sustainable funding measures that will provide a solid foundation for an expanded high-quality public transportation system in the lower mainland — an expansion, I might add, that is long overdue.

Major features of the bill include the creation of a mayors council to maintain accountability of TransLink to taxpayers, the creation of a professional board of directors who will have the skills and professional background necessary to oversee the operation of TransLink, the creation of an independent commissioner who will enhance transparency and due diligence regarding TransLink's plans and initiatives and authorize any proposed transit fare increases and, finally, the creation of a substantially improved planning process.

The name of the authority will also be 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. This is, in fact, an important point. The transportation region extends far beyond the GVRD boundaries, and planning within a new regional structure must reflect that reality.

I would now like to take a moment to provide some members with more detail regarding the major features of this bill.

With respect to the governance structure of TransLink, Bill 43 provides for a new structure that involves, firstly, the creation, as I said, of a mayors council on regional transportation that will appoint the authority's board and approve the authority's strategic plans involving new taxation measures, transit fare increases and new borrowing.

I think, more importantly, there will be real clarity amongst the public as to who their representative is. Instead of a revolving door of people moving in and out of a TransLink board, where the public has no clue who the representation is today, under a new structure, it will be very clear. It is their mayor. They know who the accountability lies with.

This is not an indictment, I should say, of the current board or the members — who, for the most part, I think — have been responsible and tried very hard, within a very challenging governance structure, to carry forward their work. In fact, I would like to state

for the record that Chair Malcolm Brodie has done an exceptional job under difficult circumstances.

But there is little question that public confidence in the existing model has been severely tested. The public record is replete with comments from current and past members of this TransLink board who have publicly stated how ungovernable the existing board structure is.

I hear, opposite, the member for Vancouver-Kensington chirping up with his little comments and criticisms. I know he is no doubt eager to talk and defend the current system, but I will remind that member that I have lots of quotes from his own supporters who talk about the very weakness of this incredibly bizarre structure that that member's government was responsible for putting together. But I digress.

The issue is that politicians need to be the bigger-picture people. They should be the ones that select the transportation vision for the region and see that there be a board of professionals with the right skill set that have the ability to execute that vision.

Secondly, there will be the creation of that new, professional board of directors that will have the appropriate expertise to provide effective governance. They'll have expertise — Member, you might want to take note of this because this'll be in great contrast to your own situation — in finance, legal, accounting and human resources. They will be conversant and capable of overseeing a large complex organization.

The professional board will also oversee planning, construction and operation of the regional transportation system in accordance with the strategic plan. You may note, in fact, that there is a similarity to the B.C. Ferries structure. That is a structure in which we also do not appoint politicians to that board for the very same reason.

The members opposite would know better than anyone else that the 1990s provide compelling examples of why we do not want to have politicians overseeing a large, complex transportation organization. The bankruptcy of B.C. Ferries and the writing off of $1 billion of debt ought to be evidence enough for the members opposite in that regard.

Thirdly, the establishment of a board selection process that will see the board appointed by the mayors council from a list of qualified individuals submitted by a screening panel. The screening panel consists of five individuals representing key transportation sectors in the region plus appropriate financial and business experience.

Each of the following organizations have appointed one member to the screening panel: the mayors council, myself as Minister of Transportation, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C., the Vancouver Board of Trade and the Greater Vancouver Gateway Society.

I am pleased to let the House know that this panel's work is well underway under the capable chairmanship of the former Premier of British Columbia, Michael Harcourt, and I think they are doing exceptional work on behalf of the mayors council.

Lastly, there will be a creation of an independent commissioner, appointed by the mayors council, that will review and consider proposed increases in transit fares and provide for the transparency and due diligence in respect of the authority's plans and initiatives.

With respect to TransLink funding arrangements, Bill 43 provides for a new, sustainable funding framework that will involve several things. Firstly, it will enable the authority to increase the fuel tax rate in the service region by up to three cents per litre in the coming years, on the condition that additional revenues from any increase in fuel taxes are balanced with increases in property taxes and other revenue measures, including fares. This will ensure that the funding requirements for TransLink's plans are met for the next two decades and that they will be balanced fairly between road users, transit riders and property tax payers.

Secondly, it will eliminate the much-hated and much-maligned parking stall tax, saving taxpayers about $3 million per year in administration costs alone and enabling the authority to replenish the revenues through a property tax.

Thirdly, it provides the authority with more flexibility in how the property tax burden is distributed between property classes, to ensure an equitable distribution of that burden.

With respect to TransLink's planning processes, Bill 43 provides for a new comprehensive planning framework that involves the preparation of a long-term strategy covering at least 30 years. That will establish TransLink's long-term goals and directions and identify the key initiatives and other measures that will be needed. It is so long overdue in this province that we have a regional transportation plan that looks out beyond the next decade and that actually looks to the decades beyond. That 30-year plan will be part of that vision.

It will, secondly, require the preparation of ten-year strategic plans and options that will set out the services, the infrastructure and the other requirements to be provided by TransLink, and the revenue measures that will be required to fund these for the entire ten-year period.

Thirdly, there will be a review of the authority's proposed strategic plans by the commissioner, who will advise the mayors council on the reasonableness of the projections, parameters and assumptions that will form the basis of those plans. There will be consideration and approval by the mayors council of any plans or options that entail new revenue measures or borrowing.

In parallel with TransLink's development of a 30-year long-term strategy, the province will also be developing a long-term vision for the transportation system between Pemberton and Hope, as recommended by the review panel. Bill 43 also provides for measures to facilitate the extension of the authority's boundaries if and when neighbouring municipalities see fit to join and can reach agreement on arrangements with the mayors council.

D. Chudnovsky: How many of them have bought into that little piece? How many?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member for Vancouver-Kensington. Again I hear the echo of his lone voice in

the chamber here. He's wondering how many will join. Well, Member, the fact of the matter is that they now have the ability to join, and it will be only with the support of their council, and it will be on terms that make sense to those communities.

But I tell you this, Member: at least we are providing them choice. At least we're thinking about the region. At least we're thinking about the future, and that's part of what we're trying to do.

It will also allow — and I know the member from Kensington will enjoy this one — the authority to do land-banking in anticipation of potential future requirements. And it will provide the authority with powers comparable to those enjoyed by the municipalities and the province with respect to major transportation projects. These would include an exemption from the Builders Lien Act for highways, major bridge and busway projects.

Taken together, the amendments contained in Bill 43 will enable TransLink to effectively provide the regional transportation services and infrastructure that are so desperately required by the region. The new funding framework will provide TransLink with access to sufficient revenues so that they can proceed with a fully funded Evergreen line project and re-establish, for the first time in decades, a comprehensive express bus service across the Port Mann Bridge to serve commuters on both sides of the Fraser River.

That $180 million announcement, as the member opposite will know, was jointly unveiled just weeks ago to widespread acclaim from communities on both sides of the Fraser River. Now, I know that the members opposite are still working on the elusive consensus position. I am fascinated by the evolving nature of their position on the Gateway project. But I'll tell you this. I know what communities on both sides of the Fraser River are saying. They're saying: "Thank goodness for the foresight of a government that is restoring and committing $180 million to effective public transit service across that corridor."

We will no doubt have more opportunities to engage in that discussion, and I just can't wait, as the members opposite know full well. In addition, the amendments contained in Bill 43 will also help the province and the region in pursuing air quality and greenhouse gas emission objectives. In particular, the fuel tax measure will more fairly allocate transit costs to road users and not just property tax payers and will also encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation such as public transit.

Air quality and greenhouse gas emission objectives will be further aided by making provincial contributions to rapid transit projects conditional on increased zoning densities around rapid transit stations to result in better utilization of very expensive transit facilities, producing additional revenues that will help the authority to defray the capital costs of the projects, as well as the significant environmental benefits, and perhaps equally as important, providing the ridership necessary to ensure that those massive investments will have the ridership necessary.

This is actually something that is very common in the great cities around the world. In spite of the fact that this is a method that is utilized by all the great cities around the world, it is news to the members opposite. But I'll tell you that it is going to be very important for providing another means, and a new means, for the authority to raise dollars to build these very important rapid transit capital projects.

I know that there is, of course, as there always is, a small group of individuals who launch criticisms, who try to suggest that this is just an attempt by the province to somehow exert more control over TransLink. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And yet those same critics…. I find it interesting that they ignore the widespread public dissatisfaction with the current structure. They ignore the public criticism. They ignore the editorials. They ignore the comments of both current and past members of the board, past chairs of the board, board members past and present, who have all complained loudly and longly about the difficulty of this ungovernable structure put together by their previous government.

Today, instead, we have a situation where the amendments that are contained in Bill 43 will restore public confidence and accountability in TransLink. They will provide TransLink with the revenue stream necessary to achieve its strategic goals and help achieve provincial and regional environmental objectives while at the same time giving the residents of the south coast a transit system they can be proud of.

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.


	YEAS — 59

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Bell	van Dongen
Roddick	Hayer	Lee
Nuraney	Whittred	Cantelon
Thorpe	Oppal	de Jong
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Penner	Neufeld
Coleman	Hogg	Sultan
Mayencourt	Polak	Brar
Fleming	Farnworth	James
Kwan	Ralston	Cubberley
Hammell	Coons	Thorne
Simons	Routley	Fraser
Hawes	Yap	Horgan
Dix	Trevena	Robertson