DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (Hansard) - Tuesday, October 23, 2007
View Hansard video clip:   Bill 40 2nd Reading - J. Horgan (system requirements)
J. Horgan: First, I'd like to acknowledge that this discussion is taking place on the traditional territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt people, as well as the Coast Salish communities that stretch into my constituency, people that have been friends of mine for many, many years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L. Mayencourt: It would be nice if we had free votes.

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

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

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

Hon. S. Hagen: Are you disagreeing with the Speaker?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Liberals Anything but Green." It goes as follows:

"Shame on the Premier. I am heartsick at what they're giving away - massive forest lands, recreational trails and beaches, wildlife habitat, wild creeks - to fill the bulging pockets of a multinational corporation. When Western Forest Products sells land, the profits will flow out of this province.

"The Liberals draped the murals in the Legislature with blue velvet while selling off properties at Jordan River, long prized by first nations. They have shown no respect for aboriginal people."

Deputy Speaker: Order, Member. Relevance, please, to Bill 40.

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

Interjections.

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

Deputy Speaker: Member, order. Order, Member. You have been cautioned.

J. Horgan: I'll continue, hon. Speaker.

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

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

It was just given away by this government - just handed away. There's reconciliation for you. "Your traditional lands now belong to Western Forest Products. Best of luck. See them in court." That's reconciliation. That's helping to establish and build culture on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There are three distinct reasons why there was a rally outside this place the day that Chief Baird addressed this session. One, there are negative impacts on the aboriginal rights or title of neighbouring first nations who are not at negotiation with the government at the present time. This is an important issue to be raised by the Semiahmoo First Nation, who feel their rights will be somehow compromised or diminished."

The second point he makes is this:

"Are there any negative impacts on the interests of those first nations of south Vancouver Island who in pre-Confederation times entered into treaties with the Crown under Governor James Douglas?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs do?

An Hon. Member: Nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

We have the ALR on one side, and we have social justice and responsibility on the other. That's a challenge. It's a conundrum. I'm thinking that, perhaps, during the 1990s when that side of the House was over here doing everything they could to resist progress, because no problem could be solved until all problems were solved, that was a challenge for them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

J. Horgan: And the dogs, yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditional bathing had taken place in that cave for centuries, but because it wasn't identified by the archeology branch as an archeological site, the developer had no recourse but to carry on. There were no repercussions for destroying a sacred site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Hear, hear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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