British Columbia Hansard — 10 October 2019, p.m., Issue 274 (41st Parliament, 4th Session)

20191010pm-Hansard-n274

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, October 10, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 274 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fourth Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon. George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon.

Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon.

Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Minister of Citizens’ Services ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon. Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon.

Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Joan Isaacs Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................ Spencer Chandra Herbert Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Parliamentary Counsel ...................................................................................................................................................................... S.

Suzie Seo Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) .............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) .......................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)......................................................................

Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal).................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) .............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Jinny (NDP) .......................................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)..................................................... Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) .............................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West .................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East .....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West ...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East .......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo ....................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan.............................................................. Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ...................................................................................... John Rustad Nelson-Creston.................................................................. Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster ......................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast..........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island ............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ..........................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North.................................................................................. Dan Davies Peace River South ............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ..................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough .......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................ Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston..................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena ......................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood ...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford ....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama..................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South............................................................................... Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek....................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings .............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Thursday, October 10, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Motions Without Notice....................................................................................................................................................... 10057 Amendment to Standing Orders to allow head coverings R. Singh S. Cadieux S. Furstenau Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................ 10058 Bill 36 — Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019(continued) C. Oakes Hon. C.

Trevena M. Lee J. Sims Hon. S. Simpson J. Brar A. Kang Hon. G. Heyman Hon. M. Mark N. Simons M. Dean R. Kahlon Hon. L. Beare Hon. H. Bains Hon. D. Eby Motions Without Notice....................................................................................................................................................... 10087 Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint an Auditor General Hon. M. Farnworth

THURSDAY , OCTOBER 10, 2019 The House met at 1:35 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Motions Without Notice AMENDMENT TO STANDING ORDERS TO ALLOW HEAD COVERINGS R. Singh:By leave of the House, I move: [That effective immediately, the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended as follows: Standing Order 36 is replaced with the following: Order in addressing the Chair. 36. Every Member desiring to speak shall do so from their assigned place and address the Speaker.] Leave granted. R. Singh: Mr.

Speaker, on October 3, I wrote a letter to your office regarding a ruling on Standing Order 36. Stand- ing Order 36 states: “Every Member desiring to speak is to rise in his or her place, uncovered, and address the Speak- er. ” I said in the letter that it is my understanding the term “uncovered” made reference to anything covering the head. My concern was…. If a member of the Legislative Assembly wore a turban, kippah, head scarf, Indigenous headdress or any other traditional and spiritual symbol, would they be permitted by you to speak in the Legislature?

I understand that the Acting Clerk’s report on dress guidelines says, certainly: “Indigenous attire, traditional cul- tural attire and religious attire continue to be considered appropriate dress. ” But it was not clear how that guideline pertained to the rules that are set out in the standing orders. My question to you was to make an official ruling on wheth- er Standing Order 36 or any other rule of the Legislature attempts to prohibit religious and Indigenous head wear in the chamber.

As I also said in my letter, at a time when we are seeing alarmingly frequent expressions of hate and racism, our Legislature must be a reflection of the great diversity in our wonderful province. We must also acknowledge that we can all do more to push back against those who seek to divide us. I thank you for your response that I received earlier today, which made it clear a change to the order would be necessary in order to ensure the Legislature remains a welcoming space for all Canadians.

I’m making this important and urgent motion to change the standing orders to reflect our mutually held values of diversity, religious freedom and reconciliation. There is a precedent across Canada for updating standing orders to include religious, cultural and ethnic dress. There- fore, I look forward to unanimous consent and support from this House on this motion for British Columbia’s Legislature. Further, I hope to see this guarantee extended to every public institution in our great and diverse province. S. Cadieux:I’ d like to thank the member for bringing the motion forward.

To be honest, I don’t think I ever noticed that that would be a problem in the standing orders. While I hope and fully expect that the Speaker would have seen fit to overlook this for the purpose of respect of an individu- al’s religion or Indigenous attire, I certainly think there are plenty of things that this House can disagree on, and this is definitely not one of them. Just as the dress code needed a reboot, things change. It’s surprising to me, however, that this is something that has stood in the standing orders for as long as it has.

In a coun- try that places such great value on our diversity and multi- culturalism, in our communities where we are all friends and neighbours and respect each other’s religions, cultures and celebrations that we gather together so frequently for, it is surprising that we have not noticed this and done something about it sooner. I thank the member for bringing it forward. [1:40 p.m.] When I heard about this, I reflected upon images that I can recall observing in the United Nations.

We can all have our opinions on the work of the United Nations, but one of the things that I always found most powerful and one of the things I enjoyed most was seeing the photos or the images of the United Nations and all of the different people and all of the different genders and all of the different attires — busi- ness, cultural, religious — coming together to have discus- sion, to learn from one another and to come together on issues of common purpose, much as we do here. While we do often find plenty to disagree upon, diversity is not something that I believe the members of this House disagree on.

Religious freedom is not something I believe members of this House disagree on. Certainly, we are happy to put our support behind this motion for a change in the standing orders. It is a small world after all. S. Furstenau:I’m delighted to stand up today to support the motion brought forward by the member for Sur- rey–Green Timbers to make this adjustment to the stand- ing orders.

I want to echo her comments as well as the comments from the member for Surrey South that, particularly in a time when politics has a tendency to be more of a divisive force than a uniting one, it really is up to us all the time to recognize the very serious responsibility that we have in a country that is built on multiculturalism, that is built on diversity, that is built on respect for a wide variety of reli- gious traditions and a deep acknowledgment of the Indigen- ous foundation of this nation.

I am very happy that there is support from all of the caucuses to move forward with this change to the standing orders and delighted that we are so united on moving forward in this manner. I want to thank both of the members. 10057

Mr. Speaker:Seeing no other speakers, you’ve heard the question. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker:I just want to thank the members — the member from Green Timbers, the member for Surrey South and the House Leader for the Third Party — for so well artic- ulating this. It’s great to see. Thank you. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:I call continued second reading debate on Bill 36, Gaming Control Amendment Act. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 36 — GAMING CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 (continued) C.

Oakes:It truly is a privilege to have the opportunity to rise as the member for Cariboo North and add my contribu- tion to the debate on Bill 36 and to bring forward the con- cerns from my constituents with a thoughtful approach on how we can improve upon legislation and make sure that, for constituents in Cariboo North, decisions, policy and legis- lation that are being debated here in this House reflect the needs of constituents, First Nations and Indigenous com- munities in Cariboo North. Having reviewed this piece of legislation that is before the House, there are three areas that I wish to touch upon today.

The first is the mechanism of distribution of this bill. The second is the formula that is being discussed. The third ele- ment is the community gaming grant discussion that I think is incredibly important to bring forward in the discussion of this bill. [1:45 p.m.] Following the member for Maple Ridge–Mission and his comments about the importance of going out and listening before designing programs first, I believe that a critical component to the aspect of listening is actually going out and talking to the First Nations and Indigenous communities first.

Based on conversations that I’ve had with my local gov- ernments, local First Nations, local alliances and Indigenous populations in my communities, their experiences and stor- ies, I wish to take a moment to bring forward to this House their experiences with some of the programs, policies and legislation that have been actually brought forward by the government and the impact that is actually having in our rural communities. We have instances in our communities where revenue- sharing has been incredibly successful. I think that is an important foundation of what we’re discussing today.

We want to ensure that all people in British Columbia, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous, have opportunities of prosperity and economic growth and that they can know their next generation — and generation and generation and generation after that — will have opportunities in the fant- astic communities we are so incredibly blessed to live in. The first element that I wish to discuss, as it plays into this piece of legislation, is the mechanism of how these funds will be distributed. The top-down approach that is being presented in this legislation….

I believe we need to have a more thoughtful conversation on and recognition, in truth, of what is actually best and what will have the greatest impact for our First Nations and Indigenous populations. We understand that revenue-sharing agreements that are in place, which actually put funds into the hands of our local First Nations and Indigenous communities — respect- ing that they know best, that they understand their com- munities best and that they know the needs of their com- munities best — are a principle that we should be following.

We hav, again, had some significant examples — for example, revenue-sharing agreements in the Cariboo, such as the forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreement. That has been supported in our community. That has helped support both Indigenous and non-Indigenous in our region — workers, businesses — that have found economic oppor- tunity through these types of revenue-sharing agreements. That has helped increase prosperity and has helped create work for people in communities. Y ou know, I am very proud of Nazko First Nations log- ging.

They are one of the largest contractors in our com- munity and one of the oldest, actually, First Nations log- ging contractors in British Columbia. They have been incredibly successful. They have hired and employed and supported not just Indigenous communities but non-Indi- genous as well. I think examples of programs that recog- nize that we all can benefit and all of our communities have a great opportunity when we invest in rural com- munities is an important foundation.

Where there is nervousness right now, which I think is important to bring forward into this House, in communities like Nazko — and, in fact, quite frankly, the entire Cariboo — is that policies and legislation that are being brought for- ward by the NDP government, while looking good on paper, often have unintended consequences in our rural com- munities and, quite frankly, can be devastating for our indi- vidual communities.

That is why, as we debate bills that are being brought for- ward, we are trying to bring the voices of our communit- ies: to make sure there are not unintended consequences to policies that I believe are brought forward, of course, in good faith and wanting to improve the lives of British Columbi- ans; to make sure that the reality in our communities, that the boots on the ground — that we are seeing the impacts and that we’re seeing the revenue actually coming into our small communities. 10058 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 10, 2019

[1:50 p.m.] I found it deeply discouraging that it required a convoy of logging trucks, which had to make a difficult journey from our communities down to Vancouver, to ensure that our voices were heard on the implications and decisions that this government is having on the forest sector. Our First Nations do not want decisions being made top- down. We do not want to see people living, sometimes, in the urban settings or in Victoria — this very building — who may not understand the realities of what it means to live in rural British Columbia, making those decisions.

There is real evidence of the type of top-down approach in decisions made by this government that is concerning to constituents in my region. Evidence, for example, of the recent cancellation — or you can spin the language however you wish — of the rural dividend program. Our First Nations communities had critically important applications in to this fund. This fund was designed to respect and under- stand the unique challenges, the needs that small and rural remote communities, First Nations communities face — communities, First Nations communities, such as Lhtako Dene First Nation.

Y ou see, they had an application in for a sawmill. We all know of the devastation that we’ve had with pine, and now we have fir beetles in this area and, of course, our wildfires. They had an application in to build a sawmill that would employ nine people to help remove the Douglas fir beetle infestation that we currently have in our community, that the First Nations community needs to address. Now they have to find a way to figure out what is next in communities where, really, work is limited, and they are very challenged.

They’re disappointed that funds that have been put forward for rural communities, for First Nations com- munities, have disappeared. Lhtako Dene also shared a story with me when I was talk- ing about the impacts of legislation being brought forward in this House. What was their experience on the ground? They shared a story of what they are currently witnessing and, actually, all of us in the Cariboo are seeing. We regularly get press releases that there are large burn piles that happen regularly in the attempt on fire mitigation, and we support the efforts that are being made to keep our communities safe.

I think it’s critically important. What the First Nations are asking of us is: why are we burning that fibre? Why are we not using that fibre? They have partnerships with other companies for pellets. Why are we not utilizing some of the land-based fibre that currently exists to create value? In press releases that the government last year had put forward, that was where the government was moving.

First Nations communities in our area, many who are out of work, are asking why those decisions are not hap- pening — value-added opportunities with companies such as C&C Wood Products that develop panelling and wood products, that are not subject to softwood lumber tariffs. The First Nation resource worker asked me last week why the stumpage is the same rate on the value-added products that we could be producing in our communities that are not sub- ject to softwood lumber but would actually get people work- ing in our communities.

The language that consistently comes out of this govern- ment is that they spin some of the communications that: “Hey, things are better than ever.

We have these policies, these legislation tools that are coming forward that are going to make things great in our rural communities. ” But the chal- lenge becomes that we’re not seeing that money delivered on the ground in our communities. [1:55 p.m.] Earlier today the Premier discussed the money that’s being reallocated to support forest workers, and this fund, of course, was being pulled away from the rural dividend pro- gram, a program that helped First Nations and smaller rural communities. Both the Premier and the Minister of Forests brought forward that they are important announcements.

What is happening on the ground in our communities — and I have had multiple calls into my office, as I’m sure oth- er MLAs have had as well — is that there is no access to this funding. The application process has not been set up yet. So we make press releases saying: “Things are great. The gov- ernment’s here to help. Money is on its way. ” But the reality is that it’s not getting into the hands of the people in our com- munities. As rural MLAs, we have to fight. We have to advoc- ate. We have to make sure that the decisions that are happen- ing in this House go into the hands of our communities.

Literacy Now is another example of an important applic- ation that had been put forward to the rural dividend pro- gram — $50,000 to help improve literacy for both Indigen- ous and non-Indigenous communities, important upgrades that are required to improve the work outcomes for natural resource workers who are out of work, who are now required to have grade 12. Imagine that you’ve worked in a mill for 30 years of your life, and that mill is now closed. Y ou have to go back out into a workforce, and you have to find a new job. The challenge is that you now need grade 12.

For many people in our rural communities and Indigenous populations, 30 years ago, the idea of going in and working in a forest community was that there were opportunities out there where we didn’t require grade 12. To cut those very types of funds that would help our communities move forward is incredibly troubling. Another comment that my constituents, my First Nations, wished for me to express here in this House is around the fire-mitigation experience. I certainly appreciate the funds that have been put forward by the government. I think it is important to put that investment into the communities.

When I talked to the Chief of the ?Esdilagh First Nation, Chief Stump, he asked me…. He would use my name, but I’m not allowed to do that. “Why do we keep getting consult- ants? Why does the government channel and say: ‘This is the type of funds that you are going to get. We will get you con- sultants. We will get you somebody to write a plan for you. ’?” The First Nations are saying: “We know our community best. Thursday, October 10, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10059

We do not require a consultant to come in for us to under- stand what we need to do to protect our communities. ” The member for Langley East graciously raised a story that really has been something that, as an MLA, is not only troubling.

Quite frankly, it breaks your heart that communit- ies, year after year, who’ve felt the devastating impacts of wildfires and floods know what they need to do in their com- munity to protect their communities and to make their com- munities safe, continue to get denied access to very simple capital funding — two trailers and some firefighting equip- ment that would help keep their communities safe. Why is it so difficult to get access to funds into the hands of our com- munities, our First Nations communities, who know what they need in their communities? Programs and services are continuing to be gutted.

And while the members opposite continue to heckle, if they had heard the first part…. There are three components of the challenge of this legislation. The first challenge is the distri- bution of the funds. We feel that those funds should go dir- ectly into the hands of our First Nations communities. The second piece of the legislation — I encourage the members to read, because I’ve heard them talk about the for- mula time and time again — is that the formula that is cur- rently being used, a component of that is population-based.

When it is population-based, our rural communities always end up on the short end of the stick. [2:00 p.m.] For rural communities, for First Nations communities to have funds that are based on population versus needs means that we will always not have the same access to funds that other First Nations communities may have. We have stories. It’s not just us creating some element of cynicism on what is happening. They are real, on-the- ground stories that we’re hearing.

It doesn’t matter how many press releases you send out and how many times you send our mayor out and say how things are great in Cariboo North, I can tell you that there are real challenges that we need to overcome, and there is real support that needs to happen into the hands of individuals. The third component which I wish to address is the com- munity gaming grant program and how the conversation of what we need to secure not just revenue-sharing for Indi- genous and First Nations populations directly into their hands….

We need to secure funding to ensure that all of our volunteer organizations across the province of British Col- umbia that rely so heavily on community gaming grants have the same opportunities. It needs to be fair. I have multiple examples that I wish to bring forward, but I’m going to start with a story. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission talked about the importance of storytelling, and I agree. So let me share a story that has recently come into my office. “I’m writing to you on behalf of the Quesnel Figure Skating Club.

We were recently denied from community gaming grant which has left our club about $28,000 short of funding to pay for our season. This is a huge problem for us and a lot of money to make back in fun- draising. I have been on the board of this organization for six years, and we have never had this happen before. “Normally, we receive our gaming by early August. But this year, we hadn’t heard anything going into September. So of course, we had to go with our registration programs like we were going to receive this money. One month into our program, we received the email stating we were denied.

Anyways, long story short, I’m contacting you to see if there’s anything you can do. ” It’s not just the Quesnel Figure Skating Club that has seen a significant reduction and gutting of programs. It is multiple agencies that we have seen in rural British Columbia. The Baker Creek Enhancement Society received $44,000 last year, and to date, they have had no announcement. The Quesnel Women’s Resource Centre. And it was great that this morning in the introductions I believe we had a women’s resource centre announced in this House.

They do great work, so we supported the community gaming grant back in 2017 of $122,000 to our Quesnel Women’s Resource Centre. This year they received $80,500. That’s quite the reduction. How about we look at the Scouts? The Scouts do great volunteer work — last year $7,700, this year $5,600. Quesnel Rotary — last year $32,235, this year $20,000. How about the Quesnel Lions service club? In 2018, $29,058. This year it was $20,000. How about victim services? Victim services is a critically important organization.

This week we are recognizing the importance in all of our communities to stand up for those who’ve been impacted by domestic violence. At a time when our communities are being devastated in the forest sector and at a time when we have, unfortunately, seen increases in domestic violence in our communities because of the incred- ible stress of people being out of work, the North Cariboo Métis society has had their healthy relationship program cut — completely cut. Now, I met with the minister to talk about that. His response to me was that the program has been over- subscribed.

Forgive me if I stand before you and raise the concerns that my constituents are having when, time and time and time again, programs and services are being gutted in our communities, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, at a time, Member, when the numbers speak for themselves. [2:05 p.m.] I have pages, and I can show you, because they go on line. I encourage the members to see where the funds have been last year on community gaming grants in our communities and where they are now.

My message to anyone who may be listening to this con- versation is: contact your local non-profit volunteer organiz- ations that have put in applications to the community gam- ing grant program, and find out where your funds are this year. Are they delayed? Have they been denied? Have they declined? I want you to contact your local MLA. I want you to share your story, because your story is powerful. It is as powerful as those 250 logging trucks that came down to Vancouver because it was the only way they would get the attention of this government.

While the Minister of 10060 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 10, 2019

Transportation laughs and points her finger at me, here’s the message I would say from ?Esdilagh First Nation. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Members. C. Oakes:“We have written multiple letters. We have let- ters to the minister on the orders of questions around West Fraser Road. ” Do you remember that road, Minister? Y ear after year we have received letters from this minister. “Oh, we will be fix- ing these funds. ” Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Members, one member at a time. C. Oakes:Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is the element, again, from First Nations communities who do not have a lot of trust in this government, because we continue to hear that funds are coming to your community. We get wonderful press releases, and we continue to wait. Interjection. Deputy Speaker:Member. C. Oakes:I’m incredibly proud as the member for Cari- boo North to bring forward the voices of my constituents, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. I believe that our community members know best the needs in their com- munity.

I believe that they shouldn’t have to wait for a gov- ernment to say “I know best” and to control the types of social engineering funds that come into our communities. Again, in closing, if you’re a community member that has seen a reduction in your funds, please contact your local MLA. If you want to make sure that funds are distributed directly into the hands of your community, make sure you raise your voice on this particular bill.

Finally, if you believe in self-determination, if you believe that the fact that the First Nations know best in their community, I invite you to make sure that you read this bill, understand this bill and to contact your MLA. Hon. C. Trevena:I’m very proud to stand up to talk about the Gaming Control Amendment Act introduced by our government. Unfortunately, I think that the member who spoke before me, the member for Cariboo North, hasn’t read the bill.

If she had done, she’ d know there was, as she describes it, self- determination — that it is up to those communities that are getting their share of the gaming grants to decide how best to spend the money. I’ d also just like to put the record straight for all those many people who are going to be getting in touch with their MLAs as a result of the conversation from the member for Cariboo North. Nothing has changed. There is still 31 per- cent of gaming revenues going to community organizations and health services and local governments.

The member’s various social clubs, organizations and oth- ers that have applied…. Y ou don’t always get it. It happens in my constituency. It happens in everyone’s constituencies. Y ou apply. Y ou don’t necessarily get it. Of the $1.391 billion of net revenue from gaming activit- ies, 31 percent of that is going to health services, community organizations and local governments. The balance, as the member…. She was, I believe, once a member of executive council. So she should understand this but most likely has forgotten: that the balance goes into general revenues.

The new gaming revenue share does not change any of that. This 7 percent comes from what would go into general revenues, just to put it in context for the member, who clearly has for- gotten some of the things she may have learnt while she was on this side of the House. [2:10 p.m.] As I say, I’m very excited by this act. It’s a very important act, because it’s going to entitle B.C. First Nations to a por- tion of B.C. Lottery Corp. ’s net income for 23 years.

That’s 23 years where Indigenous communities can plan, where they know that they’re going to get a source of revenue, where they know that it’s stable funding. I think that everybody is aware that we shouldn’t always be relying on lotteries, that we have to be funding in other ways. But on this, there is a large amount of revenue available, and there will be a 7 per- cent share of this for the next 23 years — very significant. Members opposite have been debating this for some time and are getting very concerned about various parts of this bill. They could have done this.

First Nations have been ask- ing for gaming revenue to be shared by the province for years. In fact, back in 2007, when Premier Campbell was there and he had his “New relationship” — I think that’s what his banner was that year — First Nations leaders presented that government, the B.C. Liberal government, with what was a First Nations investment plan. It recommended alloc- ating 3 percent — just 3 percent — of revenue towards eco- nomic and community development initiatives in Indigen- ous communities. At that time, back then, 12 years ago….

The members on the other side of the House forget that, for 16 years, they were government and could have made an impact for Indigenous communities but didn’t. At that time, First Nations leaders described the plan of a 3 percent share as the single most important action that the provincial government could take to “ease First Nation’s poverty and begin to close the economic and social gap for all First Nations. ” It is significant. But somehow…. I should not be surprised. On this side of the House, we should not be surprised that the former gov- ernment, the B.C.

Liberal government, didn’t do anything, because their record on First Nations relationships, to be honest, is, frankly, distasteful. It is awful. Thursday, October 10, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10061

It started back…. They formed government in 2001. In 2002, I think people can remember the referendum, the ref- erendum on First Nations treaty rights. The then Attorney General Geoff Plant put it to the public. Well, he said that the public should have a say in the treaty process. At the time, they said it was an experiment in direct democracy, but even pollsters were saying that it was ama- teurish and one-sided.

Among those people who criticized the outrageously racist referendum were the Anglican Church, the United Church, the Presbytery of New West- minster, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Muslim Federation, the B.C. Federation of Labour, Council of Senior Citizens and the David Suzuki Foundation. It was described as immoral and amateurish and racist, and it was. It was a racist approach to First Nations relationships. I mean, that was a significant stain on the B.C. Liberal government’s record, their 16-year record. But it went on.

We’ve had the failure to implement the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Back in 2015, Christy Clark, the Premier — watch this space — refused to appoint a new chief commissioner to the B.C. Treaty Com- mission, unilaterally undermining the treaty process. She was, like always, thinking only about politics and not what was in the best interest of Indigenous communities, First Nations and our relationship as the Crown with First Nations. Earlier we had the Missing Women’s Commission urge the then B.C.

Liberal government — they had been gov- ernment for a number of years — to bring in an enhanced public transportation system on the Highway of Tears. The former Minister of Transportation, the minister from Kamloops–South Thompson, said at the time that it was “not identified as a practical solution by the people who live up there. ” [2:15 p.m.] I’m very proud to be the Minister of Transportation. It’s an honour to be working for the people of B.C. on this file, and I have to say that one of the areas of which our min- istry is most proud is the bus system that is operating along the Highway of Tears.

It is an extraordinary, extraordinary system. It links communities. It means that Indigenous com- munities off the highway can get to the highway. It means that people can get a ride, an affordable ride, from com- munity to community. It keeps women safe because they don’t have to hitchhike. It keeps families safe because they don’t have to hitchhike. I’ve ridden on the bus and talked to the communities, talked to the people who are riding it. It has made a huge dif- ference. That is working for Indigenous communities. We know their record for Aboriginal children in care.

They had recommendations after recommendations from Grand Chief Ed John and took little action, and they were reprimanded by the Representative for Children and Y outh in 2017 for their underfunding of delegated Aboriginal agen- cies. So I think that their record on Indigenous relations stands for itself.

What has been quite haunting — and I’m sure my col- leagues will have more examples than this — is that in this debate, in this House here in 2019, when we are discussing something as fundamental as sharing some of the prosperity of British Columbia, some of the wealth that comes in through gaming, back with Indigenous communities, we have had — I’m not going to label them — such worrying, worrying comments from members opposite.

The member for Nechako Lakes, a former Minister of Indigenous Relations, talked about First Nations being addicted to government cheques and asked: “Is this not just another government cheque coming in?” He said that this legislation seems to be “more about paying off friends than…about getting resources to the bands. ” I think that’s disgraceful — that they could even be thinking about that when we’re talking about revenue-sharing, through gaming funds, with Indigenous communities to let them determine how best to invest in their communities to make their com- munities and the lives of their community members better.

Indigenous people. I think everyone should be aware of the history that they have lived through and that they con- tinue to live because of what happened to their families, their forefathers. It’s gone on for generations. We are still dealing with that. Indigenous communities are dealing with that. We are trying to assist through this process. I’ve got to say that the member for Kelowna West was questioning the financial accountability that could come. I quote what he said.

I find it, as I say, very disturbing that a member of this House could have this sort of view — express it and stand up to talk about this bill and still express this — questioning the financial accountability of Indigenous com- munities. He said their processes are not the same as what we would have in terms of our democratic systems, in terms of accountability. He went on to say that almost five million B.C. citizens represent the non–First Nations population, and they haven’t had a chance to have a say in it. As I say, I find this extra- ordinarily worrying. Our government has been acting.

I think everybody could say that we could act faster, that we could do more. Every- body wants to do more. But we have done a huge amount, made great steps in working on Indigenous relations, on building out. We have talked about reconciliation, are abso- lutely committed to reconciliation. In this session, I think everybody’s very well aware, we’ll be bringing in legislation to ensure that reconciliation is a true reality in our province. Just to hit a few highlights. I mentioned Grand Chief Ed John’s recommendations; we’ve committed to implement them.

We have spent $6.4 million to keep Indigenous famil- ies together to improve outcomes for children and youth. [2:20 p.m.] We’ve been working on implementing a strategy to increase the number of Indigenous employees to train child welfare staff. We have broadened the education experience requirement for front-line child protection. We have ensured that we have a First Nations law degree now. Through my 10062 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 10, 2019

ministry, again, we have our community benefits agreements which are putting Indigenous hires first in the line for local hiring. We are working, day in and day out, to ensure that we work towards true reconciliation, whether it’s acts of indi- vidual ministries, acts of government or acts that are, like this, directly assisting Indigenous communities. As I say, I think that the member who spoke before me clearly hasn’t read the legislation. We committed, in our budget back in the spring, to share 7 percent of net provin- cial revenue from gaming for 23 years, 25 years. Two years are already set.

That is expected to give First Nations $100 million a year. If you get a roughly 2 percent annual growth, which would be a very nice annual growth to have, year after year for the next 25 years, it will be a $3 billion share with B.C. ’s First Nations over the term of the agreement — $3 bil- lion. Communities can do a huge amount with $3 billion. It’s set up. I think if the member had read the bill, she would find out that it’s set up to be administered through the First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership. They will receive, manage and distribute these funds to par- ticipating First Nations.

I hope the member from Kelowna West was listening to that when he talked about accountab- ility. There is absolute accountability, and there is absolute trust that this will be, I think, very positive. There will be a share, on formula, of participating First Nations. It’s going to be by community, by population and then waiting for those that are geographically remote. I know that in my constituency…. The members opposite like to act as though they are the only rural members in this House, but there are a number of other rural members in this House, myself included.

I represent an Indigenous community who have lived for millennia in Kingcome Inlet, which is an extraordinarily remote and difficult place to get to. I think for the com- munity itself…. I would say that one of the benefits of that was that they avoided the Indian agent. They were just too far away for the Indian agent to come, so they were not taken to residential schools. I think that we have…. The opposition does not have the lock on representing rural communities.

Our side of the House understands the needs of rural communities, and we want to work with Indigenous communities to ensure that they are served well. I go back to the division of the money. I just talked about that. How can it be spent? I think it’s important that we recognize that it’s not us that are dictating anything. It is First Nations governments determining their priorities for the use of funds. There are basically six areas that support governance, capacity-building and strength in program and service delivery.

It’s on health and wellness; infrastructure, safety, transportation and housing; economic and business development; education, language, culture and training; community development and environmental protection; and capacity-building, fiscal management and governance. Basically, it’s money. It’s money that will promote creative approaches to help design programs and help deliver ser- vices in these broad categories. It’s not directed to individu- als. It’s working with communities for these categories. I think this is something that every member in this House should be supporting.

Every member in this House should be recognizing that this is the way forward — that we have to be allowing Indigenous communities to invest in their future. They need revenue to do that. What better revenue than some of the money that is, at the moment, going to gen- eral revenue coming from gaming? [2:25 p.m.] The member for Cariboo North talks about all the poten- tial loss of community grants.

There is still the same 31 per- cent going to community grants, but 7 percent, an additional 7 percent, will be taken out of general revenues to ensure that First Nations can have an opportunity to invest in economic development, in housing, in so many different ways that will benefit their communities. It makes me very proud that this is another act of our government. Working with First Nations, working for First Nations, we’re making sure that when we come to discuss reconciliation, we discuss what it means to each of us. It means something different to everyone. It’s one of these: how do you define it?

It is so important that we do this. I’m extraordinarily proud of our record on our relation- ship with Indigenous communities and moving forward on the UN declaration and on the Truth and Reconcili- ation recommendations. I would hope that the other side of the House joins us in supporting this bill, but I have to say I have been absolutely shocked by some of the com- ments that my colleagues on the other side of the House can still express in 2019. With that, I’ll take my seat. M. Lee: I also want to join this discussion on Bill 36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act.

Certainly, I think this has just been a discussion around the need to find and strike the right balance of the gaming-revenue-sharing agreement with First Nations in British Columbians. There are certainly a number of considerations on Bill 36, which I’ d like to discuss, recognizing that there needs to be a more detailed discussion to follow during the committee stage of this bill. I would agree with the member opposite that we have more to do on reconciliation in this province with First Nations.

Revenue-sharing has been a continued desire of First Nations in British Columbia and, if structured correctly, could serve to strengthen the relationship between First Nations and our province, furthering the goal of recon- ciliation shared by all members of this House. Reconciliation certainly is an incredibly important issue. We need meaningful recognition for reconciliation to make progress against closing the gap on issues of health, edu- cation and employment for First Nations.

This province, through leadership of the previous government, has a strong record of supporting greater economic prosperity in First Nations communities, partnerships which are built on mutu- Thursday, October 10, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10063

al trust and respect, and agreements that need to be balanced and fair. Revenue-sharing is certainly a path to partnership. It’s one path, and the previous government certainly recognized that. The previous government worked to improve the qual- ity of life for Indigenous people through new economic part- nerships, resource development revenue-sharing and closing gaps, as I just mentioned, in health, education, skills training and employment. There was sharing with 40 First Nations of mineral tax revenue from mining, with payments beginning in 2013.

As of December of 2016, British Columbia had signed over 260 forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements with 156 First Nations. As all members of this House know, and as this government has come to realize, the LNG sector in British Columbia has presented opportunities for our gov- ernment and First Nations to work together.

Throughout the province, 62 natural gas pipeline benefit agreements have been reached with 29 First Nations, for four proposed natur- al gas pipelines. [2:30 p.m.] The previous government had also put in place over 500 economic and reconciliation agreements with First Nations, including strategic engagement agreements, reconciliation agreements and forestry and clean energy project revenue- sharing agreements. Many of those agreements were put in place under the leadership of the member for Nechako Lakes.

As he indicated yesterday in this debate, the previous government in British Columbia was the first government in Canadian history to share resource revenues. Other govern- ments across Canada, while they may have the same inten- tions, did not go down the same road. Instead, they went with a sharing of gaming revenue. The previous government certainly believed that it was more appropriate that revenue go to First Nations from the resources and activities that were happening in their tradi- tional territory. That says something in terms of the division of the revenue under this revenue-sharing arrangement.

But I’ll come to that in a moment. [J. Isaacs in the chair.] In reviewing the Gaming Control Act amendments under Bill 36, it does provide an opportunity to look at the under- lying agreement that was put in place between the province of British Columbia; the new entity, the B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership; the First Nations Summit; the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations; and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. This is an agreement that was dated, made as of August 2, 2019, just over two months ago.

What’s appended to this agreement is a list of 198 eligible First Nations that have the opportunity to sign on to this revenue-sharing arrangement to become a limited partner, but only if they’re accepted by the general partner. As the Minister of Transportation invited all members of the House to look at it, we have looked at this agreement. We have looked at the details. And there are many questions to be considered as to the nature of this arrangement and how it’s going to work, not just for the 198 eligible First Nations but all First Nations in this province. We’ve been using the number of 203.

Where did the other five go? They’re not even listed in this agreement. Let me say that the government is in the course of nego- tiating, as we understand from the briefing that the member for Richmond-Steveston and myself received two days ago, a long-term agreement for 23 years.

This long-term agree- ment is for a net present value of $3 billion — $3 billion of an important financial resource that I believe we all want to see put in the hands of First Nations across this province so that they can meet the needs to build the capacity, to continue to fill the gaps on health, education and poverty and to contin- ue down the road of shared prosperity with this province. Revenue-sharing is an important tool, but how we do it is what we’re discussing here. There are some concerns, as members on this side of the House have been trying to artic- ulate over the last day and a half of debate.

The agreement that’s in place currently is for a two-year period. It goes until August 2021. It has a one-year renewal term on it. There is time. There is time to ensure that there is proper consultation with all First Nations in this province, that all First Nations understand the nature of this further 23-year revenue-sharing arrangement and that we consider how the funds are being distributed and on what basis they’re being distributed. [2:35 p.m.] As we know, there’s a limit to the partnership that has been formed.

As I just mentioned, eligible First Nations have the opportunity to become limited partners of that partnership, but it is by acceptance of the general partner. If you’re not accepted as a limited partner, that First Nation will be an unsigned First Nation. And as an unsigned First Nation, you won’t be entitled, won’t be receiving these funds. This is an example of the layer of administration that this government has put in place. From what we understand from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission…. He indicated something that we’ve been asking for. What was the level of consultation with First Nations?

As I heard him say, it was by listening to the First Nations Summit, the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations and the Union of British Colum- bia Indian Chiefs. I didn’t hear him say “consultation with each First Nation directly. ” This is something that the member for Langley East attested in respect of his ability to reach out to a number of First Nations in the last day. He heard back from five. None of those five First Nation leaders — five, presumably, of the 198 — were aware of the terms of the agreement. This is an agreement that was brought in place only two months ago.

So when we look at to what degree that level of consultation has occurred, the government wants to talk lots about how they’re attuned to reconciliation and First Nations, but where is that example? It sounds like they’re 10064 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 10, 2019

primarily relying on the leadership council. It sounds like they’re not consulting directly with First Nations on this. It sounds like they’ve set up a partnership, put some money across, and that money will sit there until the general partner for this partnership accepts an eligible First Nation. If that acceptance doesn’t occur, the funds don’t flow. This is an example of the complexity and the administrat- ive burden that this government has established. Now, we are still trying to learn more about this arrangement.

This bill gives us the opportunity, for all members on this side of the House, to talk about our concerns, and that’s what members on this side of the House have been doing for the last day and a half. We are still trying to learn all of the details of the arrangements. The amendments that are proposed in Bill 36 are relatively straightforward to understand on their face, but they need to be understood in the context of this 50-page interim agree- ment.

And I certainly would invite all First Nations, leaders and others, who have not reviewed this yet to get a copy of this on the ministry website — it’s a public document — and take a look, because there are elements of details here in the agreement itself…. Certainly, I believe all members of this House would support the principles.

There are six named principles of focus: health and wellness; infrastructure, safety, trans- portation and housing; economic and business develop- ment; education, language, culture and training; com- munity development and environmental protection; capa- city-building, fiscal management and governance of First Nations. These are the principles for which funding will flow under this arrangement.

In terms of the common objectives, certainly we all want to continue to work with First Nations and Indigenous peoples in this province to enhance economic opportunities and improve socioeconomic outcomes and to provide a way to support First Nations in their right to self-determination, including establishing their own governance models. [2:40 p.m.] In looking at the specifics of the agreement itself, there is, for example, a reference to initial periodic review. Here is another opportunity for this government to ensure that the proper consultation has occurred. Presumably, that was the thinking.

They put the agreement in place first, with what sounds like top-down consultation, and then provide for a period of time, which is not specified in the agreement as to how long it is, for some review, some reconsideration of the terms of this arrangement. We are still in that interim peri- od, yet this government chooses this time as being the time to bring forward amendments to the Gaming Control Act. They’re bringing forward amendments not before they entered into this agreement but after, after they’ve commit- ted this province to 25 years of funding without proper con- sultation with First Nations.

We haven’t heard that. And as they go forward, there’s a lot of backfilling going on, because as we understood in the briefing, the reason this amend- ment’s being provided, of course, is that there’s a $3 billion commitment that we will recognize in this current budget year if this amendment doesn’t go through. Well, we know the state, unfortunately, regrettably, of the finances of this province under this current NDP govern- ment. There’s no room for a $3 billion current commitment. As we look forward at more details in this agreement, we need to look at…. Interjection. M.

Lee: It would bring forward that $3 billion cost recog- nition into this current budget year. That’s what we under- stood in the consultation. As we look at the individual eligible First Nations, their funds will effectively be kept in trust by the partnership. When they look at the term of the actual agreement itself…. If you look at recital K, it talks about allowing the rela- tionship, effectively, between the province and the provincial territorial organizations, which are, specifically, the First Nations Summit, BCAFN and UBCIC…. That relationship may continually evolve.

Well, this is a very fluid arrangement, with a companion partnership agreement which, as we heard from govern- ment staff, is not being made available to government because, of course — we understand this part of it — this is for the First Nations to administer. Now, likely we’ d have more comfort around that arrangement if there was prop- er consultation with every First Nation. But when it’s just with the leadership council and when that relationship can continually evolve, these eligible First Nations have no voice in that arrangement.

First of all, they need to be the limited partners of the part- nership in the first place. Secondly, if there’s any change to this arrangement, it needs to be agreed to by extraordinary resolution. That’s not unanimous. The actual balance that’s occurring here is one that doesn’t favour every First Nation.

It sets up a situation where the funds that First Nations need to deploy it in their communit- ies, as the member for Skeena spoke about in detail yesterday — those very-needed funds — will not be available. [2:45 p.m.] So we ask this government: why is it that they found the need to put in place this administrative partnership struc- ture? It seems that it would be more effective to directly provide the funds to First Nations, each of them, to ensure that they’re quickly and effectively deployed.

The same gov- ernance and accountability requirements that are under the partnership agreement or under the interim agreement that’s referred to can be ensured or put on each of these First Nations to ensure that they meet those requirements. There’s reference to an indemnity under

section 7.3 of the interim agreement. We’ll be asking, at committee, the nature of this indemnity and what potential exposure there is to the province. Of course, the purpose of the amendment under the bill takes away any Treasury Board ability to alter this financial Thursday, October 10, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10065

arrangement. So we need to be pretty sure at the beginning of all of this how this is going to function for First Nations and what expectations First Nations have about that revenue flow. It is tagged at 7 percent, and as we know, that 7 percent may not be the same in dollars every year. So we need to look at what expectations this government has raised with First Nations about that revenue flow. There’s also a

schedule at the back of the interim agree- ment regarding expenditures. What is that gaming revenue, anyway? Well, it turns out that that gaming revenue doesn’t include certain deductions for certain expenditures. Now, we are talking about gaming. This government wants to talk a lot about their new focus on gaming, yet enforcement and investigations are excluded from this. There are many elements in terms of how BCLC is run, categories of expenditure that are not being taken into account. As I mentioned, there is no line of sight on the part- nership agreement.

So we do not know at this time, for those First Nations that have not signed on and been accepted as limited partners, what their criteria are — the conditions, the terms — that are necessary for a general partner to accept an eligible First Nation into this partnership. This is the very concern that many members on this side of the House have been speaking to. It’s the concern around what we are giving up here — when I say “we, ” that’s all of us, including First Nations — to this partnership, this new structure. Why the need for that?

The government should have the responsibility to ensure that those funds get provided directly to all First Nations. We’ve talked at length about the distribution formula here. We understand, of course, that it’s a 50-40-10 split — 50 per- cent to all First Nations, 40 percent based on population, 10 percent to be distributed based on whether a First Nation is in a remote geographical location.

Well, that last category is an indicator, certainly a recog- nition, that for some First Nations who are in remote geo- graphic locations, there’s likely — and there is — a greater need for a greater share of funds beyond population and the mere dividing up of funds amongst all the eligible limited partners. That’s an indication of need.

That’s an indication that not all First Nations are in the same economic benefit in terms of their current geography — where they’re located, close to resources — and, as I mentioned earlier, the previous government being the first government in Canada to share revenue from resource development. [2:50 p.m.] Well, much of that sharing has been going on. That’s one aspect of economic partnership in this province. It’s one way for real change for First Nations.

Certainly, we recognize remote geographic locations and those First Nations that are in areas of the province that are remote — areas that don’t have the benefit, necessarily, of the rich resources that others may have. If we’re taking into account remote geographic location, aren’t there other indicia or factors of need that we should be taking into account? This is our second suggestion. The first, again, that government distribute the funds under this gam- ing revenue-sharing arrangement directly to First Nations. Secondly, that the distribution formula take into account other considerations around need.

Those considerations can be, in other ways, based on the economic capacity of that First Nation. There are some First Nations, including ones that are with the traditional territories around my riding — Musqueam First Nation, Tsawwassen and others — that have access, cer- tainly, to greater economic capabilities. Those that don’t…. Aren’t those really the First Nations that we’re trying to be working with and assisting here? There should be a greater recognition of that need. That’s when we have the discussion around whether that distribu- tion model should be altered.

Again, with First Nations who haven’t been properly consulted, how will they get their voice heard? This is the opportunity to ensure that we have an ability to ensure that those First Nations are getting the funds that they require and need. I think that in the context of dividing up the pie…. I heard the House Leader for the Green Party, the Third Party, talk about the other day, in reference to the miscellaneous stats bill, a recognition of the tax base. Well, as we all know, there’s only one taxpayer, and we need to consider what’s available.

When the Minister of Transportation just spoke, there’s one thing that I would quibble with her about, which is that under the Gaming Control Act, there is no set guarantee or limit threshold for funding for community gaming grants. It is at the discretion by appropriation under the Financial Administration Act.

As much as it’s been the case that there’s been funding made available and that community organizations, like the ones that I used to sit on the board of, that enable, in the case of Arts Umbrella, for example, the expansion of import- ant arts education and training programs to the municipality of Surrey through two new locations…. Community gaming grants are very important to support those initiatives: after- school care, after-school training for vulnerable children and youth who weren’t receiving access to any of those additional opportunities to learn, in this case, visual arts.

There are numerous examples, and the member for Cari- boo North just went through a number of stories which were very compelling about the reliance of various communities on community gaming grants. I understand, from the briefing, that the government has said that in their view there will be no impact in this arrange- ment. I think it’s important that we consider, as we look at the Gaming Control Act and we look at the opportunity of setting up a much-needed…. This is the way the government has chosen to do it.

Again, as I say, we would see it as based on revenues from resource development and other econom- ic opportunities. [2:55 p.m.] If this government wants to follow the lead of other provinces in this country — to put it on gaming revenues — 10066 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 10, 2019

then we need to consider the access and the continued reli- ance of community gaming grants, that program — that they have steady, reliable access to those funds. Those funds, of course, as we’re hearing, are shrinking, in terms of meeting the number of needs in our community.

I appreciate that when we look at this revenue-sharing arrangement, looking out 23 years, we need to ensure that there has been proper consultation with First Nations; that we are working to establish the best funding arrangement to ensure effectiveness of these dollars, these much-needed resources, for First Nations around this province; and that we take into account the recognition of those needs. What are those needs?

Treating every First Nation the same, at least for 50 percent of these funds, and then based on pop- ulation, and only leaving 10 percent of that funding pool for any recognition of geographic or other needs…. We’re sug- gesting that that ought to be considered. We will have the opportunity to ensure that this funding model, in the interest of reconciliation with First Nations, be done in a balanced and fair way for all of British Columbia, and that we look at, as we go into committee stage on this bill, addressing those concerns. J.

Sims: It’s my pleasure today to rise and speak in support of Bill 36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019. I’m really very proud of our government and of the minister who has brought this legislation forward, because I believe that this is long overdue. I know that for the First Nations community, this has been a major concern for a number of years. I believe that as far back as 2007, they did raise their concerns with the then gov- ernment of the day. The First Nations leaders have been pres- enting a variety of proposals to get game sharing. They had talked about 3 percent of the gross gambling revenue.

They wanted it towards economic development. I also — when you look at history, history is always a great teacher — looked at what the First Nations leaders had to say. They talked about this revenue-sharing being the single most important action the provincial government could take to ease First Nations’ poverty and, again, to close the eco- nomic and social gap for all First Nations. That’s quite a sig- nificant statement coming from the people who are the most impacted. Now, I don’t have to review our commitment to truth and reconciliation.

As you know, the Premier and our whole gov- ernment take this very, very seriously, every person on this side of the House. It’s not just words that were written in ministers’ mandate letters. Every member that is part of our caucus — it doesn’t matter where they sit on this side of the House — has a very strong commitment to making truth and reconciliation a reality.

I know there are lots of people who are going to be saying: “Well, we’ve been talking about this for a long time. ” I cer- tainly feel that I’ve been talking about it for a long time, even as way back as the time that I was a teacher. [3:00 p.m.] At this time, I do want to recognize the work done by the B.C. Teachers Federation in the area of truth and reconcili- ation.

I have nothing but huge admiration for the commit- ment of the teachers of this province to move the dial for- ward, to truly, truly, in this province, have an understand- ing about truth and reconciliation and to include that and to say that that does not just mean words. It means looking at, first, as the words imply, facing the truth and then moving towards reconciling. It’s not about punishments for the past, because we can’t undo the past. We know terrible things happened.

I, like many of you, have listened to the stories of grandparents who spent time in residential schools and said that once they came out, their lives were not that great. As a grand- father, he could say that he never learned how to be a dad, how to be a son, how to be a brother, how to be a father and how to be a husband, and that that experience in the residential schools impacted not only him but generation after generation of his family. We can’t undo that, but we acknowledge the harm that was done. What we can do is reconcile and move forward in a nation-to-nation partnership.

That is what our government is committed to. As I started off by saying, I’m glad that we’re bringing this forward and that we’re bringing this forward this early on in our mandate. Just so you know, Madam Speaker — I know you know this already — we have already forwarded $194.84 million in revenue to account for the first two years of this 25-year agreement that we have reached. For the next 23 years, it is going to be 7 percent, which translates into about $100 million per year. That does factor in the growth rate, about a 2 percent growth rate.

Unlike some of the terms that were used yesterday — and I will be getting into that a little bit later — this money is not being put in a vault. This money is being shared with First Nations across this province so that they themselves can determine how they’re going to use it for economic boosts, capacity-building, for education, for language, for culture retention. Part of truth and reconciliation is not in having the answers for others but in enabling. That’s what this will do. This is also a commitment to the long term.

Y ou know that when funding is announced on an annual basis, it cre- ates a lot of angst, because people feel they cannot do long- term planning. This allows First Nations to do that long- term planning, knowing that the funding is coming. I did hear from my colleague across the way that, well, there is no guarantee that it will be $100 million, because the revenues are unpredictable. But we based it on past history. That’s why it says 7 percent. It talks about a percentage point.

I think all of us — First Nations communities, those on the government side and my colleagues across the way — under- stand that if it’s a percentage, it is a percentage, and that’s what it’s going to be. I’ve also heard: “Well, you know, there are a whole lot of things that could be done with this legislation that isn’t in Thursday, October 10, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10067

here. ” I found that a little bit difficult to listen to, coming from members who were in government for 16 long years and had the opportunity to address many of the issues that they now see as a problem. I just want to remind them that it was under their watch that colossal money laundering was allowed to flourish as it did. I want to go on to say that on this side of the House, we are committed to working with the First Nations. [3:05 p.m.] We didn’t just create a structure.

What we need to know is that the First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership — a long name, I know — was set up at the dir- ection of leadership from the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs through the First Nations Gaming Commission. So this is not an imposed structure. This is another structure that has been established nation to nation — a structure that we respect. There is a formula, but no set prescription beyond the formula. That’s what going to nation-to-nation agreements means.

Y esterday I also heard some of my colleagues across the way talking about equality a lot — that this was not fair, that this was not equal. I have found, over a huge number of years, that the word “equality” is often used to confuse people. What we need to focus on is the word “equity. ” We all must admit that inequalities have existed for over 100 years — inequalities in the type of education and the type of infra- structure, inequalities in the treatment of the First Nations people. Y es, when you have huge inequalities, that’s when we talk about equity.

Maybe we will have to focus on equity for the next 100 years — I hope not — in order to undo the inequality that has existed for such a long time. At this stage…. I’ve heard people say: “Well, you know what? We don’t really know what the money is going to be used for. ” But I think if you take a look at it, it’s sort of does talk about it.

It can be used for capacity-building, to support governance; health and wellness; infrastructure; economic and business development; education, language, culture and training; community development and environmental pro- tection; and capacity-building, fiscal management and gov- ernance. Y ou could go on and on. I can tell you, as I have travelled around this province over the last two years, that I have seen firsthand the colossal divide that exists between First Nations communities, our rural communities and our urban communities.

This is an opportunity for the First Nations to start addressing, with these funds, some of those inequalities that have been imposed on them for such a long time. Let’s talk about education. I hear about that a lot from First Nations leaders — how education is their focus, not just the K-to-12 education and the post-secondary.

I want to do a shout-out to the Minister of Advanced Education for the amazing work that she has done in this area to move forward the dial, to encourage First Nation youth in apprenticeships, to establish a master’s and a doctoral program, and also to really focus on education in our First Nations communities as well that responds to those First Nations communities. Also out of that education, we often forget about language. I’m proud that the minister has allocated money for the reclamation, retention and growing of First Nations lan- guages.

I think every one of us in this room recognizes the importance of the mother tongue. I think, as I talk with First Nations, that one of their top priorities is to capture lan- guages that are dying and languages that they are very close to losing. When you capture your language, you capture far more than words. Y ou capture your culture; you capture your history. The importance of first language is recognized by every First Nation across this province. I know that amazing work is being done.

When I’ve visited some of the communities, I’ve actually ended up in a room where a class was being given in a first language where the grandmother, the daughter and the grandson were all in the same room, learning a language that that nation almost lost. So some of this money can also be used to augment the teaching of language. [3:10 p.m.] Let me also now talk about infrastructure. My other col- leagues have talked about housing. I will say that we’re very proud of the work that we have done on building homes with First Nations on First Nations lands. But there’s also other infrastructure.

We know that there is a huge digital divide between our rural and urban communities and an even big- ger digital divide between First Nations communities and the rest of us. There are things so many of us take for granted. For example, when I’m in Surrey and I’m visiting a high school, they’re doing a deep-sea dive. They’re talking to a diver in the ocean off the coast, just off Bamfield, and they’re actually beginning to talk about the flora and the fauna of the ocean bed. They’re able to ask questions.

It’s hard for us to believe, I know, because there’s a lot of connectivity in urban areas, but there are parts of the province, in many, many of our First Nations, which don’t have cell service. They can’t text. They don’t have access to Netflix. They don’t have access to education on line. They don’t have access to the economic potential that exists when you have that basic infrastructure. Because of that disparity, the digital divide gets bigger and bigger, of course, as we move forward.

We know the import- ance of having connectivity, not only to access government but to support traditional businesses, whether it is your tra- ditional mining, forestry industry, tourism and fishing, or whether it is to attract the new industries that exist into your area when you have high-speed Internet and you get that connectivity. Only last week I was in Haida Gwaii and in Port Clements. There, you had tears in the eyes of people because they now have cell service. It’s something we just take for granted, but they have that now, and they were so, so happy.

But there were other priorities that they laid out at that meeting. Funding like this will allow people in our remote and First 10068 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 10, 2019

Nations communities to be able to focus on what is really important in their community. I also, at this stage, would like to say that — I was talking about language earlier — my first language, in case any of you didn’t know, is Punjabi. I grew up speaking that to the age of nine. When my family moved to England, I then learned English and, later on, French as well. I know how important it is to retain your mother tongue. I know how important it is. Even then….

I can tell you that when we did the Connected Coast announcement a year ago, at that time, when a director from Haida Gwaii was at the mike, what he said was: “Having connectivity — having a cell phone, having high-speed Internet — is going to allow us to bring our children home. It’s going to allow us to keep our language. It’s going to allow us to promote our culture, keep our culture and keep us connected. ” I think there isn’t anything more moving than when somebody says that having access will allow them to bring their children home.

As a mother, grandmother and now a great-grandmother, I can tell you that I am so moved every time I think about that clip. I’m now thinking that as this money, $100 million a year, is shared out amongst the First Nations, they’re going to use it for what is a priority in their communities. I cannot decide what is a priority for each one of these First Nations. They know. This is going to allow them to do the capacity-build- ing that needs to happen. That is always part of it. We talk about capacity-building, even in government and in our own spheres.

It’s very, very important for everybody. [3:15 p.m.] I can tell you that yesterday, when the member for Nechako Lakes — this is an exact quote — talked about a quote from a book by Helin, he goes: “It’s not about drug or alcohol addiction. It’s about addiction to government cheques, money that’s coming in from governments. I won- der if there’s an attempt, in terms of the gaming revenue and this process…. ” I was sitting in my room when I heard this, and I can say that not too many times in my life do I become speechless, but I was made speechless by this.

We give out grants as a government — and the previous government did — all the time, to a myriad of groups and organizations. Having grants given is not new. Having revenue-sharing from gaming is not new either, because we already give out grants. We give out grants to municipalities. We give out grants to community organizations and health services.

I have never heard my colleagues across the way talk about that as an “addiction to government cheques. ” So why is it, when we’re talking about revenue-sharing with First Nations, that what is quoted — they’re the exact words — is: “It’s about addiction to government cheques”? Let me tell you that many, many amazing leaders and community members I have met in the First Nations com- munity are hard-working, determined, working for the best of their community. I don’t see them as being addicted to government cheques.

They are fighting to improve the living conditions on their reserves, on the land and their nation. They’re struggling with housing. They’re struggling with health care, with access to doctors, with access to nurses. They’re struggling with young people who need to be steered and to address mental health issues and other types of addictions. They are struggling with retention of the language, which is so, so necessary for the preservation of a culture and a nation.

They are struggling with economically moving away from some of the older economies and moving into the new economies that require high-speed Internet and other infra- structures. I hear them talking about how they want to make life better. I hear them talking about how they want to work in partnership, nation to nation. I don’t ever see them coming here saying: “I want a cheque because I want to be depend- ent on you. ” I really, really felt badly that those who listened to this would be so hurt by it.

Then for the same member for Nechako Lakes to say that this whole thing was “more about paying off friends than it is about actually getting the resources to the bands…. ” I found that to be insulting and disrespectful and also not comprehending the challenges faced by our First Nations community. I go back to what we heard from the First Nations. First Nations leaders described the plan as “the single most important” action the provincial government could take to “ease First Nations poverty and begin to close the econom- ic and social gap for all First Nations. ” That’s a quote from the First Nations leaders.

That’s not something I have just made up. [3:20 p.m.] We on this side of the House heard that loud and clear, and we have a clear commitment to reducing the gap that exists, that is so huge. This small step — because it is a very small step — is not going to set everything right, but it is a small step in the right direction: $100 million a year.

As you know, over the course of the next 25 years, that’s $3 billion — $3 billion that is going to go into addressing health and wellness, infra- structure, economic business development, education, lan- guage, community development, capacity-building and gov- ernance, all what I am so proud that our government is com- mitted to doing. Truth and reconciliation is not just about sharing here. We have been living that for the last two years, and very soon there will be legislation brought forward that will show the commitment that we do have to this. But I do want to say that we have a fairly good record.

It would take me a long, long time to read everything into the record, but let me just read a couple of things. We have been implementing a strategy to increase the number of Indigenous employees to train child welfare staff to provide culturally relevant, meaningful and safe services for Indigenous children, youth, families and communities, because we know that we don’t have all the answers. As Thursday, October 10, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10069

many books as we might read, as many movies as we might watch, only the First Nations communities really know how to address this, and we’re working in partnership with them. In February 2019, MCFD broadened the education and experience requirements for front-line child protection pos- itions. That’s a good thing, because we’re doing things from our end that will help to improve the services. We passed legislation that allows MCFD to share more information with Indigenous communities to keep children from coming into care in the first place, so the first priority is to have the child stay in the community.

We’ve invested $30 million to create more than 600 new, free, licensed child care spaces and expanded Aboriginal Head Start in over 30 communities across this province. These programs support Indigenous families and help them to become stronger and united. Y ou know what? There’s a lot going on in many, many ministries. The work that has been done…. For example, a cell tower in Witset, which was the last First Nations com- munity along the Highway of Tears without cell. As we know, that went live not so long ago.

Four provincial parks and one watershed protected area have been renamed to reflect the traditional Indigenous name, to reflect the historic and cul- tural significance. There is still so much more that we still have to do. As people travel across the province, and as I have had the pleasure to meet with so many First Nations communities, I hear from them how, for the first time in a long time, they feel heard, they feel included and they feel listened to.

When I was in Williams Lake, and we announced a project there, I heard the chief say: “I never believed this would happen. ” Those are the kinds of things that are happening as we are trying to move down the road of truth and reconciliation. [3:25 p.m.] As I said earlier, our truth and reconciliation cannot pos- sibly make up for the wrongs of the past. It cannot. I think it would be foolish for anyone to think that it could.

But what it does enable us to do is to have a dialogue, to listen, to face the truth, to acknowledge the truth and, once we have it, to move towards a path of reconciliation that we can travel down together respectfully, nation to nation. And for us not to see, when we give a grant or grant money from the gaming fund into the aboriginal communities…. I don’t want that to be seen as just cheque dependency, when we don’t see the grants that we give out to all the other agencies in that way. That just seemed so, so wrong.

Also, you know, one of the steps you have to take as you move towards this road of truth and reconciliation is of using your courage and taking a step forward. When you’re stepping forward into unknown territory — which it is, as we move towards nation-to-nation partnership — yes, there are going to be some who are going to say: “There’s no level of accountability. ” But the accountability is there. The accountability is there with an organization set up by the First Nations that is going to distribute this money. They know the criteria that they’re going to be using.

I’ve read it out twice just so that everybody knows that the money isn’t just given without anything. There is a list of the things that the money can be used for. We’ve got to have that faith. When we give money out to community organizations across this province, whether it be in municipalities or in health services or whatever, we don’t then say: “Well, where’s the accountability?” The accountab- ility comes as the program gets delivered. In this province, we do have 203 First Nations. I think we have about a third of Canada’s First Nations right here. Deputy Speaker:Thank you, Member. J. Sims: Thank you.

I support this legislation. Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak a little bit about the Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019, Bill 36. This piece of legislation is intended to fulfil a commit- ment that was made by our government, a commitment to share a portion of B.C. Lottery Corp. net income with First Nations across this province, and to share it with First Nations in a way that ensures that they make the decisions, that they are the decision-makers, about how that money will be expended and what the priorities for the expending of that money will be.

The commitment is a significant one. It’s a commitment for 23 years of dollars, approximately $100 million and increasing annually, as 7 percent of the revenue from lottery net income revenue. It’s an important source of dollars. I know that in discussions that I’ve had with First Nations who’ve come to see me in my responsibilities around poverty reduction….

I’ve had extensive discussions with First Nations around those issues, both on and off reserve, and often the discussion, particularly on reserve but not exclus- ively, is very much about the ability, the capacity, for those nations to be able to make choices about how they move for- ward, to be able to make choices about how they provide supports to folks in their community. They talk a lot about supporting young people and creat- ing opportunities for young people. They talk a lot about the need to have….

As one leader said to me, when he was very excited about this money coming forward — I think at the last leadership gathering, where the announcement of these dollars was made…. [3:30 p.m.] I had leaders there, and one in particular I remember talking to me about this money and saying: “When those dollars come, we will be in a position to use that almost as a secured line of credit to be able to deal with other issues in our community. ” [R.

Chouhan in the chair.] In that particular case, it was the opportunity to build housing where none had been built for a very, very long time 10070 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 10, 2019

and where the need for housing for members of that nation on reserve was desperate. It was very hopeful and expecting that the ability to go to the bank with this guaranteed reven- ue source coming in to the nation would allow them to be able to arrange the agreement that they would need to start to address for themselves the housing challenges that they were facing. That really was only a single example. The resources that are going out…. The first $200 million has gone out to the Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Part- nership, which will be the body.

It’s a body that was struc- tured under the advice of the First Nations Leadership Council and its member bodies to ensure that there was accountability around the money, which the partnership provides, and, at the same time, that the decisions were being made by First Nations themselves. What we heard, of course, is the desire to ensure that First Nations would be the people who would make the decisions about how those dollars would be expended and about how those dollars would move forward. That’s why, when you look at the criteria, the criteria are very, very broad for the use of this money.

Pretty much any legitimate project will find a place within this criteria if need be — for health and wellness; for infrastructure, safety, transportation and housing; for economic and business development; for educa- tion, language, culture and training; for community develop- ment and environmental protection; and for capacity-build- ing, fiscal management and governance. That’s a very wide net that is cast around the criteria that have been established working in consultation with First Nations to determine that criteria.

It’s a very wide net that has been cast and consciously so, to ensure the decisions are made by the nations about how they will expend the dollars they will now come to expect every year. I heard talk on the other side, of course, about whether there should be other sources of money. Well, you’ll know this has been a discussion around gaming revenue for a very long time in this province.

I recall it was in 2007 that First Nation leaders presented the previous government, now the opposition, with an investment plan that recom- mended allocating 3 percent of gross gambling revenue directly towards economic development — to the previous government. That recommendation and that proposal fell flat. It did not get a positive response from the previous government.

We have responded with 7 percent of the net income and created a fund here that will be under the control of First Nations and that will be invested by First Nations at the local nation level, as they see fit, to meet the needs in their communities as they move forward. This is a critical piece. It’s a piece that fits in with the ongo- ing work that we are doing as government around reconcili- ation and around what reconciliation on the ground means. We’ve been investing in housing. We’ve been investing in looking to support child welfare initiatives.

We have invested in supporting the calls to action of the Truth and Reconcili- ation Commission. There was significant participation and a path forward developed around the work of TogetherBC, my work around poverty reduction that we continue to work on in partner- ship with First Nations moving forward, both on and off reserve. We’ve been supportive of friendship centres, which provide critical services to First Nations people living primarily in our urban centres.

And, of course, we will be talking at some point here, not too far down the road, about UNDRIP again and about legislation related to UNDRIP . [3:35 p.m.] This is a Premier and a government that is committed to the hard work of making reconciliation work. It was Grand Chief Stewart Phillip who said: “Reconciliation isn’t for wimps. ” He acknowledged that it is work. It’s challenging work, and it’s work that’s complicated. But what’s not com- plicated is to understand at some point that where you deter- mine to share revenue, you don’t tie a bunch of strings to the revenue.

Y ou share the revenue, and you ensure that the nations have the authority, the authority they quite appropri- ately deserve, to make those decisions about what will and what won’t happen with that revenue that they have. This legislation, the Gaming Control Amendment Act, does exactly that, and it does that in a structure which is the partnership group, the limited partnership that, in fact, ensures that it is guided with accountability and transpar- ency, but it is guided by First Nations themselves.

Of course, as part of this, the Lottery Corp. has had appointed, added to the board, a director from the First Nations communities. Now, as we move forward to do this, we’ve heard from the other side, the opposition, a lot of reservation about this. We’ve heard comments. But what we have to under- stand is that as much as they would like to rewrite history, history is what it is. The history of the other side started, very clearly, shortly after they came to power in 2001.

When they did that, many will remember, mostly sadly and with some shame about it, the B.C. treaty referendum in 2002, a provincewide referendum on First Nation treaty rights in British Columbia. The Attorney General of the day called it a chance for ordinary British Columbians to have their say about the treaty process. The government called it an experiment in direct democracy. But as a number of people said, including Angus Reid, a well-respected pollster….

He called it “one of the most amateurish, one-sided attempts to gauge the public will that I have ever seen in my professional career. ” Critics called for a boycott of the referendum. Critics, including Indigenous and church leaders, called the plebis- cite stupid, immoral, amateurish and racist. That was how the people on the other side started, when they formed gov- ernment, to engage the relationship with First Nations. Quite honestly, that relationship…. I don’t believe they ever recovered from that in terms of building a meaningful, sub- stantive relationship that was based on respect. Here we are today.

We’re here today, where we have chal- lenges, including where the other side failed to address issues around the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; where Thursday, October 10, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10071

the previous Premier refused, until forced under public pres- sure, to name a new chief commissioner to the treaty com- mission that would allow the treaty commission to proceed with treaty work. In 2012, the Liberals refused to address the Highway of Tears, regardless of what Missing and Murdered Women said. They refused to address the issue of transportation on the Highway of Tears. It took…. Thankfully, when our gov- ernment came in… Interjection. Deputy Speaker:Member for Kamloops–South Thomp- son. Hon. S. Simpson:…we addressed the problem. It’s some- thing that side…. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Minister.

Minister, hold it. Hon. S. Simpson:Disingenuous is the label for that side. Disingenuous. Deputy Speaker:Minister. Minister, hold it. That’s good. The member has to be in his chair if he wants to make any comments. Thank you. Minister, continue. Hon. S. Simpson: There’s nobody more disingenuous. They abandoned women in that community. They aban- doned women. The ex–Transportation Minister abandoned women in that community. Interjections. [3:40 p.m.] Deputy Speaker:Members. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:The minister has the floor. Hon. S. Simpson: What does this party say now? Unbe- lievable.

What does this party say now? Let’s talk about what the member for Nechako Lakes had to say, his comments regarding this piece of legislation: “It’s about the addiction to government cheques, money that’s coming in from governments.

I wonder if this is an attempt, in terms of the gaming revenue and this process…. ” Or is it “just another government cheque coming in?” He went on to say, the member for Nechako, as he was talking: “It seems to be more about paying off friends than it is about actually getting the resources to the bands. ” Well, I’m not sure who those friends are, but what I do know is that there are thousands and thousands of First Nations leaders around this province — chiefs, chief coun- cillors, councillors, others in First Nations communities, Elders — who are excited about this money, money that will roll, money that will be invested in communities, communities that the Liberals abandoned and ignored for 16 years.

They ignored for 16 years. We have an ex-minis- ter over there who turned her back on First Nations com- munities time and again, has a history of turning her back on them — a history of it. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Members. Hon. S. Simpson:We have a party over there, a political party, that has misrepresented their position around First Nations time and again. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Members. Members. Hon. S. Simpson:And sadly…. Interjections. Hon. S. Simpson:Maybe it’s a good thing.

Maybe this is a good thing, but during this debate, they have reinforced and demonstrated that again and again and again. It’s very sad. Interjection. Deputy Speaker:Member. Member. Hon. S. Simpson:The good thing about this is that people can read this debate. They can look at this debate. They can look at what that side did as they tried to couch in words about caution and accountability… Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Order. Hon. S. Simpson:…the fact that they do not believe that First Nations should get this money. That’s the truth. They do not believe it. This is the group over here. Interjections.

Deputy Speaker:Order, Members. Members. Member, take your seat. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Order, Members. 10072 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 10, 2019

Interjection. Deputy Speaker: The member for Prince George– Valemount will come to order. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Members will come to order now. That’s enough, member for Prince George–Valemount. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Members, are you not listening? Mem- bers, come to order, please. Enough. One member at a time. This member has the floor, and if people disagree with it, they will have time to counter it. Please let’s be respectful. The minister will continue. Hon. S. Simpson:Thank you, hon. Speaker. I don’t want to just…. Interjections. Hon. S. Simpson:Let’s talk about other members on that side.

What about the member for Kelowna West? What did the member for Kelowna West say in the debate on this bill? That “ …lots of money has gone to First Nation communities and through organizations where perhaps maybe there’s no level of accountability. ” This is about a side that just…. It’s the nudge-nudge, wink- wink implications that we hear from the other side. That’s what we hear. [3:45 p.m.] What I’m pleased about is that this bill is going to pass.

It’s going to pass, and it’s going to put in place a structure that ensures that there are core dollars going to First Nations across this province, dollars that they will have control over, dollars that they will make

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20191010pm-Hansard-n274
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20191010pm Hansard n274
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	235ad2c6ff28563984b1719965e4fe591ccbdcd6

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).