Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 294

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

John Mann

J. Thornthwaite

Introductions by Members

Tributes

John Mann

B. Ma

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Quest University

J. Sturdy

Seniors housing project in Mission

B. D’Eith

Rose Mah

L. Larson

Tommy Douglas branch of Burnaby Public Library

R. Chouhan

Holodomor Memorial Day

A. Weaver

Eli Pasquale

R. Kahlon

Oral Questions

Conditions in forest industry and government response

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

Economic conditions and government response

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

Labour dispute in forest industry

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

Hon. H. Bains

Species-at-risk legislation

A. Weaver

Hon. G. Heyman

Labour dispute at University of Northern B.C.

S. Bond

Hon. H. Bains

Labour dispute in transit system

J. Johal

Hon. H. Bains

J. Thornthwaite

Government response to labour disputes

M. de Jong

Hon. H. Bains

Hon. J. Horgan

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsperson, report, Looking Ahead: Symposium on the Future of

Parliamentary Ombudsman Functions and Services

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 39 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) and Statute Revision Amendment Act, 2019

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 40 —

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. D. Eby

T. Shypitka

L. Larson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 40 —

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 43 — Election Amendment Act, 2019

J. Yap

Hon. D. Eby

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 41 — Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. S. Fraser

M. Lee

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2019

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s a privilege to stand and make two sets of introductions today.

Joining us in the gallery are some of my childhood heroes — and not just me

but many members of this House and, indeed, British Columbians and all the

thinking hockey fans across Canada who have been Canucks fans since, oh, 50

years now.

In the gallery is the alumni association. Player Bob Murray, a former

player and the president of the alumni board, is with us today. Jyrki Lumme,

the Flying Finn, is here with us today. Chris Oddleifson started out as a

Seal and ended up as a Canuck, which is what you would want to do. A Stanley

Cup finalist in the 2011 series, Chris Higgins, is here with us today as

well as “the Steamer,” Stan Smyl.

We’re very happy to have all of the players with us today. I’m fairly

confident that all the hockey fans in the room today will probably want to

jump to their feet to join that introduction. But in the interest of

brevity, I’ll do that on behalf of all of us.

Also joining the alumni association is Rob Wilkins, the chair of the

luncheon committee, as well as Caitlin Jennings, the director of the Brook

Pooni Non-Profit Group that’s working to get a proclamation done today,

which we’ll be doing later in the morning.

It’s a real thrill to have the players here and the alumni

association. Fifty years of not just great hockey from the Canucks, but

their community service is unparalleled. So would the House please make them

all very, very welcome.

Sitting among my childhood heroes is one of my personal heroes today.

Susan Sanderson is the executive director and co-founder of Realistic

Success Recovery Society in Surrey. She works tirelessly to help those who

have fallen off the rails to get back on track. Recovery is fundamental to

success for individuals when they come into strife, whether it be through

addictions or other issues. Susan is a tireless advocate, not just in Surrey

but in British Columbia, and she’s sitting with some heroes.

That corner of the gallery today is very well represented by fine

British Columbians. Would the House please make them all very, very

welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: We have some very special guests in the House today. The president of

the Union of B.C. Performers, Keith Martin Gordey, along with a number of

members from the Union of B.C. Performers and the Alliance of Canadian

Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, ACTRA. We have the vice-president,

Jackson Davies; the treasurer, Ellie Harvie; and a number of other executive

board members and staff. Will the House please join with me and give them a

very, very warm welcome.

Tributes

JOHN MANN

J. Thornthwaite: Canada lost a music icon yesterday. John Mann died at the age of

57. I went to school with John and his brothers in West Van. John’s

career spanned nearly 40 years. He is best known as the front man of the

folk rock band Spirit of the West.

[10:10 a.m.]

His manager and bandmates said: “His songs, and his lyrics

particularly, will be remembered for generations. He had such a gift for

finding the universal in the everyday.” He died of early-onset

Alzheimer’s. Our condolences go out to his family, his friends and his

bandmates.

I’d just like to highlight a couple of lines from his most popular

song, “Home for a Rest.” “I’m knackered again. Come on sleep, take me

soon. Don’t lift up my head till the 12 bells at noon.”

Rest in peace, John.

Introductions by Members

M. Stilwell: It is my sincere pleasure to acknowledge today, joining us in the

Legislature, the Probus Club of Nanoose Bay. We will have 36 members joining

us here in question period. I believe they’re on their tour in the precinct

right now.

The social club offers retired and semi-retired professional

businessmen and women the chance to get together, build friendships and have

fun, like activities and coming here to the Legislature today. I’m sure we

will show them a good time.

There are 200 members in the Probus Club of Nanoose Bay. Across the

globe, there are more than 4,000 clubs, including 252 in Canada. Please join

me in offering them a warm welcome to the Legislature.

N. Simons: We have the hockey players and we have The Beachcombers in

the House today. It’s almost like back on the weekends growing

up.

I’d just like to say, as the representative for Gibsons, it’s a

special pleasure to always welcome Jackson Davies to the House. Constable

Constable is here, so everyone behave. Please, again, make them

welcome.

B. D’Eith: I also wanted to echo thanks to ACTRA and everybody. I had a wonderful

breakfast today, and I really appreciate you coming and talking to all of

us.

I also wanted to echo the actual wonderful words from the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour. I knew John as well. John Mann was an amazing and

incredible talent. I was at his final show at the Commodore, and I can tell

you that in my life I have never had a more emotional experience than

watching John be able to forget his words and read them but remember the

music.

The music stuck with him, and he was able to sing those words and to

have the music. It was such a profound moment. Such an amazing man was taken

away from us way too early.

Thank you so much for your words for that.

I also wanted to say that in the House today we have Maple Ridge

residents. The former minister, Dennis Streifel, will be in the House today

and Sherry Green, Paul Doyle, Tom McLennan and May Leeper. I would like the

House to make them feel very welcome.

Tributes

JOHN MANN

B. Ma: “You’ll have to excuse me. I’m not at my best. You see, I’ve been

gone for a month, and I’ve been drunk since I left. These so-called

vacations will soon be my death. I’m so sick from the drink I need home

for a rest.”

You see, unlike the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and the

member for Maple Ridge–Mission, I did not know John Mann personally. But

I’ve lost track of how many times, as a university student studying

engineering at UBC, I have sung to or listened to that amazing song by

Spirit of the West after many, many long nights of studying.

This anthem for many university students was written by this

incredible band, the highly popular Canadian folk rock band from North

Vancouver. I’m so proud to be a member, one of the many members here —

North Vancouver–​Lonsdale, that’s me; and North

Vancouver–​Seymour; and West Vancouver–​Capilano — who

represent areas of North Vancouver.

Following his passing yesterday, people all over the world will

mourn him and remember him, knowing that his work will live on for

generations to come. At 57 years old, it appears that for John Mann, it

was his time to come home for a rest.

[10:15 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

R. Glumac: I would like to introduce my parents, who made the long journey from

my old hometown of Port Alberni today. They’re crammed up there in the

corner for some reason. Maybe move in a little bit or something.

Maria and George Glumac.

J. Sims: I want the House to join me in welcoming here two women who are very

important in my life. First, my daughter, Karin Sims, who I absolutely….

She’s a pillar of strength for all those who are around her, and her

tenacity and willingness…. The fight in her to take on the challenges that

life has thrown her way absolutely leaves me in awe of her strength every

single day.

Secondly, of course, we all know — those of us who are grandparents —

how wonderful and what joy our grandchildren bring into our lives. Well, I

can tell you that when you become a great-grandmother or a

great-grandfather, the joy just explodes. So I also want you to help me

welcome into this House my great-granddaughter, Alia.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

QUEST UNIVERSITY

J. Sturdy: I am pleased today to showcase a unique, made-in-B.C.

post-secondary institution. Quest University in Squamish is Canada’s

only independent, not-for-profit, secular liberal arts and sciences

university dedicated to undergraduate education.

The Quest program works to prepare students for a rapidly evolving

world, where people change careers over time and where employers

increasingly value creativity and flexibility. Quest offers one

interdisciplinary degree, the bachelor of arts and sciences. The

curriculum emphasizes communication, organization, research,

collaboration and critical reasoning — skills suited to virtually any

endeavour.

Rather than conventional majors, students create a question, one

which drives their studies. This inquiry-driven approach lets students

focus their education and demands that they draw from a wide range of

disciplines. This is unique in Canada and rare around the world, and it

causes many of the questions to be related to some of the most complex

societal issues we face today.

Quest is a global institution. Twenty percent of Quest students

are from B.C., but over 40 different countries are represented in the

rest of the student body, who are drawn by a focused block system of

study, rather than semesters, and supported by groundbreaking

curriculum.

Since opening 13 years ago, Quest has graduated over 800 students

who have gone on to some great post-secondary institutions, including

Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale and McGill. Four students are currently

studying medicine at UBC. Others are already having an impact in the

private sector, such as at the New York Times , Facebook, IBM

and beyond. Others are in the public service — health care,

not-for-profits across the province and far beyond.

Quest University is a made-in-B.C. school that embodies progress

and innovation. As a British Columbian, I’m proud of what Quest

accomplishes and how well they prepare our next cohort of leaders. I

hope you’ll agree that it deserves our attention and our

support.

SENIORS HOUSING PROJECT IN MISSION

B. D’Eith: Our seniors have worked hard their entire lives, raising a new

generation and building communities that we know and love.

Unfortunately, seniors have been hit hard by our province’s housing

crisis.

Even after long careers, many seniors throughout the province

can’t find a home they can afford. Worse still, many seniors must make

the painful choice between moving away to get the access to care that

they need and keeping vital connections to community and

family.

Now, to address this issue, the Mission Association for Seniors

Housing, MASH, has been calling for affordable rental housing for

seniors for many years, since 2007. That’s why I was thrilled to finally

see MASH’s dedicated advocacy come to life with a groundbreaking

ceremony for 70 new affordable rental units for seniors and a new

seniors community centre in Mission.

[10:20 a.m.]

MASH will see $7 million from the Building B.C. community housing

fund for this crucial project. In the words of Tricia Schweers, MASH’s

executive director: “This will go a long way to enable our seniors to

have affordable and stable housing in Mission and to benefit from their

continued community activities and local supports. Construction is now

underway, and we’re expected to have it completed by the spring of

2021.”

I want to extend my deepest gratitude to the district of Mission,

who will be operating the community centre; B.C. Housing; Terra Housing;

Bob Ingram, the president; and the entire board and staff at MASH for

their commitment to this project throughout the years.

I want to give particular thanks to Marilyn Boswyk’s estate. She

left over $1 million of her estate to the centre. So a special thanks

for the Boswyk family’s generous support in helping make this dream come

true.

It’s up to all of us to take care of those seniors who contributed

so much to our society. We owe them a lifetime of gratitude. This

project is the first and an important step towards ensuring that all

seniors in our community and throughout the province of British Columbia

have safe and welcoming homes in their retirement years while staying

connected to their community.

ROSE MAH

L. Larson: All of us are familiar with the school crossing guards that are

out early every school morning and then again later in the afternoon to

help our children cross busy roads on their way to school and home

again. We are blessed with many of these dedicated volunteers throughout

our ridings.

In the community of Okanagan Falls, where 10th Avenue crosses

Highway 97, there is one of these volunteers. Her name is Rose Mah or,

as everyone calls her, Miss Rose. She started her crossing guard

volunteer career in Vancouver at Lord Strathcona Elementary in the

Downtown Eastside. She moved to Okanagan Falls 36 years ago.

When asked what she enjoyed most about her crossing guard duties,

she said she loved seeing the kids dressed for Halloween or other

special days, like pajama day, as they were always happy to stop and

chat about their costumes. She is very vocal about the number of

disrespectful and bad drivers she has seen over the years. She

represents the best of what a small-town volunteer is — not just once a

week or once a month but a commitment for every school day, no

exceptions.

This is Miss Rose’s last school year of volunteering as a crossing

guard for Okanagan Falls Elementary. She has seen generations of

children safely across the street. She has stood at this corner, dressed

in her bright orange jacket, holding a stop sign, for 31 years. I know

there will be community celebrations and sadness when Miss Rose retires

next June.

Thank you, Miss Rose.

TOMMY DOUGLAS BRANCH OF

BURNABY PUBLIC

LIBRARY

R. Chouhan: Today marks the tenth anniversary of the Tommy Douglas branch of

the Burnaby Public Library. Located near the corner of Kingsway and

Edmonds Street, it replaced the former Kingsway branch, which had served

our community since 1962.

Demand for a new branch, in terms of the number of library

materials alone, from the residents had been growing steadily throughout

the years. Beyond that, there was a growing need for a community hub for

the increasingly diverse Edmonds area, a meeting space where new

Canadians could gather and receive help to allow them to grow into their

new homes. A non-traditional library was envisioned as the ideal way to

meet the demands of creating and maintaining such a healthy and dynamic

community.

The 17,500-square-foot library is home to over 84,000 items. Since

it opened, the use of the library branch has continued to grow. The

number of personal visits to this branch has increased by 66 percent

over the past decade, the number of desk inquiries by 115 percent. A

total of 564,000 items were loaned during 2018. The branch is being used

very much by students finding the study space they need, children

flocking to the children’s computers and enjoying the self-check

stations, and patrons finding and using the new dispersed public

catalogues.

Tommy Douglas was a Member of Parliament for the riding of

Burnaby-Coquitlam from 1962 to 1968 and was the first leader of Canada’s

New Democratic Party. He was instrumental in bringing forward a

universal public health care system and expansion of public services to

all Canadians.

[10:25 a.m.]

I send my best wishes and congratulations to the staff and patrons

of the Tommy Douglas branch of the Burnaby Public Library. I can’t think

of a more fitting tribute to the values of our community and the

library’s namesake.

HOLODOMOR MEMORIAL DAY

A. Weaver: This coming Saturday is Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor)

Memorial Day. It’s been a pleasure working with members on both sides of

the aisle over the last month to formally recognize this important day

in British Columbia.

As members know, Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor)

Memorial Day is particularly important and relevant to my family. My

grandfather and his family were survivors of the Holodomor. He and his

wife, together with my mother and her siblings, made their way to Canada

after the Second World War. Their stories have stayed with

me.

During the Holodomor in 1932 to ’33, between three million and

four million people starved to death due to Stalin’s forced

collectivization. Indeed, what unfolded there was horrific. Peasants

were forbidden to leave collective farms, and the Ukrainian borders were

closed, closely patrolled, to prevent the starving from reaching for

bread and searching there in neighbouring Russia.

The Holodomor was a political policy that destroyed the peasants

of Ukraine as a social strata and crushed their opposition to the Soviet

regime. It’s been recognized by the Ukraine and 15 other countries as a

genocide of the Ukrainian people carried out by the Soviet

government.

Canada is home to the world’s third-largest Ukrainian population,

with an estimated 1.36 million Ukrainian Canadians living across this

country, many of whom have made this province their own home and have

contributed to it in all their walks of life.

This Saturday we honour the survivors of Holodomor and their

descendants. We reflect upon this horrific atrocity, Holodomor. Let us

also remember that we have a collective responsibility to challenge

hatred and intolerance and to protect the vulnerable wherever they are

in our society.

ELI PASQUALE

R. Kahlon: This last weekend family and friends gathered to honour the

passing of a Canadian sporting icon, Eli Pasquale.

Eli was born on August 24, 1960, in Sudbury, Ontario. Eli’s

basketball career took off at the University of Victoria. He led UVic to

five straight CIAU championships, still holds the title of the school’s

all-time leading scorer and had his jersey, No. 13, retired and hanging

in the rafters.

In 1983’s World University Games, he and his teammates won the

gold medal by defeating the United States, led by Charles Barkley and

Karl Malone, in the semifinals; and in the finals, by defeating

Yugoslavia, led by Dražen Petrović. In 1984’s NBA draft, he was drafted

by the Seattle SuperSonics, 106th overall.

Eli proudly represented the Canadian national team at various

levels over 15 years. He led our country to a fourth-place finish in the

1984 Olympics and a sixth finish in the 1982 FIBA World Championships.

Pasquale was later inducted into the Canadian Basketball Hall of Fame in

2003 and the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame in 2004.

To say that Eli’s death is a huge loss to the basketball community

is a massive understatement. His accomplishments in sport and for our

country secure his place as one of the nation’s most celebrated

athletes.

His greatest legacy is the work he did with young people. He was a

role model and played an important role in so many young people’s lives.

I remember being in awe of him when my parents signed me up for his

basketball camp. I looked up to him and so did so many of my

peers.

On behalf of all members of this House, I would like to send

condolences to his family: to his wife, Karen; his sons, Isaiah and

Manny; his brother, Vito; his sister, Luciana; and his mother,

Adriana.

Oral Questions

CONDITIONS IN FOREST INDUSTRY

AND GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE

A. Wilkinson: It’s no secret that British Columbia’s forest industry is in the

middle of a very serious crisis. Mills have shut down. Thousands of

directly employed jobs, mostly unionized, have been lost. Thousands of

contractors find themselves with no employment income at all. The

response from the Premier and his do-nothing Forests Minister has been

to raid one community’s rural dividend fund to create a fund in the next

community, which is essentially inaccessible.

[10:30 a.m.]

I heard in Quesnel last week that an unemployed logging truck

driver went to the transition process and was told that he could be

trained to be a logging truck driver. He found this not only demeaning

and insulting but really quite degrading and depressing.

The impacts are spreading. We now hear that CN Rail has laid off

1,600 people across the country, largely driven, in this part of the

world, by an 11 percent drop in shipments of forest products.

The obvious question is: when will the Premier come to his senses,

pay attention to rural British Columbia and replace his Forest

Minister?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for raising questions about forestry. We’ve had

weeks here, and this is, I think, the second or third time that’s

happened.

I think it speaks to the larger problem that we have in the

forests in British Columbia, which is not a partisan question but one of

fibre supply, access to markets and two successive years of the worst

forest fires we’ve seen in living memory. These are significant

challenges for rural British Columbia. They’re significant challenges

for forest workers and forest-dependent communities.

We’ve been trying our level best to bring people to the table.

We’ve established what we’re calling timber supply tables in every

corner of the province that bring together communities, Indigenous

people, working people and CEOs. At the highest level, we want to make

sure we’re finding solutions for the long term.

This is not a blame game thing. I appreciate the candour and the

focus that the member has put in his question. We all want to see a

better outcome in our forests, but we all need to work together to see

that happen.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

AND GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE

A. Wilkinson: We have seen from this government a great enthusiasm for spending

programs and a complete indifference to where the money is going to come

from. The Premier needs to start paying attention to the corrosion of

the British Columbia economy, which the Finance Minister is abundantly

aware of, putting a stop to discretionary spending two months

ago.

Forest exports are down 20 percent year over year, and 1,600 jobs

lost at CN Rail, as I said earlier. Teck Resources is cutting 500 jobs

because metallurgical coal exports are down. That will mean a knock-on

effect throughout the economy in engineering services and all of the

things that those people used to buy with their strong paycheques from

the resource economy.

Economic growth projections have dropped by 30 percent, from 2.4

percent to 1.7 percent. The Finance Minister’s tension must be spreading

to the Premier’s office by now. Small business confidence in British

Columbia is now at the lowest level since the financial crisis in 2008.

This is an economy that is like a falling leaf, and this government

seems to have no interest whatsoever in providing stimulus to the small

business sector that drives our economy.

The obvious question comes up. When is this Premier going to

recognize that someone has to pay the bills, someone has to generate the

income to pay for his aggressive spending agenda?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate the question from the member.

We have the fastest-growing economy in the country, but it has

significantly slowed over the past number of months. This is

acknowledged by leading financial institutions as well as economists. I

spoke yesterday to the B.C. Business Council luncheon, and the headline

on their presentation was “Anxiety in the Economy.” This is evident to

everyone. This, again, is not a partisan question.

Commodity prices are low, particularly on the metallurgical coal

side. That’s the challenge for Teck Cominco.

We have a continued trade dispute with our largest trading partner

when it comes to softwood lumber. The Minister of Forests was on a trade

mission to China and Japan with leading executives from the forest

industry just last week to try and grow those markets so that we can get

our products to appropriate markets and increase the value of our export

industries.

Again, I don’t see the value in the member opposite and the

members opposite criticizing the work that we’re doing on this side of

the House when we look at 56,000 jobs created in the past year, the

highest credit rating in the country. Vancouver was just rated No. 1 for

tech investments in North America — No. 1. We’re starting a second

downtown at Surrey. The Surrey city centre will lead to more economic

development and prosperity out the valley.

There are a lot of positive indicators, but there are some

challenges on the horizon. I appreciate members on the other side being

responsible about this and talking in a dialogue that makes sense to

British Columbians. We’re all in this together. When markets start to

fall, we all are concerned about that, not one side or the other side

but all British Columbians.

I appreciate, again, the approach that the member is taking on

these questions. We’re doing our level best to make sure that workers

and communities are protected from these downturns. That’s what

governments are supposed to do.

[10:35 a.m.]

LABOUR DISPUTE IN FOREST INDUSTRY

J. Rustad: Well, the Premier talks about the fact that there are challenges

out there, but the bottom line is there is no help that’s been coming to

the workers that have been impacted. It’s not just the closures and

curtailments that are impacting the forestry workers. The United

Steelworkers and Western Forest Products strike is impacting thousands

of hard-working families across the Island.

At 144 days, the strike on Vancouver Island is likely now the

longest strike the coastal forest industry has ever seen. Communities

are holding fundraisers to help families buy food. Homes are being

listed because workers can’t make payments. Tow trucks are hauling away

repossessed vehicles. Hydro is being disconnected. Contractors are on

the verge of going bankrupt.

When will this minister do something to provide some help for

these workers on the Island?

Hon. D. Donaldson: As we know, the labour disruption and labour dispute on Vancouver

Island between Western Forest Products and United Steelworkers is

something that needs to be resolved between the two parties and is

something that takes place at the bargaining and negotiating table

between those organizations.

Now, in the meantime, we have taken on the situation that was

faced by the forest industry on Vancouver Island in the coast forest

sector revitalization initiative. Primarily, what that initiative has

undertaken, after extensive consultation with communities and with

workers and with the industry, is to drive more logs towards domestic

production on Vancouver Island and the coast and to have more fibre

recovered in the forest to bring out to use in value-added

products.

We know that reinvestment has to take place in these communities.

We know that policy changes have to be put in place. We’re undertaking

that, and we see a brighter future on the Island than has been in the

past.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes on a supplemental.

J. Rustad: Well, from coastal forest revitalization, we’ve seen Teal-Jones go

down. We’ve seen Interfor shut down mills, curtail. We’ve now seen that

Mosaic is going to curtail. Western Forest Products is, of course,

closed, behind a strike. Families and communities are being devastated.

How can this minister be so obtuse?

These families are really hurting. They need help. There needs to

be a solution brought forward. Something has to happen. This government

has been completely silent on this. There are times, of course, when

negotiations can’t be achieved, when there are issues that just make it

impossible.

Will the minister do the right thing and initiate an industrial

inquiry commission to help resolve this strike and get people back to

work before Christmas?

Hon. H. Bains: Whenever there’s a strike, it’s very, very difficult for the

workers, for the companies and for the communities. This strike has gone

on for too long.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: I’ve been on strike for 4½ months myself. It is difficult on

families. It is difficult on workers. No worker wants to go on

strike.

Right now in this dispute, Vince Ready is involved — one of the

best mediators, as you know, as we all know. He brought the parties

together last week. They have broken off again. Vince Ready’s

recommendation is that they should take a couple of days, a few days,

and come back and realize what their positions are so that we can

conclude a collective agreement.

SPECIES-AT-RISK LEGISLATION

A. Weaver: Earlier this year the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services released the most comprehensive

assessment to date on the state of biodiversity and ecosystems

worldwide. It warned of unprecedented and accelerating extinction rates,

with millions of species at risk of disappearing forever, many within

decades — more than ever before in human history.

[10:40 a.m.]

The chair of the report said this: “The health of ecosystems on

which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than

ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihood,

food security, health and quality of life worldwide.”

British Columbia has more species at risk than any other province

or territory in Canada. Despite this fact, and despite the warnings of

the intergovernmental panel, we still have no dedicated law to protect

endangered species.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy. Why is B.C. still one of the last jurisdictions in Canada

without a law to protect endangered species?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. He is

absolutely correct that B.C. is Canada’s most ecologically diverse

province. We also have, by far, the greatest number of species at risk

of any province in Canada.

We know that we have a responsibility to take action to protect

B.C.’s environment, to protect ecological diversity, to protect species

at risk. We know that we need to do it in a way that’s designed in

British Columbia. There is a law in Canada. It is, in fact, a

unidimensional law that doesn’t address all of the potential factors

that can contribute to healthy ecosystems.

We have spent 2018 and 2019 consulting extensively. Among the

examples of stakeholders with whom we’ve spoken are the Nature

Conservancy of Canada, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Association for

Mineral Exploration, the Council of Forest Industries, the SFU faculty

of science and the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

It is in my mandate, and has been since day one, to develop B.C.’s

species-at-risk legislation. We are working on that. While we’ve been

working on it, we’ve also been addressing a number of areas in British

Columbia where species need to be protected in the interim. We are

taking the time to consult. We’re taking the time to listen to

Indigenous people. We’re taking the time to listen to communities. We’re

taking the time to get it right.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

On February 27, 2017, I introduced a private member’s bill to

enact endangered species legislation. The following day, and while in

opposition, the now Minister of Environment also tabled legislation to

protect endangered species in our province. Yet now in government, we

have seen no action.

As the minister noted, in his mandate letter from the Premier, it

states that the minister will “enact an endangered species law and

harmonize other laws to ensure they are all working towards the goal of

protecting our beautiful province.”

I reiterate. We’re two years into this government, yet B.C.

remains one of the only provinces without legislation dedicated to

protecting and recovering species at risk.

My question once more to the Minister of the Environment is this.

When will we see this government enact species-at-risk legislation to

finally give these threatened ecosystems and species the protection that

they need and that British Columbians want them to have?

Hon. G. Heyman: As I’ve outlined, we are consulting. We are working on it. We have

talked to Indigenous people. We have taken action in a number of areas,

as I’ve outlined yesterday — and, in fact, in other areas — to protect

the species at risk and to deal with endangered ecosystems.

In the time since we’ve taken office, we’ve introduced the

Professional Governance Act, a revamped Environmental Assessment Act, a

climate plan, a Climate Change Accountability Act. We’re working on a

climate adaptation strategy that will be critical to protecting species

at risk.

We are doing far from nothing. But we want to make sure that we

get it right. We want to learn from the actions that we’ve taken to

protect caribou. We need to work with Indigenous people, with local

communities, with stakeholders and with environmental scientists to

ensure that we have

an act in B.C. that protects species at risk, that

protects biological diversity and that protects the economic well-being

of communities as well as community, cultural and social values. We will

bring in the act that we’re working on in this mandate.

[10:45 a.m.]

LABOUR DISPUTE AT

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN

B.C.

S. Bond: Well, it’s not just transit users or forestry workers, but it’s

also students who are being impacted by labour disputes in this

province. I have heard from students, family members, faculty and

community members about the impact of the strike at UNBC, now entering

its third week. I am positive that the government has heard

too.

Thousands of students are at risk of losing a semester if this

strike goes any longer, and their entire year may be in jeopardy. The

reputation of this university is also critical. Frustration is growing,

concern is mounting, and the consequences of an extended strike will be

significant for everyone involved. The government and the minister are

MIA.

To the Minister of Advanced Education, what exactly has she done

to ensure that students won’t lose a semester of their

education?

Hon. H. Bains: Obviously, we’re all concerned about the challenges that all

transit riders face if there is a strike, including students. There are

people who rely heavily on public transportation in the Lower Mainland.

They go to work, they go to school, and they also do many of the

other….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: For all their responsibilities that they need to do, they use

transit. So it is very concerning. It is concerning to all of us. I

appreciate the concern that is shown by the opposition.

The negotiation has to happen at the bargaining table. We are

encouraging both parties to get to the bargaining table. The agreement

that is the best agreement will be at the bargaining table. That’s why

we are encouraging all of them to get back to the bargaining table

before there’s a full-​scale strike.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, for the information of the Labour Minister, buses are

running just fine in Prince George. We’re talking about UNBC. He needs

to turn the page on his briefing book, and the Minister of Advanced

Education needs to get over to his office and explain what’s going on at

the University of Northern British Columbia.

Let’s be clear. Transit, the forest industry, now UNBC — these

ministers and this government are completely absent. It is time to show

some leadership.

Let’s hear what a student had to say. And for the Minister of

Labour, we’re talking about a strike at UNBC, not buses in the Lower

Mainland. It’s time he got a handle on his file and actually showed up

and did something.

Here are the words from one student from Williams Lake who chose

to go to UNBC because it was close to home. This student is in her

fourth year of biochemistry at UNBC. “I think everyone is frustrated

right now. I’m hoping to graduate, but we don’t know if that will be

possible now.”

That is the magnitude of the issue at the University of Northern

British Columbia. It’s time this minister had a conversation with the

Minister of Advanced Education and showed up.

What exactly will this minister do to ensure that these students

do not lose their semester and that faculty can get back into the

classroom?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, one question at a time, please.

Hon. H. Bains: I apologize. I thought the member said “UBC.” So I take that

back.

Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please allow the minister to respond to the

question.

Hon. H. Bains: Again, the bargaining takes place at the bargaining table. That’s

what both parties have to do. Both parties are encouraged to get back to

the bargaining table. The member opposite thinks that the labour

disputes are only happening now. It is a part of….

Interjections.

[10:50 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you. In 2001, 434,000 person-days were

lost. In 2014, 1.2 million person-days were lost, under their

watch.

The parties need to get back to the bargaining table.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, I think you should sit down. It’s clear that there’s not

an interest in hearing your response to the question.

Do you have another question?

The member for Richmond-Queensborough.

LABOUR DISPUTE IN TRANSIT SYSTEM

J. Johal: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m afraid to ask a transit question

because I’ll probably get a UNBC answer. But the opposition will soldier

on.

For three days next week, Metro Vancouver commuters will face a

complete system-wide shutdown of bus and SeaBus services. The thousands

of commuters who count on the transit system to get to and from work, to

school and medical appointments will be left high and dry. The Minister

of Labour, the Parliamentary Secretary for TransLink have been missing

in action on this file. Yesterday the very idea of appointing a mediator

was characterized as “stupid” by the Labour Minister.

Let’s try this again today. Will the minister commit to appointing

a mediator?

Hon. H. Bains: As I said yesterday, the bargaining must take place at the

bargaining table, not in this chamber, not in the media. So we are

encouraging both parties to get back to the bargaining table, because

that’s where the negotiations will take place. That’s where the complex

solutions and a fair deal will be worked out. We are encouraging both

sides before there’s a strike — that they are at the bargaining table.

Hammer out a deal so that no one will be facing the situation that the

member is describing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: Now, the minister knows that he doesn’t need to wait for requests

from either side to appoint a mediator. I remind this House that each

day 350,000 people in the Lower Mainland use the bus system. If that was

a municipality, it would be the third-largest municipality in British

Columbia. It’s an integral part of people’s lives. The fact that this

minister continues to dismiss the mediator option shows that he has zero

interest in helping commuters get on with their lives.

When will the minister cut the excuses and appoint a

mediator?

Hon. H. Bains: I have used transit to go to Vancouver from Surrey, and it is

heavily utilized. Buses are full. SkyTrain is full. That just clearly

shows how heavily the people of the Lower Mainland rely on public

transportation. So we are concerned that it is…. It is very difficult

news for students and for those who need public transit to go to work

and do their chores.

Let me say one thing here. Let me read you one thing: “Well, when

you are as far away from the negotiation table as I am, the last thing

you want to do is weigh in with your opinions on a half-baked basis.”

Who said that? The Leader of the Opposition.

J. Thornthwaite: This transit strike is also having a disproportionate effect on

seniors. The B.C. Care Providers estimate that 40 percent of care

providers use transit to travel to their appointments with seniors.

Should this strike escalate to a full-scale shutdown, vulnerable seniors

who depend on care providers for essential services like meals and

dressing will be left helpless.

B.C. seniors deserve better.

When will the minister step up and appoint a mediator?

Hon. H. Bains: We canvassed this issue quite extensively yesterday, and we are at

it again today. My expectation is that both parties understand those

concerns. We understand those concerns. I know that you understand those

concerns.

[10:55 a.m.]

They know what the needs of their customers are — both the company

and the union. That’s why I think it’s important for them to take this

very, very seriously and get back to the bargaining table and hammer out

a deal so that no one will be inconvenienced, as is being said

here.

Mr. Speaker: The member North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: This is just tone deaf. The fact is that this transit strike is

going to affect everyone. It’s not just seniors or the folks that have

been affected that have been talking to us, on our side of the

House.

Students are also going to be affected, not just the UNBC ones but

UBC students. So maybe we’ll get an answer about this. Faced with a

full-scale shutdown, UBC students are discussing the best place that

they’re going to camp out, stay overnight. So we’re going to have yet

another tent city, now at UBC.

Meanwhile, the Minister of Labour acts as if the strike is out of

your control. Well, it’s not, Minister. You could appoint a mediator

today. Why don’t you?

Hon. H. Bains: In collective bargaining, you have to have willing parties. In

this particular case, both of them know what their responsibilities are.

They have concluded bargaining for decades very, very successfully

without any outside help. They know where to go for help if they need

some.

If they need the assistance of a mediator or otherwise, they know

they could pick up a phone and talk to the Labour Relations Board, and

that assistance will be available to them. But they have to take that

initiative. I’m urging both of them to get back to the table so that

none of those people who rely heavily on public transit is

inconvenienced.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

LABOUR

DISPUTES

M. de Jong: Strikes in the forest sector. Strikes at UNBC affecting students.

Strikes in the transit sector impacting hundreds of thousands of

commuters. More strikes, apparently, than the minister can even keep

track of.

The minister is in denial. The minister is refusing to make use of

the very tools that are at his disposal to encourage settlement of those

disputes that are impacting hundreds of thousands of British Columbians.

He’s refusing to make use of those tools. He says, in response to

questions asking very reasonably for the appointment of a mediator: “No,

no, the parties understand. We have to let them continue the work that

has so far been a failure.”

Will the minister stand and — apparently, he has been meeting with

the parties — will he advise the House…? He’s not taking any other steps

that are apparent. Has he been meeting with the parties? If he has, will

he advise the House when, where, and will he advise the House of the

outcome of those meetings here today, before those hundreds of thousands

of commuters are left high and dry in Vancouver next week?

Hon. H. Bains: Of course we are concerned. Of course we are in touch with the

parties. Of course we are urging them to get back to the bargaining

table, because the best collective agreement comes at the bargaining

table — not the one that is imposed, which they’re used to.

Again, I think that one thing has to be understood. Collective

bargaining…. Why we call it free collective bargaining is exactly for

those reasons. That’s why those parties have to get back to the table.

They know the tools are available at the Labour Relations Board. They

know that we can help. But they have to be a willing party. When they

request any assistance, that assistance is available.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: Negotiators for the unions involved in these disputes are charged

with the responsibility of attending to the best interests of the union

members. Negotiators acting on behalf of the employer are responsible

for the best interests of the employer. This minister is responsible for

attending to the interests of the public of British Columbia.

[11:00 a.m.]

That’s why these tools exist in the legislation that gives him his

job in the first place. He is refusing to use those tools.

British Columbians want to know today: is this minister prepared

to use those tools, appoint a mediator, get these parties back to the

table and get a settlement that’ll get the buses running?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ve listened attentively to the line of questioning from the

opposition today. That last response…. The last time I saw someone get

that excited about labour issues was when they were ripping up contracts

in 2002. That’s the last time I saw them that excited.

If I could just remind people — those that are in the gallery,

those that are here in the House: never in the history of British

Columbia has a labour dispute been resolved in question period, and it’s

not going to happen today.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present report No. 43 intituled

Looking Ahead: Symposium on the Future of Parliamentary Ombudsman

Functions and Services from the Office of the

Ombudsperson.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call third reading, Bill 39. In the Douglas Fir Room,

Committee

Section A, I call continued committee debate on Bill 41, Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AND STATUTE

REVISION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 39, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) and Statute

Revision Amendment Act, 2019, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage of Bill 40, the

Interpretation

Amendment Act.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 40 —

INTERPRETATION

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 40;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

section 1 (continued) .

M. Bernier: Just to continue on from yesterday, we’re going to have a few more

questions from my colleagues behind me. Again, I want to thank my

colleague from Boundary-Similkameen, the MLA there, for all the work she

did on helping bring this forward with government. Of course, we heard

yesterday about the response from the province, overwhelmingly wanting

to look at this.

After discussions yesterday, I did receive an email. I just wanted

to just quickly give the minister an opportunity to clarify what I

believe I know the answer is but just to get on the record.

Alberta right now is looking at going through a similar process. I

know for a lot of people in this part of the province, the concern will

be around the time change effect that it will have on a north-south

transition and differences. But as the minister can appreciate, in my

part and corner of the world, the concern around economic trade is more

east-west.

So the question will be: if the province of Alberta looks at

trying to standardize a specific time zone…? At the present, depending

on regulation next year, if this province chooses to go with Pacific

Time, my part on the other side of the Rockies of B.C. — and the

minister probably knows exactly where I’m going to go with this — is

going to be the same as the rest of British Columbia

year-round.

The question that I have, though, is because of the trade…. And

this is not just trade. This is most of our activities in the Peace

region: sports, travel to the airports. I mean, a lot of this is

contingent on…. If we do have that hour time difference now, five miles

from my house is going to be a different time zone. So a lot of people

in my area are wondering what the province’s position will

be.

Can they explain the process, from a municipal, regional

standpoint on: if Alberta goes to a standardized Mountain Time, will

that be an hour difference than B.C…? The process for my region to

actually consider joining the Alberta time zone, where most of our

relationships, economically and everything else are — what would the

process be to allow that?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the unique situation of the member’s constituency

in terms of time zone was arrived at through a plebiscite, a vote,

locally, in the ’70s.

Interjection.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: In 1972, the member advises me. The province’s desire is that any

decision around which time zone to keep for the member’s constituency

would be made by the people who have to live with it, particularly the

constituents of the members. We would like for them to be able to make

that decision for themselves and not have the province dictate any

particular time zone to them, regardless of what Alberta decides to do

or doesn’t decide to do.

I would be happy to engage with the member and his best suggestion

about how to take the temperature of the people of his constituency

about this. There are a number of options available. The plebiscite

option is there, in terms of attaching it to a municipal election.

Perhaps the province could assist in some way. Maybe there’s some other

way of measuring the will of the people to change to one time zone or

the other.

We should have those discussions in the event that this situation

arises and the member feels that there’s an interest in his community to

switch from what they’re presently doing.

T. Shypitka: Just to follow up from the member for Peace River South. Just to

be clear, I want to kind of recapture everything.

Most of B.C. will be on what is now going to be referred to as

Pacific Time zone, which is minus seven from the Coordinated Universal

Time. Mountain Standard Time is exactly that in the summer, when we

spring ahead. When this act passes, if it passes and the legislation

goes through to coordinate it with the rest of the United States or

those on the Pacific Time zone region, the Peace region can change.

Those people can have the option. Local government can do what they wish

to see fit.

With that, does that also include changing the name? They are

still going to be referred to as Mountain Standard Time, and the rest of

British Columbia, for the most part, will be on Pacific Time. Is it up

to the local regional government to change theirs from Mountain Standard

Time — to change it and to reflect Pacific Time? Is that also something

they can do?

Hon. D. Eby: On a point of principle, I can advise the member that no one’s

particularly fussed about what the time zone is called in the local

communities. If people want to call it something or the other, they’re

welcome to — MST or Pacific Time.

There is an issue in B.C. statutes. Both the Local Government Act

and the Community Charter refer to communities that customarily refer to

Mountain Standard Time. We might have to do some kind of statutory

amendment in a misc bill to align it with whatever the community decides

to call their time zone — it’s a bit speculative — if the community

decides to change the name to Pacific Time.

T. Shypitka: The statutory amendment — how would that look? How would that

affect local decision-makers? Would that be something through B.C.

legislation that would reflect that amendment?

Hon. D. Eby: If the member found that constituents in his community wanted to

have a change of name of the time zone or something like that, I would

just encourage him to reach out to my office. We could have a

conversation about the best process to follow and make sure that any

amendment was agreeable to him or to a representative for that community

to make sure that we were reflecting their intentions, which is the goal

here.

We’re not trying to force anybody to accept a time zone that they

don’t want, in terms of the unique situation faced by the constituents

of Kootenay East. If they have a desire to call the time zone a certain

thing, we’ll have that conversation about how the provincial government

can best recognize that.

T. Shypitka: Final question. It wasn’t really in reference to Kootenay East. It

was more into the Peace region, because they’re on Mountain Standard

Time. We, in the Kootenay East, are on Mountain Daylight Time, so it’s

different.

[11:15 a.m.]

Just to recapture the whole thing, if this bill goes through the

way it looks like, the Peace region will stay on Mountain Standard Time,

what they’ve always done. That will reflect the new Pacific Time zone.

But for clarity, the whole province will now be under Pacific Time zone,

with the exception of Kootenay East and Columbia River–Revelstoke, which

will be still reflective of Mountain Daylight Time.

Hon. D. Eby: That is the effect of this bill.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

L. Larson: Just a final comment. Thank you to the minister for the work that

he inadvertently ended up having to do on this bill.

section 6, it just simply states it comes into effect “by

regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

The Chair: Member, let me clarify. This subsection (6) is part of

section

L. Larson: Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Chair.

By order-in-council, the process we’re in right now is that we

will spring forward, which is our normal thing to do. Then there will be

that gap between when we spring forward and the fall, when we would

normally fall back, a six-month window there, at which time we’re

assuming or hoping that the states to the south of us get their

paperwork done.

Can you tell me whether or not you are in any conversation over

any idea about…? My understanding is that they have sent it through to

Washington, D.C., and they’re waiting. Is there any window of time on

the Washington, D.C., response to Washington state and Oregon state’s

current ask?

Hon. D. Eby: The member rightly refers to the fact that I have inadvertently

ended up working on this bill. I think she recognizes that this is her

baby and the baby of the Premier, that they have really championed this

file. It does fall on my ministry, but….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: Yeah. I feel like I’ve adopted this baby, at least for a little

bit.

I can advise the member that we don’t have any inside information

about the federal government’s processes in the United States, in terms

of approval of the requests that have gone forward. We can speculate

about the impact of California putting a pause on their bill and whether

the federal Congress would feel that they needed to wait for California

and bundle them all together or that they could proceed

ahead.

I feel well out of my comfort zone guessing about American

politics, especially currently — what will go through federal Congress

and be uncontroversial and what won’t. We’re watching, and we hope,

certainly, that everyone would be able to be in line. But I think the

Premier has also been clear that if it’s in British Columbia’s best

interests to go it alone, we would do that. But everybody’s preference

is that we’re lined up, up and down the coast.

L. Larson: Like I say, in conclusion, thank you very much for all of the work

that you and your staff have done. I’m happy to be done with this myself

also.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:20 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 40 —

INTERPRETATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 40,

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Bill 43, the Election Amendment Act, 2019, committee

stage.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 43 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 43;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:24 a.m.

section 1.

J. Yap: I look forward to committee stage debate on Bill 43. I’d like to

start out with some background questions.

In May of 2018, Dr. Keith Archer, B.C.’s Chief Electoral Officer,

published a report recommending legislative changes to B.C.’s election

laws. Can the minister explain the process that led up to that report

being published and walk us through the steps of what happened after

that report was published and up to the point that we are here today

with this bill?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We can’t advise the member, because we don’t know in great detail

about the process that took place in the Chief Electoral Officer’s

office. He’s an independent officer, independent of government. But I

can advise the member that it’s typical, after a general election, for

the Chief Electoral Officer to take lessons learned and feedback from

their staff about how things went and if there are opportunities for

improvement and to compile those experiences and recommendations into a

report for government.

This was a somewhat unusual report this time. While typically

there are sort of minor housekeeping-type amendments recommended, the

Chief Electoral Officer this time made recommendations about modernizing

our electoral system, incorporating things like digital vote-counting

machines and different ways that we could be more efficient in terms of

how people are voting now, compared to how they voted even as recently

as 20 years ago.

This report was a little different, and it’s likely they followed

a somewhat different process than previous reports, given the depth of

the recommendations. But I would just be speculating, because that all

happened internal to the Chief Electoral Officer’s office in preparing

this independent report.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response. Of course the office of the

Chief Electoral Officer is an independent officer of the Legislature. I

appreciate the minister’s comments in regards to how we have the report

from the Chief Electoral Officer, which I understand formed the basis of

this bill undergoing committee stage debate.

Again, the report, which I’ve read, did have, as the minister

says, some interesting recommendations that required legislative change.

Can the minister advise: was it a case of taking the report and having

staff review it and create this legislation? Or was there a consultation

process that was involved so that we have this fairly comprehensive

amending act for the B.C. Election Act?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, there was a process of engagement with Elections B.C. Staff

received the report. They began the work of turning the report into

legislation and supporting the policy amendments that were requested. On

occasion, in doing this work, staff will have questions that’ll come up

about

interpretation. Or there are a couple of different ways to achieve

what has been recommended. They’ll go back to Elections B.C. and say:

“Did you mean this? What about this option?” There was that dialogue

back and forth, in terms of the final product that the member sees here

in the House today.

The Chief Electoral Officer is involved throughout the process and

through this kind of dialogue process of developing the bill.

J. Yap: Can the minister confirm, then, based on that re­sponse,

that all of the relevant recommendations, including the four priority

recommendations contained in the May 2018 report, are contained within

the bill that’s before this House?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There were three additional recommendations that relate to the

Election Act that are not included in this legislation. The first is

that the CEO, the Chief Electoral Officer, be provided with authority

under the Offence Act’s Violation Ticket Administration and Fines

Regulation to issue violation tickets of up to $500 for all Election Act

offences.

The reason this wasn’t included was that on the timelines

available for getting this legislation into place, the Ministry of

Attorney General staff were not able to complete adequate internal

consultations about the appropriateness of using Offence Act tickets in

relation to Election Act contraventions, or evaluate different ways we

could be achieving the same result.

Rather than hold up the whole bill, we have proceeded without it.

It doesn’t mean that it’s not going ahead. It’s just not going ahead at

this stage. There may be another way that we attempt to achieve the

intent of the recommendation.

The second is to amend the Election Act to reflect the existing

rule ensuring access to rental properties by candidates or other agents

during a campaign period for the purpose of campaigning. This is about

moving. The member will be familiar that there’s a rule, under the

Residential Tenancy Act, that says that landlords must give access to

their properties to candidates for the purpose of campaigning. The

recommendation was to move it out of the Residential Tenancy Act into

the Election Act. This says that we are not moving ahead with that

recommendation; however, indirectly, we’re trying to address

it.

The Chief Electoral Officer was trying to address sort of a level

of awareness to make sure that landlords were aware of this obligation.

By moving it into a different act…. The concern that we had was that

moving it out of the Residential Tenancy Act, which is

an act that many

landlords will be familiar with and will have to turn to, might cause

them to be less aware. So our preference was to proceed with

non-legislative options for improving awareness of the provision,

including, potentially, outreach to various stakeholders that could

raise awareness among landlords about their obligations in this

regard.

The third is that the Chief Electoral Officer suggested there be a

dollar-value threshold as a trigger for the requirement to register as a

third-party advertising sponsor. You’d only have to register as a

third-party advertising sponsor after incurring a specified amount of

election advertising expenses. That was suggested to be, perhaps, the

same as the Canada Elections Act threshold, which is $500.

The concern that we had about this recommendation is just seeing

what has happened in the United States and concerns about electoral

interference in that country — that advertising of less than $500 can be

effective and have an impact. Reducing the threshold at this time of

public concern about who is buying advertising and for what purpose did

not seem to be the right approach from a policy perspective to us, so we

have not advanced that recommendation at this stage. I’m sure dialogue

will continue with the Chief Electoral Officer, going

forward.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s responses.

Moving on to voting age. Much has been discussed about the

cooperation between government and the Third Party. In the Third Party’s

2017 election platform, they pledged to drop the voting age to 16 years

old.

[11:35 a.m.]

The previous Chief Electoral Officer, which was Dr. Keith Archer —

what was his view of this? What is the current Chief Electoral Officer’s

view — the current Chief Electoral Officer being, of course, Mr. Anton

Boegman?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two separate proposals that sometimes get conflated, in

relation to 16- and 17-year-olds. One is the right to vote, the right to

physically go to a ballot box and cast a ballot for a preferred

candidate. The other is the amendment that’s in this package, which is

pre-registration, so that when they turn 18, these young adults will

know that they are already on the voters list and that won’t be a

barrier to them voting.

For the first one, the actual right to vote, I’m not aware of any

B.C. Chief Electoral Officer speaking out either in favour of or against

16- and 17-year-olds voting. Now, that’s not to say that there would be

anything improper about them doing that, but customarily, the Chief

Electoral Officer’s approach in terms of public advocacy for reforms has

focused on turning out voters who are eligible to vote. How do we

increase voter participation?

To that end, the member won’t be surprised to hear that since

about 2005, Chief Electoral Officers have been pushing for the change

that’s in this bill, which is allowing young adults who are still in

high school to be pre-registered so that when they turn 18, they’re able

to vote, recognizing that you’ve got everybody together in high school

but you may not have them all together when they’re 18.

Pre-registering people will hopefully result in more complete

voters lists and will also hopefully remove a barrier in people’s minds

when they’re like: “Oh, I should vote, but maybe I’m not on the voters

list. I don’t know if I’m on the voters list.” They will know that

they’re on the voters list, because they were in high school. They’ll

remember pre-registering and the process. So with the hopes of

increasing voter participation….

On the simple question of 16- and 17-year-olds being eligible to

vote, I’m not aware of any comment. But I’m aware of a long line of

comment from chief electoral officers about this pre-registration that’s

in the bill here today.

J. Yap: I thank the minister for that. What is the government’s position

on the issue of lowering the voting age to 17 or to 16?

Hon. D. Eby: This bill that’s in front of the House is focused on

recommendations coming from the Chief Electoral Officer’s office, based

on the experiences of the last election. It doesn’t include anything

related to 16- and 17-year-olds voting.

I can advise the member that personally, I’ve been glad to receive

presentations from very enthusiastic young people who strongly believe

that…. So 16- and 17-year-olds are paying taxes and working part-time,

and they’re fully engaged on the issues of the day in their high school.

They believe that they should be able to vote.

I’ve been very glad to hear those discussions and to know that

people are out there campaigning for this right to vote for 16- and

17-year-olds. I can tell the member, as well, that government has no

intention at this stage, that I’m aware of, to bring forward any

amendments to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote.

J. Yap: Can the minister, then, confirm — based on his response, which I

appreciate — that reducing the voting age is something the government

could foresee doing?

Hon. D. Eby: I guess in the world of policy possibilities that are out there,

it’s not out of the question that some future government would reduce

the voting age. I’m not sure quite how the current age of 18 was set. I

know that other jurisdictions have lowered voting ages, so I certainly

wouldn’t foreclose it from our government or any other

government.

[11:40 a.m.]

The reality is that this is not something that’s on our agenda.

It’s not something that we’re currently considering. It’s not in this

bill, nor is it proposed to be in a future bill. So at this stage, I

would say no.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response.

Related to voting age is the first of the 2018 report’s four

priority recommendations. This was “Facilitating youth participation,”

which is what early registration would strive to achieve. The report

mentioned:

“The lowest voter registration rates are for young voters between 18

to 24 years of age….

“The Chief Electoral Officer recommends legislators consider

allowing provisional registration of otherwise eligible individuals when

they are 16 years old. The provisional registration would become an

active registration when the voter reaches voting age” — currently 18.

“Permitting early registration at 16 years of age would allow Elections

B.C. to work with schools and the driver licensing program to ensure

maximum exposure to the registration process for youth” — as the

minister mentioned.

“In Alberta, the Chief Electoral Officer can request directly from

school boards the registration information of 16- and 17-year-olds for

the purpose of provisionally registering them to vote. Bill C-76” —

which became law in the previous federal parliament — “establishes a

register of future electors for 14- to 17-year-olds at the federal level

in Canada. Australia and 16 U.S. states have addressed this issue by

allowing provisional voter registration of 16- and

17-year-olds.”

This bill would follow that recommendation. Can the minister

explain the government’s thinking around this?

Hon. D. Eby: The decision to go with an application-based process rather than

adding people in from a list, perhaps even without their awareness, was

a deliberate recommendation by the Chief Electoral Officer. We’ve

accepted the Chief Electoral Officer’s rationale for the policy basis

behind this, which we understand to be…. It’s not to say that one system

or the other is inherently better. They both have merit to

them.

We understand that the reason for recommending an

application-based process is that the person is applying, therefore,

they’ll be aware that they’ve applied, that they’ve asked for their name

to be put on the voters list. They will be more aware that their name is

on the voters list, which hopefully overcomes that barrier that I’ve

been talking about, about people being nervous about voting because they

aren’t sure if there’s going to be a big fuss: “Are you on a voters

list? Are you not?” and so on. They’ll have applied, and they’ll know

that they were on the provisional registry.

[11:45 a.m.]

When the Chief Electoral Officer simply collects the names of all

of the students of the various high schools that are in the appropriate

grades and then puts them all into a big database, it’s not as obvious

that the students would be aware that that had happened or that they

were on the voters list, and it may not achieve the goal of raising that

awareness among young people so that when they’re 18, they know that

they’re on the list.

Again, these are just different approaches, but we accept the

Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation and rationale for this

particular approach. British Columbia, generally speaking, has an

application-based system. Alberta, generally speaking, has a system

where people can be added to the list without application. Different

approaches in different provinces, and this is more consistent with

British Columbia’s approach.

J. Yap: I appreciate that from the minister. What other aspects of this

bill does the government consider in the category of facilitating youth

participation?

Hon. D. Eby: This provisional registry is the only piece that explicitly

targets young people. The remainder of the provisions in the bill should

apply to hopefully increase participation across all demographics,

age-wise, in the province that are eligible to vote. There may be

disproportionate impacts on young people: for example, including

services card data if young people are less likely to get a driver’s

licence. It’s kind of speculative that that might be the case, but it’s

possible.

Also, young people being increasingly transitory and between

school, post-secondary education and maybe their parents’ home, and so

on, it might make the life a little easier for students that are moving

more often to be able to vote anywhere in the province with the

real-time strike-off.

Again, these are benefits that apply universally to voters in

British Columbia and will hopefully increase voter participation across

all categories. Knowing that, the area where we’re most challenged is

youth participation. The biggest gains are potentially there in terms of

increasing voter participation, but the reality is the only provision

targeting young people specifically is this provisional voting

registry.

J. Yap: The minister alluded earlier to this, but I will ask this. How

will B.C.’s pre-registration process, through this bill, differ from the

federal process?

Hon. D. Eby: The major difference between what’s proposed in the bill here and

the federal pre-registration process, as I understand it, is that they

are collecting data from 14- to 17-year-olds, and we are proposing

collecting applications from 16- and 17-year-olds.

The reason for the province having a more narrow group of young

adults in the category here is our concern about voter data accuracy. If

you have a more narrow category, it’s less likely that the students are

going to, for example, move to a new school in a different area, and we

do have geographically based voting registries.

We’re trying to keep it as close to 18 as possible. So 16- and

17-year-olds was the approach provincially. Federally, they are doing 14

to 17.

[11:50 a.m.]

There may be other small administrative differences between the

two, but otherwise, as far as I’m advised, the systems are quite

similar. They’re both application-based, pre-voting registries. The big

difference is simply the age category.

J. Yap: I think we all can agree that encouraging youth participation is a

worthy goal, so I appreciate the minister’s comments.

Were there any measures not in this bill that were considered by

government towards the goal of facilitating youth

participation?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the goal of this bill was simply to

bring into law as many as possible of the Chief Electoral Officer’s

recommendations where we agreed with the rationale and policy for the

recommendation. We thought that the members in this House would agree

with them as well.

J. Yap: A second priority that is in this report from the Chief Electoral

Officer — priority recommendation — is access to data. The report talks

about how Elections B.C. currently has access to data from the Insurance

Corp. of B.C., B.C. Vital Statistics and Elections Canada. However, the

report states that while once a leader in this area, Elections B.C. has

fallen behind in its ability to update the voters list in the most

efficient and cost-effective manner.

Election agencies in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia all have

access to voter information held by any public body, defined by those

provinces’ freedom of information and protection of privacy acts, while

Elections Quebec has access to personal information held by the

provincial health insurance agency and Citizenship and Immigration

Canada.

The report states that to ensure the most effective and efficient

methods are available to maintain a high-quality voters list,

legislators may consider providing the Chief Electoral Officer with

greater access to personal information — i.e., name, address and date of

birth, held by public bodies for the purpose of updating the voters

list. Any information accessed would only be for electoral purposes, per

section 275 of the Election Act.

Can the minister outline how Bill 43 addresses these

recommendations?

Hon. D. Eby: The difference between the recommendation and what is in the bill

is that what’s in the bill is a much more focused authority for the

Chief Electoral Officer.

What was recommended was broad access to data held by public

bodies for the Chief Electoral Officer to be able to update the voters

list. Through dialogue with the Chief Electoral Officer and internal

consultations in relation to privacy issues around information-sharing

outside of government, we came to the proposed amendment here, which is

to allow access to the services card data through an information-sharing

agreement between Elections B.C. and the Ministry of Citizens’ Services

for a couple of reasons.

One is that this is a very complete set of data for British

Columbians. The other is that, through dialogue, the concern that was

being raised about needing to update the voters list we understood to be

related to addresses and ensuring current addresses, and the services

card also provides that as well.

It’s really a narrowing of the broader request from general access

to public body data to services card address information and so on

through an information-sharing agreement between Elections B.C. and the

Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

J. Yap: Noting the hour, I will recommend that we rise and report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 41 — DECLARATION ON THE

RIGHTS OF

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 41;

R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

section 2 (continued) .

M. de Jong: We ended last day…. As I recall, the minister gave a response with

respect to some question about

article 5. I thought, actually, that he

answered the question on point that had been asked, providing some

examples about how that

article might be interpreted. He gave some

insight into the government’s views on the relevance of that

article to

the situation in B.C.

Article 6 in the declaration is pretty straightforward. It reads:

“Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.” My sense

is that that is not an issue in the context of British Columbia. It is

recognized that British Columbians, be they Aboriginal or not, enjoy

status as citizens of Canada and that nationality. If the government

interprets that in any way other than that, I’m happy to hear the

minister offer his thoughts.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I agree with the member’s

interpretation. I think that’s accurate.

As we talked about before, the articles of the UN declaration need to be

contextualized for each jurisdiction. Of course, this was an

international declaration, so I’m sure there are applications in other

jurisdictions.

If I may, hon. Chair, I do have some information from yesterday’s

session. The question was regarding the UNDRIP being used as an

interpretive aid, and the member was looking for an example.

In addition to the three cases that I referred to yesterday, I’ve

got several more such cases that spoke to the use of the UN declaration

as an interpretative aid. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission)

v. Canada . That was 2012 in federal court. Canada v.

Elsipogtog First Nation . That was 2013, also federal court.

Sackaney v. Canada , 2013. That was in the Tax Court of

Canada. Ross River Dena Council v. Canada , in 2017, Yukon

Supreme Court.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister and his team for giving further examples

of court decisions that have utilized UNDRIP as an interpretive

tool.

I did have a chance to look at the decisions yesterday that he

cited. There are some brief references, certainly, that are consistent

with that being the case, including one that related to one of the

preambles, which is

preamble 13: “ Recognizing in particular the

right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared

responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well-being of

their children, consistent with the rights of the child.”

This was named as another international document in the course of

one of the decisions dealing with children and their rights and the need

to have greater protection and, certainly, something that we all would

want to support. I think that that was an example where this document,

this declaration, was being cited as recognition of that. Now, how the

parties went on to utilize that principle was something that they each

had different viewpoints on.

I think that was a useful example to see how a principle might be

cited. But certainly, as the minister just said, it needs to be

contextualized for application in the jurisdiction in which it’s being

applied.

The other decision was actually citing the decision I named, which

really buttressed, again, the court’s agreement that UNDRIP is there to

be an interpretative tool of domestic law.

I look forward to reviewing the decisions that the minister cited.

As I mentioned yesterday, we have a general understanding that I will

have the opportunity to come back in these committee proceedings to have

any further discussion regarding those decisions.

M. de Jong: On to

article 7 of the UN declaration, which is divided into two

parts. I’m going to focus on 7-1, which reads: “Indigenous individuals

have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and

security of person.” Various concepts, clearly important concepts, are

referred to in

article 7-1.

[11:15 a.m.]

I wondered if the minister and the government shared my view that

it is in this section, in the context of British Columbia, that health

care — I know the Health Minister is here, coincidently — concepts of

mental health, which I don’t think are necessarily referred to more

explicitly in the declaration…. Does the minister believe the notion of

health care — and we talked about constitutional responsibilities within

the Canadian context, that clearly being a provincial one — is captured

by the first part of

article 7?

Hon. S. Fraser: Yes, I believe it could.

M. de Jong: The question that flows from that is: in the days ahead — days,

weeks, months, ultimately, years ahead — in the post-passage of Bill 41

and the application of the declaration in the way that the minister

indicates Bill 41 contemplates, how does the minister anticipate

engagement with the Indigenous peoples to change, if at all? What is the

impact going forward?

The declaration, the minister has advised the committee, is

designed to provide a guide and influence. How, going forward, when the

minister looked at the declaration and the government looked at the

declaration and saw

article 7 and how it touches on these fundamental

issues of health care and mental health care…? How does he see

article 7

influencing the behaviour, conduct and engagement of the government

going forward?

Hon. S. Fraser: Around

article 7-1, I’ve already acknowledged that that could be

interpreted in the way the member had suggested. We have a process built

into Bill 41 for working collaboratively with Indigenous peoples on the

articles, whether it’s dealing with health care or whether it’s dealing

with other issues that the articles will be referring to. That process

will unfold in collaboration with Indigenous peoples.

[11:20 a.m.]

I would cite that there are other articles, too, besides 7 that

touch on health care within the UN declaration — specifically, articles

21 through 24.

It’s important, I think, that the document be contextualized for

each circumstance. Again, this is an example of where I think it needs

to be read in its entirety. You can pull out individual articles or

parts of individual articles and it may lose its context within the

larger UN declaration, which of course incorporates 46 articles. So

again, there are other articles, 21 through 24, that might actually help

inform the question, I think.

M. de Jong: Well, with the greatest respect, I think the minister is partially

correct in terms of the advisability of ensuring that, on certain

topics, we explore the entire document. But the minister just had a

conversation with the member for Vancouver-Langara about judicial

decisions that utilized the declaration as a guide and as influencing

analysis. In at least two of those decisions, I am certain the court

looked at individual articles.

It’s the second or third time that the minister has indicated a

hesitancy about examining the articles individually. I think the

minister is correct in suggesting that it can be a bit dangerous to pull

out individual words, although sometimes that’s necessary.

Look, Bill 41 purports to apply, in the way that the minister has

described, the declaration to the laws of British Columbia. Laws are

words. It is the means by which this society creates rules with words,

and the words are important. I presume that the minister agrees with

that. In applying the declaration to the laws of British Columbia, we

are taking the words of the declaration. We may be guided by the spirit.

We may be influenced by the important symbolism. But in applying it to

the laws, we are taking the words.

The articles deal with a variety of….

Article 32 is different from

article 2. They deal with different matters. If the minister is correct

and the courts will continue to use the declaration as an interpretive

guide, they will do so on the basis of the words.

When the minister began his last response, he said

article 7 could

be interpreted to include reference to health care and mental health

care. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but the point of this

exercise, in large measure, is for the committee to ascertain from the

minister what the government’s view is. My view is inconsequential. It

is what the minister and the government believe

article 7 speaks

to.

I think the minister is prepared to acknowledge that it speaks to

health care, but when he says it “could,” that’s actually not good

enough. What does the government believe

article 7 in the declaration

refers to?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I mean, I hear the member here. I gave, I think, a credible

answer. He may disagree with it. I also, I think, gave some advice as to

where other articles might apply to the questioning that he was doing. I

was trying to be helpful. I wasn’t trying to be anything

other.

I just want to make sure the member understands that as he delves

into the words, each individual word of each individual sentence of each

individual article, within the 46 articles of the UN declaration, he’s

missing, I believe — and I mean this with all due respect — the core

aspect of Bill 41. This is, I think, the problem with him going down

this rabbit hole here.

Bill 41 essentially provides a process to work collaboratively

with Indigenous people in the province. We have that process in the

bill. If we ever get through

section 2, he will see that clearly. That

is key to what Bill 41 is. To be quite clear, this is about working

collaboratively with Indigenous peoples in the province in a way that

maybe has not happened in the previous government or previous

governments. This is about coming into the conversation — the process

that I’ve described that is in the further sections of Bill

This is a process that we’re going to do with an open mind and an

open heart. We’re not prescribing for Indigenous people how they should

interpret every

article of this UN declaration. I believe it does a

disservice to the bill to take us in that direction. It will be fraught

with confusion, I think, to try to pin down how we will work with First

Nations prior to working with First Nations.

M. de Jong: With equally great respect, I profoundly disagree with the

minister.

[11:30 a.m.]

The minister has made quite clear his and the government’s desire

to embark upon a process to work collaboratively — and, he just said

again, differently — with First Nations and Aboriginal partners. I

accept that, but the basis upon which he and the government purport to

do that is a document called the UN declaration. I think people are

entitled to know what that document says because, presumably, it will

guide what those differences are. The differences and the collaboration,

by virtue of the bill, are based upon this declaration.

I’m surprised. I’m surprised that the government and the minister

seem reluctant to want to explore what that declaration says. If the

government simply wanted to create the basis for this different form of

collaboration around a set of principles, it could have done that. But

it has chosen, instead, to tie that different approach to this document,

this declaration. It has tied the document to the bill, happily and, I

think, appropriately. Surely it is appropriate, then, for us to explore

— on behalf of the committee, the House and British Columbians — what

the document says.

We continue. Now we have in our presence both the Health Minister

and the Mental Health Minister, so that’s convenient as well. Are there

any present plans — I emphasize the word “present,” because I think I

can anticipate what the minister’s answer is going to be — with respect

article 7 and what we, I think, have established about its

reference to health care and mental health care? Are there any present

plans to allocate additional dollars to address the intent and the

spirit of what is contained in

article 7?

Hon. S. Fraser: Not that I’m aware of. We will be developing an action plan, as is

highlighted further in Bill 41. But I’m going to say this again, because

it needs to be contextualized: the bill does not give the declaration

legal force and effect. The UN declaration helps to provide a framework

for moving forward in a process that is clearly delineated in this bill,

Bill 41.

M. de Jong: The minister, I think, in that case provided an answer: no present

plans for a budgetary allocation. That may change. That remains to be

seen in the future.

Let’s go, if we can, to

article 8. The reference there, in

article

8-2, includes the phrase: “States shall provide effective mechanisms for

prevention of, and redress for….” Then it lists, in the following

subarticles (

a) through (e), a number of actions that can give rise to

redress. What does that word mean, “redress”?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: The word “redress” refers to “to remedy or set right.” You’ll

probably find other synonyms for that, but that would be, I think, the

appropriate definition.

M. de Jong: Thanks. That’s helpful. Remedy. What would those remedies include,

in the minds of the government?

Hon. S. Fraser: We’re having those discussions, and we’ll have those discussions,

with Indigenous peoples.

M. de Jong: That’s less helpful. British Columbians would like to know, when

the government reads subarticle 8-2, where the word “redress” occurs —

which the minister has indicated is a synonym for remedy — what the

government believes that captures in terms of the range of possible

remedies generally. I’m not asking with respect to any particular

circumstance. What, in the government’s mind, is captured by the word

“redress” or “remedy”?

Hon. S. Fraser: We’ll be having those conversations, and we are having those

conversations, with Indigenous peoples. That’s part of the process that

Bill 41 is. It is a process of us working collaboratively with

Indigenous peoples in a way that reflects respect and

recognition.

M. de Jong: Does redress and/or remedy include financial

compensation?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: It all depends. We have no specific plans. The previous

government, I think, addressed this question when they were in

government. It’s dependent on circumstances.

M. de Jong: I come back to this point. The words clearly have some meaning. I

understand that what is deemed appropriate redress in one circumstance

may be different than what is appropriate redress or remedy in another.

I’m asking, though, the minister on behalf of the government to

articulate in a general way what is captured by the notion of redress or

remedy. I quite frankly don’t see this as a very difficult

question.

I presume it can include financial compensation. It could include

land transfer. I mean, there are other things that are referred to in

the document. But again, my views on this matter are far less

significant and far less relevant than the views of the government and

the minister. That’s all I’m asking. The circumstances may well

determine which form of remedy is appropriate, but what does the

government consider redress or remedy to include within the context of

this

article of the declaration and within the context of the British

Columbia experience?

Hon. S. Fraser: Besides the examples the member pro­vided as examples, you

could include impact benefit agree­ments. You could argue treaty

or non-treaty agreements. A whole suite, including…. Of course, these

are things that all government engages in and has been engaging in. I

believe those are all good examples.

M. de Jong: Well, we’re getting somewhere. These are not meant to be trick

questions. The minister has been clear about the application and how

that is intended to take place. It is merely a case of, as I said

before, trying to properly understand what is in the government’s mind

with respect to these provisions that have been deemed so important and

so historic.

Subarticle 8-2. I’m going to ask the minister this to perhaps

provide some views from his and the government’s perspective about the

circumstances in which this becomes relevant in the British Columbia

context. Maybe the best way for me to do that is to point to a historic

example, or a couple of historic examples.

We are aware, for example, of the dislocation that took place of

the Kwadacha First Nation at the time of the creation of the Williston

reservoir and the building of the dams. I believe a similar phenomenon

occurred for the Cheslatta. Is this provision designed to address that

kind of circumstance? Is that what subarticle 8-2 is about?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I think the short answer is yes, it could, although I’m going to

just maybe address the wording a bit.

We were not involved in the design of the UN declaration. I wasn’t

at the table. There were prominent British Columbians who were, for

decades, at the table. I wouldn’t want to speak for them, and I do not

know what their intent was as they drafted this. But I think the answer

is: yes, it could.

M. de Jong: Right. Well, I will reply by again assuring the minister. It would

not be fair for me to ask him to speculate about what might have been in

the minds of the authors at the UN, what may have been in the minds of

the parties, the signatories. But I think it is fair for him to be asked

to articulate, on behalf of the government that has chosen to take a

step that no other government has taken, what these words mean to the

government.

The minister has indicated that, in his and the government’s view,

this

article would have application to the type of circumstance that we

saw develop with the Kwadacha and the Cheslatta. Does the government

believe that the declaration and the

article are intended…? In the mind

of the government, does it view there to be a historic limitation around

the application of these provisions?

I’ve given two examples that are historic in nature. I presume

that the government and the minister would say that part of why this

legislation is here, and the relevance of

article 8, is to ensure and

guide governments in the future to ensure that never happens again and

that this will play a role in helping to ensure that kind of thing

doesn’t happen again. But is the minister prepared to share the

government’s view on what the historic application of a provision like

article 8 might be?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: There’s no straightforward answer, I don’t think, to the question.

We look, as the previous government did, at specific cases. The member

cited two cases, I think, that would fit into this category. We have

no…. I think he was talking about limitations. I’m not sure if he meant

time, but we’re not contemplating any time limit here, as far as the

question the member asked. We see this as moving forward. The entire

declaration is about the future. It is about moving forward.

With that in mind, I move that the committee rise and report

progress and ask for leave to sit yet again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada