Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 298

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M230 — High Dose Influenza Vaccine for Seniors Act, 2019

J. Isaacs

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Carson family and adoption awareness

L. Throness

Crossroads Hospice

R. Glumac

Resource Municipalities Coalition

D. Davies

Vancouver International South Asian Film Festival

R. Singh

Radon awareness

S. Gibson

LUSH Valley initiatives for food security

R. Leonard

Oral Questions

Labour dispute in transit system

A. Wilkinson

Hon. H. Bains

J. Thornthwaite

Primary health care services on south Vancouver Island

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Dix

Property taxes for small businesses

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

C. Oakes

Child care spaces

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

Labour dispute at University of Northern B.C.

S. Bond

Hon. H. Bains

Tabling Documents

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, report, Caught in the

Middle

Reports from Committees

Conflict of Interest Commissioner Appointment Committee,

report, November 2019

R. Leonard

S. Thomson

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Conflict of Interest Commissioner

Hon. J. Horgan

Petitions

D. Ashton

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 42 — Fuel Price Transparency Act

Hon. B. Ralston

J. Sturdy

S. Furstenau

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

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

Hon. S. Fraser

M. de Jong

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2019

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Robinson: We have a number of attendees from the RTB who are here for question

period. I want to invite members to please give them a warm welcome. We have

Kathy Elder, Jaimy Lang, Eliza Robinson, Christy-Lynn Sorley, Michelle Mah,

Jennine Gates, Christine Hunter, Brad Sparrow, Tyann Blewett, Lisa Clout,

Casey van Wensem and Jo-Anne Nugent.

These people are available online and on the phone to help renters and

landlords alike. They work really hard on behalf of that relationship. I

would like everyone to please give them a warm welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman: Joining us in the House today are four staff from the information and

records management team from my ministry. They work hard to ensure that

we’re following records management protocol in responding to FOI requests.

Please join me in welcoming Karen Kohl, Shawn Muller, Brooke McCunn and

Vicki Desaulnier.

E. Ross: Today in the House, we have two guests from my riding of Skeena, Karim

Basaria and Rajinder Billing. They are actually here to talk about the

pressures being put on the labour force because of LNG in Skeena.

Karim actually owns the Best Western hotel in Terrace, as well as some

other hotels around B.C. Rajinder is a regulated immigration consultant.

Would the members please join me in welcoming these two guests to the House

today.

M. Lee: I’d also like to welcome a constituent of mine, Mr. Terry Yung, who’s

here from Vancouver-Langara. Terry, as many of you would know in this House,

is a strong leader in our community in Vancouver and across Metro Vancouver.

He has a senior leadership role with the Vancouver police department. He has

had a history of instruction roles with the Justice Institute and BCIT. He’s

the current chair of SUCCESS, the organization that has affected and helped

improve the lives of many Vancouverites and British Columbians across Metro

Vancouver.

Terry is a fine example of the kind of individual we need in our

communities to help break down the kinds of silos and barriers and bring

cross-cultural understanding. Will all members of the House please join me

in making Terry feel most welcome in this House.

Hon. S. Simpson: Today I have some staff from my ministry in the House, on the

communications side. I have the communications manager, Cass Togneri, along

with senior public affairs officer Roxanne Kropp and public affairs officer

Theresa Chaboyer. Also, my administrative assistant, Taylor Hixson, is here.

Please make them all welcome for the great work they do for all British

Columbians.

Hon. A. Dix: I want to recognize four staff in the Ministry of Health who are with

us today — Thomas Guerrero, who is the executive director in the corporate

issues and climate relations branch, and members of his team: Leah Baade,

Farrah Wiltshire and Jennifer Gillespie.

They’re an integral part of the team that really works on cases around

B.C. and finds solutions for people. Many MLAs in the House and their

constituents benefit from their extraordinary work. I ask everyone in the

House to wish them welcome.

M. Stilwell: In the House visiting us today is my dear friend Rebecca Tuzzum, along

with her sons, Sam and Jesse. I ask that the House please make them feel

very welcome to their first visit to the Legislature.

M. Lee: I would also like to introduce to the House four representatives of

the Marpole business improvement association in my riding. They are Ragnar

Bertelsen, the vice-president of the association; Gordon Bowman, the

president; Gianni Pisanu, who is on the board as well; and Claudia Laroye,

who is the executive director.

[10:10 a.m.]

When I first stood for election in Vancouver-Langara, I remember

fondly a meeting I had with the BIA in their community office location in

the TD branch there on Granville Street. Recently they brought forward an

initiative to put up a large sign two doors down from where my parents used

to live on Granville Street for ten years, in front of the bus loop: “I love

Marpole.”

Clearly, travelling to Victoria today, they join with many other small

business owners across many communities that continue to struggle with high

property tax and the burden on small business owners and operators as they

face rising property taxes and costs.

We need to ensure clearly, with the voice that they’re bringing here

today and to the House and on this precinct, the kind of voice we need, to

ensure that we have healthy, sustainable business communities, who are the

vibrancy of our communities at large in our neighbourhoods.

Hon. L. Popham: I am pleased to welcome to the House members of the food security task

force. The members of the task force have been working over the past few

months, looking at possibilities around technology and innovation and the

agriculture sector. Would you all make welcome Peter Dhillon, who is the

chair of the task force, as well as members Dr. Lenore Newman and Arvind

Gupta. We thank you for your hard work and look forward to meeting

later.

R. Glumac: I’d like to introduce somebody, an important part of my life, who, not

only because…. Well, she’s one of the ten people that watches QP regularly.

But also because she’s been a big supporter of mine, and I appreciate that.

Haven Lurbiecki in the House. Would the House please make her feel

welcome.

T. Stone: I’d like to follow up on the introduction that my colleague from

Vancouver-Langara made to welcome the folks from the Marpole BIA, who are

here. Joining them, as well, is Jane McFadden, who is the executive director

of the Kits West 4th Avenue Business Improvement Association, as well as

Donna Hohl, who is the president of the Kitsilano West 4th Business

Improvement Association, as well as the owner of Coco’s Closet on West

4th.

They are here to meet with members of the Legislature to discuss the

challenges that they’re facing with respect to skyrocketing property taxes

and potential solutions to provide them with some relief. So could the House

please make all of these members of these business improvement associations

welcome here today.

M. Stilwell: Today in the House…. I’m not sure if they’ve arrived yet, but up

behind me, I believe, there will be 24 grade 11 students from Ballenas

Secondary, along with their teacher Olivia Hill and student teacher Jessylee

Spence. Ms. Hill is one of the most passionate teachers I know, who teaches

her students about democracy and the political process. Would the House

please make them feel very welcome.

L. Throness: I just noticed that there’s an important visitor in the House today.

Liz Harris is the executive director of the Fraser Valley Health Care

Foundation. I think she has with her a colleague or a husband. I’ll

embarrass them both by saying that. Would the House please welcome them both

today.

J. Johal: I just want to follow up on the introduction from the Minister of

Agriculture in regards to the food security task force that is here today.

They’re doing important work — Dr. Newman and, of course, Dr.

Gupta.

I also wanted to welcome Mr. Dhillon, whose family farm originally….

His dad started in Richmond East and has now gone on to, obviously, farming

in other parts of the Lower Mainland, and Quebec as well, and is also the

chairman of Ocean Spray. He’s done his family proud and remains a strong

supporter of many charities in Richmond and employs many people there as

well. I ask the House once again to please make our guests feel

welcome.

C. Oakes: Well, it’s that holiday season. One of the things I want to recognize

is the incredible work that business improvement areas do to create vibrant

neighbourhoods. One of the great initiatives that I absolutely adore, from

Jane and her team, is that they are currently collecting messages to Santa.

They collect thousands of letters that you can drop off at Kitsilano 4th

Avenue in mailboxes, and they work with the seniors community centre to make

sure that all of those letters are answered.

[10:15 a.m.]

I just think that’s a testament to the fantastic neighbourhoods, the

vibrancies that we make sure we try and protect, and to business improvement

areas that work tirelessly every day to support our incredible

neighbourhoods.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M230 — HIGH DOSE INFLUENZA

VACCINE FOR SENIORS

ACT, 2019

J. Isaacs presented a bill intituled High Dose Influenza Vaccine for

Seniors Act, 2019.

J. Isaacs: I move the bill intituled High Dose Influenza Vaccine for Seniors

Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper,

be introduced and read for the first time now.

As we roll into the colder time of the year, autumn brings with it

an illness many know as the flu season. In Canada, influenza contributes

to 3,500 deaths per year. Seniors have an increased risk of contracting

the flu, and the negative impact may result in significant deterioration

of overall health, along with the addition and severity of medical

complications.

Seniors are more likely to be hospitalized after getting the flu.

For those who are hospitalized, over 65 percent had an underlying health

condition, and nearly 85 percent of deaths were due to complications

linked to underlying risk factors. Those with health conditions, such as

heart or stroke, diabetes, lung conditions, kidney disease or other

compromised immune systems are at a higher risk of flu-related

complications.

Not only are seniors more susceptible to flu outbreaks in shared

spaces like long-term-care homes; the virus severely impacts mental and

physical health. Studies have shown that many seniors with the flu

suffer a decline in mobility.

One-third who experience prolonged hospital stays also experienced

a reduction in their functional ability to carry out their daily

activities. A loss of independence and functional ability means seniors

will need additional care to meet their daily needs.

Vaccination is the best way to avoid the spreading of this highly

contagious viral infection, reduce hospital visits and higher costs to

the medical system. As we age, our immune system weakens. The regular

flu vaccine is less effective for seniors and does little to protect

against outbreaks in long-term care homes.

The cost of a high-dose vaccine often keeps it out of reach for

seniors. This legislation, originally introduced in 2018, recommends

access to the high-dose influenza vaccine for seniors living in

long-term-care homes.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

J. Isaacs: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for the

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M230, High Dose Influenza Vaccine for Seniors Act, 2019,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CARSON FAMILY

AND ADOPTION

AWARENESS

L. Throness: This month is Adoption Awareness Month. To help create awareness,

I visited with my constituents Allan and Dianne Carson. Allan is rector

of St. John’s Anglican Church in Chilliwack, and he and Dianne are

outstanding examples of adoptive parents.

They have ten children, and eight of them are adopted, ranging in

age from 15 to 40. Their amazing journey began even before they were

married when they decided only to adopt. But when they faced roadblocks

in their quest, they had two biological children and acted as foster

parents for five years.

When the opportunity finally came in 1984 to adopt, they jumped at

it. Their first child came from South Korea, and their second is of

African-American descent. They ended up with five ethnicities in their

family — Chinese, Korean, African-American, European and Métis. Yet,

they see no difference between their natural and adopted

children.

There have been challenges, like long waits and cultural barriers.

They felt like they had to fight the system to adopt. There have been

mental health issues, and the Carsons have been pained by racism shown

against their children.

But today they are all successful in their own ways, and they

remain close as a family — a tribute to the love of their parents.

Dianne says: “The special joy for me has been seeing the individual

gifts blossoming within my children. There are so many abilities within

our family members, which we never would have seen in children who are

genetically similar to us.”

When asked if he would recommend adoption, Allan says:

“Absolutely. But be aware you have no idea what you’re getting into any

more than a couple giving birth has any idea of what is ahead. To adopt

is to willingly and consciously lay down your life for another.” It is

such a privilege to have people like the Carsons in my

riding.

[10:20 a.m.]

I hope other British Columbian parents will be encouraged by their

example to offer the best gift a parent can offer to a child: the gift

of adoption, a forever family.

CROSSROADS HOSPICE

R. Glumac: Each of our lives has a beginning. We’re born into this world full

of joy and potential and possibility. Each of our lives also has an end.

Death is as much a part of our life as birth. The ending of our lives is

something we don’t like to talk about, but each of us will face it one

day. Each of us deserves to be treated with respect and dignity and

compassion when that happens.

A few months ago, I had the opportunity to visit Crossroads

Hospice in Port Moody, a place dedicated to compassionately caring for

people who are nearing the ends of their lives. It’s a facility that

represents an option for those with a terminal illness who aren’t able

to stay at home but do not need to stay in a hospital.

It offers people facing a terminal illness and the ones they love

a home-like setting filled with peace and comfort and provides support

for the diverse needs of patients. Hospice services include palliative

care services, art care, visiting musicians, pet therapy, therapeutic

relaxation and visiting volunteers, as well as bereavement

services.

Crossroads was built in 2003, the first free-standing hospice in

the Fraser health region. Today Crossroads has expanded to include a

thrift store and a healing garden.

I want to thank everyone at Crossroads Hospice for all that they

do, from the board to the employees to the volunteers — hundreds of

volunteers that have contributed over 25,000 volunteer hours to date.

Crossroads is a truly special place in our community.

RESOURCE MUNICIPALITIES COALITION

D. Davies: The Resource Municipalities Coalition is an organization composed

of municipal governments, chambers of commerce and service groups that

are focused on responsible resource development in British Columbia.

Today its municipal membership includes the city of Fort St. John and

the districts of Taylor, Tumbler Ridge and, most recently,

Mackenzie.

In advocating for responsible resource development, the Resource

Municipalities Coalition looks to support sustainable communities by

addressing the impacts on ecosystems as well as cumulative impacts to

the environment. They believe it is also equally responsible to ensure

that citizens receive effective social services that improve their

quality of life and build sustainable futures within their

communities.

The coalition is collaborating with communities, municipalities

and industries to move together under one unified voice. The focuses

are: helping to empower communities through sustainable and resource

development; protecting and enhancing services by ensuring quality of

life in a healthy, natural environment; and researching, analyzing and

educating communities on the economic impacts of resource

development.

The Resource Municipalities Coalition held the developing British

Columbia’s energy roadmap symposium in Fort St. John. The symposium

provided an opportunity for provincial and local governments with

stakeholders directly involved in the industry to meet and share ideas

with the purpose of providing additional insight for the province as it

seeks to develop its energy roadmap. The overarching themes that emerged

were presented to the Premier, as well as other key ministers, in April

of this year.

Together we must recognize that the energy sector is the engine of

the B.C. economy and is only one step in advancing British Columbia’s

energy roadmap. Would the House please join me in applauding the

Resource Municipalities Coalition as they continue to promote

responsible resource development in the province of British

Columbia.

VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL

SOUTH ASIAN FILM

FESTIVAL

R. Singh: When I was a young girl growing up in India, trips to the movie

theatre were a highlight for my sister and I. We would sit there,

staring at the silver screen, enamoured and spellbound by the colours,

the songs, the costumes and the stories projected in front of our

popcorn-filled faces. I still vividly recall looking forward to the new

releases, watching and re-watching the old classics countless

times.

[10:25 a.m.]

My fascination with films and the creative people who bring us

this captivating medium of art has not relented since my childhood. So I

was really excited when I was invited to attend the opening night of the

Vancouver International South Asian Film Festival.

VISAFF, as it’s commonly known, is an annual festival which was

founded in 2008. Since then, it has not only been highlighting film

talent within the local South Asian community but has also been

introducing Lower Mainland audiences to movies and creators from India,

Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and other neighbouring

countries. In the last few years, it has included films made by the

global South Asian diaspora to their exhibits.

Besides showing movies, documentaries, short films and sharing

stories from these different perspectives, they hold educational

workshops and sessions for those interested in learning about filmmaking

and film promotion. However, of all the great things they do, the most

endearing, the most long-lasting impact that this festival has helped

cultivate, is the creative community of local artists that they have

brought together who now collaborate and create and tell stories about

their experiences in B.C. and produce their stories right here in B.C.,

adding to our province’s growing film industry.

Community-based organic festivals like VISAFF enrich the lives of

British Columbians with their colours and stories. For that, I would

like to call on all present to join me in appreciating and thanking

VISAFF and the tireless organizers behind it like Mannu Sandhu, Raj

Arneja, Raj Thandhi and Panzy Sandhu, among many others, for all their

efforts.

RADON AWARENESS

S. Gibson: November is Radon Action Month. We’re being encouraged, as British

Columbians, to test our homes for radon, which is a naturally occurring

radioactive gas. I just found out about this, so it was new to

me.

Radon can build up to high levels, and it’s the leading cause of

lung cancer for non-smokers. It’s present in virtually every home, and

the only way to find out is to test for it.

Health Canada has a big campaign right now, each November, to

raise public awareness. This past week, actually, we had an event in

Abbotsford to create interest. Abbotsford is a leading community in

gauging radon and encouraging citizens to investigate their homes — as a

matter of fact, their homes all around this province. Other

municipalities that are testing and working on the campaign include

McBride, Valemount, Coquitlam and Summerland.

It’s important, and I encourage colleagues and citizens to test

their homes. My wife and I are fully persuaded and will be testing our

home for radon. Radon is an important health issue.

I appreciate this opportunity to alert our citizens to the dangers

of radon.

LUSH VALLEY INITIATIVES

FOR FOOD SECURITY

R. Leonard: About two decades ago, driven by the belief that everyone deserves

to eat healthy, local food, food security enthusiast Jean duGal hatched

LUSH Valley. It stands for Let Us Share the Harvest. The fruit tree

program, originally coordinated by Sheila Girdlestone, continues to

distribute unwanted fresh fruit and produce to those in need while

equally sharing with the fruit tree owners and pickers. LUSH has always

been empowering to people, as community members of all ages have access

to learn about local food systems, how to grow a garden or cook healthy

food.

LUSH branched out in new directions when Betty-Anne Juba took the

helm. They took on the former site of the food bank to house a kitchen

and raised gardens in the parking lot. Cynthia Fitton brought

enthusiasm, creativity and great skill to grow amazing

programs.

Like the rebirth of a growing season, with the large facility

gone, LUSH has sprouted a new way of operating. Today Jen Wrye is the

president, and, from a small office, executive director

Maurita Prato oversees programs that have

taken root throughout the community. Emily Hutchison coordinates a

large, accessible community garden next door to a soup kitchen in

downtown Courtenay. Delicious food programs and other events reach into

the community with partners like Eureka Support Society, Lake Trail

School and Vanier high school.

[10:30 a.m.]

The fruit tree and gleaning program continues under James

McKerricher. In 2016, LUSH picked an incredible 40,000 pounds of

fruit.

Recently, through the Ministry of Agriculture’s Feed B.C. program,

LUSH receives funding for building regional food aggregation in the

Comox Valley. Five local farms now sell produce to five local schools,

and expanding into the K-to-12 school system is the goal.

Congratulations to LUSH for continuing your efforts to grow food

security at home.

Oral Questions

LABOUR DISPUTE IN TRANSIT SYSTEM

A. Wilkinson: Beginning tomorrow, of course, we know that commuters could well

wake up to a complete shutdown of the bus and SeaBus service in

Vancouver.

More than a million rides will not happen. Half a million

commuters will have no option. We now have learned that 60 percent of

those who bus to work or to school don’t have a driver’s licence or a

car and have no option. They will be completely stranded. So it’s time

for this government to act on behalf of British Columbians and do

something real — in fact, do something at all.

The question goes to the government, presumably to the Labour

Minister, perhaps the Transportation Minister, because perhaps they

don’t agree that “do nothing” is a policy. Can we hear from anyone in

the government ranks who has an idea of what they’re actually going to

do tomorrow, rather than sit in their offices and watch

television?

Hon. H. Bains: I am more optimistic than that party over there is ever going to

be when it comes to collective bargaining.

It is always incredibly stressful for those who see that there

might be a threat of a transit shutdown, and no one wants to see

disruption in our public transportation.

The union and the company understand their responsibility to those

who they serve — their customers, the transit riders. That’s why, they

are at the table today negotiating, because that’s where the contract

will be negotiated — not in this House.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s clear the Labour Minister intends to do absolutely

nothing, whether it’s in this House, in his office or in the streets of

Metro Vancouver. He’s going to do nothing while half a million people go

out into the coldest day so far this year and try to get to work, try to

get their kids to child care. And when those nurses don’t show up in the

critical care units around Vancouver, it’s going to be the Labour

Minister who’s sitting in his office doing nothing.

So perhaps someone, anyone in the government ranks, can come to

their senses and say that they have a plan for how to deal with the

Metro Vancouver transit strike, which will cripple our city.

Hon. H. Bains: Respecting free collective bargaining, respecting workers’ rights

to free collective bargaining, to this Leader of the Opposition, means

do nothing. That is incredibly sad.

This particular union, Unifor, and the Coast Mountain Bus Co.,

have successfully bargained for decades without any help from outside,

without any interruption. They are at the table right now, and they are

going to negotiate a collective agreement. I’m hopeful that they will

conclude their negotiations today so that there is no disruption in the

Lower Mainland.

J. Thornthwaite: More than 11,000 people use the SeaBus, and people on the North

Shore have been feeling the impact of this strike for, now, four weeks.

Now it’s going to get a whole lot worse for the entire Lower Mainland.

B.C. Ferries is warning foot passengers that they could be stranded at

the Tsawwassen terminal because the strike will cut off all public

transit.

My question to the minister: what is his advice to commuters who

will be left stranded at the Tsawwassen ferry tomorrow?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Both parties are at the table right now, and they are bargaining.

I have full faith in both of those parties — that they will be

successfully concluding their negotiations today so that there is no

disruption. I know that both of those parties that are at the table

right now understand their responsibility to their customers, the

transit riders and everyone else who uses transit. They are working hard

right now.

Unlike that side, I have full faith in those two parties to

conclude collective agreements, because collective agreements work in

this province. It has worked for decades. I know they always, when they

see labour disputes, see political opportunity. That is a sad state of

affairs. They’ve learned nothing in the last 2½ years. We’re not going

to take any lessons from that side.

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

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: So 76,000 UBC and SFU students regularly use the bus to get to

class. UBC students have created a Facebook event to camp on the

university mall. SFU students are using Facebook to organize a hike up

Burnaby Mountain to get to class.

Students are stressed. They’re stressed because of exams, and now

they’re equally stressed because they don’t know if they’re going to get

to school tomorrow because of the transit strike.

What message does the minister have to the thousands of students

who won’t be able to get to class tomorrow morning?

Hon. H. Bains: It’s interesting — and amazing, actually. The member opposite is

talking about students. Wasn’t it that party, when they were in

government, that raised the tuition fees three times?

We are….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: It is really sad that the opposition is trying to score cheap

political points here at the expense of the labour dispute. But I can

tell you, despite their theatrics, they know the dispute will be

resolved at the bargaining table, and the parties are at the bargaining

table. It will be resolved, and I’m fully hopeful.

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE SERVICES

ON SOUTH VANCOUVER

ISLAND

A. Olsen: Over a year ago, I asked the Minister of Health for realistic

timelines about when community members in my riding will start to see

real solutions to the shortage of primary health care services in

Saanich North and the Islands. In his response, he mentioned that one in

six British Columbians was without a family doctor. He also promised

that a primary care network would be established in several areas in the

province, including the Saanich Peninsula, within the year.

In April of this year, I again asked the Minister of Health about

the health care crisis in my riding and many other areas in the

province. His response was that government was hiring hundreds of family

practice doctors, nurse practitioners and clinical pharmacists to ease

the crisis.

At the time, the minister was quite optimistic about getting new

primary care networks established around the province and, in

particular, specific areas of the province experiencing acute shortages.

In my riding today, the most substantial work relieving pressure has

been done by non-profit organizations.

My question is to the Minister of Health. On the ground, my

constituents are not seeing results. They’re having difficulty accessing

primary care services. What is the delay in changing the outcomes for

people on the Saanich Peninsula and across greater Victoria?

Hon. A. Dix: Of course, I was very proud yesterday to be joined by the Minister

of Finance in announcing a new urgent and primary care centre in James

Bay, which will have a real effect on people in the area. It’s one of 11

in operation, 14 that we have announced, that are making a real

difference, particularly in communities around British

Columbia.

I want to note particularly the extraordinary work by doctors and

nurse practitioners and nurses in Prince George, who developed their

primary care network working hand in hand with an urgent and primary

care centre that’s making a real difference for people.

[10:40 a.m.]

Here on the south Island, we’re also taking steps. The member will

know that on November 22, which is just recently, the final proposal

around the South Island Division of Family Practice proposal was

submitted. We’re taking specific steps and specific action. We’re

working with doctors and nurse practitioners and the community — not

imposing, but working with them. That will lead to lasting

solutions.

I’m very proud of the work of the South Island Division of Family

Practice, very proud of the work of the Ministry of Health for making

progress. We hope to have announcements soon.

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: I thank the minister for his response. Earlier this summer — the

situation was dire — in the Times Colonist , doctors were saying

that primary care in the greater Victoria area was on the verge of

collapse.

I’ve met with a wide variety of health care practitioners in my

riding to discuss the situation that’s going on in their offices. Health

professionals are exhausted, exasperated and feeling underappreciated.

The system is overburdened, and practitioners are burning

out.

Since those questions last year, I’ve had a constant flow of

communications from my constituents, who are equally exhausted and

exasperated and feeling as ignored as those in the health care system

that we rely on. Patient attachment to a primary health care home is

important. However, it is just a single metric. It’s equally important

that we not forget some of these most deeply intimate relationships with

our health care professionals. We must focus on the quality of life for

both patient and practitioner.

Again to the Minister of Health, how is the vision of his

transformation of our primary health care system not only addressing

patient attachment to practitioners but also ensuring that they have a

quality of life and a health care system that’s meeting the needs in our

community?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes, I think that in particular, young doctors have a different

view of the way their practices should go. Overwhelmingly, for example,

in surveys we take of young doctors, there’s a desire to move to

alternate payment models and fee-for-service. But both are essential

parts of our system.

In the last year, for example, 338 new fee-for-service general

practitioner doctors have been added in British Columbia. Over the past

year, 129 alternate payment plan doctors have been added. Now,

significant numbers, of course, are retiring as well, but that is 140

net new doctors in 2018-19.

That doesn’t mean that we’re able to deal with all of the

challenges out there. But what we’re doing is adding urgent and primary

care centres. In this area of the province in particular, the most

successful urgent primary care centre in Langford.

We’re adding primary care networks. I cite the ones in Prince

George, the ones in Penticton that are working and making extraordinary

transformational change at a local level. The support for community

health centres, such as Island Sexual Health and many in the members’

ridings, which have helped sustain, support and advance community health

centres….

This is a comprehensive plan, and we’re doing it methodically,

step by step, community by community, working with local divisions of

family practice so we’re dealing with the problems, the problems faced

both by patients and doctors in the system.

I think it’s an effective response. We are doing it, as I say, in

partnership with divisions of family practice. It’s why I don’t think

there has ever been, overall, as good a relationship between the

provincial government and doctors. I remind the member that 98.5 percent

of doctors approved our latest negotiated agreement in British Columbia,

which is an extraordinary success.

PROPERTY TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

T. Stone: Today in the gallery we have representatives from the Marpole and

Kitsilano West 4th Avenue business improvement associations. They’re

here in support of our split assessment legislation, which would provide

relief to small businesses that are facing skyrocketing property taxes,

literally on the undeveloped air space over their heads.

Now, I also have with me here today a July 3, 2019, briefing note

for the Premier, which says, “There will be a particularly strong impact

on those operating under triple-net leases and a loss of jobs,” in

relation to these skyrocketing property taxes.

[10:45 a.m.]

My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs would be this.

Can the minister please explain to the small business representatives

who are here in the gallery today why she has taken no action whatsoever

to address the skyrocketing property taxes, which are making it very,

very difficult for these businesses to continue to operate and, in fact,

have resulted in lots of businesses having to close their

doors?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is a critical issue for small business. It’s also a critical

issue for non-profits and the arts and culture organizations. Now, I

think it’s important to reflect on how we got here. We got here because

of out-of-control, skyrocketing real estate prices, and that has had

significant impact — absolutely.

We got here because the opposition ignored the problem for a

decade. They received correspondence from, I believe, the CFIB about a

decade ago saying: “Will you help us with this?” And they ignored

it.

Well, we have not ignored it. We engaged with stakeholders,

including Vancouver and Metro Vancouver, to look at short-term and

long-term strategies to improve affordability. That’s why we are working

on an interim solution for the 2020 tax year while we develop a

permanent fix to this situation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, the minister talks about interim solutions. She’s been aware

of this issue for 2½ years, going on three years, and she’s done

absolutely nothing. She talks about solutions for the future. Where is

action to address the challenges these small businesses are

facing?

Just yesterday we learned that the city of Vancouver is now

proposing a further 8.2 percent property tax hike for the forthcoming

year. The property taxes are going to go up. In the gallery with us

today is Gordon Bohlmann. He’s the owner of Marpole Physiotherapy

Clinic.

Gordon’s small business employs over a dozen people, and his

property taxes have increased by 63 percent over the last four years.

Now he’s worried about the coming tax year. He says: “I cannot sustain

being taxed on the air and not what’s actually there.” There are many

tragic, similar stories of small businesses facing the same dire

situation.

My question again to the minister would be this. When will the

minister throw small businesses a lifeline and fix this unfair tax,

which is hanging over the heads of small businesses across the Lower

Mainland?

Hon. S. Robinson: We are doing just that. We are making sure that for the 2020 tax

year, there is some relief coming. We’re also making sure that we have a

permanent fix that takes into consideration all components of this

tax.

The members opposite seem to think that they have absolutely no

responsibility in this, and I just want to point out that in July 2019,

we heard from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business’s Samantha

Howard, who says: “Despite pressure from organizations like CFIB for

well over a decade, the provincial government has not made any serious

effort to address the issue.” Their inaction has led to the struggles

that small businesses are currently facing, and we’re fixing

it.

C. Oakes: We’re proud of the fact that we’ve seen a 7.3 percent increase in

small business under this government, and we’re seeing a decline in

small business under that government.

Dr. Pisanu immigrated to Vancouver when he was three months old,

and he is now the proud owner and operator of the Granville Dental

Wellness Group, which employs 11 people. He is here today, and he says:

“In three years, my taxes have increased 60 percent. This is

unsustainable for a small business and cannot continue.”

Can the minister tell Dr. Pisanu: what is the interim solution,

and how is she going to fix it for the 2020 tax year?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to say to all the business owners here: “We have been

listening. We’ve been hearing.” In fact, last year we invited business

improvement associations and invited others to our working group so that

we could make sure that we understood the exact nature of the issue,

because the people on the other side didn’t even do that. They didn’t

even gather people together to hear what was going on, even though they

said that they were struggling….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: We are taking action. We will be ready for the 2020 tax

year.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: A broad coalition of stakeholders is calling on this government to

address this issue before neighbourhoods are changed forever. Also in

the gallery today are Ragnar Berelsen, of Ragnar Jewellers, and Donna

Hohl, a fantastic owner of Coco’s Closet, a small boutique for women’s

clothing. These are real people, Minister, facing unsustainable tax

increases under this government.

Will the minister commit to them today that she will fix this for

the 2020 tax year?

Hon. S. Robinson: They are absolutely real people, and they’re real people that the

previous government ignored. We are not ignoring them. We’ve heard them

loud and clear, and there will be a tax fix for the 2020 tax

year.

CHILD CARE SPACES

L. Throness: Well, last week the Minister of State for Child Care sent out some

details to a reporter on the so-called creation of child care spaces.

But it’s clear that they’re fake spaces, because most are not actually

working. Let me explain.

Out of 4,700 spaces announced as long as a year and a half ago,

fewer than 1,700 are operational today. Out of nearly 6,000 spaces

announced in this fiscal year, only 374 are actually working. That’s

about as close to zero as you can get.

Why is the Premier and his minister misleading parents by

announcing fake spaces, instead of real ones that actually deliver care

to children?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Chen: For many, many years, we’ve all known that parents in this

province have been struggling with the child care chaos. Many of the

child care operators are also finding it really hard to maintain their

business with the lack of support from the previous government for 16

long years.

I don’t know where the member opposite got his numbers from, but

the real….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Chen: What we have done, and I hope the member….

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Chen: Well, apparently they don’t want to hear an answer.

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

question.

Minister.

Hon. K. Chen: Let me put it this way. Ever since we became government, we’ve

been working hard with the sector — with child care providers, with

parents, with early childhood educators — to make sure we put together a

comprehensive plan to lower child care costs for the first time in

B.C.’s history and accelerate the creation of child care spaces. This is

the fact: under the previous government, in about four years, they

funded about 4,000 spaces, and we’ve achieved 10,000 spaces in a year,

in only a little over a year.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.

L. Throness: Mr. Speaker, you can always tell when the NDP are doing a lousy

job, because they go on the attack. It’s predictable. It’s like

clockwork.

But these are the minister’s own numbers. This government promised

24,000 new spaces over three years. Now, after two years….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the member for Chilliwack-Kent has the floor.

Thank you.

L. Throness: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government promised 24,000 new spaces over three years. Now,

after two years of trying, only 2,055 spaces are actually operating.

That’s 9 percent of their promise — after spending, by the way, $600

million.

[10:55 a.m.]

Will the minister today make the following more forthright

announcement: “My program has collapsed. I’ve been announcing fake

spaces, not making spaces. I’m 90 percent short on my promise to

parents, and I’m sorry to them”? Will the minister announce that

today?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we’re eating into the opportunity for the

opposition to ask more questions.

Hon. K. Chen: While it is very encouraging to hear the member opposite talking

about child care, they have let the child care crisis grow for 16 long

years and have not done much for it.

I am very sure the member opposite knows very well that the number

that they’re throwing is incorrect. Our government has funded over

10,000 spaces in a little over a year, while they’ve funded 4,000 in

four years.

Families in B.C. are struggling with the shortage of child care

spaces. Early childhood educators are struggling with the lack of

support. What did the critic for child care say? When he talked about

early childhood educators, he said: “We might as well invest in software

and machines.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Chen: Well, we’re investing in people in this province. We have put

together a comprehensive plan to lower child care fees for the first

time in B.C.’s history. Living wages going down because child care fees

are going down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

LABOUR DISPUTE AT

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN

B.C.

S. Bond: Well, having failed to take any initiative on his own to resolve

the dispute at UNBC, which has the potential to see students lose a

semester of their education, today we have the faculty association at

UNBC asking the minister to appoint a special mediator. Here is what the

faculty association had to say: “Without an agreement this week, there

is almost no chance of saving the semester without disrupting next

semester.”

This minister has sat on his hands. He has ignored the situation

at UNBC. Students, the community, faculty are upset, they are worried,

and they have a very specific ask of this minister. Today, will he stand

in the House, do the right thing and appoint a special mediator, as the

faculty association at UNBC has asked him to do?

Hon. H. Bains: It is a situation that we were monitoring very, very closely. A

mediator was involved in that dispute, and the mediator booked out, and

they were still negotiating. They were bargaining as late as last

night.

We all understand the dire need to have that dispute resolved.

Mediators work best — and the member opposite will know — when both

parties are willing and ready to participate. I have not seen the

request. When I see the request….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: When I leave this House, if that request is there, we will

seriously consider it.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, last week apparently the member wasn’t even sure there was a

strike at UNBC. Today, despite him saying he has closely monitored the

situation….

It’s been in the media for hours, Minister. Obviously, you should

know that they have made a request for a special mediator.

It is his opportunity to stand in this House today and respond

directly, make a commitment, get it on the public record. He’s done

nothing to this point.

[11:00 a.m.]

Here’s what the faculty association had to say. “We are

heartbroken for our students whose lives are being upended.” With the

help of a mediator, it said bargaining could be completed with one day

of fulsome negotiations, “but without mediation, this strike could

stretch on for weeks.”

Minister, it is time to stand in this House, respect the wishes of

the faculty association and protect students’ education at the

University of Northern British Columbia. Will he commit to appointing a

special mediator now?

Hon. H. Bains: I must say, the opposition member turned a blind eye when the

campuses were being closed and the students suffered.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: It was that party in government that slashed UNBC’s budget by $1.3

million. That’s the mess that we inherited. That’s the mess that both

parties are trying to deal with.

We are going to work with those parties. We are going to take

their requests seriously, and we’ll make that decision in due

course.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled Caught in

the Middle , November 2019, from the Representative for Children and

Youth.

Reports from Committees

CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMMISSIONER

APPOINTMENT

COMMITTEE

R. Leonard: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee

to Appoint a Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Leonard: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

R. Leonard: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I’d like to

make some brief comments.

This report constitutes the committee’s unanimous recommendation

that the Hon. Victoria Gray, QC, be appointed as B.C.’s Conflict of

Interest Commissioner.

Over the last several months, the committee carried out a

thoughtful and comprehensive recruitment process. Committee members were

incredibly impressed by the calibre of candidates who put their names

forward for the position of Conflict of Interest Commissioner and their

shared interest in preserving public confidence in our democratic

institutions.

In coming to our decision, committee members were particularly

impressed by Ms. Gray’s commitment, engagement and interest in public

service, justice and community. Along with her legal and professional

background, she brings a broad lens and perspective to ethical

responsibilities and integrity. The committee is confident that she will

serve well all members, the Legislative Assembly and the

province.

On behalf of all Members of the Legislative Assembly, I would like

to take this opportunity to honour and recognize former commissioner

Paul Fraser, who sadly passed away in March. Mr. Fraser served as

commissioner for over ten years and was a strong voice and guiding hand

for members.

I would also like to thank Hon. Lynn Smith for her service as

acting commissioner over the last several months, and thank all the

staff at the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner for their

continued dedication to the office.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Deputy

Chair, the member for Kelowna-Mission, and all committee members for

their work on this committee. It was a very collaborative and positive

experience, and we worked diligently on behalf of all members on this

recruitment.

I know I also speak for all committee members in sharing what an

honour and privilege it was to be part of this process. I want to

particularly thank the support from staff at the Clerk’s office, in

particular Kate Ryan-Lloyd and Karan Riarh.

I’d also like to invite you, Mr. Speaker, and all Members of the

Legislative Assembly in welcoming Ms. Gray as well as thanking the

acting commissioner and the office staff at an informal drop-in at the

Hemlock Room, on the first floor, from 11:30 to 12:30 today.

[11:05 a.m.]

S. Thomson: I’d just like to add a few comments as well and add my support and

the support of the official opposition for the recommendation that’s in

the report to appoint Hon. Justice Victoria Gray to the position of

B.C.’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner and echo the comments of the

member for Courtenay-Comox in the fact that it was a very, very

difficult choice for the committee. We had a tremendous range of

expertise and commitment to public service in the candidates we

interviewed, and all of them, I think, would have made great conflict of

interest commissioners for the province.

We were honoured to participate in the process and are encouraged

by the commitment of all of the candidates who brought their names

forward to serve the public and to protect this democratic institution.

Justice Victoria Gray, I know, will maintain that commitment on behalf

of all members and the province. We’re confident, as the member for

Courtenay-Comox said, that she will serve all of us as members in this

Legislative Assembly and the public of British Columbia very, very well

in her new role, and we look forward to working with her.

I also want to thank the committee members, the Chair, the Clerk’s

office and all of those who put their names forward for this very, very

important position as one of the statutory officers, the independent

officers of the Legislature. I also thank Lynn Smith for her work in

serving as our acting commissioner during the interim period while we

undertook our important work.

I’m pleased, on behalf of the official opposition, to support the

recommendation in the report.

Mr. Speaker: The question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

COMMISSIONER

Hon. J. Horgan: By leave, I move:

[That this House recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council the

appointment of Hon. Victoria Gray, Q.C., as an officer of the

Legislative Assembly to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the

Conflict of Interest Commissioner, for a term of five years, effective

January 6, 2020, pursuant to

section 14 of the Members’ Conflict of

Interest Act (RSBC 1996,

Chapter 287).]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Petitions

D. Ashton: I have a petition to present to the Legislature. I rise today to

present to this Legislature a petition that has been created in every

province in Canada and presented to the respective legislatures with the

request to ensure adequate driver training for those acquiring a class 1

drivers licence to drive semi-trailers.

This petition I am presenting has been started here in British

Columbia, home to some of the most challenging mountain regions in Canada,

by a British Columbia mother who lost her son in that terrible bus crash in

Humboldt, Saskatchewan.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 42, Fuel Price Transparency

Act. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on

Bill 41, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

[11:10 a.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — FUEL PRICE

TRANSPARENCY

ACT

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that Bill 42 be read a second time now.

As anyone who drives a gas-powered automobile can attest, it’s

very frustrating to watch the price of gasoline shoot up for no reason

whatsoever. Frankly, many members of the chamber have heard from their

constituents, who are tired of feeling like they’re being gouged

whenever they fill up their vehicles.

Bill 42 sends a clear message to oil and gas companies. You will

no longer be allowed to set your gas prices in total secrecy. In its

investigation into the province’s high fuel prices, the B.C. Utilities

Commission found that there was an unexplained discrepancy of up to 13

cents per litre. The industry, although given an opportunity in a

supplemental report…. The first report came out on August 30. The second

report — again, conducted and managed by the B.C. Utilities Commission —

reported back earlier this month.

But the industry, despite being offered that opportunity, failed

to explain this markup, which, by BCUC’s calculations, added an extra

$490 million a year being paid unnecessarily by British Columbians. The

unexplained price difference ranged from six cents per litre in northern

British Columbia to 13 cents in greater Vancouver. This is money that

belongs in the pockets of British Columbians, not in the coffers of the

big oil and gas companies.

The BCUC and its analysis concluded that the price of all gasoline

is driven by the cost of the most expensive 5 percent of our supply,

which comes from Washington state. Let me just read one passage from the

report. The report says: “Thus, the market price for gasoline is being

set by the cost…to acquire approximately 3 to 5 percent of the total

gasoline required in British Columbia.” What they’re referring to there

is the Pacific Northwest spot price, which is the primary determinate of

Vancouver wholesale prices. So south of the border, although only 5

percent of the gasoline is acquired there, this price sets the price for

all of the gasoline pricing structure in British Columbia.

The commission goes on to say that this phenomenon has been

labelled “the tail wagging the dog.” It’s really no wonder that British

Columbians have the feeling that they’re being ripped off every time

they fill up their vehicles at the gas station.

The Fuel Price Transparency Act will create a level of

accountability to British Columbians that has not existed before. The

act will allow the Utilities Commission to collect information that will

shed light on how gas companies set their pump prices and make it

available to the public. Included in the public is, of course, consumer

and watchdog groups.

Now, the official opposition continues to defend those in the oil

industry and has opposed any attempt to get to the bottom of record-high

gas prices. The day the fuel transparency act was introduced, Liberal

members questioned the bill, because apparently they were concerned that

the oil and gas companies might not approve of it.

[11:15 a.m.]

The Leader of the Official Opposition has accused the government

of making up “demons,” even though the BCUC investigation showed very

clearly that people are paying more than they should for

fuel.

We recognize that this bill alone will not guarantee a reduction

in gas prices for consumers. But by legislating this kind of

transparency, we will pull back the curtain on the way gasoline prices

are set in this province. It will force companies to come clean on those

mysterious sharp price markups that are all too common here in British

Columbia. By removing the veil of secrecy, the companies will be

publicly accountable for unfair markups that they’ve never, up till now,

had to explain.

We’ll also produce, most importantly, a common set of facts,

allowing us to properly evaluate other policy measures to bring fairness

to the price at the pump. If there’s a reason for charging British

Columbians a 13-cent premium, the oil companies will have to justify

it.

I look forward to the debate on this bill.

J. Sturdy: I do appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill 42, the

Fuel Price Transparency Act.

I do think it is fair to say that the public has been expressing

frustration with fuel prices in British Columbia, especially relative to

neighboring jurisdictions like the one just south of us, Washington

state. The minister just referenced the spot price. We’ll talk a little

bit later about what some of the prices are in the United States,

especially relative to those jurisdictions like Alberta and Washington

state. The public would like to have some more confidence that we do

have a competitive fuels market, and some transparency would be

welcome.

It’s certainly clear to me that my constituents do not have that

confidence. In West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, we straddle Metro Vancouver

and a TransLink jurisdiction, as well as the Squamish-Lillooet regional

district, where the TransLink 18.5-cent transit levy is not in

effect.

As reported in the Squamish Chief on November 10:

“Gasbuddy shows that on Sunday, gas in Squamish was $1.449 per litre,

while in Vancouver it was $1.319.” So to expand on that, probably a

little more clarity on that example, gas on that day was 18½ cents

cheaper in Vancouver than in Squamish. To add insult to injury, if the

18.5-cent TransLink levy was backed out of the price, theoretically, the

price in Squamish arguably could have been in the $1.79-to-$1.10 range

or 37 cents a litre less in Squamish than in Vancouver, which is a

$25-to-$30 per-tank cost.

Over the years, I have been personally working on this particular

issue in the region where I live, dating back to my time as the mayor of

Pemberton, in 2005, and looking at some of those input costs and

understanding that the cost of transportation, of that fuel into the Sea

to Sky — in this case, to Pemberton — was approximately half a cent a

litre. Certainly, the cost of transportation in this case was not an

excuse. That might have increased over time, but certainly, not to

account for that discrepancy.

On Sunday, November 10, 40 to 50 residents of Squamish were so

incensed, and rightly so, that they protested these outrageous price

differentials in front of gas stations along Highway 99. Even today — or

this was actually the day before yesterday, I think — seven to ten cents

a litre more expensive in Squamish than in the North Shore. Yet when the

18½ cent TransLink differential or levy is backed out, it again should

be significantly cheaper in the Sea to Sky. It’s not. Clearly, we have a

problem both real and perceived.

[11:20 a.m.]

I quote from the minister in reference to the legislation. “This

legislation brings us greater transparency at the gas pumps and sends a

message to the oil and gas companies that the days of setting

your…prices in secrecy are coming to an end.” Well, I most certainly

believe that my constituents would hope it to be true. But I am

concerned that the minister is vastly overstating the outcome of this

legislation.

In committee, it will certainly be interesting, and we will be

interested in exploring what the minister actually intends to do with

this enabling legislation. It is clear that if passed, the legislation

will hinge on the “general or special directions of the minister,” which

the administrator will be required to act within. In other words, the

devil will be in the details as to what the administrator is tasked to

do.

Is it the intention of the minister to look at refining capacity

and the cost to refine this product? Does the minister intend to ask the

administrator to look at the wholesale pricing structure — perhaps the

retail pricing structure, which would obviously be a very significantly

larger task? Perhaps the distribution network — is that a component of

what the minister would task the administrator with looking at? What

about the issues related to fuel types and availability or lack thereof

of blended fuels and of the low-carbon fuel standard?

Again, what about the issues of provincial and federal taxation?

While the minister has suggested that taxes are fixed, in some respects,

I could agree that it is a bit of a fix, a fix in terms of provincial

taxation at the highest level of any jurisdiction in North America. That

is a fix, all right. It’s also worth noting that there is a potential

for taxes on taxes, which are applied at variable cost of goods at

various levels. In other words, the tax costs at the pump can vary and

do vary depending on the cost of fuels.

Will the minister continue to give government a free pass on the

issue of taxation and deny to the public what the minister has described

for the private sector as…? I believe the minister referred to it as the

best detergent is sunlight. I think, in fact, he’s corrected himself now

and understands that this was a reference from a Supreme Court justice.

What was the full quote? “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for

social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of

disinfectants; electric light, the most effective policeman.” There is

hope that we will see a better illustration, a better understanding of

the circumstances that we find ourselves in.

But we do need to look at the whole range of issues, not the least

of which is taxation. The question is: will the minister allow — in

fact, to build the confidence of the public — the administrator to look

at the effects of taxation on the price of fuels in British Columbia,

especially in relation to our jurisdictional neighbours in Washington

and Alberta? Yesterday the price of gas in Washington was 85 cents a

litre, albeit U.S.; in Alberta, 95 cents a litre.

Of course, there is the obvious and overall issue of the supply

side. The availability of wholesale product has to be thoroughly

canvassed. While B.C. typically consumes approximately 214,000 barrels

of fuel a day — which frankly, was a surprising number to me, 214,000

barrels a day — yet we only, in British Columbia, have a refining

capacity of 67,000 barrels. It’s hard to avoid the principle of supply

and demand in relation to price in an equation that suggests that

scarcity is an important, if not the most important,

variable.

[11:25 a.m.]

What we hope, although honestly despair of, is that Bill 42 is a

cynical attempt to kick the can down the road. Let’s look at the

timeline here. We could see regulation in the spring — and, potentially,

a limited scope for the administrator that only looks at a narrow slice

of the cost drivers — and then six months to a year for the

administrator to do the work.

I think the minister will acknowledge that for the last task that

the BCUC looked at, it took five to six months and didn’t fully explain

the pricing structures and didn’t have the mechanisms that this proposed

piece of legislation has, which will take additional time to bring out

information.

Then the government, of course, would be spending some time with

the report before the public gets access to it. Or that’s been the modus

operandi for the last several years. We look at…. I think for the Massey

Tunnel re-study, the minister sat on it for six months or so.

Hey up there.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

May we ask the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan to seek leave for

making an introduction?

D. Routley: May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome — and I thank the member for

this privilege — and thank the students of Gabriola Elementary and their

teacher Lukas Laurie. Thirty people are visiting the House.

It’s fantastic to see you here. I’ll see you out there. I hope you’re

learning a lot.

I thank the member again for allowing this intervention.

Welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Please proceed.

Debate Continued

J. Sturdy: We were talking about the receipt of a report and, historically,

the time it takes for that report to be assessed by government, which in

the case of either the Massey or the Redlin report on B.C. Ferries was

between six months and a year. I mean, really, we’re talking about at

least a year and a half to two years before we see any action,

potentially.

But then it begs the question: then what? Both the Premier and the

Minister of Trade have hinted that the next steps could be that

government would regulate gas prices. It’s true that if this government,

who believes they know best about how you should live and how business

would work…. This is not a particularly big surprise.

This government has exhibited a certain arrogance with regard to….

It appears tempted to be the big and controlling hand of government,

despite there being little evidence that the strategy is effective. In

fact, the BCUC, in their earlier report this fall, warned that

government price fixing reduces the incentive to invest in the sector,

so it could have unintended and unfortunate consequences.

According to Werner Antweiler, an economist at the University of

British Columbia, as quoted in the Vancouver Star , there is,

relative to government price fixing, “no relief on the horizon as far as

prices are concerned.” He called the idea of government price fixing

“benign.” The quote is: “‘The bottom line is that it is neither going to

make gas cheaper nor more expensive,’ he said. ‘Oil companies won’t be

much worse off. On the other hand, motorists aren’t going to be better

off….’ Meanwhile, the law won’t address the fundamental economic factor

driving up prices, which he argued is supply and demand.”

So if this legislation is passed and implemented, the process, as

we understand it, would appear to be that the minister, through OIC, or

order-in-council, would appoint an administrator. I think the indication

is that that administrator would be the BCUC, although it’s not clear in

the legislation. The administrator will report to the minister, as the

minister requires, in accordance with any general or specific directions

from the minister. In other words, the minister sets the terms of

reference.

The minister will require submissions to the administrator on a

periodic basis or a requested basis, which is logical and makes sense.

There are certainly refining capacities that are relatively stable and

understood, as opposed to large wholesale swings over a short period

which would acquire additional and requested inputs and

information.

[11:30 a.m.]

The responsible person, which would be the companies, I suppose,

is to provide any and all data requested, whether commercially sensitive

or not, on a scheduled period or any time about anything that the

administrator wants. Then the responsible person needs to maintain

records for five years.

What’s interesting, with regard to the administrator, is that they

may or may not publish whatever they want — protected information, trade

secrets. They may publish, as per this legislation, if they are

satisfied that the public interest in any protected information

disclosed outweighs the potential harm to responsible persons relative

to the competitiveness of the market for reportable fuels and public

confidence in the competitive market. So it is a pretty draconian piece

of legislation that requires that any and all information be submitted

when necessary or when requested.

It’s interesting, too, that for whatever reason, the legislation

has a component to it which is somewhat unique and highlights that there

is an ability, or an opportunity, for the administrator, or their agents

I suppose, to enter into a private dwelling to seize records.

I thought it was odd that there would be a consideration, I

suppose, that Suncor would be keeping a second set of books in

somebody’s basement, but regardless…. And I wasn’t sure that that was

actually a necessary piece, because I would have thought that they could

have been compelled to provide the information otherwise. Certainly, the

penalties are fairly significant, and that would be a significant risk,

as the administrator may impose penalties, through filings in court, of

$1 million per day — not instance but per day — or six months in jail,

or both.

The devil will certainly be in the details of ministerial

direction and terms of reference provided to the administrator. Will

those terms of reference be limited to wholesale or include retail? Will

they include special fuel standards requirements for B.C. — i.e., the

low-carbon fuel standard — and the cost of supplying those types of

fuels? Will the minister include in the terms of reference the range of

taxes, be it fixed or variable, including PST and GST?

The whole issue of wholesale supply. This whole initiative or the

direction to the administrator could be broad or narrow, small and

simple or complex. Then it begs the question, with regard to the

outcome: what then? What are the options? Really, what are the options

that this government has for enhancing competitiveness? It seems clear

that lack of supply affects the competitive nature of the market here in

British Columbia, but what are we going to do about it? Or what are the

minister and the Premier intending to do about it? Build a refinery

perhaps? I know the Premier has speculated on that. Lower taxes? Or

perhaps, goodness knows, you could build a pipeline.

British Columbians have been expressing their frustration with

record-high gas prices in our province, and it is rather disappointing

that the Premier hasn’t accomplished anything on this file. It’s hard to

see how this bill will change that. He’s promised again and again to

make life more affordable, but we still have some of, if not the,

highest gas prices in North America. Unfortunately, today’s legislation

is unlikely to change that.

Six months ago the Premier promised relief for drivers, and a year

and a half ago he said he had a “range of options” to deal with high gas

prices. So far, all we have to show for this bravado is a rigged review

into the causes of high gas prices, which barred the BCUC from examining

the impacts of big taxes and restrictive policies. Government policies

do play a crucial role, not the least of which is opposing pipeline

capacity to carry fuels.

[11:35 a.m.]

The Premier and the NDP have spent considerable taxpayer money on

lawyers and lawsuits to continue legal challenges against the Trans

Mountain pipeline, all with a notable lack of success in court, although

probably and likely, the government would argue that they’ve had some

success with their political base. It’s no small irony that the NDP is

opposing the Trans Mountain pipeline — and has for several years — but

now they want the federal government to arbitrarily increase supply on

that same pipeline.

Keeping this inconsistent approach in mind, British Columbians, as

I mentioned earlier, consume 214,000 barrels of refined petroleum

product a day. B.C. has two refineries. The Tidewater Midstream and

Infrastructure in Prince George — otherwise known, historically, as

Husky; it was sold this fall — with a capacity of 12,000 barrels a day,

which is, in the scheme of things, pretty much minuscule relative to

refinery capacity around the world. That’s in Prince George. Then

Parkland, in Burnaby, with 55,000 barrels a day. So a combined capacity

of 67,000 barrels a day, which means that relative to the 215,000

barrels a day that we consume, the two refineries can’t come close to

meeting the demands of British Columbia.

Obvious to most, if not all, is that most of the gasoline consumed

in British Columbia comes from Alberta, primarily through the Trans

Mountain pipeline. Although this government has been doing everything it

can to stop the increase in capacity for this very same pipeline, let’s

look at what the Premier has to say about refineries.

In May 2018, he said: “Let’s make more refined gasoline here.”

That was in Business in Vancouver in May 2018. Then in April

2019, he said he didn’t want a refinery here. He wanted it in Alberta.

“I would suggest Alberta has more expertise in this area, and it might

be a better place for new refining capacity.” That was in the

Vancouver Sun on April 26, 2019. Then the Premier said:

“No, hold on. Not in Alberta.” Let’s build more refineries in the land

of his bro, Gov. Jay Inslee. “When we talk about more refining capacity,

not in the Lower Mainland but somewhere in North America — perhaps to

the south of us,” by which I believe he meant Washington state. That was

in Hansard in April.

Most people understand that refineries take billions and billions

of dollars and many years to build, if at all. I think we just need to

ask Mr. David Black about that. The simple fact is that the Premier says

the market isn’t competitive enough but has no or few suggestions — no

realistic suggestions, anyway — as to how to increase that

competition.

When we look at this as a package — look at suggestions around

refining capacity, the obstacles put in place of the expansion of

capacity on the Trans Mountain pipeline, the limited scope of

assessments done in the past and the potential for those same

limitations going forward — it is very tempting to paraphrase Macbeth

with regard to a tale “full of sound and fury, signifying

nothing.”

The proposed bill demands the whole fuel supply chain hand over

their data secrets with no recourse. It does beg the question: even if

they get that information — and I’m sure there will be some challenges

to that — what is the government going to do with it? How is it going to

increase supply and develop a competitive market? At the end of the day,

the bill produces paper, more reports, more delay and few

benefits.

As we know, high gas prices affect so many peoples’ lives. It

means each of us will pay more at the pump. It means those higher gas

prices have an effect on the economy in general. It changes how much

money people have in their pockets at the end of the day to spend on

other things. It means it affects how kids get to school and how

employees get to work. It impacts how business transports their goods to

markets and receives the materials, and the cost of the materials that

they need to use in their businesses. It means it impacts the hiring

practices as a reflection of business confidence, which continues,

unfortunately, its precipitous decline.

[11:40 a.m.]

An interesting fact is that business confidence in this province

is the lowest it has been since the 2008-2009 recession, and that is a

low low. According to Abacus data presented to the B.C. Chamber of

Commerce a couple of weeks ago, 49 percent of businesses say that their

confidence in the B.C. economy has declined. What has changed? So 79

percent say the cost of doing business has worsened, 46 percent of

businesses say the regulatory burden has worsened, and 45 percent say

the tax burden has worsened. Certainly, the impact of fuels and fuel

supply have affected that business confidence.

This legislation may be seen simply as an exercise to delay any

action for a year or two and then blame someone else for the misses of

this government. This legislation may be seen as an exercise to deflect

responsibility and deny real action that can make a difference, and

that, fundamentally, is increasing supply and increasing

competition.

We do need real action to provide relief for B.C. drivers and B.C.

families, and unfortunately, I don’t see this legislation as moving the

needle. I do look forward to committee stage and to diving a little bit

deeper into the bill. I look forward to exploring it more

deeply.

S. Furstenau: I’m happy today to speak to Bill 42, the Fuel Price Transparency

Act. The B.C. Green caucus has been concerned with the arbitrarily high

prices of gas and the financial challenges that these prices place on

British Columbians, especially those facing long commutes. In fact, this

is exacerbated because many British Columbians have been forced to move

out of the central parts of our cities because of the affordability

crisis, and as a result, their commutes have gotten longer.

This is an affordability issue and a quality of life issue. People

are forced to spend more time in their cars so have less time to spend

with their families, engage with their communities, have rest,

recreation, leisure, time to reflect. So while I think that transparency

in gas prices is important so that British Columbians can know why oil

companies are charging drivers a premium at the pump here in British

Columbia, I don’t think government can stop there.

Government needs to continue to take strong action on the

affordability crisis so people can actually live where they work and

aren’t forced to spend hours of every day in their cars. Government also

needs to make a shift to an accessible, affordable and high-quality

public transit system so that getting out of the car is a real option

for people across the province, because while it may be a good option

for those living in town or in major cities, the public transportation

service simply isn’t there for many, many people in our

province.

British Columbians are trying to do their best to do their part to

combat climate change and establish systems to support alternate

transportation networks through modest gas taxes, but the province

really does need to be taking a leadership role here.

So let’s look back to the bill. This bill will collect information

from oil and gas companies on the market conditions involved in setting

gasoline prices and allow British Columbians to see the factors that

commit to those prices. British Columbians deserve to know and

understand why oil companies are charging us a premium and causing the

financial stress that they are.

The B.C. Green caucus applauds the fact that this bill does assure

more transparency. The inquiry started by the B.C. Utilities Commission

has identified a price gap that needs explanation. That starts with

having the ability to gather the information it needs to inform why

consumers are facing, so far, an unexplained extra cost for gasoline. If

this is simply price gouging or oil companies padding profits on the

backs of B.C., then additional steps absolutely need to be

taken.

Long-term, however, the best solutions lie in expanding our

provincial investments into a more comprehensive and robust mass transit

system, encouraging active transportation and continuing the focused

investment in electric vehicles. All of this is about reducing our

dependence on fossil fuels where we can, which will also reduce costs

that we currently pay.

[11:45 a.m.]

The sooner our province transitions from its dependency on oil and

gas by investing in a more comprehensive and robust mass transit system,

encouraging alternative modes of transportation like cycling and

walking, and continuing its investment in electric vehicles, the better.

Ultimately, we need to create a culture less oriented around gas-powered

vehicles so we can have a more livable future, and we need government to

make this transformation a priority.

Government needs to invest in high-quality, affordable and

accessible public transit to make this a real option for British

Columbians across the province, because it simply is not feasible for so

many to go without a car today in so many parts of British

Columbia.

I look at the Cowichan Valley. We have many thousands of people

who make the commute over the Malahat every single day to come to the

capital regional district to work. There are buses in the morning, very

early, that go from the north to the south over the Malahat and get you

to work, and there are buses in the afternoon that come from Victoria

back up to Cowichan. Those are the only options for public

transportation.

If your work

schedule doesn’t align perfectly with the

schedule of

these commuter buses, which are full, meaning there is a high demand for

these commuter buses, then you can’t have that option. The only option

left to you is to be in a car and driving over the Malahat and spending

your time on the highway, on the Trans-Canada, between Langford and

Victoria, often an hour in that stretch just to get into

town.

I recognize that Cowichan is very symptomatic of much of the rest

of the province. When I travel into regions in rural B.C., often the

number one issue we hear about from people who live in those regions is

the lack of access to public transportation. They can’t get from the

smaller communities into the bigger cities and towns in order to get to

doctors’ appointments or in order to get to other appointments that they

have, because there simply doesn’t exist the option of public

transportation.

If we’re going to be serious about recognizing how much

transportation contributes to our greenhouse gas emissions, we have to

be serious about creating the options that people would have access to,

to use those transportation systems. As we have an aging demographic,

more and more people will find that they can’t use their vehicles

anymore, and they are left without the options of how to get around.

This is a very significant issue.

I met last week with the B.C. Poverty Reduction Coalition, who

made a compelling case for prioritizing affordable and accessible public

transit around B.C., including improving service levels, free transit

for youth and a sliding scale for low-income adults. Then we start to

address not just transportation issues and not just greenhouse gas

emission issues; we start to address poverty issues, because being able

to access transportation is an essential ingredient in being able to be

an active part of the economy.

I learned from the B.C. Poverty Reduction Coalition that we’re the

only jurisdiction in the Pacific Northwest that doesn’t offer a cheaper

fare for low-income adults. This restricts their ability to support

their children, to get to work or to appointments or to participate in

their communities.

As I mentioned, this is both a poverty reduction tool and an

environmental tool — the two go hand in hand. We should take this

holistic, integrated approach to transportation. It is transportation

that knits our communities together.

The other area that needs continued government action is to make

zero-emission vehicles a viable option for British Columbians. I’m happy

to see that B.C. is leading the country in uptake on zero-emission

vehicles and also noticing that there is a pretty significant demand on

the infrastructure to be able to charge these vehicles. More and more,

if you look around, those charging stations around our cities and towns

are occupied a lot of the time.

In the short-term, this means helping to reduce the cost of

electric vehicles for families, building the supporting charging

infrastructure and setting up a regulatory regime that helps facilitate

the shift from gas-powered engines to zero-emission vehicles.

I’d also say that we want to be looking at: how do we facilitate

better vehicle-sharing in our communities? Not relying on companies that

come in and look to make a profit, but how do we facilitate, as a

province and as a government, the capacity for community-based

cooperative car-sharing in our communities that supports our

communities, reduces our costs, reduces our emissions and brings us

together in our communities?

[11:50 a.m.]

Recently B.C. scored top marks on Efficiency Canada’s

Provincial Energy Efficiency Scorecard and listed the

electric vehicle programs as some of the best practices in the country.

However, the province only earned a C-minus, and as the students from

Mount Prevost who are currently in the gallery will know, a C-minus

isn’t really all that great — 56 points out of a possible

According to the scorecard, we need to renew a commitment to

saving electricity in order to support CleanBC’s vehicle electrification

agenda. B.C. needs to follow in the footsteps of the U.K. and the

European Union, which are both making significant advancements in

renewable energy, ending funding for fossil fuel energy projects and

transitioning their public transit systems to electric.

Renewable energy has been making a breakthrough in the U.K. The

third quarter of this year was the first where more electricity was

generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels. Next year

London will have 20 hydrogen double-decker buses that will run alongside

electric buses in a new ultra-low-emission zone. London is making huge

strides to make the city carbon-neutral by 2050. That includes

electrification of London’s bus network, bringing more electric vehicles

to the city and making the Tube, the underground transportation system,

carbon-neutral.

The U.K.’s public transit system is an example B.C. should work to

follow. We need to offer more accessible, affordable and high-quality

transit that British Columbians can easily and proudly rely

on.

The European Investment Bank recently adopted a strategy to end

funding for fossil fuel energy projects, and the bank will not consider

new financing of unabated fossil fuels, including natural gas, from the

end of 2021. This is in stark contrast to British Columbia, where just

this spring 83 out of 87 members of this House voted to give a

significant subsidy to the fossil fuel industry by way of a close to $6

billion subsidy to LNG Canada.

This prioritization of energy efficiency that’s happening in the

U.K. and the European Union and the focus on renewable energy projects

are part of the broader push across the European Union to fight climate

change, syncing their climate ambition with the Paris Agreement. This

prioritization is outlined in the European Commission report on the

electrification of the transport system, noting that to achieve the

European GHG emissions targets, they will need a 50 percent reduction of

conventionally fuelled cars in urban transport by 2030 and phasing them

out in cities by 2050, as well as achieving essentially

carbon-dioxide-free city logistics in major urban centres by

Just as I was listening to the comments from the member for West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky, I was looking at today’s news from the United

Nations — the emissions gap report that came out. The world is on track

for over 3 degrees of warming. Levels of CO 2 continue to rise

— increased levels of 1.5 percent annually over the past decades.

Canada’s 2030 emissions forecast is 592 megatonnes, missing the goal of

511 megatonnes that we would have to meet if we were to meet our Paris

targets.

Global warming of 3 degrees indicates that we will lose all of our

coral reefs. Millions around the world will face poverty, flooding. The

authors of the report said that significant portions of the world will

become unlivable. Anne Olhoff, one of the authors, said that this is

definitely not a world we want to pass on to our children and

grandchildren. It’s not a world we want.

Taking all of this into account, I think this bill is a step

towards transparency and accountability in the oil and gas sector.

However, I would like this government to recognize that it’s not enough

to shine a light on why British Columbians are paying more for gas. We

have to recognize that in all of the work we do, we have a duty, over

the next decade, to transform the economy and transform British Columbia

to ensure that the world we are leaving for our children and

grandchildren is a world that they can be grateful to us for, not one

that they will have to endure because we didn’t make the decisions that

we need to make right now.

With that, I will say that our caucus will support this bill but,

as ever, remind the government that we need to focus on the bigger

picture at hand, which is the transformation of our economy.

[11:55 a.m.]

B. D’Eith moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Dix: I’m looking forward to seeing everybody at 1:30. I move that the

House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House is adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 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;

S. Malcolmson in the chair.

The committee met at 11:20 a.m.

section 2 (continued) .

Hon. S. Fraser: If my recollection is correct, we’re on

article 36 of the UN

declaration. We’ve been reviewing the individual articles. The question

was…. I will try to answer the question in three parts. And I want to

thank those behind me who have done the work to actually come up with

the answers for the specific issues — softwood lumber, the Columbia

treaty and the Skagit Valley treaty. I’ll do them in that order, if

that’s all right with the member.

Canada, several lumber-producing provinces, including British

Columbia, and industry have been in the countervailing duty and

anti-dumping duty litigation with the United States for the last three

years. That litigation is ongoing with the U.S. courts under the North

America Free Trade Agreement and before the World Trade Organization,

and Canada leads that litigation. Canada negotiates trade agreements

with other countries and would lead any further negotiations with the

U.S. It’s premature in the midst of litigation to speculate as to what

shape or form hypothetical future negotiations might take.

When it comes to the Columbia River treaty, the Columbia River

treaty is a transboundary water management agreement between Canada and

the United States. It was ratified in 1964. A review of that treaty is

currently occurring between the two parties. It is the federal

government that has the responsibility for conducting these

negotiations, and it is Canada that decides on the roles of other

parties on the Canadian negotiating team. Canada decided to involve

three Indigenous groups at the negotiating sessions: the Ktunaxa Nation,

as represented by the Ktunaxa Nation Council, the Secwépemc Nation, as

represented by the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, and the Syilx Nation,

as represented by the Okanagan Nation Alliance. The province of B.C. is

also participating in these negotiations.

When it comes to the Skagit River treaty, the Swinomish Indian

tribal council in the United States has provided correspondence to the

province of British Columbia to halt the exploratory activities by

Imperial Metals Corp. in a particular area located between Skagit Valley

Provincial Park in Washington state and the E.C. Manning Provincial Park

in B.C. and to support the effort led by the Skagit environmental

endowment fund to buy the mineral rights and to reclassify the area

adjoining it with the adjacent E.C Manning Provincial Park.

The Swinomish Indian tribal council raised a number of concerns

with this mining exploration activity, including downstream effects of

any development in this area, which could impose a threat to water

quality in the upper Skagit River, impacting their treaty right to fish

in the Skagit River. Given the concern about potential downstream

impacts of this proposed activity on the treaty right to fish, the

province, through the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources,

has consulted with the Swinomish Nation tribal council about these

proposed exploration activities. The province is also consulting

numerous Indigenous groups based in B.C. about potential impact to their

Aboriginal rights and title interests. It is not uncommon for the

province to consult with U.S.-based groups, where proposed projects in

B.C. may have downstream impacts that could affect them.

The bill that’s before us today, Bill 41, would not change this

approach. Suffice it to say, these cross-border, international border

issues are generally the jurisdiction of Canada, but certainly B.C.

believes that First Nations should play a role. But the ultimate

decision of who’s at the table, I believe, still rests with the federal

government.

[11:25 a.m.]

M. de Jong: To the minister, that is a helpful answer in terms of

understanding the approach. The first two examples I gave touch on

matters for which there is clearly a shared jurisdiction within Canada,

the international trade function falling squarely to the federal

government to take the lead in those bilateral, and sometimes

multilateral, negotiations.

But the subject matters themselves, having a component of

provincial responsibility in the case of the softwood lumber, of course,

forestry and the management of the forest resource falling squarely

within the realm of provincial constitutional authority, it does make

for a complicated negotiation domestically within Canada, to be sure,

because all of the other provinces play a role as well. It’s obviously

got an importance in B.C.

I won’t belabour this, but the minister has made the point that

Canada leads the negotiations in softwood. I think my question looks

ahead, and the minister says it’s speculative at this point. But of

course, much of what we’ve discussed is speculative in terms of the

conversations that might take place with First Nations. I don’t think

any of us have objected to that aspect of the debate.

There is a history. The speculation is guided by the history on

this file. We have had two kinds of trade deals. One imposes a border

tax as a way of managing the flow of goods from B.C. and Canada to the

United States. The other has been a quota that regulates the amount of

product that can flow from Canada and B.C. into the United

States.

In the latter example, which we are told has been very much a

point of discussion at the negotiating table, it falls to the province

to assign the quota to operators within B.C. I think my question is: to

what degree the minister….

Given the spirit and the essence of what is contained within

article 36, were the province placed in that position again as a result

of an agreement signed off on by the federal government with the United

States — where the province was put in a position where it was obliged

to assign quota — is there a new dimension to that that would not have

existed the last time the province was assigning quota? And that is an

Aboriginal dimension.

There are, for a variety of positive reasons, I would suggest,

more First Nations involved in the forest sector that will have a direct

interest and maybe more that want to get into that sector.

Does the incorporation of the UN declaration in the matter

contemplated by Bill 41 add an additional layer of consideration for a

provincial government going forward, were it obliged to assign trade

quota to the forest sector in B.C.?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. The scenario that he has

cited about quota actually isn’t settled at this time. So I can’t really

comment directly about that. But we don’t anticipate that Bill 41 will

change our approach to cross-border treaty discussions, including this

one.

M. de Jong: Okay, that is an answer, and I appreciate the minister providing

the answer with respect to his view on softwood lumber

negotiations.

The Columbia River treaty, of course, has a level of importance

that relates both to the management of a river — and the environmental

considerations related to that — and a fiscal dimension. The treaty has

generated hundreds of millions — dare I say billions? — of dollars over

the life of its existence. My recollection is that B.C. is a signatory

to the treaty. But we should confirm that before I ask one or two more

questions.

Hon. S. Fraser: It’s our understanding that it was ratified between Canada and the

United States back in 1964.

M. de Jong: Yeah, I have a distinct recollection of the photos of President

Johnson, Prime Minister Pearson and Premier W.A.C. Bennett. The reason I

posed the question, of course, is because the hydroelectric resource

that is very much a part of the essence of the treaty is a matter that

falls very much within the ambit and constitutional jurisdiction of the

province of British Columbia.

[11:35 a.m.]

I took it, from the minister’s answer, though, that in the

post–Bill 41 world, were there to be any difference in the type of

involvement by First Nations to what is taking place today around the

negotiating table, that would exclusively be a decision of the federal

government. The province is not contemplating any change whatsoever in

the role played by First Nations with respect to the work being

undertaken on the Columbia River treaty.

Hon. S. Fraser: Correct.

M. de Jong: Then, finally, the minister’s answer to the question around the

Skagit River treaty was again helpful. He made the point that Bill 41

and passage of Bill 41 wouldn’t change the approach taken by the

province. He did say something, though, that prompted me to at least

pose this question to the minister.

Do the passage of Bill 41 and the application of the declaration,

as contemplated by Bill 41 and the provisions of

article 36, alter the

relationship between the province and First Nations or Indigenous

peoples outside of British Columbia’s borders? We tend to talk about

that in terms of our obligations within the province, but of course, the

declaration speaks of an obligation of signatory states, and we are

about to be more than just a signatory state by virtue of Bill

The minister, to be clear and to be fair, talked about work that

has taken place between the province and the Snohomish in the case of

the Skagit River and the consultation that has taken place. Do the

provisions of

article 36 within the declaration, to the mind of the

government and the minister, change or create a different dimension to

the relationship between the province and First Nations located outside

of British Columbia’s borders, particularly our international

border?

Hon. S. Fraser: If I can have leave to jump ahead to

section 3 for a moment, in

Bill 41,

section 3 states: “In consultation and cooperation with the

Indigenous peoples in British Columbia” — it’s the key piece here — “the

government must take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of

British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration.” So my specific

referral to

section 3 and the term “Indigenous peoples in British

Columbia” I think clarifies that issue, which we can discuss in the next

section.

That being said, as I mentioned previously, it’s not uncommon for

the province to engage with U.S.-based groups, including First Nations,

that may have downstream impacts. That process won’t be affected at

all.

[11:40 a.m.]

M. de Jong: Okay. That’s helpful. I won’t belabour this. There is certainly

the question of the jurisdiction that the province has and those matters

for which it’s responsible. I took the essence of the declaration to

include the notion that beyond the constitutional elements of this,

signatory states were accepting of an approach and an obligation that

transcended their immediate borders. But the minister has clarified what

his and the government’s view on that matter is.

Let’s move ahead, then, to

article 37. Just two points to explore

here with the minister. He may recall that a day or two ago — I think it

was two days ago — in these discussions, I posed the question about

whether or not the government considered a treaty, particularly a

modern-day treaty — to represent full, prior, informed consent — as

satisfying that obligation. We had a discussion about that, and I don’t

propose to reopen that here.

But I did feel an obligation to ask the minister, on behalf of the

government, whether he felt that the passage of Bill 41, incorporating

the declaration as it does, would trigger or could trigger a reopening

of any existing treaties.

Hon. S. Fraser: The answer is no.

M. de Jong: I’m just going to go to the

section of the debate that took place

at the Senate standing committee, where the Assistant Deputy Minister of

Crown-Indigenous Relations, federally, I think supported the minister’s

view in that regard. The quote here at page 5542: “…the government’s

view” — in that case, the federal government’s view — “remains that the

agreements that we enter into with Indigenous peoples are the best

example of the implementation of the concept of free, prior and informed

consent. Those agreements all go through a process that involves

community ratification. So no, we don’t see the adoption of” — in that

case — “Bill C-262 as reopening the agreements we have already entered

into.”

The minister’s view would seem to be consistent with that of the

federal government. Also, I hadn’t recalled an interesting observation

about the concept of “free, prior and informed consent,” where the

federal government seems to take the view that in the case of a

comprehensive treaty settlement, that by definition would constitute

satisfaction of that particular phrase.

A second issue arose for me out of

article 37 and something the

minister said much earlier in this discussion, relating to the treaty

mandates. The minister, at a certain point…. I can’t remember when, and

I don’t think I’m taking it out of context. But I’m pretty sure that I

heard him say that part of the work that the government is undertaking

involves adjustments or amendments or changes to treaty negotiating

mandates. It sounds like that is taking place and was initiated separate

and apart from Bill 41. The minister may wish to confirm

that.

To what degree, if at all, does passage of Bill 41 affect the work

that is taking place with respect to changing the treaty mandates that

the province takes into negotiations?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Good question from the member. As I’ve mentioned before and as the

member is aware, every minister received mandate letters from the

Premier. So from 28 months ago, or probably 27 months ago, every

minister was tasked through the mandate letters to implement the UN

declaration.

My specific mandate letter also referred to revitalizing the

treaty process, I think it was, or addressing some of the failures of

the treaty process. So we’ve done that. We’ve worked on that. It’s not

that it’s over, but certainly, we signed off on some significant changes

to the treaty process just prior to the federal election. It’s a

tripartite group that works on that — the federal government, the

provincial government and, of course, the First Nations

Summit.

I believe those changes that we’ve made were consistent with,

certainly, the spirit and intent if not just the words of the UN

declaration. Significant changes, too, by the federal government —

release from obligation of debt — and then, in general, like the removal

of the requirement for extinguishment, some pretty fundamental changes

that certainly were a problem for many nations to embark on the treaty

process.

Our intent, part and parcel with the mandate letter that we had to

adopt the UN declaration in what we do and also revitalize the treaty

process…. I believe we did those in a complementary fashion.

M. de Jong: The changes to the treaty mandate un­doubtedly will provide

an interesting topic for discussion at another time, in another venue. I

won’t take up the committee’s time here, mostly because it seems to have

been work done previously that was not dependent upon the passage of

Bill 41 and incorporation of the declaration in the way that Bill 41

contemplates.

[11:50 a.m.]

Can the minister advise, on behalf of the government, following

passage of Bill 41…? Maybe this is the question. How, if at all, will

the passage of Bill 41 impact the province’s mandates for treaty

negotiations moving forward?

Hon. S. Fraser: To the question, we will continue to work with First Nations

inside and outside of the treaty process to get things better. We’ve

made significant advances in the past two years, but there’s certainly

more work to do. Our commitment to advance reconciliation together

through legislation builds on other work, including this work that we’re

talking about with treaties, that we’re doing across government with

Indigenous partners. Introducing the legislation solidifies this

commitment and ensures that the important work of reconciliation

continues.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave

to sit 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