Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 274

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Motions Without Notice

Amendment to Standing Orders to allow head coverings

R. Singh

S. Cadieux

S. Furstenau

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 36 — Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

C. Oakes

Hon. C. Trevena

M. Lee

J. Sims

Hon. S. Simpson

J. Brar

A. Kang

Hon. G. Heyman

Hon. M. Mark

N. Simons

M. Dean

R. Kahlon

Hon. L. Beare

Hon. H. Bains

Hon. D. Eby

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint an Auditor General

Hon. M. Farnworth

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Motions Without Notice

AMENDMENT TO STANDING ORDERS

TO ALLOW HEAD

COVERINGS

R. Singh: By leave of the House, I move:

[That effective immediately, the Standing Orders of the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia be amended as follows:

Standing Order 36 is replaced with the following:

Order in addressing the Chair.

36. Every Member desiring to speak shall do so from

their assigned place and address the Speaker.]

Leave granted.

R. Singh: Mr. Speaker, on October 3, I wrote a letter to your office

regarding a ruling on Standing Order 36. Standing Order 36 states:

“Every Member desiring to speak is to rise in his or her place,

uncovered, and address the Speaker.” I said in the letter that it is my

understanding the term “uncovered” made reference to anything covering

the head. My concern was…. If a member of the Legislative Assembly wore

a turban, kippah, head scarf, Indigenous headdress or any other

traditional and spiritual symbol, would they be permitted by you to

speak in the Legislature?

I understand that the Acting Clerk’s report on dress guidelines

says, certainly: “Indigenous attire, traditional cultural attire and

religious attire continue to be considered appropriate dress.” But it

was not clear how that guideline pertained to the rules that are set out

in the standing orders. My question to you was to make an official

ruling on whether Standing Order 36 or any other rule of the Legislature

attempts to prohibit religious and Indigenous head wear in the

chamber.

As I also said in my letter, at a time when we are seeing

alarmingly frequent expressions of hate and racism, our Legislature must

be a reflection of the great diversity in our wonderful province. We

must also acknowledge that we can all do more to push back against those

who seek to divide us.

I thank you for your response that I received earlier today, which

made it clear a change to the order would be necessary in order to

ensure the Legislature remains a welcoming space for all Canadians. I’m

making this important and urgent motion to change the standing orders to

reflect our mutually held values of diversity, religious freedom and

reconciliation.

There is a precedent across Canada for updating standing orders to

include religious, cultural and ethnic dress. Therefore, I look forward

to unanimous consent and support from this House on this motion for

British Columbia’s Legislature. Further, I hope to see this guarantee

extended to every public institution in our great and diverse

province.

S. Cadieux: I’d like to thank the member for bringing the motion forward. To

be honest, I don’t think I ever noticed that that would be a problem in

the standing orders. While I hope and fully expect that the Speaker

would have seen fit to overlook this for the purpose of respect of an

individual’s religion or Indigenous attire, I certainly think there are

plenty of things that this House can disagree on, and this is definitely

not one of them.

Just as the dress code needed a reboot, things change. It’s

surprising to me, however, that this is something that has stood in the

standing orders for as long as it has. In a country that places such

great value on our diversity and multiculturalism, in our communities

where we are all friends and neighbours and respect each other’s

religions, cultures and celebrations that we gather together so

frequently for, it is surprising that we have not noticed this and done

something about it sooner. I thank the member for bringing it

forward.

[1:40 p.m.]

When I heard about this, I reflected upon images that I can recall

observing in the United Nations. We can all have our opinions on the

work of the United Nations, but one of the things that I always found

most powerful and one of the things I enjoyed most was seeing the photos

or the images of the United Nations and all of the different people and

all of the different genders and all of the different attires —

business, cultural, religious — coming together to have discussion, to

learn from one another and to come together on issues of common purpose,

much as we do here.

While we do often find plenty to disagree upon, diversity is not

something that I believe the members of this House disagree on.

Religious freedom is not something I believe members of this House

disagree on. Certainly, we are happy to put our support behind this

motion for a change in the standing orders. It is a small world after

all.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to stand up today to support the motion brought

forward by the member for Surrey–Green Timbers to make this adjustment

to the standing orders.

I want to echo her comments as well as the comments from the

member for Surrey South that, particularly in a time when politics has a

tendency to be more of a divisive force than a uniting one, it really is

up to us all the time to recognize the very serious responsibility that

we have in a country that is built on multiculturalism, that is built on

diversity, that is built on respect for a wide variety of religious

traditions and a deep acknowledgment of the Indigenous foundation of

this nation. I am very happy that there is support from all of the

caucuses to move forward with this change to the standing orders and

delighted that we are so united on moving forward in this

manner.

I want to thank both of the members.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no other speakers, you’ve heard the question.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to thank the members — the member from Green Timbers,

the member for Surrey South and the House Leader for the Third Party —

for so well articulating this. It’s great to see. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 36, Gaming Control

Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — GAMING CONTROL

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2019

(continued)

C. Oakes: It truly is a privilege to have the opportunity to rise as the

member for Cariboo North and add my contribution to the debate on Bill

36 and to bring forward the concerns from my constituents with a

thoughtful approach on how we can improve upon legislation and make sure

that, for constituents in Cariboo North, decisions, policy and

legislation that are being debated here in this House reflect the needs

of constituents, First Nations and Indigenous communities in Cariboo

North.

Having reviewed this piece of legislation that is before the

House, there are three areas that I wish to touch upon today. The first

is the mechanism of distribution of this bill. The second is the formula

that is being discussed. The third element is the community gaming grant

discussion that I think is incredibly important to bring forward in the

discussion of this bill.

[1:45 p.m.]

Following the member for Maple Ridge–Mission and his comments

about the importance of going out and listening before designing

programs first, I believe that a critical component to the aspect of

listening is actually going out and talking to the First Nations and

Indigenous communities first.

Based on conversations that I’ve had with my local governments,

local First Nations, local alliances and Indigenous populations in my

communities, their experiences and stories, I wish to take a moment to

bring forward to this House their experiences with some of the programs,

policies and legislation that have been actually brought forward by the

government and the impact that is actually having in our rural

communities.

We have instances in our communities where revenue-sharing has

been incredibly successful. I think that is an important foundation of

what we’re discussing today. We want to ensure that all people in

British Columbia, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous, have

opportunities of prosperity and economic growth and that they can know

their next generation — and generation and generation and generation

after that — will have opportunities in the fantastic communities we are

so incredibly blessed to live in.

The first element that I wish to discuss, as it plays into this

piece of legislation, is the mechanism of how these funds will be

distributed. The top-down approach that is being presented in this

legislation…. I believe we need to have a more thoughtful conversation

on and recognition, in truth, of what is actually best and what will

have the greatest impact for our First Nations and Indigenous

populations.

We understand that revenue-sharing agreements that are in place,

which actually put funds into the hands of our local First Nations and

Indigenous communities — respecting that they know best, that they

understand their communities best and that they know the needs of their

communities best — are a principle that we should be

following.

We hav, again, had some significant examples — for example,

revenue-sharing agreements in the Cariboo, such as the forest

consultation and revenue-sharing agreement. That has been supported in

our community. That has helped support both Indigenous and

non-Indigenous in our region — workers, businesses — that have found

economic opportunity through these types of revenue-sharing agreements.

That has helped increase prosperity and has helped create work for

people in communities.

You know, I am very proud of Nazko First Nations logging. They are

one of the largest contractors in our community and one of the oldest,

actually, First Nations logging contractors in British Columbia. They

have been incredibly successful. They have hired and employed and

supported not just Indigenous communities but non-Indigenous as well. I

think examples of programs that recognize that we all can benefit and

all of our communities have a great opportunity when we invest in rural

communities is an important foundation.

Where there is nervousness right now, which I think is important

to bring forward into this House, in communities like Nazko — and, in

fact, quite frankly, the entire Cariboo — is that policies and

legislation that are being brought forward by the NDP government, while

looking good on paper, often have unintended consequences in our rural

communities and, quite frankly, can be devastating for our individual

communities.

That is why, as we debate bills that are being brought forward, we

are trying to bring the voices of our communities: to make sure there

are not unintended consequences to policies that I believe are brought

forward, of course, in good faith and wanting to improve the lives of

British Columbians; to make sure that the reality in our communities,

that the boots on the ground — that we are seeing the impacts and that

we’re seeing the revenue actually coming into our small

communities.

[1:50 p.m.]

I found it deeply discouraging that it required a convoy of

logging trucks, which had to make a difficult journey from our

communities down to Vancouver, to ensure that our voices were heard on

the implications and decisions that this government is having on the

forest sector.

Our First Nations do not want decisions being made top-down. We do

not want to see people living, sometimes, in the urban settings or in

Victoria — this very building — who may not understand the realities of

what it means to live in rural British Columbia, making those

decisions.

There is real evidence of the type of top-down approach in

decisions made by this government that is concerning to constituents in

my region. Evidence, for example, of the recent cancellation — or you

can spin the language however you wish — of the rural dividend program.

Our First Nations communities had critically important applications in

to this fund. This fund was designed to respect and understand the

unique challenges, the needs that small and rural remote communities,

First Nations communities face — communities, First Nations communities,

such as Lhtako Dene First Nation.

You see, they had an application in for a sawmill. We all know of

the devastation that we’ve had with pine, and now we have fir beetles in

this area and, of course, our wildfires. They had an application in to

build a sawmill that would employ nine people to help remove the Douglas

fir beetle infestation that we currently have in our community, that the

First Nations community needs to address.

Now they have to find a way to figure out what is next in

communities where, really, work is limited, and they are very

challenged. They’re disappointed that funds that have been put forward

for rural communities, for First Nations communities, have

disappeared.

Lhtako Dene also shared a story with me when I was talking about

the impacts of legislation being brought forward in this House. What was

their experience on the ground? They shared a story of what they are

currently witnessing and, actually, all of us in the Cariboo are seeing.

We regularly get press releases that there are large burn piles that

happen regularly in the attempt on fire mitigation, and we support the

efforts that are being made to keep our communities safe. I think it’s

critically important.

What the First Nations are asking of us is: why are we burning

that fibre? Why are we not using that fibre? They have partnerships with

other companies for pellets. Why are we not utilizing some of the

land-based fibre that currently exists to create value? In press

releases that the government last year had put forward, that was where

the government was moving.

First Nations communities in our area, many who are out of work,

are asking why those decisions are not happening — value-added

opportunities with companies such as C&C Wood Products that develop

panelling and wood products, that are not subject to softwood lumber

tariffs. The First Nation resource worker asked me last week why the

stumpage is the same rate on the value-added products that we could be

producing in our communities that are not subject to softwood lumber but

would actually get people working in our communities.

The language that consistently comes out of this government is

that they spin some of the communications that: “Hey, things are better

than ever. We have these policies, these legislation tools that are

coming forward that are going to make things great in our rural

communities.” But the challenge becomes that we’re not seeing that money

delivered on the ground in our communities.

[1:55 p.m.]

Earlier today the Premier discussed the money that’s being

reallocated to support forest workers, and this fund, of course, was

being pulled away from the rural dividend program, a program that helped

First Nations and smaller rural communities. Both the Premier and the

Minister of Forests brought forward that they are important

announcements.

What is happening on the ground in our communities — and I have

had multiple calls into my office, as I’m sure other MLAs have had as

well — is that there is no access to this funding. The application

process has not been set up yet. So we make press releases saying:

“Things are great. The government’s here to help. Money is on its way.”

But the reality is that it’s not getting into the hands of the people in

our communities. As rural MLAs, we have to fight. We have to advocate.

We have to make sure that the decisions that are happening in this House

go into the hands of our communities.

Literacy Now is another example of an important application that

had been put forward to the rural dividend program — $50,000 to help

improve literacy for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities,

important upgrades that are required to improve the work outcomes for

natural resource workers who are out of work, who are now required to

have grade 12.

Imagine that you’ve worked in a mill for 30 years of your life,

and that mill is now closed. You have to go back out into a workforce,

and you have to find a new job. The challenge is that you now need grade

12. For many people in our rural communities and Indigenous populations,

30 years ago, the idea of going in and working in a forest community was

that there were opportunities out there where we didn’t require grade

12. To cut those very types of funds that would help our communities

move forward is incredibly troubling.

Another comment that my constituents, my First Nations, wished for

me to express here in this House is around the fire-mitigation

experience. I certainly appreciate the funds that have been put forward

by the government. I think it is important to put that investment into

the communities.

When I talked to the Chief of the ?Esdilagh First Nation, Chief

Stump, he asked me…. He would use my name, but I’m not allowed to do

that. “Why do we keep getting consultants? Why does the government

channel and say: ‘This is the type of funds that you are going to get.

We will get you consultants. We will get you somebody to write a plan

for you.’?” The First Nations are saying: “We know our community best.

We do not require a consultant to come in for us to understand what we

need to do to protect our communities.”

The member for Langley East graciously raised a story that really

has been something that, as an MLA, is not only troubling. Quite

frankly, it breaks your heart that communities, year after year, who’ve

felt the devastating impacts of wildfires and floods know what they need

to do in their community to protect their communities and to make their

communities safe, continue to get denied access to very simple capital

funding — two trailers and some firefighting equipment that would help

keep their communities safe. Why is it so difficult to get access to

funds into the hands of our communities, our First Nations communities,

who know what they need in their communities?

Programs and services are continuing to be gutted. And while the

members opposite continue to heckle, if they had heard the first part….

There are three components of the challenge of this legislation. The

first challenge is the distribution of the funds. We feel that those

funds should go directly into the hands of our First Nations

communities.

The second piece of the legislation — I encourage the members to

read, because I’ve heard them talk about the formula time and time again

— is that the formula that is currently being used, a component of that

is population-based. When it is population-based, our rural communities

always end up on the short end of the stick.

[2:00 p.m.]

For rural communities, for First Nations communities to have funds

that are based on population versus needs means that we will always not

have the same access to funds that other First Nations communities may

have.

We have stories. It’s not just us creating some element of

cynicism on what is happening. They are real, on-the-ground stories that

we’re hearing. It doesn’t matter how many press releases you send out

and how many times you send our mayor out and say how things are great

in Cariboo North, I can tell you that there are real challenges that we

need to overcome, and there is real support that needs to happen into

the hands of individuals.

The third component which I wish to address is the community

gaming grant program and how the conversation of what we need to secure

not just revenue-sharing for Indigenous and First Nations populations

directly into their hands…. We need to secure funding to ensure that all

of our volunteer organizations across the province of British Columbia

that rely so heavily on community gaming grants have the same

opportunities. It needs to be fair.

I have multiple examples that I wish to bring forward, but I’m

going to start with a story. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission talked

about the importance of storytelling, and I agree. So let me share a

story that has recently come into my office.

“I’m writing to you on behalf of the Quesnel Figure Skating Club. We

were recently denied from community gaming grant which has left our club

about $28,000 short of funding to pay for our season. This is a huge

problem for us and a lot of money to make back in fundraising. I have

been on the board of this organization for six years, and we have never

had this happen before.

“Normally, we receive our gaming by early August. But this year, we

hadn’t heard anything going into September. So of course, we had to go

with our registration programs like we were going to receive this money.

One month into our program, we received the email stating we were

denied. Anyways, long story short, I’m contacting you to see if there’s

anything you can do.”

It’s not just the Quesnel Figure Skating Club that has seen a

significant reduction and gutting of programs. It is multiple agencies

that we have seen in rural British Columbia. The Baker Creek Enhancement

Society received $44,000 last year, and to date, they have had no

announcement.

The Quesnel Women’s Resource Centre. And it was great that this

morning in the introductions I believe we had a women’s resource centre

announced in this House. They do great work, so we supported the

community gaming grant back in 2017 of $122,000 to our Quesnel Women’s

Resource Centre. This year they received $80,500. That’s quite the

reduction.

How about we look at the Scouts? The Scouts do great volunteer

work — last year $7,700, this year $5,600. Quesnel Rotary — last year

$32,235, this year $20,000. How about the Quesnel Lions service club? In

2018, $29,058. This year it was $20,000.

How about victim services? Victim services is a critically

important organization. This week we are recognizing the importance in

all of our communities to stand up for those who’ve been impacted by

domestic violence. At a time when our communities are being devastated

in the forest sector and at a time when we have, unfortunately, seen

increases in domestic violence in our communities because of the

incredible stress of people being out of work, the North Cariboo Métis

society has had their healthy relationship program cut — completely cut.

Now, I met with the minister to talk about that. His response to me was

that the program has been oversubscribed.

Forgive me if I stand before you and raise the concerns that my

constituents are having when, time and time and time again, programs and

services are being gutted in our communities, both Indigenous and

non-Indigenous, at a time, Member, when the numbers speak for

themselves.

[2:05 p.m.]

I have pages, and I can show you, because they go on line. I

encourage the members to see where the funds have been last year on

community gaming grants in our communities and where they are

now.

My message to anyone who may be listening to this conversation is:

contact your local non-profit volunteer organizations that have put in

applications to the community gaming grant program, and find out where

your funds are this year. Are they delayed? Have they been denied? Have

they declined? I want you to contact your local MLA. I want you to share

your story, because your story is powerful.

It is as powerful as those 250 logging trucks that came down to

Vancouver because it was the only way they would get the attention of

this government. While the Minister of Transportation laughs and points

her finger at me, here’s the message I would say from ?Esdilagh First

Nation.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

C. Oakes: “We have written multiple letters. We have letters to the minister

on the orders of questions around West Fraser Road.”

Do you remember that road, Minister? Year after year we have

received letters from this minister. “Oh, we will be fixing these

funds.”

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, one member at a time.

C. Oakes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is the element, again, from First Nations communities who do

not have a lot of trust in this government, because we continue to hear

that funds are coming to your community. We get wonderful press

releases, and we continue to wait.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

C. Oakes: I’m incredibly proud as the member for Cariboo North to bring

forward the voices of my constituents, both Indigenous and

non-Indigenous. I believe that our community members know best the needs

in their community. I believe that they shouldn’t have to wait for a

government to say “I know best” and to control the types of social

engineering funds that come into our communities.

Again, in closing, if you’re a community member that has seen a

reduction in your funds, please contact your local MLA. If you want to

make sure that funds are distributed directly into the hands of your

community, make sure you raise your voice on this particular bill.

Finally, if you believe in self-determination, if you believe that the

fact that the First Nations know best in their community, I invite you

to make sure that you read this bill, understand this bill and to

contact your MLA.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very proud to stand up to talk about the Gaming Control

Amendment Act introduced by our government.

Unfortunately, I think that the member who spoke before me, the

member for Cariboo North, hasn’t read the bill. If she had done, she’d

know there was, as she describes it, self-determination — that it is up

to those communities that are getting their share of the gaming grants

to decide how best to spend the money.

I’d also just like to put the record straight for all those many

people who are going to be getting in touch with their MLAs as a result

of the conversation from the member for Cariboo North. Nothing has

changed. There is still 31 percent of gaming revenues going to community

organizations and health services and local governments.

The member’s various social clubs, organizations and others that

have applied…. You don’t always get it. It happens in my constituency.

It happens in everyone’s constituencies. You apply. You don’t

necessarily get it.

Of the $1.391 billion of net revenue from gaming activities, 31

percent of that is going to health services, community organizations and

local governments. The balance, as the member…. She was, I believe, once

a member of executive council. So she should understand this but most

likely has forgotten: that the balance goes into general revenues. The

new gaming revenue share does not change any of that. This 7 percent

comes from what would go into general revenues, just to put it in

context for the member, who clearly has forgotten some of the things she

may have learnt while she was on this side of the House.

[2:10 p.m.]

As I say, I’m very excited by this act. It’s a very important act,

because it’s going to entitle B.C. First Nations to a portion of B.C.

Lottery Corp.’s net income for 23 years. That’s 23 years where

Indigenous communities can plan, where they know that they’re going to

get a source of revenue, where they know that it’s stable funding. I

think that everybody is aware that we shouldn’t always be relying on

lotteries, that we have to be funding in other ways. But on this, there

is a large amount of revenue available, and there will be a 7 percent

share of this for the next 23 years — very significant.

Members opposite have been debating this for some time and are

getting very concerned about various parts of this bill. They could have

done this. First Nations have been asking for gaming revenue to be

shared by the province for years. In fact, back in 2007, when Premier

Campbell was there and he had his “New relationship” — I think that’s

what his banner was that year — First Nations leaders presented that

government, the B.C. Liberal government, with what was a First Nations

investment plan. It recommended allocating 3 percent — just 3 percent —

of revenue towards economic and community development initiatives in

Indigenous communities.

At that time, back then, 12 years ago…. The members on the other

side of the House forget that, for 16 years, they were government and

could have made an impact for Indigenous communities but didn’t. At that

time, First Nations leaders described the plan of a 3 percent share as

the single most important action that the provincial government could

take to “ease First Nation’s poverty and begin to close the economic and

social gap for all First Nations.” It is significant.

But somehow…. I should not be surprised. On this side of the

House, we should not be surprised that the former government, the B.C.

Liberal government, didn’t do anything, because their record on First

Nations relationships, to be honest, is, frankly, distasteful. It is

awful.

It started back…. They formed government in 2001. In 2002, I think

people can remember the referendum, the referendum on First Nations

treaty rights. The then Attorney General Geoff Plant put it to the

public. Well, he said that the public should have a say in the treaty

process.

At the time, they said it was an experiment in direct democracy,

but even pollsters were saying that it was amateurish and one-sided.

Among those people who criticized the outrageously racist referendum

were the Anglican Church, the United Church, the Presbytery of New

Westminster, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Muslim

Federation, the B.C. Federation of Labour, Council of Senior Citizens

and the David Suzuki Foundation. It was described as immoral and

amateurish and racist, and it was. It was a racist approach to First

Nations relationships.

I mean, that was a significant stain on the B.C. Liberal

government’s record, their 16-year record. But it went on. We’ve had the

failure to implement the calls to action from the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission. Back in 2015, Christy Clark, the Premier —

watch this space — refused to appoint a new chief commissioner to the

B.C. Treaty Commission, unilaterally undermining the treaty process. She

was, like always, thinking only about politics and not what was in the

best interest of Indigenous communities, First Nations and our

relationship as the Crown with First Nations.

Earlier we had the Missing Women’s Commission urge the then B.C.

Liberal government — they had been government for a number of years — to

bring in an enhanced public transportation system on the Highway of

Tears. The former Minister of Transportation, the minister from

Kamloops–South Thompson, said at the time that it was “not identified as

a practical solution by the people who live up there.”

[2:15 p.m.]

I’m very proud to be the Minister of Transportation. It’s an

honour to be working for the people of B.C. on this file, and I have to

say that one of the areas of which our ministry is most proud is the bus

system that is operating along the Highway of Tears. It is an

extraordinary, extraordinary system. It links communities. It means that

Indigenous communities off the highway can get to the highway. It means

that people can get a ride, an affordable ride, from community to

community. It keeps women safe because they don’t have to hitchhike. It

keeps families safe because they don’t have to hitchhike.

I’ve ridden on the bus and talked to the communities, talked to

the people who are riding it. It has made a huge difference. That is

working for Indigenous communities.

We know their record for Aboriginal children in care. They had

recommendations after recommendations from Grand Chief Ed John and took

little action, and they were reprimanded by the Representative for

Children and Youth in 2017 for their underfunding of delegated

Aboriginal agencies. So I think that their record on Indigenous

relations stands for itself.

What has been quite haunting — and I’m sure my colleagues will

have more examples than this — is that in this debate, in this House

here in 2019, when we are discussing something as fundamental as sharing

some of the prosperity of British Columbia, some of the wealth that

comes in through gaming, back with Indigenous communities, we have had —

I’m not going to label them — such worrying, worrying comments from

members opposite.

The member for Nechako Lakes, a former Minister of Indigenous

Relations, talked about First Nations being addicted to government

cheques and asked: “Is this not just another government cheque coming

in?” He said that this legislation seems to be “more about paying off

friends than…about getting resources to the bands.” I think that’s

disgraceful — that they could even be thinking about that when we’re

talking about revenue-sharing, through gaming funds, with Indigenous

communities to let them determine how best to invest in their

communities to make their communities and the lives of their community

members better.

Indigenous people. I think everyone should be aware of the history

that they have lived through and that they continue to live because of

what happened to their families, their forefathers. It’s gone on for

generations. We are still dealing with that. Indigenous communities are

dealing with that. We are trying to assist through this

process.

I’ve got to say that the member for Kelowna West was questioning

the financial accountability that could come. I quote what he said. I

find it, as I say, very disturbing that a member of this House could

have this sort of view — express it and stand up to talk about this bill

and still express this — questioning the financial accountability of

Indigenous communities. He said their processes are not the same as what

we would have in terms of our democratic systems, in terms of

accountability.

He went on to say that almost five million B.C. citizens represent

the non–First Nations population, and they haven’t had a chance to have

a say in it. As I say, I find this extra­ordinarily

worrying.

Our government has been acting. I think everybody could say that

we could act faster, that we could do more. Everybody wants to do more.

But we have done a huge amount, made great steps in working on

Indigenous relations, on building out. We have talked about

reconciliation, are absolutely committed to reconciliation. In this

session, I think everybody’s very well aware, we’ll be bringing in

legislation to ensure that reconciliation is a true reality in our

province.

Just to hit a few highlights. I mentioned Grand Chief Ed John’s

recommendations; we’ve committed to implement them. We have spent $6.4

million to keep Indigenous families together to improve outcomes for

children and youth.

[2:20 p.m.]

We’ve been working on implementing a strategy to increase the

number of Indigenous employees to train child welfare staff. We have

broadened the education experience requirement for front-line child

protection. We have ensured that we have a First Nations law degree now.

Through my ministry, again, we have our community benefits agreements

which are putting Indigenous hires first in the line for local hiring.

We are working, day in and day out, to ensure that we work towards true

reconciliation, whether it’s acts of individual ministries, acts of

government or acts that are, like this, directly assisting Indigenous

communities.

As I say, I think that the member who spoke before me clearly

hasn’t read the legislation. We committed, in our budget back in the

spring, to share 7 percent of net provincial revenue from gaming for 23

years, 25 years. Two years are already set. That is expected to give

First Nations $100 million a year. If you get a roughly 2 percent annual

growth, which would be a very nice annual growth to have, year after

year for the next 25 years, it will be a $3 billion share with B.C.’s

First Nations over the term of the agreement — $3 billion. Communities

can do a huge amount with $3 billion.

It’s set up. I think if the member had read the bill, she would

find out that it’s set up to be administered through the First Nations

Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership. They will receive, manage

and distribute these funds to participating First Nations. I hope the

member from Kelowna West was listening to that when he talked about

accountability. There is absolute accountability, and there is absolute

trust that this will be, I think, very positive.

There will be a share, on formula, of participating First Nations.

It’s going to be by community, by population and then waiting for those

that are geographically remote. I know that in my constituency…. The

members opposite like to act as though they are the only rural members

in this House, but there are a number of other rural members in this

House, myself included.

I represent an Indigenous community who have lived for millennia

in Kingcome Inlet, which is an extraordinarily remote and difficult

place to get to. I think for the community itself…. I would say that one

of the benefits of that was that they avoided the Indian agent. They

were just too far away for the Indian agent to come, so they were not

taken to residential schools.

I think that we have…. The opposition does not have the lock on

representing rural communities. Our side of the House understands the

needs of rural communities, and we want to work with Indigenous

communities to ensure that they are served well.

I go back to the division of the money. I just talked about that.

How can it be spent? I think it’s important that we recognize that it’s

not us that are dictating anything. It is First Nations governments

determining their priorities for the use of funds. There are basically

six areas that support governance, capacity-building and strength in

program and service delivery. It’s on health and wellness;

infrastructure, safety, transportation and housing; economic and

business development; education, language, culture and training;

community development and environmental protection; and

capacity-building, fiscal management and governance.

Basically, it’s money. It’s money that will promote creative

approaches to help design programs and help deliver services in these

broad categories. It’s not directed to individuals. It’s working with

communities for these categories. I think this is something that every

member in this House should be supporting. Every member in this House

should be recognizing that this is the way forward — that we have to be

allowing Indigenous communities to invest in their future. They need

revenue to do that. What better revenue than some of the money that is,

at the moment, going to general revenue coming from gaming?

[2:25 p.m.]

The member for Cariboo North talks about all the potential loss of

community grants. There is still the same 31 percent going to community

grants, but 7 percent, an additional 7 percent, will be taken out of

general revenues to ensure that First Nations can have an opportunity to

invest in economic development, in housing, in so many different ways

that will benefit their communities.

It makes me very proud that this is another act of our government.

Working with First Nations, working for First Nations, we’re making sure

that when we come to discuss reconciliation, we discuss what it means to

each of us. It means something different to everyone. It’s one of these:

how do you define it? It is so important that we do this.

I’m extraordinarily proud of our record on our relationship with

Indigenous communities and moving forward on the UN declaration and on

the Truth and Reconciliation recommendations. I would hope that the

other side of the House joins us in supporting this bill, but I have to

say I have been absolutely shocked by some of the comments that my

colleagues on the other side of the House can still express in

With that, I’ll take my seat.

M. Lee: I also want to join this discussion on Bill 36, the Gaming Control

Amendment Act. Certainly, I think this has just been a discussion around

the need to find and strike the right balance of the

gaming-revenue-sharing agreement with First Nations in British

Columbians.

There are certainly a number of considerations on Bill 36, which

I’d like to discuss, recognizing that there needs to be a more detailed

discussion to follow during the committee stage of this bill. I would

agree with the member opposite that we have more to do on reconciliation

in this province with First Nations. Revenue-sharing has been a

continued desire of First Nations in British Columbia and, if structured

correctly, could serve to strengthen the relationship between First

Nations and our province, furthering the goal of reconciliation shared

by all members of this House.

Reconciliation certainly is an incredibly important issue. We need

meaningful recognition for reconciliation to make progress against

closing the gap on issues of health, education and employment for First

Nations. This province, through leadership of the previous government,

has a strong record of supporting greater economic prosperity in First

Nations communities, partnerships which are built on mutual trust and

respect, and agreements that need to be balanced and fair.

Revenue-sharing is certainly a path to partnership. It’s one path,

and the previous government certainly recognized that. The previous

government worked to improve the quality of life for Indigenous people

through new economic partnerships, resource development revenue-sharing

and closing gaps, as I just mentioned, in health, education, skills

training and employment.

There was sharing with 40 First Nations of mineral tax revenue

from mining, with payments beginning in 2013. As of December of 2016,

British Columbia had signed over 260 forest consultation and

revenue-sharing agreements with 156 First Nations. As all members of

this House know, and as this government has come to realize, the LNG

sector in British Columbia has presented opportunities for our

government and First Nations to work together. Throughout the province,

62 natural gas pipeline benefit agreements have been reached with 29

First Nations, for four proposed natural gas pipelines.

[2:30 p.m.]

The previous government had also put in place over 500 economic

and reconciliation agreements with First Nations, including strategic

engagement agreements, reconciliation agreements and forestry and clean

energy project revenue-sharing agreements. Many of those agreements were

put in place under the leadership of the member for Nechako Lakes. As he

indicated yesterday in this debate, the previous government in British

Columbia was the first government in Canadian history to share resource

revenues. Other governments across Canada, while they may have the same

intentions, did not go down the same road. Instead, they went with a

sharing of gaming revenue.

The previous government certainly believed that it was more

appropriate that revenue go to First Nations from the resources and

activities that were happening in their traditional territory. That says

something in terms of the division of the revenue under this

revenue-sharing arrangement. But I’ll come to that in a

moment.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

In reviewing the Gaming Control Act amendments under Bill 36, it

does provide an opportunity to look at the underlying agreement that was

put in place between the province of British Columbia; the new entity,

the B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership; the

First Nations Summit; the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations;

and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. This is an agreement

that was dated, made as of August 2, 2019, just over two months ago.

What’s appended to this agreement is a list of 198 eligible First

Nations that have the opportunity to sign on to this revenue-sharing

arrangement to become a limited partner, but only if they’re accepted by

the general partner.

As the Minister of Transportation invited all members of the House

to look at it, we have looked at this agreement. We have looked at the

details. And there are many questions to be considered as to the nature

of this arrangement and how it’s going to work, not just for the 198

eligible First Nations but all First Nations in this province. We’ve

been using the number of 203. Where did the other five go? They’re not

even listed in this agreement.

Let me say that the government is in the course of negotiating, as

we understand from the briefing that the member for Richmond-Steveston

and myself received two days ago, a long-term agreement for 23 years.

This long-term agreement is for a net present value of $3 billion — $3

billion of an important financial resource that I believe we all want to

see put in the hands of First Nations across this province so that they

can meet the needs to build the capacity, to continue to fill the gaps

on health, education and poverty and to continue down the road of shared

prosperity with this province.

Revenue-sharing is an important tool, but how we do it is what

we’re discussing here. There are some concerns, as members on this side

of the House have been trying to articulate over the last day and a half

of debate.

The agreement that’s in place currently is for a two-year period.

It goes until August 2021. It has a one-year renewal term on it. There

is time. There is time to ensure that there is proper consultation with

all First Nations in this province, that all First Nations understand

the nature of this further 23-year revenue-sharing arrangement and that

we consider how the funds are being distributed and on what basis

they’re being distributed.

[2:35 p.m.]

As we know, there’s a limit to the partnership that has been

formed. As I just mentioned, eligible First Nations have the opportunity

to become limited partners of that partnership, but it is by acceptance

of the general partner. If you’re not accepted as a limited partner,

that First Nation will be an unsigned First Nation. And as an unsigned

First Nation, you won’t be entitled, won’t be receiving these

funds.

This is an example of the layer of administration that this

government has put in place. From what we understand from the member for

Maple Ridge–Mission…. He indicated something that we’ve been asking for.

What was the level of consultation with First Nations? As I heard him

say, it was by listening to the First Nations Summit, the British

Columbia Assembly of First Nations and the Union of British Columbia

Indian Chiefs. I didn’t hear him say “consultation with each First

Nation directly.”

This is something that the member for Langley East attested in

respect of his ability to reach out to a number of First Nations in the

last day. He heard back from five. None of those five First Nation

leaders — five, presumably, of the 198 — were aware of the terms of the

agreement.

This is an agreement that was brought in place only two months

ago. So when we look at to what degree that level of consultation has

occurred, the government wants to talk lots about how they’re attuned to

reconciliation and First Nations, but where is that example? It sounds

like they’re primarily relying on the leadership council. It sounds like

they’re not consulting directly with First Nations on this. It sounds

like they’ve set up a partnership, put some money across, and that money

will sit there until the general partner for this partnership accepts an

eligible First Nation. If that acceptance doesn’t occur, the funds don’t

flow.

This is an example of the complexity and the administrative burden

that this government has established. Now, we are still trying to learn

more about this arrangement. This bill gives us the opportunity, for all

members on this side of the House, to talk about our concerns, and

that’s what members on this side of the House have been doing for the

last day and a half. We are still trying to learn all of the details of

the arrangements.

The amendments that are proposed in Bill 36 are relatively

straightforward to understand on their face, but they need to be

understood in the context of this 50-page interim agreement. And I

certainly would invite all First Nations, leaders and others, who have

not reviewed this yet to get a copy of this on the ministry website —

it’s a public document — and take a look, because there are elements of

details here in the agreement itself….

Certainly, I believe all members of this House would support the

principles. There are six named principles of focus: health and

wellness; infrastructure, safety, transportation and housing; economic

and business development; education, language, culture and training;

community development and environmental protection; capacity-building,

fiscal management and governance of First Nations. These are the

principles for which funding will flow under this

arrangement.

In terms of the common objectives, certainly we all want to

continue to work with First Nations and Indigenous peoples in this

province to enhance economic opportunities and improve socioeconomic

outcomes and to provide a way to support First Nations in their right to

self-determination, including establishing their own governance

models.

[2:40 p.m.]

In looking at the specifics of the agreement itself, there is, for

example, a reference to initial periodic review. Here is another

opportunity for this government to ensure that the proper consultation

has occurred. Presumably, that was the thinking. They put the agreement

in place first, with what sounds like top-down consultation, and then

provide for a period of time, which is not specified in the agreement as

to how long it is, for some review, some reconsideration of the terms of

this arrangement. We are still in that interim period, yet this

government chooses this time as being the time to bring forward

amendments to the Gaming Control Act.

They’re bringing forward amendments not before they entered into

this agreement but after, after they’ve committed this province to 25

years of funding without proper consultation with First Nations. We

haven’t heard that. And as they go forward, there’s a lot of backfilling

going on, because as we understood in the briefing, the reason this

amendment’s being provided, of course, is that there’s a $3 billion

commitment that we will recognize in this current budget year if this

amendment doesn’t go through.

Well, we know the state, unfortunately, regrettably, of the

finances of this province under this current NDP government. There’s no

room for a $3 billion current commitment.

As we look forward at more details in this agreement, we need to

look at….

Interjection.

M. Lee: It would bring forward that $3 billion cost recognition into this

current budget year. That’s what we understood in the

consultation.

As we look at the individual eligible First Nations, their funds

will effectively be kept in trust by the partnership. When they look at

the term of the actual agreement itself…. If you look at recital

K, it talks about allowing the relationship,

effectively, between the province and the provincial territorial

organizations, which are, specifically, the First Nations Summit, BCAFN

and UBCIC…. That relationship may continually evolve.

Well, this is a very fluid arrangement, with a companion

partnership agreement which, as we heard from government staff, is not

being made available to government because, of course — we understand

this part of it — this is for the First Nations to administer. Now,

likely we’d have more comfort around that arrangement if there was

proper consultation with every First Nation. But when it’s just with the

leadership council and when that relationship can continually evolve,

these eligible First Nations have no voice in that

arrangement.

First of all, they need to be the limited partners of the

partnership in the first place. Secondly, if there’s any change to this

arrangement, it needs to be agreed to by extraordinary resolution.

That’s not unanimous.

The actual balance that’s occurring here is one that doesn’t

favour every First Nation. It sets up a situation where the funds that

First Nations need to deploy it in their communities, as the member for

Skeena spoke about in detail yesterday — those very-needed funds — will

not be available.

[2:45 p.m.]

So we ask this government: why is it that they found the need to

put in place this administrative partnership structure? It seems that it

would be more effective to directly provide the funds to First Nations,

each of them, to ensure that they’re quickly and effectively deployed.

The same governance and accountability requirements that are under the

partnership agreement or under the interim agreement that’s referred to

can be ensured or put on each of these First Nations to ensure that they

meet those requirements.

There’s reference to an indemnity under

section 7.3 of the interim

agreement. We’ll be asking, at committee, the nature of this indemnity

and what potential exposure there is to the province.

Of course, the purpose of the amendment under the bill takes away

any Treasury Board ability to alter this financial arrangement. So we

need to be pretty sure at the beginning of all of this how this is going

to function for First Nations and what expectations First Nations have

about that revenue flow. It is tagged at 7 percent, and as we know, that

7 percent may not be the same in dollars every year. So we need to look

at what expectations this government has raised with First Nations about

that revenue flow.

There’s also a

schedule at the back of the interim agreement

regarding expenditures. What is that gaming revenue, anyway? Well, it

turns out that that gaming revenue doesn’t include certain deductions

for certain expenditures. Now, we are talking about gaming. This

government wants to talk a lot about their new focus on gaming, yet

enforcement and investigations are excluded from this.

There are many elements in terms of how BCLC is run, categories of

expenditure that are not being taken into account. As I mentioned, there

is no line of sight on the partnership agreement. So we do not know at

this time, for those First Nations that have not signed on and been

accepted as limited partners, what their criteria are — the conditions,

the terms — that are necessary for a general partner to accept an

eligible First Nation into this partnership.

This is the very concern that many members on this side of the

House have been speaking to. It’s the concern around what we are giving

up here — when I say “we,” that’s all of us, including First Nations —

to this partnership, this new structure. Why the need for that? The

government should have the responsibility to ensure that those funds get

provided directly to all First Nations.

We’ve talked at length about the distribution formula here. We

understand, of course, that it’s a 50-40-10 split — 50 percent to all

First Nations, 40 percent based on population, 10 percent to be

distributed based on whether a First Nation is in a remote geographical

location.

Well, that last category is an indicator, certainly a recognition,

that for some First Nations who are in remote geographic locations,

there’s likely — and there is — a greater need for a greater share of

funds beyond population and the mere dividing up of funds amongst all

the eligible limited partners. That’s an indication of need. That’s an

indication that not all First Nations are in the same economic benefit

in terms of their current geography — where they’re located, close to

resources — and, as I mentioned earlier, the previous government being

the first government in Canada to share revenue from resource

development.

[2:50 p.m.]

Well, much of that sharing has been going on. That’s one aspect of

economic partnership in this province. It’s one way for real change for

First Nations. Certainly, we recognize remote geographic locations and

those First Nations that are in areas of the province that are remote —

areas that don’t have the benefit, necessarily, of the rich resources

that others may have.

If we’re taking into account remote geographic location, aren’t

there other indicia or factors of need that we should be taking into

account? This is our second suggestion. The first, again, that

government distribute the funds under this gaming revenue-sharing

arrangement directly to First Nations. Secondly, that the distribution

formula take into account other considerations around need. Those

considerations can be, in other ways, based on the economic capacity of

that First Nation.

There are some First Nations, including ones that are with the

traditional territories around my riding — Musqueam First Nation,

Tsawwassen and others — that have access, certainly, to greater economic

capabilities.

Those that don’t…. Aren’t those really the First Nations that

we’re trying to be working with and assisting here? There should be a

greater recognition of that need. That’s when we have the discussion

around whether that distribution model should be altered.

Again, with First Nations who haven’t been properly consulted, how

will they get their voice heard? This is the opportunity to ensure that

we have an ability to ensure that those First Nations are getting the

funds that they require and need.

I think that in the context of dividing up the pie…. I heard the

House Leader for the Green Party, the Third Party, talk about the other

day, in reference to the miscellaneous stats bill, a recognition of the

tax base. Well, as we all know, there’s only one taxpayer, and we need

to consider what’s available.

When the Minister of Transportation just spoke, there’s one thing

that I would quibble with her about, which is that under the Gaming

Control Act, there is no set guarantee or limit threshold for funding

for community gaming grants. It is at the discretion by appropriation

under the Financial Administration Act.

As much as it’s been the case that there’s been funding made

available and that community organizations, like the ones that I used to

sit on the board of, that enable, in the case of Arts Umbrella, for

example, the expansion of important arts education and training programs

to the municipality of Surrey through two new locations…. Community

gaming grants are very important to support those initiatives:

after-school care, after-school training for vulnerable children and

youth who weren’t receiving access to any of those additional

opportunities to learn, in this case, visual arts.

There are numerous examples, and the member for Cariboo North just

went through a number of stories which were very compelling about the

reliance of various communities on community gaming grants.

I understand, from the briefing, that the government has said that

in their view there will be no impact in this arrangement. I think it’s

important that we consider, as we look at the Gaming Control Act and we

look at the opportunity of setting up a much-needed…. This is the way

the government has chosen to do it. Again, as I say, we would see it as

based on revenues from resource development and other economic

opportunities.

[2:55 p.m.]

If this government wants to follow the lead of other provinces in

this country — to put it on gaming revenues — then we need to consider

the access and the continued reliance of community gaming grants, that

program — that they have steady, reliable access to those funds. Those

funds, of course, as we’re hearing, are shrinking, in terms of meeting

the number of needs in our community.

I appreciate that when we look at this revenue-sharing

arrangement, looking out 23 years, we need to ensure that there has been

proper consultation with First Nations; that we are working to establish

the best funding arrangement to ensure effectiveness of these dollars,

these much-needed resources, for First Nations around this province; and

that we take into account the recognition of those needs. What are those

needs? Treating every First Nation the same, at least for 50 percent of

these funds, and then based on population, and only leaving 10 percent

of that funding pool for any recognition of geographic or other needs….

We’re suggesting that that ought to be considered.

We will have the opportunity to ensure that this funding model, in

the interest of reconciliation with First Nations, be done in a balanced

and fair way for all of British Columbia, and that we look at, as we go

into committee stage on this bill, addressing those concerns.

J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to rise and speak in support of Bill 36,

the Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019. I’m really very proud of our

government and of the minister who has brought this legislation forward,

because I believe that this is long overdue.

I know that for the First Nations community, this has been a major

concern for a number of years. I believe that as far back as 2007, they

did raise their concerns with the then government of the day. The First

Nations leaders have been presenting a variety of proposals to get game

sharing. They had talked about 3 percent of the gross gambling revenue.

They wanted it towards economic development.

I also — when you look at history, history is always a great

teacher — looked at what the First Nations leaders had to say. They

talked about this revenue-sharing being the single most important action

the provincial government could take to ease First Nations’ poverty and,

again, to close the economic and social gap for all First Nations.

That’s quite a significant statement coming from the people who are the

most impacted.

Now, I don’t have to review our commitment to truth and

reconciliation. As you know, the Premier and our whole government take

this very, very seriously, every person on this side of the House. It’s

not just words that were written in ministers’ mandate letters. Every

member that is part of our caucus — it doesn’t matter where they sit on

this side of the House — has a very strong commitment to making truth

and reconciliation a reality.

I know there are lots of people who are going to be saying: “Well,

we’ve been talking about this for a long time.” I certainly feel that

I’ve been talking about it for a long time, even as way back as the time

that I was a teacher.

[3:00 p.m.]

At this time, I do want to recognize the work done by the B.C.

Teachers Federation in the area of truth and reconciliation. I have

nothing but huge admiration for the commitment of the teachers of this

province to move the dial forward, to truly, truly, in this province,

have an understanding about truth and reconciliation and to include that

and to say that that does not just mean words. It means looking at,

first, as the words imply, facing the truth and then moving towards

reconciling.

It’s not about punishments for the past, because we can’t undo the

past. We know terrible things happened. I, like many of you, have

listened to the stories of grandparents who spent time in residential

schools and said that once they came out, their lives were not that

great. As a grandfather, he could say that he never learned how to be a

dad, how to be a son, how to be a brother, how to be a father and how to

be a husband, and that that experience in the residential schools

impacted not only him but generation after generation of his

family.

We can’t undo that, but we acknowledge the harm that was done.

What we can do is reconcile and move forward in a nation-to-nation

partnership. That is what our government is committed to.

As I started off by saying, I’m glad that we’re bringing this

forward and that we’re bringing this forward this early on in our

mandate. Just so you know, Madam Speaker — I know you know this already

— we have already forwarded $194.84 million in revenue to account for

the first two years of this 25-year agreement that we have reached. For

the next 23 years, it is going to be 7 percent, which translates into

about $100 million per year. That does factor in the growth rate, about

a 2 percent growth rate.

Unlike some of the terms that were used yesterday — and I will be

getting into that a little bit later — this money is not being put in a

vault. This money is being shared with First Nations across this

province so that they themselves can determine how they’re going to use

it for economic boosts, capacity-building, for education, for language,

for culture retention. Part of truth and reconciliation is not in having

the answers for others but in enabling. That’s what this will

do.

This is also a commitment to the long term. You know that when

funding is announced on an annual basis, it creates a lot of angst,

because people feel they cannot do long-term planning. This allows First

Nations to do that long-term planning, knowing that the funding is

coming.

I did hear from my colleague across the way that, well, there is

no guarantee that it will be $100 million, because the revenues are

unpredictable. But we based it on past history. That’s why it says 7

percent. It talks about a percentage point. I think all of us — First

Nations communities, those on the government side and my colleagues

across the way — understand that if it’s a percentage, it is a

percentage, and that’s what it’s going to be.

I’ve also heard: “Well, you know, there are a whole lot of things

that could be done with this legislation that isn’t in here.” I found

that a little bit difficult to listen to, coming from members who were

in government for 16 long years and had the opportunity to address many

of the issues that they now see as a problem. I just want to remind them

that it was under their watch that colossal money laundering was allowed

to flourish as it did. I want to go on to say that on this side of the

House, we are committed to working with the First Nations.

[3:05 p.m.]

We didn’t just create a structure. What we need to know is that

the First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership — a long

name, I know — was set up at the direction of leadership from the B.C.

Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of

B.C. Indian Chiefs through the First Nations Gaming Commission. So this

is not an imposed structure. This is another structure that has been

established nation to nation — a structure that we respect. There is a

formula, but no set prescription beyond the formula. That’s what going

to nation-to-nation agreements means.

Yesterday I also heard some of my colleagues across the way

talking about equality a lot — that this was not fair, that this was not

equal. I have found, over a huge number of years, that the word

“equality” is often used to confuse people.

What we need to focus on is the word “equity.” We all must admit

that inequalities have existed for over 100 years — inequalities in the

type of education and the type of infrastructure, inequalities in the

treatment of the First Nations people. Yes, when you have huge

inequalities, that’s when we talk about equity. Maybe we will have to

focus on equity for the next 100 years — I hope not — in order to undo

the inequality that has existed for such a long time.

At this stage…. I’ve heard people say: “Well, you know what? We

don’t really know what the money is going to be used for.” But I think

if you take a look at it, it’s sort of does talk about it. It can be

used for capacity-building, to support governance; health and wellness;

infrastructure; economic and business development; education, language,

culture and training; community development and environmental

protection; and capacity-building, fiscal management and governance. You

could go on and on.

I can tell you, as I have travelled around this province over the

last two years, that I have seen firsthand the colossal divide that

exists between First Nations communities, our rural communities and our

urban communities. This is an opportunity for the First Nations to start

addressing, with these funds, some of those inequalities that have been

imposed on them for such a long time.

Let’s talk about education. I hear about that a lot from First

Nations leaders — how education is their focus, not just the K-to-12

education and the post-secondary. I want to do a shout-out to the

Minister of Advanced Education for the amazing work that she has done in

this area to move forward the dial, to encourage First Nation youth in

apprenticeships, to establish a master’s and a doctoral program, and

also to really focus on education in our First Nations communities as

well that responds to those First Nations communities.

Also out of that education, we often forget about language. I’m

proud that the minister has allocated money for the reclamation,

retention and growing of First Nations languages. I think every one of

us in this room recognizes the importance of the mother tongue. I think,

as I talk with First Nations, that one of their top priorities is to

capture languages that are dying and languages that they are very close

to losing. When you capture your language, you capture far more than

words. You capture your culture; you capture your history. The

importance of first language is recognized by every First Nation across

this province.

I know that amazing work is being done. When I’ve visited some of

the communities, I’ve actually ended up in a room where a class was

being given in a first language where the grandmother, the daughter and

the grandson were all in the same room, learning a language that that

nation almost lost. So some of this money can also be used to augment

the teaching of language.

[3:10 p.m.]

Let me also now talk about infrastructure. My other colleagues

have talked about housing. I will say that we’re very proud of the work

that we have done on building homes with First Nations on First Nations

lands. But there’s also other infrastructure. We know that there is a

huge digital divide between our rural and urban communities and an even

bigger digital divide between First Nations communities and the rest of

us.

There are things so many of us take for granted. For example, when

I’m in Surrey and I’m visiting a high school, they’re doing a deep-sea

dive. They’re talking to a diver in the ocean off the coast, just off

Bamfield, and they’re actually beginning to talk about the flora and the

fauna of the ocean bed. They’re able to ask questions.

It’s hard for us to believe, I know, because there’s a lot of

connectivity in urban areas, but there are parts of the province, in

many, many of our First Nations, which don’t have cell service. They

can’t text. They don’t have access to Netflix. They don’t have access to

education on line. They don’t have access to the economic potential that

exists when you have that basic infrastructure.

Because of that disparity, the digital divide gets bigger and

bigger, of course, as we move forward. We know the importance of having

connectivity, not only to access government but to support traditional

businesses, whether it is your traditional mining, forestry industry,

tourism and fishing, or whether it is to attract the new industries that

exist into your area when you have high-speed Internet and you get that

connectivity.

Only last week I was in Haida Gwaii and in Port Clements. There,

you had tears in the eyes of people because they now have cell service.

It’s something we just take for granted, but they have that now, and

they were so, so happy. But there were other priorities that they laid

out at that meeting. Funding like this will allow people in our remote

and First Nations communities to be able to focus on what is really

important in their community.

I also, at this stage, would like to say that — I was talking

about language earlier — my first language, in case any of you didn’t

know, is Punjabi. I grew up speaking that to the age of nine. When my

well.

I know how important it is to retain your mother tongue. I know

how important it is. Even then…. I can tell you that when we did the

Connected Coast announcement a year ago, at that time, when a director

from Haida Gwaii was at the mike, what he said was: “Having connectivity

— having a cell phone, having high-speed Internet — is going to allow us

to bring our children home. It’s going to allow us to keep our language.

It’s going to allow us to promote our culture, keep our culture and keep

us connected.”

I think there isn’t anything more moving than when somebody says

that having access will allow them to bring their children home. As a

mother, grandmother and now a great-grandmother, I can tell you that I

am so moved every time I think about that clip.

I’m now thinking that as this money, $100 million a year, is

shared out amongst the First Nations, they’re going to use it for what

is a priority in their communities. I cannot decide what is a priority

for each one of these First Nations. They know. This is going to allow

them to do the capacity-building that needs to happen. That is always

part of it. We talk about capacity-building, even in government and in

our own spheres. It’s very, very important for everybody.

[3:15 p.m.]

I can tell you that yesterday, when the member for Nechako Lakes —

this is an exact quote — talked about a quote from a book by Helin, he

goes: “It’s not about drug or alcohol addiction. It’s about addiction to

government cheques, money that’s coming in from governments. I wonder if

there’s an attempt, in terms of the gaming revenue and this

process….”

I was sitting in my room when I heard this, and I can say that not

too many times in my life do I become speechless, but I was made

speechless by this. We give out grants as a government — and the

previous government did — all the time, to a myriad of groups and

organizations.

Having grants given is not new. Having revenue-sharing from gaming

is not new either, because we already give out grants. We give out

grants to municipalities. We give out grants to community organizations

and health services. I have never heard my colleagues across the way

talk about that as an “addiction to government cheques.” So why is it,

when we’re talking about revenue-sharing with First Nations, that what

is quoted — they’re the exact words — is: “It’s about addiction to

government cheques”?

Let me tell you that many, many amazing leaders and community

members I have met in the First Nations community are hard-working,

determined, working for the best of their community. I don’t see them as

being addicted to government cheques. They are fighting to improve the

living conditions on their reserves, on the land and their nation.

They’re struggling with housing. They’re struggling with health care,

with access to doctors, with access to nurses. They’re struggling with

young people who need to be steered and to address mental health issues

and other types of addictions.

They are struggling with retention of the language, which is so,

so necessary for the preservation of a culture and a nation. They are

struggling with economically moving away from some of the older

economies and moving into the new economies that require high-speed

Internet and other infrastructures.

I hear them talking about how they want to make life better. I

hear them talking about how they want to work in partnership, nation to

nation. I don’t ever see them coming here saying: “I want a cheque

because I want to be dependent on you.”

I really, really felt badly that those who listened to this would

be so hurt by it. Then for the same member for Nechako Lakes to say that

this whole thing was “more about paying off friends than it is about

actually getting the resources to the bands….” I found that to be

insulting and disrespectful and also not comprehending the challenges

faced by our First Nations community.

I go back to what we heard from the First Nations. First Nations

leaders described the plan as “the single most important” action the

provincial government could take to “ease First Nations poverty and

begin to close the economic and social gap for all First Nations.”

That’s a quote from the First Nations leaders. That’s not something I

have just made up.

[3:20 p.m.]

We on this side of the House heard that loud and clear, and we

have a clear commitment to reducing the gap that exists, that is so

huge.

This small step — because it is a very small step — is not going

to set everything right, but it is a small step in the right direction:

$100 million a year. As you know, over the course of the next 25 years,

that’s $3 billion — $3 billion that is going to go into addressing

health and wellness, infrastructure, economic business development,

education, language, community development, capacity-building and

governance, all what I am so proud that our government is committed to

doing.

Truth and reconciliation is not just about sharing here. We have

been living that for the last two years, and very soon there will be

legislation brought forward that will show the commitment that we do

have to this. But I do want to say that we have a fairly good record. It

would take me a long, long time to read everything into the record, but

let me just read a couple of things.

We have been implementing a strategy to increase the number of

Indigenous employees to train child welfare staff to provide culturally

relevant, meaningful and safe services for Indigenous children, youth,

families and communities, because we know that we don’t have all the

answers. As many books as we might read, as many movies as we might

watch, only the First Nations communities really know how to address

this, and we’re working in partnership with them.

In February 2019, MCFD broadened the education and experience

requirements for front-line child protection positions. That’s a good

thing, because we’re doing things from our end that will help to improve

the services. We passed legislation that allows MCFD to share more

information with Indigenous communities to keep children from coming

into care in the first place, so the first priority is to have the child

stay in the community.

We’ve invested $30 million to create more than 600 new, free,

licensed child care spaces and expanded Aboriginal Head Start in over 30

communities across this province. These programs support Indigenous

families and help them to become stronger and united.

You know what? There’s a lot going on in many, many ministries.

The work that has been done…. For example, a cell tower in Witset, which

was the last First Nations community along the Highway of Tears without

cell. As we know, that went live not so long ago. Four provincial parks

and one watershed protected area have been renamed to reflect the

traditional Indigenous name, to reflect the historic and cultural

significance.

There is still so much more that we still have to do. As people

travel across the province, and as I have had the pleasure to meet with

so many First Nations communities, I hear from them how, for the first

time in a long time, they feel heard, they feel included and they feel

listened to. When I was in Williams Lake, and we announced a project

there, I heard the chief say: “I never believed this would happen.”

Those are the kinds of things that are happening as we are trying to

move down the road of truth and reconciliation.

[3:25 p.m.]

As I said earlier, our truth and reconciliation cannot possibly

make up for the wrongs of the past. It cannot. I think it would be

foolish for anyone to think that it could. But what it does enable us to

do is to have a dialogue, to listen, to face the truth, to acknowledge

the truth and, once we have it, to move towards a path of reconciliation

that we can travel down together respectfully, nation to nation. And for

us not to see, when we give a grant or grant money from the gaming fund

into the aboriginal communities…. I don’t want that to be seen as just

cheque dependency, when we don’t see the grants that we give out to all

the other agencies in that way. That just seemed so, so

wrong.

Also, you know, one of the steps you have to take as you move

towards this road of truth and reconciliation is of using your courage

and taking a step forward. When you’re stepping forward into unknown

territory — which it is, as we move towards nation-to-nation partnership

— yes, there are going to be some who are going to say: “There’s no

level of accountability.” But the accountability is there.

The accountability is there with an organization set up by the

First Nations that is going to distribute this money. They know the

criteria that they’re going to be using. I’ve read it out twice just so

that everybody knows that the money isn’t just given without anything.

There is a list of the things that the money can be used for.

We’ve got to have that faith. When we give money out to community

organizations across this province, whether it be in municipalities or

in health services or whatever, we don’t then say: “Well, where’s the

accountability?” The accountability comes as the program gets

delivered.

In this province, we do have 203 First Nations. I think we have

about a third of Canada’s First Nations right here.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Sims: Thank you. I support this legislation.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak a little

bit about the Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019, Bill 36.

This piece of legislation is intended to fulfil a commitment that

was made by our government, a commitment to share a portion of B.C.

Lottery Corp. net income with First Nations across this province, and to

share it with First Nations in a way that ensures that they make the

decisions, that they are the decision-makers, about how that money will

be expended and what the priorities for the expending of that money will

be.

The commitment is a significant one. It’s a commitment for 23

years of dollars, approximately $100 million and increasing annually, as

7 percent of the revenue from lottery net income revenue. It’s an

important source of dollars.

I know that in discussions that I’ve had with First Nations who’ve

come to see me in my responsibilities around poverty reduction…. I’ve

had extensive discussions with First Nations around those issues, both

on and off reserve, and often the discussion, particularly on reserve

but not exclusively, is very much about the ability, the capacity, for

those nations to be able to make choices about how they move forward, to

be able to make choices about how they provide supports to folks in

their community.

They talk a lot about supporting young people and creating

opportunities for young people. They talk a lot about the need to have….

As one leader said to me, when he was very excited about this money

coming forward — I think at the last leadership gathering, where the

announcement of these dollars was made….

[3:30 p.m.]

I had leaders there, and one in particular I remember talking to

me about this money and saying: “When those dollars come, we will be in

a position to use that almost as a secured line of credit to be able to

deal with other issues in our community.”

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

In that particular case, it was the opportunity to build housing

where none had been built for a very, very long time and where the need

for housing for members of that nation on reserve was desperate. It was

very hopeful and expecting that the ability to go to the bank with this

guaranteed revenue source coming in to the nation would allow them to be

able to arrange the agreement that they would need to start to address

for themselves the housing challenges that they were facing. That really

was only a single example.

The resources that are going out…. The first $200 million has gone

out to the Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership, which will be the

body. It’s a body that was structured under the advice of the First

Nations Leadership Council and its member bodies to ensure that there

was accountability around the money, which the partnership provides,

and, at the same time, that the decisions were being made by First

Nations themselves.

What we heard, of course, is the desire to ensure that First

Nations would be the people who would make the decisions about how those

dollars would be expended and about how those dollars would move

forward. That’s why, when you look at the criteria, the criteria are

very, very broad for the use of this money. Pretty much any legitimate

project will find a place within this criteria if need be — for health

and wellness; for infrastructure, safety, transportation and housing;

for economic and business development; for education, language, culture

and training; for community development and environmental protection;

and for capacity-building, fiscal management and governance.

That’s a very wide net that is cast around the criteria that have

been established working in consultation with First Nations to determine

that criteria. It’s a very wide net that has been cast and consciously

so, to ensure the decisions are made by the nations about how they will

expend the dollars they will now come to expect every year.

I heard talk on the other side, of course, about whether there

should be other sources of money. Well, you’ll know this has been a

discussion around gaming revenue for a very long time in this province.

I recall it was in 2007 that First Nation leaders presented the previous

government, now the opposition, with an investment plan that recommended

allocating 3 percent of gross gambling revenue directly towards economic

development — to the previous government.

That recommendation and that proposal fell flat. It did not get a

positive response from the previous government. We have responded with 7

percent of the net income and created a fund here that will be under the

control of First Nations and that will be invested by First Nations at

the local nation level, as they see fit, to meet the needs in their

communities as they move forward.

This is a critical piece. It’s a piece that fits in with the

ongoing work that we are doing as government around reconciliation and

around what reconciliation on the ground means. We’ve been investing in

housing. We’ve been investing in looking to support child welfare

initiatives. We have invested in supporting the calls to action of the

Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

There was significant participation and a path forward developed

around the work of TogetherBC, my work around poverty reduction that we

continue to work on in partnership with First Nations moving forward,

both on and off reserve. We’ve been supportive of friendship centres,

which provide critical services to First Nations people living primarily

in our urban centres. And, of course, we will be talking at some point

here, not too far down the road, about UNDRIP again and about

legislation related to UNDRIP.

[3:35 p.m.]

This is a Premier and a government that is committed to the hard

work of making reconciliation work. It was Grand Chief Stewart Phillip

who said: “Reconciliation isn’t for wimps.” He acknowledged that it is

work. It’s challenging work, and it’s work that’s complicated. But

what’s not complicated is to understand at some point that where you

determine to share revenue, you don’t tie a bunch of strings to the

revenue. You share the revenue, and you ensure that the nations have the

authority, the authority they quite appropriately deserve, to make those

decisions about what will and what won’t happen with that revenue that

they have.

This legislation, the Gaming Control Amendment Act, does exactly

that, and it does that in a structure which is the partnership group,

the limited partnership that, in fact, ensures that it is guided with

accountability and transparency, but it is guided by First Nations

themselves. Of course, as part of this, the Lottery Corp. has had

appointed, added to the board, a director from the First Nations

communities.

Now, as we move forward to do this, we’ve heard from the other

side, the opposition, a lot of reservation about this. We’ve heard

comments. But what we have to understand is that as much as they would

like to rewrite history, history is what it is. The history of the other

side started, very clearly, shortly after they came to power in 2001.

When they did that, many will remember, mostly sadly and with some shame

about it, the B.C. treaty referendum in 2002, a provincewide referendum

on First Nation treaty rights in British Columbia.

The Attorney General of the day called it a chance for ordinary

British Columbians to have their say about the treaty process. The

government called it an experiment in direct democracy. But as a number

of people said, including Angus Reid, a well-respected pollster…. He

called it “one of the most amateurish, one-sided attempts to gauge the

public will that I have ever seen in my professional career.”

Critics called for a boycott of the referendum. Critics, including

Indigenous and church leaders, called the plebiscite stupid, immoral,

amateurish and racist. That was how the people on the other side

started, when they formed government, to engage the relationship with

First Nations. Quite honestly, that relationship…. I don’t believe they

ever recovered from that in terms of building a meaningful, substantive

relationship that was based on respect.

Here we are today. We’re here today, where we have challenges,

including where the other side failed to address issues around the Truth

and Reconciliation Commission; where the previous Premier refused, until

forced under public pressure, to name a new chief commissioner to the

treaty commission that would allow the treaty commission to proceed with

treaty work.

In 2012, the Liberals refused to address the Highway of Tears,

regardless of what Missing and Murdered Women said. They refused to

address the issue of transportation on the Highway of Tears. It took….

Thankfully, when our government came in…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Kamloops–South Thompson.

Hon. S. Simpson: …we addressed the problem. It’s something that side….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister. Minister, hold it.

Hon. S. Simpson: Disingenuous is the label for that side. Disingenuous.

Deputy Speaker: Minister. Minister, hold it.

That’s good. The member has to be in his chair if he wants to make

any comments. Thank you.

Minister, continue.

Hon. S. Simpson: There’s nobody more disingenuous. They abandoned women in that

community. They abandoned women. The ex–Transportation Minister

abandoned women in that community.

Interjections.

[3:40 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The minister has the floor.

Hon. S. Simpson: What does this party say now? Unbelievable. What does this party

say now?

Let’s talk about what the member for Nechako Lakes had to say, his

comments regarding this piece of legislation: “It’s about the addiction

to government cheques, money that’s coming in from governments. I wonder

if this is an attempt, in terms of the gaming revenue and this

process….” Or is it “just another government cheque coming in?” He went

on to say, the member for Nechako, as he was talking: “It seems to be

more about paying off friends than it is about actually getting the

resources to the bands.”

Well, I’m not sure who those friends are, but what I do know is

that there are thousands and thousands of First Nations leaders around

this province — chiefs, chief councillors, councillors, others in First

Nations communities, Elders — who are excited about this money, money

that will roll, money that will be invested in communities, communities

that the Liberals abandoned and ignored for 16 years. They ignored for

16 years. We have an ex-minister over there who turned her back on First

Nations communities time and again, has a history of turning her back on

them — a history of it.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: We have a party over there, a political party, that has

misrepresented their position around First Nations time and

again.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: And sadly….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Simpson: Maybe it’s a good thing. Maybe this is a good thing, but during

this debate, they have reinforced and demonstrated that again and again

and again. It’s very sad.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Hon. S. Simpson: The good thing about this is that people can read this debate.

They can look at this debate. They can look at what that side did as

they tried to couch in words about caution and

accountability…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. S. Simpson: …the fact that they do not believe that First Nations should get

this money. That’s the truth. They do not believe it. This is the group

over here.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Members.

Member, take your seat.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Prince George–​Valemount will come to

order.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members will come to order now.

That’s enough, member for Prince George–Valemount.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, are you not listening? Members, come to order, please.

Enough. One member at a time. This member has the floor, and if people

disagree with it, they will have time to counter it. Please let’s be

respectful.

The minister will continue.

Hon. S. Simpson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I don’t want to just….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Simpson: Let’s talk about other members on that side. What about the member

for Kelowna West? What did the member for Kelowna West say in the debate

on this bill? That “…lots of money has gone to First Nation communities

and through organizations where perhaps maybe there’s no level of

accountability.”

This is about a side that just…. It’s the nudge-nudge, wink-wink

implications that we hear from the other side. That’s what we

hear.

[3:45 p.m.]

What I’m pleased about is that this bill is going to pass. It’s

going to pass, and it’s going to put in place a structure that ensures

that there are core dollars going to First Nations across this province,

dollars that they will have control over, dollars that they will make

decisions about, whether it is to support young people, whether it’s to

support housing, whether it’s to support necessary infrastructure

improvements, whether it’s to lever, moving forward, by being able to

access other dollars by having these dollars to lever those dollars

forward.

This is part of what reconciliation’s about. This is part of what

coming to responsible agreement is about. This is about what partnership

will be about.

We are doing the right thing here in terms of moving this bill

forward. I’ll be very interested to see where the other side votes when

it comes to a vote on this bill. I’ll be very interested….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Simpson: Oh, the member says that. I’ll tell you that the nudge-nudge,

wink-wink on that side is pretty good, but we’ll see where they actually

vote when they have to actually stand up and vote.

We can make decisions here. We are making a decision here about

whether to move forward and show respect for First Nations and for their

leadership. But that side…. Respect for First Nations has not been part

of the history of that side. That’s sad and unfortunate. We’re changing

that, and one of those changes we will deal with, with this

bill.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to spend some

time.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Let’s talk about respect.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

This House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:47 p.m. to 3:48 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

J. Brar: I feel proud to stand up in this House to support the Gaming

Control Amendment Act.

This is about historic justice. This is a choice. Our government

made a choice. The previous government made their choice. This is about

building a province that’s more fair, more just and more equal. This is

about providing equal opportunity to all British Columbians.

Indigenous people deserve respect and equal opportunity to realize

their full potential. We cannot pretend there is no issue with First

Nations. We cannot pretend that. They are struggling with a number of

issues, whether it’s the economy, poverty, child welfare and other

cultural issues.

[3:50 p.m.]

I will tell you a story. In 2012, I accepted the welfare challenge

to tell the story of the people living in poverty. I stayed on welfare

for one month — 15 days in Surrey and 16 days in downtown Vancouver.

During that time, I met a lot of people and listened to their stories.

Those stories were very painful.

I just want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the experience I went

through was shocking, painful and eye-opening.

I will tell you a story. One day I was walking in the evening in

downtown, on Hastings Street. I met a fellow. He came to me, and he told

me a story. His story is this. He told me that he was 40 years of age

when he came to Vancouver. He was desperate to find a job, and he did

find a job. He found a job in the construction industry, and he worked

in the construction industry for 15 years — 15 long years.

After 15 years, because of the situation in the economy, he was

laid off. What he told me at the end was that he was now looking for a

job. He did everything possible that he could do to find a job. But he

couldn’t find a job, because he’s 55 and he’s First Nations. That’s what

he told me. He’s First Nations. He ended up on welfare, and he was

living in a downtown SRO building. He told me he was living in that

building with 20 other people on the same floor with one washroom.

That’s the story he told me.

But what happens, what I hear from the members of this community

from time to time, when they blame people like that individual — that

they don’t want to do work, that they just want to stay on welfare….

That is shocking to me, going through this experience, that we blame

people who are honest and who want to work and who want to live a life

with respect and dignity. That’s one issue.

If we look at the challenges that First Nations are facing,

poverty is a huge issue. We all know that. It’s surprising to me that

poverty in First Nations is bigger than even the newcomer communities

who just came to this country a few years ago. That is shocking. That is

really shocking to see — that they have way more poverty than the

newcomer communities.

The child welfare issue is also very serious. Forty percent of

children in the care of the government are children from First Nations.

That also is very, very disproportionately high when we look at the

number of those children.

The First Nations have been looking for help for too long. They

tried to work with the previous government. The First Nations

leadership, they asked for the gaming revenue-sharing to be negotiated

by the previous government in 2007. They actually presented a plan to

them. But the previous government didn’t listen to them. They refused to

listen to them at that time.

In fact, the first thing I want to say is there are two different

perspectives. We want to work with them. The other side, they clearly

don’t want to work with the First Nations people. The first thing the

B.C. Liberals did when they came to power in 2002 is they conducted a

referendum. The B.C. treaty referendum was a provincewide referendum on

First Nations treaty rights in British Columbia, Canada.

B.C.’s Attorney General at that time, Geoff Plant, called it a

chance for ordinary British Columbians to have a say in the treaty

process. The government at that time called the referendum “an

experiment in direct democracy.” The polling expert Angus Reid called it

“one of the most amateurish, one-sided attempts to gauge the public will

that I have seen in my professional life.”

[3:55 p.m.]

This strategy is very simple. For them, when you want to help the

minorities, call for a referendum. It’s a divide-and-rule strategy. It’s

very simple. That’s what happened at that time, and that’s what they

did.

The First Nations at that time presented the previous government

with the B.C. First Nations investment plan. The plan recommended

allocation of 3 percent of B.C.’s gross gambling revenue directly

towards economic and community development initiatives in Indigenous

communities. At the time, First Nations’ leaders described the plan as

the single most important action.

But what happened? B.C. Liberals didn’t listen to the First Nation

leadership at that time. This is, again, not the first time they failed

to listen to First Nations. If you look at the history at every step,

the B.C. Liberals have failed to take any meaningful action to support

First Nations. That’s the reality.

Highway of Tears. I know the previous speaker, my colleague here,

mentioned about the Highway of Tears. I went to Prince George in 2012, I

think, and there was a community forum. At that time, it was a forum

where the First Nations of the local area came together to talk about

the Highway of Tears and how the First Nations’ young females,

particularly, get abducted from the highway and then raped and,

subsequently, murdered.

At that particular event, there was family after family…. I think

there were seven families, and they told their stories about their

situations. At that time, the key thing they were asking for, of course,

was reliable transportation on the Highway of Tears.

I know my fellow member who spoke before me, he made the question

that the government of the day, at that time, did not listen to their

requests. That’s true, because nothing happened at that time. That’s

absolutely true.

What else can we actually say? The member on the other side will

believe that whatever that part of the situation is…. The choice is very

clear that we want to work with the First Nations. They don’t want to

work with the First Nations. That’s a very clear choice.

We are proud to introduce the Gaming Control Amendment Act. The

act will entitle B.C. First Nations to a portion of B.C. Lottery Corp.’s

net income for 23 years. In Budget 2019, the province committed to

sharing 7 percent of the net provincial revenue from gaming with B.C.’s

First Nations for 25 years.

I’m going to repeat. I know there were questions from the other

side about what exactly is the amount. The amount is 7 percent of the

net provincial revenue from gaming with the B.C. First Nations for 25

years. That’s what the sharing is. It also increases the maximum number

of directors of the B.C. Lottery Corp. to 11 to facilitate the

appointment of one position for a First Nations’ nominee. This will

create a reliable, long-term revenue stream for First Nations as part of

our commitment to reconciliation.

It will ensure First Nations have a stable, predictable source of

income to fund economic, social and cultural activities that directly

benefit the people who live in their communities. Each First Nation can

use the gaming revenue to support their own priorities, like improving

social services, education, infrastructure, cultural activity and

self-government capacity. It’s all about giving them power to make

determinations about their own futures and creating their own services,

whether it’s building infrastructure or improving education and social

services. That’s the key.

[4:00 p.m.]

We have already transferred nearly $200 million to the newly

formed B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership,

providing the first two years of shared gaming revenue.

One of the questions the members from the other side have asked is

if this revenue may intervene on other revenue streams. But I would like

to make absolutely clear that this new gaming-revenue-sharing

arrangement will not affect the funds that currently go to

municipalities, including First Nations, who host gaming facilities,

community organizations and health services. The agreement is expected

to provide participating First Nations communities with approximately

$100 million. It’s $100 million per year, and the province is expected

to share about $3 billion with B.C.’s First Nations over the term of the

agreement, which is 25 years.

This is a commitment made by this government. I think this is the

right commitment, and this is a long-term commitment so that the First

Nations can make decisions about their futures and build the services or

the infrastructure they need to build. This will of course allow them to

make a determination about what kind of services they need. Sometimes

the services that are available outside in the community may not be

culturally appropriate to First Nations, but with this stream of money

they can certainly improve the social services they need, they can

improve the infrastructure they need, and they can certainly improve the

capacity moving forward. That’s the intent of this bill.

I just want to conclude by saying that this is a matter of choice.

We made the choice. Our government is making a choice to support the

First Nations, to provide them long-term, sustainable funding so that

they can improve the services they need to improve. That’s our position.

On the other side, the First Nations have been asking for this kind of

funding for too long.

As I said earlier, in 2007, they approached the previous

government with a very specific proposal, a proposal asking for sharing

the revenue at that time. The government of the day, which was the B.C.

Liberal government at that time, completely refused to provide that

funding sharing at that time.

We, the B.C. NDP government, at this time, have made this

determination, and we are going to provide the funding they need to

improve their services, to build their infrastructure so that they can

move forward. This is all about building a province that’s more equal,

that’s more fair, that’s more just, that provides equal opportunity to

all people — particularly, in this case, to First Nations people so that

they can realize their dreams, as well as other people in the

province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the

opportunity for me to speak on this bill.

A. Kang: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 36, the Gaming Control

Amendment Act.

This act will ensure a stable, long-term source of revenue for

B.C. First Nations by providing First Nations with 7 percent of B.C.

Lottery Corp.’s net income for the next 23 years. This new

revenue-sharing agreement will support self-government and

self-determination for First Nations communities across B.C., making

lives easier for families.

Mr. Speaker, as you have heard many of the members on this side of

the House comment, our government is committed to true and lasting

reconciliation with Indigenous people, and this is one of the most

important steps that we are taking. This long-term agreement will result

in approximately an additional $100 million per year of funding for

eligible First Nations. By 2045, this will add up to approximately $3

billion.

Under the current government, our economy continues to grow, the

lives of our workers continue to improve, and all British Columbians

continue to have more to spend in their pockets. In fiscal year

2017-2018, the province collected approximately $1.4 billion in net

revenue from gaming activities.

[4:05 p.m.]

With our strong economy, Bill 36 is a major step to share the

prosperity of this province, and it allows our government to uphold our

commitment to reconciliation.

In 2007, as many of our colleagues have mentioned already — I

would also like to emphasize this historical change — First Nations

leaders presented the previous government with the B.C. First Nations

investment plan. They recommended allocating 3 percent of B.C.’s gross

gambling revenue directly towards economic and community development

initiatives in First Nations communities. In that conversation, First

Nations leaders described the plan as the single most important action

the provincial government could take to ease First Nations poverty and

begin to close the economic and social gap for all First

Nations.

But their voices fell on deaf ears. Unfortunately, the former

government did not make the commitment at that time. Now, more than ten

years later, earlier this fall, the province shared $194.84 million with

First Nations under an interim agreement to cover the first two years of

a 25-year commitment to shared gaming revenues.

The B.C. Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Summit and the

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs have directed the establishment of the B.C.

First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership, which

receives, manages and distributes gaming revenue funds. Our provincial

government has already transferred nearly $200 million to the newly

formed B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership,

providing the first two years of shared gaming revenue. All First

Nations communities in B.C. are eligible to become members of the

limited partnership and receive distribution of revenues.

This agreement has been long overdue, and the interim agreement

ensures that there was no delay in funding while this legislation was to

be introduced.

This legislation is important in creating a reliable, long-term

revenue stream for First Nations to participate in the wealth of our

province. The long-term revenue stream also offers opportunities for

First Nations to prioritize community issues that are important to them.

Just to name a few, these issues could include health and wellness,

infrastructure, safety, transportation and housing, economic and

business development, education, language, culture, training, community

development and environmental protection.

B.C. will be the first province in Canada to introduce legislation

to implement the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples, mandating all provincial laws and policies to be in harmony

with the declaration.

Being a teacher, I am always especially excited to talk about

education. I am very proud of the work that the Minister of Education is

doing in our school system and for First Nations students. Our

government has been making progress in the area of education. Education

is one of the key parts to reconciliation. Our government built

Indigenous content into all grades and subjects in B.C.’s new

curriculum.

I want to use this opportunity to thank all the teachers out

there, the BCTF, for your efforts and commitment to be part of truth and

reconciliation and to bring our children into the conversation. Now

students from K to 12 will be able to gain knowledge of Indigenous

content, to be in the conversation of truth and what B.C. is committed

to doing about reconciliation and to learn about the beautiful and rich

history of Indigenous people in B.C.

B.C.’s new professional standards require teachers to commit to

truth and reconciliation and also healing. To highlight the successes of

our Indigenous students, our public schools have designed one

non-instructional day for teachers to focus on Indigenous student

achievements. Our government has invested $400,000 towards Indigenous

teacher training, seats and curriculum development at B.C. universities.

In addition to that, we’ve built new Indigenous-focused courses to be

offered in a new B.C. graduation program.

Improving education outcomes for First Nation students is central

to the self-determination and well-being efforts for First Nations in

British Columbia. We are leading the way as the only jurisdiction in

Canada with a tripartite agreement that ensures an equitable education

for First Nation students, no matter where they live.

[4:10 p.m.]

Our government remains committed to creating an equitable

education system that supports all students to succeed. In fact, this is

an issue that is cross-ministry.

True and lasting reconciliation takes time, and our government is

making progress because working together means a stronger B.C. The

ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training is investing $2.7

million in Indigenous teacher training programs. With our commitment to

First Nation education of students, I’m so happy to see that Indigenous

students in B.C. are completing secondary school at the highest rate in

history, with 70 percent completing high school. That’s an 8 percent

increase over the last four years and a 4 percent increase in the last

year alone.

There’s so much more that we need to do to continue our work to

support true and lasting reconciliation with Indigenous people. Our

government remains committed to creating an equitable education system

that supports all students to succeed. Bill 36 will guarantee financial

security to First Nation governance and allow long-term fiscal

planning.

I would like to take a moment to thank Grand Chief Joe Hall, a

former chair of the B.C. First Nations Gaming Commission, and all of the

First Nation leaders who have long advocated for revenue-sharing

agreements. It is incredibly exciting to see decades of advocacy and

hard work come to fruition. The least that myself and all my colleagues

in this chamber can do is to pass Bill 36 to formalize this

agreement.

Bill 36 will also provide an additional $2 million to the B.C.

First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing to cover legal fees. Continuing our

commitment to reconciliation, Bill 36 also increases the maximum number

of directors of the B.C. Lottery Corp. from nine to 11 to facilitate the

appointment of one position for a First Nation nominee. This will bring

their voices to the table as well. To truly share the wealth from gaming

revenues, it is important for this government to invite First Nations to

have a voice.

Finally, it is important to note that the new

gaming-revenue-sharing arrangement will not affect funds that currently

go to municipalities, including First Nations who host gaming

facilities, community organizations and health services. Currently, five

other provinces in Canada already have this revenue-sharing agreement.

Bill 36 will allow British Columbia to move forward and align ourselves

with those provinces. This bill is long overdue.

When First Nations are well funded, stronger, our prov­ince

becomes stronger. With that, I strongly urge all members from all sides

to vote in favour of Bill 36.

Hon. G. Heyman: It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in support of Bill 36,

the Gaming Control Amendment Act, one of a number of measures our

government is taking to walk the long road to reconciliation and help,

in collaboration with Indigenous nations, build a more stable,

predictable, sound model of funding and support for a whole range of

community, cultural, social, educational and economic needs.

One of the privileges that I’ve had in my position as a minister

is to regularly be involved in initiatives of collaboration with

Indigenous nations and peoples; to be asked to address gatherings,

whether it be at the First Nations Leadership Council, the B.C. Assembly

of First Nations; and to attend individual nations’ events or meetings

with individual nations or groups of nations, the Union of B.C. Indian

Chiefs.

At each of these events, it’s been a privilege to learn the

history, the culture, the approach of these nations to

government-to-government engagement and also to hear firsthand about the

challenges, the hopes, the aspirations, the activities and the

initiatives that Indigenous nations are taking to rebuild, in many

cases, the fabric of their culture and societies that have been torn

apart for a variety of reasons.

[4:15 p.m.]

Not the least of which is the colonial history of this country as

well as the many, many — “regrettable” hardly begins to describe it —

initiatives such as residential schools, the taking of land, the killing

of languages, the outlawing of cultural practices and the general

impoverishment of nations. In that context, it is always surprising to

me that Indigenous people have goodwill. They have hope. They have

incredible intelligence. They retain and rebuild that connection with

their culture, with their language and with their values, while at the

same time adapting those to a modern world and looking for ways to have

genuine engagement and respectful interaction with the rest of us who

now live in this place.

In my ministry in particular, we had a long process that led up to

last fall’s introduction of the Environmental Assessment Act. It’s an

act that’s built on the principles of the UN declaration on the rights

of Indigenous peoples and the desire of our government to see

environmental assessment and consensus-based decision-making and

collaboration with Indigenous nations be a tool, along with the

environmental assessment office, for implementing the principles of

UNDRIP.

It’s for us to provide greater certainty for Indigenous nations,

for communities, for industries in British Columbia and for all of us as

we develop a model of culturally respectful, environmentally sensitive

and sustainable economic development through a process that involves,

engages and collaborates with Indigenous people from the very first

stages of assessment, that respects Indigenous culture and language and

that respects the knowledge that Indigenous people have of the land on

which they live and we live, and on which we often propose industrial

development.

We are currently working in collaboration with an Indigenous

implementation committee, with the B.C. First Nations Leadership Council

and with the First Nations Energy and Mining Council to develop

regulations that will give life to this act, on policies that will

eventually give life to the application of Indigenous knowledge to a

process that I think will make British Columbia a more stable, better,

respectful and reconciled place in which we can all live and

prosper.

That’s one action that we can take to implement the UN declaration

and reconciliation. This act is another one. This act, I think, is not

the only step but a critical step on the path to reconciliation and the

path to saying to Indigenous nations: “You have ideas. You have

capacity. You have intelligence. You have needs. And y