Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 118

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. M. Mungall

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Burnaby Heights neighbourhood

J. Routledge

Live Different program in McBride and homebuilding

project in Mexico

S. Bond

Habitat for Humanity and affordable housing on

Vancouver Island

R. Leonard

MLA’s experience with cardiac surgery and

recovery

S. Thomson

District of Mission Community Service Awards

recipients

B. D’Eith

Arts Umbrella

T. Redies

Oral Questions

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain

pipeline

S. Bond

Hon. G. Heyman

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and

agreements with First Nations

E. Ross

Hon. S. Fraser

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and

economic benefits of project

A. Weaver

Hon. G. Heyman

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and

agreements with First Nations

R. Coleman

Hon. S. Fraser

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain

pipeline

M. de Jong

Hon. G. Heyman

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and

referral of issues to court

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Securities Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

R. Glumac

R. Sultan

Hon. J. Sims

S. Furstenau

Hon. J. Darcy

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation

Hon. S. Fraser

D. Ashton

D. Barnett

E. Ross

T. Stone

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy (continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. G. Heyman

L. Larson

A. Weaver

D. Clovechok

L. Throness

P. Milobar

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

S. Cadieux: The opposition caucus had a lovely lunch this afternoon with the Engineers

and Geoscientists of B.C. I’d like to introduce them and say hello to Caroline

Cho; John Turner; David Wells; Doug Barry; Ross Rettie; Catherine Hickson; Lianna

Mah; Jeremy Vincent; Tim Watson; Colin Smith; Peter Mitchell; and Laurel

Buss.

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to join the member opposite, as well, for inviting our guests who

are in the chambers with us today. The geoscientists and engineers play an

important role in B.C., making sure that our buildings are safe, that are water is

safe, that our communities are safe.

Keep building up the best B.C. Thank you for joining us. I’m sorry that I

missed the lunch.

Would the House please join me in welcoming our guests.

B. D’Eith: I’m hoping they will come in during question period, but we have a number

of students, adults and teachers from Thomas Haney Secondary in Maple Ridge, led

by Chris Connelly.

Also, I just wanted to shout out to Keith Baldrey, who actually gave the

students from my riding a little tour. I thought that was really generous of him.

Hopefully, they’ll be here soon.

Please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Very proud grandfather and member for Skeena.

E. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Six months ago in this House, I announced the birth

of my grandson, and I was very disappointed I only spent a half an hour with him

before I had to come down to this job down here. Today I’m proud to announce he’s

in the gallery with us. Parker Sutherland is with his mother, my daughter Miranda

Ross, and his father, John Sutherland, who is also a Tahltan member from the

Tahltan Nation. Please will the House make them feel welcome.

B. Ma: On this day in 1971, a very small child was born in Richmond who would be

destined to join all of us here in the chamber today. Would the members of the

House please join me in wishing a very happy 47th birthday to my good friend and

our legislative colleague, the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam. Happy

birthday.

R. Singh: We have some important guests from India visiting us in the gallery today.

We have Thesa Satenwad from Mumbai, India. Thesa is a renowned author, journalist

and human rights activist who has spearheaded many campaigns for the visible

minorities, for women and for the marginalized sections of society.

Accompanying her is Abuda Singh. He’s from Navashi, Punjab. He’s a leader

of Lowcafali, and he’s a grassroots human rights activist.

Also joining them is my family: my mother, Sulekha; my husband, Gurpreet;

my son, Kautak; and my daughter, Shaista.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

M. Hunt: Sometimes when we talk about the future, we talk about having a stake in

the future of British Columbia. This morning I increased my stake in the province

of British Columbia’s future. For those that are keeping track, this is No. 17.

Walter John Zalit came this morning at 9 pounds 1 ounce. I’d ask the Legislature

to welcome him.

J. Routledge: Well, today seems to be Burnaby North Secondary School day. This morning a

large group came and visited me en masse, in my office. I understand there are two

more groups in the precinct right now and probably will be entering the gallery

shortly. Please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Our very own Boston Marathon runner and Madam Clerk. [Applause.]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk): Introduction of bills.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — ENERGY, MINES

AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. M. Mungall presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Statutes Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 15, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Statutes Amendment Act, 2018. The bill amends the Oil and Gas Activities Act

and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

Amendments to the Oil and Gas Activities Act will help government deal

with the issue of the increasing number of orphaned wells and prevent their

proliferation in the future. By shifting revenue for the orphan site

reclamation fund from a tax on industry to a levy, we will ensure that the fund

is sustainable and able to have sufficient funds to address the reclamation

need now and into the future.

Of course, preventing wells from becoming orphaned is equally important,

and this act will also achieve that goal. By taking better action to timely

reclaim inactive wells, both industry and government will be working together

to protect our natural environment as well as economic liabilities that result

from orphaned wells.

This act also enhances the powers of the Oil and Gas Commission to

respond to emergencies and to more effectively carry out heritage inspections

and investigations.

Lastly but not least, amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act

will streamline ministry operations and help government address situations

where tenure holders are prevented from accessing their time-limited oil and

gas tenures.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act,

2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BURNABY HEIGHTS NEIGHBOURHOOD

J. Routledge: Many of us struggle with urban living. We find the city too noisy, too

crowded, too cranky, too impersonal. It’s sad that there can be so much

isolation and so much loneliness and anxiety in the midst of such a

concentration of humanity.

By comparison, village living seems so much saner. But even within

bustling cities, we can find villages. I’m fortunate to live in a neighbourhood

that knows it’s a village and works to preserve its character.

Burnaby Heights is a walkable neighbourhood. I can stroll up to

Hastings, our high street, to shop for groceries, visit my dentist, buy

flowers, get my shoes resoled, get my hair cut, get a flu shot and meet friends

for coffee and lunch.

[1:45 p.m.]

In fact, every time I walk down the street, I run into people I know.

The Heights even has its own village green, more formally known as

Confederation Park.

The Heights has been a street-level community shopping area for more

than 100 years. One of our spectacular murals commemorates the trolley system

that opened up North Burnaby for larger settlement in the early 1900s. And

still, today and every day, the Heights Merchants Association plays a vital

role, advocating to preserve the unique flavour of this community shopping

area.

If you really want to see the HMA in action, come by and experience Hats

Off Day, their annual customer appreciation event the first Saturday in June.

Hastings Street becomes a huge pedestrian mall. Think village fair, with

costumes, music, street food, games and demos. There’s even a parade. And

there’s always a lineup for the firefighters’ charity dunk tank.

Hats Off Day was voted Burnaby’s Best Festival, and I would

agree.

LIVE DIFFERENT PROGRAM IN M c BRIDE

AND

HOMEBUILDING PROJECT IN MEXICO

S. Bond: What happens when a group of students and adults from McBride, British

Columbia decide to participate in the Live Different program? Well, it starts

with a lot of fundraising and generous financial support from the community to

give the team the ability to travel to rural northern Mexico. The point of the

trip is to make new friends, build a house and see change.

On Friday night, Bill and I travelled to McBride to attend the Tacos and

Tales event, where the 2018 McBride Live Different team shared their story in

pictures, in words and with food. To say that we were impressed and inspired

would be an understatement.

Led by principal Derrick Shaw, this group built a home for a single mom

named Maria and her three children. Thanks to the daily posts by parent Jen

Quam, we were able to follow the progress of the project and the team. This was

definitely the house that love built.

The motto of the Live Different program is: “Life is about people, not

things.” As the team members shared their stories, you learned that the trip

was about so much more than building a house, although the beautiful house that

they built will change Maria and her family’s life forever. Together, this team

learned about poverty, humility, teamwork and gratitude, and they were reminded

how blessed they were to live where we do.

Program hosts noted that this particular team was one of the best that

they ever had participate. I continue to be moved by the video of Maria and her

children arriving at their new home for the first time.

Thank you for being difference-makers. Through the house that you built,

you have not only changed that single mom’s life; you motivated us to think

about how we can “live different” too.

As we left McBride the next morning, I couldn’t help but think about how

building a house in rural Mexico brought out the very best in these students. I

can’t wait to see what they will do next.

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND AFFORDABLE

HOUSING ON VANCOUVER

ISLAND

R. Leonard: This year Vancouver Island North Habitat for Humanity is celebrating 14

years of building affordable homes for low-income families. Families become

partners, gaining interest-free loans by donating their sweat equity and

working alongside community volunteers to build a place where they can grow

strong and achieve stability and independence.

To date, Habitat has built 12 homes in the Comox Valley and eight in

Campbell River, for a total of 20 homes. They’ve served 22 families, with two

families selling their homes back to Habitat after their incomes grew beyond

the qualifications for the interest-free loan. Their financial successes then

opened the door to give two other families a chance to also prove that housing

security does make a difference.

Today Habitat is igniting the community with their ambitious growth

plans for the future. Their intention is to build 19 more new homes on the

north Island over the next three years. That’s as many homes as they’ve built

in the last 14.

Habitat North Island’s Women Build has set up a community challenge this

spring in the Comox Valley, seeking 100 women to raise $1,000 each over 100

days to raise $100,000. They’ve launched this ambitious program in partnership

with the Comox Valley Women’s Business Network. But please know that Women

Build is not just about fundraising.

[1:50 p.m.]

Terri Perrin, Habitat North Island community engagement manager, is

quick to point out that Women Build is not about excluding anyone but, rather,

involving and empowering women to volunteer on the construction site in an

industry that has been historically dominated by men. She also encourages men

to join in the fun, both fundraising and volunteering on site.

The Women Build 2018 motto captures it best: “They’re proud to

participate, because every woman has the power to build community.”

MLA’ s EXPERIENCE WITH

CARDIAC SURGERY

AND RECOVERY

S. Thomson: I’m very pleased to stand today to talk about very important supports in

our community. In fact, with my recent experience of open heart surgery in

January, I’m very pleased to be standing anywhere. [Applause.]

Seriously, though, the recent experience has really provided the focus

on the need to take care of ourselves and to focus on our own personal

health.

Firstly, I really want to thank my wife, Brenda, and my son Spencer for

everything they did. They were really rocks during the process and the time we

went through, and I put them through a lot. I also want to thank members on

both sides of the House for their messages and thoughts during this time. It

was really appreciated.

The experience at the Interior Heart and Surgical Centre was

world-class. So to the surgical team, the intensive care unit, the

post-operative recovery team in 2 West, nurse practitioners, cardiac nurses,

physiotherapists, care aides and all the team: thank you so very

much.

I recall being part of the milestone events in the construction of the

centre, remarking that I was born in this hospital, right in the very spot

where the new centre was being built. I recall commenting that it was great to

know it was here, but I hoped I would never have to use it. Well, fast forward,

I gave it a pretty good test drive, and like so many others from all over the

Interior, I’m grateful that it was there when needed.

One of the key factors in post-operative recovery is regaining your

confidence in your capabilities and what you can do with the new engine in the

car. In the Central Okanagan, there’s a great society, the Central Okanagan

Association for Cardiac Health, COACH, that has a multidisciplinary team that

focuses on cardiovascular risk reduction, healthy eating, exercise guidelines,

goal-setting, stress and relaxation and understanding your medications.

Exercising in this clinically supervised environment ensures the utmost patient

safety through close monitoring of heart rate, blood pressure and

telemetry.

That association has been so critical in my recovery process. It’s a

happy, positive place. The staff are so supportive, giving us the

responsibility, the tools and the game plan to assist in our

recovery.

We all know friends and family, including our legislative family here,

that have faced these challenges, including the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt

Meadows, who is currently dealing with this. I wish her the very best in

recovery.

We can all take comfort in knowing that important supports are available

in our communities when we need them.

DISTRICT OF MISSION

COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARDS

RECIPIENTS

B. D’Eith: Volunteers choose to volunteer for a number of reasons. Sometimes it’s

to make a difference in people’s lives. Sometimes it’s giving back after

receiving so much from an amazing life. Sometimes it’s to learn new skills or

to acquire work experience. Sometimes it’s simply to be social. But in all

cases, volunteerism is of incredible value to ensure healthy and vibrant

communities throughout British Columbia.

The District of Mission Community Service Awards honour those who have

demonstrated exemplary volunteer service within the Mission community. It’s

celebrated biannually, and the awards ceremony is happening this week during

National Volunteer Week, making it a great time to acknowledge the wonderful

volunteers and dedicated community members in Mission.

I would like the House to indulge me for a moment as I tell you the

winners. The Against the Odds Achievement Award went to Tracy Martin. Arts and

Culture Service Award went to Cory Cassel. Community Service Awards went to Reg

and Lily Sayers, Mervin Hildebrandt, Wally Warkentin, Loa Duncan, Beverly

James, Janis Foerster, Ernestine O’Rourke, Natashia Cox, Julie Hartand and

Moneca Harder.

The Community Service Award, under 25, went to Doug Hughes and Jordyn

Mooney. The Crime Prevention and Community Safety Award went to John Keresman.

Sports Volunteer of the Year Award went to Dan Williams. The Special

Accomplishment Award went to Daphne Sleigh and Dan Remple.

[1:55 p.m.]

A Special Recognition Award went to the 125th Birthday Anniversary

Committee for Mission. The Lifetime Achievement Award went to Bonnie Harber,

Dick Brodie, Sophie Zehner and Ron Cockroft. The Citizen of the Year went to

Barry MacLeod. The Freeman of the City Award went to Betty Robertson, Cal

Crawford, Terry Gidda and Mel Zajac.

Thank you very much for indulging me. I really think it’s important to

sometimes individually recognize our volunteers. Thanks to the winners of

Mission Community Services and all the volunteers in Mission and to the over

1.5 million B.C. volunteers who contribute to better communities all across our

wonderful province.

ARTS UMBRELLA

T. Redies: I’m proud to stand here and recognize the wonderful organization Arts

Umbrella. As a not-for-profit organization, Arts Umbrella believes that access

to the highest quality of arts education is a basic human necessity, regardless

of experience, education or socioeconomic background.

Their first class consisted of 45 students. Today the same organization

reaches over 20,000 children and youth every year between the ages of two and

19, including many of those in South Surrey. This has been made possible by

free-of-charge outreach programs which bring the love of arts to those who may

not be able to afford them.

Arts Umbrella offers many programs in dance, theatre and visual arts.

Their aim is to cultivate an environment where students can explore their

identities, learn a love of art and pass their love of the arts on to others.

Recognizing that early childhood experiences are key to cognitive development,

this organization provides the opportunity for youth to be curious and creative

and to develop self-confidence. For many children, Arts Umbrella is their first

experience with the world of art.

Exposing children to the arts helps them become creative thinkers, open

to problem-solving in different ways and equipped for the complex and

fast-changing world we now live within. Arts education, on this basis, can no

longer be viewed as a “nice to have” but, rather, a necessary component of

education for all children to succeed in the 21st century.

Organizations like Arts Umbrella encompass and nurture the dreams of

what British Columbia should continue to be: a place filled with opportunity, a

province enriched with culture and a society where creativity is part of our

children’s lives.

Oral Questions

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN

PIPELINE

S. Bond: We’ve been urging the Premier for weeks to end his reckless handling of

the already-approved Trans Mountain expansion, but this Premier’s blunders and

incompetence have escalated this issue into a crisis. It is nothing short of an

embarrassment.

The Premier finally acknowledged this is a crisis after denying it daily

in question period: “I do not believe the crisis that has emerged here should

be trivialized.” Will the government finally admit that they are responsible

for the embarrassing mess that has been created and tell British Columbians how

they intend to fix it?

Hon. G. Heyman: What I wish I could tell all British Columbians is that every member of

this Legislature, sent to this place from all over the province, was willing to

stand together to defend British Columbians against unlawful and extreme

actions from our neighbours to the east and to take the side of British

Columbians who are worried about a massive spill of oil, whether it’s from rail

or from tanker or from pipeline, and the threats to tens of thousands of jobs

in British Columbia and billions of dollars in economic activity.

Sadly, I can’t do that today because members on the opposite side seem

to think it’s more important to lend their voices to the hysteria that’s

enveloping a very real issue about provincial rights.

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

[2:00 p.m.]

S. Bond: I think that British Columbians, thousands of British Columbians, will

be very interested in hearing this minister call their legitimate concerns

“hysteria.”

Day after day, the Premier and this minister are hearing from tens of

thousands of B.C. job creators: from 33 B.C. First Nations who support the

project — perhaps the minister would like to tell those First Nations that

their concerns are simply hysteria — and from residents in communities large

and small, across this province, who are concerned about the increase in their

gas prices and increased shipment of oil by rail.

British Columbians will be hurt by this government’s deliberate and

reckless actions, yet they continue to ignore the voices of thousands of

British Columbians who want them to fix this mess. Will the minister, the

Deputy Premier — someone — stand up today and take responsibility for the

crisis they have created and end their efforts to stop the Trans Mountain

project?

Hon. G. Heyman: Perhaps the members opposite have generated so much unnecessary noise

around this topic that the member for Prince George–Valemount didn’t realize

that the hysteria I was referring to was that generated by the members

opposite.

I would never, ever trivialize the concerns of British Columbians. I

would never, ever trivialize the concerns of voices of Indigenous people across

this province. But let me be clear. We have been measured. We have said we are

going to do everything we can to defend British Columbians’ interests, our

economy, tens of thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in GDP. That’s

important. That’s the future of the British Columbian economy.

We need to defend our environment. We need to defend our coastline. And

we need to ensure that we do what we were elected to do — that is, stand up for

British Columbia and assert every inch of British Columbia’s jurisdiction under

the constitution. That’s exactly what we’re doing. That’s exactly why we’re

referring disputes to the courts instead of making threats across

borders.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: As much as the minister would like to stand in this House and try to

pretend that his views represent all British Columbians, that’s simply not

true. Hiring more lawyers will not address fuel shortages that will drive up

gas prices. Hiring more lawyers will not address the concerns of B.C. First

Nations who support the project or deal with the fears of British Columbians

who don’t want to see more oil on railcars.

Perhaps the minister needs to be reminded about the comments of the

Canadian Federation of Independent Business who represent….

Interjection.

S. Bond: The minister laughs while he stands in this House and says he’s prepared

to listen.

This organization represents 10,000 B.C. businesses. It’s now one of 78

organizations that are demanding that this government fix this mess. In fact,

let’s listen to the voices of those British Columbians. Here’s what they said:

“This is immature behaviour. It is incredibly destructive.” Not my words but

the words of business creators and job creators in British Columbia.

What is this government’s plan to deal with the repercussions of the

Premier’s incredibly destructive behaviour? Will the government finally listen

to the voices of thousands of British Columbians who are demanding they fix

their mess?

Hon. G. Heyman: We’re listening to the voices of thousands of British Columbians. We’re

listening to the voices of 133,000 British Columbians who work for 19,000

tourism businesses, whose businesses and jobs are at threat of a catastrophic

spill of diluted bitumen should we allow it to happen without taking every step

possible to minimize the risk of the occurrence and be in a position to respond

if it happens.

[2:05 p.m.]

We’re speaking for the many thousands of people — 14,000 people employed

in our coastal seafood industry, which generates $400 million in wages. I take

the concerns of all British Columbians seriously. But we are not going to

simply stand back, having once said, as the opposition did when they were in

government — that they were concerned about the inability to address the

consequences of a spill of diluted bitumen and then simply rolled over and now

would have us do the bidding of those in a boardroom in Texas….

We won’t do that. We’ll go to the courts to settle differences. We’ll

listen to the words of the Premier of Alberta when she said she’s bringing

legislation — she has no intention of enacting it — and when others say, very

clearly, they have no constitutional authority to limit the flow of energy to

this or any other province.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

AGREEMENTS WITH FIRST NATIONS

E. Ross: Previous to this job, I spent 14 years working for the chief and council

as an elected leader. Typical of our band, like many bands across Canada, the

number one issue that we had on our table was poverty, dependence and all the

social issues that come with it.

The one shining light that we had was to sign impact benefit agreements

with projects in our territory. These were well-thought-out agreements. We

spent a lot of time on it. We spent a lot of money on lawyers, consultants. We

consult with our membership continuously.

There is no one in this chamber that can speak to the process that I

participated in. There’s no one in this chamber telling me what I should think

or say about it in relation to these issues.

Today there are 33 First Nations in B.C. who have been through the exact

same process — 33 First Nations who have worked hard, in good faith, to

negotiate project benefit agreements on the Trans Mountain expansion so they

can address their own issues on their own terms.

My question is to the Minister of Indigenous affairs. If the Premier is

successful in stopping this already-approved project in terms of the Trans

Mountain expansion, will he honour the economic terms of these

already-negotiated agreements?

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for his question. Of course, there are different

perspectives from First Nations around the province on Kinder Morgan. Only

nations can speak on their own behalf.

People of B.C. expect this government to defend our province from the

devastating consequences of a bitumen spill on our coast. The risks are too

great for our economy and for the environment and for our coast, and we will

continue to defend B.C. and stand up for our interests.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Skeena on a supplemental.

E. Ross: I’ve heard that before. What I’m asking specifically is, though: will

the 33 First Nations that signed on to impact benefit agreements continue to be

ignored? Because they’re trying to address real issues that are happening in

real time right now in their communities.

Many First Nations see these agreements as a means to be meaningfully

involved in the economy of British Columbia and Canada. This is a huge part of

reconciliation, and it’s a huge answer to the issues that these First Nations

are facing all across Canada.

We always hear this in this House. It’s a crisis, in terms of the issues

facing First Nations, but we never talk about the one solution that can solve

it for these First Nations. We present band-aids. We present rhetoric and

speeches but no real solutions. Now benefit agreements that were the result of

an exhaustive process are in doubt because of the uncertainty caused by the

Premier.

My question, again, is to the Indigenous Minister in regards to the 33

First Nations who have signed on to the Trans Mountain expansion. Will he

commit that these agreements will be honoured?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks, again, to the member for his question. As the member knows,

there are 203 nations in this province. They have differing opinions on this

project, and I will not speak on their behalf. As the member knows, he’s heard

from Indigenous leaders in this province that certainly have different

perspectives than some of the nations he’s referring to. Again, I will not

speak on their behalf either.

We will continue to protect the environment and the coast and the

economy from the impacts of a catastrophic oil spill. That’s our job, and we

will continue to do that.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PROJECT

A. Weaver: The federal and Alberta governments, not to mention the B.C. Liberals,

with their alternate facts, hysterical rhetoric and revisionist history, have

been fearmongering about the risks to our economy if the Trans Mountain

expansion doesn’t go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Member, if I may stop you for a moment. If you could ensure that your

question does not refer to the opposition, since it’s supposed to be directed

to the government member.

A. Weaver: That’s fair enough, hon. Speaker. I’ll make sure it doesn’t refer to the

members opposite. I assume, hon. Speaker, that this will also be applied to

when we’re referred to in their questions, because it’s been multiple times

over the time that we’ve had here that they’ve referred to us. I look forward

to that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: It’s been reported that governments are actually basing economic claims

on an analysis commissioned by Kinder Morgan itself. Experts are raising

significant questions about this analysis, whether it’s because of changes in

market conditions, flawed methodology or erroneous assumptions about how the

oil markets function. Some raise serious doubts about the argument that we

could fetch a higher price for our oil in Asia than in the U.S. One expert

called this argument “kind of bogus.”

Add to this the fact that the price of oil has collapsed. In making its

business case, Kinder Morgan assumed a price of $100 to $150 per barrel, and

prices are now $60 per barrel.

My question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance, who I

understand has laryngitis. So I’ll pose this question to the Minister of

Environment. We’ve heard this government talk about the risk of a spill to our

environment. But what is their position on the questionable claims made about

the economic benefits of this pipeline?

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

raising these issues in the Legislature. Certainly, I’m aware of the difference

in the market price of oil. I’m aware of questions that have been raised about

the economics of the project as, I suspect, are most members of the House.

However, with respect to those questions, that is not the primary concern of

our government, nor is it the responsibility of our government to determine the

economics of a project which we have neither initiated nor sought.

What is our job, however, is to ensure that we do everything we can to

protect British Columbia’s economy, the tens of thousands of jobs in tourism,

in film and television, in the seafood sector, and the billions of dollars in

economic development that stand with it — all of which could be at risk from a

single spill of diluted bitumen. We believe that we must defend B.C.’s economy.

We must defend our interest. We must defend our environment.

We understand it’s a federally regulated project in terms of allowing

it. We understand, also, that the constitution has a clear role for provinces

in permitting, in conditions and in regulating against negative impacts that

are a concern and a detriment to our province.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: The economic conditions have indeed changed significantly since Kinder

Morgan was approved. We’ve seen oil prices crater due to world market changes.

We face huge uncertainty about future prices due to new supply and to massive

technological shifts as markets around the world embrace renewable technology.

Energy experts say it’s basically now impossible to predict future

prices.

The analysis that Kinder Morgan relied upon in its application to the

NEB and its claims of the economic benefits to Canada from this pipeline

fundamentally assumed that there was no other export capacity that would be

built.

[2:15 p.m.]

Since then, Keystone XL and line 3 have now been approved, which add

over one million barrels a day of export capacity. We now have more capacity

than we need. In light of the trends, it’s absolutely shocking that our federal

government is willing to put taxpayer money behind this pipeline.

My question again, through the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance,

who has laryngitis, to the Minister of Environment, is this: will this

government demand that the federal government and the government of Alberta

publicly release their economic case justifying their rhetorical assertions as

to the economics of the Trans Mountain pipeline and its fundamental business

case for national security and national importance?

Hon. G. Heyman: While it isn’t the job of the province of British Columbia,

specifically, to make demands of the federal government with respect to

business cases, when the federal government or the government of Alberta

proposes putting public money into a project, I think they’d be well advised to

listen to the advice of the Premier of British Columbia, who said: “Our focus,

and we think every province and every government in Canada’s focus, should be

on adding value to our resources and creating the most jobs possible for

resources.”

That’s what we’re trying to do here in British Columbia. We’re trying to

get the most value from our resources to give the most value to British

Columbians, who want jobs, rather than profits to corporations headquartered

outside of this province.

We will continue to take every step that we’re allowed under the

constitution to protect tens of thousands of jobs and to protect our tourism

industry, our seafood industry, our film industry, the billions of dollars in

GDP, from the tremendous threat of a catastrophic oil spill that could be

caused by a pipeline rupture. It could be caused by a train derailment. And it

could be caused by a sevenfold increase in tanker traffic off our

shores.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

AGREEMENTS WITH FIRST NATIONS

R. Coleman: I’ve worked with First Nations in detail over the last couple of decades

in this House. The opinions of Indigenous people are diverse and thoughtful,

and they deserve our respect.

All the Premier talks about is those that are opposed. The loudest voice

shouldn’t have a veto over the economic development and Indigenous communities

that support the project. These communities participated in a process and

worked hard to achieve economic benefit agreements, job opportunities, business

opportunities and, most importantly, job training and jobs for their young

people.

To the Premier or to the minister that wants to take this question: what

about the rights of those 33 Indigenous communities in British

Columbia?

Hon. S. Fraser: I mentioned before, in earlier questions today, that I will not and we

will not speak on behalf of individual nations. There are a variety of

perspectives on this issue around Kinder Morgan amongst First Nations and the

leadership council organizations that are the political organizations of First

Nations in this province.

What we are committed to doing is protecting the environment, the

economy, from the impacts of a catastrophic oil spill that could jeopardize the

ways of life of so many British Columbians, so many First Nations communities,

some of which are within my constituency. We will continue to do everything we

can to protect the interests of British Columbians against the impacts of a

catastrophic oil spill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Langley East on a supplemental.

R. Coleman: This project is about opportunities for Indigenous communities, now and

for the future generations. If the member would read the report that came to

the actual conditional approval of this project, you’ll find out that the First

Nations are the ones that are going to supervise the environmental piece along

the pipeline.

[2:20 p.m.]

It’s blatant hypocrisy to talk about reconciliation and then use every

tool in your toolbox to block opportunities for 33 First Nations communities in

British Columbia. Why are the minister and the Premier and the government using

their own personal veto to hurt 33 First Nations?

Hon. S. Fraser: This member was part of a government for 16 years that denied that

inherent rights exist for First Nations. The old government refused to embrace

the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, something that the

world community demanded. This government refused to do that.

We are working closely with First Nations to change the Crown-Indigenous

relationship fundamentally, to work in true partnership with First Nations, to

involve them from the very get-go in environmental assessments. We are changing

that. This is something the old government refused to do. I will not be

lectured by them.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN

PIPELINE

M. de Jong: In the last several months, British Columbians have discovered that

their province and their country, which were prospering on the basis of a

cooperative federalism, are now descending into a destructive, provocative form

of federalism. And who is the chief provocateur?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.

M. de Jong: It is a Premier and a government who provoke other Canadians by saying:

“If you dare to come here and invest, we will punish you with a higher tax

rate.”

It is a Premier and a government that provoke other provinces by issuing

a press release on January 30 that threatens to restrict the flow of lawful

energy products through British Columbia, contrary to all constitutional

conventions, and then today, when one of those provinces introduces legislation

to do the same thing, feigns outrage.

With breathtaking speed, the Premier’s bumbling and stumbling have taken

British Columbia from being a respected leader in Canada to where we are today

— isolated, alone and his government the laughingstock of the nation. But it’s

no laughing matter to the….

Well, to the Minister of Environment: what actual, concrete proposals —

actual, concrete proposals — has the government tabled or issued to the

would actually form the basis of a solution to this crisis that has been

generated by the Premier’s irresponsibility and recklessness?

Hon. G. Heyman: Let’s just look at a few of the facts. We have acted according to the

law and our jurisdiction since we were elected. We have promised British

Columbians that we will defend our environment, our coast and our economy, and

then we set about looking for reasonable tools with which to do

that.

Kinder Morgan themselves told their shareholders that permitting to be

issued by the government of British Columbia happened in an expeditious manner,

in a fair manner, with no delay when they brought those applications forward.

The fact that the company has been a bit slow about that is beyond our

control.

[2:25 p.m.]

We then proposed some new spill-control regulations to deal with

response times, with geographic response plans, with application of our right

to regulate to protect our environment and our economy, coastlines and coastal

lands within provincial jurisdiction and to look at the very important issue,

raised by Indigenous people, about compensation in the event of a

spill.

We also said we understood that the Royal Society of Canada and the

National Academy of Sciences had made it clear that we just don’t have enough

information on the behaviour of heavy oil, and we need to know how it behaves

so we can know how to prevent a spill and how to respond to it if it happens.

questioned our jurisdiction, we invited Canada to join us in a reference to the

court, and they turned us down.

We then made a reference and pulled the consultation on that regulation,

and the Premier of Alberta welcomed that and stood back on her actions against

B.C. The only thing that has changed here is a message from a boardroom in

Texas that told Alberta and Canada and, apparently, the members opposite that

that wasn’t good enough for them. Well, going to the courts is good enough for

us, it’s good enough for British Columbia, and we stand by our

actions.

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

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

REFERRAL OF ISSUES TO COURT

M. de Jong: Well, apparently, no new proposals — apparently, nothing. Remember the

new west partnership, that novel concept of provinces working together for the

common good of their citizens? Well, what have we got today? The new west

partnership more closely resembles an Old West gunfight with governments

retaining hired guns to go into the courtroom corrals of the nation to fight it

out.

It occurred to me that this Premier leads the only government in North

America that could actually give Donald Trump lessons about building walls,

about how to separate citizens from one another.

For weeks, the Premier and the Attorney General and his Environment

Minister have tried to sidestep their own incompetence and recklessness by

promising to submit a reference to the court. My question is to the Attorney

General. When will the government release the specifics of the questions they

intend to ask the court? Will the Attorney guarantee this House today that this

House will have an opportunity to debate the matter before he throws this

juridical Hail Mary pass to the courts?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. We held a media availability this

morning. We announced that we’d be filing in the B.C. Court of Appeal within

eight working days, by the end of the month. The member will certainly have an

opportunity to review the question at that time.

I assume that the member is suggesting that he should be available to

debate this question because he has advice to share with the government about

the best way to defend British Columbia’s interests. I’ll just point out a

couple of highlights of the member’s record in government.

In 2012, when the government argued against the rights of children with

learning disabilities, who were facing budget cuts, in the Supreme Court of

Canada, their justices ruled unanimously, 9-0, against the government. In April

2015, when they sided against francophone students, saying they didn’t have a

unanimously there as well. In 2016, when they’d spent 16 years in court arguing

that kids did not have a right to the class size and composition that the

government had negotiated, it took 20 minutes for the Supreme Court of Canada

to say that they were wrong — again, unanimously.

I thank the member for his suggestion. We have retained counsel who is

advising us. We will file accordingly.

[2:30 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

J. Rustad: I rise on a point of order. Specifically, there were comments made by

the Minister of Indigenous Relations.

When you look at the facts, when you look at the fact that the very

first treaties signed in British Columbia under the B.C. treaty process

happened with the B.C. Liberal government, when you look at the new

relationship that was signed and celebrated by First Nation leaders around the

province and by government, when you look at the groundbreaking revenue-sharing

agreements as well as the many other agreements — over 500 other agreements

were signed — the statements were made by the Minister of Indigenous Relations

talking about 16 years of denying Indigenous rights are offensive.

It is false, and I ask that he withdraw those statements.

Mr. Speaker: Member, you may not agree, but it’s not a procedural point of

order.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 16, the Securities Amendment

Act, 2018. In Committee A, I call continued estimates debate on the Ministry of

Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SECURITIES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 16 be now read a second time.

I apologize, again, for my voice. It’s coming back slowly, but it’s

slow.

The amendments to the Securities Act allow the self-regulatory

organizations in the securities industry to file decisions with the court.

There’s a reason for that. By allowing the self-regulatory organizations to

file the decisions they make after hearings with the court, they will be able

to enforce their decisions as court orders. The changes to this legislation are

changes to encourage fine collection, to encourage more accountability in the

industry, to support good investors and good dealers when it comes to

investment, and to ensure that if there are bad apples, we have more

opportunities to be able to capture them.

Just to give an idea of the current situation, currently, if these

organizations impose monetary penalties or costs on their members after they’ve

gone through disciplinary hearings — so they’re required to go through a

disciplinary hearing — they’re very limited in their ability to collect those

fines, those moneys owed. What often happens is that the individuals give up

their membership. They quit the organization in order to not pay a fine or in

order to not address the discipline. That’s the way that they escape being able

to pay a penalty.

In the current situation, the only opportunity that the self-regulatory

organizations have is an ability to pursue outstanding moneys owed by applying

to the B.C. Securities Commission. That’s the opportunity they have to ask for

an order for someone to comply.

[2:35 p.m.]

This is a process that the self-regulatory organizations are not using

and haven’t ever used because they believe it’s too resource-intensive. They

also believe that it may lead to duplication of a lengthy hearing at the

commission level, which again isn’t going to achieve what we all want in this

Legislature, which is to ensure if someone is disciplined, they actually pay

the fine that they’re disciplined for.

A number of these self-regulatory organizations, but one that I think

that most members in the House will know, IIROC, which is the Investment

Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, requested B.C. to move in this

direction, to provide the ability for decisions to be filed with the court.

We’ve also seen that other provinces have moved in this direction. Alberta,

Quebec, Ontario, PEI and Manitoba have moved. So B.C. is a little behind when

it comes to moving in this direction.

What IIROC has told us they’ve seen in those provinces that have given

this opportunity is an increase in the fine collection. They’ve seen that when

the decisions go directly to the court, that does provide disincentive, and

they actually are able to collect fines. I think that’s an important piece to

note in this legislation.

This legislation also ensures that if a person is affected by a

self-regulatory decision, if they appeal that decision — they’re going through

the process, they’re having a hearing, and they appeal the decision — the

self-regulatory organization can’t file with the courts until that appeal

process has been finished, followed and resolved.

Not to get in the way of an actual hearing that’s happening with the

self-regulatory organizations, people will still have the opportunity to go

through that process, to receive a decision, to appeal the decision, and once

that appeal is done, the self-regulatory organization has the ability to take

that decision to the court system. I think that’s important to note.

There’s also a provision in this new statutory power to the

self-regulatory organizations. We have also added a new regulatory-making power

for additional conditions or parameters around the power for the

self-regulatory organizations, around the use of the power if necessary — so

providing that same opportunity for government as well.

I just think it’s important to note, as I wrap up second reading on this

bill, that it seems very straightforward. I think it’s a pretty straightforward

piece that other provinces have moved on, but I think the important piece of

this is the impact. That’s just the piece that I want to close with.

There are many British Columbians who invest their life savings with

dealers in the securities market. They presume that they’re going to be treated

well, that it’s going to be a legal process, that their money will be safe from

fraud. When that doesn’t happen, this has devastating consequences on

individuals and their families. This is often at the end. Often when these

frauds happen, it’s at the end of someone’s career. They may have invested

their money to build up for retirement, and it changes their entire life plans.

Often you have people who had planned to retire, because of health issues and

otherwise, who have to go back to work because they don’t have the resources

there.

I think the other piece that’s important to note is that we’re talking

about a few bad apples. To support all of the good dealers in the market, we

need to make sure we take care of these bad apples. Unfortunately, people often

remember the one bad story. They don’t remember the good experiences. They

don’t remember the investors who are doing their lawful job and who are helping

people prepare for retirement or prepare for changes in their financial

situations.

I really see the move in making these changes to actually support the

quality in the industry, to support enhancing accountability within the

industry for people in the capital markets, for good dealers, which are a key

part of our economy, a large part of our economy, but also to make sure that

they are accountable to the people who are participating. I think that’s an

important note in this legislation.

The last thing I’ll say. More work is being done to address fine

collection in the B.C. Securities Commission. This legislation does not address

the issue of the B.C. Securities Commission and more work that needs to be done

in working with the B.C. Securities Commission. Those will be future changes

that will come forward in future legislation. They’re not linked here, but I

wanted the members to know that that’s also work that’s being done, because

that fits with the work that’s happening here at the self-regulatory

organizations as well.

[2:40 p.m.]

T. Redies: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 16. I want to thank the minister

for her opening comments. I think a number of us had questions around the

context and what was trying to be achieved here, so that was

helpful.

As I understand it, this act will empower the self-regulatory bodies

prescribed by regulation — in this case, the Investment Industry Regulatory

Organization of Canada, from my past life, fondly known as IIROC, and the

Mutual Fund Dealers Association, known as the MFDA — to file a decision with

the Supreme Court for the purposes of collecting fines and

remuneration.

This act will also enable that a decision that is filed with the Supreme

Court…. It will empower the regulatory body to act on those decisions as if it

were a judgment of the court. And it will provide the regulatory power in the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or, more to the point, cabinet to prescribe

classes of decisions that may not be filed with the court. The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would also be able to decide any conditions that

would have to be met before any decision could be filed.

On the face of it — again, with the minister’s clarification — this is a

fairly straightforward bill. As someone who spent 25 years in the financial

services business and in wealth management, I can very much appreciate the

context and how this was being brought forward. Having witnessed the

devastation of individuals who have been hoodwinked by less professional,

duplicitous investment dealers, it’s really important for the overall industry

for the trust and confidence to be there. I think this will help make that

happen.

As noted, the bill effectively gives cabinet the authority to give

regulatory bodies the ability to file decisions in the Supreme Court. Right now

only the securities commission has that power, as the minister indicated. This

act would expand that to other industry self-regulatory

organizations.

I accept that the government is very sincere in this process and simply

wants to allow decisions to move ahead and the right things to happen so that

the regulatory bodies can collect moneys owed to them and deal with offenders.

But I was a bit curious about the circumstances that made this legislation

necessary.

We understand a little bit more about the context — who it’s aimed at.

I’m a little bit curious about why it’s being brought forward now and what

entities are pushing for its enactment. My concern isn’t necessarily about

these two organizations but the fact that cabinet would have the ability to

extend this same power to other organizations without first consulting the

Legislature.

I’m sure the members on the opposite side know that we’re not opposed to

industry self-regulation as a principle, and we understand that sometimes

cabinet orders are simpler and faster in the scheme of things. With that said,

removing the need for cabinet to consult with the Legislature is a bit of a

worrying trend, and we’ve seen that now on a number of bills that have come

forward during this legislative period.

I think I’ll be looking to ask the minister some questions around how

she sees this open-endedness, going forward, with respect to other regulatory

bodies and what would be the consequences and implications from

there.

I should point out…. Although I was not a member of the previous

government, when the members opposite sat opposite…. When that side of the

House sat on this side of the House, they were very concerned about expanding

the ability to make decisions by cabinet order. So I want to be, again, very

clear there are no accusations being made here. I believe the minister has good

reasons to expand cabinet authority in this specific case, I just want to

understand the implications, going forward, for other bodies.

With that said, I look forward to canvassing this issue in the committee

stage and to further understanding the context behind this bill. Thank you for

allowing me to speak on it.

R. Glumac: I stand in the House today to speak to Bill 16, amendments to the

Securities Act. There are over $1 billion of unpaid securities fines

nationally. Collection rates on these fines are low across the entire country.

In Quebec, the collection rate is roughly 20 percent — slightly higher than

Ontario and Alberta, where the collection rates are 18 percent.

B.C. has the worst track record for collecting fines in the entire

country. The B.C. Securities Commission has almost $500 million of unpaid fines

outstanding, but it’s expected to collect only 2 percent of that

amount.

[2:45 p.m.]

Of the largest penalties — those that are $1 million or more, which

account for nearly all of that, $458 million of the $510 million…. In those

cases, the collection rates are less than 0.1 percent. Those fines represent

the worst acts of fraud that, in many cases, have devastated people’s

lives.

This bill has been brought forward to begin to address this problem, and

thank goodness for that. Thank goodness that we are now in government so that

we can responsibly address the inaction of the previous government on this and

so many other issues.

Just like how we are addressing the issues left behind at ICBC, just

like how we’re responsibly addressing runaway real estate prices, just like how

we’re addressing affordability, just like how we are now finally investing in

the education that our young children deserve, here we are yet again directly

taking on the many challenges that the previous government ignored. Here we

are, and we will tackle these problems, because we are here to represent all

British Columbians. That includes seniors that have worked hard and saved hard,

seniors that are increasingly becoming a target for fraud.

The latest statistics show that 41 percent of seniors have experienced

some level of financial abuse. One in 12 seniors is seriously affected by

financial abuse to an extent that resulted in considerable financial

loss.

Let’s take an example — the case of David Michael Michaels. He’s a

self-proclaimed investment adviser, or he was, who improperly advised 484

clients to buy $65 million worth of investments that are now virtually

worthless. At the same time, he pocketed $5.8 million in

commissions.

He talked seniors into taking out loans on their homes, homes that they

spent a lifetime to pay off. The average age of his victims was 72. Many will

not be able to pay back the money they lost in the years that they have

left.

Imagine if this happened to your parents. I think about my dad and how

he worked his whole life. He worked in the bush for the forestry industry, and

every day he got up at four in the morning and worked and came home exhausted

so that he was able to put us through school. Now, finally, he’s able to

retire, and just imagine if he was somehow tricked into losing his entire

retirement savings.

This is something that is happening, and the fines that are being levied

on this kind of activity are not being collected. There are no deterrents on

this.

Let’s talk about another example — a woman named Paula. It’s not just

seniors that are 72 years old that are experiencing this. Paula is a woman that

retired recently, and she wanted to invest her money responsibly during her

retirement years. She considered herself a knowledgable investor. She was

presented with documents that promised a relatively modest rate of return, and

it convinced her to invest $500,000.

In the end, she lost it all, and she was forced to declare bankruptcy.

She had to go back to work, and she says that this has devastated her life, not

only financially but psychologically. Paula is not alone. There are almost

5,000 fraud victims on record in British Columbia, who’ve lost a total of $185

million.

Let’s be clear. This legislation will not solve all the problems with

investment fraud, but it’s a good start. Investment advisers are currently

being fined for an assortment of inappropriate actions, such as

misappropriating funds, falsely endorsing signatures and making unsuitable

investment recommendations. They are being fined, but the fines aren’t being

collected. This legislation takes those first important steps in changing

that.

Specifically, it gives the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization

of Canada and the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada more power to

enforce these penalties. It allows them to file in the courts, which will

greatly improve fine collection rates and help to punish and deter fraudulent

behaviour.

[2:50 p.m.]

By going to the courts, these individuals can be forced to give

information on what assets they have. They may have to produce tax records and

bank statements, and there are mechanisms to find out if they’re trying to hide

these assets by transferring the assets to someone else to escape paying the

penalty.

Our government is working closely with the B.C. Securities Commission on

other proposals for strengthening penalties and deterring fraudulent behaviour.

This is just the beginning of addressing this problem. There’s more to come,

and I’m very happy that we’re introducing this legislation today.

R. Sultan: Coming in halfway through this account of distressing tales of seniors

finding their savings impaired through actions of outside parties, perhaps

having to go back to work and finding all the money they worked hard to save

all their life is somehow not what they believed it would be, made me think

that perhaps I had come into the middle of a discussion of the impact of some

of the real estate taxes of this government on my North Shore constituents,

because this is very similar to the stories that I hear frequently.

Nevertheless, having made that point, I must agree with the member for

Port Moody–Coquitlam that this is a long-overdue stiffening of sanctions which,

unfortunately, are necessary in the world, particularly a west-coast world

which is peculiarly populated by scam artists and fast-buck people who seem to

be able to sell some fanciful story of rapid wealth to vulnerable

people.

I think too, however, that the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam should

acknowledge that this this bill did not just spring onto the order paper — de

nouveau, I guess, is the phrase — but rather has, in fact, been part of the

pipeline of legislation that has been worked on for some time in the bowels of

the Ministry of Finance under a different government. Nevertheless, I give the

government, the new government, full credit for bringing it forward at this

time.

Just a bit of context of my own. I speak as a former member of the

Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada myself. Certainly, this should help

clean up the act, as it were, of many fraudulent operators — a phrase that

brings to mind, as frequently used from my own banking days, a warning about

“fraudulent operators” there in town. But I cannot resist commenting on a

peculiarity of how this mechanism will actually work in practice. I make these

observations not in the sense to criticize the bill but to observe that it

seems to me to step over certain what I always believe are constitutional

boundaries.

Here we have the Legislature — that’s us — being asked to decide about a

proposal being brought forward by the executive branch of our government — not

the Legislature, of course. It, in turn, will delegate powers to a private

association of mutual fund dealers and other issuers of securities having no

particular relationship with the government whatsoever, except a franchise to

operate a self-regulatory association, which in turn will, under this bill, be

given the power to impose obligations on the court system, the judiciary, who

will, in turn, pursue ill-gotten gains from the fraudulent operators of British

Columbia, which we appear to have in abundance.

Now, I am no constitutional legal expert, but it seems to me there’s

enough crossing of boundaries there to confound anybody. If I were a member of

the judiciary, I would in passing, perhaps, reflect on the trend here for a

whole series of actors who somehow employ me as a bill collector.

[2:55 p.m.]

Perhaps with consultation, but who knows? There’s no evidence that, in

fact, the opinion of the court and whether they felt this was a suitable

obligation to take upon themselves is appropriate.

I just make that somewhat whimsical observation, because while it’s easy

for us to be critical of the court system, it’s obviously an attempt to use the

power of the court, which is enormous, in what I think we would all agree is a

good cause. But should this become a trend, and if I were a member of that

institution, I’d say: “Well, hold on here now. This isn’t exactly the intent of

the courts as originally constituted.”

Nevertheless, just to add a bit of context of my own, this is partly a

carryover, one must presume, of the glory days of the Vancouver Stock Exchange

and such colourful figures as Murray Pezim, Voisey’s Bay, the Hemlo discoveries

and what even today I’m told is 1,200 mining companies — most of them very,

very minute — who operate in Vancouver and who provide ample opportunity for

rather magnificent magnification of their prospects for the

gullible.

The viability of the exchange has been not on entirely solid grounds for

many years. The enforcement and the regulation of new issues on the exchange

has always been a chronic problem. We have seen rapid changes in the capital

markets, which, in some sense, have long ago left the trading floor behind, and

even the independent volition of traders now has been taken over by algorithms.

They will, really, on a computerized basis, do all of the hard thinking for you

and claim, in fact, superior investment results.

This has left the promotion of dubious products — it would appear, from

the record — in the hands of operators who don’t even bother with the pretence

of having anything to do with the Toronto Venture Exchange or actual publicly

traded securities. They just want to get your money and make a good

story.

Here we have the securities commission, which is still operating under a

name which may be rapidly becoming obsolete. We’re really hardly talking about

securities here. We’re really talking about a brand of white-collar theft and

crime being clamped down upon by the government. I appreciate the government

for doing that.

The final remark I would make — and perhaps the minister would have an

opportunity to shed further light on this aspect — would be on the fruition of

the dreams of better regulation, more efficiency, lower costs and more honest

markets if we would only have a national securities regulator. This was one of

the issues that I dove into when I first came to this Legislature many, many,

many years ago, because it seemed important and sexy and was a field in which I

had had some personal experience, in Toronto and Montreal and

elsewhere.

Whatever happened to the national securities regulator? Does anybody

care? In the days of blockchain and cryptocurrencies, has it, like so many

other things, been left in limbo? I look forward to a bit of a progress report

from the minister as we examine this bill further during committee

stage.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: It’s a pleasure today to rise and to speak on the amendments to the

Securities Act. As my colleagues have said previously, I am sure that this kind

of an amendment doesn’t really have passionate opposition to it because we can

all see that it is much needed.

As we know, my colleagues across the way were in government for 16

years, and apparently, this was one of the legislations that was somewhere in

the process. We’re delighted that we’re taking action on this so quickly and

are actually moving on this and bringing it into this House and hoping to move

it forward.

As we all know, there is nothing more important or more critical to

British Columbians — I would say people all over the world — than when they

start to think about their retirement security, their savings. People work

hard. It doesn’t matter how much you make. Well, it does matter, because it

affects the quality of your life, but whether you make $20,000 a year — in

which case, you can barely make ends meet — or if you make $100,000 or $200,000

a year, people are thinking about saving for their retirement.

There’s a vulnerability there when we have, not all but some,

unscrupulous investment advisers. What can happen in that case is people can

lose their life savings. They can lose their retirement security. What these

particular amendments do is actually give another tool to the regulating

agencies, to the SROs.

What it allows them to do is, once the fines have been assigned…. There

is not a problem with getting fines assigned and finding guilty those

investment advisers who are doing wrong, who are the fraudsters. That’s not

where the issue is. They are fined. Where the problem comes in is, once they

are fined, there are no tools in place to have the regulating agencies go out

and collect the money. What these amendments do is allow those fines to be

filed in court and, then, for enforcement of collection of those

moneys.

My colleagues across the way…. The number of self-regulating bodies grew

by huge numbers, and it seemed that government went arm’s length from so much

of the regulatory role that used to be in the hands of government and moved it

over, outside of government. That has created some difficulties.

This series of amendments will give people an assurance, will give

people like my aunt or my mom or my uncle an assurance that there are teeth to

the rules that the regulating bodies have, that their job is not just to fine,

that they can then use the court system to collect some of those moneys as

well.

Though I have to be clear here, for many people that is very little kind

of solace. The fact that you have been abused — that’s what fraud is — and you

have lost your life savings due to bad advice, poor advice and sometimes wrong

advice by an unscrupulous investment adviser does leave you with long-term

damage.

While I am standing here, I’m thinking of all the work that still needs

to be done by government to enact protections, whether it is for children,

whether it is for environment, whether it is into our monetary system. One of

the things that keeps coming to my mind every time I listen to the word

“fraudster” is the money-laundering situation that has been allowed under the

previous jurisdiction, previous government, to become very, very scary and

almost be branded as a “B.C. special” — so very scary for us.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m so proud of the fact that our Attorney General is taking that issue

very, very seriously and is doing his due diligence, and we’re looking forward

to the recommendations and the enactments he will bring out as a result of

that.

I bring that up now because in many ways it links to this. It is about

that security that people in British Columbia need to feel. It is about,

whether it’s a consultant who is misleading and what kinds of consequences

there are for those consultants, whether it’s an investment adviser…. If they

do mislead and do fraud, which is a criminal offence, there will be serious

consequences. They’re not just going to be allowed to get away with

it.

I’m always surprised that it’s taken us so long to bring forward

legislation to give the regulating bodies an opportunity, a tool, to actually

collect the fines that are assigned. It almost seems bizarre that all of this

time, for years, we had a government that just sat there, knowing that they

didn’t have the tools, didn’t have the enforcement, and just allowed it to

be.

Once again, kudos to our Finance Minister for bringing this forward and

making sure that we do give a sense of security to British Columbians that they

do have a government that is taking action, that is not going to look the other

way when it comes to money laundering, when it comes to a housing crisis that

was allowed to reach a point where British Columbians are very, very scared

whether they will ever be able to own a house into the future — or whether it

was, as I said previously, the money laundering and also the other costs that

have gone up so much.

It is always, as a government when you come in, that you have these

ideas. Every person who runs wants to do the very best. Here in this

legislation, in these amendments, I think we will get agreement on all sides of

the House, both sides of the House, that this is a good amendment and an

acknowledgement that the Finance Minister, the current Finance Minister, is

acting on this in a very timely manner to make sure that we give the

self-regulating agencies the tools they were looking for.

Let me read into the record the quote from the regulating agency. “As a

public interest regulator overseeing the investment industry under the

authority of the British Columbia Securities Commission and other members of

the Canadian Securities Administrators, our mandate is to protect investors and

to support healthy capital markets,” said Andrew Kriegler, president and CEO of

IIROC.

“Having better tools in our enforcement toolkit will enable us to hold

wrongdoers accountable and provide British Columbians with greater confidence

to invest. Being able to collect penalties through the courts will send a

powerful message that if you harm investors, you will pay the

penalty.”

That’s what this is about. It is sending a strong message that there is

a change in government in British Columbia — that if you do wrong and you harm

citizens, there are going to be consequences, not just on paper but those that

will be enforced through the courts.

Mr. Speaker, as you’ve heard me say a few times, let me finish off by

saying that I’m very, very proud that our Finance Minister has acted on

bringing these amendments forward in such a timely manner to give British

Columbians some sense of security that we are there to protect their

interests.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 16, the Securities Amendment Act, 2018, which,

as we’ve heard from the other speakers, does provide self-regulating bodies the

capacity to be able to enforce fines that they levy against investors who

operate in fraudulent ways and who harm the people who trusted them.

[3:10 p.m.]

It does seem a little strange that we would have to bring this in, as

has been pointed out by some of the other members — that a regulating body had

no capacity to actually enforce its regulations when those regulations were

broken, which speaks to some of the inherent problems that we see with

self-regulation across the board in this province. Many examples with the

professional reliance model also speak to this.

It is interesting to note the extent of the problem, which the Globe

and Mail reported: “The amount of unpaid securities fines in Canada is

more than $1.1 billion, a massive figure that shows that many of these

sanctions are being ignored among white-collar criminals and

fraudsters.”

I think that this does give us a lot to be concerned about. There’s an

enormous amount of money in these fines that is owed back to people, based on

the fact that people have been subjected to fraud by the investors that they

were supposed to be trusting. As the member from Port Moody pointed out, B.C.

actually has the worst track record for collection.

I think some of the other questions have been raised by members speaking

to this bill. I will look forward, in committee, to hearing some of the answers

to those questions.

I think, ultimately, what it comes down to is that we live in a civil

democracy. We expect that government is acting in a way to protect us and to

protect our interests. Then we discover, through a series of decisions that are

made over time, that the protections are given to bodies further and further

away from government and that those protections are actually very weak and very

unable to provide us with the protection that we should be expecting in our

society.

I support this step, but I think that it does open up a conversation

that we should be having — and, I think, that has begun here today in the

chamber — about how we are going to ensure, moving forward, that we see the

kind of protection our citizens should be able to expect when it comes to

matters as serious as their financial health as well as, across the board,

environmental health and their health in general.

Whether industry self-regulation should be seen as the panacea or answer

to all these things…. I think there are some serious questions raised about

that.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, the

Minister for Mental Health and Addictions will close the debate.

Hon. J. Darcy: I’d like to thank the members who have spoken on this issue.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Darcy: I move that this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 16, Securities Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. J. Darcy: I now call estimates for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation, and he is entering the House.

[3:15 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS

RELATIONS AND

RECONCILIATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 3:17 p.m.

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $43,914,000.

Hon. S. Fraser: I guess, at this point, it’s the second time I’ve done this as a

minister. I believe I will make some opening comments at the beginning of this

budget estimate.

I’d like to begin by recognizing the territory of the Lekwungen-speaking

people, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations and the land we are gathered on in

this building.

With me today I have my deputy minister, Doug Caul. I’ve got Chief

Financial Officer Ranbir Parmar. And I have other staff that will be coming in

and out as this budget estimate unfolds.

I am incredibly proud of what Budget 2018 has accomplished and will

accomplish. It does so much for so many people across British Columbia. We are

putting people first and making life more affordable.

Through Budget 2018, we are making truly historic investments. One

billion dollars in child care marks the beginning of a made-in-B.C. universal

child care plan. More than $7 billion over the next ten years to address

affordability and the housing crisis is the largest investment in housing in

the history of this province.

The budget fully eliminates Medical Services Plan premiums by 2020 and

makes record investment in infrastructure, including schools, hospitals,

transit. This is real, transformational change in our society that will be felt

for generations. We’re making life more affordable and rebuilding the services

that people need. We’re making choices that put people first.

I am honoured to be part of a budget that demonstrates a true

cross-government approach to reconciliation, breaking down the silos. A number

of leaders have told me they’re noticing changes in our

government-to-government relationship. These are our First Nations leaders from

across the province. They appreciate our commitment to the recognition of

rights. There is an optimism that we are embarking on real change in B.C. to

substantially improve the lives of Indigenous people.

[3:20 p.m.]

We are at a unique moment, I would say, in our political history where

we are strongly aligned with the federal government in our commitments to

reconciliation, and I work closely with my counterparts from Ottawa. I have

heard extensively of the hope this has stirred amongst Indigenous leaders —

from hereditary chiefs and matriarchs, elected leaders, Métis people and

Indigenous peoples living in urban communities.

I’ve also heard the skepticism and the caution. Look at the past ten

years, 50 years, 150 years of our history. Look at what has happened in recent

court decisions in the last months. We recognize that as a province there’s a

long way to go to build trust, but change is coming: over the next three years,

$30 million to support Indigenous child care and early learning. Our government

is also investing $20 million to address the overdose health crisis.

I would note that change is happening, perhaps not as fast as some would

like, but it is coming. Just a quote from a meeting I had with the

Carrier-Sekani in Prince George a few months ago: “We are actively seeking to

do constructive damage to the status quo.” I love that: “Do constructive damage

to the status quo.” Part of the way is working with Indigenous peoples on how

to integrate the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples in ways

that are seen and felt, not just heard. We’re building our reconciliation

framework that will start to address this issue.

The transformation we’re looking for also requires significant

investment across the board. That’s what you see in the provincial budget. I

mentioned some of those already. These investments are going directly into

Indigenous communities and into services to better support Indigenous families:

affordable housing, language, child care, mental health and addictions,

reducing poverty, improving access to justice and revitalizing the

environmental assessment process.

It’s more than half a billion dollars to support affordable housing for

Indigenous people over the next ten years. Our government is working with the

Aboriginal Justice Council to improve how Indigenous peoples interact with the

justice system in this province. There’s $2 million to support the creation of

a new Indigenous law program at the University of Victoria.

I was honoured to be asked to speak at a forum on that in Victoria

several weeks ago. I wasn’t sure how many people would show up, and the theatre

was to capacity. It was overflowing, and there were people waiting outside to

come in. This is truly exciting. This program is groundbreaking. It’s the first

of its kind in the province. Actually, it’s the first of its kind in the

country. I believe it’s the first of its kind in the world.

Our government is revitalizing the environmental assessment process, as

I mentioned, in collaboration with Indigenous groups, to ensure that Indigenous

interests and legal rights are respected. There’s more than $250 million over

the next three years invested in Indigenous priorities and reconciliation, in

collaboration and in consultation with Indigenous peoples. These investments

are critical steps towards reconciliation.

I am particularly pleased about $50 million going to help revitalize

Indigenous languages. Supporting language revitalization is a key mandate of my

ministry. We’re working alongside the First Peoples Cultural Council on this

effort.

As I’ve spoken with Indigenous peoples from all over the province, in my

time before this when I was critic, I have heard over and over again how

important language is to the well-being of Indigenous peoples and communities,

how knowing your language strengthens the culture and the very health of the

communities, how it helps to connect children to their heritage, community,

values and, importantly, to the very lands that they come from.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission heard how survivors were

punished for speaking their language, how the residential school system imposed

cultural genocide and scarred generations. The commission recognized the

importance of language and culture to the health and well-being of Indigenous

communities.

[3:25 p.m.]

Our government absolutely recognizes this too. It is why we are putting

a significant investment towards revitalizing Indigenous languages in this

province.

The First Peoples Cultural Council, a Crown corporation, has been

working for decades to train Indigenous speakers and to document and preserve

languages in British Columbia. They’ve worked hard to get the public and the

government to understand and recognize the connections between language and

health, and they’ve worked hard to get government to acknowledge that there is

an urgent crisis, that all Indigenous languages in British Columbia are in

danger.

There’s a lot of work to do across government and with communities. So

many Indigenous languages need to be taught and then spoken and passed from

generation to generation. We need to ensure that that happens. Our investment

with the council is an excellent step in making significant

progress.

I am also very pleased that our government, for the first time ever, is

providing B.C.’s Aboriginal friendship centres with stable core funding. This

funding will support the day-to-day operations of friendship centres. These

centres — there are 25 of them in the province — have been around for 60 years

and have been seeking this kind of core funding for nearly 20 years.

I would note that the Finance Committee that travels the province every

year is a cross-government, cross-party, non-partisan committee. For many, many

years, they have made unanimous recommendations to government to actually

provide core support and funding for Indigenous friendship centres in this

province, and they have been denied for years and years. We’re changing that.

We have more than tripled their financial support, with an additional $6

million, in partnership with the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship

Centres.

Every friendship centre I visited is exceptionally warm and welcoming.

They provide an incredible range of services, things like job support and

training for the health and well-being of children and families, and to

maintain — it’s critical — connections to culture and history.

Stable funding will allow friendship centres to focus on delivering the

critical services instead of worrying about keeping the doors open, finding

funds. Keeping people, continuity, is important, especially in dealing with

youth that are looking for help. They build trust with the people in the

friendship centres. It’s very hard to keep people working if you don’t have

stable core funding.

The investments our government is making have been carefully considered

with one thing in mind: what actions can we take to build a better future for

Indigenous and non-Indigenous British Columbians? Too many issues have been

ignored by past governments for far too long. We have a special opportunity to

change that.

This is a tremendously exciting time in our history. We are committed to

doing things differently. We are taking new approaches based on partnership,

respect and recognition of inherent rights of Indigenous communities. Our work

must live up to the values of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples, to the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and

to the Tsilhqot’in decision. Our actions and aspirations are focused on

supporting prosperous, healthy and self-determining First Nations

communities.

We are listening, and we are learning and charting a path forward

together. Through this budget, we are making choices that will fundamentally

transform our relationship with Indigenous people and make life better for all

British Columbians.

In closing, I’d just like to state that I have been doing this job as

minister for nine months, and I was a critic for the ministry for the better

part of my 12 years previously. In my short time, relatively speaking, of nine

months in the job, from the beginning I have made an effort to try to meet all

of the people that work in the ministry.

[3:30 p.m.]

I have been so impressed by the level of dedication. It’s palpable, the

excitement to move ahead in this direction. So many people in the ministry have

been waiting to be able to do the mandate that the Premier has provided for

us.

I would put the staff of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation on the highest level. I would pit them against anyone else in

any other ministry. They do so much, and they’re so dedicated to their jobs.

I’m honoured and proud to work with them.

D. Ashton: To the minister, I want to thank him for his opening remarks.

I, too, would like to recognize the original people of this land,

specifically here on Vancouver Island, and thank them for the opportunity to

allow us to share these lands and to live together. It does make a difference

for each and every one of us.

I come from a different area of the province where there is a good

working relationship on a continual basis, and I am always the first to take

the opportunity to thank those members in that particular area for allowing

myself and my family to share the beautiful lands that I call home.

Also to the minister, I would like to take the opportunity to thank his

staff. They have always been forthright, in coming, and I know how hard they

work on these files. I know their dedication, and it does make a huge

difference to the direction that this province is taking, not only now but in

the past. My thanks, on behalf of this side of the House, goes out to those

hard-working individuals in the ministry.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Madame Chair, nice to see you.

Just a quick clarification for the minister. There is myself and several

other members of the opposition that would like to ask some questions over the

next period of time. There is also a member from the Third Party. What we’re

trying to do is to coordinate it so that as we ask a question about a specific

area or a specific reference, we bring everybody in at the same time so there

wouldn’t be that jumping around. I’ll do my best to try to coordinate that, and

I’ll start off, if we could?

Are there any changes in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March

31, 2019, or the supplemental, that have happened since the publication of

these documents?

The Chair: Minister of Indigenous Relations.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the proceedings today.

Before I answer, Jessica Woods, my assistant deputy minister, is also

joining me today. She wasn’t here a moment ago, so I apologize for omitting

that.

Since the budget has been tabled, there have been no changes.

D. Ashton: There was a wonderful announcement a few days ago about the North

American Indigenous Games and a substantial contribution by the government for

that. My question to the minister is: is there any contribution by the ministry

to those games that we hope will be successfully brought to the south

Island?

Hon. S. Fraser: To the member for Penticton, I just want to note that we’ve been working

well together, and I welcome the questions.

I was part of the announcement for the games that was held here at the

Legislature just a couple of days ago, and yeah, we’re all very excited about

it. The announcement was $3.5 million from the province. It did not come

specifically from the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation,

no.

D. Ashton: I want to thank the minister for his answer.

I would just like to jump to a letter dated April 16, which was in my

receipt this morning, from the minister and signed by the minister, regarding

some issues that the province and citizens of the area — both with the local

bands and citizens that have freehold land in the area — have been

facing.

[3:35 p.m.]

There is a decision that has come forward, and I know the ministry has

been working. But there is a period of adjustments that the minister has spoken

to in the letter — it’s regarding the seclusion of private lands and submerged

lands from the appeal — that has really led, as we both understand, to some

really complex negotiations regarding the environment and regarding the

freehold land up there.

I’m just curious if the minister could enlighten me and enlighten those

who will be listening about the direction that the government is taking to try

and get some resolve, not only for the private landowners up there but also for

the people that have been using British Columbia public roads for egress to

those particular pieces of land.

Hon. S. Fraser: If the member for Penticton could just give me a clue about any details

about the letter. I’m not sure which issue he is referring to. If he could let

me know the nations involved or the region involved, that would be

helpful.

D. Ashton: Specifically, what steps is the government taking on this really

difficult situation up there? There will be other MLAs, specifically one from

there, that I’m sure will have some questions regarding this. In the letter, it

says that B.C. is taking clear steps to resolve the issue. I’m just curious

about what those steps are.

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, to the member opposite, I’m not sure…. He’s mentioned the region,

but I’m still not sure which issue he’s referring to. If he could give us a

little more detail, I’d be happy to answer the question.

D. Ashton: I’ll be specific. To the Chilko Operators Association, there has been,

in my understanding, a proposition that has come from the government regarding

possible financial opportunities or settlements. I’m just curious about a

specific direction that the province has taken on that.

I do come back to the Tsilhqot’in lands, and about egress and access

through the lands, that have been awarded by the Supreme Court of Canada, and

specifically to the various Chilko operators that run tourist operations in the

area — i.e., lodges — for the avail of wildlife viewing.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question and the clarification. We’ve been

communicating with the tourism operators, as the member knows. We’ve met on

this issue before. We have advised the operators that we are working to

conclude a two-year bridging agreement that will provide the short-term

certainty that they are looking for, and we have agreed with the Xeni Gwet’in

to make best efforts to finalize the agreement before June 1 — so just the day

after the House is scheduled to rise.

We’ve identified resources to help the Xeni Gwet’in move forward with

the tourism investments and are supporting an appraisal process now — I think

that’s what the member was referring to — for a number of tourism operators who

have indicated interest in a potential sale for their businesses. We’ve reached

out to the operators and got their agreement to pursue this type of action.

That’s where we’re at right now.

[3:40 p.m.]

I know that as this unfolds over the next few weeks, while we’re in the

Legislature, if there’s any progress on that, I’d be happy to meet with the

member and other members who I’ve met with already on this, to update

them.

D. Ashton: I need to state, at this point in time, that the minister has always

been forthcoming with information when I’ve asked, but this letter was on my

desk this morning, and I just wanted to clear it up. I know that the MLA from

the area will have some questions.

The prospect is that there may be a two-year bridge until things can get

sorted out there. During that period of time, will there be access guaranteed

to the various lodges that have had issues garnering clear and safe access for

their visitors?

One thing — and I’m quite sure the minister realizes — is that these

people do not just phone up on Friday and make a reservation for Saturday and

Sunday night. These reservations, these lodges are international, and there

needs to be some certainty and security coming forward, in my opinion, while

negotiations take place between the province, the federal government and the

various nations involved in this to ensure the safe and continued operations

until some settlement, or whatever takes place, can continue.

Through to the minister, if he could just let me know what has taken

place to allow owners of these lodges the opportunity to ensure that their

clients will have the opportunity of egress, but, as important, that the lodges

will have the opportunity to continue their advertising internationally to

bring people to see, visit and experience this incredible province that many of

us call home.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks, again, to the member for the question.

I’ll go back a little bit, just for context. The Tsilhqot’in decision, a

landmark decision, certainly predates us as government. It goes back to the

previous government. I think it designated 1,700 square kilometres of title

land to the Xeni Gwet’in, to the Tsilhqot’in people. The situation we arrived

at is complex and complicated on the ground. There’s no real precedent for

this.

I’d like to comment that I think it’s an example of why it’s so much

better to address issues of rights and title — and reconciliation, for that

matter — through dialogue and discussion as opposed to having to rely on the

courts. The courts have their place, of course, but sometimes legal decisions

or court decisions can make a complicated issue even more complex.

This one that we have inherited from the court decision is complicated

for everyone on the ground. I do not have all the answers, but what I do know

is that our ministry staff are working closely with the operators and with the

Xeni Gwet’in. The bridging agreement is, in part, of course, to deal with the

issues that the member is raising. That’s underway, and I’m hoping for a

successful outcome to those discussions. Again, the hope is that we’ll see the

results of that by June 1.

D. Ashton: I appreciate the minister’s answers, but as I’m sure he realizes and his

staff realize, these people are on edge at this point in time.

I would just point to the minister’s third paragraph on the bottom. It

says: “In addition, provincial staff continue to identify ways to ensure all

parties may continue to operate in the north Chilko Lake area in a manner that

protects the health and safety of the people, grizzly bears in their natural

environment.”

That’s terrific. That is wonderful, but these people…. Unfortunately, in

this court decision, if I remember correctly, 326 pieces — and I may be off a

little bit on that — of private, deeded land were encompassed in this setting

or court decision from the Supreme Court, from the federal

government.

To me, since these lands, many of them, are occupied and many of them

commercially based, one of the biggest issues out there is ensuring the safe

egress of people coming into these lodges.

[3:45 p.m.]

My hat is off to the government if they can continue to help negotiate

through this process, but in the meantime, these tourist operators are sitting

waiting with bated breath to ensure that their customers and themselves are

going to have continued access to these tourism properties, these lodges, not

only for this season but, if it is going to be a two-year process, that they

can get out.

Their livelihood is bringing people in to their lodges. So if the

minister could just enlighten myself and these people on the direction that he

hopes to take to ensure this egress of people that are coming to our province

to view the aspects and the wonderful vistas that British Columbia has to

offer.

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, thanks to the member opposite. I would say that the bridging

agreement is designed to do exactly what the member has suggested — trying to

bring certainty for the operators, as well as to make sure that there are

potential options for some of the operators who have indicated that they have

an interest for a potential sale of their business. We’re looking at all of

those options as part of the bridging agreement.

I would, again, reiterate that this is a unique situation — a court

decision laid down here. It did not provide any guidance in this regard. It was

a landmark decision, but it was a stark decision in the sense that it

designated title for the first time through the courts in the province of

British Columbia — I believe that’s the case — but it did not provide any

remedies for addressing the issue around the tourism operators that are

operating within that territorial boundary. So that’s what we are trying to

address right now with that bridging agreement.

D. Ashton: I would like to thank the minister, but time is of the essence. It was a

court decision, but there is also freehold-titled land within that area where

people have a right to their property. I give accolades to the minister, his

team and also to the government for putting forth a proposal for

willing-seller, willing-buyer, but in the meantime, these people have to

survive — survive in the sense of being able to operate what many have put a

lifetime in there creating.

I would just ask that the minister and his staff work diligently. We are

now past mid-April. June 1 is not that far away. I know that there are an awful

lot of people out there just hanging on, waiting for some form of direction

from the government. With all due respect, the government is in power now, and

it’s a decision that has to be made to allow these people, one way or another,

some resolve to this issue.

I would like to thank the minister for his comments. I just hope I’ve

been able to instill until one of my peers comes in here who actually

represents the area and that I know will have a few more questions.

I would like to swing over at this point in time to employers health

tax. I will give the minister a bit of a heads-up. Can the minister confirm

that MSP for most Indigenous people is currently paid for through the First

Nations Health Authority?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks again to the member. If I could step back one step, I just want

to assure the member that we and the ministry do understand the urgency of the

issue for the tourism operators in Chilcotin and within the title lands. I

understand the urgency, also, as stated by the member. We are working

diligently to try to address that. Any changes, as they unfold over the next

few weeks….

[3:50 p.m.]

I’m hoping that before June 1, I’ll be able to meet with the member and

the other members that I’ve met with already several times and our staff has

also. That’ll be happening. I appreciate the member’s questions.

Now, specific questions on the employer health tax. It’s not under the

purview of this ministry. I hate trying to shuffle off to another ministry, but

I would note that the Minister of Finance would be the person to actually

answer these questions.

She has yet to do her estimates. I’m certain she’s glad today she’s not

doing her estimates. She does have laryngitis, and this is a long process. I

think for the Minister of Finance, it’s probably longer. But we do not have

details on tax policy, the employer health tax, at our disposal. It would be

the Minister of Finance.

D. Ashton: I thank the minister. But does he have any idea how the transition from

MSP to the employer health tax is going to work for the First Nations Health

Authority?

Hon. S. Fraser: I could speculate, but I suggest that that’s probably not appropriate.

The Minister of Finance will be able to definitively answer these

questions.

D. Ashton: Is the minister aware of any conversations with the federal government

regarding this transitory period of time that is taking place here in

B.C.?

Hon. S. Fraser: No, I’m not aware.

D. Ashton: Has the minister or the ministry consulted with First Nations on the

possible and potential effects the employer health tax may have?

Hon. S. Fraser: It is my understanding that the individual organizations, businesses,

non-profits — all number of groups — that have issues or questions with the

employer health tax are in discussions with the minister and Ministry of

Finance.

D. Ashton: Has the minister received any feedback from First Nations with questions

regarding the health tax or some of the concerns they have regarding effects on

their payroll?

Hon. S. Fraser: The only discussion that has come up regarding the employer health tax

has been with a couple of Aboriginal friendship centres in the province. There

are 25 friendship centres within the province of British Columbia, and there

were some questions around how the tax would be applied. I urged them to

contact the Ministry of Finance and work with them to answer those questions

and get clarification.

D. Ashton: I would like to thank the minister for his answer. He did bring up the

friendship centres. We have canvassed that in question period. But has there

been any further consultation regarding the employer health tax with the

friendship centres? Would the minister be requesting that the friendship

centres be exempt from this tax?

Hon. S. Fraser: As I’ve mentioned, I have suggested that they speak directly with the

Ministry of Finance and the Minister of Finance who, I know, are aware of

questions coming from non-profits and other organizations as well as friendship

centres. I know that work is ongoing. I would leave it to the Minister of

Finance to address those issues. I would not be making recommendations to the

Minister of Finance. She has a staff and a knowledge base around this that

exceeds my role as Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation.

[3:55 p.m.]

I would say that officials from the friendship centre that I’ve spoken

with on this were working diligently with the Ministry of Finance, if they had

any issues at all.

D. Ashton: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer. Does the minister know

what the payroll is of the New Relationship Trust at this point in

time?

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for the question. I just would note: I do not have

the answers. The New Relationship Trust is a creature of a piece of

legislation, the New Relationship Trust Act. It is an independent agency with

an independent board of directors, so we do not have the payroll. We’re just

not privy to that.

D. Ashton: The government funds it, it’s a bulk funding, and then they act as

independents with their own separate board. Is that correct? There is no

direction, influence or guidance given by the ministry for the

trust?

Hon. S. Fraser: It was back in 2006, when the board was created. It was, actually,

around the time the leadership council was also established, I think, with the

three organizations — the Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the B.C.

Assembly of First Nations.

It was created to oversee a $100 million trust provided by the province.

But it was then established under

an act as an independent body, as such, with

an independent board of directors. We do not, as a ministry, actually fund the

trust. It’s a creature of its own kind. There are members on the board, I know,

from the leadership council that was created around that same time.

D. Ashton: Are there any appointment opportunities by the provincial government for

the board members of the trust?

Hon. S. Fraser: B.C. appoints two of the seven board members. The First Nations

Leadership Council appoints five members, and then they act as an independent

body with the makeup of the seven-person independent board.

D. Ashton: I’d like to thank the minister, again, for his answer. My peer from

Cariboo-Chilcotin is here to have follow-up questions, I’m assuming, with

regard to some of the questions that I had posed to the minister.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, and thank you for bringing your staff here. They do

a good job. They have a difficult…. You have a very difficult ministry, and a

lot of work has to be done. I know how hard the staff works.

[4:00 p.m.]

Of course, you’re well aware of the issue in the title lands, as is your

staff. I have been engaged in this incident since it began, because I was

fortunate enough to be elected when the decision came down. When will we get a

final decision for the tourism operators who cannot get proper access, egress,

whose tourists are being — how should I say it? — aggravated, hassled when they

come? When will their permits be issued for a long term? What is going to

happen out there with the operators and the Xeni Gwet’in?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for the questions. As she

knows, we’ve had discussions about this before, and I’m sure they will continue

as we work toward solutions.

I will remind, again, that this situation on the ground is unique. Its

inception was through a landmark court decision that has never happened before

in the province — and, I don’t believe, in Canada either. It did not provide a

remedy on the ground. It designated a title for the Xeni Gwet’in of about 1,700

square kilometres of land — a significant court decision.

It’s another reason to negotiate. It highlights the need to negotiate

rights and title and reconciliation issues rather than allow the courts to make

those decisions — recognizing, of course, that courts have their place and

their role. But they do not provide…. The court decision added to a very

complex situation, and I know the member knows that.

We’ve agreed with the Xeni Gwet’in to make best efforts to finalize the

agreement by June 1. We have a bridging agreement we’re working on to address

the needs of the operators. That’s a two-year bridging agreement that we’re

working with them on.

I mentioned just earlier, before the member came into the chambers, that

some of the operators have indicated an interest in the potential sale of their

business. We’re looking at those opportunities, too. I know there’s an

assessment process there that could happen between the Xeni Gwet’in and the

operators. We’re looking at those options, too. So we’re being

creative.

I would hope that if we are successful with the timeline of June 1, we

will have some news. I would be very happy to again have a meeting with the

member and her colleagues, as we’ve met before, to update on that issue and how

it’s going. Some of this is still happening as we speak — these discussions.

There is a sense of urgency. The member opposite from Penticton, our critic,

has highlighted that urgency a little earlier, too, and we’re well aware of

that.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I cannot stress enough about the urgency. Everybody

was hoping that there would be some kind of a contract or agreement made. This

has been in the works for two years now. Part of the equation is ready; the

other part of the equation is not ready.

Minister, I know that your staff is working hard, but unfortunately, we

have to get this resolved. Time is of the essence for the betterment of the

province of British Columbia. I’m sure you understand why I’m pleading. I want

to see the parties work together, to communicate. If this goes the other way, I

really don’t like what I’m hearing. Time is of the essence; it is

urgent.

I don’t know what my colleague asked. I couldn’t get here earlier. What

about the other people in the title lands who have private freehold titles —

their access, their egress? What is going to happen down the road in the

future?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for her question. I understand the urgency. I

appreciate that.

[4:05 p.m.]

She also mentioned that this work has been going on for two years. As

she knows, it spans governments and the election period and everything that

goes with that.

It’s a complex issue. We’ve always maintained that we need to try to

maintain the access and egress issues. Those should be maintained. Certainly,

that’s been the position of the ministry, and that’s part of what we’re working

on with the bridging agreement that we’re hoping to have finalized by,

basically, the time that we’re finished in the spring session here. That sense

of urgency — I understand it. We understand, and we’ve heard that.

D. Barnett: That access and egress, will that be for all the public — not just the

private landowners but people that actually have gone for years and years

through the now title lands to the Crown lands — to do recreation and other

activities that they’ve always done on the Crown lands?

Hon. S. Fraser: As I have stated already, the access and egress issues for private

freehold lands within the title area…. Our position is that continues and that

the access and egress continue. The issue of the title lands themselves was

decided by the court. The court is a blunt instrument, relatively speaking. I

don’t know if that’s the right term. These are title lands established by the

court, belonging to the Xeni Gwet’in of the Tsilhqot’in Nation. That is the

decision of the court.

I can’t speak to the access-egress issues on title lands. But, again,

referring to the freehold lands…. Access and egress — our position is that they

continue.

D. Barnett: Some of the, of course, operators’ permits have run out, and they have

no security for permits after a certain period. I forget what the date is this

year.

Will these permits be renewed for any length of time? If they can come

to some kind of an agreement, will they just be temporary? Will they have to go

through this year after year?

Hon. S. Fraser: That is the nature of the two-year bridging agreement. Those are the

discussions that are happening right now — exactly.

D. Barnett: Off to another topic, Minister, the Nenqay Deni accord. My constituents

would like to know where the Nenqay Deni accord is. When will the ministry be

having public meetings once again?

When we started the Nenqay Deni accord, of course, it was stated that

this would be open and transparent. People within the Chilcotin — ranchers,

lease holders, trappers, guide outfitters, etc. — would like to know how the

accord is moving forward, what kinds of agreements the government has made with

the Deni accord and what kind of land use to these industries and

guide-outfitters and trappers has been made. When will they be made aware of

some public information?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: The Nenqay Deni accord, as the member knows, was signed by the previous

government just following the court decision, the Tsilhqot’in decision that

designated the title lands for the first time. We, as a new government, have

reaffirmed our commitment to work with the Tsilhqot’in and Xeni Gwet’in on the

Nenqay Deni accord and the Tsilhqot’in people.

Stakeholder engagement is, I think, always a part of that. That’s

anticipated. I would note that there is work being done internally by the

nation to deal with internal capacity issues. There’s not, to my knowledge,

anything tangible to start that engagement yet. But when there is, there will

be engagement.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. It’s very important that we have this open

dialogue, and I sincerely appreciate your efforts. Hopefully, sooner than

later, we have open dialogue. People, of course…. When you don’t know what’s

happening, sometimes you create, yourself, some issues that really aren’t

there. Thank you for that.

In these negotiations and this dialogue over the operators out there,

what fee, if any, is being paid to the Xeni Gwet’in to allow these operators to

keep operating, as they have been, out there in the title lands?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks for the question. The fees, if they were…. First of all, just to

step back a moment, if they’re on Crown land — Forests, Lands and Natural

Resource Operations, that ministry — it’s the standard fees. The operators

would pay the standard fees.

[4:15 p.m.]

On title land, the government is collecting fees on title lands and

providing, I think, the same fee schedule. That’s then provided to the nation,

just within their title lands. I believe it’s the same formula as it is on

Crown land.

D. Barnett: Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. I probably didn’t. Is the Xeni Gwet’in

or the Tsilhqot’in Nation being paid by the provincial government to sit at the

table and negotiate with the government for the tourism operators? In other

words, are they paid to sit at the table and negotiate this two-year binding

agreement, or is this just something that is part of their Nenqay Deni accord

agreement? Is there any money being paid to the First Nations?

Hon. S. Fraser: There was no specific funding made available for the bridging agreement

— except that there were funds that, I think, came with the Nenqay Deni accord

in general, but nothing specific for dealing with the operator

issue.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. Just to clarify, there are no funds being paid to

the Xeni Gwet’in or the Tsilhqot’in Nation to sit at the table and negotiate

this two-year agreement. All funds are coming — for their legal, lawyers, etc.

— out of the Deni accord funding. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Fraser: Yes, that’s correct. There’s no money being provided for dealing with

the issue with the tourism operators.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that.

I do have a trapper, who is in the title lands, who has lost part of his

trapline, part of his facilities. He’s put a lot of money out there, and of

course, he can no longer trap. I’m sure that the minister has received quite a

few letters from him. If not, I can certainly provide you some.

Is the minister aware of this case? If not, this trapper certainly would

like to become engaged with the ministry staff. Could you give me some guidance

as to whether this has come across your desk, the staff desks? If not, could

you give me some guidance on how this gentleman can become engaged with your

ministry?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Actually, we’re not aware of this specific issue. I’ve spoken with

staff. I haven’t seen a letter, and neither have they. I would suggest that if

the member could get us the contact information, we’d be happy to

engage.

D. Barnett: I’m shocked because I know the staff in Williams Lake has got it. I will

bring you a file next week like you’ve never seen. So thank you for

that.

Just going back to the title lands for a moment and the issue with the

tourism operators, the negotiations going on with the province and the tourism

operators and the Xeni Gwet’in and the Tsilhqot’in Nation. If the ministry does

provide funds for the Xeni Gwet’in or the Tsilhqot’in First Nation for this

negotiation process, will the same amount of funds be granted to the tourism

operators?

Hon. S. Fraser: The funding arrangement that came with the Nenqay Deni accord was

negotiated by the previous government. We’ve honoured that, but we don’t

anticipate providing similar funds for the operators. Again, that was a

negotiation that happened prior to us forming government.

On the previous issue around the trapper, just a thought. Maybe he had

discussions with ministry staff on the ground and/or maybe the Ministry of

Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, as far as the trapping

licensing goes. I think that’s under their purview. That might have been the

confusion. But we’d be happy to engage.

D. Ashton: To go back to it, I would ask, not only on behalf of the member but for

fairness and equity…. If a situation arises where the bands will be asking for

additional funds to sit down at the table and negotiate, I would just ask the

minister that accommodation be made also to those on the other side of the

negotiating table, because there are expenses incurred on both

sides.

I’m looking into the future. I’m sure the minister’s future is no

clearer than mine. But if there is a request for f