Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 146

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Stephen Lee

R. Chouhan

Praneet Arora

Hon. H. Bains

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Libby Sorenson

Hon. J. Horgan

A. Wilkinson

A. Weaver

Introductions by Members

Statements

Service of Legislature and constituency staff

L. Krog

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M220 — No Net Loss of Wetland Act, 2018

J. Rustad

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Ralph Sultan

B. Ma

Tulip celebration in Prince George for liberation of

Netherlands

S. Bond

William Arnold and bicycle shop in Duncan

D. Routley

Yarrow Days celebrations

J. Martin

Elder abuse

A. Kang

100th anniversary of Falkland Stampede

G. Kyllo

Oral Questions

Referendum on electoral reform

A. Wilkinson

Hon. D. Eby

Hon. J. Horgan

M. Lee

Shelter allowance for income assistance

recipients

A. Weaver

Hon. S. Simpson

Referendum on electoral reform

J. Martin

Hon. J. Horgan

M. Stilwell

M. de Jong

Reports from Committees

Conflict of Interest Commissioner Appointment

Committee, May 2018

R. Singh

E. Foster

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Conflict of Interest

Commissioner

Hon. J. Horgan

Reports from Committees

Children and Youth Committee, annual report,

2017-18

N. Simons

M. Stilwell

Tabling Documents

B.C. Assessment Authority, annual service plan report, 2017

Petitions

J. Johal

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

Standing Order 35

Request to debate a matter of urgent public importance

— referendum on electoral reform

M. Polak

Hon. M. Farnworth

S. Furstenau

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

(continued)

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

E. Ross

S. Furstenau

Estimates: Office of the Premier

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (continued)

T. Redies

Hon. M. Mungall

A. Weaver

D. Barnett

D. Clovechok

T. Shypitka

D. Davies

M. Bernier

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Trade and

Technology

Hon. B. Ralston

C. Oakes

J. Johal

G. Kyllo

WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

STEPHEN LEE

R. Chouhan: Const. Steve Lee has been working in the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms

for 17 years. Steve has the rare distinction of having worked in all areas of

the Sergeant-at-Arms precinct, including uniformed security staff, public

gallery, corridor, courier and most recently with the security office reception

desk.

Steve has done it all. His 17 years at the Legislature came after he

retired from three years in the Canadian Armed Forces and a 27-year career with

the Saanich police department. Steve could always be relied upon to greet all

visitors and staff with a smile, a few minutes of cheerful conversation and, if

needed, a steady supply of Werther’s candies.

Best wishes in your retirement, Steve. You will be missed by all of

us.

PRANEET ARORA

Hon. H. Bains: It is my pleasure to introduce to this House 13-year-old Praneet Arora.

He is from Surrey’s Tamanawis Secondary School and earlier this month won the

national championship spelling bee for us. This is an intermediate level, from

12 to 14. I’m told that the words that he spelled were “ostracod” and

“disreputable.” I can’t even pronounce it. He’s here with his parents and his

other relatives.

I just want to say to Praneet: you have made your parents proud, your

school proud and all of us proud. Keep up the good work. We are proud of

you.

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming three of the most delightful

smaller constituents the world has ever met. There is Olivia, there is Penelope,

and there is Madelyn. They are ably assisted by both their parents, Tyler and

Jasmine Pronyk. I’d ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Trevena: I think we all recognize the people who work with us as those who make our

lives so much easier and our work so much easier. I’d like to acknowledge two of

my staff members who are leaving over the summer.

Lindsay Jackson has been my administrative coordinator since last fall. She

was new to government. She loved the job, but she’s starting to be a self-employed

person and is very excited about that new opportunity.

Jacqueline Chapotelle has been my administrative assistant since I started

and was the administrative assistant for the former minister. She’s a very engaged

and intelligent young woman whom I’m going to miss greatly. But she is going to

start a career in nursing. She’s training as a nurse.

I hope that the House will wish both of them as much joy and as much

encouragement in their future endeavours as I will, but I’m the one who’s really

going to miss their hard work that they’ve given to myself and my colleagues over

the last few months.

[1:40 p.m.]

J. Yap: I’m delighted to welcome to the House six guests who are from my

constituency, Richmond-Steveston. These folks are members of the Broadmoor

Neighbourhood Association, probably one of the most vibrant and active

neighbourhood associations in the city of Richmond, a model for other

neighbourhood associations.

With us are Alan Dong, Michelle Guan, Hellen Liu, Yanhua Yang and David

Zhao, the president of the neighbourhood association. Along with them is my

constituency assistant, Po-wah Ng. Would the House please give these folks a warm

welcome to the Legislature.

Tributes

LIBBY SORENSON

Hon. J. Horgan: How many ears does Captain Kirk have? I know you’re wondering about

that. Captain Kirk has three ears: a left ear, a right ear and a final

“frontier.” Some groans. Well, thank you from the geek caucus.

Now, I appreciate that many people are groaning at that joke, but I know

someone who’s having a good laugh at it, and someone who could tell a few jokes

of her own. That’s Libby Sorenson, who’s in the gallery today. She started

working in this building in 1992, and she’s been here keeping it in tip-top

shape almost every day since. She joined the Legislative Facilities Services in

2011, but before that, she worked with an outside contractor to make this place

everything that it could possibly be.

Libby is retiring and moving on. I know that, speaking for myself and

for everyone in this place, we’re going to miss her desperately. Her jokes are

way better than that one, but I know that she’s going to enjoy her time away

from this place.

We’re going to miss you desperately, Libby. Thanks so much for bringing

a little bit of joy to our hearts every day and for the great work you’ve done

for the people of B.C. and the Legislative Assembly. [Applause.]

A. Wilkinson: Libby Sorenson has earned our applause over 26 years in the buildings,

keeping the place shipshape and keeping us in order. Of course, she has earned

goodwill while we’re burning it down here.

She has her two sons and two granddaughters to look forward to spending

time with — spending a lot of time in the hockey season, hopefully starting

tomorrow, just as the season winds up. Of course, Libby has been a great force

for goodwill, friendliness and common quality of work here in the

Legislature.

Thank you, Libby. We look forward to seeing you down the street.

[Applause.]

A. Weaver: I’d like to join my colleagues in this House and thank Libby for her 25

years of dedicated service to all of us in this chamber — and for many years

before us. Your cheerful demeanour in our office, your work in getting us ready

for each and every day — Libby, it has been a absolute pleasure for us to get

to know you, to see your cheerful face come in every day, every evening. Thank

you for your many years of service. On behalf of all of my colleagues here in

the B.C. Green caucus, all three of us, I’d like to wish you very well on a

well-deserved retirement. [Applause.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Sims: Like my colleagues across the way, all of us have wonderful opportunities

when we’re back in our ridings. One of my favourite things is to visit schools and

spend some time with the young students.

We’ve had visiting us here today — well, not today; we just missed them —

the Colebrook Elementary grade 5 classes. They were accompanied by Mrs. Adelaine

Uchida-Hicks, Ms. Semin Kassam and Ms. Mehtab Chahal. I can tell you that when I

visited these classes, they made our question period look lame. They had the best

questions, the most insightful questions, and they are excited about what’s

happening in British Columbia.

I also want the House to join me in welcoming grade 5 classes from

Goldstone Park Elementary School. That school has grown in size since it was

built, and it’s overflowing at the seams. The grade 5 classes exhibited that. They

were accompanied by Ms. Lambert, Ms. Elliott, Ms. Rai and Ms. Uppal. I can

honestly say I had an amazing two hours with them in the gym, talking with them,

answering their questions.

Visits like that are the highlight of all our lives, when we actually get

to spend time with kids, because we’re fighting for a better future for

them.

A. Kang: An-yong has-se-yo . I have the pleasure of introducing some members

of the Korean Seniors Community Society who are here today.

[1:45 p.m.]

The KSCS mandate is to promote wellness and build community among

Korean-Canadian seniors in the Metro Vancouver area and address the physical and

social well-being of Korean-Canadian seniors. Due to limited resources and

opportunities for involvement, seniors are often isolated from the community.

Their programs are financially accessible and delivered in a culturally

appropriate environment of peers supporting seniors in their physical and social

well-being.

I would like to welcome in the chamber here today Yeon Shalert, Gil Wang

Lee, Ja Chun Lee and Chang Hi Han. Kam-sa-ham-ni-da . Welcome.

Everybody, please make them feel welcome.

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome someone who is no stranger to this

place, someone who I think should be here more often, someone who I would love to

see more often: my beautiful partner, Leanne Finlayson. Leanne means everything to

me. I ask myself every day: how can someone who means everything to you mean more

every day, and how can someone so beautiful, so graceful and so illuminating

become an even brighter light in your life every day? Leanne does. Thank you,

Leanne. Help me welcome her.

Sitting beside Leanne is one of my oldest and best friends, William Arnold.

I’m going to say a few more words about him, coming up, but Will is a fine friend,

from the bicycle industry, that I’ve known for nigh on 35 years now — a wonderful

servant to our community. Thank you for being here, William Arnold.

M. Bernier: It’s my pleasure to welcome into the precinct today Mrs. McIntyre’s grade 7

class, who trekked the long journey, I would say, from about as far away as you

can get from here, from Dawson Creek — a couple of days to get down here. They

came down with six adult chaperones, with parents, with 28 students from Canalta

Elementary. Can everybody please welcome them after their long journey to Victoria

and the House today.

Statements

SERVICE OF LEGISLATURE

AND CONSTITUENCY

STAFF

L. Krog: It’s traditional, and as a great fan of tradition, I’m delighted to do

this today on behalf of the government caucus: to extend to all of those who

work for us — those in the caucus staff and the ministers’ offices, our

constituency assistants — a very sincere thank-you for everything they do. I

want to assure the members that although my remarks are going to go on a little

bit more, they’ll be briefer than the opposition yesterday, in extolling the

virtues of their staff — not felt any less sincerely but simply in a more

representational way.

In this House, in this place, we know that tempers sometimes flare,

meetings can be missed, impatience can be displayed. Yet through all of that,

the staff who work with us exhibit the best qualities that we all hope to have

ourselves, and they do it day in and day out. In our constituency offices, as

we well know, the most vulnerable of our society are there for help, often in

positions of desperation, great fear, anguish and emotion. Yet our staff

continue to deal with them day in, day out, while we’re down here in the safe

security of this chamber.

So I say, on behalf of the government caucus, to those of us who support

us in our work, at the end of this session, as is traditional, a very sincere

thank-you.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: It’s a real honour to join my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake to introduce

members of the Korean Seniors Community Society from my constituency of

Vancouver-Kingsway. Here with us today are Joon Wung Han, Yan Su Quan, Sun Chang

Suk and Joon Ja Kim. I’d wish everyone in the House to wish them

welcome.

G. Begg: I, too, have the pleasure today of introducing some members of the Korean

Seniors Community who live in my riding. The group is brought together by a sense

of community. The KSCS is a community organization dedicated to senior health and

well-being and nourishing intergenerational relationships in the Korean-Canadian

community. I know the House will join me in welcoming Pang Ja Song, Nam Yong Kim,

Soo Cheon Jang, Pak Ryu Jung and Kuk Yun Kim.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Darcy: I would like to join with my colleagues in welcoming members of the Korean

Seniors Community Society who hail from New Westminster and nearby. I hope the

House will join me in extending a very warm welcome to Chin Yook Kim, from New

Westminster, Buk Yoom Kim, from New Westminster, and Yoon Sook Siu, from Richmond.

Welcome to the people’s House.

R. Glumac: I also would like to join in welcoming some members from the Korean Seniors

Community Society that are from my riding — Bong Hwon Kim, Hong Ja Kim and Soon

Kil Kim. Would the House make them feel welcome.

I should have said I have a second introduction I’d like to make as well.

Echoing the words of the member for Nanaimo, the work that our constituency

assistants do is so invaluable. They’re the first point of contact for people that

are in desperate need of help, and we wouldn’t be able to do what we do here

without them. So I’d like to make my constituency assistant feel welcome here in

the House, Caitlin Hickenbotham, who’s visiting today.

Hon. K. Chen: I would like to welcome two groups of students from Second Street Community

School who live in both the Burnaby-Lougheed riding and also the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds’ riding. They will be joining us in this building later this

afternoon. Second Street Community School is a great model, where a lot of

parents, local residents, seniors and local groups work together and make the

community school very strong. I would like to ask the House to please make them

very welcome.

Hon. S. Robinson: I, too, have the pleasure of introducing some members of the Korean Seniors

Community Society who are here today from my constituency. The KSCS has a seniors

open college, which is a community program that builds community and teaches

tangible skills about social services, recreational activities and physical and

mental well-being for seniors. I’d like the House to join me in welcoming Byung

Don Min, Seong Ho Chong, Hyosun Chong, Dong Ho Lee and Harris Choo.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to join with my colleagues to welcome a number of members

from the Korean Seniors Community Society from Vancouver-Kensington — Sook Ja

Sook, Joong Boo Park, Joon Sook Park and Yung Joo Kim. I ask everybody to please

make them very welcome.

R. Chouhan: I also want to join my friend from Burnaby–Deer Lake to introduce four

members of the Korean Seniors Community Society who live in the Burnaby-Edmonds

area. The Korean seniors have done such a wonderful job in our community. They

promote a strong community network and help others. These four members are Hae

Sook Choi, Dong Sun Kim, Jung Sook Choi and Chong In Kim. Please join me to

welcome them.

R. Leonard: Just taking a bit of a risk here, because I don’t want to start an

avalanche, but I am losing my constituency assistant, who got the ball rolling for

me in Courtenay-Comox. Not only will I miss her, but I think all of the members of

the community who she’s helped so well will also be missing her as she moves on to

a full-time job as a social worker in community care.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M220 — NO NET LOSS OF

WETLAND ACT,

J. Rustad presented a bill intituled No Net Loss of Wetland Act,

J. Rustad: I move that a bill intituled No Net Loss of Wetland Act, 2018, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read now

a first time.

Wetlands are an important part of how nature functions. Fish and

wildlife habitat, organic carbon storage, water supply and purification, soil

and water conservation, as well as tourism, heritage, recreation, education,

science — all of these things and more — are the values of wetlands.

Occasionally, development can impact on the functions of wetlands. This bill is

designed to ensure that when a wetland is impacted, government will work with

its partners to ensure there will be no net loss of wetland functions through

investments or enhancements in other wetlands.

[1:55 p.m.]

This is an initiative that was first undertaken by Ducks Unlimited, and

I’m introducing this bill now in recognition of the great work that Ducks has

done over the past 50 years.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M220, No Net Loss of Wetland 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)

RALPH SULTAN

B. Ma: The year is 1933. Simon Fraser Tolmie is the Premier of B.C. The Prime

Minister of Canada is Richard Bedford Bennett, and Franklin D. Roosevelt is the

President of the United States. It’s June 6. It’s a Tuesday in Vancouver. Not

surprisingly, it’s raining — not a lot, just a tad — and deep inside of

Vancouver General Hospital somewhere, a little child is born, a little

boy.

Growing up in a family of ten in Mount Pleasant, this boy would lead a

very full life. He will attend Florence Nightingale Elementary School as a

child and then King Edward High School as a teenager. Earning his first wages

at the age of 12, his life will lead him through many impressive

accomplishments, including becoming a professor at Harvard University, chief

economist at the Royal Bank of Canada and even a professional

engineer.

After tragically losing his wife of 43 years in a health-related

emergency, this man will make the decision to enter public life and, in 2001,

was elected to the Legislative Assembly of B.C., where he has served for 17

years so far.

This man probably doesn’t remember this, but I actually met him,

originally, in 2007. As a student politician, I had come to Victoria to

advocate for students on a variety of issues. Well, we didn’t agree on much

then, and we certainly don’t agree on much now, but you don’t have to agree

with someone to respect them — even if they’re on the Hansard record

slamming you for your Twitter feed.

In 2017, this man became the oldest person to be elected in the history

of B.C. politics, and in less than one week from today, on June 6, he will turn

85 years old. From the youngest to the oldest, I ask that the House please join

me in wishing our colleague, the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano, a very happy,

though slightly early, 85th birthday. [Applause.]

TULIP CELEBRATION IN PRINCE GEORGE

FOR LIBERATION OF

NETHERLANDS

S. Bond: I feel the need to start singing happy birthday at this point in time,

but I’ll spare….

Most people look at tulips as a flower that signals the beginning of

spring, but I, and many other Canadians with Dutch ancestry, look at them in a

much different way. To us, they are a visible symbol of the gratitude that the

people of the Netherlands feel toward Canadians and, in particular, to the

Canadian troops that liberated Holland.

On Saturday, the Dutch community in Prince George came together at the

cenotaph for the annual tulip celebration. Each year tulip bulbs are planted

with the hopes they will bloom at just the right time so they can serve as a

backdrop for this always moving ceremony. Well, our timing was off just a

little bit this year, but that didn’t diminish one bit the significance or

impact of the stories shared.

[2:00 p.m.]

Those in attendance included veterans, military personnel, seniors and

children, most of whom had some connection with Holland. I was there because I

am the daughter of a Dutch mother. Her name was Gretta Johanna Wilhelmina Vink.

She was proud of her heritage and deeply grateful for the Canadian soldiers who

brought freedom and ended her horrific experiences during the Second World War.

While she spared us some of the most painful memories she had, she never failed

to remind us that we needed to remember and be grateful to those who serve on

our behalf.

As we gathered together, many dressed in bright orange, we took a step

back in time to reflect on the service and the sacrifice of Canadian troops.

Thank you to Dick Voneugen and his team, who have ensured that this important

tradition has become an annual event.

The special relationship between Canada and the Netherlands continues

today. The next time you see a tulip, I hope you, too, will stop and think

about the significant role that Canadian soldiers played in the liberation of

the Netherlands and join our family as we say hartelijk

bedankt .

WILLIAM ARNOLD AND

BICYCLE SHOP IN

DUNCAN

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about my friend and his bike shop. This bike shop

is 103 years old. It’s the oldest bicycle shop on the west coast of Canada. The

next oldest bicycle shop is in Regina, Saskatchewan.

It was started, all those many years ago, by a man named Arnold

Williams. I remember Mr. Williams. As a kid, I would I go there if I had a flat

tire, and he would give me heck for not being able to fix my flat tire. I

always wondered: how did that equate to success in the bicycle business? The

fact is he didn’t charge us, so I guess he did want us to learn, and he was a

grumpy guy, not like the guy who owns the shop now.

The guy who owns the shop now is not Arnold Williams but William Arnold.

Isn’t that strange? Both of them got into this business at 13 years old. Both

of them started the store and bought the store, respectively, at 30 years old.

Both of them ride penny farthings in parades, doing tricks. William Arnold

didn’t know that when he bought the shop — an incredible

coincidence.

William, like all other small business people who are successful, is

absolutely driven. He’s been 40 years in the business. He was a volunteer at

the Commonwealth Games in 1994 as the head mechanic for the cycling events. He

was an Olympic and Paralympic volunteer in 2010, a team leader and personal

assistant.

He has, for 19 years, been supporting the MS Society in the Cowichan

Valley, the Hospital Foundation, Ride to Conquer Cancer, chair of special

events at the B.C. Summer Games in Cowichan. He started the first bicycle tire

and tube recycling program in Canada, and he created a bicycle program for

schools called the Ron Mclaren wheels for the future, which gives bikes to kids

who are disadvantaged.

He runs a 13-week elective bicycle mechanic and bicycle safety course in

our schools. He works with the police on safety issues all the time. William

Arnold serves the community. I commend him, I admire him, and I thank him for

being a great friend for all these many years.

YARROW DAYS CELEBRATIONS

J. Martin: It’s that time of year once again.

Interjection.

J. Martin: Well, just give me a moment.

One of my favourite weekends is just around the corner. Of course, I’m

referring to Yarrow Days 2018. It’s happening this Saturday and Sunday. This is

the best annual small-town party to be found anywhere in the province, and it

returns with another weekend jam-packed with family-friendly entertainment and

activities.

This all starts Saturday morning with a 2K or 5K fun run. That’s

followed by the always popular Yarrow Days parade. That’s going to look a

little different this year, because there’s a new theme — knights and dragons,

a little bit of Excalibur — coming to Yarrow.

The Yarrow Pioneer Park, a beautiful facility, is filled with live

entertainment all afternoon. There’ll be craft booths, kids’ games, vendors,

pony rides, a cake walk, an imagination station, a noise zone. There was one

other thing there. Can you help me out here?

Interjections.

J. Martin: A barbecue. There’s going to be a barbecue there. Thank you.

Well, there’s lots more. A classic car show at the Yarrow Alliance

Church. Saturday evening is the always popular dinner and dance, with Full Tilt

rock and blues. Sunday morning is the loaded skillet and pancake breakfast. I

don’t think I’m going to eat for a week after this. The loaded skillet and

pancake breakfast at the Yarrow Community Centre is followed by an

inter-denominational church service at the park. Everyone is welcome. This is a

wonderful celebration of local heritage, culture, community partnership and

volunteerism.

[2:05 p.m.]

As it’s the end of the parliamentary session, each and every one of us,

I know, is anxious to return to our home ridings for the summer and help

celebrate and take

part in all those wonderful community events and activities

coming up. I’m sure we can all identify those traditions that fill us with

local pride and appreciation.

For me, Yarrow Days is one such event. It reminds me how fortunate and

grateful I am to live in such a wonderful part of the province. Please join me

in wishing the people of Yarrow another successful Yarrow Days.

ELDER ABUSE

A. Kang: Once upon a time, there was a senior who lived with her family but could

always be seen rocking quietly for hours on a rocking chair on the porch,

neglected. Once upon a time, seniors were easy targets of financial

exploitation. Marketing scams made her an easy target. Once upon a time, no one

would say anything, because elder abuse occurs with little recognition or

response.

Things are different now. We are beginning to speak up for seniors and

recognizing all forms of elder abuse. Elder abuse can take many forms,

including physical abuse, psychological-emotional abuse, sexual abuse,

financial abuse or neglect.

Until recently, elder abuse was hidden or unaddressed by the public and

considered only as a private matter. Nowadays we are more aware and are better

equipped to identify and address this problem. Nevertheless, there are grey

areas.

As much as we love our parents, sometimes we might unknowingly and

unintentionally take advantage of them. Let’s see if any of this sounds

familiar or relatable. An adult child helps out a senior parent. I do my mom’s

grocery shopping, and she pays me back. Then the next time, I do her shopping

again, and she gives me her bank card and PIN. Then the next week, I do her

shopping again, and I fill up my car with gas for all my efforts. After a

while, I do her shopping again, and I do mine as well.

Recent research findings draw specific attention to financial

exploitation of older persons as a common and serious problem. Elder abuse can

be defined as a single or repeated act or a lack of appropriate action

occurring within any relationship where there’s an expectation of trust, which

causes harm or distress to an older person.

June 15 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Let us speak out and stand

up for elders in abuse.

100 th ANNIVERSARY OF

FALKLAND

STAMPEDE

G. Kyllo: I’m very proud of the amazing communities in my riding of Shuswap. Each

has its own unique character, community vibe and hardworking volunteers that

give of themselves for the betterment of their community.

One community that truly stands out is home to one of the top rodeos in

Canada. Members, I’m talking about Falkland, home of the Falkland

Stampede.

As legend has it, the Falkland community organized a spring picnic to

celebrate the end of World War I in 1919. Enthusiastically, people arrived by

wagon, buggy, horseback and car to visit with friends and take

part in the

day’s festivities. I’m told that during one of the first picnics, a resident

brought a large roan and challenged a young Cariboo cowboy to try and ride his

bucking horse. Legend has it the cowboy rode for only a few seconds but stayed

lying on the ground for much longer before finally getting to his feet, and the

Falkland Stampede was born.

Over the years, the picnic grew both in popularity and size and scope,

with the purchase of permanent rodeo grounds in 1938, joining the cowboy’s

protective association in 1969 and later the Canadian Professional Rodeo

Association.

I was extremely proud to be able to participate in the 100th anniversary

of the Falkland Stampede, celebrated May 19 to 21. The Falkland Stampede is one

of Canada’s oldest rodeos and one of the top 15 in Canada. With over $50,000 in

prize moneys, the Falkland rodeo is part of the Canadian professional rodeo

circuit.

The opening day was highlighted with cowboys running a herd of bucking

broncos down the highway and into the stampede grounds. Dignitaries followed in

a beautiful wagon, including Rhett Allison, Oz Leaf, Mervin Churchill and MP

Mel Arnold.

In recognition of the 100th anniversary of the Falkland Stampede, I had

the honour of presenting a large, steel-cut commemorative sign to Falkland

Stampede president Jason Churchill and his dad, my good friend Mervin

Churchill. These two men have shown no shortage of energy, professionalism and

love of their community, supported, of course, by an amazing group of

volunteers and community members.

Falkland, congratulations on your 100th anniversary. You make Canada and

British Columbia proud.

[2:10 p.m.]

Oral Questions

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

A. Wilkinson: This morning the long-awaited process leading to the referendum on

proportional representation was revealed, and it turns out that it is massively

biased in a stacked deck in a rigged game.

This Premier made promises during the election. Today three of them were

broken. There was to be a simple yes-no question. Promise broken. There was to

be a regional threshold and protection of regional interests. Promise broken.

There was to be an all-party committee that was to decide on the question.

Promise broken.

We have to ask the Premier: is this his idea of democracy in action — to

lay out a program in an election, be successful and break all his promises in a

fundamental feature of our democracy?

Hon. D. Eby: It was a great honour to be asked to engage with British Columbians on

what they wanted to see go forward in terms of how the referendum process would

happen. We had massive participation in this, on a number of metrics — the

largest engagement of British Columbians in the history of the province. More

than 90,000 people filled out a questionnaire. More than 20 organizations

provided written submissions to my office about how they thought the referendum

should go.

The report that I released this morning, including the ballot questions

for the referendum, is based on that engagement. The first question is a very

straightforward question: do you want to keep the current first-past-the-post

system, or do you want to change to a proportional system? The second question

gives British Columbians the chance to direct government about which particular

system they would like to see, drawn from suggestions made during the

engagement process.

I’m very honoured that I was asked to take on this role. I believe that

the recommendations reflect the direction from British Columbians who

participated. I’m very grateful. I took suggestions from a number of the

members opposite in their second reading speeches about rural representation,

ensuring that regions are kept whole in any system that might be put forward.

There are a number of key principles around the size of the Legislature, around

simplicity of the ballot, around rural representation and so on. Ultimately,

it’s British Columbians’ choice whether they wish to keep the current system or

change to a new system.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: This must be a low point in the career of this Premier. He’s been asked

a question about broken promises from the election, three broken promises that

deal with the fundamentals of how this institution works and how it represents

British Columbians after 150 years of developed traditions. Instead of

answering the question, he fobs it off onto the Attorney General, who reads out

a couple of paragraphs from the report.

Premier, please show some leadership and answer the question.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member of the opposition for his question. I do realize that

after you’ve been vested in big money in politics and had that yanked away from

you, after you’ve been successfully using the first-pass-the-post system to

have absolute power with less than 50 percent of the vote…. I can understand

why people on that side of the House are frustrated and disappointed that the

big money is now gone.

We are going to ask the people of British Columbia whether they want to

keep a system that was rigged on behalf of the other side and have, instead, an

opportunity to have their voices representatively sampled in this Legislature

so that we can work together in the interests of British Columbia.

A. Wilkinson: If I’m not mistaken, I just heard the Premier say: “Let’s work together

on this.” Where is the debate on this question? Where is the all-party

committee he promised during the election? Where is the citizens’ assembly?

This is fundamental to our democracy, and this Premier has the arrogance to sit

over there and say he’s going to work together by blowing it past the public

over the summertime.

[2:15 p.m.]

This is an absolutely shameful display of cowardice by this Premier.

It’s time that he allowed debate on this issue in this House.

Hon. J. Horgan: We are going to ask the people of British Columbia: do you want to keep

what you have, or do you want to move to something else? I said we would do

that, and that is what we’re going to do.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: It is yes or no. I don’t know what part of that these guys don’t

understand. I appreciate that they’ve been chasing desperately something to

stand for, for the past ten months, and now they’ve found it. They want to shut

down British Columbians. They don’t want people to say yes or no to a simple

question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. J. Horgan: I will refer the members to a quote from the member for

Vancouver-Langara, who said: “PR is only going to lead us from what we have

today. We will have a situation where we’ll have to get along with each other,

and that’s not good for government.” I guess they’re doing that right

now.

M. Lee: We clearly are talking about a fundamental change, potentially, to the

way we elect members to this Legislative Assembly. We’re talking about a

fundamental change to our democratic process and system. This is not about

shutting down British Columbians. This is about ensuring that we have a clear,

fair and transparent referendum.

British Columbians need to know what they’re voting on. What’s been

proposed this morning is part of a rigged game that’s been clearly decided

behind closed doors. Well, we need to know what is going to be asked to British

Columbians. They are being presented with forms of electoral systems for which

we don’t even know the details.

How could the Premier possibly justify withholding specifics, including

riding maps, of these convoluted three forms of PR until after the

vote?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: It was a pleasure to work on this and to hear from British Columbians

across the province about different systems that they advocated for. I can tell

you that there are many different systems out there that people are advocating

for.

The systems that are on the ballot include a system used in Germany,

include a system based on STV, which was part of the Citizens’ Assembly

process, and include a system that was on the ballot in P.E.I. as well. I can

advise the member that there are multiple pages of descriptions of all three

systems. Any implementation details that are not covered will be addressed by

an all-party committee after the referendum, if people vote to

change.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. D. Eby: The members should know that in P.E.I. and in New Zealand, when they did

this referendum, they didn’t have electoral maps either. The challenge is the

Electoral Boundaries Commission, which draws up these maps…. It’s quite a

lengthy process for them to do that, to hear submissions, to do that for

multiple systems.

The members said that they wanted clear systems. I heard that. They

wanted people to be able to provide clear direction on systems. But it’s not

pragmatic or practical to have the Electoral Boundaries Commission draw up maps

for three different systems. So we provided British Columbians with multiple

pages of details on these, including key principles about simplicity of the

ballot, rural representation, local accountability.

I believe we’ve heard British Columbians. I believe that that’s

reflected in the ballot and the details that have been provided. Any

implementation questions after the referendum, if British Columbians choose to

move in that direction, will be dealt with by an all-party committee in which

no party has the majority.

Mr. Speaker: Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

[2:20 p.m.]

M. Lee: Since this government formed itself with the NDP and the Green Party,

we’ve been asking questions in this House about this referendum process. As

we’ve said through this week, this government has taken ten months to get to

this stage. To suggest that there’s not enough time to determine what the

implications are under these three convoluted forms of PR that are being

proposed is, I think, an insult to British Columbians.

You’ve clearly gamed this process. You’ve left it to the last day before

the House rises. You’ve jammed this report in, and you’re telling us that the

details are going to have to wait until after the vote. How can that possibly

be acceptable to British Columbians? It is not.

This, again, is about having a clear, fair and transparent referendum.

British Columbians deserve to have, in the words of advocates for this

referendum, a fair vote. This is not a fair vote. The details of this

referendum need to be up front. They need to be determined now, before the vote

takes place. It’s just not acceptable for the Premier to sit there and suggest:

“Trust us.”

Will the Premier reject the recommendations that have been presented

today?

Hon. J. Horgan: I trust British Columbians. That’s who I trust. British Columbians will

have five months….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m shocked, hon. Speaker, that members who have been long-standing

members of this House don’t understand what electoral boundaries commissions

do. If I understand them correctly, hon. Speaker, over the din….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Premier, you can rise again to answer the question when you think you

can be heard.

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We have independent commissions to draw up boundaries because that

separates government from the voters. That ensures independence. I’m surprised

they don’t understand that.

Government received today a report from the Attorney General. We will

review that report. There will be a question put to the people this fall. It

will ask them: do they want to keep the system they have, which has, for years

and years, provided absolute power to the people who get a minority of the

votes, or do they want to vote for something different? Do they want to vote to

put people back in the centre of their politics by allowing an opportunity to

select from three options? And when that option is selected….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: You’re not getting the information? Are you so obtuse that you don’t

understand? You can google this stuff.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Maybe we can now move to a more productive use of question period

time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No, my reference was to all of the noise without people being on the

floor. The issue, of course, is important, but the background noise is

not.

SHELTER ALLOWANCE FOR

INCOME ASSISTANCE

RECIPIENTS

A. Weaver: In September, government raised social assistance rates by $100 per

month. Not only, of course, do I support the move, but I also commend

government for implementing this increase. Rates had been frozen for a decade,

leaving people worse off year after year, as their buying power eroded with

inflation, and the affordability crisis exploded.

Nevertheless, while support payments have gone up, the shelter

allowances have remained the same, at only $375 a month. This is far, far below

what it actually costs to find shelter.

[2:25 p.m.]

For example, the organization Raise the Rates found that in Vancouver,

even a single-room-occupancy hotel, known as an SRO, the cheapest form of

housing available, cost $548 a month. And a number of advocates and journalists

have documented the appalling and unsafe living conditions that people are

forced to endure in many SROs in Vancouver.

My question to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction

is this: do you agree that $375 does not come close to reflecting the true cost

of finding shelter in B.C., let alone shelter that is safe and

secure?

Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the Leader of the Third Party, though I did lose the bet on

getting a question-free session.

I agree with the Leader of the Third Party. People on income assistance,

persons with disabilities and hundreds of thousands of other people who are

living vulnerable and living poor are struggling immensely in this province

today. I’m proud of the $100 increase that we put in place, the first increase

in over a decade for people on income assistance.

As I said, there are significant numbers of working poor in this

province who are struggling as well. I’m excited that at the end of this week,

we’re going to have a $1.30 increase in the minimum wage, the first step on the

way to a $15.20 minimum wage.

On the issue of housing, the member is correct. It is challenging, as we

move forward, but we have many steps that we’re taking. I’m excited about the

biggest investment in housing in the history of British Columbia in the

February budget. I’m excited about the increases around rental assistance

programs and SAFER grants. I’m really excited about the 2,000 modular units

that are out there being built today, that are being occupied today, that are

helping the most vulnerable people in this province, people living homeless,

and giving them a place to live. That’s progress, and that’s

leadership.

The last thing I would say is: we’ll bring in the poverty reduction

plan, and yes, we’re going to deal with housing.

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

A. Weaver: There certainly was a lot of pent-up answer waiting for a question

there.

A substantial gap remains between social assistance rates and what is

required to maintain a dignified standard of living. That’s why during the

election the B.C. Greens committed to transitioning people to livable incomes,

starting with an increase in social assistance rates by 50 percent above 2017

levels by 2020.

The previous critic on this file said last year: “Every year I ask the

minister how on earth they come up with $375 as the shelter allowance for

income assistance, because there’s nowhere in B.C. that’s available for $375.”

I would agree with her, but unfortunately, this remains true today. The average

rent of a bachelor apartment in Vancouver is over $1,000 a month.

My question, again to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction, is this: will you increase the shelter allowance as part of the

forthcoming poverty reduction program and strategy?

Hon. S. Simpson: We have 557,000 people living in poverty in this province. We’ve had the

highest rates of poverty for over a decade and a half, pretty much every year,

and certainly the highest rates around child poverty.

We have challenges. We need to deal with the affordability questions

that the member is talking about. We need to create opportunities for people to

break the cycle of poverty. We need to deal with the issues of social isolation

and social inclusion for people struggling in poverty, whether they be the

100,000 children living in poverty, the Indigenous and the disabled who are

living in poverty.

[2:30 p.m.]

We’re going to do that. We’re going to bring legislation this fall that

will legislate the poverty reduction plan, and British Columbia will no longer

be the only province in this country without a poverty plan. We will end that

this fall. We will bring the plan shortly after, and we will address those

issues of improving the lives of people in this province, including on the

housing issue.

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

J. Martin: If the Premier accepts the recommendations announced this morning, he

will have broken his promise to offer voters a single, specific referendum

question. Instead, he will have listened to his partisan allies, the special

interest groups that have been actively campaigning for a confusing two-ballot

question that they believe will increase their chances of winning.

To the Premier, this is very simple, and he can end this right now. Will

he keep his promise of a single, specific question and reject the announced

recommendations?

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you for the question, in a calm and measured way. I am going to

keep my promise. I’m going to ask British Columbians to tell the government

whether they want to keep the system they have or move to another one. I don’t

know how simple we can make that.

In addition, we’re going to ask people for direction and guidance. There

will be a five-month campaign period where people can talk about these issues.

We’ve talked about it in the Legislature last year. The Attorney General

incorporated some of the references that were made during second reading debate

from that side of the House, from the Third Party.

The members on the other side could have made submissions and chose not

to. Instead, they have lockstep said: “We are not going to have a reasoned

discussion about changing our electoral system.”

I believe the appropriate course of action is to put our faith in the

British Columbians who will have the opportunity to have their say and direct

government to either change the system or keep what we have. That’s what I said

I would do. That’s what we’re going to do.

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

J. Martin: The Premier’s partisan allies with the Ontario-based pro-PR lobby group,

Fair Vote Canada, have been very, very clear. Not only have they explicitly

stated their requirement for a two-part question to win the referendum; it is

Fair Vote Canada who invented the rural-urban PR system that is listed as one

of the series of questions on the ballot. The Premier has stacked the deck in a

rigged game and given them exactly what they asked for.

Again, why is the Premier breaking his word and stacking the deck in

favour of an outcome he prefers?

Hon. J. Horgan: The only thing missing from that question is a reference to Bowen

Island, because it appears that members on that side of the House assume that

there’s some conspiracy here.

The Attorney General was charged with setting up a system that would be

impartial, that would allow people to have their say. The members on the other

side chose not to participate, and that is your right. You didn’t make

submissions. That’s fine.

The challenge that we have, hon. Member — and I know your question is

sincere — is that we campaigned to ask people: do they want to keep what they

have, or do they want to move to something else? That’s what the report said.

It asks that question right up front.

We’ll have months to discuss that. We’ll have months to discuss the

options that are available on the question, and members on that side are

absolutely free to cast a ballot the way they want to. They can campaign the

way they want to. The only restriction is that big money will not be able to

dictate an outcome, because we changed election financing laws as the first

step in making our democracy about people, not about special

interests.

Although the member referred to special interests, the public will

decide whether we keep what we have or move to something else.

M. Stilwell: On May 17, 2017, the Premier was asked to confirm if he would give

British Columbians one system to vote on, and his response was: “Yeah,

exactly.” But the recommendations today completely shatter the Premier’s

promise of a specific referendum question in favour, instead, of a stacked deck

in a rigged game.

My question to the Premier is: will he keep his word and reject today’s

recommendations?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I encourage the members to read the report that was tabled by the

Attorney General. Perhaps that will forestall some of the other questions that

we’re going to hear about card games. I mean, I understand that money

laundering is something they ignored in the past, and now they’re taking a

personal, critical interest in it.

This is not about fixing anything. It’s about giving British Columbians

the right to decide whether they want to keep what they have or move to

something else. I understand that members on that side of the House don’t want

to participate. That’s fine. That’s your right. But thousands and thousands and

thousands of British Columbians participated in this process. We’ve come up

with what we believe to be, according to the report that we just received, a

fair opportunity for people to have their say, and we’re going to proceed with

that.

You don’t have to agree with us, Members, but you have to understand

that the public is the one that’s going to make this decision, not you. Thank

goodness for that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, if we may move to the supplemental

question.

M. Stilwell: I think what the public expects is for a Premier to keep his promises,

and right now we have a Premier who refuses to stand behind the promises that

he made. Not included in these recommendations are an all-party committee

before the vote…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Stilwell: …a simple, specific ballot question, reasonable regional thresholds and

a reasonable turnout threshold — all specific promises that were made by this

Premier, now all promises that have been broken.

Why has the Premier broken these promises yet again on something as

fundamental as the manner in which British Columbians elect their

representatives?

Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t understand why the members don’t trust the people of B.C. to

make decisions on the best interests of their Legislature. I appreciate that

the exclusive club of the minority vote getting the majority of power has come

to an end, and that must be very frustrating for the members on that

side.

What we are going to do as a province is engage in direct democracy.

We’re going to ask the people what they want: “Do you want what you have, or do

you want something new?” I have every confidence the people will always make

the right choice.

M. de Jong: What the people don’t trust is a contrived process the Premier has

cooked up with the Attorney General, designed to secure a result that is

politically favourable to folks on that side of the House. That’s what they

don’t trust.

No regional threshold. Think about that — no regional threshold. One

city in British Columbia could decide the outcome of this. No participation

threshold. A bare minority of British Columbians could decide the outcome of

this question. No maps. The Premier and the Attorney and the government don’t

want British Columbians to know what the impact of this decision would be on

their constituencies, on their towns. No maps and, ironically, given that it is

this institution that will be impacted, no debate in this chamber on the

second-last day of the session. The second-last day of the session, the Premier

and the Attorney General and the government lay this before the

public.

Surely the Premier understands…. Surely if he were to take a moment and

reflect upon this and the importance of the decision, he would understand that

this is not the way to effect democratic reform in British Columbia.

[2:40 p.m.]

I have listened to him. I have listened to the Attorney General. They

apparently have lots to say. Then let us have a debate. What is the Premier

afraid of in allowing this chamber to discuss the question that his cabinet is

going to decide behind closed doors?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, I thank one of the more senior members of the Legislature

for his intervention there. But I would have thought, after many, many

elections, he would have understood that when you give people the opportunity

to make a choice, that’s as open and as transparent as you can get.

We’re saying to the people of British Columbia, as we said during the

election campaign and as we’re saying today: “Do you want to keep the system

you have, or do you want to do something different, like other jurisdictions,

and have yourself represented by the proportion of votes that you deliver on

election day?” That’s what we’re doing. There are a whole bunch of questions

that people will have. You know what? That’s a good thing. We debated this

bill, in the fall, in this place.

After the vote comes through, if there is a choice to move from what we

have to something else, there will be a legislative committee struck to make

sure we go through that. After that, there will be an electoral boundaries

process put in place, which happens every ten years, to determine what the

system will look like.

Now, I appreciate that what the Liberals want is to put some water on

something and have it ready-made. It doesn’t work that way. The first order of

business: ask the people what they want — yes or no. That’s what we’re

doing.

I’m terribly sorry, hon. Speaker. I’m terribly sorry that those on the

other side of the House can no longer bank on their corporate backers. I’m

terribly sorry they can no longer form a majority without a majority of the

votes, but that’s what change is all about, Members.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. J. Horgan: Get used to it, because it’s been here for a year, and it’s going to be

here for three more.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMMISSIONER

APPOINTMENT

COMMITTEE

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

Appoint a Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

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

Motion approved.

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

report.

Leave granted.

R. Singh: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would

like to make some brief comments.

This report constitutes the committee’s unanimous recommendations for

the appointment of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. The committee is very

pleased to recommend to the House that Mr. Paul Fraser, QC, be reappointed as

Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Mr. Fraser has provided strong and effective

leadership as Conflict of Interest Commissioner since he was first appointed in

2008. The committee was impressed by his expertise, experience and reputation

and is confident in his ability to continue overseeing the conflict-of-interest

provisions for members.

In closing, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Deputy

Chair, the member for Vernon-Monashee, and to all committee members for their

work on this committee. Also, I would like to give my big thank-you to the

Office of the Clerk, particularly Kate Ryan-Lloyd and Karan Riarh.

E. Foster: I, too, would like to commend the staff from the Office of the Clerk of

Committees, our Chair and the other members of the committee for the work that

we did. I’m very pleased that we were able to recommend Mr. Paul Fraser, QC,

for reappointment. Again, thank you to the committee and the staff for their

diligent and prompt work as we moved forward on this.

Congratulations to Mr. Fraser.

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

Motion approved.

[2:45 p.m.]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

COMMISSIONER

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

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

appointment of Mr. Paul Fraser, Q.C., as an officer of the Legislative Assembly

to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Conflict of Interest

Commissioner, for a term of five years, pursuant to

section 14 of the

Members’ Conflict of Interest Act (RSBC 1996, c. 287).]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Reports from Committees

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

N. Simons: I have the honour to present the second report by the Select Standing

Committee on Children and Youth for this session. The report summarizes the

committee’s activities in 2017 and ’18. I move that this report be taken as

read and received.

Motion approved.

N. Simons: I seek leave of the House.

Leave granted.

N. Simons: I move that the report be adopted, and in so doing, I’d like to make a

few comments.

As reflected in this annual report, the committee has been very active

in this past year. Since 2006, the committee’s purpose has been to serve as a

public forum for reviewing the reports of the Representative for Children and

Youth. Since receiving its terms of reference last October, the committee

reviewed seven reports from the representative, including several that were

released during the previous parliament. During this time, the committee also

completed its review of the Representative for Children and Youth Act, as

required by that act, and presented its recommendations to the Legislative

Assembly in February.

I’d like to thank each and every member of the committee for their

dedication and thoughtful contributions, especially the Deputy Chair, the

member for Parksville-Qualicum — but really every member who had an interest in

shining a light on our child- and youth-serving systems in hopes of making them

better. Thanks also go to the very capable and generous assistance of the

Office of the Clerk of Committees, in particular Kate Ryan-Lloyd and Alayna van

Leeuwen.

On behalf of the committee, I’d also like to take this opportunity to

thank Bernard Richard, the second Representative for Children and Youth, for

his distinguished service to our province. We’re all grateful to Mr. Richard

for taking on the role, for the relationships he nurtured and strengthened, for

his even-handedness and for the many hours he spent with our committee

discussing important matters related to the well-being of British Columbia’s

children and youth.

He didn’t stay as long as many would have liked, but I would point out

that one of the reasons cited for his decision to return to New Brunswick was

to be closer to his family. As a committee for children and youth with

particular sensitivity and understanding of that important relationship, we

wish him well in his future endeavours as he returns to the

Maritimes.

Merci , Monsieur Richard.

M. Stilwell: It’s my honour and my privilege, as the Deputy Chair of the Select

Standing Committee on Children and Youth, to speak in favour of adopting this

report.

Upon receiving the terms of reference in October, we’ve certainly been

hard at work serving the public as a venue for reporting those reports

completed by Bernard Richard, British Columbians’ Representative for Children

and Youth. Certainly, his passion was very evident in the quality of his work

and the reports that he submitted to be reviewed by the committee. He spent a

great deal of time working closely with our committee, on top of various other

responsibilities, working hard to increase the well-being of children and youth

across this province.

I would like to echo the comments from our Chair, my colleague from

Powell River–Sunshine Coast, in thanking Mr. Richard for his distinguished

service to our province. I thank him for his passion, his dedication and his

influence that he had on the lives of many young people around our province in

British Columbia in his tenure. Even though, as mentioned, it wasn’t as long as

we had anticipated or wished for, he certainly was an asset to our province and

our committee. We thank him for his time, as well as all members for

contributing their thoughts and insights in our discussions and

collaborations.

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

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Robinson: I have the honour to present the B.C. Assessment 2017 Annual Service

Plan Report .

Petitions

J. Johal: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in

Richmond-Queensborough. The petition is signed by 2,000 residents in Queensborough

in regards to a proposed modular housing development. Residents are requesting the

provincial government work with New Westminster to extend the timeline for

community consultation on this project.

[2:50 p.m.]

M. Hunt: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Hunt: In the gallery right now is the first of two groups of grade 5 students

from Surrey Centre Elementary School who are with us. I had the privilege of

spending an hour with them in class a couple of weeks ago, and now they’re coming

to actually see us in the House. I ask the House to all, please, make them

welcome.

Petitions

J. Rustad: I also rise to present a petition. It’s signed by 1,775 people who have

expressed concern with a potential reclassification of the Germansen–North

Road.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I rise to present a petition signed by 229 residents of the Kispiox Valley,

the Hazeltons and surrounding communities. Proportionally speaking, that’s

probably thousands and thousands, compared to some of the other communities. They

are asking and requesting the paving of the Kispiox Valley road beyond the Kispiox

village.

Standing Order 35

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF

URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE —

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

M. Polak: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35 to move adjournment of the House to

discuss a matter of definite and urgent public importance, specifically the

report and recommendations of the Attorney General on the 2018 electoral reform

referendum. I will provide copies of my position.

The urgency of the debate arises from at least two circumstances:

(1) there being very little time remaining in this current session and (2) there

being no certainty that the House will reconvene prior to the referendum on

proportional representation.

Erskine May, 23rd edition, page 310 states: “In coming to his decision,

the Speaker is expected to have regard to the probability of the matter being

brought before the House in time by other means.” Under the circumstances, it

is highly unlikely that the matter will be brought before the House by other

means.

With respect to

section 10 of Standing Order 35, the motion is well

within the limitations as outlined, specifically with respect to subsection

(c): “the motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been

discussed in the same Session.”

I have provided numerous examples from Hansard , which are

attached, wherein the Attorney refuses to entertain debate on the matter,

citing a future date when information would be released. That information was,

in fact, released just this morning.

These statements from the Attorney also serve to support my submission

that this is a new matter rather than an ongoing one, as described on page 85

of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , fourth

edition.

Finally, I wish to point out that while practice recommendation No. 8

suggests that as a courtesy, written notice of this motion should be given,

practice recommendation No. 7 provides additional context. “While this is not

always possible, in those instances where the matter is known in advance,

members are encouraged by this practice recommendation to give notice to the

Speaker.” This matter having been revealed this morning, there was no

reasonable opportunity to provide notice to the Speaker.

In closing, I submit that the 60 minutes of debate allowed for under

Standing Order 35 does not constitute an unreasonable interruption of the

regular business of the House. I hope the government and the Third Party will

agree. If Mr. Speaker should find my request in order, I propose that prior to

considering leave to commence the debate, the respective House Leaders meet to

determine an agreeable time for that debate to occur.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the interventions from the House Leader and their request

under Standing Order 35.

I would make a couple of observations at this point. One, in terms of

the notice, notice is always appreciated, and notice does help to make things,

in fact, move smoother. It is not a surprise that this report came down today.

The report has been anticipated for quite some time now. In fact, the Attorney

General indicated that the report would be coming down on a

Wednesday.

Given the nature of the issue before us and the importance of the issue,

then perhaps the opposition had ample opportunity ahead of time to say: “We

would like to have an emergency debate on this.”

I’d also like to comment on the issue around the urgency of debate on

the matter. The fact of the matter is that this chamber has already debated

legislation around principles of the report that the Attorney General has

tabled today.

[2:55 p.m.]

We had significant debate on that at second reading and committee stage.

So there is not, in the government’s view, an urgency in terms of requiring an

urgent debate on the matter.

Again, I would also say that the topic has been canvassed during

question period over this session. The fact of the matter is that, again, I

would say that that does not meet the test in terms of the urgency of debate.

Therefore, hon. Speaker, I would ask that the request be denied.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, I’ll take your comments under

advisement.

S. Furstenau: We had no notice that this motion was going to be introduced. However,

having listened to both of the House Leaders for the other parties, I would say

that, ultimately, we don’t object to a debate on this. I think that 60 minutes

of debate in the House wouldn’t be an unreasonable request.

I do know that for the opposition party, as well as for us and the

governing party, the issue of being able to put the question to British

Columbians about the future of our electoral system is a very important issue.

So we don’t object to a 60-minute debate on this in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Again, I will take this under advisement and report back to the House

with a decision before the end of the day. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the estimates of debate for the Ministry of the

Attorney General. Subsequent to that, I will call the estimates of the Premier. In

Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, will be the estimates debate of the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and in

Section C, it will be the estimates of

the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

[3:00 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 3:04 p.m.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $470,469,000

(continued) .

M. Lee: I’d like to just turn to the area of the Attorney General’s mandate in

respect of being responsible to move forward on calls to action and reviewing

policy, programs and legislation to determine how to bring the principles of

UNDRIP into action in British Columbia.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’d just like to ask the Attorney General what the status is currently

of the Attorney General’s review — that is, how many policies, programs and

items of legislation have been reviewed currently?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two components to government’s commitment to Indigenous people

with respect to the Ministry of Attorney General and government generally. One

is in relation to UNDRIP, as the member mentioned. The other is in relation to

the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action. There are a number of

actions for the TRC across government to implement the 94 separate calls to

action, including change to the K-to-12 curriculum, a proposal for an

Indigenous social policy framework and recommendations related to the potential

development of an Indigenous reconciliation framework.

On the UNDRIP commitments, which are really, for the Ministry of

Attorney General, a commitment to work in partnership with Indigenous people

around their priorities in relation to the justice system as true partners,

there are a number of significant initiatives underway. In the coming days, we

will be participating in a forum that we are co-hosting with the Aboriginal

Justice Council. The agenda has been set by the Aboriginal Justice Council in

consultation with other Indigenous groups that work on justice issues across

the province.

Day 1 is the Indigenous groups meeting together to discuss priorities.

On days 2 and 3, we’re convening members of the justice system — chief

justices, a chief judge, representatives of Corrections, representatives of

sheriffs, counsel, everyone you can imagine associated with the justice system.

We’re coming together to participate in and facilitate a discussion about

reconciliation and the justice system and priorities. All of this is aimed at

ensuring that we are achieving the UNDRIP commitment of having Indigenous

people as true partners in a justice strategy that affects them in the

priorities of our ministry.

This work is informed and supported by something we did very early on,

in September of 2017, which was to sign an agreement, a memorandum of

understanding, with the Aboriginal Justice Council.

[3:10 p.m.]

The Aboriginal Justice Council is a council conceived of and implemented

by the senior leadership groups of First Nations in British Columbia. In

particular, we agreed to jointly develop an Indigenous justice strategy with a

focus on reconciliation with Indigenous people; decreasing the

overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system; improving the

experience of Indigenous people within the justice system; addressing violence

against Indigenous people, especially women and girls; engagement with

Indigenous communities and organizations in a respectful and culturally

appropriate manner; improving access to justice services by Indigenous people;

and designing services that provide Indigenous people with culturally relevant,

flexible and user-focused processes.

This work towards an Indigenous justice strategy, conceived in

partnership with Indigenous people of British Columbia, will guide the Ministry

of Attorney General’s work into the future. It is obviously a significant piece

of work. I’m very honoured to be working with the Aboriginal Justice Council

and their partners on this.

I’m very much looking forward to…. It’s actually June 1 and 2 that I

will be with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety. I believe the Leader

of the Opposition is invited and, certainly, leadership within the justice

system. The whole point of this conversation is designing and implementing an

Indigenous justice strategy.

In short, in answer to the member’s question, the direction of the work

and the work that we’re doing is being directed by and in partnership with

Indigenous people themselves through the Aboriginal Justice Council. The work

is well underway. I’m grateful to him for the question.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the Attorney, including the invitation

through his office to attend that Justice Summit on the first and second of

June. I will certainly be doing that. I appreciate that update.

As I’m hearing the response…. That specific review of policies, programs

and legislation is specific to the Attorney General’s Ministry, as opposed to

across the board in terms of what his role will be. My question to the Attorney

General is: will he be playing a role across ministries in terms of reviewing

policies, programs and legislation to bring into place the principles of

UNDRIP?

Hon. D. Eby: As the member knows, Ministry of Attorney General lawyers provide

support across government, including in relation to Indigenous reconciliation

initiatives.

I can give a couple of high-profile projects that…. Ministry of Attorney

General staff are supporting the work of different ministries on reconciliation

initiatives. With respect to the Ministry of Children and Family Development,

there are a set of recommendations the member will be familiar with from Chief

Ed John that were made to government. Our ministry is providing support to the

Ministry of Children and Family Development with respect to the Parents Legal

Centre.

[3:15 p.m.]

The government has provided about $11 million of additional funding,

about $3.8 million annually, to support the expansion of the Parents Legal

Centre to additional communities. This is consistent with Grand Chief Ed John’s

report that was provided to government. In particular, this is related to

direct Ministry of Attorney General mandate letter priorities around improving

and supporting legal aid, including First Nations legal services. It’s also in

relation to MCFD priorities around ensuring Indigenous connectedness and

reunification — that that report is implemented and that we achieve better

outcomes for Indigenous families and children.

As another example of cross-ministerial work that the Ministry of

Attorney General is participating in, we are supporting the Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation in their efforts to put forward

principles for the public service — ten principles guiding public servants in

our approach and relationship with Indigenous people. Those ten principles are

out in draft, and we’re receiving comment and feedback on those ten principles.

That effort is being supported by Ministry of Attorney General

lawyers.

In addition, we are working with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation on our approach to litigation, treaty rights and title to

ensure that the positions that we take in court and that we take in relation to

treaty negotiations are consistent with our commitment to UNDRIP and TRC. Those

are two examples where Ministry of Attorney General staff are taking a

significant role in supporting the work of other ministries.

There is a lot of interministerial work going on. It’s a bit complicated

to pull pieces out because there are Ministry of Attorney General lawyers that

are basically seconded to different departments that provide support in the

day-to-day work that they do on reconciliation. But there are definitely some

projects, like the two that I listed there, that are higher-profile projects

where we have additional resources dedicated to those efforts.

M. Lee: I appreciate the breakdown and the examples of a number of projects. I

just wanted to touch on the last two that the Attorney referenced. The first

one was the draft principles, ten of which are being circulated for feedback.

Could I ask the Attorney to expand on what those principles are and the nature

of the consultation process around those principles?

Hon. D. Eby: The ten principles are based on federal principles that were put forward

to bring our efforts in some concert with the federal government’s efforts.

Obviously, Indigenous reconciliation and relationships with First Nations

people are a shared responsibility between the levels of government, and the

federal government has an important role to play. So what we’re trying to do is

ensure our efforts are not undermining initiatives the federal government is

undertaking in relation to reconciliation but support those efforts and vice

versa. We’re working together to try to start a new relationship with

Indigenous people.

The ten principles. The first principle is that the province of B.C.

recognizes that all relations with Indigenous peoples need to be based on the

recognition and implementation of their right to self-determination, including

the inherent right of self-government.

The second is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that

reconciliation is a fundamental purpose of

section 35 of the Constitution

Act.

The third is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that the

honour of the Crown guides the conduct of the Crown in all of its dealings with

Indigenous people.

The fourth is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that

Indigenous self-government is part of Canada’s evolving system of cooperative

federalism and distinct orders of government.

The fifth is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that

treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between Indigenous

people and the Crown have been and are intended to be acts of reconciliation

based on mutual recognition and respect.

The sixth is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that

meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples aims to secure their free, prior

and informed consent when B.C. proposes to take actions which impact them and

their rights, including their lands, territories and resources.

The seventh is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that

respecting and implementing rights is essential and that any infringement of

section 35 rights must by law meet a high threshold of justification which

includes Indigenous perspectives and satisfies the Crown’s fiduciary

obligations.

[3:20 p.m.]

The eighth is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that

reconciliation and self-government require a renewed fiscal relationship

developed in collaboration with the federal government and Indigenous nations

that promotes a mutually supportive climate for economic partnership and

resource development.

The ninth is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that

reconciliation is an ongoing process that occurs in the context of evolving

Crown-Indigenous relationships.

The tenth is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that a

distinctions-based approach is needed to ensure that the unique rights,

interests and circumstances of Indigenous peoples in B.C. are acknowledged,

affirmed and implemented.

M. Lee: Just a quick follow-up to that before talking about a few of those

principles. What is the status of the engagement process to consult on these

principles, and how will that unfold?

Hon. D. Eby: The leadership on this file is coming from the Ministry of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation. I can tell the member that there are several

internal bodies currently responsible for the implementation of principles

across government.

It includes an ADM committee, chaired by Ministry of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation Assistant Deputy Minister Jessica Wood, which will

work closely with the statutory decision–makers working group, on the practical

application of the principles, as well as the B.C. Public Service Agency, on

complementary efforts such as the diversity and inclusion action

plan.

Over the next several months, there will be a plan to bring the

principles into operation. Kurt Sandstrom from my ministry, Rachel Holmes from

the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Monica Cox from

emergency management B.C are leading that work in terms of what’s happening. So

it is a cross-ministry effort that’s taking place, and the coordination of this

effort is happening in the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation.

M. Lee: I wanted to, if I could, touch on a few of the principles that the

Attorney outlined. In terms of principle 7, of course, we’ve seen over three

decades’ worth of litigation in Canada on

section 35 items and rights in terms

of Aboriginal rights and title. It sounds like principle 7 acknowledges the

body of casework decisions that have been put in place in terms of the case law

dealing with First Nations rights and title in Canada and in this

province.

In the Attorney General’s opinion, is that a settled area of the law

currently in this province?

Hon. D. Eby: Certainly, by law, it is established that any infringement of

section 35

rights, which are Indigenous rights recognized by the Canadian constitution,

must by law meet a high threshold of justification, which includes Indigenous

perspectives, and satisfies the Crown’s fiduciary obligations. The disputes

tend to arise around whether or not the threshold of justification has been met

and whether or not the Crown has satisfied fiduciary obligations.

Certainly, it’s our perspective that respecting the rights of First

Nations people and ensuring that they are implemented is essential. In terms of

the law, there’s no dispute about these rights and the obligations of the

Crown. But there’s often dispute about the thresholds and whether or not the

Crown has satisfied necessary fiduciary obligations.

[3:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: With that in mind, is his ministry, on behalf of the government,

developing a new approach to Aboriginal rights and title litigation in view of

UNDRIP?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, we are. The concern that I have in terms of the mandate letter that

I’ve been given is to make sure that when we are making arguments in court,

those arguments are consistent with our commitment to operate within the terms

of the TRC and the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples.

In particular, in civil litigation — as I’ll just use as an example —

when you receive a statement of claim, you could provide a defence that says

you have to prove that your nation existed. You have to prove that you existed

in this particular area. You have to put the plaintiff to strict proof of every

single piece of the argument. Some of those defence arguments could be

incredibly offensive to a First Nation, in that the government would be saying:

“We don’t accept that your nation even exists. You have to prove that in

court.”

In some cases, there can be arguments about these kinds of issues, and

in some cases, it doesn’t advance the case. It slows it down, and it may be

offensive to the plaintiff. It may be quite obvious that the First Nation did

exist and was in this area. So having a look and making sure that our legal

arguments stay focused on the areas of dispute and that they don’t

unintentionally make reconciliation harder than it already is, in terms of the

challenge of this work and the many years that it will take to do the

reconciliation work that we need to do in this province, is the

goal.

We’re in very early stages of that review of how we do litigation to

ensure that our pleadings and arguments are consistent with our commitments and

that we are also ensuring that we are engaged in that delicate balance of

protecting rights of Indigenous people and also the responsibilities of the

Crown otherwise.

It’s a challenging and very sensitive area, but we are engaging in that

work. We’re fortunate in that the federal government, who we often find

ourselves in court with or in title discussions with on these matters, are

engaging in similar work. What we’re trying to do is pair up our work so that

when we arrive in court together, when we’re engaging in negotiations together,

we are working from a similar framework and a similar set of shared

understandings. That will facilitate not just reconciliation with Indigenous

people but also, hopefully, efficiencies within the court system

generally.

M. Lee: Certainly, we appreciate the importance of the work that the Attorney

General is outlining and the thoughtful approach that’s being utilized, of

course, because it is so fundamentally important.

It’s been commented, of course, that the

section 35 litigation case law

in Canada — and British Columbia, in particular — has been leading edge in

terms of defining and recognizing Aboriginal rights and title in a respectful,

meaningful and substantive way.

In looking at UNDRIP and the government’s commitment to adhere to the

principles under UNDRIP, has the government previously received any external

legal advice in terms of whether its own approach to UNDRIP needs to be limited

or constrained in any way based on the body of case law work under

section

35?

Hon. D. Eby: If we had received such advice, it would be subject to solicitor-client

privilege, and we wouldn’t be able to talk about it here,

unfortunately.

[3:30 p.m.]

M. Lee: If I heard that response correctly, just to reconfirm, the Attorney

General’s ministry has received advice but is not able to discuss it in this

forum. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I indicated that if we had received such advice, we wouldn’t be able to

talk about it because of solicitor-client privilege. I can tell the member that

we regularly engage external counsel on all manner of files, including

Indigenous rights and titles files. The advice that we receive from counsel on

those files is privileged. So if we had received such advice as the member

describes, I wouldn’t be able it talk about it here.

M. Lee: Well, thank you for that clarification. I think that, obviously, this is

a forum to have a discussion regarding the approach of government through the

budget estimates process and the expenditures that are being done by the

ministry. Perhaps, as we go forward, there will be opportunities to understand

how the ministry is being advised or how they’re looking at UNDRIP, because

there is consideration and concern regarding the expectations that have been

put out by the government in dealing with certain disputes with First Nations

in the province.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Let me ask this question — through you, Mr. Chair, through the

switchover here — to the Attorney. Has there been a change in approach to

informed consent, assurance of that, by the province in the various situations

that might present themselves for government decision-making — like Site C, LNG

projects or other projects that face decision-making in this province? Has

there been a change in approach by this government, in view of UNDRIP, to

ensuring that there has been free, prior and informed consent?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Sections 18, 19 and 23 of UNDRIP raise the issue of free, prior and

informed consent in the international human rights document that is

UNDRIP.

In Canada, we have, in our constitution,

section 35, which deals with

the rights of Indigenous people in Canada. There is a significant amount of

jurisprudence under

section 35 that has significant implications that relate to

free, prior and informed consent and consultation duties and standards imposed

on the Crown in relation to the concept of the honour of the Crown in dealing

with Indigenous peoples in Canada and, specifically for us, for the province,

working with Indigenous people in British Columbia.

First of all, we see our free, prior and informed consent obligations

through the lens of

section 35, as does the federal government, and the federal

Justice Minister has spoken very eloquently about that. I can tell the member

that the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the Ministry

of Attorney General staff have a working group in relation to new policy

related to how we approach free, prior and informed consent as it’s described

in the UNDRIP document but in the Canadian context of

section 35 obligations as

well — to make sure that our approach is consistent with what the UNDRIP

document is telling us and Indigenous people are telling us is the appropriate

approach. That work is underway.

I can also tell the member that the federal government is also engaged

in its own work on this issue. They have their own working group on this as

well. It’s critically important, given the nature of many of these projects,

having aspects that are federal and provincial, that the Indigenous

relationship with the Crown includes the federal Crown and the provincial

Crown. It’s important that we, as best as possible, sync up and ensure our work

is consistent with the approach of the federal government as well.

There is work underway on it. It is too early to advise the member on

any changes in approach, but I can tell the member that the

section 35

jurisprudence is informing very much our understanding of sections 18, 19 and

23 of UNDRIP.

M. Lee: I appreciate that response. I appreciate that it is a complex area,

including involving the federal government in terms of ensuring that we have a

consistent approach in this country, as both the federal and provincial

governments have supported UNDRIP in Canada and in British Columbia.

I think it’s helpful to hear from the Attorney that

section 35

jurisprudence is really the cornerstone through which the commitments under

sections 18, 19 and 23 in UNDRIP would be viewed. The words “through the lens

section 35” I think…. It’s helpful to know that that is something that we

continue to apply here in British Columbia.

Can I just ask, though…? The tenth principle spoke to some elements of

differences, recognizing there might be distinctions in the approach that might

occur. Could I ask the Attorney just to comment on how that principle might

operate in terms of distinctions in this area?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a clarifying paragraph in relation to principle 10 on the draft

document that’s been circulated. The principle itself is that the province of

British Columbia recognizes that a distinctions-based approach is needed to

ensure that the unique rights, interests and circumstances of Indigenous

peoples in B.C. are acknowledged, affirmed and implemented.

The clarifying paragraph reads as follows: “The province recognizes

First Nations, the Métis Nation and Inuit as the Indigenous peoples of Canada,

consisting of distinct, rights-bearing communities with their own histories,

including with the Crown. The work of forming renewed relationships based on

the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership must reflect

the unique interests, priorities and circumstances of each people.”

As loath as I am to attempt to summarize this, my own personal

summary

of it would be that sometimes there’s a tendency to say “Indigenous people” and

refer to that group as a whole, without distinction. This principle draws out

distinctions between different Indigenous groups in the province with different

histories and relationships with the Crown and the need for the Crown to

recognize the unique interests, priorities and circumstances of each of British

Columbia’s Indigenous people.

Certainly, even these three groups — First Nations, Métis Nation and

Inuit — within themselves have distinct communities with different histories

and unique circumstances in their relationship with the Crown. So the principle

is attempting to underline that we should do our best to avoid the mistake of

imagining Indigenous peoples in B.C. as one homogeneous group and that there

needs to be a distinctions-based approach to recognize unique history and

relationship with the Crown.

M. Lee: I appreciate that we’re right about at our time estimation for the

balance of AG estimates, but if I could ask the Attorney and his team to extend

the opportunity for my colleague the member for Skeena to ask a follow-on

question. The member for Cowichan Valley also has a few additional questions,

and I may have one last question which is related to this area but not

specifically what we’ve been speaking to, if that’s okay.

E. Ross: To the Attorney General, thanks for the comments regarding UNDRIP,

especially the comment through the lens of

section 35. I’m just going to assume

that that means all the ensuing case law that further defined

section 35. Also,

I was glad to hear that there was an assessment done, in terms of reviewing —

legally as well as a policy adviser’s — UNDRIP in light of the government

decisions that they made, and even arguments being made in court.

My issue with UNDRIP has always been the uncertainty it’ll cause. I

always viewed UNDRIP principles as, basically, protocol statements, protocol

principles that were 36 years too late in terms of being implemented in Canada.

I’m referring to 1982,

section 35. I really felt that we had come a long, long

way since 1982, and I thought that all the case law provided a tremendous

amount of certainty on all sides.

In canvassing your colleagues, not only in these estimates but in the

last session as well, I was just trying to understand how the Crown would

employ its decision-making in light of UNDRIP, especially when we’re talking

about the case law principles that have to be followed when we’re talking about

what the Attorney General referred to as offensive.

We’re talking about courts, of course, in terms of First Nations having

to prove what is referred to as strength of claim. Strength of claim is

actually really important to First Nations, and it’s an offensive term for

First Nations when there’s more than one First Nation involved in claiming a

certain territory. Part of the Crown’s duty is to assess the strength of claim

and then base its level of consultation and accommodation on that. That’s the

way I’ve always viewed it.

[3:45 p.m.]

My question is pretty specific in terms of the Crown’s decision-making.

I’m not talking about programs; I’m not talking about the Aboriginal Justice

Council. I’m talking specifically on the infringement of rights and title when

it comes to the infringement of said rights and title.

I truly suspect that First Nations believe that if they can’t get the

answer they need under existing case law, then they’ll turn to UNDRIP, and

they’ll use the idea of consent under UNDRIP versus existing case law. Is that

the Attorney General’s opinion? Or is there a different opinion from the

Attorney General and the office?

Hon. D. Eby: The Supreme Court of Canada has given some guidance to the Crown. One of

the challenges, of course, as the member noted, is that

section 35 was not

filled in at the time that it became the Constitution of Canada. It’s been left

to the courts to fill in the details of what

section 35 means.

In the Haida case, there was guidance from the court that government

must consult and accommodate even before a group establishes title. In the

Tsilhqot’in case more recently, the court said: “You have this Haida

obligation, but that doesn’t prevent you from going out and attempting to get

consent in advance. You are not bound to Haida to consult and accommodate. You

could go out and get consent in advance, even before a group has proven

title.”

They’re trying to encourage the Crown and Indigenous groups to resolve

these matters, to seek consent and avoid court if possible. So the court has

given us this guidance to go out and try to get consent in advance. I think

that’s a very sound piece of advice from the court, because I don’t believe

personally, having seen many court processes, that it is an atmosphere that

leads to reconciliation.

If we can avoid court processes, if we can seek consent in advance, that

provides the greatest amount of certainty for people and the greatest

possibility for reconciliation, so there is a possibility for us to go beyond

the

section 35 obligations.

[3:50 p.m.]

E. Ross: Thank you to the Attorney General for that answer. I’m in 100 percent in

agreement with that. In fact, that’s why I’m questioning UNDRIP in the manner I

am. I don’t want First Nations to end up going to court trying to define what

can’t be defined in terms of government decision-making. I just see UNDRIP as a

political document that came too late.

The Attorney General mentioned the Haida court case. The Tsilhqot’in

case actually highered that threshold, in terms of consultation and

accommodation efforts that had to be put forward by the Crown.

My concern is that First Nations, given the generality of UNDRIP and

explanations of UNDRIP, will believe that consent is actually a veto. They’ll

exercise all the case law principles, and they will not like the outcome of a

government decision, so they will move to the provision of consent under

UNDRIP.

I’ve heard a number of times a number of different government officials

as well as politicians say that consent does not equal a veto. Well, these

First Nations leaders don’t believe that. In terms of tenures for fish farms,

in terms of authorizations for a project like Kinder Morgan or LNG, it’s

becoming more apparent that First Nations are placing all their efforts into

UNDRIP and the consent clause.

Because my colleague here covered off the principles of the issue very

well, my last question, based on the answers I got from your colleagues in

other estimates sessions, is the idea of UNDRIP being a human rights document

in the context of government decision-making. I’m trying to understand that in

the context of consent.

There are 220,000 Aboriginals in B.C. As a human rights document…. I

always believed that human rights was actually an individual right. I’ve been

trying to understand whether or not when it comes to a human rights document,

when you’re talking about infringement of rights and title, this means that the

Crown will be seeking the consent of 220,000 individual Aboriginal people and

not really looking at the principle of case law where Aboriginal rights and

title is actually held on behalf of a community, not on behalf of

individuals.

Hon. D. Eby: The UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples is similar to the

case law in Canada in that it recognizes…. It’s an unusual thing in a human

rights document to recognize group rights. Typically, human rights documents,

as the member says, recognize an individual’s rights. It might have a

particular barrier that they’re facing, or it might make them subject to

discrimination, or it might give them a right to do something, like to vote or

to speak freely.

[3:55 p.m.]

The declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples talks about group

rights. So to the member’s question: if you have 220,000 people, are you going

to go around and get everybody to say: “I agree with that”? It’s about ensuring

that government has, as best as possible, the consent of the representatives of

a particular nation or a group of people who have rights that are at play in a

particular situation.

The importance of consent does extend beyond simple title lands. What

we’re looking for are chances to build opportunities, to build processes and

approaches to secure consent and innovative mechanisms to really build in

collaboration and consensus and new ways of working together that are less

court-based, if we can. It sounds like the member on the other side is on the

same page on that. I’m glad to hear it, because the court cases appear to be

driving divisions rather than bringing people together. A lot of resources go

into court that could be better spent, on both sides, in rebuilding and doing

the work of reconciliation.

To the member’s specific question on whether you go to all 220,000-plus

people to try to get individual consent from everybody on a particular project,

that’s not what the UNDRIP document suggests; nor is it the

section 35

jurisprudence.

S. Furstenau: Just a few questions on a few different things. I want to start with

family law.

The budget commits to approximately $11 million in funding to the Legal

Services Society to support the expansion of Parents Legal Centre to additional

communities, consistent with the recommendations from Chief Ed John’s report on

Indigenous child welfare. My questions are: which communities will the Parents

Legal Centre be expanded to, how are these communities selected as areas of

need, and how much of the $11 million in funding will be provided to the

different centres?

Hon. D. Eby: The government has approved $3.8 million annually, 2018 to 2021, for

expansion of the Parents Legal Centre model. Of this, $2.8 million is through

access to contingencies in the Ministry of Finance, consistent with the

practices in the funding of new programs. Consultation is currently underway

with Indigenous communities and stakeholders in various municipalities to

determine locations, including urban, rural and remote options for

implementation. Informed by these consultations, the Legal Services Society

plans to expand the model for several new sites in this fiscal year.

The core of these Parents Legal Centres is their effort to try to

resolve cases consensually, out of court, which is obviously a benefit to

families and to the limited resources of the court system, and to try to find

alternative methods to address child protection issues before they escalate to

require court processes. It’s something consistent with Grand Chief Ed John’s

recommendations and seems like good, practical common sense to me.

S. Furstenau: There’s also a commitment in the budget to expand on-line legal services

for remote and rural communities. My questions are: how much of the $10 million

delegated for initiatives that include digital access will go towards the

actual digital access? And what initiatives to improving digital access will be

accompanied with educational initiatives so that remote and rural citizens are

able to use the digital resources in an accessible and helpful way?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. The on-line spending by the

ministry is actually contained in three different line items that we’ve got.

We’re just trying to find the breakout of the on-line from the bricks and

mortar, essentially. What would be easiest, if the member is agreeable, is if

we could provide her with that answer in the days ahead, when we break out

those numbers for her with descriptions of the various projects.

S. Furstenau: That’d be fine. I appreciate the significant efforts being made back

here. So that would be fine.

Just moving to the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in prisons.

In the ministry service plan, addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous

people in the justice system is identified as a priority area. Can the minister

indicate what portion of the ministry’s budget is dedicated to addressing this?

What concrete steps has this funding already been used for? How will the

overrepresentation be addressed as an ongoing process? And what is the ideal

result?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re very fortunate to have a partnership in place with the Aboriginal

Justice Council that we are working with to develop an Indigenous justice

strategy for the province. The justice strategy deals with overrepresentation

of Indigenous people and will deal with overrepresentation of Indigenous people

in the justice system generally, whether it’s in the child protection area,

whether it’s in the criminal justice system.

One of the principles that we’re working on is the idea that we should

do this work in partnership with Indigenous people. That’s why, in September of

2017, we entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Aboriginal Justice

Council to design exactly this strategy, including capacity funding in the

amount of $400,000 over two years for the council to be able to participate

with us in this work.

They were our partners in developing the Justice Summit that is

happening this weekend. Part of the work of that is to bring key actors in the

justice system together with Indigenous people and provide them with the

opportunity to come together and discuss how we reduce

overrepresentation.

[4:05 p.m.]

Beyond that, funding from access to the contingencies vote in the

Ministry of Finance totals $7.4 million in 2018-19, related to various

Indigenous-related initiatives related to overrepresentation. That’s $2.8

million for the expansion of paralegal centres, which we’re consulting with

Indigenous communities right now about, plus $4.6 million to increase criminal

legal aid services, including increased access to Gladue reports and expanded

use of criminal duty counsel, especially in First Nations courts, under a new

federal-provincial cost-sharing agreement.

There are a number of different specific, on-the-ground initiatives

related to Gladue reports, which are the reports related to sentencing that go

to a judge that explain the particular circumstances of the individual in front

of them and recognize the specific circumstances of First Nations

offenders.

We also have an expanding and very successful initiative started by

Chief Judge Crabtree, who was recently elevated to the B.C. Supreme Court, of

First Nations courts across the province. I had the honour to be at the opening

of the Mission First Nations court and the Prince George First Nations court.

We have other communities that are engaging in various stages of consultation

with the Ministry of Attorney General and the Chief Judge’s office to have

their own First Nations courts open as well.

There are a number of different fronts of work on this, but the key

piece will be the strategy and the plan, which we are developing in partnership

with Indigenous people themselves through the Aboriginal Justice Council

partnership that we have, and the work that’s going to happen, actually, this

weekend.

S. Furstenau: The minister mentions the Gladue reports as one of the key features

here, and they have been identified by many Indigenous advocates and those in

the legal profession as a concrete way to mitigate some of the impact brought

about by the systemic racism that has existed in our justice system for

Indigenous people.

The Legal Services Society has indicated they are severely underfunded

and were only able to produce around 100 reports in the 2017-2018 year. This is

a report for less than 20 percent of the 600 who required them by law in that

time period.

My question for the minister is: can the minister explain the shortfall

of Gladue reports and how he hopes to increase the number of these reports that

are going to be produced in B.C.?

Hon. D. Eby: For the first time, under this government, the Legal Services Society is

being provided funding to complete Gladue reports. I acknowledge the member’s

point, which is correct, that there is more demand than the funding currently

allows for Gladue reports to be done, but I have happy news for her in terms of

the number she has. It’s that LSS, currently, is advising us they’ll be able to

do 250 to 300 reports this year.

What we’re trying to do is establish a system where Gladue reports can

be done more efficiently. Many offenders come from rural and remote

communities, and the people who have the information about the backgrounds and

the circumstances of a particular offender are not easily reached by Gladue

report writers.

One of the tools we’re looking at, in partnership with initiatives

coming out of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services around increased rural

connectivity to the internet, is to provide an on-line system for collecting

the information to prepare Gladue reports to ensure that we can do more reports

for Indigenous people finding themselves in the justice system.

[4:10 p.m.]

The current situation of Gladue reports is not acceptable, and we’re

working on providing the infrastructure to address that. In the meantime, we’ve

provided an additional $700,000 earmarked for Gladue reports. For that, we’re

working with the Aboriginal Justice Council on decisions about how to move

forward to ensure we’re doing this in an appropriate way. So there are a number

of initiatives underway related to Gladue reports.

M. Lee: I wanted to say I appreciate the line of questions that the member for

Cowichan Valley had raised here. They covered one question in particular that I

wanted to cover, so we are actually complete at this point, because I’m

respectful of the time allocation that we’ve been provided.

Let me just say on behalf of the B.C. Liberal caucus, I appreciate the

time and effort for the Attorney General and his team to be here over the last

three days. Thank you very much for the thoroughness of the responses, and I

appreciate the assistance you provided here in this House.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you very much to the critic for his thoughtful questions and the

House Leader for the Third Party for her questions and the members who asked

questions during this session.

I wanted to recognize the staff who were here with me today. We’ve got

Paul Yearwood, James Harvey, Richard Fyfe and, behind me, Kurt Sandstrom,

senior members of the Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation through the Ministry of Attorney General. I’m very

grateful for their support this afternoon and couldn’t do it without staff.

They did a lot of work.

There’s a bunch of people in a room somewhere that are monitoring this

and providing additional information. So my gratitude to them as well, as well

as the folks from ICBC, BCLC, GPEB, the LDB and the liquor distribution folks.

There are lots to name who are involved in the estimates process. Thank you

again to my critic, the member for Richmond-Steveston and others for their

questions during this session.

Vote 14: ministry operations, $470,469,000 — approved.

Vote 15: judiciary, $79,254,000 — approved.

Vote 16: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 17: independent investigations office, $8,756,000 —

approved.

Hon. D. Eby: It sounds like we’re moving to Premier’s estimates. If we could just

have a second to change the staff and arrange for the Premier and the Leader of

the Opposition.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:13 p.m. to 4:22 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $11,305,000.

A. Wilkinson: The range of questions here will be covering a number of budgetary

items, and I hope that’s helpful to your support staff there.

First of all, we’ll come to the issue of the NDP promise during the

election campaign of a renters rebate of $400 per year, which doesn’t appear

anywhere in the budgetary documents.

I would ask the Premier to tell us, to the extent of his knowledge: was

that ever budgeted for, and was any amount concluded as to what it would cost?

And an explanation, perhaps, of why it’s not in the budget.

M. Hunt: Mr. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Hunt: In the House is the second group of grade 5 students from Surrey Centre who

are doing a tour with us today. We just want the House to make them welcome. I

appreciate the members opposite waving to them and making them feel very welcome

here in the House.

Debate Continued

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and welcome him to

his first estimates as Leader of the Opposition.

[4:25 p.m.]

With respect to the renters rebate, it was a commitment we made during the

election campaign. The member will know that when parties run for office, they

assume majority governments will follow. In our minority situation, we had a

discussion with our partners in the confidence and supply agreement about a

renters rebate, and there wasn’t consensus on that, so it has not been budgeted

for at this time.

However, I’d advise the member and members of this House that I have

appointed a Rental Housing Task Force that’s being chaired by the member for

Vancouver–West End. Two other members are on the committee: the member for

Courtenay-Comox and the member for Saanich North and the Islands. They’ve been

tasked with doing a consultation with landlords and tenants to look at a range of

issues. Among those would be whether or not to proceed with a renters

rebate.

While I have my feet, I’ll just introduce the staff that are with me today.

I’m joined by Okenge Yuma Morisho, the deputy minister for intergovernmental

affairs. Steven Klak, who’s the CFO for the Ministry of Finance, immediately

behind me, will be assisting on financial issues within my office. Vanessa Geary

is the executive director of operations. Geoff Meggs is the chief of staff to the

Premier, and Don Wright is the deputy to the Premier.

They’re the staff who’ll be with me today, and if need be, there’ll be

others brought in, depending on the line of questioning that the Leader of the

Opposition and the opposition members want to pursue.

A. Wilkinson: Just for clarity, the promise that was found in the platform document was:

“We will provide a refundable renters rebate of $400 per rental household in

British Columbia each year.” Now, that’s a broken promise, apparently, and

obviously the question arises: was that left by the wayside because the Premier

realized it would also have to apply to renters who pay $5,000, $10,000, $20,000 a

month?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the member will know that not all of the commitments in a platform

document are realized in the first 12 months of a government. We have not yet been

in office for a year. We are committed to ensuring that we’re making life better

for British Columbians, making life more affordable for the citizens of this great

province. One of those elements is trying to address the high cost of housing, not

just in the Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island but right across

B.C.

Renters are a significant component of the community. They are hard put

upon, in many instances, and we are committed to making some progress there.

That’s why, in our September budget update, we increased SAFER grants to reduce

costs for seniors, and we’ve been working with the residential tenancy branch to

ensure that there are more timely turnarounds on issues that affect renters and

landlords alike. We are far from finished with implementing our plan. I would

characterize it as a proposal not yet complete.

A. Wilkinson: So if it’s a proposal not yet complete, can we look forward to it in next

year’s budget, where renters, regardless of the amount of rent they pay, will be

provided with a rebate of roughly $1.10 per day?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member will know that the budget cycle in the province of British

Columbia starts in earnest in the fall, in preparation for the tabling of a

document in February, so it’s premature at this point to talk about where we will

be on that commitment. But again, as I said, we have a renters task force in play,

consulting with British Columbians, tenants and landlords alike. I’m sure that

that process will lead to more details about what we can and should proceed with

in the interests of bringing costs down for people that rent in British

Columbia.

I would suggest that the member stay tuned. As I say, we’re in month 10 of

our term of office, and we have much to do. I’m committed to making life better

for renters.

A. Wilkinson: Given that there are probably 1 million people renting in British Columbia,

was the Premier scared off by the fact that this would cost hundreds of millions

of dollars and be the source of some kind of deep disappointment in the media when

it was found out that people renting penthouses in downtown Vancouver for $10,000

a month would also gets the rebate?

Hon. J. Horgan: I think, again, the Leader of the Opposition is getting ahead of himself.

We have not implemented a policy, so to suggest that some people in the community

would be getting a benefit, or not, is premature.

[4:30 p.m.]

We’ll take a look at the fiscal situation, working hand in hand with the

Ministry of Finance, working with renters across B.C., and we’ll bring forward a

policy that will help those that need the help the most.

A. Wilkinson: Given that this would probably run into hundreds of millions of dollars, is

the Premier prepared to say that this is a priority that needs to be followed up,

given that it was an election promise? Or are there, perhaps, higher priorities,

like student aid and welfare services?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his question and his curiosity on this

matter.

We have taken numerous steps since we formed government. Last legislative

session, we brought in changes to the tenancy laws to ensure that landlords could

no longer take advantage of tenants on fixed-term tenancy agreements with a vacate

clause. We’ve done our best to ensure that geographic areas do not lead to

additional rent increases. We’ve reinforced the staff at the residential tenancy

branch so that they can better serve the needs of renters and landlords alike.

We’re committed to continuing on this course.

What the cost will be at the end of the day will be subject to Treasury

Board, the budget process and, finally, the determination of the Ministry of

Finance next year, or the year after that, as we continue through our

mandate.

A. Wilkinson: I will take that as a tentative no, in that the Premier is not prepared to

say that this is a priority compared to the other pressures on government. So we

can, I think, call that the fourth broken promise of the day after the three

earlier broken promises on proportional representation.

I’m going to turn to the previous page in the NDP platform, which is headed

by the title “Fixing the Housing Shortage: Building 114,000 Homes.” Now, the only

thing that I’ve been able to find in the NDP budget this year is 1,700 rentals to

be built, along with some modular housing for the homeless. So perhaps the Premier

can clarify. At this rate, it’ll take 67 years to satisfy that promise of building

114,000 rentals. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member will know that when we committed to a ten-year plan to address

the housing crisis in British Columbia, it was a result of hearing, on doorsteps

right across B.C., the challenges people were having in finding affordable

housing.