Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, October 24, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 281

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Al Martin

Hon. J. Horgan

Introductions by Members

Statements

Message of appreciation

Hon. M. Farnworth

Tributes

Al Martin

S. Thomson

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Agriculture industry and activities of animal rights

protesters

J. Martin

Primary health care services in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows

B. D’Eith

Public art in Ashcroft

J. Tegart

Diwali

R. Singh

Legacies of Saanich area residents

A. Olsen

History of Sutlej and reconciliation

R. Kahlon

Oral Questions

Court ruling on evidence rules in ICBC cases and impact on revenues

A. Wilkinson

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

Forest management and climate change mitigation

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Donaldson

Forest industry and value-added products

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Donaldson

Automobile insurance rates

J. Johal

Hon. D. Eby

J. Thornthwaite

Motions Without Notice

Membership change to Auditor General Appointment Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

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

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

C. Oakes

Point of Order (Chair’s Ruling)

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 36 — Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. D. Eby

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 36 — Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 33 — Securities Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

R. Sultan

S. Chandra Herbert

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2019

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

AL MARTIN

Hon. J. Horgan: I rise today to acknowledge the passing of Al Martin. My colleague

from Oak Bay–Gordon Head did this earlier in the week.

I know that members on the other side will have known Al as a

dedicated public servant, 30-odd years working on protecting fisheries

and wildlife issues for future generations. His passion for the

outdoors, his passion for the wildlife of British Columbia led him to

retirement and then a job with the B.C. Wildlife Federation working on

issues like sturgeon conservation, salmon habitat protection and, of

course, watershed restoration.

I’ve spoken with Al many times over the years, as a scolding

public servant telling me what was right, as a public servant myself and

later as an elected representative scolding me about what was right. Al

was very passionate about British Columbia. He was very passionate about

the spectacular splendour we have, whether it be our wildlife, our

natural abundance. The province is lesser as a result of his passing. It

was sudden. I know that his wife, Julie, and his three children are

grieving deeply.

As the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said, and I’m sure all

members would agree…. If the House could pass on their condolences to

the family as we reflect on the loss of a truly great British Columbian,

Al Martin.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the members for their tolerance of a slightly

longer-than-usual introduction/proclamation. This is the beginning of Access

to Justice Week in the province. As members know, access to justice is

fundamental to a vigorous and well-functioning democracy. It’s really only

possible when people are able to understand, use and afford information and

services that can help prevent, manage or resolve legal problems and

disputes and reach fair outcomes in a timely manner.

Next week law students will be exploring access to justice through

events to be held in Kamloops, Vancouver and Victoria as part of Access to

Justice Week in British Columbia. Access to Justice Week happens October 27

to November 2 and is led by the law schools — the school of law of the

University of British Columbia, Thompson Rivers University’s faculty of law

and the University of Victoria’s faculty of law — and is sponsored by Access

to Justice B.C.; the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch; the Continuing

Legal Education Society; the courthouse libraries; the Law Foundation; the

Law Society; and the Ministry of Attorney General.

Today I ask the members of the House to join me in welcoming Rob

Lapper, Queen’s Counsel, who’s the David and Dorothy Lam Chair in Law and

Public Policy at the University of Victoria; and Johanne Blenkin, the

director of the Access to Justice Centre for Excellence at the UVic faculty

of law. They are here with us in honour of the proclamation of Access to

Justice Week 2019.

[1:40 p.m.]

Congratulations to the organizations, law schools and students who

will be celebrating the proclamation of British Columbia’s Access to Justice

Week next week.

S. Sullivan: Today we have two very special guests, Richard Lowy and Cheryl

Campbell. When Richard’s father was 15 years old, he and his twin brother

were sent to a camp called Auschwitz under the care of a doctor named

Mengele.

I know that Richard and Cheryl have been having very productive

meetings with the Minister of Education and his staff. He’s telling a very

important story called Leo’s Journey . It’s a story that all of us

need to hear.

Thank you, Richard and Cheryl, for your work.

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

the B.C. Federation of Labour, Laird Cronk, along with a number of B.C.

Federation of Labour staff members. We also have the president, Stephanie

Smith; the treasurer, Paul Finch; a number of vice-presidents of various

components; as well as BCGEU staff members.

Also in the House is Barb Nederpel, president of the Hospital

Employees Union.

House, please help me make them feel very, very welcome.

Statements

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION

Hon. M. Farnworth: All of us were privileged this morning to be part of a very

historic ceremony that went off very smoothly and incredibly well, in

large measure due to the excellent work behind the scenes of the staff,

the security, the Table Officers and people in this building.

I’d like the House to recognize their great contribution this

morning in making today’s event go so well.

Tributes

AL MARTIN

S. Thomson: On behalf of the members on this side of the House, I’d like to

add to the words of the Premier and the leader of the Green Party on the

passing of Al Martin and to bring our condolences to his wife, Julie,

and their family.

I knew Al and worked with Al for many, many years and received

many of the same scoldings that the Premier referenced. But I worked

with Al even before politics, when I worked for the agriculture

industry. I had lots of engagement with him, when he was working in the

ministries and I was representing the agriculture industry, around

conservation issues and land use issues and then, latterly, as Minister

of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, both working with him

and then in the Wildlife Federation. In one particular file with…. I

received a lot of scolding from him on the wildlife allocation policy

file.

He was a tremendous and passionate advocate for conservation, for

wildlife in British Columbia. He leaves a great legacy in that whole

movement. I know the citizens of British Columbia are going to miss him,

and we are sorrier for the loss of his commitment to the environment and

to wildlife.

On behalf of the official opposition, I add, as I said, to the

words of the Premier and the Leader of the Third Party in passing on our

condolences to his wife and his family and all his friends.

Introductions by Members

R. Chouhan: I’m pleased to welcome 17 teachers from across British Columbia who

are with us to participate in the 22nd B.C. Teachers Institute on

Parliamentary Democracy, an intensive four and a half days of professional

development on politics, democracy and governance. They are continuing to

expand their knowledge of our parliamentary system in order to return to

their classrooms to better equip B.C. students on democracy and civic

responsibilities.

They’re also joined by three of their peers, who are returning in the

role of facilitators: Mr. Neil Powell, Ms. Beth Morgan and Mr. Timothy

Dilley. I would ask the House to please make them feel very

welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: The work we do here is so important, and the work we all do as MLAs is

vital. But going along with that, we often miss our families. We miss

events, and our family members have to put up with a lot. So it’s a real

treat when they are able to come here and spend a bit of time with

us.

My wife and love, Dolores Fraser, is here in the audience, and my

beautiful daughter, Emma Carswell, is also here. She was here with her

husband, Cameron Carswell, earlier to witness the introduction of Bill 41.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. D. Eby: Here in the corner is Ian Waddell, former MLA, former MP, my

constituent that visits the most frequently. I want him to be recognized for

that. He also has a new book out, and I recommend all members in this place

go pick it up right away.

Hon. J. Horgan: I want to echo the sentiments of the Attorney General. Not just a

former MP and a former MLA, Ian has the distinction, I believe, of the only

member of the House of Commons from Vancouver-Kingsway who ran in Kingsway

in 1984 and in Port Moody–Coquitlam right next door, three or four SkyTrain

stops away, in ’88. Then he became, of course, the member for

Vancouver-Fraserview. It is really an extraordinary career — a life well

lived.

Ian, it’s always good to see you. But you’ve got to find a hobby in

Vancouver, friend.

Would the House please make him very, very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: And he’s a very hard marker.

Hon. M. Mark: Speaking of hard work, I have two guests in the gallery today, Asia

Munro and Diego Cardona. They are my executive assistants, my executive

coordinators. They manage my calendar. They make sure I get fed. They make

sure that I am there for ballet pickup for Makayla and rugby practice for

Maya. They support me in everything that I do. They are my professional

family. They make sure that I’m in good hands.

I want to highlight that they’re students from VIU. I want to give a

shout-out to former Malaspina, Vancouver Island University, where Asia

studied tourism and recreation management. She’s from the Sucker Creek Cree

First Nation.

To me, that is reconciliation in action. She’s a graduate of the

internship youth program for year 12, a program that started many years ago

and that we continue on with pride, in the public service.

Of course, Diego Cardona, who’s been a champion for former youth in

care, making sure that they have a voice. He was a big champion for the

language learning is a human right.

Will the House please join me in welcoming our two special

guests.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY AND ACTIVITIES

OF ANIMAL RIGHTS

PROTESTERS

J. Martin: Like many in this chamber, I represent a riding that is rich in

agriculture, rich in agrifoods. Those who make their livelihood in the

fields and the barns…. They’re accustomed to facing challenges —

challenges from weather, fires, price fluctuations, feed supply,

livestock diseases and more.

Now farming families are facing a new challenge. They are being

physically threatened and slandered. They are seeing trespassers

vandalize their property and risk food security. Even their children are

being harassed and threatened. All of this is being done in the name of

animal rights activism.

Well, let’s be very clear. This is not activism. This is

intimidation. This is thuggery. This is terrorizing families in their

homes. I’ve heard from Chilliwack and Fraser Valley farming families who

Columbia’s borders. I can tell you that the viciousness and the

vulgarity of these attacks is nothing short of horrifying.

Trespassers are casually entering private property and refusing to

vacate when told to do so. Or they trespass at night, damaging gates and

fences in the process, methodically destroying farm equipment and

installing cameras on private property. When these acts are reported,

too often there is little if any response. Sadly, it has become all too

common for authorities to turn a blind eye to blatant criminality so

long as it’s been conducted in the name of protest or

activism.

Well, there are numerous levels of governance and authority that

need to do more. I was thrilled to see some positive bipartisanship and

collegiality in this chamber in recent days to step up on this very

subject matter and do the right thing.

[1:50 p.m.]

As always, the buck stops here in this House, with all 87 of us.

Farming families throughout British Columbia are counting on us — all 87

of us.

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE SERVICES

IN MAPLE RIDGE AND PITT

MEADOWS

B. D’Eith: I was shocked to learn that over 18,000 people in Maple Ridge and

Pitt Meadows currently don’t have a family doctor or consistent primary

care providers. As Canadians and British Columbians, we take pride in

our public universal health care system. However, far too many people

depend on the emergency room for primary care.

Recently I was elated to be joined by the Minister of Health; the

Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture; Dr. Victoria Lee from Fraser

Health; Chief Grace George of the Katzie First Nation; and Dr. Ursula

Luitingh of the Ridge Meadows Division of Family Practice at the opening

of an urgent care and primary care centre and the launch of two primary

care networks for Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.

More and more families continue to move into our area, but for

many years, investments in health care haven’t kept up with this pace.

Our new urgent primary care centre will ensure that folks can receive

the quality care they need, including same-day access to urgent care.

The centre expects to have over 25,000 annual visits.

The urgent primary care centre will be operated by the Fraser

Health Authority with the support of the Ridge Meadows Division of

Family Practice and, very importantly, the Katzie First Nation. In fact,

in the spirit of the reconciliation that we witnessed today, the Katzie

Nation has been fully involved in order to provide culturally

appropriate and traditional care in our community.

Now, as far as the primary care networks, these will provide teams

of highly qualified care workers who will help to address the diverse

health needs of our community, including maternity care, chronic pain,

in-patient service, mild-to-moderate mental health care, preventative

care, substance abuse, seniors and residential care, and many other

needs.

Through the urgent care and primary care centre and the primary

care networks, patients in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows can fully enjoy

one of our most fundamental rights as Canadians and British Columbians:

timely access to quality universal health care.

PUBLIC ART IN ASHCROFT

J. Tegart: I want to share a story about how a small community has come

together through art. The Ashcroft mosaic public art displays, over 70

installations throughout the community, are stunning pictures that

depict the history and culture of the area, starting with the incredible

dragon mosaic at the historic Chinese Cemetery, which seems to move in

the light as you drive by. The shrine with mosaic symbols completes the

Chinese Cemetery installation.

Another amazing project is the Harmony Bell project, bringing

together mosaic art pieces featuring First Nations, the Japanese

community, the Chinese community and the settlers — four pieces

portraying the contributions of all four cultures to our community and

area. A very significant piece in our community in the process of

reconciliation through art.

Recently we unveiled a mosaic designed and created by our first

responders. It’s a piece that shows five first responders, and it

commemorates the 2017 Elephant Hill fire. The first responders talked

about how healing the artistic process was for them. The most recent

pieces unveiled were in commemoration of the Japanese internment. We

were honoured to host the Japanese consul general in our community

during the unveiling ceremony.

There are two common elements in all these incredible glass art

pieces. Those are artists Marina Papais and Daniel Collett. They have

chosen Ashcroft as their home and have brought mosaic glass art to the

life of the community. They welcome one and all to participate in their

love of creating meaningful pieces that are an inspiration to

everyone.

I invite everyone in the House to join me in celebrating the

Ashcroft mosaic artwork.

DIWALI

R. Singh: Diwali, the highlight of Indian festivals, a festival that

celebrates the victory of good over evil and of liberty from injustice,

will be celebrated on Sunday. In respect of that, I would like to share

an immigrant experience with you all.

[1:55 p.m.]

The celebration of this festival stretches back to about 3,000

years, but even today it occupies a special place in the Indian hearts.

Growing up in India, Diwali was a celebration that children and grownups

alike looked forward to with immense excitement. As it drew near, the

sense of anticipation and joy could be felt in the air all around. The

colourful lights garlanding homes, gurdwaras, temples and businesses.

People carrying gifts and confectionaries. Family and friends visiting

and the crackle of never-ending fireworks. It was and is a time to

celebrate the privilege of humanity and invoke good fortune for the

coming times.

I must admit that in 2001, when I first moved to Canada, to B.C.,

despite the density of South Asians here, I was underwhelmed by the lack

of comprehensive Diwali celebrations. Those that existed were a bit

subdued, and that made me long for a vibrant Diwali even

more.

Fortunately, for thousands like me, things have changed, and now

Diwali in B.C. is celebrated with much fanfare, be it by families or

businesses that serve those families. Now there is a stretch of Diwali

galas and functions welcoming this much-loved festival. In this age of

widespread divisiveness and exclusion, many British Columbians have made

this festival of light their own, which is evidence to the world of our

openness to embrace other cultures.

During my initial years in Canada, never would I have thought that

I, a new immigrant to this beautiful place, would be standing in this

venerated chamber of my new home’s Legislature, dressed in a celebratory

sari, addressing all of you and inviting you all and the rest of B.C. to

celebrate Diwali with us. This, I can attest, speaks of the

inclusiveness and multicultural values of British Columbians.

LEGACIES OF SAANICH AREA RESIDENTS

A. Olsen: Today I stand to celebrate the lives of three giants from my

community and try to do it in under two minutes.

One lived and worked the soil in the Saanich Peninsula for nearly

nine decades. One used his gift of language to illustrate in our minds

the complexity of nature and our human relationships. One worked

tirelessly to create a more just society through his career and

community volunteerism.

Vern Michell was a fourth-generation farmer on the Saanich

Peninsula. He’s survived by Dorothy, his wife of 64 years; his sons, Tom

and Terry; six grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren. Over the

years, I had the honour of talking with Vern and hearing a few of his

stories, from him working his fields with horse and plow, harvesting the

seafood on the beaches neighbouring his property at Island View to his

championship bowling. Vern’s life was one well lived. The hundreds of

people that attended his celebration of life are a true testament to the

quality of the man and the family he raised.

Patrick Lane, an award-winning poet, an officer of the Order of

Canada and the recipient of five honorary doctorate degrees, is survived

by his partner, Lorna Crozier; two sons, Michael and Richard; and six

grandchildren. A gardener who lived and loved life hard through his

powerful gift of words, I was blessed with Patrick’s wisdom a few times.

We walked together on the beach and through the forest that he

personally and methodically cleared of climbing ivy.

Bill Foster’s legacy in the province lives on to this day. Former

assistant to the deputy minister, director of inspections and standards

and manager of the northern Interior regions of B.C. Corrections, Bill

is survived by his wife, Jocelyn, and his children, Maggie, Jon and Ben.

He was a community organizer and a volunteer, chair of the Saanich

Peninsula Food Bank and John Howard Society and president of my riding

association in Saanich North and the Islands. He’s the only person I

know to have a sticker with my name on it perpetually stuck to a

prosthetic leg.

I raise my hands to these three gentlemen and their families. I’m

honoured to stand here today to acknowledge their contributions to our

community and our province and celebrate their lives.

HÍSW̱ḴE

SIÁM .

HISTORY OF SUTLEJ

AND

RECONCILIATION

R. Kahlon: Many people who drive down Sutlej Street here in Victoria would

never think twice of where the name came from. Not Victoria’s Jatinder

Singh. He was intrigued because Sutlej is a famous river in Punjab and

associated with many historical Sikh events. He didn’t think any more of

it until Victoria city council started talking about reconciliation with

Canada’s Indigenous populations.

[2:00 p.m.]

In their discussions, Sutlej Street came up amongst other Victoria

street names that might be deemed offensive to Indigenous communities.

He thought: “Why would this offend First Nations?” That’s when his

journey of discovery and reconciliation started.

In 1846, the East India Co. launched an attack on the Sikh Khalsa

army on the banks of the River Sutlej. The battle tragically ended with

the British’s colonization of Punjab. To commemorate this event, the

British navy commissioned a new navy gunboat and named it HMS

Sutlej .

A few years later in B.C., after ongoing, intensified conflicts

between the Ahousaht Nation and the British, HMS Sutlej gunboat

was deployed. The event is still remembered today as the most aggressive

gunboat attack on the west coast. The vessels fired cannonballs. The

crews burned longhouses, destroyed canoes, claimed hostages and killed

many. One of these hostages was a young child who was renamed Margrette

Sutlej Davis after the gunboat. The Nuu-chah-nulth girl survived two

more years on the gunboat and died at sea.

Sutlej has different meanings to different people but unites the

struggles of two communities. Jatinder Singh took this history of

injustice and made it a mission. Along with many in the Sikh community,

Khalsa Aid Canada and the Ahousaht Nation, they launched the Maggie

Sutlej Ahousaht reconciliation project.

Today our government is making history by introducing legislation

to recognize the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples. It’s an important moment to reflect on the darker chapters of

our collective history and how all of us can make a difference in

that.

Oral Questions

COURT RULING ON EVIDENCE RULES IN

ICBC CASES AND IMPACT

ON REVENUES

A. Wilkinson: Not long ago the Attorney General stated to the people of British

Columbia that he would save motorists $400 million a year with a quickie

change to the rules of court. Well, the only problem is that he somehow

didn’t notice that the courts determine the rules of court.

Today the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia,

Mr. Justice Hinkson, made it crystal-clear that the Attorney General had

no clue what he was doing and slapped down his effort to control costs

at ICBC. His scheme is dead in the water to the tune of $400 million

that the Finance Minister now has to deal with. And who pays? Every

single driver in British Columbia.

When is the Premier going to realize that his Attorney General’s

scheme is falling apart and he better figure out a new plan and find a

new Attorney General?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s, obviously, a difficult day receiving the decision from the

B.C. Supreme Court. We’re still studying it.

But we went forward with a basic principle, which is that the

amount of money that people spend to get a decision from the court

should be proportionate to the award itself. It’s not something that we

just came up with. In 2006, the Leader of the Opposition will remember

Allan Seckel. He and the then chief justice worked on a civil reform

justice group and said exactly that.

Now, I’ve been waiting….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: The members are shouting about committees. I appreciate

it.

I’ve been sitting here waiting for 2½ years for a question on ICBC

from the opposition. So while it’s a difficult day in the court

decision, I’m glad to stand and remind British Columbians…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …of what the Fraser Institute said about the previous government.

“Faced with exploding costs, the previous B.C. government had a choice:

contain the costs, take the unpopular decision to increase rates

substantially or enact large-scale reform of the basic auto insurance

system in the province. In the end, the government chose to do

nothing.”

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

supplemental.

Interjections.

[2:05 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the Leader of the Official Opposition has the

floor.

A. Wilkinson: Well, we’ve got quite a track record emerging here from this

Attorney General, who purports to be the person who runs the legal

system in British Columbia.

August 29, 2017, in federal court: “British Columbia does not

appear to understand the basic ground rules of the complex proceeding it

is seeking to enter.” February 22, 2019 — case kicked out of the Alberta

courts because the claim is struck. May 24, 2019 — lost 5-nothing in the

Court of Appeal in the Trans Mountain case. Now we have the Chief

Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia saying the Attorney

General hasn’t got a clue what he’s doing when it comes to managing the

rules of court.

This is a bit of a surprise when we’re supposed to have a

competent Attorney General who’s managing ICBC. Instead, we have

flagrant incompetence, a continuing losing record and no effort

whatsoever to do anything that is actually going to lead to reduced

costs for motorists.

This is a total failure by the Attorney General. It’s time the

Premier took some accountability on this, because motorists are paying

for this, not the Attorney General.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m going to tell the Leader of the Opposition a brief story about

a member who didn’t have the stones to stand up today to ask a question

about ICBC. It was a sunny afternoon in 2015 in Kelowna, a closed hotel

boardroom and a lobby group called the ARA, a lobby group for automobile

repair….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.

Interjections.

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

Hon. D. Eby: I’m worried the members know the story I’m going to tell, which is

why they don’t want me to tell it. In 2015, a closed boardroom in

Kelowna….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s better than burying reports. I hear the driveway crew out

front just dug up one from the former Finance Minister this

morning.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: The former minister, who’s shouting, literally tore pages out of a

report about how to fix ICBC. So I’ll take my direction from somewhere

else.

Now, in the first part….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

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

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

In the first part of his speech in this closed boardroom to a

group who’d donated $30,000 to the previous government, the former

minister responsible for ICBC, after he requested a report about how to

reduce costs at ICBC, promised them that he would do a review about how

to increase the amounts paid to automobile repair shops.

In the second part of his speech, he talked about a repair

facility owned by ICBC worth literally millions of dollars. One of the

people in the crowd said, “You’re going to give it to us?” as a joke.

Everybody laughed, because it was funny.

Obviously, the minister wouldn’t give away a multi-million-dollar

building from an insurance corporation that was losing money. But in

fact, he was. The minister smiled and said: “I am pleased to announce I

have directed ICBC to transfer their training facility from their

ownership and control to the ownership and control of the ARA.” There

was an audible gasp in the room.

There should have been a gasp from ratepayers, but they didn’t

know about it, because there was no press release. There should have

been a gasp from the board, but the minister was out on his own. You

couldn’t legally do it, and he wasn’t able to follow through.

The opposition literally tried to give away ICBC property to lobby

groups. That is the incompetent management that our province saw to cost

$2 billion.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.

[2:10 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Let’s bring this back to reality. In Cranbrook, you meet two

people: a single mom whose daughter has a car worth $1,000, and her

insurance just went up to $5,300 a year; and another family whose kid’s

insurance for the car that the parents bought for him went from $2,000

to $7,300. That lies squarely in the lap of this incompetent Attorney

General, who has failed the motorists of British Columbia, and he hasn’t

got any answers except to throw out these historical insults.

Premier, when are you going to find a competent Attorney General

who knows how to do anything in the courts and knows how to manage ICBC

more than throwing around insults?

Hon. D. Eby: I have so many stories to tell. I didn’t even finish the first

one. In the boardroom, in that very meeting, the former minister

responsible was introduced by saying he used to be a board member of

ICBC, which he did used to be. He leaned over to the person next to him

and said: “That was a dark period in my corporate board

experience.”

Well, it was a dark period for ICBC and for ratepayers as well. In

the two years the member was on the board, he gave away $1 million

in bonuses to just six executives at ICBC.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: What have we done? We eliminated the bonuses. That’s action. They

didn’t do it. We did it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General embarked upon a scheme to limit the rights of

insured drivers in British Columbia, and he told us and he told them

that it would save $400 million. Just one problem. One teensy, small

problem. The whole thing was unconstitutional. Not my words. The words

of the court, at page 43: “unconstitutional and of no force or

effect.”

Besides being caught trying to violate the constitutional rights

of British Columbians, the Attorney and the government now have a $400

million problem.

There are only two ways to fix that problem. One is that the rates

for those families in Clearwater and Cranbrook are going up even

further, or the second is that the Finance Minister has a $400 million

problem in her budget. Which is it?

Hon. D. Eby: Gosh, I wonder how we got here. If only there was some way to

know.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: If only there had been some way to predict.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, if we may improve the decorum.

I was thinking this morning, pinching myself, how lucky we are to

be here. Of course, the decorum was wonderful. Perhaps we could go at

least a few days without behaving badly.

Hon. D. Eby: In 2014, the B.C. government knew that ICBC was in trouble. They

commissioned a report to advise them how to fix the problem. The report

was released in 2015. Something was missing. Seven pages were missing

from the report. Now, when we asked, “Will the opposition release those

seven pages?” the member who just asked me this question said: “There

are cabinet confidences that need to be respected, unless Mr. Eby’s view

as Attorney General now is that all cabinet documents are open season.

That is interesting….”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. If the Attorney General may….

Hon. D. Eby: This is upsetting him, and I understand why. It’s

upsetting.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I’m concerned that we’re gobbling up question period

time.

Hon. D. Eby: It is upsetting. I want one of those magnets for the back of my

car, because I’m upset.

The quote continues: “That is interesting, because he took an oath

to the contrary. If Mr. Eby wants to look at a document and respect

those confidences, I don’t have any problem with that.”

[2:15 p.m.]

I could look at the seven pages he cut out, but I couldn’t tell

anybody what they said. Do you know what they said? They said: “ICBC is

in trouble. You need to fix the system. If you don’t, you’re going to be

losing a lot of money.”

Guess what happened after he buried that report. We lost $2.3

billion because of his decision.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. de Jong: Well, there’s a remarkable performance. The Attorney stands up and

purports to criticize the very principles he’s spending taxpayers’ money

arguing in favour of at the Supreme Court of Canada.

You know what people are actually beginning to notice? Every time

this Attorney General steps onto the judicial ice, the other team

scores. And they’ve noticed this. He’s full of bravado in the pre-game

interviews, but he’s got the worst plus-minus record in the entire

league.

The rules he sought to impose were his alone. He deliberately

didn’t involve the rules committee that for decades has been utilized by

Attorneys General to ensure that this can be done constitutionally. Now

he’s got a $400 million problem.

I predict that when he stands up in a moment, he won’t answer the

question that British Columbians need to hear an answer to, and that is

this: are drivers going to be paying more, or is the budget going to

slip into deficit, or a combination of both? Which is it?

Hon. D. Eby: Try to imagine the situation faced by the member for Abbotsford

West before the election. ICBC is hemorrhaging money. You don’t want to

make it an election issue. So what do you do? You claim the sale of the

ICBC headquarters that hasn’t even been listed for sale yet. You claim

the sale of ICBC.com, the URL, for $10 million. You claim the savings

for a report you haven’t even received yet in order to hide the fact

that ICBC is in trouble. A massive enterprise, a huge amount of work, to

hide the problem from the electorate.

Now the member stands up and says: “Hey, the step you took wasn’t

good enough.” Well, I’ll tell you this: it was a hell of a lot more than

they did.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

AND CLIMATE CHANGE

MITIGATION

A. Olsen: Yesterday my colleague drew the connection between the climate

risks facing our community and the management of our forests, but the

climate risks also could have huge impacts on the forests across the

province. According to the climate risk assessment quietly released by

government, climate change could negatively affect forest growth rates,

increase forest mortality and change forest composition. Climate-induced

drought could increase forest die-off and make trees more vulnerable to

wildfire and pest outbreaks.

These changes are happening now. My daughter Ella is growing up in

a world where summer means fire. The skies above our house have been

blanketed by smoke for half of the summers of her life. Luckily, we got

a break this year, but who knows what next year will bring? The risks

facing our forest sector are going to be exacerbated as we move

forward.

My question is to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations and Rural Development. How are we ensuring that

forest-dependent communities will be able to have a resource they can

rely on in future decades as the impacts of climate change take

hold?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I thank the member for his well-thought-out and presented

question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: When it comes to fighting climate change, our government takes our

responsibility very seriously. Unlike some members on the other side,

our government and our colleagues in the Green caucus know the science

is clear and we need real action now.

As far as the Preliminary Strategic Climate Risk

Assessment , which was a report that is mandated in our CleanBC

plan that we worked on with the Green caucus, there are a number of

factors pointed out around forestry and around the need for innovation

in forestry when it comes to the forests and the future. The member is

correct to point out the incredible fires that we’ve had in 2017 and

2018 as a result of forests drying out and a change in

climate.

Innovation in practice. One example that we’ve had, and we’ve had

many, is prescribed burning. We’re allotting $10 million a year for the

next three years to use traditional Indigenous knowledge and create

prescribed burns to lower the fuel load and therefore lower the amount

of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere from unplanned

fires.

We have innovation in management. The member asked around

innovation in management. We have a seed tree program where we’re

growing trees that are going to be better adapted to the climate change

characteristics in the future.

And we have innovation in technology. We’ve been working on an app

in the field, a biomass utilization app that will assess biomass volumes

and potential greenhouse gas emission benefits in real time. That’s been

supported…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. D. Donaldson: …by Canada under the transformative technologies

agreement.

They don’t seem to want to know about innovation in forestry, and

I can understand that, because they ignored forestry for 16

years.

We’ll keep working hard to support innovation in our forest

sector.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

FOREST INDUSTRY AND

VALUE-ADDED

PRODUCTS

A. Olsen: I thank the minister for the answer to the question and the answer

to the supplemental, and maybe the supplemental for next week as

well.

We need to transform our approach to forestry in this province,

especially as we confront the massive challenge of climate change. We

must be better stewards, and we must start managing for value instead of

volume. This is the only way to create resilient local communities and

dependable jobs. We could produce everything from wood fibre insulation,

mass timber or a range of products to replace single-use plastics.

Instead of leading this change, B.C. is exporting raw logs. We continue

to lose forestry jobs, and we are a net importer of engineered wood

products.

Sweden is an example of how things could be different. Despite

having a similarly sized harvesting land base, Sweden’s forestry

industry employs almost twice as many people as B.C.’s. The difference?

They manage their forests for value and on the basis of

science.

My question is to the minister. Forestry-dependent communities are

hurting across this province. Now is the time for transformative change

of our forest management in B.C., not just for band-aids or for changes

around the outside. What specific actions has he taken to spur the

innovation in this industry so that we add value, maximize local jobs

and responsibly manage our forests?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I apologize for the length of my answers. It’s just that I’m so

passionate about the future of forestry in this province. I couldn’t

agree with the member more about maximizing value of the logs that come

out of our forests versus maximizing volume. Part of that is true. The

exponential growth of raw log exports under the previous government is

something that we’ve addressed directly under the coast forest sector

revitalization initiative.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member asked how we’re addressing getting more value out of

the forest. I can give him a very, very good example. Earlier this year

the Premier announced that we in B.C. have become the first province in

Canada, as an early adopter of 12-storey building regulations around

building 12-storey buildings out of wood. First in Canada. That will end

up…. That’s directly in regards to building taller buildings out of

engineered wood products.

[2:25 p.m.]

That adds value to the value chain. That creates more jobs in the

forests and more jobs in the factories and makes more stable rural

communities.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

J. Johal: In Surrey, the Morris family is facing an extra $770 a year on

their ICBC bill. Their insurance rates have gone up, not because of an

accident but because they have a young driver in their family. Changes

by the minister mean families like the Morrises are now paying wildly

higher rates. As Aidan Morris says: “As someone my age who is trying to

build towards their future, it certainly doesn’t make things any

easier.”

Can the minister tell British Columbians when they can expect

significant cuts in ICBC rates?

Hon. D. Eby: I understand that the member may not have been here, but a whole

bunch of people he’s sitting nearby were there when they lit the

dumpster fire at ICBC. Let me tell the member, to pass on to the folks

that he’s talking to about ICBC, how we got here.

You heard about the MLA for Abbotsford West cutting out the pages

of the report.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: When the member from South Kamloops, who had been the minister

responsible, was asked about it, he said: “I don’t recall ever having a

draft report brought to me. Certainly, I don’t have any understanding of

anything being removed.” But then….

Here’s somebody the Leader of the Opposition knows: Paul Taylor.

He’s the former chair of ICBC, chief of staff to Gordon Campbell. He had

something to say about management at ICBC while he was chair. “That just

doesn’t ring true to me. Frankly, I quit as chair because of….” He uses

his name — the MLA for Kamloops–South Thompson.

“I quit as chair because of the MLA for Kamloops–South Thompson.

This whole stuff about him trying to point the blame for problems at the

corporation for a report that his own department commissioned and,

knowing him, would have been on his desk and he wouldn’t have liked some

of the stuff in that and asked that it be changed. That’s exactly the

kind of stuff I saw when I decided to resign. I found him that kind of

guy.” Yikes.

That’s why rates are high. That’s why we’re working hard to bring

them down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Johal: The minister can say what he wishes, but I want to remind him that

the Morris family saw a 159 percent increase in insurance premiums under

his watch. The party on this side of the House has always been to keep

rates low. Under his watch, ICBC premiums have gone up by 18 percent,

and ICBC projects a 24 percent increase in premiums over the next three

years. That’s $1.7 billion extra British Columbians will be paying

because of this minister.

On behalf of young people and their parents, when will this

government stop gouging B.C. motorists and bring back affordable

rates?

Hon. D. Eby: The member wonders how we got here.

The Leader of the Opposition is on CKNW. As has become his habit,

he had a bit of a flight of fancy. He said: “I was not aware of this

problem in 2016 as the claims rate went up.” Yet the member from

Kamloops South says, “Last time I checked, you and a few others…were

sitting with us at the cabinet table as we made decisions,” about

ICBC.

I think that the most important piece…. How did we get in this

situation? It’s clear.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: But amazingly, after creating such a mess…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …the members on the other side are advo­cating for a system

that would increase rates drama­tically for drivers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: The Insurance Bureau of Canada issued a report that told British

Columbians very clearly what the impact of privatization would

be…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …in this province — a 37 percent increase in basic insurance for

those under 20 years old, a 24 percent increase in basic insurance for

those from 20 to 24 years old, an 18 percent increase in basic insurance

for those 25 to 34 years old. That’s the privatization model that

they’re out there advocating, a report by private insurers about

what….

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: A report issued by the very private insurers themselves that these

guys want to bring into British Columbia.

J. Thornthwaite: Linda is from North Vancouver, and she’s absolutely livid over

this minister’s changes to the ICBC rates. I have her invoices right

here. Last year it was $1,926; this year it’s $2,285. The only reason is

because she has someone under 25 that’s in her household. It has nothing

to do with her driver’s record.

My question to the minister is: when are you going to help

families, the thousands of families that are writing you and writing us,

that are worried about their ICBC rates for their families?

Hon. D. Eby: I wish there was more time in question period, because I could go

on and on about the changes our government has made to get costs under

control at ICBC. We inherited a corporation hemorrhaging $1 billion a

year from the previous administration.

Our last quarterly report was….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: We’ve managed to increase benefits at the same time as getting

costs under control at ICBC. Let me tell you. We’ve reduced….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: We’ve reduced earners of $100,000 plus by 16 percent. We’ve

reduced earners of $150,000 plus, at the corporation, by 38 percent.

We’ve reduced earners of $200,000 plus by 34 percent. We’ve reduced

earners, at ICBC, of $300,000 plus by 33 percent, than when the other

side was in power.

Here they are advocating for a private insurance system that would

increase rates on that young driver the member talked about by $900 on

basic insurance alone, according to the private insurers’ own numbers.

If they are so enamoured with the private insurance industry, then let

me read to them what the private insurers think about the rate reform:

“The government also recently….”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: These are the members’ friends in the private insurance industry.

These changes are long overdue, and pricing auto insurance based on

driver risk is an effec­tive way to incent better behaviour on our

roads.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO AUDITOR

GENERAL APPOINTMENT

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That Dr. Andrew Weaver , MLA be appointed as a Member of

the Special Committee to Appoint an Auditor General, replacing Adam

Olsen , MLA.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 36, Gaming Control

Amendment Act, continued.

[2:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 36 — GAMING CONTROL

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 36; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

section 2 (continued) .

M. Lee: I wanted to come back to a question that was raised in comments on

the arrangement on an interim basis, just to understand the comment that

the Attorney General made near the end of the last period of time we

were dealing with this as a committee. It was around what would be a

permitted expenditure by First Nations on those arrangements.

I was understanding that when looking at the recitals of the

interim agreement and other sections of the agreement, there is

contemplation of five or six core areas in which First Nations are

expected to be spending the share of revenue that they’ll be receiving

from the government. If I can confirm with the Attorney General that

that is the case, and if so, what are those areas, for the

record?

Hon. D. Eby: Eligible B.C. First Nations will determine their own priorities

for these funds, which may be spent within six categories of approved

purposes, which were set by them: health and wellness; infrastructure,

safety, transportation and housing; economic and business development;

education, language, culture and training; community development and

environmental protection; and capacity building, fiscal management and

governance. Direct distributions to individuals are not

permitted.

I think that fully responds to the member’s question.

M. Lee: I appreciate that there has been a level of engagement or

discussion around the core areas for which expenditures ought to be

provided. When a First Nation is receiving funds, can those funds be

expended on any purpose other than the ones that the Attorney General

has mentioned?

Hon. D. Eby: I understand that the nation could invest the money, but

ultimately, it would have to be spent on one of the six categories that

I listed.

[2:40 p.m.]

M. Lee: I wanted to ask about the term…. The member for Skeena — this is

one of the questions that he wanted to raise, which is clarity around

the definition of “provincial territorial organizations” on page 9 of

the interim agreement. The use of the word “territorial” is intended to

denote what?

Hon. D. Eby: Provincial territorial organizations are the First Nations Summit,

the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs,

which collectively make up the leadership council. As for the word

“territorial,” it has its usual meaning, that I understand.

M. Lee: I just wanted to ask, to reconfirm the type of reporting that is

required under the interim agreement. If the Attorney General could

outline, on an annual basis, what the First Nations are expected to be

doing in order to comply with their obligations under this

arrangement.

Hon. D. Eby: The limited partners provide their audited reports to the

partnership, and then the partnership aggregates the reports and

provides an aggregated report to the province about how the money is

being spent and what impact it has had on communities.

M. Lee: With these audited statements that are being provided, how do they

fit with other existing audit requirements — say, required by the

federal government?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that we don’t have sufficient information about the

federal requirements. But from what we know of the federal requirements,

there’s not intended to be overlap or that somehow one system would feed

into the other, necessarily. The auditing function is about ensuring

that the money that’s provided is used for the project as stated and not

for other purposes.

M. Lee: Just in terms of the general partner, what are the requirements on

reporting on the use of funds, apart from the audited statements, that

is needed to be provided by each of the First Nations?

Hon. D. Eby: The current requirements, as we understand them, are that within

90 days following the end of a fiscal year, the general partner will

receive audited financial statements from the limited partner, which are

going to show the receipt of the distribution from the partnership

itself and then how the limited partners spent that money. The report

will be of all the amounts expended on permitted expenses. It’s sort of

a straightforward grant report, I guess, if any of you have had exposure

to the non-profit world, and that report is going from the limited

partner up to the partnership.

[2:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: I wanted to come back to a few aspects of what we were discussing

in the last committee session and ask the Attorney General: were First

Nations given the option of having the funds, the net annual gaming

revenue, flow directly to them other than through the

partnership?

Hon. D. Eby: Once a First Nation becomes a limited partner in the partnership,

there is an option for them to direct the partnership to instruct the

province to provide the funding directly to the nation. But they do have

to become a limited partner first. They’re still subject to all of the

reporting accountabilities that are in the partnership

agreement.

M. Lee: We did touch on this yesterday, in that regard. That would be,

presumably, for one individual First Nation to work through the

partnership arrangement in order to make that direction.

In terms of the review that’s contemplated down the road under the

long-term agreement, if the limited partners choose to alter the way,

the mechanism, in which funds are received…. We discussed yesterday in

committee that presumably that would be a material change to the

partnership agreement arrangement and would require approval by way of

an extraordinary resolution of all of the limited partners. Could I

confirm that that is the case?

Hon. D. Eby: The previous answer that I gave to the member was in relation to

an individual nation that might want to have its money flow directly

from government. They still have to become a member of the limited

partnership.

If the limited partners decided to dissolve the partnership and

have money be administered in a different way, then certainly, they’re

entitled to do that through special resolution. It would obviously be a

fairly significant step, given that the partnership is written into all

of the agreements as well as the legislation.

It’s possible, but it would be fairly substantial, compared to

just somebody saying: “I’d rather have my money come directly from the

provincial government.”

M. Lee: When we look at the Gaming Control Act itself and look at sources

of revenue and sharing of revenue from gaming in this province…. As a

point of reference, under the act that we’re currently considering an

amendment to under

part 6, “Grants to Eligible Organizations,” there is

contemplation, of course, about annual community gaming

grants.

Can I ask the Attorney General to confirm the current level of

another form of revenue-sharing that’s occurring in this province with

not-for-profit organizations and others in the arts or in sports or

other needs in the community? What is that level of funding that’s

currently being received by those organizations, in an aggregate

nature?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re getting the number for the member. We don’t have it

immediately at hand. It shouldn’t take long.

[2:50 p.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate that. I appreciate the opportunity to confirm that

level.

To the Attorney General and his team there, it would be helpful….

My next question was going to be to look back in terms of for this

current budget year and, let’s say, the four previous years —

recognizing that there’s obviously been a previous government that is in

that range. I just wanted to see, to establish some steady-state

pattern, I expect, from that level of gaming, under either the previous

government or this current government. That would be my request for that

information that would facilitate this discussion.

Just as we look at

part 6, the way it is established, there is the

mechanism for which there is, under

section 41 of this act…. “Subject to

there being an appropriation under the Financial Administration Act,” on

application, “grants may be made to organizations that meet the

prescribed standards of eligibility.” Has there been any consideration,

in the context of revenue-sharing, to establishing a minimum committed

amount for community and gaming organizations, organizations that are of

need for these funds and rely on these funds on an annual

basis?

Many not-for-profits, including the ones that I’ve served as a

director of, look to that funding in order to fund their good

operations, including — I think I referenced this in my second reading

speech — an arts and education training organization that I used to be

on the board of that was able, with the help and the assistance of

community gaming funds from the province, to establish new programs for

after-school care, particularly for children who were vulnerable,

low-income people who don’t have access, families that don’t have access

to that kind of strength in arts and education training.

Organizations like that have the need to have the ability, at

least, on an annual basis, to apply for further funds based on their

track record and based on their need. Has there been any consideration

in this area looking at establishing a minimum commitment for a

proportion of gaming revenue to be set aside on an annual basis for

community gaming?

Hon. D. Eby: This legislation is not related at all to the community gaming

program. Government does have a fixed amount that it provides to

community organizations, which is independent of the particular

financial income of the B.C. Lottery Corp. As the member will know, when

we banned bulk cash transactions at casinos, there was a lot of concern:

if it affected B.C. Lottery Corp.’s revenues, would it impact gaming

grants? Government committed that no, we would be keeping a consistent

amount of money in the gaming grant system.

I’ll do my best to answer gaming grant–related questions, but this

is a totally different project program and a different stream of

government revenue, and so on.

M. Lee: I appreciate that it’s certainly a different

section of the act,

but we are talking about gaming revenue. Certainly, there’s been a

history in this province of community gaming grants being established.

As I understand it, in talking to a previous member of this Legislative

Assembly, back in the ’80s, under the Premier of the day, it was his

intention and desire to ensure that revenues that were being made

available from gaming were made available directly to communities and

that those revenues did not flow back through government through general

revenue.

We’ve since moved a great deal of distance there, but the

intention of ensuring that these funds are put to good use in

communities…. As we look at this arrangement, it’s important to consider

what has been a very important program of funding. That’s the reason why

I’m asking questions around this, and my colleague the member for

Cariboo North will join me shortly in further discussion around

that.

[2:55 p.m.]

Let me just pause there for one moment, because there’s some

information coming and also because the member for Kelowna–Lake Country

asked me to ask a point of clarification in response to the previous

answers around how a limited partner, as a First Nation, would have the

ability to withdraw from the limited partnership arrangement. If that

was the case as an individual First Nation, would there be any further

administrative or carrying charges or any other costs that the First

Nation who is withdrawing from the limited partnership would need to

pay?

Hon. D. Eby: Perhaps a point of clarification here. In order to be able to

direct your payment to come directly from the government, you need to

become a member of the limited partnership. That’s the structure that’s

been established around accountabilities, around reporting, and so on.

You’re still a member of the limited partnership. You’re just saying: “I

don’t want you to cut the cheque. I want the government to cut the

cheque.”

To my knowledge, there would be no extra cost to request a cheque

from the government, rather than to do what every­body else would

presumably do and receive their cheque from the limited

partnership.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. This is an important consideration

for the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. He spoke yesterday about the

feedback he had from a Chief of a First Nation in his area of

representation. If I can, I’ll just pursue that a little more

here.

If we have a First Nation who withdraws or — as put correctly by

the Attorney General, just to clarify the language — directs the limited

partnership to provide the funds directly from government to the First

Nation, presumably, at some point, the general partner…. If there were a

number of First Nations that were doing that, there is going to be some

cost.

Yesterday we learned that the estimated budget of the general

partner is up to or less than 1 percent of the annual carry for the

fund. That’s been estimated at roughly $1 million or less. The Attorney

General stressed the less part. Who knows what that is? But let’s just

say for discussion purposes, it’s $1 million or so.

Presumably, with the 203 First Nations, if they all started

withdrawing or directing, what would be the role, first of all, for the

general partner? And assuming there is a role, presumably, there is

going to be — or is there? — some fee necessary by those First Nations

in order to continue to support the overall enterprise, given that that

First Nation is still a limited partner.

Again, I’m assuming in the case of a limited partner who directs

funds to go directly from government to the First Nation, not through

the limited partnership, that there’s still a role for the general

partner. So what is that role? Two, what fee would there be for the

performance of that role payable from that First Nation, who is making

that direction, to the general partner?

Hon. D. Eby: The limited partner is an incredibly important entity. It is the

democratic body that hears concerns, suggestions, feedback from all the

nations that are participating about various things: the categories for

which grants can be given; the reporting structures that are in place;

the decision about particular projects that may be close to the edge or,

for some reason — we can’t speculate why — might be

controversial.

That is the decision-making body for administration of this pool

of funds. It is an incredibly important structure, because it’s

Indigenous-led for Indigenous people. If a nation wanted to receive

their cheque directly from the government, they would still want to

participate in the limited partnership, because this is where decisions

are being made around the formula, around the areas where you can apply

for a grant and the reporting structures and the administration costs as

a whole.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s hard to imagine a scenario where a nation would say: “We

don’t want to participate in the criteria-setting or the formula-setting

discussions. Go ahead and make those decisions for us.” It’s possible,

but they at least have the option as limited partners to participate in

that. That’s the nature of the body. It’s not solely a cheque-cutting

facility.

M. Lee: For the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, what I’m hearing the

Attorney General respond would suggest that even though a First Nation

has the ability to direct the limited partnership to receive the funding

flow directly from government, as opposed to through the limited

partnership, that limited partner is still a limited partner and, as

such, would still be subject to the fees and expenses that are

chargeable. The question, then, is how a deduction would be

made.

Let me ask that. How is the deduction going to be made from what

the First Nation would receive, in respect of the general partner’s

expenses?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t know…. There might be some sort of misunderstanding, but

maybe not, about how this is going to work. The money is going to flow

from government to the limited partnership. Limited partners, by right,

will participate in that according to the formula that is set by the

limited partnership through the partnership agreement.

It’s going to be net of any administration costs of that — the

money that’s distributed according to the formula. So there are no

deductions. I don’t know. The potential, I guess, is that the

partnership would do the calculation and say that nation X is entitled

to Y amount of money and let government know, and then government would

distribute that money directly to the nation according to the formula

and their entitlement.

There’s no application for a particular project and then getting

approved. There are no deductions. It’s just an entitlement to a fixed

amount of money that comes through the partnership according to the

formula, net of any administrative costs.

M. Lee: Just as a point of clarification, then, how does the money, as a

different option…? I’m hearing the Attorney General describe it as it

coming from government to the limited partnership, and the net amount is

going out to First Nations, which is part of the structure. So if we’re

talking about the alternative, is that still a net amount?

Hon. D. Eby: It always drove me crazy in opposition when the government side

tried to do this, but I’m going to try anyway — try to get at what the

member is really asking me about. Is there a way to deliver this money

with less administration costs and ensure that more money goes to the

bands or the nations?

[3:05 p.m.]

The answer is no. There is no way to deliver this money without

administration costs. There need to be reports about how the money was

spent. Someone needs to receive those reports, compile them and report

out to the public about how the money is spent. Someone needs to set the

criteria, evaluate the criteria, receive feedback from nations about

whether the formula is working properly, adjust the formula if necessary

and adjust the categories if necessary to ensure that the program is

working properly. There is no world where there are no administrative

expenses.

Then the question is: if there are inevitably going to be

administration expenses, who is best placed to administer this program?

Is it the government, or is it the nations for themselves? The position

of government is that the best group to administer this program for the

nations are the nations themselves through the structure that they have

established, which is the limited partnership.

I hope that broader perspective addresses the member’s questions.

There will be administrative costs regardless of whether a nation that’s

a limited partner asks for it to be distributed directly from government

or distributed from the limited partnership. The reason for that is that

all of the work I just outlined still has to get done by somebody, and

we believe it’s best done by Indigenous people for Indigenous

people.

M. Lee: Well, I appreciate that response. I believe that provides the

clarification that my colleague, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country,

was asking for. I appreciate that.

Can I ask, just from a process point of view, if the information

has been received in terms of community gaming?

Hon. D. Eby: In 2015-16, it was $134.8 million; in 2016-17, $134.8 million. In

’17-18, the incoming government in­creased that amount, so it was

$139.7 million — rounded up, $139.8 million. Then in ’18-19, it was

$139.8 million.

M. Lee: Thank you for that confirmation. I appreciate the opportunity to

have that historical information shared here.

Just one question related to that. I presume that, in terms of as

a proportion of total gaming revenue, that percentage — this

contribution amount — ranging between $134 million and $139 million over

the last four fiscal years, has been a consistent percentage of annual

gaming revenue. If that’s the case, what is that rough

percentage?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t believe that any government has run this as a fixed

percentage of gaming revenue as the First Nations program is proposed to

run. I understand the gaming program was a fixed amount, and the

government has generally provided fixed amounts through the gaming

program.

Again, this program lies in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and

Housing. We’ll do our best to answer the member, but I hope he’ll have

some understanding if I have to stand up and correct myself. It’s my

understanding that these were closer to fixed numbers. There wasn’t a

formula percentage of gaming revenue.

C. Oakes: Thank you for the opportunity.

If you review the actual 2019 community gaming grant guidelines,

is it not true, because it had certainly been identified in the

guideline, that, in fact, the Attorney General is responsible for the

integrity of the community gaming grants program?

Hon. D. Eby: Certainly, the Attorney General has a role to play around the

integrity of any government program if there are allegations of fraud or

corruption. Policy-wise, though, the program lives in the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs and Housing.

[3:10 p.m.]

C. Oakes: I certainly understand that, but again, if you look at the policy

applications on the community gaming grant side, the Attorney General is

still responsible for the integrity of the community gaming grants

program.

Hon. D. Eby: I think I agreed with that. Also, a staff member here indicated

that there is a member in the Ministry of Attorney General that collects

the audits in relation to this program.

C. Oakes: I think it’s really important. Again, it was a historic day today,

and one of the things that really stood out to me was when Grand Chief

Ed John talked about the importance of asking questions. I think that’s

a legitimate comment that all of us should take — that we represent

constituents in our ridings. They put forward questions that they

request of us, as their elected officials, to come and to bring forward

to the House.

I have to make a comment in response to the member from Saanich,

Gulf and the Islands — quite frankly, were egregious and inflammatory….

The idea that when we bring questions forward from constituents, from

Indigenous populations in our communities, if by chance the comments

that we make do not deserve the adequate respect of every member in this

House….

I want to put on record that some of the comments that have been

made about us asking questions that our constituents have asked to bring

forward…. To be dismissed and to have comments that were very

unparliamentary is just, quite frankly, on behalf of my constituents,

not acceptable.

When my constituents raise questions and concerns — and I talked

briefly about this on Bill 36 — it comes from a place of concern. It

comes from a place that we as a community…. We’ve heard discussions

about what has been happening in the Cariboo — the impacts of the

wildfires, the impacts of a downturn in the economy, the forestry

crisis. Our communities are struggling.

We count on support. We count on programs that have been put in

place by government to ensure that there is adequate expected support

for our constituents. So when the First Nations and I go home, and they

talk about what it means that the government has delayed the rural

dividend program — the program where they were expecting those funds to

go forward…. It is, rightfully, a concern that they’ve asked me to

raise. When they’ve asked me to come forward in this House and raise the

fact that, on the formula, the idea of population-based formulas are a

concern under Bill 36, it shouldn’t be dismissed.

It shouldn’t be as if…. We are asking questions about concerns of

our constituents. We are no less engaged with listening to, advocating

for and fighting, quite frankly, for our constituents.

While the minister can look at the ceiling, which looks like it

must be quite fascinating….

Interjection.

C. Oakes: Well, that’s fantastic.

The Chair: Members, let’s keep it….

Interjections.

C. Oakes: The formula on the bill. It’s not about….

Interjections.

C. Oakes: To the members, we are talking about Bill 36.

The Chair: No, no. The member has the right to ask questions.

The Attorney was not looking at anything else, Member, just

looking at the students. Carry on.

C. Oakes: Okay. I’m glad that we have students here. I know that these

students would want to recognize the fact that we, as MLAs, represent

constituents in our communities and that our responsibility is to bring

their voices forward in this House.

On behalf of my constituents, there is concern around the

population-based nature of the formula. There are also concerns…. Around

the population-based formula, can the minister confirm that for

communities that are small of population, we will get our fair

share?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I appreciate the member standing up and asking questions on behalf

of the First Nations in her community. I hope that she’s reaching out to

them and sharing the good news about the government sharing gaming

revenue with them, after so many decades of advocating for that to

change — B.C. being the only province that doesn’t share gaming revenue

with First Nations.

When she talks about her community being hard hit, we couldn’t

agree more on this side of the House. It’s a total crisis, and this

money will help. It will help First Nations in her community, which will

help the whole community. We’ve seen it in Ontario, where they’ve been

sharing gaming revenue for a long time through a partnership like this.

Economic development on First Nations reserves, traditionally very

impoverished reserves, has had a knock-on and positive effect in the

broader community as well.

Certainly, when we see an economic downturn or a crisis, like we

do in the forest sector, it is those on the economic fringes that are

particularly hurt as well. A lot of people are hurting right now. This

is money that’s coming into the community that’s going to make a very

positive difference, so we’re very excited about that. I hope the member

is sharing that good news with her constituents.

As for the formula, it’s set by First Nations for First Nations.

One of the things that is going to happen is that the initial

distribution is on three key factors. Factor 1 is just a straight-up

equal distribution among all 203 nations, not based on population or

geography or anything else, just a straight division. That’s 50 percent

of the revenue received by the partnership.

Then the second factor is population, and 40 percent will be

distributed according to population. Then the third factor is rural and

remote communities and Indigenous communities. There’s an extra 10

percent that will be used to top up those communities, because often

they’re very small communities, and there’s recognition of

that.

What’s going to happen is that there’s going to be the first year,

the first couple of years, of distributions. If the formula is not

working out the way that people intended, then the partnership will

revisit it. The history of First Nations in B.C. is one of larger

nations standing up on behalf of smaller nations. I have no reason to

believe that that would change here in terms of supporting them and

ensuring that they’re not excluded from participation.

I look forward to this. I hope that it makes some difference in a

very hard-hit area, in association with all of the Minister of Forests,

Lands and Natural Resource Operations’ $69 million fund for forest

workers, that the member can reassure her constituents that government

is doing what we can in a very difficult time.

C. Oakes: Could the minister clarify? I’m certainly aware of applications

that have gone in through the community gaming grant process by

Indigenous and First Nations organizations. The minister just shared

that we have not shared these funds. Community gaming grant applications

have been open, in fact, for cultural organizations and groups. Could he

maybe clarify that comment, as he is responsible for the integrity of

the community gaming grant program?

Hon. D. Eby: I will acknowledge that the previous government did not exclude

First Nations from applying for community gaming grants, if that’s what

the member is suggesting. What the previous government didn’t do was

something that every other province in Canada did, which is to have a

dedicated stream of revenue from gaming exclusively for First Nations,

which is what this is. It’s very significantly different.

I’m not sure if the member understands quite what we’re doing here

if she’s confused about that point, because the money is a dedicated

stream of revenue from a percentage of the earnings of government from

gaming distributed directly to First Nations through a limited

partnership controlled by First Nations. It is structurally completely

different from community gaming grants, which I will absolutely

acknowledge that any First Nation in B.C. could have potentially applied

to and did exist under the previous government.

C. Oakes: On page 9 of the new community gaming grant guide, and under

organizational eligibility, under 3.2…. I guess my question is, as the

Attorney General is responsible for the integrity of the

program….

[3:20 p.m.]

It now states that an organization is permanently ineligible for a

community grant if it “is a federal, provincial, regional, municipal,

First Nation or other local government.” So are First Nations now not

eligible for community gaming grant funds?

Hon. D. Eby: I appreciate the member clarifying that.

First Nations governments were never able to apply. Neither were

municipal governments, federal or provincial governments. It’s community

organizations. As the member said in her initial question, First Nations

cultural organizations, language organizations and sports teams

organizations could apply. But the First Nations government itself, the

band council, and so on, could not apply.

That’s not something new. That has always been the

case.

C. Oakes: I’ve just had a brief opportunity to review Bill 41, Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Of course, in it are the

definitions that have been identified — critically important. Any time

we have

definitions in legislation, it does have an impact on all other

pieces of legislation that we have in this House.

The

interpretation of an Indigenous government body and Indigenous

peoples has the community gaming grant program…. What impact will Bill

41 now have on other pieces of legislation — for example, the community

gaming grant which the Attorney General has responsibility

for?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, the member had us all scrambling for a second. It’s only

been a few hours that Bill 41 has been introduced in the House — a proud

and historic day for government, introducing that bill.

It’s a wonderful question for committee stage on Bill 41 — not

particularly relevant to the distribution of gaming revenue to First

Nations that is in front of the committee right now.

C. Oakes: Where it is relevant is that it is a historic day. Any time

there’s something like this and there’s been significant change in the

legislation and we need to have that conversation, I think it is very

fitting — and Grand Chief Ed John said it so eloquently about the fact

that it’s important — that we do everything within our ability to make

sure we’re answering those questions so that if there are any concerns

that are coming from our communities, we’re respecting those, and we’re

taking every single opportunity to ensure that we’re not going to have

unintended consequences.

The community gaming grant program is incredibly important to our

communities. I really value what the Attorney General said about

recognizing the fact that our communities in the Cariboo have been

struggling. One of the eligibility factors currently within the

community gaming grant guideline is looking at the demonstrated need of

community members.

When I look at the fact that we have seen significant decline in

community gaming grant revenue…. The Quesnel Figure Skating Club

traditionally receives $28,000. This year they received nothing. When

the north Cariboo Métis society, their healthy relationships, which is

critically important…. Again, the North Cariboo Métis Association that

puts in for victim services…. We were not successful in getting those

funds.

Literacy Quesnel — critically important funding for our community

— impacts a lot of Indigenous First Nations and non-Indigenous in our

community. We’re seeing that the Lions Club has been reduced. The Rotary

club’s funds have been reduced. The Scouts have been reduced. The

Quesnel Women’s Resource Centre went from $122,000 down to

$80,500.

So women’s groups, First Nations groups, public safety groups,

sports groups and arts groups have all seen a decline in community

gaming grant funding into our community.

[3:25 p.m.]

There is significant fear that the changes that are being brought

forward could have even more impact on our communities that have been

significantly impacted.

I think it is fitting. The Attorney General said that he did not

have the ability in the last couple of hours to look at the

interpretation of UNDRIP and the impact that it’ll have on community

gaming grants.

I think it’s fitting, at this time, that we send that sense of

confidence back to all of our communities who count on community gaming

grants for our volunteer organizations, our sports groups, our public

safety organizations — all those volunteer groups that work so

diligently and so hard in our communities. They expect us to raise their

voices and their concerns, and they want to make sure that the community

gaming grant will be kept whole.

I think that is a rightful thing for us to say. So I move an

amendment that is on the order paper.

Section 2 by adding the underlined text as

shown:

Amount of net income available for community gaming

grants

14.7 Subject to the regulations and the

prescribed formula, a minimum percentage of the actual net income of

the lottery corporation for each fiscal year beginning on or after

April 1, 2020 shall be made available for community gaming grants in

accordance with

Part 6.

And by adding the following section:

2.1

Section 41 (1) is amended by striking out

“ Subject to there being an appropriation under the

Financial Administration Act ,

and ” and substituting “ Subject to

section 14.7, and ”. ]

I think it’s a fair amendment. Again, it just reaffirms that the

community gaming grant program will be available.

While I recognize that the minister has said, “Look, we are

committed to putting this money forward,” I think constituents across

British Columbia would have a lot more confidence in this new

environment, before they have the ability to look at what the

interpretation is of Bill 41, by confirming that community gaming grant

programs will be kept whole for all of our volunteer organizations

across British Columbia, because we know how much you are counting on

these funds.

Again, I put forward this amendment that has been on the order

paper in my name. I look forward to comments from the

minister.

Hon. D. Eby: I look forward to reading the member’s amendment. I haven’t seen

it. I can advise the member that there is absolutely no impact on

community gaming grants by this initiative. Community gaming grants…. We

did a little back-of-the-envelope calculation here. About 10 percent of

net revenue to government from the B.C. Lottery Corp. goes to community

gaming grants. This program — about 7 percent going directly to First

Nations in the province.

I’ve asked staff to have a look. As I’ve advised the members

repeatedly, gaming grants are in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and

Housing. I’ll do my best to answer. The audit reports come back, but the

decisions around issuing grants are made by public servants in a

different ministry.

We’ll try to figure out what the changes, if any, have been in

gaming grants in the member’s constituency, because our government

actually increased gaming grants by $5 million on forming government.

There’s $5 million more available for community organizations in the

province than there was the year before, under the previous

administration, so it seems strange. But we will definitely….

I think the member will find that the intention of government is

to maintain what we understood to be the non-partisan distribution of

gaming grants to communities in need across the province — community

groups, and so on — and that tradition should be continuing. If she has

concerns that, for some reason, her community is not seeing good success

with the gaming grant applications, to make some time with the Minister

of Municipal Affairs and Housing — have a conversation, talk about those

groups, try to figure out what is going on and what the issues may

be.

The member should also know that government…. It was the same

issue when they were in government. I know, because many of the groups

that I worked for applied for gaming grants and didn’t get them. There’s

a fixed amount of funds and there’s far more need for the funds than

government has, so some applications will ultimately be declined. But

there are other sources of funds and there are other grants that

organizations can apply for, and government can assist with that kind of

thing.

[3:30 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I look forward to seeing the member’s proposed amendment. I don’t

fully have an understanding of it from her description, but I look

forward to reading it. But unless she’s been out consulting with First

Nations on this issue and has the support of the Leadership Council,

it’s going to be challenging.

She talks about the UNDRIP legislation that was introduced today.

One of the core principles is, of course, Indigenous people making

decisions for Indigenous people, and we have been working with

Indigenous groups for more than a year in developing this.

I’ll have a look at her amendment, but I’ll just caution her that

this context is a difficult one for an amendment that would structurally

change the program.

C. Oakes: I sincerely want to thank the Attorney General for recognizing our

communities and for an openness to look at what is happening.

I guess I raise this because I’ve certainly heard that…. And I

want to thank staff. I worked closely, as the minister, with the gaming

division, and I really want to thank them. I know that the work that’s

done is done in a thoughtful, sincere way, and I truly want to say thank

you. I am just trying to understand how I can better support my

constituents with some applications. Quite frankly, we’ve never seen

this level of reduction before, and we just want to get some

answers.

I also appreciate some of these programs…. Of course, again, I

have that file, and there is a large level of…. You know, everything

sometimes tends to be oversubscribed. I had the opportunity to meet with

the Minister of Public Safety on the victim services program. When

communities are in crisis and you lose a significant program that is

designed to help victims at a really, really difficult time, and a

significant portion of the folks are Indigenous…. I have those concerns.

And if we’ve looked at every funding option and we’re still not having

success, then it is our job to advocate.

Further to the Attorney General…. I appreciate his comments around

Bill 41. What I was talking about is

interpretations,

interpretations

that are created in legislation that identify in this act how we

interpret a body. A governing body can have application to other pieces

of legislation. I will say that in the pieces of legislation I’ve had

the privilege of bringing forward, I was certainly advised by incredibly

capable public servants that any type of

interpretation or change that

we make in legislation can have ramifications or can have changes in

other pieces of legislation.

I think what the amendment is about is saying we have a community

gaming grant program that, yes, is separate from what has been proposed

in Bill 36. But what constituents are asking of this minister is: can

you confirm that the community gaming grant funds, that the funds that

he has, in fact, stated will remain the same, that people will still

have access to community gaming grant funds, that we will, in fact, keep

as well — to create that certainty across British Columbia that

community gaming grants will not be impacted? That is the statement that

we are hoping, within this amendment, will be recognized by this

minister.

Hon. D. Eby: One of the repeated concerns that people brought forward to me in

community, following the government’s ban on bulk cash transactions at

casinos, following the revelations of large-scale transnational money

laundering happening in our casinos, was concern that this might impact

the revenue at casinos and, by extension, the revenue of the B.C.

Lottery Corp. and, by extension, community gaming grants, all

negatively.

I assured people, the Premier assured people across the province,

and the Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing assured people across

the province that we would not be reducing community gaming grants. In

fact, our government increased community gaming grants by $5 million in

our first year.

We understand the importance of community gaming grants to

communities, to all of the cultural groups, the dance troupes, the

language groups, the services that are delivered to people, really, for

pennies on the dollar because so many of them are

volunteer-driven.

[3:35 p.m.]

We fully support the project, and I can assure the member that

there will be no impact on this that comes from further sharing of

gaming revenues directly with First Nations.

C. Oakes: Could you also confirm that funds will be regionally distributed

as well? Again, I’m trying to identify how come, in rural British

Columbia, we’ve seen such a reduction in organizations getting access to

community gaming grants. The question is: can the minister confirm…?

He’s just confirmed that there won’t be any reduction in the community

gaming grant program. Can he also confirm that rural British Columbians

will not see a negative impact — we don’t have the population; we talked

a little bit earlier about population formulas as it pertains to this

bill — and that there won’t be any reduction in rural British Columbia

on community gaming?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a challenge to get the information the member needs, because

it’s not squarely on the bill that’s in front of the House. We’re doing

our best. I will endeavour to get her the distribution — how it’s

distributed geographically, whether population plays a factor. It’s

certainly based on applications. People have to apply for the money, but

I don’t know exactly how it’s distributed.

I don’t believe there has been any change to distribution plans or

policies, but again, I don’t know. So what I’d like to do is to get the

information for the member and share it with her as soon as I can, but I

don’t currently have it.

C. Oakes: I really do appreciate and look forward to getting access to that

information. Maybe part of the reason is…. And again, this is the

integrity piece that the Attorney General is responsible for.

I know, for example, that on the sports side, March 1 to May 31 is

when the applications went in. All organizations, by policy, were to be

told by August 31, and the sporting groups are still waiting. I don’t

know if perhaps that’s a piece of a policy change or something from an

audit perspective, but we’re wondering why there are such significant

delays. There were also delays in the arts and cultural funding

announcements that were supposed to go out on July 31. I think this year

it went out in September.

So if that information could also be accessed — why there are such

significant delays in organizations that have applied for community

gaming grants, why they have not yet heard.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m afraid I just don’t have that information for the

member.

C. Oakes: Would the Attorney General also be willing, though, to provide

that information in the other information he is accessing?

Hon. D. Eby: Absolutely, I will. But in the interest of red-tape reduction, I

might suggest that the member go directly, as well, to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Housing, or ask her staff to reach out to the

minister’s staff. It sounds like she has a number of questions about the

program. Because, essentially, what I’m doing is getting the information

from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and then passing it

through to the member. So if she has additional questions, if she wants

to get into detail, I’m sure that staff would be glad to arrange

it.

M. Lee: Well, I’d like to join the member for Cariboo North in supporting

her amendment to this bill. This amendment to the Gaming Control Act

would propose a new section….

The Chair: Yes, and Member, you’re speaking on the amendment.

[3:40 p.m.]

M. Lee: I am, to 14.7. The amendment has been moved, so now I’m speaking

in favour of the amendment.

When we look at revenue-sharing of gaming revenue…. I mentioned

earlier that in the 1980s under a previous Premier, Bill Bennett, there

was a real recognition of the importance of gaming revenue to

communities and that those gaming revenues ought to be shared with arts

and cultural organizations, sports and other social infrastructure in

our communities around the province directly and not at the behest of

government through general revenue.

The Attorney General just mentioned more recent history. But when

we talk about history in this House, I think it’s important that we all

understand the history. In the 1990s, there were issues around gaming

revenues with the previous NDP government — Bingogate, as it was known —

concerns about the funneling of money through various charities and

kickbacks. Criminal charges were laid.

This is when, of course, we talk about ensuring integrity in the

way that gaming revenue is provided to community organizations in this

province — that there’s a level of stability. I appreciate when the

Attorney General says that we have to have confidence in how gaming

revenues are shared. Absolutely. That’s the purpose of this

amendment.

This amendment ensures what has been confirmed at this committee

level. There’s been a stable level of funding available to the community

gaming program. That’s been at the 10 percent level. It has ranged

between $134 million to $139 million over the last four fiscal years.

And there will be no impact on that program by this other arrangement

with First Nations.

We are just trying to ensure that, through this amendment, we’re

saying to communities around this province that that important community

gaming program will continue, with a minimum percentage commitment from

our government. Again, for the reasons that the member for Cariboo North

indicated at length, both in her second reading speech and just now at

committee stage, there is tremendous need, and there is tremendous

concern as a result.

Communities that are not just rural parts of our province but

other parts of our province really depend on the ability to access

gaming funds to support their organizations. We know, with the economic

pressures — the increased taxes, the uncertainty in the forestry

industry and other industries resource-wise and others in this province

— that there is downward pressure. There is downward pressure on

giving.

Individuals who want to support our community organizations and

our communities for good intention have less disposable income to do

that. The trend lines are coming down on that. So we need to ensure, as

a government, that we continue to support these organizations, the

not-for-profit organizations that have to fill in the gaps.

I certainly believe that government can’t do everything. We need

community organizations that can respond to local needs. They’re best

situated to do that. Government has a part to support that. We can’t do

it on our own. We need that partnership. That’s why, through the

community gaming grant program, it’s been a vital program of

funding.

I believe, with other colleagues on this side of the House, that

there’s a great need to ensure that we demonstrate that level of

commitment to community organizations all over this province by setting

a minimum percentage of the same term — the actual net income of the

Lottery Corp. on an annual basis. This amendment would propose that that

would be set by regulation and the reg-making power under subsection

41(1) of the act and that we begin with that minimum commitment in the

upcoming financial year of government, recognizing that, under the

interim agreement, the revenue-sharing as a commitment to First Nations

has already been underway.

[3:45 p.m.]

The two streams can run side by side — 7 percent, in the first

case, for First Nations and a minimum percentage to be set and confirmed

under this amendment. For discussion purposes, we’ve been talking about

it at the 10 percent level. That would be the expectation, if not

more.

We need to ensure, with the changes in the program and what

members on this side of the House are seeing in their communities….

There seems to be some difficulty in some of the organizations that have

been depending on that funding, as the member for Cariboo North has been

describing. There seems to be some change here.

Now, I appreciate the Attorney General has indicated that the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will provide that information

through her team, but it’s in that context that we want to ensure that

we have that level of clarity and transparency and commitment. That’s

why we’re proposing this amendment. Certainly, I’m supportive of this

amendment, and I hope that all members of this House will consider this

amendment in that spirit.

Point of Order

Hon. D. Eby: I’m glad to hear the member’s comments. I think, really, any

government would approach reducing gaming grant money extremely carefully.

The impact of these grants, although small, is very significant for many,

many, many community groups all across the province. That’s why our

government increased gaming grants by $5 million a year.

I note that simply because I can’t help but wonder if this proposed

amendment is out of order on a couple of fronts. One is that it’s not

related to the bill in front of the House, and the other is that it purports

to put a financial obligation onto government. So I would ask for a decision

from the Clerk on whether or not this amendment is in order.

I mean, that’s assuming that the members want to go ahead with it, in

light of repeated assurances that the gaming grants not only haven’t

decreased under our government but have actually increased, even though

we’ve written down $30 million a year at B.C. Lottery Corp. because they’re

no longer taking bulk cash transactions from people involved in money

laundering.

M. Lee: If I may, just for consideration by the Clerk and others here, this

amendment that is being proposed has been on the order paper, given notice

to all members of this House. By way of discussion, we have confirmed at

this committee level that this would not be a new financial obligation to

government. In fact, as confirmed by the Attorney General, it’s been an

existing, repeated, stable, steady level of commitment.

We are also not specifying what that number is. We’re only saying, in

concept, that the government, through this act, should set a minimum

percentage, and that percentage would be determined by regulation. That

regulation, of course, will confirm what level of funding has been made

available by government on a consistent basis and clearly has been done so

in this current budget year as well.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’d be interested in a ruling, but I’m happy to speak while you

confer, to give you the time to see if there is a ruling on whether or not

the amendment is in order.

I guess I rise to speak because it’s interesting. There seems to be an

attempt…. I think the member for Vancouver-Langara said: “There seems to be

some change here.” I think the member for Cariboo North talked about

something that has happened that has meant that non-profits in her riding

haven’t got gaming grants, as if the government, through some secret

backdoor move, has deleted funds, when the actual fact is that $5 million

has been increased in gaming grants.

I rise to speak to this because the only time we’ve seen some change

to gaming grants in British Columbia, the kind of change that those members

are trying to suggest we are doing, which is completely wrong, is when they

were in government.

I was new to this House in 2009, 2010. The government of the day found

that they had told the public they would have a balanced budget. They

didn’t, so then they went and raided charities to patch the hole that

existed in the budget. This amendment seems to suggest that that’s what’s

going on today, and that’s not what’s going on today.

[3:50 p.m.]

Their government was so vicious, in the sense that they even took

money from charities that had multi-year contracts with government and that

had already spent the money. There were charities that had spent the money

to put on performances, to support youth, to do those kinds of

things.

They were required by government rules to have a big logo of the

province of B.C. They were required to thank the province of B.C. for the

money. They put the money. They paid their artists. They paid their staff.

Then they were told by government, by the former Liberal government, that,

no, actually the money that they’d been promised, the money that was to pay

the salaries of those people who’d already done the job, wasn’t coming,

that, in fact, the government was going to renege, break its commitment to

fund charities.

The only time that happened was under the B.C. Liberals. So for them

to suggest there’s some change going on here when, in fact, we’ve increased

the gaming budget by $5 million to go to charities and non-profits…. It

doesn’t add up. I could use stronger language, but I’m trying to be warm and

friendly, because today is a good day.

It was wrong. It hurt people. It caused non-profits to shut their

doors, to lose their ability to serve their communities. I know of arts

councils, for example, that were forced to fire all their staff because of

what the Liberal government did.

Gaming grants matter. The only time in our province where a government

didn’t think they mattered was when those people were on this side of the

floor. I remember the former Premier of the day saying there…. This is a

quote. He was on the radio. When asked why he was tearing up contracts with

non-profit charities, he said, “Well, there are commitments, and then there

are commitments,” seeming to suggest that a commitment to a charity was not

a real commitment by the government.

Now, thankfully, people rose up. They spoke out in opposition, and

they made it clear that gaming grants mattered. I think, in some small part,

that it led to the loss of that Premier, not to mention the HST and all the

rest. There was some small move under the next Premier to try and repair

some of the damage they’d done to non-profits by putting a bit of the money

back, but fundamentally, they didn’t do much else. I think they realized

that you can’t go after non-profits and charities in this way, and I’m glad

they realized that.

Our government recognizes that very strongly. That’s why we increased

the budget for gaming grants to communities. That’s why more people are

getting more money from gaming grants in this province today. But this

legislation, fundamentally, is not about non-profits and charities. It’s

about First Nations communities getting access to gaming grant funds that

they should have been getting a long time ago.

I’m not sure if this amendment is in order. I understand the spirit of

it, but I just find that the argument in support of it is false. There’s

been no reduction in gaming grants. There’s been no move to limit them going

to charities. There has been no sum change here, as the member obliquely

referred to. In fact, the opposite — the only change here has been the

gaming grants going up, more money going out to communities and a stronger

commitment to gaming grants in this province than we saw under the former

government.

C. Oakes: I’ve sat in this House over the last few days, and people have

heckled. They’ve said I’ve…. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast

somehow alluded to the fact that I was lying. The member for Vancouver–West

End said that what I am saying is somehow false. I would like this

opportunity to read into Hansard the experiences of my

constituents, what is happening now, the actual numbers. It is not false. It

is happening in our communities, and it is wrong.

The member for Vancouver–West End talked about the Arts Council, so

let’s look at what the Quesnel arts council put in for. In 2018, they

received $11,500. This year, they received $6,000. I mentioned the Quesnel

Figure Skating Club. For years, they’ve received $28,000. This year, they

received nothing.

The Baker Creek Enhancement Society: last year, $44,000; this year,

nothing. And they’re important. Their job is around…. They do work on

wildfire mitigation and restoration and resilience. The Quesnel Women’s

Resource Centre: 2017, $122,000; under this NDP government, under this

community gaming grant program, it is now down to $80,500.

[3:55 p.m.]

How about the Scouts? Let’s see what the Scouts group got. In 2018,

they received $7,700. This year they received $5,600. How about Quesnel

Rotary? Last year, Quesnel Rotary received $32,235. This year, they received

$20,000. How about the Lions Club? The Lions do excellent work in supporting

seniors in our community. Last year, $29,058; this year, 2019, they received

$20,000. Victim services through the North Cariboo Métis healthy

relationship program — cut, no funding.

I have a very difficult time…. I’ve got pages, and I would be happy to

spend that time going through each of these organizations, because I have

been tracking it.

To the members who say or suggest to my constituents, who I represent

and who I proudly come and serve in this House…. To suggest for one moment

that what I’m sharing with you in this House is false is wrong. It’s

absolutely wrong.

I appreciate the sincerity of the Attorney General for looking and

finding and providing me the opportunity to get the answers that my

constituents are asking for. If $5 million has, in fact, increased in the

community gaming grants — and I know, through the financials, that it has —

the constituents in my riding, who’ve been absolutely decimated by what has

been happening in our community…. Where a fundamental value that states in

the community gaming grant program that you are supposed to look at

communities who are having significant impacts, the only impact I see in my

community and for my volunteer organizations and my groups is a reduction in

funds from the community gaming grant program.

So forgive me if I have put forward an amendment to ensure that for my

constituents and for my volunteer organizations, who have served for so many

years, there is some sense that funds will be kept whole and that

organizations in our community — and communities across British Columbia —

who work tirelessly to volunteer, whether it’s sports, arts, public safety,

environment, know that they can trust this government to ensure that those

funds will remain. That will ensure that through this piece of amendment,

financially, they will know that they can count on this government and

future governments to make sure that the community gaming grant funds will

be kept whole.

The Chair: The House will recess for about five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:58 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Point of Order

(Chair’s Ruling)

The Chair: In response to the point of order raised by the Attorney

General, I’ve examined the

section 2 proposed

by the member for Cariboo North.

[4:15 p.m.]

The amendment to

section 2 proposed by the member for Cariboo

North appropriates a portion of the income of the Lottery Corp. for

community grants in accordance with

part 6 of the Gaming Control Act.

Bill 36 provides for the sharing of annual provincial gaming revenue

with the B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited

Partnership.

In my opinion, in the opinion of the Chair, the proposed amendment

exceeds the scope of Bill 36. Additionally, the amendment contravenes

Standing Order 67, which requires a message from the Lieutenant-Governor

for any resolution for the appropriation of any part of the public

revenue for any purpose. The amendment is therefore ruled out of

order.

Debate Continued

Amendment ruled out of order.

S. Chandra Herbert: I certainly didn’t mean to, in any way, suggest that community

organizations in the member for Cariboo North’s community may have had,

in some cases, a decline in gaming grant revenue. Some years it’s up,

and some years it’s down. I know that’s really a tough struggle for

charities. I’ve worked in them, and I understand that.

I think what I’m trying to suggest…. I double-checked the math

here, and it may be helpful for the member. She can probably pass this

on to the community groups in her neighbourhood. In Quesnel, in

specific, the numbers that I’ve got suggest that in 2016-2017, Quesnel

itself — the community non-profits there — received about $515,000, give

or take, in gaming grants. That’s in the BCLC report that was provided

to council. It’s on the web. It’s easily accessible.

However, 2017-2018 saw about a $100,000 boost to community

charities in her community through BCLC gaming grants. In fact, instead

of seeing a decline, we saw about $100,000 more go into Quesnel than

under the last year of the previous government. Now, to say what will

happen in 2020, when they release the report…. We haven’t seen it,

obviously. I haven’t seen it. It will be re­leased publicly in

April.

I want to clarify that it wasn’t to suggest…. Certain non-profits

may have seen a change in their funding levels, as has happened in my

own community. Some have got more. Some have got less. And in fact, in

the entirety, more have got more than some have got less. The numbers

have gone up, and $100,000 more into the community of Quesnel is, I

think, something that should be celebrated as opposed to suggesting

there’s less money going in than there was before.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

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

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:18 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[4:20 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — GAMING CONTROL

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 36, Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 72

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Sims

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Malcolmson

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

Cadieux

de Jong

Polak

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Morris

Stilwell

Oakes

Johal

Rustad

Milobar

Shypitka

Hunt

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Isaacs

Thomson

Larson

NAYS — 1

Letnick

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 33, Securities

Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 33 — SECURITIES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 33 be read a second time now.

The amendments that are included in Bill 33 are to improve

security law here in British Columbia in a number of ways. I’ll use my

second reading comments to talk about the various ways and the positive

impacts that we could see through these changes in this bill.

I think people may think of the Securities Act as far removed from

their own life and that it’s not something that impacts most people.

They don’t have large investments. They may not think of the Securities

Act as something important to them or that impacts them

personally.

I think we’ve all seen the headlines. We’ve all seen the stories

of fraud that often occurs, fraud that may occur through investors

telling people that this is a great investment. In fact, people are

often losing, in many cases, life savings or retirement savings. So

these are very personal, heartbreaking stories that, in fact, we see

when we take a look at the Securities Act and the impact of strong

regulation.

[4:35 p.m.]

I think the other piece that’s really critical and important is

the faith that people have in our public institutions and, certainly,

faith that people need to have in our financial institutions in this

province — to make sure that they know that there are strong regulations

around investment, around derivatives, around securities, that those are

in place, that they can feel confident when they’re investing, that

those rules and regulations are being followed and that there are

penalties for people who don’t follow them.

I think this is critical legislation. There are critical

amendments that are coming forward in this bill to crack down on

fraudsters, to support victims and ensure that we do everything we can

so that victims have as much of their money returned as is possible and

that we build public confidence in the systems that we have here in our

province. That’s why I think this is a bill that, while people may not

see it have an impact on their lives, in fact is critical to the

confidence in our province.

Many of these amendments, just to look at a few of the specifics….

I think it’s also important to note that these changes to the Securities

Act are the first significant changes that have come forward in a long

period of time — in fact, in almost a decade since we’ve seen these

kinds of major changes come forward in the Securities Act.

So many of the amendments, as we go through them…. I’m sure in

committee stage, we’ll have an opportunity to be able to go through the

specifics: increase enforcement and fine collections and fine collection

powers that will serve, again, as I said, to deter security fraud in our

province and will ensure that we continue to be a leader in this

country. Many of these new changes that are in this bill, in fact, will

have British Columbia as the leader. We will be ahead of other provinces

when it comes to cracking down on fraud.

There are new powers, as well, that really will aid the commission

in the difficult task of collecting fines from people who violate

securities. What you’ll find, and I’m sure members will know this in

this House, is that the fraudsters often have ways of trying to hide

their assets, hide their money, when they know that they’re going to be

facing challenges for the work they’re doing. So what you will see in

these changes is to close as many loopholes as possible, to be able to

find the areas that have been used for evasion and to be able to evade

detection, and to be able to address those.

For example, in this act, you will see that we’ve included more

expansive investigatory powers that will allow the commission staff to

investigate both the person who is under investigation and the people

who have received property for less than market value from that person

under investigation.

This is a very critical piece of these changes. It is a new piece

but a very critical piece of these changes. Very often what you will see

are fraudsters who will transfer their property for less than market

value, for a very low cost, to individuals in order to hide it from the

fine that may be coming or to hide it from the dollars that could be

returned to victims, so this is a very important piece. Once these

assets are identified using the new investigatory powers, as I

mentioned, the commission will then have expanded powers to be able to

preserve the assets until the person of interest’s guilt can be

determined through a commission hearing.

I think that’s very important to note. Again, as I said, it will

give the opportunity to preserve those assets, go through the hearing

process. If guilt is found through the hearing process, then you still

have the ability to be able to utilize that asset, to be able to provide

support back to victims who have been victimized.

Again, as I talked about loopholes, this prevents people…. Well,

as much as possible, it will hopefully prevent people and serve to deter

people from hiding their assets or transferring their assets to other

individuals to avoid their fines, to not have to pay their fines. Again,

let’s remember that this is about returning resources to victims. This

is about providing compensation to victims, and, as much as possible,

that’s the goal in the changes that are coming forward.

[4:40 p.m.]

As I mentioned, you would go through a hearing process. After a

hearing where the commission orders a person to disgorge any funds that

were wrongfully obtained from investors, the commission then will be

able to use a process that people will know because it’s very similar to

the process found in the Civil Forfeiture Act. It’s a very similar kind

of process they’ll be able to use it to seize the assets that were

preserved during the investigation to satisfy the disgorgement order.

“Disgorgement” is their formal term they use to return money to victims.

So again, as we’ve seen in the Civil Forfeiture Act, it means making

sure that people don’t profit from crime, that you can actually utilize

those resources to be able to provide the support.

These expanded preservation and forfeiture powers will, hopefully,

make it more difficult for the person who violated security laws to

actually shield their assets. It will certainly assist the commission in

ensuring that there are more assets available to repay the victims,

which, ultimately, is something that I think all of us in this House

certainly support.

It also is about making sure that there are real consequences for

people who violate security law. That’s a key component in all of this.

Because while we want to make sure the penalties are in place — and you

will see through these amendments in this act that we’ve done that —

it’s also important to send a message that we are not going to tolerate

it. We are going to do everything we can in this province to ensure that

victims are compensated, that people don’t fall victim to these kinds of

crimes.

In addition to the investigatory, the preservation and the

forfeiture powers, we’ve also introduced a process for those people who

fail to pay their security fines. There are additional penalties in here

now where they will be unable to renew their licence to drive or be able

to get numbered plates for their vehicles. This is, again, another

deterrent. If someone has a fine on record and they’re avoiding paying

their fine, they will be penalized. They will be penalized no