Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 120

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 16 — Securities Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

T. Redies

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Securities Amendment Act, 2018

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

R. Singh

S. Furstenau

Hon. S. Simpson

Standing Order 35 (Speaker’s Ruling)

Request to debate a matter of urgent public importance —

referral of jurisdictional dispute to court

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. S. Fraser

E. Ross

A. Olsen

D. Ashton

D. Barnett

J. Sturdy

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

Hon. K. Conroy

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

J. Thornthwaite

THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2018

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee on Bill 16, the Securities Amendment

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

Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 16 — SECURITIES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

section 1.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I will do my best. I apologize for the voice. No one is more

frustrated than I am at not having had my voice this week. I appreciate

the ministers who have filled in on a couple of bills. I look forward to

the discussion on Bill 16.

I’ll just take a moment to introduce my staff that I have with me:

Shauna Brouwer, who is ADM from policy and legislation, and Tim Prisiak,

who is the senior policy adviser for the policy and legislation

division. I look forward to the questions.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. We don’t intend to test her throat too

much this afternoon.

I just want to thank my co-critic for her comments in second

reading. As always, she did a great job.

I think it is important to reflect on this bill. As has been noted

by both the minister and my colleague, this is about strengthening

enforcement and preventing fraud, and I don’t think that that’s

particularly a partisan issue. What we really want to do today is make

sure that the bill does reflect exactly what the government’s intentions

are. Generally speaking, I think we are supportive of that.

Let’s look at just a couple of things in

section 1. It amends the

definition of “decision” to limit the scope of the definition’s

application. Could the minister just explain for us the general purpose

section 1?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member, and thank you for the initial

comments.

I think we had a little bit of a discussion in second reading

about the purpose of this bill and why we brought it forward. I think

the member has identified that very well. This really is an issue when

you look at fines. I think all of us, all British Columbians, would

expect that if someone is levied a fine that they would come forward and

pay that. That’s not happening, so this is, in part, one of the steps

that we’re taking to address that.

section 1 — and the question that the member asked — if you

take a look at the existing provision, it says: “‘Decision’ means a

direction, decision, order….” This

section identifies the scope of what

a decision is. It ensures that the term “decision” applies only to the

statutory decisions by the commission, the executive director or the

designated organizations. It basically defines the scope of those

decisions.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate the answer.

Could the minister speak a bit more specifically about the

limiting of the scope and the definition’s application? Why is it

necessary to limit the scope? What was the rationale for thinking that

it needed to be narrowed? That’s really the key piece of this particular

section. Could the minister just explain why it was necessary to limit

the scope, and what was the purpose of that?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: This is a technical section, so I wanted to make sure I have the

information correct.

The current provision is unclear. The direction that we’re taking

in this legislation is that it would only include decisions under the

statute. So it wouldn’t include decisions such as hearing decisions that

the organization may have that are contractual with their members, for

example.

This is limiting to make sure that we’re very clear about the fact

that it only includes decisions made under this statute that can then

apply. It doesn’t include routine decisions or hearing decisions that

may have happened contractually, non-statutorily with their members and

the organization.

S. Bond: That’s one of the things I appreciate about the minister. I know

that she does work hard to understand the details, and I very much

appreciate that. That is a helpful clarification.

I know that in the minster’s second reading comments, she

reflected that there had been a request for government, actually, to

make some of these changes. Could the minister just outline for us who

asked? Was the limiting of the scope one of the things that — making

sure that it was compact…?

It probably is more relevant to later sections in the bill, but

maybe just a sense of: how did we get here today? Who asked for it? From

the minister’s perspective, does this bill meet the test of the

stakeholders that came and said: “Look, we need to fix this”?

Hon. C. James: As the discussion occurred — and I know that the member will have

seen the discussion in the media around fines and unpaid fines — we were

approached by IIROC and by the mutual fund dealers, who came to us to

say that they wanted this change.

I think the member will remember that in second reading, I talked

about the other jurisdictions that have already moved in this direction.

Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and P.E.I. have already moved in this

direction.

IIROC, in particular, said that they certainly felt that it made

it easier for them. It gave them another tool to be able to look at

collecting fines. They approached us to say that they wanted B.C. to

move in the same direction, and we certainly agreed. They are very

supportive of the changes that are here. It mirrors what’s done in other

provinces, and it mirrors the direction that they were looking

for.

S. Bond: My last question on this section. I appreciate that the minister

anticipated I was going to go to jurisdictional progress that had been

made in other jurisdictions.

In crafting British Columbia’s bill, then — I think the minister

did answer it, but I just want to be sure — we took a look at other

jurisdictions. Is this consistent? Are there variations in how the

issues were captured in legislation in other jurisdictions, or are we

now seeing sort of consistent tool kits across the country?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes, in fact, the effect of this legislation is identical to other

provinces — the end result. There are some details that relate to our

legislation compared to their legislation.

The only province where this legislation would be considered

significantly differently, of course, is Quebec, just because of their

differences and their civil law. Their legislation looks very different

than ours, but the effect of the legislation across the country now is

very similar.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

T. Redies: This is probably the main

section of the bill, so we have a few

questions on that. I guess I start off with the news release in the

minister’s speech. It referred to empowering two groups that we were

talking about — the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of

Canada, or IIROC, and then the Mutual Fund Dealers Association, or

MFDA.

If ensuring that these two groups can act on their decisions and

file them with the court, why not list them in the legislation? Why give

cabinet these broad powers to pick reg authorities at will?

Hon. C. James: We did review all of those issues. I’m glad the member asked the

question, because that was one of the questions that was asked when we

were drafting the legislation and taking a look at it.

I think it really is a reality of today’s securities market, which

is that the market changes rapidly, organizations change names and new

organizations may come in as there’s a gap there in the securities

market.

For example, in 2008, IIROC itself came together from two

organizations. So it was actually two separate organizations, the

Investment Dealers organization and the Market Regulation Services Inc.

They came together to form IIROC. You see that often in the

market.

What we wanted to make sure was that it didn’t require us to come

back to the legislation every time an organization changed its name or

you saw a merger between organizations. This allows the prescribed names

of the organization to be changed in regulation and not required to come

back in legislation.

T. Redies: That’s a bit curious to me. I know I’ve spent 25 years in the

financial services business, and I haven’t seen that many changes to

associations like IIROC and MFDA. I guess my question would be: if they

morph into a new entity, are you saying that their powers under the

legislation would cease?

Hon. C. James: As the member pointed out, there may not have been a lot of change

moving up to this time period, but I think if you look at the markets

now — if you look at Bitcoin, if you look at other organizations that

are coming on board to address the changes that are happening in the

securities market — we are seeing more change and more variety of

organizations coming in.

[1:50 p.m.]

There is a possibility that if you identified all the

organizations in the legislation and, for example, an organization

changed its name twice or changed its name and then did a merger, that

wouldn’t create the kind of clarity that would be needed to ensure that

they were able to carry out their duties under the

legislation.

This really is making sure that we can be as clear as possible and

provide that clarity as it’s needed for the organizations that are going

to have these additional powers.

T. Redies: These are, I think, sizeable authorities. I guess, again, having

not seen that much change — you mentioned entities like Bitcoin, etc. —

it would seem to be odd to….

Let me rephrase myself. What would be the process around another

organization or association coming forward? What would be the criteria

for the cabinet to make that decision — that they should give the same

authorities that they’re giving to the MFDA and IIROC?

Hon. C. James: The process right now is the B.C. Securities Commission makes that

decision. It’s not government who would make that decision. The B.C.

Securities Commission would have to go through a recognition order for

anyone new who would come in — or a name change, to recognize a merger,

those kinds of things.

It’s not the government that would make that decision. They would

go through the B.C. Securities Commission. They’d be authorized. A

recognition order would come forward from the B.C. Securities Commission

to make a change to the regulation to add an organization that had gone

through that due diligence of the B.C. Securities.

T. Redies: Just to clarify, to the minister: you’re saying that as long as it

meets the B.C. Securities guidelines, then cabinet would automatically

give those associations or entities the same legal powers?

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member for the question. I’m learning a lot about

the process of the Securities Commission.

The Securities Commission would bring forward a recognition order.

The minister, themselves, would have to go through an approval process.

The recognition order would go through to the securities policy branch

of the Ministry of Finance. They would do their due diligence. A lot of

that’s already been done, obviously, through the B.C. Securities

Commission. But it’s another check and balance that occurs.

It goes through the policy branch. All of that due diligence

occurs. It comes back to the minister for approval, then has to go to

cabinet and then has to be approved to be added.

T. Redies: Can the minister advise us if the minister consulted the Attorney

General regarding the legality of delegating powers to implement

judicial decisions to a private entity?

Hon. C. James: Yes, we did. I consulted, and all that’s cleared.

T. Redies: I perhaps should have been more broad with my question, because I

think you know which one’s coming.

[1:55 p.m.]

What was the opinion on this? This is, I take it, a lawful

exercise.

Hon. C. James: I should have said in my yes response that we would not be

bringing something forward if there were outstanding issues and we were

told that it did follow the legal process. I think that’s important to

state — that it would not be coming forward otherwise.

Yes, the Attorney General was very closely involved in the

drafting process. Leg counsel reviews the draft. There were absolutely

no concerns raised. So all of this has gone through that

process.

T. Redies: I had to ask. Did the minister or the Attorney General consult the

judiciary in this process to determine their thoughts and their opinion

on it?

Hon. C. James: This was part of the discussion, again, in taking a look at the

legislation — what weight this would have on court resources, for

example. In the discussion that occurred, with both the Attorney as well

as the drafters going through the legislation, the only resources that

would be required from the courts would be time from filing clerks,

because basically they’re filing the decision with the courts, which

then gives them the ability to be able to utilize that and collect the

fines themselves.

The only time that we see that there may be some possibility could

be appeals of the decisions, using the courts. But again, it is expected

that it’s simply clerk time in filing the resource, which would not add

an extra burden on to the court system.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

S. Bond: I think that we can tell there’s some collegiality and some

agreement with this bill.

Section 4 just builds a little bit on the discussions we’ve had

earlier about regulation, adding regulation around these sections, and

in previous bills as well. Perhaps the minister…. Let’s start with the

minister explaining for us — if she will, please — the reason behind

changing the language. The language moves from “prescribing those

decisions” to “prescribing classes of decisions.”

Can the minister explain, first of all, the difference and why it

was important? Despite the fact that we know that other jurisdictions

have used similar processes, why did we move from “those decisions” to

“classes of decisions”?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: This is, again, a technical piece, where it’s actually correcting

what should have been in the legislation to begin with. It says:

“prescribing those decisions.” It actually should have said,

“prescribing classes of decisions,” which is why you see in (28.1) that

we’ve actually used “classes of decisions.” That’s the correct language.

Basically, we’re just correcting the language in the clause above

that.

S. Bond: Thank you for that, to the minister. Am I correct in suggesting

that this

section allows regulation to change at any time the kinds of

decisions that are subject to an appeal?

Hon. C. James: This legislation gives a new power to the self-regulatory

organizations. The B.C. Securities Commission provides the checks and

balances on that power and follows the robust work that needs to happen.

What this regulation does is it ensures that if the Securities

Commission is not able to provide that robust work that is needed to

ensure that this power is used in the proper way, this gives government

an opportunity, through regulation, to put restrictions on the power to

file with the court.

It’s one more check and balance, just in case, because these are

new powers going into place. This gives the opportunity for government,

through regulation, not to expand but in fact to restrict powers if the

checks and balances weren’t in place through the Securities

Commission.

S. Bond: In essence, it is an oversight provision. Should there be issues

at the self-regulatory level, the government has the ability then to

step in and to change the conditions for an appeal?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Just to clarify. This is related to filing decisions, not related

to an appeal. For the appeals, over self-regulatory organizations, fines

or penalties, the appeal process actually has to be finished before they

can file the decision with the court. This regulation only applies to

filing the decisions with the court and restricting their ability to

file the decisions with the court if the due diligence didn’t

happen.

I think the member’s description of oversight is correct. It

provides government with that second oversight, after the B.C.

Securities Commission oversight, that we believe is robust and needs to

be there. Because this a new power, it’s one more check and balance to

put in place.

S. Bond: That was a very helpful clarification. I do want to make sure that

through all of this…. The minister did a good job of this in her second

reading remarks, but I just want to, before we finish the bill, provide

the context that she did and reflect on that for a moment.

This is a reaction to a small group of people who choose to act

inappropriately. I think that is a fair description of the minister’s

comments, and we certainly agree with that. I think it is very important

to remind people that there are a lot of great people in this industry.

This is not about the entire group. It is about that small group of

people who choose to behave badly.

The minister, in her comments in second reading — so I’m assuming

that allows me the latitude to ask the question — did reflect on the

issue of the B.C. Securities Commission and the fact that this is not

related to that but additional work is coming. I’m wondering if the

minister would just be prepared to reference that for us, in a sense of

what comes next from that perspective.

I know she will forgive me. Our colleague did make reference in

his second reading remarks about the national securities regulator and

what on earth has happened to that. I know he was most eager for a

progress update, having spent much of his career working on that

particular topic. Before we wrap the bill, if the minister wouldn’t mind

making several comments, because in a very tangential way it is related

to this bill. If she would do that, that would be most

appreciated.

Hon. C. James: Yes, I’m happy to make some remarks related to the issues that the

member raised. I think, as the member said, I raised this in my second

reading comments, that a few bad apples can taint the entire industry

for many people. If they have one experience — their neighbour or

relative or friend or as a news headline reads — then they presume the

whole industry is having difficulties.

I think it’s even more important, from my perspective, to address

the few bad apples, because it helps, in fact, the good people who work

in the industry. I think that applies in any profession. It’s not unique

to this profession. I think it happens in any profession. You need to

have good, solid accountability in place to be able to address those

issues. So I couldn’t agree more, and that’s really the work that’s been

done.

I don’t want to speak to all the things we’re looking at with B.C.

Securities Commission. I know the member will look forward to that

legislation coming. That’s the next piece we’re working on.

It’s obviously more complex at the securities commission end,

because you are talking about individuals who may skip provinces. I

talked about individuals who will quit the self-regulated organization

to be able to not pay a fine. When you’re talking about the B.C.

Securities Commission, you often have people who will have scams between

provinces, who will leave the country, who will transfer assets to a

spouse or to someone else to be able to avoid accountability.

We are reviewing all of that work and obviously having discussions

as well at the federal level about work we can do together, because this

really needs work being done across provinces and across the

sector.

[2:10 p.m.]

Update on the national securities regulatory initiative. Happy to

give that update to the member, who, I know, would be interested. Often

people here refer to it as the cooperative capital markets regulatory

system.

B.C. is still participating in this project. I admit we have

expressed our concern about the length of time that much of this work is

taking. We’ve said that we will not hold back on changes that we believe

need to be made to our own securities market. If needed, we’ll move

ahead with those anyway. But we are continuing because we still believe

that that project has worth.

All jurisdictions are continuing along on that joint project and

looking at the work that needs to be done. Progress is moving, albeit a

bit slower than I think all the jurisdictions involved in this case

would wish it was.

S. Bond: Thank you for that. We do want to express our gratitude. My

colleague and I, my co-critic and I, want to thank the staff and the

minister for her information on this bill.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:11 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SECURITIES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 16, Securities Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. James: I call second reading of Bill 10.

[2:15 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — FAMILY MAINTENANCE

ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

The Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2018, makes two

types of changes to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act.

One, amendments are proposed to replace a requirement to file in

the land title office the entirety of a family law order or agreement

with a requirement to file a notice containing only the information

needed to identify the order or agreement. The act currently allows a

family law order or agreement that contains a support obligation to be

registered in the land title office against the titled property as

security for the payment of child or spousal support.

A family law support order or agreement often includes clauses

about other types of family law issues that are irrelevant to the

purpose of securing payment of support and which contain sensitive

information. For example, parenting arrangements clauses often include

the names and birthdates of children. The bill replaces the requirement

to file a full support order or agreement in the land title office with

the requirement to file a “notice of maintenance order,” which contains

only the information necessary to identify the order or agreement. A

similar form is currently used for filing property agreements between

spouses in the land title office.

Two, amendments are proposed to grant authority to the director of

maintenance enforcement to direct the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia to cancel the driver’s licence of someone with significant

support arrears. Currently, the director of maintenance enforcement can

only direct ICBC to refuse to issue or renew the driver’s licence of

someone with arrears of over $3,000.

Because drivers’ licences are generally renewed only once every

five years, this measure often has little immediate impact on the

behaviour of most debtors. The bill adds authority for the director to

direct ICBC to cancel the driver’s licence of someone with child or

spousal support arrears exceeding $3,000.

This provides a more immediate impact or potential impact on

non-compliance with support orders, encouraging debtors to enter into

arrangements to pay those arrears sooner. The ability to act more

quickly against the licence of a debtor also increases the director’s

willingness to accept more debtor-friendly payment

arrangements.

M. Lee: It’s an honour to take my place to speak to this bill. I will

preface my remarks by saying that I plan on supporting this bill. I

think that all sides of this House support any measures to help ensure

that families entitled to child or spousal support payments can depend

on them and plan around them. In these situations, stability and

predictability are key, and I understand that the amended legislation,

as proposed, is designed to accomplish exactly that.

After reviewing the bill and having a briefing with ministry

staff, I do have some specific questions about the bill, which I would

like to address at the committee stage. But just to mention a few here

on second reading, the bill, as the Attorney General mentioned, gives

the ability to the director to direct ICBC to cancel a debtor’s driver’s

licence when that person is in arrears under a maintenance order for

more than $3,000.

Of course, there is recognition, under the current act, that if

government takes away the ability of a person who is in arrears to

drive, who needs to drive to work or look for work, government may

effectively make it impossible for that individual debtor to pay back

what they owe, and that would certainly be counterproductive. But there

are, of course, discretion and abilities for the director to work out

payment schedules and other arrangements with that debtor under the

act.

Under this proposed amendment to accelerate and provide another

administrative lever which can provide for more immediate payment…. From

not having ICBC renew or provide a new driver’s licence — that was under

the current act — to something now that would be accelerated to

cancelling that individual’s driver’s licence…. I would like to canvass,

at the committee stage, with the Attorney General the process that would

apply for the debtor to satisfy the director, such that that driver’s

licence may not be cancelled within this accelerated time frame. That is

moving from what’s provided now, a 30- to 60-day time period before

ICBC’s notice is provided.

[2:20 p.m.]

My question will be: what time and opportunity does that provide,

under this accelerated mechanism, for the debtor to make satisfactory

arrangements with the director so that the notice to ICBC may be

withdrawn and the debtor’s licence is not cancelled — if, of course,

that debtor is able to demonstrate that he or she needs that driver’s

licence in order to continue to earn an income to make the

payments?

I would also like to canvass, at the committee stage, the proposed

amendments relating to the director providing further notice to ICBC

where a debtor has failed to comply with a payment arrangement — that

is, an arrangement that they entered into in order to avoid having that

licence being cancelled in the first place under this proposed

amendment.

An issue to consider is that there’s a specific one-year period

that’s provided in the proposed amendment as to when the director may be

able to effectively move forward with the cancellation of the driver’s

licence. A question as to why that one-year period is provided for in

that manner in the first place or whether it should be unlimited in

time.

Secondly, the period of time in which a debtor is able to be

provided notice of this further cancellation has been shortened under

this amendment from the 30-day period, which would be under the current

act, from my read, to a ten-day period. So that is something else that

I’d like to consider, particularly when the immediacy of this process

will be that much more accelerated.

I look forward to canvassing these issues and others with the AG

during committee stage and look forward to supporting the bill through

the rest of this process.

R. Singh: It gives me great pleasure to stand in support of Bill 10. While

working as a counsellor in my previous role, I heard from so many

families that were having issues. They said how disappointed they were

with the family maintenance enforcement, the delay in the payments, and

how much it affects their families, especially the children.

I’m so glad, with this bill, that our government is proposing two

amendments to strengthen the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act to

ensure children and families receive the support they’re entitled to.

The first change would allow ICBC to cancel the driver’s licence of a

payer with substantial arrears, creating the possibility of immediate

consequences for nonpayment. Right now the FMEP can instruct ICBC to

refuse to issue or renew the payer’s driver’s licence at the time of

renewal only. I think bringing the cancellation of the driver’s licence

right when the enforcement branch is aware that the person hasn’t paid

the amount and they’re in arrears will help the families in the long

run.

It is all about our children. We know that when these payments are

not met, it is the children who lose out on various things that they

have rights over. I have heard from families and I’ve heard from women

who have said that because of these nonpayments, for the basic

necessities that the children rely on, they are not able to even fulfil

those, like giving them nutritious food, putting them in extracurricular

activities, recreational activities that our kids require.

I think this bill and this amendment will bring families to a

level playing field. I want to say that most of the time these things

happen, it is usually the male spouses who are not paying these amounts.

So this bill will help to bring it to a very level playing field. It

will reduce the power imbalance we have at this point.

[2:25 p.m.]

A lot of times people use this. In not making the payment, they

want to show how powerful they are and what kind of effect they can

bring on the families and how the families can be affected by the

decisions that they are making. So I think this is a long time in

coming. I know it is just one step to ensure that the family maintenance

enforcement works properly, but I think it will go a long way. It will

help our kids and it will help our families to get the resources that

they require.

Once again, I stand in favour of the bill, and I really appreciate

this coming from our government.

S. Furstenau: The Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, 2018 serves two purposes.

First, it allows notice of the maintenance orders to be registered with

land title offices, rather than registering the maintenance orders

themselves, which are lengthy documents that often contain sensitive,

personal information. Subsequently, this change would streamline the

family maintenance process while simultaneously minimizing the

circulation of sensitive materials. Through regulation, this encourages

increased respect of family privacy.

The second purpose of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment

Act is to allow the director to cancel a debtor’s driver’s licence as a

result of a notice of failure to comply with their family maintenance

agreement. This provides another tool with which debtors can be made to

comply with their family maintenance agreements, and as the member for

Surrey–Green Timbers was pointing out, this is a much-needed tool in

some cases.

We did have initial concerns that cancelling a debtor’s driver’s

licence might further impede their ability to make family maintenance

payments. However, upon closer investigation, we realized that the

ability to cancel a driver’s licence is only one tool in the toolbox,

and cancelling a driver’s licence is not a first resort. If a driver’s

licence is necessary to a debtor’s employment, arrangements can be made.

These issues are handled on a case-by-case basis that allows for some

flexibility.

If a debtor has had their driver’s licence cancelled and

subsequently pays their money owed, they will have to pay approximately

$76 to have their licence reinstated, but they can do so quite quickly

and have their licence reinstated within the week.

Additionally, allowing the director to cancel the driver’s licence

brings B.C. up to speed with similar legislation that already exists in

all other provincial jurisdictions, excepting Quebec.

With this in consideration, we support the change to streamline

and enforce family maintenance practices in B.C. in the hopes that it

will make family maintenance enforcements a more comfortable, helpful

process for the families and the individuals involved.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate in second

reading around Bill 10, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment

Act, 2018.

This is an important piece of legislation. What this legislation

does is it streamlines the provision of family maintenance orders, and

it also strengthens, in a very substantive and meaningful way, the

penalties. Essentially, for somebody who is $3,000 or more in arrears on

family maintenance payments, they face the potential of losing their

driver’s licence for not being current in their payments. This can

happen fairly immediately and, certainly, will have consequences, and

I’m sure it will go a long way in keeping people more current on their

payments.

This is an important piece of legislation. We know that in those

cases where there have been separations or divorces, where there are

family maintenance payments to be made, it often is a critical piece of

the income for a single parent.

We know the work that we’ve been doing around poverty reduction,

the research we’ve been doing. We look at the poverty rates in this

province and in the country, and almost 40 percent of single-parent

families live in poverty in British Columbia. A number of those families

have arrangements where there are, in fact, family maintenance

arrangements put in place. In some of those instances, we certainly know

that those maintenance arrangements have not been upheld appropriately

by the parent who is obliged and expected to be making those payments to

support their children.

[2:30 p.m.]

In most instances, not all but in most instances, this is the case

of a single mom caring for kids and a dad who may, for whatever reason,

not be fulfilling their obligations under family maintenance

enforcement. I think we have a situation here where this is something

that needs to be corrected. I’m really pleased, as members on the other

side have said, that they concur, that we need to strengthen the tools

available to be able to deal with these issues.

This is not just a bureaucratic or administrative issue. This is a

very real, on-the-ground issue for people who are vulnerable and who are

trying to take care of their children and who need those dollars and

those resources coming in and need some certainty that those dollars,

those cheques, that money is going to arrive every month, as they expect

it to arrive, as the courts have directed that it should arrive. We need

to ensure our obligations as government. Our obligations are to ensure

that in fact those orders are enforced.

This legislation, I think, gives us a very good tool. People will

find ways to work around this. It’s a very small number of people, but

they will find ways to work around this. But I believe that we will get

their attention if we’re suggesting that they’re going to lose their

driver’s licence. That will get people’s attention pretty quickly. I

think it is a very good tool to do that.

I also think it’s positive that it’s structured in a way that

ensures that when somebody complies, there’s not a long-drawn-out

process in order to be able to get back your privilege and right to

drive, to be able to get your licence back, to be able to do those

things and move forward with that. That’s important as well.

This is a piece of legislation. It’s pretty straightforward. It’s

fairly simple, I think, in how it approaches the problem. I’ve learned,

over my years here, that sometimes things that are relatively simple

solutions often are the best solutions in terms of actually getting

where you want to go, that those things that kind of just look for the

way to address issues is positive.

I know from the many people I’ve been talking to, particularly in

the last number of months…. As we move forward around poverty reduction

issues, move forward looking at ways to support what are largely the

single moms who my ministry supports, and we look at how we ensure that

they have the best opportunities and the resources they are entitled to,

to take care of their children, and making sure that they have those

resources, including the resources that should come from the other

supporting parent in these cases, I think that this is

positive.

I think it is going to move us forward. I think it is going to

address this problem in many, many situations where it can be addressed.

There will always be other challenges. There’s no doubt about that. But

this is just a very meaningful, straightforward approach to make sure

that those parents who are taking care of the kids have the support that

they deserve, the support that they are entitled to and that,

unfortunately, they don’t always get, for a variety of reasons that I

think we’re probably all aware of.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I’m really pleased to support this legislation. I’m pleased that

we can move it forward now. Again, I’m pleased that I believe this

legislation will receive strong support throughout the House, on both

sides of the House, from members who I know want to ensure that those

parents who are facing challenges of taking care of their kids and

entitled to this support are, in fact, getting it in communities and

constituencies across British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. S. Simpson: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Simpson: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 10, Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2018, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll take a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 2:35 p.m. to 2:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Standing Order 35

(Speaker’s Ruling)

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF

URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

REFERRAL OF JURISDICTIONAL

DISPUTE TO COURT

Mr. Speaker: I’m going to call this House back to order.

Hon. Members, today the hon. member for Abbotsford West sought to

move adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 35 in order to

discuss a matter of urgent public importance — namely, “necessity,

advisability and consequences of referring to the Court of Appeal the

question of British Columbia’s ability to regulate or limit the

transportation of energy products on federally approved and regulated

pipelines and rail lines.”

The Government House Leader responded, noting the standing order’s

requirement of urgency and also observed that the estimates of the

Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy provided extensive

opportunity to discuss the matter, having closed just yesterday after 37

hours of debate.

The Leader of the Third Party also made a submission. Indeed, the

1992 decision by Speaker Sawicki, cited by the member for Abbotsford

West refers to a limited set of debate opportunities, which has not been

the case with respect to this particular matter.

I also note that Standing Order 35 states that the notion must not

revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same

session. It appears to the Chair that the specific matter proposed for

urgent debate has indeed been canvassed extensively.

Further, the member notes the new circumstances arising in the

matter, the formal reference to the Court of Appeal expected in the

coming days. I find this to be a recent occurrence in an ongoing matter

and, hence, not applicable under Standing Order 35, as per MacMinn’s

Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fourth edition,

page 84.

Consequently, I find that the application regarding Standing Order

35 cannot proceed.

Hon. S. Simpson: We’d like to call the estimates for Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation, but we would ask for a short recess while the officials

arrive.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands in recess.

The House recessed from 2:40 p.m. to 2:48 p.m.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS

RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $43,914,000

(continued) .

J. Rustad: I’m just curious. Last fall we canvassed some questions around the

United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, and

that’s also being canvassed a little bit here.

I’ll start off with the question: is the Ministry of Indigenous

Relations responsible for the oversight, across ministries, of the

implementation of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. We are, as the Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, responsible for the oversight

and guidance of the UN declaration throughout government. As the member

knows, it is part of every minister’s and ministry’s mandate letter from

the Premier to address the UN declaration in their own respective

ministries. But we are the overseers of that process, if you

will.

J. Rustad: Is the ministry contemplating legislation in terms of the

implementation of UNDRIP, similar to what the federal government is

doing?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks again to the member for the question. In the mandate

letters that we have received, that my colleagues have received in other

ministries, is to look at practices, policies and, as well, legislation,

legislative change. Everything is on the table at this point, and I

would note that the federal government is moving in that direction also,

with the Prime Minister’s announcement a couple months ago of moving

forward with a rights recognition framework. They’ve certainly indicated

they are looking at legislative change at the federal level.

J. Rustad: Through various estimates, both last fall and this spring, a

number of ministers have provided what seems to be varying

definitions

of their

interpretation of the UN declaration of the rights of

Indigenous peoples, or UNDRIP, as we’re calling it. The Minister of

Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations called it a political

statement. The Minister of Energy and Mines says it’s a process. The

Minister of Environment says the key, for him, is to have informed

consent. The Minister of Indigenous Relations has talked about it being

a human rights document and a road map to reconciliation.

Will the ministry provide a clear definition to all of his

colleagues with regards to what exactly the

interpretation of the UN

declaration of the rights of Indigenous peoples is?

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for that question. It is all of those things. I

don’t think any of those are inaccurate. As the Ministry of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation, we are advising ministers and ministries

on the issues of implementing UNDRIP. That’s happening through various

processes.

[2:55 p.m.]

I would note that there are deputy committees that are bringing

together the highest level of the provincial bureaucracies to bring

common voice to these things. Each ministry has had different roles in

addressing UNDRIP, and they’re often unique roles. Some of the

ministries are dealing with issues of permitting. Other ministries are

dealing with poverty reduction. Health, of course, has its own unique

roles.

All of these ministries are approaching their portfolios, if you

will, their roles as ministries, in different ways because they are

different ministries. But we’re the common thread, as a ministry,

through that.

J. Rustad: It begs a bit of a question. It is one document, the UN

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. I do understand that

various ministries will have different components that will be impacted,

in terms of how it gets implemented. But it is one document. The

definition of a document should be fairly clear in terms of what this

document is and what this document is trying to achieve, yet we see a

variety of perspectives.

Perhaps the minister could provide a little more clarity in terms

of how this could be viewed as a political statement or a human rights

document or guiding negotiations or other types of components when there

may be varying views and perspectives in terms of just what it

is.

Along those lines, the minister has stated that it is a human

rights document, and traditionally human rights documents are understood

as protecting individuals from the power of the state. I’m curious as to

how that guides negotiations through some sort of process of free, prior

and informed consent. It seems to be confusing in terms of the

definition, and I must be missing something, so I’m offering the

minister an opportunity to perhaps provide some clarity on those

points.

Hon. S. Fraser: As the member knows, the UN declaration is an instrument that

includes 46 articles. Some of those apply at the provincial level. Some

of them are under the purview of the federal government. As I’ve

mentioned before, some articles within the UN declaration will have

application within some ministries and maybe not others. So there’s no

universal definition here. Each ministry has its own role, as I

mentioned.

But there is a commonality here, and it’s in the mandate letters.

It says:

“As part of our commitment to true, lasting reconciliation with

First Nations in British Columbia, our government will be fully adopting

and implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples

and the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. As

minister, you are responsible for moving forward on the calls to action

and reviewing policies, programs and legislation to determine how to

bring the principals of the declaration into action in British

Columbia.”

We are seeing that happening, as we speak, amongst

ministers in their respective ministries.

J. Rustad: The United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples

as a document refers to both individual and collective rights. Could the

minister explain how UNDRIP, or the UN declaration of the rights of

Indigenous peoples…. I apologize. It’s easy to use acronyms in here, but

for those watching at home, we want to make sure they understand what

we’re talking about.

Can the minister explain how the UN declaration of the rights of

Indigenous peoples as a human rights document will distinguish between

which articles will be handled between the province and individuals or

the province and the First Nations collections?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: As the member knows — he was part of the former government; he was

in the executive council — government and ministries address issues

dealing with individuals as well as with collectives and groups. That’s

part of the job of government. This is nothing new.

The UN declaration doesn’t change that in any way. We will

continue to do that. We’ll work with individuals and/or First Nations as

a group, and there are certainly First Nations organizations we’ll work

with as collectives. I don’t believe the UN declaration is taking us

down a different path in that regard.

J. Rustad: I’m still a little confused with this. Given that a human rights

document talks about individual rights and First Nations in terms of

collective rights and title, I guess the question is: when you’re

looking for free, prior and informed consent, do you require that at an

individual level or do you require that at a collective

level?

How does that apply as a human rights document for First Nations

and Indigenous Relations, as part of negotiations between the province

or, quite frankly, as expectations for First Nations, as to how it will

be implemented?

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m sorry. I didn’t catch the link to the articles that refer

specifically to “free, prior and informed consent.” I missed that in the

previous question. I apologize.

Free, prior and informed is the route to go towards consent, as

opposed to — and we canvassed this somewhat yesterday with the member

for Skeena — the process of having a tick in a box and calling that

“consultation” as a method of addressing a relationship with First

Nations. It’s no longer acceptable. The standard is higher.

We have determined that achieving consent is a better way to go,

working with First Nations. The way to do that is to involve First

Nations from the very beginning. That’s the “free, prior and informed”

part. It helps us, I think, as a government, to work closer with nations

in true partnership.

I would note other ministries, as part of fulfilling their mandate

for UNDRIP, are approaching that in different ways. The Minister of

Environment, for instance, is undergoing a review of the environmental

assessment process in the province with the goal to modify that process

so that it involves First Nations right from the very beginning of a

project or a proposal coming forward, so that First Nations can be

involved at the beginning, so that we can be utilizing traditionally

ecological knowledge, for instance, as part of that process.

Again, these are ways that we have determined and decided to move

forward with. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource

Operations is looking at other ways of dealing with land use planning

that involves First Nations in a way that has not been done before.

These are the routes to consent as opposed to a mere consultative

process that requires somebody to just tick off the box that says that

they’ve sent a letter to First Nations and their requirements have been

met as far as consultation goes.

J. Rustad: Perhaps I didn’t clarify the question clearly enough. Just on a

curious note, on the land use planning side of things which was started

in the ’90s, the First Nations were excluded under the previous NDP

government.

Regardless of that, the challenge or the issue here is that with

the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people being

defined as a human rights document, which is traditionally understood to

be protecting individuals from the power of the state, where does that

power rest with Indigenous people under the United Nations declaration

on the rights of Indigenous people for something like free, prior and

informed consent? Does it rest with the individuals? Or does it rest

with the nation?

The reason for asking that is that a human rights document applies

to the individuals, which is why I’m curious as to whether that’s the

interpretation of the ministry.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m not sure where the member is going with this. I’m not even

sure what he’s looking for as far as a response. I’m not sure I

understand the line of questioning.

For instance — again, we canvassed this with the member for Skeena

yesterday — there are some nations where when we are working on, for

instance, a consultation…. As we are working on, let’s say, a

hypothetical proposal for some sort of industrial operation within their

territory, in some cases it means that we are dealing with the elected

chief and council. For some nations in some areas, it involves dealing

with hereditary chiefs or a hereditary chief.

We look for guidance from the nation. As the member was a minister

before on this file, he’s well aware of that. I guess if you’re….

Sometimes the member, before as minister, will have met with an

individual chief — elected chief or hereditary — to address issues.

Sometimes it’s chief and council. Sometimes it’s a hereditary

body.

In some cases, we are addressing some of the more global issues,

dealing with one of the leadership council groups — the Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations of British Columbia or the

First Nations Summit — and sometimes all three, too, with our leadership

gatherings. Again, the member knows that from his previous

role.

We deal with the appropriate person or persons or bodies. I

believe that that’s the same, in many ways, as what the member did when

he was in my place in this ministry.

E. Ross: Yes, we did talk about this yesterday. I was trying to get the

same answer in terms of who the Crown would consult with, based on

previous practices and now based on UNDRIP, but I didn’t get an

answer.

There are so many different

definitions and

interpretations and

headings on what UNDRIP is supposed to be. The only one, the only term

that I was concerned with, really — apart from the blueprint, the

holistic approach, the protocol statement, the road map to

reconciliation — was the human rights reference.

Maybe I’ll give an example of the concern in terms of the

community — not talking about provincial organizations or boards or

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs or anything, for that matter. I’m talking

about a community that has to deal with the consultation and

accommodation process on a project that will impact their rights and

title. Just an example of the concern, and I’ll try to make it as simple

as I can.

So 800 individuals in a band need some form of consultation on a

project that will infringe their rights and title, and 799 members, of

those individuals, give consent. I don’t know how you put my quotation

marks in Hansard , but 799 individuals give their consent. One

individual does not give consent, and this individual is not a

hereditary leader, is not a chief and council. They have no real title

or authority to represent the people.

Under UNDRIP, the definition of a human rights document…. Does

this mean that the Crown’s decision-making will be affected by this one

person that does not give their consent?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: In the example that the member for Skeena is referring to where

there are 800 members, and then he refers to the 799 and one…. The

member opposite was a leader of the Haisla Nation, was elected.

Previously, the member for Skeena served in a role of leadership with

the Haisla Nation. There was a process and an established body that

government deals with. We would go to them when we’re working on a

consultation process or working in partnership. We look to the nation

for that guidance of who to deal with if there is a….

For instance, I met earlier this week with Chief Crystal from the

Haisla Nation, the current chief. She is the elected representative of

that nation. I think it’s wholly appropriate that we deal on a

nation-to-nation basis with her as the elected representative. I believe

that I will follow her guidance when it comes to advice and partnerships

with the nation. I see no conflict with this.

The human rights document aspect of the UN declaration…. I think

that’s one of the accurate descriptions of the UN declaration. It’s

dealing with human rights, like the right to preserve culture,

languages, to have healthy communities, the rights to education and

fairness in education, child welfare. There are many human rights

aspects to the UN declaration.

We have legislation in the country that deals with human rights

specifically. We have begun a human rights commission. We’ve reinstated

the Human Rights Commission. We’re in the process of doing it now as a

government. There is no conflict in dealing with individual or group. I

mean, human rights are human rights.

I’m hoping that’s going to answer the question

appropriately.

J. Rustad: Let me make this really straightforward. If ten people approve and

give their consent — ten Indigenous people give their consent at a

particular nation — and one person doesn’t give their consent, is that

sufficient for something to move forward? Or does the ministry require

100 percent of the individuals to give consent?

Hon. S. Fraser: Perhaps I should refer to the human rights document that we’re

referring to, the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

I’ll begin with

article 19 here. “States shall consult and cooperate in

good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own

representative institutions in order to obtain free, prior and informed

consent.” So they’re referring specifically through “their own

representative institutions.”

Article 20 says: “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain

and develop their political, economic and social systems or

institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of

subsistence and development and to engage freely in all their

traditional and other economic activities.”

These are the human rights aspects, or touching on the human

rights aspects, of the UN declaration. It’s giving clear guidance that

governments will work with Indigenous peoples through their own

representative institutions.

[3:15 p.m.]

That is what we do as government. There is no conflict here. It is

within the nations, through their own representative institutions, that

we’ll address some of the issues around 799 to one. We will be

addressing the issues we deal with, with the nation, through the

accepted institution or body. It could be the elected chief and council.

It could be hereditary chiefs, as I mentioned.

The member is trying to go somewhere with this as far as the

individual versus the collective, but there is guidance, as I just

pointed out, within the UN declaration as to how and who governments

deal with. And that, I think, is quite clear. Certainly, it’s stated in

article 19, but I believe it’s also referred to in other articles. I

just have not found them. There are 46 articles here.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for that very lengthy response to a

simple question. I’m trying to keep this simple and straightforward. The

point of the matter is, if you’ve got a group of people that’s

supporting a particular activity or agreement or project and you have a

group of people that isn’t, the authority for who approves it lies with

the elected chief and council or the hereditary or whichever First

Nations bodies. That means that individuals may not have the right to

consent because it’s the nation that ultimately would give the consent.

That’s the point of what I’m trying to get at.

A human rights document is about an individual’s right. If all

individuals have the right to provide consent, that would require 100

percent of everybody to always agree.

Whereas a document, then, that

applies to First Nations and First Nations rights…. If it requires a

nation to provide that consent, they may not have 100 percent agreement

within the nation.

I find that curious because…. That’s apparently what the minister

has just said, which is fine. I understand that, and I don’t oppose

that. But the Premier said just yesterday: “I reject the notion that

this is a majority rule situation,” with regards to First Nations

approval of a project. That plays at odds a little bit, but not really,

because it’s multiple nations we’re talking about in terms of

that.

The point of this question, I guess, is…. So it’s okay for a group

within a nation to not approve as long as the nation approves. How many

nations out of a group would have to oppose a particular project before

free, prior and informed consent would be considered achieved for a

project that spans multiple nations?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I believe, in the comments made by the Premier, which the member

is referring to, he was referring to not individuals but individual

nations having the right to defend their rights and title. I think

that’s probably consistent — it is consistent — with the constitution,

with

section 35.

Again, I am unclear as to where the questioning is going or even

the nature of the question. It’s a strange way to bring us into an

estimates process for the budget.

J. Rustad: The line of questioning should be obvious. The reason why it

should be obvious is that we have 203 nations in this province. There

are projects of a wide variety of natures that cross multiple nations,

and it’s rare to have 100 percent uniform consent within those groups of

nations. So the question becomes: if one nation, or let’s say ten

nations, out of a group of 50 opposes a particular project, does the

United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and their

right for providing consent mean that that project can’t

proceed?

Take the example of Site C. Site C had agreements with a number of

nations. There were two nations that were opposed to the project.

Obviously, those two nations did not provide consent under the

definition that we just talked about here, yet the project has gone

through. So the question to the minister is: should Site C, as a

project, have — as a requirement for it to be able to proceed — 100

percent of the nations to be able to support the project?

Hon. S. Fraser: I note that we have moved, I guess, from the argument of

individuals to individual nations. So the member has changed the channel

a bit on the questioning.

As far as individual nations go, I believe they have the right to

voice their concerns on behalf of their nations. That might differ from

other nations. That’s not unlike what happens with municipal governments

who might have differing perspectives, as do different nations.

Different provinces have different perspectives, as representative

bodies for their own jurisdiction, and they have the right and duty to

defend the rights of their individual jurisdictions — whether it’s a

province, a nation, a municipal government, a city or a town. I believe

that’s appropriate.

[3:25 p.m.]

We have moved, then, I see, from individual to the collectives. I

think it’s good to have various perspectives and opinions in all of

these cases. That’s healthy, I believe, and it’s to be

expected.

J. Rustad: Let me ask the question again more directly. In the case of Site

C, you had two nations that did not give consent. Was that sufficient

for the ministry and for the government, under the

definitions of the

United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, for that

project to proceed?

Hon. S. Fraser: I would note that the Site C project was brought forward by the

previous government. That member was a member of the executive council

that refused to allow the appropriate processes to unfold.

The jurisdiction of the Utilities Commission of British Columbia

was usurped by the previous government. There should have been full

public hearings, a whole process that went through that — processes

where the nations could have brought their issues forward to voice

concerns or support. That whole process was denied in that one project,

Site C.

As a new government, we had the dubious honour of having to deal

with a project that was denied its due process, and our decision was a

wrenching one. It was based on the former Premier, Christy Clark, and

her assertion that she would push it past the point of no return without

the appropriate role of the oversight body of the B.C. Utilities

Commission. Indeed, she had done that. That was the unfortunate truth of

that.

J. Rustad: Let me try this from a different angle. With two nations opposing

Site C, were their rights under the United Nations declaration on the

rights of Indigenous peoples denied?

Hon. S. Fraser: It’s a good question for the member to ask, I guess, himself. He

was part of the government that initiated a project without the due

process that would have allowed those nations to have a meaningful role

in the process through the B.C. Utilities Commission.

I guess you could argue that that government did deny rights, but

whether they were rights under the UN declaration, I don’t know. That’s

a bit of an apples-and-oranges question, because the previous government

denied the premise of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples and refused to embrace the concept and refused to embrace it as

a human rights document. So again, that would be a judgment call for the

member to make regarding his own government’s actions.

J. Rustad: Well, let me just correct the record here. The B.C. Utilities

Commission has no rights and has no standing in terms of addressing

First Nation rights. That’s between the Crown and First Nations.

Regardless of that, the reality is that the current government had an

opportunity to stop the project. They did halt the project. They had a

review going forward.

The question is…. Whether or not he agrees or disagrees with the

30 years of consultation and the fact that all of this is held up in a

court of law, the fact is that when the government of the day made the

decision to move forward with Site C, there were two nations that did

not give consent. Was consent required for a project like Site C to be

able to move forward?

Hon. S. Fraser: I believe in the rights of individual nations to stand up for what

they believe is right. I spent the better part of a week meeting with

Treaty 8 Nations in the Peace region. So did the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources. When the difficult

decision was made that the previous Premier and government had

indeed pushed the project past the point of no return, I spent the

better part of two days talking to all the

nations.

[3:30 p.m.]

We have agreed to move forward, in a way, on

reconciliation agreements dealing with previous failures of

government, the colonial governments, to address the

land issue appropriately on energy projects. That’s the nature of the UN

declaration, having that type of relationship.

I would note that in my conversation, when the decision was made,

with Chief Roland Willson, he expressed that they were disappointed in

the decision, certainly. But he also said…. There was a large number of

the community who were on this conference call at the same time, and he

said: “It has not gone unnoticed that a minister of the Crown has been

spending this much time with us on this project, on this decision.”

Despite the fact that they were disappointed with the nature of the

decision, they said it had not gone unnoticed that I was taking the time

to work with them through that.

We continue to work closely with Chief Roland Willson and the

other Treaty 8 Nations in the spirit of the UN declaration on the rights

of Indigenous peoples.

J. Rustad: I just want to note that the minister didn’t really answer the

question. Perhaps I’ll ask a different question, then, with regards to

the United Nations rights of Indigenous peoples.

For the Kinder Morgan pipeline project, there are 30, 40, 50

nations — whichever number you want to look at — that have signed

agreements that are in support of the project. There are other nations

that are opposed to the project. If that project were to proceed, would

the rights of those nations opposed under the United Nations declaration

on the rights of Indigenous peoples…? Would the fact that those nations

did not give consent give grounds for stopping the project, in the

minister’s opinion?

The minister looks a little confused, so maybe let me restate

this. There are many nations that are impacted or potentially impacted

by regular rights and/or the title perspective along the Kinder Morgan

route.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Many are in support, and some are opposed to the project. If this

project were to proceed, would the minister say that their rights under

free, prior and informed consent would be violated and that the project

shouldn’t proceed?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the proceedings

today.

[3:35 p.m.]

On the Kinder Morgan project, on the scenario that the member has

put forward, I certainly don’t want to speculate on what might happen.

No one will know how courts make decisions or what the ultimate

decisions will be.

The rights of individual nations to be able to have their say on

what they believe affects them is key to certainly all aspects of the UN

declaration. I would not want to speak for nations. Nations speak for

themselves as to whether or not they believe they have rights that have

been violated. I would not presume to speak on behalf of nations in that

regard.

So 203 nations in the province. Many have voiced strong opposition

to the project, as the member knows — the Indigenous leaders from around

the province. Not just the ones on the pipeline route, but from all over

the province.

I would note the member for Skeena, in his leadership role for the

Haisla Nation, said: “What I have made clear is the idea that our people

have a mandate to have absolutely no bitumen or crude oil on Haisla

territory.” That’s a nation that’s not on the pipeline route. I respect

the member for Skeena in his role of standing up for protecting the

environment, the territory that they have been in for millennia and

their rights to take

part in all the activities that they have over

history. I believe he was defending those rights appropriately, like the

other nations who have opposed this project and others.

There are always going to be different perspectives on projects.

We should as government, I think, welcome those and not take them for

granted. They should help to inform us in our decision-making

process.

J. Rustad: What I’m trying to drive at here is: at what point does free,

prior and informed consent or the United Nations declaration on the

rights of Indigenous people…? At what point do those rights, as defined

under that document, provide an opportunity for a nation to be able to

prevent a project from moving forward?

I understand the consultation and the whole work and the trying to

get consent and the engagement and all the process and the authority

from the nation, etc. But at what point does that give…? Or does it?

Maybe it doesn’t. At what point does that give a nation the right to

prevent a project or a development from occurring?

Hon. S. Fraser: The articles that refer to free, prior and informed consent in the

UN declaration, of course, we have adopted. We are supporting the UN

declaration as part of our government. The free, prior and informed is

the route to consent. There are going to be differing

opinions.

[3:40 p.m.]

I don’t know if the member is suggesting that only a negative

opinion would be acceptable. There are proponents and opponents to some

of the projects that the member is talking about. Is he suggesting that

both perspectives wouldn’t be heard or that only one would take

precedence?

As government, we need to make decisions, and we need to be

informed by nations. There will be nations that have differing

perspectives on all projects, including this one. There are those that

are in approval of many projects, and there are those that have concerns

and oppose them.

I have an interesting scenario. While the member is trying to sort

of spread fear about working closely in partnership with First Nations,

utilizing the UN declaration, I’m sure he is familiar with how the

municipal system works, for instance. You can go to a public hearing

down the street here in Victoria, a council meeting, for

instance.

There could be a proposal for a monstrosity of a building going up

in a quiet, sleepy, little neighbourhood that everybody loves. As part

of the rezoning for that, which is dealing with land use, there would be

a public hearing. At such a public hearing, the public might come out

and say loudly that they do not believe it’s appropriate to change the

land use, through zoning, to allow for an inappropriate structure or

business in the area. There might be some that say…. The developer that

wants to build the project might say: “No, no. This’ll be good for the

neighbourhood.”

If the council, the government of the day, were to see, listen to

a number of people that are opposing the project and say, “No, we’re

going to heed that advice,” does that mean that those people somehow

were able to stifle democracy or be able to shut down a project? They

might well have been able to shut down a project. The only difference in

the discussion is it’s not a First Nation.

J. Rustad: An interesting analogy that the minister went on at length about.

Unfortunately, the people in the neighbourhood don’t have the United

Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people behind them, in

terms of how that would work.

What I’m trying to get at is the decision-making process for a

government on a project, whether it’s a fish farm, a pipeline, a mine,

anything. If the First Nation does not provide consent, will the

government ignore that or accept that as being a veto in terms of a

project going forward? I mean, I’ve been talking and asking about this

all along. I asked about this in the fall, and the reason I’m asking

this question is because there is tremendous uncertainty in the

province.

I’m not creating anything. People are asking me this question.

People are asking me, and companies are asking me: what does this mean?

I am trying to figure out how to get an answer, because I’ve had

different answers from different ministers for months. I simply need an

answer. If there is a project that’s going forward that does not have

consent of a nation, is that grounds to block the project from

advancing?

Hon. S. Fraser: Actually, what spreads uncertainty is going to court. You know, we

have a lot of conflict with decisions made by government. First Nations

are going to court because their concerns were not appropriately

respected and listened to in any meaningful way, or they were not

involved in the project from the very beginning. To have free, prior and

informed is the route to getting us out of a route of

conflict.

You don’t have to take my advice for it. Business groups like TD

Bank, Suncor, have all been calling on government to get on with it, to

move forward. Many businesses and business groups have already

understood that this is the route to certainty and predictability on the

land base.

[3:45 p.m.]

The member mentioned a whole variety of different projects and

asked if that’s a veto. Here’s how we’re dealing with this issue: with

respect and recognition and utilizing the concepts and the articles

within the UN declaration.

The member mentioned fish farms. It’s been raised by a number of

nations in the Broughton Archipelago, on the east side of Vancouver

Island, who are very concerned about the health of the marine

environment and the health of the wild salmon. They have brought those

concerns to government. Unlike the previous government, what we did as

ministers, including the Premier, is we went and met. We went to the big

house. This is a great honour to be bestowed on a government — to be

invited to the big house. I don’t take that honour lightly. None of us

did.

We have initiated a process that is built on respect and

recognition. We are working closely with those nations now in that

process. We’ve developed that process together to try to find ways to

protect the marine environment based on advice from those nations’

traditional ecological knowledge. We are working closely with industry

on this.

This is the route to bringing predictability and certainty and

getting out of a never-ending spiral of conflict that often ends in the

courts. The courts can lead to decisions…. The courts can be a very

blunt instrument that can make decisions that do not take into account

all things. It can cause ripples that affect certainty and

predictability that the member was suggesting would happen because we

work in partnership with First Nations with respect and recognition,

based on the articles within the UN declaration, based on the calls to

action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I don’t know if any of the members over there attended any of the

hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but I

did.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m glad the member did.

I did in Port Alberni. I did in Vancouver. I did in Victoria. We

take those calls to action very seriously.

We are not alone in the world in adopting the UN Declaration on

the rights of Indigenous peoples. The world community has adopted the UN

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples as a fundamental human

rights instrument, a guide towards reconciliation for Indigenous peoples

reservation, the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples,

along with 147 other nations.

Now, the fearmongering of this member, who should know better….

The only group that doesn’t support the UN declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples is this former government. They’re trying to

undermine the work not just of us working in partnership with First

Nations and Indigenous peoples in this province, who do support what we

are doing, but he’s also undermining and denigrating the work of 148

nations in this world that have put human rights at the highest level of

priority.

This is the estimates for the budget of the Ministry of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation. Now, I’ll duke it out with that member any

day on defending human rights.

We have initiated a human rights commission. We’ve done so with

full consultation with Indigenous people and First Nations to make sure

they are included in that commission. Yes, human rights are important.

The route to reconciliation we have decided as government…. Based on all

of our work with First Nations and Indigenous people in this province,

based on the similar work of 148 nations, we have chosen that path. They

may disagree with it, but shame on them for disagreeing with

it.

[3:50 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for that lecture. I have to admit.

I’m asking a very simple question. I’m simply asking for an answer.

That’s all I’m asking for, and I still haven’t got it. I still haven’t

got the answer.

I have had lots of insults, if you want to call that, hurled, etc.

I have no problem with the United Nations declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples. I have no problem with the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission recommendations. We were implementing most of that as it was.

We just needed some clarity around one topic, which is all I’m asking

the minister for.

The minister did say something that I think is right — uncertainty

by going to court. You’re right. It does create a tremendous amount of

uncertainty. It creates all kinds of challenges. Why is your government

going to court around federal jurisdiction and creating the uncertainty

in this province? Thank you for answering that question and providing

the same response that I have. Why are you creating this uncertainty

around something like that?

The simple question I’m asking is this. I’m trying to figure this

out. We’ve got a situation, for example, with LNG Canada, where you’ve

got every First Nation from the upstream all the way to the coast in

support of the project, even the coastal nations, but you have one

nation that isn’t. Is that sufficient to stop that project from

advancing?

I get that you’re going to have to work and you’re going to have

to do this and you’re going to have to have all the consultation and try

to bring everybody together to have a big kumbaya and agree. But the

reality is that from time to time, you will get a nation that won’t

agree, no matter how much effort goes into it, no matter how much

consultation and how much work happens on it.

The question is: is that sufficient enough to prevent a project

going forward, or at what point does a project advance because there is

a majority interest? I’ll quote from Star Trek , if you don’t

mind taking just a quick moment. “Do the needs of the few outweigh the

needs of the many?” It’s an interesting question, but it’s why I’m

asking for clarity around this.

There are projects all across this province. There are investors

that want to come in and invest on the landscape — billions of dollars

of potential investment. They just need to know. They need to know the

rules of how this government will operate on the land base.

You may never get 100 percent consent. You look at Tsawwassen

First Nation, a nation that is proud of its treaty. It’s proud of what

it’s doing. It went and asked its people whether it should advance with

the development that it has on its property — a fabulous development; a

series of developments that are happening. They had 96 or 97 percent, I

think it was, who said yes, but 3 percent still said no. That’s why I

asked this question. Clearly, that was the majority rules, in terms of

that. The Premier has said just yesterday that the majority doesn’t rule

in the case of, for example, Kinder Morgan.

It’s a simple question. It is a simple question that I’m asking to

the minister. Is it a requirement for every nation to agree before a

project like LNG Canada can proceed? Does every First Nation need to

approve it? Does every First Nation need to have approved Site C? It’s a

similar question, and it’s a similar challenge. But before LNG Canada

makes a decision to invest $42 billion in the province of British

Columbia to develop liquefied natural gas, it’s a question that they

want answered.

It behooves me to ask this question in this Legislature to try to

support families in my riding, to support families and communities right

across through the north, to support the First Nations that want to help

lift themselves out of poverty, to support the people that need to see

this project advance. That is the question, and that’s why I’m asking

the question. Is it required to have 100 percent of First Nations give

consent, or is it okay if it’s one or two or more that oppose, for a

project to be able to advance?

Hon. S. Fraser: Government, by definition, is a decision-making body. As

government, we need to make decisions. Any government. Political stripes

are irrelevant. Governments make decisions. We are committed to seeking

the full input. We want to hear all opinions, all sides, from all

nations affected by projects. That’s part of the decision-making process

that we’re committed to.

[3:55 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer. I will take that as the way

that it was described to me by the minister, which is that government

has the right to decide whether a project is going to advance or not,

regardless of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples. That’s just what I heard.

I’ll turn it over to my colleagues for future

questions.

Hon. S. Fraser: As Hansard will show, the member is inaccurate in his

depiction of what I said. I just want to put that on the record to make

sure…. If he’s quoting me, he is misquoting me.

A. Olsen: I find this a fascinatingly frustrating line of questioning,

frankly. As an Indigenous person who comes from one of the communities

that is impacted by this, directly affected by this — to use the federal

regulator’s own language — this suggestion that a simple majority has

the right to oppress a nation’s voice is an absolutely ridiculous one.

Frankly, to have it advanced in here, I think, highlights some of the

challenges that this province has had — not only magnified over the last

decade and a half but going back many decades to the point of

contact.

This line of questioning here would suggest that, as long as we

get 90 percent or so of First Nations along the pipeline route or along

a gas line or whatever, then they should have the right to oppress

themselves. It’s a colonial suggestion. To quote Star Trek is

astonishing, in the sense that there’s nothing colonial about that kind

of operation going on in that television show. Exploring new worlds and

creating new…. I guess not colonies. We shouldn’t call them colonies,

maybe.

To the minister, does every First Nation in this province have the

right to, as in

article 33, “determine their own identity and membership

in accordance with their customs and traditions” — govern

themselves?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. We are implementing the

entirety of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples —

that

article included — although I would note that the issue that the

member is referring to is largely under federal purview. But I respect

the rights of the nation to stand up for that article, and we would

support them in that.

A. Olsen: It was just raised to me, from the member for Vancouver–West End

that there’s such a thing as the prime directive in Star Trek ,

which means that they wouldn’t, in fact, colonize, should they run

into…. So even Star Trek , I think, had it better than we’ve had

it in the history of British Columbia.

Nonetheless, following through, do the majority of First Nations

on a pipeline route or involved in a…? Does every First Nation involved

in a project…? Does their opinion, do their feelings, does their

position count in the decision-making of government, as equal to their

neighbours and the other First Nations or nations that are involved in

that project?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I think it’s absolutely essential that government hear from every

nation affected. I’ll go back to the quote that I used earlier from the

member for Skeena back in 2012. It was referring to a different pipeline

but the same issue. “What I made clear is the idea that our people have

a mandate to have absolutely no bitumen or crude oil on Haisla

territory.”

Those perspectives need to be taken into account by government. If

governments ignore the role of individual nations in protecting their

territories, then I believe that that’s a recipe for disaster and

conflict. Also, I just don’t believe that government will be making the

best and most informed decisions that they can.

A. Olsen: I’m aware that just weeks before the announcement approving the

Kinder Morgan pipeline happened, the company, the proponent, was on what

I would classify as a last-chance tour. The last-chance tour was one in

which they were quickly scheduling meetings with First Nations that

hadn’t signed a benefits agreement. The number gets repeated in question

period. In fact, the number is shown in their very own email, saying

about how amazing they are in signing these agreements.

The last-chance tour was simply an announcement that was made

that, basically, in communities that I’m aware of…. They stood in those

communities and said: “We know that this pipeline is going to be

approved, and this is your last chance to sign on and have something.

Otherwise, you’ll be left in the cold.”

I’m aware of one First Nation, the Tsartlip First Nation, that

sent a letter to the Premier clearly stating opposition. I was alluding

to them yesterday in my question with respect to the Douglas treaty and

the challenges that that poses and, potentially, the role that the

provincial government can play, as Tsartlip and the other Saanich First

Nations territory is in direct relation to the shipping routes and the

piping routes.

I just would like to ask the minister: as part of this budget

estimates process that we’re in, has the ministry been working closely

with the Saanich First Nations, as part of this, to better understand

the position that they have in an effort to better represent those very

clear pre-Confederation-treaty legal issues with respect to liability,

with respect to potential infringement — getting a deep understanding of

that so that then we as a government can represent those interests, from

our perspective, to the federal Crown?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for his question. I just want to say that

we’ve heard from Saanich Nations and other nations’ concerns — what

could happen in the event of a catastrophic bitumen spill off of our

coast and the accelerated chances of such a spill with this

project.

[4:05 p.m.]

As a government, it is that sort of advice that helps inform.

Those concerns being heard, taking them seriously, is why our government

is standing up for B.C.’s interests — the environment, the economy, tens

of thousands of jobs — to protect our coasts for all of those that

depend on it, First Nations and not.

Again, I think it’s the role of government to respect that those

concerns are warranted. I respect the right of the Saanich nations to

stand up for their territories and for the integrity of those

territories. I think they’re doing their role, strongly protecting their

territories and their way of life that they’ve utilized sustainably —

the environment, their territories — for millennia. It’s important for

governments to heed those concerns.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister. I’m glad that you, as the minister, were able

to work your way through the questions. I think that the questions that

came out over time, over the last hour or so, with respect to

consent….

I’d like to acknowledge the fact that I think that our modern

society, in many respects, is struggling with consent. I think that as a

man in this place, and a man in this society at this time, I — I speak

for myself, and I know that in conversations that I’ve had with my

friends and colleagues — have been awakened to the tragedy that has been

evolving in our society around consent.

I guess that it extends further. It extends further to Indigenous

rights in our country and in our province. But I think that it’s

important to note that our society struggles with this consent, because

in the past, it’s not been something that we’ve been too willing to

address directly. And I can understand.

It became clear to me that, actually, this whole thing was about

the natural gas pipeline going across the northwest. That’s really what

it…. It took a while to really work through what the question was about,

but the question was about a natural gas pipeline. There are one, maybe

two, Indigenous groups that are against it, and the real worry is: is

that going to hold up? And that is a challenge for the

government.

I’d like to point out that it’s not just fossil fuel investors in

this province that are concerned. It’s the renewable energy investors in

this province, partnered with memorandums of understanding to work with

Indigenous groups in this province, that have basically been sent

packing by former Ministers of Energy, because: “Not interested in that

kind of development, only interested in fossil fuel

development.”

I’m glad that we did get to…. As we were looking at consent, we

did finally get to that LNG, northwest piece. The minister was able to

tease it out.

I’ve got one more question, and then I’ll sit down for the rest of

the afternoon here and listen through.

There is, just switching gears a little bit, a $1.3 billion

investment that was announced by the federal government to get up to 17

percent of the total land mass in our country protected — parks and

protected areas. The goal of this was to be done by 2020. We know, as we

work through the marine conservation areas, that they want to get 10

percent of the coast protected by 2020 as well.

[4:10 p.m.]

We’ve got a group, the Indigenous Circle of Experts. I believe

that you know Eli. Eli Enns has been working on this, trying to create a

pathway for Canada to get to target 1.

I just want to, I guess, highlight and ask the question, as part

of these budget estimates: what is British Columbia doing in an effort

to take advantage of the opportunity, in partnership with Indigenous

communities? Mr. Enns has been an advocate for tribal parks and other

parks, Indigenous protected and conserved areas.

Will your ministry be taking a look at the opportunity that is

there to attract that investment that the federal government is making

into our province?

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, thanks to the member for his interesting work that’s being

done by the Indigenous Circle of Experts. I’ve met with Eli numerous

times on forums about tribal parks and such, and he’s excellent. He’s

going to do very well.

I’ve been told that there’s work being done with the Ministry of

Environment on this. We’re very interested in what the member is talking

about. I don’t have the details from the Ministry of Environment. I

wouldn’t suggest that we fire up their estimates again, because I think

that was a record, and I don’t think the Minister of Environment would

take that very well.

I will follow up with the member on this. I will discuss it with

the Minister of Environment, and perhaps we can have a coffee and talk

about it.

D. Ashton: A few minutes ago the minister had a diatribe against a former

minister in the government, with Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation. That’s between those two, hon. Chair. But in his

conversation, he said the word “they,” which included me, and I take

incredible exception to being branded with what that minister had said

and to including me in it.

My history goes back an awfully long time. My grandfather worked

diligently with Aboriginals in Saskatchewan. My father did. My

grandfather died when my dad was 13 years old, grade 9. He had to go out

and work. He carried that to Vancouver, and he worked with Aboriginals

in Vancouver. When he moved to the Okanagan in 1955, he worked his butt

off to ensure that he and my mother could get ahead. He always swept up

those people that lived across the channel from where I was

from.

I take incredible exception to being swept up in that diatribe. I

would ask, hon. Chair, for retraction of the comments that the minister

included me in.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, I heard what the member for Penticton said. I meant it

with no disrespect. I certainly was not aiming it at him. I want to go

on the record to say that I was not referring to the member for

Penticton. I was in a direct conversation with my counterpart, who was

the previous minister. I regret those statements and meant them with no

disrespect. I’m sorry about that.

D. Ashton: Thank you for that.

I will just pass along to my peer.

E. Ross: I was listening to the previous questions from the previous member

asking questions, as well as my colleague here. I just want to clarify

something. It’s not that I oppose UNDRIP or the principles of UNDRIP,

but I’m trying to understand it in the context of decision-making from

the Crown. That’s all I was trying to do.

In terms of the politics and the political speeches being made in

response to these questions and trying to dig deeper into this…. Like

the perception that this was kind of a strategy leading up to a natural

gas question. Yeah, it was, because it’s all the same issue. We are

talking about certainty. We’re talking high-level certainty, high-level

politics, and we’re generalizing all these comments.

Well, let me take it right back down to ground level. The reason

why I bring this back to the fundamentals of what we’re talking about —

whether it be Kinder Morgan, forestry, fish farms, LNG — is because I’m

tired of burying people because of substance abuse or alcohol abuse or

suicide. I was tired of going to my family’s funerals because of

suicide. I was tired of trying to find ways to ship people home from

Vancouver because they got thrown out of a second-story window down on

Hastings.

I’m not trying to be cute. I’m not trying to be politically savvy.

I’m trying to find a solution. I’m trying to find certainty. That’s all

I’ve been trying to do for the last 14 years, and I thought I had a good

handle on it, in terms of trying to read and understand the rights and

title case law that came out of the Supreme Courts of Canada and

B.C.

No matter what the other side of the House thinks, the previous

government did not decide on any protocol on their own in terms of how

to address this. In my dealings — environmental assessments, permitting,

authorizations — I actually hammered out the process. I actually

hammered out the reconciliation protocol that was signed between my band

and the previous government, and it worked.

Without all the political grandstanding, the protocol said: if we

have a problem with a permit, we can pick up the phone, and we can talk

about it. It worked, and it’s still working today, to the point where

political leaders like myself are not needed. The staff from B.C. can

phone the staff of the Haisla Nation Council, and they can work out an

issue.

For the last six years, proponents in my territory would come to

me and say: “Look, I want to make an application for a project. I want

to apply for an environmental assessment. Can I get your interest into

my application?”

“Yes, you can. Sit down. Let’s talk about it. Let’s get some

funding going. Let’s get some capacity going. Let’s get some knowledge

into our memorandum of understanding.”

To trivialize a memorandum of understanding, and then what leads

into a memorandum agreement, is disrespectful. It takes a lot of time;

it takes a lot of money. We’re talking about a people that need it the

most — 60 percent unemployment. In fact, the last thing I’ll leave you

with is one of the first things that I said when I became chief

councillor. I said that the next person that commits suicide in my

community is my fault, because they’re depending on me for a future.

It’s not government’s fault; it’s not colonialism’s fault. It’s my

fault, because I promised them a future. The buck has got to stop

somewhere. That’s entirely been my mandate for the last 14

years.

Now, I’m sure that these First Nations leaders — whether it be

Kinder Morgan, forestry, mining, LNG — are thinking the same thing. But

given the politics of all this, all these different statements and all

these different political terms, it’s already a confusing enough world

as it is — given the Indian Act, treaty, rights and title, all these

different terms and all these different processes. It’s already a world

of uncertainty, and now we’re throwing in UNDRIP and truth and

reconciliation.

[4:20 p.m.]

How are these leaders expected to forge a future when they don’t

even understand one process, let alone six? All I was getting at was

trying to understand how UNDRIP would play into the decision-making of

the Crown, given UNDRIP.

There was a mention of different First Nations being affected by a

project. I’ve got the same kind of question, because a lot of First

Nations haven’t resolved overlap. And it doesn’t even have to be

overlap. It could be that there’s no territorial claim to a certain

territory that has a project proposed.

It could have a portion of a reserve from another band in that

territory. That’s not labelled as overlap. That band, because of the

reserve, has a right to be consulted in some manner. I’m not sure how it

is. But under the UNDRIP, there is no principle to talk about who gets

consulted on a project when proposed in a certain territory.

Now, you referenced some of my comments in regards to Enbridge. I

had 100 percent strength of claim to back me up — 100 percent.

Whereas,

some First Nations maybe have 20 percent. Some of them have zero

percent. But under UNDRIP, the way it’s characterized, any First Nation

can go in and have the duty to consult bestowed upon them because

there’s no mention of strength of claim in UNDRIP.

This was part of the decision-making that flowed from the case law

regarding rights and title over the last 30, 40 years. So will strength

of claim play a

part in how the Crown decides on Aboriginal issues

regarding a project’s impact on an Aboriginal community?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for Skeena for the question. The overlap

issues that he was citing are real, and there are contributing factors

to those overlaps. However, I think probably the primary one is that the

Indian Act itself has created the situation where we see ourselves with

overlaps. In some cases, that ends up being conflicts.

[4:25 p.m.]

It is an issue that we…. Strength of claim, of course, is

something that we consider when we’re dealing with the treaty process or

outside of the treaty process with nations.

The UNDRIP actually provides mechanisms for nations — their

inherent right to develop governance and work together to address

overlaps. I believe it’s a complementary tool towards that.

Again, the specifics of the question — I might have missed that. I

acknowledge the overlap issues that happen throughout the province. They

are a creature, I think, largely of the Indian Act. That Indian Act

model, I know, is something that we’re trying to address and get beyond.

I know the federal government is also trying to get beyond it. And I

know many nations are working together cooperatively to address their

own overlap issues. We certainly encourage that and try to resource that

too.

E. Ross: Thank you for that. Yeah, the Indian Act did contribute to that.

Also, there were a number of other different processes that contributed

to it. But my question is, specifically…. Strength of claim is addressed

in case law principles, and the strength of claim is based on your

evidence and your occupation of the territory prior to 1846. Every First

Nation that understands case law understands this principle of case law.

Government understands this principle as well.

My question is: in terms of strength of claim, how will the United

Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples acknowledge this

and take this into consideration?

Hon. S. Fraser: I don’t think I’m the expert on case law that the member is, but

strength of claim is something we do utilize through the ministry in

dealing with treaty and non-treaty. We’re moving more and more towards

encouraging nations to work together, of course, with the recognition

that there are often shared portions of territory throughout the

province between nations.

[4:30 p.m.]

Also, I think we need to learn from the court decisions. Case law

in this case would be the Tsilhqot’in decision. The Tsilhqot’in decision

actually, for the first time in history, adjudicated a title, a

confirmed title, of 1,700 square kilometres — in the Chilcotin, of

course.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Part of my mandate, actually, from the Premier is to utilize that

court decision, the Tsilhqot’in decision, in helping to address things,

including informing things like strength of claim.

E. Ross: Yes, you’re correct. But the ability for First Nations to work

together on overlap has been in place ever since I’ve been on council,

back in 2003. I was part of a panel put together by First Nations to try

to resolve and come up with protocol, and we failed. And it kept coming

up. That right and that opportunity was always there, whether it was

supported by government or not.

You’re correct. There are instances where First Nations do work

collaboratively, but it’s not really on the land base itself but to

share the benefits of a linear project going through both territories,

which doesn’t necessarily solve overlap. It just solves the money, the

jobs, the contracts, the training opportunities. So it doesn’t really do

that. If we could get more of those across the province, great. That’d

be awesome.

It’s interesting you bring up Tsilhqot’in. I was approached by a

First Nation that disputed the title because some of their territory was

taken up into the Tsilhqot’in decision. I have no idea how they’re going

to resolve that.

I’m not sure that the minister answered the question. How will

UNDRIP complement or even address the overlap issue, whether it be

strength of claim or the evidence that supports the strength of

claim?

Hon. S. Fraser: I just want to say that the overlap issues are complex. They’re

very difficult issues. I know the member knows that, and no one knows it

more than the nations in this province, the First Nations that are

dealing with these. Again, to some extent, it’s a result of a colonial

past and an Indian Act that is race-based. It has often led to divisions

between communities, and the overlap issue and such is part of

that.

The UNDRIP itself, the UN declaration…. I had a quick look

through, but I do not recall any

article in the UN declaration that

actually refers to strength of claim or overlap.

[4:35 p.m.]

However, the UN declaration within its articles, within itself,

does allow for and cites nations having the ability to rebuild

themselves, to reconstitute themselves, to strengthen their culture,

their language — in many ways, their identity. I believe that’s

complementary to trying to address the complex issues of overlaps that

the member refers to.

I don’t believe there’s any specific guidance for dealing with,

again, the strength-of-claim issues beyond that. It’s certainly not

specifically cited in the UN declaration. But it is something that we

try to address.

I would note that a number of years ago I had a wonderful…. I was

so honoured. I was invited by Chief Ken Hansen at the time to address

the Yale First Nation. There was a ceremony in the canyon, up the Fraser

Canyon. It involved Stó:lō, and there was a treaty. The Yale had

achieved treaty, but in so doing, with all of the best intentions, I

think, from government, it actually caused conflict and division between

the Yale and Stó:lō Nations. Again, it was essentially an overlap issue,

and jurisdiction was handed, through the treaty process, to Yale in a

way that was disputed by many Stó:lō Nations.

It was a very unfortunate consequence to what should have been….

Treaty should not be creating winners and losers, in my opinion. I was

an opposition critic at the time. I wasn’t in government. But what Ken

was able to do, the chief at the time, was bring together again Stó:lō

and Yale in a way that helped heal some of the rifts caused, with the

best intentions, through a treaty.

He was willing to sacrifice the treaty itself in the interests of

rebuilding community and rebuilding relationships amongst nations. I’ve

always held that as a model for where priorities were put in the right

place, and I applaud the work he did.

I believe that the work that is encouraged through the UN

declaration — to rebuild governance, culture, history as a right for the

nations — was depicted so graphically in that ceremony between Yale and

Stó:lō. So I am hopeful that we will see UNDRIP complement efforts to

address overlap.

I thank the member for raising this. These are difficult issues

for all, especially for the nations themselves, but also for us in the

ministry in how we deal with the issues of treaty and non-treaty

negotiations.

E. Ross: Thank you for that. But I’m really trying to understand how UNDRIP

gets applied in terms of the Crown’s decision-making when it comes to

UNDRIP being implemented. At some point, you’re going to have to make a

decision, and what I don’t want is the First Nations to have unrealistic

expectations in terms of what UNDRIP is actually going to

deliver.

By the way, overlap is not a colonialism. It’s not because of

colonialism. Overlap was there long before the white settlers came

along. There were a lot of wars over it, and it was always changing.

That just fed into the white contact era as well.

In terms of the Crown’s decision-making, there’s another principle

of case law that talks about meaningful consultation. Consultation, the

way I understood it…. And by the way, the minister made a reference to

my expertise in rights and title case law. I am no expert in rights and

title. It’s just some of the things I pulled out to kind of try to build

a future.

In terms of meaningful consultation, the term is called “two-way

street.” I’m trying to convey to this House that this free, prior and

informed consent was already there, based on my experience, going back

to 2003. It was there in my work with the previous

government.

[4:40 p.m.]

In looking at what’s happening now, in terms of this two-way

street that has to occur for First Nations to be consulted, how much

emphasis will be put on the record of a company attempting to obtain

free, prior and informed consent if those efforts are rejected by the

First Nation?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks, again, to the member for the question. What we are

expecting from companies…. For instance, I think there was the example

that they’re working to try to achieve free, prior and informed consent

with nations. Simple consultation, as I mentioned before…. We’re well

beyond that now. Companies are actually well beyond that now too. There

are many examples in the province where….

Our expectations, of government, from companies is that they work

very early on with First Nations, build relationships, involve the

nations as partners with real benefits. I will give the member an

example. I know he knows examples of this, too, because I’m sure, as the

leader of his nation prior to his time here, he worked closely with

companies. He’s cited that too.

In my constituency, there’s the Huu-ay-aht First Nation, which

began working early on with a company known as Steelhead LNG. They are

working together to put forward a project to government, already in

partnership, right from the very beginning. This is truly about

certainty and predictability on the land base.

What we’re seeing more and more are companies that get it. Before

they even come to government for permits or whatever, they’ve already

established strong relationships. I know it’s been said many times, but

before you build anything in a territory, build a relationship. That is

what the expectation of government is for companies, as the member

asked. That’s what we’re encouraging, and that’s what we’re

expecting.

[4:45 p.m.]

E. Ross: The last question, if I get a relatively specific answer, is this.

When the Crown and the proponent are trying to find the basis for a

decision, if the principles of case law are fully realized by both the

Crown and the proponent, or maybe even exceeded…? They go beyond the

principles, whether it be a protocol, MOU or benefits agreements and the

attempts to consult and accommodate a First Nation.

If all of that is achieved but the First Nation still refuses to

give consent, will the Crown’s decision be withheld under UNDRIP, even

though the principles of case law have been exceeded and the Crown and

the proponent in question have gone beyond what is expected under

government practices, protocols or even existing case law?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member. We, as government, certainly respect case

law, as the member has been referring to. But we are trying to move

beyond conflict and having the courts make decisions. We are trying to

move the dial on a relationship so that government and First Nations can

work in partnership, using free, prior and informed relationships that

will lead to good decisions on the land base.

There won’t always be agreement. We understand that. That’s just

the way that things are in any situation with government. There will be

disagreements, and we have to learn to respect that, and we do respect

that. But we all have to recognize that that is the nature of

decision-making. It’s often difficult.

[4:50 p.m.]

I firmly believe, as minister, that the concepts that we have —

the articles within the UNDRIP, the UN declaration — will give us true

guidance, and more and more and more as First Nations are treated with

respect and recognition based on case law, based on the UN declaration

and based on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Those relationships between business, government and the nation

will lead to good, sound decisions. There will not always be agreement,

but again, government has to make decisions, and we will. But this is a

way to get us out of a pattern of conflict and into a way of true

partnerships in decisions, where the benefits are felt throughout the

province, not in isolated ways but in real ways — benefits to nations in

the territories where decisions are being made. That’s the goal that we

are seeking as government. We’re using the tools of UNDRIP and the TRC

and the Tsilhqot’in decision to inform that.

E. Ross: Yes, I was expecting that kind of an answer. It’s fairly

optimistic, given how UNDRIP has been presented as a blueprint for

success, a holistic document, and what’s more troubling, as a human

rights document, because the conflict that you’re talking about that you

wish to avoid is already there.

Some First Nations have already stated on the record that in terms

of their protests, it’s a fight to the death. They don’t take the same

view that UNDRIP is going to be us all sitting around and we’re going to

hammer it out until we come to an agreement before government makes a

decision. If that’s the case, then the Crown’s decision date, when you

make that decision…. That’s 20 years down the line — maybe the next

generation. If these people truly believe that they will fight to the

death on some of these projects, you’re not going to get that

consent.

I’m not even talking about chief councillors or elected leaders or

their chiefs. We’re talking about Aboriginals on these protest lines. So

it’s this uncertainty and these unrealistic expectations that I’m trying

to determine, in the context of the decision-making from the

Crown.

I do wish to thank the minister for his answers. The Aboriginal

issue in Canada and B.C. is extremely complicated. There have been many,

many, many great people, whether they be Aboriginal leaders or people in

this House, that have given it their best shot. There’ve been many great

staff people I worked with over the last 14 years that were doing their

best to get what was right, not only for the Aboriginals but for British

Columbian society as a whole.

To a certain degree, especially for my people, there was

tremendous success. The success of my people and the optimism that my

band members have is because of the collaboration that I had with the

previous government and the staff from the previous government. And I

truly hope that this government can build on that. I do not want to see

the day where we go back into court for another 20 or 30 years based on

vague descriptions of UNDRIP as it relates to Crown

decision-making.

That’s the only point that I was really trying to get at through

this line of questions. Thank you again, to the minister, for your

answers.

D. Barnett: First of all, Minister, thank you very much for getting me that

tripartite agreement so quickly. I got it this morning, and I appreciate

it.

I’m going to ask a question about the budget. In your budget, has

there been a fund set aside for private land owners or guide-outfitters,

for trappers, for tourism operators who have venues on Crown land? If

negotiations with First Nations through treaties or reconciliation

cannot be reconciled and therefore these operators will all be out of

business, do you have a fund set aside for compensation in any cases

like this?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: We have no funds set aside, as such. There’s nothing in the budget

set aside. We do everything that we can to avoid compensation, as a

ministry. We’re not a money ministry, as such.

I mean, if there are individual cases, presumably you could go

to…. We’d have to go to cabinet or something. We have no funds set

aside.

D. Barnett: I have another question for the budget. I just would like to

know…. You do have a reconciliation pot of money, I understand, in your

ministry. Is there not $200,000 set aside for reconciliation, or is that

split between all the ministries?

Hon. S. Fraser: Can I just get clarification? Did you say $200,000?

D. Barnett: I meant $200 million.

Hon. S. Fraser: I’ve got the numbers here. As I stated at the beginning, to open

the session here, the ministry operating budget for 2018 and ’19 is

$43.914 million. Then there is treaty and other agreement funding, and

that amount is $46.438 million. So the total is $90.352 million. That’s

the combination of the two — ministry operations and then the other line

is treaty and other agreement funding.

D. Barnett: Thank you for clarification of that, Minister, because there are

some rumours going around out in my world.

Interjection.

D. Barnett: Yes. Well, that’s why I asked the question — so that I can go back

home and I can say no.

[5:00 p.m.]

The $46 million, or whatever you mentioned there…. What is that

exactly for — the second portion of your operating budget?

Hon. S. Fraser: It’s for implementing approved agreements within the treaty

process or outside agreements, reconciliation agreements, those sorts of

things that are outside of the treaty process because some nations

represented through the First Nations Summit are within the treaty

process. So they’ve chosen that route, and then others are seeking

reconciliation outside of the treaty process. So it’s for both of those

approved expenditures.

D. Barnett: So these agreements are like the economic agreements, forestry

agreements that were signed under the previous government that you’re

just moving forward, or is this for new agreements?

Hon. S. Fraser: Yes. The answer is yes.

D. Barnett: In each ministry…. You may not be able to answer this question.

There are different agreements with First Nations for different dirt

ministries, for revenue-sharing, etc. Are these all within your budget,

or are they in each minister’s budget?

Hon. S. Fraser: Each ministry may have individual budgets for addressing some

issues that might involve First Nations within, whether it’s Forests,

Lands and Natural Resource Operations or whichever. But this is the

budget that we have just for the treaty agreements and the non-treaty

agreements.

Madame Speaker, I understand there’s a request for a break, and

we’ve been going for a bit, so it sounds like maybe a good idea. Can we

have a little break? Would that be all right — ten minutes?

Sure.

The Chair: This House will recess for 15 minutes.

One last question, Cariboo-Chilcotin.

D. Barnett: No. I just wanted to say thank you, Minister. That was

all.

The Chair: This House stands recessed to 5:20.

The committee recessed from 5:03 p.m. to 5:13 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

D. Ashton: I have some specific questions from the member for Columbia

River–Revelstoke, who unfortunately couldn’t be here this afternoon.

This comes directly from Chief Barb Cote of the Shuswap Nation. One of

the questions that was asked: is there any specific fundi