Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 291

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 45 — Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Veera Bonner

D. Barnett

Reihaneh Mirjani and work of Immigrant Link Centre Society

B. Ma

Technology sector

S. Sullivan

Photography of Prince Rupert community by Phuong Nguyen

J. Rice

Richmond Society for Community Living

J. Yap

Kartarpur corridor between India and Pakistan

J. Sims

Oral Questions

Community benefits agreement and workers

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. C. Trevena

Caribou protection

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Donaldson

Community benefits agreement and workers

S. Bond

Hon. C. Trevena

M. Stilwell

M. de Jong

Hon. J. Horgan

Tabling Documents

Report on multiculturalism, 2018-19

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 38 — Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

P. Milobar

B. Ma

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 41 — Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

Hon. S. Fraser

M. de Jong

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2019

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: I’m honoured today to introduce repre­sen­tatives of the

B.C. Seniors Living Association who will be meeting with members of both

sides of the House over the lunch-hour: in particular, the CEO, Lee Coonfer;

Tanya Snow, the board president; board members Mark Dobson, Graham Freeman,

Adena Waffle, Marie Lashley, Karim Kassam, Kelly Lazaro, Tony Baena; and

staff member Khadija Hirji.

I also want to introduce representatives of the Denominational Health

Association, who members in the House will know — Bob Breen, the executive

director, Simon Neal, the board president — and, as well, representatives of

the B.C. Care Providers Association: Daniel Fontaine, who’s the CEO, and

Mike Klassen, who’s the vice-president of public affairs.

All of these individuals are representatives of people working in

seniors care. The B.C. Seniors Living Association is having a day meeting

with members of the Legislature in particular. I wish all members to bid

them welcome.

L. Reid: I would echo the Health Minister’s comments. I’m delighted to see so

many people interested in seniors care in our province come to share their

information and their insights with us. Certainly, on behalf of the B.C.

Seniors Living Association, this is their first visit, in terms of making an

entree into how to do government business. I’m delighted they’re

here.

S. Bond: On behalf of my northern colleagues, we are delighted to welcome two

very special guests to the gallery today. In the House are Tim Bennett and

Ashley Boutin. They are from Prince George. Tim is the executive director of

Big Brothers Big Sisters, and Ashley is the board chair.

We’re very pleased to have them here with us. They do exceptional work

in northern British Columbia. I’m sure that any of the members that were at

the breakfast this morning couldn’t have helped but be moved by Nathan’s

story — just one of the examples of the fantastic work done by Big Brothers

Big Sisters.

Tim is also the chair of the board of trustees of school district 57

and a dad to three little boys. I think Finn is two months old now. So a

very busy person in our community but making a significant

difference.

I know the House will want to join us in making them most welcome here

in the gallery today.

Hon. J. Darcy: I would also like to welcome the folks who are here from Big Brothers

Big Sisters today. Many of us on both sides of the House took

part in a very

moving session this morning that they held at the Grand Pacific. I think

what was especially powerful was hearing the stories of the young men whose

lives had been impacted in such a positive way.

They are celebrating. They have been active in Canada for 107 years,

and we can just imagine the thousands and thousands, the hundreds of

thousands, of young people on whose lives those mentors have had a positive

impact.

One of the things that really struck me was that their work is very

much about prevention. It’s about supporting young people in their early

days so that they can get the best possible start in life. Certainly, all of

us welcome that work. As the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the

Minister of Children and Families and the Minister for Child Care, who were

there, together with other people, we certainly recognize how important that

work is — supporting our young people so they can not just survive but

thrive.

Hon. C. Trevena: I hope the House will make welcome representatives of the B.C. Coast

Pilots today. We have in the Legislature Capt. Robin Stewart, Capt. Roy

Haakonson, Paul Devries, Grace Kareku and Julienne Martine.

[10:10 a.m.]

The B.C. Coast Pilots are lifetime professional mariners and experts

in safe marine shipping, dedicated to keeping our coasts safe and protecting

the marine environment. They are mandated to board and guide any foreign

ship coming in or out of B.C.’s ports, for environmental protection, safety

and efficiency. I hope the House will please make them feel very

welcome.

P. Milobar: Today, in the gallery and in the precinct, we have several members,

men and women, of various unions, numbering in the hundreds, here to have

meetings and conversations and take great pride in the projects and the

great work they have done building major projects all across British

Columbia.

We have members from CLAC, CWU, Canada Works, PCA, ICBA, BCCA and

VRCA. I’d like the House to please make them all feel very

welcome.

L. Reid: I rise today to welcome to the world Iris Zavoloka-Izard, first-born

child of Sasha and Iana, born November 7, 2019, weighing in at 6 pounds 12

ounces. She’s the first grandchild of our Law Clerk of many decades Ian

Izard and his wife, Daphne. I’d like the House to please make this little,

tiny person very, very welcome.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce Emily Hiser, who’s here in the gallery

today. She’ll be shadowing me for the rest of the day. Emily is a third-year

UVic political science and environmental studies student. She grew up here

in Victoria, and she recently joined the Victoria Youth Council. She’s very

interested in participating in democracy. It is something that gives me a

lot of hope, when I see young people engaged like this.

I’m also delighted to mention that Emily’s aunt is Misty Whittaker,

who used to be the best barista in Shawnigan at Shawnigan House.

Would the House please make Emily most welcome today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 45 — TAXATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Taxation Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Taxation Statutes Amendment Act,

2019. This bill amends the Provincial Sales Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax

Act, recognizing both the growing problems of vaping and continued

concerns with tobacco consumption. This legislation will increase the

rate of PST on vaping products from 7 percent to 20 percent and

increases both the cigarette and per-gram tobacco tax rates by two

cents.

Bill 45 complements the Minister of Health’s efforts, as part of

the recently announced vaping action plan, to reduce the incidence of

vaping among our province’s youth. It also responds to products that

impose significant health costs borne by all taxpayers in British

Columbia.

In introducing this bill, I’m proud to say that British Columbia

is the first province with legislation coming forward to specifically

target vaping using its tax system.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 45, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

VEERA BONNER

D. Barnett: On August 25, 1918, Hattie and Frank Witte welcomed the birth of

their third daughter, Veera. Raised in the ranching tradition of the

Chilcotin, Veera eventually married Jim Bonner in 1941. In turn, the

couple had two children of their own, Trena and their son,

Lynn.

As a mother and a wife, Veera continued her work to support her

ranching crew by cooking their meals and helping to mend fences. Many

enjoyed their meal cooked over a campfire. Later the Bonners moved to

Fletcher Lake in the Chilcotin, where they acquired ten acres of land.

Cabins were built, and Veera opened up a hunting resort called

Bin-Goh-Sha, which always played host to a voting booth.

[10:15 a.m.]

Veera also loved to write and eventually became the rural

correspondent for the Williams Lake Tribune . In 1958, Veera

played a major role in the publication of a small booklet called

History and Legends of the Chilcotin . With encouragement

from the whole community, Veera was convinced to write a more extensive

book, and in 1995, Preserving Pioneer Memories was published.

Veera had a love of history and even wrote a diverse collection of

poems.

At the invitation of Premier Bill Bennett, Veera attended Expo 86

and was inducted into the Cowboy Hall of Fame. In recognition of her

dedication to the preservation of local history, Veera received the

Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal.

In August 2018, Veera’s family organized her 100th birthday party,

full of friends and family. Still a firebrand at 100 years old, Veera

had to be escorted home from the party to meet the 11 o’clock curfew at

Williams Lake Seniors Village.

Veera was a true pioneer of Big Creek in the Chilcotin, a place

which, incidentally, former cabinet minister Alex Fraser said determined

every election race in the Cariboo. Veera left us on October 21,

REIHANEH MIRJANI AND WORK OF

IMMIGRANT LINK CENTRE

SOCIETY

B. Ma: Every day new immigrants across Canada are finding ways to give

back to their communities. Reihaneh Mirjani came to Canada from Iran in

2015 with her husband, Ali Haeri. Here she met Igor Bjelac, an immigrant

Immigrant Link Centre Society, a registered B.C. charity, to help those

in need by collecting and distributing food that would otherwise be

wasted.

In just one year, they can distribute up to $1 million worth of

goods. Their charity’s motto is “Food is life; don’t waste life!” Every

week Reihaneh, along with other volunteers, visits grocery stores to

pick up boxes of produce, meat, dairy and treats that are about to reach

their best-before dates. These volunteers then sort and deliver the food

to local shelters and schools, where it is used for breakfast and hot

lunch programs. The remainder of the food is sent home to over 200

families in need across the Lower Mainland.

The 35-plus volunteers that Reihaneh manages are mainly immigrants

and refugees who have come here from countries all over the world. It is

particularly inspiring to see that in just four short years, this

organization is delivering groceries to many refugees and new immigrants

so that they can lower their bills while they establish their new

lives.

This is not the first time that Reihaneh has stepped up to serve

her community. Before forming the Immigrant Link Centre Society, she

volunteered with the Hawthorne Seniors Care Community in Port Coquitlam.

She believes that delivering food is the best way to contribute to our

community and give back to the country she now calls home.

On Sunday, Reihaneh won the 2019 new immigrant influencer award by

Women’s Collaborative Hub, as someone who has embraced her new community

and exhibited great potential through her leadership, volunteerism and

work ethic. She is a great example of a recent immigrant from Iran who,

like many, has made a difference in her new country in a very short

period of time. I wish her and her team at Immigrant Link Centre Society

the very best.

TECHNOLOGY SECTOR

S. Sullivan: PayByPhone was a young Vancouver start-up company. It had 100

cities as customers, including London, England, all run by computers in

Yaletown — but not, unfortunately, as a customer the city of Vancouver.

Customers and investors had to come to Vancouver and pay for parking

with coins. To me, this is a lesson about the phenomenal growth of the

tech sector and its need for our support.

In 2017-2018, the tech sector grew the fastest in North America,

30 percent, over 13,000 new high-paying jobs. Just down the block from

my constituency office, a company called Operto is making our buildings

smarter, linking them to the Internet of things. In the last few months

— that’s a few months — they’ve grown by over 300 percent.

[10:20 a.m.]

Allocadia, a marketing performance software management company,

serves more than 10,000 customers worldwide under the leadership of

sisters Kristine and Katherine Steuart. AbCellera Biologics, under the

leadership of Carl Hansen, is using our own immunity systems to develop

the next generation of therapeutic antibodies, perhaps eliminating the

word “flu” from our vocabularies.

Holly Peck has 2,300 members of her initiative Women Who Code. She

works with Sanctuary AI developing humanoid robotics and D-Wave, the

first Vancouver company to develop a commercial quantum computer, which

has sold to NASA. It was Vancouver animators at Image Engine that made

the dragons on the Game of Thrones .

So what does the technology sector need? When I ask them, I’m very

intrigued. They say they don’t need money. They have lots. What they

need desperately is trained, prepared talent. They need people ready to

take their well-paid jobs. They need a city that provides a high-quality

urban environment and clean, safe, good, high-quality education, daycare

and arts and culture, because the technology sector is

mobile.

What they’ve constantly asked from me…. They look forward to the

time when people, investors, come to this city and they don’t have to

explain why their ride-hailing app doesn’t work.

PHOTOGRAPHY OF PRINCE RUPERT

COMMUNITY BY PHUONG

NGUYEN

J. Rice: Seafest, Chinese New Year, Vietnamese New Year, Tim Horton’s Camp

Day, Kaien Island Craft Fair, Remembrance Day, the Terry Fox Run, the

North Pacific Cannery road race, Salmon Fest, National Indigenous

Peoples Day, the North Coast Whale Festival, Canada Day and the

All-Native Basketball Tournament. These are just some of the annual

community events where you can count on seeing Phuong Nguyen with not

one but multiple cameras in tow.

Phuong is Prince Rupert’s unofficial photographer. To say he is an

avid photographer and videographer is an understatement. He can

oftentimes be seen at multiple community events in one day, capturing

Prince Rupert’s sport, cultural and community events and publicly

sharing his images for all to see.

While Phuong could easily charge for his photography services, he

doesn’t. He spends many hours taking and editing hundreds of images and

for their own personal use. Phuong has been taking pictures for over 15

years, and he does this as a way of giving back to his community. He

says he shares his images simply because he likes to make people

happy.

He grew up in South Vietnam, with five brothers and seven sisters,

on a farm, harvesting coconuts, rice and bananas. In the late ’70s, his

sister immigrated to Prince Rupert, opened a restaurant and worked hard

to sponsor nine of her family members to find a new life in Canada. In

1991, Phuong moved to Canada. After working in restaurants, he became a

crab fisherman. Unfortunately, his wife passed away in 2012, and he has

been raising two teenagers on his own.

Photography has been a part of his healing process,

in­clud­ing nature photography. Every day he has a story to

tell, whether it’s a major or minor community event or simply telling

the story of Rupert’s rain and numerous eagles. Phuong doesn’t speak a

shares for all to appreciate.

Thanks, Phuong, for always showing up and for the legacy of

storytelling you’ll leave future Rupertites to appreciate.

RICHMOND SOCIETY FOR

COMMUNITY

LIVING

J. Yap: I rise today to speak about a Richmond organization that is making

lasting, positive change in the community. For more than 35 years,

Richmond Society for Community Living, RSCL, has provided exceptional

programs and services for infants, children and adults with

developmental disabilities.

RSCL is Richmond’s largest not-for-profit social service provider

and helps over 1,000 people with developmental disabilities each year to

participate and contribute fully as valued community members. Their

programs offer a continuum of care that allows the individuals and their

family members to dream, plan, learn and grow.

Last week the member for Richmond South Centre and I had the

pleasure of attending RSCL’S signature annual fundraising event, Benefit

of Possibilities: A Community Affair.

[10:25 a.m.]

The event highlighted the broad community and cor­porate

support for RSCL. The annual Community Living Awards at the event was

also an opportunity to recognize individuals and businesses that make a

significant contribution to RSCL.

Congratulations to the following three award recipients: corporate

partner, SOS Emergency Technologies; outstanding contributor, Jordan

Macken; and outstanding individual, Yan Ming Foo. Funds raised at the

event will go towards their new early childhood development hub, which

will create 89 new child care spots dedicated for children with

disabilities and will house RSCL’s early intervention services and

family strengthening services offered by community partners.

Congratulations to executive director Janice Barr, board president

Melanie Arnis, director of fund development Lisa Cowell and the entire

RSCL team for a job well done.

KARTARPUR CORRIDOR

BETWEEN INDIA AND

PAKISTAN

J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to rise and talk about a significant event

for Sikhs around the world.

As we know, 2019 was the year of Guru Nanak Dev ji’s Gurpurab, the

550th. There have been celebrations going on all along — celebrations of

prayer, of seminars, of learning about his teachings; funds being raised

for hospitals and schools; shelters being built; of course, food being

served; and lots of prayers. Also, it has been the time…. Many of us in

this room attended those ceremonies. The Premier, along with the

Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism and many of us, was at

celebrations on the actual day, which was the 12th of

November.

There is a significant day that I want to mark today in this

Legislature, and that is November 9, 2019. Coincidentally, as I was

thinking about this day, I remembered that November 9 is also the day

that the Berlin Wall was dismantled. It’s a history-making

day.

For 30-plus-million Sikhs around the world, this day has taken on

a whole new significance. It was on that day that both the governments

of India and Pakistan officially inaugurated the opening of the

Kartarpur corridor from the Indian border to the Gurdwara Darbar Sahib

Kartarpur, in Pakistan, a mere 4.7 kilometres, but very important

kilometres for the hundreds and thousands and millions of Sikhs around

the world who wanted to visit that particular holy place.

I want to congratulate both governments and every single person

and group who worked so hard to make this a reality. I found myself

glued to the live coverage, sharing the emotions of so many around the

world.

I remembered the story of a woman I met in the late ’60s. Bibi Ji

I called her. I wrote letters for her, and I would read letters she

received from India. She told me stories of the two Punjabs, being

divided into two parts by the British in 1917, stories of leaving behind

neighbours, friends and your home, stories of bloodshed as millions of

people were uprooted and the hundreds and thousands who were killed

during the massive relocation, and beautiful stories of people

supporting each other across religious lines. But deep inside her was a

sadness and yearning.

As I watched the live coverage on November 9, I saw Bibi. I saw

Bibi in the faces of the thousands of people who were gathered at the

Gurdwara, and what I saw were faces filled with love, peace and joy. It

took 72 years, but kudos to all those who made it happen.

Let us all, as parliamentarians, commit to urge legislatures

around the world to open, to make decisions that help to move corridors

filled with love, peace and joy so that we can have peace in the world

for the sake of children in every corner of this world.

[10:30 a.m.]

Oral Questions

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

A. Wilkinson: Collin Scott is a heavy equipment operator. He has worked on the

Sea to Sky project that we’re all familiar with, on the Port Mann

Bridge, on Site C, on the new water main project in Victoria, on the

water main project in Vancouver and is currently working on the

expansion of Vancouver Airport. He’s very good at what he does. He’s

proud of what he does.

On March 19 of 2016, the Premier spoke at the convention of one of

his favourite unions, one of the few — Local 115 of the Operating

Engineers. He told them that his plans for government infrastructure did

not include people like Collin. He boasted: “We’re going to do it with

union labour. You don’t do it by going with the turkeys at CLAC. That’s

not how I roll. That’s not how we roll.”

Collin Scott is a member of CLAC, and Collin Scott is here with

nearly 100 people who take the same view. They’re good at what they do.

They’re proud of what they do. They are citizens of British Columbia in

the fullest sense of the word, and this Premier decided to degrade and

demean them in his comments.

Does the Premier stand by his insulting comments directed at

Collin Scott and his colleagues, and is he prepared to withdraw those

demeaning and insulting words?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. He will know that we are in

one of the hottest construction markets the province has ever seen. We

have the lowest unemployment rate in the country. I’m delighted to hear

that Mr. Scott is working on not one but two projects at the present

time. That speaks to the challenge we have in British Columbia at this

point.

That’s why we’re trying to build more capacity in British

Columbia. Of the hundreds of projects being built in British Columbia

right now, publicly funded projects, there are three community benefits

agreements. Those agreements have just got underway. We’re optimistic

and confident that it will lead to more apprenticeship completions than

in the past.

We’re going to maintain that project going forward, but I say to

Mr. Scott and I say to the others who are here in the gallery

today….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I say to those in the gallery here today that we value their work,

their work that has built British Columbia — as all construction workers

across the province.

The CBA projects, which are not new to New Democrats, as I said

yesterday…. The member might have missed it. W.A.C. Bennett had project

labour agreements. The former government had project labour

agreements.

So to say today to build a partisan approach to construction in

British Columbia is offensive, in my mind. We’re going to build British

Columbia…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …the best we can to create jobs for local residents.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: It’s intrinsic to what we do in this room that we represent 87

different ridings in this province, representing five million British

Columbians. That’s our job. Once you’re in government, your job is to

work for the benefit of everyone in this province, because we all need

to feel like we belong here. This is our home. We are citizens here, yet

this Premier has decided to exclude 85 percent of the qualified

construction workforce from government projects.

We hear his backbenchers mocking this. It’s not funny if you’re

sitting in the gallery, feeling like a second-class citizen. The Premier

seemed to think it’s just fine to discriminate against highly qualified

construction workers and to go to the extent of calling them “the

turkeys at CLAC.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Wilkinson: Collin Scott has this to say: “The Premier has banned me from

working on public projects under the NDP and written me and my

colleagues off as turkeys. Why am I being treated like a second-class

citizen?”

In a nation, a province — and, particularly, with a party that

prides itself on egalitarian behaviour — how on earth can the Premier

stand in this gallery today and face these people and say: “You’re

second-class”?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I would have thought the learned colleague on the opposite

side wouldn’t need a history lesson — and the House Leader, as well, who

is quick to quip. Project labour agreements have been….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the Premier has the floor.

Premier.

[10:35 a.m.]

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

Project labour agreements have been in place in British Columbia

for decades under successive governments. Social Credit, New Democrats

and, yes, even B.C. Liberals built projects with community benefits

agreements.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Now, I appreciate that they want to grandstand for those in the

galleries today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: The facts of the matter are this, hon. Speaker. We have the

hottest construction market we have ever seen in B.C. history. Of the

hundreds of projects…. The member on the opposite side articulated some

of the publicly funded projects that CLAC members are working on and

continue to work on. There are three projects in British Columbia that

are using community benefits agreements. We want to kick-start

apprenticeship training in British Columbia, and we’re sticking with

that.

J. Thornthwaite: Mr. Premier, you are totally wrong. It is simply wrong to claim

that legacy agreements on projects that are awarded through an open

tender, such as the John Hart, are in any way comparable to this

discrimination that you are providing here to the construction industry

in British Columbia.

Carmen Elebracht is an electrical apprentice from North Vancouver.

She’s in the gallery today. Carmen says: “I want to know why the Premier

is discriminating against me just because I’m not part of an

NDP-approved union.”

Can the Premier explain to Carmen — who is listening in the

gallery, along with hundreds of other construction workers — why he is

discriminating against her and treating her as a second-class

citizen?

Hon. C. Trevena: I just want to explain to the member opposite that all our

procurement is done through open tender. It’s all done through open

tender, just to clarify that for the member, who clearly doesn’t quite

understand the procurement process.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d also like to underline….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we’re not being fair to the people in the

gallery, particularly people who are here to get answers on this

particular topic. The visitors in the gallery will want to hear what the

Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure has to say.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As the Premier has mentioned, it’s a hot construction market. We

are using community benefits agreements — as we have said in the past,

as I said yesterday — to build not just British Columbia but, as

generations have done before, to build the people of British Columbia,

to allow for people who don’t usually get the opportunity to work on

construction projects to do so.

I’m really pleased that Carmen has been working on construction

projects around the province. This is great. At the moment, only about 4

percent of the workforce are women. So it’s terrific that Carmen has got

out there and done that.

To the member, just to let her know that since we are prioritizing

local hire, Indigenous hire and women training…. On our first CBA

jobsite, she’ll be very pleased to know that the workforce is 22 percent

women.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: Once again, the minister is wrong. On the B.C. Infrastructure

Benefits website, it actually says: “You are required to apply for

membership with one of the affiliated unions within 30 days.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Thornthwaite: It is simply not comparable. Eighty-five percent of B.C.

construction workers are not part of the 19 unions that the NDP is

forcing workers to join.

Taylor Paananen is a second-year electrical apprentice from Maple

Ridge. He says: “This policy is a fake that has nothing to do with

helping workers. Why should I be forced to pay higher union dues and

join a union I don’t want to join?”

[10:40 a.m.]

My question again is to the Premier. Why are Taylor and the other

hard-working British Columbians, who are all here today, being forced to

join a union they don’t want to?

Hon. C. Trevena: Community benefits agreements, as the Premier had said, are at

present being used in three publicly funded projects: our Trans-Canada

projects, Pattullo Bridge and Broadway. We’re very, very proud to be

using them there because we are building up the province of B.C. We have

many other projects around the province where we are not using them. As

we’ve said before, it’s really on a case-by-case basis at the moment.

We’re dealing with these three.

Like in many areas, if it’s a unionized jobsite, people are

expected to join the union, as they were when they were working at the

Waneta dam, when they were working at John Hart, when they were working

at many other projects, both under the B.C. Liberals and under the

Socreds — throughout that.

Also, we are committed to training. We know there’s a skills

shortage. The opposition seemed to ignore that fact when they were in

government. We want to deal with that. We know that the building trades

have the best completion record for any apprentices.

CARIBOU PROTECTION

A. Olsen: Almost 30 of British Columbia’s 52 surviving caribou herds risk

extirpation. A dozen of the herds have fewer than 25 animals. Two herds

in the Kootenay region were declared locally extinct earlier this

year.

We know why. Caribou are highly sensitive to disruptions to their

natural environment, disruptions such as clearcutting forests, seismic

exploration, road-building, oil and gas development and land clearing.

These are the conditions that allow wolves to thrive. Hunting in

families, STḴȺYE is a

proficient predator, with highly developed relationships and an

exceptional capacity to work together.

The vegetation that once offered protection for the caribou and

their food…. With rapid changes to the land base, the caribou have been

exposed. Exploration corridors, trails and roads serve as predator

highways, and caribou have had little time to evolve new food sources,

skills or tactics to protect themselves.

The provincial response has been, in part, to shoot wolves from

helicopters as a predator management strategy. My question is to the

Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources and Rural Development.

Is the government planning to increase the wolf cull?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member for the question. We as a government take

caribou recovery in B.C. very seriously. That’s why we rely on a range

of approaches in supporting these populations.

When it comes to making decisions about wolf management in B.C.,

for instance, we rely on expert research and the science. The research

shows that wolves are the principle predator of caribou in B.C. In fact,

in May of 2018, the federal government, under the Species at Risk Act,

said the caribou populations in B.C. were under imminent threat, not due

to habitat loss but due to predators.

Predator control is one of the tools we use, especially when herds

are reduced in numbers to critical levels. We also use other methods,

such as habitat protection, habitat restoration, maternity penning and

supplemental feeding. This is because caribou are an iconic species to

B.C. and Canada, and we’re taking measures to stabilize their

populations and grow their numbers.

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: I thank the minister for the response.

The real issue here is, actually, habitat destruction, and it’s on

track to get worse. This government continues the massive

taxpayer-funded subsidies of foreign corporations to expand LNG and thus

increase fracking in caribou habitat.

[10:45 a.m.]

We know culling wolves to reduce the pressures on caribou is just

a band-aid solution to a human-made problem. If this government doesn’t

fundamentally change the way they manage the landscape, then, frankly,

we’ll have to continue killing

STḴȺYE , until they are

no more. This government is reluctant to specifically protect species at

risk because they are showing no restraint. Apparently, this government

is okay with the short-term, status quo approach to managing the decline

to zero on a long enough trajectory that no one will notice.

My question, again, is to the minister. Is he comfortable

knowingly committing a species to extinction by shying away from the

responsible ecosystem habitat that we need, while spending millions of

dollars to shoot hundreds of wolves so this government can continue

unsustainable logging practices and increase fracking?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I agree with the member in that we’ve had to take drastic

emergency measures to protect the populations of caribou that are left

in this province. That’s because the inadequate patchwork of actions

taken by the previous government led to the threat of an imminent

stop-work order under the Species at Risk Act around habitat

protection.

We’re determined to take this on. We know land use

deci­sions impact caribou habitat and populations. We’ve provided

$47 million for our caribou recovery strategy. That involves a whole

suite of actions that I outlined earlier. We also took the unprecedented

step of putting in place an interim moratorium on new industrial

activities on 734,410 hectares of land in the northeast of the province

until we can finalize a partnership agreement with the federal

government and with First Nations in the area to address caribou

populations and stability.

This is all part of an effort that includes making sure that we

protect this iconic species. It’s part of the biodiversity in this

province that we enjoy and part of the constitutionally protected rights

of Indigenous people to hunt these animals. We’re determined that with

the measures we are taking, the caribou populations will stabilize and

grow.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

S. Bond: Let’s call it what it is. Forcing workers to join a union they

don’t want to is nothing more than blatant discrimination. It doesn’t

matter whether it’s one project or ten projects. Qualified workers in

British Columbia should get to work on every project in British

Columbia.

Dawn Rebelo is a proud British Columbian and someone who regularly

speaks and works in high schools, encouraging women in the trades. She’s

accomplished, and she’s highly qualified.

Dawn has a message for the Premier today. “For 26 years, I’ve

helped build this province, from working on major mining projects to the

Site C dam. I’m proud of my skills, and I feel insulted and disrespected

by the Premier’s comments that somehow I’m unqualified to do my job

because he thinks the CLAC members, like me, are turkeys. Why is the

Premier discriminating against me?”

Those are the words of this Premier. It is time for him to stand

up in this Legislature today to look Dawn Rebelo and her colleagues in

the eye and explain exactly why she should not be able to work on every

project in British Columbia. She’s accomplished, qualified. It’s time

for the Premier to answer that tough question.

Hon. C. Trevena: Really, I’m very pleased that the opposition, in their invitation

list, have had at least two women who are working in the trades. It’s

terrific.

I’ve got to admit that this is something that we are absolutely

committed to. One of the ways we’re working through the community

benefits agreements is to invest in women, who will be getting to trades

and getting a full apprenticeship. So $1.8 million was put towards

supporting women in the trades, on International Women’s Day, by the

Premier. This is something we are absolutely committed to. I’m really

pleased to see that it is actually taking effect.

[10:50 a.m.]

People can….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: The community benefits agreement projects are open to anyone, to

any skilled trade. We want to ensure that we build up the workforce so

that Dawn and Carmen are not on their own. We want to ensure that we are

training people for the future so we don’t face the skill shortage we

are facing now — that we deal with the aging demographic that we have,

that we get people trained.

I know that we’ve had a couple of women cited, but there are a lot

of women who are extremely pleased about our community benefits

agreements, including Ashley Duncan, who’s an insulator from Coquitlam,

who says: “When you’re a construction apprentice, it can be difficult to

find a job, and it’s even worse for women apprentices.” That’s one of

the reasons we have trouble retaining women in the trades.

A community benefits agreement is a game-changer. We’ve changed

the game. We’re going to make sure that every­body gets an

opportunity.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, finally an accurate answer from this minister. Because guess

what. It’s a game-changer, all right, for the men and women in this

gallery today who are not permitted to work on a project in British

Columbia unless…. The members think that these workers think that that

answer is laughable. They can only work on those projects if they

abandon the union of their choice and join a select number of unions

picked by this Premier. That is blatant discrimination.

Now, let’s be clear. Rob Main is a heavy-equipment operator who

helped to build the Surrey Hospital redevelopment and expansion. Rob is

also here today, and he says: “Why has the Premier decided that I’m no

longer good enough to work on public projects? I’m proud of the work

I’ve done as a member of the CLAC union for 16 years. What right does he

have to call me a turkey and ban me from public projects so he can pay

off his friends?” Rob wants an answer, and he wants it from the

Premier.

It’s time for the Premier to get up and answer to the men and

women who live and work in this province and explain to them why they

are not qualified enough to work on projects and, in his book, they’re

nothing more than turkeys.

Hon. C. Trevena: I really continue to be surprised by the opposition’s lack of

understanding of the community benefits agreement, when even under their

watch, even under the 16 years…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: …that they were government, they used project labour agreements.

They had the same list of unions, whether it was on the John Hart dam or

the Waneta dam. They had the same list of unions.

We are rebuilding our province. We are investing in people. We are

investing in Indigenous people, in women, in people who live close to

the projects. That’s the basis of the community benefits agreement.

Anyone in British Columbia who wants to get well trained, to get a red

seal apprentice, to commit to British Columbia and to their future can

work on a community benefits agreement.

M. Stilwell: What this government, what this minister and what this Premier are

doing is discriminating against these workers, these workers that are

here who want to work on projects, public projects.

Here in the gallery today is 28-year-old heavy-equipment operator

Brian Stoker. He says: “I am a proud British Columbian with the skills

necessary to help build this province. How is it fair to ban me from

working on public projects unless I join an NDP-endorsed

union?”

[10:55 a.m.]

These workers here today deserve answers, answers from this

Premier. Why are skilled-trades workers like Brian having opportunities

taken away from them? Why are they being shut out of the work on public

projects in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to know why the opposition is misleading them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I’m concerned we’re taking away from questions that might

be asked. So perhaps we could hear what the minister has to

say.

Hon. C. Trevena: The opposition has spent this question period throwing around

misconceptions about community benefits agreements, which the

opposition, when they were in government, used themselves. They had 14

unions.

As we have said from the very beginning, when we introduced

community benefits agreements, community benefits agreements are based

on rebuilding the province, on investing in people in the province.

Anyone — anyone — can work on a community benefits agreement

project.

If people in the gallery…. I hope that they are appreciating this

discussion. It is a healthy debate. I hope that they can listen through

the misconceptions that the opposition have been throwing around

today.

M. de Jong: Well, quite frankly, I’m surprised. I actually thought that

confronted by 100-plus British Columbians who genuinely and

understandably feel insulted, the Premier, at a minimum — at a minimum —

would have stood up and apologized to them for what he said.

People like Ed Lehn are here — 25 years operating heavy equipment,

pays his taxes. He’d like to have the opportunity to work on projects

and belong to the union of his choice. For that lifetime of hard work,

he is insulted and disparaged by the Premier of the province of British

Columbia. He’s called a turkey.

Now, he’s got thick skin. He’s probably been called worse things

by better people. But he has never been insulted by the Premier of the

province of British Columbia, and at a minimum….

The Premier knows our views on these agreements. He knows that we

are opposed to the discrimination that they represent for workers across

British Columbia. At a minimum, on a day when these British Columbians

are in the gallery, will he stand up and apologize for insulting them so

blatantly?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I appeal to those on the other side to allow me to answer the

question, since you’ve asked it to me.

I want to first say to those who are in the gallery today: thank

you for your service to the people of British Columbia. Thank you for

your work in building a better B.C. All British Columbians, whether

they’re members of the operating engineers, the IBEW or CLAC, deserve

the respect of their government.

What we’re not hearing today is the reference to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Do you want me to answer the question for the people in the

gallery?

Interjections.

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

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The reference to “turkeys” was to Mr. Phil Hochstein, who was

appointed — I guess he wasn’t busy enough — by that government to head

the Turkey Marketing Board. Political rhetoric — as you’ve seen today,

those in the gallery — is part and parcel of question period. That was

where the concept came from.

The concept of community benefits agreements is not an NDP idea.

It was an idea that was hatched by a guy named W.A.C. Bennett, and it

has built British Columbia. Members on that side of the House used

project labour agreements throughout their time in

government.

To bring people here today…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …so they can participate in the democratic process is a good

thing. We can disagree about policies, particularly in this place. We

campaigned….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you, Member for Penticton.

We campaigned on community benefits agreements. We have in place

three, out of the hundreds and hundreds of projects that we will build

with public dollars. We welcome the members in the gallery to continue

to do their fine work to build a better British Columbia.

We can disagree. We can disagree about policy. That’s what

democracy is about. We on this side of the House believe we need to

build the next generation of workers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: The way to do that is through community benefits

agreements.

The members in the gallery will know that those on that side of

the House really did not care about what my answer would be. They really

did not care. They only want to promote themselves, not the workers of

British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: We’re proud of what we’re doing, and we’ll continue to do

it.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. L. Beare: I rise today to table the 2018-2019 Report on

Multiculturalism . I’ll forgo my comments today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call, in this chamber, second reading of Bill 38, Climate Change

Accountability Act. In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage

on Bill 41, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — CLIMATE CHANGE

ACCOUNTABILITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

P. Milobar: It’s my pleasure to continue my comments from yesterday on Bill

38, the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act. As I was saying

yesterday, the biggest problem with this bill — and from the comments

I’ve heard from the other side of the House, both from the Greens and

the NDP members — is the overpromotion of how significant this bill will

be to effecting actual change within British Columbia.

[11:05 a.m.]

I think everyone agrees that we need to be moving forward, that we

need to see real and tangible change. As I said yesterday, though, the

fact that we need a piece of legislation enacted for the government to

act on something as simple as yearly reports, instead of reports coming

out every second year, when this government could have already been

generating those reports on a yearly basis, even in the absence of the

legislation, does make one question how sincere the effort is to make

sure this moves forward, especially given that the first report will not

be generated under this legislation until right next to the next general

election.

It does not really take effect until the end of the calendar year

of 2020. Then it would actually be generated in 2021 by June. If you

look at every two-year cycle that we’re on with reports being generated,

I believe it’s 2017 to 2019, which means there would be a 2021 report

being put out anyway, which means the first real, new report that would

be generated under this bill would actually be in 2022. That would be

the first, newest scheduled report that would be out of the cycle of

what the existing legislation actually calls for.

Again, it does make one question just how significant this piece

of legislation is and just how serious this government and their

partners are in making sure that things are being addressed

adequately.

We’ve had a few housekeeping-type environmental bills come through

the House in the 2½ years so far, and it always strikes me as

interesting. When I think of the eclectic mix of careers and life

experiences all of the members in this House bring when they come to

this Legislature….

I knew a fair amount about the Minister of Environment’s

background in terms of previous careers that he had. I was unaware,

however, that, apparently, he must have been a writer for

Seinfeld , because this is another bill about nothing. It’s

very similar to a very popular TV series that was built around nothing.

That’s really at the core of what we’re talking about doing here right

now.

We want to address climate change. We want to make sure that steps

are being taken. But when you see actions like non-revenue-neutral

carbon tax being implemented and when you see actions like the Minister

of Finance actually needing to budget for emissions to rise over the

first three years of CleanBC to make the books balance in British

Columbia, that’s a problem.

In the third year of implementation of CleanBC, emissions are

budgeted to rise. These are the government’s own budget documents in

their three-year fiscal plan. The emissions are slated to rise from 41.7

megatonnes of emissions at $35 a tonne, 41.6 megatonnes at $30 a tonne

of carbon tax….

The Minister of Finance has budgeted for emissions to be at 44

megatonnes at $50 a tonne of carbon tax, a non-revenue-neutral carbon

tax. The provincial budget, staying as close to the line as it is right

now after the last budget update — it will be interesting to see what

the next quarterly update is — can only stay in balance and can only

stay out of deficit if CleanBC fails in its first three

years.

Now, those are very critical years when you look at the timeline

of what all the experts are saying the timelines are when it comes to

climate change. I know the Environment Minister has the best of

intentions of wanting to get CleanBC rolling and wanting to get CleanBC

showing results.

The Finance Minister, who was leader of the NDP when they mounted

an Axe the Tax campaign, has shifted gears completely from wanting to

get rid of this tax to increasing it by 65 percent to making it no

longer revenue-neutral and, in fact, making sure that they are budgeting

in their financial plan to see emissions rise to make sure their books

balance. They’ve come a long way — the Finance Minister, in particular —

from mounting a campaign to axe the tax to where we see it

today.

[11:10 a.m.]

If a carbon tax is to be truly effective, it needs to be

revenue-neutral. It needs to actually have the impact that it’s intended

to have. It’s not meant to be dumped into general revenue to balance the

books for a Finance Minister that campaigned against that very tax in

the first place.

It is significant. If you keep the emissions at or around the

level they were at $30 a tonne, it’s about a $400 million to $600

million hit, over a three-year period, to the provincial budget. If

CleanBC was actually successful in reducing emissions, it would be an

even bigger hit to the provincial budget.

The two sides are really not talking to each other. We heard the

Leader of the Third Party yesterday mention about the left and the right

hands of government not knowing what’s going on.

That was certainly very clear in estimates. When I pointed out to

the Environment Minister that emissions, indeed, are budgeted to rise,

the Environment Minister’s answer was that I needed to check with the

Finance Minister because the Finance Minister worries about the carbon

tax as it relates to the budget. One would think, if you were actually

being serious about tackling climate change and your CleanBC plan was

supposed to be this brand-new holy grail of the document, that the two

would have talked together and realized that they’re on different

paths.

I don’t know how anyone can take seriously when the government

says they are doing everything in their power to tackle climate change

and reduce emissions when they’ve, in fact, budgeted, in their own

financial plan, to see emissions rise. The two simply do not connect.

When you’re talking about a three-year window of time, when you’re

talking about a 2021 document, when you’re talking about a 2030 target,

that’s a significant period of time. So although it’s laudable that

we’re going to see yearly reporting….

It’s interesting. When you read the current two-year reporting and

the justification of why the reports are every two years, a lot of it

has to do with trying to get the data collected, trying to get it

collated, trying to get it produced in a timely fashion and still have

some accuracy to it and be able to spread out a little bit of the blips

that happen, potentially, on a year-to-year basis. That’s why every two

years was seen to be a more logical way to report.

This is not changing the fact that reporting has already been

going on. This bill is not changing the type of reporting that’s going

to happen. What this bill is saying is that every year, instead of every

two years, we’re going to report those same types of figures and facts.

It will always be on a previous year. So we’re always going to be behind

because of the lag in reporting.

In this bill, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s based on the

end of a calendar year. Then, ministry staff, or whoever will be

generating the report, have another six months to generate that report.

So we are now 18 months behind, potentially, when things were first

going off the rails or not.

Because of the dates in this bill, there’s been lots of talk about

how this will get it out of the election cycle and how we’ll get people

more accountable, in this House, for their actions and things moving

forward. Well, that’s not really the case when you actually look at the

dates in this bill. Anything tangibly actionable and actually

measurable, something that you can look at, coming out of this bill

won’t effectively be new until June of 2022.

The June 2021 report is scheduled to happen in…. We were scheduled

to have a report in 2021 regardless of this bill. This bill doesn’t

provide for a report ahead of that. So the only first new reporting-out

segment will be in 2022. Why is that significant? Because just like we

saw in CleanBC…. The vast majority of initiatives that were not talked

about in CleanBC have been talked about for in the future, have been

talked about on timelines and horizons that get very close to, if not

after, the next general election — specifically, the missing 25 percent

of CleanBC.

Again, only in British Columbia could we have a government,

propped up by a green environmental party, which is praising a document

that only has 75 percent of emissions accounted for as a game-changing

emissions reduction document. The 25 percent missing has been missing

for over a year now.

[11:15 a.m.]

I was at an environmental conference during the break — not last

week, the week before. I was there as the minister was speaking. The

minister acknowledged to the crowd that they still have a lot of work to

do on the 25 percent, that there might be portions, hopefully, of the 25

percent and a plan to address them sometime in the near future. But

there was no commitment around when the full 25 percent would be

accounted for, when we’d understand how that was going to be

achieved.

I think everyone agrees, or should agree, that, on anything, when

you’re looking for that last 25 percent on something that’s already been

so hard to reduce — those emissions — finding that last 25 percent is

going to be actually the hardest 25 percent, and trying to figure out

what the game plan for that 25 percent is, is going to be the hardest

game plan of all.

To keep pushing it off and pushing it off until just near or after

the next general election does not seriously address and match the

language we’re hearing from the government about how serious and

critical and time-sensitive all of this is, just like this bill.

Yesterday I pointed out that through sections 8 to 11, the wording is

almost identical to the existing bill. The biggest change they have for

most of them is that they’ve added the words “the provincial government”

while talking about public service organizations. That’s hardly

revolutionary, game-changing language to increase the commitment that

people have towards the environment.

There was one clause added, requiring those same public service

organizations to provide a description of the actions they’ve already

taken even though they’re already required to do all the reporting and

everything else. So they basically have to add an extra descriptive page

— hardly game-changing stuff.

Now, I recognize that most jurisdictions, if any, have the yearly

reporting requirements that this bill would require. That doesn’t mean

that it’s going to affect the massive change we need. I’m a fan. I’ve

always been a fan. It’s one thing to have a piece of paper and a

document that you can feel good about yourself when you’re in

government, and I would say this to city council all the time in my

municipal life as well. It’s another thing to have a document and

actions that actually do what it is that needs to be done.

This, yes, is a step to get tighter reporting out there, but if

there’s not better clarity around these missing large, fundamental

discrepancies between the financial realities of this government’s

budget and how it’s built around carbon tax and the non-revenue-neutral

part around carbon tax….

Again, I have no problem that we’re going to the $50 carbon tax. I

recognize that, as a country, we were going there anyways. Yes, we’re

going to be one year ahead of schedule, but it’s been an incremental

climb, just as it was when it went from $10 to $30. So nothing changed

there. Although yesterday, to hear the government talk about going from

$30 to $50, it was revolutionary that they were doing it in $5

increments and moving it up. That’s no different than when it was $10

and went to $30.

What also is no different is that almost one-third of the money in

that budget for CleanBC is actually for low-income subsidies for people.

I fully agree with that. In fact, when it went up to $30, every time it

went up by $5, those same subsidies went up by that same amount. So

nothing has changed there. It’s gone up by the same amount each time,

and those people in need, need that help. I’m not suggesting for a

minute that we should not be providing that help. But you also can’t

think for a minute that those people that need that help have the

disposable income and the carbon footprint that many others in our

society do in the first place.

It’s great we are using the carbon tax to make sure those people

still can heat their homes and take transit and get to work and drive

their cars, if they have a car. But typically speaking, if you’re on the

lower end of the income scale, and that’s who qualifies for that grant….

Basically, if you qualify for a GST refund from the federal government,

you qualify for a carbon tax refund.

[11:20 a.m.]

If you qualify, the qualifications are the same as they always

have been. But the simple reality is that if you qualify at those income

thresholds, you simply can’t afford to live in higher, larger housing

stock. You’re living in smaller housing stock. You can’t afford to do

home renovations. You’re worried about making sure there’s food on the

table for your family and yourself. So you need that subsidy, and that

subsidy is very important.

That one component of CleanBC is not going to significantly reduce

our GHG footprint, because it’s going to a population that already has a

much less significant carbon footprint than many others in our

communities have. So although it’s laudable we’re doing that, that’s

almost one-third of the money in CleanBC that the new carbon tax is

generating.

Another large portion of it is actually to go to offsets for

corporations. I know we heard a lot yesterday about the LNG and other

industry and the rebates that they’ll be eligible for. Again, we want to

make sure that those trade-exposed intensive industries are looked after

and people are still gainfully employed in them.

But let’s be clear. There is very little in CleanBC, out of the

$900 million, that is specifically targeted for the daily lives of the

average person in their own household. There are some home renovation

projects. There are some electric vehicle subsidies, which are running

out rapidly. We’re down to $9 million left in the electric vehicle

rebate program. All three years’ money under CleanBC was committed this

year. There is no money left in that three-year financial plan, as of

this current budget, for the electric vehicle program.

The Minister of Energy and the Finance Minister…. The Minister of

Energy assured that there would be supplemental funds, contingency

funds. The Minister of Finance has made it clear there won’t be. So it

will be interesting to see, as we move into this next budget cycle, if

new money will actually be found for an electric vehicle program that

back in the spring, it was pointed out to the government, was not funded

well enough for a year, let alone three years.

The interesting thing is that the electric vehicle program, as

predicted when we had the EV law come in…. It would be very easy for the

government to turn their backs now on that subsidy, which will plummet

sales, because they can turn around to the automotive manufacturers and

say: “Well, it’s your legislative duty to figure out how to sell these

cars; it’s not ours. There is no more subsidy money.” The cynic in me

would suggest that’s why we saw such a lump sum in a three-year plan

come out in year 1 with no extra money in year 2 and year 3.

As I say, we’re down to about $9 million in the fund. It’s barely

been six months. It started out at a little over $42 million. There was

a bit of leftover last year’s money, so about $45 million. It’s gone

through about $36 million in six months. We have $9 million left to last

us for another 30 months.

The numbers again just simply do not add up, and that is perhaps

the biggest frustration I’m hearing when I’m out meeting with groups and

people in the community. The CleanBC plan is a great marketing document,

but none of the numbers and actions of the government are matching up to

what their plan is actually purported to be doing. When you look at

things within Bill 38, it really is about just making things look like

things have changed significantly.

The advisory committee. I have no issues with the advisory

committee. I think 20 is probably a realistic size, given that it’s a

large province and you’re going to want to make sure there’s a broad

cross-section of people represented and Indigenous groups represented

and industry represented. I think that’s important.

A lot of the reporting requirements in this bill, let’s face it,

are based on assumptions and reporting the what-ifs. With the climate

risk assessment, again, I think it’s important that as a province and as

cities and as just citizens, you get a sense of what needs to be done or

what improvements need to be looked at. I think that planning should be

happening.

[11:25 a.m.]

The fact the government is feeling compelled to write it into

legislation isn’t a bad thing, but I would note that we had the first

climate risk assessment released not too long ago without legislation.

That ties into my point: where were the yearly climate reports, to this

point, without legislation? Why are we now awaiting the 2019 report,

which will come out sometime next year? When the 2017 report came out

sometime in 2018, why was there no report this year in June? Why was

there no yearly report then, signalling that this was the way we were

going to go as a province? We didn’t need legislation to do

that.

What this legislation does is it kicks everything down the road,

out of regular reporting cycles. It accomplishes very little in the here

and the now, in the critical time frames that we’re all hearing about.

Instead, it pushes it out to after the next general election. I find it

interesting, too, that in an effort for transparency and to try to shine

lights on things, as we’ve heard, this legislation is

necessary.

Given that when we had other bills in this House…. I remember,

distinctly, questioning the minister at length at committee stage on a

bill that was similar to this, where it had no real changes in it,

except that it had one change. It had one change in that the minister

was granted the authority under regulation to set targets for LNG,

specifically, and to not have to come back to this Legislature to set

those targets. It took five or six questions, time and again and around

and around, for the minister to acknowledge, which was a very obvious

writing in the bill, that in fact the minister was granting himself, or

any future minister, the ability to do that.

Now, on something as simple and easy to answer as that, one would

hope that a government that wants transparency would have just answered

the question on the first question, or maybe the second if you didn’t

quite understand the first. Sometimes I can be convoluted in my

question-asking. I get that. Surely after five or six, you would think

we would have stopped, getting away from answers like, “Well, I haven’t

had the right legal advice yet,” as we’re debating a bill that has

actually been through proper legal channels, one would assume, before

the government brings it forward, to answer such a basic

question.

Why is that important? It’s because very quietly a couple of weeks

ago the government — by order-in-council, an OIC — established the

carbon tax refund formula for LNG. Now, it wasn’t significantly

different than what was canvassed in questions between the Finance

Minister, the Energy Minister and the Environment Minister on what it

would contain — as they were signatories to the LNG agreement — but it

certainly wasn’t done with any fanfare.

There certainly was no singing of the praises of the LNG project

by the government that they have come up with the formula for LNG to

move forward on how they will be able to claim their carbon tax credits

back. No transparency there. It was out, so I guess, technically, it was

transparent. But typically speaking, I think we can all agree, when the

government really wants you to know something, they sure have a big

communications team that they know how to kick into gear. Yet it was

crickets when it came to this.

In fact, I don’t even know if everyone on the government side

knows this has actually happened. I’m sure that the cabinet would know.

I’m not sure if the members of the Green Party know, by way of the

secretariat office or not, that this has happened. There was certainly

no mention of it or release by anyone in that group. I haven’t heard

anything from anyone else within the party.

Those are the types of actions that don’t require legislation if

you actually want to be transparent and you’re the sitting government.

It just requires you to actually act the way you’re saying and telling

the people you intend to act. It’s a little bit frightening, I guess,

that we need a piece of legislation by the government on something as

simple as creating a report every year instead of every two years. We

need an actual piece of legislation to make that happen.

[11:30 a.m.]

I know I’ve been talking for a fair amount of time on this

already, and certainly many others on the other side of the House talked

at great length about this. But interestingly enough, in my time, I

think I’ve already talked more about Bill 38 and some of the clauses in

Bill 38 than the rest of everyone put together. The rest of this debate

about Bill 38 hasn’t been about Bill 38; it’s about trying to

overinflate what has actually been happening in CleanBC.

We know, by looking at the government’s own numbers that are

actually available at this point…. There was no interim, every-year

report to this point, so it’s kind of hard to get some numbers out of

the government that wants to be transparent about environmental numbers.

We know that CleanBC, financially, needs to fail for the Finance

Minister. It will be very interesting moving forward in the budget this

year to see if the projected revenues from CleanBC in years 2 and 3 have

miraculously changed since this has been pointed out and which revenue

line will magically get bumped up to make up the shortfall of carbon

taxation not coming in.

The problem with that…. I guess maybe it’s a good thing they only

committed $900 million of the $2.35 billion extra in carbon taxation

they’re going to take in, because when you pull that $600 million out of

carbon taxation, that means you’re also impacting all of the green

technology things you could have done with it. Maybe that’s why it’s

going into general revenue. Maybe that’s why the government doesn’t want

to truly commit dollars to new and improved technologies out

there.

We can talk about, oh, enhancing transit until the cows come home.

I was on the board of B.C. Transit for a while. Transit systems are

always looking for newer and more efficient ways and cleaner-burning

fuels as they switch out their fleets. They went to CNG buses in

Nanaimo. They went to CNG buses in Kamloops. They tried hydrogen buses

in Whistler, decided that wasn’t working.

The fact that a decision has been made to, over time, as you

replace a bus fleet, go to electric buses as that technology gets

approved and more manageable, especially for hills and temperature

variations…. That makes perfect sense, but that was going to happen

regardless. That didn’t happen because of some grand pronouncement about

CleanBC from this government. That’s what transit systems do. They find

ways to be as clean as possible. They find ways to save operational

dollars so they can have more hours on the road with their buses and

their trains, instead of buying diesel.

They try to figure that out. If you look at the line item of fuel

and how they have to play the markets and pre-buy, on the commodity

markets, fuels for their fleets, that’s a large portion of a transit

budget. So it makes perfect sense that any transit commission, any

transit board, anyone running a transit operation of any size anywhere

in North America is constantly looking at ways to reduce that input

cost.

You know who else is looking to do that? The bus companies

themselves. Imagine that. The bus companies are actually developing new

technologies and are constantly going to these same transit officials

and trying to sell them on new technologies.

It wasn’t that long ago there weren’t cameras on buses. Lo and

behold, we have cameras. We had to retrofit a lot of buses. Guess what

new buses have coming off the line: cameras. It didn’t happen because

the government decreed it shall be so. It happened because it’s a

technological advancement that happens in transit all the

time.

When I hear the other side try to take credit for the fact that

they’re funding transit when we’ve always funded transit, it makes one

somewhat question the seriousness, the commitment and the actual

tangible actions that are any different than what was implemented in

[11:35 a.m.]

We’ve heard a lot of varying things. Yesterday the Leader of the

Third Party suggested — I don’t know if it was meant to be a moment of

admonishment to everyone in British Columbia or what — that our

per-capita emissions were hundreds of times more than the citizens of

Chad. So if we are now debating whether or not we have the emissions

profile….

Again, I would suggest, when you look at where they are on the

economic scale of the globe, it would actually tie into what I said

earlier about low-income people receiving the carbon tax back and their

carbon footprint. It actually is validated by the reference back to Chad

in terms of them having a low carbon footprint, as well, because they

don’t have the disposable income and the means to have a larger carbon

footprint.

If the debate here is that we’re going down the road of starting

to compare Canada, with the ninth best economy in the world, or GDP,

versus Chad, at 159, I would suggest that perhaps we might want to look

at carbon footprint profiles of some more relevant countries.

We have work to do on that. There’s absolutely no doubt about

that. But let’s be clear. Two weeks ago, when I was in that room and

listening to the Environment Minister, in a refreshing moment of

acknowledgment, the Environment Minister said…. This was a room full of

mayors and councillors that are very environmentally minded, across the

province. The Environment Minister pointed out that everyone needs to

keep in mind that we have to do our part. I agree with that.

He also pointed out that British Columbia is 0.2 of

1 percent of global emissions — the Environment Minister’s words,

not my words. That’s what the Environment Minister said at the event

that he was speaking at. I would agree with that. I haven’t run the

official numbers, but I’ve heard similar numbers in the past. It was

refreshing to hear the Environment Minister acknowledge that we are 0.2

of 1 percent of global emissions in British Columbia. I think we have to

keep that in perspective.

Do we have to keep striving to drive down our emissions?

Absolutely, we do. Is it going to fundamentally change on its own? No.

Could we be seen as leaders? We could.

In fact, when we implemented the carbon tax back in 2007-2008, the

now Finance Minister was the then Leader of the Opposition. They mounted

an Axe the Tax campaign, and they weren’t really that eager to be world

leaders. But over the time that the plan has been implemented, B.C.

actually got acknowledged several times, internationally, for its work

on the climate file.

There were some misses. There always are as you set targets and

goals. But I think, as a collective, as a province, we embrace the

concept that we can be world leaders. We can lead by example. We can be

seen by other jurisdictions. It will take more than just us to convince

some of the larger countries on their own to change some of the things

they are doing.

As we heard yesterday, now the Leader of the Third Party is not

convinced that getting off coal is the greatest thing because more

particulate in the air is better. I would suggest that I would rather

see those coal plants shut down.

That’s where we have gotten to with this debate. We’re standing

here in 2019 debating Bill 38, which makes minor changes, essentially,

in the grand scheme of things, to reporting structures. It does not

fundamentally change our end targets. This does nothing to address any

of that. The targets set within CleanBC are actually the same as what we

laid out when we first brought in the plan in 2007-2008. The end dates

are the same. The end emission reductions are the same.

The thing that is a little bit different is that CleanBC has laid

out a plan that only gets you 75 percent of the way there. It gets you

75 percent of the way there without fully accounting for LNG — LNG that

just had a nice, quiet order-in-council calculation on how they’re going

to get their $20-a-tonne carbon tax back. LNG only needs to pay $30 a

tonne carbon tax and can claim back from $50 to $30.

[11:40 a.m.]

Now we have seen the formula. Very quietly, though. Not, I would

suggest, very transparent, but at least it’s out there. I have not seen

any news stories about it, and I haven’t seen any consternation from

environmental groups, so I’m thinking it’s not really that much out

there. Hopefully, after today’s discussion, people will seek it out and

look and see what has actually been enshrined with that

order-in-council, that order-in-council from a piece of legislation that

was changed.

There was a name change to the bill, and the only other

fundamental change in that bill was enabling the minister, by

regulation, to do exactly what was done — quietly, without fanfare,

without informing the Legislature, without informing the public. That’s

the type of open, transparent environmental policy we’ve been seeing now

over the last 2½ years. I guess under that view, a bill that will

require this government to report every single year is, in itself, not a

bad thing, except that this government doesn’t have to generate one new

report until after the next general election.

Obviously, I’m a little biased. I’m kind of hoping that we’ll be

the ones having to generate that report every year. Nonetheless, there

will be no new reporting — not one extra environmental report, in terms

of showing what has happened in the previous year — generated in British

Columbia from 2007 until 2022. So 2022 will be the first year that there

would be one new report generated for accountability and

transparency.

The other interesting thing is that in spite of all the hoopla

around the fact that this bill has overhauled the reporting, there is no

consequence in this bill. I would have thought, with all of the fanfare

about this bill and about how critical it is that governments be held to

account, that there would be some sort of accountability.

I’ll give you an example. I’m not sure of the exact calculation.

I’ve never sat in government, and I’ve never, obviously, been in

cabinet. I’m not exactly sure how the holdback calculation works, but I

do know that — unless the government has repealed this quietly, with a

quiet order-in-council, but I don’t think they would have done that — if

they have repeal, there is a holdback for ministers. There is a holdback

of their ministerial bump in pay to make sure that they don’t go into

deficit within their own ministry and that the overall budget stays

balanced and does not go into deficit.

The interesting part about that is that everyone in that cabinet

actually needs the Finance Minister’s numbers of increased emissions to

happen if they want to see their holdback get released to them and paid

out. In order for the balanced budget to happen right now, unless there

is a miraculous change to revenue streams and other line items, CleanBC

needs to increase its emissions. It needs to get to $2.2 billion in year

3 of CleanBC, and it needs to get there by generating 44 megatonnes of

taxable carbon tax emissions.

We’re not sure how that’s all going to play out, but it is an

interesting little sidebar in terms of motivation. I say that because,

again, in this bill — I’ll canvass this in committee stage; perhaps I’ve

missed it — there does not appear to be any consequence for not hitting

any target when you report out on where your yearly targets are. There’s

no consequence for any of those actions.

[11:45 a.m.]

We heard from the member from West Vancouver yesterday. In his

comments that he brought forward when he was the critic, when he was in

my role…. “What about if you don’t hit your targets? Would there be a

holdback in your pay, similar to the budgetary holdbacks?” The answer

then was no.

I thought I would ask the same question. I was reading through old

estimates questions to see what previous critics from the now government

were asking our government of the time about why they weren’t taking

this action or that action. I thought: “Well, the current minister was

the critic at the time before that and must have felt strongly about

things like that. Are they going to follow through on things they felt

strongly about in opposition now that they’re in government?” So I asked

that question. The answer was no. There will be no accountability-type

holdback when it comes to emission targets by the government.

I don’t, fundamentally, have a huge problem with that, and I’m not

even sure what the consequence should be. I know people will say: “Well,

the consequence will be the election. The consequence will be in four

years when you go to the polls. That’s the consequence for not meeting

your target.” Well, I would suggest that that’s a bit of a long shot —

that the sole consequence in any election would be 100 percent on

whether or not they hit the target on any particular area of any

government services.

My experience has been that most voters, in their own way, have a

collection and a basket of issues that are near and dear to their heart.

Some are a bit more important than others, and they make trade-offs,

just like you do in our own household and your own thought process. On

balance, you figure things out, and you say: “You know what? I don’t

agree with any of these people 100 percent of the time, but I like this

party or I like that party based on a collection of things.”

To suggest that that’s going to be the consequence, I think, is a

little bit disingenuous, to say the least. If Bill 38 was actually meant

to be credible, one would think there’d be a consequence tied to the

bill.

I look forward to committee stage moving forward, and I’ll have

many questions for the minister at that time.

B. Ma: I recognize that we’re nearing the hour of lunch, but I do believe

that I’ll be able to get through my comments quite quickly. I intend to

do so, anyway.

I’m pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 38, intituled Climate

Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019.

Now, the Climate Change Amendment Accountability Act, of course,

is a bill that exists in relation to our CleanBC strategy. Our CleanBC

strategy is B.C.’s climate action strategy. It includes aggressive

emission reduction targets that are, in my opinion, quite aligned,

actually, with the IPCC report.

As a reminder, the IPCC report recommends that countries and

jurisdictions go carbon-neutral by 2050, in terms of carbon dioxide

neutrality, as well as achieve an emissions reduction of 35 percent on

methane and black carbon. Now, methane and black carbon are

substantially more powerful forms of greenhouse gases than carbon

dioxide. CleanBC actually provides a blended rate in terms of the carbon

reduction. That’s 40 percent by 2030, 60 percent by 2040 and 80 percent

by 2050. Again, those are blended rates — carbon dioxide as well as

methane, black carbon and all the other GHGs.

Having said that, there are some people who have said that the

IPCC report’s emission reduction targets are quite conservative and that

we actually need to be much more aggressive than that. Now, whatever the

targets are or should be, none of it matters if we can’t actually reach

them. That’s why accountability is so incredibly important.

Accountability is desperately needed, and I’m really pleased to see that

we are introducing more accountability to our climate action strategy

through this bill.

[11:50 a.m.]

Ian Bruce, the director of science and policy from the David

Suzuki Foundation, said: “We welcome B.C.’s climate accountability law

as one of the strongest in North America. These new measures to

strengthen transparency and responsibility from every sector of our

society, from the largest industrial polluters to government to

citizens, will help make everyone part of the solution to the climate

crisis.” I think that is so incredibly important.

What I really find important about CleanBC is that it’s not just

about emissions reductions. It’s not just about electrifying our

transportation or improving the emissions efficiency of our buildings

but also transitioning our economy. The transition of our economy is

absolutely the most important part of this plan.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now, given that I see the committee Chair in the room and I see

that the Speaker has entered, I will reserve my place, my right to speak

at the next available opportunity.

B. Ma moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 41 — DECLARATION ON THE

RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS

PEOPLES ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 41; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

The Chair: I would like to call this committee into session here in

section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room. We’re here with the

Committee of the Whole. Bill 41 is, I believe, what we will be

talking about today.

I’d like to acknowledge the minister and, of course, that we

are on the territories of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking

peoples, the Esquimalt and Songhees.

section 1.

Hon. S. Fraser: I, too, want to recognize the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-​speaking

people and thank the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations for allowing us to

do our business here today.

As we begin the committee stage of Bill 41, I would also like to

introduce who I’ve got with me. My deputy minister, Doug Caul, is with

me. Assistant Deputy Minister Jessica Wood is with me also. We’ve got

Debbie Chan, from the AG — that’s the Attorney General’s office —

joining us, and Richard Grieve is also with me today and a host of other

people here too.

I’m looking forward to the discussion and bringing clarification

at committee stage, which is appropriate. Bill 41 is history-making

legislation, the first time in Canada that we will be, as a government,

bringing in legislation that recognizes the human rights of Indigenous

people in law in this province. I look forward to the discussions with

my colleagues opposite.

M. de Jong: Thanks, Mr. Chair, and to the minister, and greetings to the able

staff that are here from various departments of government. We’re a

couple weeks now removed from the ceremony and celebration, and to this

body falls the less glamourous task of exploring in more detail the

implications of the legislation, the details of the legislation, before

us.

[11:10 a.m.]

I thought it might be appropriate, to kick things off, to give the

minister an opportunity to explain to the committee, in perhaps broader

terms, specifically what the government is seeking to accomplish with

Bill 41.

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for his question. I guess, in its simplest

form, we…. I mentioned this already. What we’re accomplishing here is

recognizing the human rights of Indigenous peoples into law in this

province. The legislation will give us a path forward as

government.

I think it will be creating clarity and predictability for all

British Columbians. Again, by working together, we will get better

outcomes. Recognizing the rights of Indigenous peoples that have been,

of course, recognized in the constitution,

section 35, and reaffirmed by

multiple court decisions, it is wise for government to move forward with

this. There’s been an urging from the courts for governments to get on

with the business of reconciliation, and that is exactly what we’re

doing with Bill 41.

M. de Jong: The minister began by restating the objective around the

recognition of human rights. I note that in his remarks at the time, on

that special day when Bill 41 was presented to the House, he said the

same thing: “…we are” — I’m quoting from those introductory remarks —

“recognizing the human rights of Indigenous peoples in law.” Later in

his second reading remarks, he said: “With this legislation, we are

affirming the human rights of Indigenous peoples in law.”

Is there a difference between recognizing and

affirming?

Hon. S. Fraser: The purpose of the act — it states in the purpose

section — is to

affirm the human rights of Indigenous peoples. So I’m using the terms in

the same meaning.

M. de Jong: I wonder if the minister might, for the purpose of the committee,

expand upon the nature of the human rights that we are discussing here

that are either being affirmed or recognized.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: The act is affirming the collective rights of Indigenous peoples

as laid out in the 46 articles of the UN declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples. They are laid out quite clearly there.

I don’t know if the member is asking for something more specific

than that. The rights to live without discrimination, that sort of

thing…. It’s intrinsic within the articles of the UN

declaration.

M. de Jong: One of the themes I’m hoping we can explore during the initial

stages of the discussion in the committee is the degree to which the

impact of the legislation is to import new legal concepts, new

recognitions into British Columbia law.

I noted, a few moments ago, that the minister repeated or, I

believe, made reference to something he again said in second reading,

where he said: “These are the kinds of rights we all expect to have in

the course of our daily lives, accepted and valued human rights that

Canadians have helped define and fight for, human rights that are the

foundation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, human rights that are

reflected in the Aboriginal rights that are recognized and affirmed in

section 35 of our constitution, rights that the courts have consistently

and repeatedly upheld.”

I think what I’m asking the minister…. On the one hand, he has

made, I think, a very compelling case for the human rights that have

found expression and protection in existing instruments of Canadian law.

But he’s also, through the legislation and his comments around the

legislation, referred to affirming or recognizing something that

impliedly, therefore, doesn’t exist.

I’m trying to reconcile the two statements. Maybe the minister can

help.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: The bill before us, Bill 41, is not bestowing any new laws. It’s

articulating the UN declaration within the framework of the constitution

and of British Columbia law.

M. de Jong: I think that’s helpful, but I may ask the minister to clarify that

response a little bit. When he said we’re not bestowing any new laws,

was he perhaps meaning to say not bestowing any new rights? We are

clearly bestowing a new law. That is the essence of the exercise. I’ll

let the minister clarify that for the record.

That was the essence of my question, probably expressed clumsily.

Are we recognizing…? I am relying, as the minister can tell, very

carefully on the words that he and the Premier and others have used in

describing this. Are we recognizing something that is already recognized

in Canadian law, or are we recognizing rights that go beyond what is

presently recognized? I think the minister has just indicated the former

— that what is being recognized here are rights that already exist and

are already recognized in Canadian law.

Hon. S. Fraser: The member is right. It’s recognizing rights within Canadian law

and within the constitution.

M. de Jong: Right. Again, that is helpful. I think the part of the response

that I want to be clear upon, because I think much does turn on it —

that will become apparent as we move through some of the subsequent

discussion — is that the minister’s original response was that the

intention is not to bestow any new laws. I took that to mean that the

intention is not to bestow any new rights.

Perhaps the minister, rather than me put words in his mouth, could

make that clear — that the intention is not to bestow any new

rights.

Hon. S. Fraser: The member is correct. If I misspoke, let me correct it for the

record here. The legislation does not create any new rights.

M. de Jong: Maybe moving now to some of the descriptives that have been used.

“Historic” has been a word that has been applied, and I think for a

variety of reasons that it may be an appropriate adjective. It leads me

to ask this question: has this ever been done before?

[11:25 a.m.]

When I ask that…. Here’s, in fairness to the minister and his

team, what I mean by that question. Canada has done this internally. Not

this specifically. Give me a moment, and I’ll try to explain. The best

example is, of course, the Charter, which is a legal instrument that

applies across the breadth of Canadian laws. All statutes must be read

to be consistent. It applies to all laws. There are judicial

interpretations that take place to assess whether individual statutes at

the federal or provincial level comply with that overarching document.

There are rulings. At times, legislation is struck down.

In this province or in this country, have we ever taken an

external document — declaration, in this case — and created a statutory

requirement to interpret every other statute in accordance with that

declaration, which will then take precedence?

Hon. S. Fraser: As the member knows…. The obvious example that I thought of when

he was asking the question is the Canadian Parliament did…. Actually, it

was Bill C-262, Romeo Saganash’s private member’s bill, that made it

through the parliamentary system in Ottawa. That would be one example.

Of course, it hit the Senate, and then the writ dropped, and we all know

what happens then. Bills fall off the order paper. But it did make it

through the Canadian Parliament. A specific example that has actually

made it all the way through would be the Kyoto Protocol Implementation

Act.

M. de Jong: The reference by the minister to Bill C-262 is, I think, very

helpful and very appropriate. I will take it as a sign that the minister

will welcome an opportunity to discuss some of the parallels between the

two pieces of legislation.

I’ll take issue with just the one comment he made with respect to

that. The federal parliament, of course, is a bicameral system. As much

as Canadians may not assign the same level of import to the Senate as

they do to the House of Commons, if that is so, the bill technically did

not make it through parliament, insofar as it didn’t receive the passage

required in the Senate and make its way back to the House of

Commons.

[M. Dean in the chair.]

Having said that, I think the minister is quite correct in

pointing to that attempt, which — I agree with him — represents an

attempt to do what we’re doing here, a very similar attempt, I think. We

can come back to that in a few moments.

I’m interested in the minister’s reference to the Kyoto

Implementation Act and will confess that on the break, perhaps, I’ll

quickly endeavour to examine that. But maybe the minister, with his

staff, can help. Now, my recollection is that the Kyoto Implementation

Act sought to establish some targets within domestic law consistent with

those to which Canada was a signatory in the Kyoto accord.

[11:30 a.m.]

If I’m mistaken, and the minister is able to say to the committee,

“No, actually, that act did something similar to what we’re doing here,

took the Kyoto accord and determined that it would influence every

statute, every law, in Canada,” as this bill and Bill C-262 purported to

do…. The minister understands the distinction I’m trying to make between

a piece of legislation that references commitments the country has made

versus a statute that says this international accord is the lens through

which every single law and piece of legislation must be read in the

jurisdiction.

Hon. S. Fraser: Maybe a little out of protocol here, but before I seek to answer

the question, can the member educate me on what “bicameral” means? He

used the term before, and I’ve just never heard the term

before.

M. de Jong: The federal parliament, of course, is a parliament of two Houses:

a House of Commons and a Senate. It is bicameral, meaning the two Houses

together comprise the federal parliament. Therefore, Bill C-262 did not

successfully move through parliament, insofar as it required passage in

both Houses and didn’t receive it.

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for that. I learned something. I mean, I

understood the concept as he described it, but I just had never heard

the term “bicameral” before. Thank you.

I’m going to read directly from the Kyoto Protocol Implementation

Act. This legislation included a

section that requires a plan that

included “a description of the measures to be taken to ensure that

Canada meets its obligations under…the Kyoto protocol….” That’s the only

clarification I’ve got here. We didn’t come prepared to discuss in depth

the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.

M. de Jong: I won’t belabour the point. I think the distinction would be the

presence of a

section comparable to subsection 2(

a) of the bill before

us, which, of course, affirms the application of the declaration — in

that case, the accord — to the laws of British Columbia. That’s

something the minister or the members of his team can verify over the

course of the break.

Are there any other examples that the minister can refer to — he

mentioned Bill C-262, which I’d like to discuss with him and the

committee in a few moments — any other examples that he can think of

where either the province or Canada has taken an international

instrument, an international declaration, and said: “This, in its

entirety, now applies to the laws of the land”?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: We’re having to do research on the fly here. I appreciate that the

member is helping to get us learning more about….

I certainly was aware. But this is a partial example. Again, I

wasn’t really prepared to speak about other laws through­out the

country, but

section 80 of the Family Law Act provides the force of law

in British Columbia to the convention on the civil aspects of

international child abduction signed at the Hague on October 25, 1980,

with

definitions incorporated and express limitations on any government

obligation to provide funding. So it’s only a partial. It’s not as

sweeping as what we’re talking about here.

Just for the member’s…. If he will allow me, if I see where he’s

going with this line of questioning, I believe that in many ways, we’re

leading the country and other parts of the world in this legislation

such as we are doing it, so I think it would be difficult to find a

specific comparable directly. At least, it might take some time for us

to find something, but I’m not aware of anything. I think we’re leading

the country, certainly the country and other parts of the world, in

bringing in Bill 41.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s my sense as well. The minister has provided an

example, and in fairness, he has pointed out it is a very specific

reference in a single domestic statute incorporating or making reference

to an international declaration or an international accord. Again, the

minister has observed that he is not aware of anything as sweeping as

the application of the declaration before us and attached to the bill. I

am inclined to proceed on that basis, that this is breaking new ground,

and insofar as it is historic, it may well be an appropriate

term.

Has any other country done it in this way? The minister partly

answered that in his last answer. I searched. I’m not here to try and

trick anyone. I searched, and I could not find an example of a country

that has said: “The United Nations declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples applies to our laws.” I have found examples of a

couple of South American countries that have taken elements of the

declaration and built them into specific domestic legal instruments and

statutes, but I have not found an example of another country that has

approached this in the way that Canada tried in C-262 and B.C. is

attempting to do with Bill 41.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Bolivia was the first jurisdiction in the world to legislate the

UNDRIP, the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Also,

New Zealand aims to be the first country in the world with an action

plan to implement the United Nations declaration of the rights of

Indigenous peoples in relation to the Maori and is engaged with the UN

experts to develop that plan. I should clarify that that’s an action

plan. That’s not legislation, as far as I know.

We are leading the world, as far as legislation goes. Although,

Bolivia, I would suggest…. The member asked about other countries. We’re

obviously a smaller jurisdiction. We’re a provincial government. But, of

course, Canada did attempt this, as the member correctly

cited.

M. de Jong: Last question in this regard. The minister has rightly pointed to

our status as…. I think the term that is frequently used is “subnational

government” — not necessarily the most flattering of terms but, I think,

the accurate legal term.

Can the minister advise the committee: have any other subnational

governments endeavoured to embed the declaration? When I say “the

declaration,” I, of course, am referring to the UN declaration on the

rights of Indigenous peoples. Is he aware of any other subnational

governments that have endeavoured to embed the declaration into their

domestic laws in as fulsome a way as Bill 41 is purporting to

do?

Hon. S. Fraser: There may be something we’ve missed, but I do believe the only

other example that we can find right now is NDP private member’s bill 76

in Ontario. It calls for laws in Ontario to be harmonized with the UN

declaration, and it’s currently with the Standing Committee on General

Government in Ontario. But that obviously hasn’t completed…. It’s a

private member’s bill.

Romeo Saganash’s private member’s bill in Ottawa was quite unusual

in the fact that it actually did make it through the parliamentary

system. But there’s no way to know, in Ontario, whether this will have

that effect.

That being said, what we’re doing with Bill 41…. It does not give

the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples legal force and

effect. It does not do that.

M. de Jong: All helpful information from the minister.

[11:45 a.m.]

He again mentioned Bill C-262, the private member’s bill that very

nearly made its way successfully through the federal parliamentary

system. Does the minister have access to that bill? If he does not, I

have brought an extra copy, because I am going to ask some questions

about the parallelism in the drafting. I’m happy to provide a copy to

the….

Maybe to begin this segment of the questioning, if I were to

suggest to the committee and to the minister that the construct of Bill

41, recognizing that the jurisdictions are different, closely follows

the construct of Bill C-262, would he be inclined to agree with me when

I make that statement?

Hon. S. Fraser: Comparing C-262 to Bill 41, there are similarities, and there are

differences.

I have been handed a note here from the Chair that I move that the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada