Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 279

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 M225 — Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act

A. Weaver

Bill M226 — Assessment (Split Assessment Classification) Amendment Act, 2019

T. Stone

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Youth in care

J. Routledge

Rock Creek fire hall

L. Larson

Korean Language Day

A. Kang

Leo Sabulsky

M. Bernier

Democracy and elections

S. Chandra Herbert

Small business

B. Stewart

Oral Questions

Forest industry and government support for communities and workers

A. Wilkinson

Hon. D. Donaldson

M. Hunt

Government action on climate change and risk assessment report

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Forest management and climate change mitigation

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Forest worker support program and rural dividend funding

S. Bond

Hon. D. Donaldson

G. Kyllo

Forest industry and government support for communities and workers

J. Tegart

Hon. D. Donaldson

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, Managing Human Resources at the B.C. Sheriff

Service , independent audit report, October 2019

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 35 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019 (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. C. Trevena

Reporting of Bills

Bill 35 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 36 — Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019

J. Yap

Hon. D. Eby

L. Throness

E. Ross

J. Rustad

M. Lee

A. Olsen

S. Gibson

N. Letnick

Hon. S. Simpson

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

J. Rustad

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2019

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: We’re joined today by Michael James Penny and Mattis Beak from the

B.C. Wrongful Death Law Reform Society. They’re here to talk with members

about the important issue of how our legal system treats families of those

who have died as a result of wrongful or negligent conduct. Will the House

please join me in making them feel very welcome here.

Hon. L. Beare: I have the great pleasure to introduce two very important people

sitting here in the gallery today: my administrative coordinator, Jennifer

Dunnett — who I absconded from the Premier’s office, by the way, thank you;

and administrative assistant Sydney White. They obviously help make my

office run very smoothly, and I’m very grateful for all the work they do

every day. They’re both new to my office, so I’m very excited to have

them.

L. Reid: Kudoz started in the Lower Mainland in 2014 as a platform that pairs

up volunteers with wonderful learning experiences, everything from learning

muffins to quantum physics to local politics. Joining us in the gallery

today, we have Olivia, Kristina, Tracey, Jacob, Riley, Allison and Andie,

with a special hi to Andie’s mom. Please join me in making them very

welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: In the gallery today, we’re joined by a number of youths representing

Fostering Change, a group of youth with lived experience who seek to change

public policy for youth transitioning from care into adulthood. Thirty-eight

youth are here today for their annual advocacy day, meeting with a number of

ministers and MLAs.

Also here are two Fostering Change organizers, Dylan Cohen and Susan

Russell. The group is hosted by First Call: B.C. Child and Youth Advocacy

Coalition. First Call’s provincial coordinator, Adrienne Montani, is also

here.

I know they’ve already met with some of my colleagues, and I’m also

looking forward to sitting down with some of them and hearing from them

about what their issues are and what they want to talk about with us. I’m

thrilled, as Minister of Children and Family, to welcome all the

youth.

On behalf of the Premier and our government, I thank you for your

advocacy and commitment to making life better for youth in care.

Will the House please join me in welcoming these very special

guests.

[1:40 p.m.]

R. Leonard: Not quite in the House yet today but under this roof is a class of

grade 12 students from the Phil and Jennie Gaglardi Academy up in Comox. I’d

like to pay special tribute to Joy Tansky, the teacher who has very

diligently brought students down to this House on many, many occasions and

is very dedicated to our parliamentary democracy. May the House please

welcome Joy Tansky and her grade 12 students and escorts.

J. Martin: Joining us this afternoon is my constituency assistant, Montana

Armstrong. She’s accompanied by her little sister Olivia and her cousin

Avery.

If I can just say…. Prior to coming over to the dark side here in

Victoria, I used to have a little side barbecue catering gig going, and

Montana was my assistant in that for a few years. I found out that not too

long after that she became a vegetarian. My concern now is that when she

leaves my office, she’s going to take out an NDP membership.

Hon. M. Mark: In the House, we are joined by two staff from my ministry, the

Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training. Kara Jenne is an

educational officer in the governance, legislation and corporate planning

division. Darren Francis is documents coordinator in the deputy minister’s

office.

I am grateful for all of the hard work of our public service and what

they do to make people’s lives better across British Columbia.

Would the House please join me in welcoming my special

guests.

S. Furstenau: I, too, had the pleasure of meeting with some of the youth from

Fostering Change today.

Glugwe, Adil, Jamie, Marcy, Jess, Jason, Shae, Susan and I just spent

the last hour together, hearing from them about their advocacy for universal

comprehensive agreements with young adults to ensure that youth aging out of

care have access to $1,000 in a consistent and equitable way. I was very

moved by what I heard from this group of very articulate and passionate

young people.

One thing in particular. They pointed out that parents lift their

children up to ensure success for them. Anybody who’s in the room who’s a

parent knows that that is exactly what we try to do as parents. They

indicated that if the government is their parent, they want the same —

lifting up to ensure that they have success — from the government that all

of their peers, who are parented by their own parents, expect from their

families.

G. Kyllo: I’m joined today by a very close friend of near 40 years, Shan

Trouton. Shan and his wife Barb are from West Vancouver. Shan is the owner

and principal of the Rostrum Developments company and does a lot of

development up in the Squamish area and, unfortunately, an increasing amount

of investment outside of our province. I’d like the House to please make

Shan feel very welcome.

D. Ashton: I’d like to welcome Derek Badger from Penticton today, here in the

House to see the proceedings taking place and also question

period.

For those in the House, the original people of the Okanagan called

Penticton snpintktn. In Sylix, it means “a place to

stay forever.”

Thanks for coming, Derek.

A. Weaver: I would be remiss if I, too, did not join the member for Chilliwack

and welcome Montana to the House today and point out to her that the

appropriate party to which she might seek more allegiance is the Green Party

of British Columbia.

J. Routledge: I see in the gallery a young constituent from my constituency of

Burnaby North. Allie Fox is here, going to the University of Victoria,

studying history and geography. I’m so delighted to welcome her here. Will

you all join me in giving her a warm welcome.

R. Singh: Joining us in the gallery is Anup Singh Khokar. I’ve known Anup’s

family for a number of years, as his mother, Pushwinder, was my dad’s

student. Now Anup is an international student at UVic, doing a master’s in

nanoscience. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M225 — UKRAINIAN FAMINE AND

GENOCIDE (HOLODOMOR)

MEMORIAL DAY ACT

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Ukrainian Famine and Genocide

(Holodomor) Memorial Day Act.

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Ukrainian Famine and Genocide

(Holodomor) Memorial Day Act, of which notice has been given in my name

on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to be introducing this bill that would establish the

fourth Saturday in November as Holodomor Memorial Day throughout British

Columbia.

The term “Holodomor” is derived from the words “moryty

holodom,” meaning extermination by hunger. During Holodomor,

between three million and five million Ukrainians died as a result of a

deliberate and politically motivated famine in 1932 and ’33. This bill,

if passed, would allow the fourth Saturday in November to be

memorialized by the Legislature as Ukrainian Famine and Genocide

Holodomor Memorial Day.

Canada is home to the world’s third-largest Ukrainian population

behind Ukraine and Russia, with an estimated 1.36 million Ukrainian

Canadians living across our country. Among them are members of my

family. In my family’s case, as part of the collectivization of farms,

my did was shipped to northern Russia. My Ukrainian mother,

Ludmilla, now lives here in Victoria with my father.

In this tabling, I would also like to recognize the Minister of

Jobs, Trade and Technology for his continued efforts to have Holodomor

recognized in the House.

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

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: 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 M225, Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day

Act, 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.

BILL M226 — ASSESSMENT

(SPLIT ASSESSMENT

CLASSIFICATION)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

T. Stone presented a bill intituled Assessment (Split Assessment

Classification) Amendment Act, 2019.

T. Stone: I move that the bill intituled Assessment (Split Assessment

Classification) Amendment Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in

my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time

now.

As our urban centres grow, the resulting plans for significant

densification are placing huge pressures on small businesses through

dramatically increased property taxes based on the unused air space

above their heads. This is resulting in the hollowing out of many

neighbourhoods as an increasing number of small businesses make the

painful decision to lay off employees and close their doors. This means

that your favourite pizza shop, coffee house and art gallery in

communities like Vancouver, Surrey and Coquitlam, to name a few, are

disappearing, changing forever the neighbourhood you love.

The good news is that a working group — including the cities of

Vancouver, Burnaby, North Van, Richmond, Surrey, West Van and Coquitlam,

among others — has come up with a solution to this problem. These local

governments are supported by a broad coalition of stakeholders,

including arts, culture, neighbourhood and small business organizations,

as well as the support of UBCM and chamber resolutions.

The solution proposed includes two parts: first, the creation of a

new commercial property subclass for the air space above small

businesses and other affected organizations; and No. 2, maximum

flexibility for local governments to set the property tax rate on this

new subclass as they see fit, from zero dollars to just below the

existing commercial property tax rate.

I’m proud that this bill provides for the exact solution that

local governments have asked for. That is an optional tool that they can

use, or not, at a rate that they determine makes the most sense for each

unique situation that they’re trying to address.

We urge the government to call this bill for debate immediately so

that its provisions can be implemented in time for the 2020 tax year.

Small businesses, arts groups and charities are counting on the

government to take swift action by empowering local governments to use

this new tool as soon as they see fit.

I can’t think of a better time to make this happen than doing it

right now, during Small Business Month.

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

Motion approved.

T. Stone: 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 M226, Assessment (Split Assessment Classification) 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)

YOUTH IN CARE

J. Routledge: Seeing the Fostering Change advocates in the gallery today reminds

me that the government is the parent of young people in care. So the

government must be good parents and be there for youth to make sure they

are well supported and have every opportunity to thrive as healthy,

happy adults.

[1:50 p.m.]

This is done through a variety of programs and partnerships like

life skills programs, education, career training, employment programs,

supportive housing, medical care, income assistance and counselling. An

expanded tuition waiver program helps young people from care access free

tuition at any of B.C.’s 25 public post-secondary

institutions.

Tuition is also being waived now for trades-training programs at

ten union-based training providers. Government expanded and enhanced the

agreements with the young adults program, which provides eligible former

youth in care with funding to cover monthly living expenses while they

finish high school or attend post-secondary vocational training, life

skills and/or rehabilitation programs up to their 27th birthday. Recent

improvements to AYA added an extra year of program eligibility,

increased the maximum monthly support rate from $1,000 to $1,250 and

made supports available for a full calendar year.

But there is more to do. Today government ministers and MLAs are

meeting with and listening to youth who have been in care. By learning

about what makes the biggest difference in the lives of youth,

government can make decisions to serve them better and find better ways

to support youth transitioning into adulthood.

I’d like to acknowledge and welcome First Call: B.C. Child and

Youth Advocacy Coalition and Fostering Change campaign organizers and

youth to the Legislature today.

The advocacy you do for youth in and from care gives voice to

those who may be unable to speak up. We hear you.

ROCK CREEK FIRE HALL

L. Larson: On September 29, the Midway Fire Department celebrated the opening

of their satellite hall in Rock Creek. First responders from the

volunteer fire departments of Big White, Anarchist Mountain, Christina

Lake, Grand Forks and Greenwood joined their associates from the Midway

Volunteer Fire Department and the rural residents of the Kettle Valley

to officially open their new fire hall.

A referendum in 2016 created a partnership with the village of

Midway to provide a more localized fire service for the area with a

tanker truck and a pumper truck housed in the new fire hall, 20

kilometres closer to the population of Rock Creek. Walt Osellame has

been the fire chief in Midway for 30 years. He has spent the last ten

years working on this project to improve fire service for the residents

of the rural community of Rock Creek.

With help from the Kettle River Lions Club, some significant

grants were applied for which created the seed money that helped the

project move forward with the purchase of equipment and the building of

the satellite hall. There are 40 volunteers with the Midway fire

department, and many of them live in Rock Creek. They are now able to

respond more quickly with the necessary equipment close at hand when the

need for first responders arises.

This project would never have been completed without the community

volunteers throughout the Kettle Valley, the hard work of rural director

Vicki Gee, the Kettle River Lions Club, the mayor and council of Midway

and the determination of fire chief Walt Osellame to provide better fire

protection for the people of this rural region.

Thank you to everyone who worked on this community

project.

KOREAN LANGUAGE DAY

A. Kang: Gamsahamnida. I am pleased to rise in the House today to

honour Korean Language Day, known as Hangul Day.

Korea has a beautiful rich history and culture. Hangul Day is

celebrated every October 9 in South Korea and commemorates the invention

of Hangul in the 15th century by King Sejong. This phonetic alphabet of

the Korean language helped to promote literacy through this country at a

time when many people didn’t have the right to a formal

education.

There are more than 52,000 Korean Canadians in B.C. who identify

Korean as one of their primary languages. Language is integral to

identity. Passing language down to our children is key in preserving our

diverse cultures.

Today and every day we celebrate this inclusive, multicultural

province we are so fortunate to live in. By celebrating and honouring

our heritage, we foster respect and appreciation for all cultures,

strengthen community ties and increase understanding to make all of our

lives better.

[1:55 p.m.]

Across government and alongside community leaders, we’re honouring

our cultural diversity and acknowledging the contributions of people of

all backgrounds. I am proud to be in a government that believes and

invests in diversity, inclusion and mutual respect.

I hope you will join me in learning about Korean Language Day. I

learned a few phrases which I can use when I visit the Korean community,

like: “How are you? It’s very nice to meet you. Thank you for inviting

me here.”

Annyeonghaseyo, bangabseubnida. Chodaehae jusyeoseo

gamsahabnida.

LEO SABULSKY

M. Bernier: So many of us have small communities in our ridings, and in those

communities, there is usually that one person that stands out that you

could not imagine that community being without. When I think of

Chetwynd, I think of Leo Sabulsky. I cannot think of a community event

where Leo isn’t at. I have yet to meet a person in the riding who

doesn’t know who Leo is, and I’ve yet to hear about an issue or a rumour

that Leo doesn’t seem to hear about before anybody else. Knowing Leo, he

probably starts some of those rumours, which is why.

In 1977, Leo joined the Chetwynd Volunteer Fire Department and

then, in 1994, became the chief. He remained chief until this June, when

he retired. Leo was frustrated when he became the chief because he was

unable to communicate quickly to the people in the Chetwynd area if

there was ever an emergency or an accident that he felt people needed to

be aware of. So Leo did what Leo does. He got busy to solve the

problem.

With the help of a few other volunteers, in 1996, he set up and

launched Canada’s first community-owned radio station, CHET-FM. And he

didn’t stop there. A few years later he then launched Canada’s first

community-owned TV station, CHET-TV.

Seems any time there was an issue in Chetwynd, Leo was close by,

trying to help out in some way. In fact, I always joke that there must

be ten Leos, because how can anyone be everywhere at the same time, as

he seemed to be?

Unfortunately, on July 10, at the age of 66, Leo passed away after

a brief battle with cancer, with his wife of 44 years, Janice, by his

side.

Chetwynd is an amazing community because of all the contributions

that Leo has made to help make lives safer and better in our region. I

cannot think of Chetwynd without thinking of Leo Sabulsky.

DEMOCRACY AND ELECTIONS

S. Chandra Herbert: Anyone who has looked around the globe knows that democracy and

the practice of democracy can be a fragile thing, often under threat,

often under assault by those who want absolute control or power. Well, I

want to celebrate our recent election.

I think too often we can forget those who make democracy work,

those who give us the opportunity to have our voices heard as citizens,

as electors, as candidates, as electeds. I want to thank the voters who

voted in the 43rd general federal election because they, too, are often

forgotten in the realm of politics as we focus on the key performers,

the key teams — who went up, who went down.

So 17,890,264 Canadians voted in this last election. We should

celebrate them all. I think it’s worth applause, but hey, I worked in

theatre. Sometimes asking for applause…. You’re not supposed to, but I

just did. But really, it’s them. It’s the poll workers. It’s the

volunteers. It’s the returning officers. It’s the campaign teams. It’s

the candidates who put their names forward, most of whom lost but most

who, I think, also won because they had the opportunity to put forward

their vision for their community, put forward their ideas for a better

Canada.

I want to thank the families. I realize I’m reading from a piece

of paper that is scribbled on by my son. It’s the families who make this

work. It’s the families, the loved ones who allow democracy to happen in

the great way it does. They have a hard time of it too, because

sometimes there are those who believe that insult is better than hope,

that attacking is better than dreaming, than working for that better

world. It’s easier for many to tear down rather than build

up.

[2:00 p.m.]

I want to thank the door-knockers, those who put forward their

belief against, in some cases, horrible odds, to see that maybe they

need to try again. Thank you to the citizens.

Let’s remember that it should be the citizens who win elections,

not just political parties. We should be working to make sure all

communities win when we work in elections.

SMALL BUSINESS

B. Stewart: It gives me great honour to speak about Small Business Week here

in the House. Many members in this House have spoken about the

importance of small business in the province and their own personal

experiences. Small businesses are the backbone of B.C.’s vibrant

economy, and they provide numerous crucial job opportunities. I remember

dreaming big 30 years ago, in the 1970s, and then starting a business

that now, 30 years later this month, is celebrating the success of being

a small business at the start.

In particular, small businesses make a difference to local

economies by drawing out and promoting their individuality and

character. That’s why I’d like to draw attention to two of the

businesses in West Kelowna and Kelowna, both of which have been

nominated in the Kelowna chamber’s upcoming 32nd annual Business

Excellence Awards in November.

The first one is Volcanic Hills Winery, a family-owned business

that started farming in the Okanagan over 50 years ago operated by Bobby

and Christina Gidda — brother and sister, a third-generation West

Kelowna family. It all started when their grandfather, this winery’s

owner, came to Canada from a small town in India. He had just $5 in his

15,000-square-foot winery continues to be a success. It employs 15 full-

and part-time employees and offers a diverse selection of great B.C.

wines.

The other small business, now celebrating 20 years in operation,

is Okanagan Lavender, a small family farm run by Dave and Andrea

McFadden — and Keely, Fabien, Rory, Alyssa, Liam and, soon, Laughlin —

which grows herbs and natural products from sustainably sourced organic

ingredients grown on their farm.

This has been a big year, 2019, for them. They recently won Canada

Post’s E-Commerce Innovation Social Responsibility Award. As well, they

were recognized in the top 100 finalists in the Telus challenge for

small business and a finalist in the FedEx small business competition.

It makes me proud to see what this company has achieved for

sustainability, biodiversity and the impact on the local

economy.

Best wishes to both those businesses.

Oral Questions

FOREST INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT

SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITIES

AND WORKERS

A. Wilkinson: It’s no secret in British Columbia that since January, we’ve seen

at least 89 curtailments, shutdowns, permanent closures of mills in the

forest industry. We’ve had a Premier who said in the past that this

never would have happened under an NDP government. We’ve had a Forests

Minister say it’s not a crisis.

But for the 6,000 direct employees and the roughly 10,000 contract

employees, they have no income and no prospect of income. It’s going to

be a very dark Christmas for these families. Yet at the same time, we

have a parliamentary secretary who blows them off by saying there are

too many mills. We have a Premier who was asked about these communities

that are so badly affected, and he describes them as spoiled

children.

The question, which obviously goes to the Minister of Forests, is

on just one circumstance: the Hammond Cedar sawmill in Maple Ridge.

Asked about it on CBC radio, his response was: “They can get a job on

the Pattullo Bridge.” When can the employees, or former employees, of

the Hammond Cedar sawmill in Maple Ridge look forward to any kind of

substantive answer from the Forests Minister?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, our hearts go out to those who have witnessed and been part

of curtailments and mill shutdowns in the Interior and around the

province. We’ve heard from those workers. We’ve listened, and we’ve

taken action. That’s unlike the previous government, which oversaw the

loss of 30,000 forestry jobs and the closure of dozens of

mills.

We’ve taken action in the Interior with the forest support program

that we recently announced. We’re working on the long-term vision for

the Interior, which this previous government ignored.

[2:05 p.m.]

On the coast, we’ve undertaken the coast forest sector

revitalization initiative. That will drive more logs to domestic

production and also bring more fibre out of the forest, something that

was ignored by the previous government. We’ll end up with more jobs in

the coastal forest sector industry.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, we can only think of writing it out in a letter and sending

it to the residents of Maple Ridge and see what they have to say about

the Forests Minister’s complete indifference to the fate of that

community. Teal-Jones in North Surrey is facing the same fate. This is

the minister’s concept of coast forest revitalization: mass, permanent

layoffs and shutdowns.

I’ll ask him once again. Will he please provide some kind of

answer to those 100 families in Maple Ridge who have no work and no

prospect of work?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Again, our thoughts are with those people who have lost their work

and employment due to cutbacks and curtailments in the forestry sector.

On the coast situation, largely, that is a result of the log export

situation, which grew exponentially under the previous

government.

We’re determined that those logs should be sent to domestic

production so that the jobs can come back in the mills. You know, this

was something that was known to the previous government for many years.

We have created, as well, fibre recovery zones, where we’re intent on

bringing more fibre out of the forests in order to be used in mills

around the province.

The workers in the Hammond situation. Luckily, there’s a buoyant

economy, as outlined yesterday by the Jobs Minister, and there are other

opportunities in the communities in which they reside. We’re determined

that they can get back to work in the mills, as well, when we get

dealing with the situation that was left to us by the previous

government, around putting logs in domestic production and bringing more

fibre out of the forests.

M. Hunt: Well, this crisis began in January, and what has been the NDP’s

response? Their response has been….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please. We shall hear the question. Thank

you.

M. Hunt: Except for heckling, their response has been silence. Except, of

course: “The minister’s thoughts are with you.” Williams Lake, Houston,

Castlegar, Kelowna, Vavenby, Maple Ridge, Surrey, Vancouver Island — all

over this province, jobs have been lost, while the minister remains

silent, except to deny that there is a crisis. After months wasted

before taking any action, he still manages to get it wrong.

My question to the minister is: do the workers at Surrey-based

Teal-Jones qualify for the NDP’s exit-the-industry fund?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Nothing could typify the lack of knowledge on the other side but

the first part of the question saying that this began in January.

Unbelievable.

It’s well documented that the members on the other side, the 3.1

Forests Ministers, had knowledge of the situation in the Interior as far

back as 2012 — knowing that there was going to be a decrease in the

lumber available for mills, due to the mountain pine beetle infestation

coming to an end. Yet they did nothing to prepare communities. So we

ended up….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please. We shall hear the response.

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

The member’s question referenced communities through­out the

Interior as well as on the coast, so I’m happy to talk about the

Interior situation and the coast situation — the mess that was left to

us by the previous government.

What we have on the Interior is that we’ve addressed the immediate

needs of workers — they were first and foremost in our minds — with the

community forest worker support program. We’ve also addressed the

long-term issues that were ignored by the previous government with our

Interior forest renewal initiative.

[2:10 p.m.]

On the coast, there have been structural issues that were ignored

again by the previous government around log exports, driving logs to

domestic mills, and that’s what we’re focusing on — fixing a problem

that was left by the previous government. Workers around the province in

the forest sector are what matters to us on this side.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a supplemental.

M. Hunt: There are more than 500 workers at Teal-Jones. They are spread

across the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. And once again the NDP

have decided to pick winners and losers.

Question to the minister: why can’t the hundreds of workers in

Maple Ridge, Surrey and Vancouver Island get assistance?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the short answer is they can. Under the interior forest

sector support program….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Donaldson: If they want to wait. Hold it. You’ll get an answer if you

listen.

We have a $12 million allotment for the retraining aspect of

forestry workers, and that’s available to the workers at Hammond and

Teal-Jones as well.

The fact is that we take forestry seriously on this side of the

House. We’re planning not only for the present to support workers but

for the future — something that was not done by the previous government.

We’re planning for the workers that need retraining for the future jobs

in the forest sector, the workers that are going to be at the forefront

of the engineered wood portfolio, as well as the new products that will

be created by the wood that comes out of the forest. That’s what we’re

focused on — the present and the future.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

AND RISK ASSESSMENT

REPORT

S. Furstenau: Earlier this summer the government quietly released the

Preliminary Strategic Risk Assessment for B.C. It was a

dramatic document that outlined future climate risks for the province:

frequent flooding, more wildfires, longer periods of drought, sustained

heatwaves and long-term water shortages, among others.

While I credit the government for engaging in a climate risk

assessment, I and my colleagues were puzzled by the lack of attention

the government gave this preliminary assessment. British Columbians are

concerned and want to know as much as possible about the climate crisis.

Tens of thousands of people were marching in the streets just a few

weeks ago, demanding climate action.

These types of reports need to be communicated widely to British

Columbians so that they can understand the risks we are facing and why

ambitious climate action is necessary.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy. Why did the government not communicate this report widely to

British Columbians?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the House Leader of the Third Party for not only the

question but for the important focus that she and her colleagues, as

well as all members on this side of the House, place on this critical

issue of addressing the threat of climate change. In fact….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Heyman: I don’t even know that I’ve said anything worthy of heckling

yet.

In fact, taking seriously the scientific reports and studies about

the risks of climate change is what resulted in our confidence and

supply agreement, which has brought British Columbians good governance

on a whole range of issues, including this one.

The climate risk assessment that we performed indeed revealed the

very significant risks of heatwaves, forest fires, seasonal water

shortage, flooding and drought that the member raises. It is not in my

interest or this government’s interest to not have British Columbians

know about this study. In fact, it is a central part of our commitment

to develop, by 2020, a climate risk preparedness and adaptation

strategy, and that is exactly what we are doing.

We consulted with the following organizations prior to releasing

this study: the Union of B.C. Municipalities environmental committee,

the B.C. Business Council, the Municipal Insurance Association of B.C.,

Asset Management B.C., our climate solutions council.

[2:15 p.m.]

Webinars were held for Indigenous organizations, the financial

sector and external adaptation partners.

We believe and we count on British Columbians understanding the

risks that we face as the reason that we’re bringing in CleanBC policies

today and in the future.

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

FOREST MANAGEMENT

AND CLIMATE CHANGE

MITIGATION

S. Furstenau: Clearly, the minister is proud of the work that they did. It

doesn’t quite answer the question of why the report was quietly released

without even a press release to indicate that it was being put out. I do

look forward to reading the further reports that are coming. The 15

specific climate risk events are bad enough on their own, but when

combined, they give new meaning to the word “catastrophic,” and I think

we have to come to terms with that. We know these risks are coming. We

know that what we do today matters.

One of the things that is crystal-clear is the need to change our

relationship with how we manage our forests, as they are one of our best

protections against the risks of climate change. Whether it is

overharvesting that increases the chances of floods in communities or

the combination of clear-cut logging and inadequate restoration of

cutblocks contributing to more severe wildfires and flood risks, logging

practices must be reformed to mitigate climate risk. We can’t do this

soon enough.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy. How is he working with the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development to ensure that forests in the

future will mitigate climate effects rather than exacerbate

them?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, again, to the House Leader of the Third Party for this

question, as well as for her ongoing work with us on this

issue.

She’s quite correct. Forests have a critical role to play in

sequestering carbon, in mitigating the impacts of a changing climate and

protecting community watersheds and biodiversity. That’s why our

government, through the Minister of Forests, invested $196 million in

wildfire risk reduction, reforestation and forest rehabilitation. That’s

why, through the community resiliency investment program, we provided

$60 million to support local governments and Indigenous nations to

mitigate wildfire threats near their communities. We’ve also invested

$10 million to help develop a more comprehensive prescribed burning

program, one that incorporates traditional, ecological and Indigenous

knowledge.

It’s also why I am working closely with the Minister of Forests,

Lands and Natural Resource Operations and other ministries on the

environment and land use commission as we go forward with a

comprehensive land use planning program that takes into account all of

the values of forests, particularly with relationship to the climate

risks that we know are severe.

FOREST WORKER SUPPORT PROGRAM

AND RURAL DIVIDEND

FUNDING

S. Bond: So let’s recap. Eighty-nine curtailments or shutdowns in the B.C.

forest industry. More than 6,000 workers and their families directly

impacted, plus thousands of indirect jobs. Then we have a minister who

ignored the crisis, who said to these workers and to these families that

there is no crisis — a minister who was missing in action. Then when he

finally decided to act, he robs communities of the rural dividend fund,

and he tells workers they have no future in the forest

sector.

The minister has a chance today to do the right thing. Will he

restore the rural dividend fund immediately?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The opposition benches are full of revisionist history as far as

when it comes to what we’ve done for the forest sector and what they

haven’t done.

Now, I find people in the Interior, people in the north,

communities, local governments being very, very…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: …understanding of the situation faced by their colleagues in the

forest sector — the colleagues and the families who have been subject to

the curtailment and the loss of work through the closure of mills. The

rural dividend fund has been put temporarily in abatement until the next

fiscal year. We’ve explained that in letters to the communities. That’s

because on this side of the House, we put workers first.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: While the minister over there wants to stand up and attempt to

tout his record, here’s what he did. He took money out of the rural

dividend fund, and he didn’t have the courage to look communities in the

eye and actually be honest about that. In fact, here’s what happened.

Community leaders were so upset about what happened that they actually

put forward an emergency resolution at the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

That’s the history. Those are the facts, to the minister.

Then what did they do? They voted unanimously — unanimously — to

ask the government to immediately restore the funds that, by the way,

for the record, this government put in place for the rural dividend

fund. So what did the government do? Absolutely nothing. In fact, what

they did was ignore the resolution of elected leaders from across this

province.

Making it even worse, the Premier, in his speech at the Union of

B.C. Municipalities, basically looked elected leaders in the eye and

told them that they were acting like a bunch of spoiled kids. Shame on

him.

To the minister, a simple question. Respond to the request of

elected leaders across this province. Will he restore the rural dividend

fund today?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, only the Liberals would say that $69 million in a worker

support program is nothing. I know they’re upset but $69

million….

Let’s take a little walk back through history and understand why

we got to this situation and why we had to do the temporary reallocation

of rural dividend funding. That’s because when they were in government,

they ignored what was coming down the pike.

I’ll read from a quote from my critic, who was a former cabinet

minister when he was in cabinet. In 2014, he said: “What I said was that

there was going to be an estimated drop of about eight million cubic

metres of wood, which would be about the equivalent of ten reasonably

sized mills.” That was in 2014. They had three more years of government

to address that, and they did nothing.

I would like to finish off…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Donaldson: …by ensuring the record is corrected when it comes to what

happened at the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I’ll quote Mayor Bjorndal

from Port Edward in relation to what we did. He said, “Personally, I

think it’s the right thing to do” — reallocating the rural dividend

fund. “We don’t have any forest-dependent jobs here, and the help is not

as needed. There are towns that are really hurting. So it is being done

for the right reasons.”

G. Kyllo: After pretending that there was no crisis, the minister felt that

he better do something. But here’s the problem. Communities don’t want a

band-aid solution; they want long-term solutions. The minister has not

only failed to deliver anything to help; instead, he’s stolen the

first-aid kit.

In Salmon Arm, the rural dividend fund has been extremely

successful. It helped to fund the Innovation Centre. This program is

helping small businesses to actually get on the ground and to diversify

small communities across our great province. But what has this minister

done? He’s cancelled the very program that was put in place to help

small rural communities diversify their local economies.

Question to the minister. By cancelling the rural dividend fund,

it’s clear that you won’t help communities. So will you restore the

rural dividend fund so that communities can help themselves?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: As we explained to communities…. I had many meetings at the Union

of B.C. Municipalities annual convention. I had 64 meetings with

municipalities. As we talked about the rural dividend fund, they were

understanding of why it needed to be reallocated to support families and

workers. We also recognized the hard work it takes for many smaller

municipalities to put those applications together, and we said those

applications will not be discarded. They’ll be held for the next fiscal

cycle when funding becomes available once again.

The member talks about long-term solutions, and there’s a blind

spot there when it comes to when they were in government. There’s a

study that was commissioned by the previous government looking at the

Interior forest industry and the forecast for wood. Quoting from it —

this was provided to the government at the time in July 2015 — across

the study area, six B.C. interior regions, the authors forecast the

“eventual closure of up to 13 mills in order to allow all the remaining

mills to operate at close to their capacity.”

That was July 2015. They had two years in government to do

something about it. They did nothing to help communities or workers

prepare.

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

G. Kyllo: The rural dividend fund has been in place for over three years,

providing close to $75 million to help communities diversify their

economies to get ahead of this very important issue. We appreciate that

governments have choice. It’s interesting how the current government has

found tens of millions of dollars to pull out of contingencies to help

their pet projects, yet when we have the largest forest crisis in over

40 years, a challenge that’s having a significant impact on small

communities across our province…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Kyllo: …this government chooses to cannibalize the very program that was

put in place to help small rural communities diversify their local

economies. With the rural development fund now cancelled for this year

and no commitment yet as to when the funds will flow, other groups

looking for assistance are simply out of luck.

A simple question to the minister: will you restore the money you

stole out of the rural development fund?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We recognize the value of the rural dividend program to small

communities around the province. That’s why we said that we would hold

their applications for funding in the next fiscal cycle. They agreed

with us that workers in communities that are hurting the most from

forestry curtailments deserve to be put at the front of the

line.

We also got very positive feedback at the Union of B.C.

Municipalities convention when we talked about our Interior worker

support program — $40 million for a retirement bridging program, $15

million for a forestry employment program targeting contractors, $2

million for community-based job placement coordination offices and $12

million for retraining. That’s a commitment to the Interior. That’s a

commitment to rural communities. That’s a commitment to workers that

this side takes seriously.

FOREST INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT

SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITIES

AND WORKERS

J. Tegart: Like many rural communities, communities in my riding have been

hard hit by the forestry crisis. The last time I raised it in this

House, the Premier told me to stop whining. But 6,000 workers do not

have jobs. The crisis is real, and it’s impacting families by driving

them out of our communities and their homes to search for

work.

My question to the minister is: have you picked up the phone and

called Trans Mountain pipeline to see if there is an opportunity for our

local workers in Merritt to do the prep work?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: When I think about the forestry workers in Merritt, I think about

the Merritt Tolko mill that was closed down under the previous

government. I think about those workers who are not allowed to avail

themselves of a $69 million worker support program that we put in

place.

I also think about the 16 years that the members opposite had in

government, how they gutted and hollowed out rural and Interior and

coastal communities, closing over 200 schools, closing hospitals and not

doing the work that was necessary for those communities to become

stable.

In the member’s own constituency, the kind of investments that we

find are important are in the public infrastructure that will make

communities attractive places to go to and to stay in — for instance,

the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, the new building, Centre of

Excellence in Sustainability. So $2.5 million — that’s the kind of

investment that we’re serious about on this side, because we care about

rural communities.

J. Tegart: This minister and this government has ignored workers for months,

and families are paying the price. On September 16, the Forests Minister

said that communities could apply to the dividend fund. The next day he

cancelled the fund. The minister also said that forestry workers can

simply move into industries that they have no training for in other

parts of the province.

Minister, my workers don’t want to leave their homes and

communities and uproot their families. Will you restore the rural

dividend fund so we can create local jobs?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, as I said, we’re keeping the rural dividend applications.

We’re holding on to them for the next fiscal cycle, because we recognize

the amount of work that’s been put in by rural communities.

But to say we’ve done nothing for workers…. So $69 million support

program for bridging; for early retirement, $40 million; $12 million for

retraining. The member speaks about doing work to help forest workers

retrain for the future — $12 million. That’s only the tip of the

iceberg.

While they, in government, gutted out Interior communities by

closing down schools, by closing down hospitals, we’ve taken the

opposite approach towards rural development. We’ve invested in schools

and hospitals. The Williams Lake Cariboo Memorial Hospital approved. And

$3.4 million for expanding an imaging facility in Kelowna. In Fort St.

James, the Stuart Lake Hospital replacement concept plan has been

approved. In Terrace, the Mills Memorial Hospital business plan has been

approved.

Schools in Quesnel, Maple Drive Middle School, renovation — $1.7

million. The list goes on and on, because we care about rural

communities. We value their contribution to the province, and we’re

doing something about it.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present Managing Human Resources at the B.C.

Sheriff Service , an independent report, 2019, from the Office of

the Auditor General.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee on Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act.

[2:35 p.m. - 2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 35; J. Isaacs

in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

section 116 (continued) .

M. Lee: I just wish to pick up the discussion on 116. There was discussion

with the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and the minister about the

definition of “public interest.” Components that were referred to

related to the transportation strategy — what’s for the common good of

the people — as well as recognition of the importance of continuing to

lower our carbon footprint.

Can I ask the minister what other examples or factors would be

utilized to determine public interest — for ex­ample, in the area

of public safety?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thanks to the member for his questions. It’s nice to have somebody

else engaged in this as well. I think it’s a very interesting discussion

on these pilot projects and what we’re going to be doing

here.

[2:45 p.m.]

Yes, safety is obviously key to what we do as a ministry. We’ve

got to make sure that everything is safe, so ensuring that safety is

built in will be in the public interest. We had a discussion yesterday

about whether people are going to having to wear helmets, and so on, and

where people would be able to use these motorized personal mobility

devices.

Safety will be key. That will be assessed, basically, through

these pilot projects — what will come out to be the safest way for using

them and integrating them into our transportation networks.

M. Lee: Just to ask further in the amendment that’s being added — that is,

new

section 304(2)(b). There’s a reference to “the objectives set by

government.” We’ve covered transportation yesterday and road safety just

now. But could I ask: what other objectives, in the public interest,

would these proposed pilot projects need to meet in terms of…? What

other objectives would there be for government?

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member is aware, this is enabling legislation. We do want

to be prescribing what can and can’t be included. Other parts of

“consistent with the objectives set by government….” I mean, it goes

without saying, I’d say, that our environmental objectives through

CleanBC, the objectives we laid down in our active transportation

strategy of getting increasing people using active forms of

transportation…. That will be part of it. With it, there are some

infrastructure objectives.

We’re working also, obviously, within partnership with the

municipalities. So if those municipalities have any specific objectives

they’re trying to fulfil through their official community plans, they

are now looking at these forms of transportation and these pilot

projects.

There’s a lot of flexibility in this. As I say, it’s enabling

legislation, so it will give the ability for everybody to get together

and have good discussions about what it should look like in the

different scenarios.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response.

The next section, which is the last

section of this new provision

to be added, refers to consent. So in the case of municipal councils,

what level of involvement will municipalities have in being consulted

and working through the parameters of a pilot project? What level of

discussion and involvement will municipalities have in order to provide

their consent?

Hon. C. Trevena: These pilot projects that we’re discussing — I think nearly all of

them are going to come at the behest of the local governments or the

treaty First Nations. So our staff, the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure staff, will be working in partnership with the

municipalities. There is an anticipation that this will be a joint

approach. We’re definitely not going to be imposing on municipalities

pilot projects that they don’t want.

Further, as the member can see, in

section 304(3)(a)(i), “if the

Lieutenant Governor in Council is satisfied that the municipality has

authority to make bylaws….” But also that they are satisfied that there

has been consent, that they are participating in this.

[2:50 p.m.]

We’re looking at doing this very much hand in hand with

municipalities and working to see what it is that they want and how we

can best make it work.

M. Lee: I think I understand, in the context of municipalities, what

authority they would have to make bylaws. In the next provision, which

relates to treaty First Nations…. In this area, knowing that we’re

talking about pilot projects and recognizing the rights, of course, of

First Nations to their territories on First Nation treaty lands, what

will be the area of consent in respect of any overlapping rights that

might exist between First Nations on treaty First Nation lands in

respect of a pilot project?

Hon. C. Trevena: Treaty First Nations have the same authority as municipalities do

over their sidewalks and streets. It’ll be working the same way with the

treaty First Nations as with municipalities.

M. Lee: In the interest of the

Nisg̱a’a, which is referred to here

as well, where there might be a dispute between First Nations on various

access rights, is there a concern in terms of what level of consent the

government would be seeking in that context?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for these questions. It’s good to go right into

the details of this. This would be something that we would be working

through. We’re not specifying that in this piece of

legislation.

As I keep coming back to, it’s working. This is supposed to be a

collaborative approach, working with treaty First Nations wherever they

are. If there is some conflict on jurisdiction, we will work that

through. We’re not going to be imposing this on any First Nations, nor

on a municipality.

We want to make sure that we’re working it through. That is going

to be the approach — of absolute openness and discussion.

Sections 116 to 118 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank everyone for their participation in the debate

on Bill 35. There’s been a lot of discussion on both sides of the House

about it. It embraces many important aspects, and it’s moving along our

government’s agenda in many significant ways.

I know there have been a lot of questions from the opposition in

committee stage. We’re very pleased that we are able to make some

changes that will really improve the lives of many people in B.C.,

whether it is in the field of social development or on our

roads.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[2:55 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 35 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2019

Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019, reported

complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 36, the Gaming Control

Amendment Act, 2019.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 36 — GAMING CONTROL

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 36; J. Isaacs

in the chair.

The committee met at 3 p.m.

section 1.

J. Yap: To the minister and staff, I look forward to the opportunity in

committee stage to engage and try and get some questions answered. I

know that my colleague the MLA for Vancouver-Langara will also have

questions, as well as a number of other colleagues.

With regard to the first section,

section 1, This

section

increases the number of directors at British Columbia Lottery Corp. from

nine to 11. Can the Attorney General provide an explanation of why this

change is being contemplated in Bill 36?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined, on my left, by Rhea Wilson, the counsel with

Indigenous legal relations. On my right is Doug Scott, ADM, Crowns.

Behind me is Ranbir Parmar, corporate services, Ministry of Indigenous

Relations, and to my left, behind me, is Giovanni Puggioni. He was the

chief negotiator on this. Thank you very much for staff being here to

support me in doing my best to assist the opposition and the Third Party

with understanding the act and the provisions.

Section 1 does increase the Lottery Corp. board by two. The reason

it’s two is to preserve an odd number of directors so that the board

doesn’t get deadlocked into a tie. The reason to increase the board at

all is because part of the negotiations was an agreement by government

that if the B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited

Partnership nominated a director, that director would be recommended to

cabinet.

It would still be at cabinet’s discretion whether or not to

approve that individual, but the expectation would be, generally, that

that person would then be appointed to the board so that there would be

a representative of the partnership and of First Nations on the board of

the B.C. Lottery Corp., given the investment, essentially, that they

have, now and in the future, in the operations of B.C. Lottery Corp.

because of the revenue-sharing.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response.

Section 2.20 of the interim

agreement lays out that the partnership will have the right to nominate

a nominee, on behalf of the partnership, to the B.C. Lottery Corp.

board. Can the Attorney General provide more details to the House on how

this will work?

Hon. D. Eby: The government is making available to the partnership the

resources and supports of the board resourcing office in the provincial

government so that if they need support in identifying candidates or

ensuring that candidates have the appropriate skills that the

partnership is looking for, then that is available to them. That person

will be nominated by the partnership, will be recommended to cabinet,

and then the appointee on the board will be bringing their skills to

fulfil the fiduciary obligations that the board has to the B.C. Lottery

Corp. and, by extension, to the people of British Columbia.

[3:05 p.m.]

J. Yap: Does the minister anticipate that the partnership will put forward

a list of names that, through their process, they would like to nominate

and that then it would be up to the board resourcing — and, ultimately,

to cabinet — to pick from that list? Is that how the process will

work?

Hon. D. Eby: Everyone’s understanding is that generally, there would be a

single individual put forward, but there’s nothing stopping the

partnership if they wish to put forward a list of names of nominees.

They can do that, but the understanding and expectation is that there’d

be one individual.

J. Yap: I just ask from the perspective of whether the minister or the

government would be duty-bound to accept and appoint the name that is

put forward if it were just one name. Is that the expectation — that the

government would accept the nomination if it’s just one name, in the

potential scenario where the government may feel that the name put

forward may not be suitable?

Hon. D. Eby: You can’t bind cabinet in that way. It’s cabinet’s discretion

whether or not to appoint any particular board member. However, I think

the understanding that everybody has is that there’s going to be a very

careful and thoughtful process on the partnership’s

part in identifying

a candidate to recommend to government, and that would have considerable

weight in the discussions of cabinet about whether or not to appoint

that individual.

J. Yap: What would happen in the instance — potentially, if it occurred —

where the minister responsible did not see fit to recommend the

partnership’s nominee?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s difficult to have a significant discussion about

hypotheticals, but I think if there were some sort of issue that came

up, I would expect that the relationship between government and the

partnership is such that there would be an active discussion back and

forth about any concerns that were identified and that any concerns the

government had identified would likely be shared by the

partnership.

In a scenario where, for some reason, government was concerned and

the partnership wasn’t, the ultimate decision is cabinet’s. Cabinet

would make that decision, and if they decided not to approve a given

candidate, for which discretion is preserved, then there would be a

return back to the partnership for another nominee from the partnership

for consideration.

J. Yap: From the minister’s response, which I appreciate, he’s affirming

that it would be ultimately the discretion of the government, the

executive council, to approve or not approve a nominee.

Hon. D. Eby: The candidate is recommended, nominated by the partnership and

then recommended by the minister to cabinet, but cabinet maintains an

ultimate discretion about whether or not to appoint that individual to

the board.

J. Yap: Can the minister tell the House if any other Crown corporations

have this type of arrangement where the Indigenous community can

nominate a director?

Hon. D. Eby: There was a bit of a brainstorming here to see if we could think

of something that would be analogous, and we’ve identified the First

Peoples Cultural Council, which puts forward candidates that they

recommend to government and that are then considered by

cabinet.

[3:10 p.m.]

I think the record is appointed, but again, the discretion remains

in cabinet on whether or not to appoint those nominees that come up from

the council for the council’s board.

J. Yap: Just to follow through on that. What this

section endeavours to do

— to add the opportunity for government to appoint an Indigenous

director, nominated by the Indigenous community…. This would not be

precedent-setting. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. D. Eby: This is the only Crown we can think of that has a structure like

this where a nominee is recommended by an Indigenous organization for

appointment. So in that sense, it’s new. In the sense that cabinet

retains ultimate discretion whether or not to appoint the board member,

it’s not new. That is the existing structure for appointment of board

members for Crown corporations.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response confirming that in terms of a

Crown corporation of British Columbia, this is new. That being the case,

can the minister advise this House what consultation was done to arrive

at this decision to create this new structure?

Hon. D. Eby: The First Nations Leadership group, which is the Union of B.C.

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

together have an organization under their umbrella called the First

Nations Gaming Commission. The First Nations Gaming Commission had a

subcommittee chaired by Grand Chief Joe Hall that was the lead

negotiating group with the province for the agreement and for the

structure of the agreement of how to move forward on this

issue.

Once an agreement and broad terms were arrived at, the council,

the lawyers within the Ministry of Attorney General, were consulted to

ensure that the process was structured so it would be consistent with

law. The chair of the board of the B.C. Lottery Corp. was

consulted.

[3:15 p.m.]

The cabinet board resourcing office was engaged, as well, to

ensure that we were structuring things properly. So there were a number

of different technical sources of advice, as well as practical sources

of advice.

I think it’s safe to say that this process was a co-development

process with First Nations groups in the province through their

leadership organization, the leadership group, and the subcommittee. I

wanted to thank Grand Chief Joe Hall and his team for their work with

our team in arriving at these terms and coming to this historic

agreement.

J. Yap: I thank the minister for that.

It sounds like the negotiations were undertaken with

representatives of the leadership council. I’m wondering if the minister

can advise if other stakeholders, other First Nations, were consulted on

what was being contemplated.

Hon. D. Eby: Engagement with First Nations communities was led by the

leadership council. In particular, we understand that the three entities

that make up the leadership council — the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs,

BCAFN and the First Nations Summit — went out to their membership

through their structures and through their regional representation

groups to engage with First Nations communities across the province,

taking feedback back up through their channels to the group to inform

the discussion.

My understanding is that on the First Nations side, there was

quite a comprehensive engagement. Ultimately, the agreement was ratified

by all three organizations of the leadership council — and, ultimately,

we hope, by government, in passing this bill here today.

J. Yap: I appreciate that answer. I’m wondering…. In the spirit of

nation-to-nation consultations, it sounds like the discussions were

handled through the leadership council. It sounds like the minister is

confirming that there were no direct consultations between the province

and individual First Nations to get feedback on what was being proposed.

Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: This was a unique process in that it was a collaborative process

with the First Nations Leadership Council. We worked with them, and they

designed a process to engage with First Nations groups across the

province through their structures and how they wanted the engagement and

the consultation with First Nations groups across the province to go

ahead.

Government supports that because we support self-determination,

and we support Indigenous people making decisions about issues that

affect Indigenous people. That co-development process was very important

to the entirety of this negotiation discussion and the

agreement.

It’s true that government did not co-design that process with….

Well, this was a process that was developed by the leadership council

itself. We didn’t, then, take any steps to undermine that or to run a

separate engagement with First Nations groups in the

province.

We had confidence in the ability of this Indigenous leadership

group to make decisions affecting Indigenous people and engagement in

the province.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response and his affirmation that

there was certainly a reliance on the First Nations Leadership Council

to undertake their process. He mentioned a desire not to undermine their

process. I certainly appreciate that.

[3:20 p.m.]

Of course, we expect the government, the province, to approach

these matters with great respect for First Nations and their processes.

I wonder if the First Nations Summit, after the process was completed,

shared the results of their consultation or their process with the

minister as part of their discussions to arrive at this new governance

structure.

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that there were a number of issues raised

during second reading. One of those issues raised during second reading

was consultation with First Nations across the province. We received a

response from the First Nations Gaming Commission to talk about what

they did to engage with First Nations across the province.

They wrote to us:

“The consultation, which is extensive, has been coordinated through

the Leadership Council and its delegate, the First Nations Gaming

Commission. Discussions with government, which extended over many

months, were led by the First Nations Gaming Commission.

“First Nations in British Columbia are entitled to participate as

members of the Leadership Council’s three constituent political

territorial organizations: the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First

Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. All critical aspects

of the gaming-revenue-sharing regime, including the distribution formula

and ratification of the agreements themselves, have passed votes on the

floors of the Chiefs and Assembly at the political territorial

organizations. In addition to this, the agreements have been ratified by

the limited partners at the time they joined the limited

partnership.”

The limited partners, in this case, are the 203 First Nations of

the province.

“Consultation has been a coordinated effort and has included fully

informing individual First Nations as to the key aspects of the

revenue-sharing arrangements, seeking feedback and making a genuine

effort to respond to their concerns.”

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s follow-up. It sounds like there was a

fairly extensive consultation process that the First Nations Summit or

Leadership Council went through, engaging with their

constituencies.

I wonder if that process and its conclusion — perhaps the report —

in the interests of transparency, was made public. If not public, was it

made available to individual First Nations?

Hon. D. Eby: We don’t believe that there’s any written report summarizing the

consultations that we’re aware of.

J. Yap: Is this structure in place in any other Canadian jurisdiction? I

wonder if the minister can advise — in his due diligence, the staff

review of this matter — whether this structure is in place in other

provinces.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: In British Columbia, we have an example of a limited partnership

structure that has been used before. It was actually set up under the

previous government, the Pacific Trail pipelines partnership. It

distributes revenue that comes from that project to 16 different First

Nations that are limited partners.

In Ontario, there is a limited partnership structure like this for

distributing gaming. We understand there has been litigation in Ontario

in relation to the partnership, that it related to the commitment of the

Ontario government to consider and appoint board members nominated by

the limited partnership and that Ontario, allegedly, did not do

that.

Our hope and expectation is that we will learn from the Ontario

example and take seriously the nominations that are put forward by the

partnership. But otherwise, it seems to have worked very well in Ontario

as a mechanism for distributing gaming revenue, which is likely why the

First Nations Gaming Commission was supportive of and advocated for

establishing a partnership like this.

J. Yap: Does the government expect, with this being the first one, to add

Indigenous-nominated directors to other Crown corps?

Hon. D. Eby: We don’t currently have any plans for that. I will note that the

government has made a significant effort to have more Indigenous

representation on boards in the province, and if the member is

interested, I’ll get him some numbers.

We’re quite proud of the Indigenous representation, especially….

The Minister for Advanced Education has done an exceptional job in

ensuring Indigenous representation on, if not every, almost every

post-secondary board in the province, which is quite an accomplishment

and long overdue.

It’s government’s intent to continue to increase Indigenous

representation on boards and in various appointments and employment and

so on. So although we don’t have any plans to have a nomination process

like this currently for any of the Crowns, it remain a focus of

government.

J. Yap: Why did the minister decide to add two directors rather than

simply ensure that one of the current nine directors would be replaced

by an Indigenous nominated director so that there would be one in place?

Was it actually necessary to increase the size of the board?

Hon. D. Eby: We engaged with the chair of the B.C. Lottery Corp. to ask how the

board was working. The chair identified for us that it would be

preferable to add two positions to increase the skill sets on the board

rather than remove one of the current board members. He felt that the

board was working particularly well and that the perspectives brought by

the two additional board members, including the nominee, would be very

helpful to B.C. Lottery Corp’s operations and the board’s operations as

it stood.

J. Yap: That being the case, with the board increasing, will the total

remuneration going to the board, for directors, increase, as it

increases the numbers from nine to 11?

Hon. D. Eby: These board members will be remunerated in the same manner as any

other board member on the B.C. Lottery Corp. board — for expenses for

travel, for various board-related events and a stipend for attendance at

board meetings, these kinds of things.

[3:30 p.m.]

J. Yap: I understand the rationale, and the minister has provided the

background on the proposal to enhance Indigenous representation on the

Lottery Corp. board of directors.

Indigenous peoples in British Columbia are not monolithic. They

are diverse. I wonder how this reality of a very diverse community of

First Nations will be addressed in the selection of this

director.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: The manner in which we hope to have a good representative of the

partnership is through the structure that we’ve discussed, which is that

the partnership will nominate someone that they feel is appropriate to

represent the partnership’s perspectives on the B.C. Lottery Corp.

board.

I wanted to note that simply because there is one nominee that

comes from the partnership who is likely to be an Indigenous person —

but not necessarily — that doesn’t mean that that would be, necessarily,

the only Indigenous person on the B.C. Lottery Corp. board. We already

do have one person of Indigenous heritage on the board. So it’s not like

this is the only Indigenous representative that would necessarily be on

the board. There may be other representatives. But the hope is that the

partnership is able to identify representatives that best represent the

perspectives of the partnership and its limited partners on the Lottery

Corp. board.

L. Throness: I just have a few very general questions — I’m curious about the

bill — that I would like to ask. The minister brought with him today an

official who he announced as the chief negotiator on the bill and on

items concerning the bill. We use words like “comprehensive engagement”

and things like that. I’m wondering: in a more specific sense, how many

meetings has the negotiator held with First Nations partners, over what

kind of period? In particular, did the negotiator meet with individual

First Nations, and if so, which ones?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that there were literally dozens of meetings over

about 15 or 16 months to arrive at the agreement. With respect to

consultation with First Nations, this issue was raised during second

reading, and we got in touch with the First Nations Gaming Commission,

which wrote to us the following in relation to consultation with First

Nations. The First Nations Gaming Commission led the engagement, which

we thought was appropriate.

“The consultation, which is extensive, has been coordinated through

the leadership council and its delegate, the First Nations Gaming

Commission. Discussions with government, which extended over many

months, were led by the First Nations Gaming Commission. First Nations

in British Columbia are entitled to participate as members of the

leadership council’s three constituent political territorial

organizations: the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations

Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

“All critical aspects of the gaming revenue-sharing regime,

including the distribution formula and ratification of the agreements

themselves, have passed votes on the floors of the Chiefs and assembly

at the political territorial organizations. In addition to this, the

agreements have been ratified by the limited partners, which are the

First Nations of British Columbia — there are 203 of them — at the time

they joined the limited partnership.

“Consultation has been a coordinated effort and has included fully

informing individual First Nations as to the key aspects of the

revenue-sharing arrangements, seeking feedback and making a genuine

effort to respond to their concerns.”

L. Throness: I’m wondering: specifically, did the negotiator negotiate all

aspects of the bill with the representatives of the First Nations? And

in particular, did he negotiate the partnership agreement with

individual First Nations?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: As I understand it, the agreement was negotiated with — I’ll take

the member to the top of the structure — the leadership council, which

is the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the summit and the Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs. They have representation on the leadership

council.

Then they have an organization called the First Nations Gaming

Commission, which is under the umbrella of the leadership council. That

First Nations Gaming Commission had a subcommittee chaired by Grand

Chief Joe Hall. The negotiation proper was with this subcommittee of the

First Nations Gaming Commission. That was the group that government was

negotiating with and developing this in partnership with.

L. Throness: Just one more question for the minister. I would just point out

that negotiations were with representatives of First Nations, but the

funding disbursement formula of 50 percent, 40 percent and 10 percent to

remote First Nations was not negotiated with remote First Nations per

se.

What was the feedback? How was this formula — the disbursement

formula where only 10 percent goes to remote First Nations, which are

perhaps the most needy First Nations…? How was that 10 percent arrived

at?

Hon. D. Eby: Just to ensure that the member has the same understanding that I

do in terms of the distribution here, First Nations…. The money itself

is divided into three pots. There’s a 50 percent pot, so there’s half

the money. Then there’s a 40 percent pot. And then there’s a 10 percent

pot. A rural or remote community can draw from all three of these

allocations of money.

The 50 percent is divided equally among all First Nations. The 40

percent allocation is divided on the basis of population, so they would

get a share of that population distribution as well. Then an additional

10 percent of the total only goes to rural and remote First Nations

communities, and it is allocated accordingly.

So it’s not like only 10 percent of the money goes to rural and

remote communities. There is a special supplementary fund only available

to rural and remote communities, and that is in addition to the shared

distribution and the population distribution.

With that understanding, I think it’s important to recognize that

the engagement with First Nations, including rural and remote First

Nations, took place through the leadership council and through the three

entities, leadership groups, that partnered together in the leadership

council. These three groups had meetings at which the revenue-sharing

regime, including the distribution formula, had to pass a vote on the

floors of their Chiefs and assembly at the various political territorial

organizations.

[3:40 p.m.]

They advised us that there was a coordinated effort that included

fully informing individual First Nations about the key aspects of

revenue-sharing arrangements, seeking their feedback and making a

genuine effort to amend or address or respond to their

concerns.

L. Throness: This simply provokes one more question that I must ask. We have a

few very wealthy First Nations in B.C. Westbank is the most wealthy

First Nation in Canada. We think of Tsawwassen. Westbank, I think, has

some 500 businesses on its properties, and it will receive the same

amount in base funding, 50 percent. That’s $250,000 a year for the next

25 years, the same amount as a remote First Nation. I don’t know what

the population is, but Westbank probably has a larger population,

because it is more wealthy. So it will receive a larger share

there.

I’m wondering why only 10 percent is hived off for a remote

community. Why wouldn’t it be more than that and distributed more on the

basis of need rather than on the basis of entitlement?

Hon. D. Eby: I think it’s important for the member to at least hear, if not

agree with, the approach of government in this, how this distribution

formula was arrived at and why it’s part of the agreement.

Government made a commitment that this would be something that

First Nations would determine for themselves, that government wouldn’t

be imposing a formula upon First Nations, that we wouldn’t decide what

was best for First Nations. This would be First Nations making a

decision about their own future, and the leadership groups would be

accountable to their own communities.

That was the approach of self-determination. That was the approach

that government decided to take. That is the formula that the First

Nations arrived at through their internal processes, and that formed a

key part of the discussion — co-development in negotiation of this

agreement.

Sounds like the member has a different idea about how money could

be distributed and what criteria he would use to determine who would get

how much money. But it’s not about him. It’s about First Nations and

about their own decisions about how the money should be

distributed.

L. Throness: Yet one more question. I notice that the disbursement formula is

not in the act. It is on the government’s website. I’m wondering what

the authority is for the disbursement formula. I’m wondering if that

formula could change, if it’s not part of the act, and how it would

change, if it were to change.

Hon. D. Eby: I have a two-part answer. The first part responds to the member’s

previous question, and the second part responds to his most recent

question.

The B.C. First Nations Gaming Commission provided some responses

to some of the issues that were raised in second reading, and the issues

the member raised were among those issues they responded to. I think

it’s probably best for him to hear directly from the commission about

their decision-making process and the revenue-sharing arrangement

flexibility.

They write that the initial distribution formula includes a 50

percent base share split equally among eligible First Nations, a 40

percent share based on population and a 10 percent share based on

remoteness.

As a starting point, First Nations modelled the distribution

formula after Ontario’s formula and modified it to suit our particular

needs. The initial distribution formula was ratified by First Nations in

assembly at the three political territorial organizations.

Now, on the issue of flexibility around the formula:

“Significant flexibility is built into the revenue-sharing

arrangements to permit the distribution formula to evolve over time, for

the weighting to change and to include other factors as experience is

gained.

[3:45 p.m.]

“Going forward, the formula will be determined by First Nations to

provide weighting of the existing criteria or addition of criteria. The

initial distribution formula will be reviewed after a three-year period

to assess whether it is meeting the needs and interests of First

Nations.

“A review can also be initiated at any time by the province, the

partnership or the political territorial organizations, pursuant to the

periodic review mechanism built into the revenue-sharing agreement or

initiated by limited partners themselves in accordance with the

partnership governance mechanisms.”

E. Ross: To the Attorney General: thank you for those answers.

I just want to follow up on some of the criteria, in terms of who

is eligible for this funding. I was led to believe, based on the

statements I heard in this House, that there was a consultation with 203

bands — or 199 bands, whatever that number may be. There was nothing

said in this House to discount that, so I was actually impressed that an

agreement was made with 203 bands. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it

happen in B.C.

Just to clarify, the leadership council is…. You’re correct. It’s

made up of three organizations — Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Assembly

of First Nations of B.C., and chief negotiators, which is the summit.

But in either case, none of these organizations really represent

communities at the ground level.

The summit is made up of, actually, chief negotiators who are in

the treaty process. So those bands that aren’t in the treaty process

aren’t actually a part of the summit. It’s actually a voluntary thing.

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is actually membership-driven. Same thing:

if they don’t have a membership, they’re not a part of it. Assembly of

First Nations is elected by chiefs and councils who choose to

participate.

I understand this bill is intended to transfer money to

communities that could really use it. I just want to clarify two things.

Did the government rely fully on the leadership council to consult with

203 bands? If so, was the government aware of any specific process that

ensured each band was consulted in a meaningful manner?

Hon. D. Eby: I worry that members may not be catching all of the discussion

around this. So I feel like I’m repeating myself. But at the risk of

repeating…. It’s better to repeat myself and ensure all members have a

clear understanding than not.

This specific issue was raised with the First Nations Gaming

Commission. They wrote to government to share what their process was.

They write:

“The consultation, which is extensive, has been coordinated through

the leadership council and its delegate, the Gaming Commission.

Discussions with government, which extended over many months, were led

by the First Nations Gaming Commission.

“First Nations in British Columbia are entitled to participate as

members of the leadership council’s three constituent political

territorial organizations — the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the

First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. All critical

aspects of the gaming revenue-sharing regime, including the distribution

formula and ratification of the agreements themselves, have passed votes

on the floors of the Chiefs and assembly at the political territorial

organizations.

“In addition to this, the agreements have been ratified by the

limited partners, which are all 203 First Nations, at the time they

joined the limited partnership. Consultation has been a coordinated

effort and has included fully informing individual First Nations as to

the key aspects of the revenue-sharing arrangements, seeking feedback

and making a genuine effort to respond to their concerns.”

[3:50 p.m.]

I can also tell the member that in terms of which nations are

eligible to join the limited partnership and to participate in this and

eligible B.C. First Nations include Indian bands, treaty First Nations,

self-governing First Nations established by statute. There are also

provisions that would allow new Indian bands, new treaty First Nations

and new self-governing First Nations established by statute to the list.

There are also provisions that allow an eligible First Nation to

identify another entity in the event there are name changes or that

First Nations adopt or change their governance structures.

J. Rustad: Thank you for the answer to the question.

Having had the opportunity to work with the three leadership

councils and with the bands, one thing that I have heard very clearly

from the bands is that the leadership councils do not have the authority

to make decisions on behalf of the bands. Unless there’s a specific band

council resolution that has gone from a band to the leadership groups,

they don’t have the authority to be able to enter into these types of

agreements on behalf of the bands.

What’s more concerning is that with many of these meetings,

whether it’s the AFN, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the Union of

B.C. Indian Chiefs or the B.C. summit, more often than not there is

rather low participation at their quarterly meetings.

I guess the question to the minister is: what authority did the

leadership councils, the three leadership groups, have to enter into

this agreement and to commit to this agreement on behalf of the

bands?

Hon. D. Eby: It may be that the member doesn’t fully appreciate the structure.

What has been established here is a limited partnership. All 203 First

Nations are eligible to become limited partners in the partnership. They

are able, once they become partners, to shape the policy within the

organization. The partnership is not the leadership council. The

partnership is a separate entity called the B.C. First Nations Gaming

Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership. It’s not the leadership

council.

Our understanding, as of about a couple of weeks ago, is there

were 170 bands or nations that have signed up as limited

partners.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that answer. The question wasn’t so much the limited

partnership and the signing-up of the nations as part of that. The

question is the terms which had been defined. The splits, these

components that have been established between the leadership council and

those three entities and the Crown…. The nations did not sign on to

that. The nations only have an opportunity to sign onto the limited

partnership, thereby giving their authority to that. The nations

themselves were never consulted directly with that component — by

government, that is.

I have spoken with many First Nation Chiefs. All had the same

thing. First of all, they were surprised. They didn’t realize the

formula. They didn’t realize the structure and restriction. They didn’t

realize the cost structure associated with it. Certainly, they have not

in any way agreed in advance to that structure that was set up and

organized. I understand the signing on in terms of the limited

partnership, but there was not engagement in there.

[3:55 p.m.]

Once again, I ask the question: how did those terms come up and be

put in place, and where does the authority lie with the leadership

groups that were part of the negotiations? I’ll ultimately put the

question to the floor. Where did that authority lie rather than the

bands themselves?

Hon. D. Eby: The member sets up a difficult scenario. He doesn’t agree with the

leadership council. He doesn’t agree with the leadership council’s

participation because he doesn’t feel it’s adequately representative. He

doesn’t support a limited partnership where every nation has equal

opportunity to participate as a limited partner. I don’t know what he’s

suggesting in terms of what an appropriate structure would be. But every

member nation gets to participate equally in the limited

partnership.

With respect to the structures, the First Nations Gaming

Commission writes, and he may have missed this:

“Significant flexibility is built into the revenue-sharing

arrangements to permit the distribution formula to evolve over time, for

the weighting to change and to include other factors as experience is

gained.

“Going forward, the formula will be determined by First Nations, and

it will be by those First Nations who are limited partners, to provide

weighting of the existing criteria or the addition of criteria. The

initial distribution formula will be reviewed after a three-year period

to assess whether it is meeting the needs and interest of First

Nations.

“A review can also be initiated at any time by the province, the

partnership and the political and territorial organizations, pursuant to

the periodic review mechanism built into the revenue-sharing agreement

or initiated by the limited partners themselves in accordance with the

partnership governance mechanisms.”

I don’t think anybody is saying that this is going to be perfect

right out of the gate. They’re saying, very clearly, that there’s

flexibility built in so that the partnership can determine for itself,

going forward, whether things need to be reweighted, new additional

criteria. These reviews can be initiated at any time.

If the member is saying, “This doesn’t seem to be perfect,” he’s

right. But it’s a very good start, and it creates this structure that

enables the discussions that will take place to refine the formulas as

necessary as determined by Indigenous people themselves, as determined

by the limited partners in the partnership going forward.

M. Lee: I appreciate the level of the discussion here and the opportunity

to join my colleagues to understand the interim agreement that was

negotiated between the government and the First Nations Summit, the B.C.

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

Chiefs.

I heard the Attorney General indicate the status on the current

198 eligible First Nations that are spelled out or listed in the

schedule to this agreement and recognize, as I understand, there are 170

that have currently signed up.

The concern that the member for Nechako Lakes is relaying here is

that we have an agreement that government negotiated on an interim basis

to effectively cover two fiscal years of government. Through the

amendments under this bill, we’re now looking at an opportunity for

government to continue with the framework that was put in place,

effectively, with the leadership council.

For the reasons that the member for Skeena also discussed, there

are considerations around whether there has been an appropriate level of

consultation and an opportunity for each of the First Nations — 203

bands in this province — to have had that direct level of understanding

of the alternatives.

There has been a distribution formula that has been presented as

part of this limited partnership arrangement under the interim

agreement. That formula, as we understand, was determined, effectively,

by the leadership council with the province. But was there any

consideration for different kinds of weightings based on

need?

We recognize that First Nations and their ability to benefit in

this province…. They are not similarly situated. There’s a recognition

here of remote geography. But that’s only one indicator of the need.

Some First Nations are blessed with what traditional territories they

hold through the economic partnerships that have been struck with the

over 500 economic partnership and reconciliation agreements with the

previous government, but others are not. Others don’t have that same

ability.

[4:00 p.m.]

This distribution formula was provided, as we understand, to each

of the eligible First Nations. Even though 170 may have signed up, did

they have a true understanding of the alternatives?

I’d like to ask the Attorney General: what is the status of the

current review that’s contemplated under the agreement around this

arrangement?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. We, a government, worked with the existing

First Nations political structures in the province: the Leadership

Council, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the B.C. Assembly of First

Nations and the summit. I understand the member to be suggesting that we

should have done something different — specifically, that we should have

gone out to the 203 First Nations in the province to negotiate this

agreement directly.

It took 16 months to negotiate this with the existing political

structures in the province. I can’t imagine where we would be in this

process, and I can’t quite imagine what it would look like negotiating

with 203, as one of the members noted, very diverse communities with

very diverse and different perspectives.

What we have is a functioning structure, a limited partnership, in

which all participating nations participate equally in shaping the

future — a structure with considerable flexibility for refining or

changing the distribution formula. If the partnership comes together and

says, “Hey, this structure isn’t working, governments; we need a

different structure,” I know, at least with our administration, that

they would find an ear and they would find support to set up a structure

that worked better.

I do understand that the member is pointing out the imperfection

of the approach. I also want to point out the desperate need in

countless communities across the province…. Well, not countless. We have

a number of these communities that need the support for health centres,

for community centres, for economic development, for housing. This

revenue stream will be transformative, as it was for many nations in

Ontario when that distribution system was set up in that province many,

many years ago. So I think we have a real opportunity here.

I accept the member’s points — valid points to be made — about

ensuring that we hear all the voices of the various nations in the

province, balanced with a desire to get a structure in place that will

enable that to happen.

M. Lee: Well, thank you for that response. I’d like to understand. I

appreciate that we’re talking about the totality of the arrangement.

It’s important that we understand what currently is in place.

With that in mind, what are the determining factors for

determining how an eligible First Nation is accepted by the general

partner to be a limited partner under this arrangement?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the best response comes to us from the First Nations

Gaming Commission themselves. This is apparently an issue that was

raised in second reading debate. They wrote to us:

“The partnership is fully inclusive of all recognized First Nations,

including Indian bands, treaty First Nations and self-governing First

Nations located in British Columbia. There are no other eligibility

requirements.

[4:05 p.m.]

“There is flexibility built into the eligibility criteria as First

Nations governance structures evolve, pursuant to principles of

self-determination, over the 23 years of the agreement, to recognize

other entities as may be established by First Nations.

“Any First Nation that subscribes to the partnership is entitled to

its share of discretionary funding from the stream of gaming revenues

subject only to very limited annual reporting and audit and usage

requirements. This involves filing a brief report on use of funds

together with the audited financial statements otherwise prepared to

meet INAC reporting requirements.”

M. Lee: I appreciate that, as the member for Richmond-Steveston and myself

had the opportunity to have a briefing on this bill, there was an

indication by staff from the ministry that government does not have

access to the partnership agreement itself. Recognizing that it is

viewed by this government to be an internal matter among First Nations,

what I’m hearing is that eligibility to be part of this limited

partnership is only determined by the indication that’s set out in the

schedule.

If you’re listed on that schedule, you should be able to become a

limited partner. Can I reconfirm that that is the case?

Hon. D. Eby: I believe the short answer to the member’s question is yes. I do

want to make one clarification, though, with respect to the limited

partnership agreement. The interim agreement and the long-term agreement

were gazetted. Because government is a party to those agreements, we are

not a party to the limited partnership agreement. However, it has been

shared with government.

I wanted to clarify that in terms of the member’s

question.

M. Lee: Well, thank you for the clarification. That probably will

facilitate some of the responses here that we could be

asking.

Perhaps just with that point…. Of the 198 eligible First Nations

that are listed in the schedule, based on what the Attorney General has

shared with this House, 28 have not yet signed up as limited

partners.

Can I ask what the delay is, that being the case, given that the

funds have been transferred to the partnership?

Hon. D. Eby: To ensure clarity, because we are throw­ing around a number

of different numbers…. I’ve been using 203, and the member used 198.

Both of us are, in our own ways, correct. The

Nisg̱a’a Nation is one name on

the list of 198, but it’s a composite body of several different groups.

That’s how you get to the 203 number, just by way of

clarification.

What is clear is that — we just got an update — there are 171

nations that have applied as limited partners. There are 17 that are

missing one document, so they’re just in the final process of becoming

limited partners.

As for the difference between the 171 and the 198, I don’t yet

have an answer for the member about any particular reason why those

nations may or may not currently have signed up to

participate.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. So it sounds like eligible First

Nations are continuing to consider and sign up for the partnership. Who

makes up the board of the general partner?

Hon. D. Eby: As we understand the internal mechanism of how the nations who are

partners are governing themselves within the limited partnership…. It’s

our understanding that there is a shareholding and then an elected board

from the shareholders, but we don’t have details about that for the

member. That’s an internal matter within the First Nations Gaming

Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership, and we don’t have that agreement

here with us to provide that clarity, unfortunately, for the

member.

M. Lee: It may well be that there is a certain appreciation for how this

partnership will govern itself. I raise the point to understand who,

effectively, is that governance structure. It goes back to the point

that the member for Skeena and the member for Nechako Lakes have been

raising about what level of consideration there is by the 203 First

Nations as part of this structure.

If I can ask, though…. There is a reference to changes that might

occur under the interim agreement with an approval level by

extraordinary resolution of the limited partners. What is that level

required, in terms of a percentage or other indicator, of what an

extraordinary resolution threshold would need to be met by the limited

partnership itself?

Hon. D. Eby: I have just a question in terms of clarification for the member

about his question. I wonder if he could guide us to the

section of the

interim agreement that he’s pointing to about amendments to the interim

agreement.

I have an update for him in terms of what we’re hearing from the

nations that haven’t yet participated. We understand that there are no

refusals to date, that the nations that haven’t yet signed up are taking

legal advice on their participation. So we’ll wait for them to receive

that legal advice and make a decision for what’s best for their

nation.

[4:15 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just to give an example of the reference to the threshold for

approval, in, for example,

section 3.3 of the interim agreement, on page

17, it states that the distribution formula may be amended by an

extraordinary resolution of the limited partners, pursuant to the

partnership agreement. So this is of interest, I would expect, to all

First Nations. If there was going to be a change in the formula for

distribution of the funds, based on that 50-40-10 model, it’s important

to understand what level of approval is required for that

change.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the reference. It was very helpful, and

we’ve gotten our hands on a copy here of the partnership

agreement.

The special resolution threshold is 66⅔ percent, and the

extraordinary resolution threshold is 90 percent.

M. Lee: I will just say that

section 3.3…. I appreciate that response.

That would suggest that there is the ability, of course, for approval

without unanimous consent.

So 10 percent of First Nations who are signed up for this

arrangement could be effectively overridden by the vote of 90 percent of

the limited partners. Was there any consideration by leadership council

of that threshold?

Hon. D. Eby: This is an agreement between and among First Nations, and we have

confidence that they are considering and determining the best way to

organize themselves in terms of this structure. They set those

thresholds for their own agreement, and I can advise the member that

they did that. As to the consideration, specifically, that they went

through, that was their agreement to determine.

M. Lee: I appreciate that response.

If I could take us to another part of the agreement to understand

the arrangement under the partnership, there clearly would have been and

still are, under

section 4.7 in the interim agreement, “held amounts,”

as the term goes. There are terms that are utilized in that section,

around “permitted investments.”

I would ask the Attorney General: for whose benefit would those

permitted investments be held to confirm that? Secondly, for any revenue

that was derived from those funds, whose benefit does that go

to?

I should just correct the

section reference. That’s actually

4.7(b), in terms of the held amounts for investment income.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: “Held amounts,”

section 4.7, refers to amounts that are dedicated

to a particular nation that may not have signed up or may not be

participating in some way to be able to receive those funds. The amounts

must be held for the benefit of that nation or band.

They’re held in three-year increments. So it builds over three

years — year 1 plus year 2 plus year 3. If after three years the nation

hasn’t claimed those amounts, then it resets to zero and starts again.

Year 1, year 2, year 3, and then it resets to zero.

The held amounts are invested, and permitted investments are

low-risk investments. The interest or the revenue from those

investments…. The member asked where that will go. We’re just clarifying

right now exactly where that will go. As soon as I get that answer for

the member, I’ll let him know.

M. Lee: I appreciate that. What I’m wanting to understand is the overall

partnership structure, of course. That’s one element in terms of where

that revenue might go.

Perhaps I can go to another question, in the meantime, around the

actual administration of the partnership itself. What is that annual

administrative budget for this partnership?

Hon. D. Eby: This is another one of those responses that the B.C. First Nations

Gaming Commission has provided, and I think it’s probably helpful to

read directly their own commitments on this.

“Using a limited partnership owned, controlled and accountable to

First Nations, rather than a government agency, to distribute gaming

revenues is in accordance with the principle of self-determination.

There is value in First Nations managing and administering the funds

themselves, rather than having the Crown directly involved. First

Nations are capable of managing their own financial affairs.

“As stated previously, the partnership is to be run in a lean and

mean fashion. Operating costs are targeted to be less than 1 percent of

the average annual income of the partnership, and funds are placed in

approved low-risk investments pending distribution.

“The partnership is mandated to receive, manage and distribute funds

in the most cost-efficient manner possible. Its operations are subject

to transparency and accountability to its constituents. All First

Nations that subscribe as limited partners are provided with copies of

the revenue-sharing and partnership agreements and are entitled to

annual audited financial statements of the partnership.”

[4:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: To clarify, if it’s 1 percent of the annual income…. Could I ask:

what is that annual income?

Hon. D. Eby: The estimate of the gaming commission is less than 1 percent. It

would be less than 1 percent of approximately $100 million, so less than

$1 million a year.

M. Lee: In terms of the existing revenue-sharing agreements that are in

place around gaming with various First Nations, including the Musqueam

in respect of River Rock Casino in Richmond, or revenue-sharing

agreements with four municipalities in Victoria, Esquimalt, Saanich and

Oak Bay, what is the impact of this revenue-sharing arrangement, global,

versus those direct revenue-sharing agreements for specific First

Nations with municipalities as well?

Hon. D. Eby: Okay. I have several answers for the member. They’ve started

piling up a little bit here.

The member asked about the directors of the limited partnership.

The initial board of directors are nominated by the provincial — pardon

me, the PTOs — political territorial organizations and the leadership

council. That is just the initial board. Going forward, they will be

elected by resolution of the limited partners, so the nations themselves

will elect the board. Then the interest from the low-risk investments

will be accrued to the First Nation whose money is being held, waiting

for that First Nation to claim their share. That interest will not be

going anywhere else. It will be going to that First Nation.

Then the member’s question that I’m standing up on, in relation to

municipalities. There won’t be any impact on municipal government share,

which is calculated based on the revenue from the facility in their

area. This is calculated based on the net revenue to government from the

B.C. Lottery Corp. So that number comes after the host local government

share, from the facility.

M. Lee: In looking at revenue-sharing, this is obviously an important

topic in terms of entering into these long-term agreements. At what

juncture, in terms of additional sharing of revenue and gaming revenue,

ought there to be a consideration of that, in terms of what an

individual First Nation is already receiving and what they may receive

in the future — versus ensuring that we’re sharing all the benefits

based on, at least, the current distribution formula that’s under the

partnership agreement?

Is there a concern regarding ensuring on a 25-year basis — 23

years to go — that we’re providing the right level of funding to First

Nations that perhaps should take into account what they’re already

receiving under other gaming arrangements?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member may have suggestions about different ways to distribute

the funds — different criteria, different deductions or additions. The

structure of this is that First Nations will determine for themselves

through this entity, this limited partnership in which the nations all

participate on an equal basis and elect a board of directors and make

decisions about how moneys should be distributed. It’s part of the

government’s support for the self-determination of Indigenous

people.

I’m sure that there are any number of suggestions about how that

could happen and what should be taken into account. Likely, it’ll be

part of the conversations within that limited partnership, but it will

be determined within the limited partnership, not by

government.

M. Lee: We are at a juncture now where this enabling legislation will

effectively enable the government to commit to this revenue-sharing

arrangement over the balance of what was contemplated, the additional 23

years. Could I ask the Attorney General: what is the status of the

negotiation of the long-term agreement?

Hon. D. Eby: The completion of the long-term agreement is dependent on the

passage of legislation and the final form of the legislation once it

passes through the Legislative Assembly.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

So should the legislation pass through the assembly, and should it

pass through as written, then the hope is that we would be able to enter

a long-term agreement before the end of the year.

M. Lee: Just to ask: in terms of that timing, will there be an opportunity

to complete whatever interim periodic review mechanism that’s spoken to

in the interim agreement? Will there be actual further consultation

about this arrangement with the First Nations that might go into the

development of that long-term agreement?

Hon. D. Eby: In

section 9.1 of the interim agreement, there’s an agreement

between the parties that there won’t be a periodic review under the

interim agreement unless there’s an agreement to do that otherwise, and

there hasn’t been. What there have already been, having worked for a

little bit under the interim agreement, are discussions about how those

learnings will inform the long-term agreement, which is still being

negotiated — subject to, of course, the passage of the legislation in

this House.

The anticipated period of the periodic review is an annual review.

So the first review would be within a year of the implementation of the

long-term agreement, probably, but that is still a matter that is under

discussion under the long-term agreement discussion.

[4:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just to clarify. I appreciate the reference to

section 9.1. When I

look at 9.2, there was an expectation that the parties would identify an

initial periodic review of this agreement — which presumably means, of

course, the interim agreement — and that the parties would need at least

six months before the initial periodic review date to discuss what would

be contemplated in that.

Has there been a date set for that initial periodic

review?

Hon. D. Eby: The member correctly refers to 9.2, but 9.2 is reliant on 9.1(c).

So 9.1(

c) says: “The parties acknowledge that a periodic review will not

occur under this agreement unless the parties have agreed to a periodic

review when extending the term of agreement in accordance with

section

8.2.” In the event that happens, under 9.1(c), then 9.2 kicks in,

because 9.2 says: “If the parties agree to a periodic review as

contemplated by 9.1(c)” — where “then” isn’t there, but there is a comma

— “they will engage in the periodic review as follows.”

There hasn’t been an agreement to that, because what’s happened

has been that working under the interim agreement, the partnership has

identified opportunities for improvement already, and there’s been an

informal back-and-forth and a discussion as part of the negotiation and

discussion around the development of the long-term agreement. So the

first periodic review would happen, if that is ultimately what’s agreed

to in the long-term agreement, in a year from the implementation of the

long-term agreement.

Again, I’ll stress for the member that if he wants a specific

date, that is something that’s under negotiation and discussion under

the long-term agreement.

M. Lee: I hear what the Attorney General is saying. I would have thought,

though, that government, at this juncture, prior to recognizing the

nature of the agreement — what this new entity, in terms of the PTOs, by

definition, are having to represent….

This would have been the juncture, prior to the entering into of

the 23-year term of a long-term agreement. This would be the time for

the government to get a better understanding and ensure that all First

Nations have been fully consulted, that they’ve had their views known —

any concerns that they might have about the formula that was put out by

the leadership council. This would be the time to have that level of

engagement prior to entering into a new long-term agreement, for which,

as we were just discussing, there is some contemplation of periodic

review.

Really, this government and the leadership council have had,

effectively, two years to work with this construct, and if there are

concerns — at least concerns that we’ve been hearing from First Nation

Chiefs that various members on our side of the House have been talking

to in the time that we’ve had since the introduction of this bill — this

would be the time to ensure that those concerns are being

addressed.

Again, what level of comfort does the government have that that

level of consultation is taking place with those limited partners prior

to the entering into of a 23-year, long-term agreement?

Hon. D. Eby: These are still really early dates. We’ve got, as I advised the

member, 171 nations that have begun the application process. Well, there

are 17 that are on the verge of completing; the rest have completed the

application process of becoming limited partners. But there are still a

number of nations that are taking legal advice about participating and

how they should participate.

The structure that, hopefully, all of the nations will be

participating in, this limited partnership, will be the mechanism to

identify concerns and issues and bring them forward to government

through a democratic process where all 203 — or 198, depending on how

you’re counting — nations are participating.

I have confidence in the structure that’s being set up to be able

to bring those concerns forward to government, in addition to all of the

usual means that nations have to bring issues to the attention of

government, including the upcoming leadership group meetings that we’re

having.

[4:40 p.m.]

There are many mechanisms for these concerns to come forward, and

the key, I think, to all of it is an effective limited partnership

structure that is governed by and for First Nations people. I think

that’s what we have here.

M. Lee: Just to further this point, once we have this partnership entity

that’s been fully installed through the membership of all of the

eligible First Nations, those eligible First Nations, of course, will

need to work within the confines of that partnership agreement. So for

any alternative in terms of the distribution formula itself, the

structure that is being imposed on First Nations at a $1 million or so

cost per year, the administrative structure that’s imposed and this

long-term arrangement….

Again, this is the juncture for which limited partners, including

those who have signed up to be part of the partnership and those who

have not yet done so, who may be seeking, as the Attorney General has

mentioned, input from their legal counsel…. This is the time for them —

those who haven’t signed up as limited partners yet — to fully

understand the arrangement and their rights and their access to these

funds and the overhang of the leadership council, the structure that’s

been put in place over these funds.

Again, is there a further opportunity for government to have that

direct level of check-in with First Nations, particularly those who have

not yet signed up to be limited partners in this partnership? They’ve

had some time now to do so, and maybe this is a capacity issue.

Certainly that would be recognizable for some First Nations, but in

terms of the time period in which they’ve taken to sign up, it may be an

indicator of a l