Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 48

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

Tributes

Tony Hunt Jr.

Hon. R. Fleming

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Business award recipients in North Vancouver

J. Thornthwaite

Community living

M. Elmore

Steelhead project in Fraser-Nicola area

J. Tegart

Breast cancer awareness

A. Kang

Rae Fawcett Breast Health Clinic in Kamloops

T. Stone

Wild ARC

M. Dean

Oral Questions

Massey Tunnel replacement project

I. Paton

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Sturdy

Site C power project review and alternative energy

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mungall

B.C. Hydro mandate

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mungall

Government policy on labour contracts

M. Lee

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Martin

Wildfires and reimbursements to emergency vendors

D. Barnett

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

(continued)

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Sturdy

T. Stone

D. Clovechok

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

(continued)

D. Ashton

Hon. S. Fraser

E. Ross

C. Oakes

A. Olsen

J. Rustad

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2017

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. James: We have a number of hard-working board members, directors and staff

visiting us from credit unions across the province. They’re here to talk to

all members about the incredible contribution that credit unions make to the

economy in British Columbia, to small businesses and to communities in their

contribution.

I’d like to introduce Shelley McDade, CEO for Sunshine Coast Credit

Union; Michael Strukoff, board chair of Grand Forks Credit Union; Betty

Baxter, director of Sunshine Coast Credit Union; Dave Cunningham,

vice-president of public affairs and communications, Coast Capital Savings;

Anna Hardy, director of governance and legislation affairs, BlueShore

Financial; Angela Kaiser, director of Prospera Credit Union; Ron Dau, who is

assistant vice-president, First West Credit Union; Richard Hill, director,

First West Credit Union; Jeff Shewfelt, co-CEO for G and F Financial Group;

Lauren Dobell, director of strategic partnerships and advocacy, Vancity; and

Darlene Hyde, director of Westminster Savings.

I’d like the House to please thank them for their incredible work and

welcome them to the gallery.

Hon. S. Fraser: I always feel honoured and privileged to be known as the MLA for Mid

Island–Pacific Rim. One of the most dynamic communities in my constituency —

indeed, the entire province — is the district of Tofino. One of the reasons

for that dynamism is the mayor. This mayor, in the last election, won by

acclamation, which is a wonderful thing to do. I can just imagine that. But

would this House please join me in welcoming my good friend Mayor Josie

Osborne.

T. Redies: I’d also like to welcome the credit union folks. I worked with a

number of them over the years, and it was a real privilege. I’d like to

acknowledge two friends in the House: Ken Voth, the director of First West

Credit Union, and Bill Brown, director of Westminster Savings Credit Union.

So nice to see you all.

M. Stilwell: Today in the House I’d like to welcome Janet Smukowich from my

community. She is an active volunteer and dear friend. She’s somebody who

worked tirelessly on my campaign, on many campaigns, and is a strong member

of the B.C. Liberal Party with the Womens Network. I know she’s a dear

friend of many in the House today, so would the House please make her feel

welcome.

Tributes

TONY HUNT JR.

Hon. R. Fleming: I rise to mark the passing of a great person who we lost too soon

recently. Tony Hunt Jr. was a celebrated artist, dancer, family man and

long-time contributor to our community here in greater

Victoria.

Tony Hunt Jr. was part of a long line of First Nations carvers on

Vancouver Island, including his grandfather, Henry Hunt, and his

great-grandfather, Mungo Martin. Tony’s father, Tony Hunt Sr., and his

uncles Richard Hunt and Stan Hunt are also accomplished

artists.

Tony was renowned for his unique take on the traditional

Kwakwaka’wakw style. His carvings have been showcased at the Royal B.C.

Museum and the Burke Museum in Seattle and can be found in museums

around the world.

Tony was also a great collaborator with the greater Victoria

school district on many, many projects. In 2015, he donated four months

to carving a totem pole to mark the 100th anniversary of École Quadra

Elementary, in my constituency in Victoria. He also took the time to set

up a carving tent where he shared his knowledge and the story behind the

totem with students.

Tony is remembered by the local community as a kind, quiet and

deeply spiritual man. He will be missed. He was honoured at a memorial

at Mungo Martin House at the Royal B.C. Museum — fittingly, the house

built and named after his great-grandfather.

I would ask that members join me in offering our condolences to

the family of Tony Hunt Jr.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BUSINESS AWARD RECIPIENTS

IN NORTH

VANCOUVER

J. Thornthwaite: Next Thursday, November 9, will mark the North Vancouver chamber’s

20th Annual Business Excellence Awards gala. This sold-out event

recognizes and celebrates the outstanding achievements of the members of

the local North Vancouver business community and is the chamber’s most

popular event of the year.

Plus, Capilano University students from the Nat and Flora Bosa

Centre for Film and Animation are connected with the finalists and do

Academy Award–style videos on each finalist, which are also judged by

film experts.

[10:10 a.m.]

I would like to give recognition to this year’s 2017 award

finalists: for community contribution, North Shore Crisis Services

Society, Seymour Salmonid Society, Vancouver Adaptive Snow Sports; for

innovation, Burrard Pharmaceuticals Enterprises, Novarc Technologies and

Yocale; for service excellence, Leah’s Automotive, Tour de Feast

restaurant and Zazou Salon and Academy; for young entrepreneur, Eric

Savics and Danny Hagge, Miranda Widgery-Webber and Shae de Jaray; for

business person of the year, Bryce Eyton, Ross Forman and Dr. Shehla

Ebrahim; for business of the year, ePACT Network, Sartori Environmental

Services and Sprucehill Contracting.

I would like the House to please join me in congratulating all of

these award finalists, as well as the North Vancouver Chamber as they

celebrate 20 years of business excellence in North Vancouver. I look

forward to congratulating with you next Thursday.

COMMUNITY LIVING

M. Elmore: October is Community Living Month in British Columbia. It’s a time

to recognize and celebrate the contributions and potential of people

with developmental disabilities in our communities. It’s also a time to

acknowledge and thank the people, support workers and organizations

across our province working to build communities that include people of

all abilities to live lives of dignity, respect and

opportunity.

Community inclusion is about supporting people of all abilities to

live more independent, inclusive lives. It’s about being included where

you live, go to school, work and play. And building inclusive

communities is good for all of us. When we remove the barriers, everyone

feels welcome.

Our government is committed to building a better B.C. for people

of all abilities. Since forming government, we’ve acted quickly to

improve supports for people on disability assistance. We’ve increased

rates by $100 a month and launched a new transportation supplement to

address long-standing concerns from the disability community. We also

increased earning exemptions so that people can keep more of the money

they earn.

These are just the first steps. Soon we will begin to work on a

poverty reduction strategy consultation that will include voices from

across British Columbia on how we can continue to make life better for

people in our province.

Building community inclusion can be done in so many ways, and it’s

important to recognize those who are making a difference. Each year at

this time, Community Living B.C. launches the annual Widening Our World

or WOW! awards to recognize British Columbians who are leading the way,

people working to create a province that we’re all proud to call home. I

encourage everyone to visit the CLBC website before November 30 to

nominate people they know who are working to create inclusive

communities where everyone is welcoming.

During Community Living Month, all British Columbians have the

opportunity to celebrate diverse abilities and to think about how each

of us can make our communities more welcoming for people of all

abilities. We all have a role to play in ensuring people with

disabilities can fully participate in society, and I encourage everyone

to think about what they can do to make their communities more inclusive

and welcoming for people of all abilities.

STEELHEAD PROJECT

IN FRASER-NICOLA

AREA

J. Tegart: I rise in this House today to speak about a project that has

recently been completed in my riding of Fraser-Nicola. I have the honour

to serve as the co-chair of the B.C. Liberal steelhead caucus. We have

built relationships with many volunteer organizations that focus on the

sustainability of this iconic fish.

Steelhead populations are suffering for various reasons, including

increasing ocean temperatures, habitat debilitation on land and

unselective salmon fishing practices. In 2014, a rockslide put a huge

rock and some pieces of a failed bridge foundation into the Coquihalla

River near Hope. This blocked the migration of steelhead in the

river.

In partnership with a coalition of B.C. organizations, including

the Wildlife Federation, the Federation of Drift Fishers, Steelhead

Society and fly fishers and the province of B.C., we identified the

importance of removing this blockage to assist in the spawning of the

steelhead. Funding for the project was provided by the Habitat

Conservation Trust Foundation, the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C.,

the Steelhead Society, Kingfishers Rod and Gun Club, and the province of

B.C.

[10:15 a.m.]

In September of this year, the rock-blasting charge whittled down

the blockage into smaller pieces. High water flows of the fall and

winter will force those smaller pieces out of the way. To quote

spokesperson Shaun Hollingsworth: “Now the steelhead are going to be

able to get upstream to the spawning areas of the river. It will also

provide angling and fishing opportunities for recreational fishermen.

This is great for the economy in Hope and for B.C. as a

whole.”

I’d like to acknowledge the work of Shaun Hollingsworth in

coordinating and overseeing this project. We look forward to improved

counts of steelhead returning to the river. That is what it’s all

about.

BREAST CANCER AWARENESS

A. Kang: October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. October 31 is not just

Halloween and ghosts, and monsters aren’t the only things that haunt us.

Today also marks the end of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which raises

awareness of what truly haunts us — breast cancer. It has taken the

lives of many Canadians as the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in

Canadian women, after lung cancer.

In 2016, breast cancer was the most common cancer diagnosed in

Canadian women. One in four cancers diagnosed in women in Canada were

breast cancer. The risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer also

increases with age. In 2016, it was estimated that 83 percent of new

breast cancer cases would occur in Canadian women over the age of 50,

compared to 17 percent under the age of 50.

As the population of B.C. continues to age, we must make sure we

can take care of British Columbians by encouraging them to get their

routine screenings. The earlier we can detect breast cancers, the

earlier we can take action and save lives. Although male breast cancer

is rare, we should not overlook it as we continue our battle against

breast cancer.

I applaud the breast cancer charities for leading this battle, as

they continue to raise breast cancer awareness as well as funds for

research into the cause, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure.

Their efforts have prevented breast cancer from taking the lives of many

Canadian women.

Breast cancer deaths have decreased 44 percent since their peak in

1987. Early detection, regular mammography screening, advances in

screening technology and improved treatments all have played an

important role in reducing breast cancer deaths. But there is still much

work to be done.

On the last day of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, in addition to

raising breast cancer awareness, I strongly encourage British Columbians

to take action against breast cancer and get their mammography screening

today.

RAE FAWCETT BREAST HEALTH CLINIC

KAMLOOPS

T. Stone: Today and also as part of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I am

proud to acknowledge the recent opening of the Rae Fawcett Breast Health

Clinic, a clinic giving the Kamloops region access to centralized

outpatient services, greatly reducing wait times for breast cancer

diagnosis.

Before the clinic’s recent opening, patients in and near Kamloops

had a much longer and sometimes frustrating path to receiving the

life-changing news of a diagnosis, and such a diagnosis would often

require multiple appointments and follow-up consultations.

Thanks to the opening of the Rae Fawcett Breast Health Clinic,

Kamloops now has a new, integrated system that will give patients access

to a single-visit triple assessment comprised of a clinical examination,

diagnostic imaging and breast cancer diagnosis in one trip. This

integrated and coordinated pathway at this state-of-the-art new clinic

will speed up the time for everything from testing to surgical

referral.

All of this would not have been possible without longtime Kamloops

philanthropists Rae and Ron Fawcett. The Fawcetts have been incredibly

generous in stepping up to support many worthwhile community

initiatives, from arts programs to our hospital to our university. Their

$1 million contribution to the Royal Inland Hospital Foundation helped

create both the Rae Fawcett Breast Health Clinic and the Rae Fawcett

Simulation Centre.

This generous gift will have a lasting and major impact on patient

care in Kamloops and the surrounding areas, as it not only helps to

improve breast health outcomes but also provides valuable training

opportunities for health professionals.

I ask all members of the House to join me in applauding Ron and

Rae Fawcett, as well as the hard work of the Royal Inland Hospital

Foundation, for making this breast health clinic a reality for the

people of Kamloops and the surrounding area.

[10:20 a.m.]

WILD ARC

M. Dean: A small and shy songbird made it into the history books in my

constituency last month. A rescued Swainson’s thrush was the 40,000th

wild patient treated at the Wild Animal Rehabilitation Centre, Wild ARC,

in Metchosin. The facility opened in 1997, and during their first year,

they helped just over 1,500 wild patients. Now celebrating their 20th

anniversary year, Wild ARC treats twice as many animals in

need.

This isn’t only because they’re better known and very well

established. It’s also because of increasing urbanization into wild

areas. Most of the animals that come for help come because of human

activity that has led to an animal being injured or orphaned, and then

they need the special care and treatment of the Wild ARC

team.

The team is amazing, with high professional credentials, a love

for animals and 250 volunteers who give over 25,000 hours of service a

year. They’re responsible for all of the care and transportation of the

animals, raising awareness about wild animals in need. They offer

education to children and the community — although, of course, Wild ARC

is not open to the public, to ensure all the patients can recover in a

stress-free environment. In most successful cases, the healed patient is

released back into the wild.

The facility plays a critical role in wildlife welfare and

education for the entire community, says Dr. Sara Dubois, the chief

scientific officer, and is a model facility for training and innovation

in the professional field of wildlife rehabilitation.

I wish to say congratulations to everyone involved for all of

their work over the past 20 years, and may we all please wish them the

best for the next decades.

Oral Questions

MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

I. Paton: Nearly two months ago the minister announced what she called a

technical review of the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. Yet at

the same time, she went to great pains to tell British Columbians:

“We’re not going back to square one.”

Well, it seems that someone forgot to tell the Finance Minister.

You see, in estimates last week, she made it clear. The budget for the

replacement has been completely been removed. And the millions spent so

far, including $66 million by the province and $25 million by B.C.

Hydro…. According to the Finance Minister, this money is “a write-off.”

So it is back to square one.

The traffic, my goodness, the traffic…. Now that fall is upon us,

winter is upon us, darkness, rain and increased crashes, it’s becoming

worse and worse every day in this old George Massey Tunnel.

My question to the Minister of Transportation: are the commuters

who are stuck in B.C.’s worst bottleneck also a write-off, and if not,

can she give a specific date for construction of a replacement — any

sort of replacement?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m delighted to talk about a prudent approach to constructing our

infrastructure that we so desperately need in this province.

We acknowledge there is a problem on the Highway 99 corridor, and

we’re going to be addressing that. We want to get the right solution. We

want to make sure that we are looking at all the options as well as

engaging with the Lower Mainland elected officials, who were shut out by

last government.

We want to make sure we have a collaborative approach and that

when we’re investing the billions of dollars necessary to make that

crossing work, we are doing the right solution.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

I. Paton: That is quite a comment, that the public was shut out of the

engagement of replacing the tunnel. Two hundred and fifty meetings with

farmers, with residents, with stakeholders — that is being shut

out?

[10:25 a.m.]

Construction was supposed to be underway right now on the George

Massey Tunnel replacement. Years of planning has gone into this project.

Hundreds of meetings and rounds of consultations were held. There are

over 14,000 pages of documentation on the minister’s own website.

Despite all of this, the minister announced a technical review nearly

eight weeks ago.

To the Minister of Transportation, British Columbians have heard

and seen nothing over the last eight weeks. What is the status of her

sham review, when will the report be made public, and will she table the

terms of reference today?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is, of course, a serious issue. We know that we have a

problem with congestion on Highway 99. We want to get the right

solution. But many of the people who were consulted did not like the

approach that that government took, when the opposition was in

government. They did not like the approach. Even the former Minister of

Transportation acknowledged that they did not engage sufficiently with

people who represented the Lower Mainland when they were in

government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a second supplemental.

I. Paton: Again we’re told that the citizens, the stakeholders, were not

consulted and did not agree. There were five options put forward as the

best option to replace the George Massey Tunnel. Time and time again, a

new bridge over the existing Highway 99 corridor came up as the most

favourable and environmentally favourable option.

I will remind the minister that the George Massey Tunnel is once

again the worst bottleneck in this province, and 80,000 people a day are

stuck in traffic and rush hour in that tunnel. Trucks are still idling,

stuck idling, at a significant cost to our economy. Commuters are

missing medical appointments. Commuters are late for work every morning.

The people who deal with this every day deserve some clear answers on

when something will be done to fix the congestion.

To the minister: will you at least — at the very least, what we’re

looking for — table the terms of reference to this phantom review that

is taking place on the tunnel replacement?

Hon. C. Trevena: The member from Delta is angry, clearly upset, about what we have

or haven’t done in eight weeks. That side of the House had 16 years — 16

years in which they clearly got it wrong. I would ask the member from

Delta….

Interjections.

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

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d ask the member from Delta, if he feels so confident about

public buy-in, that he talk to his colleagues from Richmond and hear how

happy they are with the proposal for the ten-lane bridge.

Even, as I say, the former Minister of Transportation said earlier

this month that there was too much politics in the solution that that

side of the House found. “There was too much tension. Too much political

calculation. We need to stop telling local communities and regions what

is best for them and start engaging with them to improve the places

where we live, work and play.” That is exactly what we are

doing.

J. Sturdy: Well, we certainly do understand that the Minister of

Transportation is fond of engaging in reviews and is excelling in

avoiding answering basic questions. So far, she has refused to give a

timeline or specific date when she will bring in the rules for ride

sourcing, despite breaking that spring promise to introduce the rules

this year. Now she refuses to give a date on when she will do anything

about the congestion at the Massey Tunnel.

The minister wants us to believe that despite what the Minister of

Finance has said, she hasn’t written off commuters stuck in Massey

Tunnel gridlock.

The question to the minister is very simple. To repeat it, when

will she introduce to the House the terms of reference for the study

that she announced two months ago?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We keep hearing the opposition talking about writing things off

and the loss of revenue. We have made an investment. We accept there’s

been an investment made in land bought and in preload delivered. There

is investment there. We know that this is going to be an expensive

project. That side of the House had it at $3.6 billion, and we know how

cost-effective they’ve been. We would have seen it ratchet up and

ratchet up and ratchet up.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: We are going to be doing a review, a technical review. We are

engaging with the mayors, and we will be talking about this in our own

time, when it is appropriate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Sturdy: Well, I’d like to say the minister’s answers were unconvincing,

but they weren’t even answers here. I’m not sure she’s really listening

to the question.

The question was: when will the minister provide to the House the

terms of reference for this review? In fact, will she commit to tabling

that terms of review today?

Hon. C. Trevena: I do find it very amusing that after 16 years, that side of the

House expects us to have all the solutions in eight weeks.

We are going to be consulting with communities, which that side of

the House didn’t do, ensuring that we get full engagement and making

sure that we do a thorough technical review. But there has been huge

criticism about the approach of that side of the House when they were

government for 16 years. I quote again…. I asked the member for Richmond

to stand up and to ask a few questions.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, if you may take your seat for a moment. It’s not clear

to me that there’s an interest in hearing your answer, because your

voice….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you are…. I’m sorry, but you’re completely drowning out

the response. Perhaps we could try this again.

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

They also did not want to listen to the elected officials. I would

suggest that the members from Richmond join in this debate, because

their own mayor said, when we decided that we were going to consult: “We

have been trying to constructively comment on this proposal from the

first day it was announced. We have been disregarded and ignored in the

questions that we have asked. It’s absolutely critical to the future of

our city that there be a re-examination of the project. It’s so

important in many different ways.”

We are going to be re-examining it. We are going to be bringing

the terms of reference to this House when they are ready. And here we

move it.

SITE C POWER PROJECT REVIEW

AND ALTERNATIVE

ENERGY

S. Furstenau: Here we go. In 1983, BCUC recommended against building Site C and

directed B.C. Hydro to increase research into alternative energy,

including geothermal. Fast forward 30 years, and this work has not been

done. The joint review panel that looked at Site C in 2014 once again

identified a lack of research and action on exploring other alternatives

as a major gap in B.C. Hydro’s planning.

Consider Tumbler Ridge, where B.C.’s largest wind project just

started operations. Private investors are lining up to invest in wind

energy in Tumbler Ridge, where capacity for potential energy production

is 70 percent of what Site C could produce. The biggest impediment to

investment in alternative energy has been B.C. Hydro’s singular focus on

mid-20th century technology of mega-dams.

[10:35 a.m.]

To the Minister of Energy and Mines: what is your government going

to do to ensure that clean energy projects move forward in B.C., instead

of taking their investment dollars and jobs in local communities

elsewhere, as many have been for several years?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for the substantive question.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mungall: I see that a substantive question has upset members of the

official opposition.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member from the Green caucus for patiently

waiting for an answer after all of that.

Anyhow, as we know, currently Site C has been before the B.C.

Utilities Commission. They are doing an expert independent review, a

review that should have always been done. Unfortunately, it was not

conducted under the B.C. Liberal government. That was the wrong

decision, so we’ve righted that wrong decision. We’ve got that review,

and the report is going to be coming out tomorrow.

In that report, the B.C. Utilities Commission looked at

alternative energy sources to Site C, and they will be including that

analysis in their report. They’re going to be looking at what would be

in the best interests of ratepayers and the best interests of British

Columbians. I’m not going to prejudge that report, and I’m not going to

prejudge the decisions around that.

The member will note that in my mandate letter, I’ve been directed

to build the road map to renewable energies for British Columbia. I take

that very seriously. I also am very excited about that opportunity.

We’re going to be working with Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities

and all members from this House on that road map. I think it’s very

exciting. It’s a real opportunity for British Columbia — all of us here

in British Columbia — to become a real powerhouse for western Canada and

the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental.

B.C. HYDRO MANDATE

S. Furstenau: I’m really pleased that the minister raised her mandate letter,

because this is a very important piece of where we need to move

forward.

B.C. Hydro does need an updated mandate. What I’d like to ask for

are more specifics on exactly how that mandate is going to be adapted so

that we are moving into a 21st-century energy landscape in B.C. rather

than stuck back in the 20th century.

Hon. M. Mungall: As the member will know as well, this government is going to be

conducting a review of B.C. Hydro so that we can look at its mandate. I

mean, I think we can all acknowledge that the previous government

utterly mismanaged B.C. Hydro, leaving this government with quite the

mess to clean up.

That’s why we’re conducting a review, so that we can identify all

the things that need to take place so that we can move this province

into the 21st century in terms of energy production.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mungall: As I said, the dream of making B.C. an energy powerhouse…. A

renewable energy powerhouse, not just for western Canada but for the

Pacific Northwest and as far as we can go around the world — that is the

dream. It is attainable, and I look forward to working with every member

of this House to do that.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

ON LABOUR

CONTRACTS

M. Lee: Last week, the government announced a major new policy with

significant implications for the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure. Speaking to organized labour, the Premier announced that

this government would impose new rules and that contracts would be

“subject to best bids.”

[10:40 a.m.]

Yesterday in estimates, the Minister of Transportation defined

this as “investing in the tangential future of this province.” The

minister was not able to say what the cost implications are for the

billions of dollars at stake in contracts to build roads and other

critically and, as she just mentioned, desperately needed infrastructure

for this province. But she was very clear that she would be consulting

with the Premier’s office.

This minister has had some time now to consult the Premier’s

office. Can she tell this House what this new tangential commitment will

cost taxpayers?

Hon. J. Horgan: I want to say to the new member of this House: he can consult with

the Premier’s office anytime he wants, as can all members of this House.

If they want to know where we’re going, we’re happy to tell

you.

You will know that during the election campaign, I spoke about

ensuring that when we make capital investments….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m sorry. Has the member from Langley got something to say?

Perhaps, at some distant time in the future, that member might be on

this side of the House again, but for now I’ll focus on answering the

question.

I believe that all British Columbians would love to hear an answer

to this question. The reason we’re moving to best bids or community

benefits agreements is so that we can ensure that the next generation of

workers get the skills training they need to replace the decrepit old

people like those on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: Well, I’m very happy that the members of the House have heard the

answer from the Premier. British Columbians will be happy to hear that

you’ll be defining what a “best bid” is, unlike what the Minister of

Transportation was unable to do yesterday in estimates.

This minister recently cancelled the George Massey Tunnel

replacement project — a project that, documents show, came in $900

million under the estimated cost. We find it troubling that on one hand,

the minister cancels a project that’s good for taxpayers and, on the

other, extols the virtues of a practice — as the Premier has just done —

that in the 1990s led to cost overruns and project delays. She owes it

to taxpayers and the thousands of British Columbians stuck in

gridlock….

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Member.

M. Lee: I was here in the ’90s when the Island Highway was built and those

cost overruns were done. The scope of that Island Highway changed in the

context of that build. But let me just say that that led to cost

overruns and project delays. She owes it to taxpayers to explain how

this new policy will affect all the other projects in this province,

including the George Massey Tunnel and Highway 1.

My question to the minister is this: can she tell us the

implications of this policy on the George Massey replacement, Pattullo,

Surrey LRT and the Broadway extension, and what increase in costs and

delays will this new policy cause?

Hon. J. Horgan: Only a B.C. Liberal would stand up and say our estimate was under

budget, because they haven’t done anything else under budget after 16

years. I wonder if the member can help us out with the Vancouver

Convention Centre.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: The Vancouver Convention Centre, $325 million over

budget…

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: …and some years beyond due date.

The replacement for the roof on B.C. Place we were going to do…. I

think the Mexicans were going to pay for it when they proposed it the

first time, à la Trump, but it cost us $149 million more than

budget.

And I can’t forget my member from Langley. When he oversaw the

northwest transmission line, it was only $342 million over

budget.

[10:45 a.m.]

To the point of the member’s question — and, I think, the thing

that the public wants to hear about: when we spend public money, we

should get a public benefit. That means local-hire provisions. Small

businesses in Kamloops and small businesses in Merritt get an

opportunity to grow their businesses, because public dollars are being

invested. Most importantly, if you have local-hire provisions, you can

make sure that you’re hiring more women, hiring more Indigenous people

and ensuring that there are apprenticeship ratios so that projects can

create the next generation of B.C. workers.

J. Martin: If history reminds us of anything, it’s that NDP policies have a

profound negative impact on the economy of British Columbia.

A moment ago the government was patting themselves on the back for

the Island Highway. Well, let’s talk about the Island Highway.

Skyrocketing labour costs. The NDP had to scale back the project

considerably. Traffic signals replaced interchanges. Two lanes replaced

four lanes. And to top it off, it was two whole years late. Well,

history repeats itself. We see, right now, the NDP — the Minister of

Transportation and the Premier, in particular — praising the values of

fixed-wage contracts.

To the Minister of Transportation, can she please tell the House

that she plans on replacing current MOTI project-tendering practices

with the Premier’s favourite fixed-wage contract practice — yes or

no?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m grateful that the member is taking us back to the 1990s here,

after eight weeks of government in 2017.

I think there were a couple of members that were in opposition

back in those days. They seem comfortable to be back there again. They

can, at their pleasure, raise issues in this Legislature. But the people

of British Columbia, whose tax dollars we’re talking about, want to make

sure they get more than a bridge or a school or a roof on a stadium.

They want to make sure that local people are getting access to jobs and

that small businesses can grow and offer opportunities for

procurement.

Critically important — again, the aging people on that side of the

House…. We need to train the next generation of workers. Wherever I go….

If the leadership candidates are honest with themselves, they’re

hearing, as well, that businesses need skilled workers. We’re going to

train them.

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

J. Martin: I must say: my congratulations to the Premier for having the

courage to use the words “’90s” and “people of British Columbia” in the

same sentence. As I recall, the people of British Columbia had something

very, very significant to say about the ’90s. They threw them out in the

single biggest electoral slaughter in British Columbia’s history, 77 to

two.

As I mentioned a moment ago, history repeats itself. Remember

that. Fast ferries. Bingogate. Bingo. Fixed-wage contracts. Well, here

we are. Now we’re back, fixed-wage contracts once again. They directly

escalated the cost of that Island Highway project and added $72 million

in additional costs to the project that were totally

unnecessary.

To the Minister of Transportation, is this the government skirting

the incoming campaign finance laws; is this the government’s trick to

reward their union supporters from the last election, giving them the

treat of taxpayers’ money?

Hon. J. Horgan: It is a little bit rich to hear the B.C. Liberals even mention

Vancouver Island in this House.

[10:50 a.m.]

If they had even a modicum of understanding of British Columbia

and Vancouver Island, they would know that the people that were trained

on the Vancouver Island Highway have been building British Columbia. Go

to Langford. Go to Sooke. Go to Parksville. The people that are building

the communities of British Columbia on Vancouver Island learned how to

do it on the project, the Island Highway project agreement. That’s what

the new tenders are all about.

Now, I appreciate the shortsighted view of those on the other side

of the House. I appreciate that they like to go back to the 1990s, in

some whimsical way. The people on this side of the House are from the

21st century. The people on this side of the House want to build B.C.

tomorrow for the next generation, not harp about the last

one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we could move towards the question.

WILDFIRES AND REIMBURSEMENTS

TO EMERGENCY

VENDORS

D. Barnett: Yesterday the Minister of Public Safety made it clear in the House

that government is unable to pay its bills. If you were to follow his

logic, the best way for British Columbians to get reimbursed is to

contact their local B.C. Liberal MLA and complain. Members on this side

will take no lessons whatsoever from that minister on how to connect

with constituents and support them when they are having

difficulties.

The minister complains that there are thousands of invoices. That

may be the case, but the minister has an obligation as a minister of the

Crown to ensure British Columbians affected by the wildfires are taken

care of.

My question is to the minister: does he have any way to prioritize

which bills get paid, other than files singled out by opposition

MLAs?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank the member for that question, and I want to thank

her for making my day. I’d like to let….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we could please hear the response.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

You know, that member does work very hard, and it would be nice if

her colleagues had enough respect to let me answer her question. What I

would like to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

What I’d like to tell the hon. member….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Member, I can see it’s going to take at least four years to

learn to do the level of outrage that I was able to do when I was on

that side of the House.

If I may get to the point, which is that as of October 16, all

outstanding invoices have been paid with the exception of a few where

additional information is required. Some $462.9 million has been paid

out so far this season. So the invoices are being paid, and they’re

being paid, in the majority of cases, 80 percent, within 30

days.

Again I would also say to the member that if there are issues, do

bring them forward. We will resolve them, in the same way as yesterday

when the member for Prince George–Mackenzie contacted my office with an

issue concerning a constituent. We got back to them right away. We were

able to resolve the issue.

[10:55 a.m.]

The problem, I keep saying to the member, is that when she says,

“We will bring you the names of the individuals who are having

problems,” and fails to do so, we cannot do that. Yesterday again she

said to me that she had scores of complaints that she was going to bring

to my office Well, again, as of ten o’clock today, I had still not

received anything.

Our ministry is working extremely hard to ensure that contractors

are paid and paid as quickly as possible. The record in the ministry

shows that’s taking place, and it will continue to take place. But what

it requires is members to let us know when there is a problem, and we’ll

work as hard as we can to resolve it. We have wonderful staff who’ve

been working the entire season to do just that and will continue to do

just that.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call continued estimates on the Ministry of

Transportation. In Committee A, I call continued estimates on the Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

[11:00 a.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION

AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:01 a.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $843,545,000

(continued) .

Hon. C. Trevena: Before we start, I’d like to introduce staff because we have some

new contingent here. I have again my deputy, Grant Main; assistant

deputy, Nancy Bain; assistant deputy, Kevin Richter,for highways;

assistant deputy, Patrick Livolsi, for infrastructure; and assistant

deputy, Deborah Bowman, for policy. With that, I look forward to a

healthy hour of discussion.

J. Sturdy: We might as well dive right into it. Has the preliminary design

tender gone out yet on the

section of Highway 1 from Hoffman’s Bluff to

Chase Creek Road?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: There are a few phases for this

section of road that are going be

done. There is one

section that is about ready to go to tender. But for

the

section that the member asked about, there are still discussions

with First Nations, with Neskonlith First Nations. On the

section that

the member asked about, there is still that discussion.

We’ve got the concept paper. We’re working very closely,

obviously, with the First Nations on making sure that we get everything

right. There is one

section of that highway that’s ready to go, but it

is a three-phase approach. So if the member wants to break down the

various segments, I’m happy to talk through the various segments with

him.

J. Sturdy: Perhaps, then, I’ll ask the minister to break those down and tell

us where they are on each of those three segments.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very happy to talk about the Trans-Canada and how we’re going

to be accelerating a project that has already started. It’s started in

many iterations, and it’s had different names. So to ensure that we get

this one moving….

This piece of the four-laning has three sections, as I mentioned

to the member. The first segment is pretty well ready for tender. It’s

due to go out for tender shortly. The intention is to get it out this

fall, but that is somewhat linked to a second

section just to the east

of the first section.

On that section, which is Chase West to Jade Mountain, there is an

engineering consultant doing detailed engineering at the moment, but

there are also discussions with the community still. Staff have a

meeting with the mayor and staff from the village of Chase, I believe,

later this week. There’s going to be an open house in the community

towards the end of November to have further discussions.

This came up, I think, during question period earlier on in the

session, about whether or not we were going to go ahead with it. But it

was a fact that the community actually wanted further input and

discussions about the design and just where the interchange is going to

be. That’s what ministry staff are talking to the village about. That’s

what the open house is going to be about, and that’s what the

engineering work is looking at. So that would be the second stage of it,

which is just east of the first stage, which, as I say, is ready to go

to tender.

Then, on the west side, is the

section which isn’t due to be

complete for about another four or five years. That is where we’re still

having discussions with Neskonlith First Nation about how it’s going to

work.

As I say, it’s quite complex. It is 11.9 kilometres, so it’s quite

a length of section. It is going to include the four-laning. It will

impact the village with different interchanges and frontage roads. It’s

obviously going to bring in better pedestrian use and better

connectivity, we hope, for the community. Obviously, we’re looking at it

from a safety level, to make sure that we are bringing in safety along

the whole of the Trans-Canada corridor, which is why we’re working on

and will be accelerating the four-laning of the Trans-Canada.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. The way we have it broken down, and

perhaps just to provide clarity to the constituents…. For the first

section of Hoffman’s Bluff to Chase Creek Road, what I’m hearing is that

the design has gone to tender or it will shortly be going to

tender.

The question, I guess, would be…. I see the minister shaking her

head. We were all over the place there. So let’s talk about Hoffman’s

Bluff to Chase Creek Road. Has that

section gone out for design yet, and

if it hasn’t, when will it?

Hon. C. Trevena: No, that hasn’t gone out yet. That’s because there are still

discussions with Neskonlith First Nation. We don’t want to, obviously,

work without having full agreement, and we’re working well with

them.

J. Sturdy: Do we have a timeline on that section, then, in your discussion

with First Nations — in the minister’s discussion?

Hon. C. Trevena: Because it’s the last section…. It’s quite complex — making sure

that we have everybody on board, including ensuring that we’re meeting

the needs of the village. This is a real concern. This is the last

section, so we’re not expecting it to be completed until 2022. That’s

the end date of it, so it does give us some space to work and make sure

we get everybody on board.

J. Sturdy: I apologize. I’m not intimate with all of the geographies. So in

terms of the first section, I take it that that’s…. Is that west Chase

to Jade Mountain? If so, this was a tender that was ready last spring.

Is it out?

Hon. C. Trevena: That’s the second stage. There’s the first stage, which is a very

small piece in the middle. That was the one that was delayed because the

village wanted to have more consultation.

[11:15 a.m.]

They were concerned about just where the interchanges are going to

be. That consultation has been ongoing with ministry staff and is

continuing even into this week. There will still be meetings with

ministry staff, the mayor and the village. There will be an open house

to look at the alternatives later on in November. Mid-to-late November,

there will be an open house so the community can look at the

possibilities.

T. Stone: I want to congratulate the minister for having what I always said

was the best job in government, being the Minister of Transportation. I

do appreciate a few questions that my colleague asked about critical

sections of the Trans-Canada Highway, which are actually in my riding. I

thought that I would just ask a couple of quick questions.

I know that the minister and I have had a few exchanges about the

three sections of what is one project. Obviously, I’m intimately

familiar, having done a lot of the preliminary work, securing federal

funding and working with staff to ensure the appropriate engagement with

the village of Chase and local First Nations.

If I recall, this project is being broken into three phases. I

think the minister correctly indicated a moment ago that the first

section that will be done is actually the middle section. That’s the

section that’s ready to go to tender. I’m hopeful that that tender will

go out soon. I do understand that there are some implications relating

to where the final design lands for the second section, which is

actually the most eastern section, because that most directly relates to

access in and out of the village of Chase. I do understand that it’s

ideal to land on that design for that second

section in order to feel

really good about pushing a tender out for the middle section. Perhaps

the minister could confirm that that is indeed still the

case.

Secondly, I do know that in discussions with the village of Chase,

the concerns that they have expressed have always related to access,

ensuring that…. I’ve heard the minister speak about this before in the

context of projects in other parts of the province. When we do highways

projects, we always want to ensure that access is not compromised, that

in fact, the highways projects facilitate better access.

The village of Chase is like so many communities around the

province. They want people to stop in their community. They don’t want a

major multi-million-dollar highways project to actually make it easier

for people to just whiz on by. Originally, the design provided for an

interchange at Coburn. Based on feedback from the village of Chase, they

felt that that might have huge implications on municipal infrastructure

into the village of Chase at that location. Therefore, they suggested

moving that interchange to Brooke. I guess my second question would be:

is it still the ministry’s intention to proceed with Brooke versus

Coburn?

The third part of my question would be, based on the additional

feedback that the ministry is seeking from the village and, indeed, from

the people who live in the village of Chase — and we do appreciate this

additional public opportunity to offer public feedback — is the ministry

open to moving the interchange back to Brooke, if that’s what the

public…? If the public overwhelmingly suggests in their feedback to the

ministry that they would rather the interchange be at Coburn versus

Brooke, is the ministry willing to entertain that or have a

discussion?

I guess the fourth piece would be emergency access. It was one of

the key considerations. If the ministry is not willing to consider

moving the interchange back to Coburn, would the ministry consider

implementing some kind of limited access for emergency vehicles only, to

be able to come out where the ambulances and paramedics are based, for

example, which is closer to Coburn Road? To be able to perhaps…. Maybe

there’s a locked gate there that could be opened and the emergency

vehicles could access the highway, either heading east or west, to more

quickly respond to incidents that may have taken place at some point

nearby on the highway itself.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to just add another introduction. I have here, again

assisting, Mike Lorimer, the regional director for the southern Interior

region. I did get his title wrong yesterday, so I apologize to Mike. But

I’m sure the member knows him very well. He’s yet another extraordinary

public servant working for our highways system, and he knows the area

very well.

To the member, yes, he does have the sequence right. Actually,

looking at the segments on the map, it’s segment 2, segment 3, segment

1. So we’re going from the middle out east and then back to the west as

we work through it.

The ministry isn’t fixed on whether it should be Coburn or Brooke.

Willing to entertain either. This is one of the reasons that we’re

continuing to engage with the village to have these discussions,

definitely having these public meetings, because we’re serious about

public input.

As the member knows, having the best ministry that there is to

possibly have, the ministry staff don’t take this lightly. They are

doing public consultation seriously. So when they’re engaging with a

village, this is serious.

On the question of emergency access, yes, obviously emergency

access will be a priority. Safety is always a concern when we’re

designing roads, as the member well knows. So safety and emergency

access will be built in to this.

T. Stone: I have one final, two-part question. I’m wondering if the minister

could advise whether or not the federal funding which is associated with

the Chase Creek to Jade Mountain section, the

section that actually

really deals with the access issues in and out of the village of Chase….

I’m wondering if moving the interchange from Coburn to Brooke or Brooke

to Coburn impacts, in any way, the federal contribution that is

associated with this particular segment.

I’m assuming that there is some flexibility built in to the design

that we’ve put forward with the federal government, which I believe was

originally based on a Coburn interchange and subsequently redesigned for

a Brooke interchange.

[11:25 a.m.]

Would there be any further delays — I guess that is really my

question — that the minister would anticipate relating to the federal

cost-share component if, indeed, the wish of the village is to move the

interchange back to Coburn? That would be question 1.

The second and final question…. Again, I do appreciate the great

work that the minister’s team does, particularly in the Kamloops area.

On the third segment, which is the westernmost segment which runs

entirely through the Neskonlith reserve, I’m fully aware of the

section

55 process and the additional time required to not just engage and

consult with the Neskonlith but, indeed, to properly facilitate

appropriate accommodation for the band itself and also for the

individual members of the band, the locatees.

Could the minister provide some insight as to how things are

progressing with the Neskonlith and the discussions with those locatees?

There’s quite a number of locatees. I was very proud of the fact that

overall, the relationship with the Neskonlith has, for quite a number of

years, been dramatically improving. That engagement has been getting

better and better. I would expect that would be continuing to be the

case today.

But could the minister speak to how things are going in their

discussions with the Neskonlith and the locatees and if she’s

anticipating that 2022 date for that final segment, if she’s thinking

that that date could be in jeopardy somewhat? Are there any anticipated

delays as a result of the extensive engagement and consultation work

that’s still required with the locatees in that final

segment?

Hon. C. Trevena: We don’t anticipate any problem from the federal government. If

there’s a change, it’s like for like. We’re hoping that they’re going to

just accept that it can just continue. That’s our

anticipation.

[11:30 a.m.]

As far as how things are going with the Neskonlith, they’re going

well. It obviously takes…. We’ve been engaged with them, as the member

well knows, for a couple of years now, working on this. And we’re

working with them on a land use plan, so assisting on a land use plan

and providing some funding for the community.

Where there is active engagement, there are scheduled biweekly

meetings with the Neskonlith, and there are other non-scheduled meetings

that come up. So we’re meeting very regularly throughout — literally

every month. We meet very regularly with them. So there is no

anticipation at this moment that there would be any delay in the 2022

completion of the project. We’re hoping that it will happen, and as I

say, our government is committed to accelerating where we can the

four-laning. We want to make sure that we are working as well as

possible to get this done on time.

The Chair: Member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

D. Clovechok: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Glad to be back.

I just want to follow up from yesterday, if I might, the question

around Radium Hot Springs. I was grateful that the engineering study is

on its way, but you did mention yesterday that it won’t be until next

summer. So the point of clarification that I’d like to have is: is the

report going to be completed by next summer, or will it start next

summer?

Hon. C. Trevena: It will be completed by next summer.

D. Clovechok: That’s the answer I was hopeful for, so thank you for

that.

One last question just on that. Will this study — I’m just

confirming this, because I’m assuming this is true — look at all

possible options, including potential roundabouts, lights? Whatever that

application solution would look like, is it going to take all of that

into account?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, we’re going to be looking at all the different options there,

whether it’s lights, roundabouts. There’s obviously the question of

impact to property and to businesses on that corner. It’s quite busy, as

the member is well aware.

Engineering staff will be looking at how best to make things work

— you’ve got the grade as you’re coming from the north that goes uphill

— and how things such as lights would work on that

section of the

highway. But it’s the engineers who will come up with the different

options for the community.

In the meantime, the flaggers who are working there at busy times

will continue to be working to ensure that the traffic does move as

smoothly as possible until we can find a solution that works well with

the community.

D. Clovechok: Thank you, Minister, for that. That’s exciting. We appreciate

it.

I just have a couple more questions for you. One is more of a

local issue. One is around Fairmont Hot Springs. You would have

travelled through Fairmont on your way there. Tiny little community —

300 or 400 people. It’s not too far from where I live.

In the summertime, it gets incredibly busy there, and the speed

limits are reduced to 80 kilometres. It’s a class A highway, so you

can’t really reduce it any lower than that. But we have had several

meetings with your ministry. Four engineers from Kamloops came out and

your regional manager. I really want to commend them on the work that

they did, because it was really helpful.

[11:35 a.m.]

I just want to ask the minister…. We met with their engineers and

the regional district of East Kootenay and Wendy Booth — she was here

yesterday — and the Fairmont Business Association and the Fairmont Hot

Springs Resort.

What we want to know is…. There was a commitment made to find some

applications and solutions to reduce the speed. There’s congestion there

all summer — 30,000 extra people on the roads, with their rafts and

everything like that. It’s absolutely amazing that there hasn’t been a

death. We would like to know where that is and how we are going to

long-term reduce that speed limit — whether it’s signs that flash and

all that fun stuff. But it’s very serious. So I’m just looking for a

solution on that.

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, thank you. It’s a lovely community. You live near

there. It’s a very nice place to be based. But I can understand concern

about high volumes of traffic and speed, people’s frustrations — both

the community’s as well as those going through the community or those

coming to the community — and, again, the question of safety.

One of the things that we are doing is looking at signage through

the corridor to make sure that people are very well aware of the speed,

whether that be regular signing or, as the member says, the flashing

signs, which are very effective. People see it, and they do suddenly

slow down. They realize that they are going much faster than they had

thought they were going or at least should be going.

So that’s one of the things we’re going to be looking at. But, as

I said, I’ve got the regional director and the highways ADM with me.

They will be following up with staff who had the meeting to see just

what else we can be doing, what the staff felt came out of that meeting

and how else we can work to make sure that people can both travel

through safely and people who live there can feel comfortable and

safe.

D. Clovechok: Thank you very much for that. It’s certainly appreciated, because

it is a dangerous spot.

Let’s start talking about the Trans-Canada Highway. There you go.

That’s the most important one. The Kicking Horse Canyon — I know you’ve

travelled through there, and I do on a regular basis — is probably one

of the toughest stretches of highway anywhere in Canada in terms of what

needs to be done. There are four kilometres there. I think it was about,

if I recall, around $110 million per kilometre — one the toughest

stretches, as I mentioned, with a total cost of about $440 million just

to do that four kilometres.

One of the things I’ve liked so far, what I’ve heard, is that

you’re using action words, and those action words are “expedite” and

“accelerate.” Those are definitely action words. I’m an action guy, and

I like to hear that. My questions are going to be around those action

words.

[11:40 a.m.]

First, is that $440 million budgeted still in your budget for that

piece of highway? If so, I’d like to hear about that. Also, I think I’ve

just heard from a previous question that you are in discussions with the

federal government. Is the federal government still on track in terms of

their matching dollars associated with that $440 million?

Hon. C. Trevena: Chair, the reason we were huddling a bit longer is that staff had

just been notified that in Fairmont Hot Springs — I don’t know whether

the member has managed to get back over the last week or so — the

Ministry of Transportation has just put up signs warning people to slow

down to 60 when there are pedestrians on the highway. They’ve oversized

the actual speed-limit signs so that people cannot miss what the speed

limit is. I know that people still do ignore them. So there’ll be

continued discussions with the community about how to ensure that we can

reduce the speed.

Yes, the final piece of the Kicking Horse Canyon is going to be

continuing. It’s very impressive what has happened already. It’s an

extraordinary piece of engineering. And to look ahead about what is

going to be happening in the coming years is really extraordinary. It

is, as the member said, just the final 4.8 kilometres, and the

preliminary engineering is complete. We’re hoping that we get

construction started in a couple of years. The federal government is on

track for cost-sharing too.

It is still very much a part of our plans. That’s why we’re

looking at what the previous government did, how we can work with those

plans, as well as accelerating. As the member quite rightly says, we are

talking about accelerating and expediting the improvements to the

corridor. This one is very significant and will be

continuing.

D. Clovechok: Thank you, Minister. It’s great to hear about Fairmont. I haven’t

been home in two weeks.

Just to drill down a little bit on the timeline. You said it’s

maybe in a couple of years. To the minister: do you have any

understanding of a specific time when there might be some shovels in the

ground on this? Rather than generalities, can we kind of focus in more

on a specific time?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I apologize. I was thinking federal dollars, rather than specific

timelines, for your previous question. I’ll give you specific answers to

both. The project, as the member says, is $450 million. We’re getting

$215.2 million from the federal government, and $234.8 million of our

own money is going to be invested in this. It’s a significant investment

from both levels of government to make this happen.

At the moment, we’re expecting construction to begin in 2019, and

if all goes according to plan, we’re hoping that it will be completed by

2024. It seems a long time to do just under five kilometres — five years

— but it is a very challenging piece of highway. The member knows it

well, and I expect that every member in this House has driven

that.

It’s no longer really as white-knuckle as it was before the work

was done, but there are still sections that obviously really desperately

need improvement. It is our trade card. It’s our link with the rest of

Canada. We see trucks coming through there all the time, the heavy

traffic usage, and then in summer, you’ve got the combination of trucks

and tourists.

It really is a significant problem. It’s a significant issue.

There is a lot of investment, and we are committed to making sure that

it happens and that we can do that final easterly piece of the

link.

D. Clovechok: Minister, thank you for that. I’ve been getting a lot of questions

around the construction of the Kicking Horse section.

I would just ask what the tenure process is going to look like.

Obviously, there’s a great potential for jobs in my communities around

that. I would be very interested to hear what that’s going to look like.

I know that the Premier had spoken about not necessarily the lowest but

the best bid. I’m just wondering how that’s going to apply to that

process in getting those tenures out to people.

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member heard in question period and has heard before, our

commitment and the Premier’s commitment is to really building B.C. and

the best build is the way that we want to do it. It’s the best bid. The

best bid is a bid that will really build on everything, so not just the

infrastructure that we so much need — I’d say this is a classic piece of

infrastructure — but how we’re going to be ensuring that we are training

people, that we are really making the apprentice system work and

bringing in apprentices.

[11:50 a.m.]

On certain projects, I know you can start your apprenticeship and

finish your apprenticeship working on one project, if you’re in a

long-term project. I don’t know whether that would refer to this. We’re

looking at how we’re going to get the apprentices working, how we’re

going to make sure that local people are hired, that we are using local

businesses and turning to local resources, how we’re going to really

include and embrace working with Indigenous peoples and how we’re going

to make sure that we get a full investment in the province.

I mentioned to your colleague from Vancouver-Langara yesterday,

when he asked me a similar question, broadly, for the ministry. It is,

obviously, a policy that is still being developed, and how we’re going

to implement it is still being developed.

There is an absolute commitment from this government to invest in

all of B.C., not just the physical infrastructure of B.C. Not just

building the hospitals, the schools or the highways — lots of hospitals,

I understand — but making sure that we’re training people and that we’re

using local businesses so that we are investing, literally, in the full

fabric of British Columbia — the physical fabric, as well as, as the

Premier said in question period, those people who are going to be taking

us forward when we are no longer working.

We’re going to need to have young people who are engaged, active

and well trained and who can really make sure that we get a very healthy

province and a really healthy economy in all ways. When we’re investing

in our infrastructure, we are investing in our economy. When we are

investing in our people, we are investing in our future. That’s what we

are going to be looking at.

We are still developing the fine details of the policy. I’m sure

it’s going to be a continued matter of discussion — and I hope healthy

discussion, because it’s fundamental for the whole province.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. As a past general manager of a community

college, I think that’s exciting.

The question that I have for the minister around that policy is

that, in two years’ time, we’re going to have shovels in the ground —

potentially 2019. My assumption, based upon what you’ve just shared, is

that this process is going to happen right away so that these people are

trained and ready to work when that project starts. That would be

something that I would be concerned about, if it wasn’t that way,

because then the project would be stalled. So if you could help me out

with that, that would be great.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his interest in this. As a former president

of a community college, it is very exciting. There’s a lot that’s going

to happen. I think there is a lot that will evolve in the province. I

think people will really see huge growth by this policy. I’m very

excited by it.

[11:55 a.m.]

Some of it they’ll obviously be taking…. I can’t prejudge exactly

how it’s going to work. They say it’s a policy still in development.

Obviously, hiring locally will be part of that, and using local

business. On the training aspect, part of it will be training on the

job. That’s the ideal about apprenticeships.

If we are working with apprentices, there will be people who are

literally learning from day one of a project until the project ends. On

certain projects, if they’re well structured, you can take your

apprenticeship through, right from literally your starting date till the

completion of the project, when you complete your

apprenticeship.

I think there really is a huge amount of opportunity that can be

had. I would hope that we’re all proponents of a very strong and robust

apprenticeship program, because it’s the workforce that will take us

into the future. It will make us, once again, really, the beacon for a

well-trained, strong workforce. I’m very excited that we, in our various

ministries that are going to be building infrastructure projects, will

also be building our trained workforce, will be encouraging our local

economies and making sure that we do get that real, healthy

future.

With that, Mr. Chair, noting the hour, I move that the committee

rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 today.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS

RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:02 a.m.

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $40,890,000

(continued) .

The Chair: I’d also like to say Happy Halloween.

[Laughter.]

D. Ashton: I would just like to say, again, that I’d like to thank the

minister for his answers yesterday and also the staff behind. It was

greatly appreciated. They were forthcoming. We had a limited amount of

time, so to have that happen in that time scale really makes a

difference. Thank you, Minister, I really appreciate that.

The Chair: A question.

D. Ashton: Has the minister spoken with his federal counterparts on

UNDRIP?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to my critic opposite for the question, and thanks for his

kind words too.

Yes, I have spoken with Minister Bennett a number of times on the

UN declaration and a number of other issues. I met with her once or

twice — I’m trying to remember now — in person.

[11:05 a.m.]

I have not yet made that similar contact with Minister Philpott. I

have sent her a letter of congratulations on her new appointment, when

the federal government basically did a split of INAC. But that’s coming,

and I think we’re planning that. I think that’s in the works for

Minister Philpott also.

D. Ashton: Thanks to the minister for his answer. Could he tell me why the

federal ministers at this point in time have pulled back from UNDRIP in

the context of Canadian law?

Hon. S. Fraser: In my conversation with Minister Bennett, it was around how to

implement UNDRIP and how to work together to do that, and we agreed to

try to break down barriers and move forward. So I don’t know what he’s

referring to, but I think if he’s questioning the federal minister, that

would be the thing to do — question the federal minister on that.

Because there’s no pullback as far as I know.

D. Ashton: I’d like to thank the minister for that. I would see they’re

asked. It’s my understanding that negotiators have been tasked with

including some of the principles of UNDRIP in the negotiations with

First Nations. Could the minister explain to me what that

entails?

Hon. S. Fraser: In response, as the critic knows, my mandate letter includes

implementing the UN declaration. That’s happening within and without the

treaty process, so UNDRIP involves full collaboration with First Nations

and Indigenous peoples, and that’s the direction that I’m going as

minister — and the entire ministry is going as well.

D. Ashton: Again, thank you for that answer, Minister. Have there been extra

resources allocated for this new directive from the minister? I’m

referring back to my previous question about initiating the principles

of UNDRIP.

Hon. S. Fraser: The implementation of the UN declaration is about an approach, and

we have not added new resources for that. We have a change of approach,

which is, I think, in keeping with my mandate letter. But no new

resources have been added.

E. Ross: Good morning, Minister. Thanks for the question-and-answer

yesterday.

For agreements with First Nations that are looking to engage to

address their own social issues…. We’ve got a number of agreements in

B.C. already, specifically around pipeline agreements, IBAs. In the

event of…. I’m still not quite sure how UNDRIP gets applied in these

circumstances.

[11:10 a.m.]

For instance, in the pipeline agreement going to Kitimat, there

are 15 out of 16 First Nations that are signed on to the pipeline.

There’s been a tremendous amount of work put in by the proponent, by

government and First Nations themselves to resolve as much as they could

to achieve an FID. What will your government do differently to ensure

that the pipeline gets full engagement and, hopefully, gets full

agreement on the pipeline itself?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for his question. I’m certainly aware of the

agreements that were in place. We are continuing to honour those

agreements. Government is a continuing body. As the member knows,

there’s no final investment decision that’s been made by any proponent

yet. So we’ll have to see how that unfolds. There is still potential for

that, of course.

We know there are still several projects that still may go ahead.

Markets change, so we’ll have to see how that plays out. We are

continuing to honour those agreements as they apply.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. The record on consultation for the pipeline

is extensive, whether it be consultations from the proponent or from

government itself and other First Nations that tried to address some of

the issues raised. So given the extensive consultations — and perhaps

there’s something else the government is proposing that I’m not aware of

to address the issues — will UNDRIP be applied in a certain manner to

try to achieve full consultation, and perhaps accommodation, in this

situation to get that last remaining First Nation on board?

Hon. S. Fraser: As I’ve mentioned, there are a number of pipeline agreements in

place. We will honour those. We will continue to work with First Nations

who have these agreements and those that do not. Not every nation is

interested in such agreements. We will honour the nations as they

choose, and we will work with them towards reconciliation.

We are implementing the UN declaration. I’m not sure how that will

apply to agreements that are in place. They are agreements that we will

continue to honour, and that would happen with or without the UN

declaration. But our work with First Nations will be informed by the 46

articles within the UN declaration. I’m not sure how that applies here.

I know there have been no final investment decisions made by any

proponent.

[11:15 a.m.]

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. Those agreements were based on consultations,

based on the case law of B.C. and Canada. In the case of an FID…. You’re

correct in saying that there’s no FID currently in B.C., especially in

my region. But there’s nothing really left except market conditions,

economic conditions, in B.C. and Canada.

In the event of an FID being announced — and there are still maybe

one or two First Nations that don’t quite agree, given the extensive

consultation record to date — will the government allow the FID and

allow the project to happen, even though there are still some First

Nations that might not quite have signed on yet?

Hon. S. Fraser: As I mentioned before, regardless of a final decision, we will

continue to work with First Nations. If there is a change in market

conditions and we have an FID before us, we have committed to working

with industry.

We have four conditions that need to be met. I can cite those if

the member wishes. One is that LNG projects must offer jobs and training

for British Columbians, especially jobs for local people. The people of

B.C. must get a fair return for their resources. LNG projects must

secure full partnerships with local First Nations. And LNG projects must

complete a made-in-Canada environmental assessment and respect our

commitments to combatting climate change.

Then I’d like to close on this answer by just reminding…. I think

it was yesterday when we did touch on this. The UN declaration is not a

veto.

C. Oakes: First of all, congratulations to the minister. Just one question I

have. It’s on behalf of the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance. You met

with them on September 6 and 7 in Vancouver. It’s a wildfire question.

We all know how critically important it is for our First Nations

communities to have safe access out of their communities in the state of

emergency that we’ve had.

The Southern Dakelh Nation, particularly Lhoosk’uz Dene, so

Kluskus, has been working for many years on a bridge and three

kilometres. We had previously put aside $7 million to make that project

happen. We are waiting for an OIC from the new government. The minister

stated when he met with them that it’s a priority to make this happen.

We need that road built now, in the fall, so that it sets in time for

next year. Can the minister tell us where that project currently

is?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. Yes, we did meet, and I’ve

agreed to work with them on the project. I understand the importance of

the project. My deputy has spoken with Forests, Lands and Natural

Resource Operations, who would be responsible for doing this project. I

do not know their timelines, but rest assured that I have followed up

with them, and this is in the hopper, so to speak.

A. Olsen: Hello. Good morning, Minister.

I just have a couple of questions, as we intersperse my questions

here, around the structure of MIRR, formerly MARR. The commitment that

the government has made in order to change the relationship with

Indigenous people across the province is going to need to be reflected

throughout government, not just within a single ministry. It’s going to

need to be reflected through every ministry and through how government

operates on a whole.

I’m just wondering if you could maybe provide some feedback as to

how you foresee this going forward, where all ministries are tasked

with…. Rather than having maybe a centralized location within MIRR but

how all ministries, and how your ministry, are going to interact with

your colleagues in order to ensure that all of government, a change in

the whole of government, is going to occur with the relationship with

Indigenous people in our province.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. He’s right. I don’t believe

that reconciliation can happen in isolation, and certainly not housed

with one ministry.

I have a pretty specific mandate letter from the Premier, but I’m

not alone. All ministries, all ministers have mandate letters that refer

to applying UNDRIP and the TRC calls to action within their own

ministries.

Actually, the pickup on this is very, very good, regardless of

whether it’s a ministry that deals with the land, with the resource use,

or whether it’s a social ministry. The questions that we’re getting in

our ministry…. We help to advise on that. They’re good questions.

Ministries are heading in the right direction. There is big pickup not

just at the ministerial level but throughout the civil

service.

I believe, to go a step further, it’s important we break down

barriers between governments too, so working with local governments. At

the UBCM, I had a lot of pickup. We have those meetings where mayors and

council meet with individual cabinet ministers. My ministry and myself

had a lot of requests for meetings about doing just that, having local

governments interested in and showing examples of how they’re working

with local First Nations in trying to apply the UN declaration — and

also with my federal counterparts.

[11:25 a.m.]

I think the timing looks really good for actually moving this

forward to true reconciliation and partnership with First Nations, with

respect and recognition. All the moons are lining up at all levels of

government and within government itself.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for his answers this morning and

particularly for the quick responses. It’s much appreciated. I hope you

can give some lessons to the Minister of Forests, for future

estimates.

A couple of quick questions. First, during various comments to

assemblies by the now Premier of the province, there was talk about

reinvigorating the treaty process. Could the minister please explain

what he means by reinvigorating the treaty process?

Hon. S. Fraser: The mandate that I do have to reinvigorate the treaty process is

something that we will not do unilaterally. This is being done with

First Nations.

We started those conversations in September at the leadership

gathering, working closely with the First Nations Summit, which

represents the treaty members, of course, and the Treaty Commission and

our federal counterparts as part of that.

We are continuing with the multilateral engagement work that’s

been done that was already set in place. There’s good work there that’s

already identified some bottlenecks within the system. We’re continuing

with that work. We’re not throwing it out. We acknowledge the work done

previously — previous minister, thank you. But we’re improving on that,

and we’re asking for open dialogue with First Nations in the treaty

process to learn from them about where they see the bottlenecks

too.

J. Rustad: I look forward to next estimates to see how that has progressed. I

can see the minister isn’t providing a lot of direction in terms of what

he thinks needs to be done in terms of reinvigoration, but he’s

engaging. I’m happy about that. That’s good.

I also want to thank the minister for his comments, both now and

of course in his opening comments, with regards to the work that has

been done in previous years and progress that has been made. It’s nice

to see, although when he was in opposition, he did belittle some of the

agreements and approaches that were taken, which I find a little bit

interesting. But I get, also, what the role of opposition is with

regards to this.

Specifically, I want to go into a question or perhaps a couple of

questions with regards to agreements. A treaty is one approach to

long-term reconciliation. There are other approaches to long-term

reconciliation.

[11:30 a.m.]

The mandate letter and comments from the Premier talk about

reinvigorating the treaty process, yet the vast majority of nations are

not in the treaty process or have given up on the treaty process and are

exploring other avenues of long-term reconciliation. How does the

minister’s hopeful reinvigorative approach to treaty impact on other

agreements? Will there be an additional type of effort to the majority

of nations in this province that would like to find long-term

reconciliation and that are not in the treaty process?

Hon. S. Fraser: I would note that there are nations within the treaty process and

those without. Not exclusively, but those members of the summit are

members within the treaty process. Some have disengaged, and some have

stalled. Part of the idea of rejuvenating the treaty process is to see

if we can address the concerns and to fix the problems that have led to

people leaving the treaty process.

Inside or outside of the treaty process, though, I’ve been meeting

every day with nations from all over the province. In the last 100 days,

pretty much every day in this place, we’ve had meetings, and there’s a

different feeling of optimism. It was reflected at the number of

meetings we had at the First Nations leadership gathering.

There is optimism, and there is re-engagement inside and outside

of the treaty process. We’re seeing people and nations that are

interested in moving forward with the new mandate of this government. It

includes applying the UN declaration and the TRC calls to action as part

of our mandate.

It’s an optimistic place right now, inside and outside of the

treaty process. I know a lot of the work that was done before outside of

the treaty process was quite transactional in nature. We’re broadening

the scope of our work with First Nations outside of the treaty process

too. We’re making progress, in both inside the treaty process and out, I

believe. Certainly, I’m hearing that in the attitudes and the excitement

that’s being generated at the meetings we’re having.

D. Ashton: UNDRIP says that First Nations have the right to own and benefit

from resources. My question to the minister: what does this mean to the

minister?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m interested in working in close partnership with First Nations

and ensuring that they are full partners in projects, that they are

receiving fair benefits from the resources within their territories.

That’s, I think, in keeping, as my critic has stated, with the UN

declaration position on getting fair and equitable treatment. I believe

that’s a key to unlocking the economy of this province — making sure

that those partnerships occur and that wealth is shared appropriately

and fairly with First Nations in their territories.

D. Ashton: I want to thank the minister again. How does this change

revenue-sharing agreements that are in place at this point in time, with

the implementation of it?

Hon. S. Fraser: I would note in the meetings that we’ve had — the many, many

meetings we’ve had with First Nations at the leadership gathering in

September and certainly here in Victoria…. I’ve travelled some of the

province, too, when we weren’t sitting. I’ll be doing that again on the

next break week. But we’re learning and listening what works within

revenue-sharing and what does not work.

We will be using that to inform us on how to address fairness

within revenue-sharing agreements. My mandate actually specifically goes

to one type of revenue-sharing. That’s in dealing with gaming — the

gaming funds within the province. Gaming revenues, as I’m sure my critic

knows, are actually…. There are formulas in other parts of the country

and other provinces where the proceeds from gaming are shared with First

Nations. That’s something that’s part of my mandate letter.

We have begun a process of that. We are working on a process to

move that forward and ensure that First Nations do have a share of

gaming revenue. It’s a revenue stream that can help close the gap, if

you will. It’s difficult to find revenue streams within the province

that can be used in this way.

I know in all my time as critic previously — 12 years, since 2005

— I have heard that same sentiment from First Nations. We’ve done a lot

of work already on potential models for revenue-sharing with gaming

revenue. We’re going to be looking at all of those and working closely

with First Nations to make sure that we do have a formula that will work

and, I think, provide the most benefit possible for First

Nations.

D. Ashton: Penticton has an agreement in place. It’s a bit of a different

one, but it might be something for the future to take a look at. I’m

quite sure staff are aware of it.

Where does the minister believe that the ownership of resources

should be at, and does it apply to subsurface rights, to mineral rights,

to water rights, to foreshore rights, to title rights, and specifically,

to air rights?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: We’re working in partnership with First Nations to ensure that

benefits flow from resource use within territories. That’s a bit of an

open question there. I’m not sure of the specifics, but those

discussions are open discussions, so we’re looking for a partnership in

resource use, in the benefits from resources, I guess, within the

territories. I’m not sure that some of the specifics that the member is

asking about are actually defined.

D. Ashton: I was being specific about two articles —

article 28 and

article

26, paragraphs 1 and 2 in the booklet that I have. And specifically…. I

was a bit troubled by this. I heard the minister’s comments yesterday

about: consent is not a veto.

I actually went this morning to Webster’s, and it says “to agree

to do or allow something; to give permission for something to happen or

to be done” is consent. So if we do adopt and go down this route that I

think the minister and myself have similar thoughts on, and this is put

into place, who has the jurisdiction, and who is responsible for saying

yes or no?

Hon. S. Fraser: It was Grand Chief Stewart Phillip that said that the UN

declaration is a blueprint, and I certainly take it that way. I agree,

and I believe that you cannot take the UN declaration and the 46

articles and pull it apart and try to work each one in a silo, like

we’re trying to break down between ministries.

We will be working with First Nations, Indigenous people, Métis

and all British Columbians to develop an implementation strategy. If you

look into the prelude on this from the United Nations, it confers that

it’s not designed to pull individual articles out. Many of the articles

within the UN declaration are specifically human rights initiatives that

have already been accepted by the world community.

[11:45 a.m.]

Indeed, the entire UN declaration as a whole has been accepted by

the world community, and it’s never been broken down — it was never

intended, in my opinion, to be broken down — into its individual parts.

It detracts from the meaning and the intent of the UN

declaration.

D. Ashton: I thank the minister for his answer, but in my career, the devil

was always in the details. The minister yesterday said that this is a

holistic approach — the document — but they are adopting it for

implementation. So when I go down to

article 26…. I’ll read it. It says:

“Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and

resources that they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used

or acquired.”

My preceding question was…. We have resources attached to those,

and nobody else, other than myself or maybe the minister ahead of me,

wants to be able to share these resources on a continual basis. It will

come down to who actually owns them. We know that there’s been

cross-ownership issues with the various bands and tribes within the

province.

So who is going to be the authority to say yes or no on that?

Where does the ultimate authority rest if a request comes in or a

permitting, etc., comes in? Who is the ultimate authority to say yes or

no if something can proceed?

Hon. S. Fraser: I think I see where my critic is going. I do not believe pulling

individual articles out of the UN declaration is fair or accurate. I

believe it amounts to fearmongering. I don’t see it as being

helpful.

I’ve had experience in local government, as many of us have in

this place. There’s a process called rezoning, which is well known to

most of us. If you have a development project and you want to get

rezoning to do a development in a community, in a municipality, you have

a process that you go through. It includes involving the public. This is

a quasi-legal kind of judicial process. It’s called a public hearing. In

those cases, the public are invited to give their opinions on a project,

and the mayor and council would make a decision based on what they hear

from those deputations.

I would note that it’s never considered a veto when it’s a

non–First Nations community. So taking individual articles out and

trying to deal with them separately is not helpful. I would note that in

the prelude to the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples,

it affirms the inherent collective rights of Indigenous people as well

as the human rights of Indigenous individuals. It provides a framework

for justice and reconciliation, applying human rights standards and

specific historical, cultural and social circumstances of Indigenous

peoples.

We have adopted this, and we are moving forward, as is the

country, the nation of Canada, as are 148 other nations in the world

that represent the world community through the United

Nations.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada