Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, October 9, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 272

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

Statements

Mobile homes fire in Esquimalt area

M. Dean

Introductions by Members

Tributes

John Finlayson

D. Routley

Emergency rescue by Sunshine Coast residents

N. Simons

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Morden Colliery Park and history of Morden mine

D. Routley

Shoreline Cleanup Day in Richmond

T. Wat

Small business and Burnaby Business Hall of Fame

A. Kang

Terry Fox Run and fundraising by Jim Terrion

S. Bond

Burnaby Heights Art Crawl

J. Routledge

Social services agencies in Kootenay area

T. Shypitka

Oral Questions

Premier’s office response to investigation of Legislature

senior staff

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

Police investigation of former Citizens’ Services Minister and status of executive assistant

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

Soil disposal site in Shawnigan Lake watershed

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Police investigation of former Citizens’ Services Minister and status of executive assistant

M. Polak

Hon. D. Eby

Hon. J. Horgan

Freedom-of-information requests and government recordkeeping

S. Bond

Hon. D. Eby

Petitions

A. Weaver

Orders of the Day

Tabling Documents

Environmental Appeal Board, annual report, 2018-19

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 36 — Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Eby

J. Yap

Hon. S. Fraser

E. Ross

A. Olsen

R. Leonard

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

D. Ashton

S. Chandra Herbert

B. Stewart

J. Rice

S. Gibson

Hon. J. Darcy

R. Coleman

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: Members on both sides of the House, over the lunch-hour, had the

opportunity to meet with representatives of the B.C. Lung Association. The

Lung Association, as all of you know, does extraordinary work in communities

across B.C. — in particular, working with us closely right now on issues

around vaping, which are so much in our thoughts these days. Their

continuing work on smoking cessation and other things is so important. Of

course, the work they do in support of people across B.C. is recognized by

everyone.

I want to welcome to the House Christopher Lam, the president and CEO;

Jennifer Callaghan, the director of health promotion and tobacco

interventions; Dr. Bob Schel­lenberg, the board chair; and Mike Ellis,

an Island representative. I’d like to welcome them to the House right now.

There you go.

Another group that contributes enormously to the health of British

Columbians, the Pacific Hep C Network, is here in the buildings. I wanted to

introduce to the House at this time Deb Schmitz, the executive director, and

Daryl Luster, the president. They do extraordinary work around B.C., and I

know everyone would want to wish them welcome.

N. Letnick: I’d also like to join the Minister of Health and all members of the

House in welcoming folks from the B.C. Lung Association. We’re going to have

continuing discussions this afternoon. I won’t name all the names, since the

minister has already done it.

Also, the people from Pacific Hep C, Daryl Luster and Deb Schmitz,

have the goal, along with the WHO, of eliminating Hep C as a threat

worldwide by 2030.

Would the House please join the minister and everyone else to make

them all feel very welcome.

Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is an extraordinary individual,

someone who has spent 25 years as a constituency assistant serving the

people of British Columbia. That individual is Cate Jones. She is in the

gallery today.

Cate is a proud Victorian who now lives in Vancouver. She was the

constituency assistant for Joy MacPhail for a decade, in Vancouver-Hastings.

When her current boyfriend took that job, she had to move across Boundary

Road to Burnaby, where she worked for the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, the

former member for Burnaby–Deer Lake and the current member now for Burnaby

North.

Cate has helped thousands of people. The Leader of the Opposition just

yesterday introduced all of the CAs for all of the members on the opposition

side. We all know how important CAs are. But can you imagine spending 25

years as a constituency assistant in Vancouver and Burnaby? Truly

extraordinary.

Cate measures her calendar by full moons. She’s had 300 full moons

since she started her job as a CA. She has four cats — Elliot, Syd, Peanut

and Daisy. Elliot is known as the mayor of Burrardview. Interestingly, not a

cat named Binky Bonkers, which comes as a surprise to anyone who knows the

hamburger of all hamburgers, Cate Jones.

Would you please — after 10,000 steps today already on her Fitbit, I’m

sure — say thank you, thank you, thank you to Cate Jones for being the

partner of the member for Vancouver-Hastings and a great CA.

T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the gallery here

today, on behalf of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson as well, David

Johnson, who’s the executive director of the Kamloops Brain Injury

Association.

Every year 160,000 people experience an acquired brain injury. It’s

the leading cause of death and disability for Canadians under the age of 40.

Approximately 1½ million Canadians live with the effects of an acquired

brain injury.

[1:40 p.m.]

The Kamloops Brain Injury Association has been helping the people of

Kamloops and the Thompson valley since 1986. We’re so very appreciative of

the work that they do for the people of Kamloops.

I would ask the House to please make David Johnson welcome and to

thank him and his colleagues for the great work that they do looking after

folks back home in Kamloops.

Hon. M. Mark: In the gallery today, we are joined by a number of leaders in

post-secondary education. We have guests from the Federation of

Post-Secondary Educators of British Columbia. I’d like to acknowledge the

work of the 10,000 faculty and staff throughout the province that FPSE

represents.

A total of 19 faculty and staff representatives are here on behalf of

their organization and representing B.C.’s teaching universities, colleges,

institutes and private sector institutions. They’re meeting with myself, as

minister, and many members on both sides of the chambers.

Will the House please join me in welcoming Rod Hayward, president of

the UFV Faculty and Staff Association; Virginia Jacklin, director of the TRU

Open Learning Faculty Association; Jasmine Nicholsfigueiredo, president of

the Douglas College Faculty Association; Sean Parkinson, FPSE’s

secretary-treasurer; Monica Sanchez-Flores, president of the TRU Faculty

Association; and Taryn Thomson, president of the VCC Faculty

Association.

Would the House please join me in welcoming our special

guests.

M. Morris: I also have the pleasure, on behalf of my colleague from Prince

George–Valemount, to welcome a constituent who works extremely hard for the

Brain Injured Group in Prince George. Alison Hagreen is the executive

director of that association. It has been in existence for over 30 years. It

was described last year in local media as the most innovative and

provocative association in western Canada. I believe they were referring to

the Brain Injury Association in British Columbia.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Statements

MOBILE HOMES FIRE IN ESQUIMALT AREA

M. Dean: A harrowing incident occurred in my constituency earlier today. At

5:38 this morning, the View Royal fire department received a dispatch to

a fire on Craigflower Road and immediately called for support from the

Colwood and Esquimalt fire departments. Four engines, two ladder trucks

and two rescue trucks were quickly on the scene, with 25 firefighters

commanded by five chiefs.

When they arrived, three trailer homes were fully involved, with

fire spreading to a house and a fourth trailer. Four citizens were sent

to hospital, and six have been displaced because of this fire.

Accommodations for tonight are now being arranged.

Thank you to View Royal Fire Chief Paul Hurst and his

firefighters. Thank you for the mutual aid from Esquimalt and Colwood

fire departments, and thank you to the paramedics. Thank you to the West

Shore and Victoria police who assisted on the scene.

I hope all members of this House will join me in sending our

condolences and best wishes to all those impacted by this tragedy this

morning.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Conroy: I have three sets of introductions today. The first one is actually a

constituent who’s here: Fred Kanigan. He’s a retired probation officer. They

keep calling him back to work because he did such a good job. He’s an

amazing supporter in my community, and it was really great to see him here.

Could you please welcome Fred to the gallery.

I have two more.

We all have excellent staff in our ministry office. Since July, my

former AC Emily White had left us, and we have had three different people

coming from the ministry to work in my office: Jana Sexton, Laura Dixon and

Joe Stukohovic. I just want to thank them. We know how difficult that job

can be, and they have been amazing at filling in until we have our new AC,

who is arriving next week. We’re looking forward to it. Marina Holding is

coming. But here in the gallery today is Jana Sexton, who did the majority

of the work in filling in, and Kaitlin Morton, our admin assistant. Could

you please welcome them to the gallery.

One more. This one is kind of personal, Mr. Speaker. October is a big

month in our family. We call it birthday month, and we kick it off today.

Today my oldest granddaughter is turning 19, and her brother is turning 14.

Tomorrow their cousin Eric is turning 15.

[1:45 p.m.]

On the Sunday, the sister — I’ve got to keep this straight — of Daira

and Ryen is turning 13. And on the 19th, Alexia is having her champagne

birthday. She’s turning 19 on the 19th.

Please join me in congratulating all those five grandkids on their

birthdays in October.

T. Shypitka: I’d like to echo the welcoming from the Minister of Advanced Education

of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of B.C. From my riding, we

have Leslie Molnar, who is the second vice-president of the federation, and

Joan Kaun, who’s the president of the College of the Rockies Faculty

Association. Would the House make them, please, feel welcome.

Hon. K. Chen: I’m really thankful to have the opportunity to introduce Sharon

Gregson and Lynell Anderson, from the Coalition of Child Care Advocates, who

are visiting the Legislature today and engaging with members from this House

to talk about the importance of early learning and child care. I really want

to take the opportunity to thank them, along with many other parents and

advocates from across the province, not just as the minister of state but

also as a mother with a young child myself.

Thank you so much for your years of advocacy to make child care a top

priority for our province.

I hope the House will make them feel very, very welcome.

Tributes

JOHN FINLAYSON

D. Routley: I’d like to ask everybody: what’s your favourite song? You

probably, whether it’s four or five…. If I said, “Who’s the nicest

person you ever met?” it’s probably easier. It’s probably the member for

Penticton, for most of us. But for me, it puts me in a conflict between

the member for Penticton and my father-in-law, John Finlayson, who,

about 45 minutes ago, got out of surgery with five bypasses that were,

very fortunately, discovered by chance rather than tragedy.

I’d encourage all of us to take care of our health, but I want to

just say how wonderful that man is. A former member of the B.C. Real

Estate Council and president of the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board,

an absolutely loving, wonderful guy — so exuberant, so encouraging, so

positive, so generous. An absolutely wonderful person.

Get well, John Finlayson.

Will the House please help me celebrate a really wonderful

guy.

EMERGENCY RESCUE BY

SUNSHINE COAST

RESIDENTS

N. Simons: I just want to pay tribute to a couple of young men from my

riding. Nolan Johnson and Jakob Thornton, a week ago today, were

dirt-biking about eight kilometres outside of Pender Harbour when they

came across an SUV with a gentleman in it. They thought it was pretty

unusual because they were out of the way, off the regular trails, and

they knocked on the window. The old guy gave them a thumbs-up, and as

they were walking away, they heard him tapping again.

They went back. They opened the door, and he said: “I’ve been here

for three days.” He’s a 90-year-old man, and those boys knew exactly

what to do immediately. One of them ran off to get water, on his bike —

called 911. Cheryl Jensen, from the local paramedics, went up there in

her pickup truck. All the emergency dispatch happened — a very

professional rescue. He’s healthy — 90-year-old Paul Jones, who is a

well-known figure on the Sunshine Coast, one of the founders of the

Spipiyus Provincial Park.

I just want to say our province is filled with young people who

care very much for their province and for the citizens of their

community. They’re smart, and they know what to do. It speaks to all of

our communities. I just want to raise their names and hold our hands up

to them and thank them for their work.

Introductions by Members

S. Sullivan: I’m fortunate to have four different classes from Elsie Roy School who

will be coming in and out of the gallery today. I’d especially like to

acknowledge the teachers, Ms. McCleary and Ms. Wyss; parents Nicole Olenick,

Katy Krawchuk, Kateryna Visotkii and Rosa Gilfanov; and especially a

student, Liam Roethlingshoefer, who is babysitting our dog during the time

when I’m here. So a special thanks to him and all his fellow students.

Please welcome them to the gallery.

[1:50 p.m.]

G. Begg: Joining us in the House today is Dr. Akshay Jain. Dr. Jain is the

first Canadian physician to be triple-board-certified by the American boards

in endocrinology, internal medicine and obesity medicine. He trained in

internal medicine at Rochester, New York, where he became the only four-time

winner of the prestigious Rochester Academy of Medicine Award during his

residency.

He went on to complete a fellowship in endocrinology at Harbor-UCLA

and the City of Hope national medical centre in Los Angeles. He holds the

distinction of being the youngest physician to sit on the board of directors

of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. He’s currently the

president of the Canadian

chapter of the American Association of Clinical

Endocrinologists. As importantly, he’s a resident of Surrey. He travels the

province teaching doctors and treating patients.

Will the House please join me in making him welcome.

M. Dean: Arriving at the precinct any moment now is Elder Shirley Alphonse,

originally from Cowichan and now living in T’Sou-ke Nation. I would remind

all members that we’ve been generously invited for a smudging in the Ned

DeBeck Lounge this afternoon.

S. Sullivan: I’d like to acknowledge the students that have just arrived from Elsie

Roy School, teachers Ms. McCleary and Ms. Wyss, and the parents who are with

them. Please welcome them to the gallery.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MORDEN COLLIERY PARK

AND HISTORY OF MORDEN

MINE

D. Routley: Not much unifies this House more than a collective groan, like

when I say Morden Colliery Historic Park. I’ve said it many, many times

in this House, seeking funding and support and seeking awareness of that

treasure in my community that was deteriorating and at risk of

collapsing.

On Saturday, October 5, 1909, 100 years ago, at about this time of

the day, the miners of Extension, the families and the community were

reeling in the aftermath of an explosion that killed 32 miners and

forever altered the community and all of those families. I still

represent many of those families — people who remember those stories

from their parents and their grandparents.

This is a symbol, in their community, of its roots. It is also a

reminder of many other things. It is a reminder to us all of a

historical injustice, the Dunsmuir land grant and its role in that

historical injustice: the giving away of First Nations lands. It is a

statute to the determination and courage of all the workers, as it is

the foundation point of the labour movement in British

Columbia.

Most of the history of British Columbia has melted into the

environment. We have little to remind us of where we came from and for

us to teach our children about what this place was and its transition.

The Morden Colliery Historic Park is one of those places. It’s a unique

treasure, an artifact, a special place in all those different ways, and

it was at risk of falling.

The very best Environment Minister ever, who sits down there, has

given the funding for this park to be restored and conserved. I think

it’s a most fantastic thing. There was a ceremony on October 5 in

Ladysmith, where those families came together to remember those lost

workers and all of the significance that that played. This is a very

important thing. A small amount, sometimes, from this place can be so

important to a community.

Thank you to the Minister of Environment.

SHORELINE CLEANUP DAY IN RICHMOND

T. Wat: A few weeks ago I had the privilege of taking

part in the first

annual Canadian community shoreline cleanup at Garry Point Park in

Richmond, put on by Air Canada and 4Ocean, a global company that

actively removes trash from oceans and coastlines, inspiring communities

to work towards sustainable economic practices. Almost 350 participants

took

part in the cleanup that saw over 900 cigarette butts, almost 1,400

pieces of Styrofoam, almost 500 plastic bags, more than 150 plastic

straws, two lawn chairs and even a car bumper removed from the

shoreline.

[1:55 p.m.]

4Ocean’s partnership with Air Canada grew from the airline’s

commitment to a single-use plastic reduction program that will see

almost 14 million single-use plastic items removed from its flights this

year, from stir sticks to bags. This is an astounding number, but it

shows that every business can find ways to cut down on plastic. They

just need to be bold.

This is the time for action but also a time for innovation.

Recycled plastics are being turned into shoes and building materials,

and scientists have even converted plastic bags into fuel. Last fall I

mentioned in this House some local Richmond entrepreneurs making

sugarcane straws, which are derived from renewable resources, are

eco-friendly and compostable. It is uplifting to know that the

entrepreneurial spirit is alive and ready to combat this human-made

problem.

I implore everyone in this House. The next time when you are faced

with a choice as simple as using a single-use plastic straw, imagine

1,000 of us making that choice. Are we okay with that image? Can we face

the most minor of inconveniences to do our part for a better future? I

know my decision. I hope you do as well.

SMALL BUSINESS

AND BURNABY BUSINESS HALL OF

FAME

A. Kang: In the weeks leading up to Small Business Saturday on October 26,

I would like to take a moment to express my wholehearted support for all

the local businesses in B.C., especially in Burnaby, and to recognize

the role that small business owners and entrepreneurs play in

strengthening B.C.’s economy and creating quality, sustainable jobs for

people in our community.

Just last week, on Thursday, October 3, more than 200 leaders of

the Burnaby business community witnessed the induction of Hilton

Vancouver Metrotown into the Burnaby Business Hall of Fame, jointly by

Burnaby Board of Trade and the city of Burnaby. Hilton Vancouver

Metrotown is now the 17th business to receive the honour.

Hilton Vancouver Metrotown is a widely recognized

Burnaby-​based business that has had a positive and

signifi­cant impact in our community throughout the years. Its

commitment to community is exemplary to the business community. Paul

Holden, CEO of the Burnaby Board of Trade, proudly states: “The Hilton

is emblematic of a hotel that combines those rare qualities of

hospitality and top-notch service delivered with a great deal of warmth.

It provides a real sense of being a home away from home for travellers

as well as the community.”

I am proud to see all the work that our province has been doing in

supporting our local businesses, including the establishment of the

Small Business Task Force to help small business owners find solutions

to their challenges. Small businesses are integral to the growth of

British Columbia’s economy. They support diversity in urban and rural

communities and are a foundation in all industry sectors.

With that, I would like to congratulate all the local businesses

that have been the backbone of B.C.’s economy and an integral part of

our society.

TERRY FOX RUN

AND FUNDRAISING BY JIM

TERRION

S. Bond: On a chilly fall morning, hundreds of participants gathered at

Lheidli T’enneh Memorial Park in Prince George to run, to walk, to cycle

in the annual Terry Fox Run — each person doing their part to keep

Terry’s dream alive. I want to say a very special thank-you to Scott

McWalter, who did an excellent job of organizing the walk for many

years, and welcome the new organizer, Ryley Newman.

Prince George has a very special connection to Terry Fox. In 1979,

Terry came to Prince George to participate in a marathon. That run gave

him the confidence to start his Marathon of Hope the following

year.

Terry Fox inspires us all but none more than Jim Terrion. Jim

Terrion is a rock star — not the kind that plays a guitar or the drums

but a local legend in our community. Since 1991, he has been raising

funds to support the Terry Fox Marathon of Hope, and his efforts have

been nothing short of astounding. From the day he started his mission,

he has raised $787,601 — almost $800,000. This year alone he raised over

$40,000. Jim couldn’t have done this without the help of his wonderful

mom, Faye.

[2:00 p.m.]

While this accomplishment would be incredible for any person, it

is made even more exceptional because Jim was born deaf. When he is

raising funds, he communicates by writing things down or using sign

language. Just imagine the extra effort it takes, especially when he is

canvassing at people’s doors for a donation.

I was proud to recognize Jim at the recent Terry Fox Run in Prince

George. Jim has a goal of reaching the $1 million mark in his

fundraising efforts, and I have every reason to believe he will just do

that.

Thank you, Jim, for following in Terry’s footsteps. We could not

be more proud of you.

BURNABY HEIGHTS ART CRAWL

J. Routledge: I love art crawls. Every year I try to carve out time to take in

the Eastside Culture Crawl, and every year I bring home a new piece of

art for my home or office. So imagine how excited I was to find out that

an art crawl was being organized in my own neighbourhood.

The inaugural Burnaby Heights Art Crawl kicked off on Friday,

September 27. That evening we celebrated local art and artists while

enjoying light refreshments and live music at the North Burnaby

Neighbourhood House. We got to meet the artists and engage with them

about their work and their inspiration. The next day I had errands to

run on Hastings Street in the Heights, and what a treat it was to detour

into restaurants, shops and even credit unions to appreciate the art on

display.

The Burnaby Heights Art Crawl brings together local artists,

merchants and residents. It responds to the results of a community

survey that identified arts and culture as something important missing

in the neighbourhood. It raises much-needed funds so the neighbourhood

house can continue to stay open and offer low-barrier community services

and support.

By placing art at the forefront, the art crawl creates a vibrant

and thriving economy. Our neighbourhood becomes livelier, our community

is revitalized, and residents and visitors feel more connected. I look

forward to the Burnaby Heights Art Crawl being even bigger and drawing

more art lovers next year.

I bought two pieces of art in the Heights this weekend. One of

them is a drawing of a tree growing out of Pinocchio’s nose. It’s called

Your Lies May Grow on You . The artist and I had a pretty

good laugh when I told her where I work. So I brought that piece of art

with me to the Legislature.

SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCIES

IN KOOTENAY

AREA

T. Shypitka: An old African proverb states it takes a village to raise a

child.

As many of my colleagues from rural and northern B.C. understand,

the chill of winter is quickly approaching. Some of us even left the

snowfall back home on our way to Victoria this week. The change of

season brings new business and tourism opportunities for many parts of

B.C., injecting life into communities. Yet for every person enjoying the

bounty of winter, there are just as many fearing the coming cold and the

fight to survive.

The fear is met with warmth and acceptance from local service

agencies providing shelter, sustenance and hope. I want to take my time

today to highlight a number of these agencies serving the less fortunate

in my riding.

The Aqanttanam Housing Society is a non-profit geared towards

First Nations and non–First Nations whose purpose is to construct, hold,

manage, provide and maintain not-for-profit rental housing for

low-income people in the community.

The Cranbrook Salvation Army provides shelter, feeding and school

lunch programs, Christmas food hampers, as well as rescue and suicide

prevention.

Better at Home is a provincially funded program that supports the

non-medical needs of older adults in B.C. It is managed by the United

Way, and services are handled by local non-profits.

Other service providers include Operation Street Angel, the

Community Connections Society of Southeast B.C., ANKORS, the Canadian

Mental Health Association, food banks, local church groups and countless

other volunteers and private sector organizations. Many of these

organizations have chapters across British Columbia.

The takeaway is simple. People need assistance, and we can all

give back. It does take a village to raise a child, but I’d like to

extend that it takes a village to care for the less fortunate as well.

So please volunteer even a few hours of your time, because every bit

helps for those in need, especially as winter sets in.

[2:05 p.m.]

Oral Questions

PREMIER’S OFFICE RESPONSE TO

INVESTIGATION OF

LEGISLATURE SENIOR STAFF

A. Wilkinson: Yesterday a report by Mr. Doug LePard, dated September 9, was

released to a single media outlet in a redacted form. On page 6, a

certain witness 10 is inadver­tently identified as the Premier’s

chief of staff, Mr. Geoff Meggs.

On page 56, it goes on to say that on July 30 of 2018, Mr. Meggs

was in receipt of a report of 40 to 50 pages of a long list of

allegations. Mr. Meggs recalled, on his interview, that every page had

surprising material and that the liquor incident was not the most

shocking part. Criminal allegations were present in the

report.

What did Mr. Meggs do with the report? As former chief constable

LePard reports, a credible source, witness 10, Mr. Meggs, shredded the

report — four months before two individuals were marched out of this

building and are now under criminal investigation.

The Premier has consistently stated that his office and his staff

had no involvement in the process that led to that rather dramatic event

that went to the heart of the credibility of the operations of this

building and the hundreds of people who work in it who try to maintain

the standards of our democracy. Turns out that wasn’t true.

Here we have a clear written report citing the volunteered

evidence of Mr. Meggs, saying that four months before these criminal

allegations were made known, he was fully aware of it. What did he do

with it? He shredded it, destroyed the evidence of his knowledge of this

process.

The question lands squarely on the Premier’s plate. Does he

believe and is he prepared to stand up here today and say that what Mr.

Meggs did was wrong?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question. The LePard report that he

refers to was released to one media outlet yesterday. The member

recounted components of that report. It is a lengthy report, and I’m

sure his omissions were not deliberate.

What Mr. LePard said was that Mr. Meggs was a credible witness,

made no reference to anything wrong with shredding a document that had

already been passed on, known to Mr. LePard, to law

enforcement.

Mr. Meggs participated in a meeting with the Speaker and his

assistants. He was handed a document of unknown origin that had a series

of allegations. He immediately said to the Speaker and his assistant

that this material should be passed to the police immediately. That’s

what happened. After we were advised…. He was advised of that. I was not

aware of the document. After he was advised of that, he disposed of the

document.

It was not a document created in the Premier’s office. It was not

a government document. There were no requirements to keep it because it

had been passed on to the police.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: It is a strange world where the Premier’s office, the head of the

executive council that governs the province of British Columbia,

receives a report containing allegations of serious criminal activity in

the heart of the institution that governs this province, and the Premier

now tells us it’s just fine for his chief of staff to destroy the

document.

The obvious obligation in the highest office in the

prov­ince is to report it to the police, not to destroy the

evidence of that contact. And what do we see in the face of that clear

obligation, whether it’s legal, moral, ethical, political? On July 30,

2018, the chief of staff had an obligation to inform the police, not to

shred the document. And then we have a four-month charade where the

Premier’s office pretends they didn’t know anything about it.

Premier, this goes to the heart of your administration and the

credibility of the staff you employ. So when were you planning to inform

this House and inform the public and inform the police that your office

was fully aware of this four months before it came to public

attention?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I just reject the Leader of the Opposition’s premise. My

recollection is that the official opposition wanted no part of any

investigation into the former Clerk. And where Mr. LePard said that Mr.

Meggs was a credible witness and had done the right thing by encouraging

the creator of the document to transmit it…. It was a draft copy that

was left behind in his office. He advised the person who created the

document to take it to the police, which Mr. LePard said was the

appropriate thing to do.

He did not have the same charitable response to the member for

Richmond-East, who refused to participate in the

investigation.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier of this province has stood in this House and said it’s

just fine for the most senior political staff appointment in this

province, the chief of staff to the Premier, to ignore allegations of

criminal wrongdoing and let it slide for four months and to pretend to

the public that the Premier’s office was unaware of all of these ongoing

investigations for a period of four months.

This is suppression of evidence. This is obstruction of justice.

This is a flagrant example of the Premier’s office putting its head in

the sand and saying: “Don’t look at me. I don’t know what’s going

on.”

Premier, you did know what was going on, and you did nothing for

four months. So it is difficult to contemplate how this institution can

carry on while Mr. Meggs, witness 10, remains in your employ. Will you

do the right thing and terminate him?

Hon. J. Horgan: The last point the Leader of the Opposition said: “How can this

institution go on?” It’s going on right now because of the capable

people that work here.

I don’t want to take the members on that side of the House back

too far in history, but I remember when I sat on that side of the House

and the B.C. Liberal Party of the day insisted that Mr. James be

appointed — despite he did not have the unanimous consent of this

institution. You did it anyway. And when, at Legislative Assembly

Management Committee meetings where we raised issues of concern about

the flagrant abuses that were possible under the rules that the B.C.

Liberals had, they said: “Everything’s fine.”

Here’s the reality. When I was advised that there were allegations

against the former Clerk….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Do you want to hear it? Do you want to hear it, or do you just

want to bray?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please. Order, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: Why don’t you listen to what I have to say? Wouldn’t that be

interesting?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: When I was advised that there were allegations of wrongdoing to

the former Clerk, I said that I have no responsibility to the

Legislative Assembly. The management committee does. My responsibility

is to executive council. It’s to health care. It’s to education. It’s to

child care. It’s to transportation. It’s to the people of British

Columbia.

We have capable members of this place, one of them sitting right

beside you, that are responsible for the management of this institution.

If you have no confidence in LAMC, if you have no confidence in the

Clerk’s office, then you should have participated in the

investigation.

For that member to say that somehow advising the Speaker’s office

to take the information to the police is wrong speaks to his complete

incompetence, not just as a member of this place but as Leader of the

Opposition.

You should have stuck with medicine, Member. You should have stuck

with medicine.

POLICE INVESTIGATION OF FORMER

CITIZENS’ SERVICES

MINISTER AND

STATUS OF EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

M. de Jong: Well, the….

Interjections.

[2:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West has the floor. Thank

you.

M. de Jong: It seems that the Premier’s chief of staff has been a rather busy

boy. In the last 24 hours, we’ve learned that he was busy shredding

documents that were directly relevant to an investigation that

ultimately went to the core of the functioning of this democratic

institution. And we learned that, despite being told repeatedly, over an

extensive period of time, that the Premier and the Premier’s office had

absolutely no involvement in this matter.

We have learned that on the day that the member for

Surrey-Panorama was forced to resign her post for being named as a

suspect in a criminal investigation, Mr. Meggs was suspending an

employee, the executive assistant to that now former minister. How do

you suspend someone if you don’t have any idea what’s being

investigated? Because that’s the story from this Premier. That’s the

story from this Attorney General. They say they have no idea about what

is being investigated.

Will the Premier advise us today on what basis the executive

assistant was suspended by his chief of staff, Mr. Meggs? Will he

confirm that, in fact, he and his office know a lot more about the

activities of the member for Surrey-Panorama than he wants to

admit?

Hon. D. Eby: The employee the member is asking about was a ministerial staff

member that was in the constituency office of the former minister.

Because she’s no longer a minister, there is no minister for that

individual to staff anymore. She’s been placed on administrative leave.

She’s based in Surrey. She was placed on administrative leave because

there’s no minister in that office anymore. It’s as simple as

that.

The member’s conspiracy theory, the Leader of the

Oppo­sition’s theory that I held a meeting telling people to cover

their tracks — totally false. It doesn’t get us any further

ahead.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: I seem to recall, Mr. Speaker, members opposite being a lot more

concerned about due process. The chief of staff to the Premier…. Maybe

the chief of staff doesn’t work for the Premier anymore. Maybe he works

for the Attorney General, and there are a lot more changes taking place

over there than we know about.

The question is to the Premier and whether or not he wants to be

accountable for the actions of Mr. Meggs, his chief of staff. He

suspended the employee, took away her phone, took away her access,

whatever access she had, to the office. None of those things,

apparently, were done to the former minister.

The question today is: what did the Premier and the Premier’s

office know that prompted them to move so quickly to suspend that

employee, despite trying to tell the House that they have no idea what

this investigation is about?

Hon. D. Eby: This individual is a member of the ministerial staff. She, to

anyone’s knowledge here, certainly to the best of my knowledge…. I have

no knowledge that she was involved in anything improper, and the member

continually suggesting it is not…. I mean, frankly, it’s incredibly

disrespectful when he knows that we don’t know what….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: We don’t know what police are investigating. We certainly don’t

know — and we have no reason to believe — that she’s involved. We put

her on administrative leave, which is the appropriate step, because

there’s no minister for her to staff anymore. She’s based in

Surrey.

He’s trying to smear her, the Leader of the Opposition, making up

meetings that never happened. It’s Pizzagate, frankly, and it’s not

helpful.

SOIL DISPOSAL SITE IN

SHAWNIGAN LAKE

WATERSHED

S. Furstenau: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Energy and Mines about the order

that was issued to South Island Aggregates to remove soil from their

property on lot 21 in the Shawnigan watershed. The minister acknowledged

that the company missed the September 30 deadline to comply with the

order. Indeed, she said that the company “had not taken our order

seriously.”

The operators of SIA are the same people who own the adjacent lot

23, on which a contaminated landfill sits. The permit for that landfill

was cancelled by the then Minister of Environment in January

[2:20 p.m.]

The current Minister of Environment approved a closure plan for

this landfill with a significant number of conditions, including the

condition that the closure be completed by October 31, 2019. From all

appearances, those conditions, including the drilling of new

water-monitoring wells, have not been taken seriously.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy. How many of the conditions in the closure plan have been met,

and does the minister have any expectation that the work would be

completed by his deadline?

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to echo the words of my colleague from yesterday, the

Minister of Energy and Mines, thanking the member for her tenacity and

her advocacy on behalf of her constituents, who are — and have been for

a long time — concerned about their water quality.

As the member knows, I spent a lot of time reviewing the closure

plan. We spent a lot of time in the ministry hearing from both the

member and her constituents who have concerns about the closure plan and

the conditions that were placed on it. They had concerns about the

review by a qualified professional. As a result of that, I asked that a

second qualified professional be consulted, as well as ministry staff

with expertise in the area.

As a result of all of that work, I added significant new

conditions to the closure plan, including a condition for ongoing

monitoring and the ability to change the conditions at any time if new

evidence came forward. However, as a result of taking those steps, which

I believe were necessary to respond to the concerns of the community,

there was a considerable delay in the commencement of the work to reach

the original date of October 31.

We are currently in the process of reviewing the work as well as

taking steps to ensure that the site will be secure and water will be

protected throughout this fall.

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

S. Furstenau: My understanding of the answer that the minister just gave is no.

The deadline will not be met, and the conditions don’t seem to have been

met either.

All of the concerns that he identifies in the community remain. We

remain deeply concerned about our water. I will put it out there that

the ongoing monitoring is mostly being done by Ed and Cliff, who are in

their 80s, and Bernie.

The fact remains, however, that this is a company that has

repeatedly violated conditions of its permits and ignored orders from

government. Not only that, but this company has not been paying its

property taxes on these two properties.

By not enforcing the rules and continuing to grant extensions, it

would appear that the message this government sends is that rules don’t

matter, conditions mean nothing, and deadlines are irrelevant.

Government’s job is to protect the public interest, not the interests of

one company. In Shawnigan, we have endured the interests of a company

being put ahead of the well-being and health of our community for over

seven years.

My question to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy is: given the record of these operators, how can he justify

continued allowances made to them in light of their well-documented

track record, and when will he put the public interest first and order

that the soil be removed from this site?

Hon. G. Heyman: With respect to the member, who I know cares deeply about this

issue and is doing an amazing job representing the interests of her

constituents, our government, in fact, puts the interests of the

constituents and the safety of the drinking water ahead of the interests

of the company, and that’s what we will continue to do. That’s why I

delayed approval of the plan until I was satisfied that we were taking

every step that was allowable, that was reasonable and that was

defensible under the legislation that governs my decision-making before

issuing approval for that plan.

We continue to monitor. Staff from my ministry continue to monitor

the sites. The surface and groundwater in the area are monitored

monthly. And we are, as I think the member knows, reviewing the progress

of the company in meeting the deadlines and whether it is reasonably

possible, given the delay that took place in my office, to ensure that

the closure plan was the strongest that it could be within the law that

applied. That’s what I will continue to do.

[2:25 p.m.]

POLICE INVESTIGATION OF FORMER

CITIZENS’ SERVICES

MINISTER AND

STATUS OF EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

M. Polak: For what is apparently a redaction error, we would still be under

the impression that was left by this Premier that, in fact, his office

had absolutely no knowledge, no involvement, in anything to do with the

issues surrounding the former Clerk and former

Sergeant-at-Arms.

Here’s what we know now. In fact, his chief of staff, Geoff Meggs,

did know. He knew a lot. He knew all of it. What’d he do? Didn’t report

to the police. Could have done that. Didn’t do it. He could have

reported it to LAMC. That’s actually the place it should go. For Pete’s

sake, he could have reported it to his own Government House Leader, and

I don’t think he did. No. Instead, he decided: “No, I don’t want to

touch this, and I don’t want anybody to know that I know anything. So

I’m shredding the documents.” That’s what he did. It’s on the record. We

know that’s what he did.

We don’t know why. I mean, I’m gathering from the Premier that it

wasn’t the Premier who directed him to. It’s starting to sound like he

never even told the Premier. That’s worrying in and of

itself.

Now we’re on to phase 2, where the same Premier’s chief of staff,

Geoff Meggs, decides that for no apparent reason…. I mean, the reason

given by the Attorney is ridiculous. He decides, for no apparent reason,

that the former assistant to the now former minister who’s being

investigated in terms of criminal wrongdoing…. He decides that that

person should be suspended.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Polak: If the Premier can’t answer on what basis his chief of staff,

who’s responsible for the employment of political staff in this

building…. If the Premier can’t answer why that person was suspended,

then we have a huge problem.

To the Premier. His chief of staff made a decision. On what basis

was that person suspended?

Hon. D. Eby: This individual has been placed on administrative leave. She

hasn’t been suspended. There is an issue that the person she used to

staff is no longer a minister, so there’s no minister to staff anymore.

She lives in Surrey. If she was still staffing in that office, we’d have

questions. “Well, why is she still there? She’s not staffing anyone.

What a waste. That doesn’t make any sense.”

We’re trying to figure out an appropriate solution for this

person. As far as we know, she hasn’t done anything wrong, and she’s

done hard work on behalf of the public of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the official opposition on a

supplemental.

M. Polak: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been tasked with

the responsibilities that were those of the former minister, who’s now

under criminal investigation. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever

that they could not provide an opportunity for the new minister, who’s

replacing the former minister, to have the support. Obviously, they

expect that the work of that ministry is going to continue. It does not,

on its face, wash as a reason for that person to have been

suspended.

If the Premier wants to continue to say…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Polak: …that he knew nothing about Geoff Meggs’s involvement with respect

to the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the Premier wants to say he

knows nothing about the reason why this person was suspended, then I

suspect he needs to

schedule increased frequency in terms of his

briefings with his chief of staff, Geoff Meggs, because Geoff Meggs

knows.

To the Premier: give us a credible answer as to why that person

was suspended.

Hon. J. Horgan: There was a credible answer given. The minister that the

individual worked for is no longer a minister. She’s not suspended.

She’s on administrative leave, and that will be worked out in the

fullness of time. It’s a human resource matter.

I’d like to go back to the issue around the former Clerk and the

former Sergeant-at-Arms. I can remember quite vividly everyone on that

side of the House saying: “Oh no, no, no. We shouldn’t do anything about

this.”

I have said repeatedly that in the 14 years that I’ve been a

member of this House, nothing makes me prouder than to be able to say

that I’ve worked in an institution, on most days, when every person in

this place cares passionately about the people of British Columbia and

this institution.

[2:30 p.m.]

Out of an abundance of caution, because of my personal animus

towards the former Clerk, I said: “I don’t want to know anything about

this because it’s not my responsibility.” I’m responsible for the

discharge of the head…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …of the executive council. Some of you were in cabinet. Some of

you will know that.

Aside from the House Leader, not one former minister over there

would have ever been interested in the workings of LAMC beyond being an

individual member of this House, which we all are, even the members at

the far end of the Liberal bench.

I am quite proud of my time…

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: …in this Legislature. I am proud of the people who came before us,

and I’m proud of the people who aspire to come here in the future. To

denigrate all of….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Give it a rest.

There’s the respect that we get from the B.C. Liberals. There’s

the respect we get from the B.C. Liberals.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS

AND GOVERNMENT

RECORDKEEPING

S. Bond: Well, here’s something that apparently the Premier does know

something about. Last year the Pre­mier was forced to admit that

“We missed the mark” on freedom of information, and “I acknowledge

that.” So let me help him recall why.

Senior officials in his office, ministers and NDP political staff,

deleted all of their records for months. And the former Minister of

Citizens’ Services was caught breaking the law multiple times. But the

obstruction doesn’t end there. On May 16, 2018, the official opposition

filed requests related to the use of personal emails of 28 individuals,

requests that this government has stalled and stonewalled with lawyers

for 511 days and counting.

To the Premier, and perhaps this is a question he can or will

answer. Will he direct his new minister to release those documents

today?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a very serious issue that is in front of the Office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner. That is: what is the extent of

personal privacy in personal email when an individual becomes a

minister? We’re working with the OIPC in a hearing, and there is a live

dispute. I don’t want to be seen to be interfering in that in any way. I

will say, though, that that is being determined by the OIPC, and there

are lawyers involved on both sides, from what I understand.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: I think it’s a little more clear what happened than the Attorney

General just portrayed. The Premier had his lawyer, John Tuck, make the

absolutely absurd claim that complying with the law and processing our

requests would embarrass these NDP staff members. This excuse was

completely dismissed last month by the adjudicator in the Office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner — completely dismissed.

This government’s tactic of using lawyers — apparently, that

wasn’t working. So guess what they did next. On September 23, 2019, the

official opposition was informed of a new NDP fee policy that has

resulted in over $36,617 in fee demands to access government records,

information we deserve to see and the public deserves to see.

Apparently, the lawyers didn’t work. Let’s try charging exorbitant fees

now.

To the Premier, what exactly is this government trying to

hide?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t know the specific files the member is talking about. Those

are handled by the public service. I don’t know if they’re the same ones

or not. It wasn’t clear from her question. The OIPC does have a fee

review process the member is familiar with.

I will say that, personally, I’ve disclosed to the opposition — I

don’t know — probably about 1,000 emails. I know the member that just

asked the question has someone sitting beside her who didn’t disclose a

single email during his entire time in government.

[2:35 p.m.]

I can’t remember, but I think I got three emails from the member

for Langley East, and one was to Bob Rennie. It’s just a contrast in an

approach to freedom of information, and I find it a bit interesting that

the member there would stand up right beside these members who refused

to disclose emails for so many years, members who triple-deleted and

said they were proud of it.

I’ll keep her pointers in mind.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

A. Weaver: I rise to present a petition from Surfrider Foundation petitioning the

B.C. government to show a leadership role on banning single-use plastics in

our province. There are a little over 1,000 names on this

petition.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 36, Gaming Control Amendment Act.

Hon. D. Eby: I seek leave to table a report.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the 2018-19 Annual Report of the

Environmental Appeal Board.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — GAMING CONTROL

AMENDMENT ACT,

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

The province has a strong commitment to advance reconciliation

with Indigenous peoples. The proposed legislative amendments are a

significant example of how the province is moving forward to meet this

commitment.

Specifically, the proposed legislative amendments are focused on

achieving two objectives. First, it will amend the Gaming Control Act to

facilitate and support sharing a portion of B.C. Lottery Corp.’s net

income with First Nations of B.C. for 23 years. Secondly, it will also

increase B.C. Lottery Corp.’s board of directors by two

positions.

Once a long-term agreement between the province and the B.C. First

Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership — which I’ll refer to

as “limited partnership” from now on — is in place, the legislation will

establish a revenue-sharing entitlement to be paid to the limited

partnership for distribution to eligible B.C. First Nations, who become

shareholders in the limited partnership.

Currently this legislation requires the net income of B.C. Lottery

Corp. to be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. Therefore, a

statutory appropriation is proposed in this legislative amendment to

facilitate the payment of the dedicated revenue from the consolidated

revenue fund to the limited partnership.

The increase of the B.C. Lottery Corp.’s board from a maximum of

nine to 11 positions will facilitate one position for the limited

partnership’s nominee.

The total annual amount of the statutory entitlement would be

equal to 7 percent of the B.C. Lottery Corp.’s net income, as adjusted

in accordance with the long-term agreement, estimated at $100 million

per year. These amendments also add an additional element of certainty

for First Nations in B.C. on the longevity and commitment of the

government to long-term revenue-sharing from gaming with First Nations

in B.C.

The province and the limited partnership recently concluded an

interim agreement that provides two years of funding to the limited

partnership for distribution to eligible First Nations in B.C., who

become shareholders in the limited partnership. Once these legislative

amendments are concluded, the parties will be in a position to conclude

a long-term agreement with the limited partnership. Together, the

interim agreement, the legislative amendment and the long-term agreement

facilitate the province’s commitment for sharing gaming revenues with

First Nations in B.C. for a 25-year period.

[2:40 p.m.]

J. Yap: It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak in second reading to Bill

36, Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019. Let me say from the outset that

as the official opposition, we welcome an approach and policies aimed at

advancing reconciliation, creating opportunities and making life better

for First Nations. We believe in opportunity for all of B.C., all

British Columbians, and in shared prosperity.

Certainly, as we look at the situation with our relations with

First Nations, despite significant effort and progress in the recent

past, there remains a significant gap in income between Indigenous

peoples in Canada and non-Indigenous peoples. The data shows that the

total income of Indigenous people was, on average, 73 percent of that of

non-Indigenous people’s average income. That was in 2005, and it has

increased to 75 percent in 2015. It’s progress, but more needs to be

done.

The population of Indigenous peoples as a percentage of British

Columbia’s population continues to grow in importance. Following ten

years of rapid growth, Indigenous peoples make up about 5.9 percent of

B.C.’s population. That was as of 2016, and the share of Indigenous

peoples in B.C. is expected to continue to increase because of an

increased fertility rate — larger families than non-Indigenous people.

That is recognized.

We do understand that the commitment of the government to share

this stream of revenue, gaming revenue, is something that has been

discussed in the past. The commitment has been made. This is an issue

that has been canvassed over many years and involved discussions with

previous governments, and this government is choosing to take action at

this time. However, revenue-sharing, we believe, should be fair and

should be equitable, and it needs to be done properly.

While we agree with the need to get this done, we have some

reservations, some concerns, in the way that this frame­work has

been proposed to flow funds from government to First Nations

communities. We as legislators need to come together to address the

history of colonialism and renew our relationship with Indigenous

people, and I know that this government is highly dedicated towards this

end. I know that the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

is deeply committed, as is his government. We applaud that, but we do

have concerns with this bill.

For example, we have a question in regard to the flow of revenue

and the way that this legislation is proposed, and I will get into a

little bit of detailed discussion on the framework that’s proposed,

where a partnership will be set up, consisting of the First Nations that

would choose to participate in this stream of revenue. It will be

approximately 200 First Nations, who would be limited partners. They

would be in this partnership with a group that is referred to commonly

as the leadership council.

[2:45 p.m.]

This partnership of the leadership council and all the First

Nations of our province would administer this flow of funds. This fund,

as the Attorney General has said, would be 7 percent, which is indicated

in the proposed legislation. In dollars, it would be about $100 million

annually under a proposed 25-year agreement — $100 million per year over

the next 25 years.

The proposed legislative framework puts in a new legal requirement

for sharing of this revenue stream, gaming revenue, through an

agreement. The Attorney General referred to an interim agreement that’s

already in place with First Nations, where the funds would flow, as we

understand it, in advance each year based on a 7 percent agreed-upon

percentage of net revenue from gaming. However, instead of flowing

directly to the First Nations all around the province, the proposal

under this legislation is to flow the funds to a new entity, a

partnership. We have some questions about the need to do

this.

We appreciate the briefing that the Attorney General had offered

us, myself and the member for Vancouver-Langara, on this. We canvassed

this question. While we understand that the rationale for this has to do

with the accounting rules and the financial administration rules, we

wonder why there has not been an effort to look at flowing the funds

directly to First Nations. I’ll discuss the concept of where the funds

should be flowing.

We do understand that there have been some negotiations, some

consultation, but we’re not clear on the extent of that consultation

among the First Nations who will participate in this program. We’re not

clear if all First Nations around British Columbia — all 200 — were

involved in the consultations and the discussions and the analysis of

what’s being proposed. So I do believe that that is something that needs

to be addressed.

Instead of putting money directly into essential services for

First Nations in areas such as child care, housing and economic

development, the proposal is for the funds to flow into this entity

which would then take applications, we understand, from First Nations to

receive funds for specific projects. This adds an extra step in the

effort to help First Nations, which we all want. We question if this is

the best that government can do to provide First Nations with economic

benefits and long-lasting security.

Certainly, as we look at our record when we were in government,

economic opportunities and participation were central as part of our

efforts towards reconciliation with First Nations. When we were in

government, we worked to improve the quality of life for Aboriginal

people through new economic partnerships, resource development, revenue

sharing, and closing gaps in health, education, skills training and

employment. Through resource development on First Nations traditional

territories, we put revenues directly into the communities to

use.

One of our proudest achievements, as all of us would know, is the

development of LNG. The LNG sector in B.C., which we’re pleased that the

government is supporting and is moving forward, has presented

opportunities for our government and First Nations to work together.

Throughout the province, 62 natural gas pipeline benefits agreements

have been reached — 62, with 29 First Nations, for four proposed natural

gas pipelines.

[2:50 p.m.]

In addition, when we were in government, we had close to 500

economic and reconciliation agreements in place with First Nations,

including strategic engagement agreements, reconciliation agreements,

forestry and clean energy project revenue-sharing agreements. The

concept of revenue-sharing is something that all of us are comfortable

with and that we believe in. We also participated in 63 different

treaties, involving 114 First Nations.

To list a few other achievements since 2001, when we were in

government, we invested $4.4 billion to provide affordable housing for

low-income individuals and families. We were also committed to improving

First Nations through apprenticeships and skills training, as well as

other education programs. These were some of the many things that were

done directly to support the economic, social and cultural needs of

Indigenous people. And as I said, we believe more needs to be

done.

However, we cannot ignore that there are still systemic obstacles

to reconciliation. It’s critical that we invest in First Nations

communities that need help the most. One of the criteria for applying

for funds under this new revenue stream, the gaming revenue stream, is

capacity-building. We applaud that.

In the time that I have had the privilege of being elected to this

House, I’ve had a chance to visit First Nations communities around the

province. All members probably have had the opportunity and can relate

to the fact that there are some First Nations who really need help, who

need support and assistance in increasing their capacity. There are

others who may need assistance and capacity-building to a lesser

extent.

There are First Nations that have embraced the mantle of economic

development for a number of years and have built up their economic

position through development within their lands, through engaging in

trading activity, through participating in the resource sector. Some of

these have become very successful, and we all, of course, are very proud

of them and applaud them for their success. We want all First Nations to

have the opportunity as we move forward.

With this proposed new stream of gaming revenue, one of the

concerns that we would have is the need to ensure that the funding

stream does flow to the First Nations that need help the most. We look

forward to learning more about what the plan is for that to happen,

because it’s not clear from the legislation, as it’s written, how that

would happen. That’s something that we believe is very important: to

ensure — and I think all British Columbians want to ensure — that the

flow of funds from this revenue stream would flow to the First Nations

that need the support the most.

Another concern that we have is how this agreement would affect,

or potentially affect, other grant programs that are in place and that

are dependent on the gaming revenue net income. B.C. Lottery Corp., the

gaming…. The stream of revenue provides an important stream of income to

government that helps to fund, as we all know, services that are

important to all British Columbians.

[2:55 p.m.]

One specific program, the community gaming grant program, comes to

mind. That’s one that I know all members of the Legislature are very

familiar with, communities are very familiar with and community groups.

Many depend on this important program. We have questions about how this

new revenue-sharing could potentially affect the program that

communities all around the province depend on, the community gaming

grant program. That’s something we have concerns and questions

about.

We also believe that there needs to be kept in mind a sense of how

to ensure fairness in how the revenue stream is allocated. That’s

another question that we have. At the end of the day, we want to see

true benefits accrue to First Nations.

We want to see, through the efforts of the province in working

with First Nations to help First Nations as we move along the path of

reconciliation and as First Nations determine for themselves, under the

concept of self-determination, how they would develop…. We want to see

those communities continue to participate as they wish to and progress —

economically, culturally and in every important aspect of life. And we

want to make sure, as we do this, that all British Columbians feel that

we’re doing this in the right way.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the federal government has a very

important role in the administration of Indigenous communities and is

obliged, under our constitution and statutes, to provide funding to

First Nations. So one of the questions that we have is: has there been

consultation with the federal government in terms of this program not

taking away from their responsibility to provide the statutory funding

to First Nations throughout British Columbia? So that’s another concern,

a question that we have and would want to canvass in second reading

debate.

To summarize, we understand the intent of this proposed

legislation to share revenue, and we believe that while the intent is

positive and we want to see this happen, we need to ensure — we have a

responsibility as legislators to ensure — that it’s done in the right

way. We have a number of questions, as an official opposition, on the

specifics in this piece of legislation. I know that colleagues will

raise specific aspects of what our concerns are, a few of which I have

mentioned in my comments.

With that, I’ll take my place, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the

opportunity to engage in today’s debate.

Hon. S. Fraser: It’s certainly with pride that I stand here today in this House to

support this piece of legislation which makes good on a promise that we

made to First Nations. It was almost a year ago. This summer we shared

nearly $200 million — it was about $198 million — of provincial gaming

revenue with Indigenous communities. That represents the first two

years’ worth of shared revenues from a gaming stream.

The money started flowing out to First Nations communities just

last week, at the beginning of the month, and the benefits of this

predictable and sustainable revenue stream are evident

already.

The Nadleh Whut’en is a First Nation west of Prince George. The

long-term predictable revenue stream has allowed that nation to start

home-building — home-building for the first time in 30 years — to

address overcrowding and a lack of housing. Our office got an email from

Chief Larry Nooski just a few days ago. This revenue is starting to make

a difference on the ground, in communities.

[3:00 p.m.]

The amendment before us makes it possible to extend our commitment

to those communities for a full 25 years. As I said, we’ve already

transferred the first two years’ worth over, so the next 23 years on.

It’s the first time there’s been a revenue-sharing agreement between the

province of British Columbia and First Nations that provides long-term,

stable funding to those nations.

It’s nearly $3 billion that will be available to First Nations

governments over that time, ensuring they have a steady, predictable

source of income. Income like every government…. First Nations or any

government, First Nations or non, need stable, predictable sources of

revenue to fund their priorities. I would suggest that the Indian Act is

not providing for that very well — critical things for every government,

like infrastructure, like services that build healthy communities, and

the staff to get it done. The member for Richmond-Steveston spoke about

capacity — absolutely. Critical things for any government to be able to

accomplish.

This revenue will mean First Nations can plan for the long term

and invest in the services they decide that their communities need to

thrive and prosper. In that way, the revenue stream is about truly,

tangibly supporting self-determination, and that is what is at the heart

of reconciliation. First Nations know best the priorities of their

communities, and now they have the resources to invest in those

priorities — priorities like social services to support families and

Elders, education, infrastructure, cultural revitalization and

self-government capacity.

We’ll see new community projects. We’re already seeing new

community projects and programs and significant economic development

that benefits the people in First Nations communities and beyond for the

whole regions of this province. It will bring more prosperity to every

part of this province. This legislative amendment is an important step

on our shared road to true and lasting reconciliation. It’s just one

step.

I’d like to reflect a bit on the history of how we got here. I’ve

been in this place since 2005, that election. This is my 15th year. I

was appointed by the leader at the time, who is now the Deputy Premier

and the Finance Minister. She appointed me as the critic for…. At that

point, it was the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Now it’s the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, and

I’m honoured to be the minister.

As critic, one of my earliest meetings that I recall was with the

First Nations Gaming Commission. They had been trying for many, many,

many years for the government of the day to come to the table and

discuss sharing of revenues.

I remember Grand Chief Joe Hall was one of the first people I met.

He was representing the First Nations Gaming Commission, a body that was

created through the leadership council. That’s the summit, the Union of

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

had beseeched me, as the critic, that government needed to move forward

with revenue-sharing to provide stable, long-term revenue through gaming

like other provinces were already doing. He explained to me that the

government would not come to the table. The Liberal government at the

time would not even discuss the issue. It was a non-starter.

I know that the imperativeness of the revenue-sharing was captured

in 2007. “First Nations have been asking for gaming revenue-sharing to

be negotiated by the province for years,” as I mentioned. In 2007, First

Nations leaders presented the previous government with the B.C. First

Nations investment plan. The plan recommended allocating, at that point,

3 percent of B.C.’s gross gambling revenue directly towards economic and

community development initiatives in Indigenous communities.

At the time, First Nations leaders described the plan as “the

single most important action the province could take to ease First

Nations poverty and to begin to close the economic and social gap of all

First Nations.”

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m not questioning the sincerity of the previous speaker, the

member for Richmond-Steveston. I know that he was speaking from the

heart. But when he was speaking of his government previously…. These

requests were summarily dismissed. They would not even discuss the

issue. The idea that long-term, stable funding could be transferred to

First Nations to make what was acknowledged as the single most important

action that government could take was dismissed by the previous

government. They wouldn’t consider it.

Some of the actions the previous members spoke of, the other

government, and the deals that they had made and the agreements they had

made with First Nations, many of these were basically transactional in

nature. This is not transactional. This is a game-changer on the ground

for First Nations.

Just to put it in context, the revenue-sharing agreement aligns

British Columbia with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova

Scotia. This was already the way of things in other provinces and was

denied by the previous government. So I am pleased to hear that it looks

like the opposition will be supporting this.

I want to make it clear that some of the concerns that were raised

just by the previous speaker I believe are unfounded. I want to make it

clear to anyone watching that there is no impact on existing gaming

funding that already goes out under other programs that benefit local

communities and NGOs — non-governmental organizations — charities, those

sorts of things. This will not have impact there, just to be clear,

because those rumours get out, and it can do damage to what is a very

important program.

I also want to say that our ministry staff…. We had technical

people, First Nations Leadership Council and the First Nations Gaming

Commission, and they worked hand in hand together to build this. They

looked at other models from other provinces to determine the best way to

make sure that the funds are going to be delivered fairly to First

Nations, that there was an accountability process.

Importantly — an issue that was raised by the previous speaker of

some concern — the limited partnership is a First Nations entity. This

will not be run by government. This is being set up with First Nations,

by First Nations. That’s important in self-determination, as the member

cited also. So his concerns about whether there was any impact on

federal government funding…. To be clear, again, this has already

happened in a half-dozen other provinces for many, many years. This is

not a new thing for the federal government.

I’m sure, from my conversations with my federal counterparts, they

were quite surprised that B.C. was denying the access to such a stream

of stable, long-term funding that can be used for long-term planning for

nations. So there is no issue there, and there is no risk of that

affecting anything with the existing funding, I think, coming from the

federal government.

The more technical questions, I’m sure, will be answered by the

Attorney, which is appropriate in the way of these things as we do a

bill. We’re on second reading. We will go to committee stage, and those

technical issues and concerns raised by the member for

Richmond-Steveston will all be dealt with there, I’m sure.

There were concerns about whether or not this would be timely

because of the use of a limited partnership to distribute the funds. I

find it a bit ironic. I mean, this is developed in partnership with

First Nations. So this is the best method for distribution of these

funds.

There is a specific formula that speaks to how the funding will be

distributed. Fifty percent is base-funding. It’s actually equal for each

of the 204 now — with Binche, I believe — First Nations Indian Act bands

in the province. The 50 percent will be split equally. Forty percent is

based on population, which, I think, speaks to fairness and

equitability.

[3:10 p.m.]

Then 10 percent is in recognition of geographic challenges, like

for remote communities. I think a lot of this was based on the model

from Ontario. It seemed to cover the needs of the communities in a

very…. It was very reflective of that.

I’m quite pleased that we’ve, I think, come to a model that will

provide the most benefit on the ground, where it is needed the most in

First Nations communities, especially taking into account the challenges

of remote communities. You know, the costs are higher. There are many

challenges that we don’t even recognize if you’re living in more of an

urban area. So I’m glad that those challenges are reflected in the

formula that has been laid out here.

We have to take reconciliation seriously. This is a strong step in

the right direction. As, again, I can’t understate how important…. For

decades now, the First Nations of this province have been calling for

government to do just this, and they have called this the single most

important action that provincial government could take to ease First

Nations poverty and begin to close the economic and social gap for all

First Nations.

I am so pleased and proud to be standing here in a government that

is taking those requests seriously. Closing the gap — yes,

indeed.

E. Ross: It’s my pleasure to speak on behalf of my constituents of Skeena

in terms of Bill 36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act. Before I get into

what I intended to say here, I just want to make some corrections to the

previous speaker.

Where to start? This is contractual. There was a statement saying

that this is not contractual. It is contractual. You’re asking First

Nations to join a limited partnership. That’s a contract. Underneath

that, you will then ask them to be eligible to fill out application

forms to apply for their own money. That’s contractual. There will also

be an eligibility requirement that will be implemented within, I assume,

the partnership agreement, the limited partnership agreement. Then that

will be applied to the application. Those are contractual

agreements.

Interjections.

E. Ross: Well, I heard contractual. I heard contractual.

Another thing I wanted to address is another thing I heard: “We’re

looking forward to closing the economic gap.” Where have you been for

the last 13 years? That’s what First Nations have been doing for the

last 13 years, in terms of engaging in forest and range agreements,

revenue-sharing agreements for mining, the 26 agreements that were

signed with LNG, all the agreements that were signed for the Kinder

Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline and on and on and on.

First Nations have been driving that economic gap, in terms of

closing it, and they’ve made tremendous progress. This is not a new

idea. You come to our communities along the pipeline route, and you’ll

see all of the advancements and progress that were made in terms of

addressing the economic gap. These are reports that came out here. This

is what drove First Nations to engage with all of these major projects,

because there was nothing else at their reserve level.

I’m sure that all of the people over there that espouse to have

First Nations ancestry know this. Why aren’t you speaking to it? You

come to our communities along the LNG pipeline route. The unemployment

level is not 60, 80 percent anymore. If you’d come to our community

during the modernization of the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter, there was no

unemployment. That’s the economic gap. That’s the one you’re talking

about.

To think that you guys just came up with this miraculous idea, and

you guys are going to start it just from day one…. Day one was 13 years

ago. What do you think we’ve been doing? It’s an insult to all of those

First Nation leaders that have been working on this for the last 15

years and made tremendous progress, only to hear that you say: “We’re

going to begin to close the economic gap.”

You did not begin it. You did not begin it.

Interjections.

E. Ross: That’s what he said. Is Hansard around? Can you repeat what the

member said?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[3:15 p.m.]

E. Ross: “We’re so proud to begin to close the economic gap.” Wow. I’m just

repeating what I heard. I mean, maybe my notes are inaccurate. Maybe I

misspelled some things wrong there, but I’m pretty sure that I heard:

“We’re going to begin to close the economic gap” and “This is not

contractual.”

If you’re going to say stuff like this, at least back it up. To

see First Nations people on the other side, who claim to have First

Nations ancestry, laughing? Where’s that member from? Where are you

from? What riding are you from?

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s talk about the bill.

E. Ross: I am talking about Bill C-36.

Deputy Speaker: Yes, let’s talk about Bill 36.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

E. Ross: Thank you. Very condescending of you, but thank you.

I appreciate the grace given to me by the member for Saanich North

and the Islands. Thank you, I appreciate it.

Anyway, another thing I wanted to correct here or at least

clarify. We were talking about this…. In terms of Bill C-36, it’s a

great concept. Bill C-36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act….

Deputy Speaker: No, Bill 36, Member.

E. Ross: Didn’t I say 36?

Deputy Speaker: No, not C-36.

E. Ross: Oh sorry. Bill 36.

In terms of this, it’s not the first time a revenue-sharing

agreement has been brought to the First Nations of B.C. from the

provincial government. But there was a comment made earlier that said

that this is in partnership with 203 bands. I find this remarkable. This

is an incredible achievement when you are talking about 203 bands in

B.C., and my only question around that is: how did you achieve this? How

did you consult with 203 bands?

It took us almost six years to consult from band to band on an LNG

agreement that provided revenues to the First Nations, along with

contracts and employment. So in partnership with 203 bands? I’m going to

be very curious, as we go into estimates, to find out what the

consultation process was.

Interjection.

E. Ross: Committee stage, sorry. I’ll be curious about this, to see the

record. To see the record and the response from 203 bands in B.C. — it’s

going to be an extensive report. I’d be very curious to see what that

entails in terms of that report.

There was also a comment made that this would not impact other

funding coming from the gaming. That we’ll wait to see. We’ll probably

have to wait to see in terms of community by community, region by

region. If the rural dividend fund is any example of what that means,

then we’ve got to be on our toes and keep an eye on the government

decisions here.

Those are just basically the comments I heard, and I had to

correct those comments or actually ask for clarification.

Anywho, in terms of Bill C-36 itself, the control amendment act….

I’ve got to say from the outset, in terms of gambling, this is a really

tough topic to talk about where I come from, because gambling, from

previous councils, was never approved by previous councils. It was never

approved on behalf of certain Elders in my community. My council was

approached many, many times to create a casino or bingo hall in our

territory, and we were shut down. There was fundamental opposition to

the idea of gambling.

Coming from a region 20 years ago that had 60 to 80 percent

unemployment, and knowing all the social ills, I could understand why

the leaders of my community didn’t like the idea of gambling, period,

even though bingo, as we knew, all across northwest B.C., was providing

good amounts of revenue for local programs in their

communities.

To my Elders back home, I’m not endorsing gambling. I’m not saying

gambling is a good idea or anything like that. I’m just talking about

Bill C-36 in terms of what is being placed in the Legislature

today.

[3:20 p.m.]

With that being said, just for the millions of people out there

watching, commercial gambling, not including horse racing, generated

$2.9 billion in 2014-2015. Now, in B.C., that includes revenues from

casino tables; games like poker and bingo; slot machines; lottery

tickets; on-line Play­Now.com, B.C.’s only legal on-line gambling

site; and licensed gambling events such as 50-50 draws.

In addition, horse racing is big in B.C., and that can be

conducted in person at racetracks in B.C. or on screen in teletheatres

in communities around our province.

The gambling proceeds and gambling itself actually reach into

different parts of B.C., all corners, even remote communities like my

own, in my riding of Skeena. So we all know it’s there. We all know it’s

regulated. It provides tremendous revenue. And the revenues, we know

already, provide tremendous benefit, because that goes back to the

organizations that use it in their own communities on an

application-driven process.

What we’re talking about here is Bill C-36.

Deputy Speaker: Bill 36, Member.

Interjection.

E. Ross: How can you purport to have First Nations ancestry and knowledge

of the culture when you know respect is one of the first things that

First Nations actually ask for when somebody else is speaking? You

wouldn’t be allowed in the feast hall with that kind of behaviour, to

the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

Interjection.

E. Ross: What does that mean? Okay.

Bill 36 proposes to provide First Nations with 7 percent of B.C.

Lottery Corp.’s net income for the next 23 years. It would build on a

two-year agreement reached last August that transferred $194 million,

give or take a few million, to the newly formed B.C. First Nations

Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership.

According to a provincial news release, dated August 12, 2019, the

money will be transferred to a newly formed B.C. First Nations Gaming

Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership. The news release goes on to say:

“Once First Nations join the limited partnership, they will receive the

first year of their share of provincial gaming revenue.”

I haven’t actually seen the final agreement yet, but I was under

the understanding that the revenues would go into a limited partnership,

and then First Nations would have to apply for their allotment of the

revenues. Anyway, we can get into that when we get into the details of

the final agreement itself.

According to Michael Bonshor and Cody Hall, co-chairs of the B.C.

First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership: “We encourage

eligible First Nations to join the limited partnership and look forward

to working with each community to begin receiving their annual

distributive shares.” That’s a red flag. In one sentence, they’re saying

they’re going to receive provincial gaming revenue, but on the other

side, in the next sentence, they say they have to join the limited

partnership before they can start receiving their annual distributive

shares.

Interjection.

E. Ross: It will be application-driven.

Interjection.

E. Ross: It will be application-driven, though, based on the projects and

based on the band council.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s not have a dialogue. It’s second reading. The

member has the floor.

Please continue.

[3:25 p.m.]

E. Ross: Well, it does raise a red flag. If it is application-driven, and

you’re actually applying to an entity apart from a government…. It

doesn’t matter if it’s government or not. But if you’re applying to it

and you’re making comparisons to the Indian Act and how the Indian Act

didn’t provide for First Nations over the last 50 or 100

years….

First Nations — I don’t know if you’re aware of it or not — do not

like applying for money. In this new era of consultation and

accommodation, First Nations are more interested in generating their own

revenue. They’re more apt to be, basically, going to a

government-to-government relationship and actually signing

government-to-government funding agreements. So the money goes directly

to them.

Interjection.

E. Ross: What’s wrong with that?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

E. Ross: If it’s not application-driven, I look forward to clarifying that

in the final agreement — and to be eligible. This is what I look forward

to in the final agreement itself — to be eligible. What is the criteria

going to be to be eligible? I know you have to join the First Nations

Limited Partnership. I know that. What are going to be the criteria

around that?

In saying that, there are going to be criteria in terms of what is

accepted in terms of your share.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Carry on.

E. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a case…. If there are, basically, no strings attached and

the government truly wants to help First Nations in terms of their

social issues and close the economic gap, why make them join the limited

partnership?

I’m going to assume, then, if you don’t join the limited

partnership, then you are not eligible for any allotment of money or

revenues.

Interjections.

E. Ross: I’m hearing crickets, so I think I must be right. Am I

right?

Interjections.

E. Ross: Okay. In other words…. Well, there’s so much chatter on that side

and so many questions, I just respond to the questions and the

heckling.

Interjection.

E. Ross: I will. Thank you.

To me, this is not a done deal. We have the announcements, but

it’s not a final agreement yet. It won’t be final in terms of complete

participation until we get 203 bands signed on to the limited

partnership. That’s when we’ll see success, because that’s what the

government announced.

It all goes back to determining success. If there are some bands

that do not want to join a limited partnership or do not want to join an

application-driven process, then you can’t claim success in terms of a

revenue-sharing agreement for those ineligible First Nations. In terms

of that, the First Nations that are ineligible will be for two reasons.

One is because they don’t agree with the structure or the format, and

the other one is going to be for lack of capacity.

Now, I hear those words a lot, “capacity development.” Developing

capacity. Yet I’ve never really seen anybody actually explain what that

means on an individual level.

What does it mean? I mean, I can honestly say in 2003, I had no

capacity. I was elected to council, and I thought that I was going to

get on to council, and I was going to divert all the money that council

had to my basketball programs.

Man, was I ignorant, naive and out of touch, because my band had

no money. We were so broke we were in a deficit. We owed $3 million. If

you don’t know what that means, under the Indian Act, that means the

government can come in and put you into remedial management with the

danger of then coming in, kicking you out of office all together and

just keeping your health manager, as well as your social development

manager. The rest of them — they send you home. That’s where we were in

In terms of capacity development, I had no idea what I was doing —

not a clue — and there’s no orientation program. There’s no brochure to

tell you what your job is or what a funding agreement is. Nobody was

there to tell me what remedial management meant.

All I knew was my band had no money, and all they were doing was

fighting for survival to keep programs going. That’s all they were

doing. There was no time to talk about jobs, employment, contracts and

engagement with major projects. There was no time.

[3:30 p.m.]

We spent the better part of six months just trying to get Canada

to stop coming in and shutting us down and shutting down all our

programs.

If you don’t know what that means, they bring in a third-party

contractor, and they pay your bills for you, based on your funding

agreement that comes from Canada. There’s a formula that actually pays

off, in priority, your biggest debt first and then goes down to your

lowest debt. It can take, on average, seven years for a First Nation to

get out of it — seven years. I had no capacity to understand what these

people were talking about. That’s capacity.

I was fortunate. I had a chief councillor who was very

knowledgable, who went to university. He worked in the RCMP for a couple

of years, worked for CN security. I had another councillor who had a

business diploma. I was very lucky. These guys understood funding

agreements. They understood business principles. They carried me and, I

might say, the rest of my council through that six months. They

convinced Canada not to shut us down. But it was painful. We had to lay

off a number of people. We had to cut programs. We had to do a number of

things.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

It’s actually good that this is on the record. The hard work that

that council did started back in 2001, and I joined in 2003. My band is

now reaping the benefits. A few years ago, we were actually awarded the

first-ever ten-year block funding agreement under Canada. We came from

remedial management to block funding to the first-ever ten-year block

funding agreement in Canada. That is capacity.

For the most part, you have to sit at the table, and you’ve got to

understand that. You’ve got to read this stuff. It’s above our pay

grade. Apart from the councillor who had the degree in business, as well

as our chief councillor, I was probably the only one that had a grade 12

diploma, which I got back in 1984. It wasn’t worth the paper it was

written on. I didn’t understand numbers. I carried around an electronic

dictionary for two years. That is capacity.

So when you’re asking some of these bands here that don’t have

that capacity to understand these complex agreements and understand

these complex structures, you’re asking quite a bit. There are a lot of

bands that understand this. There are a lot of bands that are highly

successful. They’re operating at a point where they don’t need

government. They don’t want government.

There is a band down in the Okanagan that says that within seven

years, they will be able to say no to Ottawa funding. That is an

incredible achievement. That’s capacity. They based it on real estate,

and then they branched out their business initiatives. That is capacity.

These are the people we should be aspiring to be. They’re going to be

independent within seven years. That’s their game plan. Fortunately,

they’ve got location on their side. They have capacity.

My band…. I was lucky. We had location. We didn’t have any

projects to come around, but we did have a couple of people that had

strong visions, that took a lot of abuse, to change a direction. My name

comes up a lot when it comes to LNG development, in terms of being

instrumental. I was one small piece in a big piece of machinery that was

clicking along whether I was there or not. It was councils from 2001 to

today that actually put us there. I was lucky and grateful enough to be

part of it.

Why did we achieve that? Capacity. Some of it came from an

education, from college and university. Some of it came from life

experience. Some of it came from the corporate world. But for us, it all

pulled together. That is why my band is probably the next on the block

to say: “We don’t want Ottawa funding either.”

When it comes to Bill 36, and we’re talking about capacity, and

we’re talking about eligibility, we’re talking about 203 bands in B.C.

There are a number of bands that aren’t as fortunate as some of the

bands in the Okanagan or on the Lower Mainland that have been able to

translate their assets into wealth for their people, or lucky enough to

go through what my band went through. So I’ll be interested to see the

formula, in terms of the revenue-sharing agreement, to see how the money

will be allotted.

[3:35 p.m.]

Now, I know there is going to be a question about regional

allocations as well as remoteness, maybe population, but I can tell you

right now that there are needy bands in B.C. and there are not-so-needy

bands. The needy bands, regardless, are going to have a really tough

time coming to terms with this type of agreement if they’re looking to

use this money as seed money for a business initiative. They’re going to

have a tough time.

I’m only speaking from experience, because we tried this when we

had no money, when we owed $3 million. We tried this. We came up with an

elaborate business plan for communications, but we didn’t have our down

payment for financing. We had no credit rating. We had no assets as

collateral. So our business plans, we found out right away, couldn’t get

financed.

This was before the days when these funding agreements came up

where they would help certain bands in certain situations, but it was

always underwritten by somebody else. It wasn’t underwritten on the

assets of the band. By the way, we had no assets. This is a catch-22 for

these bands that are in this position.

We’re talking about the application process for eligible bands

when they’re going to use this pot of money for business initiatives. I

would love to see the criteria and whether it’s going to be flexible

enough to realize that most bands don’t have assets, because reserves

aren’t assets. I know land is an asset to everybody else in B.C. Land is

not an asset under the Indian Act. It’s not an asset unless the band

itself goes into a certain arrangement with Canada, which many bands are

afraid to do. They’re too suspicious of government.

In that respect, there are no other assets for a band that has

never been exposed to either a major project or to some significant

business interest on their lands. So there are no assets. Most of the

assets they have are so outdated that they’re not worth anything, even

if it was possible to put it on a business plan as collateral. So I’m

very curious about the criteria of the eligibility in terms of Bill

For those people that know First Nations communities, when I’m

talking about assets, you’ll know what I mean. My band council office

was actually an old residential school, and because of certain

circumstances, I was asked to help manage our organization in

partnership with my administration. During that time, a building

inspector came in, and he gave me the news of the assessment that was

done on the council building that we were in at that moment with all our

staff — this old, beaten-down residential school, probably 70 years

old.

He gave me the news, because he wanted to leave right away. I

said: “Okay, just summarize it for me. What’s the verdict?” “Oh, you’re

condemned.” “Why?” “It’s because your building code is out of date.

You’ve got so much asbestos here. You’ve got mould all over the place.

So we’re condemning you.”

I was so shocked. What am I going to do? I’m in charge of this

organization. I’ve got to do something. So what am I supposed to do,

then? He said: “Don’t worry about it. We condemned you seven times

before already.” That’s not an asset. Same thing for our fire hall. I

can give you these stories. These are stories that are all across Canada

and in B.C.

I applaud the virtues behind Bill 36 in terms of closing the

economic gap. But understand that there are capacity issues, and really,

if you want to make a big impact, acknowledge the capacity issues of the

most needy bands. Understand their situation, that they might not be

able to reach every single criteria point, whatever that may be, when it

comes their turn to apply for this funding.

[3:40 p.m.]

I will agree with this: closing the economic gap. There was a

beginning. It was about 15 years ago. I’m pretty sure that this is going

to help that, but it’s going to take time to realize that progress, that

success. It’s going to take time.

I mean, you think about 203 bands in B.C. — not talking about your

formula or anything — and you average it out based on what we know

already. Maybe that’s $200,000 to $400,000 per band in B.C. That’s not a

lot of money per band.

I know it’s annual. I do understand that if a band doesn’t sign on

right away, or if they do sign on and they don’t apply for that funding,

then that money actually goes into a certain pot waiting for them, which

is good. But for most of the projects I put on the table in the last 15

years for my council, $300,000 was a drop in a bucket. It could be spent

in a week.

I mean, you’ve got to do engineering plans. You’ve got to do

consultant plans. You’ve got to do lawyer plans. You’ve got to do all

this lobbying with the federal government and corporations. You’ve got

to draw up contracts. It’s not a lot of money.

If it works, it’ll most likely work directly for the bands that

understand application processes, that understand funding agreements,

that can get to work right away and that can access financing — say, a

mortgage over 20 years. They’ll have tremendous progress.

But for some of the other bands that don’t have that? Well, let’s

face it, some of the First Nations bands in B.C. don’t even have

communities. They don’t even have band offices. How do we access

them?

First thing we do is: don’t make this process so onerous and so

complicated, so scary, that they figure that they’ve got to go out to

hire a lawyer. Make it simple for them. In that respect, if you want to

have that conversation, I do question again: why not just put the money

directly toward the First Nation themselves?

I agree with this. I support it. I just don’t understand the need

for a middleman if you’ve already got agreement and you’ve done your

consultation with 203 bands in B.C. Why that layer?

Interjections.

E. Ross: Yeah, why not? They’re still a legal entity. It makes for less

bureaucracy, and you’ve got a direct relationship with a band that I’m

assuming wants to build something significant for their membership and

for their community.

It’s the criteria that I question. It’s the eligibility I

question. It’s the legalities of limited partnerships I question —

general partnerships. I worked on that stuff for 15 years, trying to

understand limited partnerships and general partnerships. I still don’t

understand it.

I had to do it in respect of major projects totalling — what? —

$55 billion. I had to set up all these entities underneath it to take

advantage of some of the contracts. On top of that, I had to understand

all of the insurance and all of the liability issues and responsibility

issues.

Like I say, I was lucky. I had some really smart councillors that

were leading us at the time. I had a very smart chief councillor. Today,

I still hope that we put in enough protections to actually achieve

everything that we set out to achieve.

Back then, when we had no money, I would have got up, and I would

have applauded this initiative. If the money came directly from the

Crown to us, with little or no strings attached, I would have applauded

it.

In fact, when we were talking about this being the first time for

a revenue-sharing agreement, it’s not the first time that the government

has come up with a revenue-sharing agreement. It’s not the first time.

In 2006, we signed on to the first original forest and range agreement

with the B.C. government.

[3:45 p.m.]

Now, for a band that had never seen revenue-sharing before, we

were doing cartwheels. We couldn’t believe it. We spent the better part

of two years negotiating under an entity. At that point it was called

Turning Point. We negotiated for two years.

The difference there was that we knew the government was in the

room, as a group. They talked to us. Then we all agreed that we should

take back our agreements that were agreed to in principle at this group

to our communities and tailor-make it to the needs of our specific

communities. So we knew that consultation was there. We knew, in some

form, this was going to be the accommodation for all the forestry

activity happening in our territories.

The day the first cheque arrived we almost cried in our band

council boardroom. It was incredible. We had never seen money like that

before, with no strings attached. On top of that, we had no idea what to

do with the volume of wood that was actually part of that agreement. We

weren’t loggers. Had no equipment. None of us had even logged in the

last 20 years.

I was a hand logger. Anybody know what hand logging is? You get in

the tugboat, and because I’m bottom of the totem pole, I’d have to carry

all the chokers and the tow line up into the bush, wrap it around a log,

then run out of the way, and they’d drag the log into the water. That

was my job.

Because of my experience, I was made the forestry expert. I was

out of my league. I had no clue what I was doing. That goes back to

capacity. That’s scary. That is really scary. Not having capacity to

understand what’s going on, and then finding out: “Well, you’re the most

knowledgable.” “Good grief. I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”

“Well, we expect you to kind of explain to us the Forestry Act.” “No,

not a chance.” “Well, can you at least understand the forestry

regulations?” “No, not a chance.” That is capacity.

This is a reality of what you’re talking about when you’re talking

about some First Nations. Now, I know a lot of First Nations can sit at

the table, and they can negotiate. They understand exactly what you’re

talking about. But for the most part, they probably have capacity hired

to protect them. They have their advisers, consultants, their lawyers.

They have their staff. They’re well versed in it, so it’s not all up to

the councillor. But there are many councils that aren’t equipped like

that.

Mine was one of them, back in 2003. In fact, what my band did back

in 2003 was hire an ex–Indian Affairs staffer to be our lobbyist. It was

probably the right thing to do back then because we didn’t know anything

else about the outside world and what was happening. I believed that the

Indian Act was the end-all. It took two years for me to figure out that

the Indian Act is actually an artificial boundary. It’s a waste of time,

and the more you debate it and discuss it and fight it, the more your

people suffer.

In fact, back then there was a sentiment for new councillors — and

I agree with this today, as I did back then — in terms of capacity. It

would take you two years to understand how to do your job as a

councillor before you could delve into the bigger issues of politics or

major projects or environmental assessments. I agree with that

today.

For a band like mine, who’s advanced so far in terms of the LNG

industry, in terms of land transfers from the previous B.C. government….

I think it’s going to take them three years to get caught up. Never mind

the Indian Act. Who cares about the Indian Act? It’s irrelevant for us.

But I think it’s going to take three years for them to understand their

duties as a councillor and understand all these major project

development agreements we signed and all the agreements that we signed

on land transfers. It’s quite significant.

Not only has our band done extensively well in terms of land

transfers with B.C., we’re actually probably one of the only First

Nations in B.C. or Canada that owns a water lot. Who supported us in

fighting to get those water lots? It was the previous B.C. government.

The water lot, in terms of commercial and industrial value, is worth

millions. We now have assets. We can go get financing now, and it’s all

built on capacity.

The world changes when you embrace rights and title and you

embrace economic development, and the B.C. government is sitting there

with open arms and willing to talk, and the corporations are there,

sitting there, willing to talk, willing to negotiate and find that

common ground. The world changes. Now not only is money not a problem,

money comes to your doorstep.

[3:50 p.m.]

My band is not hurting for money. They haven’t applied for any

provincial funding in the last five years. They just don’t need it. They

bought an apartment complex a couple of months ago to address the

housing need that’s going to happen in Kitimat. They’re actually going

to build their own apartment complex. By the way, the provincial

government contributed 50 percent to the apartment complex on reserve.

We didn’t need the money, but my band took it.

The list goes on. China Investment Corp., the biggest investment

corporation in the in the world, came to our council table, and they

were asking us: “How do we get in on the projects? How do we lend you

money so that we can engage with you guys on the major projects?” It was

hard to explain to them that it’s not even our project: “It’s not even

ours. Plus, we don’t want your money. We don’t need your

money.”

Success begets success; that’s basically what it is. That’s what

I’m hoping Bill 36 is actually aspiring to. This in itself is not going

to close the economic gap, but if this Bill 36 actually provides that

seed funding so that other bands can experience what we’ve experienced,

it’s going to be a long journey, but it’s worth it.

That first forest and revenue agreement, which we signed with the

B.C. government almost 11 years ago, put us on a different road, with

the possibilities this opened up. If you come to my community, no one is

going to complain to you about the Indian Act. No one is going to tear

your ear off about that. They’re going to tell you about the latest job

they’ve got, at 30 to 44 bucks an hour, no high school graduation.

They’re going to talk to you about the training that they’re being sent

away for in Alberta or New York. They’re excited. There’s a new era

there.

That beginning…. Closing that economic gap started back 15 years

ago. To be more precise, I think we finally opened our eyes to what was

possible when, back in 2006, Kitimat LNG started to become a reality.

LNG Canada actually beat them to the punch, but we were engaging with

the revenues coming from Kitimat LNG for the better part of eight

years.

It’s incredible what we can talk about if you want to talk about

closing the economic gap and if that’s what you’re proposing to do. The

only caveat I have is: don’t make it so bureaucratic, red-tape- and

application-driven that First Nations actually turn their backs on it.

If you did do the consultation with 203 bands, if you did do that

consultation, you probably know this already. You’ve probably already

heard it: “Why don’t you just give us the money directly?” I know that’s

what I would have said. I could have made use of that money back in 2004

— incredible use.

When we’re talking about that, we’re talking about capacity. We’re

talking about the ability for First Nations to engage in a process like

this. There are a lot of First Nations that are stuck within the Indian

Act and that can’t see a way out. All they’re doing is managing funding

agreements. That’s all they’re doing. They’ve got no time to think about

a job for their 80 percent unemployment. They’ve got no time to think

about signing an IBA worth $500,000 a year to the band. They’ve got no

time for that. They’re just trying to stay solvent. They’re just trying

to stay within that 8 percent negative rule that comes with Indian Act

funding. That’s all they’re trying to do.

In a band like mine, I can tell you…. This is my own experience.

Asking for money, applying for money, lobbying for money — I don’t know

what term you want to use — is so degrading. It’s so humiliating,

especially when you think of the concept that most of those revenues

probably came from our territory in the first place. Then you’ve got to

go ask for it. You’ve got to apply for it.

[3:55 p.m.]

One of the things that turned my thinking around in terms of

fighting the Indian Act was a problem that every First Nation faces in

B.C.: housing. This is a federal jurisdiction on reserve. We all know

that. I think it was the previous government that actually broke that

barrier, that went into the Lax Kw’alaams reserve and started proposing

building housing on the Lax Kw’alaams reserve. That was actually pretty

brave. That was very courageous, and I see this agreement building on

that.

Previous to this — I’ll give you an example of how degrading and

humiliating this is — I was chosen to go to Ottawa on a lobbying trip,

to lobby Ottawa, but I didn’t know what we were lobbying for until I got

there. When we got there, we were lobbying for more money for housing,

and we were told: “Sorry. You’re on the freeze list.” For those First

Nations in here, you’ll know what a freeze list is. If you’re in

non-compliance with the funding agreement — Ottawa puts you on a funding

agreement — you’re not eligible for any more funding. In fact, they

penalize you every time that you don’t take measures to address the

compliance factor.

We went home and reported back to our council: “Sorry. There’s no

money. They told us we’re on the freeze list.” At that point, I told my

council: “I’m never going to do that again. I’m never going to go beg

for money. I’ve got to find a different way.”

Well, after a month, I was in Vancouver. There were a bunch of my

councillors down there, they were on their way to the Indian Affairs

office in Vancouver, and they asked me if I could go. “Sure, I’ll go.” I

go in there, and we sit down with the housing officer for INAC, and we

say: “Hey, we’re here for housing. We spent the better part of the month

getting ourselves into compliance, and now we’re here to talk about the

future in terms of building houses on reserve. So where do we start?”

And the housing officer told us: “Sorry. You went back on the freeze

list this morning.”

That is a common experience. You can’t imagine the words that I

used outside that office. I didn’t even wait for the meeting to end. I

just got up and left, and I swore I would never do that again — never.

Just to think about filling out an application form when I knew there

was so much possible out there, it was just…. It didn’t appeal to me.

Let’s put it that way.

So we could have used this funding agreement, this Bill 36, back

in 2004. I understand that if it’s annual, we probably could have built

anywhere from…. Based on the average funding we’re talking about here,

maybe we could have built two or three houses a year. But that’s just

one component of what First Nations are facing, in terms of the economic

gap that I hear spoken to in this House a number of times. That’s only

one component.

We’re not talking about the aging infrastructure, like the roads

that may or may not be paved. We’re not talking about the water system

that was built 60 years ago. We’re not talking about the Indian Affairs

houses that aren’t up to code but actually don’t even have the same

kinds of standards the rest of Canadians take for granted. And on and on

and on.

It’s a different world we’re living in. There are so many groups,

levels of government that are trying to address, in a real way, the

economic gap, including the federal government. But to me, I can’t

really conclude whether or not the economic gap is being addressed

unless I see Aboriginal persons themselves not even worrying about the

economic gap. That’s my measurement — especially for a young

person.

If a young person today is making 30 bucks an hour and they’re on

their way to building a career, then I don’t even want to hear them

mention the words “economic gap.” There’s no need. If they’re talking

about the mortgage that they have off reserve, great. If they’re talking

about the RRSP that they just set up, great. That’s perfect. If they’re

talking about the RESP that they’ve set up for their two-year-old

daughter, that is perfect.

That’s the conversation I want First Nations to be having in the

next 30 years. I don’t want to be talking about these piecemeal projects

on how they spent ten years applying for a fund only to fix their band

council office. I don’t want to talk about that. Substantial change that

affects peoples’ lives — that’s always been my goal ever since 2005, and

it comes from capacity.

[4:00 p.m.]

In terms of Bill 36, if a band has the capacity to access this

fund and is okay with signing onto a limited partnership, then that

means they’ll be able to be successful in terms of the revenues

projected in this bill. If they’re that successful already, they’re

probably not going to need it. It’s going to be a bonus. If a project is

going to cost them $1 million a year, then the $200,000 or $300,000

that’s going to come from this fund will actually mean that $200,000 or

$300,000 of their own money won’t have to be expended.

I’m hoping the formula that we’ve yet to see acknowledges this,

acknowledges that there are some bands, through lack of capacity, that

are not going to be able to address this and that are not going to be

able to access this. Yet that should be the priority — extra effort put

into those bands. We shouldn’t leave them behind.

It was a concept that I heard when we were negotiating the forest

and range agreement, where a smaller band was actually projected to

receive less revenue and less forestry volume just because of the size

of their band. They were too small to fight on their own. There were

only 200 people in their band, 100 living off reserve. The bigger band

said: “We’re not going to sign on to the agreement unless that smaller

band is actually treated fairly and actually given substantial revenues

to help their own problems.”

Talked a little bit about the eligibility. For that, I’m assuming,

without seeing the final agreement, there is going to be criteria. I

know there are objectives and categories that would be put into this

agreement that the First Nation will be able to apply for, which is

good. It’s really good. But if there is a band out there that is okay

already with their infrastructure, that is okay with their housing, then

I can only imagine there are going to be bands out there that are going

to want to use this fund for economic development purposes.

The only concern I raise here is that this fund be actually

distributed to those bands, who want to participate in the economy,

without prejudice. It should be straightforward in terms of what this

band wants to engage in. If it’s something that they want to create on

their own, on reserve or off reserve, it shouldn’t matter, as long as

they meet the eligibility requirements. It shouldn’t matter what the

nature of the business is.

Now, I’ve come across this before. I don’t see it as much today,

but in the past, if you were engaging in a politically incorrect

project, you would get ignored. There are a lot of options out there

right now for equity in major projects. There are a lot of options out

there now for partnering up with businesses in terms of equity to

participate in the contract opportunities for major projects.

Now, the major projects we’re talking about are fossil fuels.

We’re talking about Trans Mountain. We’re talking the majority of First

Nations along the pipeline route who want to engage in equity talks, who

want to own the pipeline. This is not new. This is not a new concept. I

already see people shaking their heads. The prejudice that you have

against Trans Mountain, is that going to fall into the eligibility

requirements? Will