Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 286

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Robert Goltz

L. Larson

Introductions by Members

Statements

Message of support for Martin Cruz

S. Chandra Herbert

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 38 — Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. G. Heyman

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Adoption awareness

R. Leonard

Citizen of the Year Award recipients in Prince George

S. Bond

Islamic heritage month and cultural diversity

A. Kang

Feast Asian dining festival

T. Wat

Norland Place supportive housing facility

J. Routledge

Joan LeMoine

M. Stilwell

Oral Questions

Agricultural land reserve changes and impacts

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Popham

M. Polak

Drinking water protection in Shawnigan Lake watershed

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Property taxes for small businesses and split assessment proposal

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

C. Oakes

Reports from Committees

Children and Youth Committee, Children and Youth with

Neuro-diverse Special Needs , October 2019

N. Simons

M. Stilwell

Tabling Documents

Environmental emergency program 2017-19 report to Legislature

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 41 — Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

Hon. S. Fraser

J. Rustad

A. Olsen

Hon. K. Conroy

E. Ross

S. Malcolmson

D. Ashton

Hon. D. Donaldson

R. Sultan

D. Routley

P. Milobar

R. Singh

T. Stone

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2019

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: On behalf of my Richmond colleagues, I would like to introduce a

constituent of mine. In the gallery today, to observe proceedings, is Kyle

Shury. Members may know of Kyle as the immediate past chair of the Richmond

Hospital Foundation, a great contributor to our community and community

leader. Would the House please join me in welcoming Kyle Shury to the

House.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’d like to welcome two important groups to the Legislature today. In

the gallery, we have members of the Canadian Freshwater Alliance; Rosie

Simms, with the Polis water sustainability project at the University of

Victoria; Danielle Paydli, Canadian Freshwater Alliance; and Claudia Ferris

from the B.C. Wildlife Federation.

I also understand that the Canadian Freshwater Alliance will be joined

by their colleague Chief William Seymour of the Cowichan Tribes later this

afternoon for meetings here at the Legislature. The Freshwater Alliance is

based in Ladysmith, and they are working with a broad coalition of groups on

B.C.’s water sustainability.

We’re also joined in the gallery today by a team of incredible young

climate activists. These students have prioritized climate in their young

lives, and they’ve been at the forefront of climate strikes happening here

in Victoria over the last few months. It was my pleasure to meet with them,

along with the Premier. We were extremely impressed with their dedication,

their passion and their articulate advocacy for their future and our

planet’s future. Please welcome Emma-Jane Burian, age 17; Grace Sinats, age

14; Elliott Anderson, age 12; Rebecca Wolf Gage, age 13; and Bethany

Munkacsi, age 13.

Welcome.

Finally, also joining us today are Merran Smith and Dan Woynillowicz

from Clean Energy Canada. Merran has been the co-chair of the Climate

Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council for the past two years, and her

work, along with her colleague Dan, has helped advise government on our next

steps in climate action.

We’re also joined by Ian Bruce, the director of science and policy at

the David Suzuki Foundation, a leading voice for environmental advocacy for

almost 30 years.

I’m pleased to have everybody here today.

E. Ross: I don’t know how many people have the problem I have in terms of

getting our spouses to visit here in Victoria. I see hands going up. Nobody

wants to come visit us here in Victoria, especially our spouses.

[1:40 p.m.]

My wife is here today, my wife of over 35 years now. She’s here

overnight only, and it took a lot of convincing to get her down here. Will

the House please welcome my wife, Tracey Ross.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, multiple opportunities here. The member for Skeena has opened up

a floodgate. My spouse lives here. I can’t get away. I stay here all the

time. I’m delighted — 35 years that we’ve been together.

There are also two milestones. The member for Saanich South, the

Minister of Agriculture, is celebrating a birthday today. I would like all

members to wish her a happy birthday.

Looking into the gallery and seeing Merran Smith reminds me of the

last time I climbed a mountain. It was with her, it was about 30 years ago,

and it wasn’t even a really big mountain. It was Mount Finlayson in

Goldstream Park. It’s great to see Merran. It’s great to say happy

birthday.

To the member for Skeena, perhaps we can double-date tonight. Would

the House please….

J. Tegart: I’m very pleased to have some guests in the House today. Piper Humber

interviewed me on the impact of gendered political leadership and how it

shapes public policy. She’s joined by her mom, Dr. Nancy Humber, and her

grandma, Gerry Humber. I’d like the House to welcome them today.

R. Chouhan: It gives me pleasure to introduce two of my best friends. Bruce

Ferguson and Merrick Walsh from Labourers International Union of North

America, Local 1611, are here. Could you please join me to welcome

them.

Tributes

ROBERT GOLTZ

L. Larson: On a sad note, on October 25, Robert Goltz of Oliver passed away

suddenly at the age of 62. He was a longtime member of the Grape Growers

Association, a volunteer with the B.C. Wildlife Federation as well as

the Sportsmen’s Association. He was awarded the Farmer of the Year and

received an Award of Distinction from the B.C. Wine

Institute.

He is survived by his wife, Caroline; son, Nathan; daughters Sarah

and Sabrina; several grandchildren; and a large and loving

family.

I ask the Speaker to extend condolences on behalf of the

Legislature to his family.

Introductions by Members

Mr. Speaker: The Leader for the official opposition…. The House Leader.

M. Polak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we’d better be really careful about that.

That’s a job I don’t want, thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: I just got you in trouble.

M. Polak: No, no. On introductions, though, for those of us who are here at this

Legislature, regardless of which party, we have people who work in our

political parties and make it possible for us to achieve the success that we

do in elections and then to be able to go on and serve the people in our

riding, the people of British Columbia.

Today in the gallery, we’re joined by a wonderful young lady, Rachael

Segal. She is a senior director with the B.C. Liberal Party. Would the House

please make her very welcome.

Hon. A. Dix: We’re really honoured to have, in the House today, representatives of

the Health Sciences Association, whose members do such extraordinary work in

health care every day. I’m honoured to introduce the president of the HSA,

Val Avery; and Jaime Matten, who’s well known to people on this side of the

House as well — an extraordinary leader at the HSA. We’re honoured to

welcome them, and I wish everyone to bid them welcome.

Statements

MESSAGE OF SUPPORT FOR MARTIN CRUZ

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, we all have those folks who go above and beyond and

volunteer to support the work we do in our communities. There’s one

fellow in my community, Martin Cruz, who would always be there, whether

it was rain, shine, wind…. We get a bit of snow in the West End, but not

much. But he would come out anyway — which, for a West Ender, is a big

deal.

Martin’s not doing well. He’s in hospital right now. He’s been

sick for some time. I’m not sure if he’s watching at the moment, but I

just wanted to say thank you to Martin and thank you to everybody that

allows us to do the work we do here on behalf of our constituents. It’s

not always easy.

Thank you, Martin. You’re a hero for many.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: I’d like the House to join me in welcoming four local government

elected officials from the beautiful Sunshine Coast. Annemarie De Andrade is

here from Gibsons; Mayor Darnelda Siegers is here from Sechelt, Matt McLean

from Sechelt and Brenda Rowe from Sechelt. Would the House please join me in

welcoming them.

[1:45 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Today I’m honoured to welcome my son, Silas Olsen, into the House with

us. He’s out of school due to a little strike issue in school district 63,

so I decided to bring him to work.

This morning started very early for Silas, and it’s going to go very

long for Silas. He sat through caucus meeting, so anybody, if they’re

interested in finding out what goes on, might want to have a conversation

with Silas. He’s learning about governance. He’s learning about politics,

for sure.

Could everyone here please make him feel very welcome.

S. Furstenau: Joining the water champions Rosie, Danielle and Claudia up in the

gallery is my dear friend Jill Thompson. I’m so delighted to see her, and

I’m so delighted that she’s a constituent. She is a real model for what we

need to see in terms of community building as a way to protect our water. I

look forward to meeting with all of you after the question

period.

A. Weaver: I would like to join my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands

and welcome a remarkable young man in Silas, who I’ve known since he was

five years old. He used to come to the Legislature when we were down in our

little office there. To see him grow into such a wonderful young man has

just been a real privilege.

On top of that, if you’re asking him about our caucus meeting, you

should know that as part of bringing him to work today, we felt he should be

occupied. I now have learned something from Silas. I looked at my iPad that

he was using while we were in caucus, and I now see that I can play Star

Wars Angry Birds, so I’m really excited for him to teach me about that later

this afternoon.

Could everyone please welcome Silas.

N. Simons: I noticed a friend and former or sometimes resident of the Sunshine

Coast in the gallery. Film-maker and public relations expert Claudia Ferris

is in the House. Please join me in welcoming her.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — CLIMATE CHANGE

ACCOUNTABILITY

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2019

Hon. G. Heyman presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Climate Change Accountability

Amendment Act, 2019.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that Bill 38 be introduced and read a first time

now.

Over the past several months, we have witnessed growing and

articulate calls from young people like those joining us in the House

today to safeguard their future, to respond meaningfully to the climate

crisis and to be accountable for our promises and actions. This bill

includes important amendments to the Climate Change Accountability Act

that will strengthen B.C.’s ability to respond to the challenges of

climate change and implement our CleanBC commitments to strengthen

government accountability for taking action. It’s the product of our

collaborative work with the Third Party through our confidence and

supply agreement.

The amendments mandate an interim greenhouse gas emission

reduction target and sector-specific reduction targets to help keep B.C.

on track to our 2030 legislated GHG reduction target. The amendments

increase accountability by requiring an annual report on progress to

targets, plans to manage climate change risks and expenditures to

support both. The report will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly by

the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

The amendments will legislate the establishment of an independent

advisory committee to provide public advice to government on climate

action and building a strong low-carbon economy. New regulatory powers

will enable new requirements and targets to be set for the public sector

to meet climate action commitments.

Young people throughout B.C. and around the world are demanding

action and accountability, and that’s what this bill

delivers.

[1:50 p.m.]

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38, Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ADOPTION AWARENESS

R. Leonard: November is Adoption Awareness month, a time to honour adoptive

families and all those other families in B.C. who have provided

permanent and loving homes for children and youth in care.

Welcoming a child or youth into your home is such a generous act

of compassion. I know that everyone in the House today appreciates the

work done by adoptive families. Those loving, supportive, lasting

relationships help dreams come true for children and youth who really

need someone to love them and for those who’ve dreamed of starting or

expanding a family.

Reconciliation has unveiled the value of other ways, along with

adoption, to provide culturally relevant long-term relationships for

children and teens who can’t safely live with their families. Currently

there are 751 children in B.C., including babies, children and

teenagers, some with special needs, sibling groups — all waiting for the

stability and care of a permanent family. Over the last year, 221

children and youth in care were placed for adoption. About 40 percent of

B.C.’s foster children were adopted by their foster families, and 644

children and youth in care found permanency with committed relatives

through the extended family program.

Thank you to all the devoted social workers who find loving and

culturally appropriate homes for children. Your work changes lives. And

a big thank-you to the Adoptive Families Association of B.C. for your

pre- and post-adoption support services, education and training for

people interested in adopting.

If you are over the age of 19, you can apply to adopt, regardless

of your marital status, employment, sexual orientation, disability or

home ownership. Individuals, couples or two adults together may apply to

adopt children.

Want to know more about adoption in B.C.? Just google “adopt B.C.

kids” or go to adoptnow.ca.

CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD

RECIPIENTS IN PRINCE

GEORGE

S. Bond: The Prince George Community Foundation recently hosted the 22nd

annual Citizens of the Year gala. Once again this year they honoured

three very deserving individuals: Albert Koehler, Chuck Chin and Noreen

Rustad. Between the three recipients, they have contributed thousands of

hours as volunteers in our community and beyond.

Albert Koehler is a former city councillor and a longtime

Rotarian, serving as the president of the Yellowhead Rotary Club. He has

served on numerous boards, including the Prince George Chamber of

Commerce, serving as the president in 2008 through 2009. Albert was

relentless in his pursuit of a civil engineering program at UNBC and

also served as the honorary consul for the Federal Republic of

Germany.

Noreen Rustad has an incredible record of service that spans more

than 50 years. Noreen has worked with Brownies and Guides, children’s

drama groups and the Prince George spinners and weavers guild. She is a

founding member of the Prince George Community Foundation and served as

its president for three years. Noreen sat on the board of governors at

UNBC and has been the recipient of many awards for her dedication and

her commitment.

Chuck Chin is a proud promoter of our community and the amazing

organizations and people who choose to call Prince George home. Chuck

uses his camera to capture images and tell stories. If there is an event

in Prince George, you will likely find Chuck and his wife there. His

photos have been featured on Global television, and many are proudly

displayed throughout the community. Chuck never charges a fee, believing

that this is his way to give back and support the community he

loves.

Congratulations, Albert, Noreen and Chuck. Your efforts have

helped to make Prince George a better place. You are most deserving of

the very special recognition as Citizens of the Year.

ISLAMIC HERITAGE MONTH

AND CULTURAL

DIVERSITY

A. Kang: I’m pleased to rise in the House to honour Islamic heritage month

in B.C. Today was the first time that it was celebrated in the Hall of

Honour at the Legislature.

[1:55 p.m.]

This month we recognize the significant contributions of the

Muslim community in our province and throughout our nation. At a time

when there are increasing levels of Islamophobia in Canada and around

the world, our government recognizes that joining together to celebrate

Islamic heritage is more important than ever.

We must recognize that we have the power to create a more

inclusive society for everyone. Everyone deserves to live free from

fear, free from oppression, free to be able to fully express their

identity. Let us celebrate our freedom of conscience and religion,

freedom of thought and belief, freedom of association, freedom of

peaceful assembly.

As Nelson Mandela affirmed: “Let freedom reign. The sun never set

on so glorious a human achievement” and “To deny people their human

rights is to challenge their very humanity.”

In British Columbia, we are privileged to live in a multicultural

society. Our cultural diversity is central to B.C.’s identity and one of

the province’s greatest strengths. This month is an excellent

opportunity to come together to learn more about this history and the

diversity of B.C.’s large Muslim community.

I’m proud to be part of the government that places great value on

diversity. We’re committed to enhancing intercultural understanding to

strengthen ties among our diverse community to foster a greater respect

and appreciation for all cultures and faiths.

So join me in celebrating Islamic heritage month, and take this

time to reflect on the many amazing aspects of this community that

contributes in so many ways to the prosperity and success of this

province.

FEAST ASIAN DINING FESTIVAL

T. Wat: I rise today to talk about a very special event in my riding.

Feast, the Asian dining festival, returns to Richmond for the second

year in a row. Over the two weeks that this event took place last year,

it was so popular that Feast has now returned for an amazing 32 days

between October 18 and November 18.

The Feast festival gives groups of friends and family the chance

to try unique and easy-to-order menus at accessible prices. Restaurants

spanning all forms of Asian cuisine will be participating, including

Cantonese, Filipino, Indian, Japanese, Korean, Persian, Shanghainese,

Taiwanese and Vietnamese cuisines.

Thanks to the strong support of Tourism Richmond and the

Richmond News , the festival showcases the vibrant and

world-renowned culinary talent that Richmond has to offer.

Ninety percent of the restaurants participating are from my own

riding of Richmond North Centre. I had the pleasure of visiting several

of them during Small Business Week, including Hotpot Palace and JiangHu

Taiwanese cuisines, and I’m very much looking forward to visiting more

over the next few weeks, especially during the next two weeks when I’m

back in my riding. In fact, next week I will join all my colleagues in

the city of Richmond and the members for Richmond South Centre,

Richmond-Steveston and Richmond-Queensborough to dine in one of the

participating restaurants to show our support and

appreciation.

If you find yourself in Richmond, seek out some of these fantastic

local restaurants, and I can guarantee that you will enjoy great food,

even great company, and find a new favourite place in

Richmond.

NORLAND PLACE

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

FACILITY

J. Routledge: Last week it was my pleasure to help celebrate the opening of

Norland Place. It’s a first for Burnaby. Fifty-two of our homeless, or

who are at risk of becoming homeless, neighbours will have a roof over

their heads, a door they can lock, their own bathroom, their own

kitchen.

Some of them need help to stabilize their lives, so Norland Place

will be staffed 24-7, offering access to health and wellness services,

life skills and employment and education opportunities. These are the

building blocks that help people make a new start — people like Sunjai,

who has been homeless for years and who is grateful to finally have a

permanent home where he feels accepted, clean and well

nourished.

Another man told me that he used to be the vice-president of a

marketing firm. He became ill. He lost his job and ended up on the

streets. He’s thrilled with his new home. He now has hope. He feels

confident about his future.

[2:00 p.m.]

This would not have been possible without partners like

Progressive Housing Society, which will be providing round-the-clock

support; or partners like Mayor Mike Hurley and the city of Burnaby,

without whose support this project would never have gotten off the

ground; or like Horizon North, which builds modular homes and, in so

doing, is part of an industry that creates more than 2,000 jobs and

sustains local businesses.

I’d also like to thank the neighbours who went out of their way to

welcome newcomers to their community. Eighty-one of them came to an open

house and only had good things to say about Norland Place. The church

across the street invited residents to their regular table tennis

drop-in, and the neighbours did have one big question. They wanted to

know: “What can we do to help?”

JOAN L e MOINE

M. Stilwell: My constituency of Parksville-Qualicum is blessed to have many

dedicated volunteers who generously contribute to their communities.

Today it is my pleasure to recognize the good work of one of those

deserving volunteers, Joan LeMoine.

Joan is an extraordinary person who gives back to our community in

many ways. This year, at 89 years young, she shaved her head in support

of the Cops for Cancer Tour de Rock, an annual fundraiser for pediatric

cancer research and programs for children with a history of cancer. She

raised more than $9,000. It was the eighth time she’s participated. Our

local newspaper, the PQB News , says she’s raised close to

$50,000 for the organization in her lifetime and has helped send 26

children to Camp Good Times.

Joan was among the volunteers who formed the Parksville Beach

Festival Society in 1999 and reshaped our annual beach festival and

international sand-sculpting competition. The society gives back a

portion of the money that is raised each year to community projects and

non-profit groups and has distributed over $700,000 in the last 20

years. In 2014, Joan stepped down as the longest-serving director and

was named the society’s first honorary director.

She’s also given her time to other organizations, including 20

years with the Society of Organized Services. She’s been recognized with

the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012 and the community

ambassador award for the city of Parksville in 2013, and she was one of

the first recipients of B.C.’s Medal of Good Citizenship in

This warm, caring woman, is the mother of six and a grandmother

and great-grandmother many times over. She is well known and well loved

in our community and remains a shining example of how one person can

make a difference.

Please join me in giving Joan a big thank you for the work that

she’s done.

Oral Questions

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

CHANGES AND

IMPACTS

M. de Jong: For a couple of days now, the Agriculture Minister has been trying

to avoid responsibility for the impact her amendments are having on

people who live and work on ALR lands. Confronted by the fact that her

amendments have led to the eviction of the nine women from the

Abbotsford Women’s Centre, she provided answers that were just

fundamentally false and incorrect. She said: “There are other places for

women fleeing violence. The Minister of Housing will help.”

Well, these women, happily, are not fleeing violence. They’re

receiving addiction support. They don’t need or want the help of the

Minister of Housing. They’re doing just fine where they are.

The Ag Minister said the program has outgrown its site. Well, that

was never an issue for the ALC. And how is that relevant? Is that now

the test: if a program is doing well, shut it down?

[2:05 p.m.]

The minister says she supports the work that the Abbotsford

Women’s Centre is doing. The question people are asking is: how does

evicting nine women from their home represent support?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. I understand that the member values this

service in his community very much. I understand that the Agricultural

Land Commission makes decisions independently, and I hope that he also

understands that.

It’s my understanding that the rehabilitation centre applied to

increase capacity at their facility because it had reached capacity, and

the Agricultural Land Commission made a decision that was not in favour

of that request. But they did allow a grace period of two years for the

shelter to find a new place.

Now, I just want to be clear, though, that I’m very happy to meet

with the facility, but something else needs to be made clear. The member

implies that something that we’ve done, a change we’ve made, has

affected this decision, but that’s absolutely not true. The decision

that was made was based on the rules made by the opposition.

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

M. de Jong: Look, the minister changed the mandate. When she introduced Bill

15, she was very proud of that fact. I recall the debate. She was very

proud of the fact that she changed the mandate and the rules that the

ALC applies to these matters. Now following that change, applying that

new mandate, the Abbotsford Women’s Centre is being evicted from the

site that they’ve called home for many, many years. They lived there for

many, many years.

What’s going to change? Well, here’s what’s not going to change

after they’re evicted. After they’re evicted, that house that has been

there for decades will continue to be there. The driveway that drives up

past the trees and the rocks on this one-hectare site will still be

there. The detached garage they use as a craft centre for the women will

still be there. The little shed they use as a gym, a makeshift gym, will

still be there. You know what won’t be there? The nine women getting the

support they need for addictions. They won’t be there.

The minister and her government, through the amendments they

introduced and passed, have created this problem. Will the minister fix

it?

Hon. L. Popham: I think I have made it very clear that the mandate that the

Agricultural Land Commission made their decision on was based on rules

made by the opposition. There has been nothing that we would have

changed that they would have based their decision on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. L. Popham: Let’s be clear. The Agricultural Land Commission is an independent

tribunal, and on this side of the House, we respect the independence of

that tribunal. Perhaps the opposition didn’t respect that when they were

government.

We’ve heard loud and clear with our consultation process, which is

continuing till November 15, that people are looking for more

flexibility with the agricultural land reserve. They’re looking for

opportunities for value-added. What we’re doing is we’re speaking to

British Columbians. In fact, the consultation committee is in Cranbrook

today speaking with the city of Cranbrook. We’re actively consulting

with farmers, ranchers and consumers and the public of British Columbia

to see if any changes should be made.

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

supplemental.

M. de Jong: You know, a couple of days ago, the minister was purporting to

explain the decision, as she again does today. She was wrong then, and

she’s wrong again today.

She introduced these amendments. The order was…. I have the order.

If members have read the order, that’s fine. I don’t think they have.

The order was made on the basis of the changed mandate that this

government and this minister have imposed.

Here’s what the spokesperson for the Abbotsford Women’s Centre

says. They are not complainers. They don’t, quite frankly, want any

attention. Here’s what they said. “We realize they have a mandate,”

speaking about the ALC, “but we’re hoping they would see beyond the

mandate to maybe being able to give back a little piece of land for the

purpose of reclaiming people’s lives.”

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, the minister made some changes to accommodate dumping gravel

on ALR lands. I guess they’re asking for a similar realization that

there have been impacts to the changes they made. The mandate that this

woman Angie is referring to is the mandate the minister gave to the ALC

in Bill 15.

The women’s centre wants to save lives. The Gleaners want to feed

the world’s hungry.

When will the minister acknowledge that it is the changes she and

her government have imposed upon those who are trying to do good work

that is preventing them from doing that good work, and will she please

stand up in this House, acknowledge that and pledge to take the steps

necessary to allow those people to save lives and save women?

Hon. L. Popham: I’ll state it again. The rules that the decision was made under

were not in place by this government but put in place by the former

government.

Let me just say something about the Gleaners and the work they do.

They do an incredible thing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: They collect food that would otherwise be put into the landfill.

They chop it up. They dehydrate it. They make it into soup packages, and

they send it out to people who will need that. I’m really….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the interruptions are really getting out of hand

here. Unless your interruption has a level of humour that is commonly

displayed by the member for Abbotsford West or the member from

Chilliwack, then we don’t want to hear it.

Hon. L. Popham: The work that the Gleaners do is very interesting, and it’s very

important. We have a very strong mandate within my ministry to encourage

food processing, and we’re creating a network of processing across

British Columbia. I would be very interested in sitting down with the

Gleaners to see how we could work together.

M. Polak: Walter and Sheila Chapman had a pretty exciting retirement plan

that they have built over many years. In 1997, together with their

daughter and daughter’s husband, they bought a farm property on 248th in

Langley. The son and daughter built themselves a home on the back of the

property and rented out a much, much older building on the front to a

caretaker and security person.

The goal of this was to allow Walter and Sheila, when the time

came for their retirement, to sell their home in South Surrey and move

onto the property with their daughter and son-in-law. Sounds eminently

reasonable. Probably the kind of retirement a lot of us would really

dearly love to have, and so would they.

They were confronted by a similar problem to those we’ve heard

described in this House for this past week. They were told, after they’d

already demolished the existing home on the property in order to rebuild

their retirement home, they would have to apply to the ALC.

They were also told that it would take 30 to 60 days to get a

response. Well, here they are, more than five months later. They’re

still waiting, and they don’t have an answer.

What will this minister do to ensure that the Chapman’s retirement

dream is not ruined?

Hon. L. Popham: When we were changing the legislation and putting a limit on

houses and addressing houses on the Agricultural Land

Reserve….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: When we were addressing changes with residences on the

agricultural land reserve, we really took into account the needs of

farmers and farming families. We made sure that we created a path

forward for those families, whether they needed an additional residence

to support other family members or to create a home that would house a

multigenerational farming family. We saw that the needs of farmers were

quite different from northern B.C. right into southern B.C. and on

Vancouver Island.

[2:15 p.m.]

The issue that the member brings up specifically — I’m not

familiar with the file. I’d be happy to sit with the member to talk

about those details.

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

supplemental.

M. Polak: Here’s what Sheila says in an email to me. “My husband has now

suffered from a heart attack, which I am certain is related to the

stress of this ordeal. Our situation is dire and can’t seem to get any

answers from the ALC. Imagine not being able to rebuild a home that was

already there on your own land.” Now they are waiting. They’ve been

waiting more than five months.

Here’s what it means to them. They actually had to move back in

and rent their home, which they sold, from the new owners. They won’t be

able to do that much longer, and unless they have a positive answer, I’m

not sure exactly what they’re supposed to do for their retirement. But

the fact of the matter is that before these changes, this wouldn’t have

occurred.

This is a plot of land where there already was a home that they’ve

knocked down, and they’re going to rebuild. Just the very fact that they

have to apply is ridiculous. It’s their property. It’s their retirement

plan. They’re rebuilding a home that already existed.

Won’t the minister fix the mess she has created and ensure that

this family can be kept whole?

Hon. L. Popham: As I said earlier, I’m not familiar with this particular

application, and I certainly wouldn’t be able to interfere with that

application. I would be happy to sit down with the member and talk to

her about what’s going on in her community. When a new home is going to

be rebuilt, no matter where it is, you do have to go through an

application process with local government. And if it’s on the

agricultural land reserve, you have to go through an application process

with the Agricultural Land Commission. It’s as simple as

that.

DRINKING WATER PROTECTION IN

SHAWNIGAN LAKE

WATERSHED

S. Furstenau: Elizabeth and Ed Brennan moved onto their property on Goldstream

Heights road in Shawnigan Lake 14 years ago. They sourced their water

from a well, and at the time, there were no water quality issues. But

seven years ago their well, which sits next to a property that has been

operating as a dumping site for soil, showed a marked increase in lead

levels, 20 parts per billion.

Since that time, several sites along Stebbings Road and Goldstream

Heights road have accepted hundreds of thousands of tonnes of soil with

little to no oversight from the provincial government. The situation for

the Brennans is much more dire. Lead levels in their well have now

skyrocketed to 80 parts per billion, more than 16 times the acceptable

levels for lead.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Island Health staff have

been to this home and determined that the lead is not coming from the

plumbing, indicating that the lead is indeed in the well water. Will

Island Health also test for hydrocarbons in the Brennans’ water, and has

the provincial health officer been notified of this

situation?

Hon. A. Dix: Obviously, and the member will understand this, we’re committed to

ensuring safe drinking water around British Columbia. The site, as the

member suggests, is a private well, serving a single residence.

Obviously, the issues in the neighbourhood mean that there is

significant concern in the community as well as, of course, by the

family in question.

Island Health, as the member suggested, did on-site testing on

October 10. They found lead levels above acceptable levels, above the

guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality. They are determining, as

they are working together with the family and with the community, the

source of the contamination, which I think is an important question to

determine. Once that’s been determined, Island Health will make

recommendations as to what actions can be taken.

The member will know, and I think she’s received such briefings as

well, that the provincial health officer and others, of course, are

aware of this file and would be happy to provide the member with a

briefing.

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

[2:20 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I would recommend that to look for the source of contamination,

the site directly adjacent to the Brennans’ property was determined in

2012 to have contamination of lead as well as hydrocarbons. This was a

concern for the community of Shawnigan Lake at the time. Very little

action has been taken. In fact, there has been a massive increase in

dumping of soil throughout the northern part of the Shawnigan watershed

at a number of sites in this region, many of which were determined in

2012 to have contamination already on their sites.

Now we have a situation where a local well has lead levels as high

as 80 parts per billion, far above the acceptable concentrations in the

drinking water guidelines.

My question is, again, to the Minister of Health. Leadership is

needed to protect drinking water now more than ever. Will the Ministry

of Health now coordinate an action plan to identify the risks that all

of these sites pose to drinking water in Shawnigan and identify the

necessary steps to ensure that these risks are addressed?

Hon. A. Dix: As the member will know, because she’s raised them before, there

are significant issues with respect to contaminated sites that the

Minister of Environment is taking the lead on at Shawnigan Lake. These

are, obviously, significant questions for the community and indeed, I

think, for the whole province.

In this case, Island Health is taking leadership. They’re taking

action on this matter. They’ve been to the site. They’re taking action.

They’re going to be making recommendations as to what action is

taken.

The member is quite right. And just so we understand and people

out there understand, this contamination, the site in question, is not

the former aggregate site. We’re talking about another site that

previously had been permitted by the Cowichan Valley regional district.

Action may need to be taken. That is why Island Health is taking the

steps to get to the facts, to get to the fundamental information, so any

action we take is made on the basis of evidence.

PROPERTY TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

AND SPLIT

ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL

T. Stone: We’ve been asking the Minister of Municipal Affairs for quite some

time now to take action to address the fact that a growing number of

small businesses and other organizations are facing massive increases in

their property taxes due to the unused airspace above their heads. Now

there’s only one day left for this minister to take action in time for

the 2020 tax year. If the minister doesn’t take action now, then an

increasing number of businesses are going to face that tough decision of

having to lay off employees and close their doors — businesses like

Ouisi Bistro and West Restaurant, which have already announced plans to

close due to increases in property taxes.

The good news is that there is a solution. It’s a solution that’s

endorsed by local governments, arts and culture, small business and

community organizations. The solution is called the split assessment

classification.

My question is a simple, straightforward one to the minister, and

it’s this. We’ve actually tabled in this House a bill that provides for

this solution, split assessment classification. Will the minister call

that bill today?

Hon. S. Robinson: Let me be clear. This is an issue today because the old government

ignored it for well over a decade. They were giddy with glee when real

estate prices…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: …were spiralling out of control. They were giddy. It created a

problem for small business, for non-profits. Then they ignored the

problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: In fact, in July, we got a letter from the director of the

Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who said: “Despite pressure

from organizations like the CFIB for well over a decade, government has

done nothing.” For a decade, they ignored the problem that small

businesses were saying was really very difficult for them. They chose to

ignore it.

Well, we chose to take action. We took action by bringing people

together to develop ideas for resolving an issue that they ignored. They

ignored it, and we took action. They created the problem and then

ignored it.

[2:25 p.m.]

We brought a group together to identify tools. There are some

long-term opportunities for us to develop a permanent solution. In the

meantime, we are looking at some short-term solutions to provide relief

to businesses for 2020.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, the minister talks about long-term solutions. A growing

number of businesses don’t have the long term to wait for solutions to

be brought forward by a minister and a government that have been in

power for two and a half years.

Not only has the minister done nothing; the Premier has done

nothing. The member for Vancouver–West End has done nothing. The member

for Vancouver–Point Grey has done nothing. Vancouver-Fairview has done

nothing. The eight MLAs in Vancouver on the government side…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: …have done nothing over the past 2½ years to address this

issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: Meanwhile, a growing number of small businesses are facing that

very difficult challenge of having to lay off employees and shut their

doors because of the lack of urgency and the lack of immediate response

on the part of the government.

Now, this issue isn’t just confined to Vancouver. Three small

businesses in a strip mall in White Rock are grappling with combined

property tax increases of over $70,000 in one year, a 40 percent

increase year over year. An arts and antique business on Granville

Street in Vancouver says that it’s closing soon due to the massive

increase in property taxes.

Now, we’ve proposed a solution. That solution has been broadly

supported by local governments and the broad coalition that I mentioned.

I want to read this into the record really quickly: “Split assessment is

the best way forward for small business in our community. We’ve tried

everything we can here at the local level, but we really need provincial

help to get this done.” Who said that? None other than a good friend of

the folks opposite, none other than a former NDP MP, none other than the

current mayor of the city of Vancouver. Now, these are the words of the

mayor of Vancouver.

The question is this. Will the minister…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please allow the member for Kamloops–South

Thompson to finish his question.

T. Stone: The members opposite seem to be a little bit prickly about the

fact that one of their own has been calling for this split assessment

classification.

The question is this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: Will the minister take the advice of these arts and culture

organizations, will she take the advice of small business organizations,

will she take the advice of local governments, will she take the advice

of the mayor of Vancouver and call our bill today so that we can debate

it and pass it to support small businesses?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, what I won’t do is take advice from the members who ignored

the problem for so long.

The member opposite suggests that everyone is in agreement. Well,

I have to tell him — he wasn’t paying attention at the UBCM — it passed,

but barely. Forty-six percent of local government said: “No, not a good

idea. Won’t work for us.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: It is critical that we take the time to get it right, to get the

right outcome. In the meantime, we have heard from those local

businesses. We have heard from those non-profits. We have

committed….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: We have committed to develop a tool that will work for them in the

short term to provide them relief, because we care about business. We

want to make sure that people can continue to feed their families so

that their businesses can thrive. We’re committed to working with

people, rather than the people opposite, who ignored business, who

ignored non-profits, who ignored spiraling-out-of-control real estate

prices for well over a decade.

[2:30 p.m.]

C. Oakes: Well, I would remind the member that the action that she talked

about was action that the Small Business Task Force raised over a year

ago. What action have we taken? We’ve seen businesses close across the

Lower Mainland on her watch. Maybe 100 days into government that excuse

flies, but you’ve been in government now for 2½ years.

Now, you may not listen to….

Interjections.

C. Oakes: You may laugh, and you may joke….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Oakes: In the meantime, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and local

government: you’ve heard from your stakeholders that this is a

significant crisis that needs action. If you won’t listen to your

stakeholders, how about you listen to your constituents?

The minister is from Coquitlam and must know Michael Hind, the CEO

of the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce. This is what he has said on

behalf of your constituents in your community: “That is why, together

with 11 other regional chambers and boards of trade, we submitted a

letter to the government for support and action on this pressing

problem.”

It’s not good enough for the minister to say that she is aware of

the crisis. She needs to act. Tomorrow is the deadline. Will the

minister listen to her constituents, take action now, call the bill so

that there is a solution for the 2020 tax year?

Hon. S. Robinson: I listened to the member’s question quite closely. First of all,

she presents this notion that somehow all local governments support the

direction of the split class. I have to say that perhaps she wasn’t

really paying very close attention at the resolutions debate.

There were a number of local governments that expressed serious

concern with what they’re proposing. In fact, Cariboo regional district,

Whistler and Lantzville — they argued that creating a new commercial

subclass would create challenges for them around fairness.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: Whistler argued that the change will not achieve its intent of

lowering tax rates for small businesses.

Clearly, they’re not interested in hearing about what local

governments have to say, hon. Speaker. That’s rather disappointing.

That’s rather disappointing that they don’t care what local governments

have to say.

They also felt that…. Grand Forks argued that local governments

already have tools to adjust tax rate ratios to solve the

issue.

I want to let the members opposite know that Michael Hind, who is

a fabulous constituent….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you’re hurting your ability to get another question in.

Please.

Hon. S. Robinson: He is a constituent of mine — I’m in regular phone contact with

him — who understands how important it is. He appreciates how important

it is that we make sure we have a tool that does the right thing. I have

assured him, just as I have assured this House, that we are working to

develop a tool that will work in the interim so that there will be some

tax relief for the 2020 year. We get that that’s really important. We

are doing the work. We’re doing that work with the Minister of Finance

to make sure there’s a tool that will make a difference for small

businesses.

I think it’s also really important to recognize that we will

continue to do the work with small businesses, with non-profits, as we

address the spiralling-out-of-control real estate prices that those

folks on the other side were gleeful about. They were gleeful about

out-of-control real estate prices, and we have taken action. We are

taking action, and we’re going to continue to take action to make sure

that people can afford to live here.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental. I’ll allow a short

question and a short answer.

C. Oakes: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

Now, if the member had actually been listening, she’d know that I

was actually bringing forth the concerns of chambers of commerce, small

business stakeholders. If you won’t listen to the chamber of commerce in

your constituency, how about you listen to Aaron Aerts of the Canadian

Federation of Independent Business, who said: “Simply put, this bill is

good public policy, has wide stakeholder support.”

Again to the minister, neighbourhoods will be changed forever

under this minister’s watch. You have an opportunity today, right now,

to make change. Call the bill; help save communities; help save small

businesses. Will you act to help small businesses, call the bill for the

2020 tax year, make it happen today?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I actually didn’t even hear a question, but again, I’m going to

reiterate that we have been taking action and we’ll continue to take

action to make sure that we have a permanent solution that works for

everybody, as well as interim solutions that work for the 2020 tax

year.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

N. Simons: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select

Standing Committee on Children and Youth for the fourth session of the

41st parliament. It’s a report on children and youth with neurodiverse

special needs.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

N. Simons: I move that the report be adopted, and in so doing, I would like

to make some brief comments.

Leave granted.

N. Simons: Thank you, everyone.

The Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth has a unique

responsibility to raise awareness of the challenges and issues

experienced by some of our most vulnerable populations — children and

youth.

Over the past year, the committee undertook a special project to

examine supports and services for children and youth with neurodiverse

special needs and their families. During the spring and early summer, we

had the opportunity to hear from over 200 parents, caregivers, service

providers and community organizations from across this

province.

We heard about the challenges families and caregivers face in

navigating and accessing a complex system of health, education and

social programs and services and how each family’s journey and needs are

unique. Their experiences and observations informed the committee’s 16

recommendations, which are all aimed at streamlining access to and

ensuring the timely provision of supports and services for children and

youth with neurodiverse special needs and their families.

On behalf of all committee members, I’d like to express our

appreciation to everyone who participated in the consultation — in

particular, the young people, their families and their caregivers, who

shared personal stories of strength in the face of adversity. We learned

a lot. We were moved by their stories, and we hope that their voices

will be reflected in this report.

I’d like to also take this opportunity to thank the Deputy Chair,

the member for Parksville-Qualicum, for being nice to me and for working

hard; and all of the members of the committee, who worked very well

together. We travelled, and we ate together and really enjoyed our

discussions.

I’d like to also thank the Office of the Clerk of Committees — in

particular, Jennifer Arril, Karan Riarh and Katey Stickle.

Finally, I’d like to thank the Hansard staff, as well — Amanda

Heffelfinger and Simon DeLaat and all those who were back in the bunker

making sure our words were transcribed accurately.

M. Stilwell: I’d like to echo the comments from the Chair, the member for

Powell River–Sunshine Coast. It is true. I was very nice to

him.

Occasionally we do see good work that gets done in this House

across party lines, and I truly feel that we were able to accomplish

much with this report. I truly thank the family members and the

caregivers who came along and shared their journeys and their personal

stories with us throughout the consultation. It took a lot of strength

and energy for them to come and share their very personal stories with

the committee.

As well, I’d like to thank the service providers and the

professionals who help support those families in our communities in all

the work that they do in our communities.

I think our report and our recommendations not only reflect the

need for improved services and supports but really emphasize the

importance of awareness and timely identification for those people with

neurodiverse conditions. We hope that this will lead to a broader

conversation, and hopefully in that conversation, we will normalize the

neurodiversity issue and support inclusion in our communities around

British Columbia.

I, too, would like to acknowledge all the committee members, who

put a lot of work into travelling around and listening and learning from

many people — especially the Chair and I, who spent much time working

with the Committee Clerk, Jennifer Arril; the Hansard staff, of course,

Amanda and Simon; our researchers and report writers, Karan and Katey.

They’ve done a fantastic job, and I do believe this is a great

collaboration and dedication with this special project.

[2:40 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Heyman: I have the honour to present the Environmental Emergency Program

2017-19 Report to Legislature .

On October 30, 2017, the Environmental Management Act was brought into

force and set a foundation for strengthening spill response in British

Columbia. One of the new requirements is that the minister provide a report

to the Legislative Assembly that outlines the administration, operation and

effectiveness of this new

section of the Environmental Management Act, 2.1.

This first report summarizes and highlights the achievement of the

environmental emergency program for this two-year period and includes an

overview of the program, including spill statistics and responses throughout

the province.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 41, Declaration on the Rights

of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2019.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — DECLARATION ON THE

RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS

PEOPLES ACT

Hon. S. Fraser: I would like to acknowledge the territory of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people and

thank the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations for allowing us to do our

business here today.

I move that Bill 41 be now read a second time.

Bill 41 will align B.C.’s laws with the 2007 United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the constitutional

rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada. It sets the UN declaration as

the framework for reconciliation in British Columbia, as called for by

the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s call to action No.

Before I go further, I would like to read from the

preamble to the

UN declaration itself, which is included within the bill. I think it

sets the stage well.

“Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples,

while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider

themselves different, and to be respected as such,

“Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and

richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common

heritage of humankind,

“Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based

on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of

national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are

racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and

socially unjust,

“Reaffirming that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their

rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind,

“Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic

injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and

dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing

them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in

accordance with their own needs and interests,

“Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent

rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic

and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions,

histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands,

territories and resources,

“Recognizing also the urgent need to respect and promote the rights

of indigenous peoples affirmed in treaties, agreements and other

constructive arrangements with States,

“Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organizing

themselves for political, economic, social and cultural enhancement and

in order to bring to an end all forms of discrimination and oppression

wherever they occur,

[2:45 p.m.]

“Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over developments

affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable

them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and

traditions, and to promote their development in accordance with their

aspirations and needs,

“Recognizing that respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures and

traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable

development and proper management of the environment,

“Emphasizing the contribution of the demilitarization of the lands

and territories of indigenous peoples to peace, economic and social

progress and development, understanding and friendly relations among

nations and peoples of the world,

“Recognizing in particular the right of indigenous families and

communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing,

training, education and well-being of their children, consistent with

the rights of the child,

“Considering that the rights affirmed in treaties, agreements and

other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples

are, in some situations, matters of international concern, interest,

responsibility and character,

“Considering also that treaties, agreements and other constructive

arrangements, and the relationship they represent, are the basis for a

strengthened partnership between indigenous peoples and States,

“Acknowledging that the Charter of the United Nations, the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the

Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, affirm the fundamental

importance of the right to self-determination of all peoples, by virtue

of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue

their economic, social and cultural development,

“Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used to

deny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in

conformity with international law,

“Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples

in this Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative relations

between the State and indigenous peoples, based on principles of

justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and

good faith,

“Encouraging States to comply with and effectively implement all

their obligations as they apply to indigenous peoples under

international instruments, in particular those related to human rights,

in consultation and cooperation with the peoples concerned,

“Emphasizing that the United Nations has an important and continuing

role to play in promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous

peoples,

“Believing that this Declaration is a further important step forward

for the recognition, promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms

of indigenous peoples and in the development of relevant activities of

the United Nations system in this field,

“Recognizing and reaffirming that indigenous individuals are

entitled without discrimination to all human rights recognized in

international law, and that indigenous peoples possess collective rights

which are indispensable for their existence, well-being and integral

development as peoples,

“Recognizing that the situation of indigenous peoples varies from

region to region and from country to country and that the significance

of national and regional particularities and various historical and

cultural backgrounds should be taken into consideration,

“Solemnly proclaims the following United Nations Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to be pursued

in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect.”

That is our aim here with this legislation — legislation that was

developed in partnership with the First Nations Leadership Council,

legislation that provides a collaborative framework for reconciliation

between the provincial government and Indigenous peoples in British

Columbia.

I have spent some time reflecting on this point: developed in

partnership with Indigenous peoples. When you think about the history of

this province and the laws that have been created, how often could any

of us truly say that?

[2:50 p.m.]

With this legislation, we are affirming the human rights of

Indigenous peoples in law in this province, in British Columbia, instead

of omitting them. We are setting a path that affirms our commitment to

working with Indigenous governments instead of denying their role as

governments. And we are taking a further step towards finally working

together for important reasons like an economy that we all can

participate in equitably, instead of investing in conflict, court cases

and concessions. It is time not just to contemplate a new path but to

forge one together.

This legislation is about ending discrimination, upholding human

rights and ensuring more justice and fairness. Instead of uncertainty

and lawsuits, we can build a robust and sustainable economy by working

together. We can create opportunities for Indigenous peoples, families

and communities so we all prosper.

A future shaped through sustained connections and relationships —

that’s how we approach this legislation. We worked as partners with the

First Nations Leadership Council, the leadership council that represents

the shared interests of nations across the province, through the B.C.

Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of

B.C. Indian Chiefs. It is historic to have this kind of collaboration

with Indigenous peoples. We are truly building a new relationship,

government-to-government, based on respect and recognition of inherent

rights. It’s a relationship that will be strengthened as we move forward

together.

That theme of collaboration applies within the provincial

government as well. I’m standing here today in this place as the B.C.

Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, but I’m only one

member of the provincial cabinet. We don’t work alone. We don’t work in

silos. The work of each ministry crosses into other ministries. We work

as a team. Nowhere is this more evident than in Indigenous Relations,

which touches the work of every other ministry across

government.

Pursuing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples is a

cross-government responsibility. To truly demonstrate our collective

resolve, reconciliation has to be a continuous thread that runs through

every government policy and program. That is why the Premier mandated

every minister in our government with the responsibility to implement

the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action.

Now, the TRC called on governments to implement the UN declaration

as the framework for reconciliation. The UN declaration has 46 articles.

They emphasize the Indigenous rights to live in dignity; to maintain and

strengthen Indigenous institutions, cultures and traditions; and to

pursue development based on Indigenous needs and aspirations. The UN

declaration is a statement of basic human rights of Indigenous peoples.

It does not create new rights at the expense of other people’s rights.

It expresses long-established human rights as they apply to Indigenous

peoples — rights like self-government, to be free from discrimination,

access to education, health care, and equitable social and economic

outcomes.

These are the kinds of rights we all expect to have in the course

of our daily lives, accepted and valued human rights that Canadians have

helped define and fight for, human rights that are the foundation of our

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, human rights that are reflected in the

Aboriginal rights that are recognized and affirmed in

section 35 of our

constitution, rights that the courts have consistently and repeatedly

upheld. That includes the Supreme Court decision on the Tsilhqot’in

Nation, which recognized Aboriginal title for the first time in Canadian

history. This historic decision set a new and higher standard for the

recognition of rights of Indigenous peoples.

[2:55 p.m.]

The UN declaration is a widely respected international human

rights instrument, both here in Canada and around the world. It has been

endorsed by 148 countries, including Canada.

Adopting and implementing the UN declaration was one of our

platform commitments, and that’s what we’re doing. The province has made

significant progress in implementing the UN declaration since 2017.

We’re modernizing the environmental assessment process through new

legislation and implementing Grand Chief Ed John’s recommendations to

help to keep Indigenous children out of care and with their families and

communities.

We’re committing $550 million over ten years to support the

construction of 1,750 affordable housing units off reserve and, for the

first time, on reserve and dedicating $50 million towards the work of

the First Peoples Cultural Council and First Nations communities to

revitalize Indigenous languages.

We’re implementing a new K-to-12 curriculum that makes sure

children in B.C. are taught about Indigenous culture and history, making

sure that Indigenous children can see their cultures and histories

accurately reflected in that curriculum.

We’re contributing more than $70 million to enhancing mental

health and addictions supports for Indigenous peoples, shaped and

delivered by Indigenous peoples, including two new urban treatment

centres and six others to be renovated and rebuilt across this

province.

We’re establishing the first-ever Indigenous program at the

University of Victoria — not the first in the province, not the first in

the country, but the first in the world; and making fundamental changes

to the way that we make treaties to guide a long-term relationship

instead of extinguishing rights and freezing our treaty relationships in

time. And we’re sharing a stable, long-term source of revenue from one

level of government to another so First Nations can invest in

self-determination, cultural renewal and services that make life better

for families.

This legislation will help us build on this progress and make a

real difference in the lives of Indigenous families and everyone across

British Columbia.

I want to acknowledge, also, the progress made by governments over

the past 25 years. There are many lessons learned about what has worked

and what hasn’t worked. An important lesson for all of us is that to

truly make progress, we need to recognize the human rights of Indigenous

peoples. That is the core of this bill, Bill 41.

Let’s talk about the bill itself for a few moments, please. I will

draw your attention first to the

interpretation section. That

section

would typically be called the

definitions section. But for this bill, we

didn’t want to take that kind of colonial approach, so we have called it

interpretation instead of definition.

The bill acknowledges the aspects of the UN declaration that

already reflect international conventions or international customary law

and that already apply to the laws of British Columbia. While this bill

does not, in and of itself, give the UN declaration legal force and

effect, it does not delay or affect that current application of the UN

declaration.

The purpose of the bill is to affirm the application of the UN

declaration to the laws of British Columbia. The declaration will be a

foundational framework for the work that needs to be done in relation to

our laws in British Columbia. I will add that within our commitment to

implement the UN declaration throughout government, its application also

extends to policies and operating practices. Over time as laws are built

or modified, they will be aligned with the UN declaration.

The bill requires government to develop an action plan. We will do

that in partnership and cooperation with Indigenous peoples. The

legislation will require annual reporting to monitor progress on the

action plan, all in collaboration and consultation with Indigenous

peoples. The action plan and reporting will provide transparency and

accountability for the work ahead.

The bill, and indeed the UN declaration, recognizes the importance

of self-determination and self-government. It will allow us the

flexibility to recognize more forms of Indigenous governments than we

have been able to do in agreement-making.

[3:00 p.m.]

This bill provides room for Indigenous peoples to make decisions

about their governing structures as they attempt to move out from under

the Indian Act. That could exclude, for example, governing bodies such

as traditional cultural entities, multiple nations working together as a

collective, hereditary governments or a combination of elected and

hereditary governments. The important

part is that it is based on what

the nation chooses, and that supports a key element of the declaration

around self-determination. That also provides clarity for government. I

believe it will also provide more clarity for businesses and communities

about who they should engage when working with Indigenous

partners.

The final key aspect of the bill is to provide for a new and

additional type of agreement. It’s providing a tool for the province and

Indigenous governments to develop true joint decision-making agreements.

This legislation creates the framework around how these partnerships

will be built. It will provide structure and add clear processes for how

joint decision-making would happen, while ensuring administrative

fairness and transparency. Such agreements can support predictability

for good projects to move ahead and a mechanism for Indigenous peoples

to fully participate in decisions that affect them.

This legislation is enabling, so we won’t see the world change

overnight once it is passed. It is a measured step on the shared path to

reconciliation. A question often raised when we talk about the UN

declaration is around free, prior and informed consent and whether that

amounts to a veto. Countless officials, as well as leading experts, have

explained in detail and with clarity how consent and veto are different,

fundamentally different.

For example, James Anaya, the former special rapporteur for the

rights of Indigenous peoples, has explained that free, prior and

informed consent — that standard — is meant to ensure that all parties

work together in good faith, that they make every effort to achieve

mutually acceptable arrangements and that a focus should be on building

consensus. This is quite different than veto. In fact, the UN

declaration does not contain the word “veto,” nor does this legislation

contemplate or create a veto.

This legislation does not limit the right of government to make

decisions in the public interest, but there are many decisions where we

need to make those decisions with Indigenous peoples. This legislation

gives us the tools to get an orderly, structured, transparent process

for that.

The province is expected to consult and cooperate in good faith,

as called for in the UN declaration, when considering decisions that may

affect Indigenous peoples. If government has met this condition, there

may be occasions when a disputed project goes forward, and there may be

occasions where a project does not go forward. Every project is unique,

with many factors that go into the decision-making for approvals. But

when you create and follow due process, that is not a veto.

What the legislation will ensure is that there is transparency and

clarity in the process so that businesses will know from the get-go what

is expected as they move through it. There is a better chance of

agreement by working together, by involving Indigenous communities and

listening to their knowledge and concerns. That way a project plan can

address them.

Our government wants sustainable economic growth because it

benefits people and communities all over this province. We are committed

to growing our economy so that we can provide the services that British

Columbians — all British Columbians — depend on. Indigenous governments

are telling us they want the same thing. Too often we have found

ourselves in ongoing cycles of conflict and court challenges. Litigation

and conflict have been major sources of uncertainty for all of us. This

new approach moves us towards respectful partnerships that foster

predictability, good jobs and opportunities, while respecting the rights

of Indigenous peoples. This bill will contribute to B.C. achieving its

fullest economic and social capacity.

[3:05 p.m.]

I want, also, to point out that in many ways, the business

community is ahead of government on this. Many companies have recognized

the opportunities in moving forward in a collaborative way with First

Nations, and they’re seeing the investment certainty that comes from

that. We are proposing, with this bill, a consistency with many

companies’ efforts. There’s a better chance of an agreement by working

together. Outcomes will be better. Not working together and ignoring

Indigenous rights almost guarantee disagreement. Bringing Indigenous

people into the conversation from the beginning helps create certainty

for industry and creates space for Indigenous peoples to benefit

economically, socially, culturally.

Collaboration is already happening, and it’s working. This

legislation codifies what is happening in many cases already on the

ground. Because of the focus on the right to free, prior and informed

consent, we don’t always see the conversation include the social

benefits that I believe will come from this legislation.

This is about human rights — the right to things like

self-determination, to education, to freedom of expression, to economic

and social opportunity, and to enjoy those rights free of

discrimination. They are the basis of our society. The UN declaration is

a statement of the human rights of Indigenous peoples. Implementing it

is about ending discrimination, upholding human rights and ensuring more

economic justice and fairness.

I believe most citizens now understand that those rights have not

been honoured for Indigenous peoples by Crown governments, but despite

countless injustices faced as a result of colonization, it’s important

to recognize the strengths and resilience and perseverance of Indigenous

peoples. I have seen this in every community that I have visited as

Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, as have the

ministers before me.

Upholding and recognizing the rights of Indigenous peoples will

foster harmonious and cooperative relations among British Columbians and

Indigenous peoples going forward. So we want to keep building and

strengthening our relationships together, based on the principles of

justice, peace, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination

and good faith. That is how we are approaching

reconciliation.

Child protection, language revitalization, revenue-sharing,

affordable housing, mental health and addictions, economic development

and land use planning. By continuing the work we are doing in so many of

these areas of government to advance reconciliation, I believe that

implementing the UN declaration can help us achieve even greater things

together — accomplishments that will make a difference to families and

communities all across this province.

Together we can end the epidemic of Indigenous children in

government care, see Indigenous students graduating from high school and

attending post-secondary in record numbers, raise the standard of living

so Indigenous families don’t have to experience poverty through

generations. It’s going to take all of us — businesses, government, all

members of this House and communities — in partnership with Indigenous

peoples to get this right. This will be a lasting legacy that enables us

to turn a corner in British Columbia.

Throughout this process, we are committed to being transparent and

bringing all British Columbians along. We’ve been transparent getting to

this point. Our commitment to implement the UN declaration is clearly

stated in all ministers’ mandate letters. We announced the intention to

introduce such legislation a year ago. We reiterated that commitment in

the budget and throne speeches this year.

We’ve engaged with First Nations, local governments, business,

other stakeholders. That will continue as we move forward with aligning

laws and developing the action plan. This work will be done in

collaboration with Indigenous peoples, with opportunities for engagement

with local governments, with industry, with business, other stakeholders

and the public.

The legislation is a framework to ensure the laws of British

Columbia uphold the rights of Indigenous peoples. It will give us a plan

for how to do that. It is a tool for bringing rules, transparency and

accountability when the government works with Indigenous governments on

decisions affecting their rights. It is another step forward that

reflects our commitment to working with Indigenous peoples and all

British Columbians towards a more just and prosperous future for

all.

[3:10 p.m.]

It is not a switch that will change every statute and process in

the government the day after this act is proclaimed, nor is it a veto

over development. It is a measured next step in our journey together

towards reconciliation in British Columbia.

Again, I want to recognize the efforts of previous governments,

the efforts that they have made. These conversations and efforts have

been going on for a long time, led by many in this House on all sides.

I’ve used this quote before, from former Attorney General Geoff Plant,

and it seems quite fitting to use it here today. He put it very

eloquently: “The question that arises is not whether Indigenous people

should have special protection, but rather whether we are finally ready

to admit they are entitled to the same basic rights that most of the

rest of us take for granted.”

We have a chance to show, not just our country but the world, what

true leadership looks like. Let’s be the province that everyone points

to as an example. Let’s commit to doing this together. People are going

to ask why: “Why do we need legislation if things are already changing?

The work is being done; partnerships are being built.”

Well, I’ve been an MLA for almost 15 years. I’ve had the honour to

spend a good deal of my time with the Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation portfolio, both as minister and as critic. I’ve had the

opportunity to meet people whose stories helped give rise to this

legislation. I’ve met Indigenous people in communities all around the

province — thriving, vibrant communities, in spite of the shameful

colonial history and the intergenerational impacts that has

created.

The atrocities of the past were created by the laws of the past.

Ask those who are impacted how significant words on paper were in their

lives. Ask yourselves: which side of history do you want to be on? I’m

going to choose the right side of history, and I am confident that all

members of this House are dedicated to reconciliation.

J. Rustad: I’m pleased to stand and take my place in this debate on Bill 41,

the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

I want to thank the minister for his words in introduction. I know

that many of those comments were very heartfelt, in terms of his desire

for improving reconciliation.

It is a great honour, in the time that I’ve been here and in the

time that I may still yet have in front of me to be here, to be able to

stand and speak on behalf of the people of Nechako Lakes and, in

particular, for the 13 First Nations that are part of Nechako Lakes.

There are others, of course, with overlapping boundaries.

I’ve had an opportunity to work very closely with many First

Nations in my riding — as well as, of course, through previous roles

right across the province. I can tell you that it’s interesting to hear

the stories from First Nations and their experiences, and an opportunity

to share some of those experiences. I think back to many of the

meetings, in some of the first meetings I had, where First Nation

leaders and people in their ridings told me about their history and

provided me with books and information. Believe me, I’ve got quite a

library now of books on First Nations.

When you look at the history before contact, before Europeans came

into the area, it’s quite interesting looking at how First Nations

developed and how they worked together — quite extensively, in terms of

their culture, in terms of their governance structure and in terms of

trade. In fact, I think, when one of the first European boats showed up

on the shore, the first thing that happened is that people went out in

canoes wanting to trade, wanting to be able to engage in trade. That’s,

of course, the basis of economic development. That’s the basis of our

economy and activities.

This trade and this engagement carried on until a point in time

where more and more Europeans and others came to these lands, came to

these areas. Then we started running into some challenges and issues.

There were conflicts that started up. There were particular actions, I

guess, that governments took.

[3:15 p.m.]

As British Columbia entered into Confederation, there were

approaches around trying to do some treaties and other types of things,

but it was always from a very — as it has been put — colonial

perspective.

It’s not much different than what has happened in other places

around the world. When you look at the history, for example, in places

like Chile or Venezuela or other types of places, or Colombia, where

Europeans came in, they basically took over and wiped out culture and

wiped out the sense of belonging. Matter of fact, I had an opportunity,

as minister, to meet with a delegation from Chile that was trying to

figure out: how do they rebuild that First Nation identity? It had been

400 years, and there wasn’t a sense of nations. There wasn’t a sense of

leadership. There was just an understanding that there was something

missing.

They came to British Columbia, and they talked to us about what we

were doing, because we were leaders in many aspects in terms of what we

did and how we worked with First Nations. So I think back on Canada’s

approach, through the Indian Act, and…. Quite frankly — I’ll just say

this bluntly — I’m actually kind of ashamed that Canada still has an

Indian Act. I think it should go, and the federal government needs to

figure out how to do that. Unfortunately, that hasn’t

happened.

The Indian Act has a long history and a painful history for many

First Nations. In that experience and those engagements I had with First

Nations around the province, they talked about, you know, how their

right to potlatch was taken away, to form a government, the ability to

bring together people to be able to work on and talk about issues; how

regalia was seized; how people were put in prison if they tried to

practise their way of government.

I think one of the more startling things for me, even though I had

read and knew about residential schools and the impacts of that on First

Nations people…. I had an opportunity to go and visit with the Stó:lō

people out in Chilliwack. They have a little bit of a museum of

artifacts and stuff. One of the sections they have in there is a

section

about residential schools. I know that at the time, when the nation put

that in there, people were like: “Why are you putting that in here? My

god, such a horrible part of our history.” The leadership at the time

said: “But it is our history. It’s important that people learn and

understand about our history.” So they had this.

One of the things that I saw there, which was shocking and

surprising, was a list of the penalties, the punishments, that were to

be dealt out. You know, we’ve all been through school. We’ve all seen

the rules in a school. But to imagine that there would be severe

punishment if you spoke your own language…. I mean, that’s just crazy to

think about in today’s society, yet that is what was there. That was

what the list was, amongst many other things that I won’t go into here

today.

We often wonder, then, you know…. I mean, so reconciliation….

We’re advancing in our relationships. It’s important to think about

where we have come from, and what has built to these moments today,

whether it’s through agreements or through this legislation or other

types of actions that are going on.

From the Indian Act, you know, advance…. Residential schools came

to an end, and I think that was good. The one question that really was

out there, whether it’s the white paper or whether it goes to the

constitution in 1982 that recognized the inclusion of title as part of

Indigenous rights, through various court cases…. But in the early 1990s,

there was a decision in British Columbia to try to advance treaties, to

try to advance this recognition and this methodology for dealing with

the land question.

There has been some success — I would say limited success — for

the nations that have gone through and actually succeeded in being in

treaty. They’re seeing, you know, advancement of their culture, of their

people, of their economy. I honour them and recognize the strength in

what they’ve done. But for a majority of nations, it hasn’t been able to

achieve what it was originally hoped to be. That’s really, you know, a

key piece, which was around the land question. But I’ll come back to

that in a bit. But that’s a piece that is still sort of hanging out

there, very significantly, that governments…. Whether it is federal or

provincial or Indigenous nations, we need to figure out how we come

together and address that question.

[3:20 p.m.]

I look at, you know…. So we advanced from the treaty process and

how developed and how relationships started to advance slowly. But they

did start to advance in terms of engagement.

Then along came a different government in the early 2000s, and

there were some rocky starts. But there was a decision, a deliberate

decision, to work towards reconciliation. As a matter of fact, we were

the first jurisdiction in the country — I think maybe even still the

only jurisdiction in the country — that actually had the word

“reconciliation” in the ministry’s title. We used to be the Ministry for

Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and that has since been changed

to Indigenous. But it was about relations and reconciliation.

I think about where we came from through that period of time. I’ve

been part of the government since 2005 through, and I had the chance and

the honour of being minister for just over four years. That advancement

in our relations and reconciliation was quite remarkable.

You look at the rest of Canada and approaches, and we are a decade

or two ahead of where other governments are in their thinking and in

their work with First Nations. Many governments are starting to catch up

and do things, but it was a dramatic change in terms of how things

advanced in British Columbia.

The first time there was ever revenue-sharing was here in British

Columbia. That was something that we decided to do and we’re proud of,

because there are activities and things that are happening on the land

base that, for far too long, First Nations were excluded

from.

They needed an opportunity to be able to engage economically, to

be able to help build and support their people for jobs and for

prosperity, quite frankly. That continued to advance, and it started off

slow.

I remember when I was first appointed in 2013, we had what was

called 18 non-treaty agreements or whatever. They ended up being renamed

several times — reconciliation agreements and other types of things. But

there were 18 of them. I was appointed, and the Premier gave me a

mandate and said: “Your mandate is to get ten more of these agreements

signed.” That was my mandate when I was first appointed in

Well, I’m pretty proud of the fact that by the time 2017 came

around and I was in there for just over four years, we had signed 435 of

those agreements, over and above what was done before — not

ten.

As a matter of fact, after we achieved the first year and we had

signed about 60 in the first year, the Premier’s staff had come in and

said: “Well, you know you’re an overachiever, I suppose.” I kind of

chuckled a little bit, and they said: “Well, what target do you want to

set next year?” I said: “What target do you want?” How many of these do

you want me to sign? There was so much opportunity to advance

reconciliation in the work that we were doing.

As a matter of fact, quite frankly, the only thing that held us

back from doing significantly even more of those was we just didn’t have

the resources. We didn’t have the people to be able to advance more of

those types of agreements. There were so many more that we were working

on.

The First Nations were coming and saying: “We want to achieve

this; we want to do various things.” We were open. How do we do that?

How do we work together? How do we try to achieve these

things?

As a matter of fact, we started working on agreements to start

actually addressing land. We had three pilot projects to go outside of

treaty to figure out: how can we start a process of transferring land

and coming to that ultimate resolution, that ultimate issue that has

been so sticky for governments for so long? And that was to deal with

land.

Some of those pilot projects have advanced in other forums. Some

of them haven’t gone forward, but it was a start and a process. I think

back to my riding, and I think back to these agreements and the kinds of

changes that have happened.

One of the nations that I’m particularly proud to work with…. I’m

proud to work with all of the nations in the riding, but I want to

highlight the Cheslatta Carrier Nation just for a moment.

When I was first elected, and then my riding changed to include

the Burns Lake area and where the Cheslatta people were, I had an

opportunity to meet, and I did that shortly after my re-election, which

was in 2009. We talked about their priorities and issues, and they told

me their story. They told me about what happened. I had no idea what

that history was until I had the chance to have that meeting.

When the dam was put in on the Nechako River at the time, there

was the standard protocol that was followed, which was in the 1950s. We

think back now, and it’s just crazy to think that that was the way

things were done, but there was a process.

[3:25 p.m.]

You can go back and look at the articles in the newspaper from the

time, and it says: “Well, this is going to impact anybody. There are

just a few natives living in the area.” That’s what the articles said at

the time. It’s amazing how dismissive…. The fact that this was

traditional territory and there were people living in this territory was

just dismissed because it was deemed to be just natives living there. I

was shocked when I read those articles.

I talked to the Cheslatta people about it. They said: “Yeah, when

the dam was being built, there were people who came around to our

communities. There were a number of reserves in the area, and there were

homes and stuff that were built there. Somebody came and knocked on the

door and said: ‘You’ve got two weeks to move. The flood’s

coming.’”

That was the level of engagement. That was the level of respect

back in the 1950s with First Nations. That’s our history. It’s important

to remember that history.

So they did. They packed up their things, and they were moved off

of their traditional territory. They were moved onto the traditional

territory of other nations in my riding and set up a reserve there and

set up their office and their life there. After they left, they burned

the homes. They destroyed the homes.

Then, of course, the dam came, and the area was flooded. The area

known as the Murray-Cheslatta system, with Cheslatta Lake, has not been

usable for the Cheslatta people in the way that they used to use it.

That was the impact back then. There was no engagement. There was no

discussion. There were no agreements. There was no

compensation.

The Cheslatta people, rather than fighting it through the courts

and rather than going after that confrontational approach, decided:

“We’ll work this thing through.” It took them more than 60 years to work

this thing through, and I worked closely with them on this for a long

time. I’m very proud of an agreement that was finalized by the current

government — that we had just about finished up before the last election

— to reach a reconciliation moment with them in recognition of that

impact.

This was an important step because it helps them now be able to

move forward. Instead of working on their past and dealing with their

past, they’re now in a place where they can go forward with their

economic developments, with their hopes, with the things they want to do

for the people.

There’s still more to be done, but it was an important step. I was

pleased to be able to be part of that kind of work. These are the kinds

of agreements that we entered into with First Nations.

We took First Nation graduation rates and almost doubled them.

They’re still well below where the non-Indigenous graduation rates are,

but there was significant progress that was made in working with First

Nations and recognizing and bringing First Nations in as part of the

education system and trying to solve those kinds of issues, because

education is very important to the First Nations people, the Indigenous

people.

Matter of fact, we had some of the first on-reserve housing

projects that started under our government, as well, of course, as

projects off-reserve. That was a breakthrough back then, when we started

to do that. I’m glad the current government is expanding and doing some

more of those. But that was a breakthrough because of the conflicting

jurisdictions with the federal government.

When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission came along with its

recommendations, we immediately went…. Matter of fact, even before the

report came out, when the rally was here in Vancouver — I think we had

100,000 people do a reconciliation walk, and I was proud to be part of

that walk — we started right then, two years before the report came out,

to change our curriculum.

We did that, so when the recommendations came out we had already

changed and adopted our curriculum to have First Nations history and

culture and values recognized within the K-to-12 education system. This

is part of how reconciliation advanced.

I want to take a moment, actually, just to talk a little bit about

Reconciliation Canada. The reason why I want to talk a little bit about

Reconciliation Canada is that I worked with them, and we provided some

resources and support in terms of their work. But they weren’t so much

about advancing Indigenous rights and title. That was being done

already. It was about how we bring together Indigenous and

non-Indigenous people to understand one another, to understand our

history and how to advance reconciliation.

[3:30 p.m.]

I really want to thank Chief Bobby Joe, as he’s affectionately

known; Karen, his daughter; and the work that Reconciliation Canada has

done. It’s been quite remarkable in terms of that work, really, across

Canada — not just in British Columbia. But of course, in this province,

it’s quite amazing in terms of how that has made a

difference.

We talk about UNDRIP as a document advancing reconciliation and

human rights, and I think those are important values. But I really

celebrate the work that’s on the ground that really has made a

difference, I think, within many communities.

There are frictions. There are things that are showing up today

between Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and I don’t think those are

healthy. We’ve got to find a way to be able to bridge some of those

differences. But that is what it is. That was the approach that

Reconciliation Canada took. They recognized where things were and tried

to come in and find a path to be able to bring people together to

talk.

These agreements and approaches that we took within government

were primarily focused within economic and social agreements. The idea

was to have First Nations be able to lift themselves up — support them,

work with them — have people being able to start moving from managing

poverty to managing other issues, such as prosperity and expansion. I

think, quite frankly, that’s a goal that all of us have here.

I think it was the Hereditary Chief of the

Nisg̱a’a who was down in the

Legislature when we were celebrating the agreement — one of the

Hereditary Chiefs — and he said: “You know, it’s long past time that

Indigenous people not only caught up but, if possible, surpassed

non-Indigenous people economically.” And I agree. Land is an important

piece of that. Agreements are an important piece of that. Reconciliation

is critical — understanding those rights, being able to work together

and being able to advance to a common cause.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

When I look at the legislation that has been brought in, Canada is

quite unique, when you look at our constitution. I don’t know if there

is any other country — certainly, not many other countries, if there are

— that has Indigenous rights, including title, enshrined in the

constitution. It has a long history now of court rulings and proceedings

that have provided

definitions and really in-depth knowledge of just

what that does mean.

I think that’s an important piece, because in the briefings and in

the talk about this bill, it is within the context of the Canadian

constitution. That is the floor. That is the basis of the bill. It has

the potential to go beyond that. Certainly, it has the potential to

reflect court cases and additional decisions that may come

down.

For example, under this government right now, I think there’s a

case from Haida, a title case. I’m very interested in seeing how that

case advances through the courts. I’m sure that will have a further

impact that will potentially change or adapt or adjust in terms of how

things go.

It’s an important piece to recognize that Canada has this

difference with that constitution, because that sort of right is not

recognized in places like Chile or in Colombia, where they’re struggling

to find a path forward in terms of reconciliation with their Indigenous

people.

Supporting those rights and title, I think, supporting the

advancement of reconciliation, is something that governments need to be

doing. It’s just the right thing to do. Certainly, it’s what we were

doing with all of our efforts. Did we agree with First Nations on

everything? Of course not. That would be unimaginable. Just like there

will be First Nations that don’t agree with the current government.

These things happen, but that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a

goal to advance reconciliation and to advance those kinds of

opportunities.

Some of the things that I’m going to be very interested in talking

about in the committee stage of this bill with the minister are going to

be issues around land, issues such as overlap — how those are going to

be addressed, how Bill 41 and the UNDRIP lens will be able to work

through those kinds of issues.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’ll just give you an example. In my riding, we currently have….

One of the nations is Yekooche. Yekooche came out of one of the other

nations and has kind of being settled in the middle of a number of

nations. Well, they have overlaps in every direction. As a matter of

fact, the Nadleh Whut’en want to be able to sign the pipeline benefits

agreement and be able to advance their work with the Coastal Gaslink.

They’re waiting for government to help resolve an overlap issue they

have with Yekooche.

We started that work. Unfortunately, the work hasn’t been done

yet. But I’m hopeful that it will, because I know that nation is very

much looking forward to seeing those benefits. They’re still working

with Coastal Gaslink as if it is resolved. But it needs to be resolved,

and it should be a priority, quite frankly, for government to work

through that issue.

When you look at these overlaps and challenges, they’re

significant. They can’t be taken lightly. When you look through, you

know, the joint decision-making and the path and process that needs to

be done, those are big questions. How will those issues be resolved?

Those are the kinds of questions that we’re going to need to talk about.

And maybe there aren’t answers. But they’re important to have on and

have a conversation about what type of approach will be taken towards

thinking about and working through these kinds of things.

There’s a concern that has been raised, and I know some of my

colleagues may talk about this. How does this impact potential court

cases or other issues? I mean, I think it’s great to say that we want to

stay out of the court, and that was our approach. We tried to do

everything we could to stay out of court. But eventually, there were

court cases and things that go forward. How does this work, in terms of

influencing approaches through that?

There is a statement in UNDRIP, the UN declaration on the rights

of Indigenous peoples, that says: “Convinced that control by Indigenous

people over development affecting them and their lands, territories and

resources will enable them to maintain and strengthen their

institutions, cultures and traditions and to promote their development

in accordance with their aspirations and needs.” I like that statement.

But what does it mean in practice? How is that going to be implemented

on the ground?

These are the kinds of things that we’ll be interested in

exploring as we go through committee stage on this bill. Committee stage

will be very important. I’m sure there’ll be a rather lengthy period of

time, in terms of questions and process and engagement that we will do

with the government on this.

Similarly, with this new potential opportunity to engage with

types of agreements with new Indigenous bodies — or, as it’s called,

Indigenous governing body — there’ll be some questions that we have

around that. We entered into some agreements with Hereditary Chiefs

through process, as well as elected Chiefs. We entered into agreements,

actually, with a tribal council, once band council resolutions moved up

towards being able to enter a collective agreement.

I’m curious in terms of how this new type of recognition will work

on the ground and how it works, particularly, where there may be some

conflict or individuals or bands that may want to leave — how would that

work? — or structure. I’d like sort of an understanding in terms of how

these types of things lie.

As well, of course, there’s this new tool that’s being created,

this new type of agreement that’s being contemplated for joint

decision-making, which also will likely include liabilities as well as

responsibilities, jointly shared as they go through. There’ll be updates

that’ll come to the various statutes within government, I’m sure, as

that advances through. How does that work in terms of those structures

and processes? Those will be some interesting types of things that we’ll

want to proceed with and look at.

There’s one thing I just want to stress here and think about. The

minister had mentioned and talked about going out, meeting with

stakeholders and various groups, working with Indigenous nations and

trying to work through what this is and what isn’t and process. But

there’s one piece I think that was missing from that. I hope the

minister, through some of the other speeches, might be able to clarify.

And that is the general public.

It was one thing that we learned, particularly through processes

in the Peace country — not just with this government, but with our

government in the past — as well as with the Stó:lō, with treaty and

with other things. The general public isn’t necessarily kept up to date

or engaged just because a local government or regional district is

engaged, or because other entities may be engaged. The general public

needs to have a sense of what this is.

[3:40 p.m.]

At the end of the day, I think back to that work that

Reconciliation Canada is doing trying to bring together Indigenous and

non-Indigenous people to understand one another and be able to move

forward together to build that reconciliation, bringing the public along

as part of this conversation is going to be important.

The question to the minister is: is there contemplation in terms

of taking this out and having some public engagement in various areas

around the province to allow for the discussion and the comfort level so

that reconciliation can advance and we don’t end up with more friction

points, like we’ve seen in a few issues that are arising today? That’s

an important piece of advice I’d like to offer to the minister — to

develop a plan to go out and have this kind of engagement, because it’s

going to be an important conversation that government is going to need

to explain.

Lots of people have lots of comments and fear. I’ve received

emails and calls and these types of things already because of the fears

of what free, prior and informed consent may be or what this is or what

it’s not. Government needs to do some work there, so I recommend taking

some time to go out and make that effort for the people in the province

of British Columbia.

With this, once again, I’m very honoured to have a chance to stand

up and talk about Indigenous people and the work we’ve done in the past

— the opportunity, I think, to advance reconciliation, the opportunity

to see First Nations engage.

I just want to reflect again to a former chief who, unfortunately,

passed away, a while ago now. He had attended six attempted suicides in

his community. Tragically, one of them had…. One of them, unfortunately,

he wasn’t able to save. He said he was tired of his people not having

hope. He was tired of saying no. He wants to figure out how to engage in

economic activity, how to build and pride hope and opportunity for the

people in his riding, particularly for the youth and the

children.

Through this discussion, through discussions with the public,

through advancing economic opportunities, if we can change that

statistic, even a little bit, that would be a huge, huge gain. The types

of agreements, the approaches we took were all about that.

Madam Speaker, it’s important. Thank you for my time here to talk

about this. It’s an important piece, because at the end of the day,

reconciliation is critical to make sure that everybody in this province

has an opportunity to prosper.

A. Olsen: My name is TSUNUP. I’m the son of TSAYWESUT and Sylvia Olsen, the

grandson of ZIȻOT and TELQUILUM.

We’re from W̱JOȽEȽP, which is a

Tsartlip village, in W̱SÁNEĆ

territory, just north of here, on the Salish Sea. I want to acknowledge

today our Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ relatives, on

whose territory we do this work day in and day out. Normally, we do

acknowledge this as traditional territory, but today I just want to say

that we live and work here in the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ territory. They are

still here. So while they have traditionally been here, they also are

still here.

It’s with mixed emotions that I stand in this chamber today. It’s

2019, and there have not been many days like this one in the history of

this territory that was formerly the colony and that now we know as the

province of British Columbia.

This day is the result of a lot of work, and those workers who

have brought us this day should be uplifted and wrapped in a blanket,

like we do so often in ceremony — in potlatch or in other ceremony.

However, I also have a deep sadness within me that for the past 200

years, this territory that we know as British Columbia and the people in

this House of governance have created some of the most grotesque and

despicable racist policy.

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s an oft occurrence that I walk the halls of this building with

a sense of awe, as the history represented in the echoes of the

footsteps bounces off the walls. My name is one of very few among those

in the history of this province signed into that register of

representatives elected to this House of governance. It’s in that

context that I’m honoured to be able to stand in this place, humbled to

be able to stand in this place and take my place in the

debate.

Like I said, there have been very few days like this one in the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, or anywhere in Canada for that

matter. Few are the days in which legislation has been introduced that

upholds the basic human rights of Indigenous peoples. It is a sad

reality of a colonial story of our province and our country that, in

fact, the opposite is true.

What has been debated and passed into law in Legislative

Assemblies in our country is the oppression of basic human rights of

Indigenous peoples. The laws created by institutions such as this one

have been designed to structure and impose a colonial reality on

Indigenous peoples. They are designs that break up complex Indigenous

systems of governance, like the potlatch. It is evil systems that have

been established to steal Indigenous children from their families and

send them to residential schools or to non-Indigenous families, an era

that we’ve colloquialized as the Sixties Scoop.

The result of these policies has desecrated our grandmothers, our

mothers, our aunties, our sisters, our nieces and our daughters. These

rules have created a society that needs a commission to study missing

and murdered Indigenous women, a society that deliberately stole their

dignity, their identity, and undermined every aspect of our sacred

relationships with our powerful matriarchs.

The rules kept Indigenous people from voting, stopped us from

hiring lawyers and protecting ourselves, and restricted our ability to

apply for timber harvesting rights because they changed the rules to

only allow eligible voters to hold them.

It’s

an act in legislation that institutionalized segregation,

apartheid, through the reserve system that still exists today. Even as

these relationships change, we still use these boundaries of reserves

and fight in our communities between elected and hereditary leaders

through the lens of these colonial impositions. These rules remain on

the books. The Indian Act is still alive and well in this

country.

One of the common demands for people today is that I or we do not

hold them accountable for what their grandparents did. Well, I don’t. We

are all accountable for what we know and how we act on that knowledge.

The legacies of those laws are everywhere in our society. They are the

crisis in our child care, the crippling poverty, desperation, moulding

houses, poisonous water, suicide.

At the same time as we acknowledge these atrocities — atrocities

that are genocidal — until this moment today, we can almost find no laws

that undo the colonial legacy. We see almost no laws that replace those

laws with respect to Indigenous self-determination and the inherent

right of self-governance.

But today we are changing that. Today is a day that generations of

Indigenous people in this province have fought to see happen. The work

that I have the honour of doing today is the work of many hundreds of

our ancestors, our

S¸ELELW̱ÁÁN , who fought

through the inhumane treatment to lay the groundwork for this

moment.

I feel today that even though this moment is a monumental step

forward, it’s only one step. I must acknowledge all our community

leaders whose sweat and tears and whose blood was spilled so that I can

be here now. It’s the Tsilhqot’in Chiefs who were unjustly killed 154

years ago. It’s the Chiefs of the Interior tribes who petitioned Prime

Minister Laurier in 1910 with a true message of reconciliation: “These

people wish to be partners with us in our country. We must, therefore,

be the same as brothers to them and live as one family. We will share

equally in everything — half and half — in land, water and timber. What

is ours will be theirs. What is theirs will be ours. We will help each

other be great and good.”

[3:50 p.m.]

It’s the peoples on Vancouver Island, my ancestors, who, at the

very beginning of settlement by Europeans, signed treaties with Governor

Douglas, the Douglas treaties, to ensure that our rights were respected.

It’s the waves of leaders who journeyed to Ottawa and to Victoria and

made the case and fought for change. It’s the knitters who sat in

Victoria and Vancouver airports making toques and socks and vests and

sweaters to pay for their leaders to go and endlessly lobby

government.

I raise my hands to our matriarchs and our Elders, the young and

the old, who have kept our cultures vibrant, powerful, alive and

beautiful. I raise my hands to our knowledge-keepers and our linguists

who have preserved our language so our generations might know who they

are as diverse peoples in these lands and on these waters. This is a day

that’s in honour of you, a testament to your resilience, your patience,

your wisdom, your courage, your

ĆȺ — your

work.

There will be some who fear this legislation. I understand,

because with change comes fear. There will be others that fearmonger,

some who take no time to understand the legislation but rally around

ignorance inspired by vested interests. Some may even stand in this

place and make ridiculous statements. They’ll ask absurd questions like

“what is free, prior and informed consent?” pretending that they’re

actually seeking truth and reconciliation.

The only thing we should fear is the failure of making these

critical changes. It’s the failure to face and address the colonial

legacy that challenges our society today — these laws, policies and

practices that have caused the uncertainty over land and resources that

has immobilized us in this province for decades. It is the failure to

address the colonial legacy in our social structures and institutions

that is causing the intergenerational harms to countless children,

families and communities. It’s the failure to address the colonial

legacy that ends up in court battles costing us billions of dollars,

lost time, incredible waste — a culture of conflict that has stymied

economic growth and investment in our province. Worse yet, it has cost

us our dignity, our integrity, our decency and our

self-respect.

It is for this reason that in 2015, the truth and reconciliation

call to action No. 43 said that governments, including the provinces,

must adopt and implement the United Nations declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples as a “framework for reconciliation.” This framework

is a critical guide to help us forward and move us out of the

dysfunctional patterns, the cycles of despair, and accelerate the work,

the acts, of reconciliation.

Some voices in this House would have us believe the UNDRIP is

imposed on us by the United Nations. They undermine it. They’re ignorant

of it. I believe it’s intentional. It’s important that this debate be

based on truthfulness, on fact. The UNDRIP is a product of decades of

deliberation, a feat of deliberative democracy undertaken by states

including Canada, including some of our very own Indigenous leaders in

this province and also Indigenous peoples from around the

world.

This document is a statement of long-established human rights

norms, including those in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in

the context of Indigenous peoples. These norms are not new. Despite what

some of the voices in this place would like British Columbians to

believe, these are norms that we have long upheld and defended as

Canadians. These are central to who we are, and upholding them now is to

honour the highest ideals and values.

The opposite is also true. To diminish them now, to undermine them

now, is to stoop to the lowest places. Those who are inspiring the

opposition to the implementation of the UNDRIP are not looking out for

the best interests of British Columbians or Canadians. Instead, they’re

looking out for and defending the interests of multinational

corporations that wish to continue to liquidate our natural resources,

hollow out our rural and remote communities and leave us

nothing.

[3:55 p.m.]

There is nothing to fear in this legislation. It is the embrace of

the best about British Columbia and Canada. It is the embrace of each

other — friends, family, neighbours. The adoption of this legislation

does not result in greater justice and peace overnight. This legislation

is just the beginning.

There are some common myths, urban legends, whispers and rumours

spread that have developed out of a lack of understanding of the UNDRIP

or just pure malintent. I’ll devote a few minutes to debunking these

myths.

First, let’s look at the biggest of them: consent. I find