Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 151

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 39 — Poverty Reduction Strategy Act

Hon. S. Simpson

Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

LNG Canada project and LNG industry

D. Davies

Foster families

R. Singh

Eldon Lee

S. Bond

Susan Anthony

A. Kang

Farsi language program proposal

J. Thornthwaite

Ridley Terminals in Prince Rupert

J. Rice

Oral Questions

Community benefits agreement and Pattullo Bridge project workers

M. Polak

Hon. C. Trevena

M. Stilwell

LNG Canada project and greenhouse gas emissions

A. Weaver

Hon. G. Heyman

Community benefits agreement and workers

J. Johal

Hon. C. Trevena

S. Bond

M. de Jong

Hon. M. Farnworth

Reports from Committees

Agriculture, Fish and Food Committee, report on local

meat production and inspection, September 2018

R. Leonard

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 37 — Land Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Donaldson

J. Rustad

A. Olsen

D. Barnett

R. Kahlon

C. Oakes

Hon. D. Eby

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. James: I know all of us in this House are grateful for the incredible staff

who provide us with support. We on this side of the House have had the

opportunity with two staff, Jared Butcher and Jayne Ducker, who have worked

for us in constituency offices, who have worked for us in caucus. Jayne is

now working in the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction’s

office. But Jayne isn’t in that office; she’s in the gallery today. She has

taken some time off while she and Jared expanded their family.

I am very pleased to announce today that on August 21 George Alexander

Ducker was born, named after his great-grandfather George Ducker and sharing

his middle name with his grandfather John and his mom, Jayne Alexandra. I

would like to welcome George into the world and into an extraordinary

family. I know big brother Logan is also thrilled. So welcome.

Thank you, Jayne and Jared, for the work you do for all of

us.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to introduce to the House my new executive

assistant, Mindy Bansal. As my colleague just finished saying, our staff….

We count on them a lot. They add to our offices and bring skill sets. Mindy

comes to us from the private sector, and she has amazing energy and

communication skills. I’m so delighted to have her as part of our team. What

is really important to me is that she shares our values to build a better

British Columbia.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — POVERTY REDUCTION

STRATEGY

ACT

Hon. S. Simpson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Poverty Reduction Strategy

Act.

Hon. S. Simpson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act. This

bill will address the critical issues of poverty in our province and

require the development of a poverty reduction plan to achieve

legislated targets and timelines for poverty reduction in B.C. This work

relates to our shared commitment to reduce poverty with the B.C. Green

Party, reflected in the confidence and supply agreement between the B.C.

New Democratic caucus and the B.C. Green caucus.

B.C. has the second-worst poverty reduction outcomes in the

country, according to the statistics available. In 2016, there were

557,000 people living in poverty, including 99,000 children. This means

that 12 percent of our population is living in poverty. Despite these

numbers, B.C. is currently the only province without a poverty reduction

strategy.

[10:10 a.m.]

The proposed legislation will require B.C.’s first poverty

reduction strategy to be released by March 31, 2019, and then reviewed

and updated at least every five years. The bill will ensure that

provincial poverty reduction efforts, for years to come, are approached

in a way that is meaningful, effective and based on the experiences of

people living in poverty.

The legislation ensures accountability for government to make real

progress by setting ambitious but achievable targets and timelines

within the legislation and requiring annual reporting to the Legislative

Assembly and the public.

At the core of the bill are targets for reducing the poverty rate

by 25 percent overall and by 50 percent for people under the age of 18

over the next five years. This will be using Canada’s official poverty

line.

To achieve these targets, the legislation outlines key areas of

focus for the strategy, including improving the affordability of goods,

services and housing; opportunities for people to move out of poverty;

and the inclusion of persons living in poverty in community

life.

The proposed legislation supports government’s commitment to

reconciliation by requiring the strategy to reflect the calls to action

of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Our government’s poverty reduction efforts are a cross-government

commitment, as we know that people living in poverty are feeling a range

of challenges that require action. For this reason, the bill outlines

key action areas for the strategy, including housing, education,

employment, income support and supports for families, children and

youth.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Simpson: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 39, Poverty Reduction Strategy Act, introduced, read a first

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

next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM 2018 AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electoral Reform Referendum 2018

Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018

Amendment Act, 2018. This bill would give legal effect to the commitment

this government has made to hold a second referendum on proportional

representation if the results of November’s referendum is a change to a

proportional representation voting system.

That commitment was made following the public engagement, held

from November to February, which indicated a clear majority of

respondents favoured having a confirming vote on whether to keep the new

voting system if a new voting system is adopted.

The amendments in this bill require a provincewide referendum to

be held after the new proportional representation system has been used

in two general elections. This confirming referendum would offer voters

the choice of keeping the new proportional representation voting system

or returning to the first-past-the-post voting system.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: 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 40, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018,

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)

LNG CANADA PROJECT AND LNG INDUSTRY

D. Davies: Today is a very historic day for British Co­lum­bia and,

indeed, all of Canada. The go-ahead an­nounce­ment of the LNG

export facility in Kitimat will, in fact, echo throughout our national

economy. The $40 billion investment will bring jobs and construction

over the next five to seven years. The sale of liquefied natural gas

also will bring on line a whole new stream of public revenue that will

flow to the people of British Columbia over this next

century.

[10:15 a.m.]

For my own constituents of the Peace River region, we will

certainly benefit from the construction of the pipeline and the

continued extraction of gas from the Montney gas play. I have

participated, along with hundreds of local residents in my riding, in

LNG rallies over the past couple years, and there are a lot of happy

people today.

The announcement of a 13-year export deal for Woodfibre LNG in

Squamish this week also means that British Columbia is on the cusp of a

new economic era in our prov­ince. The LNG industry ushers in a

bridge to a carbon-free economy that will help China and India wean

themselves off the use of coal in heavy industry. What’s good for

British Columbia is also good for the planet.

This week’s events did not unfold, though, without a great deal of

effort from a lot of people over these past number of years. As the

Premier noted in his remarks this morning, talk about an LNG export

industry in this Legislature dates back to 1982. But we should

acknowledge one Premier who did start the big push toward LNG back in

2011, and that is Christy Clark. Without her vision and tireless

efforts, along with the member for Langley East while he was the Energy

Minister, we would not have landed an LNG export here in B.C.

The fact that all 20 First Nations signed on to an LNG and

pipeline agreement, as well as wide public support, shows the world that

Canada has been and always will be a place to do business. As I speak

these words, I know that my children and future generations of British

Columbia will benefit in the future from what was achieved

today.

FOSTER FAMILIES

R. Singh: October is Foster Family Month. This annual proclamation is meant

to celebrate, honour and raise awareness about the urgent need to

recruit more foster families in B.C. It’s also a way to acknowledge and

thank foster families for the dedicated work they do in caring for some

of the province’s most vulnerable children and youth. These caregivers’

willingness to step up has changed kids’ lives for the

better.

As of August 2018, there were about 4,500 children and youth in

foster care, roughly 67 percent of whom are Indigenous. Across B.C.,

these young people are cared for in about 2,600 family-based foster

homes. Many of the caregivers are caring for more than one foster child.

Some foster caregivers have been caring for children for years and have

fostered as many as, if not more than, 150 foster kids over a period of

decades.

Many of those experienced families are reaching retirement age.

It’s why there’s always need for new caregivers to be there for kids

who, for a variety of reasons, can’t live with their own families. If

you or someone you know is interested in becoming a foster care giver,

please visit fosternow.ca to get started today.

Thank you again to all B.C. foster families. Your work is

incredibly challenging and rewarding, and you are some of the invisible

heroes of our society.

ELDON LEE

S. Bond: Northern B.C. lost a medical icon on Labour Day, 2018. Dr. Eldon

Lee passed away in the early hours of September 3, and that day seems

somehow particularly fitting. You see, Dr. Lee spent countless hours in

labour and delivery, delivering thousands of babies during the course of

his career as an obstetrician and gynecologist. In fact, in 1962, Eldon

became the first, and for a very long time the only, ob-gyn north of

Kamloops.

His contributions to the medical community were substantive, and

as a result, he was installed as a lifetime member of the Canadian

Medical Association in 1995 and inducted into the Northern Medical Hall

of Fame in 2009.

Eldon married his true love, Marjorie Cartmell, in 1952, and

theirs is a 66-year love story, full of adventure and family. They were

blessed with six children, followed by grandchildren and

great-grandchildren.

Eldon was a man of many talents. He was a Greek scholar, a cowboy

rancher, an RCAF bomber pilot, a hunter, an author and even a Sunday

school teacher. He was the star goalie of the PG Doctors hockey team,

flew an ultralight plane and loved his ATV. In fact, his last quad ride

was just days before he went into hospital.

[10:20 a.m.]

Bill and I joined an overflow crowd at the celebration of life for

Dr. Lee. We, like so many others, had a personal connection to this

incredible person. Dr. Lee, along with Dr. Jack McKenzie, delivered our

twin children, Melissa and Christopher.

We are grateful that Eldon and Marjorie chose to serve in northern

British Columbia. Dr. Lee was devoted to his family, his profession and

his community. He will be deeply missed by his family, his friends and

all of us who were lucky enough to know him.

SUSAN ANTHONY

A. Kang: It is with great pride that I stand in the House today to

celebrate and highlight one of my constituents of Burnaby–Deer Lake,

Susan Anthony. Susan was awarded, by the city of Burnaby, the 2018 Local

Hero Award.

Since 1997, the city of Burnaby, a community made stronger by the

services of its citizens, identifies and recognizes its local heroes

every year. These individuals, who are of diverse interests and

backgrounds, give back to the community in a wide variety of ways. Susan

particularly for persons with disabilities.

She has been a board member of the Burnaby Association for

Community Inclusion, otherwise known as BACI, since 2006. She served as

vice-president of the board from 2009 to 2012. She served as a volunteer

co-chair of the Simon Fraser University Community Council and on BACI’s

quality assurance and advocacy committees.

For the past two years, Susan has volunteered as a member of the

Burnaby Access Advisory Committee. As Susan’s nominators note, Susan

Anthony has distinguished herself as a steadfast and powerful advocate

for people with disabilities. She continues to add her voice to the

anthem of equality she spent a lifetime composing. Her dear friends and

community at the Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion are blessed

to have Susan as a neighbour, supporter and dedicated

advocate.

I would like to invite the House to join me in this special moment

to congratulate Susan Anthony for this year’s Burnaby Local Hero

Award.

Thank you so much, Susan. Your contribution and services to

Burnaby make it great. Your love for the community and your kindness and

selflessness make B.C. great.

FARSI LANGUAGE PROGRAM PROPOSAL

J. Thornthwaite: Last week I joined school board chairs from the North Shore, as

well as the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, at the launch of Farsi

Dar B.C, a grassroots campaign started by Persian-speaking communities

to have Farsi added as a teachable second-language option in B.C.

schools.

Persian, known by speakers of the language as Farsi, is spoken by

over 100 million people worldwide and by over 200,000 here in Canada.

Here in B.C., we have a vibrant Persian community stretching from the

North Shore to the Tri-Cities and beyond. Having lived on the North

Shore almost my entire life, I have seen up close the positive impact

and value that the Persian community and their traditions, culture, food

and language have had on our diverse region.

As former chair of the North Vancouver school board, I have

firsthand knowledge and experience in this field. When I was on the

board, I advocated for Mandarin to be included as a board-approved

course in the North Vancouver school district. The three boards of

education that may be interested in including Farsi as a board-approved

course are North Vancouver, West Vancouver and Coquitlam, because they

have strong Persian communities.

I’ve heard from parents and students that they value a greater

choice of subjects in the classroom. Dr. Ross King, head of the

department of Asian studies at UBC, said in his remarks at the Farsi Dar

B.C. event that community support is vital to push this project forward.

Bringing Farsi into B.C. schools will give Farsi-speaking students the

opportunity to refine their language skills, but it would also open the

door to non-Persian-speaking students, giving them the chance to learn a

language with rich history, and they would all receive a credit for

doing so.

I want to congratulate Amir Bajehkian and the entire Farsi Dar

campaign team on their launch, and wish them very well. In the months

ahead, they will engage stakeholders and the community to generate more

support for this project.

I invite all my colleagues in the House to support this initiative

to bring the Persian language to B.C. schools.

[10:25 a.m.]

RIDLEY TERMINALS IN PRINCE RUPERT

J. Rice: Ridley Terminals, or RTI, has owned and operated a marine bulk

handling terminal in Prince Rupert for the last 35 years. RTI primarily

exports metallurgical and thermal coal and petroleum coke from B.C. and

Alberta to Asia. Ridley Terminals provides over 120 jobs — nearly 100 of

which are union-wage, family-supporting jobs that are really important

to a community the size of Prince Rupert.

Like our city, RTI has had to cope with the ever-changing ebbs and

flows of commodity prices, which can be really hard on a company and,

particularly, our community. Yet it was not long ago, during these

challenging low times, that RTI persevered, and they did so in a way

that preserved local jobs. Despite the downturn in coal prices, RTI

deployed creative scheduling practices for worker shifts, which ensured

that Prince Rupert did not experience massive layoffs. Where other

companies would immediately cut labour, our local workforce was

maintained. For that, I am grateful.

Furthermore, to better cope with rapidly changing markets, RTI is

diversifying. An example of this is with the construction of the AltaGas

propane export terminal, a first of its kind on the west coast of

Canada, with operations expected to start early next year. AltaGas is

providing skills training and employment opportunities to local First

Nations and is creating 40 to 50 permanent jobs once the facility is

operational.

This type of diversification supports long-term economic stability

in the region and provides important local employment opportunities.

Additionally, whether it’s supporting the All-Native Basketball

Tournament or supporting local artists and charities, Ridley Terminals

gives back to our community.

I want to wish Ridley Terminals a happy 35th anniversary, and I

look forward to your continued success.

Oral Questions

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND PATTULLO BRIDGE

PROJECT WORKERS

M. Polak: All British Columbians should have the right to work on public

projects — union, non-union, even members of unions that the NDP doesn’t

approve of. It really shouldn’t matter.

Can the Transportation Minister explain why

article 8.102 of the

Pattullo union benefit agreement requires workers to join the

appropriate union affiliate “within 30 calendar days”?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very pleased to spend a second day talking about this great

initiative that we’re doing, a community benefits agreement which is

investing in the people of British Columbia. People in our province work

hard. They care about their communities, and they care about the

projects being built in their communities. That’s why under our

Community Benefits Agreement, every contractor can bid on it, whether

union or not union.

It is a fair playing field. We want to make sure everyone can

build, because we’re investing in the future of British Columbia. We’re

investing, ensuring that we are training people to deal with the skills

shortage that we have, ensuring that we can hire Indigenous people and

women, that we can hire people who are not usually represented on these

jobsites and make sure that when we have the workplace, everybody is

treated the same.

Yes, there is a requirement that people join a union after 30

days. Absolutely. I’m surprised that the opposition is surprised. We’ve

been very clear about that. That is part of a benefit agreement that has

been used for many years on public and private projects throughout B.C.

and in other jurisdictions.

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

supplemental.

M. Polak: Well, the same union benefit agreement also says in the previous

clause that this is required “as a condition of employment.” In other

words, the message is: “Join an NDP-approved union, or lose your job.”

That’s blackmail, and it has absolutely zero connection to the

minister’s diversity goals, none whatsoever.

Again, can the minister explain why workers must join one of the

19, only 19, NDP-approved unions in 30 calendar days instead of losing

their job?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I am amazed that the opposition really seems to be opposed to good

jobs with good wages for local people. It’s a very basic thing. They

were government for 16 years, and you’d have thought they would

understand how the workplace works.

Like any unionized worksite…. Yes, they will be a unionized

worksite, but they’re open for union and non-union contractors to bid.

It is a unionized worksite. The workers will be union members when

they’re there. But any qualified worker will have the opportunity to

apply, whether or not they are a union member. As I’ve mentioned, union

and non-union contractors are allowed to apply.

What we are doing is what the opposition didn’t do in 16 years —

investing not just in the infrastructure of B.C. but in the people of

B.C. This side of the House believes. We believe in the people of B.C.

who can do the good job for B.C.

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

supplemental.

M. Polak: In case there was any doubt as to the attitude that the NDP has

for those who are not part of their select group of unions, on March 19,

2016…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question.

M. Polak: …the Premier boasted he was going to deliver billions of public

procurement to his NDP friends and insiders: “We can do it. We’re going

to do it with the building trades unions. We’re going to do it with

union labour. You don’t do it by going with Phil Hochstein and the

turkeys at CLAC. That’s not how I roll. That’s not how we

roll.”

In light of those comments, how can the minister possibly claim

that the policy isn’t designed to discriminate against workers who are

not on the NDP’s approved list?

Hon. C. Trevena: I say, once again, that this is an investment in the people of

British Columbia. People, whether they are union or non-union, can

apply. Skilled workers can apply. Non-union contractors can apply. This

is an open application. This is a unionized workplace. It puts local

workers first.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: It supports local economies. It deals with skill shortages, and it

ensures that we have Indigenous trainees, Indigenous apprenticeships,

women apprenticeships and groups who are not usually in the workforce

involved.

Interjections.

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

Hon. C. Trevena: The opposition may not like it, but they are in opposition. Seven

out of ten British Columbians think that the community benefits

agreement is the way forward. This is the approach we’re taking, and we

are opening the field to everyone to work in this system.

M. Stilwell: The minister says she’s investing in people. But let’s be clear.

It’s not all people, because, you see, if you’re a worker in the

Okanagan or the north or on the Island, you won’t get a chance to work

on the Pattullo Bridge project.

I can tell you that workers in my community were surprised to read

in the Pattullo union benefit agreement that the NDP have imposed

regional hiring discrimination. Can the minister explain to the

qualified workers in my community why she is happy to make them pay for

the project but not let them work on it?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We are investing in the people of British Columbia. I cannot

understand why the opposition doesn’t see the benefit that the people of

British Columbia can bring to British Columbia projects.

We’re investing to deal with a skills shortage. Everybody in this

chamber should know that we are facing a looming skills shortage. This

will be dealing with that. We are training people. We are dealing with

apprenticeships. We are hiring people at good pay in long-term projects

that are building the infrastructure of British Columbia as well as

building up communities and building up the people of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: The union benefit agreement also makes it clear that friends of

the NDP come first, even if that means a union worker gets a job ahead

of a qualified Indigenous worker or a member of another underrepresented

group. Shockingly, a qualified Indigenous or equity group worker who

doesn’t belong to an NDP-approved union comes in seventh in priority

hiring under the Pattullo Bridge union benefit agreement.

Does the minister really think that it’s okay to discriminate

against diversity in the workforce in order to pay off friends and

insiders?

Hon. C. Trevena: The member opposite was part of a government that was in charge of

British Columbia for 16 years and seems to forget her own previous

government’s record on infrastructure. We have had massive overspend,

impossible planning.

We are investing in British Columbians. The community benefit

agreement…. I’d be very happy…. I’m sure that we can arrange, through

the ministry, a full briefing for opposition members about the way

community benefit agreements work, because they clearly do not

understand the way the system works.

We are investing, through the community benefit agreement, in the

people of British Columbia. It gives priority to people who are living

locally, initially within the first 100 kilometres, and then people in

British Columbia. We are investing in making sure that Indigenous people

get training. We are making sure that women get trained. We’re making

sure that people who are not usually represented on these sorts of

projects get the training so that in the future, we can have these

projects built with a full B.C. workforce.

LNG CANADA PROJECT

AND GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS

A. Weaver: In 2016, the B.C. NDP concluded that plans for an $11.4 billion

LNG terminal on Lelu Island would generate an unacceptable increase in

the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. They filed a definitive

position against the project with federal environmental authorities. The

NDP noted in their letter to the Canadian Environmental Assessment

Agency that the project would increase the province’s entire carbon

footprint for industry, transport and residential activity combined by

8½ percent.

This is what they said in the letter: “The proposal fails to meet

the condition of air, land and water protection with respect to both the

threat to marine habitat and species as well as to climate through

unacceptably high and inadequately unregulated greenhouse gas

emissions.” Here’s the kicker: the unacceptably high emissions cited by

the letter are, in fact, lower than the emissions anticipated from the

LNG Canada project announced today.

To the Deputy Premier, how does the Deputy Premier reconcile her

party’s sharp opposition to the Lelu terminal development with the

present investment in LNG Canada?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. It

gives us on this side of the House an opportunity to talk about our

serious approach to climate, an approach that stands in stark contrast

to that of the previous government. When I talk to British Columbians,

they want to be assured….

Interjections.

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

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: British Columbians want to be assured that as we develop our

economy, we do it in a way that’s environmentally responsible, protects

our air, land and water and has a path forward to meet clear climate

targets that meet our and the Canadian government’s commitment to the

Paris accord.

I will differ with the Leader of the Third Party a little bit. I

will differ with him in that the announcement that was made today and

the greenhouse gas emissions associated with this development, this

final investment decision, are 3.4 megatonnes, far lower than that

associated with the project that the member references.

I will say that the member has been working with me, working with

staff in the climate action secretariat, to design, review and provide

input into a clean growth strategy that we will release later this fall.

It will outline a clear path to our legislated emission reduction

targets. We are factoring in the emissions from this plant in that plan,

and I look forward to continued work with the leader and his

caucus.

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

A. Weaver: In 2015, the B.C. Liberals signed a development deal with Pacific

Northwest LNG in an attempt to spur the Malaysian-led project to become

Canada’s first major LNG exporter. The now Minister of Environment was

sharply critical of this decision. He said: “An economy that isn’t built

on sound environmental protections that include a solid plan to control,

limit and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions isn’t in the

economy’s interest….” Or in the interest of future

generations.

The Minister of Energy took this to another level. She said: “They

put themselves in such a desperate position” — they being the Liberals —

“when it comes to negotiating for LNG that they had to say yes to any

single thing that walked through the door. That’s exactly what they have

done. This is the big sellout of British Columbia.” The words of the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Now the NDP want to take that sellout to a whole new level through

exempting LNG Canada from increases in the carbon tax, by eliminating

the LNG Income Tax Act while they’re retaining the royalty giveaway, by

deferring the PST, by exempting them from the steel tariffs and by

burdening ratepayers with billions of dollars of debt to build Site C to

sell LNG Canada power at half the price it costs to produce it. Talk

about a sellout.

To the Deputy Premier: how is the development of LNG Canada any

different from the B.C. Liberals’ attempt to develop Pacific Northwest

LNG? Do you not see the grand hypocrisy of what is unfolding before us

today?

Hon. G. Heyman: There could not be a more different approach to the economy or

climate than this government demonstrates every single day and will make

absolutely clear this fall when we release a clean growth strategy for a

diversified, modern economy that meets emission reduction targets — full

stop.

With respect to LNG Canada, we are applying the same conditions

that will apply to any industry in British Columbia. An industry that is

world-leading in its emission reduction targets, to be reviewed

periodically, can get up to a 100 percent rebate of the incremental

carbon tax — a carbon tax, by the way, that the former government had no

intention of ever applying again.

We will work with the Third Party. We’ll work with the Leader of

the Third Party and the leader’s caucus. We’ll work with

industry….

Interjections.

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

Hon. G. Heyman: We’ll work with British Columbians to ensure that we meet our

targets and we diversify and create a modern, sustaining economy for all

British Columbians, for First Nations, for every region of this province

while we protect the environment and while we meet our climate

commitments.

[10:45 a.m.]

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

J. Johal: The Premier and his Transportation Minister have given their

friends an insider monopoly control on public projects worth billions of

dollars. Dawn Rebelo is a proud tradesperson who is affiliated with the

Christian Labour Association of Canada, a union the Premier called

“turkey.” Dawn doesn’t want to be forced to join a different

union.

Can the minister explain why she has discriminated against this

woman and why finding work in her field should be made contingent on her

joining one of the 19 NDP-approved unions?

Hon. C. Trevena: The first point the member, I must say, didn’t hear in the last

few months, since we’ve been talking about community benefit agreements,

hadn’t heard yesterday and hasn’t heard today when we we’re talking

about community benefit agreements — which, as an aside, I will repeat

are an excellent way of building British Columbia’s infrastructure.

Because we’re investing in….

What the member has clearly not heard is that when we have a

community benefit agreement project, when it is part of the projects

that we are going forward with — which, I think the members opposite

realize, is not all projects we’re doing — any contract can bid. They

don’t have to be union. They don’t have to be non-union. Anyone can bid,

and anyone can work on it.

We are talking about a unionized worksite where, after 30 days,

somebody will join the union, where they will share in well-paid jobs

and share in the benefits. Everyone in British Columbia will share in

the final benefits of the community benefit agreement, because it’s an

investment in people who will get those jobs. It is an investment in

First Nations, in women and in others who are going to get that job.

It’s an investment in communities.

Frankly, if the opposition doesn’t understand that…. It’s really

troubling that the opposition can’t see that investment in people of

British Columbia is the best investment that we as a government can

make.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: It’s getting quite tiring listening to this fumbling, bumbling

minister — quite tiring. Here are the facts. The Premier boasted to his

union pals…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, if we may hear the question.

J. Johal: …that he would steer public sector contracts their way — not the

turkeys at non-union and non-NDP-union shops. That’s just how he rolls,

he said. The agreement unambiguously forces workers to join the

NDP-approved unions within 30 days.

How can the minister continue to deny the fact that workers like

Ms. Rebelo are being discriminated against?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m happy to stand up here and talk about the benefits to British

Columbia that the community benefits agreement is going to bring. The

opposition seems to really be opposed to good jobs for local people,

with good wages and good benefits, with training that will invest in the

future of British Columbia.

People in our province work hard, and they care about the

communities. This community benefits agreement puts local workers first

in line for the projects. It supports local economies. It supports

communities. Workers will be spending money at home. It tackles the

skills shortage, and it increases the participation of women, of

Indigenous people, of apprentices and helps them and their families

create paths forward.

The opposition might not like this. The opposition might feel that

we have some sort of strange conspiracy in building up British Columbia

and British Columbians, but the people of British Columbia believe in

it. A recent poll shows that seven out of ten British Columbians think

this is the way forward, and this is what we are doing.

[10:50 a.m.]

S. Bond: Well, the minister may want to stand in the House and ignore and

dismiss the opposition’s questions, but let’s be clear: the minister and

the government are requiring workers to join one of 19 NDP-approved

unions. The minister can dismiss that with her looks and her comments,

but there is no regard for individual rights and choice.

Let’s personalize it. Aaron, who is a gas fitter in Prince George,

writes: “I’m a skilled tradesperson.” In fact, Minister, he’d be one of

the British Columbians that you’re talking about. He is a taxpayer. He

is a proud British Columbian. He says….

Interjections.

S. Bond: We’re coming to it. “I work at my trade, and I participate as a

productive member of my community. It is not acceptable for you to force

me to join a union.”

How does the minister explain her decision to prevent a qualified

worker like Aaron from working on public projects?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are facing a skills shortage. We are wanting to make sure that

we deal with that skills shortage. Our community benefits approach is

one way to deal with that skills shortage, because we’re going to be

training people on site.

As I have mentioned several times this morning, any contractor can

bid, any worker can come and work on a community benefits agreement

project. Absolutely. It is a unionized workplace, so they will be

expected to join that. On a unionized worksite, there are benefits. You

get equal pay. You get equal benefits. You get equal protection. This is

what a unionized worksite provides. On these agreements, there will be

unionized worksites. Anybody can apply for the job. Any company can

apply for the project.

We believe that…. I’ve got to say that instead of the opposition

squandering money, overspending on projects all over the province —

whether it was the northwest transmission line, hundreds of millions of

dollars over, or the Port Mann Bridge, billions of dollars of

overspending…. Our investment as a province is investing in the people

of that province through the training of the people in that province,

through hiring locally so that communities benefit.

I’m extraordinarily proud that we have a Premier who is willing to

stand up and say that this is the way forward for our

province.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, I can assure the minister that that answer brings little

comfort to qualified, skilled tradespeople like Aaron and thousands of

other ones. In Aaron’s words: “Unions are right for some but not all. If

I wanted to join a designated union, I would have done that

already.”

Aaron deserves an answer. Why are hard-working, skilled

tradespeople like Aaron, a proud British Columbian, shut out of work on

public projects in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: We as a government are investing approximately $15 billion in

infrastructure in the next three years. A certain amount of that

infrastructure spending will be through community benefit agreements,

yes, and we are very proud that this is the way forward. But we are

building other infrastructure that will not be part of community benefit

agreements. I think that we have not been very shy about

that.

We have a skills shortage. I would say to the member opposite that

we need people, and we need skilled workers to be working on all of our

projects. Our community benefits projects are something that I’m very

proud to stand behind — for those ones we are working on.

[10:55 a.m.]

We have an open hiring policy for them. We have open contract to

open hiring — and an investment in the people of British Columbia. I

really do not understand how the opposition cannot agree that investing

in people, in British Columbians, is the right way forward.

M. de Jong: How many times over the years have I heard this minister and the

Premier and members of this government profess their support, their

enthusiastic support, for the principles of equality and equality of

opportunity? Well, we now know just how hollow and disingenuous those

words were. Once again, just as the last time they were in office, the

NDP are sacrificing the principle of equality of opportunity on the

altar of political expediency.

Interjections.

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

you.

M. de Jong: Eagle West Cranes is a leading crane operator headquartered in the

Fraser Valley. They and their employees will not be working on any of

these publicly funded projects. Why not? They’re not members of the

right club. They’re not members of the NDP-approved club, and they don’t

want to be members of the NDP-approved club. They have chosen not to

join one of those select unions that the minister is now insisting

workers must join.

My question to the minister…. And they’re watching; they’re

watching. Will the minister stand up in this chamber and explain to the

employees of Eagle West Cranes why they aren’t good enough?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ve been listening to this line of questioning with some

interest, because I find it somewhat ironic that previous governments in

this province understood ensuring the public benefit of public spending

for the public good.

Social Credit knew it with the allied trades hydro agreement that

saw construction workers, British Columbians, build the dams in this

province and ensure that we had a steady stream of apprentices through

those years to continue the great work and deal with the skilled trades

issues that we need in this province.

That side of the House, when they sat here, scrapped that

agreement, denying opportunity for young British Columbians. Report

after report came in, in 2012 — how changes that they made when they

took office in 2001 gutted apprenticeship training in this program to

the point that we were getting warnings that our Red Seal qualifications

were in danger of not being recognized by other jurisdictions. That’s

their record.

What about the ripping up of contracts and denying opportunity to

collective agreements that had just…?

Community benefits are about ensuring that the future of British

Columbia has got the skilled tradespeople that it needs, that it has the

apprenticeships that it needs in all parts of the province, whether they

be men, whether they be women, whether they be Indigenous. That’s what

this government is about.

That’s why they’re over there. They’re out of touch. They’re

offside, and they’re not getting back on this side of the

House.

[End of question period.]

M. Dean: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Dean: It’s my great honour to introduce to the House today Maurine

Karagianis. Most people here will know she’s been an MLA for three terms,

serving my community when it was Esquimalt–Royal Roads. She held many

committee positions and critic roles.

[11:00 a.m.]

Before she was in provincial politics, she represented the people of

Esquimalt. She’s been my mentor for many years. She’s been a champion for

our community and all British Columbians for many, many years. Please make

her very welcome.

Reports from Committees

AGRICULTURE, FISH AND FOOD COMMITTEE

R. Leonard: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing

Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food, titled Local Meat

Production and Inspection in British Columbia .

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

Motion approved.

R. Leonard: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

R. Leonard: In moving adoption of this report, I’d like to make some brief

comments. Our committee was asked by this House to undertake a study of

local meat production and inspection based on a discussion paper that

was put forward by the Minister of Agriculture and referred to the

committee by the Legislative Assembly on April 24.

In response, the committee held a public consultation from May 16

to June 15. We travelled to five communities where we had the honour of

hearing from 50 British Columbians who work in the meat production and

processing industry. We also received 36 written submissions and 74

on-line survey responses — altogether a good representation in an

industry with 61 class A and B and 51 class D and E licensees able to

sell meat in British Columbia.

On behalf of the committee members, I would like to express our

sincere gratitude to the individuals and organizations who took the time

to participate and provide their valuable input. We learned a great deal

about the meat production and processing industries, and on behalf of

the committee, I would like to acknowledge the long hours, hard work and

dedication it takes to make a living in those industries.

As a committee, it is our hope that this report, which includes 21

recommendations, leads to positive change that supports strong and

growing industries in local meat production and processing for

generations to come.

In closing, I would like to thank the Deputy Chair, the member for

Fraser-Nicola, for her thoughtful and insightful contributions during

our deliberations and also for her humour. I would also like to thank

all committee members for their input and dedication in bringing this

report to the House today. It was a real pleasure to work with all of

you.

With that, I move adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 37, the Land Statutes Amendment

Act.

[11:05 a.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 37 — LAND STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the Land Statutes Amendment Act be read a second time

now.

The Land Statutes Amendment Act will streamline, modernize and

improve the security of B.C.’s land title and survey systems. I must

say, in the development of the amendment act that we’re discussing today

at second reading, I certainly learned a lot about the land title

system.

The title of my ministry is Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development. Lands comes in the title

right after forestry, and there’s nothing more important than a secure

system of land titles in the province, and not only secure but a land

title system that the public has confidence in because it underlies many

of the business transactions. It underlies many of the ways that we live

in our communities. That’s why I’m pleased to introduce these amendments

today — introduced in first reading yesterday and in second reading

today.

These are important systems that secure legal interests and rights

to land in this province. The Land Statutes Amendment Act will make

changes to four acts: the Land Title Act, the Land Act, the Property

Transfer Tax Act and the Boundary Act.

These amendments fall in line with our government’s focus on three

topic areas: making life more affordable; delivering services that

people count on; and creating a strong, sustainable, innovative economy

that works for everyone. I’ll touch on those three points as we proceed

through this second reading debate.

I want to say, though, that in advance of developing and as we

developed this amendment act — the Land Statutes Amendment Act — many

groups across the province were consulted. I just want to make sure that

it’s on the record, the wide variety of groups that were consulted: the

Association of B.C. Land Surveyors; the Canadian Bar Association, B.C.

chapter; the Law Society of B.C.; the LTSA’s legal professional advisory

committee; the LTSA’s Land Surveyors Advisory Taskforce; the Union of

B.C. Municipalities, a very important organization to consult in these

matters; the Canadian Bankers Association; the B.C. Association of

Professional Registry Agents; the Urban Development Institute; the

Canada Revenue Agency; and financial institutions, including Central 1

Credit Union and some of the mainstream banking institutions.

This suite of changes will bring improvements and allow B.C.’s

land title and survey system to adapt to technology over time while

enhancing services for British Columbians.

These changes will also make life more affordable for British

Columbians. I know this is a very important point for many people in the

province. People would be able to carry out simple land transactions

without having to use an intermediary, such as a lawyer or notary, and

avoid associated legal fees.

I want to emphasize these are simple land transactions. If they

become more complex, people may and will choose to use a lawyer or

notary. But again, in fulfilling our mandate about making life more

affordable, there are instances of simple land transactions where, right

now, a lawyer or a notary is required. If this bill passes through this

Legislature, then those associated legal fees can be avoided.

[11:10 a.m.]

The current electronic filing provisions date back to 1999, when

this technology was new. Since then, electronic signature and

authentication…. The authenticity technology has improved

dramatically.

There might be some questions about that, regarding how this

electronic signature and electronic filing might increase the risk of

identity theft. The proposed amendment includes safeguards to protect

against the risk of identity theft. I know that’s on many people’s minds

these days. For example, any new form of electronic signature must be

unique to the person entitled to use it and under their sole control.

The technology being considered to enable new forms of electronic

signatures — for instance, the B.C. Services Card — would provide the

two-factor authentication, similar to what is used for current

subscriber signatures.

With the two-factor authentication, it means that it applies to

electronic signatures. An individual would need to have both a card and

the corresponding PIN for that card. So the concern about identity theft

and the security of the system when it comes to electronic signatures is

well thought out in these amendments.

Some of the other changes to those four acts I referenced include

enabling more than one type of electronic signature technology to be

used. This will allow broader access to electronic filing of land title

documents and survey plans. Another change is permitting the director of

land titles to establish new types of electronic signature. This will

allow the system to keep pace with technology.

Another change is aligning certain processes and requirements in

the legislation with operational practice and privacy protection

standards. Some of these privacy protection standards will relate to

being able to search the land title database. We know that there have

been instances with this new ability to search land titles and match up

registries with different databases that might make it easier for people

who want to identify those who have been subject to domestic violence,

for instance — to find their address. So these changes will enable

increased security in that regard.

We can get into that in the committee stage around how that plays

out. But I’m pleased to say that it will prove that we’ll have increased

security for those, for instance, who have fled a domestic violence

situation and are concerned that if they have title over a property that

they’re residing in, those that they are fleeing from might be able to

electronically search the database and find where they’re living. That’s

the kind of situation that will be addressed in the increased security

under these amendments.

With broader access to electronic filing and new types of

electronic signatures, some land title documents and survey plans will

be able to be executed electronically by all parties, thereby

eliminating the need for paper copies. We’ll still have a transition

where paper copies will be used, especially in instances where people

don’t have access necessarily to electronic means to convey these

documents. But we are on the path to eliminating paper

copies.

Bill 37 will also support how treaty settlement lands are

administered, bringing important changes and administrative improvement

for First Nations. This has especially become apparent, in particular,

for the process for making additions to treaty settlement lands to be

simplified. As we enter into more agreements around treaties with First

Nations, what we have discovered is that there are some overriding legal

tools — legal binding documents around First Nations when it comes to

adding land to their treaty, settlement lands, after the treaty has been

signed.

[11:15 a.m.]

The amendments here will make it easier for First Nations who are

in treaty to add treaty settlement lands. There will still be the

necessary oversight and the necessary consultative mechanisms, but the

challenges that other legislation presents in that will be simplified,

and that’s going to be good for both First Nations and non–First

Nations.

The bill will also simplify the approval process for technical

boundary descriptions along the B.C.-Alberta border when there is no

physical change to the boundary. This is a much-needed change. The

situation we’re faced with now is that when a boundary needs to be set

or changed, it has to go to referendum. This is an onerous

process.

The issue is that much of the B.C.-Alberta border lies along the

height of land when it comes to the Rockies and is not monitored by a

point-to-point boundary marker. Over time, we know the dynamics in the

Rockies are at play, and there’s a chance for erosion, landslides and

other natural events. So the boundary set by a height of land is

movable.

I can think of an instance in an area where I used to work in the

Canadian Rockies, in Yoho National Park, which is within B.C., but it’s

on the border of Alberta. The height of land division between B.C. and

Alberta runs along the Great Divide, and there’s a pass between the Lake

O’Hara area of Yoho National Park and the Lake Louise area of Banff

National Park called Abbot Pass.

I was just reviewing pictures recently. There’s a hut up there

called Abbot’s hut, constructed by the Alpine Club of Canada out of

stone materials that were the only materials available in the area. I’ve

hiked up to that hut. It’s used by climbers and hikers to get out of the

weather and sometimes spend overnight.

An area underneath the hut has eroded and slid. I’m not sure if

it’s slid into the B.C. side or the Alberta side. And now the hut is

closed for the season until Parks Canada staff decide how to deal with

that from an engineering perspective for the safety of those using the

hut.

The fact is this relates to the B.C.-Alberta border. The border

was the height of land through that area. That height of land has now

changed. There’s been an erosion and a small landslide. This bill, Bill

37, will simplify the approval process for technical boundary

descriptions along the B.C.-Alberta border, taking care of instances

like that. There are a couple of other instances dating back into the

1990s where we’re still waiting for legislation around the

boundary.

It’s a marker-to-marker boundary now, and that’s what it will be

into the future after this bill, if it proceeds through to the final

stage. Those kinds of boundary issues will be resolved with this

act.

The benefits to this legislation are broad and will be realized to

the public, government officials, professionals, the Land Title and

Survey Authority and treaty First Nations. It really is a matter of

streamlining, reducing red tape and updating a system that needs to be

updated as far as how technology has evolved since 1999 when these

various acts were last updated as far as electronic

signatures.

The proposed changes will make life more affordable through less

reliance on legal professionals for simple land title changes. It will

also deliver the services people count on through greater security and

efficiency.

I touched a little bit on that, and we can definitely speak to

that in the committee stage in more detail. And it will help to create

an innovative economy by modernizing land title and survey systems.

Again, these systems are at the basis of business transactions, at the

basis of certainty and at the basis of how we move forward as a province

with First Nations.

With that, I will conclude my comments on second reading of the

Land Statutes Amendment Act, Bill 37.

[11:20 a.m.]

I look forward to hearing comments from the opposition side as

they have reviewed these changes suggested in the Land Title Amendment

Act. I’ll monitor their responses and look forward to committee stage of

this bill.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for his description and time, in

terms of it. It did help to answer some questions. I know there’ll be a

number of questions that will come up, certainly, in the committee stage

debate. But I want to make a few remarks here at second reading to the

bill, Bill 37, the Land Statutes Amendment Act.

The minister was just talking about an incident in Yoho National

Park where the lands moved. I’ve actually hiked around in Yoho National

Park as well. I’ve been there. It’s a beautiful place, actually. It’s

one of those places in British Columbia, if you get a chance, to go see.

I recommend people go and see it, because it is quite

spectacular.

I find it interesting in terms of the boundary decision and the

boundary decision process. I’m clarifying this in case there happens to

be an adjustment in terms of height of land.

We’ve been in Confederation for a long time now. We’ve had our

neighbours in Alberta for a long time, and there really haven’t been any

particular issues. It makes me kind of wonder if there is something

coming up that may require this unanimous agreement between British

Columbia and Alberta.

For example, what happens if the height of land changed because of

the Trans Mountain pipeline? Does this mean that if they don’t have

agreement between the two provinces, it would be a way to say: “Hey, we

can’t allow this to happen until we have an agreement as to where the

boundary is?” Maybe that isn’t the case, but it’s one of those things

that I’m certainly going to explore in third reading, because it seems

curious that it’s coming up now as an issue, as opposed to whenever else

this could have been done over time.

It’ll be fun. We’ll have some good discussion around that when we

get into committee stage. When you look at it on the surface, it seems

to be pretty straightforward. But like I say, it is curious in terms of

timing of when this was brought forward.

Similarly with regards to the bill, the second

section of the bill

is with regards to treaty lands, addition to treaty lands. I do know,

having been the former minister on the file, that there are a number of

treaties that are coming up that should be completed, hopefully, within

the not-too-distant future. There are also some of the existing treaties

and some acquisition of lands, whether it be private lands or Crown

lands, that nations would like to add to their treaty.

I’m curious with regards to this. This will be a process that

we’ll go through in terms of a committee stage, I’m sure. But where do

non-Indigenous communities fit in, in terms of this process? I know, for

example, there have been many communities that have expressed concern

about land being created as part of being part of a treaty or being

added to a treaty through the process that may now take it outside of

official community plans. What’s the engagement process that will be

involved with communities, etc.?

Those will be the kinds of questions that I’ll be curious about in

terms of how this proposal will go forward for additions to treaty lands

that people may have some concerns about, and rightfully so. My

colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin will certainly have additional

questions to ask with regards to this.

With regards to the other component of the bill — which is the

meat of a rather lengthy bill, actually, when you look at it — the

changes, certainly, to the Lands Act are important and need to be done.

There’s no question that modernizing the process — modernizing the way

we collect data or input data, being able to utilize electronic

processes — is going to be an important piece of this.

I find it curious in that, for most people, the land they own, the

home they own, will be the most important asset that they’ll ever own in

their life. It’s part of how they can save for retirement. It’s part of

what they can pass on to children. I won’t bother going into the

taxation on properties that the NDP have now decided to impose. That’s

for a different discussion.

Something so critical and fundamental as that can be done now in

terms of registering electronically, but we’re not allowed to vote

electronically. I’m kind of curious as to why that sort of process is in

place. But like I say, this is a right step. It’s an important step to

be done in terms of moving into the technological age, allowing for

these kinds of things to be done.

[11:25 a.m.]

I do have concerns around identity theft and around digital

security. The minister has mentioned that they’ve taken great pains in

terms of making sure that those will be there and in place. Those will

certainly be things that I’ll want to explore at the committee stage. I

want to make sure that people and their assets…. Particularly, the land

registry component is an important piece of their security.

I am also wondering, with regards to it…. It’s great to have the

digital component put in, but as the minister knows — he comes from a

rural area — many, many people don’t have access to the Internet, to

digital technologies. So of course, there’s going to need to be this

process that they can rely on, which is the previous process around it.

How those provisions are set in place to make sure that they can still

carry on with business the way they have carried on is going to be an

important piece — how it’s going to be made available to them to be able

to utilize the technology to be able to do the land registry and land

registry components.

I will congratulate the ministry in terms of bringing this

forward. Anything that reduces the red tape and process for people going

through this type of thing is an important step. I’m happy to see that

that is going to be happening around this. I still don’t see quite how

to make a whole lot of savings, because if you’re doing a land transfer,

you’re still going to be needing a lawyer to transact the

deal.

Usually, the fiscal…. There’s the banking side involved. There’s

the transfer of money. There are other things that are involved in it.

So I’m not quite convinced as to what the savings exactly will be in

terms of the registry. I suppose there is some small fee associated with

that, but you’re still going to be engaged with a lawyer through the

process to be able to do that.

Overall, like I say, I’m not unhappy to see this come forward. I

suspect this is something that we will be able to support. But having

said that, there are the questions that do need to be asked when we get

through to committee stage.

The lands component within the ministry, as the minister has said,

is a very important component. It’s one that gets overlooked often. But

when you look at the entire province, obviously all the Crown lands are

dealt with through the lands component of the ministry. There are some

significant issues around that, particularly when it comes to First

Nations rights and titles and components. That’s outside of where this

is. But just taking a step back on this, it does talk about Crown land

being added to treaties.

I guess the curious component of that…. If you’ve negotiated a

treaty to include the land that would be included as part of a treaty

settlement, where would the need come from in looking at Crown land to

be added? You’ve gone through the negotiation. You’ve gone through this

process. You’ve identified the Crown lands. The Crown lands have gone

through. There’s been a whole broad engagement — federal, provincial,

local governments, etc. — to say what the land should be. Suddenly, now

there’s this provision and thought that’s coming up around the Crown

land side that could be added to a treaty.

I’m going to be curious to hear from the minister, in committee

stage, some examples that they’re anticipating that might be coming up

that will see additional Crown lands added to treaties that weren’t

negotiated as part of the treaty process or were left out for other

reasons. That’ll be some interesting discussion. It’s not that I’m

opposed. I just need to understand what it is that the minister and the

government are thinking about in terms of this process.

I do recognize that there are some challenges and some differences

between the additions to a treaty that are outside a treaty versus

what’s inside a treaty. That does need to be clarified. Once again, like

I say, it’s curious that this is coming up now. I’ll be very interested

in knowing what the components are that the ministry is actually

thinking about. Normally, when you look at bringing in legislation like

this, it’s because you’re anticipating something that needs to be done.

Otherwise, it doesn’t become a priority in terms of making it to the

floor of the Legislature.

With that, I do also want to just say, in terms of the cleaning up

of this and the reductions, that red-tape reduction is something we were

very focused on as a government. We did significant steps on this. We

were one of only two jurisdictions, I believe, that received the top

ranking and support from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business

— an important piece in terms of that sort of work.

I’m glad to see that this will help, although I’m sure there’ll be

many offsetting increases to regulations that have been created by this

government. I’m sure that CFIB will have something to say about all of

this when it all comes out in the wash.

[11:30 a.m.]

With that, I will conclude my comments, and I look forward to

other people that may have a few comments to make with regard to this

bill. I can see my colleague from across the floor is very eager to get

in on some discussion on this. I look forward to that, and I’ll look

forward to the committee stage work.

A. Olsen: One speaker before the member from Delta can get up. I think this

motion was actually him asking you to make sure that he didn’t have too

much time to speak to this bill, looking for it to slow down.

I think it’s interesting, though. When the minister did mention

red tape in here, I saw it as a bit of a dog whistle, frankly. I knew

that it was going to get members from the other side to be really paying

attention to it because red tape, of course, was something there they

had an entire ministry for in the last session of the

Legislature.

Anyway, it is an important thing that, of course, we make

government operations more efficient and ensure that British Columbians

are having access to the very newest technology. Frankly, I think

e-filing is not really the newest technology. But I’m thankful that the

minister is taking a look at the e-filing system for land transfers and

the title and the survey systems and that it’s being looked at here in

Bill 37, the Land Statutes Amendment Act.

One of the areas that I’d like to point out…. I think it’s

section

2. We’ll get into this in more detail when this bill gets to committee

stage. I and my colleagues are happy for this bill to go to committee

stage and support the movement, through this House, of this

bill.

In fact, I’m quite happy that the member for Nechako Lakes is on

this bill. We know that, in fact, if any bill is going to be scrutinized

down to the very letter, it will be a bill that has undertaken the

scrutiny of the member for Nechako Lakes. I’ve watched him in awe at

budget estimates, at the precision with which he scrutinizes. So I’m

happy that that’s going to be done with this bill.

I’d just like to say that one of the pieces of this that I’m quite

happy about is the part of this bill that talks about treaty lands and

the potential for Indigenous communities that have negotiated those

treaties to receive the full benefit of those lands which they’ve

negotiated.

As was pointed out earlier, there is a long process that’s

undertaken with the federal government, with the provincial government,

with local governments, with regional districts and, indeed, internally

within First Nations. It’s a long process. That treaty process is a

long-drawn-out process. Some have been going on, as the members opposite

would know, for decades.

When a First Nation community negotiates access to Crown lands and

they become part of their treaty settlement lands, in the past, it’s

been just assumed that the Crown retains the subsurface mineral rights

to those lands. In this bill, it allows for those subsurface mineral

rights to be carried with the treaty consideration here. If that land

gets transferred in future treaties, those lands will also carry with

them the subsurface mineral rights.

As we know, amongst British Columbians, one of the more common

narratives that we’ve been hearing has been the need for Indigenous

communities to be able to have the economic development of their lands

benefit Indigenous communities. Indeed, as I’ve travelled the province

and visited many of my relatives’ communities across the province, I

would say that most First Nations communities really need that economic

development. I’m looking to ask questions about exactly what the

minister intends with this.

I’d like to raise my hands, at this point, and acknowledge the

fact that, really, this government has signalled a change in approach to

what previous governments have had when it comes to their willingness to

be able to relinquish some of the control.

[11:35 a.m.]

When it comes to the conversation about Indigenous rights,

inherent rights, treaty rights and title, it is about land. It’s a

question about land and land-ownership and how we live and operate and

work and move about our lands. I think that it’s important to note that

this government has signaled with this…. It’s just a small part of the

bill, but they have signaled with this that there’s a willingness to

have a different approach to land, and for that, I thank the government.

The Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations deserves to

be congratulated.

Again, I’ll be looking at this a little bit deeper and look

forward to going through this clause by clause, as we do every bill, at

committee stage. With that, I would like to say that we’re happy, as a

caucus, to support this bill and look forward to the committee stage of

it.

D. Barnett: I, too, am pleased to stand and speak on Bill 37, Land Statutes

Amendment Act, 2018. The Land Title Act is a very important act. I sold

real estate for 26 years, and I know the importance of getting it right,

the importance of security.

There are many pieces in this act that I will be waiting for the

minister to go through, piece by piece. My concern, of course, is the

consultation process. Any time we have a change in anything as important

as the Land Title Act, dealing with the lands, we need to ensure that

the public is aware of what is coming forward.

Where I live in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, we do have a treaty in

process. It’s been in process for 28 years. The previous government

actually worked very diligently with the Northern Secwepemc, and an AIP

was put in place. Unfortunately, it never got signed by this government.

It was signed here in August by the ministers of today, provincial and

federal, with no changes, to the best of my knowledge, that had been

made. But the concern is, of course, that the AIP was made public 1½,

two years ago on line and in the library and in our offices.

The communities surrounding had an opportunity to come and read

these — people that were concerned about which Crown land would be put

public would have. These are all very, very important issues to

communities, to people, to people that work the land, all walks of life.

Everybody wants to move forward. Everybody is anxious to get these

things finalized so they know where their future lies and they know what

is what within the Land Title Act.

It is also a great concern…. Are there going to be changes made?

When I read this, it seems like modernization is wonderful, but as my

colleague has said, a lot of people don’t even have Internet in rural

British Columbia, where most of these changes are going to be

made.

In here, it says you can make a change in a title by moving a

line. Well, are you going to get a survey done? Or can it just be with

metes and bounds of what somebody said? I’ve seen some of those happen

over the past years. Believe it or not, in one subdivision in my riding,

that was done many, many years ago. There were some titles filed, and

surveys weren’t correct. Of course, now people living next to each other

are paying and suffering the consequences.

I really and sincerely believe that this has to be done correctly,

slowly, with much input, with consultation, especially when it comes to

treaties. Borders are important. What is going to happen on the land is

important. My colleague before me spoke about subsurface rights. Are

those going to be changed when the titles change? We do not know that.

These are questions that should be answered so that after the fact there

are no problems.

People need to know what is going on in the land in British

Columbia. Land use in British Columbia, in my estimation, is one of the

biggest subjects there is. One of the most important components of the

future of British Columbia is how we deal with land use, how we move

forward, how we have industry.

[11:40 a.m.]

For all this here, bringing this forward, I commend the minister.

It is opening a dialogue that we need to have. Maybe this isn’t the

place to have a complete dialogue, but we need to have a

dialogue.

There are many, many other questions that we will have as this

moves forward. I think that anything we can do to reduce red tape is

great, and that is one of the mandates that has been on this side of the

House for years and years. But let’s make sure that we’re not

eliminating part of a process that gives the public the opportunity to

understand why we’re moving forward.

I agree with my colleague who spoke before me. Why is this all of

a sudden such an important statute amendment? I, too, have that

question. I know that my colleague from Nechako Lakes will certainly ask

many, many questions as we move forward with this particular statute, as

I think that people do not understand, really, why this is here at this

moment in time.

Changes to the Property Transfer Tax Act to align the electronic

filing of property transfer tax returns with the changes made to the

Land Title Act. What changes are going to be made? That is another

question.

Of course, the minister has explained the B.C.-Alberta border

issue, and that’s a little concerning also. If the land is going to

change in topography that great, well then I think we need to have more

discussions.

I really believe that…. In the Cariboo-Chilcotin we have a title

case that went to court, and we have a title that now belongs to the

Tsilhqot’in National Government and the Xeni Gwet’in Nation. That

property has not been registered yet. There have been no surveys done.

It is on the map. The courts, of course, awarded the land to the Xeni

Gwet’in and Tsilhqot’in First Nations, which is great. We’re all

pleased. We’d all like to move forward.

But it’s incomplete, because there has been no survey done. There

have been no metes and bounds done. There’s been nothing done as far as

regulation. What are the laws? Who is the law? These are all things that

need to take place within territories, within Crown land, within private

land.

We need to move forward as quickly as we can, because uncertainty

certainly does not make good neighbours. It does not make economic

stability, and it does not help to build any foundation for our

future.

I have many, many questions that I hope we will get to ask as this

proceeds forward through my colleague from Nechako Lakes, who, as my

colleague before me said, is very thorough.

With that…. I don’t know if I can do this yet, the time — we have

five or ten minutes left — but I think that….

Interjection.

D. Barnett: Oh, okay.

With that, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will turn it over to my

colleague from across the floor.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to rise. [Applause.]

A round of applause. I appreciate that.

It’s my pleasure to stand and speak in favour of the Land Statutes

Amendment Act. Many people in this House have heard our commitment to

make life more affordable, deliver services that people count on and

create a strong, sustainable, innovative economy that works for

everyone. This piece of legislation actually addresses all of

these.

One of the pieces that I want to highlight that the minister had

said earlier was: how does this make life more affordable? Well, it

enables broader access to electronic filing and land title survey

documents and reduces the need for members of the public to rely on

expensive legal professionals for simple land title

transactions.

It helps in delivering services that people count on, providing

efficient, secure, accessible services to agencies, professionals and

the public; and, of course, by leading the world in developing modern

electronic authentication, filing capabilities in land and title service

systems; and fulfilling government’s commitment to treaty nations to

make additions to the treaty settlement lands easier and less

administratively burdened.

[11:45 a.m.]

There were many things that have come up, and members have already

spoken. Technology is changing. As my esteemed colleague from Saanich

North and the Islands said, e-filing might sound like a new

technology.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: But it, in fact, isn’t a new technology, esteemed colleague. It is

actually catching up.

I know some of my colleagues joked about Red Tape Reduction Day.

We don’t need a day. We just need to get on with the work. This is part

of the red tape reduction work. I will acknowledge that the previous

government did work, and we’re going to continue to do work, because I

think that’s what people respect and expect from their

government.

There are a couple of things that I want to touch on in the

comments that were made. One in particular was the protections that this

would provide for women fleeing domestic violence. It’s a challenging

time in a person’s life when they’re fleeing domestic violence. I’m very

grateful to our minister for housing for announcing additional dollars

to ensure that we have enough transition homes for women who are fleeing

domestic violence.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But that is a transition home. Our hope is that eventually they

can buy a home, can get in a home — a secure place for their family, to

raise their kids in. We don’t want them to have the fear that someone is

out there and able to find where they are, if they are in fact trying

not to be found.

I’m grateful that the minister laid out examples of how there will

be protections built into this to ensure that there is protection for

women who are fleeing domestic violence so that their information isn’t

easily accessible. Although we’re trying to make information more

accessible, there will be protections there for those that don’t want

their information — for that reason. So I’m grateful for

that.

Just listening to the conversation here reminds me of an example

of how grateful we should be that we live in a country where we’re

having discussions about this and talking about how technology can help

advance this.

I had a conversation with my father about this a few years ago

where we were talking about India and people having to go back all the

time that have land there. They have to go to court because somebody

went to the land transfer office and basically said they were somebody

else and changed the name on the deed. People go back to find out that

they don’t actually own the properties. Or some people that have been

living there for many years find out that in fact the land title office

has got somebody else as an owner, because somebody did it ten years

ago.

I know we have challenges, and our system isn’t perfect, but I’m

grateful that we have an amazing system here in this country and that,

at the same time, we’re always looking to make it more efficient. I

spent many years working in banking. We’d have people come in to us and

ask us simple questions: “How do we change titles? Why do I have to go

to a lawyer? Isn’t there any other way?” People don’t want to pay the

fees. So giving people the tools to do the simple pieces themselves, I

think, is an efficient way of going forward.

I think members raised some questions, and some more detailed

questions that I think are good questions, will come up in the committee

stage and allow the minister to explain further. I think there were a

couple of questions that came up. One is, for example: “Does this issue

impact any developments on lands?” One of my notes I had here was:

“Issues with relying on boundary first arose near Sunshine Village

resort in Banff National Park. This has led to a monument survey of 1979

and 1982, which clarified the boundary but has yet to become officially

confirmed.” I think the minister wanted me to make sure I highlight that

piece.

I think we’re coming close on lunch. We have potentially someone

else wanting to speak to this, and that’s great. Well, I’m pleased to

stand here and speak to this. I look forward to voting in favour of this

when it comes forward, and now I will take my seat and allow some other

members to speak to this.

C. Oakes: It is truly a privilege to rise today and speak to Bill 37 in

second reading.

First, I would like to recognize and congratulate the government

on bringing this forward. When we look at modernizing and streamlining

government and the interaction that we have with citizens in British

Columbia, I think that’s an important step to make.

[11:50 a.m.]

I had the privilege of working with the folks — at the time it was

the red tape reduction branch, and now I think it’s the regulatory

reform branch — who do an outstanding job. I think it’s important to say

thank you to our public servants for the work that they continue to do

to make sure we’re streamlining and making sure that the interaction

that citizens in British Columbia have with the government is a

successful one.

I do want to raise a few concerns, concerns that I certainly

raised at the time when we were specifically focusing on modernizing and

streamlining actions by government. When we look at e-filing and we look

at technology, one of the critical things that we need to look at is

ensuring that we have connectivity across the province of British

Columbia.

There has been a shift and a move from looking at how we connect

80 percent of the province of British Columbia, 80 percent of the

population. That’s a significant change in government on how we ensure

that people are connected across British Columbia. I think that is

something that, as we look at how we utilize technology more

efficiently, we need to make sure, if we are making those steps, that in

fact, people are having the ability to have connectivity across the

province, specifically where land use interacts with

government.

I will continue, as we go through questioning, to make sure that

we have the opportunity to explore that. I also want it make sure that

we have the opportunity to recognize the critical work that FrontCounter

B.C. does and work that our public servants do at the front line. Often

when we look at e-filing and we look at using technology to help support

efforts around land use…. Sometimes we forget the nuances that a person

on the front counter can pick up.

For example, I’ve had three cases in the last year around Crown

trespass interactions that relate to homestead agreements that happened

in the 1930s. One of the challenges is, of course, you need that actual

person to sit at FrontCounter B.C. to help walk through a constituent on

what that may look like on land use. As we explore using technology, I

think this is a critical one for us to also look at.

I think it’s also a nod that the government has made to continue

their net zero. When we look at regulatory reduction, that the net zero

in increasing regulation…. I’m glad that that commitment has been made

in what we are seeing in this bill today. That’s encouraging.

A final note — because I’m noting the hour from my colleagues —

that we have a lot of industry and economy that takes place, whether

it’s the placer sector, forestry, agricultural, guide and outfitters,

and list goes on. We always need to make sure that the work we are doing

in support of these small businesses makes sure we’re simplifying their

work, making it easier. Affordable, yes, but easier, as well, so that

they can continue the work that they do to drive our economy and support

our communities.

Hon. D. Eby: I move second reading of Bill 37.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 37, Land Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada