2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 23, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 2

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, MARCH 23, 2015

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: I have two sets of introductions today. First of all, I'd like to welcome Murray and Melody MacRae from the city of Kamloops, constituents of mine visiting Victoria. Murray is a real estate agent in Kamloops. In fact, we went to elementary and junior high school together. Would the House please make Murray and Melody very welcome in the gallery today.

[1335]

Tributes

JEAN SCOTT

S. Hammell: Dr. Jean Scott, an honorary doctorate recipient and a well-known community activist and feminist who made her mark both nationally and locally, was 102 at the time of her passing on February 25, 2015.

Jean was born one week after the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. She shared her 21st birthday with Queen Elizabeth but liked to note that she had seniority over the Queen. She was a social activist longer than most people have been alive. She devoted her life to causes that promoted social justice, women's equality and the rights of the common person.

She had a strong commitment to community service. During a time in Chilliwack she was involved with the Ann Davis Transition House, the Chilliwack Museum, the Academy of Music, the New Democratic Party and Carmen United Church, along with many other causes and organizations.

She was a true treasure to all of us and to all of us who knew her. She was loved by many and will be missed by all.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: All that talk of elementary school — I thought I'd been sent to the corner.

Today is B.C. Pharmacy Association Day. It has been proclaimed Pharmacy Day in British Columbia. To help us learn more about the role of pharmacists — the role they play in our health care system in British Columbia — the B.C. Pharmacy Association is in the precinct today to meet with MLAs and staff.

I'd like to take a moment to recognize some of their representatives in the gallery today: Geraldine Vance, CEO of the B.C. Pharmacy Association; David Pavan, the president of their board of directors; board members Mark Dickson and Nemanja Filipovic; and Dr. Corey Nislow, assistant professor with the UBC faculty of pharmaceutical sciences. They're also joined by 11 other association members and student ambassadors. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the House today.

L. Krog: It's spring break in school district 68, Nanaimo, and that affords an honest opportunity for my friend Avery Valerio to join us once again in the chamber. Would the House please make her welcome.

D. Horne: It's a great pleasure today that I rise and introduce Rob Thiessen from the Hope for Freedom Society. The Hope for Freedom Society in the Tri-Cities area provides excellent services for those with mental health and addiction issues. As well, Rob was instrumental in creating the wet weather map program for the homeless in the Tri-Cities area. I would hope that the House would make him truly welcome.

B. Routley: It is great today to have the opportunity to welcome a couple of guests. I had a nice lunch with Sonia Furstenau and Lori Treloar, who are both here. Sonia represents the Shawnigan Lake CVRD and the Shawnigan Lake community.

They're here today to tell us about their concerns about the water potentially being contaminated in Shawnigan Lake. They have concerns about the environmental risk that may still exist. I think they're seeking a meeting with the Ministry of Environment.

They did meet with me, and we had a nice lunch. We got to hear from them their concerns, and I want you to know that we're listening.

Tributes

STEVE NASH

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I'd like to take a moment to honour a great Canadian athlete and British Columbian. This past weekend, Victoria's own Steve Nash announced his retirement from the National Basketball Association after an amazing 18-year career. Like many people, I believe Steve is pretty much the best point guard in the game, and he is one of my own personal sports heroes.

Raised in Victoria, he played for and led St. Michaels University to the 1992 B.C. boys basketball championship, and he was named the B.C. boys basketball player of the year. In 1996 Steve Nash was the 15th selection to the first round of the NBA draft by the Phoenix Suns, starting his successful career. During his playing career he was named the NBA MVP twice — the first Canadian to be given that honour. He finished his career with 1,217
[ Page 6782 ]
games played, 17,387 points scored, and 10,335 assists. Phenomenal.

[1340]

Like me, Steve is a proud Canadian and Olympian, representing Canada on the world stage. He played in the 2000 Sydney Olympics with the Canadian men's team, placing seventh. He continues his commitment to Canada by serving as the general manager for the Canadian men's basketball team.

Steve Nash is a first-class athlete and an all-around great person. Today's Canadian players in the NBA — Anthony Bennett, Andrew Wiggins, just to name a few — consider Steve a mentor and a role model. Canadian basketball is thriving today because of Steve Nash. Fans of the game, I'm sure, will miss Steve, but I, for one, can't wait to see what comes next for this amazing athlete.

Please join me in thanking Steve Nash for all that he's done and wish him the best of luck in the future.

Introductions by Members

B. Ralston: It's my pleasure to welcome to British Columbia and to our House a delegation of visitors from Vietnam.

Joining us in the gallery this afternoon are Mr. Thanh, deputy auditor general, State Audit Office; Mr. Hung, vice-chair, Economic Committee, National Assembly; Mr. Quang, standing member, Finance and Budget Committee, National Assembly; Mr. Son, secretary of the deputy auditor general, State Audit Office; Mrs. Ngoc, who's the official of the international relations department in the State Audit Office; and Ms. Caroline Jorgensen, director of international relations, Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation. They're in the gallery to observe proceedings and will have an opportunity to engage in some dialogue with members of the Committee on Public Accounts as they continue with their CCAF international study tour.

Will the House please make them welcome.

S. Hamilton: Joining me in the House today are two good friends, Delta residents. One is a longtime-serving Delta Parks commissioner, Mr. Don Sangster, and his business associate, Mr. Sid Keay. Could I ask the House to please make them welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to welcome today Rowena Hendriks and ten guests from Carlton House, a premier retirement residence in Oak Bay. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Tributes

MILLIE MITCHELL

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today to mark the passing of Millie Mitchell. Millie was an incredible businesswoman and an incredible activist from Merritt. I met her, actually, just a bit over a week ago when she was out organizing communities concerned about biosolids dumping in their backyard.

Millie was the long-time CA, constituency assistant, for Harry Lali, the former member for Fraser-Nicola, and just a force of nature. She passed away at the age of 83, tragically, in an accident, where she was out standing up for her community, seeking to find some pollution that she'd heard had been put in a distant back road. Unfortunately, she didn't make it out.

She was an incredible woman, never gave up. She joked to me not long ago that she came out of retirement so many times to make a difference, to make change, to stand up for her community, that she never should have considered going into retirement in the first place.

I just want to honour Millie Mitchell. She has a special place in many people's hearts and was an incredible leader in her community. I hope the Speaker might pass on our condolences to her family.

Madame Speaker: It will be done.

Statements

HOCKEYVILLE

G. Holman: I wanted to inform the House today that there are two communities in British Columbia which have made it into the top ten rankings for the Hockeyville competition. The voting — you can go to khv2015.ca. And an interesting democratic reform concept — you can vote as often as you want up until 9 p.m. tonight.

I'd really like to wish all the success to Dawson Creek and also the Saanich Peninsula rec centre. We've got an opportunity to have an NHL exhibition game at these facilities and win $100,000 for the local ice rink.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: It's my pleasure to introduce today in the House for her first visit to question period the 2013 B.C. Liberal candidate to Nanaimo–North Cowichan, Amanda Jacobson. Amanda is a single mother of two children and works as a mortgage broker in Ladysmith. Would the House please make her welcome.

R. Fleming: It's a pleasure to introduce a school group from my constituency. With us today are 30 students in grade 11 from Reynolds Secondary School, with their teacher, Ms. Shannon Walsh. There are two parents with this group as well. Many of them are here in the buildings for their very first time. I'm delighted to have them here.

[1345]

I also haven't had occasion in this legislative session to sing the praises of Reynolds Secondary School, as I regu-
[ Page 6783 ]
larly do. For the members, just to refresh their memories, this would be the school that regularly wins the regional slam poetry competitions. It's a regional sports powerhouse, with a soccer academy. It shatters the records for Cops for Cancer and is known for academic excellence in arts and science.

That's the school I'm talking about once again in the House. Would the House please make these students and their teacher welcome here today.

M. Bernier: I'm quite excited today. It's the first time, actually, since I've been elected to this House that I have the privilege of welcoming my wife, Valerie, who's joining us today, and my youngest son, Trevor. My daughter Michaela is visiting us again with her friend, Jericho Hancock. I'd like to have the House please make them welcome.

Before I sit down, I also want to thank the member for Saanich North and the Islands for the plug for Hockeyville. As we know, the Premier, representing the province, has been encouraging and supporting both communities. I, on the other hand, can be a little bit more shameless, not as gracious, and ask everybody here, up till nine o'clock tonight, to vote for Dawson Creek. It's a good competition.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I'm pleased to introduce a bill that proposes a number of amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act.

The main goal of this legislation is to strengthen and support the province's comprehensive strategy to combat high-risk driving behaviour on B.C. roads, including making amendments to the life-saving immediate roadside prohibition program. We believe the changes preserve the integrity of the programs by balancing fair administrative review processes with operational efficiency. Moreover, the amendments ensure the highest levels of safety for all road users in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker and hon. Members, the focus of this bill is to strengthen the administrative review components of the immediate roadside prohibition program by allowing the superintendent to make timely review decisions. This bill also establishes more certain and transparent mandatory remedial requirements for drivers who meet established alcohol- and drug-driving-related thresholds. Further, this bill creates regulations governing early release of specific designated vehicles from the vehicle impoundment program.

These amendments are intended to maintain the success of the proven life-saving suite of programs by ensuring that drivers, police and the public continue to have the utmost confidence in a strong, fair and efficient road safety framework.

This bill also gives full force and effect to the decision announced in May of 2012 to end the AirCare program by December 31, 2014.

Finally, the bill includes amendments to road safety and enforcement by providing clear direction on the use of the leftmost lane on multi-lane highways, providing authority to prescribe winter tire and traction device specifications in regulation and allowing municipalities to regulate motorcycle parking near traffic control signs and signals.

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 15, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015, 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)

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

M. Bernier: I remember my first kiss. I remember spending my summers in Campbell River fishing with my dad. I remember seeing a young, beautiful girl across the restaurant in Terrace when I was visiting there. Then, a few years later, I remember marrying that same girl. I remember the days my kids were born, when they first learned how to ride their bikes and when they graduated from school. I have amazing memories of my life, and I hope I'll have more.

[1350]

Another memory I have is watching my grandmother disappear right in front of my eyes. The sad part is that she, too, had an amazing life, amazing memories. But because of Alzheimer's, those amazing experiences and amazing stories disappeared from her forever. Imagine forgetting your childhood, forgetting you were married, forgetting you had kids and grandkids, forgetting you were in love.

I know everybody in this House has amazing stories. I hope you keep them with you until you leave this earth. That's what life's about: making great memories.
[ Page 6784 ]

On this day I want to thank everybody with the Alzheimer Society who volunteers, who does research and who supports this important cause. I also want to thank Jeff Shea and those with Investors Group in Dawson Creek who every year spend a lot of time sponsoring and bringing awareness to this cause with the Walk for Memories.

One day I hope a memory I do have is the day that I was told that nobody will ever again have to suffer from Alzheimer's disease.

PHYLLIS NASH AND SOCIAL WORK

M. Mungall: Each year during March social workers and millions of Canadians celebrate all that social workers do for our society, during National Social Work Month. This year's theme is "Social work: profession of choice."

Nelson's own Phyllis Nash embodies this year's theme to a T. She has been a force of light and love in countless people's lives and has gone above and beyond in contributing to community, to B.C. and to Canada.

Hailing from Prince George, Phyllis first started working as a ministry social worker in northern B.C. over 45 years ago. She was there when countless families found themselves in crisis and when children had nowhere else to turn. Phyllis was one of the many unsung heroes on the front lines of social work.

During those days, Phyllis garnered much experience and knowledge and took that to the front of the social work classes at the University of Victoria. In the 1980s the Kootenays had the good fortune of acquiring Phyllis when she began teaching at Selkirk College.

Although she retired from teaching in 2004, she did not stop working. In 2010 the Association of Social Workers here in B.C. celebrated her career and contributions after she stepped down as president of their board. She is still serving, though, and is active on both the provincial and national boards of social workers.

But I know Phyllis as the incredible community volunteer. She is active on the boards of Nelson CARES, Nelson Social Planning Action Network and the Kootenay Boundary Community Services Co-operative.

She also continues to serve as the co-chair for the Nelson Committee on Homelessness, and it is from here that I know Phyllis best. As her former employee, Phyllis taught me much about life, work and pursuing social justice.

Phyllis, thanks is not enough for all that you do and for all that social workers do for our province.

TERRY FOX

L. Reimer: On behalf of my constituents in Port Moody–Coquitlam, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak about Terry Fox and the 35th anniversary of the Marathon of Hope.

In April 1980 Terry boarded a plane to Newfoundland, where he began his Marathon of Hope. In preparation, Terry often ran a ten-mile route through the Tri-Cities, sometimes two or three times a day. He would log 101 running days in a row — with the exception of Christmas Day, to make his mom, Betty, happy.

Terry's dedication was unfailing. In fact, he logged over 5,000 kilometres of training runs, which is almost as far as his actual Marathon of Hope took him. To honour his dedication, the Terry Fox Foundation will be hosting a ten-mile, or 16.1-kilometre, run, which follows his training route, on April 4, likely the date of his last training run 35 years ago. The run will take participants from Port Coquitlam, through Coquitlam and out to Port Moody and back again.

After the run and the dedication ceremony, there'll be a short walk through Terry's neighbourhood. The Terry Fox Training Run and Community Walk is an opportunity to continue raising awareness for cancer research and literally follow in Terry's inspirational footsteps.

Last year I had the honour to be a part of the government's decision to proclaim Terry Fox Day the second Sunday after Labour Day. Today we celebrate what he achieved and what we as Canadians have achieved in his name.

Terry once said: "Even if I don't finish, we need others to continue. It's got to keep going without me." I'm proud to see my Tri-Cities community and all British Columbians keeping Terry's dream going and his legacy alive. Please join us on April 4.

[1355]

WATER PROTECTION

S. Chandra Herbert: Water is life; life is water. Indeed, we are all made up of approximately 60 percent water. Our society can't function without it, but it's under threat. That's why British Columbians united to celebrate World Water Day on Sunday, a day to reflect on better protecting one of our most important life-giving resources and to take action — and take action they have.

Currently over 100,000 people have signed a petition demanding that we treat our water with more respect and not give it away for just $2.25 per million litres. But it's not just the giveaway of water people are concerned about. What is rushing strongly all across B.C.? A demand that we treat our water with respect, use the best science and involve the community that relies on it.

In Chilliwack citizens are trying to protect the mighty Fraser from a proposed toxic waste recycling facility. In Likely citizens are continuing to raise the alarm about the impact of the Mount Polley mine disaster on their water. In Spallumcheen's Steele Springs citizens are speaking out after lax rules and enforcement led to cow waste making their drinking water undrinkable.
[ Page 6785 ]

In Shawnigan Lake residents are fighting to protect their water from a waste dump approved for their watershed. And, of course, in the Nicola Valley we've recently heard residents fighting to protect their wells from a proposed decision to put human waste, composted, above the wellhead.

These are just a few communities taking action. As the Council of Canadians pointed out, B.C. has the most boil-water advisories per capita in Canada. It's a shocking statistic and clearly points to the need for action.

We've seen what's happening down south in California, where they have just one year left of water in storage after some of the driest years in recorded history. We know that climate change is impacting our water now and that it'll only get worse. We must all take action to better value our water, involve our communities and respect it and protect it. Water is life; life is water.

B.C. PHARMACY DAY

D. Bing: Today, March 23, has been designated as B.C. Pharmacy Day in recognition of the pharmacists' role in our province's health care system. It is also a day to encourage others to enter this valuable profession.

More than 4,800 pharmacists and 1,100 pharmacies provide vital, convenient and accessible health care to communities across our province. Pharmacists also provide knowledgable advice about the safe and effective use of more than 65 million prescriptions annually. They are committed professionals who strive to achieve and maintain the highest standards and promotion of good health for all British Columbians.

In recent years our government has expanded the scope of pharmacists' work, giving British Columbians even more health professionals to choose from when they need health care services. A popular example of this is that during the past flu season more than 425,000 British Columbians received their influenza vaccine from a pharmacist, and in 2014 B.C. pharmacists vaccinated more than 6,000 young women from the human papilloma virus. Pharmacies also have medication return programs, ensuring the proper disposal of old and unused medications.

British Columbians have come to rely on pharmacists' knowledge and experience as part of their overall health care team. Today is British Columbia's opportunity to recognize the integral role that pharmacists play in the delivery of health care in our province.

SOIL HEALTH AND
FARMLAND PROTECTION

L. Popham: Some say politics is a dirty business, and some believe that politics is about dirt. "As generations become further removed from an agrarian lifestyle, and as we lose community, I fear that civil society becomes less civil. It is at our peril that the great cities of the world forget that civilization relies on the health of the soils upon which it rests." Those are the words spoken by our own Lieutenant-Governor, Judith Guichon.

"Many of the first ranchers, such as the Guichon family, came to British Columbia 150 years ago, chasing their dreams of gold," she said. "They came for the gold but then stayed for the grass."

The 68th United Nations General Assembly declared 2015 the International Year of Soils. The most widely recognized function of soil is to support our food production, and 95 percent of our food is directly or indirectly produced on our food-growing lands.

[1400]

Specific objectives of the UN International Year of Soils are to raise full awareness among society and decision-makers about the profound importance of soil for human life and to educate the public about the crucial role soil plays in food security, climate change adaptation and mitigation, essential ecosystem services, poverty alleviation and sustainable development.

In British Columbia we've been trying to protect our food-growing soils for over 40 years. Up to the 1970s, nearly 6,000 hectares of prime agricultural land were being lost each year to urban development and other uses. The provincial government responded to this erosion of the agricultural land base by introducing B.C.'s Land Commission Act. On April 18, 1973, an agricultural land reserve was established, reserving 5 percent of this province for food growing.

Some say politics is a dirty business. It isn't always, but when you see what's happened to our agricultural land reserve lately, I'd have to agree.

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENT OF B.C. TREATY
COMMISSION CHIEF COMMISSIONER

S. Fraser: The work of the B.C. Treaty Commission is fundamental to achieving reconciliation with many First Nations in this province. Chief commissioners have included Miles Richardson, Steven Point and Sophie Pierre, who will be leaving that position in one week.

Last September, based on the agreement of the province, the First Nations Summit and the federal government, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation recruited Mr. George Abbott on behalf of the Premier, proposing that Mr. Abbott take over the role of the chief treaty commissioner.

What changed between the province recruiting Mr. Abbott to the chief commissioner position in September and its sudden decision not to approve the appointment last Wednesday, one week before Mr. Abbott was due to take over?
[ Page 6786 ]

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Mr. Abbott served this province well and with distinction for a long period of time, both as an MLA and as a cabinet minister, as well as his roles that he has done outside of government. We appreciate the work that Mr. Abbott has done.

However, over the last number of months we have been thinking about the B.C. treaty process, about the role of the B.C. Treaty Commission, and we're looking forward to having a discussion with our principals — the First Nations Summit, the federal government, the province — to talk about what that future is and to talk about ways that we could be thinking about perhaps accelerating or revitalizing the process so that we can see more success for more nations.

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I have a supplemental, yes. Not surprisingly, the First Nations Summit was shocked by this betrayal by the province. Based on the agreement of the other parties, the summit passed a resolution in October formally confirming their support for Mr. Abbott's appointment. Barely a month ago they invited Mr. Abbott to a summit meeting with other treaty commissioners and included him on the agenda as the next chief commissioner.

What changed between the province agreeing with its Treaty Commission partners that Mr. Abbott would be a good appointment and its sudden decision last Wednesday to break faith and not approve that same appointment?

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair will hear the answers and the questions.

Hon. J. Rustad: We remain committed to the treaty process. There has been much success that we have seen in the treaty process for the number of nations that have gone through and completed. We also remain committed to working with our principals.

Reaching long-term reconciliation is important, but we also recognize that after 22 years it's time to be thinking about this process. It's time to be thinking about how we can try to accelerate and have more nations be successful through this process.

With the departure of Sophie Pierre…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Rustad: …whom I want to thank for her years of dedication and hard work in this position, the time is appropriate to have this conversation with our principals about the things that we could be thinking about to improve the process.

[1405]

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a final supplemental.

S. Fraser: This isn't about having a conversation with the principals. This is about blindsiding the principals.

The relationship between the provincial government and First Nations in this province is key to our economic and social progress now and in the future. The Premier has said, and I'll quote: "The gold standard for provincial relations with First Nations is treaty. Ideally, I want to get to a place where we are concluding more treaties." The minister has said: "We want to be true partners" — we just heard that again — "with aboriginal people, and that will only be possible by listening to each other."

To the minister: how is this the act of a true partner when you ask a question and you don't listen to the answer, essentially blindsiding your First Nations partners?

Hon. J. Rustad: We believe that we need to continue to move forward with our relations with First Nations. We feel that treaty is an important component of that. Beyond that, treaty is just one component. Not all nations want to proceed down the path of treaty.

Just in the last short while, we now have more than 16 incremental treaty agreements with nations. We had a number of new agreement-in-principle offers, which is stage 4 of the treaty process, that have gone out to nations. We're working through, in final negotiations, two other treaties with K'ómoks and In-SHUCK-ch.

There is a whole host of things that we're doing. We also recognize that it's important to move with other nations as well. We've gone now, just over the last two years, from around 150 non-treaty agreements to almost 300 non-treaty agreements as we advance our relationships with First Nations.

Working with the principals and working with First Nations is important. Strengthening what we can do around the treaty process is important. We plan to continue working closely with First Nations partners to make sure they have full opportunities to not just expand and have their opportunity around the economy but also to reach long-term reconciliation.

C. James: I first want to remind the minister. He says he wants to work with First Nations. Well, if the minister and this government wanted a real relationship with First Nations, they wouldn't have started by cancelling the appointment that they were going to put in place three months ago.

The B.C. Treaty Commission was clear in its view of events of this last week. Chief Commissioner Sophie Pierre said that the parties to the Treaty Commission
[ Page 6787 ]
have legal commitments to the process and each other. "This retraction of the chief commissioner selection…raises questions about B.C.'s commitment to the treaty negotiations process." The First Nations Summit political executive also said that the province's blatant disregard for the agreement we had among principals and processes already undertaken is wholly unacceptable.

Again, my question is to the minister. How do you explain this last-minute breach of faith to the province's partners in the Treaty Commission?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Members.

Hon. J. Rustad: As I said earlier, we remain committed to treaty. We remain committed to working and building our relationships with First Nations. There's been a process that started about 22 years ago that has seen more than $600 million that has been expended furthering relations and furthering the treaty process, and we now have eight nations under four treaties.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Rustad: There has been some great success with those nations that have reached treaty. There has been some great success in the incremental approaches that we've taken with First Nations. But it is time that we take a look at this process and we say: "How is it that we can revitalize it, that we can find ways to accelerate it so that more nations can participate in the success that treaty can bring?"

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: The minister says he's committed to the principals and committed to the process, yet one week before the appointment was to take place, they pulled the rug out underneath George Abbott — an appointment that was approved by the parties.

[1410]

The government made a commitment to the federal government, which was ready to approve this appointment on April 1; to the First Nations Summit, who acted in good faith by formally confirming their support of the appointment; to the Treaty Commission, which spent time and effort beginning the transition process with Mr. Abbott based on the government's assurances that he was acceptable.

Again, my question is to the minister. When did the Premier inform the minister that the province would be breaking faith with its treaty partners and pulling Mr. Abbott's appointment?

Hon. J. Rustad: We said last September in the all chiefs meeting that we wanted to find a new path. We wanted to look at new ways to work with First Nations. We were at a signpost in the road, and we had a choice as to the path that we could take.

Over the last number of months we've been thinking about our relationships with nations, how we can work with First Nations differently. We've come to the realization that the B.C. treaty process has been very successful for the nations that have made it through, but we need to be thinking about how we can revitalize it, how we can move forward.

We plan to engage with the principals around those discussions, with the First Nations Summit and with the federal government, to talk about what we can do, with treaty, to revitalize it. It's an important discussion. It's critical for the future with First Nations as well as for the Crown. It's an important discussion to go through that is unfettered and to be able to come up with the right path forward.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair will hear the answers and the questions.

M. Farnworth: The minister said he wants to look at the process, so let's look at the process. He wanted to appoint George Abbott — offered him the position. It was agreed to by the feds. It was agreed to by the treaty nations. It was agreed to by this government in doing so. They've pulled that appointment. They have pulled that appointment and blindsided the parties in the process.

That's not about building confidence. What that has done is seen a minister humiliated for having to pull an appointment, a government that has lost the confidence of treaty nations, lost the confidence of the feds, lost the confidence, clearly, of cabinet. He may still have the confidence of the Premier, but I'd really like the minister to be able to tell this House how he intends to move the treaty process forward when he clearly has the confidence of only one person.

Hon. J. Rustad: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. I want to tell a brief story, if I may. I want to talk in particular about the Lower Kootenay band. I went and visited the Lower Kootenay band in this past year, and we talked about what they wanted to see and their vision for moving forward. As a band, historically, they've always had access to the lake, but under the reserve system, they've never been able to get back and have access to the lake.

We actually took an approach of an incremental treaty with them to be able to make some land available, which is now being signed to move forward. For the first time in well over 100 years, they now have access again to the
[ Page 6788 ]
lake. Treaty process is about how you can reach long-term reconciliation, but in this particular case, it was something that we actually did as an incremental process that even wasn't in the standard six-step process.

It's that kind of success that we need to embrace. We need to think about how to move forward. I want to talk to the principals in terms of how we can develop the B.C. treaty process and further what we're able to achieve through it to be able to meet long-term reconciliation for the nations.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

[1415]

M. Farnworth: We're talking about George Abbott, who was to chair the Treaty Commission. That's who we're talking about, an individual who had the support of all the parties in the Treaty Commission. That's something the minister doesn't seem to want to acknowledge.

The question is really simple. How can anybody participating in the treaty process have any confidence in anything this minister has to say on a subject, given the events of the last few days?

Hon. J. Rustad: The Tsilhqot'in decision has set the stage for thinking about how we can do things different in the province of British Columbia and how we need to shape relationships.

But we have, over the last two years, signed close to 150 new agreements. We're now up to 300 agreements between First Nations and the province of British Columbia, furthering that reconciliation — many of those new agreements just in the last year alone.

We have new offers of agreements-in-principle in the treaty process that are out to nations. They're going out and looking at it. I'm hopeful that we will have some announcements on that in the near future.

We're still working with a number of other nations, talking about how we're advancing things like incremental treaties. Those that are in agreement-in-principle…. We're talking to them about how to walk forward and how to actually get through to the completion of their treaties — how we can look at accelerating things.

We need to take that success, work with our partners in this, to find ways to renew and rejuvenate the treaty process so that it can be successful in a shorter period of time for a greater number of nations.

OFFICE OF AUDITOR GENERAL FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT

S. Robinson: Three weeks ago I asked the Minister of Community Development to explain why the Auditor General for Local Government had only succeeded in producing one audit over two years at a cost of $5.2 million. The minister told us that all was well. On March 9 the minister told the House: "We are working with the Auditor General for Local Government" on a revised plan. This morning we learned that the minister has sacked Basia Ruta.

My question is to the minister. Why did it take three weeks for her to come clean with British Columbians about the turmoil in the Premier's pet project?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. It remains fundamentally important that we have a strong, functioning, accountable and transparent Auditor General for Local Government office.

We remain disappointed by the performance and the lack of performance audits that have been achieved. That is why we have taken steps to address that, to ensure that the fundamental principles of the Auditor General for Local Government are achieved.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: Disappointment is hardly being accountable. The minister had no intention of telling British Columbians the truth about the waste and dysfunction at the Auditor General for Local Government office until she was forced to.

Today she tells us that she sacked Basia Ruta on the advice she received from the audit council back on March 19, but the truth is that the minister knew about these problems for many months. The audit council asked her for help on February 6. We understand that this was their second attempt to get the minister's attention.

My question is to the minister. Will she confirm that in January the audit council told her that they had lost confidence in the AGLG?

Hon. C. Oakes: Actually, some of the information is critically incorrect. I think it's important for us to understand that it was necessary to ensure that we had a formal process, that we have worked through a process, to evaluate and work with the audit council to resolve the lack of performance of the performance audits.

[1420]

I make no apology for ensuring that proper process was followed, that we are addressing human resource concerns and that the proper, appropriate officials…. The Public Service Agency was appropriate — not a political person — to make those decisions. We had a process that was necessary to follow.

I would actually like to thank the member opposite for her work on this file. It's not too often in this House when we do have the opportunity to look at how we improve upon functions of this government. We strongly believe in the Auditor General for Local Government. We understand that it was a grass-roots….
[ Page 6789 ]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, Members.

Hon. C. Oakes: Hon. Speaker, if I may. This was a grass-roots movement that I was involved with in the 2000s, long before I was a minister. There were stakeholder groups from across British Columbia that understood the importance and the necessity of having an Auditor General for Local Government.

This will provide tools for local government — tools so that they can share best practices, tools and abilities to really help support taxpayers achieve great value. We believe in this. We had hoped for a different conclusion, but we are moving forward.

S. Simpson: The minister has said that she's disappointed by all of this. But taxpayers don't really want her to be disappointed. They do want her to be accountable for the waste of $5.2 million. They want her to be responsible for the expensive legal fight that's pending.

The minister has known for months that she had a mess on her hands, and she ignored the problem until it was raised in this House. Will she confirm that the audit council wrote her in January and told her they had lost confidence in the Auditor General for Local Government?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, the former Auditor General for Local Government's obstruction of an intended review — reviews that the audit council had been trying to seek with the Auditor General for Local Government for some time — has created an intolerable work environment. That has led to the decision of me to ask….

I sought the audit council's recommendation regarding the removal of the Auditor General for Local Government. The audit council considered my request and issued a recommendation to remove the Auditor General for Local Government, and this morning I recommended that the auditor's appointment be rescinded.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The problem is this. This is a minister who has stood up in this House and told us that everything was fine. She covered up a report written by her director of human resources that said the Premier's pet project was in turmoil. Then she said she was working cooperatively to put an end to the waste and dysfunction. Then she sacks Ms. Ruta and saddles the taxpayer with, certainly, many legal bills.

Again, why did she ignore the audit council when they told her three months ago that this wasn't working and that they had lost confidence in the auditor general?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We followed proper procedure and the procedures outlined in this act.

L. Krog: This should come as no surprise to the government. The opposition warned the Premier that her pet project would turn into a mess, and sadly, for taxpayers, it has. So much for saving taxpayers' money.

[1425]

In 2012 we told the Premier that she should expand the role of the Auditor General and allow the office to provide advice to local government — good advice not taken by the Premier. Rather than throw more money at this mess, will she finally take our advice and roll the AGLG into the Office of the Auditor General?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Adding this role to the office of the provincial Auditor was a consideration at the beginning, but after consulting with local governments and working through the mandate, it was decided that the current structure would be a better fit with the type of audits that would be undertaken.

There are many of us who have local government experience. We understand that the AGLG's performance audits are quite different than audits done by the current office of the provincial Auditor.

That said, it would absolutely be prudent at this time to take a look at the legislation and the different structures in case improvement can be made to preserving the independence of this office.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, I think we heard the first glimmer of an apology from this government for wasting $5.2 million.

But what the minister doesn't seem to understand is that she and this government and the Premier have failed the taxpayers of British Columbia. The AGLG fell apart under her watch. She's responsible for the $5.2 million.

Again to the minister, will she put an end to the Premier's pet project, roll this into the Auditor General's office like we told them to do three years ago?

Hon. C. Oakes: In this time of transition, we will be looking at options to ensure that the Auditor General for Local Government is the best structure to meet the mandate.

I would like to remind the members opposite that this was really a grass-roots movement. It was a movement of stakeholders from across the province that looked at ways that we can improve and provide tools to local government to ensure…

Interjections.
[ Page 6790 ]

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Oakes: …accountability for taxpayers.

Should we be evaluating, always analyzing and looking at ways that we can improve legislation and the way that we do things as government? That is what we should be doing as government. I remain committed, I remain determined, and I remain focused to ensure that this Auditor General for Local Government's office is going to be successful.

D. Eby: Three years ago the opposition told the government to roll this local government audit function into the Auditor General's office. The Auditor General has the capacity, the expertise and is a nationally respected office. Surely the minister isn't saying that she doesn't have confidence in our Auditor General to have the ability to do this job?

Hon. C. Oakes: In case what I said before wasn't heard clearly, I'll read the line again. What it said is that the role…. This is important because this….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Oakes: The role of the office of the provincial Auditor was considered at the beginning, but after consulting with local governments and working through the mandate, it was decided that the structure would be a better fit if this type of audit were undertaken. We respect local governments, we listened to local governments, and we implemented what they asked.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Please continue.

D. Eby: I'm sure in the minister's lines it doesn't say that local government asked for this mess.

Can the minister please stand up and explain exactly what it is about the Auditor General's office that is not compatible with doing audits of local governments in British Columbia?

[1430]

Hon. C. Oakes: The process of implementing the Auditor General for Local Government was an exhaustive process that reached into every single community. Stakeholders right across British Columbia had the opportunity to put forward their ideas and recommendations on what an Auditor General for Local Government office would look like.

When options came forward to local governments and they were asked whether they would like to see the function of this office be within a provincial auditor or their own separate auditor for local government, they asked to work through a separate mandate. It was their request, versus the provincial Auditor General, to look at an independent performance audit office of the provincial auditor. That is what we have implemented.

M. Mungall: Well, I dare say that if anybody in this House looked up the word "failed" in the dictionary, they would see the Premier's pet project Auditor General for Local Government. Time and time again we uncover more information from this minister, only to find out every step of the way that she has utterly failed B.C. taxpayers and wasted $5.2 million.

That's just the start. Legal fees are absolutely certain here. My question is a simple one to the minister. Will the taxpayers be paying Ms. Ruta's legal bills?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, if I may correct the statement, this process was a grass-roots movement of stakeholders from across British Columbia.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Oakes: It was a policy that was put forward. If you look at the B.C. Chamber of Commerce policy manuals from the 2000s, they asked for a municipal officer of local government.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Oakes: Our government were the ones that listened to grass-roots communities across British Columbia and implemented this very important office.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Ombudsperson's public report No. 51, In the Public Interest: Protecting Students Through Effective Oversight of Private Career Training Institutions.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, it's the con-
[ Page 6791 ]
tinued estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and in this chamber, beginning with committee stage on Bill 16, interim supply.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:35 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2015

Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I call second reading on Bill 13, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 13, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, be read a second time now.

I'll endeavour to provide the committee with a slightly more detailed description of the provisions. Many of them are quite technical, so I'll endeavour to provide more of an overview.

I'm hopeful that the hon. opposition critic has had an opportunity to receive a more detailed briefing. She's indicating that she has, which I think will assist this and the subsequent committee stage debate.

Bill 13 makes a number of amendments to the administrative and enforcement provisions of a number of statutes: the Carbon Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Provincial Sales Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act. The amendments are intended to bring greater consistency to similar provisions that exist within those acts, reducing the chance that provisions will be applied differently and decreasing the complexity and administrative burden for both taxpayers and government.

In addition, a number of the amendments are intended to clarify existing provisions to improve the fairness and effectiveness of their administration — including the application of tax to parts used on interjurisdictional conveyances, the authority for refunds to be provided to PST collectors, and the required timing of payments under the acts — while removing the prohibition on making bulk sales and allowing for collection bonds to be requested at the time of registration or varied when circumstances change.

There are technical amendments contained within the bill that have been made to the Provincial Sales Tax Act to expand the circumstances in which out-of-country businesses may voluntarily register to collect and remit B.C. PST. As business models change, I can advise the House, more out-of-country businesses are using local suppliers to fill orders for B.C. customers. These amendments will allow these businesses to register and also allow out-of-country businesses that ship commercial goods into B.C. to register, enabling these businesses to better serve their customers, who will no longer be obligated to self-assess PST.

[1440]

The bill also includes provisions, originally amended by the PST transitional regulations, that are required to be brought into legislation in order to remain effective beyond April 1, 2016. These amendments allow the Minister of Finance and the courts to determine the fair market value of a good, software or taxable service on appeal.

The Tobacco Tax Act amendments allow for British Columbia's participation in the federal tobacco stamping regime. In 2011 the federal government implemented a new tobacco stamping regime that offers improved security features and specific provincial markings, including identification features and unique stamp colour for provinces that choose to adopt the regime The stamps make counterfeit tobacco products more difficult to produce and, just as importantly, easier to identify.

Tobacco manufacturers and importers are already complying with the new stamping requirements federally and in other provinces that have implemented the new regime. The excise stamps adopted for B.C. will replace the tear tape currently required on packages of cigarettes, as well as loose, fine-cut tobacco, and the green stamp required on imported tobacco intended for taxable sale in the province.

This bill also amends the Financial Administration Act to allow for broader sharing of debtor information.
[ Page 6792 ]
Currently the Ministry of Finance is unable to share information about a debtor — such as name, birth date, address and amount owing — between non-tax programs or from a non-tax program to a tax program. As a result, debt collection activities are not as efficient or effective as they could be.

For example, when attempting to collect an unpaid debt, it is not always possible to see if a more recent address for the debtor is available under another program. As well, refunds are being issued under one program while the recipient has a debt outstanding under another program.

The amendments will, we believe, lead to improved debt collection, an increased opportunity to offset refunds against other debts owed to government, and internal cost savings and increased efficiency by reducing the effort needed to locate debtors.

The amendments to the Financial Administration Act will also expand the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia's power to refuse to issue a driver's licence or corresponding number plate to debtors who have defaulted on prescribed debt to government. Defaulted direct-lend student loans are an example, and non–motor vehicle court fines are another example of what is currently being contemplated in this regard.

The collection tool will increase collections and reduce costs to government but will only be used where circumstances warrant. Debtors will always be notified before any licence action is taken, and any debtor who is making regular payments or has demonstrated financial hardship will not be impacted at all by these provisions.

The amendments to the Income Tax Act ensure that the act continues to be harmonized with the Income Tax Act of Canada, as required under the Canada–British Columbia tax collection agreement. Technical amendments to the credit for mental or physical impairment, qualifying environmental trust tax and tax credit, B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit, and child arts credit ensure that these provisions continue to align with parallel federal provisions and do not change existing policy. Amendments also adopt various federal penalty provisions and provide for electronic mailing of notices.

The Mineral Tax Act amendments are, we hope, consistent with our attempt to improve its confidentiality provisions in two ways — first, by simplifying the administration of resource-revenue-sharing agreements entered into with First Nations by allowing aggregate mineral tax information to be shared with government staff, who are responsible for implementing and administering the agreements, without the need for mine operators and government to enter into and manage complex consent agreements.

[1445]

The amendments — again, to the Mineral Tax Act — also will strengthen revenue certainty for First Nations by eliminating risks associated with requiring consent agreements from mine operators.

Second, the proposed amendments will improve consistency with the confidentiality provisions of other provincial taxation acts by allowing information collected under the acts to be disclosed for the purpose of assisting other government officials in the administration or enforcement of other taxation statutes.

Access to mineral tax information for this purpose will improve service delivery to businesses, while reducing administration costs, and further expand the sound and transparent management of government finances.

The amendments to the Real Estate Services Act enhance, we believe, consumer protection by helping to ensure that consumers are fairly compensated for loss caused by licensee misappropriation and that all moneys received by a licensee are handled appropriately.

Changes to the Real Estate Council's composition will enable the appointment of another member to its board to provide additional representation for the views of the nearly one million strata property owners in British Columbia.

Finally, amendments to the Real Estate Foundation framework will help support its grant program to non-profit entities for the betterment of land use by enhancing its revenue stream and by allowing for appointment of additional board members.

I know that several of the provisions of the act have attracted commentary attention. I'll look forward to the contributions of members to the discussion. As I said at the outset, many of the provisions are fairly technical in nature, but there, too, may be comments and, I'm certain, at committee stage, questions about their operation. I look forward to entertaining those questions and answering them as best I can.

I move second reading.

C. James: Thank you to the minister for that overview. As the minister has said, Bill 13 really is compiled of a number of technical amendments to the act. I want to thank the minister and thank his staff for taking time to walk through each of the sections very thoroughly with myself and my research staff and our other critic.

We really appreciated the opportunity to be able to look at the specifics. As the minister has said, this is a very varied bill. It really does cover a number of pieces that are housekeeping and a few pieces that I want to talk a little bit more about.

I think it's also really important when we take a look at a bill like this to look at the questions around what impact this will have on British Columbians. I think people often take a look at a finance statute amendment act and presume that it's dry and boring and that it will have no effect on British Columbians — that it's simply technical in nature, as the minister has said. I also think that it's important to take a look at whether there are winners and losers in each of these pieces in the bill. Is there any
[ Page 6793 ]
positive or negative impact on British Columbians or on businesses themselves?

Certainly, as I said, I believe that there are a number of routine changes in this bill, but I'd like to go through the specifics in each section. As the minister has said, I'll certainly have more questions as we go along at committee stage as well.

The number of sections in this bill — if anyone is following along — that deal with refunds and collections and assessment appear to be the Carbon Tax Act changes, the Income Tax Act changes, the Provincial Sales Tax Act changes, the Motor Fuel Tax Act changes and the Tobacco Tax Act changes. Most of these, as I mentioned and as the minister mentioned, are pretty straightforward. They're focused on consistency between acts — looking at opportunities to find that consistency between acts.

On the Tobacco Tax Act changes, as the minister had mentioned, B.C. is now going to join other provinces that have already moved in this direction — to join the federal stamping program, which will hopefully cut down on counterfeiting and address some security issues. That's certainly something that we're in support of. In committee stage we'll talk a little bit about why B.C. is a little bit behind and why that occurred. It's a pretty straightforward piece that I think most people would agree with.

[1450]

In taking a look at the Provincial Sales Tax Act changes, again, in discussions and in taking a look at the act itself, it appears very straightforward. It appears that, in fact, the main change is to allow businesses outside British Columbia who are shipping into British Columbia to be able to actually collect PST themselves rather than asking the customer who is receiving the goods to do it.

As we know, with an increase in the use of the Internet and the use of on-line shopping, this is something that occurs more often, and we don't see a challenge with the businesses collecting that PST rather than the customer having to do it. In fact, it's probably an efficiency that makes sense. Again, we'll have some questions when we get to committee stage, but it looks pretty straightforward.

I just have to say, though, as an aside that any changes to the PST are certainly something that raise eyebrows and something that we feel is important to review and examine. I don't think anybody forgets the HST debate and discussion and the going-back-to-PST debate and discussion. This is an area where we have asked questions, and we'll continue to ask questions to make sure that there aren't any other exemptions or changes on goods and services, but it certainly doesn't appear that way in the bill that's coming forward.

On the Income Tax Act changes, it looks at consistency between the federal act and ours provincially and, again, appears neutral to British Columbians. It appears that it basically takes changes that are already made in the federal Income Tax Act and coordinates that act with the provincial act, so again revenue-neutral to British Columbians — just coming back to the importance of taking a look at these impacts and whether they do impact British Columbians or British Columbia businesses positively or negatively.

The Carbon Tax Act and the Motor Fuel Tax Act changes, again, appear routine, as the minister has said. It looks to ensure consistency for people who are doing business outside British Columbia — so trying to make sure that there's a level playing field for people where they're collecting that tax, either inside or outside of the province.

On the Mineral Tax Act changes, I think there was a little bit of a pause in taking a look at those changes, because they talk about improving and strengthening confidentiality, which isn't always a positive. If you take a look at acts coming forward from government, I think anything that talks about ensuring confidentiality raises some eyebrows or some red flags around what that confidentiality is related to. But it appears from the discussion and from the act itself that, in fact, this act actually opens up in some respects opportunities for information to be shared with First Nations around revenue-sharing agreements that they may be entering into.

So again, I think there'll be some specific questions at committee stage, but it appears that this speaks more to disclosure and what gets disclosed than it does to protecting information and keeping information confidential. It appears to actually provide opportunities for specific information to be shared around revenue-sharing with First Nations. That certainly appears to be a positive, from our perspective.

The minister also mentioned the Real Estate Act changes. Again, they appear fairly technical, related to brokerage trust accounts, as the minister has said, to ensure that the money is there if people feel that they have not been treated fairly and have recourse to go forward and look at real estate transactions that were not done properly — that the money will be there to be able to resolve that.

There are two very small amendments that are related to strata changes in this act as well. One is related to the strata owner representation on the real estate council, which again is a positive. But I am concerned that it simply comes across as, "We're just taking care of the strata council people. We're putting in a representative there," rather than looking at some of the major changes that need to occur around the issue of stratas, enforcing bylaws, the rules of the strata corporation.

I understand that the issue of strata gets divided between two acts. We're speaking here about the Real Estate Services Act, which is the piece that comes forward in Bill 13. There are also strata issues that get dealt with through the Strata Property Act. But I think there are some specific changes that, certainly, I would have liked to see come forward around the Real Estate Services Act related to strata that weren't in the act.
[ Page 6794 ]

[1455]

One of those, of course, is the issue of strata managers. This is something that strata corporations have been bringing forward for a long period of time in this province. Currently the act treats strata managers the same as they treat realtors.

There isn't anything within the current Real Estate Services Act that actually provides a specific code of conduct for strata managers or a specific requirement for strata managers to actually follow the Strata Property Act, which is pretty basic when you're looking at a strata manager. You would hope that there would be a code of conduct for them, and you would certainly hope that they would have to follow the Strata Property Act. But under the Real Estate Act, which is what we're talking about as part of Bill 13, in fact, there isn't anything in there. They're treated the same as real estate agents.

From my perspective, it's a missed opportunity that the government could have looked at bringing forward much-needed changes to the Real Estate Act that would have helped in the area of strata. When you take a look at the number of individuals who live in stratas now, I think it's pretty critical that these pieces get looked at.

We still have outstanding the civil resolution tribunal system for stratas. Again, that's a piece that hasn't been implemented, that came forward in the past but hasn't been implemented yet, that is causing all kinds of challenges. I would hope that those discussions are ongoing with strata councils on both acts, on the Strata Property Act as well as on the Real Estate Act.

That just brings me to the final section of the bill, which I believe is probably the most controversial — in a bill that's pretty straightforward and that's pretty technical — and certainly raises the most red flags. That's changes to the Financial Administration Act regarding debt collection by government. I heard the minister say that they hope that this will increase efficiency and that it'll provide the opportunity for government to be able to better collect debt from those debtors out there who have not paid.

While those are certainly important goals to look at…. They're certainly an important direction that we on this side would support. We believe that when someone has a debt, they need to be paying back their debt and that that needs to be as efficient as possible. But I have to say, in reviewing Bill 13, I have a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of concerns about whether, in fact, the changes that the government is bringing forward are actually going to do that, are actually going to either increase the amount of debt that's collected or make it more efficient.

The changes in this bill basically allow for the sharing of information for the purpose of debt collection by the government, sharing information between ministries but also sharing information with ICBC and expanding ICBC's opportunity to be used as a debt-collection tool. Again, I think that raises some real questions.

I think the other real question in this section in the act is that the act is written with an enabling approach. The minister mentioned that the current focus…. The areas that are contemplated right now are court finds and student fees. Those areas are not mentioned in the act because the act basically is enabling and allows the government, through regulation, to be able to determine what other areas are going to be collected and what ICBC would be used for.

I think, again, that raises red flags in a number of ways. The act actually speaks to…. I'll just read it because I think it's important for people to understand how broad this section of the act is.

It talks about, for the Minister of Finance, that for the purpose of recovering debts or obligations owed to the government under any enactment or a program from government, to collect and use debtor information in the custody or control of the Ministry of Finance or to request other ministries to disclose debtor information, regardless of whether that information was collected under a confidentiality clause and regardless of the purpose for which that information was originally collected.

As you can see, that's about as broad as you can get. It basically says that it doesn't matter whether you signed a confidentiality agreement when the information was collected to say that this is only collected for this purpose.

[1500]

This basically says: "We, for the purpose of collecting debt through the Minister of Finance or designate, will have the ability to be able to utilize that information." It speaks specifically to overriding privacy provisions that may have been signed when that information was collected. So I think that's a big concern. That's something that can't be taken lightly, that needs to be reviewed and that needs to take a look at the personal information that's being collected.

Again, another section of the bill says: "(a) despite any provision of a non-tax enactment that requires a person to keep information collected…confidential, (b) despite any agreement or representation made with respect to a program of the government that a person will keep information collected…confidential…, and (d) regardless of the purpose for which, or the circumstances under which, debtor information was originally collected."

Again, that's about as open ended as you can get. It provides opportunity for information — regardless of how it was collected, regardless of whether you signed a confidentiality agreement, regardless of the onus on the person who collected that information to keep it confidential — to be overridden by this bill and by the Ministry of Finance or designates.

There have been concerns, certainly, raised around freedom of information and protection of privacy. Again, we'll have some specific questions as we get into that discussion. This change really provides an opportunity for the sharing of information, which is a concern and often is a concern raised with government — that information has been shared.
[ Page 6795 ]

We saw that example when we went through the sharing of information through the ICM system put in place with the Ministry of Children and Families, where sometimes information was shared that wasn't supposed to be shared. There were things that occurred during the implementation of that computer system that caused all kinds of red flags — information that shouldn't have been shared between ministries. I think it's reasonable to have some real concerns about the sharing of information.

I think the other additional piece, because the change in the act is talking about ICBC and debt collecting specifically, is to remember that the government actually privatized and farmed out debt collecting to Hewlett-Packard, who have the contract around debt collecting. Again, you're talking about another party involved in all of this. You're not talking about straight information. You're talking about the sharing of information across jurisdictions, through contracts, through ministries, and that, again, raises red flags.

Whenever you're talking about overriding confidentiality provisions, I think that's very concerning. As I've said, we'll have some questions around what questions were raised with the Information and Privacy Commissioner before this legislation came forward — what kinds of consultations and what kinds of protections are in place. I think some really basic questions need to be answered to have any kind of comfort about this.

I think the other piece, as I mentioned, is the fact that specific debts are not included here — that the act, in fact, is open ended. The minister mentioned today student loans, as he has mentioned previously, and perhaps some court fines. I wouldn't imagine that the Finance Minister would not be there, but if there was another Finance Minister some day that might be in place…. Or perhaps another minister may decide that they want to add additional government debt in here.

What would that do? What specific changes would occur for that? Would we move to MSP? Would there be MSP included? Would people have their driver's licences and their plates withheld if they didn't pay their MSP premiums? I think it opens the door to all kinds of questions and all kinds of concerns about what other debts could be added and if this is just the opening by government to look at debt collection and using ICBC.

Now, I did hear the minister…. And it does say in the act, as well, that some protections are in place. The minister mentioned that 30 days' notice to a debtor is included in the act. There is a discussion that says if the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Finance's designate is satisfied that the debtor will experience great hardship or financial difficulty in paying back the debt without a licence or without plates, that provision could be waived.

[1505]

Again, that clause in itself in the bill raises all kinds of questions. Who makes that determination? Who will decide what is hardship? Who will decide what is financial difficulty? Who will make a decision about whether the person needs a vehicle to be able to pay back their debt? I think that's a great concern. What will be the process?

It says as well in this act that the Minister of Finance can delegate all of the powers and the duties and the functions. As I mentioned, Hewlett-Packard right now holds the contract for most of the debt collection in British Columbia. There are going to be all kinds of questions raised — and we'll certainly raise them at committee stage — around process, around authority. Who has that authority? Will it be the independent company that is contracted to do that debt? Will they be the ones to receive the authority from the Ministry of Finance and then make a decision about whether hardship is there or not, or will it actually come back to government and to the ministry to make that determination? That's a very important question when we're taking a look at this.

There's also a huge question around process. I'm certain that MLAs on the other side of the House, just as we on this side of the House, get a lot of concerns and a lot of calls in our community offices from individuals who are either in arrears on MSP payments — they may have left a job that had benefits; they're now on their own; they're waiting to get their bills; they don't get anything around MSP — or they receive a huge bill for MSP premiums that they've already paid or they've already done.

Anyone who tries to get through to MSP, or through the contracted company, will know what a challenge and what a nightmare it can be for individuals trying to get through. Often those individuals come to us in MLA offices to say: "We've tried and tried and tried. It's months now. We're not able to get a straight answer. We can't get a straight bill. We're still struggling. We're worried about our credit rating, because we're getting this bill that we've already paid or it isn't the right number or we're not sure how that got to be there."

Well, I just imagine that…. You're now adding in student loans, and you're now adding students who may have paid their student loan or may be in difficulty and are trying to get through to be able to put forward their case that they need their car to be able to pay back their student loan.

Well, if it's that efficient for MSP, I have to say that I worry about what that could mean for students, what that could mean for student loans. Given the challenges that students have with student debt in British Columbia, certainly from our perspective, it would have been much better energy spent trying to look at bringing back student grant programs and other opportunities for students instead of looking at how to make it more difficult for students.

This section of the bill, certainly from our perspective, will have a number of questions raised. We have grave concerns about the direction that we're going.

Thank you to the minister, again, and his staff for the briefing. As the minister has said, there are a number of
[ Page 6796 ]
parts of this bill that are very straightforward, that really are housekeeping and simply look at coordinating acts, but there are a couple of pieces, in particular the piece around debtor information, that have raised all kinds of concerns on this side of the House, and we'll have more questions when we come to committee stage.

K. Corrigan: I'm pleased to rise and speak on this bill as well. I'm rising mostly in my official opposition spokesperson role with regard to advanced education.

I'll tell you that I have certainly heard from a number of students and former students and organizations representing students who are very, very concerned about the provision in this bill that allows ICBC to refuse to issue or renew drivers' licences in order to collect student loan debt. I've certainly heard from a lot of students.

I think it's interesting that the minister was interviewed and said when talking about…. It is a considerable amount of money, $186 million in defaulted student loans. I understand that that's significant, and I think everybody agrees that students should pay back their student loans. I recall having significant student loans from undergraduate years. I lived away from home from the time I was 17 years old and went to university. My student loans were very significant — not nearly as high as they are now for students, because you could get some grants as well. But it was tough paying them back, undergraduate and law school. It was very difficult.

[1510]

The minister said: "For folks that graduate, get a job and are working and decide they just don't want to take their obligation to repay their student loan seriously, this would be a mechanism to remind them."

I'm sure there are some students that are in that position, that simply don't want to pay off their student loans, and that's not appropriate. But I believe that the vast majority of the students or ex-students who would be caught by this would fall more likely under the category of students who had maxed out on their credits in many ways. They had significant student loans but, in addition, had significant other debt.

We certainly know that BMO's assessment was that in British Columbia, where students have the highest debt load in the country, it's about $35,000 a student. That's a lot of money. I believe that in more cases, what we're going to be chasing after are students who have graduated and have not just the student loan debt but credit card debt and maybe other personal debt — very significant debt.

They come out of university. They think they're going to have a well-paying job, and it doesn't happen. Or they have a market entry–level job, and it's hard for them to pay the rent and support themselves every month. I believe that that is more often the case. Those are the students or ex-students that I'm particularly concerned about.

When you consider that government says the average student debt is $20,000…. We know that's a serious understatement. Students certainly, when surveyed leaving school, said it was significantly higher than that. As I said, the BMO student survey, which surveys students when they leave school, have pegged it at the highest in Canada at $35,000 a student.

When you consider that B.C. charges the highest interest rates on student loans at prime plus 2.5 percent…. When you consider that some provinces have eliminated interest entirely on student loans…. Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I have gone that way.

When you consider that tuition has more than doubled since the year 2000-2001, so 103 percent since the present government came into power…. When you consider that the needs-based grants have been entirely been eliminated by this province, and that happened in 2004…. It's difficult for students.

I find it concerning when students are paying more and more at the same time as, unfortunately, university programs and college programs are being closed. Many are being closed because of underfunding. When you consider that students are paying more and more and having to pay more, like everybody else, for MSP, hydro and so on, I don't think these are students that are coming out and, to quote the minister again, deciding they "don't want to take their obligation to repay their student loans seriously."

I think for the most part that students who finish university, or leave university or colleges or institutes, are hard working, and they want to pay their loans. I worry about the punitive nature for some of those students. I'm certainly not saying every student, but I think, when you look at the debt that is on the backs of students in British Columbia more than any other province, that it's a concern.

I also am concerned about, as has been mentioned by my colleague, what exactly could be included. The minister has certainly singled out student loans as being one of the main targets but has also said that there are other possibilities where this provision could be used — in other words, where ICBC could refuse to issue a driver's licence or renew a driver's licence or plates. I am concerned about what other ways this could be used.

[1515]

I have a general concern about using ICBC which is related to driving and using the powers of ICBC to say: "We are going to collect on different types of debts." I'm not positive about that being wrong, but somehow it just rubs me the wrong way.

It seems that it makes a certain amount of sense to have fines related to driving being collected by ICBC. But to then extend this into some unknown number of areas — student loans being the first one that we are clear about but possibly MSP, possibly income tax; who knows what else it could be used for — I've got concerns about that. I've got concerns for the same reasons that others do.
[ Page 6797 ]

One of those concerns is certainly the privacy concerns. The privacy concerns were shared by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who sent a letter to the minister with regard to Bill 13. It says:

"The linking of personal information between government agencies and ministries raises privacy concerns. This is because it often involves disclosing personal information which was collected for one purpose and using that information for a different purpose.

"Where government has been given the statutory authority to compel the collection of personal information, that authority is accompanied by an obligation to limit the subsequent use and disclosure to those purposes that are truly necessary. Privacy concerns arise particularly where the sharing of personal information may result in an adverse action being taken against the individual the information is about."

It goes on to talk about data linking.

So I do have those concerns. We are in a bit of a new world in terms of the use of data, the availability of data. But we know from experience after experience in the Legislature and in this province that we need to be very careful when we are embarking on that kind of exercise.

It has already been mentioned that they are concerns, that the enforcer, the private company which will be doing the revenue collection, is a private company, which then again raises issues of integrity of the data. Where is it going to be stored? Is it stored in Canada? Is it stored in the U.S.? In this case, I believe that it's stored in Canada, but when you're opening up this field, you have to be concerned about the storage of data and availability and whether or not there can be hacking and so on.

I want to go back to concerns about students particularly. I know that the legislation provides that notice has to be sent out if ICBC is going to refuse to issue or renew a driver's licence, and that's a good thing. But I think students are in a particularly vulnerable position. We talked about that students more often are younger people, and this group of people who haven't paid their student loans off. I believe they are more likely young people who don't have a lot of money, and they are more likely to be moving around. They are more likely to not receive a notice.

So it could be that it is a complete surprise to students, and they could suddenly find that their licence is gone or is about to go without them having received that notice. I think that's a realistic concern for students, who certainly do move around.

I am concerned about this. I, like my colleague, am looking forward to asking more detailed questions when we get to the committee stage of this bill. I think that we should be concerned about it. I'm very concerned about it.

[1520]

I think that the target, in this case, is students. We're already making it very difficult for students to go through the education system. Education is becoming less and less accessible. I don't believe that most students are out there trying to fleece the government. I think they're mostly young people who are trying to pay off their loans but are finding it very difficult to do so. For that reason, I am concerned about that particular section of this bill.

With that, I will take my place.

B. Ralston: I don't propose to address this bill at length. My colleagues, the members for Victoria–Beacon Hill and Burnaby–Deer Lake, have addressed many of the significant aspects of this bill. My colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake has raised the letter written to the minister, and disclosed publicly, from the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

When the government, a few years ago, said that it was renovating or modernizing the collection of information and its use of databases for the purposes of governing, there was a fair degree of self-congratulatory rhetoric about that. But one thing that the Information and Privacy Commissioner did warn about at that time was the issue of the linking of databases — data that is collected for very disparate purposes and then, by the action of direction and information technology, links two very disparate databases.

This appears to be exactly what is contemplated here, with strong language in the legislation giving the government the authority to override the riders on the initial collection of information limiting its disclosure. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has said — and I'm quoting from her letter:

"The linking of personal information between government agencies and ministries raises privacy concerns. This is because it often involves disclosing personal information which was collected for one person and using that information for another purpose. Where government has been given the statutory authority to compel the collection of personal information, that authority is accompanied by an obligation to limit the subsequent use and disclosure to those purposes that are truly necessary."

I think another important point in what is said here is that the obligation to disclose the information necessary to obtain a driver's licence is compulsory. If you don't provide that information, you will not receive a driver's licence. Therefore, you're compelled to give it.

I suppose one could say that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that you have the right, if you don't want to disclose that information, not to have a driver's licence. But in a modern society, notwithstanding our debate about public transit, the act of having a driver's licence in rural areas, in suburban areas and in many areas of the province is absolutely essential to either get to and from work, to get to and from health appointments and even to buy the groceries every week. Having a driver's licence is essential. To provide that information — you're compelled to do it.

That is the concern that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is expressing in this letter. I think it's a valid one. One can see, I think, a connection between driving offences and driving fines and the 55,400 drivers who have unpaid fines for Golden Ears, the Port Mann Bridge, TransLink tickets and family maintenance payments, perhaps, but this seems to extend that logic even further afield to an utterly disconnected activity.
[ Page 6798 ]

I think my colleagues will doubtless pursue this at the committee stage, but I think it's an important principle. This was, I think, a warning that the Information and Privacy Commissioner gave at the time that this overarching, enabling legislation was passed setting this out.

She goes on to say: "If Bill 13 is brought into force, it's my office's intention to examine how the new authorities under this bill are being exercised, whether the personal information is being used by the ministry or ICBC for any other purpose and how long the personal information is being retained."

[1525]

Now, the language in the legislation is vague. The minister, in his public statements, has given the example of student loans. But it's not entirely clear, given that these data-linking exercises will be performed by order-in-council — that is, by the cabinet in the confidentiality of the cabinet room and then only released to the public later — what other database linking is contemplated here. I think citizens, especially in this era of the debate about C-51, the federal legislation, are rightly concerned and have expressed a lot of public concern about the use that private information that citizens are required to provide to the government might be used for in the future.

That's not to say that there are not legitimate uses of government information for the proper administration and collection of legitimate fees. I'm not disputing it to that extent. I think this example that the minister…. I hope and I'm sure he will want to explain more thoroughly how personal privacy is going to be protected in these circumstances and why he thinks it's necessary in the example of student loans to pursue those particular citizens when there are other avenues of collection.

Indeed, the government pays HP systems $80 million a year in a contract to collect debt. I'm not sure that the efficacy of that collection effort will be improved by undertaking this measure, but certainly, the privacy of individual citizens may well be violated in a way that's not necessary and, I think, that many people would reject.

With those comments, I conclude.

D. Routley: I will rise to give comment on Bill 13. Similar to several of my other colleagues, my concerns are based on the section pertaining to the collection of debts through the withholding by ICBC of driver's licence and licence plate privileges. These are very concerning steps being taken by the government primarily, according to the minister at this point, directed towards students who have defaulted on their student loan, student debt.

This is troubling in a number of ways. It's troubling in its action specifically but also against a troubling backdrop, the context of students in British Columbia already having the highest debt per capita at over $30,000 per student upon graduation and in a province with the highest poverty levels in Canada and in a province with the highest cost of living in Canada.

It seems that while government has failed to adequately address the needs of students, has failed to adequately address income inequality in B.C., they are taking a step to now punish people who have found themselves in the trap of both of those circumstances — in fact, using the power of government to withhold government services to collect a government debt. This seems contrary to the notion that government should be serving the very people that we're talking about here.

There was an old joke about student loans, that the American government had wasted a lot of resources from the CIA and the military in chasing down Osama bin Laden and that if they really wanted to find him, all they had to do was to sic the student loan people on him. He'd be holed up in a cave in Afghanistan. The satellite telephone would ring, and on the other end of the line a voice would say: "Hello, Mr. bin Laden? We'd like to talk to you about your student loan."

It seems to me that government has never had very great difficulty in collecting student loan debts. Already steps have been taken to prevent people who have student loan debt from writing that debt off in bankruptcies. That has been prevented by previous government action.

[1530]

Now the government is considering withdrawing services from citizens in order to collect a debt when, in fact, government has failed to address the basic circumstances in which people find themselves — students graduating in British Columbia with the highest per-capita debt in a province with the highest levels of poverty and the highest costs of living. This is a very troubling development and something that concerns this side of the House and many British Columbians who are aware of what this bill implicates.

The bill is also very unclear in the way it defines debt. It's essentially labelling…. The minister has targeted student loan debt in his commentary, but this bill, in fact, empowers government to collect any government debt through order-in-council — to define it as a debt that this bill would affect.

The bill reads in section 23(16.1)(2): "For the purpose of recovering debts or obligations owed to the government under any enactment or a program of the government." It says, in effect, that any program of government that could create debt for a citizen could find its way to being enforced through the measures of this act.

This act would allow a collection officer to "collect and use debtor information in the custody or control of the ministry of the Minister of Finance." It would allow a collection officer to "request an appropriate officer or employee of a ministry" — any ministry — "to disclose debtor information, respecting one or more specified debtors, in the custody or control of the ministry to which the officer or employee belongs." Essentially, this empowers a collection agent contracted by government to override any measure of any ministry to collect infor-
[ Page 6799 ]
mation on British Columbians in order to collect a debt.

I suppose this is both an overempowerment of collection officers and their activities but also a disempowerment of bureaucrats and ministry officials in protecting the information of British Columbians that they have collected and is in their care.

Under the basic principles of privacy protection, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, British Columbians assume that personal information that's collected by government is collected for a specific purpose, will only be used to satisfy that purpose and will only be stored for the length of time required to satisfy that purpose. This bill essentially overrides that principle of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of British Columbia.

It's very troubling, because this government has in so many instances undermined the privacy protections of British Columbians. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of the province has repeatedly warned that these underminings of privacy protections in the act will aggregate to a complete disempowerment of privacy protection in British Columbia.

The government seems to ignore those warnings and charge full speed ahead with measures like these that, from so many different angles, undermine the protections of a basic right that British Columbians expect their government to protect. The right to privacy in a modern democracy is as important as the right to a fair trial and the right to free speech. The right to privacy is an essential right, and the government is recklessly imperilling that right of British Columbian citizens.

The debt collector contracted by government will also have the power to acquire all sorts of information from any ministry, including home and employment or business contact information. They will have the right to collect information on a person's assets from any ministry of government — all information that has been collected for quite disparate purposes and now will be aggregated by a private collector under contract of government.

[1535]

There's no assurance in this bill as to where this information will be stored. Will it be stored in Canada? Will it be stored in the United States, which would be directly in contravention of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act? What measures will be put in place to ensure that that doesn't happen? None of that is described by this bill.

It also completely overrides agreements that people have signed when it comes to confidentiality of their information. If a person has surrendered their personal information to government in order to qualify for a certain service — be it from the Ministry of Social Services, the Ministry of Health, any ministry of government — that information then becomes accessible by the collector contracted by government.

I know that the Speaker is sensitive to these issues, having sat on committees reviewing these matters in the past. I assume he shares the concern I have that the specific architecture of legislation that protects the rights to privacy of British Columbians is not simply principle-based; it's specific, it's regulated, it's written into laws, and it is in ministry policy. And this bill, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you'll see, in fact overrides and undermines those protections.

In the words of the act: "despite any provision...that requires a person to keep information collected under that enactment confidential." Despite any provision, any agreement that's been signed between a citizen and a ministry in accessing services that will keep their information confidential — this bill has overridden that or will do upon enactment.

It says: "despite any agreement or representation made with respect to a program of the government that a person will keep information collected in relation to the program confidential." So it again overrides any confidentiality agreements signed by or depended upon by citizens of this province, which is, in fact, a trust agreement with their own government. That will be breached by this act.

This act becomes retroactive. If any citizen of this province has surrendered personal information in order to acquire a service from government in the past, that information now becomes subject to this act and open to access by collection agencies and then open to be exchanged and shared without their knowledge, without their consent — in fact, directly opposing their consent, directly in opposition to any agreement they've signed limiting their consent.

This is, to me, a complete dismemberment of what people expect and what they have, in fact, agreed to when they've signed confidentiality agreements with government ministries.

This act also applies to information collected before the person became a debtor of government. So if this government decides to extend this act to the collection of ambulance fees, for example, any information that a citizen has shared in the past then becomes accessible to a collection agency. That is a direct contravention of the principles and, in fact, the architecture of the legislation protecting privacy in this province.

The information is available "regardless of the purpose for which, or the circumstances under which, debtor information was originally collected" — so something entirely disparate from the purpose of acquiring a student loan or taking an ambulance ride, information that was shared for a completely different purpose, maybe in quite a distant past. A person might not even remember having signed a consent form to have their information collected by a government ministry for a specific purpose. That information will now be available and accessible under this act. This is directly contrary to the basic principles of privacy protection.

[1540]

It is up to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to "make regulations respecting any matter for which regulations are contemplated by this section." So it is entirely up to the governing council, the cabinet of the government, to determine what matters this regulation will be applied to.

It is far too open-ended. It raises great concerns, concerns that were addressed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia, Elizabeth Denham, in her letter of March 2, 2015, to the Minister of Finance. The Information and Privacy Commissioner says that Bill 13 "allows the Minister of Finance to share the personal information of debtors of the provincial government with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. The bill amends the Financial Administration Act to allow ICBC to refuse to renew a debtor's driver's licence or vehicle insurance until a debt to government is paid or satisfactory arrangements for payment have been made by the debtor or the minister is satisfied the debtor will experience great hardship or financial difficulty without a driver's licence."

Now, that does offer some hope for someone who would be directly and drastically affected to the point that they aren't able to pay the debt because they don't have a driver's licence, but the act does not describe how that will be determined, who makes that judgment and under which circumstances.

This is a real concern. I mean, in a democracy we expect there to be checks and balances on the power of government. This section of this bill seems aimed at disabling the checks and balances that exist to protect people from the power of their own government, particularly where it pertains to the collection of their private and personal information.

You know, the questions have been asked. Who decides? Who decides when a person is in enough distress financially that the provisions of this act be waived and they be allowed to have a driver's licence because they would be so drastically impacted? Who decides that?

The bill orders that the government must not take action if the debtor has paid the total amount. How often have people paid bills to government and then taken months and months to have those payments registered? There have been many cases come through the doors of our constituency offices of people who have paid debts yet still receive collection notices for a debt they've already paid. It takes them months in order to force government to acknowledge payment of the debt, even when bank records are available to prove payment.

This would suggest that a person could be denied their driver's licence and then quite possibly continue to have that denial enforced even though they have paid their bill.

The section of the act applies until the date the Minister of Finance, under subsection 84.1(9), directs the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to disregard the notice. What will trigger the Minister of Finance to make that notification and direct the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to disregard the original notice? What kind of delay will there be in normal course of business? As I indicated, when there are mistakes made, how will people address that? None of that is a subject of concern for the government in this bill but certainly will be for anybody who's caught up and trapped in a mistaken process.

The government has indicated that this notice would be given to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia — the notice to disregard the original notice to deny a licence — as soon as practicable after directing ICBC to disregard the notice.

[1545]

"As soon as practicable" is language that is reminiscent of some of the language in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and has become the subject of much contention as government has delayed and delayed taking action that supports British Columbians but is obviously quite prepared to take punitive action very quickly when people are not supporting their end of a bargain.

I'm concerned that this section of the bill represents a punitive action against the citizens of British Columbia, a punitive action specifically against students and, in the commentary of the Finance Minister, a punitive action against any citizen that might find themselves indebted to government.

It takes the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia — a Crown corporation that the government routinely uses as an ATM to help balance its books, routinely takes, I think, this past year $400 million from ICBC in order to balance their books. Now, ICBC will be used as a collection agency as well. It is going to be used in conjunction with private collection agencies to share information that British Columbians shared with government under specific confidentiality protections — overriding those and allowing access when people have assumed that their consent really meant something.

This section appears, convincingly, to make that consent meaningless.

Finally, I am very concerned about the government of British Columbia withdrawing services from any British Columbian for any reason other than criminal fraud. I am very concerned that a government that has a long track record of diminishing public services, of diminishing the benefit to British Columbians that they would derive from being a citizen of this province and from services of government, is now, with this bill, threatening to withdraw services based on debt and income insecurity.

This is in a province with the highest poverty levels in the country. This is in a province with the highest cost of living in the country, the highest student debt in the country. And rather than address those basic sources of systematic inequality in British Columbia, this government chooses to become punitive and punish people
[ Page 6801 ]
for falling into a circumstance that is well beyond their control.

This seems to me to be the antithesis of what government ought to be doing. Government ought to be supporting particularly citizens who find themselves without income, particularly citizens who find themselves in this trap of income insecurity, poverty and diminished circumstances.

I'm very concerned, from the point of view of my spokesperson area, which is concerned with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but also from the basic concept of what democracy should mean and what the role of government should be in the lives of British Columbians.

Government should be supporting the people of this province, not issuing punitive dictates that entrap them and prevent their full participation in this society because of income inequality and income insecurity.

H. Bains: It's always an honour to stand here and speak on some of the issues that are really important and will affect people that we represent. Bill 13, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, touched on about five different areas. It has amendments to the Real Estate Services Act, Mineral Tax Act, Income Tax Act, Financial Administration Act and consumer taxes — which also include the PST, carbon tax and motor fuel tax.

[1550]

I'm not going to touch on many of the other areas except the one area that is of real concern to me. Many of the concerns have been laid by my colleagues before me.

It's around the Financial Administration Act. The changes that are being made in sections 23, 24 and 25 of this act allow information-sharing among government for the purpose of collecting debt and allow for orders to be issued to ICBC, which will then be required to refuse to issue or renew drivers' licences to people until they clear up their debt to the government — a big issue here.

The second issue is: who are they targeting through this bill? Although much of that information is not clear here in this act, most of those decisions will be made through regulations, which means the minister and the cabinet will make those decisions. We don't know how far they could go with those powers given to the minister. I think the minister has been quoted in the media saying that student debt is one of the areas that the minister can use to go after those students who have debt to the government.

Those are some of the concerns, but I will elaborate in detail on each of those areas. One is the intent behind this act, which is sharing of information among government and using that information to deny the driver's licence or renewal of the driver's licence to those who may have a debt owed to the government.

The Privacy Commissioner raised those concerns, as well, in her letter to the Minister of Finance. I will quote one paragraph from that letter. It says:

"While the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provides authority for public bodies to collect and disclose personal information relating to government's ability to collect a debt from an individual, the linking of personal information between government agencies and ministries raises privacy concerns."

She goes on to say:

"This is because it often involves disclosing personal information which was collected for one purpose and using that information for a different purpose."

That's a very serious concern. I think many, on the surface, can say: "You know, I think we have tight enough language, and it will not happen." But it has happened, and there are many examples out there. It can happen again, and I think that's one of the concerns that the Privacy Commissioner is raising.

She went on to say: "Where government has been given the statutory authority to compel the collection of personal information, that authority is accompanied by an obligation to limit the subsequent use and disclosure to those purposes that are truly necessary."

I could just elaborate how sometimes unintended purposes behind these acts can lead to situations where they are totally unrelated to the intent but the information collected for one purpose being used for a different purpose can be harmful to those individuals on whose behalf that information was collected.

In my previous life I dealt with labour relations in the forest industry, many of those issues involving what in those days we called the Workers Compensation Board. Although it's clear, under the terms of the information collected to process claims under the Workers Compensation Board, that information cannot be shared except for the benefit of processing the claims, there are people out there that find a way to collect that information for other purposes and use that information against that individual.

For example, when a potential employee goes to a potential employer to apply, there's always…. There used to be; I think there still is. One of the questions is: "Have you ever had a claim with workers compensation?" If you don't answer that question, chances are you will not get hired.

[1555]

Then all of those agencies that work with the WCB will prepare you, because you may not be able to work in that particular industry any longer, and say: "Don't disclose that information. You don't have to disclose that information to a potential employer."

If they leave that out or provide some of the information, general information, and the person gets hired, the next time that person goes on a claim again, all the employer has to do is challenge and appeal that claim. As a result, they are entitled to all of the information. They used to call it a file dump. The employer will get all of the information, whether it's related to that particular claim or not. The entire history of that information, what they call a file dump, is included in that information.
[ Page 6802 ]

It's not necessarily that they're getting that information to appeal that claim, but that's the purpose they use to collect that information. Now the employer will see: "Oh, aha. I looked at your application. You did not provide us this information to get this employment. Now we've got the information that you had a WCB claim that you did not disclose to us at that time." Failure to disclose truthfully to acquire employment can be subject to termination, and many people got terminated as a result of that.

That's just one of the examples that I could use. Information collected for one purpose — when you allow that to be shared with other government agencies, it can be used for a different purpose. I think that's the real concern that is listed here by the Privacy Commissioner.

That's a serious issue here. I don't know. The minister may have an explanation how to protect individuals from that type of abuse, if you call it, of using that information for a different purpose than it was collected for. That's a serious issue.

Let me move on to the area that the government is targeting — at least, listing as one of the areas they want to go after. These are the students who have incurred debt as a result of them trying to enhance their ability in their life to move ahead and be the best at what they can do during their work life.

Here we go. First, we made it difficult or impossible for many, many students to get to the higher education, the post-secondary education, by way of raising tuition fees and many of the costs that come with it. Then, of course, the students are in a position of incurring huge debts. Not only the debts alone but the way they charge interest on that debt is another question of how we are making it difficult for those students to survive.

I think what needed to be done, if the government really had good intentions to help our future generation coming out of high schools to get the higher education — post-secondary education, skills and training….

We all know — the government will admit to this, and everyone else will admit to this — that all future jobs, 80 percent of the future jobs, will require some sort of post-secondary education degree or diploma. That's a fact right now. We should be encouraging our students, our people coming out of high schools, to acquire as high a level of education or skills training as they can, but the barriers are there as a result of the policies of this government.

As a result, we have the highest student debt in the country. The numbers are $27,000, on average, to $34,000 and $40,000 for some others. These are huge debts that our students are incurring. It is actually a detriment to our youngsters to come out of high schools and get into that kind of debt in order to just survive.

[1600]

Then on top of that, now this government is saying: "Well, you incurred that debt thanks to our policy, but if you are not able to pay, we're going to come after you." We will basically make you unable to acquire any employment because you won't be getting your driver's licence — if you need a driver's licence in order to secure a job somewhere else, even if it's not in your own field.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I think that what needs to be done is to minimize the need to actually incur any debt for the students. That's what the government should be working on. Instead of that, they have brought in policies in the past where student loans continue to go up, debt continues to rise and tuition fees continue to rise.

As a result of those heavy debts, many students are not, although they want to…. Who doesn't want to pay their debt? They want to. They have all the good intentions to do that. But if they don't have a job, then it's very, very difficult for them to pay that debt. Now, through this bill, a hammer comes. If you weren't able to get a job before and, as result, you weren't able to pay that debt, now we are going to make it even more difficult for you because now you will not have a driver's licence.

I think that's not the right approach. Many of my colleagues talked about inequality in our society. I think generations before, in Europe, and many people who came before us, they looked at this. How do we keep the inequality to a minimum? They realized a long time ago that education was the one area, the one determinant, through which you can minimize inequality.

If every student, every child has that opportunity for the education that they deserve and need, and they are able to attain that education, then their earning powers almost are the same, and therefore the inequality will be minimized.

That's not the direction this government is going, unfortunately. Now, on top of that, they are saying that this is what they are going to do. Bring the hammer, take their driver's licence away, and then it will be even more difficult for them to acquire a job.

I want to give you a little bit of history on how difficult it is for the people that they're going after. Tuition fees have doubled at B.C. colleges and universities since 2001 — doubled. It will cost the average UBC student at least $10,000 more in tuition to complete a degree.

The average college student in Prince George is paying about $1,150 more per year. Graduation tuition has almost tripled between 2001 and 2006. It increased by 184 percent. Then there are new tuition fees for apprentices and for adults completing their high school education.

In 2002 the B.C. Liberals eliminated grants for first-year students and in 2004 eliminated the grants program entirely. No wonder we have the highest debt load for students in British Columbia — for graduating students. The B.C. loan reduction program for high-needs students was discontinued in 2008.

You can see why our graduating students have incurred such a high debt. Rather than helping them, we are mak-
[ Page 6803 ]
ing it more difficult for them to pay through this bill. That's a real, real concern.

The other part is…. Well, let me go over a little bit more here about similar information. So 49 percent of bachelor degree graduates incurred debt, with 35 percent receiving government student loans. The median amount was $20,000. Meanwhile, according to the survey, 37 percent of the students end up with more than $30,000 of student debt after post-secondary. More than one in five ends up with $40,000 or more.

That's a serious issue, and we're not helping. We are actually making it worse for them. Then you look at how we are going to collect. If you look at how the government revenue services program, which was privatized to a company called HP Advanced Solutions — for short we can call it HPAS — there are many, many privacy and operation and financial concerns that come with it.

[1605]

Some of those issues are…. If you look at what has happened — for example, MSP. How do you try to go through this agency, try to get some information? What are their customer service levels? They don't get a glowing report. It's pretty negative. They used to make reports on how the customer service levels were ranked. The government stopped doing this in 2008, because I don't think it was helping the government case at all.

The customer service and call wait times are notoriously bad at the revenue services program. That's the reality. Under the HPAS contract, they are required to give monthly service level reports to government. The government should be required to make these public, and they are not doing that. I think there's a reason why they are not doing it, and that's why we have a concern. When you give it to a company such as HPAS, you're not going to get the service that you would think that you need.

That's why the problem would be…. What happens if they give the wrong information to ICBC? Then, again, what would you do to have that thing corrected? In the meantime, your licence is not being renewed. All you've got is 30 days' notice. You may not even get any notice, because your address may not be the right address. You may have just moved.

I think those are some of the serious concerns. I don't know if the government has actually thought through those smaller details. I think the minister probably would be able to answer some of the questions. There will be many, many questions.

The other thing is…. There are operational issues. There are some practical issues. There are some privacy issues that go along with this particular section of the bill that we are talking about.

The other part that I want to talk about is…. More and more we are making ICBC a debt collector for the government — more and more. I think the policyholders now are asked to pay for the service that the government should be doing on their own. I think the original intention of the insurance company is to charge you a premium to provide you insurance protection. The government has moved on from collecting unpaid tolls. Now we're talking about student loans. If you have a driving ticket, if you have not paid the unpaid ticket to public transportation — I mean, a whole host of others.

Then you take a look at the Golden Ears Bridge — you know, how much money ICBC was asked to collect. Here's another example. The Golden Ears Bridge is supposed to be a P3 project, where we were sold the idea that, well, the private sector takes all the risks. Right, Mr. Speaker? You remember that.

Now, with the kind of contract that was negotiated, TransLink is required to pay $30 million to $40 million every year, because that is guaranteed money to that contractor. The fees are collected. But now the government is collecting that fee on behalf…. It's supposed to be a contractor who should be collecting their own tolls. But no, we have taken on…. The policyholder, ICBC, is asked to pay. They don't do it for free. I bet you our premiums are higher…. Part of the reason that they are at the level they are is because it covers many of the services that weren't intended for ICBC. Government is off-loading so much of that work on to ICBC.

Those are very, very serious concerns. I know that the minister was in the House and listening to all of these concerns, and I think more questions will be coming during the committee stage. Hopefully, we'll get those answers.

The real concern, always, that I have is that more and more the government — this government, the B.C. Liberal government — now is doing it. They bring you a general bill, and then they will leave it wide open, giving powers to the minister to bring regulations to tell us later on what really, actually, they intend to do with this bill.

[1610]

That's not the way it should be. It should be listed in the bill right here what they are intending to use the bill for. Don't just leave it to the minister. Basically, what they are saying is: "Just trust us. Just trust us, and we'll tell you later on what this bill applies to, what area we could go and cover."

Interjection.

H. Bains: The member for Nanaimo asks how this trusting is working with this government. Well, just go out there and ask anybody. There's a reason why the public doesn't have much trust left in governments and in politicians. It's because of some of the actions taken by this government over time.

They will tell you one thing, and then they do quite the opposite later, after they get elected or after the bill is passed. There's no trust of this government in this House or outside of this House. I think those are very, very serious concerns. That's why we will be examining this bill
[ Page 6804 ]
through the committee stage.

One other issue that comes to mind is here. Because it is not listed in the bill here, we don't know the wide-ranging power the minister will be getting if this bill is passed. The government has announced that by 2018 they will be integrating drivers' licences with our CareCards and a whole host of other cards that we would be getting.

If this happens and you have a debt as a student or another government debt, does it mean that you're denied now the driver's licence and so your CareCard is denied? Those are very serious questions. Those are the questions the minister should be answering here. They should be listed in the bill, not to say: "I will bring regulations later, and I will list whatever I want to cover through this bill, because you have given me the authority. Now I will use it the way I want to use it with my own discretion."

That's not how democracy should work. That's not how we should be passing these bills. We are elected, and people pay our wages. They pay to run these government offices and this House for us to come here and debate the bill that will be affecting the general public outside. They will be questioning: "What were you doing when you passed that bill?" And we are to say: "Well, you know, there was nothing in there. We don't know what we were voting for, because it wasn't listed in here."

They'll use their majority and they'll pass it, regardless of what we say here. That's not the expectation of the people that have elected us. In real terms, you need to list everything you intend to do with this bill. Let's have a real good, open debate, an honest debate. Have some questions answered and then vote on it. Those opportunities are taken away from us because they are not listed in the bill here.

Many of the regulations and many of the policies the minister will be bringing in later on, after this bill is passed. That's why we have serious concerns on this side. That's why I'm saying that this bill will be examined through the committee stage. Hopefully, we will try to get some of those answers for those people who are listening. Those are the people who will be affected by this.

Especially those students — I feel for those folks. These people are our future. These are the people that actually need our support, of this government, because these are the people who will be making policies and running our country. We're making it more and more difficult for those students coming out of high school to get higher education — almost impossible for many of those.

It's not good for our democracy, not good for our future, not good for our province. Hopefully, the minister is going to answer many of those questions before we vote on this.

With that, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity. There are all those questions we will be asking once committee stage comes.

[1615]

M. Elmore: I'm pleased to rise and speak on Bill 13, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act. I hope my voice holds up to get through the points that I want to raise. We'll see how it goes.

We've heard a number of concerns that have been listed about the act. I'm not going to go into those. I think the concerns have been laid out quite clearly. We'll have the opportunity to answer some of those questions and get into a more fulsome discussion in committee stage.

In terms of Bill 13, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, the provisions I wanted to address primarily were allowing ICBC to refuse to issue or renew a driver's licence or a licence plate until a debt to the provincial government has been paid or satisfactory arrangements for payments have been made or the person proves financial hardship.

Certainly, it's been in place and it's been the practice for ICBC to withhold a driver's licence or licence plates to individuals who have incurred either a ticket or a traffic violation, along those lines. Now Bill 13 is looking to expand that and to look at the collection of…. The reference that's made is to collect outstanding court fines, which is a smaller amount, or student loans in default, which is a larger amount, of the outstanding amount of several millions of dollars.

We've heard, I think, quite clear concerns. The bill does not specifically lay out and articulate what particular debts are to be collected, but it gives that bill's specifics to be addressed with regulatory changes. Certainly, they're open-ended. It goes against the basic spirit, I think, of the legislation in terms of identifying what the clear direction is and what the clear priority is in addressing the collection of specific debts. We've heard quite a bit of concern about that, with allowing that open-ended regulatory option. That's being left to the minister, in terms of the open-ended regulatory changes.

We've also heard concerns about the privacy provisions and that these changes would open up the ability of ICBC and government departments to share information through data linking between different public bodies. We've heard that the Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has expressed concern on this very matter, claiming that the collection of personal information by government comes with an obligation to limit its subsequent use and that data linking between public bodies must be transparent and subject to oversight.

The concern is if there's an error with an individual's personal debt information. If that's wrong and they're denied renewal of their driver's licence, what are the mechanisms to ensure that that error is to be corrected and that they don't have to go through quite a lengthy and difficult bureaucratic process to resolve that issue?

There are those overriding concerns around privacy which would allow the government to share almost any information about debtors with collection officers and even allow them to override confidentiality agreements
[ Page 6805 ]
and laws. It would presumably bring that all into question without appropriate oversight.

[1620]

Those areas have been articulated, and we'll get into more in-depth discussion about that in the committee stage. What I wanted to highlight and raise in particular are concerns around the role of ICBC on the one hand being a collector — being tasked to collect the fees, being the mechanism being able to withhold issuing drivers' licences or licence plates to individuals who happen to be identified as owing debts — and the relationship of the government's revenue services program, which has been privatized to a company called HP Advanced Solutions, HPAS.

We heard the background. Now let's look at that to understand where we are today. In 2004 the government outsourced most of its revenue collection functions to EDS Advanced Solutions under the revenue services program. In 2009 EDS was bought by Hewlett-Packard, and the company managing this program now today is called HP Advanced Solutions, referred to as HPAS, headquartered in Saanich.

There are a number of privacy, operational and financial concerns related to that. In particular, I wanted to highlight a concern with respect to this bill, with the contradiction of the role of ICBC identifying and withholding the licences and the issuing of licence plates on the one hand, and the role of HPAS, on the other hand, of collecting, of being tasked to collect, those outstanding revenues.

The question: will HPAS get a commission? And what's the relationship between HPAS and ICBC? I think these are questions in the minds of ratepayers in terms of: is it ICBC policyholders who will be paying this fee and, in effect, subsidizing the bottom line and padding the bottom line for HPAS? Those are some concerns and outstanding questions.

Currently ICBC provides services to the provincial government for which ICBC is not reimbursed. This is a gap, I think. So ICBC policyholders are paying for services which are the responsibility of the provincial government. It's ICBC policyholders who are, in effect, subsidizing the responsibility of the provincial government, and revenue that is collected is going towards the provincial government.

Currently ICBC basic policy holders pay about $1 million annually to collect about $80 million in provincial fines and enforce other agencies' collection efforts. This cost is in addition to the $130 million that basic policy holders must pay to administer the vehicle registration and driver licensing programs. Not only does the government not reimburse ICBC for these programs; they continue to charge a fee for the driver's licence, resulting in $50 million per year in found revenue. This is contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada's 1998 decision on fees versus taxes.

That's in contrast to the role of the federal government, which does use ICBC to collect certain fines. But the federal government pays ICBC for this service. In fact, the B.C. provincial government is the one that's expecting the 3.1 million private and commercial basic policy holders to pick up the tab. That's an outstanding question, and it's not resolved.

[1625]

The additional question that's raised on top of that now is the role of HPAS in terms of the expanded role of the collection. Now, if we're adding additional debts and loans to be collected by ICBC, will HPAS, which is a privatized agency collecting revenue, also be subsidized by policyholders? That is an outstanding question. Certainly, we'll look to get to the bottom of that during the committee phase.

When we look into…. I just want to highlight that HPAS revenue services is a bad deal for taxpayers. It costs government $80 million a year. The original contract…. Again, we hear it's going to be a good deal for British Columbians to privatize and contract out services — that's usually what we hear — on the front end. It was only projected to cost about $30 million to $60 million a year, but that price has gone up significantly to now $80 million a year. Because it's been contracted out and we've lost the ability and the capacity and the expertise to collect and perform those services, we no longer have the ability to collect that and the taxpayers are stuck paying even more.

The contract is expiring in 2017, and there will be negotiations to renew that contract. It could…. Certainly, it's not out of the ballpark to suggest that it may even triple in terms of the initial projected cost for the contracting out of this service.

That's the piece around HPAS and, again, bringing that to light and the bad deal that ICBC policyholders are paying.

In addition, I want to raise concerns to the minister — certainly, strong concerns — around the provincial plans to integrate the CareCard and driver's licence into the B.C. Services Card starting in 2018. There needs to be measures to ensure that CareCards are not being denied to people because of this bill. This is a very significant piece.

For example, would it be the situation where an individual has this integrated B.C. Services Card — which also serves as their CareCard — suspended because they have outstanding traffic violations? Certainly, I'm not suggesting that traffic violations do not need to be paid. They do. But the concern is if this is going to jeopardize the ability for individuals to access timely and needed medical care if needed. There are just a whole host of concerns around how that is going to be administered to ensure that British Columbians have the ability to access medical care.

Let's look at the numbers. This was before we were
[ Page 6806 ]
looking at the expanded role and capacity of ICBC to collect on a broader range of loans, such as student loans or outstanding court fines. In late February of this year, 2015, it was reported that ICBC has placed refused-to-issue notices on 55,400 driver accounts. This is due to unpaid fines on Golden Ears Bridge, Port Mann Bridge, TransLink tickets and family maintenance programs — 55,000 British Columbians.

Certainly, with the expansion of the program to an as yet undetermined range and scope of British Columbians who may be impacted, through not only unpaid court fines but unpaid student loans or maybe a whole host of other loans, that number could rise.

[1630]

That is a lot of British Columbians who potentially would be in difficult circumstances with respect to the proposal to integrate the CareCard with a driver's licence into the B.C. Services Card. We need to hear, certainly in committee stage, quite an in-depth discussion and investigation, in terms of what steps are proposed to ensure that individuals are not negatively impacted.

Those are the main areas I wanted to highlight with respect to Bill 13, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act. There needs to be more investigation with respect to the open-ended regulatory regime that is proposed to cover and identify what loans will be applicable, that ICBC will have the ability to collect on, as well as a number of in-depth privacy concerns — the impact of the integrated CareCard and driver's licence into the one B.C. Services Card, and also the role and the relationship between the privatized HP Advanced Solutions and the gap where policyholders are paying for the collection and subsidizing the collection of these outstanding loans.

I'll conclude my remarks on that.

L. Krog: I'm very pleased to rise to speak to Bill 13, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, today. I rise because there's a certain serendipity to all of this, and I'll get to that in a moment.

Firstly, I want to say what an interesting thing happens when you're in government a while and how you change your attitude about things. It wasn't that long ago the B.C. Liberals seemed, how shall I say, rather focused on the policy of privatizing ICBC. They thought that was a pretty good idea and that we should return auto insurance back to the private sector only and take it out of public hands.

I have to say that probably on February 26, when this bill was first introduced, there were champagne corks popping over at the head office of ICBC. It's pretty clear that this government has absolutely no intention ever of privatizing ICBC, because they're just adding more and more things to ICBC that they can use to keep everyone employed and happy over there.

I mean, this is great news for public auto insurance, the introduction of this bill. I'm sure that was uppermost in the mind of the Minister of Finance when he introduced it, to ensure continued longevity of employment at our public auto insurance, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. ICBC now has become sort of the collection agency, as proposed in this bill, for the provincial government. What a marvellous thought that is.

It's always interesting when legislation is introduced which so goes against the grain of what government is supposed to be about, particularly if you're a right-wing government. It's rather interesting. I mean, we just buried — finally interred the bones appropriately — I think it was Richard III, the last of the Plantagenet kings, the other day, after he'd been unceremoniously buried beneath a parking lot in the old country.

Of course, that reminds one of the fact that this is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, the great charter. What was that all about? That was about a few simple propositions that notwithstanding the supposed divine right of kings, nevertheless, the king's powers should be circumscribed.

Now, in the old days, if I was one of the Socred members, I might have used the term "circumcised," but that's a story for another day. I'm just talking about being circumscribed.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Stay on point.

L. Krog: Ah, the minister, being the witty fellow he is, says to stay on point. I'll certainly try to do that.

[1635]

My point is this. The charter recognized that the rights of the people, as opposed to the divine right of the king to rule, should be circumscribed. Now, with this legislation, particularly around sections 23 and 24 — that's where I intend to address most of my remarks today — what we are doing is indeed expanding the power of the government. In other words, if you think of the king or the queen as the head of state, what we're really trying to do here is say: "Give us more authority. Give us a carte blanche, if you will, to do certain things."

That's what the essence of those sections is all about. It is about ensuring that government has the widest possible authority, not just through the legislation itself but through significant — as usual, with the B.C. Liberals — regulatory powers. In other words, we'll be back at the cabinet table, out of sight of the public, no possibility of public debate while the government decides what new regulations they're going to dream up that will arise out of this particular bill.

What are the aspects of this bill that most upset the opposition? Well, I couldn't have put it more eloquently than the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan did earlier today in his remarks — intelligent and eloquent — when he talked about all the serious aspects of what is proposed and why we should be paying real attention to this.
[ Page 6807 ]

Now, you can say on one hand that this is a fairly simple thing. This is just going to give the government power to withhold licences.

Interjection.

L. Krog: One of the members indicates I should keep talking. I'm certainly going to do my best, because, as usual, the opposition always has a lot to say. And I'm sure the members opposite will say that it's all about quality, that it shouldn't be about quantity. But I'll presuppose that we'll get that off our chest.

Interjection.

L. Krog: I see the minister is clapping, as usual, enthusiastically, for my remarks, so I feel inspired to continue.

What does the bill say? Well, when you get to section 23, it says that the Financial Administration Act is amended by adding the following section.

"In this section: 'collection officer' means the following: (a) person, within the ministry of the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for performing duties in relation to the collection of debts or obligations" — fairly straightforward — "(b) a person to whom a person referred to in paragraph (a) reports."

So we're certainly recognizing the value of hierarchy in the public service.

Then we have:

"(c) a service provider, or an employee of a service provider, who is responsible for performing duties in relation to the collection of debts or obligations on behalf of the ministry of the Minister of Finance."

If I was a boy from Newfoundland, and I'm not, I'd recognize a large driftnet when I saw one. This pretty much says that you can capture anybody who has an indirect responsibility, who's a service provider. It can be a collection officer. And what can that person do? Well, they can do pretty much anything, because the subject of that fishing expedition is a debtor, and that means — again, a wide net — a person who, under an enactment or a program of the government, owes a debt or obligation to the government. How much broader does it get than that?

Well, it does get a fair bit broader, actually, because when you go on to section 24, it talks about: "'debtor' means a person who owes a government claim." That's added. And then it says: "'government claim' means a prescribed government claim…." Prescribed, last time I checked, means if you designate it by regulation.

That, again, is not something we're going to debate in this chamber. It's not something the public is ever going to hear about. They will see the end result of that star chamber process, which is how cabinet operates — outside of public scrutiny, save for the end result.

[1640]

It means "a prescribed government claim within the meaning of government claim" — I love this language — "in section 86.1 (1), but does not include a claim by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for 'vehicle indebtedness' as defined in that section."

Now, what does section 86.1 say? Section 86.1 in the existing act says:

"'Government claim' means a claim in debt, or any other claim for payment or recovery of money in a specified or ascertainable amount, by (a) the government, (b) a corporation or other organization within the taxpayer-supported government reporting entity" — that's a mouthful and hard to understand, but I suspect it's going to extend to a lot of organizations — "or (c) a corporation or other organization that is not within the taxpayer-supported government reporting entity but that was within the taxpayer-supported government reporting entity on or after the date on which the act or omission on which the claim is based took place and before the expiry of the limitation period created by this section applicable to the claim."

So we've got a pretty broad definition of what obligations government can use ICBC to essentially collect, through the intimidation tactics of withholding the ability of a person to drive.

I'm conscious of the fact that there are a number of young people who don't drive anymore. It's not surprising anymore to encounter a person around 30 years old, even, who doesn't have a driver's licence, because they're good users of public transit or it wasn't important to them. You could argue, from a government policy perspective, that we're going to be using this legislation, sections 23 and 24, to attack a diminishing number of people in British Columbia. I don't think that, frankly, is a sufficient excuse for the government to enact this legislation.

The reality is it will still be used as a tool to attack a significant portion of British Columbians for whom the ability to drive is an absolute necessity and, indeed — and I'm looking around the chamber today — most importantly, those people who live in rural British Columbia, who don't have access to public transit, necessarily, who won't be able to get to their employment or to their doctors' appointments or even to go and plead their case in a government agent's office; those people who need to drive significant distances to even take a driver's licence test; those people who need to drive significant distances for literally every service of importance in their lives.

It is quite directly an attack on rural British Columbians. And I see this government has just turned around and announced this Rural Advisory Committee, picking noteworthy British Columbians from around the province to advise them. That begs the question, of course: what are the rural MLAs on the government backbench actually doing in terms of providing advice to the government — or those sitting around the cabinet table who represent rural constituencies? But that's a topic for another day.

It's an attack on rural British Columbians, but it is also, most importantly, an attack on the poorest British Columbians. Maybe I'm feeling a bit Tea Partyish today, or maybe I'm feeling a bit rebellious. But at a time when the government has happily announced with great pride that it's going to let that modest tax increase that was im-
[ Page 6808 ]
posed on people earning $150,000 a year or more…. At the very time the government announces we're going to just let that slip away, just drift away like some critter in the night that disappears….

At the very time the top 2 percent of British Columbia income earners are going to walk away with $230 million, which they could have shared with British Columbians, this government brings in this legislation that basically says: "If you've got any kind of indebtedness to government, potentially, then we're leaving it open" — if it's not specific — "for ICBC to deny you the ability to drive a car."

[1645]

I'm not even going to say a right. I'm not going to talk about rights. But I will talk about the privilege of driving and, indeed, the necessity of being able to drive — and again, particularly in rural British Columbia.

Interestingly, I just happened to read a little report that says: "As of March 31, 2011" — so we're a bit out of date — "there was $991 million in British Columbia student loans outstanding." Well, $991 million is a pretty big number, but in a budget, annually, of $45 billion, it's not such a big number. It goes on to say: "Of that, an estimated $250 million, or 25 percent, had been assessed as uncollectible."

Now, you know what? As someone who managed to get through university without the benefit of a student loan — and thinking about some people who, in the old days, managed to get them written off or whatever and got away with it, so to speak — I understand the resentment that many British Columbians might feel for those who presumably took advantage of the people of British Columbia who pay their taxes, who work hard, who contribute to government and who saw their money benefit somebody who then turned around and used that education to move into a higher income bracket and then said to heck with paying off their student loans. I get that. I understand that sentiment.

But it's interesting to me that of that $250 million that was assessed as uncollectible…. We just gave away $230 million, not a dissimilar figure, to the very British Columbians who aren't going to bed tonight worrying about whether the car will start in the morning or whether they can afford gas or whether their kids' tuition will be paid or whether they'll have enough to meet the rent cheque or whether they'll be able to pay for groceries. Those people will be going to bed secure in the comfort that they've got another $230 million to play with, as opposed to the people who fall behind, whether they be students or others, in their payments to government.

This is an attack on rural British Columbians, and it is an attack, as usual, on the poor. I accept that there is a balance somewhere, where you have to hit people in their pocketbooks in order to achieve good public ends. I understand that. But what possible relationship does driving a vehicle and the licence to do so have to do with a student loan?

If we want to talk about relationships, why don't we listen to the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association and start putting all of the tax on legal services towards legal aid? I mean, from a philosophical point of view, that would be a lot more logical, instead of going after those who need a driver's licence to work and may have a student loan or some other debt owing to government.

The bill gets so interestingly complex in describing the authority that will be given to ICBC. I just read the first portion of it. Section 24 reads: "'government claim' means a prescribed government claim within the meaning of government claim in section 86.1 (1)," as I said, "but does not include…the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for 'vehicle indebtedness' as defined in that section."

It then goes on to say that if you follow a certain process, then ICBC gets to do a number of things. Indeed, sub (6), page 16 of the bill: "On receipt of a notice forwarded under subsection (3) (a), the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, for the applicable period under subsection (8), must not issue a driver's licence to the debtor." "Must not" — it's not permissive. It doesn't say "may." It says ICBC "must not."

So ICBC has been told. Regardless of how desperately you need your automobile, whether in fact it may mean the difference of you maintaining employment and ending up on EI or on social assistance, potentially, ICBC doesn't get to issue a driver's licence.

[1650]

In subsection (7): "On receipt of a notice forwarded under subsection (3) (b), the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, for the applicable period under subsection (8), must not issue a licence and corresponding number plates for a motor vehicle or trailer owned by the debtor." Gosh, if you're thinking of fleeing the province, for heaven's sakes, and loading your goods in your trailer, you won't be able to get a licence for that either.

"(8) Subsections (6) and (7)," which I've just read, "apply in relation to the debtor from the date the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia receives the applicable notice forwarded under subsection (3) until the date the Minister of Finance," — God bless his benevolence — "under subsection (9), directs the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to disregard the notice."

So when the Minister of Finance, in a spirit of Christian charity, moved by all the sentiment that could possibly fill his or her heart, directs ICBC to disregard the notice, they're going to continue to collect.

Sub (9) goes on to say:

"The Minister of Finance, on application by a debtor or on the initiative of the Minister of Finance, must direct the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to disregard the notice forwarded to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia under subsection (3) respecting the debtor if one of the following occurs: (a) the Minister of Finance has determined that the notice contains or is based on a material error."

Oh, goodness. We know no mistakes are made by the provincial government. We know that. Or the debtor has paid — sub (b) — and "(d) the Minister of Finance has determined that the limitation period for the government
[ Page 6809 ]
claim has expired."

Did we hear that? "The Minister of Finance has determined that the limitation period for the government claim has expired." It's not even a court. It's the Minister of Finance. So if the Minister of Finance is feeling benevolent and determines in his wisdom or her wisdom, regardless of whether or not they've good advice or bad advice, that the limitation has expired? Well, I guess you're free of this — or if you enter into a payment scheme.

But this is the best: "(f) the Minister of Finance is satisfied that the debtor, without a driver's licence or licence and corresponding number plates for any motor vehicle or trailer owned by the debtor, will experience…." Not just hardship. I hope the members are paying attention, because the words have meaning. This isn't just something concocted or that I've prepared over here. These are the words of the statute: "…will experience great hardship or financial difficulty to such an extent that the debtor will be unable to pay the government claim in whole or in part."

If you're destitute, if you can prove to the government that things are really, really bad, then the Minister of Finance, in his or her benevolence, moved by kindness, will be able to direct ICBC to let you have the licence, which may be the only way that you'll be able to keep or maintain employment in order to pay the debt in the first place.

Are things so bad in the government today that we have to go after people who will already be in pretty desperate circumstances? Are things so bad that we're going to go after them with another tool? It's not bad enough that if you don't pay your student loan, you could be sued and your wages can be garnished or any assets, if you have any, can be seized by a bailiff. That's not good enough.

Now, if what may be your remaining opportunity to gain employment is taken away, what will you be left with? This act provides that you won't even be able to get a licence.

But you know what will happen? I'll make a tiny prediction, because maybe the members over there don't have any poor folks in their constituency, but I certainly do in mine. They will do what the poor have done throughout our history. They will simply get in their car, if they have access to one, and they will drive, because if they've got to take a kid to a hospital or a doctor's appointment, or they have to get to a job, they're going to do what they have to do to survive.

[1655]

If the RCMP or the Victoria police department or the Vancouver police department pick them up, they'll get charged. Then you know what will happen? They'll go in front of a court, and they'll be fined. Then we'll have another debt, and we'll add that to the total.

They'll be in even worse straits now. They'll be stuck with the choice of maybe doing it a second or a third time because, as Janis Joplin so eloquently said a long time ago when I was young: "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."

That's what we're talking about. When you've been driven down and you have nothing left, guess what. The rules that say you don't get to drive without a licence don't mean very much when you're in desperate circumstances. They don't mean much. I mean, what kind of Dickensian world are we trying to create with this? Is the problem of collecting moneys owed to government so desperate and such a priority for this government that this is the most imaginative thing they can do in order to accomplish the collection of money from people who, by and large, probably don't have any?

I get it. Maybe the problem here is that too many of us in this chamber have been here too long at too nice a salary, and we've lost touch with the reality of the lives of many British Columbians, for whom a fine of a few hundred dollars might as well be a few thousand dollars. For people who work in this building, let alone the members of the assembly, when the bill arrives for whatever, they pay it, or they've got access to credit to pay it, or they've got savings accounts to draw the money from and pay it.

We have somehow forgotten what it is like out there for many of our fellow citizens. They are not in a position to meet their obligations. If they're lucky to be working, as the phrase goes — it's beaten to death and perhaps has lost meaning but does have meaning if you're that person — they are one paycheque away from disaster. They are one paycheque away from not being able to meet their rent, from not being able to put gas in a vehicle if they have it, from not being able to pay for basic food, from not being able to pay for the things that most of us take for granted.

What I suggest the government needs to consider here today is: is there not a better avenue? Can we not be more creative? Is this really necessary, for the government to pursue the poor? That is what this is about. This is about people who are already up against it.

This legislation, sections 23 and 24 of Bill 13, has no consequence for people who have good jobs. It has no consequence for people who have money and assets. Firstly, chances are they're not going to end up owing the government a lot of money, although they might. Perhaps there's a disaster. Perhaps they're sued. Perhaps they commit an act of negligence that results in a significant claim against them. There are many possibilities. But in the ordinary course of events, it won't be those people who are affected by this.

No, it will be all the other folks for whom this legislation has real meaning and real impact. It will continue to oppress an already distressed and overburdened and often disregarded underclass that continues to grow in our society as we see the great disparities in wealth.

Now, some members may think: "The member for
[ Page 6810 ]
Nanaimo is over the top today." But for those British Columbians who might be listening who are living in circumstances not quite as cozy and as warm and secure as we in this chamber, I think my words will have some meaning. From the very same government that won't raise social assistance rates, that in its recent beneficence managed to say that the poorest children in British Columbia will be able to keep their maintenance payments.... This government surely can find a better method of collecting money from the most vulnerable.

[1700]

I am hopeful — I'm always hopeful — that the Minister of Finance will reconsider this. Let's come up with something more imaginative as a way to beat on the poor of this province than denying them the right to drive as well.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to all the members who participated in the debate today. I found many of the comments helpful and many of the comments thoughtful. I want the member for Nanaimo to know that, lest he be concerned that I or others might think he was simply over the top today, that is not necessarily a conclusion we come to on any particular day. It can be a more widely held view from time to time.

Look, I thought what I would do is, in as brief a time as I can, speak to a couple of the points that were raised. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, in her initial remarks, made, I thought, a couple of helpful comments. First of all, I listened carefully as she spoke about the strata legislation, and her comments were as much about what's not in this bill as what is in the bill. I take those comments seriously and acknowledge that what was attempted to be dealt with here is a different issue than the one that she raised. But that doesn't in any way diminish the importance of the issue that she raised.

There are, then, really two themes that emerge, I think, from the discussion that's taken place and the submissions that were made in the chamber. One relates to the additional authorizations and abilities to share data, share information, that is included within the bill. Again, the hon. critic, at one point in her remarks, said that she had a lot of unanswered questions. That is entirely appropriate. That is the essence of the exercise we're engaged in.

The government, to use the terminology of the member who spoke last, is creating a tool, an expanded tool. I'm going to suggest it's not an entirely new tool, but it is certainly an expanded tool. The cautions that have been expressed today and at other times about the uses that government makes of information about the citizens are entirely valid.

As we were developing the legislation and the proposals, I was anxious that we engage with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. The letter has been referred to by a number of members, where the commissioner points out the importance of some of the principles at play here. I think that's all good and helpful. It's something that we will, and I'm happy to, discuss at greater length in the course of the committee stage.

There is a pursuit of balance here that needs to ensure that the legitimate purposes to which the government wishes to apply information are not either purposely or, worse, inadvertently put to improper uses. I am alive to that. I think it is appropriate for the member and for other members to highlight that concern and for us to work through to ascertain whether or not there are sufficient safeguards.

Now, I will say this. For a few of the members who spoke and whose position seems, on the surface at least, to be more doctrinaire — I heard a few members say, "Information that government collects about a citizen can and should only be used for that purpose" — they will be disappointed by my responses.

[1705]

There is, clearly, within the legislation an attempt, in circumstances where a debt is owing to the Crown, to the government, to the state…. There's another way to say that. That is a debt owing to other taxpayers. In those circumstances, the legislation seeks to better utilize some of the information that does exist to try and ensure that that debt is satisfied as efficiently and as fairly as possible. But we'll have that conversation.

As I say, I listened carefully. A goodly number of the…. Certainly, the opposition critic and a number of her colleagues, I thought, talked about needing to ensure that safeguards and balance were there. I think that is an entirely appropriate and important objective for us to explore through the debate. I'm hopeful that I can convince the member and her colleagues. We shall see as we explore the legislation.

The other theme that emerged in a variety of ways related to the role the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia plays with respect to the collection of debts owing. Again, I have to say that the commentary ranged, I thought, from some very balanced and responsible observations about how the use of the corporation has evolved to, dare I say, somewhat more histrionic-type commentary that I was less persuaded by, if I can use that phrase.

One of the members, the member for…. Well, she had a busy weekend, so we know who I'm referring to, and I know in her case a challenging weekend. I'm gratified that she's here participating in the debates today. But I felt, as I listened to her and a few others….

One of the benefits and/or curses of having been here as long as I have is that I recall when this evolution in the use of the Insurance Corporation began. It began when the decision was made by the government of the day to roll what we used to call the motor vehicles division into ICBC. It was not a decision of this government. It was a
[ Page 6811 ]
decision of the previous government. The opposition of the day, I hasten to add, supported the move.

I was, to be equally candid, somewhat hesitant about how this was taking the stated purpose of an insurance corporation and mixing its roles as an insurer with that of a regulator. So that happened, and we now largely take that for granted.

ICBC is involved in that regulatory function, and that has evolved to where now it's a point of collection for, initially, a host of driver-related charges, infractions, fines, fees. The notion of not being able to renew a driver's licence or get insurance because a speeding ticket has been unpaid…. There was a time, again, a few years ago, when a previous government was persuaded of the value, for example, of photo radar. Those tickets were churned out at a pretty healthy rate. If they weren't paid, all those people that the member for Nanaimo talked about weren't able to get their drivers' licences.

[1710]

It evolved further. Only one member today acknowledged this, and I don't say that as a criticism. It may be that others have forgotten or were not aware. We, a few years ago, decided that we would use the contact that the citizen has with the driver regulator, which is what ICBC has become, to collect child maintenance. You can make the same argument, I would submit, which a few members have tried to make, that challenges the connection between a parent not fulfilling their obligations to a child and how disconnected that is from the function of regulating driving privileges.

I haven't heard anyone critical of that, and maybe it's because the societal benefit or the societal importance that people attach to that is beyond question. I'm not sure. No one talked about it, except one member and just in passing. To listen to some of the members would suggest to me that that is in error, that utilizing the motor vehicle regulator to collect unpaid tolls is misguided and unfair. It follows that these same folks challenge the wisdom of expanding further.

I will say this, because it came up from a few folks. They made observations about this. I actually accept the proposition that the vast majority of people who have a fine imposed against them for driving or non-driving purposes by a court or administrative tribunal are good people who want to satisfy their debts. I accept implicitly the proposition that the vast majority of folks who take a student loan, get an education, get trained, are absolutely committed to fulfilling that obligation. It is an obligation. Again, the member, the opposition critic, to be fair, acknowledged that.

A number of the members who participated in this debate, though, seemed to have some difficulty making the distinction between what this tool was designed to accomplish, who it was designed to engage with and those who it wasn't. A number of members talked about the impact this was going to have on students. It has no impact on students. By definition, it has no impact on students. Students enjoy interest-free status. They're not obliged to make payments on their student loan. There are arrangements in place.

Yes, there is an obligation following the receipt of that single most important asset that we get in life: education and training. There is an obligation to engage with the agency from which the resources were received and settle upon a repayment plan. The vast, vast, vast majority of people do just that. Yes, their circumstances can change, and there is a mechanism by which their obligation to repay can change with it and take that into account. As odd, strange and disbelieving as this may be for the member from Nanaimo, there are actually people of means, who live comfortably, who believe that the obligation to repay a debt should not accrue to them.

[1715]

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member points out there are methods to collect. There are. I have no hope whatsoever that I will convince this member that used responsibly and judiciously, this can be an effective tool to actually help people.

Here are two scenarios that I understand some members may not want to think about. One I will relate to the House because it goes to the issue of fairness. When this government was first elected in 2001 and I was the Finance Minister, I experienced something for the first year. Agencies, companies were coming in. Times were tough, and they were having difficulty paying their stumpage.

Now, one after another they came in and said, "We need relief. We need to have our stumpage obligation forgiven," which struck me as a little bit odd. But that, apparently, had been a fairly standard request and a fairly standard answer from a previous government. I immediately understood the desire to afford relief. I did not understand how that represented fairness vis-à-vis those other agencies, companies, who were doing their level best to fulfil their obligations.

If one approaches this purely from the point of view that the government's objective should be to afford relief however and wherever, then you come to a certain conclusion. If you approach this from the point of view that to responsibly use responsible instruments of collection, we should be treating people fairly and equitably, I think you come to a slightly different conclusion. But that's just me.

Clearly, I have brought a perspective as the minister and will agree and acknowledge wholeheartedly that a tool of this sort needs to be used responsibly. Some very responsible and specific questions were put in some of the comments about how to explore in the committee stage how that might be done. I think it's, again, entirely
[ Page 6812 ]
appropriate, and I'll do my level best to try and provide those answers.

Here's the last thing I probably want to say about this. Some of the members here have been involved either in working with people on the social services side, as counsel, as lawyers…. So what happens in the case of accumulating debt, maintenance arrears, when it takes…? The member for Nanaimo, the Attorney General critic, said: "There are other avenues." Well, he knows that those avenues can take years to work their way through, by which time that person — who may well be of limited means, and often is — is no longer confronted by an unpaid debt of $1,000 but is now confronted by an unpaid debt of $10,000, which might as well be $100,000.

Surely there is some merit — again, utilizing the tool responsibly and with proper safeguards — and in fact, one could argue, some responsibility on the part of the state to say to people who appear to be disregarding their responsibility and to alert them to that fact and try to arrest or address that behaviour and those circumstances as early as possible, recognizing that in all instances the opportunity to settle upon a plan, a repayment scheme that is tailored to the unique circumstances of that individual, is the preferred option, the necessary option.

[1720]

I didn't want to go on at length. I know that we will have an opportunity in the committee stage to explore some of these. It's clear, again, as the hon. critic pointed out, that it's a lengthy bill — 120-some-odd sections. From the debate we've had this afternoon in the session, it's pretty clear where the bulk of the interest lies, and there will be some technical information that, hopefully, we can exchange with respect to other sections of the bill.

I hope, as we have that conversation, that despite the important role that members play and the obligation they have to question government's motives, to question whether an appropriate balance has been struck, there will be some regard given for the fact — and my attempt to assure the House — that what I and we are endeavouring to try and create, with the assistance of agencies like the freedom-of-information commissioner, is a tool and an instrument that can be utilized responsibly to achieve fairness and equity for all citizens.

I've taken more time than I intended to. I thank the members for their attention, and I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, 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. M. de Jong: That takes us to second reading on Bill 17, the Guide Dog and Service Dog Act.

BILL 17 — GUIDE DOG AND
SERVICE DOG ACT

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 17 now be read a second time.

The Guide Dog and Service Dog Act replaces the existing Guide Animal Act, modernizing the legislation to reflect advances in training and uses of service dogs. The new act strikes a balance between providing rights for people with disabilities, requiring that guide and service dogs be trained to a very high standard and providing certainty for businesses and members of the public.

In particular, the new Guide Dog and Service Dog Act introduces a framework that complements the rights provided to individuals under the human rights code. High, internationally accepted standards for certified dog and handler teams will be set in the regulations. Full certification will require that guide and service dogs meet the internationally recognized standards of Assistance Dogs International or the International Guide Dog Federation or meet a similar standard tested by a designated third party.

Dogs in training with a qualified trainer will be granted public access rights, though not tenancy rights, so that they can continue training to become full-fledged guide or service dogs. Recognizing the bond that forms between a person and his or her guide or service dog, a retirement certificate will be issued when a dog is retired so that tenancy rights, but not public access rights, will be continued. This will mean that individuals with a retired guide or service dog will not be forced to move or give up the dog that has provided years of service.

[1725]

To ensure a fair and consistent certification process, a registrar will be appointed with decision-making and reconsideration powers. Regulations will establish application requirements and conditions that can be imposed on the certificate.

In order to ensure that the public and businesses are aware that a dog is fully certified, a requirement will be established in regulation that visible, standard identification be displayed.

In addition, the new act is specific to dogs. No other animals can be certified. There is increasing concern about the use of animals other than dogs. This act will be unequivocal in the use of dogs as the only provincially certified guide or service animals. At the same time, this bill recognizes and addresses the expanded use of service dogs in recent years, such as dogs trained to assist people with mobility issues, epilepsy and hearing impairments.

This bill maintains current access and tenancy privileges for persons with certified guide or service dogs. Additionally, the act will now ensure that certified
[ Page 6813 ]
dogs can reside with their handlers in strata properties. Strengthened enforcement tools will ensure public access for such teams. As well, the bill introduces a new offence of falsely purporting to be a certified dog team.

Those who currently have certificates under the Guide Animal Act will be grandfathered but will need to update and display the new certificate. Interestingly enough, this very problem was on the radio this morning.

This bill fulfils a commitment made by this government in the Accessibility 2024 strategy, moving British Columbia closer to the goal of becoming the most progressive province in Canada for people with disabilities by 2024.

M. Mungall: I just wanted to take a few moments to say how pleased I am to see the government move in this direction. It's been a little bit longer in our anticipation of this bill's arrival than we had hoped, but it's finally here, and I think it's just fantastic.

I brought this to the attention of the former Attorney General before the 2013 election during a budget estimates process where I asked her a question about what the government was planning to do on the very issue of expanding the legislation to include all service dogs rather than just guide dogs for people who are blind. At that time she had mentioned that government was in consultation with stakeholders on this issue and looking to undertake legislation as soon as possible.

In my mind, I thought that would have been before the election. Unfortunately, it wasn't. But I don't want to belabour the point of how long it took us to get here. Just the fact that we got here I think is wonderful.

I know that for many of my constituents with disabilities who rely on a guide dog to assist them going about their day-to-day business in the community, this is going to be absolutely good news for them.

I know that a few years ago…. The reason why I brought this issue to the attention of the Attorney General back in 2012 was because a constituent of mine went to a local restaurant in my community and was asked to leave. She had a service dog, but she wasn't blind. What she found out was that that owner of that restaurant was well within his rights to ask her to leave, despite the fact that she needed that service dog wherever she went to ensure that if she had a major seizure — she was epileptic — she was getting the immediate support that she needed, and dogs do that.

This is great. I know that she's going to be thrilled. I know that people across British Columbia are going to be thrilled and people with disabilities, like I said. There's a variety of jobs that dogs do in helping people with disabilities. The fact that we're bringing this legislation forward, I think, is a very good step forward and a good way forward for British Columbia to realize that we are and can be a progressive jurisdiction for people with disabilities.

Thank you very much for allowing me the few minutes to put that on the record.

J. Thornthwaite: I would love to stand up today and put my support to Bill 17, the Guide Dog and Service Dog Act.

[1730]

A couple of weeks ago I was very fortunate to stand at the front of the Legislature with many of my colleagues, including, of course, the Minister of Justice; one of the key drivers of this legislation, the member for Delta North; of course, our very own Speaker, from Richmond; in addition to key people that have been working on this issue for a long time — Laura Watamanuk, from the Pacific Assistance Dogs Society; Jane Dyson from the Disability Alliance of British Columbia; as well as Rosamund Van Leeuwen, who is the chair of PAWS for Independence. I know all of these people personally.

Following extensive review in 2012, with stakeholders like business, transit, landlords, stratas and training schools, British Columbia has now modernized the B.C. guide and service dog legislation. This is a true commitment to people with disabilities. These people need these animals, these dogs, to assist them in their daily lives.

These changes will ensure that people who use guide or service dogs to perform critical daily tasks or services have improved access to restaurants, transit vehicles and any place to which the public is invited. In addition, the new highly trained standards for guide dogs and service dogs will be put in place to strengthen public safety. The legislation delivers on a commitment made last June, called Accessibility 2024, a ten-year action plan to make B.C. the most progressive province in Canada for people with disabilities.

The two points I wanted to just mention are dogs in training and tenancy rights. Dogs in training, and puppies — and today, I understand, is National Puppy Day — will be given public access rights previously unavailable. When accompanied by a certified trainer, they will be allowed to go into a public place where a fully certified dog could go earlier, giving them a chance to get used to being in new and diverse environments before being fully responsible for their handler's safety.

I think this is really important. I was fortunate to go to a dinner with our mayor, Richard Walton, and his wife, Celeste Pelc, who is also a trainer. We went out for dinner at a restaurant, and fortunately, because it was in the summertime and we were outside on a patio, the dog was allowed. Their dog was Journey, a Labrador retriever. But this doesn't always happen in restaurants and public facilities. So I think this is a really good step for those puppies in training.

Tenancy rights for guide and service dogs will also be updated so landlords and strata-run complexes are aware that people have the right to keep their certified animal with them regardless of bylaws restricting pets. What this means is retired guide and service dogs will be allowed
[ Page 6814 ]
to stay with their forever family forever, as opposed to being essentially kicked out of their home just because they've retired.

I was fortunate enough last September to attend a PADS graduation ceremony in the Michael J. Fox Theatre in Burnaby. It was a sea of Labrador retrievers. I couldn't get enough of them. They looked so cute, and it was so emotional to see the trainers connect the clients with their dog and pass over the dog. The trainers were committed and spent time with the dogs, and then they passed over the dogs to their clients so that they could live with them for the rest of their lives. It was just so cute, yet emotional. I was very pleased to be able to be invited to that.

Guide dogs assist people with many different disabilities, including the visual impairments that many people are already familiar with. I was really struck by the statement that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano made a couple of weeks ago about Rosamund Van Leeuwen. She travels all around the North Shore, and probably Metro Vancouver, on a bus with her dog. I really liked the member's statement on that.

Visual impairment isn't the only impairment that people utilize guide dogs for. Service dogs are routinely used to help people with various disabilities who are not able to perform certain actions in their daily routine. For example, service dogs aid those with issues such as severe hearing loss, epilepsy, autism, or diabetes.

[1735]

In the PADS open house that I attended last year, in April, I was able to meet a Jack Russell terrier who actually happened to be a hearing dog assistant. Normally, I would think that just Labs and other large breeds would be the appropriate dogs for being assistance dogs. But this Jack Russell terrier was certainly able to notify his owner when there was a door knocking and any other kind of noise, even telephones, etc.

The legislation is meant to require, for any breeds, specific and high training standards for all guide dog services in British Columbia, not just for the Labradors that we are so accustomed to seeing.

In summary, I would like to commend our minister for bringing forward this legislation. Other constituents of mine, including Karen Tregillas, and her dog Riley, will be very happy, and everybody else that has a lovely animal, a lovely dog that they want to keep with them at all times.

L. Krog: The Guide Dog and Service Dog Act. It reminds me of that Disney movie The Incredible Journey. As you might recall, these poor pets get left behind, as I recall the plot of the thing. It took forever for them to travel across the continent and finally be reunited with their human family. One can't help but think about that movie and the theme of it when one considers this legislation.

Sarcasm aside, I must say the opposition is happy to see the introduction of Bill 17 — extremely happy. But it would be remiss of us on this side of the House not to mention that the essence of this bill — indeed, a draft version of this legislation — was provided to the ministry back in 2010. Goodness, our third grandchild wasn't even a glint in his father's eye at that time, for heaven's sake.

I'm reminded, if the House will indulge me for a moment, of when I was given one of those horrible files, as you are as a young articled student, by my principal. It was an interesting file. For those of you who know a little bit about the history of Nanaimo, it involved seeking the vesting of title on a house and lot on Bowen Road in the name of the then holder of the lease. Much of the land in Nanaimo was covered by long-term leases, as was the typical English practice a very long time ago of granting long leases. In this case, it was 99 years.

Of course, the new Vancouver Coal Mining and Land Company Ltd. disappeared and was struck for whatever — failure to file its reports, bankrupt. It doesn't really matter. But one can apply, under the Escheat Act, to the cabinet in order to have title vested in your name as the holder of the 99-year lease — or the remainder of it, in this case.

I got this file. It had been obviously gathering a great deal of dust on my principal's desk for a long period of time. I did the first thing that a student should do. You phone the client and inquire about the file, try and make them feel better and that you're going to be right on top of it now that it's in your capable hands. Of course, I get on the phone this ancient gentleman, obviously ancient by the quiver in his voice and the fact that I have to yell into the phone to try and explain to him why I've called.

Finally, when the penny drops and he realizes who I am and what I'm doing and why I've phoned him, all I heard on the other end of the line was: "But it's been five years, and that's too long."

Well, hon. Speaker, I think you see the point I was trying to make. It's been five years since the government received draft legislation, and that's too long. We only need look at what I will call perhaps older nations, where the concept of having a dog with you, regardless of whether they're a guide dog or a service dog, is not regarded with repugnance. I mean, if you went into an English pub, it wouldn't be shocking to see some happy mutt at the feet of its owner being received and welcomed into a public establishment while their owner imbibed that great product of Britain, its beer.

[1740]

We are behind the times here in British Columbia. We're behind the times in regards to animals in general and our attitudes towards animals. What this bill represents is a modest step forward in terms of recognizing the incredible importance of what most of us learned as children or instinctively knew if we had the opportunity to be around dogs.
[ Page 6815 ]

Any of us who were lucky enough to have pets or pets in the household when we were young understand the importance of canine companionship. It teaches responsibility. They are, generally speaking, always happy to see you. They're somewhat independent animals, in some respects, but they provide comfort.

We know now that in seniors facilities animals of all kinds, but dogs in particular, are used as therapy dogs.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

People voluntarily, through the SPCA in Nanaimo, bring in their animals week after week to various facilities where seniors who are otherwise, perhaps, out of touch with their fellow seniors enjoy the comfort and joy and companionship of a dog.

The studies are fairly prominent now and recognized. We know that the presence of a dog will have the effect of lowering blood pressure. It relieves tension and stress. In other words, they are, in every sense, healthy.

In a world where we're seeing increasing outbreaks of various diseases — whether it's an ebola outbreak or some bacteria that can't be dealt with, with ordinary antibiotics — we are coming to realize that our creation of a sort of germ-free world may, in fact, not be the healthiest response to living on the planet.

The concept that perhaps we need to spend a little more time with animals is a growing phenomenon. What this bill does is recognize that we need to move forward. We need to be in a position to ensure, particularly, that those people who have been designated in the act as a person with a disability will have the opportunity to bring their dogs with them.

The definition in the act is: "'person with a disability' means an individual who (a) has a disability, other than blindness or visual impairment, and (b) requires, as a result of the disability, the assistance of a service dog for daily living." We're not talking about a dozen people. We're not talking about two dozen people. We're not talking about hundreds.

We're talking about thousands of British Columbians who, by the passage of this legislation, will have some guarantee and protection that the dogs that give them comfort, that enable them to survive the stresses of modern life, to navigate our communities, will in fact be able to do so and continue to be able to do so. That is a step forward — notwithstanding my cheeky remarks about it having taken too long.

I suppose it's like getting a birthday present late. One shouldn't be terribly ungrateful, even if one feels compelled to point out that, in fact, they missed your birthday. Nevertheless, the gift, as basic as it is, has been received.

We have legislation that is going to create different categories of guide dogs and service dogs, of dog teams and service dog teams. It will maintain access and tenancy privileges respecting blind persons and other persons with a disability who require the assistance of a guide dog. It provides for the creation or appointment of a registrar and adds some offences and increases the penalty for contraventions of the act.

In other words, it sets up a regulatory regime. On one side, wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where we didn't feel like we had to regulate everything to death. I see a nod from one of the Liberal members across the way. I think they believe all of us on this side of the House like to regulate everything to death.

The reality is, particularly for those of us who were raised in rural communities and in rural circumstances — and I think, arguably speaking, that includes the Attorney General herself, raised in Duncan when it was a much smaller community….

Interjection.

L. Krog: Not as small as Coombs, she points out ably. I take that as a recognition of Coombs' unique status as opposed to its size.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member insists on mentioning the goats on the roof. I hesitate to tell her, but knowing our respective ages, I can assure her that both of us go back before the days of goats on the roof in Coombs, B.C.

Having said that, the presence of animals in our lives….

Interjection.

L. Krog: We've got the minister excited as well — the minister of post-secondary education, who always takes a keen interest in debate. I appreciate his attentiveness.

[1745]

Those of us who had the benefit of growing up in rural communities actually got to mix it around a little in the dirt, so to speak. The concept of having animals in our lives was not unknown and was expected and accepted. That kind of intimate contact was important.

Now what we are recognizing here, quite specifically, is that for many people in our communities the ability to have their canine companions with them everywhere is a very necessary part of their ability to deal with modern life or to deal with a particular disability, a particular stressor. Surely, that is a very, very positive thing.

That does, however, raise one issue that has been raised by a couple of letters that I know have been received by the Attorney General directly and which have been copied to me. I am sure she has seen them herself. I think it reflects an important point that needs to be mentioned in the House. In particular, section 2 of Bill 17 says, under the "Access to public places" heading:

"2 (1) A guide dog team, service dog team or dog-in-training team may, in the same manner as would an individual who is not
[ Page 6816 ]
a member of any of those teams, enter and use any place, accommodation, building or conveyance to which the public is invited or has access, provided that the individual who is a member of the team ensures the dog that is a member of the team (a) does not occupy a seat in a public conveyance or a place where food is served or dispensed to the public, as the case may be, and (b) is held by a leash or harness.

"(2) A person must not (a) interfere with the exercise of a privilege under subsection (1), or (b) charge a fee, in respect of the exercise of a privilege under subsection (1), for the dog that is a member of a guide dog team, service dog team or dog-in-training team."

The magic word here, the important word, is where it says "may." It's permissive. That has created, I think, appropriate consternation on the part of two individuals who have written extremely thoughtful letters, eloquent letters, to the Attorney General raising this particular issue, amongst other issues.

I want to deal with this one first. That is the concept that somehow this is a privilege. One writer says that subsection 2(2) refers to the right of "Access to public places" as an "exercise of a privilege." They to on to say:

"This is regressive language and unnecessarily weakens the strength of the legislation. Entering a public space with a mobility aid such as a wheelchair, cane, walker or guide dog is not a privilege.

"All rights are subject to limitations, including the right to enter a public space with a guide dog. Most people who've received legitimate training for a guide dog or service dog are acutely aware of these limitations and thus take great care to ensure that their dog is well-behaved and well-groomed in public.

"Naming the right of access due to disability as a 'privilege' fundamentally mischaracterizes the role of a guide dog or a service dog and is, again, contrary to the human rights code. I strongly urge you to replace the word 'privilege' in section 2 with the word 'right.'"

I think the point made is an extremely important point and one that is clearly valid. When one considers the social remedy of this legislation — in other words, ensuring that people will have the ability to move about society safely with their service dog or guide dog — that must surely be seen as a good thing, a positive end.

[1750]

To suggest somehow that it is a privilege sends, I think, the wrong signal to everyone who reads the legislation and everyone who is in that situation. We have moved a long way from the time when we had cut off access to various people in society on the basis of all kinds of things, including just something as basic to humanity as colour. In 1948 if you were aboriginal, if you were of South Asian descent or Japanese or Chinese descent, you couldn't vote. I think we kind of recognized that that wasn't very consistent with democratic rights.

In this era where these animals perform such a useful and important function and are of such benefit to their owners or the people who have the opportunity to have their assistance, we should recognize it as more than a privilege. Surely there is not such a burden placed on society or a social trouble or problem or issue caused by the presence of people with their guide and service dogs that we need to think of this somehow as a privilege.

Surely our attitude should be that people should naturally be entitled to have a service or a guide dog without restriction, unless it does infringe in a significant way upon the ability of other people.

Some people — and I get this — have a reaction to dogs. Some people are intimately afraid of dogs. I get that. But in particular — let alone in the example I used from the member for Skeena, who talks with loving memory about how England treats animals in pubs — we should recognize that these are highly trained and skilled animals that have the ability to exist in a community in a safe way.

Notwithstanding the concerns of those who might have an unnecessary fear of a dog, or dogs in general, the public good and benefit that is achieved by allowing those who've been defined as a person with a disability to move freely through society with their service and guide dogs is worth it.

When you are balancing interests — as governments must do, as legislators must do, as judges must do in cases that come before them, as arbitrators or administrative tribunals have to — surely, on balance, we should be talking here not about a privilege but about what should be a presumed right. We are not advancing anything by restricting the ability of people to have the benefit of these animals.

Most importantly, section 3 acknowledges very clearly:

"A person must not (a) deny to a guide dog team, service dog team or retired guide or service dog team a manufactured home site or rental unit advertised or otherwise represented as available for occupancy by a tenant, or (b) impose, on an individual who is a member of any of those teams, a term or condition for the tenancy of a manufactured home site or rental unit if the term or condition discriminates on the basis that the individual who is a member of the team intends to keep the dog that is a member of the team in the manufactured home site or rental unit."

That runs up against one of those more difficult issues. The reality is that not everyone who keeps a dog treats the dog well. Is the dog well trained? Is the dog going to be clean? Is the residential unit or the manufactured home site going to be in the same condition after it's been exposed to a dog that perhaps isn't trained to the status or quality of a guide dog or a service dog as contemplated in the act?

[1755]

Again, when you are balancing rights, this legislation, I think, is on the correct side of the equation. It is on the right side of the balance because it recognizes that we should not be denying accommodation to people who have a recognized disability and have the benefit of a guide or a service dog.

That is a very important aspect of this legislation. It's a very important aspect as we see more and more stories, particularly out of Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, where the cost of housing is horrendous. We're talking about…. I think the median price for a Vancouver home now — I'm sure some members over there will correct me if I'm wrong — is probably $1 million. Realistically,
[ Page 6817 ]
that has a significant impact on the cost of rental accommodation. We know that.

It is important that this legislation recognize the importance of people, in a tight housing market, who have the use of a service or guide dog to be able to obtain appropriate accommodation and not be discriminated against.

The world is tough enough for those of limited means. The reality is that persons with a disability are persons of often limited means. So life has already, to use a cliché, dealt them cards that are tough to play. Surely we should not be adding to that burden by making it even harder for those who receive some respite, in the presence of a service or guide dog, to obtain something as basic to human need as accommodation. That is a positive thing.

There are a couple of things, as well, that these letters point out that I think are worth mentioning. Again, I think this is a good step forward, but it is a limited step. That's pointed out by a lawyer in Vancouver who is herself blind. She points out that the act omits civil remedies for attacks on guide dogs and service dogs — in other words, not being in a position to sue if, in fact, there is some kind of attack.

Indeed, the working group that was made up of disability representatives and guide dog handlers put forth recommendations to the Ministry of Justice, I gather, regarding the proposed legislation, including substantial sections regarding "the penalties for interfering with a guide dog team." These sections were inexplicably omitted from Bill 17. This recommendation was made, in part, based on feedback from guide dog handlers who shared their firsthand experience of being attacked by pet dogs.

Surely, if we're going to ensure that those persons with a disability move freely about our society to the best of their ability, it behooves us to protect the very creatures that enable them to enjoy that freedom. I think that again, likewise, is a reasonable position taken by the writer and needs to be considered as part of the proposed changes to the act — if not enough to persuade the Attorney General to do it now, perhaps in some future reconsideration of this legislation.

The letter also points out that the act creates uncertainty for guide dog teams from internationally accredited schools that do not obtain the B.C. government–issued certificate. This is where I come back to my point, where I'll get another nod maybe from a member of the government benches, around the issue of overregulating. Is it really of any great concern or moment for society as a whole…? If, in fact, you've got a dog that's trained and you have animals that are doing their job, do we really need to be that particular or sticky, if you will, around the creation of standardized certification?

[1800]

As the writer says in her letter:

"The creation of a standardized certification regime makes good sense for guide dogs and service team dogs that are not from internationally accredited schools. Illegitimate guide dogs and service dogs pose a nuisance and threats to those who have legitimately trained dogs and service dogs.

"However" — wise woman — "the threat of a fake service dog should not supersede the bona fide right of access for the vast majority of guide dog and service dog handlers who have gone through rigorous training at an internationally accredited school."

In other words, do we really need to overbureaucratize what is remedial legislation? Again, a point that is well taken. Surely again, this legislation is designed to improve the circumstances for persons with disabilities who are taking advantage and have the ability to use guide and service dogs. Surely, we should be thinking about that.

Another writer basically raises the same issue. Again, it's a thoughtful approach. She says:

"My main concern regarding this bill is the requirement to government-certify all guide-assistance dogs. This seems to me like redundancy. It is adding complications unnecessarily, and it would be almost impossible to enforce. As a graduate from an accredited guide dog school, we are issued a photo ID which certifies me with Jeeves" — that's her dog — "as a legitimate working team. This ID card is issued by an accredited school and should be sufficient proof of Jeeves's working status for the purposes of access.

"Training with a guide dog is an extremely intense and structured program, and I would not have been permitted to return home with Jeeves if I had not demonstrated that I have the skills and knowledge to safely and effectively navigate around my community.

"Besides causing extra work for guide-assistance dog handlers or the schools to apply for a separate government-issued certificate, this extra responsibility will take up valuable government resources which could otherwise be allocated to other important areas. Further, it would be too onerous to expect visiting out-of-province guide-assistance dog handlers to apply for a certificate."

A very legitimate point, because again, is there some great evil that requires a remedy here? Is it that important for us to ensure that we have a regulatory regime that may in fact prevent some people from having access to or the ability to enjoy the benefits of this legislation, the very thing that it is designed to protect and promote?

If we want to talk about drunk driving, that's an easy one. We all want to discourage drunk driving. It's a social evil. It kills people. It costs a great deal of money. It drives up health care costs. We all get that. But is there some great societal problem that exists here with, as this writer said, fake dog schools? Is that really a social ill that we have to be terribly concerned about?

There are jokes made about certain political parties that they've always got a solution in search of a problem that may or may not be a problem. This strikes me as one of those situations where the government is worried about the solution before there's a problem.

This woman goes on to say, quite rightly:

"Regardless of how simple you try to make the process, any extra task can be difficult for someone with a visual impairment. If there was a cost associated for applying for this certificate, it could be a financial burden for someone on a fixed income, which is the current financial situation for the majority of disabled British Columbians."

She goes on to say, and you couldn't say it any better:

"The point of the bill should be to try and make our lives less complicated."

Now, when you hear common sense and it's phrased so simply and beautifully, you should pay attention to it. And if that isn't common sense, I don't know what is.
[ Page 6818 ]

[1805]

What this person, who is pleased to see this step forward, is saying logically: "Make our lives less complicated. I'm a person with a disability. If you're recognizing that my life will be made easier and better by the passage of this legislation, why are you bringing in certain aspects of the regime proposed by Bill 17 that, in fact, arguably will make it more complicated, potentially, and/or more costly?" It is a perfectly valid point. It is a reasonable point. It is a point for consideration.

I know that this act contains, as usual, the ability to make regulations. That's always one of my frequent hobbyhorses when I speak to bills in this place — that is, the recognition that so much of what governs our lives in a practical way….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

L. Krog: I'm the designated speaker on this, hon. Speaker, but thank you. I won't be much longer, because I know the Minister of Health and a couple of others are anxious to say a few words. But I was encouraged earlier to ensure that I gave fulsome attention to this legislation, and it's my intention to do so.

The regulation aspect of this always troubles me, because we need to recognize that people should have their opportunity, through their elected representatives, to raise issues with respect to legislation. When we encourage and increase the regulatory power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, we are in essence removing that.

With those points and the points made by the two wise women who have written to me and to the Attorney General, and subject to what everyone else is going to say, I think the opposition thanks the government for taking this step forward. Long-coming as it may have been, it is a step forward. It is something positive.

Now that we've done the first bit of training, it's time to think about further training to make sure this performs as well as it could for the benefit of those British Columbians who suffer from a disability and whose lives are so improved and whose lifestyle is so immeasurably enhanced by the ability to have access to service and guide dogs.

Hon. T. Lake: It's a great pleasure and honour for me to stand in the House and speak to the Guide Dog and Service Dog Act. I appreciate the comments that we have heard from both sides of the House. It really is interesting. I want to thank the member for Nanaimo for his comments, some of which I'll comment on in a little bit. I also want to thank the member for Delta North, who will also speak to this bill, for his role and his special interest in this area.

Many will know from my background that I practised as a veterinarian and taught animal health technology for quite a number of years and had experience dealing with service, guide and assistance dogs and their owners over the years. Often, as many veterinarians do, I provided service to these animals in a pro bono fashion as a service to their owners and recognize the amazing work that these animals do, whether it's a visual impairment, whether it's hearing loss or other conditions that we now have recognized these amazing animals are capable of helping with.

Epilepsy, for instance — young children that suffer from epilepsy. The assistance dogs can sense the seizure in the early stages and warn family members and lead to assistance for the person that's affected. Autism — we know that dogs can be very helpful for those suffering from autism. Diabetes, even. And recognition of new abilities of these dogs even to detect some forms of cancer, whether it's skin cancer, bladder cancer or other types of cancers that may emit a chemical that only the super ability of a dog's olfactory senses can pick up.

[1810]

It is with great pride that I support this bill, which will, in fact, allow people with assistance dogs to move freely in society, as they should. The member for Nanaimo, I think, was very eloquent in his description of what this will mean and how it seems more than reasonable to allow people with assistance dogs to take part in the full range of human activity that we have, whether that's in restaurants or pubs or on the bus or rapid transit or anywhere else.

One comment the member made had me thinking about the overregulation piece — whether or not we needed to be too concerned about dogs that were trained in non-accredited or other jurisdictions. The member made some good points about making it easy for people who already have a lot of challenges with day-to-day life — making it harder for them to have their dogs being used. But one of the roles of government is protection of the public, and certainly, any self-regulated profession, whether it's the veterinary profession or the legal profession, knows that protection of the public is very important.

While I do recognize that some added bureaucracy is involved, I think it is very valuable to have that public protection piece in this legislation to ensure that dogs are, in fact, accredited, or if they have been trained in another jurisdiction that they are evaluated against criteria here that are accredited, to ensure that if they're a dog that helps with someone who is visually impaired or hearing-impaired, they are able to do the job and not put that person at risk. I think that is why that level of bureaucracy is perhaps necessary.

One of the things I really like about the legislation is that it allows those young dogs, the puppies that are in training, the same access rights as full dogs. These dogs — it's critical, when in their training stage, that they are exposed to the full range of activities that they will experience later in life. In fact, without that, they simply are
[ Page 6819 ]
unable to move from the puppy stage to the adult stage and make sure that they are able to do their jobs, being desensitized to all of the things that are out there that could distract them from their duties.

That will, of course, be very important — also the ability to allow someone with a retired service dog to keep that service dog as a companion animal. In my career and in my personal life, I understand the value, the almost indescribable connection that people have with their companion animals.

You can imagine that someone who depends on a dog for being safe, for getting around, for getting through activities of everyday life depends on that dog to do its job day in, day out, hour after hour. They are going to form a bond with that animal like no one else. To have them have to give up that animal when the animal is ready for retirement seems to me very cruel. This legislation ensures that people will be able to keep their dogs as companions once they retire from active service and that stratas and landlords will be unable to prevent that from happening, which, I think, is a very good thing.

I won't take up too much time because I know there are members on the other side, and our member for Delta North would like to make comments. As a veterinarian, as a dog lover and on behalf of Pal, I want to say that this is exceptional legislation. I want to credit the Attorney General for bringing this forward and thank everyone for their thoughtful comments on the legislation today.

L. Popham: It's a pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. I, too, am an animal lover. My farm, which I live on, is called the Barking Dog Vineyard after my own yellow Labs that I have had over the years.

I think service dogs are becoming more important as we recognize them as companions and for their use to help assist people that are suffering traumas.

[1815]

My most recent experience with service dogs has to do with the time I spent with the Wounded Warriors. These are our Canadian Forces members who return from tours of duty overseas suffering from the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder. Most of our returning members from Rwanda suffered very high incidence of post-traumatic stress, and also from Afghanistan.

There's a brand-new service dog accredited program. It's not brand-new, but it's very new, considering how long it takes to train these dogs. It's called the service dogs for PTSD program. It was launched in 2011 in Canada, although it has been ongoing in the United States for a number of years.

These are dogs specifically trained for PTSD. Three of the things that they're trained on are, one, to promote integration and activity. One of the problems with PTSD sufferers is that they tend to be shut into their homes because they're afraid to go outside. The definition of promoting integration and activity is: "Having the responsibility of another being that is a consistent, caring companion helps builds ties to the future." It gives people hope for the future. The dogs are active and force individuals to get out and exercise, and the care of the dogs also brings routine back into their lives. These are the things we don't consider when we think about the importance of service dogs, and I think that is such an excellent reminder.

Another thing that they're trained on is to suppress hypervigilance. This is very, very important for PTSD sufferers. "Hypervigilance creates constant tension and paranoia. Individuals often require more personal space than the average individual. The dogs are trained to create a physical barrier that keeps the public at a comfortable distance." This is also extremely important to allow them to integrate themselves back into life.

The final one is to provide reality affirmation and redirection. The dogs are trained to recognize the individual's anxious behaviour, physical behaviour, and redirect them to more positive activities — petting the dog, for example. Experiencing nightmares or flashbacks — "the dogs can provide vitally important reality affirmation with their persistent nudges and calm disposition. Often the fact that the dog is not reacting allows the individual to feel safe in their environment."

During the last Wounded Warrior Run last month, I was very lucky to meet a gentleman named Tyson, who had done a tour of duty overseas, and his service dog named Cully. I asked Tyson what the role of Cully was. He said that some of the things that trigger him are caused by his experience of walking over grassy fields filled with land mines. Anytime he got to a grassy field, a park, with his family, that would always trigger him to react.

With Tyson, I noticed that as we got into an area that might trigger him, Cully would put his paws up on Tyson's chest and distract him, or he would notice the noise levels around Tyson and start nudging him with his nose.

I saw it in action. I think that as we look at a bill like this, it's really important to consider that there are going to be more and more service dogs needed — and the more we understand how vitally important they are for a lot of our first responders.

I'm supporting this bill. Just one cautionary note I have is that I really do hope that the consultation has been extensive and that we haven't left anybody out of this conversation. I know up in rural B.C. it's very difficult to get accreditation for these dogs. Just because of that — if it's an expense, if it's something about living in a remote community — it would be very important to have some sort of stipulation that allows for exceptions, I think.

Other than that, I support this bill.

S. Hamilton: I'm very, very pleased to stand up here, and very proud to stand up here, and speak to this bill.
[ Page 6820 ]

[1820]

I note the member for Nanaimo made reference to the fact the bill was first introduced in 2010. I, of course, became an MLA in this House in 2013. When I first became involved in this, it was something that I wanted to advance as quickly as possible, because it is changing the lives of people in my community and throughout the province. It's a very, very important piece of legislation. Again, I'm extremely pleased to be standing here and speaking to it.

It was mentioned a little earlier by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who himself is a veterinarian and has contributed much of his time and effort on his own dime to help provide services in support of service dogs and guide dogs, that without volunteers, we could never accomplish what we do.

It's estimated some $40,000 in two years is what it takes to shepherd a dog — pardon the pun — through a program to actually have a fully trained, well-certified dog to help change the life of an individual. Veterinarians, food, volunteer labour, professional labour in the form of mobility trainers, and of course follow-up — all of this goes towards helping a dog achieve its ultimate goal and, again, change the life of people in this province.

Following an extensive review and stakeholder consultation, our government is proud to be modernizing B.C. guide and service dog legislation. Guide and service dogs provide a true lifeline for many British Columbians. Their support allows their handlers to live fully integrated lives despite the challenges they may face.

Service dogs are routinely used to help people with various disabilities who are not able to perform certain actions in their daily routine. For example, service dogs aid those with issues such as severe hearing loss, epilepsy, autism and diabetes, as was mentioned before. These changes will ensure that people who use guide or service dogs to perform critical daily tasks or services have improved access — access to restaurants, access to transit vehicles and any place to which the public is invited.

New high training standards for guide and service dogs will be put into place to strengthen public safety. There will be new requirements around visible identification to make it clear to business owners, landlords and transit staff that a dog accompanying someone is fully certified.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

The changes will also provide clarity around tenancy rights to ensure individuals with guide and service dogs, including retired dogs, are not being prevented from keeping them in their residence. The legislation delivers on a commitment made in Accessibility 2024, a ten-year action plan to make B.C. the most progressive province in Canada for people with disabilities.

It's also important to note that all new guide and service dogs be trained by a facility accredited by Assistance Guide Dogs International or the International Guide Dog Federation, the two internationally recognized training standards. Dogs that may come from other provinces or countries without certification or dogs that have since been trained through non-accredited schools will have an opportunity be certified through a successful assessment by a designated third party, given they can demonstrate that they are trained to the required standards.

New requirements around visible identification will make it clear to business owners, landlords, transit staff that a dog accompanying someone is fully certified. A registrar will be appointed to oversee and administer certifications, ensuring a manageable streamlined process.

Dogs in training will be given public access rights previously unavailable. When accompanied by a certified trainer, they will be allowed to go into any public place where a fully certified dog can go, to give them a chance to get used to being in new and diverse environments before being fully responsible for their handler's safety.

Tenancy rights for guide and service dogs will also be updated so that landlords and strata-run complexes are aware that people have the right to keep their certified animal with them, regardless of bylaws restricting pets. Retired dogs and service dogs will also be privileged to these new housing rules. All dogs previously certified will continue to qualify for access under the act, as long as they continue to work as guide or service dogs.

Come fall, once the regulations are expected to take effect, dogs that may come from other provinces or countries without certification or dogs that have since been trained through non-accredited schools will have an opportunity to be certified through a successful assessment by a designated third party. I mentioned that earlier.

Assistance Dogs International and the International….

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member, noting the hour.

S. Hamilton: Noting the hour, Madame Speaker, I reserve my place to continue my remarks at the next sitting and adjourn debate.

S. Hamilton moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
[ Page 6821 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Bernier in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $38,633,000.

Hon. J. Rustad: First of all, welcome. It’s nice to be back doing estimates today. I think it’s a great opportunity to talk about the ministry and the various things we’re involved in.

With me today is Neilane Mayhew, who is my acting deputy minister; as well as Laurel Nash, who is an assistant deputy minister; Shauna Brouwer, who is also an ADM with the ministry; and Shane Berg, who is a regional executive director.

I want to start by recognizing we’re on the traditional territory of the Lekwungen people, which includes, of course, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

As we go through today, and possibly into tomorrow, the estimates, I’m sure we’ll have an opportunity to cover a wide range of topics. I thought I’d maybe just start by giving a little bit of an overview of really what has happened over the last year.

There have been quite a few achievements that have happened. You know, when I think about looking at the numbers and looking at the way that relationships have been building with the nations, it is quite significant. We are now close to 300 agreements that have been signed with First Nations that cover a wide range of things, whether that is strategic engagement agreements or whether that’s reconciliation framework agreements, whether that’s forest consultation revenue-sharing agreements or economic and community development agreements, pipeline benefit agreements, economic development agreements, etc.

So we have a lot of activity that’s been happening. In particular, we have a significant focus on moving forward with liquefied natural gas and the exciting once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that has presented itself to First Nations across the north. We’re also involved more than just on the economic side, on that side of relations.

We also have achieved a number of things along the social achievement lines. We also recognize that about 78 percent, statistically, across the country of First Nations people, of aboriginal people, do not live on reserves. So we’re involved with a number of things. For example, I signed a protocol with the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres to further support skills and training employment opportunities for First Nations. The protocol supports, of course, the work that we’re doing with the off-reserve aboriginal action plan.

I also have an advisory council called Minister’s Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women, or MACAW, as we call it. We’re quite involved with them. Last year we signed a memorandum of understanding with them around ending violence. We’ve been working through, on Giving Voice, some recommendations that MACAW had brought forward and that we’re trying to give some life. Of course, the members of MACAW travelled with me just recently out to Ottawa for the round-table discussion that happened on the missing and murdered women.

There’s no question, when you think about this past year, there was one significant event that, I guess, changes a little bit our thinking and what we need to be doing in terms of how we work our relationships with First Nations. That is the Supreme Court decision around the Tsilhqot’in, or the Tsilhqot’in decision, as I’ll refer to it.

It’s a very important landmark decision for First Nations. It was a first in Canada to actually designate aboriginal title land. We’ve worked very closely with the Tsilhqot’in Nation since that time. We were on opposite sides of the court case and, of course, fighting it out for practically 31, 32 years — 25 years of that in court. We are now trying to work together as partners, working on how we bring life to that decision and how we seek long-term reconciliation between the Tsilhqot’in people and the province — and reaching out as well to the federal government, to try and have them involved in ultimately reaching the long-term reconciliation that we’re hoping for.

[1450]

I guess I’ll just close, since this is estimates and about budget and the budget process. Of course, we’ve seen a budget increase, by about $4.6 million, into our 2015-16 budget. That’s a reflection of the fact that there are a lot of things that we need to be thinking about in terms of the relationship, a lot of work that’s been done, whether it is things like the All Chiefs meeting — where for the first time in B.C.’s history we had over 400 aboriginal leaders from around the province come and gather with our entire cabinet and all of our deputies and have a discussion about relations and about where we should be going — through to how we work on things like clean energy and moving forward, of course, with the rest of our negotiations, especially around things like treaty.

We’re very focused on moving forward the tables that we have in our treaty negotiations. We have a number of agreements-in-principle that are out, offered to nations, right now. They are going through that process. I’m hoping that in the very near future we will see some opportunities to go through the ratification process and see them move forward.
[ Page 6822 ]

We’re working, as well, with First Nations that already have agreements-in-principle, working through the process, talking about the next steps moving forward, continuing on with the negotiations. What I’m hearing from them is they want to accelerate. They want to be able to go faster than what we had been doing under the treaty process, and that’s encouraging.

When you look at the success that you see with nations like Tsawwassen or Maa-nulth or what’s happening under the Nisga’a with their treaty…. We’re looking forward, of course, to Tla’amin and Yale and the full implementation of their treaties. You can see they’re excited about their future, and they’ve really grasped, taken hold, and are laying out a path that can lead to prosperity for their people and, quite frankly, for the province.

We’ve got a number of nations — K’ómoks and In-SHUCK-ch — that are at final agreement. We’re trying to get them now through to the stage where we can move forward seeing it ratified. I’m hopeful that we’ll continue with advancement on that.

While we’re looking at these, we are still moving forward with things like incremental treaty agreements. For example, last year we signed a new one with the Lower Kootenay band. We’ve signed one with Lake Babine Nation. We’re going to continue to explore those ways, because we recognize that treaty does take time. We’re dedicated to moving that process forward, but we want to be able to see benefits flowing to nations that can really change things and make a difference.

With that, perhaps I’ll just wrap up my comments and look forward to our time here today in estimates.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister, and thanks to the staff for being here today. I’m sure it’s your favourite day.

I’d like to recognize the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations also, and also recognize that the minister has a larger moosehide than I do. I do want to acknowledge the great work of, certainly, the Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres and the work they’ve done to deal with violence against women. I think it’s a great…. It’s more than a symbolic thing. It’s taking off across the country, as the minister knows, and it’s wonderful that that’s a bipartisan, non-partisan issue in this place too. So a good step in the right direction.

I’m interested in…. I’m thinking I will begin where the minister left off, with some of the issues around the First Nations Leadership Council meeting with the cabinet last September. The minister cited that earlier.

I note that there were four premises that the First Nations Leadership Council put forward, the four resolutions: to “acknowledge that our relationships are based on recognition and implementation of the existence of indigenous peoples’ inherent title and rights and pre-Confederation historic and modern treaties throughout British Columbia.” Number 2 was acknowledgment that “indigenous systems of governance and laws are essential to the regulation of lands and resources throughout British Columbia.” Number 3: acknowledgment of “the mutual responsibility that all of our government systems shall shift to relationships, negotiations and agreements based on recognition.” Finally, 4: “we immediately must move to consent-based decision-making and title-based fiscal relationships, including revenue-sharing, in our relationships, negotiations and agreements.”

[1455]

Now, there’s a lot there, and I don’t mean to have this drag on forever, but can the minister just apprise whether or not there’s been progress made on those conditions that were laid out at that summit meeting?

Hon. J. Rustad: Having the opportunity to be at that meeting back last September with all the First Nations leaders from around the province really was quite unique. It was unique to hear the conversations, to be part of some of the side discussions, to hear the tone of that. I believe there is a real desire from First Nations to want to work towards long-term reconciliation.

Of course, that is something that we’re very focused on in the work that we’re doing. The First Nations Leadership Council has brought forward the four principles and the concepts around that. I think there is common ground between First Nations and the province on some of the concepts underlying those four principles. We remain committed to working with the nations, to working through towards long-term reconciliation both within the treaty process and outside the treaty process, depending on what nations would like to do.

S. Fraser: I’m not sure I’m happy entirely with the minister’s answer, although I do, certainly, acknowledge that it’s a mosaic of negotiations in this province. Certainly, there’s the First Nations Summit representing the treaty nations and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs representing not all but most of the non-treaty nations — two different directions to go, and I get that. It is complicated, and it is complex, and we need to respect both paths. I think the minister will agree with me on that.

But it was September that that meeting happened, that the resolutions were put forward to government. Let us quote from…. This was a statement from the UBCIC and the First Nations Leadership Council, a joint statement that said: “B.C. Government and First Nations Leaders Look to Uncertain Future of Reconciliation.” That was just following the meeting on September 11. The statement was:

“The First Nations Leadership Council is disappointed that the province declined to commit today on these key foundations for moving forward, recognizing this is our first political meeting on these fundamental political and legal questions. This work is too important to delay, and the First Nations Leadership Council and First Nations in B.C. await and look forward to a timely response regarding the foundation of our work together.”
[ Page 6823 ]

I would note that that was last September. We’re over half a year in now, and the minister didn’t have any real progress on those.

This is post-Tsilhqot’in . I know there’s progress made with the Tsilhqot’in on their work in self-governance, and I very much approve. But again, can the minister show any type of progress made on these premises? Will this be something that is addressed in a fulsome way at the next meeting?

[1500]

Presumably, there’ll be another summit that will happen between the First Nations leaders and chiefs and the government with the cabinet and the Premier. If he could just inform about the timeline on that, and are we expecting some substance then on these four premises?

Hon. J. Rustad: I think it’s important to note, when you think about the first-ever of the All Chiefs meeting and the gathering of leaders from around the province, that the four principles that were laid out by the leadership council were actually just tabled with us at that meeting. It put us in a very difficult position. We’ve got to look at it, absorb and think about it, obviously.

When we looked at it, at the principle from those things, there are certainly the underlying concepts that we think we can work with First Nations on. As a matter of fact, in many of the agreements that we’re doing around the province, concepts of shared decision-making and these types of things are part of those negotiations that we have with the various tables.

Specifically to your question around what comes next in terms of a future meeting, we are planning to have another All Chiefs meeting. We haven’t set a date for that yet. We plan, certainly, to work with First Nations around the province to bring forward an agenda that can work for them and can further the relationships that we have between the province and First Nations — and, potentially, even the federal government.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

During that meeting the minister points out that cabinet had not been aware of the specifics of the four conditions or resolutions from the leadership council, from the chiefs. Of course, I wasn’t at the meeting. Did the government come with a position or positions that were presented to the chiefs as a quid pro quo, if you will?

Hon. J. Rustad: We believe strongly that when you’re working with First Nations, it’s very important to try to work in partnership and to try to work collaboratively. Historically, governments have gone to First Nations with: “Hey, we have a great idea; let’s do this” or “Hey, we’re planning to do that” or, in some cases, “Live with it; we’re going to be doing this.” That’s in terms of stuff that happened, obviously, many, many decades ago. We don’t want to take those kinds of approaches.

We actually want to be able to try to sit down, and we can bring some ideas forward. But ultimately, we want to sit down and figure out how we do this collaboratively. We’re talking about working with nations to reach reconciliation. We’re talking about working with nations to help build a future for First Nations and non–First Nations alike. How do we do things on the land base that are respectful of culture and heritage, that are respectful of the environment yet, at the same time, have the opportunity to be able to engage in the economy and create economic potential for First Nations?

[1505]

You have to do all of these things by trying to work together. That’s what a lot of our agreements have been about that we’ve signed over the past couple of years. It’s all about how we do the engagement, how we try to be respectful of one another, how we try to build some trust, which is a very difficult thing to do, as you can imagine, after decades and decades and decades of different types of directions.

How do you start to build that so that you can trust one another and actually be able to work together more effectively on things in the land base? We believe very strongly in a collaborative approach, which is why, when we went to the All Chiefs meeting, we did not come forward with a pre-set concept or statement — something that we wanted to work with the First Nations on in terms of what the meeting was, what we were able to achieve at it and the directions that we wanted to move forward on.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I don’t want to relive question period. I know that the minister probably doesn’t want me to either. I mean, your statements about working closely with First Nations….

Here you’ve got the First Nations Summit. They certainly feel blindsided. I know that the minister has seen the letter from the First Nations Summit responding to this last-minute pull of the treaty commissioner, George Abbott, that was done completely without warning or any consultation. There was an understanding made. The summit moved forward based on that understanding, and this was done with no consultation.

Not only was there a failure of government in that regard, but there was a change of direction further to that — not just with the pulling of the appointment of the commissioner, who was agreed to by all three parties, but also, statements made that you’re going to look at the whole process and that’s why you’ve made the decision to not have George Abbott be the treaty commissioner.

Obviously, wholesale changes, big changes, for the minister and the government to change course in the appointment of a respected chief-commissioner-to-be. What wholesale changes is the minister contemplating that are to be made in the treaty process that the B.C. summit nations are unaware of, which would have led to that decision?
[ Page 6824 ]

Hon. J. Rustad: Not to repeat the episode of question period, but obviously this is an important question. It’s an important issue, as we’re working with First Nations and talking about building trust and building relations.

Part of the decision and the process that we went through to not appoint Mr. Abbott — or not to move forward our OIC, or order-in-council, for Mr. Abbott — was that we actually notified both the summit and the federal government of our intention. We sat down immediately afterwards. I just happened to be in Prince George, and the three leaders of the summit were in Prince George. I sat down and talked with them about this. We talked about what that decision meant and reaffirmed our commitment in terms of treaty.

[1510]

As I mentioned, we’re not going to be going to the principals with a preconceived notion, but we are going to go to the principals with this. It’s been 22 years and close to or in the vicinity of $640 million, and we have four modern-day treaties covering eight nations. I don’t think it’s fair, to aboriginal or non-aboriginal people alike, to say that you have to wait another generation to maybe get another handful of treaties through a process.

We need to be thinking about how we can advance this much quicker so that…. When you look at the successes of Tsawwassen and the excitement of the First Nations in what they’re doing; or Maa-nulth and how they’re shaping their future; or what Nisga’a is doing — even though it wasn’t negotiated through the treaty process, it is a nation with a treaty — and how they’re building their future; and when you look at Tla’amin and Yale and the things that they want to do, that’s great.

I mean, it is absolutely phenomenal. It’s exciting for them. It’s exciting for non-aboriginal people. It will play a huge part in how long-term reconciliation for those areas will change.

We have 203 nations in the province. We have a process that takes too long, and it’s very expensive. We need to find ways to think about accelerating that. We want to work with the principals around that.

We’ve had tremendous success with the non-treaty agreements and the process that we’re doing there — building the relationship and building what we’re doing there. We’ve had some pretty good success, even with incremental treaty agreements, which are not part of the formal treaty process, although they get incorporated in as part of the final land and cash component when nations get to that.

We have to look at what is working and what isn’t. We have to sit down with the principals and talk about what we can do so that more nations can be successful going through a process and being able to achieve the kind of results that we’re seeing with the nations that are in treaties.

S. Fraser: I don’t disagree with most or all of what the minister says. All of those tools in the toolbox for dealing with reconciliation….

Some of them deal with portion, deal with financial arrangements, with resource use. Some of them deal with incremental, as a bridge towards treaty — a treaty being the ultimate end-game because it deals with governance issues that are not dealt with in some of those other things.

Not getting away from the issue, this decision that was just made to un-appoint the appointed chief commissioner — maybe the minister can explain this to me. If the ministry is vaguely thinking of looking at the treaty process because it’s taking too long, well, we all know that. I mean, it was part of platform stuff in the last election.

How will having no chief treaty commissioner aid in that way? Or was there something wrong with George Abbott? Was he entrenched so much that he wouldn’t be able to address any new direction, should that be the wish of government, whether they do it unilaterally and try to push it through or whether it happens in cooperation, actual discussions with the summit?

[1515]

Hon. J. Rustad: I want to start as I did in the House earlier today by thanking George for the work that he has done over the years. He served in cabinet roles. He served as an MLA. He served in local governments, as well, for a long period of time and continues to work through things. He is very passionate about this, so I want to recognize Mr. Abbott for the work that he has done in the past.

Having said that, the process of appointing a chief commissioner is one where the three parties — the leaders of the summit with the province and the federal government — sit down and create a shortlist of people and try to come forward with a name that they can build consensus around, and it’s always contingent upon receiving support at the three levels. There has actually been a case in the past where there was an individual that was put forward that was not confirmed before the appointment was actually made.

Our goal in this is to work with the principals, to work with the summit and the federal government to talk about this very important topic of treaty — of reaching long-term reconciliation, some of the challenges that are part of it and the way that we should think about going forward. That’s not going to be a quick or easy conversation, but I think it’s an important conversation to have, and there are provisions within the framework to actually appoint somebody on an interim basis amongst the four already appointed commissioners: the federal, the provincial and the two from the summit.

Having said that, we will have this discussion with the summit and with the federal government and talk about what they’d like to see. Ultimately, we’ll make some decisions as to the best way to move forward from there.

I should add one thing in particular, because I think the member asked this — both in the House and made reference to it here as well. As we came into the fall, we
[ Page 6825 ]
were looking at moving forward. It was in my mandate letter, in terms of appointing a B.C. treaty commissioner. We were looking forward to moving that forward and then, over time, have a conversation.

Our thinking has changed, really, over the last six months around the need to look at the process. I think everybody — whether it’s First Nations or the summit or the Treaty Commission, certainly the province and the federal government — would like to see things being able to move a little bit faster.

You know what? The timing is appropriate to be able to start that conversation and say: “Okay. How do we take this and go forward? How do we make sure that we still have the commitment from the federal government and that the First Nations are still committed as part of it — the province still needs to be committed as part of it — and look at this process and build upon the successes and find a better way of being able to achieve the outcomes?”

S. Fraser: I’ve never said to the minister…. I have never said anything about the process. My question is about Mr. Abbott.

The minister alluded to the process. I only get it secondhand, but my understanding of the…. The deal of getting a new chief commissioner is a big deal for all three parties. There has to be…. The process in place, as I understand it, is that each party, each of the three principals, puts their names forward for the position just of chief commissioner. There’s a different process for individual commissioners. But for the chief commissioner, who actually will be steering the whole treaty process in the province…. I’m assuming a very close relationship with the minister — with Sophie Pierre in this case, and then it would be George Abbott.

[1520]

In changing the process, are we not going to have a chief commissioner? I just got information that we do have an interim commissioner now, and I know Celeste. I just found that out while I was in here, so things are moving quickly. The process to get the person in place and have the transition happen adequately, which is a big job for George Abbott, began last year, a long time ago. Each of the parties needed to put together….

My understanding is that the summit had put together a fairly lengthy list — a dozen people, probably, on it. I’m not sure what happens internally with the provincial and federal governments, but they have their list. Then they have to bring that down to a shorter list. This takes time. Certainly with the summit, it involves meetings with a lot of chiefs, and they have to arrive at some sort of unanimity on this. Then those shortlisted names are put forward, and the name that came out on top in that process was George Abbott.

Then that led to last September. I don’t know if it was before or after the summit on the 11th, but you, as minister, offered the position to George Abbott, presumably as a representative of the Crown, provincially, and then everyone moved….

The next step: with that in mind, in good faith, the summit goes back. They consult with their chiefs. They get authorization. They get a formal resolution saying that they support George Abbott as the chosen new chief commissioner.

Then what should follow is an order-in-council from the government to make that appointment for real. Then the feds have to do an order-in-council that would follow, too, because they’re largely responsible for the money end of it. I guess they’re responsible there for the funding of those positions.

This is a lengthy thing. What I’m getting at is that half a year plus down the road, there’s a meeting, apparently, at cabinet, and the whole thing is scuttled.

This is not about changing the direction of the treaty process or relooking at the treaty process. This is about taking away a position that was given on good faith to somebody, and everyone else reacted to it. The government, this provincial government, is now changing all that. Why?

Hon. J. Rustad: Just for everybody who is listening and playing along at home through the process — breaking news on this. The B.C. treaty commissioner has appointed Celeste Haldane as the interim chief commissioner. Celeste, of course, has worked in that position for a number of years, not as interim but as one of the commissioners that was appointed by the summit. She has been part of all the transition talks and the process. She’s intimate with what is going on, and I think she’ll provide some very good continuity for the office as we go out and have these discussions.

The process going forward.… I want to just relate something that the summit actually just told to me this week, because I didn’t realize this. Historically, when there was a name that was put forward, they took it forward, and even though everybody had agreed on it, the chiefs at the summit, not the three leaders of the summit but the overall chiefs, actually voted a person down and changed and caused the process to have to go back and start over again.

That’s fine. That’s their prerogative. The chiefs had made that decision. But it’s interesting. The summit actually changed the way they do this now so that that sort of situation won’t happen again in the future.

Having said that, the process that we went through and the conditions by which we considered having Mr. Abbott come forward through the process, to go through the various approvals…. Things have changed on the ground for us as a province. We look at this, and we’ve gone from the thinking that, “Yes, we need to think about what treaty may look like, and maybe we’ll have the conversation and it’ll be a lengthy process” to one where we need to be thinking about First Nations today.
[ Page 6826 ]

I think it’s almost three-quarters of the nations that are not in the treaty process. You only have a quarter of the nations in the province that are actually part of this process. Why are the other nations not part of the process? Well, it’s too long. It’s frustrating. It’s mandates. It’s the negotiation process. There’s a whole wide range for that.

[1525]

Even for the nations that are in the process, there are many frustrations that are brought forward around those same issues. The question is: for a process that has gone on for 22 years, that has invested $640 million, can we do this better? When is the right time to have that conversation? We believe that the right time to have the conversation with the principals is a time when…. We’re now in a period of transition where we have an opportunity to really step back and say: “Okay, how do we make the types of successes that we’ve seen outside of treaty or supplemental to treaty, like incremental treaty agreements…?” How do we make those kinds of processes, which can be done quite quick, in relative terms, with nations and can see immediate benefits…? How do we think about that as part of treaty?

Is that something we’d want to do — as opposed to a process where nations will go 22 years, and they’re still in the process of going forward, going into debt, creating challenges about how the process moves forward? It’s time to look at this process and find something — my hope is — that can be reflective of the successes we’ve seen but in a position that is revitalized and in a much shorter time frame.

Now, we plan to do this with our partners. We’re going to make our arguments that we do need to think about changes, that we want to work together as to what that can look like and what the process will be. But the time is now. The conditions, between when George came through that process back in September, October, are different from today. We’ve gone through and put a lot of thinking around this now since the Tsilhqot’in case, and we came to the conclusion that we need to start that conversation right away. We want to look at this process with our partners and move it forward to be successful for many more nations than what we have today.

S. Fraser: I’m curious: what has changed? What has changed on the ground? I mean, the Tsilhqot’in decision had already been reached, and the summit with the chiefs had already happened. Then the minister offered the job to an individual who, I guess, on reflection of it and looking at his personal life, took it. Then it went through the processes. Then less than two weeks before he’s to take over the job, he’s in the process in Prince George of learning, in the transition process, and now it’s all gone.

Again, what does that have to do with…? There should always be change, and I’ve always…. If the minister wants to look back at Hansard, because there’s been a lot of ministers before him…. The treaty process, in my humble opinion, was never designed to be etched in stone. It was a new thing. It was 22 years ago. It’s never evolved. It’s never been given a new mandate or had its mandate evolve based on court decisions, based on declarations like the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. It’s been static in the last 14 years. It’s never changed.

The biggest change that happened in the province and in the country with First Nations has been the Tsilhqot’in decision, arguably. That had already occurred. You had already offered the job to somebody. What changed? Thinking that you were going to think about changing something, what changed to take away a position that was agreed upon by the other two parties as far as who is going to be the commissioner?

The Chair: Member, I do need to interject here, just for a second. Just a reminder. We are on Vote 11, which is of the estimates and the budget of this ministry. We need to make sure that your questions are relevant to that.

S. Fraser: Thank you, Chair. To the minister: what is the budget for ’15-16 on the funding towards treaty and related agreements? And what percentage is that of the budget of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation?

[1530]

[J. Martin in the chair.]

Hon. J. Rustad: Through the various envelopes that we have, we have the “B.C. treaty and other agreements” envelope that has $43.091 million that has been allocated towards that. That’s up about $637,000 over the previous year. Directly to the B.C. Treaty Commission office last year was $1 million for their operation and $3 million towards negotiation, or a total of $4 million. The request that has come in this year from the B.C. Treaty office is for $4.1 million. We are in the process of indicating to them what our commitment will be, but I suspect it’ll be similar to that of last year.

The Chair: Member.

S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, welcome to the proceedings.

Just for clarification, that $4.1 million — that’s a request from the B.C. Treaty Commission? This is their amount for this fiscal? That’s the full amount? And is a portion…? The minister is nodding yes. Does that…?

Hon. J. Rustad: Sorry, no. That’s B.C.’s amount. There’s the federal government on top of it.

S. Fraser: Okay, for those that are watching this event, perhaps the minister could divide that into where the federal contribution might be or if that includes a fed-
[ Page 6827 ]
eral contribution. As we discussed earlier, those members of the Treaty Commission, including the chief treaty commissioner, are, I believe, funded through the federal government. I’m getting a nod of no. Maybe I could get clarification on them.

[1535]

Hon. J. Rustad: If I understand correctly the question that you’ve asked, and I’ll make sure…. Hopefully the information lines up. The B.C. Treaty Commission’s operating budget. The province provides 40 percent of their operating budget, and the federal government provides 60 percent of their operating budget. In the previous year the operating budget portion of what we had provided was $1 million, and I think the federal budget was around $1.6 or thereabouts. I don’t have the exact number in terms of the split, but that’s ballpark to show what the operating budget of the office of the B.C. Treaty Commission is.

They’ve requested funding coming forward for this next year in a similar range. We’re working through it and anticipate that likely it’ll be funding in a similar range.

S. Fraser: For clarification, the ask for $4.1 million for the Treaty Commission and its role…. It’s still the body that is largely responsible for moving us towards, hopefully, fulfilling treaty. We’ve got a couple in the hopper that are in final stage, you mentioned. The amount — is that a static amount? I note that the treaty and other agreement funding is only budgeted to increase, by my calculation, about 2 percent, which is basically a flat line.

Can the minister explain, first of all, why there’s been really no increase? And I’ll lead to the next part of the question just so I don’t sort of trap you here. In the service plan the ministry has exceeded its targets for revenue-sharing agreements and forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements. The ministry has failed to meet its targets for the number of treaties and related agreements completed and for the number of strategic agreements completed.

Failure to increase the funding for this — isn’t that going to continue the status quo? We’re already failing in that regard.

Hon. J. Rustad: The operating budget of the B.C. Treaty Commission basically has not changed, in terms of the request, from what we provided last year, our share. We’re anticipating that we’ll be able to be in the same range. The B.C. treaties and other agreements envelope actually increased by about $1.48 million. However, that is also offset by an $843,000 increase in projected revenue recoveries, which leaves a net increase of $637,000 to that budget. I hope that answers your question.

S. Fraser: My question to the minister is, given that the failure to achieve the ministry’s goal…. The ministry had targeted to complete seven agreements that support strategic engagements with First Nations, including reconciliation agreements and strategic engagement agreements, but only managed to complete four. This is last year. So we’re at just over half of what the target was.

I guess the 2 percent increase this year — that’s the $43.091 million that’s in this budget. So the budget has pretty much flatlined. Do you have sufficient funding from treasury to meet your targets? We weren’t able to meet them last year.

[1540]

Hon. J. Rustad: You know, the treaty process is quite convoluted and complex — the reason why we need to be having this conversation. When you think about when we set our aspirational targets to try to meet, there are far more things than money that determine whether or not we’re in a position to be able to move forward with those targets. We have the federal government. There’s a process in terms of how the mandates and things can get approved through that.

When it comes to the money, we have an uplift in that budget for this year. However, if there is an opportunity that we can pursue and that we’re making great progress on with a nation, we do have an ability to go back and potentially ask for a change, one time, from Treasury Board to be able to do that. But I have to stress that this isn’t just about money.

There are a lot of factors at play as to how things can progress through negotiations, through the mandates that get done. Those are actually two of the issues that have been raised by the First Nations Summit about the treaty process. It’s something that we’re interested in, in having that discussion with our partners on: once again, how do we find ways to accelerate this?

S. Fraser: I realize it’s not just the monetary end of it, and I do realize it is complicated, and it’s hard to set timelines for these sorts of things. Negotiations can move at a glacial pace. I recognize that too. Obviously, that does call for a serious relook at the process.

I might be going back a step here, but we do not have a chief commissioner in that process. We have an interim commissioner. Sophie Pierre has done a great job. She did two terms, six years in total. It’s a big job. Being the chief commissioner is huge. This was the better part of a year process to get to the point where we were about to have a new commissioner walk in and have a proper transition for that. How much are we going to be set back, then, I guess — the same amount of time or longer? It’s taken a long time to come up with a new chief commissioner.

I’ve certainly read the response to this on the Treaty Commission website from the chief commissioner, Sophie Pierre. She is not happy with this decision. She was not consulted on the decision not to have George Abbott move into that position. Without a chief treaty
[ Page 6828 ]
commissioner in place, it’s back to square one — worse than back to square one, I would submit. We have a situation where the rug was pulled out from the First Nations Summit. They had agreement, in a part of a tripartite system, and the province just walked away from it in the last couple of weeks, after months and months and months.

What is that going to cost? How much of a setback is that to the treaty process? How long will it take to kick-start that again and go through the whole process again? Regardless of…. I’m not sure of the process for appointing an interim chief commissioner. Maybe the minister can allude to how that goes.

[1545]

Certainly, there hasn’t been time for all three parties…. They’re going to have to go through this whole process again. Then along with that, I’m presuming that the minister, since this sudden change — the rug was pulled out, and the summit was blindsided on this decision to pull their support from the chosen chief commissioner, in his discussions with Sophie Pierre, the current commissioner…. How will that transition happen between Sophie Pierre and somebody new that might be there six months, 12 months from now?

Hon. J. Rustad: Once again, Sophie Pierre, has done a great job and has gone well beyond the time for appointment, because she believes so strongly in the treaty process and she wants to make sure that there is continuity and that things move forward. I want to say thank you to Sophie in terms of the work that she has done.

Celeste, who’s now been appointed by the four commissioners that are in place to be able to carry forward with the work, has been there. She’s been around the table for a number of years now, and I have confidence that she’ll be able to do a good job on an interim basis.

We do not anticipate that the change here and the transition will have any significant impact on the BCTC’s operating budget. To the question about the process going forward, we don’t know what sort of time will be required, but it’s something that we’ll be engaging with the principals on in terms of that process. But like I say, it’s part of the conversation about what we need to be thinking about.

The process in the past was that each of the parties brought forward a list of individuals. That was then compiled to a shortlist, which then went forward for discussion. If we were in a position where the principals…. I probably should never do a what-if scenario, so maybe I shouldn’t even go down this road. But there is a shortlist that’s in place. If we, as principals, decide on a direction in terms of the future treaty and process, we might be able to do something that could be expedited.

Having said that, though, the discussion around the future treaty I think is a very important discussion, and I look forward to the engagement that we’ll have as soon as possible with the summit and the federal government, our principals of this process.

S. Fraser: It may be able to be expedited, I suppose, because it is important. The chief commissioner’s role must be…. It is key to the treaty process, whether the treaty process is amended or changes, certainly. But if, as the minister said, he was looking to expedite the whole treaty process…. It’s costing a lot of money. There is no question about that. Having no chief commissioner in place for any period of time is, arguably, a problem.

Since we both were referring to our respect for Sophie Pierre, this is how she responded to this sudden decision.

“‘This retraction of the chief commissioner selection after months of agreement, expectation and reliance by other parties raises questions about B.C.’s commitment to the treaty negotiating process.’”

She further went on:

“‘I stayed on for another three years to give the principals the opportunity to make this important tripartite appointment, and to pull this away at the 11th hour questions the commitment of B.C. This is not how to effect reconciliation,’ says Sophie Pierre.”

Without that transition that Sophie Pierre stayed in place for three years to effect…. Without that in place and now with the history of the province without any real explanations….

[1550]

There’s been no explanation yet as to why this happened. I mean, it’s one thing to pull out many, many months ago, but in the last couple of weeks, how does that affect the ability of the minister to work in good faith with the summit or with the Treaty Commission themselves?

This is the commissioner who is still in place, and she’s saying that this was setting back the process, arguably, three years. She stayed on for three years to help transition, to get somebody that was qualified and could take over the job. We’ve lost, potentially, that three years, and there’s been no explanation.

Does the minister support the withdrawal of George Abbott in the chosen role of chief treaty commissioner?

Hon. J. Rustad: Sophie Pierre has put a lot of years and a lot of effort and lot of her heart and soul into the B.C. Treaty Commission process, and for that I want to thank her.

I want to highlight some of the things that we have done, really, over the last three years through the treaty process, because it’s important to recognize the momentum that has been built with the nations through this process and the fact that those nations are excited about building their future and that we are excited about continuing to work with them, both through this process and through other things.

Over the last three years we have seen the implementation of Maa-nulth. I believe it was just a few years ago now. We have seen the signing, ratification, the moving of the legislation of Tla’amin and Yale, both of which have
[ Page 6829 ]
implementation dates in 2016 — the full implementation date of that. We have continued our discussions and are close to getting to final agreements with K’ómoks and In-SHUCK-ch.

In the past two years alone we have signed 18 incremental agreements treaty agreements with 22 nations. One I had an opportunity to speak about today in the House — the Lower Kootenay band, part of the Ktunaxa Nation. The fact that this has actually returned them to the lake is an enormous step for them as a nation, for them as a people — now being able to be returned back to the lake and have access to the lake.

This kind of momentum will not be lost. This is momentum that is building towards longer-term reconciliation and agreements. We have agreement-in-principle offers that are now out with a number of nations. Those discussions are going well. We’re anticipating that we will have some announcements around those in the very near future, because of, once again, this momentum.

The change that we’re seeing here in this discussion does not take away from the province’s commitment to move forward with those nations, with the work that they are doing. It does not take away from our ability to be able to advance those discussions and continue to move those tables forward.

[1555]

Our hope is, through this process, that we will be able to work with the principals to look at how we can actually take this and even go faster, accelerate what we’re doing, build upon these successes that we’re having with these nations and be able to hopefully even make it of broader appeal to more than just one quarter of the nations that are out in the province.

Under Sophie’s tutoring — her guidance, I should say — of the B.C. Treaty Commission process, we have been able to see some significant success. Some of that has actually happened outside of the work that the B.C. Treaty Commission office is doing. But we believe that the momentum that has built there is positive with the nations.

We recognize that some nations are wondering about the future, but I will reassure them, as I am reassuring you, that we are committed to working with those nations, to moving them forward through this process and to working with the principals to find ways to not only achieve the results that we’re seeing but to find a way, if we can, of accelerating it so that we are not another 22 years before we see significant numbers of nations that will be able to achieve the success we have seen for the other nations that are currently already in treaty.

S. Fraser: I won’t belabour this much longer, but we have a term, in less than a week, that’s up for the chief commissioner in the Treaty Commission process. We have no replacement. There’s a long timeline to get to it, and the existing commissioner has said that it could be a three-year timeline.

This happened with no notice, no consultation with the First Nations Summit, with any of the principals — a complete blindside. The minister was the one who called George Abbott and offered him the job. Right up until a week ago, that was what was happening.

I’ve got the agenda for the summit’s meeting. He was introduced as the next treaty commissioner. This was what was going to happen. So something happened. The minister didn’t allude that…. He never had any correspondence that I’m aware of with the summit before this happened, since he called George Abbott and asked him to take on the job, which he accepted in good faith. A resolution came out of that from the summit, in good faith, accepting it and a tacit, at least, acceptance by the federal government right up till just a few days ago, and now that’s gone.

Does the minister have the confidence of cabinet? This had to have been a decision that…. It confounds me. You made the call. You invited George Abbott for that position, with the backing of your cabinet, presumably, and the Premier, definitely. And he has been removed.

Were you overridden as minister? How can that happen? How can First Nations have confidence in you as minister if you take them right down the road to that very end and then blindside them? I’m not saying it’s your fault, but you’re ultimately responsible.

How can that happen when you’re the minister responsible and you’ve taken them that far? How can your cabinet not support you?

The Chair: Member, I’d ask you to direct through the Chair, please.

S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair.

I don’t mean this with any disrespect to you as minister, through you, hon. Chair, but the question I’ve had put to me on this process is: how do you embark on the process again, with the knowledge that the full support of the minister suddenly turns into dust and means nothing, less than nothing?

How much time did the members of the summit have to waste in this process? How much time did Sophie Pierre and those other commissioners in the Treaty Commission have to waste? How much money did that cost, was lost there?

[1600]

To do it all over again, with complete lack of faith now in the process…. Not personally but in the role of the minister, yes, there’s no confidence now from all of the letters I’ve seen from the summit — we’ve quoted some of the statements — and from the commissioner herself.

How does anyone have confidence that this process can proceed and that we can actually get another chief commissioner in good faith? How will it proceed? Does not the minister see the dilemma here?
[ Page 6830 ]

Hon. J. Rustad: The question that has been raised here has been asked and answered. It’s probably a question that is more appropriate for question period than it is through the estimates process for the budget.

Having said that, when I think about the relationship of the minister to First Nations, it is very important. It’s part of the overall process about building trust and moving forward with our ability to negotiate and have agreements.

I won’t take up the time here this afternoon to go through close to 150 agreements that have been signed since I have had the opportunity and the honour of being the minister responsible for aboriginal relations and reconciliation.

We have made significant progress with nations, far beyond anything that any government has done in the past, in a very short period of time. I have confidence, as we continue to work through and sign more agreements — as a matter of fact, we have a number this week that I’m hoping to have an opportunity to be able to sign — that that momentum will continue forward through this.

I am sure, in talking with a number of nations out there as well, that they are interested in seeing some changes to the treaty process. I think it’s an important discussion that we will be having with the principals, and it’s one that I think is critical to being able to see the types of accelerated agreements and approaches that the province has been taking reflected in a treaty process that can reach that longer-term reconciliation.

It’s important work for the nations. It’s important work for the province and for Canada. It’s important that we find ways to be respectful, to recognize nations, recognize our joint history but also recognize how we can build a future together.

Treaties are not a way, as it’s being described…. It’s a final agreement. Everybody goes off in their own directions. A treaty is a way of having an agreement that comes into place that’s more like a marriage. It’s about how we do things together going forward. How do we have those respectful relationships?

Like I say, I can go through the long list, if the member would like, around all the types of agreements that we have signed across the land base on a government-to-government side in building those relationships — all the things we have signed and done around treaties and incremental approaches.

That, I think, speaks volumes to the type of relationship the province has with the nations and the confidence that we’re able to move forward and the types of opportunities that nations are really looking for.

S. Fraser: There are a significant number of cases between First Nations and the province currently before the courts, and there’s a lot of money at play.

I don’t believe MARR has a budget for litigation. Can the minister confirm that? I couldn’t find it in the document.

[1605]

Hon. J. Rustad: I think it’s important to remember that my ministry is the Ministry of Relations and Reconciliation. We are all about engaging with First Nations in negotiations, working through our differences, whether it’s through dispute resolution mechanisms that we have in some of our agreements or through a variety of negotiations.

However, from time to time, there are cases and issues that come up that do go down a legal path, do go down into the court system. In terms of the budget and expenses — the various components associated with that — unfortunately, I’m going to have to recommend that the member discuss that with the Ministry of Justice.

S. Fraser: Did I hear the minister say there is no budget within MARR, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, for dealing with litigation? That’s in the Ministry of Justice?

Hon. J. Rustad: We do not have, within my ministry, a budget per se for litigation. Obviously, litigation is work that is taken through the Ministry of Justice.

However, from time to time we require legal services from the Ministry of Justice, and they provide that to us on a cost recovery basis. So we don’t have a budget that’s set aside for that. It’s something that is done on a case-by-case basis from time to time when it’s required.

S. Fraser: There are many cases — and I don’t have a list of them; maybe the minister doesn’t either — that have important implications, especially for resource development. When they happen, as the minister knows, that can shut down economic development, like Site C, LNG. You’ve got the Blueberry River First Nations versus the province of British Columbia, that breach of the treaty 8 due to industrial disturbances on traditional territories. You’ve got claims happening around the northern gateway pipeline, Coastal First Nations.

Does the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation play any role in trying to address the issues in court? Are you ever called? I don’t mean you, personally, as the minister. Do you have representatives from MARR that go to these things or advise on them?

Also, does the ministry play a role in trying to head them off at the pass, so to speak?

[1610]

Hon. J. Rustad: Obviously, like I say, from time to time you do have impasses. Our position in government is such that we prefer to negotiate rather than to litigate, so we explore all avenues possible in terms of working with nations in trying to find a path forward that doesn’t involve having to go into the court.

If you go down into the legal system and that whole side of things, it can take a lot of time. It can be very expensive. Sometimes you get an ambiguous result that
[ Page 6831 ]
doesn’t really solve the problem, and you’re back to square one. When you look at all the court cases that have come through, particularly the ones that have gone to the Supreme Court, they have all said that they would like to see these negotiated, not litigated. As we go forward with nations, of course, that’s the approach that we do take.

From time to time when litigation is started, we still engage with the nations around how we can try to resolve our differences and find paths forward. However, litigation does limit our ability, of course, because we can’t comment on things that are directly before the courts, once you get into that process.

From time to time when it does get into a court or into a legal situation, some of my staff may get involved in a case. But the Ministry of Justice is the primary driver of the litigation process in response to any litigation that’s started. They may draw some of our people in from time to time, depending on what the certain needs are with an individual case.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I’m glad to hear that there is some interplay between the ministries. Siloed approaches can happen. With all the best intentions, they still happen, and then you don’t necessarily get the full canopy of resources that can come from the ministry and other ministries. I appreciate that.

With the Tsilhqot’in decision, has that had a significant impact — I haven’t been able to find it anywhere in the budget per se — as far as changing things or making amendments to the way we do things, whether it’s in the treaty process or outside of the treaty process? I’m not referring to…. I know there’ve been changes with the Tsilhqot’in. I certainly met with Chief Joe Alphonse and Roger William and others affected.

The premise of the decision: the recognition of title. I don’t see anything that’s changed in the treaty process or outside of the treaty process from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I know there was the big September 11 meeting between the cabinet and the Premier and First Nations chiefs. That was the post Tsilhqot’in first step. But has the ministry not adopted anything to address the spirit and intent of that court decision, I guess? I just can’t see any line items. Changes cost money, and I can’t find that. Maybe it’s minutia that’s in there, but I can’t find it.

[1615]

Hon. J. Rustad: We’ve talked before about the Tsilhqot’in case — earlier here, about the significance of it. It is very significant. In terms of the ministry and our response on it, I think it’s worth noting…. I don’t know if I really touched on this too much in my opening comments, but we have seen an increase of $4.6 million or about 5.6 percent in my budget, year over year, from last year. That is to help facilitate engagement with First Nations to achieve reconciliation, advancements with treaty, support for economic development opportunities and, also, to review the current tools and approaches that we have with our agreements in the light of the Tsilhqot’in decision.

Ultimately, we are looking at new ways to come together, to work together, between the province and First Nations. That is actually one of the other reasons why the B.C. treaty process needs to have this discussion. We need to work with the principals, thinking about the reflection of some of the changes that have happened on the landscape.

As a government, we have committed the additional resources. We are committing in the discussions and directly with the Tsilhqot’in people themselves, for example. I mean, we have advanced dramatically in our relationship from where we were, fighting each other in the court and having a challenging relationship — we did have some agreements in place, but it was challenging, obviously, because we were in the court — to one where we’ve signed a letter of understanding.

We’re working towards furthering agreement. We’re talking about how we can work together to build a future. I think there’s tremendous opportunity, and that’s a significant change from where we were eight months ago, nine months ago, when the Supreme Court decision first came down.

[1620]

S. Fraser: That’s fair enough. I had the honour to attend an apology ceremony of a Tsilhqot’in travesty of justice that happened a long time ago, but it still hurts. Chiefs were executed. Some would say murdered, and I don’t necessarily disagree with them. But certainly, that whole process…. It’s nice to bring closure to those things, and working closely with the Tsilqot’in is certainly a good thing.

Has the mandate of the Treaty Commission, or of your ministry, been amended post-Tsilqot’in? The biggest change that I see in the decision was the recognition of title. We’ve seen it touched on by various judges, but they haven’t taken that broad step of recognizing that 1,750 square kilometres is title land.

If you take that premise and the spirit and intent of the decision, really, everywhere in British Columbia has land that had First Nations that predated contact. That’s the premise, in a very dime-store legal description by me, of title. There was recognition there. It’s a recognition that title — that there were inhabitants long before contact.

Has there been anything changed within the ministry — any advancements in that regard or through the treaty process, any direction of mandate — to make sure that at least, as the treaty process unfolds, it would be respectful of the spirit and intent of that decision — that their title does exist, arguably, in many parts of the province?

Hon. J. Rustad: It’s an interesting journey that has happened and one that is full of a lot of tragedy, going back
[ Page 6832 ]
150-plus years ago now to the Chilcotin War and the hanging of the chiefs. When you look through the myriad of things that happened between then and, let’s say, the ’60s, when First Nations actually received the ability to even vote in the province, there’s been, obviously, significant change that has come through in the thinking.

I think recognizing that is an important part of being able to move forward. Of course, in more recent times we’ve had the Canadian constitution. We’ve had Delgamuukw. Before that we had Calder, of course. We’ve had the Haida decision. We’ve had the Tsilqot’in decision. All of that has progressed the law and understanding and our ability to be able to work with First Nations.

Have things changed? Yes, things continue to evolve. Things have evolved, as a matter of fact, just in the last six months in terms of our thinking about the steps forward and how we try to work together. The budget that we have in place for this next year is reflective of the fact that we will continue to change with the times. We are going to be working with First Nations as partners as to how we do things on the land base.

We’re entering into more agreements around things like shared decision-making, how we can be more respectful of one another’s interests and culture and heritage, how we are being able to do things like some wildlife management and dealing with other things in other areas like, for example, liquefied natural gas, the environmental stewardship initiative and how that is taking shape in the process and changing in the light of the Tsilqot’in decision.

Ultimately, our approach and our core mandate have not changed. As a ministry, we are still the ministry responsible for relations and reconciliation with First Nations — how we shape those relations, how we build those relations, how we evolve those relations over time and how we reach out and try to find ways to reach reconciliation both short and long term.

[1625]

It’s an ever-evolving ministry. It’s actually one of the reasons why I enjoy the ministry so much, because there is so much change. There are so many things that are happening and so many unique situations with the variety of nations.

Certainly, the Tsilhqot’in decision has helped to shape our thinking, and I know it has shaped the thinking of First Nations. I think it even may have shaped the thinking of the federal government around this. Ultimately, how we work together at those three levels of government is very critical for First Nations, for the future of First Nations and non-aboriginal people alike.

That’s why we have the uplift. That’s why we’re looking through and having these conversations. That’s why we’re having the All Chiefs meeting and looking to carry that forward. It’s why we created the letter of understanding with the Tsilhqot’in people, moving through those negotiations. So it is an evolving process and will continue to evolve.

A. Weaver: Hon. Chair, I just have a number of questions written on paper. I was hoping that the minister might be able to provide responses at a later date, if I pass these questions through you to the minister.

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and we’d be happy to receive those questions. We’ll certainly endeavour to get a response in as timely a way as we can.

S. Fraser: If you gave me the answer on this before, I apologize for repeating it. But the minister reminded me that there is an upcoming meeting following the original September 11 meeting.

Can the minister give me a hint of when that is, and again, will that be addressing the four resolutions that came out from the First Nations Leadership Council and the chiefs in the previous meeting of this kind?

Hon. J. Rustad: The All Chiefs meeting was the first in British Columbia. We’re quite proud of that meeting and what that has symbolized — and actually more than symbolized: the work that will come from that. We certainly are planning to go forward again with another meeting. The date has yet to be set. Likely it’ll be sometime in the fall, but it’s still flexible, in terms of just where that date will fall.

We are talking with First Nations around the province, as well as the leadership council, in terms of the agenda and the types of things that we should be thinking about, but nothing is set at this point.

S. Fraser: Thank you for taking me back there and giving me that information.

I’m trying to pick up where I left off before. We were just dealing with the role of MARR. We touched on litigation and that, and I will follow that up with the appropriate ministry and minister.

As far as mitigating problems before they start, I’ve got one, and I’ve mentioned it before to the minister. I’ve written to him. It’s the Acho Dene Koe. Their territories are primarily located in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, but straddle into the B.C. border. The Acho Dene Koe and Harry Deneron, the Chief, I’ve met with, of course. I’ve been to the territories and was given an extensive tour of their territories and seen their proof of claims.

I still don’t quite understand this, because they entered the treaty process back in 2002 with a strong case of claim. They’ve been fighting ever since to come to the table, and I don’t understand that — if the minister can explain. Because at this point there have been solicitations from the federal government for B.C. to come to the table in good faith and negotiate, from multiple senators, from all federal parties, the Yukon government and the Northwest Territories.
[ Page 6833 ]

[1630]

Everybody is onside with moving forward with reconciling with the Acho Dene Koe, and the only absentee party is the province of British Columbia.

I don’t get it. This is in the gas fields. This is in key areas of resource development that this government has been very interested in. I understand that, but the last letter that I saw to the Premier from the Acho Dene Koe…. They may end up being part of the litigation process, because this government has failed to even come to the table.

I’ll leave it there for now if the minister can respond to that, and then I’ll see what else I can do.

Hon. J. Rustad: The Acho Dene Koe. They have, of course, been engaged with Canada and the Northwest Territories and have recently achieved an agreement-in-principle. We commend them for the work that they are doing.

Because they are a Northwest Territories First Nation, the majority of its treaty issues, of course, will be addressed under the comprehensive claim between Canada and the Northwest Territories.

Having said that, the province is obligated to focus our treaty negotiation resources on B.C.-based First Nations that are already engaged in the treaty negotiations. However, we have made commitments to engage with the nation and Canada. But given the existing resources, we’re currently determining how quickly we can move to the table. We expect that to happen, hopefully, within the next year.

The province may also require the agreement with the Acho Dene Koe and Canada — that any negotiations would be of a transboundary nature and would not be a comprehensive land-based claim, as would otherwise be negotiated within a B.C.-based First Nation treaty under the B.C. treaty process. So there are a few distinctions between the two.

At this time I’d like to request a brief recess.

The Chair: We’ll take a recess. Five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:32 p.m. to 4:38 p.m.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

S. Fraser: We’re dealing with Acho Dene Koe. I just want to go back.

The minister said the transboundary issue was a showstopper at this point in time. I’m very much paraphrasing what he said. I’d just like to quote from a letter to the Premier. This is dated October 10, 2014, so last October. It says here:

“Notwithstanding the urgency that Canada and B.C. Treaty Commission has placed on ADK’s treaty negotiations, B.C. has nevertheless ignored ADK’s claim. B.C.’s evasion of negotiations has become critical, as ADK is closing negotiations on its final agreement in the Northwest Territories, starting a comprehensive claim with Yukon and has attempted, without success, to engage B.C. since 2002,” when the B.C. Treaty Commission first validated ADK’s claim.”

The claim has been validated by the B.C. treaty process.

Then it just goes on. I think this addresses that transboundary issue.

“The reality of it is that the traditional ADK lands of Northwest Territories, B.C. and the Yukon have supported its people for millenniums. Legal certainty to the northern boundary of B.C. was only achieved in 1956 when the Dominion survey mapped the B.C.–Northwest Territories boundary. Previous to that time, all the lands that ADK claims were not technically in what is now B.C.”

I mean, the boundaries didn’t just exist because they hadn’t been mapped yet.

“Over 200 ADK members are resident on traditional land found in British Columbia. ADK members have numerous cabins, over 18, in the Maxhamish Lake area on the Liard and the Petitot and Beaver rivers.”

[1640]

“ADK has villages at Francois and La Jolie Butte traditional territory found in B.C. And trapping licences for its members also attest to ADK’s continued use of the land.”

These were the proof of claims that have already been submitted, which meant they were accepted in 2002 into the treaty process.

Again, if it were the same position that the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and, indeed, Canada were taking, as the minister is saying the province is taking — that because it’s a transboundary issue, B.C. won’t come to the table — that would mean there would never be any reconciliation for the ADK, for the Acho Dene Koe.

Again, considering that all other parties…. Not just the Acho Dene Koe, not just myself as an opposition critic or a spokesperson, but federal senators, all federal parties and the other territorial governments are waiting for B.C. to play their part, because the ADK can’t complete anything unless B.C. comes to the table as part of that process.

Could the minister just explain? I’m sure they are watching — Chief Harry Deneron. This is important, important, important for reconciliation for one of our northern First Nations.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the chair.

Further to what I had mentioned before with regards to this, I think it’s important to note that the province is of the view that the Acho Dene Koe, or ADK, is a Northwest Territories First Nation, and a majority of the treaty issues will be addressed under its comprehensive claim with Canada and the government of the Northwest Territories.

Now, we recognize that they’ve filed with the B.C. Treaty Commission in terms of their interests and that there is no adjudication process of that information. The B.C. Treaty Commission process simply accepts information in, with regards to any nations or any nations’
[ Page 6834 ]
interests. We know that the nation will likely have some sort of rights component within British Columbia, but we do need to address this, as I mentioned, as a transboundary issue.

Because of that transboundary nature, it would not be the same sort of thing as is going on in the Northwest Territories — a comprehensive, land-based claim which would otherwise be negotiated with a B.C. First Nation under the B.C. treaty process — but we do need to certainly engage with them.

It’s going to be a little different. It wouldn’t be something that would likely happen, potentially, under the B.C. treaty process because we do recognize that some members of the ADK do hold registered traplines in northern British Columbia. Notification of certain proposed land or resource activities is required to be provided to the members in accordance with government regulation and policy.

[1645]

S. Fraser: I’m not sure where that leaves the Acho Dene Koe. I don’t know if the minister has been to the territories there, but there are historic settlements in B.C. The boundary was an arbitrary thing. It came well after Acho Dene Koe had established themselves in what is now B.C. The lands that we’re talking about in B.C…. There are over 200 ADK members that still inhabit B.C. I mean, that’s more members that were involved with the Yale treaty. It is significant, and they cannot complete. Again, I’m not sure, with the answer from the minister, where it leaves the ADK.

I’ve got a few quotes here from…. I believe it’s Harry Deneron. It says, “They make deals with other aboriginal groups further down the line, and that is good,” talking about the gas fields, of course. “But they forget that the product is coming out of our traditional land. My people are tired of being poor.”

I’ve been up there. I’ve met with elders that have pointed on the map exactly where their grandfather was. If the minister met with the members of the Acho Dene Koe, he’d see that even though it’s a transboundary issue, it doesn’t mean that the inherent rights they have because of…. Predating contact, they have been part of this province and other areas. The map was drawn afterwards, so saying that it’s a transboundary issue so it can’t be dealt with the same way is one thing, but it’s not fair.

Is that a flaw in the treaty process to not be able to address the rights that do exist for a First Nation that happens to have had the royal surveyor come in and plant down lines? It’s still a chunk of their territories that are significant to the economic development in this province — the claimed territory of the Acho Dene Koe. How will the minister proceed? How will the Acho Dene proceed? Their only option, then, is a litigation option.

As we just discussed earlier…. I mean, the minister agrees that we need to take a part in averting litigation. I would suggest that this, if it goes to litigation, was preventable through the treaty process, which is what it should be. It should be coming to the table with the Acho Dene Koe to ensure that they get justice as well — and not just from adjoining governments that are doing that. Why would B.C. be the only one?

The First Nations that span other areas outside of British Columbia…. It does not mean they do not have claims in British Columbia. What is the mechanism for the Acho Dene Koe to address this in a way that doesn’t mean going back to court?

Hon. J. Rustad: I think it’s important to notice a little bit of a distinction here between nations. For example, the treaty 8 nations are not engaged in a treaty process with British Columbia, because they’re nations with a treaty. Whether or not that should change down the road is a different issue.

[1650]

The ADK is actually adhered to treaty 11, which is not within British Columbia. The process that they are going through on the land side is with the federal government around their treaty 11 rights and the comprehensive land claim process with the territories and the federal government. We recognize that they have some rights that extend down into British Columbia, so we do consult with them with regards to that. But treaty 11 does not actually extend into British Columbia, and there’s where there’s a little bit of a difference.

We’re not talking about a nation that is going through a B.C. treaty process to try to reach a treaty. We’re talking about a nation that is already part of a treaty and going through a comprehensive land claim process between the federal government and the Northwest Territories. It’s important to note the distinction there.

We do want to engage with them in terms of their rights, because they obviously do have traplines and other interests within British Columbia. We do engage with them and consult with them when there is any sort of activity that’s within their area that may impact on those rights.

S. Fraser: I’ll address that. B.C. isn’t merely a transboundary claim. There’s a traditional use study that I’ve seen, and it evidences irrefutable strength of claim. It’s one of the strongest in B.C. under the B.C. treaty process. They were told in 2002.

The treaty 11 issue. Treaty 11 was never fulfilled, hence ADK negotiating comprehensive claims under modern treaties is necessary. Treaty 11 was never fulfilled. That doesn’t change the fact that ADK has unextinguished rights and title with members living on their lands in B.C. I won’t cite the William case, but it’s applicable here.

Again, by what mechanism…? I’ve been on this one for several years now. There’s been no progress, so the minister’s words aren’t being reflected. If there is a process in addressing their rights in British Columbia, what is it?
[ Page 6835 ]

Hon. J. Rustad: When a nation adheres to one of the old treaties, they actually surrender and release their rights as a signatory to the treaty. Now, I understand that ADK disputes that, and they’re going through that process right now with Canada and the Northwest Territories, and I applaud that. I think that’s an important part.

[1655]

But the area that extends into British Columbia extends into the current treaty 8 territory land. We recognize that there are rights — hunting, fishing, trapping, these types of things — that they have within that territory, and we are interested in engaging and talking about these specific issues with them as well. We’re going through a process internally. We’re hoping to be able to reach out to them, like I say, over this next year.

But it’s important to understand the difference between ADK and ADK’s situation and, say, one of the nations in B.C. that doesn’t have a treaty. It’s also worth noting this isn’t the only situation where you’ve got issues of transboundary in terms of interests both from bands in B.C. extending out as well as bands from outside extending into British Columbia.

S. Fraser: I’m noting the time, and I know there are other questions. I have many more to ask, but I also have other members that wish to ask some questions.

I would note that not everyone has the same interpretation as the minister and your staff. You, as the minister, and previous ministers have been asked by federal Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs in Ottawa to engage in this process. So have senators. I’ve mentioned this before. The interpretation of this in B.C. is unique. It’s not shared by those of other territories or the Canadian government or senators — or myself, the least player in this game.

I would ask the minister to reconsider or, at the very least, to be willing to sit down with Chief Harry Deneron at your convenience and hear the story of the Acho Dene Koe from him. It got my attention, and I don’t intend on letting it go. I’d ask the minister to respond on that, and I will cede the floor to my colleague for several questions.

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member opposite: I understand your passion and thinking around this. I think you’re being quite clear in terms of articulating and bringing this forward. Certainly, this is an issue that does need to be discussed.

I do look forward at some point — hopefully, not in the too distant future — to be able to sit down and have a conversation with the nation about their interests and about their claims, trying to get a better understanding of the position that the province is in versus the position that the ADK has an interest in. As all discussions and negotiations are, we’ll obviously have to work through how that is, but I do look forward to having that conversation. I thank the member for bringing his passion forward for this particular nation.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for the opportunity — to my spokesperson on Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation — to ask a few questions. I’m going to ask two questions in one, because it’s on one topic area. So I’ll give you a chance to answer both.

The minister received a letter February 5 from the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs regarding the proposed Prince Rupert gas transmission project through Gitanyow territories. In the letter they outlined how they have a very strong case for aboriginal title within the Gitanyow traditional territories, which I’m sure the minister is familiar with.

[1700]

What the letter dealt with was that they believe that the Nisga’a final agreement has been incorrectly interpreted and that, under the proposal by Trans-Canada Corporation, under the Prince Rupert gas transmission project, approximately 35.2 kilometres of the clearing for the proposed pipeline route will be awarded in a contract to the Nisga’a — or at least not to the Gitanyow, in territory that they have said is Gitanyow traditional territory — at a loss of about $2½ million directly from that.

What they asked and what they pointed out to the minister is — and I’ll quote from their letter — that “the province’s continued silence in the face of the Nisga’a efforts to misinterpret their treaty to expand their territory causes serious concerns to the Gitanyow chiefs and will lead to Gitanyow opposition to the LNG pipeline notwithstanding the state of our negotiations with PRGT.”

They’ve asked for a meeting with the minister and the Minister of Natural Gas Development. That was February 5. From what I understand, the ministers met with the Gitanyow and recommended to them that they negotiate directly with TransCanada on this issue and that, basically, the province doesn’t have anything to do with it.

I’ll point out that Geoff Plant, a former Attorney General under this government, in his remarks — which I know the minister heard in the Prince George Natural Resource Forum back in January — had this to say, and I’ll quote from Geoff Plant. He was describing, after the Ts’ilhqot’in decision, an approach of government of doing this fobbing off on industry of the negotiation. He said:

“Now this approach may make life easier for front-counter bureaucrats trying to manage risk by forcing someone else to solve their problem, but it is wrong in principle and…in practice. It is wrong in principle because, fundamentally, the constitutional imperatives of recognition and affirmation are the responsibility of governments. When the courts speak about reconciliation they are speaking about a dynamic interaction between the Crown and First Nations — the parties, if you will, to the original bargain by which the assertion of the Crown sovereignty was exchanged for the recognition of pre-existing aboriginal rights. It is the honour of the Crown that is at stake in relations with First Nations, and it is wrong for government to hand off that responsibility to businesses.”

He also describes how it’s dangerous in practice because it leads to what he calls “a licence to ad hockery” — in other words, one-on-one agreements around the province and not an overall approach.
[ Page 6836 ]

I’m curious and I’m asking why it is that this minister is choosing to insist that the Gitanyow solve this issue directly with the private sector — with TransCanada, in this case — based on all the evidence and their willingness to meet on a government-to-government basis with his ministry and Minister Coleman.

The second part of the question is specifically to the reconciliation agreement that the Gitanyow have signed with this government and whether, in this budget cycle this coming fiscal year that we’re considering under this debate, there’s a commitment to extend that reconciliation agreement to a ten-year period and to increase the implementation of that agreement contribution to the Gitanyow from $150,000 to $300,000 in this coming year.

[1705]

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member opposite, the member for Stikine: nice to have you back in a semi-critic role, in terms of that, not to take away from the current critic. Obviously, we had an opportunity last year to go through estimates and this process, as well, not to mention that you’re my neighbouring MLA, next door. It’s always nice to see you as part of the discussion.

In my recent meetings with the Gitanyow, I think it’s important to note that it’s my understanding that TransCanada has found a solution on this. But it’s probably more important to note that I don’t believe it’s government’s role to be telling industry how they should go out and reach agreements with various nations. Industry is responsible for doing that. Government’s role is in the relationships between the nations — more importantly, the relationship between nations and the province.

My understanding, like I say, is that TransCanada has put forward a solution. It is what I would call a neutral solution. I don’t think either party is really happy with the solution, but it doesn’t have the situation that had pre-existed the date of that letter, I believe. That component is something that we had discussions with TransCanada about and encouraged them to be able to find the solution by working with the two nations in question.

Specifically to the reconciliation agreement, of course, we are in the middle of negotiations still with the Gitanyow. It’s something I can’t talk about in terms of some details, but I think we are getting close in terms of that agreement and finding the way to be able to extend that agreement. I’m hopeful that we’ll be in a position to be able to announce the successful conclusion of those negotiations in the near future.

D. Donaldson: I thank you for that answer. Just to conclude on that. Geoff Plant talked, in his opinion in his forum address, about option B after the Tsilhqot’in decision, which he doesn’t think is a good option. He says: “In this option government leaves it to the private sector to figure out how to get access to the land base. To get the consent to operate by dealing directly with First Nations.”

That’s basically what I think I heard the minister saying, and I gave the reasons why Geoff Plant and other First Nations don’t think that’s such a great idea, because it is a fundamental responsibility, constitutionally, of a government-to-government approach. Which leads me into my next question, and that’s to do this time with the Office of the Wet’suwet’en which represents the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs.

They wrote a letter to the minister on January 30, as well as to the federal minister, entitled “Proper aboriginal rights and title holder within the Wet’suwet’en Yintah”— traditional territory. In the letter they outlined: “We write to put the government of British Columbia on notice regarding our proper title and rights holder jurisdiction over our Wet’suwet’en lands and to make clear that these agreements infringe our governance authority and rights.”

This is in respect to agreements that this government has signed around LNG-related developments — in particular, pipeline on traditional territories, the yintah that the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs represent. They point out in the Tsilhqot’in case that the proper rights and title holder was the “historic community of people sharing language, customs, traditions, historical experience, territory and resources at the time of first contact and at sovereignty assertion” — in other words, the hereditary governance system in this case.

They also referred to a report that this government’s Ministry of Attorney General legal services branch authored in 2008 and revised in 2011 with respect to the Wet’suwet’en, saying: “Wet’suwet’en territory was divided into house-owned hunting territories. Ownership was vested in the house Chief who inherited the associated rights and responsibilities with the title. “

They’re explaining to the government that the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs are the rightful titleholders over which territories this government has signed agreements without the hereditary chiefs’ consent around natural gas pipeline development.

[1710]

I’m curious, because the letter…. Here’s what they say, finally. “We once again express that, as hereditary chiefs, we represent the proper rights and title holders, and we must be consulted as a collective of chiefs. Our governance rights and authority are not to be circumvented by agreements with Indian bands. To be clear, we have not consented to any LNG development within our title lands.” Obviously, there’s a very strongly worded argument from the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs to this government and to this minister and this ministry.

They ask for a government-to-government meeting on this, which I’ve heard the minister reference. I have heard him reference finding ways to be respectful and talk about reconciliation. So why have the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs, considering the priority that this government has placed on LNG development, not had any confirmation of a government-to-government meeting,
[ Page 6837 ]
from the January 30, 2015 letter?

Hon. J. Rustad: I need to address both your initial comments here on the second round of questioning as well as to get to the actual question. I think it’s important to note that I believe the member is taking Geoff Plant’s speech somewhat out of context in this particular situation, and I think that the member will probably agree with me when he hears the argument around this.

We have been engaged and doing our job, working with the Gitanyow and working with the Nisga’a, as we are working with other nations, in how government to government is shaping that relationship with those nations and working through with our agreements.

At the same time, there is a company that wants to be able to do work on the land base and have activities on the land base, and they also need to have relationships. They are out also engaging those nations. It is not government’s responsibility to do the work of the companies, and it is not the companies’ responsibility to do the work of the governments. The two have been going on and doing work.

I think what Geoff Plant was talking about was companies doing the work of government, and that is not the case here. We have been out engaged with the nations around our relationship and around the opportunity that’s presented, reaching agreements with those nations, just as companies should also be doing the same thing.

[1715]

Specifically to the question of the Wet’suwet’en, I’m actually very proud of the fact that over the last year and a half or thereabouts, I met with the hereditary chiefs I think three or perhaps even more times over that course of time. I think that’s probably more than any other minister in my position has done in previous years, in previous decades.

We have furthered our relationship with them. We are actually looking forward and continuing to try to work towards our government-to-government relations with the Office of the Wet’suwet’en. We’ve received the letter from the Office of the Wet’suwet’en. Actually, I’m looking for a date and an opportunity to be able to go out and have a meeting with them. I’m hopeful that won’t be in the too distant future. Obviously, they’ve had a lot of things that have been going on over the last couple of months and haven’t had that opportunity to be able to do that meeting. But I do look forward to a chance to be able to do that before too long.

S. Fraser: Hello, again, to the minister and your staff.

I move on. There’s a taxation issue that I realize I’m going to get shifted to another ministry on, but it’s key to…. I’m not meaning that with any disrespect. I would expect that. If the minister will bear with me, it has a direct relationship to the job the minister and the ministry has dealing with reconciliation agreements between the province and First Nations dealing with land, which are presently a priority for government. It’s dealing with….

I must admit. I was a critic at the time, in 2012. It’s a rural amendment act, a taxation act. It’s somewhat convoluted but back in…. The thumbnail sketch is that on May of 2012 the Musqueam First Nation v. British Columbia…. In a litigation the B.C. Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the Musqueam Indian band and ruled that the Musqueam-controlled companies holding certain lands and trusts for the band received under the reconciliation agreement with the province should not have to pay property taxes, as an exemption applies to those lands under section 15(1)(h) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.

However, on May 14, 2012, which was less than two weeks later, the province passed the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012, and that amendment, 15(1)(h), to the Taxation (Rural Area) Act to only make the exemptions available if lands are held in trust by the Crown. The government, in essentially an omnibus finance bill, reversed the decision that the Musqueam achieved in the appeals court.

I guess I have a question. I’ve got a letter — it’s dated back to 2012 — and a resolution from the First Nations Summit on this issue. It went over my radar screen. I didn’t see the effect of the act. To be fair, I don’t think First Nations did either. It’s sort of contrary to what might help with reconciliation when it comes to lands being transferred to First Nations.

The issue is that First Nations could get land transferred as part of an agreement with the government, which is a great. But they may not be in a position to develop the land in any way to achieve any income stream from the land in any way, certainly initially, yet they’re suddenly foisted with the taxes that go along with it.

A specific change was made that actually brings hardship to those nations and can, in some cases, force them into potentially making decisions on the land that they may not want to do just to be able to pay the taxes and retain the land. It seems counterintuitive in every way that I can see towards effecting reconciliation with nations that do achieve land from the government.

The letter was dated 2012, and the resolution was also dated 2012. I’d like to know if there has been any action taken by government in response to the First Nations Summit resolution. I realize it went to a previous minister. The issue is still of great concern. The Snuneymuxw First Nation and Beecher Bay First Nation are both now facing the potential impacts of this very damaging change, I think, to aboriginal relations and reconciliation.

[1720]

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you for the question. It’s actually an important question when you think about how nations try to shape their future and build their future — land, of course, being a very important component. Most
[ Page 6838 ]
nations, if not all nations, are interested in the land and the land component. And there’s no question that taxation is an issue.

Those sorts of things actually get resolved when you reach treaty. Obviously, treaty is a long road and a process. Specifically to the question that you’ve raised around the taxation, because it is taxation policy on those components — I hate to do this — I am going to have to ask that you raise the question with the Ministry of Finance. It does fall under the purview of the Minister of Finance.

S. Fraser: Thank you. I shall do that. I’ll accept the minister’s recommendation to take it to the Minister of Finance.

The minister has referred to this before. B.C. is increasingly using incremental treaty agreements and other forms of accommodation besides the treaty process. The minister has cited that here today. I don’t disagree with that.

The transfer of lands to First Nations is being been done with a stated goal of advancing reconciliation and improving First Nations economic circumstances. Once these lands are transferred to a First Nation, it becomes a responsibility for them to pay that property tax. This occurs regardless of whether the First Nation is in a position…. In many cases they’re not in a position. They’re trying to move themselves up into a position to be able to make some meaningful decisions on those lands. They could lose the lands, which is contrary to what the intent of the transfer was.

How can this ministry say that it’s advancing reconciliation when it’s burdening First Nations with property taxes that make them worse off, potentially, than they were before the transfer?

[1725]

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you for the question. I think it’s probably important to note that when you’re negotiating with these incremental treaty agreements or other types of agreements with First Nations, you don’t just go, “Here you go, thanks,” and start writing the cheques. You actually sit down and negotiate with the nations and try to work through what their interests are.

As part of that, you actually talk about when the effective date should be, what their utilization is. You look at the cost factors. You look at all of these sorts of things associated with it. Some nations, for example, are interested in having the property transferred as soon as possible, so they can use it as an asset to borrow against. There’s a wide range of discussions that go on with nations.

We do sit down and talk about the implications of the transfer — the whole sort of process around these components, the costs, etc. — and try to work through it with the nations as to the dates and opportunities that they’re going to be looking at and when we should try to implement it.

All of this is part of the discussions, particularly around incremental treaty agreements, so that you don’t end up with a situation where you’re putting a nation in a position where they can’t take advantage of it. I mean, the intention of something like an incremental treaty agreement is for a nation to be able to have an early win through a treaty process on some land that’s transferred that they can utilize for their interests, economically and otherwise.

S. Fraser: I don’t disagree with any of the words from the minister. This was brought in 13 days after a court decision that was in favour of the Musqueam in the land transfer issue. Essentially, the government rewrote the law because they didn’t like the way it was benefiting First Nations.

They took something away. That was not done with any consultation. As a matter of fact, it was done in a kind of a clandestine way. As critic, I might have just missed it. It was in a convoluted finance bill.

There was no notice given to First Nations. They didn’t see it either until the effects of it downstream followed. While the minister’s saying, “As long as we work closely with First Nations and discuss the issues and make sure that it’s not going to cause hardship,” whatever…. None of this was done.

It directly affects First Nations in land transfers in a major way and a detrimental way, potentially, without any consultation. The minister has referred to consultation. I agree, but that has to happen not just in the silo.

This act happened. It’s a part of history, and it was done quite sneakily. I won’t say that was done on purpose, but it sure looks like it.

Considering that this has a direct effect on First Nations and that they have voiced their concerns about how this played out after the fact, when they recognized it, and that there are resolutions from the summit and maybe other groups that have gone to government, where….. Because of the zero consultation on this, not even a red flag being given, a warning being given to First Nations that this is happening…. This is exactly what should not happen in a process with government and First Nations government-to-government relationships.

Can the minister…? Is he willing to look at…? I’ll bring this up with the Minister of Finance this time around.

[1730]

Surely he could not agree with the process as it unfolded in 2012, where a court decision was basically quietly changed through an omnibus finance bill with no consultation to the First Nations involved.

Hon. J. Rustad: I understand the question that you’re raising with this and the significance of it.

Unfortunately, because this is an issue that does fall within the Ministry of Finance, I think it would be most appropriate to be able to ask that question of the Minister
[ Page 6839 ]
of Finance in terms of that process and those particular points that you’ve raised.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I shall do that. I will raise the issues with the Minister of Finance. For those that are watching these proceedings on behalf of the Minister of Finance, I will be asking if government will introduce legislation to reinstate the exemption, the primary reason being that it was done without any consultation and no heads-up at all, which is contrary to even the basic premises of the new relationship, which we don’t hear of much anymore. It was inappropriate, and it’s been damaging. To my knowledge, the First Nations Summit has received no real response from their letter that’s dated years back now. I will follow through on that.

I’m wondering. We’re talking about interacting with the summit or the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs or, for that matter, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the leadership council. There was a reduction in funding several fiscals ago for the consultative process with the individual leadership council groups. It was dropped to about $116,000 a year per group. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs would receive $116,000 per year to basically work with the ministry.

It was a substantial reduction at the time, and it looks like that is staying the same. The numbers are staying the same. There’s no reinstatement of those funds that were there before — significantly more funds for engagement, if you will. I apologize. I don’t have the term at the tip of my tongue.

Can the minister just confirm that, please?

[1735]

Hon. J. Rustad: For the 2013-14 year — in other words, two fiscal years ago — we delivered a total of $600,000 to the First Nations Leadership Council organizations. For the 2014-15 fiscal year — this current fiscal year that’s wrapping up — we delivered $500,000 to the First Nations Leadership Council. It reflects fiscal realities as well as the varied levels of engagement that we’ve had with the leadership council.

S. Fraser: This upcoming fiscal, is it budgeted for the same, the $500,000 for all three groups?

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned, the variations depend on the level of engagement and the workplans that we do create with the leadership council. The money goes into that pool, and then they divide it between the groups. We’re currently in the process of discussions with the leadership council in terms of the workplan for the 2015-16 fiscal year. At that point, then, we would determine the level of funding associated with the workplan.

S. Fraser: I’m happy that there are discussions happening on this.

There was a reduction over…. In the last 20 years the numbers actually have come down. That’s not even taking into account inflation or the consumer price index. That engagement level surely isn’t dropping at this point in time. With the changing landscape, with court decisions such as Tsilhqot’in, I don’t see engagement as dropping. I could be wrong.

Is this sufficient? Do the leadership council representatives…? I’m hearing that it’s difficult, it’s challenging at best, to have the meetings that they need, the level of meetings they need with government. I’ve even heard — and this is probably not going to be confirmed by anyone — about people in the ministries that are not able to attend meetings because their budgets don’t facilitate it.

I realize there are financial limits to everything, but if engagement does not happen and if the resources aren’t there…. I doubt if there are exorbitant resources, but if they’re dropping when the needs are increasing, would that not be counterproductive and counterintuitive to a government-to-government relationship that’s actually looking at reconciliation?

Hon. J. Rustad: Maybe it’s worth noting that the First Nations Leadership Council was actually formed about ten years ago. There were the other groups in advance of that. It was formed as a way to try to bring three distinct groups together, to be able to bring that voice forward.

[1740]

As we mentioned, the level of engagement and the workplans are what drive the funding — as well, of course, as the realities of our budget. Everybody would always like to see more for everything that’s being done. That’s just where we’re at in terms of the budget and components.

I think it’s probably worth noting that the most significant amount of our engagement, and the most important amount of our engagement, is actually between the province and the First Nations themselves. That amount of engagement has increased, as well as the funding associated with that type of engagement between the province and the individual First Nations.

S. Robinson: On January 30, 2015, the Katzie First Nation in Pitt Meadows received a notice of work permit application acknowledging that the inspector of mines has to consider First Nations’ interests when considering whether or not to issue a permit for a potential gravel mine at Sheridan Hill in Pitt Meadows.

The Katzie believe the land in question falls within the Katzie traditional territory rights and title to which the Katzie First Nation has continually relied on and asserted to the province. I just want to hear from the minister if he will support their concern and speak with the Minister of Mines.

What they’re looking for is…. In order to commence a meaningful consultation process, they would like the
[ Page 6840 ]
province to provide its strength-of-claim assessment forthwith and set a meeting with Katzie as soon as possible so they can discuss and agree on the scope of consultation and accommodation required with respect to this permit application.

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, thank you for the question that you brought forward. I don’t think we actually have a copy of that letter that came, because I don’t think it came directly to my ministry. If you could provide us with that copy, that would be helpful.

We need to work through…. Because the permitting side is on FLNRO and then, of course, Energy and Mines is on other components of it. I hear what you’re saying in terms of that. If you can provide me with a copy of that letter, I’ll certainly raise it with my colleagues in the other ministries and suggest that that engagement should happen. We’ll do some follow-up on it.

C. Trevena: My question actually follows on from the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. I’ve two areas of concern for the Mowachaht/Muchalaht in Gold River. They have actually met with the Minister of Energy and Mines about this. It is an investive licence for Cypress Creek by Synex in their traditional territory.

[1745]

They’re very concerned because there’s been a decision to approve this application although the Mowachaht/Muchalaht have made it very clear for many years, since Synex has been working the area, about their concern about the plans.

This is a letter that came to the Mowachaht/Muchalaht from Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, saying that this is going to be going ahead. I know it crosses three ministries, but it would be very helpful if the minister could get engaged in this. They are very concerned about this plan by Synex.

The other issue that they’re very worried about…. It refers both to plans for development and their understanding of the Tsilhqot’in decision and the engagement with First Nations. It is for a camp to be located at Head Bay. This is an extremely sensitive area right in their territory, just off the Head Bay forest service road between Gold River and Tahsis. It is in the heart of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht territory. There is a plan to go ahead with basically a resort, a tenting campground — tents and RVs.

They’re concerned for this one in particular. One is the sensitive nature of the area, but secondly, in the approach for the consultation, despite the Tsilhqot’in decision. When I met with the council of chiefs, they were saying that they felt that they were not properly consulted and that they were once again regarded as just on a list of stakeholders who had to have their names checked off and that they had a 30-day response time to respond to this. Again, they’re concerned.

I would ask the minister whether he can have a conversation with the Mowachaht/Muchalaht about these two issues and see if we can try to resolve them, because they are very concerned.

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the member for North Island for bringing forward those two points, those two concerns that you’ve raised. Once again, we’re in a situation where we don’t have some communications from the people on that issue. If you can provide us with that, that would be very helpful.

What I would then do is take that to the other line ministries that would be involved and have a discussion with them about the issues that you’ve raised and look into what has been brought forward and to work with my colleagues on this. Like I say, if you can provide that information, that would be helpful.

S. Fraser: I’m going to change…. I’ve been changing lots here, but I have been following some of the work that the First Peoples Cultural Council has been engaged in, in dealing — not exclusively but especially — with languages, which I know the minister is aware is a huge issue. The loss of fluent speakers and the loss of these languages is a concern to everyone. It’s a devastating loss to cultures when that happens. So we must….

I appreciate the work of the First Peoples Cultural Council, their report in 2014. In the report which is on the status of B.C. First Nations languages, released last November, there continues to be a decline in fluent speakers of First Nations languages.

[1750]

Only 4.08 percent of the total population are fluent in one of the 34 B.C. First Nations languages, less than 10 percent of the population is learning the languages, and there has been a decrease in the number of hours of language instruction in First Nations schools since the last report.

I guess the first issue is that given the fact that First Nations language speakers are declining, is this budget going to ensure that the First Peoples Cultural Council has the resources it needs to prevent the extinction of B.C. First Nations languages?

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m glad the member opposite raised the First Peoples Cultural Council, because they do remarkable work, when you look at the various applications that they’ve developed and at some of the technology they’re using and the archiving and the teaching. Also, I want to highlight, since we’ve got a moment to talk about the First Peoples Cultural Council, the exhibit that they have worked on in conjunction with the Royal B.C. Museum.

The museum has this on display, and for anybody listening and anybody that is interested, I highly recommend you take advantage to actually see this because it
[ Page 6841 ]
is unique in the world in terms of the exhibit and how it’s brought forward. There are other museums that actually want to see this. They’re talking about the possibility of taking this now out on the road. It’s quite an exciting development for them. It just speaks to the quality of work that the council has been able to do.

We’ve committed, obviously, significant dollars to the council. Is it enough? There will never be enough money to do everything that needs to be done, but we’re providing all the resources we can to them because we do recognize the importance of language, the importance of culture and the work that they’re doing to try their best to preserve those languages and try to promote fluent speakers.

In our discussions with many other nations, whether it’s through treaty or other types of negotiations that we do, it often comes up that they have a desire around their culture, their language, their history and being able to preserve that within their nations. I think the First Peoples does a lot of great work around this.

Hopefully, in terms of some of the agreements that we do with other nations, there may be an opportunity to be able to support some of that work as well, but long term, of course, because interest rates have changed, and the rate of return for the trust, the fund, that’s sitting in there is creating some pressure in there. We’re doing our best right now to try to continue to support and have them be able to carry on with the good work that they’re doing.

S. Fraser: Can the minister confirm the amount that the First Peoples Cultural Council is receiving in this fiscal from the first citizens fund?

[1755]

Hon. J. Rustad: The work that the First Peoples Cultural Council does, as we have talked about, is obviously critically important. We’re not the only funding source, of course, for them. I think they’ve got a budget estimate, going forward here, of about $3.8 million. Out of that, we provide just over $1 million to the First Peoples Cultural Council.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. This is a Crown agency, is it not? The minister is nodding yes. I’ll just take that, then, so we have it on record.

They’re dealing with 203 different communities, First Nations — 34 linguistic groups, languages, depending on where you look. They’re getting just $1 million from MARR. Isn’t that a reduction? Isn’t that a substantial reduction from previous years? I thought it was closer to $1½ million in previous years. Maybe the minister could confirm that.

Hon. J. Rustad: For whatever reason, we actually don’t have the exact numbers at our fingertips from the previous years. We can get that information to you, if you would like, around that level of funding.

However, it is worth noting that because of the declining revenues that have come, in terms of the trust, there has been a reduction over the years. But year over year between last year and this year I’m not sure if there was one or what the magnitude of it was. We can get that information for you, and we’ll make sure that we send that to you as a letter, if you like.

S. Fraser: I would accept that from the minister. That would be great. What I saw, it looked like about $400,000 has been reduced from MARR, lower still from 2012 levels.

[1800]

I know the minister knows that the First Peoples Cultural Council require the funding for programming to archive documents and document all B.C. First Nation languages — with some urgency, before those fluent speakers pass away. I know the minister is probably aware of the FirstVoices program. It’s had a huge intake. It’s being used, but still we’re seeing a decline. We’re seeing a loss of these languages. There is no other chance to get them back.

The first citizens fund provides…. We’ve gone over this. I’m going to touch on it soon with the Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. It’s not a stable funding model. I’m not aware…. My understanding is that as a Crown agency, the First Peoples Cultural Council actually have to resort to fundraising — spending a substantial amount of their time to fundraise — to try to be able to catalogue these languages before they disappear. Their fundraising success is now the determinant on whether languages may survive or not.

Notwithstanding budget realities, we’re talking about the extinction of languages here, so we don’t get a second chance. Elders are passing on. I go to too many funerals in my constituency. I’m sure the minister is in the same situation. We’re losing the fluent speakers, so there is a certain urgency here. I’ve never heard of a Crown agency that’s had to fundraise to try to meet its critical mandate, so can the minister comment, please?

Hon. J. Rustad: Just to the first part, I think it’s probably worth noting that there was a $400,000 reduction in the First Peoples budget in the 2012-13 year. I’m not quite sure where things have gone between last year and this upcoming year. Those may be the numbers that you’re looking at. I’m not sure. We will get that information to you, as we said.

Like I say, I think the point you’ve raised is a good point in terms of the work that’s being done and the critical nature of the work to preserve the language. I think we’ve got 34 language groups and 61 or 62 dialects around the province. We are the most diverse of any jurisdiction in Canada. As a matter of fact, I think we’ve got the vast majority of those languages here in British Columbia.
[ Page 6842 ]

It’s important work that is being done, but at the same time, I think it’s not inappropriate of the First Peoples Cultural Council to be talking to the federal government and foundations around how this work can be done and the support that should be done or can be done around the languages.

I get the point you’re making in terms of the criticals, in terms of time. People are getting on in age. The fluent speakers are falling off, which is why I really applaud the work that they have been able to do over time. We continue to find ways the best we can within our restrictive budgets to be able to support that work.

S. Fraser: Since it’s budget estimates, I’ll put an ask. Would the minister be willing to consider trying to bring the funding back up to that 2012 level? The loss there is a big problem.

The documentation through FirstVoices…. I mean, their software is already completely outdated. The cost of trying to upgrade these things is very expensive, as the minister knows.

[1805]

To fund on an ongoing basis, a long-term basis, it’s going to require $300,000 for the rebuild and $500,000 per year for training and operations. Given the urgency to document the languages before the last of the speakers leave us and take that knowledge with them, will the minister be willing to look at this to see if there are options? I understand what he’s saying about fundraising. But the minister must know that it’s a big percentage. This is not a big organization. For them to put their time into fundraising, foundations and such, it’s very, very time-consuming. It’ll actually set them back from their mandate.

I just leave that for the minister to comment.

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m not in disagreement that the work they do is great work, and it’s very important work. I have to live within my mandate letter and the realities of my mandate letter, which is to move forward and play my role as part of a balanced budget in British Columbia. We’ve come in now and introduced our third balanced budget in a row. That’s a pretty significant feat. But it also means that every ministry isn’t getting all the money that they would like to, to be able to do things. My ministry is no different.

I am exploring all avenues that I can in terms of support for the council, because I recognize the work that they do and the importance of the work that they do. I will continue to try to find ways to be able to support that critical role within the communities and within the province and also nationally.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. I’m glad to hear he’ll be an advocate. It’s going to sound like I’m getting a little chippy on this, but the minister mentioned the balanced budget. There’s $236 million that went to the top 2 percent of income earners in this province — $236 million that wasn’t even asked for.

When you compare that to the possible extinction — the probable extinction — of languages, key languages, vital languages for the cultures in this province, and we’re talking a few hundred thousand dollars, I think we’ve got to get a better perspective on this. Where value is, where importance is, is part of the budget process.

As the spokesperson that tries to shadow your ministry, I would suggest that the answer about a balanced budget is that there are other options there. The importance of this process is it’s a one-shot chance, and the clock is ticking now. We may not be able to wait for LNG to save the languages. I’ll leave it at that. I’ll sit down to see if I get a comment on that.

Hon. J. Rustad: I recognize we’re getting a little late in the day and sometimes politics can come in play. But I do need to respond just a brief little bit.

We faced a significant challenge in the province in terms of our deficits and how we’re going to resolve that. We did, on a one-time basis for a short period of time, for a two-year window, increase taxes so that we could get to that balanced budget and we could be able to support all the rest of the programs — whether it’s issues of health, whether it’s issues of education or whether it’s other social issues, etc. — around government, which all have to come into balance.

All of them are critical. All of them are important. No one can tell me that somebody’s visit to an emergency room is more or less important than other things that we are doing, right? It’s always a balance on this. But we did for a short period of time, two years, increase taxes to help us get to that balanced budget with a promise that we would go back to the previous taxation level once we were able to achieve that balance going forward, which is what the current budget reflected.

That doesn’t take away from the argument that you’re making around the importance of the First Peoples Cultural Council and the need to be able to support that.

[1810]

As I have said, I will continue to look for ways to be able to support that within the budget and the process that I have, because I do believe that they do important work and that it’s a critical component.

I’ve also, in my discussions with other companies from a wide variety of sectors…. When they talk about the various things that they could consider doing, I often encourage them to say: “Engage with the local nations. Talk to them about their aspirations, what they would like to see happening around their language and culture.” There might be a way to be able to work with the nations to actually support the First Peoples Cultural Council in their component.

That’s not to say that I’m shirking our government’s responsibilities around this, but anything they can do to
[ Page 6843 ]
try to help bring support in is what I’m trying to do in support of the First Peoples Cultural Council.

S. Fraser: I’ll just reiterate that I’d like you to consider bringing the budget back up to where it was before it was cut in 2012-ish.That would go a long way towards dealing with some of the challenges around saving some of these languages.

Speaking of the funding, the funding model here — based on a trust model in place, the first citizens fund — also affects…. With the whims of interest rates and that, it’s not a very stable mechanism for funding anything. Aboriginal friendship centres have had to face the same issue, and I mentioned this before. The amount of money coming from the first citizens fund to aboriginal friendship centres…. There are 25, I believe, in the province. The last time I figured this out, it was around $16,000 or $17,000 per centre. It’s actually meant…. Even though the first citizens fund has actually been increased, the returns have not.

The reality on the ground for these aboriginal friendship centres that do great work, especially with youth coming off reserve, coming into the cities and the towns…. The minister knows the great work that the aboriginal friendship centres do. If they get it right and if they can link with the youth and get them on the right track, it can mean so much. It’s a great investment, not an expense.

Is there any consideration for following the advice of the Finance Committee — repeatedly, over the last few years, suggesting that there needs to be core stable funding for the aboriginal friendship centres in this province? I know the ask two years ago was for $2.5 million in funding, which would have meant about $50,000 per centre — a critical amount.

Again, these are organizations that have to fundraise and try to find money from everywhere else. The federal formula is problematic. It often comes in too late. These centres can’t keep people employed, because they can’t have that certainty.

Has the minister ever looked at heeding the advice of the Finance Committee — both sides of the House on the Finance Committee always recommending for the ministry to follow through, and the minister to follow through, by providing core funding for these wonderful centres?

[1815]

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m noting the time. I just need to clarify: are we going tomorrow as well, just in terms of statements or trying to wrap things up? Do you know?

S. Fraser: I do not know.

Hon. J. Rustad: That’s good enough. Sorry about that, Hon. Chair. I just needed to understand where we’re going with this.

The aboriginal friendship centres do great work — no question around that. You talked about the Moose Hide Campaign and the difference in the patch size. This was last year’s campaign; that’s this year’s campaign. That’s why….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Rustad: I suppose it might be. I suspect what’s happened is that the campaign has become popular and they’re actually having to reduce the size of the patch to be able to meet the number going out. I mean, they’ve got a goal to put out over a million of these, if they can, across Canada. It’s pretty remarkable.

In any case, because we’re talking about the aboriginal friendship centres, I wanted to take a moment just to put in a plug for the Moose Hide Campaign around ending violence. I think it’s an important campaign around ending violence for aboriginal women and children and for men standing up and just shining a light on this, saying: “No, this is wrong. We should be honouring our women. We should be trying to support families.” It’s important work.

Actually, just last week I was up in Prince George for the Gathering Our Voices, or GOV, event where they had over 1,000 aboriginal youth, mainly from across the province but some from right across the country, gathering. One of the little events they had, actually, was an iron chef cook-off on bannock. It was a great event, and I was a little disappointed to hear that the team that won was from Nova Scotia. I guess that’s just one of those things, right?

They do very good work, and they’ve been a great partner with us on things like the off-reserve aboriginal action plan. Of course, the work that they’re doing inherently with aboriginal people off reserve is a critical component. I get a chance to visit a few of the friendship centres from time to time.

Our goal here going forward, of course, is to be able to provide the stability that we can in terms of funding, and so our anticipation in this next fiscal year is that there won’t be a change. It’ll be similar to what has been provided in this last fiscal year. Certainly we recognize the work they’re doing and some of the challenges that need to be done around that. Once again, they’re another group that I applaud. We’re trying to find ways to be able to support them as best we can.

Do we have time, Mr. Chair, for one more question?

The Chair: No, I was just asking. I apologize to both sides.

Seeing no further questions, this is Vote 11, resolved that a sum not exceeding $38.633 million be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation for ministry operations.
[ Page 6844 ]

S. Fraser: I was told we had the day. No one has given me that…. I mean, I’d like to hedge bets on this, but….

Hon. J. Rustad: I was told we had the day as well, so I don’t know if it goes into tomorrow. Can we seek just a two-minute recess?

Do you want to just clarify with your House Leader on that?

The Chair: Sure. The committee is going to recess for a couple of minutes here.

The committee recessed from 6:19 p.m. to 6:22 p.m.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

Hon. J. Rustad: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Before this committee adjourns, I just want to thank both sides for your participation — good participation — during my tenure here and especially the staff, too, for helping out as you always do.

The committee rose at 6:22 p.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada