2016 Legislative Session: Fifth 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)

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number 2

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2016

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Personal Statement

USE OF PROPS IN THE HOUSE

J. Tegart: I’ve been advised that the use of props in the chamber is not permitted, and I have accepted that advice.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: In this House, it will be second reading of Bill 7. In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, we have the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — INDUSTRY TRAINING
AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

J. Darcy: Let me just pick up where I left off before we broke before lunch. I was speaking of the importance of skilled trades and apprenticeships within the public sector, which we don’t speak of as often as we should, when it comes to the value and the importance of supporting apprenticeships — in particular, in the health care sector.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I think my most recent comments had to do with skilled tradespeople who work in health care being, in fact, the front-line emergency responders within health care. We think of many people as being first responders, emergency responders — ambulance, fire, paramedics and so on. In fact, within hospitals themselves, within health care institutions, often it is the trades and maintenance team who are the front-line emergency responders for such crises as building floods, hazardous spills, natural disasters and electrical failures.

I want to just read some comments that I’ve gathered from people who work in the skilled trades in health care, just so that members of this House fully appreciate the contribution they make but also how important it is to expand apprenticeships in health care as well as in all sectors of the public sector and the economy.

The issue that I began with, an important omission in the bill, has to do with building a real, true collaboration and partnership, including in the development of a strategic plan, which the bill speaks to — a strategic plan over three years — the critical importance of collaboration and partnership with the trade unions who represent those skilled-trades workers everywhere through our economy as well as in the public sector.

So just some of the comments from tradespeople: “We maintain all the building temperatures. We control disease by dining room pressurization. We manage all alarm systems. We maintain temperatures for freezing or cooling for medications, for food services, for pharmacy.”

Another person: “I supply backup power to the operating room, the emergency room, the intensive care unit, where people are in very weakened conditions. A lot depends on my work and on my skill.”

[1335]

Another quote: “We are in control of and responsible for billions of dollars of buildings and infrastructure in B.C.’s health care system.”

Another tradesperson: “I’ve been entrusted to take care of a community asset. A hospital is the heart of a community, and with those tax dollars, we are paid to maintain the hospital and to do projects and upgrades.”

Another tradesperson says: “Everything we do is all about the patient. I’ve never before seen an industry that was so dedicated to the work they do. Whether it be a housekeeper or a cook, an engineer or a pilot on a medevac, it’s all about the patient.”

It’s one of the things that we, perhaps, don’t fully appreciate — that wherever tradespeople work, they have an enormous amount of pride in the skill and the contribution that they bring. When it comes to health care, they make an enormous contribution to the health care team. Again, it just underlines how very important it is that we have a true partnership with the organizations that represent people who work in the trades.

Another person says, by way of affirming the importance of their role: “If you’re sick, you’re in the hospital to recuperate. You want home-cooked meals. That’s what you’re going to get with in-house food services that are prepared by Red Seal cooks.”

Another person: “We install equipment that’s worth millions of dollars. We make sure it’s operated safely and properly.”

It is critically important, I think, that we diversify our notion of where skilled tradespeople work in our economy and work in our society, and that means that we have to strengthen the collaboration with the organizations that represent them.

Sadly, while there are some important steps forward in this bill, the issue of the involvement, collaboration and consultation with unions representing skilled-trades workers — whether they are in health care, in industry, in the building trades — is, unfortunately, lacking. If we’re going to ensure the maximum potential of apprenticeship programs in all sectors of our economy, all sectors of our society, that is a very, very important piece.
[ Page 11322 ]

There has been important progress. There’s an awful lot that still needs to be done to expand apprenticeships — in particular, in publicly funded projects, where the government can play a leadership role. I do find it disappointing that there is no obligation to consult with trade unions in developing the strategic plan that this bill calls for. That collaboration is absolutely critical to the growth of apprenticeships and the support for apprenticeships and for the future of the economy and strong public services in the province of British Columbia.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, the minister closes the debate.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to thank the members who have provided comments to this bill. I think it’s an important one. I am surprised by some of the comments that have been reflected, and I look forward to having a chance to have a conversation about some of those issues as we work through committee.

Some of the issues that were raised were looking at ensuring…. Maybe I should explain the context of this. I think if you were looking at the magnitude of the bill, probably it could best be described in many ways as a clarification bill. Many of the comments that have been made suggest that perhaps nothing’s been happening at the ITA. They have no strategic plan. No one is engaged. No one is being trained. Nothing could be further from the truth.

One of the things that the McDonald report found and the recommendations asked us to do was simply to clarify the role of the Industry Training Authority, not create it, not overhaul it. The recommendation was that…. In the stakeholder groups, the partners in training, there was a lack of clarity. This bill is about confirming, about clarifying, about laying out details like the purpose statement.

The suggestion has been made that because there isn’t a purpose statement in legislation, there isn’t a purpose for the ITA. That’s simply incorrect. This bill clarifies the role so that there is a more common understanding of what is going on in the industry training system.

It also requires — which is already required but now in legislation — the need for consultation, for ensuring that there’s a strategic plan in place — all of those things. There have been letters of expectation.

[1340]

There are a series of measures in place that the ITA currently operates under. This, in many ways, brings legislation in place with current practice, as opposed to some of the characterization that I’ve heard throughout the commentary.

One of the things I really want to…. There are two things I want to quickly comment on before we move second reading. The suggestion that organized labour is not engaged with the Industry Training Authority is incorrect. In fact, there has been commentary about the building trades. In fact, Mr. Tom Sigurdson sits on the board of the Industry Training Authority.

And unions are represented on nine of the 11 sector advisory committees. The B.C. Federation of Labour, the United Food and Commercial Workers, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Unifor and the International Union of Operating Engineers, among others, are engaged at the table and having a discussion. I personally think that is a fantastic approach.

There is not at all a suggestion or a practice that excludes organized labour from this process. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I value Tom Sigurdson’s voice at the table, another member who is there as well.

When there’s a discussion about the use of apprentices on public projects in British Columbia, this province is proud of leading the country. We’re the first jurisdiction that stood up and said: “If you’re going to build a public project in British Columbia, you’re going to have apprentices on that project.”

The suggestion that we haven’t taken leadership in the area of apprenticeship…. In fact, the building trades have asked that I help by joining them in Ottawa to talk to the federal government about ensuring that when Canadian dollars, taxpayers, are part of projects at the federal level, they, too, look at British Columbia’s example when we’re building public projects in the province.

We have had a very constructive relationship working with the men and women who build British Columbia, and we intend for that to continue.

With those comments, I very much look forward to committee stage. I look forward to having further discussion about exactly who is involved, what’s happening and the progress that has been made.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 7 be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016, 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. T. Lake: I now suggest we move to committee stage of Bill 5, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2016.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(SIGNED STATEMENTS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; R. Lee in the chair.
[ Page 11323 ]

The committee met at 1:44 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. S. Anton: I am joined today by Nancy Carter, executive director in the Ministry of Justice, and Jodi Roach, senior policy analyst, Ministry of Justice.

[1345]

Because this act deals with quite a number of statutes and quite a number of different ministries, I will be joined by different staff throughout the afternoon. If they need to be introduced individually, I can do that. Otherwise, we can just carry on.

I will start, though, with the person we have here right now from Community, Sport and Cultural Development, Miriam Starkl-Moser.

L. Krog: I’m delighted to spend an afternoon with the Attorney General and her able staff, who have been in this chamber many times before — at least one of them for sure — advising the government on this very interesting piece of legislation.

I’m just curious to know. My understanding is that these changes contained within Bill 5 reflect a report that was actually ordered, so to speak, or commissioned, back in 1974 and then made in 1976 and then updated by the British Columbia Law Institute in 2006. I just wonder if the minister can comment on that.

Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct.

L. Krog: I feel like a lawyer doing a great job on cross-examination. You get a yes or no out of the person you’re questioning. But I’m sure the minister has got a more fulsome history behind this that she might share with the House. I’m very curious to know: are there any significant differences between the ’76 report and the 2006 report?

[1350]

Hon. S. Anton: In 1976, the B.C. Law Reform Commission and then, in 2006, a report from the B.C. Law Institute both agreed that we had too many instances in the statutes of British Columbia where people were required to swear their statements to be true. That would be in front of somebody who was able to take the statements, a commissioner for taking oaths.

I think it’s fair to say that the more robust consultation by Justice began in the spring of 2015. The consultation then was with all of the ministries involved. The individual ministries were responsible for consulting with their stakeholders, but what Justice did was put the package together, if you like, and that has now transpired into the bill which is before us.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General can outline to the House whether or not there was a consultation with the notaries society or the Law Society of British Columbia respecting these changes.

Hon. S. Anton: We consulted with the executive of both the Law Society and the notaries. They were given, on a confidential basis, the draft legislation and draft regulations.

L. Krog: I just wonder if the Attorney General could outline what the response was from the Law Society and notaries society.

Hon. S. Anton: They were generally supportive. Both the lawyers and the notaries were given a technical briefing. We responded to their questions and to their concerns, and as I said, they were generally supportive.

I will say to the member, and when we get to it, that there were questions around section 10 of this act. If the member wants to bring it up again in section 10, we can talk about the discussion around that section.

L. Krog: The reason I raise it, and it’s sort of an obvious one, is having someone swear before almighty God that what they’re stating is true, or solemnly affirming it, is a little different than a signed statement — which, candidly, is no different, I suppose, arguably, than the person receiving a document delivered to an office and signing for receipt of it, ensuring that the courier company has done its job.

It just strikes me that this, in some way, debases the coinage of the very document, so to speak, by lowering the standard that’s expected. I appreciate that it creates a significant reduction, potentially, in cost across the board to various….

Interjection.

L. Krog: Yes, I’m coming to that. The Attorney General is raising the issue of red tape. I’m sure we’ll get to that in a moment.

It may well reduce the costs for organizations or individuals, but as I say, it does debase the concept of what’s happening. I’m just wondering if the Attorney General has any comment on that aspect of the bill — which, frankly, runs through the whole bill.

[1355]

Hon. S. Anton: In awareness of the issue that the member raises, when staff did the consultation with all of the different ministries, they did it with that awareness in mind. In fact, we landed on less changes to the sworn statements than were proposed, for example, by the BCLI in 2006. Not all of the sworn statements have now been switched to signed statements. Some of them have a subset of what was recommended.

At the same time, there was an offence provision. We ensured that an offence provision was included in each
[ Page 11324 ]
of the acts and put into each statute itself rather than as a general provision in the Offence Act.

L. Krog: I take it, from what the Attorney General is saying, that by having the provision in each statute which will potentially include the replacement of a signed statement with a sworn statement, it now very specifically says in that act that it is an offence and will be punishable on summary conviction, I’m going to assume. And that is true across the board, with all of the changes contained in the bill?

[1400]

Hon. S. Anton: If there was an offence provision in the act, we did not create a new one because it was already there. There is one exception, which we can deal with in a moment, which is under the School Act. Perhaps, if the member wouldn’t mind, we’ll wait until we get to that section, and then we can deal with that one.

L. Krog: I’m always comforted by the words of the Attorney General. I love to hear it from her lips, herself assuring me that this will see no reduction in the penalty that would be imposed on someone delivering a signed statement under any of these statutes — as opposed to swearing a declaration or signing an affidavit — and that the penalties will in fact remain the same in both cases — both what exists now and what will happen if this legislation is passed.

[1405]

Hon. S. Anton: As I said, some of the acts had an existing penalty. Others referred to the Offence Act. If they had an existing penalty section, we didn’t change it. Although, the individual ministries could have taken up the opportunity to change it. In fact, none of them are being recommended for change at this point.

If there was no existing penalty in the act, we did create a new offence, simply saying that it was an offence. We were silent on the penalty in those new provisions which, in all of those cases, then refer back to the Offence Act. A maximum, at the moment, is $2,000 or six months’ imprisonment.

L. Krog: That does give me a tiny pause for concern, because I think for many offences the concept of a $2,000 fine might be seen as rather minor in comparison to when whatever statute is being changed or revised was in fact passed. With great respect, I think even I’d recognize that $2,000 in 1991 isn’t, certainly, $2,000 in 2016.

I’m just wondering, then, in light of that: is there any contemplation to make a change to bring that more concurrent? I mean, time in jail is time in jail. That’s a pretty significant penalty. But if it comes to the question of a fine, a $2,000 fine may be seen by someone who wishes to breach the act as nothing more than a licence or a fee than as a true disincentive to breach the act itself.

I’m just wondering: is there any contemplation, then, to follow this up with changes that will make the fine something more substantial and realistic? We are, just this very session, in the process of approving legislation that will change one fine provision in one statute — I believe, the Mines Act — from $100,000 to $1 million. So it seems to me we’re making these changes.

The Attorney General may suggest it’s a reduction in red tape, but at the same time, some may see this as just a licence to — no disrespect to the government — treat a breach of a statute as a minor matter, capable of being dealt with as a $2,000 fee.

I’d be interested to hear what the Attorney General has to say around any further changes that might be contemplated to, in fact, put some real teeth in the fining provisions of the legislation.

Hon. S. Anton: As I said, individual ministries do have individual penalties. I could refer, for example, to the Credit Union Incorporation Act. A corporation could be liable for $100,000 or on a subsequent conviction, $200,000. They are quite variable within the acts, but each of these was on the advice of the individual ministry. For the ones which simply refer back to the Offence Act, that was on the advice of the ministry concerned.

[1410]

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General’s response, but candidly, we know that these recommendations, to some extent at least, if not to a large extent, were incorporated in a report that was given to government back in 1976 — 40 years ago, by my calculation. I’m going to assume…. We haven’t seen substantial changes to the maximum fine, as I recall, of $2,000 under the Offence Act. The Attorney General can, no doubt, correct me.

This report, which forms the real basis of the legislation, was given to government in 2006, ten years ago. It just strikes me that that’s a lot of time between the reports without taking into consideration inflation and still leaving, in some cases — based on what the Attorney General has told me — the possibility that the maximum amount you’re going to be fined is $2,000.

Again, my question is…. I appreciate the Attorney General may not be in a position to answer or wish to answer. If she can’t, she’ll tell me, of course. Why, when we’re doing all of this, aren’t we talking about a change that, notwithstanding individual pieces of legislation that allow for a larger fine, would…?

In fact, at the same time we’re doing this and reducing, if you will, the cost to the individuals of having to get a notary or a lawyer, etc.…. Why not, at the same time, if we’re making things free for them, at least contemplate the possibility, if they choose to not tell the truth when they sign a statement, that they be fined accordingly and that there be some genuine disincentive to be either lax or sloppy or negligent or deliberately
[ Page 11325 ]
lying when it comes to providing these statements to government?

I’m going to presume, if we’re reducing red tape…. That’s all we hear from the government side, time after time. And we indeed have our own special Red Tape Reduction Day now, up there with the importance of Holocaust Day, for heaven’s sake.

Surely, I would have thought that if these things are important, gosh, why do we even have statutory requirements that these things be provided to government? Why not just eliminate the requirement altogether if you’re not going to actually severely penalize people who file what will amount to false statements with the government with respect to the various pieces of legislation contained in this bill?

[1415]

Hon. S. Anton: The member refers back to the earlier reports. Those reports encouraged government to act, and they were considered and helpful. But it is today’s analysis that matters, and that’s the analysis that has been undertaken over the last year or so.

As I said earlier, each individual ministry was invited to consider what the penalties should be, and they are very variable. They may be the $2,000 in the Offence Act, or they may be significantly more, such as the one I mentioned a minute ago under the Business Corporations Act.

We went, as I said, with the advice. Individual ministries were consulted, and this Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act is the result of that.

L. Krog: If I can ask in a more general way…. I appreciate the Attorney General’s comments around the current analysis being what’s important. Clearly, that current analysis didn’t take into account inflation and the recommendations of a report that is now 40 years old. Goodness, it would be…. That’s two generations, by my standard, and a good chunk of the three score and ten we’re supposed to be allotted for life on the planet.

Having considered that, if we’re not…. I take it from the Attorney General’s lack of response that we’re not considering any specific changes around increasing the potential fine from a maximum of $2,000, which, as I say, depending on what you’re talking about, may be seen as a minor fee or almost a licence payment. Surely, then, are we looking at any changes with respect to penalties? Any more specificity? Are we contemplating any kind of campaigns or increasing public knowledge around this so that people will know that they’re still going to face offences, etc.?

Some folks, with great respect, who are perhaps dealing with one aspect of a statute, when they see “just sign a statement,” are just going to sign a statement with the casual air that many people sign the receipt, as I say, for a document that gets delivered to their office, as opposed to taking the time, swearing an oath in front of a notary or lawyer and being advised of the legal consequences of it.

Nobody’s going to get near a lawyer or a notary to do this stuff now. They’re not going to hear any lecture about the law. They’re just going to simply sign a statement. With great respect, there’s a whole bunch of folks who are not going to be perusing this statute end to end and seeing that “Oh my goodness, by signing this statement, I’m actually making myself liable for an offence if I don’t do it correctly.”

Is there anything further to follow this bill that might drive home the importance of what’s being done here? Or again, I come back to my point, and I’d be interested to hear the Attorney General’s comments: if it’s not important, why are we requiring people to do it anyway?

Hon. S. Anton: Two things. First of all, as I’ve said several times, each ministry did consider its penalty provisions. So if they settled on the Offence Act, that was done with consideration that that was the appropriate amount. There are other amounts throughout the statutes which are different than the Offence Act.

[1420]

The concern that the member raises about whether or not individuals will take these statements seriously…. That is a matter that was seriously considered. In fact, in the implementation of the act, should it pass, we have encouraged program areas to be aware of the importance of these elements and to take the steps appropriate in their circumstances to address them.

For example, on a form that you are signing, best practice might well be that the form itself refer to the offence. In other words, if you mislead by whatever you say on this form, you are subject to an offence of so and so. We will be providing time between the bill passing, should it pass, and the time it comes into force to allow for operations changes and training to take place.

The matters that the member is raising have been considered. They’ve been considered individually, as I said, by each ministry, and the offence amount that has been settled on has been deemed to be appropriate by that ministry.

L. Krog: I do hope the Attorney General understands that if there’s any accusation by a government member in the future that the New Democratic Party opposition is soft on crime, I will remind them of this conversation. The Attorney General is prepared to continue with the implementation of a maximum fine that’s become almost ludicrous in light of inflation and changes over time. We won’t hear any more of that talk, when it comes to the willingness of government to ensure that laws are complied with in the province with respect to penalties.

I will ask, however, given these changes…. I’m sure ministry officials consulted with other provinces. Are these kinds of changes to legislation that historically has required a sworn statement or an affidavit or a statutory
[ Page 11326 ]
declaration consistent now with what is happening in other provinces? Or are other provinces resisting this trend? Or are they all moving towards simple signed statements?

Hon. S. Anton: The question as to whether or not other provinces are going in this direction — that’s not some analysis that I have at hand. What I can say is that we’ve done this in British Columbia in order to make peoples’ lives easier, to reduce red tape, but to still have seriousness in the matter that is being signed — there are a number of them here — by creating an offence in each case.

Chair, I will remind you that we are actually right now on section 1, which is on the Local Government Act, which is a section regarding the reduction of a municipal area.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General’s comments, as always. You know, this is the helpful start of the bill when we can get through a number of these general questions, as opposed to dragging things out unnecessarily.

Having said that, with respect to the recommendations that were made in both the ’76 and the 2006 report, does this legislation cover all of the recommended changes, or are we going to see another bill of similar type next fall, next spring, whenever? In other words, is this a full-scale reform, once and for all, or are we going to do this in dribs and drabs over some timetable that hasn’t been announced?

[1425]

Hon. S. Anton: I know that the member opposite really likes the recurring bills. The periods and commas one, which may be coming up later today is, I know, a favourite with the member.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Anton: “Be still my beating heart,” he says.

But in this case, it is not likely that we would bring back another compendium of the nature before us here. It is certainly possible that individual ministries, as they open bills for one reason or another, may make a similar kind of change at that time, or as new legislation is developed, it will be considered whether or not the statement needs to be sworn. But in terms of bringing a lot of them together all at the same time, I think that this is it. I really am sorry for the member that we might not have this exact pleasure at a future time.

L. Krog: Just so I’m clear. This, then, reflects most, if not all, of the recommendations that were made in the B.C. Law Institute commission report in 2006. In other words, the government has gone through the revised statutes of British Columbia and the statutes that have accumulated since their last revision and determined that these are the changes that need to be made, as opposed to us doing this thing piecemeal, time after time?

Hon. S. Anton: The question was: are we taking all the recommendations? The answer is: we took the advice to look at what provisions might be changed. We are changing the ones that were appropriate based on our analysis and on our consultation with individual ministries.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Krog: With respect to the education amendments, these changes all relate to the Francophone Education Authority and consequential amendments by striking out “affirmation” and substituting “a signed statement.”

If I may try and simplify the process dealing with the rest of the bill, all of these sections amount to the same thing. We are deleting the provision of an affirmation, or a sworn statement, and simply referring to a signed statement only. It has no other significance. It has no other change. It doesn’t reflect in any penalties. It just makes it, in theory, simpler for the Francophone Education Authority for someone to become a member.

Hon. S. Anton: The first two, section 2 and section 3, do, as the member described, change it from an affirmation to a signed statement. The next section, which is section 4, is a regulation-making power.

Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

[1430]

L. Krog: With respect to section 9, this relates to: “…an applicant to provide proof, by signed statement or otherwise, with respect to a matter arising out of the application or with respect to the applicant’s financial affairs.” So arising out of the disposition of Crown land.

I’m just wondering. Under what circumstances are these kinds of declarations required? If the minister could give me some examples so that I can understand the import of the section.

[1435]

Hon. S. Anton: This section deals with the Land Act. It’s where an applicant has an existing tenure but may want a replacement tenure. They have some requirements under section 37(1): “The minister may require an applicant to provide proof, by signed statement or otherwise, with respect to a matter arising out of the application or with respect to the applicant’s financial affairs.” Then in section (2), there’s an offence section.
[ Page 11327 ]

L. Krog: I assume it’s safe to say that the value of that tenure might be minor, or it could be how much? I appreciate the Attorney General has a representative from the Ministry of Forests with her, so perhaps we could try and understand the import of this section. Again, is this just a minor matter, something valued at a few thousand dollars, or could we be talking literally millions of dollars with respect to this?

It then strikes me, and I come back to my point, that if you’re making a statement, signing a statement as opposed to swearing a statement, and it involves values of an extraordinary amount, then the potential fine under the act, I’m going to assume, and the minister is going to assist me here, must be much more substantial than $2,000, surely.

Hon. S. Anton: There are a number of ways people can use Crown land under the Land Act. This section, section 37(1), is simply dealing with the signed statement itself, not with all the ways that people use their tenures.

[1440]

L. Krog: What’s the purpose of the signed statement with respect to the applicant’s financial affairs? Is it to guarantee they’re in a position, then, to ensure that they can look after the tenure appropriately? Is that the concept?

Hon. S. Anton: Just by way of example…. I wouldn’t know how many examples there are. There are probably thousands. But in any event, by way of example, if you are running an aggregate site and you have the licence to use land to remove aggregates, you may be asked to demonstrate what you have been doing and your financial affairs in relationship to that.

L. Krog: Just so I can understand, this section, then, is the section that enables the ministry to make a decision as to whether or not a transfer of tenure or right would in fact occur and may involve the consideration of substantive amounts of money, because presuming you’re transferring a tenure of some value, you want to know that the tenure holder that wishes to receive the tenure has substantial assets.

It just strikes me as curious that in a situation where, potentially, so much value is involved — potential employment, revenues to the Crown that flow from the transfer of the tenure, the ability of the tenure holder to pay profits or licences or fees or whatever to the provincial government — this might have been one of those cases, particularly if the penalty is only $2,000.

This is, again, why I’m asking the question, and I’m sure the Attorney General can give me an answer. Is the maximum fine only $2,000 potentially, or is it more substantive than that? If it’s more substantive, then so be it, but if it’s not, this is one of those sections where I would suggest that the Attorney General reconsider this, because simply providing a signed statement as opposed to a sworn statement just doesn’t have the impact.

[1445]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: Chair, sorry. We were consulting the statutes here, just to make sure that I had it right.

Section 37(1) provides for the signed statement. This is all under section 9, of course, which refers to section 37 of the Land Act. In section 37(2), a person who does the following commits an offence: knowingly provides false information and produces a signed statement knowing it to be false. I’m paraphrasing slightly.

The offence under 37(2) is found in section 68 of the Land Act. Section 68 is the penalty section, which says: “Every person who is convicted of an offence against this Act for which no penalty is provided is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not longer than 60 days, or to both the fine and imprisonment.”

L. Krog: It’s like the bus pass clawback: you giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other. Now instead of six months, you get a maximum of 60 days, but the fine goes up to $20,000. Well, that’s an interesting juxtaposition.

I’m satisfied to let section 9 pass, but I will want to rise on section 10.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

L. Krog: I’m indebted to the Attorney General for her courtesy in advising me that the lawyers raised some issues with respect to section 10, which deals with an amendment to the Land Title Act that, again, strikes out a sworn declaration and substitutes a signed statement.

I’m just curious to know what their particular objection was and what the concerns were that they that raised.

[1450]

Hon. S. Anton: I think it’s safe to say that both the lawyers and the notaries — the executive who were consulted with — were very cautious around land. The Land Title Act does contain a number of provisions for sworn statements. In this particular case, in this particular section, section 203(6), it is deemed appropriate that it could be replaced with a signed statement, but that is the only provision in the Land Title Act which is proposed for a change.

L. Krog: Subject to the Attorney General answering a question which I will have to raise when you bring up section 10, I’m happy to see section 10 pass — and sec-
[ Page 11328 ]
tions 11 through 28. But before we pass those sections, I just have a general question about the provision in sections 11 to 27.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

L. Krog: My question is this, simply, to the Attorney General. My perusal of all of these sections is that it’s essentially the same thing over and over again with respect to the replacement of the statement, etc. — a signed statement versus a sworn statement. Are there any provisions that have raised any concern in the mind of the Attorney General or which she’s received particular advice on with respect to any of those sections, 11 through 27, or has there been any objection from any group that was consulted with respect to those sections?

I suspect not, but I’m simply doing my due diligence.

Hon. S. Anton: Between sections 11 and 27, they do three things. Some of them have minor housekeeping changes in them. Some of them create offences where there was none before. That’s section 15, for example. And some of them are the change that we’ve already seen: changing from a sworn statement to a signed statement.

Sections 11 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

L. Krog: Just so I can have some understanding. Whenever I see the Trustee Act pop up, that raises concerns.

[1455]

The bill note suggests that it’s to replace “the use of an affidavit with the use of a signed statement by the donee of a power of attorney, under which an execution of a trust is delegated in respect of certain matters.” I just wonder if the Attorney General can give us an example of what’s covered here, because after all, when you’re dealing with a trustee situation where you have a donee of a power of attorney and execution of a trust, etc., we couldn’t be involving substantial amounts of money or assets. I’m just curious to have a specific example of what this is and, again, some rationale for why this particular change in something as important as the Trustee Act.

Hon. S. Anton: This was a recommendation from the Law Institute. It is fairly narrow, and it is actually the only change that’s recommended in the Trustee Act. It replaces the use of an affidavit with the use of a signed statement confirming that the donor to the trust is on war service out of British Columbia and that the donee is acting in execution of the trust.

The power of attorney itself requires a witness, which adds a safeguard with respect to the identity of the person giving the statement. And of course, “war service” is defined. As I said, it’s something that comes up only rather rarely but from time to time.

L. Krog: I certainly wouldn’t want to stand in the way of those who are placing their lives at risk on behalf of their country overseas in terms of war service. If that’s, in fact, the only application of this change, a signed statement as opposed to a sworn statement, then I’m happy to see 29 pass.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

L. Krog: This section, I take it, replaces the statutory declaration with the use of a signed statement in respect to the satisfaction of the registrar general of the death of a person named in an application under section 77 of the act.

[1500]

Now, I haven’t had a chance to dash over and grab it. Perhaps the Attorney General, with her able staff there, can save me having to ask for a minute or two and just confirm: what’s the situation where this applies, and who would likely be signing that statement?

Hon. S. Anton: This section relates to a request to the registrar general whether or not a notice has been filed of the existence of a will. It’s where an applicant does not have a death certificate. They do want to make a search for a will. They can do that now by a signed statement rather than by an affidavit.

L. Krog: Sorry, I just missed the first part of that. If the Attorney could just repeat her answer, I’d appreciate it. And give me a concrete example. This is a situation where a person’s making a search to determine if there is a will?

Hon. S. Anton: I said a moment ago “affidavit.”

Prior to this, if you wished to make an inquiry as to whether or not a will was registered with the registrar general and you did not have a death certificate, you needed to make a sworn statement. It’s proposed in this section that that be changed to a signed statement.

L. Krog: I take it this has no impact, though, on who can, in fact, ask for a wills search, as we call it in common parlance. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct. It is only the question of the way the request is made, not who may make the request.
[ Page 11329 ]

L. Krog: Just for example. This doesn’t change the practical effect of this. If you’re not sure a person is deceased, this section and change would have no application. It’s only that situation where you believe that someone has died, or you’re satisfied that they’re dead, that you would then be in a position to use the signed statement as opposed to the sworn statement.

Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct.

L. Krog: Again, it would have no application with respect to the class of persons who’d apply for a will search — so a solicitor acting on behalf of a client who’s potentially seeking administration or probate with respect to the estate of a deceased person — or the executor, for instance. It wouldn’t extend or apply to any other persons — for instance, just a stranger who wants to determine if there’s a will left by someone.

The reason I’m raising this is…. This isn’t any more significant a change than I understand it to be, that people can go around determining whether or not Uncle George has in fact filed a wills notice with the division of vital statistics. It’s still not a free-for-all. You have to be satisfied and state directly that Uncle George is in fact deceased.

[1505]

Hon. S. Anton: This does not change who can apply.

Sections 30 to 33 inclusive approved.

On section 34.

L. Krog: Having looked at these sections, I really just have one more question. I’m sure the Attorney General will indulge me, because it’s rather hard to fit this question into the overall process. I suppose I could have done it at the start.

I am advised that when the Law Institute created the draft legislation, it had something like 201 provisions, and we’ve got 39 here. Does that reflect the fact that the ministries were then consulted and determined, in their view, that it was inappropriate to have this number of changes, as proposed? In other words, the Law Institute was way ahead of the game, and the ministries weren’t prepared to change.

Frankly, subject to the Attorney General answering that question, I’m content to see the other sections pass.

Hon. S. Anton: The Law Institute made a number of recommendations. The detailed analysis was done by Justice staff, in consultation with their colleagues in other ministries. As I said, that started early last year. It was following that detailed analysis that the final tranche, if you like, of statutes and statutory changes was recommended and is now in this proposed act today.

L. Krog: I just want to thank the Attorney General, and her staff, for answering the questions this afternoon. I’m happy to see this pass.

Sections 34 to 39 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:08 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(SIGNED STATEMENTS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 5, Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 18.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 18 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 18; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:09 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:10 p.m. to 3:17 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On section 1.

Hon. S. Anton: I am joined by our chief legislative council, Corinne Swystun. This statute does deal with a number of different acts. We do not have staff here from the different ministries concerned.

L. Krog: I believe the Attorney General has subtly
[ Page 11330 ]
indicated that I can’t ask any tricky questions about the various statutes.

Having said that, I appreciate that this bill provides a great deal of amusement to various members of the press gallery and the government benches. I can see their scintillating, you know, excitement building as we approach a brief discussion on Bill 18. I’m almost overcome with the enthusiasm of the legislators here and assembled.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Again, I rest my case — the enthusiasm reflected in the incredible desk-pounding from the Minister of Environment. I haven’t seen her this pleased since, I don’t know, question period.

Having said that, every once in a while I have to look really, really, really closely just to understand the difference. Maybe I need better progressive lenses. What’s the practical impact of changing what looks like a semicolon to a period and why, in section 1?

Be still my beating heart.

[1520]

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is that it is because it is at the end of the section.

L. Krog: I just desperately wanted to hear the Attorney General explain it. Well, I’m happy to see section 1 pass.

The Chair: Shall sections 1 through 49…?

Interjections.

The Chair: No? Okay. I thought, with the enthusiasm expressed here, we should….

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Krog: I know that speed is a quality appreciated in some things but certainly not in the passage of legislation.

Having said that, these sections 113 and 115…. It says in the bill it “repeals a provision that is inoperative and repeals another provision that is unnecessary because the same subject matter is addressed elsewhere.”

Perhaps the Attorney General could just explain that. Again, I don’t think it requires any staff in particular. I’m sure she must have some kind of a note. Does this thing have any consequence? We’re working on the assumption that everything that’s being proposed is really quite inconsequential, but this strikes me as being a somewhat more substantive section.

Hon. S. Anton: The two sections are inoperative, so they are proposed to be repealed.

L. Krog: Again, I appreciate that’s what the note says. But what does “inoperative” mean with respect to a section in a bill? I know when my car breaks down, it’s not operating, but an inoperative section…?

Interjection.

L. Krog: The minister is criticizing my automobile. I think his might be of equal or greater age, so I’m going to take that as a compliment.

I look forward to the Attorney General’s answer.

Hon. S. Anton: Sections 113 and 115 of the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act proposed to amend section 693 of the Local Government Act, and section 693 of the Local Government Act no longer exists.

L. Krog: I’m delighted. We’re repealing a section because it no longer has any application because the section is gone. I had no idea that when I faced the electorate in Nanaimo for 28 days in 2013 that part of my onerous duties would involve repealing a section that’s literally gone already — by amending a section because that section is inoperative.

I’m delighted to see section 2 pass.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Krog: This is just “extra-provincial,” substituting “extraprovincial agency” — one word, without a hyphen anymore. Just out of curiosity…. I’m delighted to ask this question because I know that language is a great interest of the Attorney General and government. Is that a mistake? I don’t have my dictionary handy, and I’m such a poor student. Is that a mistake, or is this a new style of writing?

[1525]

Hon. S. Anton: With regard to the first part of that question, I would like to assure the member opposite that his remarks on Nanaimo bars this afternoon elevated the conversation in this House to a remarkable level and that his constituents in Nanaimo are very well served. I compliment him on his years of service.

Now, as to sections 3 and 4, it is a change of spelling to be consistent with our current standards.

L. Krog: My immediate response to the Attorney General’s remarks: it could not be other than sweet.

Having said that, then, with respect to sections 3 through 6, I’m happy to see them pass.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.
[ Page 11331 ]

L. Krog: My take on sections 7 to 9 is that they’re simply language changes, making reference to the Local Government Act following its revision. Is there any substantive aspect to any of sections 7 to 9? I suspect not, but I just want to hear the Attorney General say so.

Hon. S. Anton: There were changes made to the Local Government Act which required these changes in the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

L. Krog: Yeah, section 10 is fine.

Sections 10 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

L. Krog: With respect to section 23, part 21 of the Municipal Replotting Act is repealed. I’m just wondering why we’re repealing such an exciting part of the Municipal Replotting Act.

[1530]

Hon. S. Anton: This was a redundancy in the Municipal Replotting Act. Part 21 had just one section, and it was a section that should never have been brought into force because the same subject matter is addressed elsewhere.

Sections 23 to 38 inclusive approved.

On section 39.

L. Krog: Just to confirm. This strikes me as the faster version of getting through all of the changes that are often contemplated. For the sake of some certainty, in a previous bill this afternoon, I asked the Attorney General if it was likely to be the last kick at corrections, so to speak, of existing statutes.

Does the work contained in sections 39 to 48 cover all of the existing legislation? Are we satisfied this is the last time we’re going to have to come back and change “acknowledgment” to “acknowledgement,” with a slightly different spelling, and “enrol” with a different spelling and “enrolment” and “fulfil”? In other words, have we carefully perused all of the statutes, or are we going to be doing this again?

Hon. S. Anton: In terms of the spellings, an attempt has been made to correct all of them — in the acts, not in the regulations. In terms of the minor corrections of punctuation and so on, those do turn up from time to time. They may continue to turn up. But, as I said, in terms of the spellings, it’s hoped that this covers them all off.

L. Krog: Just for the sake of the listening audience at home, who must be fascinated by all of this, in sections 39 to 48, all we are doing is essentially correcting the spelling of various words — “installments” versus “instalments,” with and without the “l” — from what we’ll call American spelling to Canadian spelling.

In fact, we are here engaged in a triumphant call to arms for Canadian spellers, set out here in legislation that we are reclaiming the English language in our Canadian version, with our spelling, and striking out “under way” as two words and making “underway” one word. I just want to compliment the Attorney General for the patriotism this bill reflects as we engage once more in reclaiming our culture.

With that, I’m delighted to see sections 39 to 48 pass in — I was about to say “triumphant,” but I nearly slipped and said “Trump” — a triumphant volley of gunfire, 200 years past the end of the War of 1812.

Sections 39 to 48 inclusive approved.

Section 49 approved.

Schedules approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:34 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1535]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 18, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading debate on Bill 17 and would request just a five-minute recess so we can get people in the room.

Madame Speaker: This House stands recessed.

The House recessed from 3:36 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
[ Page 11332 ]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — LOCAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN
FINANCING (ELECTION EXPENSES)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m now pleased to move that Bill 17, intituled the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016, be read for a second time.

British Columbians and election participants expressed their support for expense limits for local government elections. This legislation paves the way to implement expense limits for the next local government elections in British Columbia, in 2018.

Over 3,500 candidates and over 40 elector organizations were involved in campaigns during the 2014 local elections. This legislation will inform the development of regulations to specify expense limit amounts for candidates and for third-party advertisers. The underlying principles are that the bill is based on recommendations of a Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits, convened by this Legislative Assembly in the fall of 2014.

The committee made a number of recommendations to the Legislative Assembly in two phases. In phase 1, the committee recommended principles of fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability for establishing expense limits for participants in British Columbia’s local government elections. The legislation honours those principles.

In phase 2, the committee recommended expense limit amounts for candidates and third-party advertisers. In November of 2015, based on the recommendations of the special committee, Bill 43 was introduced in the Legislature as an exposure bill. By introducing Bill 43 as an exposure bill, the government created a final opportunity for a review of the specifics of expense limits by British Columbia’s local governments, election participants and citizens.

Bill 17 provides, based on the consultation, that the legislation will create a framework for expense limits that will apply to the candidates running for mayor, councillor, electoral area director, Vancouver park board, Cultus Lake Park Board, Islands Trust area trustee and school board trustee.

Expense limits will apply to independent candidates, endorsed candidates and those affiliated with elector organizations. Elector organizations will not have their own expense limits but rather will share the amounts established for their endorsed candidates. Expense limits will also apply to third-party advertising sponsors.

While the legislation sets out the framework for expense limits, the actual amounts would be set by regulation. For candidates in election areas with less than 10,000 people, the proposed expense limit establishes a flat rate of $10,000 for mayoralty candidates and $5,000 for all other locally elected offices.

For election areas with more than 10,000 people, a per-capita formula will determine expense limits. There will be a higher expense limit for mayors — twice the amount as for other candidates — to reflect the fact that it is usually more expensive to run a campaign for mayor. This is consistent with the approach in other provinces that have expense limits.

The expense limits period for candidates and elector organizations will be altered from the initial proposal for a January 1 date to 28 days prior to the close of election day, which is the third Saturday of October. This creates alignment between provincial and local government expense limit periods.

[1545]

Bill 17 proposes a flat rate for third-party advertisers in election areas with less than 15,000 people, an alteration from the initial proposal. This addresses stakeholder concerns raised during the consultation that a small jurisdiction’s third-party advertising limits were too low to be seen as being reasonable.

In election areas with 15,000 people or more, the proposed expense limits for third-party advertising sponsors would be 5 percent of the expense limit of a mayoralty candidate in municipal elections. The proposed expense limit would be 5 percent of the expense limit of a candidate in those areas where there is no mayoralty candidate — for example, a school trustee or a regional elector area director. There would be a cumulative provincewide maximum of $150,000 applicable during the 28-day campaign period.

In order to clarify and strengthen enforcement for expense limits, the legislation includes the following changes to penalties and offences: first, make spending by endorsed candidates and elector organizations, beyond a campaign financing arrangement, an offence only when it causes expense limits to be exceeded; replace offences for non-payment of monetary penalties with authority for Elections B.C. to file a certificate with the Supreme Court, making the amount owed enforceable as if it were a judgment of the court; and enable Elections B.C. to extend a late-filing deadline without penalty for as long as may be necessary, rather than 120 days.

Local election expense limits would be adjusted for inflation, consistent with the approach for provincial expense limits.

The new bill also proposes a related amendment for the Local Government Act, reinstating the rule that a person who is disqualified from voting in an election in British Columbia is also disqualified from being nominated for, elected to or holding office.

The Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits and my ministry undertook considerable public and stakeholder consultation. We heard abundant input from individuals, candidates, elector organizations and other stakeholders. As this House knows, this has been an issue that has been discussed. There have been various task forces in the past.
[ Page 11333 ]

I believe that the implementation of expense limits will complete our commitment to the modernization of local government elections, based on recommendations of the joint Local Government Elections Task Force — B.C. and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities — that was formed a number of years ago.

I ask that all members lend their support to this legislation.

S. Robinson: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 17, Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, (Election Expenses). I think it’s important, when talking about this bill, that we have the context for it.

In essence, this bill came about as a result of the runaway spending that had started to take hold in some of our local elections in this province. In particular, it was the city of Vancouver’s challenges with spending. It was actually in 2005 that they started calling for some legislation that would help with some of that runaway spending.

But we were also seeing increased spending in places like Surrey, Coquitlam, Burnaby and other large municipalities. Yet what surprised me, which I certainly learned in researching this bill, is that it’s not exclusively the domain of larger local governments.

We’ve heard this issue come about in some smaller local governments. There’s one situation in particular, and that was Powell River. They had a situation just at the last election where there was a big bump in spending because of one contribution from one developer. It just spurred the spending for all candidates.

I want to talk a little bit about why it’s important to address, certainly, spending limits and other components of these elections.

[1550]

We all talk about the idea of a level playing field. We talk about this issue of fairness, making sure that everyone can participate equally. We hear it all the time in various different realms in our lives.

We certainly hear it from business. Business will always talk about how they want a level playing field. We certainly heard it when Uber was knocking on our door. You’d talk with taxi drivers. They’re saying: “Uber can come in, but we want a level playing field. We want to make sure that everyone’s playing by the same rules, same regulations, same licensing requirements.” That creates real competition.

Now, when we have the same regulations, same limits, same expectations, people intuitively know that there’s real fairness. It feels fair. They know it’s fair, and they’re willing to compete.

I’ve also heard this from a friend of mine who owns…. He doesn’t own it anymore, I guess. He owned this oil reclamation business. He pointed out the importance of ensuring that everyone in the business had the same regulations. He would complain and whine incessantly about the paperwork he had to do. He couldn’t stand all the regulations that he had to pay attention to in his business. It meant it slowed him down. But he also recognized that there was a level playing field, and it was critical for him in a competitive market.

He understood that if everyone was playing by the same rules, everyone had the same regulations, everyone had the same paperwork, then that was okay. If it slowed him down, it slowed his competitor down. If everyone was playing by the same rules, at least there was fairness in the marketplace, and he could absolutely live with that.

Where else do we see this importance of a level playing field? It’s not just business, and it’s not just politics. I always think of sports when I think about level playing field. Let me just talk about that for a second.

The minister and I both have the privilege, I think, of tracking the sports file for this province. Nowhere is the concept of fairness more evident than in sport. In sport, we always ensure that teams are even in ability. Every Sunday morning my husband plays hockey with a group of guys, pickup hockey. He prepares his pickup hockey roster based on who was playing that morning and assigns his friends to either dark or light, carefully ensuring that he hasn’t stacked one side or the other with certain skills or talents. He knows that having a level playing field, having even teams, will make for a better game.

I think back to my own time as a young child playing baseball. As children, we were always so focused on ensuring that the teams were even. That was the language we used. They had to be even. What did we mean by that? Well, we knew that there were those in our midst who could throw, catch, pitch or bat, and we knew that there were others who weren’t so good at those things. If there was somebody who couldn’t catch or who couldn’t bat, then you made some compensation. You traded off people to make sure that the teams were even, that they could compete, that there would be fairness in your game in some way.

You can even use the notion of a level playing field inappropriately. Some people…. The example that comes to mind, that we’ve heard from this government, is the bus pass clawback. I’ve heard people talk about it: “There needs to be a level playing field, that everybody should be treated equally.”

They call it fairness, levelling the playing field so that everyone has the same $77 a month, and some can choose to get a $52 a month bus pass if they need it and have access to it. That’s actually a false premise of fairness, because there’s no competition. These people aren’t competing with each other. People with disabilities are not competing with each other, so why are we caught up in a level playing field? We use that when there’s competition.

If government really wants to address fairness in this way, then perhaps they ought to address the high cost of housing for people with disabilities who live in the Lower Mainland. That can be also a notion of fairness.

But I digress. I’m going to get back to the value of fairness, because I think at the end of the day, you need to be
[ Page 11334 ]
consistent. When I think about fairness and a level playing field, I think it’s really clear that there needs to be a notion of competition. That’s where we have to make sure that we have regulations.

When we have this value of fairness and it permeates in the political realm, when you have numerous candidates competing for limited spots on a council or a park board or a regional district or a school board, then you need to have some rules and regulations in place so that it is fair, so that it is balanced.

[1555]

When the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits was first struck back in October 2014, the committee was tasked with the following. I think it’s really important to understand what it was that the committee was asked to do.

In phase 1, the committee was asked to examine, inquire into and make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly about the following things:

“(a) Principles for the relationship between elector organizations and their endorsed candidates with respect to expense limits, including how elector organizations and endorsed candidates share accountability for expense limits, with consideration for fairness between independent candidates and candidates endorsed by elector organizations.

“(b) Principles for establishing expense limits for third-party advertisers, including whether there should be an overarching, cumulative limit on third-party spending such as exists in provincial general elections.”

We were asked to prepare the above recommendations to the Legislative Assembly in order to prepare this current legislation and get ready for phase 2. So what did we find as a committee? This first phase was a pretty important phase.

I want to point out that my colleagues on the committee, colleagues from this House, all came from local government. We’d all spent considerable time, or we’d come from school boards, so we were pretty knowledgable about the experience of campaigning in our communities and local governments. We understood some of the challenges in small rural communities and in larger communities.

We had the member for Fraser-Nicola chair the committee, and she was a fine Chair. Given her experience as the Liberal caucus chair, she was excellent. I suspect we were a far easier bunch to chair than the Liberal caucus. She ran successfully….

Interjections.

S. Robinson: No, it wasn’t a shot. It’s just, I think, easier to chair a committee than it is a caucus; I don’t care what caucus.

She ran successfully for school board and really does have a clear understanding of the challenges of running in local elections.

We also had a very experienced member from Peace River South. He’s now the Minister of Education. He’d been the mayor of his fine town, and he certainly had lots to say about the importance of fairness, as did the members for Surrey-Panorama, Port Moody–Coquitlam, Vancouver–False Creek, the previous member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the member for Saanich North and the Islands. I was on that committee as well.

I’m actually very, very proud of the work we did. I thought we worked really well together. We had great dialogue, we did a good job of focusing on the issues at hand, and we paid very close attention to our duties and responsibilities on this committee.

This committee heard from a range of speakers during phase 1 of our work. We received lots of on-line feedback, and we consulted with numerous stakeholders. Everyone agreed that we needed to address runaway spending in local elections. And everyone agreed that the principles of fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability should guide our work as we prepared for phase 2, which would lead to the recommendations for the legislation we have before us.

I’d like to say just a little bit about these principles, because at the end of the day, we all need to ask ourselves…. Every single member of this House needs to ask ourselves if this piece of legislation adheres to the principles we adopted.

First, I want to talk about neutrality, transparency and accountability, because I want to come back to this notion of fairness. In this report, we heard from all these folks. We got to hear a little bit about their thoughts about what these principles were and how to organize them in terms of priority.

The principle of neutrality. I’ll just read from the report so that we get it into the record about what it was that the committee really understood and how it guided how we got to here today. “The committee heard the principle of neutrality reflected in a number of submissions. Neutrality refers to how independent candidates are treated relative to endorsed candidates and elector organizations. In essence, it means they are treated in such a way that there is no advantage for candidates to run independently or with elector organizations.”

We felt that it shouldn’t matter whether or not there was an elector organization in your community or whether you were picked or nominated or whether you were going to run independent — that there shouldn’t be a bias one way or the other; that you had equal opportunity, equal chance to participate fully in the democratic process of a local election. That was an important principle, and we felt it was really important for consideration going forward.

[1600]

Now, the principle of transparency was identified as one of the top three priorities by respondents to our on-line questionnaire. Transparency was cited as being integral to the prime objective of strengthening and championing democracy. It was emphasized by a number of parties that presented.
[ Page 11335 ]

Here in the report, the Non-Partisan Association stated: “Voters deserve to know who is paying for campaigns designed to influence them.” Another written submission, Cliff Boldt, said: “Between an elector organization and a candidate, the relationship must be transparent and clearly understood by the electorate.”

As a committee, we agreed that this principle of transparency was critical, because we know that the electorate deserves to know how they’re being influenced. Let’s face it. A campaign is a marketing exercise. “Pick me over the other guys.” That’s what a campaign is about. It’s competition, so we need to make sure that there is some understanding about who is participating in that exercise. So transparency is a very key, fundamental principle that the committee looked at and certainly heard, and we felt that it needed to be acknowledged in our reports.

Now, the third principle was the principle of accountability. We noted as a committee that it would be the basis for separate expense limits for candidates, elector organizations and third-party advertisers, such that each would be accountable for their own spending.

Bruce Milne, who is a mayor, spoke about the surprising number of third-party advertisers in his small community and pointed out to the committee that third-party advertisers are an independent voice and are not controlled by the candidate. So that suggested that they ought to have their own expense limit that’s distinct from an expense limit of the candidate or elector organization.

The idea is that everybody has to take responsibility for their contribution and for their messaging in local elections. These were three of the four principles that guided all of the activities of the committee.

I want to go back to the first principle. I think it’s fairness that was the one we heard the most about. Pretty much every single speaker who came and presented before the committee had something to say about fairness. That was at the core of pretty much every conversation we had, every presentation we had. People really wanted it to be fair. They want local elections to be fair. They want all candidates to have equal access and equal opportunity.

After all, this is something that I think everybody in this House recognizes. We learn that as children, and we certainly know that to be true here when it comes to local elections.

When we talked about the principle of fairness, this is what we had to say in the report:

“The committee consistently heard that expense limits are a matter of fairness. Although articulated in different ways, the principle of fairness was mentioned by most participants in the committee’s consultation process. This was often expressed as the need to maintain a level playing field for all candidates so that well-financed candidates do not have an unfair advantage.”

It was stated by the representative of RITE Richmond, which is an elector organization in Richmond, “It creates an uneven playing field as to how much we want money to determine the outcomes of elections versus issues and policies of the candidates who are running. In the words of George Knox,” the report goes on to say: “‘Everybody should have an equal chance.’”

It’s through this lens of fairness that we ought to be really paying attention. As we go through this bill, I believe it’s through this lens, through the lens of using these four principles. That’s what we were asked to do. We were asked to come up with principles in phase 1 of this exercise as a committee. We were asked to come up with the principles that would guide us through phase 2, when we would make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly.

Neutrality, transparency, accountability and fairness should be the lenses that we use when we are reviewing this bill. Does this bill support the principle of neutrality? Does the bill support the principle of transparency? Does it support accountability? And, I think most importantly, does it support the principle of fairness?

[1605]

When we think about fairness, we need to ask ourselves: does this bill level the playing field among candidates for school boards, parks boards, area directors, councillors, mayors, Islands Trust? Does every candidate have access to fully participate in the democratic process, or will some be advantaged in some way?

As I read through this bill, there were certainly elements that addressed neutrality. The committee carefully considered ways to ensure that independent candidates weren’t compromised against those who were part of a slate. Reporting out is an important part of transparency and accountability. The bill certainly speaks to that.

I want the House to know that the special committee certainly struggled to balance pragmatism with transparency and accountability and made sure that there was proper reporting and real penalties for not following the rules. After all, why would you have rules if there are no consequences?

I want to keep coming back to this principle of fairness because (a) it’s the one that we heard the most about and (b) because I think it’s just a basic principle of democracy. Anyone, regardless of their wealth, should be able to participate in the democratic process and be able to represent their community. If that is the value that we hold dear, then it should be fully reflected in this legislation.

The Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to attend the B.C. Winter Games. The member for Penticton was there as well, given that he represented the host community and he was the mayor of Penticton. I am sure that both of these gentlemen will appreciate my analogy.

At the B.C. Winter Games, we saw so many athletes come together to give their all in sport. You know what, hon. Speaker? We saw the concept of fairness play out in every venue, in every sport. I had the honour of handing out medals in the judo competition. I mean, I’d never watched a judo match.

Do you know, hon. Speaker, how they do match-ups in judo so that the competition is fair? Well, they have
[ Page 11336 ]
gender and weight classes. Can you imagine if I had to enter a judo match with the member for Port Coquitlam or the member for Cowichan Valley or North Surrey or Surrey-Panorama?

There is understanding in this sport, a sport that requires you to throw your opponent to the ground faster than your opponent…. You have to do that. I probably could, actually, take them all. But I do want to say that there’s recognition that some competitors, around weight, will have an advantage. Weight is an advantage. I don’t think I could actually throw the member for Surrey-Panorama. I don’t think I could throw the member for Port Coquitlam. I understand it’s levers, but trust me. There is still a weight distinction that you need to sort of control for.

When you are assessing a skill, all other factors that influence the outcome should be neutralized so that you can really assess that one skill. In the case of judo, it’s about which competitor can throw the other to the ground first.

The other sport I want to talk about that I think provides a really good analogy is wheelchair basketball. My niece Sarah Friedmanplays the game, and I watched her play in Penticton for the B.C. Winter Games. She is able-bodied. How do you think this sport ensures that there is fairness when teams are a mix of able-bodied and differently abled players?

Well, my understanding is that each team is awarded 15 points. Depending on the level of disability or able-bodiedness, you get to allot your 15 points. My niece Sarah uses up five points because she has full use of her limbs. Other players with partial use of their limbs may only take up two, three or four points. Each team can make use of the points as they see fit so long as they do not exceed 15 points.

The idea here is that there is a system created to ensure fairness, that there is the same level on each side of this competition. There is a level playing field, a system where everyone can play so long as it’s fair play.

[1610]

We value this principle in sport, and we value this principle in business. In short, we value this principle wherever and whenever we have competition. We all know that when there is competition, fairness is perhaps the most important principle for consideration.

How does this bill address the issue of competition for local government, park board and school board elections? Well, the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits took on the initial task to try and determine how to achieve fairness. We certainly received numerous presentations from around the province from citizens who shared their thoughts with us. We received on-line surveys and comments from people around the province. They had an opportunity to share their thoughts and ideas with us.

We met with stakeholders, who had a chance to make presentations to us, to share their inside view of what it’s like from their perspective. Most importantly, I h’ave to say, we did have the opportunity to review the spending data from the 2014 local elections. I will say…. And I suspect that the member for Surrey-Panorama and the Minister of Education will recall getting that data and how valuable it was for us to take a look and see where spending was at and how to rein it in and what that would look like.

We certainly asked presenters for their suggestions, and it was actually a tough challenge. The process to have a joint committee and go through this together was a valuable process. We got to hear from citizens, candidates, elector organizations, stakeholders. I was very proud that we were able, as a committee, to make unanimous recommendations. I want to compliment all the members of the committee for their hard work, because it really was very, very tough.

When we put together phase 2 of the report, it was certainly with some challenges that we got to where we got to. We made a number of recommendations that included how to build a responsible and responsive actual spending limit. I understand it’s going to be addressed in regulation.

The committee was also instructed to use a number of reports to help inform us as we went through the tasks. We were to consider the report of the Local Government Elections Task Force, including the principles, from May 2010. We got to use the Expense Limits in Local Elections: Summary Report on Expense Limits Engagement. We had a chance to review the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act of 2014.

We had to consider the model approved by government in July 2014, which was to set provincially set limits for candidates and third-party advertisers in local elections, with limits to set using a flat-rate amount for jurisdictions under 10,000 people, and a per-capita formula for those over 10,000 people. We certainly did that.

We got to use our original, first document in phase 1. There was one piece in our terms of reference that I want to reflect on. I think it is something that we heard a lot about from the presentations, but we were told very specifically not to consider them. It says in the terms of reference: “The special committee shall limit its consideration of campaign finance topics to forming recommendations on expense limits for local elections.”

Now, I think it’s really important to get into the record that the reason why that was there…. To put a caveat in the recommendations is to say: “This is it. You’re only allowed this little piece, and if you hear of other things that people want you to consider, you’re not allowed to consider them.”

What was it that we weren’t allowed to consider? I think it’s really important to raise what we heard from all of these people who made the time out of their busy schedules to come and talk to us. We were commissioned to go out into various communities around British
[ Page 11337 ]
Columbia and hear what people wanted for their local elections.

[1615]

I believe that this government did not want us to talk about contribution limits. I do think that that’s part of fairness, and certainly we heard that a lot in committee.

I want to share what we heard about contributions, because I think it’s important that people understand that it wasn’t that we didn’t hear anything about contributions. We heard lots about contributions. We heard during phase 1 of the committee’s work that it wasn’t just spending limits that were creating problems with runaway spending, but that contributions, the other side of the election financing equation, were also creating problems.

Here’s a little bit about what we heard. Sav Dhaliwal, who at the time was president of the UBCM, presented to the special committee on April 15, 2015. I’d like to read into the record his comments, because he talks a little bit about some of the challenges. He notes:

“Spending in Vancouver is uniquely high and appears to increase with each election. In 2008, total candidate spending in Vancouver was reported at around $4.5 million. In 2011 it was $5.3 million. For 2014….”

Of course, I’m going back. It appeared that it was going to be around $5.7 million. We have since learned that it was $5.5 million.

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you the designated speaker?

S. Robinson: I am the designated speaker.

“High spending in Vancouver has been acknowledged repeatedly by its council as an issue that needs to be addressed. In 2013 our membership endorsed the resolution brought forward to the UBCM convention from the city of Vancouver requesting that UBCM support Vancouver’s request to the provincial government for amendments to the Vancouver Charter to allow Vancouver to make rules for election campaign finance that place greater limits on campaign spending and contributions and provide for greater disclosure.

“While the recommendations of the 2010 Elections Task Force only address expense limits, Vancouver is also seeking to limit contributions. It was envisioned by the task force that if expense limits were put into place, there would be no need to limit contributions. However, our membership as a whole has recognized the challenge facing Vancouver and the need to equalize the playing field and increase accessibility by tackling the problem at both the expense and the contribution levels.

“While UBCM has supported the development of a province-based approach to establishing expense limits, we are also cognizant that the Vancouver situation is unique.”

Now, we all, I think, can agree that Vancouver is unique. But it’s not just the UBCM that points that out. We also had a presentation from Jordan Bober, the director of the Green Party of Vancouver. He presented at the public hearing of the special committee on local elections on April 9, 2015. This is what he had to say:

[R. Lee in the chair.]

“I must say that I’m very disappointed that your committee hasn’t been given a mandate to look at donation limits, because I think that’s actually even more fundamental to the attack on democracy that I have seen from big money in politics. It’s, at least, the perception that there are certain organizations, corporations or individuals that can, essentially, buy favour with an elector organization. That’s something that the spending limits, unfortunately, are not going to address directly.”

We also heard from Craig Henschel of Burnaby. He also presented on April 9, 2015, to the special committee on local elections expenses. He said this:

“When you’re not allowed to examine or work with contribution limits, then you’ve got to look at sort of the worst-case scenario of what we’ve got, which is appalling. I mean, someone donated almost $1 million a few years ago in Vancouver and this time over $400,000. That’s crazy. That means that one person is having the effect, in an election, of the rest of the population.” It just doesn’t make sense.”

Now, we also heard from Marion Jamieson of the Upper Kitsilano Residents Association, and she said this:

“The corporate and union donation issue. I know it’s not your mandate, but again, you’ve been asking people whether or not they feel strongly about this. We certainly do feel strongly that democracy can really only be restored — in Vancouver, certainly; I’m not that aware of other jurisdictions — as long as individual and corporate donations can be limited. I think somebody already referred to the famous $900,000 donation that was made, and another one of $400,000.

[1620]

“Unless corporate and union donations and individual donations are limited, this will still leave a real or apparent obligation to powerful, wealthy special interests.”

Finally, we heard from Jillian Skeet. I say finally because this is sort of the last example I’m going to bring. We heard this over and over and over again. Jillian Skeet, of Vancouver, presented to the committee on April 9 as well. This is what she had to say.

“The truth is that no one in our society, especially not those in business, gives money without expecting something in return, and both sides know this. Our political parties and our politicians are being bought by the highest bidders. If an election were held tomorrow and you told these same donors that the money would go into a centralized pot and would be shared fairly — perhaps according to votes, as is now done federally — I’m sure that many, if not all, of these donors would disappear. To restore democracy, we must bring in similar rules to those that now exist at the federal level.

“A ban on donations over, say, $500 should not pertain solely to the official campaign period, particularly not when we have set election dates. Donors will simply ensure that they make their hefty donations prior to the campaign. There should be strict annual donation limits imposed.

“We should never have allowed the current scenario to exist. By allowing unlimited donations, we have opened a door to corruption. The damage that has been done to our democracy and to our city is irreparable in too many cases. It is truly tragic.”

This is just a sample. We heard stories over and over and over again — the one about, in 2011, the spending between the two main parties, the NPA and Vision Vancouver. The number of newspaper articles was enormous. It was beyond belief when the NPA spent $2.5 million, and just one donor, Rob Macdonald, contributed over $900,000 — I think it was $960,000 — to that campaign. That’s really not acceptable.
[ Page 11338 ]

In that election, Vision Vancouver also spent an obscene amount of money, $2.2 million, and COPE spent just over $360,000. That hardly looks like a level playing field. On the spending side, it certainly wasn’t a level playing field. But we should also be able to argue that it wasn’t a level playing field on the contribution side either. Until this government gets back to real principles of fairness, instead of looking out for its own power and its own contradictions on it, we’ll continue to have an unlevel playing field in both local and provincial elections.

When the special committee was given its marching orders to address this outrageous spending, we were severely limited, I think, in addressing the problem. The committee heard it time and time again. We heard it from candidates. We heard it from elector organizations. We heard it from citizens. They all, I have to tell you, assumed we were considering contribution limits.

Over and over again, people kept talking about contribution limits and expense limits. They were doing both. They were using them interchangeably, because we were talking about fairness. They intuitively know that for fairness, you need to address both sides of this point.

I hated telling our presenters that we were given strict instructions to only consider spending limits, and so many were shocked. “What? Only expense limits? Why not contribution limits? That’s obscene too; $960,000 to one party in a local election. That’s outrageous.” They were shocked that we were to not consider contribution limits as part of our deliberations. We have contribution limits for federal campaigns, but this government doesn’t seem to see fit to consider contribution limits for either provincial or local elections.

Many presenters at our hearings talked about some of the obscene contributions. Certainly, we heard a lot about the $960,000 donation by Mr. Macdonald. We heard that several times. But the one that surprised me most was one that was made in Powell River, a small community, right? In Vancouver, you know it’s a multi-million-dollar campaign. We’re talking Powell River, a small community. We heard the story of how one developer made a single contribution, to the incumbent mayor, of $20,000.

Now, these mayoral campaigns cost a couple hundred dollars, a couple thousand dollars. We’re not talking big money; we’re not talking big city. But in Powell River, one developer — who also happened to have a project in the pipe, getting ready to bring it to council — gave the incumbent mayor $20,000, and it created such an imbalance. The optics of this was terrible.

[1625]

The community rallied around, and they were angry that we had nothing in place to stop an obscene amount of giving that could have tremendous influence, tremendous impact on their local elections and on their community. They were upset that one person could buy an election.

It’s clear, when we see these significant contributions, that we absolutely have to pause and consider what meaning such a contribution can have to an election campaign. Now, many people believe that when we have contributions that appear significant, like the one made to Vancouver’s NPA that neared $1 million, there has to be some undue influence or promise being made to that person, that business — or that union, for that matter.

There has to be some way to rein that in as well, because the experience of fairness is that it’s not fair. It’s not fair that people who have deep pockets can influence, in some way, the outcome of an election. It’s not right.

I believe that when we all put our name forward to serve our communities — whether it’s local government, school board, park board, regional district — we all do it with the best of intentions. We want to contribute to the overall well-being of our communities. We believe that we have something to offer our neighbours, something that will make life better.

What happens to that when we throw in these ridiculous contributions and we make the democratic process all about she who has the most money? People become jaded. They no longer believe in democracy. They no longer believe that their vote, their contribution, their voice actually gets heard. Instead, they start to believe that this process is rigged or that it’s tainted — tainted by money and tainted by influence.

I’ve certainly heard members of this House talk about the importance of strengthening our voter turnout for provincial elections and also local elections, because that has the lowest voter turnout. I believe that we can all agree that we need to support and encourage better voter turnout, especially, in local elections because we all know that at that level, where we have the poorest voter turnout, we actually have the most impact on people’s daily lives.

If citizens are jaded, if citizens are frustrated, if citizens are disgusted by big money and they’re turned off the democratic process because they believe that money and big contributions are inappropriately influencing the outcome of elections, then we as legislators are not doing our job. If British Columbians have lost faith in the democratic process, then we, the members of this House, have to take responsibility for that.

I want to bring this piece about contributions back to this idea of fairness. We created expense limits for local elections, and I think it’s a good start. It will help rein in spending — absolutely. But there’s still more that we can do to support the value of fairness. If there is a perception that contributors to election campaigns have undo influence, then it doesn’t really matter if they have any real influence, because it’s the perception of influence that matters. I believe it’s incumbent upon us to address those concerns.

I want to point out another concern that I have around this piece of legislation that we have before us, Bill 17. The Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits unanimously endorsed the recommendation that the campaign period would start on January 1 of the election
[ Page 11339 ]
year so that all expenses captured during those months would be subject to the expense limit.

In fact, when the Legislative Assembly adopted the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, also known as LECFA, in May 2014, it included the notion that the campaign period is the start of the calendar year during which a general local election is held until the end of the election proceedings period.

Back in 2014, there was clear recognition by the ministry, the ministry staff, the stakeholders and all the MLAs of this House that there needs to be some period of time prior to the formal campaign period of 28 days in which we limit some spending. It’s recognition that the start of the campaign year when you’re going to have the election would be very appropriate. Our election was now going to be the third Saturday of the month of October, so if we started counting as of January 1, you could capture reasonable expenses.

[1630]

I can remember during my own campaigns, in preparation for what was then a mid-November election, I would actually start my spending in the summer months as I prepared my campaign materials, approved ads — if I had enough money, I’d run an ad or two — and put together my campaign signs. Without some sort of time frame to capture these expenses, I fear that we’ll see nothing change.

The way this current legislation is written, those with lots of money to spend can campaign as much as they want. They can campaign all year long. They can take out ads in newspapers. They can send out flyers. They can purchase whatever their little hearts desire by way of marketing. It’s only in the 28 days before the election that their spending is actually limited.

This bill says we are providing these limits to create a level playing field. I don’t know what level playing field the government is playing on, but it certainly isn’t level. In fact, it’s completely tilted towards those who have buckets of money, those who have the resources to spend and spend and spend.

The Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits made a recommendation that the campaign spending limit ought to consider all campaign expenses that are spent in the year of the election. We had some excellent conversation and debate and discussion around the committee table. The committee noted that in some situations, we can expect significant spending in the months leading up to an election. So in order to capture that spending, we recommended that the spending limit capture all spending made from January 1 of the election year and that the campaign period start at the first of the year.

Imagine a well-funded elector organization that has a spending limit, once we get through the regulations…. Let’s say they have a spending limit of $100,000. That’s their spending limit. That’s what they have to get themselves elected. Now, let’s say they’re a very well-connected and well-run elector organization. They have a half-dozen well-heeled business people in their community and others who have lots of money, and they have raised $300,000 for the campaign.

Now, they know that they’re only able to spend $100,000 during the campaign period. So if that campaign period were to start the first of the year in that election year, then they would have about ten months to spend $100,000.

However, the way this bill has been written — which does not consider the unanimous recommendation of the committee — this hypothetical elector organization can effectively spend $200,000 in the months leading up to the election and would only be limited to the $100,000 in the 28 days leading up to election day. So they could spend $300,000 over the same ten months. If this hypothetical elector organization raised $500,000, they could spend $400,000 in the months leading up to the election and then limit their spending in those 28 days right before election day.

So what’s the point of all the work of the committee? What was the point of hearing from citizens about what they wanted, what they needed and what they expected in terms of a level playing field that supported the values of fairness and accessibility?

We have a piece of legislation that starts to address it. It starts to address it, but it doesn’t quite follow through to ensure that fairness is real in all areas of the province. It’s kind of like the minister is at bat. He’s got the bat up here, and he’s made contact with the ball, but the follow-through just hasn’t hit it out of the park. He has missed on that part.

Now, I’m also fully aware…. There’s one other thing I want to say here. This really isn’t a huge significant issue in most of the province. I do believe that we can all agree here in this House that it’s spending in Vancouver, in their local elections, that is truly outrageous — and that we are starting to see it happening in Surrey and in Burnaby.

If it isn’t such a significant issue in most of the province, then why wouldn’t you be a little bit more stringent? It won’t impact most of the province — only those communities where it really is a problem. Really, in many ways, when you play the hypothetical situations through, you could argue that this bill doesn’t create a real limit at all.

[1635]

In fact, I’d like to call it a faux limit. It’s sort of this false sense. What I worry about is that we wind up potentially exacerbating the spending spree that will happen before the 28-day period. If I’m competing and I have the capacity that is quite significant to outspend my opponent — because again, we’re talking about competition — then I am actually likely to do that. I’m likely to act. I’m likely to push the limits. I’m likely to spend as much as I can before the rules say that I have to rein it in.
[ Page 11340 ]

Now, I think it’s important, when we think about this bill, that there are others who have had some comment about lack of acknowledgment of contribution limits. I just want to get on the record that it’s not just me, not just my colleagues here, that have expressed concern but others as well.

Vancouver councillor Andrea Reimer noted in the Globe and Mail, October 23, 2015: “It will actually make the problem significantly worse. There is a problem with a perception about the influence of corporate and union donations. If you lower expense limits but there are no donation limits, a single donor can have much more influence.”

Frances Bula says: “It sets no limits on campaign donations, no bans on corporate or union donations, no requirement to disclose donations before the election and no requirement to report donations in years outside the election year.” She, too, calls into question the fact that we have this faux limit.

Dermod Travis, executive director for IntegrityBC, says: “It’s unfortunate the other half of the equation is not being tackled at the same time, which would be donations.”

The Times Colonist on October 27, 2015, noted: “This Wild West approach to campaign donations fuels public cynicism and invites special interest groups with deep pockets to buy political influence. Voters decide elections, but a party without a fat bank account usually has little chance against free-spending rivals, which means big donors can decide the outcome of elections.”

With that, I just want to reiterate that while this is the beginning of a direction that suggests that we can and must bring in rules that limit what people can spend, we have missed the mark with this bill. There are pieces missing. We need to have addressed contribution limits. We need to have addressed, certainly, the campaign period. That, to me, was the most surprising piece in this legislation — that when the committee provided a unanimous recommendation and then it got changed….

I understand. I’ve actually heard a little bit about why it got changed. I don’t agree with the rationale because I think what will happen is those who have more to spend will spend more. They’ll do it outside the rules. That is a terrible loophole that actually continues to promote disdain and disgust among the electorate. That’s not good for democracy. That’s not good for anyone.

M. Hunt: It’s my pleasure to rise and to speak to this bill on local government election limits.

You know, one of the questions that gets asked of me when I’m in the constituency and working around and attending different functions is: “What do backbenchers do?” We’re all used to the cabinet ministers and what they do. We’re used to the opposition and what they’re up to and the things they do. Of course, the question gets asked for the backbenchers: what are we doing?

Well, this bill is one of the great examples of what we do as backbenchers and the work that we do in the community and throughout the province in order to be able to do the background work and provide the information so that we can have good legislation.

[1640]

In fact, the committee, as you heard from the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who was the Deputy Chair of the committee…. She gave a lot of the history of the committee and what we did, so I’m not going to repeat all of that. She also had two hours to speak, and I don’t have that. I don’t intend to use my half-hour anyway.

I just thought it was interesting. We, in fact, did hold public hearings, and we did go throughout the province. We held public hearings in Surrey and in Kamloops, Vancouver and Victoria. One of the interesting things is that we had also scheduled public hearings for Terrace, Fort St. John, Prince George, Cranbrook, Penticton, all of which were cancelled due to low or no registrations for people wanting to speak.

In real terms, the issue of dealing with campaign election expenses is really an issue in the city of Vancouver. That’s where it has been an issue for a number of elections. We certainly hear about it there. You don’t hear about it as much in Surrey, but certainly, Surrey is growing.

The numbers are getting higher, and if you didn’t hear about it in the last election, you’ll hear about it in coming elections, because the numbers are getting big. It’s primarily a Lower Mainland issue, except for once in a while, we do get these other communities where, from time to time, there’ll be somebody on a particular issue that will spend an inordinate amount of money on the election, because there’s some issue that they’re involved with or interested in or you get some particular controversy.

That’s where this committee had the opportunity to be able to do our work across a municipal election. Now, many of the candidates who were running were quite upset over the fact that we were doing this during an election, because they were busy in the election. It actually gave us a very great opportunity. One, you got to have the opportunity for those people to address the committee, because who knows who’s going to run next time? It was those who were actively involved within the election.

Then, secondly, it also gave the opportunity for us to be able to actually analyze the numbers from that election, because the first part of our work had been dealing on those four basic principles. The rules had been set so that there was disclosure in this past local government election, so the information was there for us to be able to go through. It was, of course, very interesting, because then you were able to look at the information of the presenter and be able to talk to the presenter about the amount of money that they spent — whether they actually thought that they were doing a good campaign for those dollars.

It was a very good interaction that we had between the committee, because, as the member from Coquitlam-Maillardville already mentioned, those of us who were on
[ Page 11341 ]
the committee all have been involved in local elections, either for local government or for school boards. We had that personal experience. We knew what was going on and what had happened in our communities. It gave us the opportunity to interact.

Of course, the greatest interaction, the greatest number of speakers were those running in the city of Vancouver. Mr. Speaker, just so that you can get the extremes of the discussion, we had those who wanted the limits put down at, like, $4,000. Now, can you imagine an election in the city of Vancouver for $4,000? I asked the delegation that was before us: “Do you really think that you’re doing a legitimate campaign for $4,000?”

“Oh yes, this is perfectly wonderful. This is all that needs to be spent. We’re doing a great job.”

Whereas, when I ran in the city of Surrey as an independent in one of the previous elections, I spent $45,000. You go: “So $45,000? How did you spend so much?” Well, in order to make a brochure, you’re basically spending $10,000 if you’re going to print a brochure, and be able to circulate it. Canada Post wants at least $15,000 to get it to every doorstep.

Then you want to put up a few signs so people know that you’re actually running and you’re serious about this. Well, you’re looking at ten grand for that, for sure. Then: “Maybe we should put some ads in the newspaper.” Well, there you are over $45,000 in the city of Surrey.

[1645]

These are just the realities of elections and running in elections. People would ask me: “Why are you spending so much?” I said: “Well, I’m serious about getting elected.” Those who spend in the $4,000-to-$5,000 ballpark, in a large city, can’t do it. Whereas, if you go to the opposite extreme and go throughout the municipalities, the more rural areas, the smaller communities, you’ll have people who will be the exception if they spend $500 — lots of variation through our province, lots of variety.

It was the most interesting process that we went through. That’s why you see that, in fact, the committee came up with variable rates, which then become something which legitimately should go under regulation so that they can be adjusted from time to time because inflation will certainly affect those things.

I think that what we have here is a very good step in a process. We started by having the disclosures. Now the entire province, everyone who is running — their disclosures are all on the same type of format, so we have that information.

Now we begin the limits, and yes, I would agree. One of the problems I see in the legislation is the issue of the time periods between disclosure and limit. By the same token, yes, we have the lawyers that deal with the constitution and all those sorts of things. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but by the same token, they’re the trained lawyers, not me.

At the very least, I think we’re making a very great step in the process of this. I think it’ll be interesting to watch the next local government elections, in three years, to once again look at the data, see what actually happened. I’m sure that we will continue to have people pointing at somebody else and saying, “They’re spending too much,” and usually it’s because: “I don’t want to spend that much,” or “I can’t raise those dollars.” Those sorts of situations are realities.

I think it’ll be interesting to continue to see, as we work down this process, how this works, to see the disclosures. I think we’re taking a great step in this legislation, so I will be supporting the legislation that is before us for local governments.

G. Holman: It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 17. I was a member of the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits, and I do want to thank my colleagues for what I thought was a very constructive piece of work by the committee.

In general, my experience on legislative committees is that they are quite constructive, and typically, there is less controversy, less partisanship displayed, say, as compared to this hallowed place. It was a really enjoyable experience.

I believe that all of the committee members, as the member from Surrey just indicated, did come from local government, so we did have that direct experience of being candidates and brought that experience to the table. I think that did help in our deliberations — certainly, it helped — and I think it helped us in coming to consensus.

The legislative committee did actually come to consensus on their recommendations — which again, is an experience I’ve had with the Finance Committee; typically, we’ve been able to sort out differences and come with a consensus agreement — with one exception. It is a notable one, and one mentioned by the vice-Chair, the member from Coquitlam, around the issue of donations.

Our side of the committee, if that’s the right way to put it, did propose a motion where we tried to get government to change the terms of reference of the committee to include donations. Given that fairness is one of the fundamental principles that we were trying to achieve around local government elections, dealing with the donations side, our side of the committee felt quite strongly, had to be included.

That certainly was reflected by a number of the submissions that the committee got from a whole range of municipalities — all the way from Vancouver to smaller municipalities on the Sunshine Coast, elsewhere in B.C. and Vancouver Island: that you can’t have fairness in local elections without considering the donations side.

[1650]

Unfortunately, that was the one issue where the committee couldn’t agree, and the government members voted down our motion to try and get the terms of reference changed so that we could look at the donation side of the equation.
[ Page 11342 ]

In all other respects, we did come to a consensus. We even — here’s the other significant issue — came to consensus on the spending side. In the end, we agreed unanimously that it was important to limit campaign expenses not just during the campaign period, during the writ period — that 28-day period from when the election is called till election day — but the period leading up to that. In the local government elections, in other provincial legislation, that pre-campaign period at the local level is defined as running from January 1 of the year of the election up to the point where the writ is dropped — so quite a lengthy period of time.

In fact, we came to unanimous agreement that it was important to try and limit campaign spending in that pre-election period as well as during the so-called writ period. Unfortunately, that recommendation has been dropped from this legislation. It’s a significant omission. The notion that you can achieve fairness in campaign spending by limiting spending just during that 28-day period and ignoring spending leading up to the campaign period is, I think, pretty clearly not really supportable. It’s not logical.

Now, unfortunately, last year the government also, with Bill 20, the election act for British Columbia, eliminated the spending limitations for the…. In provincial legislation, the pre-election period is defined as 60 days up to the point where the writ is dropped. Last year the provincial government actually dropped that spending limit, as well, at the provincial level. What this does, unfortunately, at the provincial level is it’s going to open up the door to a free-for-all like we see in the United States. Just look south for a jurisdiction where there are no limits — contributions or on the spending side —whatsoever.

I don’t think that in British Columbia or Canada we want a system like that. A system like that is clearly not fair. A system like that clearly favours the wealthy, clearly favours large corporations. For everyday individuals — with no spending limits, with no contribution limits — that’s not a situation in which you can have fair elections, in our view.

Unfortunately, even though the committee agreed that the spending cap should apply pre-election, the government itself has taken that recommendation out of the legislation, so it’ll be a free-for-all, pre-election, in local governments.

We did have a number of witnesses that came. I believe that we had over 900 submissions when you count the submissions on the website, letters and people actually coming and speaking directly to the committee — again, from communities of all sizes.

As has been noted before, there’s a particular concern in larger communities like Vancouver, Surrey and even Victoria, where you’ve got partisan politics kind of seeping in. Well, more than seeping. You’ve got party politics that are quite present in these larger communities. This is where it’s particularly important to have limitations on both spending and donations.

[1655]

My colleague from Coquitlam mentioned the rather infamous example in Vancouver where one donor contributed — not in the last election but in the previous election in Vancouver — almost $1 million to the campaign coffers of one particular party. While I don’t think there have been donations of quite that scale in more recent elections in Vancouver, still, to get contributions of several hundred thousand dollars is quite common in Vancouver. This is clearly where the brunt of the problem is.

I do agree with other speakers who have suggested that it’s less of a problem in smaller communities. But it doesn’t mean that it’s not a problem. There were folks that came to the committee, who wrote to us, who made the point that this kind of undue influence can certainly be present in smaller communities.

In fact, it’s probably easier to influence elections in smaller communities, because there are less dollars involved. A contribution of $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 in small communities can fund an entire campaign for a candidate. The possibility of undue influence of, let’s say, big money — I think smaller communities are even more vulnerable to that than larger communities, than Vancouver. So it’s not just a big-city problem. As a committee, we did try to grapple with that.

Very clearly, you need to have controls, limitations, on the donation side, and you need to consider the obvious fact that campaign spending occurs not just during the writ period but leading up to the writ period. If you don’t deal with those two fundamental issues, you’ve left a rather large hole in the barn door through which influence can get out. I think I’m getting a little carried away with my metaphors. But if you don’t deal with those two issues, you’re not completely dealing with the issue of election fairness for local governments.

The committee…. There were two phases to the report. The first phase was to consider the principles upon which more specific rules and regulations around spending limits would be based. Of course, first and foremost was the principle of fairness, but there were also principles around transparency and accountability. But fairness was the key one. Fairness was the issue that most people brought to us as a committee. That was their key concern: create a system where elections are fairer than they are now.

Does this legislation address that? No, unfortunately, it doesn’t. I think on this side of the House we would agree that the legislation is a step forward, but it doesn’t finish the job. Unless you deal with donations and pre-election campaign spending, you haven’t really done the job.

It is kind of interesting — local governments. I don’t know if it was a principle necessarily, but one of the considerations the committee had was to look at the rules that are actually in place at the federal and the provincial levels. In many respects, one would think that whereas maybe the precise dollar amounts wouldn’t apply, the same principles would apply at the federal, provincial and local level.
[ Page 11343 ]
Clearly, this bill and the legislation before it does address, at least partly, a gap at the local government level.

[1700]

Obviously, local governments have not had the same strict rules and limitations that are actually in place at the federal level and even at the provincial level. That is something that the committee considered when they were considering the validity of a particular recommendation, which was to consider what was happening at the federal and provincial level.

At the federal level, you do have limits, strict limits, on both the spending and the donation side. By the way, federally, those limits apply both pre-election and during the writ period. Provincially, until just last year, we also had strict limits on spending, both during the writ period and pre-campaign.

When it came to that issue of consistency and whether or not the committee should consider pre-election spending limitations for local government, one of the things we looked at was: “Well, what are the provincial rules? What are the federal rules?”

Despite the fact that the province had just eliminated the spending cap, at the provincial level, pre-election…. This was quite interesting. I was actually heartened by the fact that the committee members from the government side agreed, despite the fact that the province had just eliminated those pre-election spending caps provincially. Given our experience as locally elected officials formerly, when we talked it through, we agreed that it was very important to control spending, not just during the writ period. Unfortunately, government has not agreed with that.

Just to quickly go over the report…. I don’t want to do it in too much detail. Both the minister and my colleague who was the Deputy Chair of the committee have run through it. I do want to just quickly mention, again, the consultation process. I think I mentioned that there were 916 presentations. We had fairly good input.

The member from Surrey did point out that it wasn’t really viable to travel to some communities because there weren’t sufficient people willing to come in person to the committee. Nonetheless, we did, I think, get a pretty good representative view from across the province. The fact that we didn’t travel to a particular community in British Columbia didn’t mean that we didn’t get input from that community, necessarily. The public input was not just individuals but also electoral organizations. Even academics came to the committee. I think we got pretty good input in terms of that public consultation piece.

Certainly, there was very broad public support for the basic raison d’être of the committee, which was to establish election spending limits at the local government level. There’s no question that there is public support for that. One could quibble about the actual dollar amounts that we eventually recommended. Some of the devil is in the details. But there’s no question that there was broad public support for spending limits.

As I said earlier, there was also very broad public support for limitations on the donation side. I do want to just quote from a few folks that have commented on the recommendations that the committee made. There were a number of prominent commentators and organizations that came out really expressing serious concerns about the fact that donations were not included in the committee recommendations.

Frances Bula, of the Globe and Mail: “It sets no limits on campaign donations, no bans on corporate or union donations” — which is another issue that this side of the House has supported both at the provincial and the local government level — “no requirement to disclose donations before the election and no requirement to report donations in years outside the election year.” These are things that our side of the House may be considering for amendments or for improvements in the future.

[1705]

Andrea Reimer, who’s a very prominent Vancouver councillor, was quoted as saying, in her view: “It will actually make the problem significantly worse. There is a problem with a perception about the influence of corporate and union donations. If you lower expense limits, but there are no donation limits” — this is an interesting point — “a single donor can have much more influence.” In a way, by only dealing with one part of the equation, Andrea Reimer, a Vancouver councillor, is of the view that, in fact, you actually might make the problem worse.

There’s a group called Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver who also stated very clearly to us, when they came to the committee, that expense limits are not enough. Caps are also needed on campaign contributions.

The Times Colonist, in an editorial, stated: “This Wild West approach to campaign donations fuels public cynicism and invites special interest groups with deep pockets to buy political influence. Voters decide elections, but a party without a fat bank account usually has little chance against free-spending rivals, which means big donors can decide the outcome of elections.”

Those are all comments from non-partisan sources. By the way, I didn’t quote Dermod Travis, who also was quoted as saying: “It’s unfortunate the other half of the equation is not being tackled at the same time, which would be donations.”

These are all non-partisan comments, by no means associated with our party, all making that same point. We’ve only dealt with half the problem. In fact, one comment even suggests that by only dealing with half the problem, you might have made the situation a bit worse.

I did want to also mention…. I’ve been remiss in not thanking the staff that supported the committee within the ministry. Also, we had some expert advice coming to the committee and providing us data. As the member from Surrey indicated, we actually had data on spending by individual candidates, some of whom actually came to the committee. So it was quite interesting. A person is
[ Page 11344 ]
talking to you about their view on local election spending, and you’ve got information about how much money they actually did spend. These committees cannot function at all without the support of staff, and I very much want to thank the staff that supported our committee.

There are other folks here who want to speak to this bill. I do want to respond just quickly to a couple of comments that the minister made. The minister indicated that the legislation that’s being brought forward in the form of Bill 17 is consistent with the principle of fairness. Clearly, it’s not, for two reasons. It didn’t deal with donations, and it didn’t deal with the pre-election period.

I strongly disagree with the minister on this point. It is not addressed completely or as fulsomely as it should have been, that principle of fairness, which is really the fundamental principle we’re trying to achieve here with this legislation.

The minister also indicated that the decision to remove the pre-election cap from the legislation, which was unanimously agreed to by the committee, is consistent with provincial legislation. That, of course, is technically true. The only reason, though, that it is consistent with provincial legislation is because last year the pre-election spending cap in provincial elections was eliminated by Bill 20. That’s why it’s consistent.

[1710]

UBCM also suggested that it would be important to have local election rules consistent with provincial rules. They did single out the pre-election spending period. Our recommendation to include that…. UBCM did point out that that was inconsistent with provincial legislation. We would argue, on this side of the House, the only reason it’s inconsistent is because government has removed a long-standing provision for limitations on spending during the pre-election period.

There have been previous task forces that the minister also mentioned, notably the Local Government Elections Task Force, which I believe made recommendations in 2010. There was also disagreement on that task force around the issue of covering donations. The members of that committee on this side of the House expressed the view — it’s consistent with the view we hold today — that you need to deal with both sides of the equation.

I think I’ll cede my place to other members who want to speak on the legislation. We will be proposing amendments to this legislation. It is a step forward, but it’s only a half step, and it could have been so much better. We could have really made a much more significant step towards creating fairer elections at the local government level. But we’ll address some of those specific concerns and make some of those amendments in the committee stage. I’ll cede my place to other members who wish to speak to Bill 17.

S. Hamilton: It’s a pleasure to rise and to speak to this bill. There are quite a number of members in this House that, prior to being elected as MLAs, spent time on their local city councils and school boards. I’m one of them. I served for 11 years on Delta council. I’m proud to have done that. I’m proud to have, I believe, contributed to my community to an extent that I did. It was quite a milestone in my life, and I kind of miss it in many ways, to tell you the truth.

In order to become an MLA or a councillor, one has to be prepared to let your name stand in office and to participate in an election campaign. For those who have never participated in a campaign before, it can be a very daunting process, if not very confusing.

I think this legislation, to quote the member from Saanich North just a few minutes ago, is “a step forward,” but it is a measured, calculated step. We didn’t take an axe to the rules as they stand now. There are some things that I know the opposition chooses to contest, and I certainly appreciate their position on that.

I believe, however, that not addressing issues in their terms of reference regarding union and corporate donations might have had a considerable impact to some of the larger cities in the province, including Vancouver. I think they would probably, without that, have been left to run their campaign on that $4,000 the member for Surrey-Panorama mentioned a little earlier in his speech, because a lot of money did come from union and corporate donations.

Some city councillors decried some of the issues in the legislation — one, in particular, from the city of Vancouver — but I didn’t hear that person complain too much about the union and corporate donations.

Again, I think this is a measured approach. We didn’t take an axe to create this new legislation. But anyway, as I said before, it’s a difficult row to hoe when you first get into local politics. When you try to launch a campaign, usually you do it as a group, because it’s a little bit easier to fundraise, a little bit easier to pool your money and be recognized in the process.

In a province like British Columbia, where towns and cities and districts are growing in parallel with our provincial economy, it became apparent that electoral reform had to catch up with the evolution of local government in this province. The challenge was to adopt a fair structure for elections that runs simultaneously across the province in communities of vastly different sizes and complexity.

In other words, how do you come up with a set of rules that could apply to the size of a city like Vancouver and that would also satisfy the requirements of a smaller jurisdiction like, for example, the village of Nakusp?

[1715]

The process commenced in October of 2009, when a joint task force consisting of representation by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and two provincial MLAs, and co-chaired by the then Minister of Community and Rural Development and the Union of B.C. Municipalities president, embarked upon an ambitious
[ Page 11345 ]
process that reviewed campaign financing, including contributions, spending disclosure and limits, and tax credits.

It also looked at the enforcement process and outcomes, the role of the Chief Electoral Officer in local government elections, the election cycle and length of office. Others agreed upon matters such as the eligibility of local government volunteers to be candidates.

To support this review, the joint task force adopted an extensive public consultation process, again with an eye on the different needs of a city like Vancouver compared to the village of Nakusp, as I mentioned earlier. The public consultation had to cover the entire province so as to gain a deep appreciation for differences between communities.

The task force also had to take into consideration the different roles played by a big-city mayor versus that of a small town or village. In terms of campaign financing, should one have a flat rate across the province? Or should there be a sliding scale depending upon the population in any given community? These were the types of questions the task force had to consider.

The answer was to seek input not only from local governments themselves but to reach out to average voters, who ultimately are the stakeholders in the process. After all, the democratic electors in this province are really the focus of responsibility.

In total, the task force received over 10,000 written submissions. The feedback was key to identifying the success and gaps in the local election process. It indicated the complexity of the issues involved and the strong and diverse opinions that arose from this discussion.

On May 28, 2010, the task force delivered its recommendations to both the province and UBCM in the official Report of the Local Government Elections Task Force. The report contained 31 recommendations in five key areas. It proposed a significant yet balanced set of changes to improve local government elections by enhancing transparency, strengthening compliance and enforcement, increasing accessibility, ensuring accountability and setting forth a formal process to help educate participants in the process.

Remember that we’re not only talking about local government. We are, in fact, talking about the way we elect local government, which reaches down to the very foundation of our democratic traditions. The task force found that the vast majority of local elections were effectively administered. However, the major gaps were to be found primarily in the realm of campaign finance rules.

Therefore, the recommendations of the task force concentrated primarily on imposing expense limits on local election campaign participants, requiring registration and disclosure by third-party advertisers, requiring sponsorship information on all election advertising, making campaign finance disclosure statements available earlier and in an electronically searchable form, establishing a key role for Elections B.C. in enforcement of campaign finance rules and enhancing a separate act for campaign finance rules.

At that time, in 2010, we were looking at a fairly comprehensive set of recommendations that still had yet to be properly considered prior to local government elections set for 2011. It was, therefore, apparent that the process of review, consideration and implementation had to be phased in a series of stages.

The first phase of the process was the introduction of a white paper in 2013 to consider the task force recommendations. Phase 2 of the process consisted of a discussion paper specifically focused on expense limits for local election reform. Phase 3 occurred in 2015 with the formation of the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits.

Now here we are 2016, and we have legislation before us, Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act. You’d be quite justified, hon. Speaker, in asking why this process took so long. The short answer to that is that anything worth doing is worth doing right, and I believe we’ve done it right.

Again, we’ve taken a measured approach. We haven’t taken an axe to this process. We’ve made sure. We’ve consulted. Everyone has been engaged. And there will be another local election in coming years. As was mentioned a little earlier, it’ll be an opportunity for us to observe and potentially, if necessary, make changes in the future. Bill 17 will set the framework for expense limits, yet the actual limits will eventually be set by regulation.

In conclusion, I’d like to thank all the members of this House that have, in one way or another, participated in the culmination of this bill. This has been a long road, but your contributions will be realized in time for the next set of local government elections, slated for 2018.

[1720]

I’m confident that these regulations will provide a fair and transparent electoral system for local government. At the end of the day, our democratic system will be stronger in the years to come.

D. Eby: I have to admit that as an MLA from Vancouver, it’s difficult to hear the members on the other side of the House repeatedly say, which I agree with, that elections in Vancouver are different, that the amount of money spent in Vancouver elections, contributed in Vancouver elections, is different than other communities across the province.

Yet despite recognizing the singularity of the phenomenon that is the millions and millions and millions of dollars spent in Vancouver elections, the other side of the House has presented us with a bill that is not responsive in the least to the concerns that have been brought to this House by the city of Vancouver council.

I will note that those concerns were brought to this House by the city of Vancouver council, including the council on which the Attorney General sat as a city councillor. She personally voted for a motion that asked this
[ Page 11346 ]
House to limit campaign contributions. Yet as Attorney General in cabinet, she and her colleagues, who all recognize that this is happening in Vancouver, present us a bill that doesn’t limit campaign donations, doesn’t ban union or corporate donations, doesn’t require donations to be disclosed outside election years and doesn’t limit spending outside the 28-day election period.

I want to take this House through just some of the motions that have been passed unanimously by Vancouver city council.

March 25, 2010: set limits on the annual amount of contributions; limit the amount of money that may be spent annually by an elector organization.

June 24, 2010: Vancouver city council’s unanimous call for contribution limits, ongoing political contributions disclosure, public financing and providing the city with the ability to institute the electoral system of its choice were not part of the task force recommendations and are not part of this bill. “Election contribution limits are particularly crucial to ensure that undue influence is taken out of municipal politics” in Vancouver.

January 31, 2012. I’m going to draw your attention to this one especially because this is the council that the Attorney General sat on. This is the motion that she voted for: “Set limits on the annual amount of contributions that can be given by an individual to an elector organization, campaign organizer or an individual seeking elected office,” and “Ban union and corporate donations.” The Attorney General voted for this, and this government presents us with a bill that does none of those things.

Then on June 26, 2013, a request to the provincial government regarding campaign finance rules: “Be it resolved that….” Council wanted the Union of B.C. Municipalities to “support Vancouver’s request to the provincial government for amendments to the Vancouver Charter to allow Vancouver to make rules for election campaign finance that place greater limits on campaign spending and contributions, and provide for greater disclosure.” Passed by council.

Maybe the members on the other side…. They say that Vancouver is different. They stand up and say in their speeches that Vancouver is different. Maybe they don’t understand what’s happening in Vancouver.

In the 2011 municipal election — one person, a $960,000 donation. One person. In the most recent elections in Vancouver, we’re talking about spending of $5 million, in a single election. And spending will be wild. It will be wild right up until the 29th day before the election, when this act kicks in for Vancouver.

It treats Vancouver like every other city in the province, even though Vancouver has this unique issue of an incredibly corrosive impact on public confidence in the local city council — that it is accountable to the community. And why is this corrosion happening? Because any one average person in Vancouver can’t compete with a $1 million donation.

[1725]

They can’t compete. Most people can’t compete with a $10,000 donation. They feel like their voice cannot be heard. And no political party feels that they can actually compete in this environment with unlimited political donations.

On one side, people don’t want to get involved in local politics if they don’t want to get involved in this high-level fundraising. On the other hand, people who want to see that their council is responsive to their concerns, not to the concerns of donors, feel that their council has been bought and sold.

It’s to the credit, I think, of Vancouver city council, unanimously across all parties, that they continually ask this House for assistance, despite the fact that you could argue: “Well, they’re benefiting from this. They’re getting the big donations. Why would they ask for us to change that?” They want us to change it, yet here the bill in front of us doesn’t do that. Donations for municipal elections — up 175 percent in the last eight years since Vancouver started asking us for help on this issue.

I’ve spoken in this place many times now about the housing crisis in the Lower Mainland, which is particularly acute in the city of Vancouver. It is the number one issue among people in Metro Vancouver — certainly the number one issue in the city of Vancouver.

There is a belief in Vancouver that government is in the pockets of developers, the real estate industry and people who profit from the status quo of unaffordable housing in the city of Vancouver. What feeds that belief? Huge campaign donations from individuals who are involved in this industry. It’s resulting in a loss of confidence in government. It doesn’t matter what the council does, people look at the donations and say: “You would do more except for the fact that you’re taking these donations.”

That’s why they’re asking for our help. That’s why they want us to help restore confidence in local government by banning union and corporate donations, putting limits on donations, putting limits on the full-year spending, not just the 28 days before the election, and requiring disclosure all the time, not just in an election year. Yet this bill does none of those things.

I’m going to point out something, which is that I have a huge amount of respect for anybody who runs for city council in any city of British Columbia, certainly in Vancouver. I want to recognize that, in my opinion, municipal elected officials are some of the hardest-working and least rewarded politicians in our system. I see them sitting in these meetings until late at night. They’re the front lines of community government.

When they come to us and when they ask us for help, I think we need to listen to them. I hope we listen to them. I hope the government reconsiders the fact that…. While they stand in their speeches and say, “Vancouver is different; Vancouver is different; Vancouver is different,” they then give Vancouver the same rules as everyone else, which don’t respond to the realities or the requests of the city of Vancouver city council.
[ Page 11347 ]

This is an issue of public confidence in democracy. It is not a minor issue. I hope the government listens carefully to the city of Vancouver city council and puts those changes in place that they’re asking for.

L. Reimer: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016.

Democracy is not static, by any means. As a system of government, democracy is active and evolves over time with changing circumstances. Democratic reform is a process that keeps our system alive and vibrant, but it isn’t something that happens overnight.

In the case of elections for local government in British Columbia, we are now entering the final stages of a process that was started a number of years ago with the creation of the Local Government Elections Task Force, a joint task force between UBCM and government.

As a Parliamentary Secretary for Communities to the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, I saw the creation and development of the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, which was known as LECFA. As well, I saw over 30 recommendations implemented as part of our campaign financing reform.

In addition, I worked and served on the special committee on local government elections expense limits, whose mandate it was to further explore the best options in relation to local government campaign expense limits. Our mandate was established by the original 2009 Local Government Elections Task Force.

[1730]

In June of 2015, the special committee on local government expense limits made recommendations on these limits. As the hon. member for Delta North mentioned earlier, the challenge in this entire process was to adopt a fair structure for elections that run simultaneously across the province in communities of vastly different sizes. The challenge is also made even more complex by the fact that we are talking about different types of elected office. The committee had to examine the rules along a broad spectrum, ranging from small townships, regional districts, special purpose bodies and, of course, small and large cities.

Ultimately, Bill 17 will complete the process of electoral reform that originally began in 2009. As I mentioned previously, British Columbia updated the local government election campaign finance rules in 2014 to bring greater transparency and accountability to local elections. The final piece of this local government elections financing has now moved to enhancing accessibility and fairness in local elections by implementing expense limits.

In November of 2015, based on the recommendations of the special committee, Bill 43 was introduced in the House as an exposure bill. By introducing Bill 43 as an exposure bill, the government created a final opportunity for review of the specifics of expense limits by British Columbia’s local governments, election participants and citizens. Based on further consultation and consideration, the legislation we have before us will amend the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act to enable the establishment of expense limits for candidates for mayor, council, regional district area directors, school board and certain special purpose bodies.

Expense limits will apply to both independent candidates and candidates endorsed by elector organizations. Expense limits will also apply to third-party advertisers. Bill 17 also sets the framework for expense limits, but the actual limits will eventually be set by regulation.

With the passage of this legislation, we will have a complete new suite of democratic reforms that replace those of more than 20 years ago. We will have a significant yet balanced set of changes to improve local government elections by enhancing transparency, strengthening compliance and enforcement, increasing accessibility, ensuring accountability and setting forth a formal process to help educate participants in the process.

In closing, I would like to thank very much our dedicated ministry staff, whom I spent countless hours with; as well, our legislative staff that supported our parliamentary committee; also, my fellow members of the special committee for local government elections expense limits for their hard work and dedication to building a better democracy at the ground level.

Consequently, we are now in a good position to have all reforms in place for local elections in October of 2018. It’s been a long road indeed, but well worth it, because in the end, all British Columbians will benefit from a strong and more vibrant democratic system.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to Bill 17, local elections campaign financing with respect to expense limits. Certainly, it’s a bill, an issue, a topic that has been long awaited in British Columbia, to put some caps and to bring some stability and common sense to our elections at the municipal level.

Limits on our municipal elections are lagging behind restrictions that are put into place and that have been observed for many years for federal elections and for provincial elections. There’s been reform needed to municipal spending limits in our province, and it’s been long awaited.

[1735]

We’ve heard stories. We just have to look back to the experience in Vancouver in our last municipal election to get a gauge of what that means — in terms of the experience of municipal city councillors, mayor candidates, school board trustees, and, in Vancouver, park board commissioners — and how disproportionate the spending was, in terms of our municipal elections compared to our provincial and federal elections, where spending caps have been in place for a number of years.

In Vancouver, in our last municipal election, political parties spent around $5 million. It’s incredible if you think about just one municipality and the spending be-
[ Page 11348 ]
cause of a lack of limits — what political parties and candidates, not only the expenses that they incurred, but also the donations that came in.

This issue of concern around control of campaign financing for local elections originates from a very fundamental principle that underlies our democracy that is reflected in the spending limits in our federal elections and also our provincial elections: that we should ensure that there is opportunity for access for regular Canadians in our political process. We should ensure that Canadian citizens and British Columbian citizens feel confident and trust the integrity of our political system.

Not having spending limits and not limiting, on the one hand, the expenses or the donations, contributions that can be contributed into an election campaign, underlines that trust and that confidence, and it leads to….

We’ve heard remarks around British Columbians feeling cynical about our political process and also concern around the concept of big money influencing our elections and playing a role, in terms of not only determining who can be elected. If your pockets are deep enough and if you can generate enough donations and spend enough, you can….

The concern reflected is that it calls into trust the ability to…. Without spending limits, are individuals, corporations, in effect, buying or having an undue influence in our political process? It’s a very important principle that underlines the need, the concern from citizens, and also the importance of bringing in, finally, campaign finance expense limits.

Bill 17 originates from recommendations of the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits in the June 2015 report. It was introduced as an exposure bill last fall, and now, with Bill 17, we see that there were some changes made. The expense limit period for candidates and elector organizations are altered from January 1 to 28 days prior to the close of election day. This is a change that looks to bring it more into line with the expense limit periods at the provincial level and also at the local government level.

This is one area that the UBCM has advocated: that there be some uniformity between the provincial and local governments. This was a recommendation that came out of the 2010 UBCM provincial elections task force.

We see that also you should ensure that disclosure of all transfers that are made from or into campaign accounts are accounted for. While it places limits on campaign expenses for candidates, which is a positive component and certainly much needed, it does not limit contribution, only expenses. We are still awaiting…. The expense limits would still be set by regulation.

[1740]

We have Bill 17 before us to address the pressing concern, the need to ensure that municipal elections have spending limits. The bill achieves one-half of that equation, in terms of putting a limit on limits on candidates, on that end, but it misses, and it neglects to address the area of contributions. That is another area that is in place in terms of our federal and also our provincial elections. This is an area that has been neglected and is missing from the bill.

It does not address contribution limits. The exclusion of contribution limits brings into question perceived conflicts that come with large individual, union and corporate donations that would impact the fairness of elections, and also the perception of the fairness of elections, and also undermine engagement among people who’ve grown cynical about politics.

This is a concern that I have, and it’s a concern that is expressed by individuals who ran, who I’ve talked to — candidates, and political parties — and also citizens who voted in the last municipal elections in Vancouver, in particular. This is an area that has been neglected. That does not address it in a wholesome and comprehensive way that would bring legitimate oversight and accountability and ensure that we had fairness in terms of our electoral process at the municipal level.

We know, as well, the recommendations that came forward from the committee…. They had a number of individuals and organizations who made submissions. We see that because of no limits on campaign donations and the exclusion of bans on corporate or union donations — and, in addition, no requirement to disclose donations before the election or to report the donations in years outside the election…. These are areas that, contrary to improving the situation, may actually in fact make it worse.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

On the one hand, we have Bill 17 that addresses and puts a limit on expenses. Not only does it not address the restrictions on contributions, but it also calls into question in terms of the timelines and the time frame for accountability.

I would like to reference a quote from Vancouver councillor Andrea Reimer. Her statement is that “it will actually make the problem significantly worse. There’s a problem with the perception about the influence of corporate and union donations. If you lower expense limits but there are no donation limits, a single donor can have much more influence.”

Madame Speaker, noting the time, I would like to reserve my place in debate and move adjournment.

M. Elmore moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain in your seats.

[1745]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2016

Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act

Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act (No. 1), 2016

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[1750]

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Martin in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $39,211,000 (continued).

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and staff again, for returning here this afternoon.

I’d just like to pick up where we left off. Just a recap. We were talking about the Maa-nulth treaty and, in specific, the issue of compensation to workers that have lost work as a result of a quarter of the annual allowable cut removed from TFL 44 and then brought over to the treaty nations, the Maa-nulth Nations. Huu-ay-aht, specifically, I think, is the main recipient, but nonetheless….

That compensation issue is now on the table, and it’s controversial. It wasn’t dealt with, certainly, before the treaty, which is what I would have expected.

Following that line of questioning, my next question is: has the minister or the ministry been meeting with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations on this specific issue? Has it come across this table at all? Or is that all going to be handled by the minister and the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations?

Hon. J. Rustad: Specifically to the issue that has been raised, my ministry is engaged with all ministries in government as they work with First Nations. In this particular case, we have ministry people that are engaged with FLNRO, as FLNRO is the lead in working through this. I have not personally been engaged as minister, but we have been at the staff level.

[1340]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Going back a couple of steps, the minister reviewed this in an earlier question quite extensively. As treaty is being finalized…. We all hope for a successful treaty process, whoever is in the treaty process, but we try to sort of tick these issues off before they come back and bite us.

I’m just wondering. How did this not…? Is this something that would come across the ministry’s attention? If you designate a certain amount of land to be removed from a tree farm licence, for instance, or the trees within that land, there’s obviously going to be an impact to somebody, presumably the tenure holder — in this case, it would be Western Forest Products — and then, of course, 30 to 50 workers, based on the government’s own formula for compensation.

The question is: would that be something that, as the minister has suggested, should have been dealt with beforehand, and if so, who should have dealt with that? Who would be in the loop on the treaty negotiations? Who would do that?

Hon. J. Rustad: As we go through our treaty negotiations…. Treaty is about resolving the relationship, of course, between the Crown and a First Nation and solidifying what that relationship can look like, how we’re going to work together going forward — then, of course, the federal, provincial and nations.
[ Page 11350 ]

The Crown also has relationships with other operators on the land base, tenure holders of various kinds. Where those two are in conflict, as part of the treaty negotiations, we try to resolve those conflicts with the tenure holder. In the case of Maa-nulth, we did do that. We were able to resolve the conflict we had with the tenure holder on the ground.

[1345]

As we go through that, because we’re negotiating government to government and we have other arrangements that are government to industry or to individuals that have a tenure on the land base, we do resolve those types of issues.

With regards to this specific case, of course, I cannot get into details. That is something that you’ll have to talk to FLNRO about.

S. Fraser: I have a question on that. The minister just stated that the issues around…. I don’t know if “conflict” is the right term, but I understand where he’s coming from on that. Presumably, if you mitigate, then there is no conflict. I mean, that’s the whole idea.

The tenure holder in this case, is Western Forest Products. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe I am. I do not believe that there has been any compensation negotiated for that tenure holder — Western Forest Products, in this particular case. They lost one-quarter of that cut. It affects, obviously, the tenure holder — the company and the workers that are actually involved on the ground, getting jobs and employment out of that.

My understanding…. The last I heard is that — and this is recent, like in the last month or so — neither Western Forest Products nor the workers have received any compensation, nor have they got any agreement to get any compensation. If the minister knows that the tenure holder was compensated or was dealt with, could he give me some information on that, please?

Hon. J. Rustad: As with any treaty, of course, we work to try to resolve things, as we talked about. In this particular case, as we worked through coming up to final agreement, we were sitting down and in discussions with the company around this particular issue. An offer was on the table as part of it. There is some dispute to that, which is what has led this to arbitration at the moment. Of course, I can’t comment about what is currently being addressed through that process.

S. Fraser: The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is part of the treaty process and would have sat down with the principal — in this case, Western Forest Products — to try to mitigate any of their loss that could be related to the treaty.

[1350]

That is the process, as I understand it, and that’s now in arbitration. I’m clear on that. Was there any similar consideration given specifically to the workers? They would not be part of a compensation package to the principal, the workers themselves, as in that removal of land from the tree farm licences back in 2002, 2003 — the 20 percent that was removed that became B.C. Timber Sales.

There was a formula of 2,000 cubic metres. That would result in…. It’s equivalent to one forestry worker. That was the formula that came out of government at the time, and that’s how the compensation was addressed for the workers, not the principal. They’ve got a separate negotiation, I guess.

Did that ever happen? If not, did that discussion ever happen with, in this case, the steelworkers? Or there could have been independent contractors also involved, but certainly, my discussion has been with steelworkers. Was there any such conversation with them or consideration with them prior as far as compensation goes? And if not, why not?

Hon. J. Rustad: This feels a little bit like a football game. You’re huddling, then you go out and you break to scrimmage, and then he says: “Hut.”

Interjection.

Hon. J. Rustad: Well, I tend to stand out in front with my team behind me, supporting me, so I guess that means I’m out front.

Sorry, hon. Chair, for that diversion.

As I explained earlier, what we do with the treaty process, of course, is we’re dealing with governance. We’re dealing with a whole wide range of issues. Land, of course, is a big, major component of treaty — resolving the question of title through that process.

As we work on land, there are other tenure holders that are on the land base. We directly engage with those tenure holders, as we have an obligation, between government and those tenure holders, to try to resolve, where possible, whatever the issues may be that arise. That is as far as the treaty process goes. It doesn’t look at components outside of that, at least certainly not in the Maa-nulth case.

Specifically to the question about whether there was any engagement or that side of things, those are questions, unfortunately, that you’ll have to put to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

S. Fraser: Okay. I understand. But does Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations step in automatically as a treaty is being negotiated to look at mitigation? Is that a process that…?

[1355]

If MARR isn’t doing it and the minister is suggesting it’s Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, do they sit at the treaty table and go: “Uh-oh. Look, we’re going to have 30 to 50 workers that are going to lose their jobs if we do this, so we want to make sure we ad-
[ Page 11351 ]
dress that. We don’t want to pit community against community”? Does Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations play that role?

Hon. J. Rustad: As I said, there is this relationship between government to tenure holders. There is this relationship between governments as we work with First Nations to bring to treaty. MARR works with many other ministries as we work through a treaty to deal with encumbrances on the land base, or tenures that are on the land base, and through that kind of process.

Specifically, we do not instruct other ministries to go and do anything outside of resolving those particular conflicts that may happen with tenures or other types of issues directly on the land base. To what level of extent any other ministry — whether it’s Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations or others — may engage outside of that, those are questions that you’ll need to ask the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations or other ministries as appropriate.

S. Fraser: Well, then I would suggest humbly that there is a gap in due process in the treaty process, as it stands. If, as the minister is stating, there has been no role for the ministry in addressing directly the impacts of a treaty on workers and compensation for those workers — only with the tenure holders…. And if the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is not privy to the details of a treaty negotiation and how it might affect the players….

Interjection.

S. Fraser: The minister has stated that they are privy.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: We might need that on the record.

In this case, which may be being duplicated elsewhere as treaties are…. In the last year, that I am aware of, there were about four agreements-in-principle that have been signed. I have been to two Tsimshian nations. When was that? I can’t remember the date now, but it was the Kitselas and the Kitsumkalum. I was honoured to attend both of those.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: August. Thank you.

This could be happening again. If it never came across the attention of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to address the impacts on workers in the area in the Maa-nulth treaty, this could well be happening again. Obviously Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations have not dealt with this since it’s now an issue after the fact of the Maa-nulth treaty.

Could this well be happening, again, at other tables, where communities may — I know it’s not the intention — be pitted against treaty, if they feel that their community members that are adjacent to or proximal to the nations that are getting treaty — that their workers are going to be…? You know, that it’s going to be done on the backs of them.

Does the minister not see that as a potential problem for getting local buy-in for the treaty process — which we all want to see?

[1400]

Hon. J. Rustad: Once again, as we go in through this process of negotiating agreements, negotiating treaty, with First Nations, the process obviously has an impact on the land base, because there is a change of land.

There are other tenures or encumbrances on the land base. Those ministries are directly engaged with us through that process, which means that Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is engaged with MARR as part of those negotiations, as part of whatever the alterations or impacts may be to the tenure holders. We work with those tenure holders to address any of the issues that may come up, which may include compensation around whatever that change may be.

Beyond that, I really think the member opposite should be asking the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations for any sort of details that they might be able to provide.

S. Fraser: I am in touch with that minister on that, but the reason I am raising it here is that I still see a gap.

There was no consideration from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations of the workers that would be losing their jobs as a result of a shift of annual allowable cut from TFL 44. There was no consideration from the ministry. There was no contact. As a matter of fact, I’ve got specific documentation from Western Forest Products apprising the ministry that, indeed, there are job losses associated with this, which there would have to be if a quarter of the cut is gone.

Again, that did not happen with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Thus, the negotiations, if they would start…. It would be nice if they’d start, but the push to get negotiations to address that, after the fact, is underway as we speak.

[1405]

The reason I am asking you, as minister, on this issue is because there was obviously a failure there by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to even consider the workers. And since you, as minister, have stated that your only role as a ministry is to deal with the principal — in this case, Western Forest Products — if there’s a mitigation necessary as a result of treaty, it means that no one is looking out for the workers, except after the fact, as the MLA, trying to represent
[ Page 11352 ]
workers from Local 1-85 in Port Alberni and others, to see that they get due compensation.

The minister is saying that it’s not his problem. The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations didn’t deal with this, never anticipated it as part of the treaty process. There was a gap here. There was a communications gap.

That’s one thing. It can be a mistake. To wilfully continue with that through the treaty process and not address it would be a big problem, I would submit, because other communities are going to see job losses as a result from treaty. Those communities should rightly be able to celebrate a treaty achieved by a neighbouring First Nation, as opposed to having to fight tooth and nail to get compensation for losses of their community members.

There must be a role for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation here. Otherwise, the ministry is going to be continuing the same flawed process, leading to more dissension between communities, as opposed to celebrating the treaty. Does the minister not see? It’s easy to say, “It’s another ministry’s problem,” but that ministry is not part of the treaty process. This ministry is.

Once you know that a sector is not being addressed, is not being negotiated with to bring about a good outcome in the treaty process, surely the minister would agree that that should happen. Whether it’s his ministry or another one, somebody should be looking out for workers that might be facing a job loss as a result of treaty — just using the same rationale that the tenure holder should be considered also when that happens.

Government to government is the treaty process, and compensation for that should happen from government to government, not from worker to government. The worker shouldn’t be the loser, nor should the tenure holder — which the minister has already agreed he works with. The workers count too. Surely, that can be corrected in future negotiations so that this wouldn’t happen again.

Hon. J. Rustad: The member opposite makes an interesting point or observation. I’d like to maybe just phrase this in a different way, because I want to try to understand what he’s trying to say here. If I sell my car to you and you use a different mechanic’s shop, does that mean that you require compensation to the mechanic that I was using to maintain my car?

In the case of treaty, as we go forward and work with First Nations, we work on the tenure that’s on the land. In this particular case, with the Maa-nulth, there was volume that was transferred, and there was an offer of compensation that was made to the tenure holder. To the best of my knowledge, the intent for that volume is still to be harvested. It will still be supporting jobs; it will still be milled. It’s not like that volume has suddenly disappeared. It’s not like that volume has suddenly been shipped to somewhere else.

The intent of the treaty process, as we go through, is to work with nations to be able to help them build an economic future, to find ways for them to become self-sustaining and supporting of their people, to support their culture, to support their languages, to be able to create optimism and hope for their people in the future. We work in partnership with those nations as we go through this.

As there are impacts on tenure holders on the land base, we address those tenure holder situations. With regard to anything else that may happen through there, it is the tenure holder that has certain responsibilities around that as part of the negotiations.

[1410]

But most importantly, in this case — and I stand corrected if I’m wrong — the volume that was transferred as part of that is part of creating an economic opportunity for the Maa-nulth nations that they will be then be able contract to or harvest themselves and have an opportunity to be able sell on the open market. The companies and others would have opportunities to be able to bid on that, to be able to support jobs, to be able to keep on with operations. It’s just as if a car was sold and went from one owner to another. The repair shop still has the opportunity to try to attract that business and carry on with the operations that it has.

I’m just curious if that is what the member opposite is saying — that if there is a transfer of an asset, there’s some sort of direct connection there. From our perspective, as we work with nations, we’re trying to build that future. We’re trying to build those opportunities with the nations. We’re trying to make sure that they have the opportunity to be able to benefit from the resources on the land base in the way that they want to see fit.

Any spinoff economic benefits that come from that, obviously, are a part of how they interact with their neighbouring nations and their neighbouring communities and how they interact within British Columbia and Canada.

S. Fraser: I don’t agree with your analogy. I think it’s simplistic at best. We have workers that….

Your government has developed a formula based on 2,000 cubic metres per job per year that’s associated with forestry in this province. The precedent was set when the 20 percent clawback happened a number of years ago, over a decade ago now. That formula was set. There was a recognition that not just the tenure holder, when land was removed from a TFL, would be affected financially but also workers.

Western Forest Products, the tenure holder, has confirmed that yes, this move has indeed affected — negatively — the workers involved. That is the reality. This government has recognized that reality previously, in making that formula. There has been job loss associated with this.

I would submit that the lofty goals that the minister has just referred to, which I agree with, are potentially at risk if the minister and the ministry and the minister
[ Page 11353 ]
of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and that ministry fail to address those compensation issues for people on the ground that are affected. That will affect the ability of getting buy-in for treaty as we move forward.

As we move into this portion of the estimates, treaty process…. There are problems in the treaty process. This will add to them if communities start figuring out that their workers are going to be laid off due to a treaty. That’s not fair to anyone. It’s not fair to the treaty nations.

I spoke with members from the Huu-ay-aht First Nations and Maa-nulth Nations. They had no idea that this transfer would indeed lead to job losses in Port Alberni, potentially for some of their members too.

We may have to agree to disagree on this. I will move on to…. I should leave the minister a chance to respond first. I’ll sit down.

[1415]

Hon. J. Rustad: We do fundamentally disagree here on this particular point. As I mentioned, when nations engage — Maa-nulth, in particular…. When they wanted volume to be part of their treaty, just as other treaty nations that we have wanted forest volume to be part of the treaty, they wanted it for economic purposes. They wanted it so that that wood can be harvested.

In this particular case, the majority of that wood is to be used for that purpose — to be harvested and to continue on with the activities, just like any activity that was happening before, where that wood goes. It’s harvested. It may change as to who’s harvesting it. It may change as to who’s purchasing it. They obviously have the ability to go out and make a business-to-business relationship just like anybody else does that is an owner of volume.

I think we do fundamentally disagree with this. As we go through and work with nations, and as we go through and work with tenure holders, we attempt to come to resolution in terms of what a compensation package is. In this particular case, there is a dispute with regards to that compensation package, and that is what is currently before arbitration. We’ll see where that comes about.

I do not believe this is a flaw, although I do think there are other challenges that we need to think about in the treaty process. I’m sure we’ll get an opportunity to explore it shortly. This doesn’t happen to be one of them that I think is a flaw. We work with the tenure holder on the land base. It’s that government-to-government and government-to-tenure-holder relationship that is being potentially impacted by negotiations and by the change of ownership of the land and by the fact that we’ve entered into a treaty agreement.

S. Fraser: I can’t seem to get off this loop. I’ve got to respond to this.

The minister is suggesting that there is a need to compensate the tenure holder. That’s under arbitration, so that’s not going all that well. There’s an acknowledgment that there’s a loss for the tenure holder, obviously. They lose one-quarter of their cut in this TFL. There’s going to be an impact on their bottom line. Let’s put it that way. There’s a recognition of that.

Under contract are members of Steelworkers 1-85 to harvest that wood, of which 25 percent is now gone. Those jobs are directly related to the tenure of Western Forest Products. To my knowledge, there’s no attempt to compensate Western Forest Products to the extent that they can then compensate the workers. They’re going to say: “Stay home because we don’t have enough cut for you.” That’s the reality for workers. The minister’s analogy is not in the real world if you’re out of work in Port Alberni.

I’ll leave that for the minister. He may want to respond again.

Hon. J. Rustad: I do wonder whether or not, using the same type of analogy, if there is an agreement or there’s a contract that is lost, there is some sort of obligation by the person who loses that agreement to compensate workers because they’ve lost a part of it. In any case, that goes down a rabbit hole that we probably don’t need to go down here.

The reality is really simple. I don’t understand why the member opposite doesn’t understand this. There is an obligation between the government and a tenure holder, and there is an obligation that is created between the government and a nation through the treaty process. The obligation of the treaty process impacts on the obligation the government has with a tenure holder on the land base. It is therefore the government’s responsibility to try to work with that tenure holder to resolve any compensation issues that may be required because of that impact or find other ways in terms of mitigating what that impact may be.

[1420]

That is the obligation of government. Whatever agreement a tenure holder has with any third party or any other people is the tenure holder’s responsibility, and it’s part of the negotiations they would have in terms of the level of compensation required.

In this particular case, there is a dispute with regards to what’s being offered, which is what has created the arbitration. I can’t talk about what is going on with that. I also can’t talk about any other discussions that may or may not have been going on. Those are questions that you’ll have to put to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

S. Fraser: Using analogies like fixing a car in this situation is pretty remote. It’s a stretch at best. Why don’t we use the analogy of this?

In 2003 — I might be off by a year — your government removed 20 percent of the annual allowable cut, across the board, from tenure holders. Bill 28 was the basis for B.C.
[ Page 11354 ]
Timber Sales, in part to deal with issues of community forests and First Nations. There are others. I don’t have all the information here. It was recognized by your government — I think it was Bill 28 — that there was a cost for doing that, a cost to the tenure holders and the workers.

Your government is a great analogy. They compensated the tenure holders and the workers, and they developed a formula to do that through a transition fund. That’s the analogy we should be using, not some obscure analogy about repairing a car.

These are workers. It’s 12 years later. It’s still the same government. The precedent is set by your government, so trying to wash your hands of this or saying that it’s a problem for somebody else…. It’s not. It’s your government’s decision and recognition that removing land from a tree farm licence, in this case for the Maa-nulth treaty, is going to impact workers and tenure holders. They need to be compensated and have been compensated. That is the analogy.

Why it’s not happening now is…. Well, we can go around this one, probably, over and over again. I shall move on, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Please address through the Chair.

S. Fraser: Thank you.

It’s been a year since the minister lost faith in George Abbott as the treaty commissioner and fired him. We have no treaty….

Interjection.

S. Fraser: The minister is suggesting that he wasn’t hired, so he wasn’t fired. That’s a stretch to anybody watching the treaty process.

Maybe the minister should talk to Mr. Lampert. He’s the federal treaty commissioner, an appointee on the treaty commission. He was blindsided by the minister’s decision to fire George Abbott just before he was about to take over. The treaty commission was blindsided. Sophie Pierre, the previous treaty chief commissioner, was blindsided. The B.C. First Nations Summit was blindsided.

It’s been a year since that happened. We have had no chief commissioner for the last year. The treaty commission is still moving along, with problems. There were problems then, there are more problems now, and we still have no chief commissioner.

What is the status report on the hiring of a new treaty commissioner?

[1425]

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m glad we’re moved on to another topic. Repetitive back and forth is often not as productive as what we would hope it would be.

To the issue of the B.C. Treaty Commission. We are here to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation for the year 2016-17, as laid out in the budget. There is, obviously, money allocated from that budget in support of the B.C. Treaty Commission office. The B.C. Treaty Commission office currently does not have a chief commissioner in place. However, they have an interim commissioner in place who is doing great work. Obviously, they’re down one person. It’s some challenging work, but they’re doing good work.

We are engaged with the principals, certainly, at a staff level, who are the First Nations Summit and the federal government — as well, of course, with the province — around the treaty process and are looking at ways to potentially improve the treaty process. We’re looking forward to, hopefully in the near future, being able to have a principals meeting, in which case we’d be able to discuss how to improve the treaty process. At this stage, we have made no decision as a province as to whether or not we would support the appointment of a new treaty commissioner.

I must say, just to add to this…. So far, the B.C. treaty process, over 23 years, an expenditure of in excess of $625 million, has been able to produce a treaty at a rate of about one treaty per three years. At that rate, with the 200 nations within British Columbia, that is 600 years. I find that unacceptable. Our government finds that unacceptable. We cannot expect to be able to build long-term solid relations with First Nations at that pace.

We need to find ways to significantly improve treaty and the outcomes of our treaty negotiations. That is what our goal within the province of British Columbia is focused on.

S. Fraser: I don’t disagree that the treaty process is moving at a…. Maybe a glacial pace is a way to describe it. That would be a way to describe the appointment of the treaty commissioner.

The minister went through a process to hire a chief commissioner and then got buy-in from all the partners in the process, which is required in a tripartite agreement. Then, unilaterally, with no explanation — no valid explanation — except that the treaty process is moving too slow…. So we’re going to fire George Abbott, and we’re going to not have a treaty commissioner, I guess. But maybe. We’re a year later, and it’s the same refrain. It’s the same statement, saying: “Well, things are going slow. We’ve got to fix the treaty process.”

If there’s a treaty process, it’s not like you don’t need treaty commissioners. We do. Tom Happynook was appointed — Tom is a friend of mine, and he’s doing a great job, I think, as a treaty commissioner — after pulling the rug out from George Abbott. There’s obviously, as long as there’s a treaty process in place, a need for treaty commissioners. So not reappointing a treaty commissioner a year later and, obviously, having not even a plan to do so would be not helpful in this process in any way, shape or form.

[1430]

Is there no plan? Are we going to blow up the treaty commission? What’s the idea? Are we not going to have a chief commissioner. Is that the plan? If it’s not the plan, why have we waited a year and still have no progress on an appointment?

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the debate.

Do you know what I find really puzzling about this question? It seems to be, first of all, a bit of a lack of understanding of the B.C. Treaty Commission and how it works.

There are four treaty commissioners that are appointed — one by the federal government, one by the provincial government and two by the First Nations Summit. By legislation, if any one of those positions is not filled, my understanding is that the Treaty Commission cannot function. It actually just shuts down.

The treaty commissioner, the chief commissioner, is not in the same position. So when we were in a position where B.C. needed to fill one of those positions so that the B.C. Treaty Commission could carry on with its work, we appointed Tom Happynook, who is doing great work. He’s a great individual, and I really thank him for the work that he is doing and being part of the B.C. Treaty Commission process.

But I think what is most disturbing about this is that I have just identified to the member, as I did last year, a serious problem with the B.C. treaty process. Six hundred years is the current pace. Even if we could accelerate that to a treaty per year, we’re still talking 200 years. It is a serious, serious problem.

The member’s solution is process. I’m not interested in process. What I am interested in is results. What I’m interested in is actually figuring out how we can get to long-term relationships with nations in a much more rapid way so that we can see nations across this province be able to receive the kinds of benefits we’re seeing from Tsawwassen, the kinds of benefits that Maa-nulth has reached, the kinds of benefits that Nisga’a is enjoying and the kinds of benefits that Tla’amin is so excited about starting on as they reach their implementation date here on April 5.

That is what we are focused on as a government. We are focused on those results.

I’m sorry if the member opposite seems to be stuck in wanting to support process. It is flawed. We have said that. We are working with the principals to see how we can improve that. But quite frankly, we need to go a long, long way if we’re going to get to something that can remotely be expected by First Nations to be able to enter and successfully conclude within a lifetime, let alone a generation.

The Chair: Member.

S. Fraser: Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the proceedings.

The Premier said in March a year ago: “We made a principled policy decision. The decision is not to continue with the status quo…. In terms of next steps, whether or not the treaty process or the Treaty Commission will change or whether it will continue to exist is going to be something we decide together with First Nations.” That’s a year ago.

We’re talking about how long everything takes. So a year later we have…. Everyone who was blindsided by having no chief commissioner…. It’s still the situation, and we have had no progress in…. Well, maybe the minister can say how radically he’s changed the treaty process that needs to be changed so radically.

The Premier said that the decision is not to continue with the status quo. It is the status quo. A year later we have no treaty commissioner. We have no chief commissioner, and we have no change to the treaty process. We have no new mandate for the treaty process — not that I’m aware of.

Maybe the minister, since he says that I’m confused, could clear up my confusion and show just how the treaty process has been changed in the last year, except for the fact that we still have no chief treaty commissioner. That, I would submit, is not going to change the status quo.

[1435]

Hon. J. Rustad: The member opposite asked what sort of progress is being made towards a new chief commissioner or other progress that’s being made. Once again, I find it fascinating — absolutely fascinating — not talking about where the problems are and how we could think about changing some of the things that are in there but, once again, more about process.

More specifically, I also find it interesting that the member opposite may seem to have forgotten that there’s a certain event that happened in Canada this past year, which is called an election. When there’s an election, it obviously creates a challenge in terms of engagement at the principals level, minister to minister, with the First Nations Summit.

The work that has been happening over the course of the past year, in terms of our last meeting with the summit, is that we assigned a team from the federal government, the provincial government and the First Nations Summit to do an in-depth look at treaty and to come forward with recommendations that will come to the principals.

That work has been completed. That work has now gone to the principals. I look forward to the opportunity to be able to meet now with our partners to do a review of that work, to look at what those results are and to map out what the next steps will be.
[ Page 11356 ]

It’s a process that we do with our partners, the First Nations Summit and the federal government, in terms of the development of how we’re going to look at treaty.

My own look at this…. I obviously can’t talk about what those results are, because they haven’t been formally presented to the principals for the purposes of that engagement. So I can’t share that, unfortunately, right now. My own take on it, when I look at it, is that there are some good steps towards this. I think it is only a start though. I think there is certainly a lot more work that needs to be done.

S. Fraser: It’s curious. The minister is criticizing me for repeatedly — I think wrongly so — just talking about process. His answer was just about process. I mean, he used the term. It was: “We’re changing the process. We’re looking at the process.” We’re splitting hairs here, I suppose.

Since it was decided by this government, this minister, this Premier, to blow up the treaty process unilaterally, not with the other principals, whether it was before or after an election…. The federal government was blindsided as much as anybody, of course, according to Jerry Lampert.

A major change to the treaty process. That’s what we’re talking about here. That’s what the Premier was talking about in trying to justify her decision to pull the rug out from under George Abbott at the time.

What’s budgeted for that major change? How much have we got budgeted for that, process or not?

[1440]

Hon. J. Rustad: The member opposite asked about the budget and what the appropriate budget would be. Once again, it’s similar to questions he asked the other night. He seems to have the desire to create a budget before you have a process or you have a plan in place. We have a budget allocated for the B.C. treaty process.

The member used the words “blow up the treaty process.” In no way has British Columbia done that. I don’t know why the member opposite seems to think that, just because a B.C. treaty commissioner isn’t in place — that the process is blown up. Perhaps he should look at what the process is around that for a better understanding, once again, of this.

What we have done is we have continued to engage with nations. We have continued to work with the nations that are in the treaty process and had very frank conversations with them about where they want to go and how we can try to work with them to improve the process. We’ve had this working group that has brought forth a report. I look forward to engaging with the principals around that, and I look forward to having a very frank conversation about where they see all of this going.

If we’re not able to accelerate this process, is this what we want? Is this is what we want — for nations to have only a slim chance of being able to get through, unless they’re willing and prepared to wait generations?

In the province of British Columbia, we are developing relations with First Nations, both in treaty and outside of treaty process. We need to find ways to be able to do that in a short period of time. We really like and celebrate the accomplishments of those nations that have achieved treaty. We actually think that other nations have looked at that and also have expressed significant interest in wanting to see those. We just need to be able to figure out how we can do this in a much shorter time frame.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer. So there’s no new money to address…. What the Premier said was not to continue the status quo, whether to consider major changes or whether or not the Treaty Commission would even continue to exist — major stuff. The minister says that we need to speed things up. There’s been some talking. There’s no commissioner. There’s no budget. There’s no new budget. So there are no resources a year later, after these statements were made. It’s two budgets later — nothing.

I remember when we took office in 2009, in my role as MLA, and got elected. This government made a major change to Children and Families. They brought in a kith-and-kin process for dealing with…. I think it was a good direction to go, actually, trying to keep aboriginal kids in the community with community members, to keep the culture alive — all kinds of things. There was no budget for that, and it was a disaster for those children in care.

Now you’re talking about a major change to the treaty process. The Premier is talking about major change, that the status quo can’t continue. A year later, two budgets later, the status quo continues, and there is no new budget to come out of the status quo. If you’re going to do a radical change to the treaty process with no new money, no additional money, where are the resources going to come out of? What part of the treaty process will lose those resources so that a major change can be effected in the treaty process?

[1445]

Hon. J. Rustad: Just a few minutes ago the member opposite seemed to be complaining that the province is taking unilateral action. Wouldn’t you also conclude that if the province were to be putting a budget and a plan in place around treaty and the advancement of treaty without having the tripartite partner as part of that, that’s also unilateral action? Yet now the member seems to be arguing that the province should be doing that. I’m a little confused, Member, but that’s okay.

As we go forward, we are working with our federal counterparts. They’ve had an election. I’ve had a number of meetings now with the federal minister. I’ve raised treaty at all of those meetings, in terms of the need to be able to look at this process. We have not been able to have a trilateral meeting, to date, with the federal government and the summit. We are still looking forward to that date,
[ Page 11357 ]
and I’m hopeful that won’t be too far in the future. I’m optimistic that the federal government will also see the need for significant change to the treaty process.

We have a report that’s come forward that will be in front of us for consideration. It’ll be a good basis for conversation that we need to have as part of a three-way process. In the meantime, we still have our budget that is in place for treaties for the current process. We are still engaged with nations. We have done some groundwork with the nations that are in treaty, to talk about what we need to do to try to accelerate and get these treaties done in a short period of time.

We have set priorities in terms of what we need to do and where we need the federal government to play a role in that and how we can try to achieve this. We have done a lot of preparation work, and we’re waiting now for our partners to be able to come to the table so that we can start looking at significant changes and improvements for the treaty process.

S. Fraser: We had a landmark decision more than two years ago now, the Tsilhqot’in decision — the first time in history, not just in British Columbia but in Canada, where not just rights were recognized clearly in the highest court of the land, but title. And not just a little bit of title. We’re talking thousands of square kilometres.

I applaud the Tsilhqot’in and the Xeni Gwet’in and Chief Roger William — just being in court for 25 years. Roger doesn’t look that old, so that’s quite amazing, actually. However, you don’t get a bigger change in a court decision when it deals with aboriginal relations. This is as big as it’s ever been.

What changes have been mandated, as a result of that landmark court decision, regarding the treaty process to make sure that it’s consistent with law?

[1450]

Hon. J. Rustad: The Tsilhqot’in case is really quite interesting — a process, an activity that happened in the 1980s, a court case that started late ’80s, early ’90s, which three different governments, I think, have been involved in over a very long period of time — provincial governments, that is — and multiple federal governments and a number of First Nations people that were there from the beginning and saw the thing all the way through to the end.

After that case has come out…. Obviously, from a provincial perspective, it is very significant. We recognize that. We have, since that time, signed well over 100, somewhere between 100 and 150 agreements. I’m not quite sure how many it is, because changes seem to be daily as we go through our negotiations with nations around the province that are reflective of this agreement. It’s not directly reflective in terms of title land, but it’s reflective in terms of recognition of what we need to do, in terms of advancing our relationships with the nations.

We have entered into a landmark negotiation now with the Tsilhqot’in, a new agreement in terms of how we will shape what a long-term relationship can look like, including how we’ll build and manage and address issues that have been created with the title award as well as with the other five nations of the Tsilhqot’in.

With regards to treaty and treaty process, obviously this was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. Canada is one of our partners at this table. We need to sit down and still engage with Canada with regards to treaty and, of course, the First Nations Summit and talk about that. It’s one of the things that needs to be brought up the next time we have a principals meeting.

Also, with regards to Canada, we are inviting Canada to be part of what we’re trying to do with the Tsilhqot’in. To date, I think there has been some discussion between the Tsilhqot’in and Canada, but they have not come to the table and wanted to be a partner with what we’re trying to do in terms of achieving long-term agreements.

We are optimistic that that will change and that they will want to come to the table and be partners, as part of that, and that they will also recognize the significance, as we have, of that Supreme Court decision in what British Columbia needs to do and what Canada needs to do, working together with nations to find long-term reconciliation.

It is a complex process that’s out there. It will certainly have the potential to have a change or an impact on treaty. It has the potential to change and have an impact on a wide range of interactions and relationships.

I am optimistic, because what it has done is it has opened a door to a much more in-depth conversation that needs to be had with our federal partners, which, quite frankly, wasn’t really there leading up to the June 26 decision of 2014 or since that time.

There is an opportunity, I think, with the new partner there to be able to address this, to be able to open up a door and advance it, just as the new government is talking about implementation of Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations and how we can work together. We’ve been engaged with them as to how we can work together on all of these things.

All of this comes together, in my hope, to be able to shape a better future in terms of how we have the relationship between First Nations and the federal and provincial Crowns with regards to our work together building a better Canada and building a better British Columbia.

[1455]

S. Fraser: I will continue with this line in a bit, but I’m going to cede the mike to my colleague, who is the former spokesperson for the NDP, for our caucus, for aboriginal relations and reconciliation. He’s going to open with questions related to treaty and boundaries issues.

I’m going to leave it to him for a bit. I have to go and make a phone call, if that’s all right, and then I’m going
[ Page 11358 ]
to come back. I’ll have my monitor on, and I’ll stay tuned during this interlude.

D. Donaldson: The minister spoke about…. He typified the B.C. treaty process as flawed. One area where the B.C. Treaty process has some work is on overlaps and overlap disputes between bordering First Nations. What I would say is flawed here is the government’s approach to overlap resolutions.

The Treaty Commission points out that for First Nations, overlap disputes not only affect treaty negotiations, but they also impact claims to aboriginal title. The Treaty Commission has a facilitation role in overlaps both direct, through involvement in First Nation–to–First Nation overlap discussions, and indirect, through efforts to create space for this essential dialogue.

The minister said earlier that the B.C. Treaty Commission does no verification of statement of claims. Would the minister describe how the Treaty Commission receives its statement-of-claim information they use in overlap disputes that they facilitate the discussion of?

[1500]

Hon. J. Rustad: Welcome to the member for Stikine entering the debate. He and I had an opportunity for estimates more than two years ago, I guess it was, when we first went through this.

The issue of disputed territory is a significant issue. There’s no question. The process that the B.C. Treaty Commission follows is…. A statement of intent comes forward, and they accept that. In recent years, there have been a number of nations that have actually modified the statement of intent that has come forward. There still isn’t a verification process that goes through.

It’s my understanding that the B.C. Treaty Commission may be looking at something around that to try to reduce these conflicts. I’m not quite sure where they’re at in terms of that, but ultimately, the real challenge that we have are that the disputes in terms of nation-to-nation really need to be resolved at a nation-to-nation level. The province needs to, obviously, play a role in working with them, as does the Treaty Commission. Remember, we don’t just have overlaps with nations that are in treaty. We also have overlaps with nations that aren’t in treaty. It’s a complex issue that we have within the province.

I guess the one other last comment I just wanted to make around this is that as we do go forward, working with nations, it’s one of the flaws that’s in the treaty process. The resolution of disputed territory in the process is near the end of the treaty process, which creates a tremendous number of challenges within a process. Obviously, when you go forward and identify lands that may be included in an agreement-in-principle or other things, and there are still disputes in the territory, that can create a lot of friction with neighbours. It’s certainly one of the things that needs to be discussed, at the principles level, as part of how we can potentially improve the B.C. treaty process.

D. Donaldson: If the minister feels that one of the issues with the B.C. treaty process around overlap disputes is that these do not arise till near the end, would he, then, agree that it would be one of the solutions to this — what he typifies as a flawed process — for the province not to engage in signing agreements-in-principle until overlap disputes are resolved between First Nations?

Hon. J. Rustad: Relations around the province are…. There are a lot of challenges, a lot of issues around things like disputed territories, as the member opposite knows. As we go forward and build those relationships, obviously, we’re engaged, at a number of levels, with nations to try to resolve this.

Specifically to what the member asked, though, which was around: should this be resolved before we get to an agreement-in-principle offer? I guess the answer to that is quite simple. Obviously, it would be great if we could. It would be great to be able to do that. It’s one of the things that we need to think about within the treaty process.

[1505]

I also think about the treaty process entirely in terms of getting to an agreement-in-principle offer. Are there other steps that we need to be thinking about in there, as opposed to just thinking about the straight one process?

I guess the question I would have for the member opposite is…. He seemed to indicate that if we’re unable to resolve the disputes, we don’t go forward with an agreement in principle. Is the member suggesting that everything needs to be resolved before we move forward with treaty? If that’s the case, I would suggest that that particular suggestion may end up causing a longer delay in getting through treaty as opposed to improving treaty.

D. Donaldson: Well, it was the minister who brought up the issue of overlap disputes being a problem because they come near that end of a process. He was the one bringing the topic up. I was asking him what he felt about having the resolution before it gets to the agreement-in-principle. The minister was the one who pointed out that this is a problem.

The strength of claim that is assessed by the province for First Nations that are either in the treaty process or are asserting aboriginal title — what kind of input does the minister have on those strength-of-claim decisions by his government?

Hon. J. Rustad: The various strength-of-claim assessment work that’s done is, obviously, very complex. Nations provide input and information into that, as well as a wide number of components within government.

Directly to the member’s question, I am not directly involved in it, but my ministry, obviously, is engaged in that process.
[ Page 11359 ]

D. Donaldson: Given the really significant issues that overlap disputes create, as the minister has agreed — whether they’re in the treaty negotiations or claims to aboriginal title…. And given that there are a number and numerous overlap disputes…. I can think of one, especially, that’s occurring right now between the Gitxsan and the Tsimshian when it comes to an overlap. It led, actually, to some significant direct action on the land.

Would the minister say that he feels there’s enough due diligence being done that in the strength-of-claim work being done by other ministries, given what we’re facing in the province?

[1510]

Hon. J. Rustad: As the member knows, obviously this is a very complex issue. In many cases around the province, the nations, as they were created through the federal process many, many, decades ago, may not have been that before that process was created.

We collect all the information we can around this, of course, receiving information from the nations themselves. We do all of the due diligence that we can around this, but the process is also open as new information comes forward — for us to be able to adjust the various assessments.

D. Donaldson: Federal legislation did not create First Nations in B.C. That’s the Indian Act system. I think the minister should know in the Tsilhqot’in decision, it demonstrated that the rightful title holders to aboriginal title are the hereditary chiefs.

This brings me to a comment that the minister made in his opening remarks under these budget estimates: “Now all 16 nations have signed on and are part of the Pacific Trail pipeline project.” This is fundamentally lacking in understanding of what is transpiring in that part of the country and lacking in understanding of the Tsilhqot’in decision.

Of the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs, across whose territory the Pacific Trail pipeline will cross, there are a number of them who have not agreed or signed on to any part of the Pacific Trail pipeline project.

My question to the minister under these budget estimates and with his opening comments, making that kind of statement, is: does he not acknowledge the hereditary system as rightful title holders in the case of the Pacific pipeline project?

[1515]

Hon. J. Rustad: I need to correct the member opposite on one thing. He did state at the beginning of his question that the federal government didn’t create the nations; it was the Indian Act. Well, the Indian Act was created by the federal government. It was federal legislation, not provincial legislation, that created this.

As we do move forward, what the province does is work with nations in the way that they want to work with us, and we’re quite pleased that through that corridor of which the Pacific Trail pipeline goes, the 16 nations through that corridor have signed on and are supportive of that particular project.

D. Donaldson: Well, the point is that the First Nations were here before the federal government, and what the federal government did through its legislation under the Indian Act was create bands. That’s the point I believe the minister failed to understand.

Let’s get back to his statement that now all 16 nations have signed on and are part of the Pacific Trail pipeline project. There was a meeting just within the last week between the office of Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs and the elected band council officials from the various Wet’suwet’en communities. There was an agreement there that the hereditary chiefs had authority over the traditional territories and, of course, the elected councillors have some jurisdiction and jurisdiction over infrastructure and other services on reserve.

Some of these Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs who have not signed on and are not part of the Pacific pipeline project are the same chiefs that, when they disagreed with this government’s point of view on development, were called ragtag by the Premier. If that’s the Premier’s approach and this government’s approach to reconciliation, then I think it leaves a lot to be desired — labelling people who disagree with them as ragtag.

Again, with the minister’s statement: now all 16 nations have signed on and are part of the Pacific Trail pipeline project. Will he correct that statement and acknowledge that the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs have not signed on to the Pacific Trail pipeline project, contrary to his opening statement?

[1520]

Hon. J. Rustad: To the statement earlier, all 16 of the elected nations, the elected chiefs of the nations, have signed on to the Pacific Trail pipeline project, and we’re happy about that. There is a tremendous amount of benefits that will flow to those nations that will be life-altering for many, many people within those nations.

Specifically to the question around the Wet’suwet’en that the member opposite has raised, we have been engaged with both the hereditary and the elected within the Wet’suwet’en people. They have expressed interest in wanting to do a governance process around that. We have agreed with them that we want to work with them towards a governance process. As a matter of fact, we have some budget set aside in hopes that we will be able to do that.

We have had some paperwork that was drawn up to be able to engage in a process with them, and they’re in agreement that it needed to be hereditary and elected that are at the table as part of that to work forward through the governance issues for the Wet’suwet’en people. We’re
[ Page 11360 ]
hopeful that we’ll be able to see that signed and that we will be able to do that work.

We recognize that it’s a complex process that is out there — or a complex relationship, I should say — within that nation, just as it is within a number of nations. We have entered into these similar types of arrangements and discussions with a number of nations. Our goal, as I said before, is to work with the people of the Wet’suwet’en in the way that the people of the Wet’suwet’en want to work with us.

D. Donaldson: I’m glad that the record was corrected by the minister, on his previous statement that was inaccurate, and that he has now corrected that to say “elected nations, elected councils.” That’s just much more accurate and should be the language he uses, because there aren’t any reserve lands of Wet’suwet’en elected councils that the Pacific Trail pipeline crosses through in the western portion of the Wet’suwet’en territories, and the hereditary chiefs have not signed on to the project.

I wanted to move on to another question I have for the minister. I’m going to give a little background information first, to set the context for this question, which is a question for the minister under these budget estimates. It relates to moose populations.

The moose population has crashed in the Nass wildlife area on the Gitanyow traditional territories. There were about 1,600 moose in 2001, and that has declined to only 517 in 2011 — these are through government-funded population studies — and that’s even with provincial initiatives, between 2007 and 2011, to address this alarming decline.

Moose are an extremely important aspect of Gitanyow food security and culture, yet only three moose were harvested by Gitanyow members in the 2014-15 season. There’s been a 65- to 68-percent decline in harvest rates by Gitanyow members compared to the early 2000s — very, very significant.

The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, in budget estimates this week, agreed to consult with the Gitanyow on the total allowable moose harvest impacting Gitanyow. The numbers in a total allowable harvest of moose are set and flow from an annual management plan that considers factors such as sex, age and locations of moose to be harvested in Gitanyow territory. So the total annual harvest that the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations agreed to consult with the Gitanyow on flows from that annual management plan.

So far, the province has not committed to consult or accommodate, if necessary, the Gitanyow on the impacts of the annual management plans for designated species such as moose. Will the minister commit, under the budget year considered in these estimates, to facilitate the engagement between the Gitanyow, the province and the Nisga’a on the annual management plan in the Nass wildlife area, something I understand that the minister agreed to undertake last August?

[1525]

Hon. J. Rustad: I am a little curious. The member talks about title and rights and these types of things. I’m sure the member would probably agree that Lelu Island in the Prince Rupert area is within the Tsimshian territory and that the Tsimshian people are the rightful title owners of that area, or have rightful claim to the title in that area. Obviously, those claims need to be done.

I’m just actually curious, as the member opposite signed an agreement to try to prevent activity from happening on a particular territory there. I’m just wondering if he actually honoured those nations and received permission from all of those nations in terms of trying to refuse activity from happening within a particular area, maybe with or against the nations’ interests.

I’ll leave that in terms of that. But I do want to say, with regards to the Gitanyow and the Nisga’a, around what’s talked about in terms of moose and the moose component…. I think the question around moose and moose management…. Obviously, it’s something that is managed under Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Of course, I have directly engaged and had conversations with Gitanyow as well as with Nisga’a on this issue.

As FLNRO works with those nations around this…. Within our budget, if they have a request for MARR to be part of that and help facilitate those discussions, that’s something that, obviously, we would be engaged in, in the interests of working with our joint ministry, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

D. Donaldson: I’m going to shift to another area that’s under the responsibility of this minister and this ministry and especially pertinent to this budget estimates discussion, and that’s a recommendation that flowed out of Paige’s Story.

[J. Yap in the chair.]

Paige’s Story was a report by the Representative for Children and Youth that came out in May of last year, so quite a few months ago.

[1530]

It documented a horrific story of a young First Nations woman who died of a drug overdose 11 months after aging out of the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. She had moved 40 times by the time she was 16, between different agencies and homes. She was well known to the ministry.

After she moved to the Downtown Eastside with her mother, she moved another 50 times in two years. She had been subject to at least 30 incident reports between different ministries and agencies, yet the Representative
[ Page 11361 ]
for Children and Youth was only alerted to one of these — and the second one that came after her death.

There were a lot of issues and things in Paige’s Story that required action to ensure that the kind of things that happened to Paige did not take place, and do not take place, with other young First Nations women. The recommendations covered a broad area and a number of ministries.

The report, as I said, came out in May, and the government has had a long time to consider the recommendations. One of the recommendations was pointed at the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations, and I’ll read it. It’s recommendation No. 6.

“That the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, with support of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and Justice, prepare a detailed annual report for the Minister’s Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women on every unexpected death of an aboriginal girl or woman in care, or formerly in care, in B.C. and that a review of urban aboriginal program funding is conducted.”

The details on the first part of that, especially:

“The annual review to be conducted with the goal of identifying the role that neglect, abuse and maltreatment of these women played in their deaths and to make recommendations to government on appropriate actions to mitigate the risk to future generations, with a goal to protect aboriginal girls and women from the pathways that Paige experienced.

“The annual review to be accompanied by an annual public report of sufficient detail to demonstrate that a serious and meaningful review was conducted, what improvements were identified by members of the advisory council and how these recommendations would enhance supports for aboriginal girls and women.”

The Representative for Children and Youth recommended the first report to the advisory council be completed by December 31, 2015. Again, here we are on March 10.

My question to the minister, under these budget estimates, is: has the report been completed, and has the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations conducted work under recommendation 6 to fulfil an important part of Paige’s Story?

[1535]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the debate.

I think, first of all, it’s important to note that the Paige report is a very tragic situation, a very tragic circumstance. We certainly share the commitment that came forward in terms of that report and the spirit of what was coming forward in terms of protection.

There are, obviously, lots of complexities to that particular recommendation. We are engaged both with the Ministry of Children and Family Development as well as with the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth around the implementation issue. We have actually asked the representative for additional time because of the complexity. We don’t, within the ministry, have access to the information that is required around this.

Like I say, it’s complex. We’re trying to work through around this. We do share the commitment and the spirit of what the representative is trying to achieve with this.

Really, when you look at this and the violence that’s part of this, it’s one of the reasons why we held a family gathering just recently for the families of missing and murdered women. It was a gathering that we held in Prince George, where we had between 350 and 400 participants, plus support individuals, that were at this gathering over 2½ days.

I met personally with many of the family members that were there. It was a great opportunity for healing and a great opportunity to be able to talk about some of the challenges and issues that are shared by those families and by members within the communities.

It’s certainly a lot of work that we recognize that needs to be done. As I said, we’re engaged with the Children and Youth Rep and looking forward to how we can try to meet the expectation that is in that recommendation.

D. Donaldson: It’s been ten months since the release of Paige’s Story by the Representative for Children and Youth. It’s been five months since the release, on federal election day, of the government’s response to Paige’s Story. In the election day response…. Freedom-of-information requests have shown that was the preferred date of release of this document — the document being the government’s response, on the federal election day — which some people would say was a means to try to bury the story by the government.

Nevertheless, the government’s response, released on October 19, in response to the representative’s report five months earlier, was that the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is working with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and Justice, to provide a coordinated response to this recommendation.

[1540]

The minister has had another five months on top of the first five months and doesn’t seem to have gotten anywhere on implementing the recommendation.

It’s not so much about the failure to implement; it’s the consequences. The consequences are that there are many young First Nations women who are in circumstances that could be similar to Paige’s and who are put at further risk by the inaction, in this circumstance, of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations to get on with the recommendations.

I’ll read the second part of what the recommendation was about.

“Consistent with the Premier’s public commitment in June 2014 to end violence against aboriginal women and girls, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation lead a rigorous review of urban aboriginal program funding and report to the public on the model, expenditures and services to ensure that provincially supported initiatives are addressing the need for specific services and improving outcomes for the cohort of youth such as Paige.”
[ Page 11362 ]

The recommendation by the Representative for Children and Youth was that that report needed to be finished by December 31, 2015, so 2½ months ago.

The minister referenced that he wasn’t able to get information to conduct this kind of work that was in the document and that was targeted for the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Yet this recommendation has nothing to do with privacy. It’s a rigorous review of urban aboriginal program funding.

Could the minister explain, under this budget estimate, why this work has not been done and when it will actually get done?

Hon. J. Rustad: The member talked about the commitment in terms of ending violence as well as, of course, the question at hand. I just want to go over a few things that we have done, really, over the last year and a half or thereabouts.

As part of our commitment around a violence-free B.C…. Obviously, there are many ministries involved in and around this, but from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation’s perspective, we entered into a memorandum of understanding with the leadership council and the Métis Nation around a commitment to working towards this. Through that and, also, the work that we did with my advisory council — the minister’s advisory council on aboriginal women, who are doing great work for us in advice they’ve given — we provided money through the Gathering Our Voices component.

[1545]

We have held a family gathering, as I talked about earlier, in early February that really was a first of its kind in terms of bringing this forward and talking about some of the systemic issues that we have which have led to the missing and murdered women. We are engaged with the federal government on this. We’ve attended and led strong delegations from British Columbia to two federal round tables on this issue.

We’ve got a commitment from the last round table to work with AAWG, which is another acronym in terms of the Aboriginal Affairs Working Group, across Canada with the provinces to try to work together and see how we can coordinate these things. Through strategies that we have in place, we’ve added just recently $1.5 million to the friendship centres, to 24 organizations and communities for implementing programs focused on stopping domestic violence.

There is a wide range of things that we are doing around bringing an end to violence. One of the most important things I think, also, to think about — I know my critic wears the moose hide on a regular basis — is generating this conversation that’s needed within the communities. We need to support family members. We need to support the children. We need to be able to support the people that have been impacted by this. All of these are components of it.

We’re working in terms of getting to the roots in the inquiry. More importantly, we also want to make sure that the inquiry isn’t just about that but that it’s about the action items that we need to do. We’re going to continue to work down that road in terms of that.

Specifically to the report and the circumstances around Paige and that tragic death, the Ministry of Children and Family Development is the lead ministry in terms of that response. We work with them. We work with Justice on this issue, as well as other components within government. So specifically to the questions that are asked, I would recommend that the member raise them with the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

D. Donaldson: This government, through the Ministry of Children and Family Development, has said they’ve accepted all of the recommendations in Paige’s report. Recommendation 6 is that this minister’s ministry, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, will have a first report to the advisory council to be completed by December 31, 2015, and a report of the urban aboriginal program funding to be released by December 31, 2015.

Can the minister tell me, in this budget estimates cycle, when these reports will be released by his ministry?

[1550]

Hon. J. Rustad: As I’ve said, we are engaged with the Representative for Children and Youth’s office. We’re engaged with MCFD as part of that discussion with them. We have asked for an extension because of the challenge and the issues around the report component — many of the components — because of the complexity of this.

Many of the components that are required for this report actually are not part of my ministry. They’re part of other ministries, so there is coordination that’s required around this. But I will stress, and repeat, that the lead, in terms of these recommendations, the component, is the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

As I said, we’re working with the representative. The representative understands the challenge that we’re facing with this. We’ve asked for the extension, and we’ll continue to work with our lead agency in the Ministry of Children and Family Development towards the commitment under that recommendation.

If I may…. If we could ask for a brief five-minute break.

The Chair: We will have a brief recess.

The committee recessed from 3:51 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.

[J. Yap in the chair.]

G. Holman: Thanks to my colleague for allowing a couple of questions.

[1600]

Two questions. I do understand and realize that this ministry doesn’t have full jurisdiction over the particular issue, but they’re around First Nations issues so, obviously, you have some authority or jurisdiction or interest.

The first question is about a request by a constituent, actually, to get some assistance around the issue of changing her name. The constituent wants to change her name from her given English name back to a First Nations name. She has requested Vital Statistics to waive the fee.

There is a question of fairness here where a person who has — I don’t know if “forcibly” is the right word — had their name changed from their First Nations name to an English name and then wants to have it changed back is being charged a fee to do that. That does seem unfair.

In fact, in the correspondence between myself and others…. Apparently Vital Stats, or at least this part of it, rests with the Ministry of Health, which I don’t quite understand. Your ministry is referred to in the response that we got, from a letter. The response from the Minister of Health was quite encouraging.

To briefly read from it — this is the response to our inquiry, and it’s dated October 2, 2015:

“The Vital Stats agency is reaching out to its partner ministries to assist us with assessing the feasibility of responding fulsomely to this recommendation. At this time, Ministry of Health staff have initiated discussions with the intergovernmental and community relations branch of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, as well as other provincial and federal agencies, to develop a process to accommodate requests such as this.”

We were quite encouraged by this. The person making the requests and the folks supporting her were very encouraged by this response. It doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere though. At this point, from what we can understand, the discussions that this particular constituent have had, and folks supporting her, have been occurring at a pretty low level within Vital Stats. In fact, the staffer involved says that they don’t even have the authority to convene or request a meeting with senior managers to try and make some progress on it.

So while we got this response from the minister — and that response identified your ministry as one of the key ones, obviously, in trying to move this issue forward — it seems to have bogged down within Vital Stats.

My question is: has your ministry been involved, as far as you know, with discussions around this issue with the Ministry of Health?

Hon. J. Rustad: As we work through a myriad of complex issues, I guess you could say, one of the things that is very important, of course, was the work that was done through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, of course, recognized and made some recommendations around this as one of the things that have gone forward.

[1605]

In the spirit of what those recommendations are and the attempt for reconciliation, we have actually been engaged with the Ministry of Health and with Vital Statistics on this specific issue. We think it’s obviously a significant issue and important for this individual and was recommended in related recommendations out of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

We are hopeful and optimistic that there will be a positive resolution to this. It’s where, certainly, I’m hoping that it will be able to go. Hopefully before too long, your constituent will be able to get some form of answer from Vital Statistics in terms of their request and waiving the fee.

G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for that. I was remiss in not mentioning the truth and reconciliation recommendations, which are actually quite specific around the issue. So thank you for that.

Who is the champion for this? Is there someone that I can talk to or that the supporters of this person can talk to? Is there someone within your ministry, within Ministry of Health, within Vital Stats? Who can we talk to? Who are the folks that are actually trying to move this forward and that we can — constructively, of course — communicate with so that we know where you’re at in the process?

We do understand, from some of the information we’re getting back, that there are complications, and that’s understandable. But if there were folks that you could identify for us so that we can keep in touch with them on a constructive basis, that would be really helpful.

Hon. J. Rustad: Recognizing, of course, that often in a soon-to-be $50 billion organization it is sometimes challenging to navigate your way around and through and who to talk to, we commit to the member that we’ll get you a name of somebody to contact in terms of the appropriate person. We’ll get that to you. We’ll either have it sent in a letter over to you, or somebody will contact your office and be able to provide you with that name and contact information.

G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for that. That’s great. I’ll be passing this on to my constituent, and I’m sure they’ll be pleased to hear that.

The other question I had was with respect to burial sites, First Nations burial sites. We went through the Grace Islet situation, which did have a good outcome in the end — a bit of a struggle to get there, but it did have a good outcome.

Again, I realize that it’s probably Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations that has direct jurisdiction over the regulations and rules involving heritage sites. However, obviously it’s a First Nations issue, so presumably your ministry should be involved as well.

The Minister of FLNRO, after the Grace Islet resolution, did commit to doing a review of policies, regulations and possibly even legislation with the objective of
[ Page 11364 ]
hopefully trying to avoid or prevent those kinds of situations from developing again.

[1610]

I’m wondering if either yourself or your staff have been engaged in any of those conversations with the Minister of FLNRO around policies, regulations, laws that govern these heritage sites and the permitting of activities in and around the sites. Has your ministry — you, yourself and/or your staff — been involved in any of this review which we understood was to take place in the wake of Grace Islet?

Hon. J. Rustad: The issues of burial sites or archeological sites is under the heritage act — I believe that’s the name of it — which is within Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. We are, of course, engaged with FLNRO, or Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I’m trying not to use acronyms for those that are following along at home and may not be familiar with government lingo. In any case, we are engaged with the ministry at a staff level, as we are around all things associated with First Nations.

Having said that, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is the one that would be undertaking that review. Our role, in terms of that, would be in support of the work that they are looking to do, specifically to any questions around what that review or timing of that review…. Unfortunately, you’d have to ask the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

G. Holman: Thanks for the response. This is a conversation that perhaps we could take up off line. It clearly, with the Grace Islet experience, is important, I think, to review those laws that govern heritage sites. Certainly, on the long path to reconciliation, I think it’s one of the most important things that First Nations regard as governments not doing a good enough job.

I don’t think it’s just this government. I think government, over time, has not been doing a good enough job. It’s very important for First Nations.

I’ll take this up further off line with the minister of FLNRO and perhaps even yourself. Thanks for your response, and thanks for your answers today.

The Chair: Member for Alberni–Pacific Rim.

S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to these proceedings.

I just want to commend my colleague on this work. I know the issue around the name change when…. It seems everyone who hears about it seems to agree that this is some form of injustice being continued by forcing someone to actually pay a fairly substantial amount to try to get reconciliation when it comes to their name, which was not their choice in the first place.

I appreciate the minister’s comments on that — and certainly, the work that my colleague has done here too. And on the grave issue too. We’ve seen that with, I know, not just Grace Islet but the c̓əsnaʔəm site that was in Musqueam territory. It was the site of a proposed condominium complex not far from South Vancouver, out near the river.

[1615]

This was a burial site, again, that was at risk of being built on top of. In non-aboriginal situations — graveyards and that — there are specific laws to prevent that sort of thing — desecration of graves and significant sites like that. The same is not covered in the current legislation, which spans many governments. These are two issues that I think are important and that span politics in many ways. I very much appreciate those being brought up, so thank you.

The previous spokesperson from the opposition asked a series of questions. The first one was on moose management. I thought he was going to go after us for the patches, because I think we could be….

Interjection.

S. Fraser: Well, it could be, which we might get in trouble for. As this campaign grows, I wonder. The only opposition to it, so far, might be the moose themselves. But I digress.

I’d just like to thank the minister for allowing that break. There may be another member that comes in, or two, that we can allow some time for to ask these questions — some of them local questions. Hopefully, they’ll get a chance to do that.

I’d like to get back to the treaty process. I think where we left off, if I recall, is I was asking questions about any progress on the treaty process post-Tsilhqot’in — amending the process to be consistent with that.

I don’t want to paraphrase the minister, but I’ll try to get it right. In general terms, the minister was suggesting that there’s another party — the federal party, the federal partner — that we have to deal with, and we’ve had an election and there are changes and things have to take time. But it has been nearly two years, now, since that landmark decision. Whichever government, I don’t think it requires both…. I think there is a responsibility of the province to ensure that such a decision should inform things like the B.C. treaty process and the commission.

You could argue that part of the glacial speed of this process, the treaty process — which has been supported by all in government, whoever is in government, for the past 25 years — is the fact that it has not been a dynamic process. It has not evolved to take into account things like case law, major court decisions like Tsilhqot’in, international declarations and statutes. Times change. The treaty process needs to evolve with it, I would submit.

With that in mind, we’ve had the Tsilhqot’in decision.
[ Page 11365 ]
That was two years ago. Yes, we’ve just had a federal election, just months ago. But surely the highest court in the country makes a decision that significantly alters the landscape when dealing with First Nations in this province and this country…. Surely, that would inform any amendments to the treaty process to make sure that they are consistent with that ruling.

Again, can the minister highlight any changes that have been made or any plans to change the treaty process so that it is in keeping and consistent with that landmark decision?

[1620]

Hon. J. Rustad: As the member opposite knows, as we had canvassed this just before he turned it over to some of his colleagues, we have signed many, many agreements since that date of the court case, which was on June 26, I believe it was, of 2014.

The important thing to think about here is that…. That ruling came down, but the court case was also very, very clear. That was on the need for the parties to negotiate. Negotiation has been the foundation of all of the agreements that we have entered into since that time and all of the agreements we entered into before that time, and negotiations are also the foundation of treaty and entering into long-term relationships between the Crown and the nations.

Unfortunately, we have not had the opportunity to talk about that case in the context of treaty with our partners — with the federal government and the First Nations Summit — so I suspect that will be a topic when we have an opportunity for the next principals meeting in terms of that.

However, the key component of all of this is negotiating what long-term settlements can look like between the Crown and First Nations, specifically within the treaty process.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. But is the minister not concerned that the treaty process, as it stands — unamended, following Tsilhqot’in — may be contrary or in contradiction to the legal precedent set by this case?

Hon. J. Rustad: Let me be clear on this. The process of treaty is something we have said is problematic. The status quo on the process needs to change if we’re able to achieve treaties in a reasonable period of time. The court case, in the essence of its decision, talks about negotiation. Negotiation, obviously, is part of the process, but the process itself is not impacted by the court case.

S. Fraser: I’m certainly no lawyer, but this case did a lot more than say the parties had to talk. We got that from Delgamuukw. We got that from Vickers. We’ve had a number of court decisions that have been taken very narrowly by this government, and this particular decision, landmark ruling, recognizes title for the first time, clearly, of any court cases. That’s why it’s such a landmark case by the Supreme Court of Canada.

You could argue that the treaty process does not, as it stands, recognize title. You could argue that the participants in that process need to agree to some form of extinguishment, which has been a bone of contention, certainly with the members from the Union of B.C. Indian chiefs and such, as the minister knows. The majority of First Nations in this province are not active in the treaty process for all kinds of reasons, but that’s one of them.

Again, I submit that the minister has spent quite a bit of time here talking about how the system doesn’t work, that we have to change it. I mean, the Premier said that a year ago, when that unilateral decision was made, and there doesn’t seem to be any progress.

[1625]

We’ve had two years, almost, since the landmark decision, and there’s been no progress in adding the values that are clearly delineated in the court decision to inform the treaty process and the mandate of the Treaty Commission.

If the government and the minister are not willing to make changes to a process, even as the court dictates, this process of treaty may be, at some point, challenged for being inconsistent with legal precedent. In the zeal to get a treaty from a nation, we may be taking steps backward in the very near future. So I think it’s shortsighted that the minister thinks this is not something that should inform the treaty process.

That is not just the court decision. We’ve got the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. We have a truth and reconciliation process, which the minister has cited a number of times. Many people refer to them as 94 recommendations, but in essence, they are, in actuality, calls to action. They are not recommendations. Calls to action infer a higher level of importance, I would suggest, and we need to refer to them as such.

The treaty process that the minister keeps saying has got to be fixed…. We have guidance to fix that process. The minister says it’s taking too long. Well, I would submit that the minister’s failure here to address any of these changes that should be made to the treaty process is part of that problem.

Hon. J. Rustad: I think it’s important to note that, as I’ve said before in these estimates and I’ve said in previous estimates, all of our negotiations are guided by decisions from the courts, including the Tsilhqot’in case. All of the types of engagements we have, whether it’s treaty or non-treaty, are guided by those components going forward.

Where the member may need to think a little big about a nuance…. There is a difference between a process versus what the court has indicated to do. As we go through
[ Page 11366 ]
the process of treaty and the challenges and issues and the need to think about that as a model, the court cases still influence and still are reflected in our negotiations that are part of a process. But rights — which include title, according to section 35 of the constitution — are what treaties are mandated to look at.

[1630]

Treaty looks at addressing the rights of aboriginal people. That is what the treaty is. That includes, of course, title as part of that. However, how you ultimately come to addressing title as part of rights doesn’t necessarily have to be found just through treaty — as an example, what we’re doing with the Tsilhqot’in in our work there, through negotiation and trying to reach a long-term relationship, where we will address the lands that could end up becoming part of settlement.

We will address issues of rights on the land base and how those components will be dealt with — including things like resources, how we’ll address things like governance and other types of issues — to the extent that B.C. can. We need Canada, of course, to come to the table to be part of being able to complete much of that.

However, in the context of treaty, as you’ve expressed this component of questions about, there’s no question that court cases, including the Tsilhqot’in case, are part of our negotiations. It’s part of our thinking. It’s part of how we engage. However, there is nothing in that case that talks about altering or changing the process that is the B.C. treaty process, which has all of its challenges, of course, associated with it.

S. Fraser: A question to that. The minister said that the Tsilhqot’in decision has informed the ministry and himself inside and outside the treaty process. The decision recognized title. It existed on a substantial amount of the traditional territory of the Tsilhqot’in people, Xeni Gwet’in.

When we have court decisions like the Sparrow decision for fishing rights, governments, in the past, have taken the legal decision and applied it. With this decision, I haven’t seen the application of Tsilhqot’in at all in the province. It hasn’t been applied, except in the narrowest of senses — that is, in dealing with the Tsilhqot’in and the decisions and the agreements that have been arrived at, which I support.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

But that wasn’t the nature of the court…. The court decision usually is taken broader. It sets a precedent. In other words, every First Nation doesn’t have to go through 25 years of court to prove that they existed on the lands prior to contact. That, hopefully, shouldn’t be what nations are being forced into.

The minister is saying that Tsilhqot’in has informed, inside and outside the treaty process, how the thinking goes there from the ministry. How? Is it recognizing title outside of Tsilhqot’in, for instance?

[1635]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the estimates debate.

It really is quite interesting. I would be very interested in hearing from the member opposite his perspective on what he feels should actually be happening with regards to this — on the land base in regards to implementing, I think was the word he used, the Tsilhqot’in decision.

Having said that, as you know, the agreement that we have entered into with the Tsilhqot’in — well, actually, all six nations but, obviously, with the recognition that there’s a land issue, a question mark, for the other five — certainly recognizes that title exists within territories to the extent that we can recognize it. We don’t have a mechanism for actually defining title on the land base. There isn’t a legal mechanism for us to do that, which is why we negotiate to find what a settlement area will be, which is the language that you will see within the agreement of the Tsilhqot’in in terms of that engagement.

Along those lines, as well, with the negotiations we’ve had with the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council…. You can look in the context of that. We recognize in there that title exists within their territory. This is something that is clear. It’s clear from the constitution. It’s clear from what the Tsilhqot’in decision was. You will see that start to be reflected in the agreements and in the way that we do things with nations.

Ultimately, though, the key component that you look at in terms of the Supreme Court decision is to recommend that the parties need to come together and negotiate what a long-term agreement will look like, which is what we are doing, both in terms of broader, longer-term agreements as well as how it’s reflected in the short-term agreements that we enter into. That also is, of course, part of what we do within treaty.

The Chair: Member.

S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the proceedings.

Thanks to the minister for the answer.

How many active tables are there in the treaty process right now?

[1640]

Hon. J. Rustad: It’s probably worth noting that we have about 717 negotiations that are going on around the province at this current point, across government, and that there are about 104 nations that have entered into the treaty process.
[ Page 11367 ]

To be able to answer the question in terms of active, I’m wondering if you can give me some clarity in terms of what you mean by active.

S. Fraser: Well, an example. In my constituency, take Ahousaht, for instance. They’re technically in the treaty process. I don’t believe the treaty table there has sat in any negotiation meetings for a long time — maybe years. That’s pretty consistent with many nations that I’ve run into around the province. That’s why I’m looking for the numbers like on who’s sitting down and negotiating on a regular basis, progressing through the treaty process.

We know the ones that we get the press on, that I’m fortunate enough to be invited to — and agreements and principles being signed and that. We see progress at some tables. Others seem to be stalled, not just because there’s maybe a disagreement that’s hard to overcome, but because there are no resources, no active table happening, even though technically they’re in a treaty process.

Robust, active treaty table negotiations are happening in which and how many nations in the province?

Hon. J. Rustad: Apologies for the delay in getting this information to you.

We’re having a discussion around how you really define “active” — whether it’s robust negotiations that are happening weekly or monthly versus somebody that might meet once or twice a year versus somebody that maybe just receives money from the B.C. Treaty Commission and isn’t really engaged in doing much at all. For example, the Wet’suwet’en — or the Gitksan — are still receiving money from the B.C. treaty process, doing some background work, but are really not significantly engaged in the process.

[1645]

Across the province, out of those treaties that are in there, I’ll give you an approximation of my interpretation of what that may mean in terms of active tables and not. There are probably in the vicinity of 40 — maybe a few more or less — that are somewhat or actively engaged. There are at least 50 — I think more than 50, maybe 54 or 55 — that are not engaged in any level of negotiation.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I apologize for my lack of being specific.

Of the 40, how many meet every month? I should have said that earlier, but you mentioned weekly, monthly or whatever. I mean, tables that are making progress.

I don’t know if they use the term “lead tables” anymore. It’s been a while since I’ve sat in a treaty negotiation in Nuu-chah-nulth territory. But back in the day, they met regularly. They sat regularly — full-day sessions, grinding through the process. But they were progressing.

Of those 40, what do we have? About half of those are considered like a lead table, where they have resourcing and they are meeting regularly? Or is it less, or is it more of the 40? If we could get a little more detail here.

Hon. J. Rustad: It’d be difficult to be able to say that the frequency of meeting is a recognition of progress. Various nations are progressing at different levels.

I think it’s also important to note that as we go through and work with the nations, because it is a tripartite process, the federal government needs to be at the table — and is at the table, obviously, on these. But B.C. alone cannot dictate the progress of agreements, because we do need to have the federal partner in as part of it. They play a key role in several components. So it’s hard to be able to give you an exact number around that.

I’m hopeful, though, that through some of the work that we are doing, we have — in the work that we’re talking about with nations and the engagement that we have — expressed to them that we would like to find ways to be able to complete the negotiations of treaty as quickly as possible. Many nations have expressed that same interest. So we are in a process of engaging with them and trying to make sure that the federal government can come to the table and match — where they would like, in their process — the pace that the nations would like, to try to achieve to ultimately reach final agreement.

S. Fraser: I’m a bit disconcerted by the fact that we can’t get any numbers on how many lead tables are….

[1650]

There has been a policy in place, either written or just assumed, but the lead table process seems to be focusing the vast majority of the resources of the B.C. Treaty Commission and the treaty process into a very few number of tables that seem to have, according to the government’s analysis, the best chance of success. It’s almost like a numbers game there, but it’s at the expense of other tables.

The minister has already said that over 100 have joined the treaty process — give or take, half of the nations in the province — and 40 are only somewhat engaged. I’m going to just fill in the blanks here. Far less than that are actually moving forward in any meaningful way, because of resourcing, at the tables.

Even when we achieve a treaty, I wonder if the mandate, again, of the Treaty Commission, since it hasn’t altered since its inception, is even reflective of the needs of these nations. Case in point: the Yale Nation. It was 2010 or ’11 in this place that we celebrated the Yale treaty being signed, and Yale are walking away from that now.

From what the minister is saying, there’s a reluctance to change the treaty. He criticized the treaty process. He took away the commissioner. I’m still not sure how that relates to anything, because the treaty process is still underway, as the minister has highlighted.

We’re losing engagement from those that have entered the treaty process in good faith — clearly the Acho Dene Koe. We’ll go back to that just for a moment. We’re talking a tiny…. We might have 10 percent of the First Nations in this province that are maybe active. That’s be-
[ Page 11368 ]
ing generous, if 20 tables are actually rolling, like they’re supposed to be. I don’t believe it’s that high, but I would stand corrected on that.

Then we have one of the few nations that has actually achieved the final agreement, and they have walked away from the treaty process. I met with Chief Ken Hansen, of the Yale, not long ago. I was invited to a ceremony to try to bring some healing between the Yale members and those 5,000 Stó:lō members that had great issue with the treaty as it unfolded for the Yale.

I would submit that in the zeal to…. All of the resources were focused onto a few tables — have been and still are. I don’t think there’s any change in that. I can’t quite get the numbers, but I’m going to assume that. I think it’s accurate.

One of those tables, a small nation, gets final agreement at the expense of other tables, obviously because the resources are being focused where the biggest chance of success is. I suppose that’s the way to put that. Yet we had one fail after that.

That particular treaty caused a huge rift in communities. The minister and his staff must know that. There was, at one point, gunplay on the river. There were families against families.

Now, anybody on the ground, any of the 5,000 Stó:lō members — and Yale members, for that matter, too — all knew things like whose access to the river historically was there. I don’t mean that it was Yales’ or Stó:lōs’. I mean, these are family members that have families that have been there for generations, having drying racks and access to fisheries on certain areas of the river. It was an understanding that these existed, long before contact.

The process rolled right through that as though those realities didn’t exist, as though no one talked to anyone on the ground from Stó:lō — or from Yale, for that matter — and caused a huge rift, caused court challenges, soliciting the federal government to try to stop the process in its tracks.

[1655]

Now, we in the opposition voted in favour of the Yale treaty. Because we’re not at the treaty table, we’re not going to second-guess a nation. I had numerous meetings with representatives from Stó:lō that had great issue with this.

After all that pain and suffering, we have a treaty that’s failed. And the healing now has to begin. Chief Hansen is going to be part of that healing. I want to applaud him for that. There was a significant grave desecration incident that amends are going to be made for, and a recognition of that is coming up next month, I believe, that I’ve been invited to.

I haven’t, in these hours of talking about treaty process and asking questions, got any comfort from this minister that the treaty process is going in the right direction at all. The minister has said there are great problems with that, but there’s been no progress in the year since that first came up and the two years since the landmark Tsilhqot’in decision. We seem to be rolling in the status quo, which is what the Premier said we can’t continue — the status quo.

So those who criticize the treaty process — those First Nations, many of the UBCIC members that criticize the treaty progress — have merit in doing so. Those within the process — more and more of them are attending the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs’ quarterly meetings every time I go there. They’re realizing that there are other routes. There are declarations of sovereignty that can be made — in the face of a vacuum of real and meaningful respect and recognition, inside or outside of the treaty process.

This is of great concern to everybody. This is about certainty in the province. It’s about justice, yes. It’s about the economy also.

Hundreds of agreements set out, the flurry to sign road-access agreements and such — that’s all wonderful. Short-term forestry agreements — great. Many of these nations are in Third World conditions. They’re in poverty, and they’re being made offers they cannot refuse anyways. This is not reconciliation, I would submit.

In the treaty process, how is the minister responding to the Yale decision to back away from the treaty process and try to effect reconciliation and mend wounds with their neighbouring nations in the Stó:lō? How’s the minister…? What’s his plan there?

[1700]

Hon. J. Rustad: The member touched on so many things. We’ve got a short period of time left. I’m very tempted to go through a rather lengthy explanation, but I won’t, because I know the member has other questions that he wants to get to. However, I do need to touch on a number of things that he has mentioned. In particular, there’s a piece of clarity, I think, that’s required around the funding for these negotiation tables.

The decisions around funding come from the B.C. Treaty Commission, not from the province or the federal government. The B.C. Treaty Commission is given a budget, money from the federal and provincial governments, and they make decisions, accordingly, as to where those dollars should be allocated.

We are making progress with a number of tables, obviously. In recent time, we have four agreements-in-principle that we went up and signed. We have three more that have been ratified just last month. The fourth one, unfortunately, was disrupted by civil disobedience, and it requires a revote, which will happen, coming up here in April.

There are a number of others. For example, the Lheidli T’enneh are scheduling to go to a final vote for a second time here in October. There are a number of others that are working towards that as well. So there has been progress at the treaty table in terms of the negotiations.

The one thing I really want to thank the member for is making the case for why the treaty process is so flawed. You made a great case in terms of the few numbers of
[ Page 11369 ]
tables that are active compared to the number of provinces, the length of time, the challenges — all the issues around it. I’m in agreement with that. The treaty process is flawed. It needs some changes. It needs to be able to find a better way to progress and do these things.

Specifically, the member opposite focused on Yale. It’s interesting. The flip side of that, of course…. You could focus on Tla’amin, who I met with today, actually. They’re excited about their implementation date, coming up here on April 5, and the community celebration that will be happening on April 9. I look forward to celebrating that, because they’re excited about what this treaty will mean for them.

To Yale and the challenge that has come up around Yale, it’s probably worth taking a step back and thinking about what went on here. Three parties came together — the federal government, the provincial government and the nation — and worked through a negotiation, worked through what a treaty should look like. All three parties agreed on the terms of that treaty. There were over 60 community consultations that went on by the Yale Nation for its people. Its people went forward and significantly, by majority, voted in favour of concluding the treaty and moving forward for implementation.

That then went and triggered the provincial government to move forward with legislation, which then triggered the federal government to move forward with legislation. It then triggered an engagement process for moving forward that should have lasted several years and come up to this spring for the implementation date. There was a change in government within Yale, which then led to a reflection of treaty. Obviously, there were challenges that came forward from its neighbours.

The issues that you’ve raised in terms of people having access that weren’t of the Yale Nation and needed access to the river and always, historically, had access to the river…. The provisions in the final agreement provided for that access. It was thought about. It was talked about. It was considered. It tried to address it as part of the negotiations, as part of the final agreement. I think if the member were, perhaps, to go back and reread the agreement that we all voted for — we both stood up and voted for it in this Legislature not that many years ago — you’ll see those provisions that were in place.

The current government has decided to step back and away from the Yale treaty. We understand the concerns that are in there. We look forward to engaging with that government around their concerns and process.

I want to just take a moment and talk about what some of the other Stó:lō nations are doing. Yale is not the only Stó:lō nation that is in the treaty process. There are others that are in the treaty process.

[1705]

Through that, they’ve actually come out with an innovative idea around some of these sites and how they can try to work with their neighbours to address these sites. Rather than having one nation specifically owning these sites that are shared by many other nations, what they’re doing is coming forward and saying: “Is there some way we can have a designation on these sites, even for maybe only a week or two of the year, where there are multiple nations or multiple interests that’ll come in and use these sites, as opposed to having one nation being responsible for governing these sites — and through settlement lands?”

They’ve got an interesting idea, so the question I have is — and I look forward to engaging with Yale: is that something that can work? Is there an opportunity to look at, by agreement between the three parties, the treaty that is in there that could potentially resolve these concerns for other neighbours?

I don’t know the answers to those questions, but I do know that the majority of people in Yale want treaty. The majority of people in Yale voted for treaty. We’ve moved forward in this joint process of negotiation.

My hope is that through the discussions and negotiations that I’m yet to have with the nation directly, as well as with the staff, we may find ways to be able to address those concerns so that there isn’t this friction with the neighbours and the neighbours can actually celebrate the achievement of treaty and see the benefits that can come from it, as with all the other nations that have entered into treaty, and, in particular, can perhaps reflect on where the other Stó:lō nations are trying to achieve as well — a number of the other Stó:lō nations, not all — through treaty process and negotiations.

Treaty is not a separation. Treaty is bringing levels together, bringing governments and levels together to define our roles together, working to build British Columbia, to build Canada and to build the nation that is in treaty and support the people that are in it. It’s about how we try to shape the opportunity for a future and building that economic base, being able to preserve language and culture and being able to support and be proud of our heritages. That is what this is all about.

I look forward to sitting down with them to talk about those components that we, I think, are in agreement on in terms of the Yale people and the province and the federal government in terms of what they want to try to achieve.

How do we address some of these issues that have been a barrier for the current government in terms of implementation and moving forward? This is a relationship. We’ll sit down and work through this and see if we can find a resolution on the way forward.

S. Fraser: I wish the minister luck on that. This process should not be about creating winners and losers. That’s what happened here.

The ideas that are coming up now are great, maybe, but I don’t know if they’re the solution. Years in the treaty process. Those things should have been considered as part of that process. It’s a failure to, at this late a date, come up with some ideas.
[ Page 11370 ]

Chief Hansen said: “The Yale final agreement has critical flaws that cannot be resolved within the current B.C. treaty process. We want to look ahead to how we can meet the real, pressing needs of our people in a relationship of mutual cooperation and respect.”

That was lacking, for one reason or another, in this process. We don’t have many treaties that get to final agreement, and having one pulled back on for those reasons should be a stark reminder.

The minister says the right words — talks about preserving languages and such. We’ve already canvassed that well. This is a government that is not adequately funding First Peoples Cultural Council. They’re not allowing them to do their job to protect those languages and cultures that are inextricably linked. We have a treaty process that led to causing division between families, as opposed to bringing unity. We’ve got treaties that have occurred in my area, Maa-nulth treaties, that are causing friction between those nations and other communities.

Luckily, the friendships there, I think, supersede that. But there should not be winners and losers created out of this process. The minister has not shown any clear way that he’s addressed the treaty process or amended the treaty process, despite the fact that he has complained about it and that they made some pretty drastic decisions a year ago. No real progress. There’s no new money to address these issues, the failures in the process. These are of great concern.

[1710]

I guess one specific question on Yale before I move on: what does it cost to achieve final agreement? Yale in particular. I’m assuming there’s a standard cost to these things. Maybe not. This is many years of negotiations. What did that cost to go through that process? I don’t mean the social cost of dividing families and friends. Just the cost, the dollars?

Hon. J. Rustad: I note the time of day and the little bit of politics that is coming into it as we go forward and come close to the conclusion of this, but that’s all fine.

I think it’s important to note, as the member seems to be implying that this was forced upon a people, 60 community engagements, full understanding, a vote that went forward with over 60 percent support, I think it was, for the Yale treaty. This is what the people of Yale wanted. This is what the people of Yale voted for. This is what the people of Yale negotiated with British Columbia….

S. Fraser: Turned it down.

Hon. J. Rustad: They did not turn it down. They voted in favour of it. You have a government that has decided now to not implement agreements that were negotiated and signed.

Now, having said that, I accept the fact that there are some issues with the neighbours, and they want to look at this. That’s fine. They want to step back. I’m happy to have an engagement around that. But this isn’t something that has been forced upon a people. This is something that people negotiated in good faith between three parties.

Having said that, the member asked a very specific question, which is around the cost of the total loans that were accumulated by the Yale government. I think it was a total of about $7.8 million in terms of those loans. I don’t know the exact value of the whole treaty and component that’s in there. If the member wants that, we can try to achieve that.

I will also note that I find it very curious the member started off talking about the province taking unilateral action by not appointing a treaty commission and how that was wrong, yet consistently throughout this debate and discussion on treaty, he insists that the province should be taking unilateral action to show how we’re going to be progressing or changing the treaty process

I don’t understand your logic there, Member. But that’s fine, I don’t need to understand it. What you do need to understand….

The Chair: Through the Chair, Minister.

Hon. J. Rustad: What the member opposite does need to understand is that we are committed to finding a way to work with nations to reach long-term reconciliation. The current process has flaws. We need to be able to find better ways of doing this, because we recognize the benefits of treaty.

We’re going to be out celebrating with Tla’amin in the very near future. That will give us yet another example of what treaty can look like and how the people that voted for that treaty are going be able to see the benefits and the changes that it will bring for their people. We want to celebrate that and be partners in that. But we want to see that extend to far more nations in a much shorter period of time, whether it’s treaty or otherwise, because we need to be able to do this.

The agreements that we enter into right across the province, whether they’re non-treaty agreements or incremental treaty agreements, are all designed as building blocks as to how we build a relationship, how we find ways to work together.

With some nations, it was so tough even just to start, because there’s no trust. There have been years of challenges and issues. Yet what we need to do is we need to find ways, one small step at a time, to build agreements, ways to work together to be able to build a relationship — to then be able to build on that and find agreements that can extend out to longer periods of time that can then be more encompassing and that can reach into treaty.

It’s the core of what we should be doing with treaty, and it’s one of the main flaws that isn’t in the treaty process. You need to be able to start building on success and building relationships as you go.

[1715]

This “getting to final, and then you get it all at once” is one of the critical flaws in the process. It’s the fundamental reason why we have gone forward with a number of agreements, which is why I state, and I stand here proudly and say, that our relationships with First Nations across this province are improving.

Yes, there are challenges issues. There are issues. You’ll hear some people that prefer that we aren’t doing that, who will come up and give all kinds of rationale and reasons and point to various things. But the reality is the over 400 agreements that we have in place today and the 770 agreements that we’re in the process of negotiating are all about how you take those steps and build those relationships. They’re all about how we work with people and create their hope and optimism around how they can try to achieve things.

As I mentioned last night when we were talking about this, when you sit down with chiefs that you haven’t been able to enter into agreements with before — and have always been a challenging relationship — and you sign a relationship and you see tears in the chiefs’ eyes because they know they can see the change that is coming….

Yes, the pace is slow. In many cases, we’re not nearly able to make as much progress as we want. But change often is that way. You know that when you get to agreements, you’re going to get push-back and people all around that are going to say all kinds of things, because people resist change. But the reality is that the only way you are going to be able to do things positively and actually be able to create a better future is to change, to make small changes in the present and move forward bit by bit.

What we have done in the province is what we will continue to do in the province. It’s what we hope that the treaty process will be able to reflect, so that we can see the change and be able to make progress in a much more rapid way with nations around the province.

With that, I know we’re short on time, but if I can just request a brief recess.

The Chair: I’ll call a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 5:16 p.m. to 5:21 p.m.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

S. Fraser: Switching gears here, we’ve got very little time, but if I could touch on environmental assessment process. I know it’s not the appropriate ministry, but if the minister will bear with me, there is a link to the ministry.

In 2010, the B.C. government signed an equivalency agreement that changed how the environmental assessment works for major energy projects. Instead of two separate processes, the decision-making was ceded to the National Energy Board. Under the process, the northern gateway pipeline was approved.

The Gitga’at led this challenge with Coastal First Nations, an alliance of First Nations on B.C’s north and central coast and Haida Gwaii, in support and took the government to court. They argued that the B.C. government had abdicated their decision-making power and its duty to consult, so a key piece of the role of the ministry here. That was in the Supreme Court just this past January.

The Minister of Environment recognized the obligations, to her credit, and she stated we have responsibility, as the British Columbia Crown, to consult with First Nations. We will do that in any case.

I guess the question on that is: the equivalency agreements are still there in other projects, so what role will the minister or the ministry play in addressing…? Obviously, the failure…. Again, a court decision. Will that be expanded to ensure that this doesn’t happen again and that the honour of the Crown is maintained?

Hon. J. Rustad: I wanted to set the record straight. Earlier I talked about the number of support. I said it was around 60, or over 60 percent in terms of the Yale treaty. It’s probably worth noting that it was 94 percent turnout and a 68 percent support for the Yale treaty. I just wanted to make sure that was on the record.

With regards to the EA process and the decision that came out, I think the member knows that it’s the Ministry of Environment that is responsible for that component, those decisions. As MARR, we engage with the Ministry of Environment and with nations in support to that, but we are not, obviously, directly responsible in terms of that. Unfortunately, I’ve got to refer you to the Ministry of Environment for that question.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I realize I sort of segued. It is the Ministry of Environment’s responsibility, and I get that. It is about duty to consult. On the land base, we do have an environmental assessment process in place that is often the first stop for resource projects in the province for First Nations. I would submit that First Nations are not involved early enough in that process, in a robust enough way.

[1725]

That being said, the court decision may have implications for how your ministry proceeds. In making it germane to the minister, has the minister met with, say, the Coastal First Nations, the Gitga’at since this decision in January to discuss its implications?

There are other projects that are likely to be challenged based on this court decision that could interfere with negotiations your ministry is involved in. Indirectly it has an effect, potentially, on you and your ministry.

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m doing my best to try to give you quick responses.

As I think the member opposite knows, MARR is not the ministry directly responsible for these types of con-
[ Page 11372 ]
sultations on environmental assessment. However, we are engaged with many ministries that are involved in this.

But directly to the question about these coastal nations that took this court case forward, we have not gotten together with those nations to talk directly about the court case they brought forward.

It’s probably worth noting that with the Coastal First Nations, we have, obviously, just recently signed and celebrated the Great Bear Rainforest and the work that we have together there. Just this week we signed an agreement, particularly with the Tsimshian component of that, around training and the advancement of those components.

We’re very engaged with many of those nations on a wide variety of fronts, reaching agreements and improving our relationships.

The Chair: I guess the LG is here, so we’re going to have to wrap up.

S. Fraser: Should I do one more question?

The Chair: Yes.

S. Fraser: You mentioned the Tsimshian and the agreement that was made, a training agreement. I think the amount was $9 million towards training.

I guess the simple question would be: where’s that money coming from? I’m assuming it’s…. From looking at the budget documents, I didn’t see $9 million coming out of any portion of MARR. Where is the money coming from? When will it be distributed? Because $9 million is significant.

Hon. J. Rustad: Specifically to that funding…. I’ll try to keep this as concise as I can.

As we’ve engaged with them on this, we are still, obviously, working through the details in terms of this. We have an agreement yet to sign around that. The first $3 million of that will, of course, flow immediately upon doing that. We’re hopeful for very early, within the next number of weeks, likely into April.

Then, of course, the remaining $6 million of that $9 million in total will flow as appropriate for that agreement over this three-year period.

[1730]

With regards to where the money comes from, I hate to do this to you, but that’s one thing you’ll have to go and ask the Minister of Finance about.

Vote 11: ministry operations, $39,211,000 — approved.

Vote 12: treaty and other agreements funding, $41,949,000 — approved.

S. Fraser: I should have done this at the end of my last question. I just want to thank the minister and his staff, again, for making themselves available.

It was an interesting debate. It had its own ebb and flow, and I appreciate the time that we had here. Thank you.

Hon. J. Rustad: I, too, want to thank my staff in terms of the support and the work that they do. I want to thank the critic and the other members who have participated in this discussion. It did have its interesting moments as it wove its way through. As always, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to have this discussion.

So with that, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Votes 11 and 12 of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:31 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 © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada