Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 151
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. C. James: I know all of us in this House are grateful for the incredible staff who provide us with support. We on this side of the House have had the opportunity with two staff, Jared Butcher and Jayne Ducker, who have worked for us in constituency offices, who have worked for us in caucus. Jayne is now working in the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction’s office. But Jayne isn’t in that office; she’s in the gallery today. She has taken some time off while she and Jared expanded their family.
I am very pleased to announce today that on August 21 George Alexander Ducker was born, named after his great-grandfather George Ducker and sharing his middle name with his grandfather John and his mom, Jayne Alexandra. I would like to welcome George into the world and into an extraordinary family. I know big brother Logan is also thrilled. So welcome.
Thank you, Jayne and Jared, for the work you do for all of us.
Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to introduce to the House my new executive assistant, Mindy Bansal. As my colleague just finished saying, our staff…. We count on them a lot. They add to our offices and bring skill sets. Mindy comes to us from the private sector, and she has amazing energy and communication skills. I’m so delighted to have her as part of our team. What is really important to me is that she shares our values to build a better British Columbia.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 39 — POVERTY REDUCTION
STRATEGY
ACT
Hon. S. Simpson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Poverty Reduction Strategy Act.
Hon. S. Simpson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act. This bill will address the critical issues of poverty in our province and require the development of a poverty reduction plan to achieve legislated targets and timelines for poverty reduction in B.C. This work relates to our shared commitment to reduce poverty with the B.C. Green Party, reflected in the confidence and supply agreement between the B.C. New Democratic caucus and the B.C. Green caucus.
B.C. has the second-worst poverty reduction outcomes in the country, according to the statistics available. In 2016, there were 557,000 people living in poverty, including 99,000 children. This means that 12 percent of our population is living in poverty. Despite these numbers, B.C. is currently the only province without a poverty reduction strategy.
The proposed legislation will require B.C.’s first poverty reduction strategy to be released by March 31, 2019, and then reviewed and updated at least every five years. The bill will ensure that provincial poverty reduction efforts, for years to come, are approached in a way that is meaningful, effective and based on the experiences of people living in poverty.
The legislation ensures accountability for government to make real progress by setting ambitious but achievable targets and timelines within the legislation and requiring annual reporting to the Legislative Assembly and the public.
At the core of the bill are targets for reducing the poverty rate by 25 percent overall and by 50 percent for people under the age of 18 over the next five years. This will be using Canada’s official poverty line.
To achieve these targets, the legislation outlines key areas of focus for the strategy, including improving the affordability of goods, services and housing; opportunities for people to move out of poverty; and the inclusion of persons living in poverty in community life.
The proposed legislation supports government’s commitment to reconciliation by requiring the strategy to reflect the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.
Our government’s poverty reduction efforts are a cross-government commitment, as we know that people living in poverty are feeling a range of challenges that require action. For this reason, the bill outlines key action areas for the strategy, including housing, education, employment, income support and supports for families, children and youth.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. S. Simpson: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 39, Poverty Reduction Strategy Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 AMENDMENT
ACT, 2018
Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018.
Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018. This bill would give legal effect to the commitment this government has made to hold a second referendum on proportional representation if the results of November’s referendum is a change to a proportional representation voting system.
That commitment was made following the public engagement, held from November to February, which indicated a clear majority of respondents favoured having a confirming vote on whether to keep the new voting system if a new voting system is adopted.
The amendments in this bill require a provincewide referendum to be held after the new proportional representation system has been used in two general elections. This confirming referendum would offer voters the choice of keeping the new proportional representation voting system or returning to the first-past-the-post voting system.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 40, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
LNG CANADA PROJECT AND LNG INDUSTRY
D. Davies: Today is a very historic day for British Columbia and, indeed, all of Canada. The go-ahead announcement of the LNG export facility in Kitimat will, in fact, echo throughout our national economy. The $40 billion investment will bring jobs and construction over the next five to seven years. The sale of liquefied natural gas also will bring on line a whole new stream of public revenue that will flow to the people of British Columbia over this next century.
For my own constituents of the Peace River region, we will certainly benefit from the construction of the pipeline and the continued extraction of gas from the Montney gas play. I have participated, along with hundreds of local residents in my riding, in LNG rallies over the past couple years, and there are a lot of happy people today.
The announcement of a 13-year export deal for Woodfibre LNG in Squamish this week also means that British Columbia is on the cusp of a new economic era in our province. The LNG industry ushers in a bridge to a carbon-free economy that will help China and India wean themselves off the use of coal in heavy industry. What’s good for British Columbia is also good for the planet.
This week’s events did not unfold, though, without a great deal of effort from a lot of people over these past number of years. As the Premier noted in his remarks this morning, talk about an LNG export industry in this Legislature dates back to 1982. But we should acknowledge one Premier who did start the big push toward LNG back in 2011, and that is Christy Clark. Without her vision and tireless efforts, along with the member for Langley East while he was the Energy Minister, we would not have landed an LNG export here in B.C.
The fact that all 20 First Nations signed on to an LNG and pipeline agreement, as well as wide public support, shows the world that Canada has been and always will be a place to do business. As I speak these words, I know that my children and future generations of British Columbia will benefit in the future from what was achieved today.
FOSTER FAMILIES
R. Singh: October is Foster Family Month. This annual proclamation is meant to celebrate, honour and raise awareness about the urgent need to recruit more foster families in B.C. It’s also a way to acknowledge and thank foster families for the dedicated work they do in caring for some of the province’s most vulnerable children and youth. These caregivers’ willingness to step up has changed kids’ lives for the better.
As of August 2018, there were about 4,500 children and youth in foster care, roughly 67 percent of whom are Indigenous. Across B.C., these young people are cared for in about 2,600 family-based foster homes. Many of the caregivers are caring for more than one foster child. Some foster caregivers have been caring for children for years and have fostered as many as, if not more than, 150 foster kids over a period of decades.
Many of those experienced families are reaching retirement age. It’s why there’s always need for new caregivers to be there for kids who, for a variety of reasons, can’t live with their own families. If you or someone you know is interested in becoming a foster care giver, please visit fosternow.ca to get started today.
Thank you again to all B.C. foster families. Your work is incredibly challenging and rewarding, and you are some of the invisible heroes of our society.
ELDON LEE
S. Bond: Northern B.C. lost a medical icon on Labour Day, 2018. Dr. Eldon Lee passed away in the early hours of September 3, and that day seems somehow particularly fitting. You see, Dr. Lee spent countless hours in labour and delivery, delivering thousands of babies during the course of his career as an obstetrician and gynecologist. In fact, in 1962, Eldon became the first, and for a very long time the only, ob-gyn north of Kamloops.
His contributions to the medical community were substantive, and as a result, he was installed as a lifetime member of the Canadian Medical Association in 1995 and inducted into the Northern Medical Hall of Fame in 2009.
Eldon married his true love, Marjorie Cartmell, in 1952, and theirs is a 66-year love story, full of adventure and family. They were blessed with six children, followed by grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Eldon was a man of many talents. He was a Greek scholar, a cowboy rancher, an RCAF bomber pilot, a hunter, an author and even a Sunday school teacher. He was the star goalie of the PG Doctors hockey team, flew an ultralight plane and loved his ATV. In fact, his last quad ride was just days before he went into hospital.
Bill and I joined an overflow crowd at the celebration of life for Dr. Lee. We, like so many others, had a personal connection to this incredible person. Dr. Lee, along with Dr. Jack McKenzie, delivered our twin children, Melissa and Christopher.
We are grateful that Eldon and Marjorie chose to serve in northern British Columbia. Dr. Lee was devoted to his family, his profession and his community. He will be deeply missed by his family, his friends and all of us who were lucky enough to know him.
SUSAN ANTHONY
A. Kang: It is with great pride that I stand in the House today to celebrate and highlight one of my constituents of Burnaby–Deer Lake, Susan Anthony. Susan was awarded, by the city of Burnaby, the 2018 Local Hero Award.
Since 1997, the city of Burnaby, a community made stronger by the services of its citizens, identifies and recognizes its local heroes every year. These individuals, who are of diverse interests and backgrounds, give back to the community in a wide variety of ways. Susan has been a committed advocate for accessibility and inclusion, particularly for persons with disabilities.
She has been a board member of the Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, otherwise known as BACI, since 2006. She served as vice-president of the board from 2009 to 2012. She served as a volunteer co-chair of the Simon Fraser University Community Council and on BACI’s quality assurance and advocacy committees.
For the past two years, Susan has volunteered as a member of the Burnaby Access Advisory Committee. As Susan’s nominators note, Susan Anthony has distinguished herself as a steadfast and powerful advocate for people with disabilities. She continues to add her voice to the anthem of equality she spent a lifetime composing. Her dear friends and community at the Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion are blessed to have Susan as a neighbour, supporter and dedicated advocate.
I would like to invite the House to join me in this special moment to congratulate Susan Anthony for this year’s Burnaby Local Hero Award.
Thank you so much, Susan. Your contribution and services to Burnaby make it great. Your love for the community and your kindness and selflessness make B.C. great.
FARSI LANGUAGE PROGRAM PROPOSAL
J. Thornthwaite: Last week I joined school board chairs from the North Shore, as well as the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, at the launch of Farsi Dar B.C, a grassroots campaign started by Persian-speaking communities to have Farsi added as a teachable second-language option in B.C. schools.
Persian, known by speakers of the language as Farsi, is spoken by over 100 million people worldwide and by over 200,000 here in Canada. Here in B.C., we have a vibrant Persian community stretching from the North Shore to the Tri-Cities and beyond. Having lived on the North Shore almost my entire life, I have seen up close the positive impact and value that the Persian community and their traditions, culture, food and language have had on our diverse region.
As former chair of the North Vancouver school board, I have firsthand knowledge and experience in this field. When I was on the board, I advocated for Mandarin to be included as a board-approved course in the North Vancouver school district. The three boards of education that may be interested in including Farsi as a board-approved course are North Vancouver, West Vancouver and Coquitlam, because they have strong Persian communities.
I’ve heard from parents and students that they value a greater choice of subjects in the classroom. Dr. Ross King, head of the department of Asian studies at UBC, said in his remarks at the Farsi Dar B.C. event that community support is vital to push this project forward. Bringing Farsi into B.C. schools will give Farsi-speaking students the opportunity to refine their language skills, but it would also open the door to non-Persian-speaking students, giving them the chance to learn a language with rich history, and they would all receive a credit for doing so.
I want to congratulate Amir Bajehkian and the entire Farsi Dar campaign team on their launch, and wish them very well. In the months ahead, they will engage stakeholders and the community to generate more support for this project.
I invite all my colleagues in the House to support this initiative to bring the Persian language to B.C. schools.
RIDLEY TERMINALS IN PRINCE RUPERT
J. Rice: Ridley Terminals, or RTI, has owned and operated a marine bulk handling terminal in Prince Rupert for the last 35 years. RTI primarily exports metallurgical and thermal coal and petroleum coke from B.C. and Alberta to Asia. Ridley Terminals provides over 120 jobs — nearly 100 of which are union-wage, family-supporting jobs that are really important to a community the size of Prince Rupert.
Like our city, RTI has had to cope with the ever-changing ebbs and flows of commodity prices, which can be really hard on a company and, particularly, our community. Yet it was not long ago, during these challenging low times, that RTI persevered, and they did so in a way that preserved local jobs. Despite the downturn in coal prices, RTI deployed creative scheduling practices for worker shifts, which ensured that Prince Rupert did not experience massive layoffs. Where other companies would immediately cut labour, our local workforce was maintained. For that, I am grateful.
Furthermore, to better cope with rapidly changing markets, RTI is diversifying. An example of this is with the construction of the AltaGas propane export terminal, a first of its kind on the west coast of Canada, with operations expected to start early next year. AltaGas is providing skills training and employment opportunities to local First Nations and is creating 40 to 50 permanent jobs once the facility is operational.
This type of diversification supports long-term economic stability in the region and provides important local employment opportunities. Additionally, whether it’s supporting the All-Native Basketball Tournament or supporting local artists and charities, Ridley Terminals gives back to our community.
I want to wish Ridley Terminals a happy 35th anniversary, and I look forward to your continued success.
Oral Questions
COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT
AND PATTULLO BRIDGE
PROJECT WORKERS
M. Polak: All British Columbians should have the right to work on public projects — union, non-union, even members of unions that the NDP doesn’t approve of. It really shouldn’t matter.
Can the Transportation Minister explain why article 8.102 of the Pattullo union benefit agreement requires workers to join the appropriate union affiliate “within 30 calendar days”?
Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very pleased to spend a second day talking about this great initiative that we’re doing, a community benefits agreement which is investing in the people of British Columbia. People in our province work hard. They care about their communities, and they care about the projects being built in their communities. That’s why under our Community Benefits Agreement, every contractor can bid on it, whether union or not union.
It is a fair playing field. We want to make sure everyone can build, because we’re investing in the future of British Columbia. We’re investing, ensuring that we are training people to deal with the skills shortage that we have, ensuring that we can hire Indigenous people and women, that we can hire people who are not usually represented on these jobsites and make sure that when we have the workplace, everybody is treated the same.
Yes, there is a requirement that people join a union after 30 days. Absolutely. I’m surprised that the opposition is surprised. We’ve been very clear about that. That is part of a benefit agreement that has been used for many years on public and private projects throughout B.C. and in other jurisdictions.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the official opposition on a supplemental.
M. Polak: Well, the same union benefit agreement also says in the previous clause that this is required “as a condition of employment.” In other words, the message is: “Join an NDP-approved union, or lose your job.” That’s blackmail, and it has absolutely zero connection to the minister’s diversity goals, none whatsoever.
Again, can the minister explain why workers must join one of the 19, only 19, NDP-approved unions in 30 calendar days instead of losing their job?
Hon. C. Trevena: I am amazed that the opposition really seems to be opposed to good jobs with good wages for local people. It’s a very basic thing. They were government for 16 years, and you’d have thought they would understand how the workplace works.
Like any unionized worksite…. Yes, they will be a unionized worksite, but they’re open for union and non-union contractors to bid. It is a unionized worksite. The workers will be union members when they’re there. But any qualified worker will have the opportunity to apply, whether or not they are a union member. As I’ve mentioned, union and non-union contractors are allowed to apply.
What we are doing is what the opposition didn’t do in 16 years — investing not just in the infrastructure of B.C. but in the people of B.C. This side of the House believes. We believe in the people of B.C. who can do the good job for B.C.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the opposition on a second supplemental.
M. Polak: In case there was any doubt as to the attitude that the NDP has for those who are not part of their select group of unions, on March 19, 2016…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question.
M. Polak: …the Premier boasted he was going to deliver billions of public procurement to his NDP friends and insiders: “We can do it. We’re going to do it with the building trades unions. We’re going to do it with union labour. You don’t do it by going with Phil Hochstein and the turkeys at CLAC. That’s not how I roll. That’s not how we roll.”
In light of those comments, how can the minister possibly claim that the policy isn’t designed to discriminate against workers who are not on the NDP’s approved list?
Hon. C. Trevena: I say, once again, that this is an investment in the people of British Columbia. People, whether they are union or non-union, can apply. Skilled workers can apply. Non-union contractors can apply. This is an open application. This is a unionized workplace. It puts local workers first.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. C. Trevena: It supports local economies. It deals with skill shortages, and it ensures that we have Indigenous trainees, Indigenous apprenticeships, women apprenticeships and groups who are not usually in the workforce involved.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. We shall hear the response.
Hon. C. Trevena: The opposition may not like it, but they are in opposition. Seven out of ten British Columbians think that the community benefits agreement is the way forward. This is the approach we’re taking, and we are opening the field to everyone to work in this system.
M. Stilwell: The minister says she’s investing in people. But let’s be clear. It’s not all people, because, you see, if you’re a worker in the Okanagan or the north or on the Island, you won’t get a chance to work on the Pattullo Bridge project.
I can tell you that workers in my community were surprised to read in the Pattullo union benefit agreement that the NDP have imposed regional hiring discrimination. Can the minister explain to the qualified workers in my community why she is happy to make them pay for the project but not let them work on it?
Hon. C. Trevena: We are investing in the people of British Columbia. I cannot understand why the opposition doesn’t see the benefit that the people of British Columbia can bring to British Columbia projects.
We’re investing to deal with a skills shortage. Everybody in this chamber should know that we are facing a looming skills shortage. This will be dealing with that. We are training people. We are dealing with apprenticeships. We are hiring people at good pay in long-term projects that are building the infrastructure of British Columbia as well as building up communities and building up the people of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.
M. Stilwell: The union benefit agreement also makes it clear that friends of the NDP come first, even if that means a union worker gets a job ahead of a qualified Indigenous worker or a member of another underrepresented group. Shockingly, a qualified Indigenous or equity group worker who doesn’t belong to an NDP-approved union comes in seventh in priority hiring under the Pattullo Bridge union benefit agreement.
Does the minister really think that it’s okay to discriminate against diversity in the workforce in order to pay off friends and insiders?
Hon. C. Trevena: The member opposite was part of a government that was in charge of British Columbia for 16 years and seems to forget her own previous government’s record on infrastructure. We have had massive overspend, impossible planning.
We are investing in British Columbians. The community benefit agreement…. I’d be very happy…. I’m sure that we can arrange, through the ministry, a full briefing for opposition members about the way community benefit agreements work, because they clearly do not understand the way the system works.
We are investing, through the community benefit agreement, in the people of British Columbia. It gives priority to people who are living locally, initially within the first 100 kilometres, and then people in British Columbia. We are investing in making sure that Indigenous people get training. We are making sure that women get trained. We’re making sure that people who are not usually represented on these sorts of projects get the training so that in the future, we can have these projects built with a full B.C. workforce.
LNG CANADA PROJECT
AND GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
A. Weaver: In 2016, the B.C. NDP concluded that plans for an $11.4 billion LNG terminal on Lelu Island would generate an unacceptable increase in the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. They filed a definitive position against the project with federal environmental authorities. The NDP noted in their letter to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that the project would increase the province’s entire carbon footprint for industry, transport and residential activity combined by 8½ percent.
This is what they said in the letter: “The proposal fails to meet the condition of air, land and water protection with respect to both the threat to marine habitat and species as well as to climate through unacceptably high and inadequately unregulated greenhouse gas emissions.” Here’s the kicker: the unacceptably high emissions cited by the letter are, in fact, lower than the emissions anticipated from the LNG Canada project announced today.
To the Deputy Premier, how does the Deputy Premier reconcile her party’s sharp opposition to the Lelu terminal development with the present investment in LNG Canada?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. It gives us on this side of the House an opportunity to talk about our serious approach to climate, an approach that stands in stark contrast to that of the previous government. When I talk to British Columbians, they want to be assured….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.
Hon. G. Heyman: British Columbians want to be assured that as we develop our economy, we do it in a way that’s environmentally responsible, protects our air, land and water and has a path forward to meet clear climate targets that meet our and the Canadian government’s commitment to the Paris accord.
I will differ with the Leader of the Third Party a little bit. I will differ with him in that the announcement that was made today and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with this development, this final investment decision, are 3.4 megatonnes, far lower than that associated with the project that the member references.
I will say that the member has been working with me, working with staff in the climate action secretariat, to design, review and provide input into a clean growth strategy that we will release later this fall. It will outline a clear path to our legislated emission reduction targets. We are factoring in the emissions from this plant in that plan, and I look forward to continued work with the leader and his caucus.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
A. Weaver: In 2015, the B.C. Liberals signed a development deal with Pacific Northwest LNG in an attempt to spur the Malaysian-led project to become Canada’s first major LNG exporter. The now Minister of Environment was sharply critical of this decision. He said: “An economy that isn’t built on sound environmental protections that include a solid plan to control, limit and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions isn’t in the economy’s interest….” Or in the interest of future generations.
The Minister of Energy took this to another level. She said: “They put themselves in such a desperate position” — they being the Liberals — “when it comes to negotiating for LNG that they had to say yes to any single thing that walked through the door. That’s exactly what they have done. This is the big sellout of British Columbia.” The words of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
Now the NDP want to take that sellout to a whole new level through exempting LNG Canada from increases in the carbon tax, by eliminating the LNG Income Tax Act while they’re retaining the royalty giveaway, by deferring the PST, by exempting them from the steel tariffs and by burdening ratepayers with billions of dollars of debt to build Site C to sell LNG Canada power at half the price it costs to produce it. Talk about a sellout.
To the Deputy Premier: how is the development of LNG Canada any different from the B.C. Liberals’ attempt to develop Pacific Northwest LNG? Do you not see the grand hypocrisy of what is unfolding before us today?
Hon. G. Heyman: There could not be a more different approach to the economy or climate than this government demonstrates every single day and will make absolutely clear this fall when we release a clean growth strategy for a diversified, modern economy that meets emission reduction targets — full stop.
With respect to LNG Canada, we are applying the same conditions that will apply to any industry in British Columbia. An industry that is world-leading in its emission reduction targets, to be reviewed periodically, can get up to a 100 percent rebate of the incremental carbon tax — a carbon tax, by the way, that the former government had no intention of ever applying again.
We will work with the Third Party. We’ll work with the Leader of the Third Party and the leader’s caucus. We’ll work with industry….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.
Hon. G. Heyman: We’ll work with British Columbians to ensure that we meet our targets and we diversify and create a modern, sustaining economy for all British Columbians, for First Nations, for every region of this province while we protect the environment and while we meet our climate commitments.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT
AND
WORKERS
J. Johal: The Premier and his Transportation Minister have given their friends an insider monopoly control on public projects worth billions of dollars. Dawn Rebelo is a proud tradesperson who is affiliated with the Christian Labour Association of Canada, a union the Premier called “turkey.” Dawn doesn’t want to be forced to join a different union.
Can the minister explain why she has discriminated against this woman and why finding work in her field should be made contingent on her joining one of the 19 NDP-approved unions?
Hon. C. Trevena: The first point the member, I must say, didn’t hear in the last few months, since we’ve been talking about community benefit agreements, hadn’t heard yesterday and hasn’t heard today when we we’re talking about community benefit agreements — which, as an aside, I will repeat are an excellent way of building British Columbia’s infrastructure. Because we’re investing in….
What the member has clearly not heard is that when we have a community benefit agreement project, when it is part of the projects that we are going forward with — which, I think the members opposite realize, is not all projects we’re doing — any contract can bid. They don’t have to be union. They don’t have to be non-union. Anyone can bid, and anyone can work on it.
We are talking about a unionized worksite where, after 30 days, somebody will join the union, where they will share in well-paid jobs and share in the benefits. Everyone in British Columbia will share in the final benefits of the community benefit agreement, because it’s an investment in people who will get those jobs. It is an investment in First Nations, in women and in others who are going to get that job. It’s an investment in communities.
Frankly, if the opposition doesn’t understand that…. It’s really troubling that the opposition can’t see that investment in people of British Columbia is the best investment that we as a government can make.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: It’s getting quite tiring listening to this fumbling, bumbling minister — quite tiring. Here are the facts. The Premier boasted to his union pals…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, if we may hear the question.
J. Johal: …that he would steer public sector contracts their way — not the turkeys at non-union and non-NDP-union shops. That’s just how he rolls, he said. The agreement unambiguously forces workers to join the NDP-approved unions within 30 days.
How can the minister continue to deny the fact that workers like Ms. Rebelo are being discriminated against?
Hon. C. Trevena: I’m happy to stand up here and talk about the benefits to British Columbia that the community benefits agreement is going to bring. The opposition seems to really be opposed to good jobs for local people, with good wages and good benefits, with training that will invest in the future of British Columbia.
People in our province work hard, and they care about the communities. This community benefits agreement puts local workers first in line for the projects. It supports local economies. It supports communities. Workers will be spending money at home. It tackles the skills shortage, and it increases the participation of women, of Indigenous people, of apprentices and helps them and their families create paths forward.
The opposition might not like this. The opposition might feel that we have some sort of strange conspiracy in building up British Columbia and British Columbians, but the people of British Columbia believe in it. A recent poll shows that seven out of ten British Columbians think this is the way forward, and this is what we are doing.
S. Bond: Well, the minister may want to stand in the House and ignore and dismiss the opposition’s questions, but let’s be clear: the minister and the government are requiring workers to join one of 19 NDP-approved unions. The minister can dismiss that with her looks and her comments, but there is no regard for individual rights and choice.
Let’s personalize it. Aaron, who is a gas fitter in Prince George, writes: “I’m a skilled tradesperson.” In fact, Minister, he’d be one of the British Columbians that you’re talking about. He is a taxpayer. He is a proud British Columbian. He says….
Interjections.
S. Bond: We’re coming to it. “I work at my trade, and I participate as a productive member of my community. It is not acceptable for you to force me to join a union.”
How does the minister explain her decision to prevent a qualified worker like Aaron from working on public projects?
Hon. C. Trevena: We are facing a skills shortage. We are wanting to make sure that we deal with that skills shortage. Our community benefits approach is one way to deal with that skills shortage, because we’re going to be training people on site.
As I have mentioned several times this morning, any contractor can bid, any worker can come and work on a community benefits agreement project. Absolutely. It is a unionized workplace, so they will be expected to join that. On a unionized worksite, there are benefits. You get equal pay. You get equal benefits. You get equal protection. This is what a unionized worksite provides. On these agreements, there will be unionized worksites. Anybody can apply for the job. Any company can apply for the project.
We believe that…. I’ve got to say that instead of the opposition squandering money, overspending on projects all over the province — whether it was the northwest transmission line, hundreds of millions of dollars over, or the Port Mann Bridge, billions of dollars of overspending…. Our investment as a province is investing in the people of that province through the training of the people in that province, through hiring locally so that communities benefit.
I’m extraordinarily proud that we have a Premier who is willing to stand up and say that this is the way forward for our province.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, I can assure the minister that that answer brings little comfort to qualified, skilled tradespeople like Aaron and thousands of other ones. In Aaron’s words: “Unions are right for some but not all. If I wanted to join a designated union, I would have done that already.”
Aaron deserves an answer. Why are hard-working, skilled tradespeople like Aaron, a proud British Columbian, shut out of work on public projects in British Columbia?
Hon. C. Trevena: We as a government are investing approximately $15 billion in infrastructure in the next three years. A certain amount of that infrastructure spending will be through community benefit agreements, yes, and we are very proud that this is the way forward. But we are building other infrastructure that will not be part of community benefit agreements. I think that we have not been very shy about that.
We have a skills shortage. I would say to the member opposite that we need people, and we need skilled workers to be working on all of our projects. Our community benefits projects are something that I’m very proud to stand behind — for those ones we are working on.
We have an open hiring policy for them. We have open contract to open hiring — and an investment in the people of British Columbia. I really do not understand how the opposition cannot agree that investing in people, in British Columbians, is the right way forward.
M. de Jong: How many times over the years have I heard this minister and the Premier and members of this government profess their support, their enthusiastic support, for the principles of equality and equality of opportunity? Well, we now know just how hollow and disingenuous those words were. Once again, just as the last time they were in office, the NDP are sacrificing the principle of equality of opportunity on the altar of political expediency.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.
M. de Jong: Eagle West Cranes is a leading crane operator headquartered in the Fraser Valley. They and their employees will not be working on any of these publicly funded projects. Why not? They’re not members of the right club. They’re not members of the NDP-approved club, and they don’t want to be members of the NDP-approved club. They have chosen not to join one of those select unions that the minister is now insisting workers must join.
My question to the minister…. And they’re watching; they’re watching. Will the minister stand up in this chamber and explain to the employees of Eagle West Cranes why they aren’t good enough?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ve been listening to this line of questioning with some interest, because I find it somewhat ironic that previous governments in this province understood ensuring the public benefit of public spending for the public good.
Social Credit knew it with the allied trades hydro agreement that saw construction workers, British Columbians, build the dams in this province and ensure that we had a steady stream of apprentices through those years to continue the great work and deal with the skilled trades issues that we need in this province.
That side of the House, when they sat here, scrapped that agreement, denying opportunity for young British Columbians. Report after report came in, in 2012 — how changes that they made when they took office in 2001 gutted apprenticeship training in this program to the point that we were getting warnings that our Red Seal qualifications were in danger of not being recognized by other jurisdictions. That’s their record.
What about the ripping up of contracts and denying opportunity to collective agreements that had just…?
Community benefits are about ensuring that the future of British Columbia has got the skilled tradespeople that it needs, that it has the apprenticeships that it needs in all parts of the province, whether they be men, whether they be women, whether they be Indigenous. That’s what this government is about.
That’s why they’re over there. They’re out of touch. They’re offside, and they’re not getting back on this side of the House.
[End of question period.]
M. Dean: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
M. Dean: It’s my great honour to introduce to the House today Maurine Karagianis. Most people here will know she’s been an MLA for three terms, serving my community when it was Esquimalt–Royal Roads. She held many committee positions and critic roles.
Before she was in provincial politics, she represented the people of Esquimalt. She’s been my mentor for many years. She’s been a champion for our community and all British Columbians for many, many years. Please make her very welcome.
Reports from Committees
AGRICULTURE, FISH AND FOOD COMMITTEE
R. Leonard: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food, titled Local Meat Production and Inspection in British Columbia.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
R. Leonard: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
R. Leonard: In moving adoption of this report, I’d like to make some brief comments. Our committee was asked by this House to undertake a study of local meat production and inspection based on a discussion paper that was put forward by the Minister of Agriculture and referred to the committee by the Legislative Assembly on April 24.
In response, the committee held a public consultation from May 16 to June 15. We travelled to five communities where we had the honour of hearing from 50 British Columbians who work in the meat production and processing industry. We also received 36 written submissions and 74 on-line survey responses — altogether a good representation in an industry with 61 class A and B and 51 class D and E licensees able to sell meat in British Columbia.
On behalf of the committee members, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to the individuals and organizations who took the time to participate and provide their valuable input. We learned a great deal about the meat production and processing industries, and on behalf of the committee, I would like to acknowledge the long hours, hard work and dedication it takes to make a living in those industries.
As a committee, it is our hope that this report, which includes 21 recommendations, leads to positive change that supports strong and growing industries in local meat production and processing for generations to come.
In closing, I would like to thank the Deputy Chair, the member for Fraser-Nicola, for her thoughtful and insightful contributions during our deliberations and also for her humour. I would also like to thank all committee members for their input and dedication in bringing this report to the House today. It was a real pleasure to work with all of you.
With that, I move adoption of the report.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 37, the Land Statutes Amendment Act.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 37 — LAND STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT,
2018
Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the Land Statutes Amendment Act be read a second time now.
The Land Statutes Amendment Act will streamline, modernize and improve the security of B.C.’s land title and survey systems. I must say, in the development of the amendment act that we’re discussing today at second reading, I certainly learned a lot about the land title system.
The title of my ministry is Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. Lands comes in the title right after forestry, and there’s nothing more important than a secure system of land titles in the province, and not only secure but a land title system that the public has confidence in because it underlies many of the business transactions. It underlies many of the ways that we live in our communities. That’s why I’m pleased to introduce these amendments today — introduced in first reading yesterday and in second reading today.
These are important systems that secure legal interests and rights to land in this province. The Land Statutes Amendment Act will make changes to four acts: the Land Title Act, the Land Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Boundary Act.
These amendments fall in line with our government’s focus on three topic areas: making life more affordable; delivering services that people count on; and creating a strong, sustainable, innovative economy that works for everyone. I’ll touch on those three points as we proceed through this second reading debate.
I want to say, though, that in advance of developing and as we developed this amendment act — the Land Statutes Amendment Act — many groups across the province were consulted. I just want to make sure that it’s on the record, the wide variety of groups that were consulted: the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors; the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. chapter; the Law Society of B.C.; the LTSA’s legal professional advisory committee; the LTSA’s Land Surveyors Advisory Taskforce; the Union of B.C. Municipalities, a very important organization to consult in these matters; the Canadian Bankers Association; the B.C. Association of Professional Registry Agents; the Urban Development Institute; the Canada Revenue Agency; and financial institutions, including Central 1 Credit Union and some of the mainstream banking institutions.
This suite of changes will bring improvements and allow B.C.’s land title and survey system to adapt to technology over time while enhancing services for British Columbians.
These changes will also make life more affordable for British Columbians. I know this is a very important point for many people in the province. People would be able to carry out simple land transactions without having to use an intermediary, such as a lawyer or notary, and avoid associated legal fees.
I want to emphasize these are simple land transactions. If they become more complex, people may and will choose to use a lawyer or notary. But again, in fulfilling our mandate about making life more affordable, there are instances of simple land transactions where, right now, a lawyer or a notary is required. If this bill passes through this Legislature, then those associated legal fees can be avoided.
The current electronic filing provisions date back to 1999, when this technology was new. Since then, electronic signature and authentication…. The authenticity technology has improved dramatically.
There might be some questions about that, regarding how this electronic signature and electronic filing might increase the risk of identity theft. The proposed amendment includes safeguards to protect against the risk of identity theft. I know that’s on many people’s minds these days. For example, any new form of electronic signature must be unique to the person entitled to use it and under their sole control. The technology being considered to enable new forms of electronic signatures — for instance, the B.C. Services Card — would provide the two-factor authentication, similar to what is used for current subscriber signatures.
With the two-factor authentication, it means that it applies to electronic signatures. An individual would need to have both a card and the corresponding PIN for that card. So the concern about identity theft and the security of the system when it comes to electronic signatures is well thought out in these amendments.
Some of the other changes to those four acts I referenced include enabling more than one type of electronic signature technology to be used. This will allow broader access to electronic filing of land title documents and survey plans. Another change is permitting the director of land titles to establish new types of electronic signature. This will allow the system to keep pace with technology.
Another change is aligning certain processes and requirements in the legislation with operational practice and privacy protection standards. Some of these privacy protection standards will relate to being able to search the land title database. We know that there have been instances with this new ability to search land titles and match up registries with different databases that might make it easier for people who want to identify those who have been subject to domestic violence, for instance — to find their address. So these changes will enable increased security in that regard.
We can get into that in the committee stage around how that plays out. But I’m pleased to say that it will prove that we’ll have increased security for those, for instance, who have fled a domestic violence situation and are concerned that if they have title over a property that they’re residing in, those that they are fleeing from might be able to electronically search the database and find where they’re living. That’s the kind of situation that will be addressed in the increased security under these amendments.
With broader access to electronic filing and new types of electronic signatures, some land title documents and survey plans will be able to be executed electronically by all parties, thereby eliminating the need for paper copies. We’ll still have a transition where paper copies will be used, especially in instances where people don’t have access necessarily to electronic means to convey these documents. But we are on the path to eliminating paper copies.
Bill 37 will also support how treaty settlement lands are administered, bringing important changes and administrative improvement for First Nations. This has especially become apparent, in particular, for the process for making additions to treaty settlement lands to be simplified. As we enter into more agreements around treaties with First Nations, what we have discovered is that there are some overriding legal tools — legal binding documents around First Nations when it comes to adding land to their treaty, settlement lands, after the treaty has been signed.
The amendments here will make it easier for First Nations who are in treaty to add treaty settlement lands. There will still be the necessary oversight and the necessary consultative mechanisms, but the challenges that other legislation presents in that will be simplified, and that’s going to be good for both First Nations and non–First Nations.
The bill will also simplify the approval process for technical boundary descriptions along the B.C.-Alberta border when there is no physical change to the boundary. This is a much-needed change. The situation we’re faced with now is that when a boundary needs to be set or changed, it has to go to referendum. This is an onerous process.
The issue is that much of the B.C.-Alberta border lies along the height of land when it comes to the Rockies and is not monitored by a point-to-point boundary marker. Over time, we know the dynamics in the Rockies are at play, and there’s a chance for erosion, landslides and other natural events. So the boundary set by a height of land is movable.
I can think of an instance in an area where I used to work in the Canadian Rockies, in Yoho National Park, which is within B.C., but it’s on the border of Alberta. The height of land division between B.C. and Alberta runs along the Great Divide, and there’s a pass between the Lake O’Hara area of Yoho National Park and the Lake Louise area of Banff National Park called Abbot Pass.
I was just reviewing pictures recently. There’s a hut up there called Abbot’s hut, constructed by the Alpine Club of Canada out of stone materials that were the only materials available in the area. I’ve hiked up to that hut. It’s used by climbers and hikers to get out of the weather and sometimes spend overnight.
An area underneath the hut has eroded and slid. I’m not sure if it’s slid into the B.C. side or the Alberta side. And now the hut is closed for the season until Parks Canada staff decide how to deal with that from an engineering perspective for the safety of those using the hut.
The fact is this relates to the B.C.-Alberta border. The border was the height of land through that area. That height of land has now changed. There’s been an erosion and a small landslide. This bill, Bill 37, will simplify the approval process for technical boundary descriptions along the B.C.-Alberta border, taking care of instances like that. There are a couple of other instances dating back into the 1990s where we’re still waiting for legislation around the boundary.
It’s a marker-to-marker boundary now, and that’s what it will be into the future after this bill, if it proceeds through to the final stage. Those kinds of boundary issues will be resolved with this act.
The benefits to this legislation are broad and will be realized to the public, government officials, professionals, the Land Title and Survey Authority and treaty First Nations. It really is a matter of streamlining, reducing red tape and updating a system that needs to be updated as far as how technology has evolved since 1999 when these various acts were last updated as far as electronic signatures.
The proposed changes will make life more affordable through less reliance on legal professionals for simple land title changes. It will also deliver the services people count on through greater security and efficiency.
I touched a little bit on that, and we can definitely speak to that in the committee stage in more detail. And it will help to create an innovative economy by modernizing land title and survey systems. Again, these systems are at the basis of business transactions, at the basis of certainty and at the basis of how we move forward as a province with First Nations.
With that, I will conclude my comments on second reading of the Land Statutes Amendment Act, Bill 37.
I look forward to hearing comments from the opposition side as they have reviewed these changes suggested in the Land Title Amendment Act. I’ll monitor their responses and look forward to committee stage of this bill.
J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for his description and time, in terms of it. It did help to answer some questions. I know there’ll be a number of questions that will come up, certainly, in the committee stage debate. But I want to make a few remarks here at second reading to the bill, Bill 37, the Land Statutes Amendment Act.
The minister was just talking about an incident in Yoho National Park where the lands moved. I’ve actually hiked around in Yoho National Park as well. I’ve been there. It’s a beautiful place, actually. It’s one of those places in British Columbia, if you get a chance, to go see. I recommend people go and see it, because it is quite spectacular.
I find it interesting in terms of the boundary decision and the boundary decision process. I’m clarifying this in case there happens to be an adjustment in terms of height of land.
We’ve been in Confederation for a long time now. We’ve had our neighbours in Alberta for a long time, and there really haven’t been any particular issues. It makes me kind of wonder if there is something coming up that may require this unanimous agreement between British Columbia and Alberta.
For example, what happens if the height of land changed because of the Trans Mountain pipeline? Does this mean that if they don’t have agreement between the two provinces, it would be a way to say: “Hey, we can’t allow this to happen until we have an agreement as to where the boundary is?” Maybe that isn’t the case, but it’s one of those things that I’m certainly going to explore in third reading, because it seems curious that it’s coming up now as an issue, as opposed to whenever else this could have been done over time.
It’ll be fun. We’ll have some good discussion around that when we get into committee stage. When you look at it on the surface, it seems to be pretty straightforward. But like I say, it is curious in terms of timing of when this was brought forward.
Similarly with regards to the bill, the second section of the bill is with regards to treaty lands, addition to treaty lands. I do know, having been the former minister on the file, that there are a number of treaties that are coming up that should be completed, hopefully, within the not-too-distant future. There are also some of the existing treaties and some acquisition of lands, whether it be private lands or Crown lands, that nations would like to add to their treaty.
I’m curious with regards to this. This will be a process that we’ll go through in terms of a committee stage, I’m sure. But where do non-Indigenous communities fit in, in terms of this process? I know, for example, there have been many communities that have expressed concern about land being created as part of being part of a treaty or being added to a treaty through the process that may now take it outside of official community plans. What’s the engagement process that will be involved with communities, etc.?
Those will be the kinds of questions that I’ll be curious about in terms of how this proposal will go forward for additions to treaty lands that people may have some concerns about, and rightfully so. My colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin will certainly have additional questions to ask with regards to this.
With regards to the other component of the bill — which is the meat of a rather lengthy bill, actually, when you look at it — the changes, certainly, to the Lands Act are important and need to be done. There’s no question that modernizing the process — modernizing the way we collect data or input data, being able to utilize electronic processes — is going to be an important piece of this.
I find it curious in that, for most people, the land they own, the home they own, will be the most important asset that they’ll ever own in their life. It’s part of how they can save for retirement. It’s part of what they can pass on to children. I won’t bother going into the taxation on properties that the NDP have now decided to impose. That’s for a different discussion.
Something so critical and fundamental as that can be done now in terms of registering electronically, but we’re not allowed to vote electronically. I’m kind of curious as to why that sort of process is in place. But like I say, this is a right step. It’s an important step to be done in terms of moving into the technological age, allowing for these kinds of things to be done.
I do have concerns around identity theft and around digital security. The minister has mentioned that they’ve taken great pains in terms of making sure that those will be there and in place. Those will certainly be things that I’ll want to explore at the committee stage. I want to make sure that people and their assets…. Particularly, the land registry component is an important piece of their security.
I am also wondering, with regards to it…. It’s great to have the digital component put in, but as the minister knows — he comes from a rural area — many, many people don’t have access to the Internet, to digital technologies. So of course, there’s going to need to be this process that they can rely on, which is the previous process around it. How those provisions are set in place to make sure that they can still carry on with business the way they have carried on is going to be an important piece — how it’s going to be made available to them to be able to utilize the technology to be able to do the land registry and land registry components.
I will congratulate the ministry in terms of bringing this forward. Anything that reduces the red tape and process for people going through this type of thing is an important step. I’m happy to see that that is going to be happening around this. I still don’t see quite how to make a whole lot of savings, because if you’re doing a land transfer, you’re still going to be needing a lawyer to transact the deal.
Usually, the fiscal…. There’s the banking side involved. There’s the transfer of money. There are other things that are involved in it. So I’m not quite convinced as to what the savings exactly will be in terms of the registry. I suppose there is some small fee associated with that, but you’re still going to be engaged with a lawyer through the process to be able to do that.
Overall, like I say, I’m not unhappy to see this come forward. I suspect this is something that we will be able to support. But having said that, there are the questions that do need to be asked when we get through to committee stage.
The lands component within the ministry, as the minister has said, is a very important component. It’s one that gets overlooked often. But when you look at the entire province, obviously all the Crown lands are dealt with through the lands component of the ministry. There are some significant issues around that, particularly when it comes to First Nations rights and titles and components. That’s outside of where this is. But just taking a step back on this, it does talk about Crown land being added to treaties.
I guess the curious component of that…. If you’ve negotiated a treaty to include the land that would be included as part of a treaty settlement, where would the need come from in looking at Crown land to be added? You’ve gone through the negotiation. You’ve gone through this process. You’ve identified the Crown lands. The Crown lands have gone through. There’s been a whole broad engagement — federal, provincial, local governments, etc. — to say what the land should be. Suddenly, now there’s this provision and thought that’s coming up around the Crown land side that could be added to a treaty.
I’m going to be curious to hear from the minister, in committee stage, some examples that they’re anticipating that might be coming up that will see additional Crown lands added to treaties that weren’t negotiated as part of the treaty process or were left out for other reasons. That’ll be some interesting discussion. It’s not that I’m opposed. I just need to understand what it is that the minister and the government are thinking about in terms of this process.
I do recognize that there are some challenges and some differences between the additions to a treaty that are outside a treaty versus what’s inside a treaty. That does need to be clarified. Once again, like I say, it’s curious that this is coming up now. I’ll be very interested in knowing what the components are that the ministry is actually thinking about. Normally, when you look at bringing in legislation like this, it’s because you’re anticipating something that needs to be done. Otherwise, it doesn’t become a priority in terms of making it to the floor of the Legislature.
With that, I do also want to just say, in terms of the cleaning up of this and the reductions, that red-tape reduction is something we were very focused on as a government. We did significant steps on this. We were one of only two jurisdictions, I believe, that received the top ranking and support from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business — an important piece in terms of that sort of work.
I’m glad to see that this will help, although I’m sure there’ll be many offsetting increases to regulations that have been created by this government. I’m sure that CFIB will have something to say about all of this when it all comes out in the wash.
With that, I will conclude my comments, and I look forward to other people that may have a few comments to make with regard to this bill. I can see my colleague from across the floor is very eager to get in on some discussion on this. I look forward to that, and I’ll look forward to the committee stage work.
A. Olsen: One speaker before the member from Delta can get up. I think this motion was actually him asking you to make sure that he didn’t have too much time to speak to this bill, looking for it to slow down.
I think it’s interesting, though. When the minister did mention red tape in here, I saw it as a bit of a dog whistle, frankly. I knew that it was going to get members from the other side to be really paying attention to it because red tape, of course, was something there they had an entire ministry for in the last session of the Legislature.
Anyway, it is an important thing that, of course, we make government operations more efficient and ensure that British Columbians are having access to the very newest technology. Frankly, I think e-filing is not really the newest technology. But I’m thankful that the minister is taking a look at the e-filing system for land transfers and the title and the survey systems and that it’s being looked at here in Bill 37, the Land Statutes Amendment Act.
One of the areas that I’d like to point out…. I think it’s section 2. We’ll get into this in more detail when this bill gets to committee stage. I and my colleagues are happy for this bill to go to committee stage and support the movement, through this House, of this bill.
In fact, I’m quite happy that the member for Nechako Lakes is on this bill. We know that, in fact, if any bill is going to be scrutinized down to the very letter, it will be a bill that has undertaken the scrutiny of the member for Nechako Lakes. I’ve watched him in awe at budget estimates, at the precision with which he scrutinizes. So I’m happy that that’s going to be done with this bill.
I’d just like to say that one of the pieces of this that I’m quite happy about is the part of this bill that talks about treaty lands and the potential for Indigenous communities that have negotiated those treaties to receive the full benefit of those lands which they’ve negotiated.
As was pointed out earlier, there is a long process that’s undertaken with the federal government, with the provincial government, with local governments, with regional districts and, indeed, internally within First Nations. It’s a long process. That treaty process is a long-drawn-out process. Some have been going on, as the members opposite would know, for decades.
When a First Nation community negotiates access to Crown lands and they become part of their treaty settlement lands, in the past, it’s been just assumed that the Crown retains the subsurface mineral rights to those lands. In this bill, it allows for those subsurface mineral rights to be carried with the treaty consideration here. If that land gets transferred in future treaties, those lands will also carry with them the subsurface mineral rights.
As we know, amongst British Columbians, one of the more common narratives that we’ve been hearing has been the need for Indigenous communities to be able to have the economic development of their lands benefit Indigenous communities. Indeed, as I’ve travelled the province and visited many of my relatives’ communities across the province, I would say that most First Nations communities really need that economic development. I’m looking to ask questions about exactly what the minister intends with this.
I’d like to raise my hands, at this point, and acknowledge the fact that, really, this government has signalled a change in approach to what previous governments have had when it comes to their willingness to be able to relinquish some of the control.
When it comes to the conversation about Indigenous rights, inherent rights, treaty rights and title, it is about land. It’s a question about land and land-ownership and how we live and operate and work and move about our lands. I think that it’s important to note that this government has signaled with this…. It’s just a small part of the bill, but they have signaled with this that there’s a willingness to have a different approach to land, and for that, I thank the government. The Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations deserves to be congratulated.
Again, I’ll be looking at this a little bit deeper and look forward to going through this clause by clause, as we do every bill, at committee stage. With that, I would like to say that we’re happy, as a caucus, to support this bill and look forward to the committee stage of it.
D. Barnett: I, too, am pleased to stand and speak on Bill 37, Land Statutes Amendment Act, 2018. The Land Title Act is a very important act. I sold real estate for 26 years, and I know the importance of getting it right, the importance of security.
There are many pieces in this act that I will be waiting for the minister to go through, piece by piece. My concern, of course, is the consultation process. Any time we have a change in anything as important as the Land Title Act, dealing with the lands, we need to ensure that the public is aware of what is coming forward.
Where I live in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, we do have a treaty in process. It’s been in process for 28 years. The previous government actually worked very diligently with the Northern Secwepemc, and an AIP was put in place. Unfortunately, it never got signed by this government. It was signed here in August by the ministers of today, provincial and federal, with no changes, to the best of my knowledge, that had been made. But the concern is, of course, that the AIP was made public 1½, two years ago on line and in the library and in our offices.
The communities surrounding had an opportunity to come and read these — people that were concerned about which Crown land would be put into a treaty and which Crown land wouldn’t and what accessibility the public would have. These are all very, very important issues to communities, to people, to people that work the land, all walks of life. Everybody wants to move forward. Everybody is anxious to get these things finalized so they know where their future lies and they know what is what within the Land Title Act.
It is also a great concern…. Are there going to be changes made? When I read this, it seems like modernization is wonderful, but as my colleague has said, a lot of people don’t even have Internet in rural British Columbia, where most of these changes are going to be made.
In here, it says you can make a change in a title by moving a line. Well, are you going to get a survey done? Or can it just be with metes and bounds of what somebody said? I’ve seen some of those happen over the past years. Believe it or not, in one subdivision in my riding, that was done many, many years ago. There were some titles filed, and surveys weren’t correct. Of course, now people living next to each other are paying and suffering the consequences.
I really and sincerely believe that this has to be done correctly, slowly, with much input, with consultation, especially when it comes to treaties. Borders are important. What is going to happen on the land is important. My colleague before me spoke about subsurface rights. Are those going to be changed when the titles change? We do not know that. These are questions that should be answered so that after the fact there are no problems.
People need to know what is going on in the land in British Columbia. Land use in British Columbia, in my estimation, is one of the biggest subjects there is. One of the most important components of the future of British Columbia is how we deal with land use, how we move forward, how we have industry.
For all this here, bringing this forward, I commend the minister. It is opening a dialogue that we need to have. Maybe this isn’t the place to have a complete dialogue, but we need to have a dialogue.
There are many, many other questions that we will have as this moves forward. I think that anything we can do to reduce red tape is great, and that is one of the mandates that has been on this side of the House for years and years. But let’s make sure that we’re not eliminating part of a process that gives the public the opportunity to understand why we’re moving forward.
I agree with my colleague who spoke before me. Why is this all of a sudden such an important statute amendment? I, too, have that question. I know that my colleague from Nechako Lakes will certainly ask many, many questions as we move forward with this particular statute, as I think that people do not understand, really, why this is here at this moment in time.
Changes to the Property Transfer Tax Act to align the electronic filing of property transfer tax returns with the changes made to the Land Title Act. What changes are going to be made? That is another question.
Of course, the minister has explained the B.C.-Alberta border issue, and that’s a little concerning also. If the land is going to change in topography that great, well then I think we need to have more discussions.
I really believe that…. In the Cariboo-Chilcotin we have a title case that went to court, and we have a title that now belongs to the Tsilhqot’in National Government and the Xeni Gwet’in Nation. That property has not been registered yet. There have been no surveys done. It is on the map. The courts, of course, awarded the land to the Xeni Gwet’in and Tsilhqot’in First Nations, which is great. We’re all pleased. We’d all like to move forward.
But it’s incomplete, because there has been no survey done. There have been no metes and bounds done. There’s been nothing done as far as regulation. What are the laws? Who is the law? These are all things that need to take place within territories, within Crown land, within private land.
We need to move forward as quickly as we can, because uncertainty certainly does not make good neighbours. It does not make economic stability, and it does not help to build any foundation for our future.
I have many, many questions that I hope we will get to ask as this proceeds forward through my colleague from Nechako Lakes, who, as my colleague before me said, is very thorough.
With that…. I don’t know if I can do this yet, the time — we have five or ten minutes left — but I think that….
Interjection.
D. Barnett: Oh, okay.
With that, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will turn it over to my colleague from across the floor.
R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to rise. [Applause.]
A round of applause. I appreciate that.
It’s my pleasure to stand and speak in favour of the Land Statutes Amendment Act. Many people in this House have heard our commitment to make life more affordable, deliver services that people count on and create a strong, sustainable, innovative economy that works for everyone. This piece of legislation actually addresses all of these.
One of the pieces that I want to highlight that the minister had said earlier was: how does this make life more affordable? Well, it enables broader access to electronic filing and land title survey documents and reduces the need for members of the public to rely on expensive legal professionals for simple land title transactions.
It helps in delivering services that people count on, providing efficient, secure, accessible services to agencies, professionals and the public; and, of course, by leading the world in developing modern electronic authentication, filing capabilities in land and title service systems; and fulfilling government’s commitment to treaty nations to make additions to the treaty settlement lands easier and less administratively burdened.
There were many things that have come up, and members have already spoken. Technology is changing. As my esteemed colleague from Saanich North and the Islands said, e-filing might sound like a new technology.
Interjection.
R. Kahlon: But it, in fact, isn’t a new technology, esteemed colleague. It is actually catching up.
I know some of my colleagues joked about Red Tape Reduction Day. We don’t need a day. We just need to get on with the work. This is part of the red tape reduction work. I will acknowledge that the previous government did work, and we’re going to continue to do work, because I think that’s what people respect and expect from their government.
There are a couple of things that I want to touch on in the comments that were made. One in particular was the protections that this would provide for women fleeing domestic violence. It’s a challenging time in a person’s life when they’re fleeing domestic violence. I’m very grateful to our minister for housing for announcing additional dollars to ensure that we have enough transition homes for women who are fleeing domestic violence.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
But that is a transition home. Our hope is that eventually they can buy a home, can get in a home — a secure place for their family, to raise their kids in. We don’t want them to have the fear that someone is out there and able to find where they are, if they are in fact trying not to be found.
I’m grateful that the minister laid out examples of how there will be protections built into this to ensure that there is protection for women who are fleeing domestic violence so that their information isn’t easily accessible. Although we’re trying to make information more accessible, there will be protections there for those that don’t want their information — for that reason. So I’m grateful for that.
Just listening to the conversation here reminds me of an example of how grateful we should be that we live in a country where we’re having discussions about this and talking about how technology can help advance this.
I had a conversation with my father about this a few years ago where we were talking about India and people having to go back all the time that have land there. They have to go to court because somebody went to the land transfer office and basically said they were somebody else and changed the name on the deed. People go back to find out that they don’t actually own the properties. Or some people that have been living there for many years find out that in fact the land title office has got somebody else as an owner, because somebody did it ten years ago.
I know we have challenges, and our system isn’t perfect, but I’m grateful that we have an amazing system here in this country and that, at the same time, we’re always looking to make it more efficient. I spent many years working in banking. We’d have people come in to us and ask us simple questions: “How do we change titles? Why do I have to go to a lawyer? Isn’t there any other way?” People don’t want to pay the fees. So giving people the tools to do the simple pieces themselves, I think, is an efficient way of going forward.
I think members raised some questions, and some more detailed questions that I think are good questions, will come up in the committee stage and allow the minister to explain further. I think there were a couple of questions that came up. One is, for example: “Does this issue impact any developments on lands?” One of my notes I had here was: “Issues with relying on boundary first arose near Sunshine Village resort in Banff National Park. This has led to a monument survey of 1979 and 1982, which clarified the boundary but has yet to become officially confirmed.” I think the minister wanted me to make sure I highlight that piece.
I think we’re coming close on lunch. We have potentially someone else wanting to speak to this, and that’s great. Well, I’m pleased to stand here and speak to this. I look forward to voting in favour of this when it comes forward, and now I will take my seat and allow some other members to speak to this.
C. Oakes: It is truly a privilege to rise today and speak to Bill 37 in second reading.
First, I would like to recognize and congratulate the government on bringing this forward. When we look at modernizing and streamlining government and the interaction that we have with citizens in British Columbia, I think that’s an important step to make.
I had the privilege of working with the folks — at the time it was the red tape reduction branch, and now I think it’s the regulatory reform branch — who do an outstanding job. I think it’s important to say thank you to our public servants for the work that they continue to do to make sure we’re streamlining and making sure that the interaction that citizens in British Columbia have with the government is a successful one.
I do want to raise a few concerns, concerns that I certainly raised at the time when we were specifically focusing on modernizing and streamlining actions by government. When we look at e-filing and we look at technology, one of the critical things that we need to look at is ensuring that we have connectivity across the province of British Columbia.
There has been a shift and a move from looking at how we connect 80 percent of the province of British Columbia, 80 percent of the population. That’s a significant change in government on how we ensure that people are connected across British Columbia. I think that is something that, as we look at how we utilize technology more efficiently, we need to make sure, if we are making those steps, that in fact, people are having the ability to have connectivity across the province, specifically where land use interacts with government.
I will continue, as we go through questioning, to make sure that we have the opportunity to explore that. I also want it make sure that we have the opportunity to recognize the critical work that FrontCounter B.C. does and work that our public servants do at the front line. Often when we look at e-filing and we look at using technology to help support efforts around land use…. Sometimes we forget the nuances that a person on the front counter can pick up.
For example, I’ve had three cases in the last year around Crown trespass interactions that relate to homestead agreements that happened in the 1930s. One of the challenges is, of course, you need that actual person to sit at FrontCounter B.C. to help walk through a constituent on what that may look like on land use. As we explore using technology, I think this is a critical one for us to also look at.
I think it’s also a nod that the government has made to continue their net zero. When we look at regulatory reduction, that the net zero in increasing regulation…. I’m glad that that commitment has been made in what we are seeing in this bill today. That’s encouraging.
A final note — because I’m noting the hour from my colleagues — that we have a lot of industry and economy that takes place, whether it’s the placer sector, forestry, agricultural, guide and outfitters, and list goes on. We always need to make sure that the work we are doing in support of these small businesses makes sure we’re simplifying their work, making it easier. Affordable, yes, but easier, as well, so that they can continue the work that they do to drive our economy and support our communities.
Hon. D. Eby: I move second reading of Bill 37.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 37, Land Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada