Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 294
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Ombudsperson, report, Looking Ahead: Symposium on the Future of
Parliamentary Ombudsman | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2019
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. J. Horgan: It’s a privilege to stand and make two sets of introductions today. Joining us in the gallery are some of my childhood heroes — and not just me but many members of this House and, indeed, British Columbians and all the thinking hockey fans across Canada who have been Canucks fans since, oh, 50 years now.
In the gallery is the alumni association. Player Bob Murray, a former player and the president of the alumni board, is with us today. Jyrki Lumme, the Flying Finn, is here with us today. Chris Oddleifson started out as a Seal and ended up as a Canuck, which is what you would want to do. A Stanley Cup finalist in the 2011 series, Chris Higgins, is here with us today as well as “the Steamer,” Stan Smyl.
We’re very happy to have all of the players with us today. I’m fairly confident that all the hockey fans in the room today will probably want to jump to their feet to join that introduction. But in the interest of brevity, I’ll do that on behalf of all of us.
Also joining the alumni association is Rob Wilkins, the chair of the luncheon committee, as well as Caitlin Jennings, the director of the Brook Pooni Non-Profit Group that’s working to get a proclamation done today, which we’ll be doing later in the morning.
It’s a real thrill to have the players here and the alumni association. Fifty years of not just great hockey from the Canucks, but their community service is unparalleled. So would the House please make them all very, very welcome.
Sitting among my childhood heroes is one of my personal heroes today. Susan Sanderson is the executive director and co-founder of Realistic Success Recovery Society in Surrey. She works tirelessly to help those who have fallen off the rails to get back on track. Recovery is fundamental to success for individuals when they come into strife, whether it be through addictions or other issues. Susan is a tireless advocate, not just in Surrey but in British Columbia, and she’s sitting with some heroes.
That corner of the gallery today is very well represented by fine British Columbians. Would the House please make them all very, very welcome.
Hon. H. Bains: We have some very special guests in the House today. The president of the Union of B.C. Performers, Keith Martin Gordey, along with a number of members from the Union of B.C. Performers and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, ACTRA. We have the vice-president, Jackson Davies; the treasurer, Ellie Harvie; and a number of other executive board members and staff. Will the House please join with me and give them a very, very warm welcome.
Tributes
JOHN MANN
J. Thornthwaite: Canada lost a music icon yesterday. John Mann died at the age of 57. I went to school with John and his brothers in West Van. John’s career spanned nearly 40 years. He is best known as the front man of the folk rock band Spirit of the West.
His manager and bandmates said: “His songs, and his lyrics particularly, will be remembered for generations. He had such a gift for finding the universal in the everyday.” He died of early-onset Alzheimer’s. Our condolences go out to his family, his friends and his bandmates.
I’d just like to highlight a couple of lines from his most popular song, “Home for a Rest.” “I’m knackered again. Come on sleep, take me soon. Don’t lift up my head till the 12 bells at noon.”
Rest in peace, John.
Introductions by Members
M. Stilwell: It is my sincere pleasure to acknowledge today, joining us in the Legislature, the Probus Club of Nanoose Bay. We will have 36 members joining us here in question period. I believe they’re on their tour in the precinct right now.
The social club offers retired and semi-retired professional businessmen and women the chance to get together, build friendships and have fun, like activities and coming here to the Legislature today. I’m sure we will show them a good time.
There are 200 members in the Probus Club of Nanoose Bay. Across the globe, there are more than 4,000 clubs, including 252 in Canada. Please join me in offering them a warm welcome to the Legislature.
N. Simons: We have the hockey players and we have The Beachcombers in the House today. It’s almost like back on the weekends growing up.
I’d just like to say, as the representative for Gibsons, it’s a special pleasure to always welcome Jackson Davies to the House. Constable Constable is here, so everyone behave. Please, again, make them welcome.
B. D’Eith: I also wanted to echo thanks to ACTRA and everybody. I had a wonderful breakfast today, and I really appreciate you coming and talking to all of us.
I also wanted to echo the actual wonderful words from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. I knew John as well. John Mann was an amazing and incredible talent. I was at his final show at the Commodore, and I can tell you that in my life I have never had a more emotional experience than watching John be able to forget his words and read them but remember the music.
The music stuck with him, and he was able to sing those words and to have the music. It was such a profound moment. Such an amazing man was taken away from us way too early.
Thank you so much for your words for that.
I also wanted to say that in the House today we have Maple Ridge residents. The former minister, Dennis Streifel, will be in the House today and Sherry Green, Paul Doyle, Tom McLennan and May Leeper. I would like the House to make them feel very welcome.
Tributes
JOHN MANN
B. Ma: “You’ll have to excuse me. I’m not at my best. You see, I’ve been gone for a month, and I’ve been drunk since I left. These so-called vacations will soon be my death. I’m so sick from the drink I need home for a rest.”
You see, unlike the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, I did not know John Mann personally. But I’ve lost track of how many times, as a university student studying engineering at UBC, I have sung to or listened to that amazing song by Spirit of the West after many, many long nights of studying.
This anthem for many university students was written by this incredible band, the highly popular Canadian folk rock band from North Vancouver. I’m so proud to be a member, one of the many members here — North Vancouver–Lonsdale, that’s me; and North Vancouver–Seymour; and West Vancouver–Capilano — who represent areas of North Vancouver.
Following his passing yesterday, people all over the world will mourn him and remember him, knowing that his work will live on for generations to come. At 57 years old, it appears that for John Mann, it was his time to come home for a rest.
Introductions by Members
R. Glumac: I would like to introduce my parents, who made the long journey from my old hometown of Port Alberni today. They’re crammed up there in the corner for some reason. Maybe move in a little bit or something.
Maria and George Glumac.
J. Sims: I want the House to join me in welcoming here two women who are very important in my life. First, my daughter, Karin Sims, who I absolutely…. She’s a pillar of strength for all those who are around her, and her tenacity and willingness…. The fight in her to take on the challenges that life has thrown her way absolutely leaves me in awe of her strength every single day.
Secondly, of course, we all know — those of us who are grandparents — how wonderful and what joy our grandchildren bring into our lives. Well, I can tell you that when you become a great-grandmother or a great-grandfather, the joy just explodes. So I also want you to help me welcome into this House my great-granddaughter, Alia.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
QUEST UNIVERSITY
J. Sturdy: I am pleased today to showcase a unique, made-in-B.C. post-secondary institution. Quest University in Squamish is Canada’s only independent, not-for-profit, secular liberal arts and sciences university dedicated to undergraduate education.
The Quest program works to prepare students for a rapidly evolving world, where people change careers over time and where employers increasingly value creativity and flexibility. Quest offers one interdisciplinary degree, the bachelor of arts and sciences. The curriculum emphasizes communication, organization, research, collaboration and critical reasoning — skills suited to virtually any endeavour.
Rather than conventional majors, students create a question, one which drives their studies. This inquiry-driven approach lets students focus their education and demands that they draw from a wide range of disciplines. This is unique in Canada and rare around the world, and it causes many of the questions to be related to some of the most complex societal issues we face today.
Quest is a global institution. Twenty percent of Quest students are from B.C., but over 40 different countries are represented in the rest of the student body, who are drawn by a focused block system of study, rather than semesters, and supported by groundbreaking curriculum.
Since opening 13 years ago, Quest has graduated over 800 students who have gone on to some great post-secondary institutions, including Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale and McGill. Four students are currently studying medicine at UBC. Others are already having an impact in the private sector, such as at the New York Times, Facebook, IBM and beyond. Others are in the public service — health care, not-for-profits across the province and far beyond.
Quest University is a made-in-B.C. school that embodies progress and innovation. As a British Columbian, I’m proud of what Quest accomplishes and how well they prepare our next cohort of leaders. I hope you’ll agree that it deserves our attention and our support.
SENIORS HOUSING PROJECT IN MISSION
B. D’Eith: Our seniors have worked hard their entire lives, raising a new generation and building communities that we know and love. Unfortunately, seniors have been hit hard by our province’s housing crisis.
Even after long careers, many seniors throughout the province can’t find a home they can afford. Worse still, many seniors must make the painful choice between moving away to get the access to care that they need and keeping vital connections to community and family.
Now, to address this issue, the Mission Association for Seniors Housing, MASH, has been calling for affordable rental housing for seniors for many years, since 2007. That’s why I was thrilled to finally see MASH’s dedicated advocacy come to life with a groundbreaking ceremony for 70 new affordable rental units for seniors and a new seniors community centre in Mission.
MASH will see $7 million from the Building B.C. community housing fund for this crucial project. In the words of Tricia Schweers, MASH’s executive director: “This will go a long way to enable our seniors to have affordable and stable housing in Mission and to benefit from their continued community activities and local supports. Construction is now underway, and we’re expected to have it completed by the spring of 2021.”
I want to extend my deepest gratitude to the district of Mission, who will be operating the community centre; B.C. Housing; Terra Housing; Bob Ingram, the president; and the entire board and staff at MASH for their commitment to this project throughout the years.
I want to give particular thanks to Marilyn Boswyk’s estate. She left over $1 million of her estate to the centre. So a special thanks for the Boswyk family’s generous support in helping make this dream come true.
It’s up to all of us to take care of those seniors who contributed so much to our society. We owe them a lifetime of gratitude. This project is the first and an important step towards ensuring that all seniors in our community and throughout the province of British Columbia have safe and welcoming homes in their retirement years while staying connected to their community.
ROSE MAH
L. Larson: All of us are familiar with the school crossing guards that are out early every school morning and then again later in the afternoon to help our children cross busy roads on their way to school and home again. We are blessed with many of these dedicated volunteers throughout our ridings.
In the community of Okanagan Falls, where 10th Avenue crosses Highway 97, there is one of these volunteers. Her name is Rose Mah or, as everyone calls her, Miss Rose. She started her crossing guard volunteer career in Vancouver at Lord Strathcona Elementary in the Downtown Eastside. She moved to Okanagan Falls 36 years ago.
When asked what she enjoyed most about her crossing guard duties, she said she loved seeing the kids dressed for Halloween or other special days, like pajama day, as they were always happy to stop and chat about their costumes. She is very vocal about the number of disrespectful and bad drivers she has seen over the years. She represents the best of what a small-town volunteer is — not just once a week or once a month but a commitment for every school day, no exceptions.
This is Miss Rose’s last school year of volunteering as a crossing guard for Okanagan Falls Elementary. She has seen generations of children safely across the street. She has stood at this corner, dressed in her bright orange jacket, holding a stop sign, for 31 years. I know there will be community celebrations and sadness when Miss Rose retires next June.
Thank you, Miss Rose.
TOMMY DOUGLAS BRANCH OF
BURNABY PUBLIC
LIBRARY
R. Chouhan: Today marks the tenth anniversary of the Tommy Douglas branch of the Burnaby Public Library. Located near the corner of Kingsway and Edmonds Street, it replaced the former Kingsway branch, which had served our community since 1962.
Demand for a new branch, in terms of the number of library materials alone, from the residents had been growing steadily throughout the years. Beyond that, there was a growing need for a community hub for the increasingly diverse Edmonds area, a meeting space where new Canadians could gather and receive help to allow them to grow into their new homes. A non-traditional library was envisioned as the ideal way to meet the demands of creating and maintaining such a healthy and dynamic community.
The 17,500-square-foot library is home to over 84,000 items. Since it opened, the use of the library branch has continued to grow. The number of personal visits to this branch has increased by 66 percent over the past decade, the number of desk inquiries by 115 percent. A total of 564,000 items were loaned during 2018. The branch is being used very much by students finding the study space they need, children flocking to the children’s computers and enjoying the self-check stations, and patrons finding and using the new dispersed public catalogues.
Tommy Douglas was a Member of Parliament for the riding of Burnaby-Coquitlam from 1962 to 1968 and was the first leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party. He was instrumental in bringing forward a universal public health care system and expansion of public services to all Canadians.
I send my best wishes and congratulations to the staff and patrons of the Tommy Douglas branch of the Burnaby Public Library. I can’t think of a more fitting tribute to the values of our community and the library’s namesake.
HOLODOMOR MEMORIAL DAY
A. Weaver: This coming Saturday is Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day. It’s been a pleasure working with members on both sides of the aisle over the last month to formally recognize this important day in British Columbia.
As members know, Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day is particularly important and relevant to my family. My grandfather and his family were survivors of the Holodomor. He and his wife, together with my mother and her siblings, made their way to Canada after the Second World War. Their stories have stayed with me.
During the Holodomor in 1932 to ’33, between three million and four million people starved to death due to Stalin’s forced collectivization. Indeed, what unfolded there was horrific. Peasants were forbidden to leave collective farms, and the Ukrainian borders were closed, closely patrolled, to prevent the starving from reaching for bread and searching there in neighbouring Russia.
The Holodomor was a political policy that destroyed the peasants of Ukraine as a social strata and crushed their opposition to the Soviet regime. It’s been recognized by the Ukraine and 15 other countries as a genocide of the Ukrainian people carried out by the Soviet government.
Canada is home to the world’s third-largest Ukrainian population, with an estimated 1.36 million Ukrainian Canadians living across this country, many of whom have made this province their own home and have contributed to it in all their walks of life.
This Saturday we honour the survivors of Holodomor and their descendants. We reflect upon this horrific atrocity, Holodomor. Let us also remember that we have a collective responsibility to challenge hatred and intolerance and to protect the vulnerable wherever they are in our society.
ELI PASQUALE
R. Kahlon: This last weekend family and friends gathered to honour the passing of a Canadian sporting icon, Eli Pasquale.
Eli was born on August 24, 1960, in Sudbury, Ontario. Eli’s basketball career took off at the University of Victoria. He led UVic to five straight CIAU championships, still holds the title of the school’s all-time leading scorer and had his jersey, No. 13, retired and hanging in the rafters.
In 1983’s World University Games, he and his teammates won the gold medal by defeating the United States, led by Charles Barkley and Karl Malone, in the semifinals; and in the finals, by defeating Yugoslavia, led by Dražen Petrović. In 1984’s NBA draft, he was drafted by the Seattle SuperSonics, 106th overall.
Eli proudly represented the Canadian national team at various levels over 15 years. He led our country to a fourth-place finish in the 1984 Olympics and a sixth finish in the 1982 FIBA World Championships. Pasquale was later inducted into the Canadian Basketball Hall of Fame in 2003 and the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame in 2004.
To say that Eli’s death is a huge loss to the basketball community is a massive understatement. His accomplishments in sport and for our country secure his place as one of the nation’s most celebrated athletes.
His greatest legacy is the work he did with young people. He was a role model and played an important role in so many young people’s lives. I remember being in awe of him when my parents signed me up for his basketball camp. I looked up to him and so did so many of my peers.
On behalf of all members of this House, I would like to send condolences to his family: to his wife, Karen; his sons, Isaiah and Manny; his brother, Vito; his sister, Luciana; and his mother, Adriana.
Oral Questions
CONDITIONS IN FOREST INDUSTRY
AND GOVERNMENT
RESPONSE
A. Wilkinson: It’s no secret that British Columbia’s forest industry is in the middle of a very serious crisis. Mills have shut down. Thousands of directly employed jobs, mostly unionized, have been lost. Thousands of contractors find themselves with no employment income at all. The response from the Premier and his do-nothing Forests Minister has been to raid one community’s rural dividend fund to create a fund in the next community, which is essentially inaccessible.
I heard in Quesnel last week that an unemployed logging truck driver went to the transition process and was told that he could be trained to be a logging truck driver. He found this not only demeaning and insulting but really quite degrading and depressing.
The impacts are spreading. We now hear that CN Rail has laid off 1,600 people across the country, largely driven, in this part of the world, by an 11 percent drop in shipments of forest products.
The obvious question is: when will the Premier come to his senses, pay attention to rural British Columbia and replace his Forest Minister?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for raising questions about forestry. We’ve had weeks here, and this is, I think, the second or third time that’s happened.
I think it speaks to the larger problem that we have in the forests in British Columbia, which is not a partisan question but one of fibre supply, access to markets and two successive years of the worst forest fires we’ve seen in living memory. These are significant challenges for rural British Columbia. They’re significant challenges for forest workers and forest-dependent communities.
We’ve been trying our level best to bring people to the table. We’ve established what we’re calling timber supply tables in every corner of the province that bring together communities, Indigenous people, working people and CEOs. At the highest level, we want to make sure we’re finding solutions for the long term.
This is not a blame game thing. I appreciate the candour and the focus that the member has put in his question. We all want to see a better outcome in our forests, but we all need to work together to see that happen.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
AND GOVERNMENT
RESPONSE
A. Wilkinson: We have seen from this government a great enthusiasm for spending programs and a complete indifference to where the money is going to come from. The Premier needs to start paying attention to the corrosion of the British Columbia economy, which the Finance Minister is abundantly aware of, putting a stop to discretionary spending two months ago.
Forest exports are down 20 percent year over year, and 1,600 jobs lost at CN Rail, as I said earlier. Teck Resources is cutting 500 jobs because metallurgical coal exports are down. That will mean a knock-on effect throughout the economy in engineering services and all of the things that those people used to buy with their strong paycheques from the resource economy.
Economic growth projections have dropped by 30 percent, from 2.4 percent to 1.7 percent. The Finance Minister’s tension must be spreading to the Premier’s office by now. Small business confidence in British Columbia is now at the lowest level since the financial crisis in 2008. This is an economy that is like a falling leaf, and this government seems to have no interest whatsoever in providing stimulus to the small business sector that drives our economy.
The obvious question comes up. When is this Premier going to recognize that someone has to pay the bills, someone has to generate the income to pay for his aggressive spending agenda?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate the question from the member.
We have the fastest-growing economy in the country, but it has significantly slowed over the past number of months. This is acknowledged by leading financial institutions as well as economists. I spoke yesterday to the B.C. Business Council luncheon, and the headline on their presentation was “Anxiety in the Economy.” This is evident to everyone. This, again, is not a partisan question.
Commodity prices are low, particularly on the metallurgical coal side. That’s the challenge for Teck Cominco.
We have a continued trade dispute with our largest trading partner when it comes to softwood lumber. The Minister of Forests was on a trade mission to China and Japan with leading executives from the forest industry just last week to try and grow those markets so that we can get our products to appropriate markets and increase the value of our export industries.
Again, I don’t see the value in the member opposite and the members opposite criticizing the work that we’re doing on this side of the House when we look at 56,000 jobs created in the past year, the highest credit rating in the country. Vancouver was just rated No. 1 for tech investments in North America — No. 1. We’re starting a second downtown at Surrey. The Surrey city centre will lead to more economic development and prosperity out the valley.
There are a lot of positive indicators, but there are some challenges on the horizon. I appreciate members on the other side being responsible about this and talking in a dialogue that makes sense to British Columbians. We’re all in this together. When markets start to fall, we all are concerned about that, not one side or the other side but all British Columbians.
I appreciate, again, the approach that the member is taking on these questions. We’re doing our level best to make sure that workers and communities are protected from these downturns. That’s what governments are supposed to do.
LABOUR DISPUTE IN FOREST INDUSTRY
J. Rustad: Well, the Premier talks about the fact that there are challenges out there, but the bottom line is there is no help that’s been coming to the workers that have been impacted. It’s not just the closures and curtailments that are impacting the forestry workers. The United Steelworkers and Western Forest Products strike is impacting thousands of hard-working families across the Island.
At 144 days, the strike on Vancouver Island is likely now the longest strike the coastal forest industry has ever seen. Communities are holding fundraisers to help families buy food. Homes are being listed because workers can’t make payments. Tow trucks are hauling away repossessed vehicles. Hydro is being disconnected. Contractors are on the verge of going bankrupt.
When will this minister do something to provide some help for these workers on the Island?
Hon. D. Donaldson: As we know, the labour disruption and labour dispute on Vancouver Island between Western Forest Products and United Steelworkers is something that needs to be resolved between the two parties and is something that takes place at the bargaining and negotiating table between those organizations.
Now, in the meantime, we have taken on the situation that was faced by the forest industry on Vancouver Island in the coast forest sector revitalization initiative. Primarily, what that initiative has undertaken, after extensive consultation with communities and with workers and with the industry, is to drive more logs towards domestic production on Vancouver Island and the coast and to have more fibre recovered in the forest to bring out to use in value-added products.
We know that reinvestment has to take place in these communities. We know that policy changes have to be put in place. We’re undertaking that, and we see a brighter future on the Island than has been in the past.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes on a supplemental.
J. Rustad: Well, from coastal forest revitalization, we’ve seen Teal-Jones go down. We’ve seen Interfor shut down mills, curtail. We’ve now seen that Mosaic is going to curtail. Western Forest Products is, of course, closed, behind a strike. Families and communities are being devastated. How can this minister be so obtuse?
These families are really hurting. They need help. There needs to be a solution brought forward. Something has to happen. This government has been completely silent on this. There are times, of course, when negotiations can’t be achieved, when there are issues that just make it impossible.
Will the minister do the right thing and initiate an industrial inquiry commission to help resolve this strike and get people back to work before Christmas?
Hon. H. Bains: Whenever there’s a strike, it’s very, very difficult for the workers, for the companies and for the communities. This strike has gone on for too long.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. H. Bains: I’ve been on strike for 4½ months myself. It is difficult on families. It is difficult on workers. No worker wants to go on strike.
Right now in this dispute, Vince Ready is involved — one of the best mediators, as you know, as we all know. He brought the parties together last week. They have broken off again. Vince Ready’s recommendation is that they should take a couple of days, a few days, and come back and realize what their positions are so that we can conclude a collective agreement.
SPECIES-AT-RISK LEGISLATION
A. Weaver: Earlier this year the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services released the most comprehensive assessment to date on the state of biodiversity and ecosystems worldwide. It warned of unprecedented and accelerating extinction rates, with millions of species at risk of disappearing forever, many within decades — more than ever before in human history.
The chair of the report said this: “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihood, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.”
British Columbia has more species at risk than any other province or territory in Canada. Despite this fact, and despite the warnings of the intergovernmental panel, we still have no dedicated law to protect endangered species.
My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. Why is B.C. still one of the last jurisdictions in Canada without a law to protect endangered species?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. He is absolutely correct that B.C. is Canada’s most ecologically diverse province. We also have, by far, the greatest number of species at risk of any province in Canada.
We know that we have a responsibility to take action to protect B.C.’s environment, to protect ecological diversity, to protect species at risk. We know that we need to do it in a way that’s designed in British Columbia. There is a law in Canada. It is, in fact, a unidimensional law that doesn’t address all of the potential factors that can contribute to healthy ecosystems.
We have spent 2018 and 2019 consulting extensively. Among the examples of stakeholders with whom we’ve spoken are the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Association for Mineral Exploration, the Council of Forest Industries, the SFU faculty of science and the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
It is in my mandate, and has been since day one, to develop B.C.’s species-at-risk legislation. We are working on that. While we’ve been working on it, we’ve also been addressing a number of areas in British Columbia where species need to be protected in the interim. We are taking the time to consult. We’re taking the time to listen to Indigenous people. We’re taking the time to listen to communities. We’re taking the time to get it right.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.
A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for that answer.
On February 27, 2017, I introduced a private member’s bill to enact endangered species legislation. The following day, and while in opposition, the now Minister of Environment also tabled legislation to protect endangered species in our province. Yet now in government, we have seen no action.
As the minister noted, in his mandate letter from the Premier, it states that the minister will “enact an endangered species law and harmonize other laws to ensure they are all working towards the goal of protecting our beautiful province.”
I reiterate. We’re two years into this government, yet B.C. remains one of the only provinces without legislation dedicated to protecting and recovering species at risk.
My question once more to the Minister of the Environment is this. When will we see this government enact species-at-risk legislation to finally give these threatened ecosystems and species the protection that they need and that British Columbians want them to have?
Hon. G. Heyman: As I’ve outlined, we are consulting. We are working on it. We have talked to Indigenous people. We have taken action in a number of areas, as I’ve outlined yesterday — and, in fact, in other areas — to protect the species at risk and to deal with endangered ecosystems.
In the time since we’ve taken office, we’ve introduced the Professional Governance Act, a revamped Environmental Assessment Act, a climate plan, a Climate Change Accountability Act. We’re working on a climate adaptation strategy that will be critical to protecting species at risk.
We are doing far from nothing. But we want to make sure that we get it right. We want to learn from the actions that we’ve taken to protect caribou. We need to work with Indigenous people, with local communities, with stakeholders and with environmental scientists to ensure that we have an act in B.C. that protects species at risk, that protects biological diversity and that protects the economic well-being of communities as well as community, cultural and social values. We will bring in the act that we’re working on in this mandate.
LABOUR DISPUTE AT
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN
B.C.
S. Bond: Well, it’s not just transit users or forestry workers, but it’s also students who are being impacted by labour disputes in this province. I have heard from students, family members, faculty and community members about the impact of the strike at UNBC, now entering its third week. I am positive that the government has heard too.
Thousands of students are at risk of losing a semester if this strike goes any longer, and their entire year may be in jeopardy. The reputation of this university is also critical. Frustration is growing, concern is mounting, and the consequences of an extended strike will be significant for everyone involved. The government and the minister are MIA.
To the Minister of Advanced Education, what exactly has she done to ensure that students won’t lose a semester of their education?
Hon. H. Bains: Obviously, we’re all concerned about the challenges that all transit riders face if there is a strike, including students. There are people who rely heavily on public transportation in the Lower Mainland. They go to work, they go to school, and they also do many of the other….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. H. Bains: For all their responsibilities that they need to do, they use transit. So it is very concerning. It is concerning to all of us. I appreciate the concern that is shown by the opposition.
The negotiation has to happen at the bargaining table. We are encouraging both parties to get to the bargaining table. The agreement that is the best agreement will be at the bargaining table. That’s why we are encouraging all of them to get back to the bargaining table before there’s a full-scale strike.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, for the information of the Labour Minister, buses are running just fine in Prince George. We’re talking about UNBC. He needs to turn the page on his briefing book, and the Minister of Advanced Education needs to get over to his office and explain what’s going on at the University of Northern British Columbia.
Let’s be clear. Transit, the forest industry, now UNBC — these ministers and this government are completely absent. It is time to show some leadership.
Let’s hear what a student had to say. And for the Minister of Labour, we’re talking about a strike at UNBC, not buses in the Lower Mainland. It’s time he got a handle on his file and actually showed up and did something.
Here are the words from one student from Williams Lake who chose to go to UNBC because it was close to home. This student is in her fourth year of biochemistry at UNBC. “I think everyone is frustrated right now. I’m hoping to graduate, but we don’t know if that will be possible now.”
That is the magnitude of the issue at the University of Northern British Columbia. It’s time this minister had a conversation with the Minister of Advanced Education and showed up.
What exactly will this minister do to ensure that these students do not lose their semester and that faculty can get back into the classroom?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, one question at a time, please.
Hon. H. Bains: I apologize. I thought the member said “UBC.” So I take that back.
Mr. Speaker….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please allow the minister to respond to the question.
Hon. H. Bains: Again, the bargaining takes place at the bargaining table. That’s what both parties have to do. Both parties are encouraged to get back to the bargaining table. The member opposite thinks that the labour disputes are only happening now. It is a part of….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you. In 2001, 434,000 person-days were lost. In 2014, 1.2 million person-days were lost, under their watch.
The parties need to get back to the bargaining table.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Minister, I think you should sit down. It’s clear that there’s not an interest in hearing your response to the question.
Do you have another question?
The member for Richmond-Queensborough.
LABOUR DISPUTE IN TRANSIT SYSTEM
J. Johal: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m afraid to ask a transit question because I’ll probably get a UNBC answer. But the opposition will soldier on.
For three days next week, Metro Vancouver commuters will face a complete system-wide shutdown of bus and SeaBus services. The thousands of commuters who count on the transit system to get to and from work, to school and medical appointments will be left high and dry. The Minister of Labour, the Parliamentary Secretary for TransLink have been missing in action on this file. Yesterday the very idea of appointing a mediator was characterized as “stupid” by the Labour Minister.
Let’s try this again today. Will the minister commit to appointing a mediator?
Hon. H. Bains: As I said yesterday, the bargaining must take place at the bargaining table, not in this chamber, not in the media. So we are encouraging both parties to get back to the bargaining table, because that’s where the negotiations will take place. That’s where the complex solutions and a fair deal will be worked out. We are encouraging both sides before there’s a strike — that they are at the bargaining table. Hammer out a deal so that no one will be facing the situation that the member is describing.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: Now, the minister knows that he doesn’t need to wait for requests from either side to appoint a mediator. I remind this House that each day 350,000 people in the Lower Mainland use the bus system. If that was a municipality, it would be the third-largest municipality in British Columbia. It’s an integral part of people’s lives. The fact that this minister continues to dismiss the mediator option shows that he has zero interest in helping commuters get on with their lives.
When will the minister cut the excuses and appoint a mediator?
Hon. H. Bains: I have used transit to go to Vancouver from Surrey, and it is heavily utilized. Buses are full. SkyTrain is full. That just clearly shows how heavily the people of the Lower Mainland rely on public transportation. So we are concerned that it is…. It is very difficult news for students and for those who need public transit to go to work and do their chores.
Let me say one thing here. Let me read you one thing: “Well, when you are as far away from the negotiation table as I am, the last thing you want to do is weigh in with your opinions on a half-baked basis.” Who said that? The Leader of the Opposition.
J. Thornthwaite: This transit strike is also having a disproportionate effect on seniors. The B.C. Care Providers estimate that 40 percent of care providers use transit to travel to their appointments with seniors. Should this strike escalate to a full-scale shutdown, vulnerable seniors who depend on care providers for essential services like meals and dressing will be left helpless.
B.C. seniors deserve better.
When will the minister step up and appoint a mediator?
Hon. H. Bains: We canvassed this issue quite extensively yesterday, and we are at it again today. My expectation is that both parties understand those concerns. We understand those concerns. I know that you understand those concerns.
They know what the needs of their customers are — both the company and the union. That’s why I think it’s important for them to take this very, very seriously and get back to the bargaining table and hammer out a deal so that no one will be inconvenienced, as is being said here.
Mr. Speaker: The member North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: This is just tone deaf. The fact is that this transit strike is going to affect everyone. It’s not just seniors or the folks that have been affected that have been talking to us, on our side of the House.
Students are also going to be affected, not just the UNBC ones but UBC students. So maybe we’ll get an answer about this. Faced with a full-scale shutdown, UBC students are discussing the best place that they’re going to camp out, stay overnight. So we’re going to have yet another tent city, now at UBC.
Meanwhile, the Minister of Labour acts as if the strike is out of your control. Well, it’s not, Minister. You could appoint a mediator today. Why don’t you?
Hon. H. Bains: In collective bargaining, you have to have willing parties. In this particular case, both of them know what their responsibilities are. They have concluded bargaining for decades very, very successfully without any outside help. They know where to go for help if they need some.
If they need the assistance of a mediator or otherwise, they know they could pick up a phone and talk to the Labour Relations Board, and that assistance will be available to them. But they have to take that initiative. I’m urging both of them to get back to the table so that none of those people who rely heavily on public transit is inconvenienced.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
LABOUR
DISPUTES
M. de Jong: Strikes in the forest sector. Strikes at UNBC affecting students. Strikes in the transit sector impacting hundreds of thousands of commuters. More strikes, apparently, than the minister can even keep track of.
The minister is in denial. The minister is refusing to make use of the very tools that are at his disposal to encourage settlement of those disputes that are impacting hundreds of thousands of British Columbians. He’s refusing to make use of those tools. He says, in response to questions asking very reasonably for the appointment of a mediator: “No, no, the parties understand. We have to let them continue the work that has so far been a failure.”
Will the minister stand and — apparently, he has been meeting with the parties — will he advise the House…? He’s not taking any other steps that are apparent. Has he been meeting with the parties? If he has, will he advise the House when, where, and will he advise the House of the outcome of those meetings here today, before those hundreds of thousands of commuters are left high and dry in Vancouver next week?
Hon. H. Bains: Of course we are concerned. Of course we are in touch with the parties. Of course we are urging them to get back to the bargaining table, because the best collective agreement comes at the bargaining table — not the one that is imposed, which they’re used to.
Again, I think that one thing has to be understood. Collective bargaining…. Why we call it free collective bargaining is exactly for those reasons. That’s why those parties have to get back to the table. They know the tools are available at the Labour Relations Board. They know that we can help. But they have to be a willing party. When they request any assistance, that assistance is available.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: Negotiators for the unions involved in these disputes are charged with the responsibility of attending to the best interests of the union members. Negotiators acting on behalf of the employer are responsible for the best interests of the employer. This minister is responsible for attending to the interests of the public of British Columbia.
That’s why these tools exist in the legislation that gives him his job in the first place. He is refusing to use those tools.
British Columbians want to know today: is this minister prepared to use those tools, appoint a mediator, get these parties back to the table and get a settlement that’ll get the buses running?
Hon. J. Horgan: I’ve listened attentively to the line of questioning from the opposition today. That last response…. The last time I saw someone get that excited about labour issues was when they were ripping up contracts in 2002. That’s the last time I saw them that excited.
If I could just remind people — those that are in the gallery, those that are here in the House: never in the history of British Columbia has a labour dispute been resolved in question period, and it’s not going to happen today.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present report No. 43 intituled Looking Ahead: Symposium on the Future of Parliamentary Ombudsman Functions and Services from the Office of the Ombudsperson.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call third reading, Bill 39. In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee Section A, I call continued committee debate on Bill 41, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 39 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS)
AND STATUTE
REVISION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019
Bill 39, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) and Statute Revision Amendment Act, 2019, read a third time and passed.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage of Bill 40, the Interpretation Amendment Act.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 40 — INTERPRETATION
AMENDMENT
ACT, 2019
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 40; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:06 a.m.
On section 1 (continued).
M. Bernier: Just to continue on from yesterday, we’re going to have a few more questions from my colleagues behind me. Again, I want to thank my colleague from Boundary-Similkameen, the MLA there, for all the work she did on helping bring this forward with government. Of course, we heard yesterday about the response from the province, overwhelmingly wanting to look at this.
After discussions yesterday, I did receive an email. I just wanted to just quickly give the minister an opportunity to clarify what I believe I know the answer is but just to get on the record.
Alberta right now is looking at going through a similar process. I know for a lot of people in this part of the province, the concern will be around the time change effect that it will have on a north-south transition and differences. But as the minister can appreciate, in my part and corner of the world, the concern around economic trade is more east-west.
So the question will be: if the province of Alberta looks at trying to standardize a specific time zone…? At the present, depending on regulation next year, if this province chooses to go with Pacific Time, my part on the other side of the Rockies of B.C. — and the minister probably knows exactly where I’m going to go with this — is going to be the same as the rest of British Columbia year-round.
The question that I have, though, is because of the trade…. And this is not just trade. This is most of our activities in the Peace region: sports, travel to the airports. I mean, a lot of this is contingent on…. If we do have that hour time difference now, five miles from my house is going to be a different time zone. So a lot of people in my area are wondering what the province’s position will be.
Can they explain the process, from a municipal, regional standpoint on: if Alberta goes to a standardized Mountain Time, will that be an hour difference than B.C…? The process for my region to actually consider joining the Alberta time zone, where most of our relationships, economically and everything else are — what would the process be to allow that?
Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the unique situation of the member’s constituency in terms of time zone was arrived at through a plebiscite, a vote, locally, in the ’70s.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Eby: In 1972, the member advises me. The province’s desire is that any decision around which time zone to keep for the member’s constituency would be made by the people who have to live with it, particularly the constituents of the members. We would like for them to be able to make that decision for themselves and not have the province dictate any particular time zone to them, regardless of what Alberta decides to do or doesn’t decide to do.
I would be happy to engage with the member and his best suggestion about how to take the temperature of the people of his constituency about this. There are a number of options available. The plebiscite option is there, in terms of attaching it to a municipal election. Perhaps the province could assist in some way. Maybe there’s some other way of measuring the will of the people to change to one time zone or the other.
We should have those discussions in the event that this situation arises and the member feels that there’s an interest in his community to switch from what they’re presently doing.
T. Shypitka: Just to follow up from the member for Peace River South. Just to be clear, I want to kind of recapture everything.
Most of B.C. will be on what is now going to be referred to as Pacific Time zone, which is minus seven from the Coordinated Universal Time. Mountain Standard Time is exactly that in the summer, when we spring ahead. When this act passes, if it passes and the legislation goes through to coordinate it with the rest of the United States or those on the Pacific Time zone region, the Peace region can change. Those people can have the option. Local government can do what they wish to see fit.
With that, does that also include changing the name? They are still going to be referred to as Mountain Standard Time, and the rest of British Columbia, for the most part, will be on Pacific Time. Is it up to the local regional government to change theirs from Mountain Standard Time — to change it and to reflect Pacific Time? Is that also something they can do?
Hon. D. Eby: On a point of principle, I can advise the member that no one’s particularly fussed about what the time zone is called in the local communities. If people want to call it something or the other, they’re welcome to — MST or Pacific Time.
There is an issue in B.C. statutes. Both the Local Government Act and the Community Charter refer to communities that customarily refer to Mountain Standard Time. We might have to do some kind of statutory amendment in a misc bill to align it with whatever the community decides to call their time zone — it’s a bit speculative — if the community decides to change the name to Pacific Time.
T. Shypitka: The statutory amendment — how would that look? How would that affect local decision-makers? Would that be something through B.C. legislation that would reflect that amendment?
Hon. D. Eby: If the member found that constituents in his community wanted to have a change of name of the time zone or something like that, I would just encourage him to reach out to my office. We could have a conversation about the best process to follow and make sure that any amendment was agreeable to him or to a representative for that community to make sure that we were reflecting their intentions, which is the goal here.
We’re not trying to force anybody to accept a time zone that they don’t want, in terms of the unique situation faced by the constituents of Kootenay East. If they have a desire to call the time zone a certain thing, we’ll have that conversation about how the provincial government can best recognize that.
T. Shypitka: Final question. It wasn’t really in reference to Kootenay East. It was more into the Peace region, because they’re on Mountain Standard Time. We, in the Kootenay East, are on Mountain Daylight Time, so it’s different.
Just to recapture the whole thing, if this bill goes through the way it looks like, the Peace region will stay on Mountain Standard Time, what they’ve always done. That will reflect the new Pacific Time zone. But for clarity, the whole province will now be under Pacific Time zone, with the exception of Kootenay East and Columbia River–Revelstoke, which will be still reflective of Mountain Daylight Time.
Hon. D. Eby: That is the effect of this bill.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.
On section 5.
L. Larson: Just a final comment. Thank you to the minister for the work that he inadvertently ended up having to do on this bill.
In section 6, it just simply states it comes into effect “by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”
The Chair: Member, let me clarify. This subsection (6) is part of section 5.
L. Larson: Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Chair.
By order-in-council, the process we’re in right now is that we will spring forward, which is our normal thing to do. Then there will be that gap between when we spring forward and the fall, when we would normally fall back, a six-month window there, at which time we’re assuming or hoping that the states to the south of us get their paperwork done.
Can you tell me whether or not you are in any conversation over any idea about…? My understanding is that they have sent it through to Washington, D.C., and they’re waiting. Is there any window of time on the Washington, D.C., response to Washington state and Oregon state’s current ask?
Hon. D. Eby: The member rightly refers to the fact that I have inadvertently ended up working on this bill. I think she recognizes that this is her baby and the baby of the Premier, that they have really championed this file. It does fall on my ministry, but….
Interjection.
Hon. D. Eby: Yeah. I feel like I’ve adopted this baby, at least for a little bit.
I can advise the member that we don’t have any inside information about the federal government’s processes in the United States, in terms of approval of the requests that have gone forward. We can speculate about the impact of California putting a pause on their bill and whether the federal Congress would feel that they needed to wait for California and bundle them all together or that they could proceed ahead.
I feel well out of my comfort zone guessing about American politics, especially currently — what will go through federal Congress and be uncontroversial and what won’t. We’re watching, and we hope, certainly, that everyone would be able to be in line. But I think the Premier has also been clear that if it’s in British Columbia’s best interests to go it alone, we would do that. But everybody’s preference is that we’re lined up, up and down the coast.
L. Larson: Like I say, in conclusion, thank you very much for all of the work that you and your staff have done. I’m happy to be done with this myself also.
Sections 5 and 6 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:20 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 40 — INTERPRETATION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2019
Bill 40, Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. D. Eby: I call Bill 43, the Election Amendment Act, 2019, committee stage.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 43 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2019
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 43; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:24 a.m.
On section 1.
J. Yap: I look forward to committee stage debate on Bill 43. I’d like to start out with some background questions.
In May of 2018, Dr. Keith Archer, B.C.’s Chief Electoral Officer, published a report recommending legislative changes to B.C.’s election laws. Can the minister explain the process that led up to that report being published and walk us through the steps of what happened after that report was published and up to the point that we are here today with this bill?
Hon. D. Eby: We can’t advise the member, because we don’t know in great detail about the process that took place in the Chief Electoral Officer’s office. He’s an independent officer, independent of government. But I can advise the member that it’s typical, after a general election, for the Chief Electoral Officer to take lessons learned and feedback from their staff about how things went and if there are opportunities for improvement and to compile those experiences and recommendations into a report for government.
This was a somewhat unusual report this time. While typically there are sort of minor housekeeping-type amendments recommended, the Chief Electoral Officer this time made recommendations about modernizing our electoral system, incorporating things like digital vote-counting machines and different ways that we could be more efficient in terms of how people are voting now, compared to how they voted even as recently as 20 years ago.
This report was a little different, and it’s likely they followed a somewhat different process than previous reports, given the depth of the recommendations. But I would just be speculating, because that all happened internal to the Chief Electoral Officer’s office in preparing this independent report.
J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response. Of course the office of the Chief Electoral Officer is an independent officer of the Legislature. I appreciate the minister’s comments in regards to how we have the report from the Chief Electoral Officer, which I understand formed the basis of this bill undergoing committee stage debate.
Again, the report, which I’ve read, did have, as the minister says, some interesting recommendations that required legislative change. Can the minister advise: was it a case of taking the report and having staff review it and create this legislation? Or was there a consultation process that was involved so that we have this fairly comprehensive amending act for the B.C. Election Act?
Hon. D. Eby: Yes, there was a process of engagement with Elections B.C. Staff received the report. They began the work of turning the report into legislation and supporting the policy amendments that were requested. On occasion, in doing this work, staff will have questions that’ll come up about interpretation. Or there are a couple of different ways to achieve what has been recommended. They’ll go back to Elections B.C. and say: “Did you mean this? What about this option?” There was that dialogue back and forth, in terms of the final product that the member sees here in the House today.
The Chief Electoral Officer is involved throughout the process and through this kind of dialogue process of developing the bill.
J. Yap: Can the minister confirm, then, based on that response, that all of the relevant recommendations, including the four priority recommendations contained in the May 2018 report, are contained within the bill that’s before this House?
Hon. D. Eby: There were three additional recommendations that relate to the Election Act that are not included in this legislation. The first is that the CEO, the Chief Electoral Officer, be provided with authority under the Offence Act’s Violation Ticket Administration and Fines Regulation to issue violation tickets of up to $500 for all Election Act offences.
The reason this wasn’t included was that on the timelines available for getting this legislation into place, the Ministry of Attorney General staff were not able to complete adequate internal consultations about the appropriateness of using Offence Act tickets in relation to Election Act contraventions, or evaluate different ways we could be achieving the same result.
Rather than hold up the whole bill, we have proceeded without it. It doesn’t mean that it’s not going ahead. It’s just not going ahead at this stage. There may be another way that we attempt to achieve the intent of the recommendation.
The second is to amend the Election Act to reflect the existing rule ensuring access to rental properties by candidates or other agents during a campaign period for the purpose of campaigning. This is about moving. The member will be familiar that there’s a rule, under the Residential Tenancy Act, that says that landlords must give access to their properties to candidates for the purpose of campaigning. The recommendation was to move it out of the Residential Tenancy Act into the Election Act. This says that we are not moving ahead with that recommendation; however, indirectly, we’re trying to address it.
The Chief Electoral Officer was trying to address sort of a level of awareness to make sure that landlords were aware of this obligation. By moving it into a different act…. The concern that we had was that moving it out of the Residential Tenancy Act, which is an act that many landlords will be familiar with and will have to turn to, might cause them to be less aware. So our preference was to proceed with non-legislative options for improving awareness of the provision, including, potentially, outreach to various stakeholders that could raise awareness among landlords about their obligations in this regard.
The third is that the Chief Electoral Officer suggested there be a dollar-value threshold as a trigger for the requirement to register as a third-party advertising sponsor. You’d only have to register as a third-party advertising sponsor after incurring a specified amount of election advertising expenses. That was suggested to be, perhaps, the same as the Canada Elections Act threshold, which is $500.
The concern that we had about this recommendation is just seeing what has happened in the United States and concerns about electoral interference in that country — that advertising of less than $500 can be effective and have an impact. Reducing the threshold at this time of public concern about who is buying advertising and for what purpose did not seem to be the right approach from a policy perspective to us, so we have not advanced that recommendation at this stage. I’m sure dialogue will continue with the Chief Electoral Officer, going forward.
J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s responses.
Moving on to voting age. Much has been discussed about the cooperation between government and the Third Party. In the Third Party’s 2017 election platform, they pledged to drop the voting age to 16 years old.
The previous Chief Electoral Officer, which was Dr. Keith Archer — what was his view of this? What is the current Chief Electoral Officer’s view — the current Chief Electoral Officer being, of course, Mr. Anton Boegman?
Hon. D. Eby: There are two separate proposals that sometimes get conflated, in relation to 16- and 17-year-olds. One is the right to vote, the right to physically go to a ballot box and cast a ballot for a preferred candidate. The other is the amendment that’s in this package, which is pre-registration, so that when they turn 18, these young adults will know that they are already on the voters list and that won’t be a barrier to them voting.
For the first one, the actual right to vote, I’m not aware of any B.C. Chief Electoral Officer speaking out either in favour of or against 16- and 17-year-olds voting. Now, that’s not to say that there would be anything improper about them doing that, but customarily, the Chief Electoral Officer’s approach in terms of public advocacy for reforms has focused on turning out voters who are eligible to vote. How do we increase voter participation?
To that end, the member won’t be surprised to hear that since about 2005, Chief Electoral Officers have been pushing for the change that’s in this bill, which is allowing young adults who are still in high school to be pre-registered so that when they turn 18, they’re able to vote, recognizing that you’ve got everybody together in high school but you may not have them all together when they’re 18.
Pre-registering people will hopefully result in more complete voters lists and will also hopefully remove a barrier in people’s minds when they’re like: “Oh, I should vote, but maybe I’m not on the voters list. I don’t know if I’m on the voters list.” They will know that they’re on the voters list, because they were in high school. They’ll remember pre-registering and the process. So with the hopes of increasing voter participation….
On the simple question of 16- and 17-year-olds being eligible to vote, I’m not aware of any comment. But I’m aware of a long line of comment from chief electoral officers about this pre-registration that’s in the bill here today.
J. Yap: I thank the minister for that. What is the government’s position on the issue of lowering the voting age to 17 or to 16?
Hon. D. Eby: This bill that’s in front of the House is focused on recommendations coming from the Chief Electoral Officer’s office, based on the experiences of the last election. It doesn’t include anything related to 16- and 17-year-olds voting.
I can advise the member that personally, I’ve been glad to receive presentations from very enthusiastic young people who strongly believe that…. So 16- and 17-year-olds are paying taxes and working part-time, and they’re fully engaged on the issues of the day in their high school. They believe that they should be able to vote.
I’ve been very glad to hear those discussions and to know that people are out there campaigning for this right to vote for 16- and 17-year-olds. I can tell the member, as well, that government has no intention at this stage, that I’m aware of, to bring forward any amendments to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote.
J. Yap: Can the minister, then, confirm — based on his response, which I appreciate — that reducing the voting age is something the government could foresee doing?
Hon. D. Eby: I guess in the world of policy possibilities that are out there, it’s not out of the question that some future government would reduce the voting age. I’m not sure quite how the current age of 18 was set. I know that other jurisdictions have lowered voting ages, so I certainly wouldn’t foreclose it from our government or any other government.
The reality is that this is not something that’s on our agenda. It’s not something that we’re currently considering. It’s not in this bill, nor is it proposed to be in a future bill. So at this stage, I would say no.
J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response.
Related to voting age is the first of the 2018 report’s four priority recommendations. This was “Facilitating youth participation,” which is what early registration would strive to achieve. The report mentioned:
“The lowest voter registration rates are for young voters between 18 to 24 years of age….
“The Chief Electoral Officer recommends legislators consider allowing provisional registration of otherwise eligible individuals when they are 16 years old. The provisional registration would become an active registration when the voter reaches voting age” — currently 18. “Permitting early registration at 16 years of age would allow Elections B.C. to work with schools and the driver licensing program to ensure maximum exposure to the registration process for youth” — as the minister mentioned.
“In Alberta, the Chief Electoral Officer can request directly from school boards the registration information of 16- and 17-year-olds for the purpose of provisionally registering them to vote. Bill C-76” — which became law in the previous federal parliament — “establishes a register of future electors for 14- to 17-year-olds at the federal level in Canada. Australia and 16 U.S. states have addressed this issue by allowing provisional voter registration of 16- and 17-year-olds.”
This bill would follow that recommendation. Can the minister explain the government’s thinking around this?
Hon. D. Eby: The decision to go with an application-based process rather than adding people in from a list, perhaps even without their awareness, was a deliberate recommendation by the Chief Electoral Officer. We’ve accepted the Chief Electoral Officer’s rationale for the policy basis behind this, which we understand to be…. It’s not to say that one system or the other is inherently better. They both have merit to them.
We understand that the reason for recommending an application-based process is that the person is applying, therefore, they’ll be aware that they’ve applied, that they’ve asked for their name to be put on the voters list. They will be more aware that their name is on the voters list, which hopefully overcomes that barrier that I’ve been talking about, about people being nervous about voting because they aren’t sure if there’s going to be a big fuss: “Are you on a voters list? Are you not?” and so on. They’ll have applied, and they’ll know that they were on the provisional registry.
When the Chief Electoral Officer simply collects the names of all of the students of the various high schools that are in the appropriate grades and then puts them all into a big database, it’s not as obvious that the students would be aware that that had happened or that they were on the voters list, and it may not achieve the goal of raising that awareness among young people so that when they’re 18, they know that they’re on the list.
Again, these are just different approaches, but we accept the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation and rationale for this particular approach. British Columbia, generally speaking, has an application-based system. Alberta, generally speaking, has a system where people can be added to the list without application. Different approaches in different provinces, and this is more consistent with British Columbia’s approach.
J. Yap: I appreciate that from the minister. What other aspects of this bill does the government consider in the category of facilitating youth participation?
Hon. D. Eby: This provisional registry is the only piece that explicitly targets young people. The remainder of the provisions in the bill should apply to hopefully increase participation across all demographics, age-wise, in the province that are eligible to vote. There may be disproportionate impacts on young people: for example, including services card data if young people are less likely to get a driver’s licence. It’s kind of speculative that that might be the case, but it’s possible.
Also, young people being increasingly transitory and between school, post-secondary education and maybe their parents’ home, and so on, it might make the life a little easier for students that are moving more often to be able to vote anywhere in the province with the real-time strike-off.
Again, these are benefits that apply universally to voters in British Columbia and will hopefully increase voter participation across all categories. Knowing that, the area where we’re most challenged is youth participation. The biggest gains are potentially there in terms of increasing voter participation, but the reality is the only provision targeting young people specifically is this provisional voting registry.
J. Yap: The minister alluded earlier to this, but I will ask this. How will B.C.’s pre-registration process, through this bill, differ from the federal process?
Hon. D. Eby: The major difference between what’s proposed in the bill here and the federal pre-registration process, as I understand it, is that they are collecting data from 14- to 17-year-olds, and we are proposing collecting applications from 16- and 17-year-olds.
The reason for the province having a more narrow group of young adults in the category here is our concern about voter data accuracy. If you have a more narrow category, it’s less likely that the students are going to, for example, move to a new school in a different area, and we do have geographically based voting registries.
We’re trying to keep it as close to 18 as possible. So 16- and 17-year-olds was the approach provincially. Federally, they are doing 14 to 17.
There may be other small administrative differences between the two, but otherwise, as far as I’m advised, the systems are quite similar. They’re both application-based, pre-voting registries. The big difference is simply the age category.
J. Yap: I think we all can agree that encouraging youth participation is a worthy goal, so I appreciate the minister’s comments.
Were there any measures not in this bill that were considered by government towards the goal of facilitating youth participation?
Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the goal of this bill was simply to bring into law as many as possible of the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendations where we agreed with the rationale and policy for the recommendation. We thought that the members in this House would agree with them as well.
J. Yap: A second priority that is in this report from the Chief Electoral Officer — priority recommendation — is access to data. The report talks about how Elections B.C. currently has access to data from the Insurance Corp. of B.C., B.C. Vital Statistics and Elections Canada. However, the report states that while once a leader in this area, Elections B.C. has fallen behind in its ability to update the voters list in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.
Election agencies in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia all have access to voter information held by any public body, defined by those provinces’ freedom of information and protection of privacy acts, while Elections Quebec has access to personal information held by the provincial health insurance agency and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
The report states that to ensure the most effective and efficient methods are available to maintain a high-quality voters list, legislators may consider providing the Chief Electoral Officer with greater access to personal information — i.e., name, address and date of birth, held by public bodies for the purpose of updating the voters list. Any information accessed would only be for electoral purposes, per section 275 of the Election Act.
Can the minister outline how Bill 43 addresses these recommendations?
Hon. D. Eby: The difference between the recommendation and what is in the bill is that what’s in the bill is a much more focused authority for the Chief Electoral Officer.
What was recommended was broad access to data held by public bodies for the Chief Electoral Officer to be able to update the voters list. Through dialogue with the Chief Electoral Officer and internal consultations in relation to privacy issues around information-sharing outside of government, we came to the proposed amendment here, which is to allow access to the services card data through an information-sharing agreement between Elections B.C. and the Ministry of Citizens’ Services for a couple of reasons.
One is that this is a very complete set of data for British Columbians. The other is that, through dialogue, the concern that was being raised about needing to update the voters list we understood to be related to addresses and ensuring current addresses, and the services card also provides that as well.
It’s really a narrowing of the broader request from general access to public body data to services card address information and so on through an information-sharing agreement between Elections B.C. and the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.
J. Yap: Noting the hour, I will recommend that we rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
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 11:57 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 41 — DECLARATION ON THE
RIGHTS OF
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 41; R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:07 a.m.
On section 2 (continued).
M. de Jong: We ended last day…. As I recall, the minister gave a response with respect to some question about article 5. I thought, actually, that he answered the question on point that had been asked, providing some examples about how that article might be interpreted. He gave some insight into the government’s views on the relevance of that article to the situation in B.C.
Article 6 in the declaration is pretty straightforward. It reads: “Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.” My sense is that that is not an issue in the context of British Columbia. It is recognized that British Columbians, be they Aboriginal or not, enjoy status as citizens of Canada and that nationality. If the government interprets that in any way other than that, I’m happy to hear the minister offer his thoughts.
Hon. S. Fraser: I agree with the member’s interpretation. I think that’s accurate. As we talked about before, the articles of the UN declaration need to be contextualized for each jurisdiction. Of course, this was an international declaration, so I’m sure there are applications in other jurisdictions.
If I may, hon. Chair, I do have some information from yesterday’s session. The question was regarding the UNDRIP being used as an interpretive aid, and the member was looking for an example.
In addition to the three cases that I referred to yesterday, I’ve got several more such cases that spoke to the use of the UN declaration as an interpretative aid. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada. That was 2012 in federal court. Canada v. Elsipogtog First Nation. That was 2013, also federal court. Sackaney v. Canada, 2013. That was in the Tax Court of Canada. Ross River Dena Council v. Canada, in 2017, Yukon Supreme Court.
M. Lee: Thank you to the minister and his team for giving further examples of court decisions that have utilized UNDRIP as an interpretive tool.
I did have a chance to look at the decisions yesterday that he cited. There are some brief references, certainly, that are consistent with that being the case, including one that related to one of the preambles, which is preamble 13: “Recognizing in particular the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well-being of their children, consistent with the rights of the child.”
This was named as another international document in the course of one of the decisions dealing with children and their rights and the need to have greater protection and, certainly, something that we all would want to support. I think that that was an example where this document, this declaration, was being cited as recognition of that. Now, how the parties went on to utilize that principle was something that they each had different viewpoints on.
I think that was a useful example to see how a principle might be cited. But certainly, as the minister just said, it needs to be contextualized for application in the jurisdiction in which it’s being applied.
The other decision was actually citing the decision I named, which really buttressed, again, the court’s agreement that UNDRIP is there to be an interpretative tool of domestic law.
I look forward to reviewing the decisions that the minister cited. As I mentioned yesterday, we have a general understanding that I will have the opportunity to come back in these committee proceedings to have any further discussion regarding those decisions.
M. de Jong: On to article 7 of the UN declaration, which is divided into two parts. I’m going to focus on 7-1, which reads: “Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.” Various concepts, clearly important concepts, are referred to in article 7-1.
I wondered if the minister and the government shared my view that it is in this section, in the context of British Columbia, that health care — I know the Health Minister is here, coincidently — concepts of mental health, which I don’t think are necessarily referred to more explicitly in the declaration…. Does the minister believe the notion of health care — and we talked about constitutional responsibilities within the Canadian context, that clearly being a provincial one — is captured by the first part of article 7?
Hon. S. Fraser: Yes, I believe it could.
M. de Jong: The question that flows from that is: in the days ahead — days, weeks, months, ultimately, years ahead — in the post-passage of Bill 41 and the application of the declaration in the way that the minister indicates Bill 41 contemplates, how does the minister anticipate engagement with the Indigenous peoples to change, if at all? What is the impact going forward?
The declaration, the minister has advised the committee, is designed to provide a guide and influence. How, going forward, when the minister looked at the declaration and the government looked at the declaration and saw article 7 and how it touches on these fundamental issues of health care and mental health care…? How does he see article 7 influencing the behaviour, conduct and engagement of the government going forward?
Hon. S. Fraser: Around article 7-1, I’ve already acknowledged that that could be interpreted in the way the member had suggested. We have a process built into Bill 41 for working collaboratively with Indigenous peoples on the articles, whether it’s dealing with health care or whether it’s dealing with other issues that the articles will be referring to. That process will unfold in collaboration with Indigenous peoples.
I would cite that there are other articles, too, besides 7 that touch on health care within the UN declaration — specifically, articles 21 through 24.
It’s important, I think, that the document be contextualized for each circumstance. Again, this is an example of where I think it needs to be read in its entirety. You can pull out individual articles or parts of individual articles and it may lose its context within the larger UN declaration, which of course incorporates 46 articles. So again, there are other articles, 21 through 24, that might actually help inform the question, I think.
M. de Jong: Well, with the greatest respect, I think the minister is partially correct in terms of the advisability of ensuring that, on certain topics, we explore the entire document. But the minister just had a conversation with the member for Vancouver-Langara about judicial decisions that utilized the declaration as a guide and as influencing analysis. In at least two of those decisions, I am certain the court looked at individual articles.
It’s the second or third time that the minister has indicated a hesitancy about examining the articles individually. I think the minister is correct in suggesting that it can be a bit dangerous to pull out individual words, although sometimes that’s necessary.
Look, Bill 41 purports to apply, in the way that the minister has described, the declaration to the laws of British Columbia. Laws are words. It is the means by which this society creates rules with words, and the words are important. I presume that the minister agrees with that. In applying the declaration to the laws of British Columbia, we are taking the words of the declaration. We may be guided by the spirit. We may be influenced by the important symbolism. But in applying it to the laws, we are taking the words.
The articles deal with a variety of…. Article 32 is different from article 2. They deal with different matters. If the minister is correct and the courts will continue to use the declaration as an interpretive guide, they will do so on the basis of the words.
When the minister began his last response, he said article 7 could be interpreted to include reference to health care and mental health care. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but the point of this exercise, in large measure, is for the committee to ascertain from the minister what the government’s view is. My view is inconsequential. It is what the minister and the government believe article 7 speaks to.
I think the minister is prepared to acknowledge that it speaks to health care, but when he says it “could,” that’s actually not good enough. What does the government believe article 7 in the declaration refers to?
Hon. S. Fraser: I mean, I hear the member here. I gave, I think, a credible answer. He may disagree with it. I also, I think, gave some advice as to where other articles might apply to the questioning that he was doing. I was trying to be helpful. I wasn’t trying to be anything other.
I just want to make sure the member understands that as he delves into the words, each individual word of each individual sentence of each individual article, within the 46 articles of the UN declaration, he’s missing, I believe — and I mean this with all due respect — the core aspect of Bill 41. This is, I think, the problem with him going down this rabbit hole here.
Bill 41 essentially provides a process to work collaboratively with Indigenous people in the province. We have that process in the bill. If we ever get through section 2, he will see that clearly. That is key to what Bill 41 is. To be quite clear, this is about working collaboratively with Indigenous peoples in the province in a way that maybe has not happened in the previous government or previous governments. This is about coming into the conversation — the process that I’ve described that is in the further sections of Bill 41.
This is a process that we’re going to do with an open mind and an open heart. We’re not prescribing for Indigenous people how they should interpret every article of this UN declaration. I believe it does a disservice to the bill to take us in that direction. It will be fraught with confusion, I think, to try to pin down how we will work with First Nations prior to working with First Nations.
M. de Jong: With equally great respect, I profoundly disagree with the minister.
The minister has made quite clear his and the government’s desire to embark upon a process to work collaboratively — and, he just said again, differently — with First Nations and Aboriginal partners. I accept that, but the basis upon which he and the government purport to do that is a document called the UN declaration. I think people are entitled to know what that document says because, presumably, it will guide what those differences are. The differences and the collaboration, by virtue of the bill, are based upon this declaration.
I’m surprised. I’m surprised that the government and the minister seem reluctant to want to explore what that declaration says. If the government simply wanted to create the basis for this different form of collaboration around a set of principles, it could have done that. But it has chosen, instead, to tie that different approach to this document, this declaration. It has tied the document to the bill, happily and, I think, appropriately. Surely it is appropriate, then, for us to explore — on behalf of the committee, the House and British Columbians — what the document says.
We continue. Now we have in our presence both the Health Minister and the Mental Health Minister, so that’s convenient as well. Are there any present plans — I emphasize the word “present,” because I think I can anticipate what the minister’s answer is going to be — with respect to article 7 and what we, I think, have established about its reference to health care and mental health care? Are there any present plans to allocate additional dollars to address the intent and the spirit of what is contained in article 7?
Hon. S. Fraser: Not that I’m aware of. We will be developing an action plan, as is highlighted further in Bill 41. But I’m going to say this again, because it needs to be contextualized: the bill does not give the declaration legal force and effect. The UN declaration helps to provide a framework for moving forward in a process that is clearly delineated in this bill, Bill 41.
M. de Jong: The minister, I think, in that case provided an answer: no present plans for a budgetary allocation. That may change. That remains to be seen in the future.
Let’s go, if we can, to article 8. The reference there, in article 8-2, includes the phrase: “States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for….” Then it lists, in the following subarticles (a) through (e), a number of actions that can give rise to redress. What does that word mean, “redress”?
Hon. S. Fraser: The word “redress” refers to “to remedy or set right.” You’ll probably find other synonyms for that, but that would be, I think, the appropriate definition.
M. de Jong: Thanks. That’s helpful. Remedy. What would those remedies include, in the minds of the government?
Hon. S. Fraser: We’re having those discussions, and we’ll have those discussions, with Indigenous peoples.
M. de Jong: That’s less helpful. British Columbians would like to know, when the government reads subarticle 8-2, where the word “redress” occurs — which the minister has indicated is a synonym for remedy — what the government believes that captures in terms of the range of possible remedies generally. I’m not asking with respect to any particular circumstance. What, in the government’s mind, is captured by the word “redress” or “remedy”?
Hon. S. Fraser: We’ll be having those conversations, and we are having those conversations, with Indigenous peoples. That’s part of the process that Bill 41 is. It is a process of us working collaboratively with Indigenous peoples in a way that reflects respect and recognition.
M. de Jong: Does redress and/or remedy include financial compensation?
Hon. S. Fraser: It all depends. We have no specific plans. The previous government, I think, addressed this question when they were in government. It’s dependent on circumstances.
M. de Jong: I come back to this point. The words clearly have some meaning. I understand that what is deemed appropriate redress in one circumstance may be different than what is appropriate redress or remedy in another. I’m asking, though, the minister on behalf of the government to articulate in a general way what is captured by the notion of redress or remedy. I quite frankly don’t see this as a very difficult question.
I presume it can include financial compensation. It could include land transfer. I mean, there are other things that are referred to in the document. But again, my views on this matter are far less significant and far less relevant than the views of the government and the minister. That’s all I’m asking. The circumstances may well determine which form of remedy is appropriate, but what does the government consider redress or remedy to include within the context of this article of the declaration and within the context of the British Columbia experience?
Hon. S. Fraser: Besides the examples the member provided as examples, you could include impact benefit agreements. You could argue treaty or non-treaty agreements. A whole suite, including…. Of course, these are things that all government engages in and has been engaging in. I believe those are all good examples.
M. de Jong: Well, we’re getting somewhere. These are not meant to be trick questions. The minister has been clear about the application and how that is intended to take place. It is merely a case of, as I said before, trying to properly understand what is in the government’s mind with respect to these provisions that have been deemed so important and so historic.
Subarticle 8-2. I’m going to ask the minister this to perhaps provide some views from his and the government’s perspective about the circumstances in which this becomes relevant in the British Columbia context. Maybe the best way for me to do that is to point to a historic example, or a couple of historic examples.
We are aware, for example, of the dislocation that took place of the Kwadacha First Nation at the time of the creation of the Williston reservoir and the building of the dams. I believe a similar phenomenon occurred for the Cheslatta. Is this provision designed to address that kind of circumstance? Is that what subarticle 8-2 is about?
Hon. S. Fraser: I think the short answer is yes, it could, although I’m going to just maybe address the wording a bit.
We were not involved in the design of the UN declaration. I wasn’t at the table. There were prominent British Columbians who were, for decades, at the table. I wouldn’t want to speak for them, and I do not know what their intent was as they drafted this. But I think the answer is: yes, it could.
M. de Jong: Right. Well, I will reply by again assuring the minister. It would not be fair for me to ask him to speculate about what might have been in the minds of the authors at the UN, what may have been in the minds of the parties, the signatories. But I think it is fair for him to be asked to articulate, on behalf of the government that has chosen to take a step that no other government has taken, what these words mean to the government.
The minister has indicated that, in his and the government’s view, this article would have application to the type of circumstance that we saw develop with the Kwadacha and the Cheslatta. Does the government believe that the declaration and the article are intended…? In the mind of the government, does it view there to be a historic limitation around the application of these provisions?
I’ve given two examples that are historic in nature. I presume that the government and the minister would say that part of why this legislation is here, and the relevance of article 8, is to ensure and guide governments in the future to ensure that never happens again and that this will play a role in helping to ensure that kind of thing doesn’t happen again. But is the minister prepared to share the government’s view on what the historic application of a provision like article 8 might be?
Hon. S. Fraser: There’s no straightforward answer, I don’t think, to the question. We look, as the previous government did, at specific cases. The member cited two cases, I think, that would fit into this category. We have no…. I think he was talking about limitations. I’m not sure if he meant time, but we’re not contemplating any time limit here, as far as the question the member asked. We see this as moving forward. The entire declaration is about the future. It is about moving forward.
With that in mind, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask for leave to sit yet again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada