Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 298
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 Representative for Children and Youth, report, Caught in the Middle | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2019
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. S. Robinson: We have a number of attendees from the RTB who are here for question period. I want to invite members to please give them a warm welcome. We have Kathy Elder, Jaimy Lang, Eliza Robinson, Christy-Lynn Sorley, Michelle Mah, Jennine Gates, Christine Hunter, Brad Sparrow, Tyann Blewett, Lisa Clout, Casey van Wensem and Jo-Anne Nugent.
These people are available online and on the phone to help renters and landlords alike. They work really hard on behalf of that relationship. I would like everyone to please give them a warm welcome.
Hon. G. Heyman: Joining us in the House today are four staff from the information and records management team from my ministry. They work hard to ensure that we’re following records management protocol in responding to FOI requests. Please join me in welcoming Karen Kohl, Shawn Muller, Brooke McCunn and Vicki Desaulnier.
E. Ross: Today in the House, we have two guests from my riding of Skeena, Karim Basaria and Rajinder Billing. They are actually here to talk about the pressures being put on the labour force because of LNG in Skeena.
Karim actually owns the Best Western hotel in Terrace, as well as some other hotels around B.C. Rajinder is a regulated immigration consultant. Would the members please join me in welcoming these two guests to the House today.
M. Lee: I’d also like to welcome a constituent of mine, Mr. Terry Yung, who’s here from Vancouver-Langara. Terry, as many of you would know in this House, is a strong leader in our community in Vancouver and across Metro Vancouver. He has a senior leadership role with the Vancouver police department. He has had a history of instruction roles with the Justice Institute and BCIT. He’s the current chair of SUCCESS, the organization that has affected and helped improve the lives of many Vancouverites and British Columbians across Metro Vancouver.
Terry is a fine example of the kind of individual we need in our communities to help break down the kinds of silos and barriers and bring cross-cultural understanding. Will all members of the House please join me in making Terry feel most welcome in this House.
Hon. S. Simpson: Today I have some staff from my ministry in the House, on the communications side. I have the communications manager, Cass Togneri, along with senior public affairs officer Roxanne Kropp and public affairs officer Theresa Chaboyer. Also, my administrative assistant, Taylor Hixson, is here. Please make them all welcome for the great work they do for all British Columbians.
Hon. A. Dix: I want to recognize four staff in the Ministry of Health who are with us today — Thomas Guerrero, who is the executive director in the corporate issues and climate relations branch, and members of his team: Leah Baade, Farrah Wiltshire and Jennifer Gillespie.
They’re an integral part of the team that really works on cases around B.C. and finds solutions for people. Many MLAs in the House and their constituents benefit from their extraordinary work. I ask everyone in the House to wish them welcome.
M. Stilwell: In the House visiting us today is my dear friend Rebecca Tuzzum, along with her sons, Sam and Jesse. I ask that the House please make them feel very welcome to their first visit to the Legislature.
M. Lee: I would also like to introduce to the House four representatives of the Marpole business improvement association in my riding. They are Ragnar Bertelsen, the vice-president of the association; Gordon Bowman, the president; Gianni Pisanu, who is on the board as well; and Claudia Laroye, who is the executive director.
When I first stood for election in Vancouver-Langara, I remember fondly a meeting I had with the BIA in their community office location in the TD branch there on Granville Street. Recently they brought forward an initiative to put up a large sign two doors down from where my parents used to live on Granville Street for ten years, in front of the bus loop: “I love Marpole.”
Clearly, travelling to Victoria today, they join with many other small business owners across many communities that continue to struggle with high property tax and the burden on small business owners and operators as they face rising property taxes and costs.
We need to ensure clearly, with the voice that they’re bringing here today and to the House and on this precinct, the kind of voice we need, to ensure that we have healthy, sustainable business communities, who are the vibrancy of our communities at large in our neighbourhoods.
Hon. L. Popham: I am pleased to welcome to the House members of the food security task force. The members of the task force have been working over the past few months, looking at possibilities around technology and innovation and the agriculture sector. Would you all make welcome Peter Dhillon, who is the chair of the task force, as well as members Dr. Lenore Newman and Arvind Gupta. We thank you for your hard work and look forward to meeting later.
R. Glumac: I’d like to introduce somebody, an important part of my life, who, not only because…. Well, she’s one of the ten people that watches QP regularly. But also because she’s been a big supporter of mine, and I appreciate that. Haven Lurbiecki in the House. Would the House please make her feel welcome.
T. Stone: I’d like to follow up on the introduction that my colleague from Vancouver-Langara made to welcome the folks from the Marpole BIA, who are here. Joining them, as well, is Jane McFadden, who is the executive director of the Kits West 4th Avenue Business Improvement Association, as well as Donna Hohl, who is the president of the Kitsilano West 4th Business Improvement Association, as well as the owner of Coco’s Closet on West 4th.
They are here to meet with members of the Legislature to discuss the challenges that they’re facing with respect to skyrocketing property taxes and potential solutions to provide them with some relief. So could the House please make all of these members of these business improvement associations welcome here today.
M. Stilwell: Today in the House…. I’m not sure if they’ve arrived yet, but up behind me, I believe, there will be 24 grade 11 students from Ballenas Secondary, along with their teacher Olivia Hill and student teacher Jessylee Spence. Ms. Hill is one of the most passionate teachers I know, who teaches her students about democracy and the political process. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
L. Throness: I just noticed that there’s an important visitor in the House today. Liz Harris is the executive director of the Fraser Valley Health Care Foundation. I think she has with her a colleague or a husband. I’ll embarrass them both by saying that. Would the House please welcome them both today.
J. Johal: I just want to follow up on the introduction from the Minister of Agriculture in regards to the food security task force that is here today. They’re doing important work — Dr. Newman and, of course, Dr. Gupta.
I also wanted to welcome Mr. Dhillon, whose family farm originally…. His dad started in Richmond East and has now gone on to, obviously, farming in other parts of the Lower Mainland, and Quebec as well, and is also the chairman of Ocean Spray. He’s done his family proud and remains a strong supporter of many charities in Richmond and employs many people there as well. I ask the House once again to please make our guests feel welcome.
C. Oakes: Well, it’s that holiday season. One of the things I want to recognize is the incredible work that business improvement areas do to create vibrant neighbourhoods. One of the great initiatives that I absolutely adore, from Jane and her team, is that they are currently collecting messages to Santa. They collect thousands of letters that you can drop off at Kitsilano 4th Avenue in mailboxes, and they work with the seniors community centre to make sure that all of those letters are answered.
I just think that’s a testament to the fantastic neighbourhoods, the vibrancies that we make sure we try and protect, and to business improvement areas that work tirelessly every day to support our incredible neighbourhoods.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M230 — HIGH DOSE INFLUENZA
VACCINE FOR SENIORS
ACT, 2019
J. Isaacs presented a bill intituled High Dose Influenza Vaccine for Seniors Act, 2019.
J. Isaacs: I move the bill intituled High Dose Influenza Vaccine for Seniors Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for the first time now.
As we roll into the colder time of the year, autumn brings with it an illness many know as the flu season. In Canada, influenza contributes to 3,500 deaths per year. Seniors have an increased risk of contracting the flu, and the negative impact may result in significant deterioration of overall health, along with the addition and severity of medical complications.
Seniors are more likely to be hospitalized after getting the flu. For those who are hospitalized, over 65 percent had an underlying health condition, and nearly 85 percent of deaths were due to complications linked to underlying risk factors. Those with health conditions, such as heart or stroke, diabetes, lung conditions, kidney disease or other compromised immune systems are at a higher risk of flu-related complications.
Not only are seniors more susceptible to flu outbreaks in shared spaces like long-term-care homes; the virus severely impacts mental and physical health. Studies have shown that many seniors with the flu suffer a decline in mobility.
One-third who experience prolonged hospital stays also experienced a reduction in their functional ability to carry out their daily activities. A loss of independence and functional ability means seniors will need additional care to meet their daily needs.
Vaccination is the best way to avoid the spreading of this highly contagious viral infection, reduce hospital visits and higher costs to the medical system. As we age, our immune system weakens. The regular flu vaccine is less effective for seniors and does little to protect against outbreaks in long-term care homes.
The cost of a high-dose vaccine often keeps it out of reach for seniors. This legislation, originally introduced in 2018, recommends access to the high-dose influenza vaccine for seniors living in long-term-care homes.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
J. Isaacs: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M230, High Dose Influenza Vaccine for Seniors Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
CARSON FAMILY
AND ADOPTION
AWARENESS
L. Throness: This month is Adoption Awareness Month. To help create awareness, I visited with my constituents Allan and Dianne Carson. Allan is rector of St. John’s Anglican Church in Chilliwack, and he and Dianne are outstanding examples of adoptive parents.
They have ten children, and eight of them are adopted, ranging in age from 15 to 40. Their amazing journey began even before they were married when they decided only to adopt. But when they faced roadblocks in their quest, they had two biological children and acted as foster parents for five years.
When the opportunity finally came in 1984 to adopt, they jumped at it. Their first child came from South Korea, and their second is of African-American descent. They ended up with five ethnicities in their family — Chinese, Korean, African-American, European and Métis. Yet, they see no difference between their natural and adopted children.
There have been challenges, like long waits and cultural barriers. They felt like they had to fight the system to adopt. There have been mental health issues, and the Carsons have been pained by racism shown against their children.
But today they are all successful in their own ways, and they remain close as a family — a tribute to the love of their parents. Dianne says: “The special joy for me has been seeing the individual gifts blossoming within my children. There are so many abilities within our family members, which we never would have seen in children who are genetically similar to us.”
When asked if he would recommend adoption, Allan says: “Absolutely. But be aware you have no idea what you’re getting into any more than a couple giving birth has any idea of what is ahead. To adopt is to willingly and consciously lay down your life for another.” It is such a privilege to have people like the Carsons in my riding.
I hope other British Columbian parents will be encouraged by their example to offer the best gift a parent can offer to a child: the gift of adoption, a forever family.
CROSSROADS HOSPICE
R. Glumac: Each of our lives has a beginning. We’re born into this world full of joy and potential and possibility. Each of our lives also has an end. Death is as much a part of our life as birth. The ending of our lives is something we don’t like to talk about, but each of us will face it one day. Each of us deserves to be treated with respect and dignity and compassion when that happens.
A few months ago, I had the opportunity to visit Crossroads Hospice in Port Moody, a place dedicated to compassionately caring for people who are nearing the ends of their lives. It’s a facility that represents an option for those with a terminal illness who aren’t able to stay at home but do not need to stay in a hospital.
It offers people facing a terminal illness and the ones they love a home-like setting filled with peace and comfort and provides support for the diverse needs of patients. Hospice services include palliative care services, art care, visiting musicians, pet therapy, therapeutic relaxation and visiting volunteers, as well as bereavement services.
Crossroads was built in 2003, the first free-standing hospice in the Fraser health region. Today Crossroads has expanded to include a thrift store and a healing garden.
I want to thank everyone at Crossroads Hospice for all that they do, from the board to the employees to the volunteers — hundreds of volunteers that have contributed over 25,000 volunteer hours to date. Crossroads is a truly special place in our community.
RESOURCE MUNICIPALITIES COALITION
D. Davies: The Resource Municipalities Coalition is an organization composed of municipal governments, chambers of commerce and service groups that are focused on responsible resource development in British Columbia. Today its municipal membership includes the city of Fort St. John and the districts of Taylor, Tumbler Ridge and, most recently, Mackenzie.
In advocating for responsible resource development, the Resource Municipalities Coalition looks to support sustainable communities by addressing the impacts on ecosystems as well as cumulative impacts to the environment. They believe it is also equally responsible to ensure that citizens receive effective social services that improve their quality of life and build sustainable futures within their communities.
The coalition is collaborating with communities, municipalities and industries to move together under one unified voice. The focuses are: helping to empower communities through sustainable and resource development; protecting and enhancing services by ensuring quality of life in a healthy, natural environment; and researching, analyzing and educating communities on the economic impacts of resource development.
The Resource Municipalities Coalition held the developing British Columbia’s energy roadmap symposium in Fort St. John. The symposium provided an opportunity for provincial and local governments with stakeholders directly involved in the industry to meet and share ideas with the purpose of providing additional insight for the province as it seeks to develop its energy roadmap. The overarching themes that emerged were presented to the Premier, as well as other key ministers, in April of this year.
Together we must recognize that the energy sector is the engine of the B.C. economy and is only one step in advancing British Columbia’s energy roadmap. Would the House please join me in applauding the Resource Municipalities Coalition as they continue to promote responsible resource development in the province of British Columbia.
VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL
SOUTH ASIAN FILM
FESTIVAL
R. Singh: When I was a young girl growing up in India, trips to the movie theatre were a highlight for my sister and I. We would sit there, staring at the silver screen, enamoured and spellbound by the colours, the songs, the costumes and the stories projected in front of our popcorn-filled faces. I still vividly recall looking forward to the new releases, watching and re-watching the old classics countless times.
My fascination with films and the creative people who bring us this captivating medium of art has not relented since my childhood. So I was really excited when I was invited to attend the opening night of the Vancouver International South Asian Film Festival.
VISAFF, as it’s commonly known, is an annual festival which was founded in 2008. Since then, it has not only been highlighting film talent within the local South Asian community but has also been introducing Lower Mainland audiences to movies and creators from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and other neighbouring countries. In the last few years, it has included films made by the global South Asian diaspora to their exhibits.
Besides showing movies, documentaries, short films and sharing stories from these different perspectives, they hold educational workshops and sessions for those interested in learning about filmmaking and film promotion. However, of all the great things they do, the most endearing, the most long-lasting impact that this festival has helped cultivate, is the creative community of local artists that they have brought together who now collaborate and create and tell stories about their experiences in B.C. and produce their stories right here in B.C., adding to our province’s growing film industry.
Community-based organic festivals like VISAFF enrich the lives of British Columbians with their colours and stories. For that, I would like to call on all present to join me in appreciating and thanking VISAFF and the tireless organizers behind it like Mannu Sandhu, Raj Arneja, Raj Thandhi and Panzy Sandhu, among many others, for all their efforts.
RADON AWARENESS
S. Gibson: November is Radon Action Month. We’re being encouraged, as British Columbians, to test our homes for radon, which is a naturally occurring radioactive gas. I just found out about this, so it was new to me.
Radon can build up to high levels, and it’s the leading cause of lung cancer for non-smokers. It’s present in virtually every home, and the only way to find out is to test for it.
Health Canada has a big campaign right now, each November, to raise public awareness. This past week, actually, we had an event in Abbotsford to create interest. Abbotsford is a leading community in gauging radon and encouraging citizens to investigate their homes — as a matter of fact, their homes all around this province. Other municipalities that are testing and working on the campaign include McBride, Valemount, Coquitlam and Summerland.
It’s important, and I encourage colleagues and citizens to test their homes. My wife and I are fully persuaded and will be testing our home for radon. Radon is an important health issue.
I appreciate this opportunity to alert our citizens to the dangers of radon.
LUSH VALLEY INITIATIVES
FOR FOOD SECURITY
R. Leonard: About two decades ago, driven by the belief that everyone deserves to eat healthy, local food, food security enthusiast Jean duGal hatched LUSH Valley. It stands for Let Us Share the Harvest. The fruit tree program, originally coordinated by Sheila Girdlestone, continues to distribute unwanted fresh fruit and produce to those in need while equally sharing with the fruit tree owners and pickers. LUSH has always been empowering to people, as community members of all ages have access to learn about local food systems, how to grow a garden or cook healthy food.
LUSH branched out in new directions when Betty-Anne Juba took the helm. They took on the former site of the food bank to house a kitchen and raised gardens in the parking lot. Cynthia Fitton brought enthusiasm, creativity and great skill to grow amazing programs.
Like the rebirth of a growing season, with the large facility gone, LUSH has sprouted a new way of operating. Today Jen Wrye is the president, and, from a small office, executive director Maurita Prato oversees programs that have taken root throughout the community. Emily Hutchison coordinates a large, accessible community garden next door to a soup kitchen in downtown Courtenay. Delicious food programs and other events reach into the community with partners like Eureka Support Society, Lake Trail School and Vanier high school.
The fruit tree and gleaning program continues under James McKerricher. In 2016, LUSH picked an incredible 40,000 pounds of fruit.
Recently, through the Ministry of Agriculture’s Feed B.C. program, LUSH receives funding for building regional food aggregation in the Comox Valley. Five local farms now sell produce to five local schools, and expanding into the K-to-12 school system is the goal.
Congratulations to LUSH for continuing your efforts to grow food security at home.
Oral Questions
LABOUR DISPUTE IN TRANSIT SYSTEM
A. Wilkinson: Beginning tomorrow, of course, we know that commuters could well wake up to a complete shutdown of the bus and SeaBus service in Vancouver.
More than a million rides will not happen. Half a million commuters will have no option. We now have learned that 60 percent of those who bus to work or to school don’t have a driver’s licence or a car and have no option. They will be completely stranded. So it’s time for this government to act on behalf of British Columbians and do something real — in fact, do something at all.
The question goes to the government, presumably to the Labour Minister, perhaps the Transportation Minister, because perhaps they don’t agree that “do nothing” is a policy. Can we hear from anyone in the government ranks who has an idea of what they’re actually going to do tomorrow, rather than sit in their offices and watch television?
Hon. H. Bains: I am more optimistic than that party over there is ever going to be when it comes to collective bargaining.
It is always incredibly stressful for those who see that there might be a threat of a transit shutdown, and no one wants to see disruption in our public transportation.
The union and the company understand their responsibility to those who they serve — their customers, the transit riders. That’s why, they are at the table today negotiating, because that’s where the contract will be negotiated — not in this House.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s clear the Labour Minister intends to do absolutely nothing, whether it’s in this House, in his office or in the streets of Metro Vancouver. He’s going to do nothing while half a million people go out into the coldest day so far this year and try to get to work, try to get their kids to child care. And when those nurses don’t show up in the critical care units around Vancouver, it’s going to be the Labour Minister who’s sitting in his office doing nothing.
So perhaps someone, anyone in the government ranks, can come to their senses and say that they have a plan for how to deal with the Metro Vancouver transit strike, which will cripple our city.
Hon. H. Bains: Respecting free collective bargaining, respecting workers’ rights to free collective bargaining, to this Leader of the Opposition, means do nothing. That is incredibly sad.
This particular union, Unifor, and the Coast Mountain Bus Co., have successfully bargained for decades without any help from outside, without any interruption. They are at the table right now, and they are going to negotiate a collective agreement. I’m hopeful that they will conclude their negotiations today so that there is no disruption in the Lower Mainland.
J. Thornthwaite: More than 11,000 people use the SeaBus, and people on the North Shore have been feeling the impact of this strike for, now, four weeks. Now it’s going to get a whole lot worse for the entire Lower Mainland. B.C. Ferries is warning foot passengers that they could be stranded at the Tsawwassen terminal because the strike will cut off all public transit.
My question to the minister: what is his advice to commuters who will be left stranded at the Tsawwassen ferry tomorrow?
Hon. H. Bains: Both parties are at the table right now, and they are bargaining. I have full faith in both of those parties — that they will be successfully concluding their negotiations today so that there is no disruption. I know that both of those parties that are at the table right now understand their responsibility to their customers, the transit riders and everyone else who uses transit. They are working hard right now.
Unlike that side, I have full faith in those two parties to conclude collective agreements, because collective agreements work in this province. It has worked for decades. I know they always, when they see labour disputes, see political opportunity. That is a sad state of affairs. They’ve learned nothing in the last 2½ years. We’re not going to take any lessons from that side.
Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: So 76,000 UBC and SFU students regularly use the bus to get to class. UBC students have created a Facebook event to camp on the university mall. SFU students are using Facebook to organize a hike up Burnaby Mountain to get to class.
Students are stressed. They’re stressed because of exams, and now they’re equally stressed because they don’t know if they’re going to get to school tomorrow because of the transit strike.
What message does the minister have to the thousands of students who won’t be able to get to class tomorrow morning?
Hon. H. Bains: It’s interesting — and amazing, actually. The member opposite is talking about students. Wasn’t it that party, when they were in government, that raised the tuition fees three times?
We are….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. H. Bains: It is really sad that the opposition is trying to score cheap political points here at the expense of the labour dispute. But I can tell you, despite their theatrics, they know the dispute will be resolved at the bargaining table, and the parties are at the bargaining table. It will be resolved, and I’m fully hopeful.
PRIMARY HEALTH CARE SERVICES
ON SOUTH VANCOUVER
ISLAND
A. Olsen: Over a year ago, I asked the Minister of Health for realistic timelines about when community members in my riding will start to see real solutions to the shortage of primary health care services in Saanich North and the Islands. In his response, he mentioned that one in six British Columbians was without a family doctor. He also promised that a primary care network would be established in several areas in the province, including the Saanich Peninsula, within the year.
In April of this year, I again asked the Minister of Health about the health care crisis in my riding and many other areas in the province. His response was that government was hiring hundreds of family practice doctors, nurse practitioners and clinical pharmacists to ease the crisis.
At the time, the minister was quite optimistic about getting new primary care networks established around the province and, in particular, specific areas of the province experiencing acute shortages. In my riding today, the most substantial work relieving pressure has been done by non-profit organizations.
My question is to the Minister of Health. On the ground, my constituents are not seeing results. They’re having difficulty accessing primary care services. What is the delay in changing the outcomes for people on the Saanich Peninsula and across greater Victoria?
Hon. A. Dix: Of course, I was very proud yesterday to be joined by the Minister of Finance in announcing a new urgent and primary care centre in James Bay, which will have a real effect on people in the area. It’s one of 11 in operation, 14 that we have announced, that are making a real difference, particularly in communities around British Columbia.
I want to note particularly the extraordinary work by doctors and nurse practitioners and nurses in Prince George, who developed their primary care network working hand in hand with an urgent and primary care centre that’s making a real difference for people.
Here on the south Island, we’re also taking steps. The member will know that on November 22, which is just recently, the final proposal around the South Island Division of Family Practice proposal was submitted. We’re taking specific steps and specific action. We’re working with doctors and nurse practitioners and the community — not imposing, but working with them. That will lead to lasting solutions.
I’m very proud of the work of the South Island Division of Family Practice, very proud of the work of the Ministry of Health for making progress. We hope to have announcements soon.
Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
A. Olsen: I thank the minister for his response. Earlier this summer — the situation was dire — in the Times Colonist, doctors were saying that primary care in the greater Victoria area was on the verge of collapse.
I’ve met with a wide variety of health care practitioners in my riding to discuss the situation that’s going on in their offices. Health professionals are exhausted, exasperated and feeling underappreciated. The system is overburdened, and practitioners are burning out.
Since those questions last year, I’ve had a constant flow of communications from my constituents, who are equally exhausted and exasperated and feeling as ignored as those in the health care system that we rely on. Patient attachment to a primary health care home is important. However, it is just a single metric. It’s equally important that we not forget some of these most deeply intimate relationships with our health care professionals. We must focus on the quality of life for both patient and practitioner.
Again to the Minister of Health, how is the vision of his transformation of our primary health care system not only addressing patient attachment to practitioners but also ensuring that they have a quality of life and a health care system that’s meeting the needs in our community?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes, I think that in particular, young doctors have a different view of the way their practices should go. Overwhelmingly, for example, in surveys we take of young doctors, there’s a desire to move to alternate payment models and fee-for-service. But both are essential parts of our system.
In the last year, for example, 338 new fee-for-service general practitioner doctors have been added in British Columbia. Over the past year, 129 alternate payment plan doctors have been added. Now, significant numbers, of course, are retiring as well, but that is 140 net new doctors in 2018-19.
That doesn’t mean that we’re able to deal with all of the challenges out there. But what we’re doing is adding urgent and primary care centres. In this area of the province in particular, the most successful urgent primary care centre in Langford.
We’re adding primary care networks. I cite the ones in Prince George, the ones in Penticton that are working and making extraordinary transformational change at a local level. The support for community health centres, such as Island Sexual Health and many in the members’ ridings, which have helped sustain, support and advance community health centres….
This is a comprehensive plan, and we’re doing it methodically, step by step, community by community, working with local divisions of family practice so we’re dealing with the problems, the problems faced both by patients and doctors in the system.
I think it’s an effective response. We are doing it, as I say, in partnership with divisions of family practice. It’s why I don’t think there has ever been, overall, as good a relationship between the provincial government and doctors. I remind the member that 98.5 percent of doctors approved our latest negotiated agreement in British Columbia, which is an extraordinary success.
PROPERTY TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
T. Stone: Today in the gallery we have representatives from the Marpole and Kitsilano West 4th Avenue business improvement associations. They’re here in support of our split assessment legislation, which would provide relief to small businesses that are facing skyrocketing property taxes, literally on the undeveloped air space over their heads.
Now, I also have with me here today a July 3, 2019, briefing note for the Premier, which says, “There will be a particularly strong impact on those operating under triple-net leases and a loss of jobs,” in relation to these skyrocketing property taxes.
My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs would be this. Can the minister please explain to the small business representatives who are here in the gallery today why she has taken no action whatsoever to address the skyrocketing property taxes, which are making it very, very difficult for these businesses to continue to operate and, in fact, have resulted in lots of businesses having to close their doors?
Hon. S. Robinson: This is a critical issue for small business. It’s also a critical issue for non-profits and the arts and culture organizations. Now, I think it’s important to reflect on how we got here. We got here because of out-of-control, skyrocketing real estate prices, and that has had significant impact — absolutely.
We got here because the opposition ignored the problem for a decade. They received correspondence from, I believe, the CFIB about a decade ago saying: “Will you help us with this?” And they ignored it.
Well, we have not ignored it. We engaged with stakeholders, including Vancouver and Metro Vancouver, to look at short-term and long-term strategies to improve affordability. That’s why we are working on an interim solution for the 2020 tax year while we develop a permanent fix to this situation.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.
T. Stone: Well, the minister talks about interim solutions. She’s been aware of this issue for 2½ years, going on three years, and she’s done absolutely nothing. She talks about solutions for the future. Where is action to address the challenges these small businesses are facing?
Just yesterday we learned that the city of Vancouver is now proposing a further 8.2 percent property tax hike for the forthcoming year. The property taxes are going to go up. In the gallery with us today is Gordon Bohlmann. He’s the owner of Marpole Physiotherapy Clinic.
Gordon’s small business employs over a dozen people, and his property taxes have increased by 63 percent over the last four years. Now he’s worried about the coming tax year. He says: “I cannot sustain being taxed on the air and not what’s actually there.” There are many tragic, similar stories of small businesses facing the same dire situation.
My question again to the minister would be this. When will the minister throw small businesses a lifeline and fix this unfair tax, which is hanging over the heads of small businesses across the Lower Mainland?
Hon. S. Robinson: We are doing just that. We are making sure that for the 2020 tax year, there is some relief coming. We’re also making sure that we have a permanent fix that takes into consideration all components of this tax.
The members opposite seem to think that they have absolutely no responsibility in this, and I just want to point out that in July 2019, we heard from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business’s Samantha Howard, who says: “Despite pressure from organizations like CFIB for well over a decade, the provincial government has not made any serious effort to address the issue.” Their inaction has led to the struggles that small businesses are currently facing, and we’re fixing it.
C. Oakes: We’re proud of the fact that we’ve seen a 7.3 percent increase in small business under this government, and we’re seeing a decline in small business under that government.
Dr. Pisanu immigrated to Vancouver when he was three months old, and he is now the proud owner and operator of the Granville Dental Wellness Group, which employs 11 people. He is here today, and he says: “In three years, my taxes have increased 60 percent. This is unsustainable for a small business and cannot continue.”
Can the minister tell Dr. Pisanu: what is the interim solution, and how is she going to fix it for the 2020 tax year?
Hon. S. Robinson: I want to say to all the business owners here: “We have been listening. We’ve been hearing.” In fact, last year we invited business improvement associations and invited others to our working group so that we could make sure that we understood the exact nature of the issue, because the people on the other side didn’t even do that. They didn’t even gather people together to hear what was going on, even though they said that they were struggling….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. S. Robinson: We are taking action. We will be ready for the 2020 tax year.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.
C. Oakes: A broad coalition of stakeholders is calling on this government to address this issue before neighbourhoods are changed forever. Also in the gallery today are Ragnar Berelsen, of Ragnar Jewellers, and Donna Hohl, a fantastic owner of Coco’s Closet, a small boutique for women’s clothing. These are real people, Minister, facing unsustainable tax increases under this government.
Will the minister commit to them today that she will fix this for the 2020 tax year?
Hon. S. Robinson: They are absolutely real people, and they’re real people that the previous government ignored. We are not ignoring them. We’ve heard them loud and clear, and there will be a tax fix for the 2020 tax year.
CHILD CARE SPACES
L. Throness: Well, last week the Minister of State for Child Care sent out some details to a reporter on the so-called creation of child care spaces. But it’s clear that they’re fake spaces, because most are not actually working. Let me explain.
Out of 4,700 spaces announced as long as a year and a half ago, fewer than 1,700 are operational today. Out of nearly 6,000 spaces announced in this fiscal year, only 374 are actually working. That’s about as close to zero as you can get.
Why is the Premier and his minister misleading parents by announcing fake spaces, instead of real ones that actually deliver care to children?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. K. Chen: For many, many years, we’ve all known that parents in this province have been struggling with the child care chaos. Many of the child care operators are also finding it really hard to maintain their business with the lack of support from the previous government for 16 long years.
I don’t know where the member opposite got his numbers from, but the real….
Interjections.
Hon. K. Chen: What we have done, and I hope the member….
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. K. Chen: Well, apparently they don’t want to hear an answer.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please allow the minister to answer the question.
Minister.
Hon. K. Chen: Let me put it this way. Ever since we became government, we’ve been working hard with the sector — with child care providers, with parents, with early childhood educators — to make sure we put together a comprehensive plan to lower child care costs for the first time in B.C.’s history and accelerate the creation of child care spaces. This is the fact: under the previous government, in about four years, they funded about 4,000 spaces, and we’ve achieved 10,000 spaces in a year, in only a little over a year.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.
L. Throness: Mr. Speaker, you can always tell when the NDP are doing a lousy job, because they go on the attack. It’s predictable. It’s like clockwork.
But these are the minister’s own numbers. This government promised 24,000 new spaces over three years. Now, after two years….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the member for Chilliwack-Kent has the floor. Thank you.
L. Throness: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This government promised 24,000 new spaces over three years. Now, after two years of trying, only 2,055 spaces are actually operating. That’s 9 percent of their promise — after spending, by the way, $600 million.
Will the minister today make the following more forthright announcement: “My program has collapsed. I’ve been announcing fake spaces, not making spaces. I’m 90 percent short on my promise to parents, and I’m sorry to them”? Will the minister announce that today?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we’re eating into the opportunity for the opposition to ask more questions.
Hon. K. Chen: While it is very encouraging to hear the member opposite talking about child care, they have let the child care crisis grow for 16 long years and have not done much for it.
I am very sure the member opposite knows very well that the number that they’re throwing is incorrect. Our government has funded over 10,000 spaces in a little over a year, while they’ve funded 4,000 in four years.
Families in B.C. are struggling with the shortage of child care spaces. Early childhood educators are struggling with the lack of support. What did the critic for child care say? When he talked about early childhood educators, he said: “We might as well invest in software and machines.”
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. K. Chen: Well, we’re investing in people in this province. We have put together a comprehensive plan to lower child care fees for the first time in B.C.’s history. Living wages going down because child care fees are going down.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
LABOUR DISPUTE AT
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN
B.C.
S. Bond: Well, having failed to take any initiative on his own to resolve the dispute at UNBC, which has the potential to see students lose a semester of their education, today we have the faculty association at UNBC asking the minister to appoint a special mediator. Here is what the faculty association had to say: “Without an agreement this week, there is almost no chance of saving the semester without disrupting next semester.”
This minister has sat on his hands. He has ignored the situation at UNBC. Students, the community, faculty are upset, they are worried, and they have a very specific ask of this minister. Today, will he stand in the House, do the right thing and appoint a special mediator, as the faculty association at UNBC has asked him to do?
Hon. H. Bains: It is a situation that we were monitoring very, very closely. A mediator was involved in that dispute, and the mediator booked out, and they were still negotiating. They were bargaining as late as last night.
We all understand the dire need to have that dispute resolved. Mediators work best — and the member opposite will know — when both parties are willing and ready to participate. I have not seen the request. When I see the request….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. H. Bains: When I leave this House, if that request is there, we will seriously consider it.
Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, last week apparently the member wasn’t even sure there was a strike at UNBC. Today, despite him saying he has closely monitored the situation….
It’s been in the media for hours, Minister. Obviously, you should know that they have made a request for a special mediator.
It is his opportunity to stand in this House today and respond directly, make a commitment, get it on the public record. He’s done nothing to this point.
Here’s what the faculty association had to say. “We are heartbroken for our students whose lives are being upended.” With the help of a mediator, it said bargaining could be completed with one day of fulsome negotiations, “but without mediation, this strike could stretch on for weeks.”
Minister, it is time to stand in this House, respect the wishes of the faculty association and protect students’ education at the University of Northern British Columbia. Will he commit to appointing a special mediator now?
Hon. H. Bains: I must say, the opposition member turned a blind eye when the campuses were being closed and the students suffered.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. H. Bains: It was that party in government that slashed UNBC’s budget by $1.3 million. That’s the mess that we inherited. That’s the mess that both parties are trying to deal with.
We are going to work with those parties. We are going to take their requests seriously, and we’ll make that decision in due course.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled Caught in the Middle, November 2019, from the Representative for Children and Youth.
Reports from Committees
CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMMISSIONER
APPOINTMENT
COMMITTEE
R. Leonard: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
R. Leonard: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
R. Leonard: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I’d like to make some brief comments.
This report constitutes the committee’s unanimous recommendation that the Hon. Victoria Gray, QC, be appointed as B.C.’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
Over the last several months, the committee carried out a thoughtful and comprehensive recruitment process. Committee members were incredibly impressed by the calibre of candidates who put their names forward for the position of Conflict of Interest Commissioner and their shared interest in preserving public confidence in our democratic institutions.
In coming to our decision, committee members were particularly impressed by Ms. Gray’s commitment, engagement and interest in public service, justice and community. Along with her legal and professional background, she brings a broad lens and perspective to ethical responsibilities and integrity. The committee is confident that she will serve well all members, the Legislative Assembly and the province.
On behalf of all Members of the Legislative Assembly, I would like to take this opportunity to honour and recognize former commissioner Paul Fraser, who sadly passed away in March. Mr. Fraser served as commissioner for over ten years and was a strong voice and guiding hand for members.
I would also like to thank Hon. Lynn Smith for her service as acting commissioner over the last several months, and thank all the staff at the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner for their continued dedication to the office.
I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Deputy Chair, the member for Kelowna-Mission, and all committee members for their work on this committee. It was a very collaborative and positive experience, and we worked diligently on behalf of all members on this recruitment.
I know I also speak for all committee members in sharing what an honour and privilege it was to be part of this process. I want to particularly thank the support from staff at the Clerk’s office, in particular Kate Ryan-Lloyd and Karan Riarh.
I’d also like to invite you, Mr. Speaker, and all Members of the Legislative Assembly in welcoming Ms. Gray as well as thanking the acting commissioner and the office staff at an informal drop-in at the Hemlock Room, on the first floor, from 11:30 to 12:30 today.
S. Thomson: I’d just like to add a few comments as well and add my support and the support of the official opposition for the recommendation that’s in the report to appoint Hon. Justice Victoria Gray to the position of B.C.’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner and echo the comments of the member for Courtenay-Comox in the fact that it was a very, very difficult choice for the committee. We had a tremendous range of expertise and commitment to public service in the candidates we interviewed, and all of them, I think, would have made great conflict of interest commissioners for the province.
We were honoured to participate in the process and are encouraged by the commitment of all of the candidates who brought their names forward to serve the public and to protect this democratic institution. Justice Victoria Gray, I know, will maintain that commitment on behalf of all members and the province. We’re confident, as the member for Courtenay-Comox said, that she will serve all of us as members in this Legislative Assembly and the public of British Columbia very, very well in her new role, and we look forward to working with her.
I also want to thank the committee members, the Chair, the Clerk’s office and all of those who put their names forward for this very, very important position as one of the statutory officers, the independent officers of the Legislature. I also thank Lynn Smith for her work in serving as our acting commissioner during the interim period while we undertook our important work.
I’m pleased, on behalf of the official opposition, to support the recommendation in the report.
Mr. Speaker: The question is adoption of the report.
Motion approved.
Motions Without Notice
APPOINTMENT OF
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
COMMISSIONER
Hon. J. Horgan: By leave, I move:
[That this House recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council the appointment of Hon. Victoria Gray, Q.C., as an officer of the Legislative Assembly to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, for a term of five years, effective January 6, 2020, pursuant to section 14 of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act (RSBC 1996, Chapter 287).]
Leave granted.
Motion approved.
Petitions
D. Ashton: I have a petition to present to the Legislature. I rise today to present to this Legislature a petition that has been created in every province in Canada and presented to the respective legislatures with the request to ensure adequate driver training for those acquiring a class 1 drivers licence to drive semi-trailers.
This petition I am presenting has been started here in British Columbia, home to some of the most challenging mountain regions in Canada, by a British Columbia mother who lost her son in that terrible bus crash in Humboldt, Saskatchewan.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 42, Fuel Price Transparency Act. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 41, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
[J. Isaacs in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 42 — FUEL PRICE
TRANSPARENCY
ACT
Hon. B. Ralston: I move that Bill 42 be read a second time now.
As anyone who drives a gas-powered automobile can attest, it’s very frustrating to watch the price of gasoline shoot up for no reason whatsoever. Frankly, many members of the chamber have heard from their constituents, who are tired of feeling like they’re being gouged whenever they fill up their vehicles.
Bill 42 sends a clear message to oil and gas companies. You will no longer be allowed to set your gas prices in total secrecy. In its investigation into the province’s high fuel prices, the B.C. Utilities Commission found that there was an unexplained discrepancy of up to 13 cents per litre. The industry, although given an opportunity in a supplemental report…. The first report came out on August 30. The second report — again, conducted and managed by the B.C. Utilities Commission — reported back earlier this month.
But the industry, despite being offered that opportunity, failed to explain this markup, which, by BCUC’s calculations, added an extra $490 million a year being paid unnecessarily by British Columbians. The unexplained price difference ranged from six cents per litre in northern British Columbia to 13 cents in greater Vancouver. This is money that belongs in the pockets of British Columbians, not in the coffers of the big oil and gas companies.
The BCUC and its analysis concluded that the price of all gasoline is driven by the cost of the most expensive 5 percent of our supply, which comes from Washington state. Let me just read one passage from the report. The report says: “Thus, the market price for gasoline is being set by the cost…to acquire approximately 3 to 5 percent of the total gasoline required in British Columbia.” What they’re referring to there is the Pacific Northwest spot price, which is the primary determinate of Vancouver wholesale prices. So south of the border, although only 5 percent of the gasoline is acquired there, this price sets the price for all of the gasoline pricing structure in British Columbia.
The commission goes on to say that this phenomenon has been labelled “the tail wagging the dog.” It’s really no wonder that British Columbians have the feeling that they’re being ripped off every time they fill up their vehicles at the gas station.
The Fuel Price Transparency Act will create a level of accountability to British Columbians that has not existed before. The act will allow the Utilities Commission to collect information that will shed light on how gas companies set their pump prices and make it available to the public. Included in the public is, of course, consumer and watchdog groups.
Now, the official opposition continues to defend those in the oil industry and has opposed any attempt to get to the bottom of record-high gas prices. The day the fuel transparency act was introduced, Liberal members questioned the bill, because apparently they were concerned that the oil and gas companies might not approve of it.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has accused the government of making up “demons,” even though the BCUC investigation showed very clearly that people are paying more than they should for fuel.
We recognize that this bill alone will not guarantee a reduction in gas prices for consumers. But by legislating this kind of transparency, we will pull back the curtain on the way gasoline prices are set in this province. It will force companies to come clean on those mysterious sharp price markups that are all too common here in British Columbia. By removing the veil of secrecy, the companies will be publicly accountable for unfair markups that they’ve never, up till now, had to explain.
We’ll also produce, most importantly, a common set of facts, allowing us to properly evaluate other policy measures to bring fairness to the price at the pump. If there’s a reason for charging British Columbians a 13-cent premium, the oil companies will have to justify it.
I look forward to the debate on this bill.
J. Sturdy: I do appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill 42, the Fuel Price Transparency Act.
I do think it is fair to say that the public has been expressing frustration with fuel prices in British Columbia, especially relative to neighboring jurisdictions like the one just south of us, Washington state. The minister just referenced the spot price. We’ll talk a little bit later about what some of the prices are in the United States, especially relative to those jurisdictions like Alberta and Washington state. The public would like to have some more confidence that we do have a competitive fuels market, and some transparency would be welcome.
It’s certainly clear to me that my constituents do not have that confidence. In West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, we straddle Metro Vancouver and a TransLink jurisdiction, as well as the Squamish-Lillooet regional district, where the TransLink 18.5-cent transit levy is not in effect.
As reported in the Squamish Chief on November 10: “Gasbuddy shows that on Sunday, gas in Squamish was $1.449 per litre, while in Vancouver it was $1.319.” So to expand on that, probably a little more clarity on that example, gas on that day was 18½ cents cheaper in Vancouver than in Squamish. To add insult to injury, if the 18.5-cent TransLink levy was backed out of the price, theoretically, the price in Squamish arguably could have been in the $1.79-to-$1.10 range or 37 cents a litre less in Squamish than in Vancouver, which is a $25-to-$30 per-tank cost.
Over the years, I have been personally working on this particular issue in the region where I live, dating back to my time as the mayor of Pemberton, in 2005, and looking at some of those input costs and understanding that the cost of transportation, of that fuel into the Sea to Sky — in this case, to Pemberton — was approximately half a cent a litre. Certainly, the cost of transportation in this case was not an excuse. That might have increased over time, but certainly, not to account for that discrepancy.
On Sunday, November 10, 40 to 50 residents of Squamish were so incensed, and rightly so, that they protested these outrageous price differentials in front of gas stations along Highway 99. Even today — or this was actually the day before yesterday, I think — seven to ten cents a litre more expensive in Squamish than in the North Shore. Yet when the 18½ cent TransLink differential or levy is backed out, it again should be significantly cheaper in the Sea to Sky. It’s not. Clearly, we have a problem both real and perceived.
I quote from the minister in reference to the legislation. “This legislation brings us greater transparency at the gas pumps and sends a message to the oil and gas companies that the days of setting your…prices in secrecy are coming to an end.” Well, I most certainly believe that my constituents would hope it to be true. But I am concerned that the minister is vastly overstating the outcome of this legislation.
In committee, it will certainly be interesting, and we will be interested in exploring what the minister actually intends to do with this enabling legislation. It is clear that if passed, the legislation will hinge on the “general or special directions of the minister,” which the administrator will be required to act within. In other words, the devil will be in the details as to what the administrator is tasked to do.
Is it the intention of the minister to look at refining capacity and the cost to refine this product? Does the minister intend to ask the administrator to look at the wholesale pricing structure — perhaps the retail pricing structure, which would obviously be a very significantly larger task? Perhaps the distribution network — is that a component of what the minister would task the administrator with looking at? What about the issues related to fuel types and availability or lack thereof of blended fuels and of the low-carbon fuel standard?
Again, what about the issues of provincial and federal taxation? While the minister has suggested that taxes are fixed, in some respects, I could agree that it is a bit of a fix, a fix in terms of provincial taxation at the highest level of any jurisdiction in North America. That is a fix, all right. It’s also worth noting that there is a potential for taxes on taxes, which are applied at variable cost of goods at various levels. In other words, the tax costs at the pump can vary and do vary depending on the cost of fuels.
Will the minister continue to give government a free pass on the issue of taxation and deny to the public what the minister has described for the private sector as…? I believe the minister referred to it as the best detergent is sunlight. I think, in fact, he’s corrected himself now and understands that this was a reference from a Supreme Court justice. What was the full quote? “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light, the most effective policeman.” There is hope that we will see a better illustration, a better understanding of the circumstances that we find ourselves in.
But we do need to look at the whole range of issues, not the least of which is taxation. The question is: will the minister allow — in fact, to build the confidence of the public — the administrator to look at the effects of taxation on the price of fuels in British Columbia, especially in relation to our jurisdictional neighbours in Washington and Alberta? Yesterday the price of gas in Washington was 85 cents a litre, albeit U.S.; in Alberta, 95 cents a litre.
Of course, there is the obvious and overall issue of the supply side. The availability of wholesale product has to be thoroughly canvassed. While B.C. typically consumes approximately 214,000 barrels of fuel a day — which frankly, was a surprising number to me, 214,000 barrels a day — yet we only, in British Columbia, have a refining capacity of 67,000 barrels. It’s hard to avoid the principle of supply and demand in relation to price in an equation that suggests that scarcity is an important, if not the most important, variable.
What we hope, although honestly despair of, is that Bill 42 is a cynical attempt to kick the can down the road. Let’s look at the timeline here. We could see regulation in the spring — and, potentially, a limited scope for the administrator that only looks at a narrow slice of the cost drivers — and then six months to a year for the administrator to do the work.
I think the minister will acknowledge that for the last task that the BCUC looked at, it took five to six months and didn’t fully explain the pricing structures and didn’t have the mechanisms that this proposed piece of legislation has, which will take additional time to bring out information.
Then the government, of course, would be spending some time with the report before the public gets access to it. Or that’s been the modus operandi for the last several years. We look at…. I think for the Massey Tunnel re-study, the minister sat on it for six months or so.
Hey up there.
Deputy Speaker: Member.
May we ask the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan to seek leave for making an introduction?
D. Routley: May I seek leave to make an introduction?
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome — and I thank the member for this privilege — and thank the students of Gabriola Elementary and their teacher Lukas Laurie. Thirty people are visiting the House.
It’s fantastic to see you here. I’ll see you out there. I hope you’re learning a lot.
I thank the member again for allowing this intervention.
Welcome.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Please proceed.
Debate Continued
J. Sturdy: We were talking about the receipt of a report and, historically, the time it takes for that report to be assessed by government, which in the case of either the Massey or the Redlin report on B.C. Ferries was between six months and a year. I mean, really, we’re talking about at least a year and a half to two years before we see any action, potentially.
But then it begs the question: then what? Both the Premier and the Minister of Trade have hinted that the next steps could be that government would regulate gas prices. It’s true that if this government, who believes they know best about how you should live and how business would work…. This is not a particularly big surprise.
This government has exhibited a certain arrogance with regard to…. It appears tempted to be the big and controlling hand of government, despite there being little evidence that the strategy is effective. In fact, the BCUC, in their earlier report this fall, warned that government price fixing reduces the incentive to invest in the sector, so it could have unintended and unfortunate consequences.
According to Werner Antweiler, an economist at the University of British Columbia, as quoted in the Vancouver Star, there is, relative to government price fixing, “no relief on the horizon as far as prices are concerned.” He called the idea of government price fixing “benign.” The quote is: “‘The bottom line is that it is neither going to make gas cheaper nor more expensive,’ he said. ‘Oil companies won’t be much worse off. On the other hand, motorists aren’t going to be better off….’ Meanwhile, the law won’t address the fundamental economic factor driving up prices, which he argued is supply and demand.”
So if this legislation is passed and implemented, the process, as we understand it, would appear to be that the minister, through OIC, or order-in-council, would appoint an administrator. I think the indication is that that administrator would be the BCUC, although it’s not clear in the legislation. The administrator will report to the minister, as the minister requires, in accordance with any general or specific directions from the minister. In other words, the minister sets the terms of reference.
The minister will require submissions to the administrator on a periodic basis or a requested basis, which is logical and makes sense. There are certainly refining capacities that are relatively stable and understood, as opposed to large wholesale swings over a short period which would acquire additional and requested inputs and information.
The responsible person, which would be the companies, I suppose, is to provide any and all data requested, whether commercially sensitive or not, on a scheduled period or any time about anything that the administrator wants. Then the responsible person needs to maintain records for five years.
What’s interesting, with regard to the administrator, is that they may or may not publish whatever they want — protected information, trade secrets. They may publish, as per this legislation, if they are satisfied that the public interest in any protected information disclosed outweighs the potential harm to responsible persons relative to the competitiveness of the market for reportable fuels and public confidence in the competitive market. So it is a pretty draconian piece of legislation that requires that any and all information be submitted when necessary or when requested.
It’s interesting, too, that for whatever reason, the legislation has a component to it which is somewhat unique and highlights that there is an ability, or an opportunity, for the administrator, or their agents I suppose, to enter into a private dwelling to seize records.
I thought it was odd that there would be a consideration, I suppose, that Suncor would be keeping a second set of books in somebody’s basement, but regardless…. And I wasn’t sure that that was actually a necessary piece, because I would have thought that they could have been compelled to provide the information otherwise. Certainly, the penalties are fairly significant, and that would be a significant risk, as the administrator may impose penalties, through filings in court, of $1 million per day — not instance but per day — or six months in jail, or both.
The devil will certainly be in the details of ministerial direction and terms of reference provided to the administrator. Will those terms of reference be limited to wholesale or include retail? Will they include special fuel standards requirements for B.C. — i.e., the low-carbon fuel standard — and the cost of supplying those types of fuels? Will the minister include in the terms of reference the range of taxes, be it fixed or variable, including PST and GST?
The whole issue of wholesale supply. This whole initiative or the direction to the administrator could be broad or narrow, small and simple or complex. Then it begs the question, with regard to the outcome: what then? What are the options? Really, what are the options that this government has for enhancing competitiveness? It seems clear that lack of supply affects the competitive nature of the market here in British Columbia, but what are we going to do about it? Or what are the minister and the Premier intending to do about it? Build a refinery perhaps? I know the Premier has speculated on that. Lower taxes? Or perhaps, goodness knows, you could build a pipeline.
British Columbians have been expressing their frustration with record-high gas prices in our province, and it is rather disappointing that the Premier hasn’t accomplished anything on this file. It’s hard to see how this bill will change that. He’s promised again and again to make life more affordable, but we still have some of, if not the, highest gas prices in North America. Unfortunately, today’s legislation is unlikely to change that.
Six months ago the Premier promised relief for drivers, and a year and a half ago he said he had a “range of options” to deal with high gas prices. So far, all we have to show for this bravado is a rigged review into the causes of high gas prices, which barred the BCUC from examining the impacts of big taxes and restrictive policies. Government policies do play a crucial role, not the least of which is opposing pipeline capacity to carry fuels.
The Premier and the NDP have spent considerable taxpayer money on lawyers and lawsuits to continue legal challenges against the Trans Mountain pipeline, all with a notable lack of success in court, although probably and likely, the government would argue that they’ve had some success with their political base. It’s no small irony that the NDP is opposing the Trans Mountain pipeline — and has for several years — but now they want the federal government to arbitrarily increase supply on that same pipeline.
Keeping this inconsistent approach in mind, British Columbians, as I mentioned earlier, consume 214,000 barrels of refined petroleum product a day. B.C. has two refineries. The Tidewater Midstream and Infrastructure in Prince George — otherwise known, historically, as Husky; it was sold this fall — with a capacity of 12,000 barrels a day, which is, in the scheme of things, pretty much minuscule relative to refinery capacity around the world. That’s in Prince George. Then Parkland, in Burnaby, with 55,000 barrels a day. So a combined capacity of 67,000 barrels a day, which means that relative to the 215,000 barrels a day that we consume, the two refineries can’t come close to meeting the demands of British Columbia.
Obvious to most, if not all, is that most of the gasoline consumed in British Columbia comes from Alberta, primarily through the Trans Mountain pipeline. Although this government has been doing everything it can to stop the increase in capacity for this very same pipeline, let’s look at what the Premier has to say about refineries.
In May 2018, he said: “Let’s make more refined gasoline here.” That was in Business in Vancouver in May 2018. Then in April 2019, he said he didn’t want a refinery here. He wanted it in Alberta. “I would suggest Alberta has more expertise in this area, and it might be a better place for new refining capacity.” That was in the Vancouver Sun on April 26, 2019. Then the Premier said: “No, hold on. Not in Alberta.” Let’s build more refineries in the land of his bro, Gov. Jay Inslee. “When we talk about more refining capacity, not in the Lower Mainland but somewhere in North America — perhaps to the south of us,” by which I believe he meant Washington state. That was in Hansard in April.
Most people understand that refineries take billions and billions of dollars and many years to build, if at all. I think we just need to ask Mr. David Black about that. The simple fact is that the Premier says the market isn’t competitive enough but has no or few suggestions — no realistic suggestions, anyway — as to how to increase that competition.
When we look at this as a package — look at suggestions around refining capacity, the obstacles put in place of the expansion of capacity on the Trans Mountain pipeline, the limited scope of assessments done in the past and the potential for those same limitations going forward — it is very tempting to paraphrase Macbeth with regard to a tale “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
The proposed bill demands the whole fuel supply chain hand over their data secrets with no recourse. It does beg the question: even if they get that information — and I’m sure there will be some challenges to that — what is the government going to do with it? How is it going to increase supply and develop a competitive market? At the end of the day, the bill produces paper, more reports, more delay and few benefits.
As we know, high gas prices affect so many peoples’ lives. It means each of us will pay more at the pump. It means those higher gas prices have an effect on the economy in general. It changes how much money people have in their pockets at the end of the day to spend on other things. It means it affects how kids get to school and how employees get to work. It impacts how business transports their goods to markets and receives the materials, and the cost of the materials that they need to use in their businesses. It means it impacts the hiring practices as a reflection of business confidence, which continues, unfortunately, its precipitous decline.
An interesting fact is that business confidence in this province is the lowest it has been since the 2008-2009 recession, and that is a low low. According to Abacus data presented to the B.C. Chamber of Commerce a couple of weeks ago, 49 percent of businesses say that their confidence in the B.C. economy has declined. What has changed? So 79 percent say the cost of doing business has worsened, 46 percent of businesses say the regulatory burden has worsened, and 45 percent say the tax burden has worsened. Certainly, the impact of fuels and fuel supply have affected that business confidence.
This legislation may be seen simply as an exercise to delay any action for a year or two and then blame someone else for the misses of this government. This legislation may be seen as an exercise to deflect responsibility and deny real action that can make a difference, and that, fundamentally, is increasing supply and increasing competition.
We do need real action to provide relief for B.C. drivers and B.C. families, and unfortunately, I don’t see this legislation as moving the needle. I do look forward to committee stage and to diving a little bit deeper into the bill. I look forward to exploring it more deeply.
S. Furstenau: I’m happy today to speak to Bill 42, the Fuel Price Transparency Act. The B.C. Green caucus has been concerned with the arbitrarily high prices of gas and the financial challenges that these prices place on British Columbians, especially those facing long commutes. In fact, this is exacerbated because many British Columbians have been forced to move out of the central parts of our cities because of the affordability crisis, and as a result, their commutes have gotten longer.
This is an affordability issue and a quality of life issue. People are forced to spend more time in their cars so have less time to spend with their families, engage with their communities, have rest, recreation, leisure, time to reflect. So while I think that transparency in gas prices is important so that British Columbians can know why oil companies are charging drivers a premium at the pump here in British Columbia, I don’t think government can stop there.
Government needs to continue to take strong action on the affordability crisis so people can actually live where they work and aren’t forced to spend hours of every day in their cars. Government also needs to make a shift to an accessible, affordable and high-quality public transit system so that getting out of the car is a real option for people across the province, because while it may be a good option for those living in town or in major cities, the public transportation service simply isn’t there for many, many people in our province.
British Columbians are trying to do their best to do their part to combat climate change and establish systems to support alternate transportation networks through modest gas taxes, but the province really does need to be taking a leadership role here.
So let’s look back to the bill. This bill will collect information from oil and gas companies on the market conditions involved in setting gasoline prices and allow British Columbians to see the factors that commit to those prices. British Columbians deserve to know and understand why oil companies are charging us a premium and causing the financial stress that they are.
The B.C. Green caucus applauds the fact that this bill does assure more transparency. The inquiry started by the B.C. Utilities Commission has identified a price gap that needs explanation. That starts with having the ability to gather the information it needs to inform why consumers are facing, so far, an unexplained extra cost for gasoline. If this is simply price gouging or oil companies padding profits on the backs of B.C., then additional steps absolutely need to be taken.
Long-term, however, the best solutions lie in expanding our provincial investments into a more comprehensive and robust mass transit system, encouraging active transportation and continuing the focused investment in electric vehicles. All of this is about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels where we can, which will also reduce costs that we currently pay.
The sooner our province transitions from its dependency on oil and gas by investing in a more comprehensive and robust mass transit system, encouraging alternative modes of transportation like cycling and walking, and continuing its investment in electric vehicles, the better. Ultimately, we need to create a culture less oriented around gas-powered vehicles so we can have a more livable future, and we need government to make this transformation a priority.
Government needs to invest in high-quality, affordable and accessible public transit to make this a real option for British Columbians across the province, because it simply is not feasible for so many to go without a car today in so many parts of British Columbia.
I look at the Cowichan Valley. We have many thousands of people who make the commute over the Malahat every single day to come to the capital regional district to work. There are buses in the morning, very early, that go from the north to the south over the Malahat and get you to work, and there are buses in the afternoon that come from Victoria back up to Cowichan. Those are the only options for public transportation.
If your work schedule doesn’t align perfectly with the schedule of these commuter buses, which are full, meaning there is a high demand for these commuter buses, then you can’t have that option. The only option left to you is to be in a car and driving over the Malahat and spending your time on the highway, on the Trans-Canada, between Langford and Victoria, often an hour in that stretch just to get into town.
I recognize that Cowichan is very symptomatic of much of the rest of the province. When I travel into regions in rural B.C., often the number one issue we hear about from people who live in those regions is the lack of access to public transportation. They can’t get from the smaller communities into the bigger cities and towns in order to get to doctors’ appointments or in order to get to other appointments that they have, because there simply doesn’t exist the option of public transportation.
If we’re going to be serious about recognizing how much transportation contributes to our greenhouse gas emissions, we have to be serious about creating the options that people would have access to, to use those transportation systems. As we have an aging demographic, more and more people will find that they can’t use their vehicles anymore, and they are left without the options of how to get around. This is a very significant issue.
I met last week with the B.C. Poverty Reduction Coalition, who made a compelling case for prioritizing affordable and accessible public transit around B.C., including improving service levels, free transit for youth and a sliding scale for low-income adults. Then we start to address not just transportation issues and not just greenhouse gas emission issues; we start to address poverty issues, because being able to access transportation is an essential ingredient in being able to be an active part of the economy.
I learned from the B.C. Poverty Reduction Coalition that we’re the only jurisdiction in the Pacific Northwest that doesn’t offer a cheaper fare for low-income adults. This restricts their ability to support their children, to get to work or to appointments or to participate in their communities.
As I mentioned, this is both a poverty reduction tool and an environmental tool — the two go hand in hand. We should take this holistic, integrated approach to transportation. It is transportation that knits our communities together.
The other area that needs continued government action is to make zero-emission vehicles a viable option for British Columbians. I’m happy to see that B.C. is leading the country in uptake on zero-emission vehicles and also noticing that there is a pretty significant demand on the infrastructure to be able to charge these vehicles. More and more, if you look around, those charging stations around our cities and towns are occupied a lot of the time.
In the short-term, this means helping to reduce the cost of electric vehicles for families, building the supporting charging infrastructure and setting up a regulatory regime that helps facilitate the shift from gas-powered engines to zero-emission vehicles.
I’d also say that we want to be looking at: how do we facilitate better vehicle-sharing in our communities? Not relying on companies that come in and look to make a profit, but how do we facilitate, as a province and as a government, the capacity for community-based cooperative car-sharing in our communities that supports our communities, reduces our costs, reduces our emissions and brings us together in our communities?
Recently B.C. scored top marks on Efficiency Canada’s Provincial Energy Efficiency Scorecard and listed the electric vehicle programs as some of the best practices in the country. However, the province only earned a C-minus, and as the students from Mount Prevost who are currently in the gallery will know, a C-minus isn’t really all that great — 56 points out of a possible 100.
According to the scorecard, we need to renew a commitment to saving electricity in order to support CleanBC’s vehicle electrification agenda. B.C. needs to follow in the footsteps of the U.K. and the European Union, which are both making significant advancements in renewable energy, ending funding for fossil fuel energy projects and transitioning their public transit systems to electric.
Renewable energy has been making a breakthrough in the U.K. The third quarter of this year was the first where more electricity was generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels. Next year London will have 20 hydrogen double-decker buses that will run alongside electric buses in a new ultra-low-emission zone. London is making huge strides to make the city carbon-neutral by 2050. That includes electrification of London’s bus network, bringing more electric vehicles to the city and making the Tube, the underground transportation system, carbon-neutral.
The U.K.’s public transit system is an example B.C. should work to follow. We need to offer more accessible, affordable and high-quality transit that British Columbians can easily and proudly rely on.
The European Investment Bank recently adopted a strategy to end funding for fossil fuel energy projects, and the bank will not consider new financing of unabated fossil fuels, including natural gas, from the end of 2021. This is in stark contrast to British Columbia, where just this spring 83 out of 87 members of this House voted to give a significant subsidy to the fossil fuel industry by way of a close to $6 billion subsidy to LNG Canada.
This prioritization of energy efficiency that’s happening in the U.K. and the European Union and the focus on renewable energy projects are part of the broader push across the European Union to fight climate change, syncing their climate ambition with the Paris Agreement. This prioritization is outlined in the European Commission report on the electrification of the transport system, noting that to achieve the European GHG emissions targets, they will need a 50 percent reduction of conventionally fuelled cars in urban transport by 2030 and phasing them out in cities by 2050, as well as achieving essentially carbon-dioxide-free city logistics in major urban centres by 2030.
Just as I was listening to the comments from the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, I was looking at today’s news from the United Nations — the emissions gap report that came out. The world is on track for over 3 degrees of warming. Levels of CO2 continue to rise — increased levels of 1.5 percent annually over the past decades. Canada’s 2030 emissions forecast is 592 megatonnes, missing the goal of 511 megatonnes that we would have to meet if we were to meet our Paris targets.
Global warming of 3 degrees indicates that we will lose all of our coral reefs. Millions around the world will face poverty, flooding. The authors of the report said that significant portions of the world will become unlivable. Anne Olhoff, one of the authors, said that this is definitely not a world we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren. It’s not a world we want.
Taking all of this into account, I think this bill is a step towards transparency and accountability in the oil and gas sector. However, I would like this government to recognize that it’s not enough to shine a light on why British Columbians are paying more for gas. We have to recognize that in all of the work we do, we have a duty, over the next decade, to transform the economy and transform British Columbia to ensure that the world we are leaving for our children and grandchildren is a world that they can be grateful to us for, not one that they will have to endure because we didn’t make the decisions that we need to make right now.
With that, I will say that our caucus will support this bill but, as ever, remind the government that we need to focus on the bigger picture at hand, which is the transformation of our economy.
B. D’Eith moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Dix: I’m looking forward to seeing everybody at 1:30. I move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
Deputy Speaker: This House is adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:56 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; S. Malcolmson in the chair.
The committee met at 11:20 a.m.
On section 2 (continued).
Hon. S. Fraser: If my recollection is correct, we’re on article 36 of the UN declaration. We’ve been reviewing the individual articles. The question was…. I will try to answer the question in three parts. And I want to thank those behind me who have done the work to actually come up with the answers for the specific issues — softwood lumber, the Columbia treaty and the Skagit Valley treaty. I’ll do them in that order, if that’s all right with the member.
Canada, several lumber-producing provinces, including British Columbia, and industry have been in the countervailing duty and anti-dumping duty litigation with the United States for the last three years. That litigation is ongoing with the U.S. courts under the North America Free Trade Agreement and before the World Trade Organization, and Canada leads that litigation. Canada negotiates trade agreements with other countries and would lead any further negotiations with the U.S. It’s premature in the midst of litigation to speculate as to what shape or form hypothetical future negotiations might take.
When it comes to the Columbia River treaty, the Columbia River treaty is a transboundary water management agreement between Canada and the United States. It was ratified in 1964. A review of that treaty is currently occurring between the two parties. It is the federal government that has the responsibility for conducting these negotiations, and it is Canada that decides on the roles of other parties on the Canadian negotiating team. Canada decided to involve three Indigenous groups at the negotiating sessions: the Ktunaxa Nation, as represented by the Ktunaxa Nation Council, the Secwépemc Nation, as represented by the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, and the Syilx Nation, as represented by the Okanagan Nation Alliance. The province of B.C. is also participating in these negotiations.
When it comes to the Skagit River treaty, the Swinomish Indian tribal council in the United States has provided correspondence to the province of British Columbia to halt the exploratory activities by Imperial Metals Corp. in a particular area located between Skagit Valley Provincial Park in Washington state and the E.C. Manning Provincial Park in B.C. and to support the effort led by the Skagit environmental endowment fund to buy the mineral rights and to reclassify the area adjoining it with the adjacent E.C Manning Provincial Park.
The Swinomish Indian tribal council raised a number of concerns with this mining exploration activity, including downstream effects of any development in this area, which could impose a threat to water quality in the upper Skagit River, impacting their treaty right to fish in the Skagit River. Given the concern about potential downstream impacts of this proposed activity on the treaty right to fish, the province, through the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, has consulted with the Swinomish Nation tribal council about these proposed exploration activities. The province is also consulting numerous Indigenous groups based in B.C. about potential impact to their Aboriginal rights and title interests. It is not uncommon for the province to consult with U.S.-based groups, where proposed projects in B.C. may have downstream impacts that could affect them.
The bill that’s before us today, Bill 41, would not change this approach. Suffice it to say, these cross-border, international border issues are generally the jurisdiction of Canada, but certainly B.C. believes that First Nations should play a role. But the ultimate decision of who’s at the table, I believe, still rests with the federal government.
M. de Jong: To the minister, that is a helpful answer in terms of understanding the approach. The first two examples I gave touch on matters for which there is clearly a shared jurisdiction within Canada, the international trade function falling squarely to the federal government to take the lead in those bilateral, and sometimes multilateral, negotiations.
But the subject matters themselves, having a component of provincial responsibility in the case of the softwood lumber, of course, forestry and the management of the forest resource falling squarely within the realm of provincial constitutional authority, it does make for a complicated negotiation domestically within Canada, to be sure, because all of the other provinces play a role as well. It’s obviously got an importance in B.C.
I won’t belabour this, but the minister has made the point that Canada leads the negotiations in softwood. I think my question looks ahead, and the minister says it’s speculative at this point. But of course, much of what we’ve discussed is speculative in terms of the conversations that might take place with First Nations. I don’t think any of us have objected to that aspect of the debate.
There is a history. The speculation is guided by the history on this file. We have had two kinds of trade deals. One imposes a border tax as a way of managing the flow of goods from B.C. and Canada to the United States. The other has been a quota that regulates the amount of product that can flow from Canada and B.C. into the United States.
In the latter example, which we are told has been very much a point of discussion at the negotiating table, it falls to the province to assign the quota to operators within B.C. I think my question is: to what degree the minister….
Given the spirit and the essence of what is contained within article 36, were the province placed in that position again as a result of an agreement signed off on by the federal government with the United States — where the province was put in a position where it was obliged to assign quota — is there a new dimension to that that would not have existed the last time the province was assigning quota? And that is an Aboriginal dimension.
There are, for a variety of positive reasons, I would suggest, more First Nations involved in the forest sector that will have a direct interest and maybe more that want to get into that sector.
Does the incorporation of the UN declaration in the matter contemplated by Bill 41 add an additional layer of consideration for a provincial government going forward, were it obliged to assign trade quota to the forest sector in B.C.?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. The scenario that he has cited about quota actually isn’t settled at this time. So I can’t really comment directly about that. But we don’t anticipate that Bill 41 will change our approach to cross-border treaty discussions, including this one.
M. de Jong: Okay, that is an answer, and I appreciate the minister providing the answer with respect to his view on softwood lumber negotiations.
The Columbia River treaty, of course, has a level of importance that relates both to the management of a river — and the environmental considerations related to that — and a fiscal dimension. The treaty has generated hundreds of millions — dare I say billions? — of dollars over the life of its existence. My recollection is that B.C. is a signatory to the treaty. But we should confirm that before I ask one or two more questions.
Hon. S. Fraser: It’s our understanding that it was ratified between Canada and the United States back in 1964.
M. de Jong: Yeah, I have a distinct recollection of the photos of President Johnson, Prime Minister Pearson and Premier W.A.C. Bennett. The reason I posed the question, of course, is because the hydroelectric resource that is very much a part of the essence of the treaty is a matter that falls very much within the ambit and constitutional jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia.
I took it, from the minister’s answer, though, that in the post–Bill 41 world, were there to be any difference in the type of involvement by First Nations to what is taking place today around the negotiating table, that would exclusively be a decision of the federal government. The province is not contemplating any change whatsoever in the role played by First Nations with respect to the work being undertaken on the Columbia River treaty.
Hon. S. Fraser: Correct.
M. de Jong: Then, finally, the minister’s answer to the question around the Skagit River treaty was again helpful. He made the point that Bill 41 and passage of Bill 41 wouldn’t change the approach taken by the province. He did say something, though, that prompted me to at least pose this question to the minister.
Do the passage of Bill 41 and the application of the declaration, as contemplated by Bill 41 and the provisions of article 36, alter the relationship between the province and First Nations or Indigenous peoples outside of British Columbia’s borders? We tend to talk about that in terms of our obligations within the province, but of course, the declaration speaks of an obligation of signatory states, and we are about to be more than just a signatory state by virtue of Bill 41.
The minister, to be clear and to be fair, talked about work that has taken place between the province and the Snohomish in the case of the Skagit River and the consultation that has taken place. Do the provisions of article 36 within the declaration, to the mind of the government and the minister, change or create a different dimension to the relationship between the province and First Nations located outside of British Columbia’s borders, particularly our international border?
Hon. S. Fraser: If I can have leave to jump ahead to section 3 for a moment, in Bill 41, section 3 states: “In consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia” — it’s the key piece here — “the government must take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration.” So my specific referral to section 3 and the term “Indigenous peoples in British Columbia” I think clarifies that issue, which we can discuss in the next section.
That being said, as I mentioned previously, it’s not uncommon for the province to engage with U.S.-based groups, including First Nations, that may have downstream impacts. That process won’t be affected at all.
M. de Jong: Okay. That’s helpful. I won’t belabour this. There is certainly the question of the jurisdiction that the province has and those matters for which it’s responsible. I took the essence of the declaration to include the notion that beyond the constitutional elements of this, signatory states were accepting of an approach and an obligation that transcended their immediate borders. But the minister has clarified what his and the government’s view on that matter is.
Let’s move ahead, then, to article 37. Just two points to explore here with the minister. He may recall that a day or two ago — I think it was two days ago — in these discussions, I posed the question about whether or not the government considered a treaty, particularly a modern-day treaty — to represent full, prior, informed consent — as satisfying that obligation. We had a discussion about that, and I don’t propose to reopen that here.
But I did feel an obligation to ask the minister, on behalf of the government, whether he felt that the passage of Bill 41, incorporating the declaration as it does, would trigger or could trigger a reopening of any existing treaties.
Hon. S. Fraser: The answer is no.
M. de Jong: I’m just going to go to the section of the debate that took place at the Senate standing committee, where the Assistant Deputy Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, federally, I think supported the minister’s view in that regard. The quote here at page 5542: “…the government’s view” — in that case, the federal government’s view — “remains that the agreements that we enter into with Indigenous peoples are the best example of the implementation of the concept of free, prior and informed consent. Those agreements all go through a process that involves community ratification. So no, we don’t see the adoption of” — in that case — “Bill C-262 as reopening the agreements we have already entered into.”
The minister’s view would seem to be consistent with that of the federal government. Also, I hadn’t recalled an interesting observation about the concept of “free, prior and informed consent,” where the federal government seems to take the view that in the case of a comprehensive treaty settlement, that by definition would constitute satisfaction of that particular phrase.
A second issue arose for me out of article 37 and something the minister said much earlier in this discussion, relating to the treaty mandates. The minister, at a certain point…. I can’t remember when, and I don’t think I’m taking it out of context. But I’m pretty sure that I heard him say that part of the work that the government is undertaking involves adjustments or amendments or changes to treaty negotiating mandates. It sounds like that is taking place and was initiated separate and apart from Bill 41. The minister may wish to confirm that.
To what degree, if at all, does passage of Bill 41 affect the work that is taking place with respect to changing the treaty mandates that the province takes into negotiations?
Hon. S. Fraser: Good question from the member. As I’ve mentioned before and as the member is aware, every minister received mandate letters from the Premier. So from 28 months ago, or probably 27 months ago, every minister was tasked through the mandate letters to implement the UN declaration.
My specific mandate letter also referred to revitalizing the treaty process, I think it was, or addressing some of the failures of the treaty process. So we’ve done that. We’ve worked on that. It’s not that it’s over, but certainly, we signed off on some significant changes to the treaty process just prior to the federal election. It’s a tripartite group that works on that — the federal government, the provincial government and, of course, the First Nations Summit.
I believe those changes that we’ve made were consistent with, certainly, the spirit and intent if not just the words of the UN declaration. Significant changes, too, by the federal government — release from obligation of debt — and then, in general, like the removal of the requirement for extinguishment, some pretty fundamental changes that certainly were a problem for many nations to embark on the treaty process.
Our intent, part and parcel with the mandate letter that we had to adopt the UN declaration in what we do and also revitalize the treaty process…. I believe we did those in a complementary fashion.
M. de Jong: The changes to the treaty mandate undoubtedly will provide an interesting topic for discussion at another time, in another venue. I won’t take up the committee’s time here, mostly because it seems to have been work done previously that was not dependent upon the passage of Bill 41 and incorporation of the declaration in the way that Bill 41 contemplates.
Can the minister advise, on behalf of the government, following passage of Bill 41…? Maybe this is the question. How, if at all, will the passage of Bill 41 impact the province’s mandates for treaty negotiations moving forward?
Hon. S. Fraser: To the question, we will continue to work with First Nations inside and outside of the treaty process to get things better. We’ve made significant advances in the past two years, but there’s certainly more work to do. Our commitment to advance reconciliation together through legislation builds on other work, including this work that we’re talking about with treaties, that we’re doing across government with Indigenous partners. Introducing the legislation solidifies this commitment and ensures that the important work of reconciliation continues.
I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada