Second Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, May 13, 2021
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 69
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Crown Proceeding Act, report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2020 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2021
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: B. Banman.
Introductions by Members
P. Milobar: As we head into the busy estimates time in this chamber and in other Houses in the building, we all know how much we rely on our staff — our researchers, our communications staff — to do the great work to support us in the job on behalf of all the citizens of British Columbia. Today I want to take just a moment to recognize that in the gallery today, we have some of those hard-working, dedicated staff for our caucus.
We have Sean Roberts, who was born and raised in Victoria and is a local entrepreneur. David Decolongon grew up in East Van but has moved to Victoria since 2016. Abigail Uher moved to Victoria in ’19, and in fact, started university at age 16 — a very talented young woman. Stephanie Marshall-White is a big ALS advocate and has lived in Victoria since 2018.
Marissa Olsen started with us in 2014 and actually, in her spare time, works in a group home. Ryan Mitton started working with us in 2016. He graduated from the London School of Economics and is a Model UN alumnus. Andrew Reeve, for the past three years, has been a chair of a non-profit that provides transitional housing and life skills programming to youth at risk of homelessness. Sam Arno Burgess wanted to work in politics because his grandfather, who started as a political writer, became a Swedish ambassador to countries all over the world.
These young people do great work on our behalf. Their tireless and dedicated work is very appreciated. I would ask the House to please make welcome our talented group of 20- to 39-year-old kids from the basement.
Tributes
JOHNSON SU-SING CHOW
T. Wat: It is with a heavy heart that I just learned of the passing of my friend, and a renowned Chinese literati painter, Mr. Johnson Su-Sing Chow. The 99-year-old artist, who came to Vancouver four decades ago, is widely known for his passion in the classics, poetry, calligraphy, landscape and bird and flower ink painting. He is also the founding president of the Chinese Canadian Artists Federation.
My thoughts and prayers are with his family, his students and his friends.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 10 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT,
2021
Hon. J. Osborne presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2021.
Hon. J. Osborne: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce Bill 10. This bill amends the Community Charter, the Local Government Act, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4) and the Vancouver Charter. Local governments have been on the front lines of this pandemic, providing people in their communities with the supports and services that they need to stay safe and keep their families together.
This bill proposes amendments that will help them continue to serve the people by ensuring that local governments have the authorities they need to effectively govern their communities through COVID-19 pandemic response and recovery. The pandemic has taught us a lot about what really matters to British Columbians, including giving people access to the business of their local government, regardless of the circumstances. If passed, these amendments will provide permanent authorities to enable local governments to hold electronic meetings and electronic public hearings with specific transparency requirements.
These amendments will be brought into force by regulation later, once circumstances related to the pandemic have eased. The proposed amendments would also provide continuing legal effect for the unique, one-time local government financial measures and the corresponding repayment obligations, which were authorized in 2020 due to the pandemic. This will move the authorities from a ministerial order into a more permanent legislative framework so those authorities can wind down as originally intended.
It will add new ministerial regulation authorities to enable the minister to address urgent and unique local government financial challenges and election-related matters in special circumstances. They’ll remove some operational barriers for improvement districts, which were highlighted during the pandemic. Lastly, the amendments will expand eligibility for mail ballot voting by removing legislated restrictions around who is permitted to vote by a mail ballot in local elections, including by-elections.
Local governments have demonstrated their adaptability and their resilience in continuing to effectively lead their communities throughout the challenging circumstances presented in the pandemic. These amendments build on those experiences, and they ensure that sufficient authorities for local governance operations as well as financial and election matters are in place as we look ahead.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. Osborne: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 10, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, 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)
M.K. LAM
T. Wat: I rise today to pay tribute to a former constituent of mine and a beloved community member, Mr. Mo Kwong Lam, dearly known as M.K. M.K. was born in Shanghai and raised in Hong Kong. There he met Marian Lee, and they were married at St. John’s Cathedral in 1979. They had their son, Jason, in 1982, and the family immigrated to Vancouver in 1993. M. K. welcomed his grandson, Jake, in 2017.
No matter how busy his work could be, he would always take his wife, son, daughter-in-law and grandson with him to travel to different places. Those who know M.K. well know that he liked to be among people. He was forthright, generous and treated others with sincerity. As a result, he made many good friends. Brothers and sisters at church call M.K. by name — in Chinese, meaning boss or big brother — as a gesture of endearment.
M.K. was also a talented businessman. Upon immigrating to Vancouver, he founded the JBC Travel Alliance of Canada and had been serving as the CEO of the group. He was also enthusiastic about charitable and social services, having served as the president and as a council member of the Vancouver Cathay Lions Club and a council member of the B.C. Chinese Business Development Association.
Looking back at M.K.’s life, it was full of wonderful chapters. Sadly, in the company of his family in Richmond Hospital, he departed peacefully on April 5 at the age of 69. My heart goes out to his family and to our community, who have lost a great leader and community advocate.
I ask all the members of this House to join me in sharing my deepest condolences to M.K.’s family, friends and community.
LANGLEY SUSTAINABLE
AGRICULTURE
FOUNDATION
M. Dykeman: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise in the House today to tell you about a wonderful organization in my community.
The Langley Sustainable Agriculture Foundation, or LSAF, is a non-profit organization that was founded by nine local volunteers in 2011. The township of Langley has a land mass of 122 square miles, with over 75 percent within the agriculture land reserve.
Through workshops and other initiatives, LSAF brings together farmers, academics, government officials and other passionate individuals to strengthen food and farming in Langley East and neighbouring communities.
Under the guidance of board members Dave Melnychuk, Ava Reeve, Nancy Clark, Carol Paulson, Myles Lamont, Gary Jones, Emma Brice and John Scholtens, they work hard to educate the public on farming, increase public awareness of the importance of agriculture, encourage support of local food production, educate, and encourage sustainable land and stewardship practices.
One example of the fantastic work this organization has undertaken includes the Langley ecological services initiative, a pilot project which works with local farmers to protect and enhance natural areas on their land. Now in its third year of operation, 11 farmers along Bertrand Creek are participating. The Langley ecological services initiative is the first program of its kind on B.C.’s west coast to reward farmers for maintaining eco-friendly areas on their lands.
Such practices can be costly, and the ecological services initiative was created to help farmers bear the cost of keeping waterways, forests and other ecologically sensitive areas clean and healthy for current and future generations.
Our community is fortunate to have such passionate volunteers dedicated to promoting, educating and improving agriculture and its stewardship.
ROLAND PHILLIPS
T. Stone: All across British Columbia, in cities, towns and villages, community spirit doesn’t just happen. Instead, it is built over time by dedicated, selfless residents who are determined to be difference-makers in the communities they call home.
Today I would like to introduce everyone in the chamber to one such individual in the village of Chase, Mr. Roland Phillips, a retired Canadian Forces veteran who absolutely embodies the spirit of service to others. Born on Prince Edward Island, Roland, who is affectionately known as Rollie, will be celebrating his 85th birthday on May 28. After joining the Queen’s Own Rifles in 1954, Rollie went on to a distinguished military career, serving our nation as an airborne pilot and parachuter. He also served on several dangerous but critical peacekeeping missions until his discharge in 1980 while posted in Chilliwack.
Even after Rollie and his wife of 63 years, Dolores, left Chilliwack for Chase, the man refused to slow down, becoming active in the local branch of the Royal Canadian Legion, where his natural leadership skills were put to good work. In fact, he even took on the role of sergeant-at-arms at the Chase Legion. Known for his regular visits with shut-in veterans, Rollie’s devotion and care for veterans extended to spouses and dependents while he presided over the colour party for the funerals and memorials of many veterans.
His commitment to community service extended to the Chase Lions Club and the Chase Christmas hamper program, where he often delivered many hampers personally year after year. In 2002, his dedication to public service was recognized when he was named the Chase Citizen of the Year. It has been said that volunteers don’t necessarily have the time, but they do have the heart. For Roland “Rollie” Phillips of Chase, truer words have never been spoken.
Rollie, happy 85th birthday, my friend, and thank you for the very positive difference you’ve made in the lives of so many others.
KINDNESS CHAIN
CHILLIWACK
ASSOCIATION
K. Paddon: I am honoured to speak today once again about amazing people in Chilliwack-Kent. Ten years ago Zeeshan and Goolie, as her friends call her, came to Canada from Pakistan, and they chose Chilliwack to call home two years later. They live in the Promontory area of Chilliwack-Kent with their three children, and we are incredibly lucky to have this family as part of our community.
At the beginning of the pandemic, they noticed the difficulty, for some, with grocery shopping. They offered their time, free of charge, on weekends to shop for others, started making deliveries and were overwhelmed not only by the need but also by gratitude and offers to help. The community came together over Facebook, and soon they had a community of over 50 volunteers and donors, and formed the Kindness Chain Chilliwack Association, or KCCA.
KCCA is 100 percent volunteer, and not a single dollar is diverted from project goals — projects like seniors outreach, garbage cleanups in the Chilliwack River Valley and downtown Chilliwack, and meal deliveries to individual homes as well as a local shelter, most recently for Easter and Ramadan. And the list goes on.
Their motto is “Serve the community we live in,” and the family of volunteers that is KCCA are making our community a better, friendlier, kinder and more generous place to be, thanks to their hard work and contributions, including from local businesses. Even during these difficult times, donors and businesses, like Freshslice in Garrison and Pabla Curry House, have made it possible for hundreds of meals to be delivered to people who need them, free of charge.
I was inspired when I saw this work and even more so when I had the chance to speak with the family who started it all. I want to acknowledge and share for the record the names for those who work as directors of this grassroots organization that does so much: president and executive director, Zeeshan Khan; and the board of directors, GulRukh Zeeshan, Rashida Rana, Shireen Khan, Umar Farooqui, Tariq Yaqub and Salman Ranjha.
I would ask the House to please join me in applauding their good works.
HUL’Q’UMI’NUM’ LANGUAGE
STREET SIGNAGE PROJECT IN
DUNCAN
S. Furstenau: In March of this year, seven streets in the city of Duncan’s downtown core underwent a process of reconciliation. The seven streets were issued Hul’q’umi’num’ names in addition to their English names. The Hul’q’umi’num’ signage project is a collaboration between the Downtown Duncan Business Improvement Association, Cowichan Tribes and the city of Duncan. The names in Hul’q’umi’num’, with their English translations, are Yuwen Shelh for First Street, Sxwuts’ts’ulii Shelh for Second Street, Smuyuqw’a Shelh for Third Street, Thuthiqut Shelh for Fourth Street, St s’hwulmuhw Shelh for Government Street, Liloot Shelh for Station Street and Q’lhan Shelh for Canada Avenue.
Amanda Vance, executive director of the Downtown Duncan BIA said that the project has been a great success. She said it was a good-news story for the community during the pandemic, and it was great to see the community get involved.
For example, Alexander Elementary School students recorded saying the street names to help people like me learn how to pronounce them. Cowichan Tribe’s Chief Seymour said of the project: “We’ve been looking at reconciliation for a long time. I’ve been looking since I’ve been Chief to work together with my neighbour governments. It’s a big step, recognizing the names.”
The city of Duncan’s mayor, Michelle Staples, said: “This project is something we’re actually moving towards because we recognize that this should have been done in the beginning.”
Merle Seymour, a Cowichan Tribes Elder and project participant, described how he was so honoured to see the Hul’q’umi’num’ signs on our streets. He said: “This really uplifts our people. These signs are a wonderful step for our community to recognize we are on Cowichan lands.”
Haychka.
SOCIAL JUSTICE CLASS AT
DR. CHARLES BEST SECONDARY
SCHOOL
R. Glumac: It’s inspiring to me when I see young people step forward to make a difference. There is one particular group of young people that I’d like to talk about today, and that’s Ms. Leslie’s grade 12 social justice class at Dr. Charles Best Secondary School.
Ms. Leslie describes the nature of her class as “not only educating students about inequities in our society, but empowering them to advocate for change.” She says: “I want my students to know that they have a voice, that it matters and that people will listen.” Indeed, they do have a voice, and it is being heard.
I first became aware of their social justice efforts when I was copied on a letter-writing campaign to change the name of the Pattullo Bridge. The class also embarked on the Red Dress Project to create dialogue around the issue of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls. The dresses are red because it’s believed that that’s the only colour that can be seen in the spirit world, so that the missing can find their way back.
The class collaborated with another teacher, Amanda Roberts, at Port Moody Secondary School. Many businesses and MLA offices, including my own, displayed red dresses last week. The class’s efforts were covered by the media as far away as Ottawa. Judge Buller even reached out to congratulate them on their efforts.
Providing cell coverage along the Highway of Tears is just one step we are taking to address this issue. As one student in the class, Naveed, expressed: “The young people, the next generation, demand change.”
To Naveed, I say change is possible, and you are part of the change. So I want to thank you and your class and your teacher for being champions for these very important issues.
Oral Questions
COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR
TOURISM ATTRACTIONS
S. Bond: In December, when we asked the Premier to actually do something to save major tourism destinations, his Tourism Minister said: “We’re going to move quickly.” In March, we asked again, and this time it was the Jobs Minister who said that the Minister of Tourism “has been engaging with them,” and “I suspect she’ll have more to say on that very soon.” We’ve been engaging with them for months now.
So it was a bit of a shock many months later to hear, this week, that the Minister of Tourism still has no plan: “It’s not baked. We’re working out those details right now.” We asked for specific details about the $100 million in funding that’s been set aside. We wanted to know specifically how much is set aside for major attractions, who qualifies and how much they could actually receive — pretty basic questions for a $100 million fund that was announced with much fanfare. The minister didn’t know and, once again, told struggling tourism operators and facilities across British Columbia that they had to wait some more.
Perhaps today the Premier could get up and he could actually provide us — and more importantly, tourism operators across British Columbia — with some specific answers to those very basic questions.
Hon. M. Mark: I thank the member opposite for raising this important question. We recently completed our budget estimates, and the critic for this file had also asked similar questions.
I did say that good news is coming and that the program is being developed as we speak. Good news is going to be coming to the sector. This was an important announcement — part of Budget 2021 — recognizing a call to action to support iconic anchor attractions throughout British Columbia. The work is being done by the public service, and good news should be coming very shortly.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
S. Bond: I’m not sure how that brings any degree of comfort at all to businesses who are clinging to hold on in British Columbia. Good news is coming? We want — and so do tourism operators — specific answers to basic questions. Tourism operators and major attractions cannot operate without support. They have lost millions of dollars.
Let’s just take one of them. Barkerville, for example — which, of course, the Premier has stood in this Legislature and been a very big fan of. Well, I’m not sure that he’s aware that Barkerville, for example, is responsible for $25 million in economic activity. It welcomes more than 70,000 visitors every single year. Now they are facing a significant budget shortfall. When asked about Barkerville in the tourism estimates, the minister again had no answers, except to say this: “Barkerville is on my to-do list.”
Well, she may not have the opportunity to actually visit Barkerville, because it may close permanently if she doesn’t step up and do something to help them. So let’s try it again. It’s a very simple question. British Columbians expect this government and Premier, when they make an announcement about a big fancy program, that maybe they should provide the details at the same time.
We’ve been waiting since December to get an answer from this Tourism Minister. So let’s be clear, straight up. Who can apply, what organizations can actually apply for funding, and how much are they eligible for? Simple question. Let’s hope we get an answer.
Hon. M. Mark: First of all, when the member talks about December, one of the first things that we did was respond to a call to action from the Tourism Task Force that our Premier appointed, led by industry experts who asked us to get grants out the door — which we’ve done — to support the industry; the Indigenous Tourism B.C. organization — to get grants out the door to invest in infrastructure, which was a major call to action from the industry.
In fact, Barkerville got dollars through the community economic recovery infrastructure program — upwards of $600,000. We are deeply committed to supporting anchor attractions.
For the record, if the member opposite wants to talk about her interest in saving Barkerville, let’s go back to the transcripts of 2001 when the former government, the B.C. Liberals, turned their back on their interest of protecting heritage sites like Barkerville.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the answer.
Hon. M. Mark: So I’m going to keep doing the work and stating the facts. We are….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, order.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Minister, wait.
Members of the opposition, when the minister is answering on Zoom, the minister can’t hear you. So save your energy, please.
Next question.
T. Wat: We are 15 months into the pandemic, and the minister promised to move quickly six months ago. The key word is “quickly.” This grant to the major attractions should have been announced yesterday, instead of asking us to wait for the good news. They are dying every day. Premier and the minister: the Premier has botched it.
This week, the minister said: “The best analogy I can give is that the ink is still wet.” People in the tourism sector are drowning in red ink and have been waiting and waiting, and hoping that major attractions would get support. The PNE is asking for $8 million in aid, or it could close forever.
To the Premier, will the PNE get support as a major attraction and employer of British Columbians?
Hon. M. Mark: Of course these iconic attractions are vital to British Columbians. When the member speaks about the PNE, this is a place that I’ve gone to for generations, and I expect that the PNE is going to be there for future generations.
We are in the middle of a health crisis. We recognize that there is a call to action from the industry to support anchor attractions. I said to the member opposite during estimates that the program is being developed as we speak and that good news is coming.
In fact, what I said on the record was within a couple [audio interrupted] weeks. The ministry is working as quickly as possible to develop the programs so we can get the money out the door — grants, not loans — to iconic anchor attractions that have been deeply impacted by this global pandemic.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.
T. Wat: The minister keeps saying that it’s going to be announced in a couple of weeks. The major attractions are dying. They cannot wait for one more day. Why couldn’t this be announced together with the budget? I don’t understand.
This pandemic has been going on for more than a year. The PNE provides 44,300 direct jobs, 9,500 indirect jobs and $200 million in economic activity. But the fair’s debt could reach $15 million by the end of the year. Laura Ballance of the PNE says: “Every day we go deeper into debt. And at some point…it becomes insurmountable.”
The Premier appears too incompetent to care about the PNE or attractions like the Williams Lake Stampede and the Richmond Night Market, in my riding.
The question is to the Premier once again. I hope he will stand up and respond. Will the Premier save this attraction, or will they close forever?
Hon. M. Mark: Of course we care about these anchor attractions. Of course we care about tourism. This is why we’ve rolled out over $100 million out the door to support the tourism sector.
When the member opposite is talking specifically about the PNE, the PNE is owned by the municipality.
We’re working with the PNE and the municipality and the federal government, who also announced $1 billion in their budget a day before our budget, setting aside money for events and festivals and anchor attractions. We’re doing this work together, Member. It is important that we do the work together.
We do recognize that they have suffered, because they can’t have events. They can’t have large crowds. We recognize the pandemic impacts the people industry. That is why good news is coming in days to support the sector. It’s a call to action. I’m proud of the public service for the work that we’re doing. Good news is coming, hon. Member. Thank you for the question.
YOUTH ADDICTION SERVICES AND
YOUTH STABILIZATION CARE
LEGISLATION
S. Furstenau: Yesterday, my colleague asked the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions if she would resist pressure to bring back flawed legislation from last summer.
What we need to see from this government is that it takes the steps that health experts, scientists, researchers, advocates and their own provincial health officer have been calling for, for years, in order to reduce the number of people dying from an illicit and toxic drug supply: decriminalize drug users and ensure there is a regulated and accessible safe supply.
In fact, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control released an evidence review that states: “Detention-based services are contrary to best public health practices in B.C.” They “do not address illicit drug toxicity that is driving…deaths.” There’s a “lack of evidence that” they “are effective.” They “may result in post-release harm,” including death, and that involuntary hospitalization increases stigma and “reduces the likelihood” of people seeking health care.
My question is to the Premier. What does he propose to address the significant concerns with involuntary care expressed by the chief coroner, the Representative for Children and Youth, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the First Nations Leadership Council and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for raising the question and reaffirming what we’re all feeling. There is nothing more important than protecting children, particularly the loss of such young lives to the toxic drug supply on Vancouver Island these past few weeks.
It just puts that much more importance on the work that we’re doing to expand voluntary care for youth in mental health and addiction distress and to work across the spectrum on decriminalization, on safe supply, on an historic expansion and historic investment on the part of the British Columbia taxpayer in mental health and addiction support — almost $100 million of that going specifically toward children and youth.
We’re working across the spectrum. When we revisit the lessons learned from Bill 22 and work…. We continue to hear parents say that stabilization care after an overdose is an important consideration and one of the tools that we want to have available as a last resort. We will continue to reaffirm that it will not be a criminal issue. It will not be anything to do with the justice system. Stabilization care when it comes back to this legislation will remain part of the health care response to a tragedy that has affected young people in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for her response.
Unfortunately, it’s not just the tragic death of children; it’s six British Columbians a day who are dying from a toxic drug supply. It’s thousands of lives that have been lost.
The minister says that this bill will be coming back, but the B.C. Centre for Disease Control presents an evidence-based argument against involuntary care. They say: “There is little to no evidence to support compulsory treatment for substance use disorders in general, and for youth in particular.” Compulsory treatment is associated with relapse, higher levels of mental duress, homelessness and overdose, according to the BCCDC.
People, especially young, Black, Indigenous and people of colour are less likely to seek help when they need it following involuntary care. The trauma they endure in the health care system is significant and involuntary care may perpetuate that.
My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. The Premier and now she have signalled that involuntary care is a priority for this government. How is the minister planning to address the concerns described by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, and why doesn’t she do what experts are asking for and immediately expand access to regulated safe supply in order to save lives?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The work that British Columbia is doing to expand safe supply — as a way to separate people from the toxic, poisoned drug supply that is killing so many British Columbians tragically — is continuing. It is leading the country. We are working as hard as we can to continue to break new ground. The 400 percent increase in the number of people that have been connected by their doctors or primary prescribers to connect people with safe supply over the last year is encouraging, and there is more to do.
Let me be clear, though, about what was proposed in Bill 22 and some of the conversations that we will have across British Columbia before that legislation, or some form of it, is reintroduced. It is not the secure care that the opposition has been proposing and what exists in places like Alberta. It is not forced treatment. It does not involve the police.
It is a stabilization — post youth overdose — for a short period where there is an opportunity to connect young people, after they have stabilized, with an option for care. That was the proposal made by my friend and predecessor to this Legislature last summer. It did not have the support of the opposition parties, so our work right now is to build out voluntary care, which is badly needed in British Columbia. We have done a lot. There is more to do. I look forward to the broad conversations that will inform next steps.
COVID-19 CIRCUIT BREAKER
RELIEF GRANT FOR
BUSINESSES
T. Stone: Audio Visual by Lee’s Music in Kamloops had 30 employees. Today they have six. Their revenue is down 80 percent. Small business owner Mike Miltimore says: “We desperately need to hold on to our technicians as it takes a long time to train these guys. You can’t just go to school to be an AV tech. We need support to keep these staff on and also a plan moving forward. With many of our events permanently closed, the calendar is looking bleak.”
Lee’s Music does not qualify for the circuit breaker grant. They’ve had to sell equipment. They’re taking hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their savings — savings that no longer exist — just to survive.
My question to the Premier is this. Will the Premier fix the circuit breaker grant so that live-event businesses that have been shut down during the pandemic are eligible for desperately needed support?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for this question. No doubt, this pandemic has been a challenging time for many businesses and many tourism operators. We are proud that we’ve got the highest per-capita supports for businesses and people in the country. I know that all the members in this chamber in the Legislature should be proud of that, because we all are working on this together.
The member knows that businesses have funds available right now for them. They can apply for the small and medium-sized business recovery grant program, which is up to $30,000, and up to $45,000 if they’re tourism operators. Happy if the member brings that particular business to my office.
Many of his colleagues have come forward with specific businesses that have been impacted, and we’ve been able to navigate and support many of them. I look forward to having that conversation after question period.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.
T. Stone: Well, we’re 16 months into this pandemic. There are businesses and their workers all over the province that continue to struggle, wondering what the future is going to look like. In fact, one out of seven businesses in B.C. are at risk of closing. That’s 25,000 businesses and 300,000 workers.
Sectors all over this province are flapping in the wind while the Premier trips over his shoelaces, unable to push grants and direct supports out the door. The minister, the Premier and the government continue to say that this government is number one in supports. That is not true. This government is actually number eight in the country. This government is number eight in providing direct relief and supports to business. Ontario spends three times as much as British Columbia.
Let’s try this again. The live-event industry is literally in a state of emergency. These businesses have been completely shut down due to the health measures, and most have seen their revenue decline by 80, 90 or, in some cases, close to 100 percent. It doesn’t make sense that businesses impacted by these health orders don’t qualify for the Premier’s support programs.
As Tim Lang of Proshow Audiovisual says: “We are the people and businesses that enable all the conventions, concerts, conferences, business luncheons, awards galas and ceremonies. We are the people that work unseen behind the scenes, and unfortunately, when we now need government to see us, they do not. We feel absolutely invisible, abandoned and unvalued.”
The question, again to the Premier, is this. Will the Premier provide the desperately needed support that the live-events sector needs to survive?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I’ll remind the member that we do have the highest per-capita supports. I think the member may not know this, but Ontario has more than three times the population of B.C. So when he talks about the fact that they have three times our support and they have….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s simple math. I’m happy to share more details with the member.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, come to order.
The minister will continue.
Hon. R. Kahlon: As I was saying, I’m happy to share the math with him. He has cited, many times, reports that have highlighted that we have the highest per-capita supports in the country, and we’re proud of that. Again, this member has raised small businesses in this chamber for his own political purposes.
We’ve actually reached out to many of the businesses that he’s named and actually got them the opportunity to apply for small business recovery grant programs. The member mentioned a small business in Comox, which we were able to reach out to and say: “Did you know that you could apply?” They didn’t know that they could, and we were able to get them in the door to apply.
Again, happy if this member wants to bring the business names forward. We’re happy to work with as many businesses as we can. We’re proud of our supports. We’re proud that we’re at 99.1 percent of pre-pandemic job levels. We’re going to continue that good work as we come out of the pandemic.
K. Kirkpatrick: Respectfully, the minister is wrong. B.C. does not have the highest per capita or the highest support for business. It is actually number eight. Ontario is spending three times as much per capita than B.C. is on its grant programs. The minister is using an outdated CCPA report that relies on loans and federal support payments to make these claims.
Chris Briere of Briere Productions has written over 60 — six, zero — letters and met with both the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and the member for Maple Ridge–Mission but has received none of the support he has requested. He says: “We’re denied the B.C. circuit breaker relief grant that applies to bars and gyms but not the live-event sector.” He’s already had a circuit breaker since March of 2020.
Will the Premier fix the grant program and provide some of the desperately needed funds for the live-event sector?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, we do have the highest per-capita supports in this country. We’re really proud of that. Reports have confirmed it. Outside reports have confirmed it. Sorry if I don’t rely on the numbers the B.C. Liberals provide on that.
I would also highlight that British Columbians have done the work that’s needed to keep the numbers relatively low. We haven’t had to go into severe lockdowns that Ontario has had to do because of that work. So we continue to encourage the public to do what we need.
The Minister of Health has been clear. Dr Henry has been clear. We need people to register. We need people to get vaccinated so that we can see the economy open up and continue to see a strong economic recovery.
If there are businesses that need supports for applying for the small business recovery grant program, I’m happy for them to bring them forward. Again, it’s up to $45,000 for businesses, and that just touches on only a small portion of the supports that are available. The members opposite of course will know that we also have tax credits for employees.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Hon. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Finish it, please.
Hon. R. Kahlon: We also have tax credits for hiring and rehiring employees. We have commercial and property tax relief. There are also programs from the federal government — the Canada emergency business account, which is up to $60,000 in interest-free loans, the Canada emergency rent subsidy program. We have dollars for businesses to get online. There’s so much financial support available. And we’re happy, if the members are not able to navigate those [audio interrupted], to provide the supports.
M. Lee: Well, the minister simply continues to be wrong. He’s continuing to mislead this province. B.C. doesn’t have the highest support. We are actually No. 8 per capita when it comes to direct supports for business.
Let’s take live-event businesses. They aren’t the only group being shunned by the Premier. Travel agents have also been excluded. One has written to us, and he says: “Things are about as bad as they could be right now, and we really need the help.” You would think nobody is more affected by travel restrictions than travel agents, but they don’t qualify.
Will the Premier fix the circuit breaker grant so that travel agents can apply?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, we are very proud of the highest per-capita supports in this country for people and businesses. The member should know — in fact, I’m surprised that the member doesn’t know — that tourism operators are eligible to apply for up to $45,000 in programming that does not have to be paid back. In fact, $45,000 is the highest in the country. I know that they can do the three times math to compare to Ontario, and they’ll see that our program is significantly larger for tourism operators.
Again, if the member and his colleagues don’t know quite how to navigate to apply for a small business recovery grant program, we’re certainly happy to provide that support in our ministry.
B. Banman: The minister can repeat out-of-date stats all he wants, but he’s just incorrect. We are not the highest. This province is among the lowest for getting money out the door. And worse than that, barely half of the allocated funds in B.C. have actually been paid out thus far. This minister and this Premier continue to bungle COVID supports.
The Royal Canadian Legion has written to the province. They have been directly affected by the circuit breaker health order but have been excluded from the circuit breaker grant — veterans who have given and continue to give.
It’s astounding, shameful and cruel that the Premier would punish veterans and exclude them from the pandemic supports.
Question to the Premier: will the Premier change his mind and stop excluding the legion from pandemic aid today?
Hon. R. Kahlon: There are not many people in this province that are as proud as being a legion member as the Premier. He’s a proud member of his local legion. We, everybody in this House, are proud of our veterans and their service. My grandfather was a veteran. He was a member. So I don’t think that the member should be implying that somebody is more patriotic and more proud of their legion than others. I think that does a disservice to everybody in this chamber.
The legions do have access to the Canada emergency business loan program, which is $60,000, interest free. They do have access to the rent subsidy program, which, again, is available to them. They do have access to the wage subsidy program as well.
To suggest that we are not allowing the legion to get access to important services is just incorrect. There are a historic number of supports available. We’re proud of that, and we’re going to continue to do more because we know more needs to be done.
COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR
SMALL
BUSINESSES
J. Tegart: REO Rafting and Yoga Resort has been providing internationally acclaimed experiences since the 1980s. They applied for the small business grant and were rejected only because they chose to invest in their business prior to the pandemic and had a negative cash flow. They say: “The grant’s criteria demonstrates a profound ignorance of how the adventure and seasonal tourism industry works.”
Seasonal tourism businesses continue to be left behind by this Premier.
Will the Premier fix his bungled grant program?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is, again, incorrect. Seasonal-based tourism operators have been receiving the small business recovery grant program. Many of them have also received money for launch online, which we’re very proud of. I know that the opposition thought that program wasn’t needed, but that program has been huge for tourism operators, which have been able to now set up online presence, set up their e-commerce so that they can attract customers from a broader audience and streamline their business operations.
Many tourism operators also applied and received dollars for the digital bootcamp, which provides businesses the opportunity to learn about how to set up online operations. In fact, many tourism operators — and I can share many examples, but we’re running out of time — have actually pivoted to brand-new business opportunities.
Again, we’re very proud of our historic supports. We’re very proud that we’re at 99.1 percent of pre-pandemic job levels, the highest in the country. We continue to lead the country, and we will continue to lead the country in our economic recovery as we go forward.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the Crown Proceeding Act report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020.
Reports from Committees
OMBUDSPERSON APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE
J. Routledge: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint an Ombudsperson.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
J. Routledge: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
J. Routledge: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.
This report constitutes the committee’s unanimous recommendation that James Michael “Jay” Chalke, QC, British Columbia’s Ombudsperson since 2015, be appointed for a second six-year term after his current term ends on July 1.
The committee had extensive discussions on the Ombudsperson’s evolving responsibilities and the profile and key competencies required for the position. In March, Mr. Chalke formally advised the committee of his interest in appointment for a further term of six years. After a detailed examination of Mr. Chalke’s qualifications and experience, the committee interviewed Mr. Chalke and considered his leadership and management abilities and his work in building public confidence in the work of the office and citizens’ services.
Committee members were impressed by Mr. Chalke’s track record of senior executive leadership, his high standards of administrative fairness, his vision for improving the work of the office, and his strong commitment to Indigenous reconciliation and engagement with the province’s diverse populations.
Members recognize Mr. Chalke’s particular achievement in leading the office’s investigation of the 2012 Ministry of Health employee terminations. After receiving over four million records and interviewing 130 witnesses, the office submitted its 2017 report to the Legislative Assembly with a key recommendation that legislation be enacted to enable public sector whistleblowers to make their disclosures and to ensure that any resulting investigations are conducted in a fair manner.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act was subsequently adopted by the Legislative Assembly in 2018, which included a central role for the office. All committee members concluded that Mr. Chalke’s experience, his demonstrated achievements in carrying out the roles and responsibilities of Ombudsperson and his public sector leadership resulted in their full confidence that he be appointed as Ombudsperson for a further term of six years.
Mr. Chalke is present in the gallery today, and I would like to welcome him on behalf of all members of the House.
I extend my sincere appreciation to the Deputy Chair, the member for Abbotsford South, and to all committee members for their diligent and thoughtful consideration in reaching a unanimous recommendation on this important appointment. I would also like to thank the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and the Clerk of Committees for their guidance in procedural matters.
B. Banman: I would like to congratulate Mr. Chalke on his position and thank him for accepting for the next six years and to continue the fine work that he’s done.
I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to thank staff. Staff showed this committee great guidance and were absolutely on top of their game. From my heart, I want to thank staff from the foremost.
I’d also like to say what a pleasure it was to be part of this committee. It was mentioned at the end how much the committee members enjoyed one another’s company and how we banded together to do what was right for the province, by the citizens of this province. It was not political at all. It is as it should be.
My congratulations to Mr. Chalke, my thanks to staff and my thanks and congratulations to the members that served on this committee. This House can be very proud.
Motion approved.
J. Routledge: I ask leave of the House to move a motion recommending that the Lieutenant-Governor appoint James Michael Chalke as Ombudsperson.
Leave granted.
Motions Without Notice
APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSPERSON
J. Routledge: I move:
[That the Legislative Assembly recommend to Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor that James Michael Chalke, Q.C., be appointed as an Officer of the Legislature to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Ombudsperson for the Province of British Columbia for a six-year term commencing July 1, 2021, pursuant to the Ombudsperson Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 340).]
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act. In section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call estimates debate for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT
(No. 2), 2021
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:06 a.m.
On clause 1.
The Chair: We are here, of course, for Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021, on clause 1.
G. Kyllo: Great privilege to stand in the House today to follow up through some detailed questions with respect to Bill 13. Just as we start, with respect to the amount of work that was undertaken in the preparation of Bill 13, if I could just request when, specifically, did government undertake the initiative of the work related to the presentation of the bill that’s before us today?
Hon. H. Bains: As we know, when the pandemic hit us, February, March last year, it brought to the surface many of the gaps that existed for workers’ support, especially when they’re sick, especially when the pandemic hit us. We realized at that time that workers did not have a right to sick leave. If they were sick with COVID, if they needed to take time off, they didn’t have a right to take that time off without risking their job. So we fixed that through legislative changes, regulation changes.
Then we also realized that workers at workplaces could be getting sick with COVID. If they apply for WorkSafe, file a claim, it takes days sometimes, and it takes time for the claim to process to determine whether it’s work-related or not. We fixed that.
We worked with WorkSafeBC, and we fast-tracked the presumption clause that required 90-days waiting after WorkSafeBC decides that they wanted to provide presumption protection to the workers in that situation. We did that. We’ve been working to protect the workers and to fix the gaps all along.
As the member will know, then we were working to see when the vaccination program started. There were workers in a situation where they may not have time outside of working hours to go get vaccinated and that they need time off during work. So we fixed that.
But that wasn’t the only thing we were doing. In parallel to that, we were working with the federal government. As the Premier said last summer, we’ve been working at this since about a year ago. We believed it was a national emergency, and we needed a national solution. We knew that the workers who are sick at a workplace should be able to stay home without loss of pay. The federal government listened, and they brought in their federal program.
We realized that there were gaps in that program, so we went back to the federal government. I think Premiers all across this country realized there should be a national solution. The federal government delivered but left a few gaps. So they listened, and they extended from two weeks’ to four weeks’ coverage. But the initial one or two days…. For you to qualify for that particular week, you must lose over 50 percent of work or income. That gap remained and then if you qualify, then $500 less than minimum wage.
The best solution would have been that we were working with the federal government. We had some indication that they would be looking into it and provide some protection to it — looking at how that can be fixed. They came back. We found out two weeks ago, after they delivered their budget, that that they weren’t able to fix it.
We didn’t stop there. We continued to talk to them. We had some indications they might be able to do it. But then they told us that we could not top up the $500 without a clawback, so the initial one day, two days, was the issue, then, for us to fix. So we are fixing it with this bill.
We’ve been working at fixing the gaps that existed for workers’ support who are sick and who are not able to stay home without loss of pay. We were working with the federal government. We brought our own programs in place. And now, two weeks ago, when we realized that the federal government wasn’t able to fix those gaps, we started working quickly to put this bill together — that it is up to us now, that we need to fix it. So that’s why we’re here today.
G. Kyllo: Thanks, Minister, for the history with respect to how we’ve arrived at this point. Can the minister provide specificity upon the date that the federal program was initially announced and when the B.C. government identified that a gap existed?
Hon. H. Bains: I think the federal CRSB program was announced in September 2020. We right away identified those gaps, and we started to work with the federal government. The Premier took the charge.
My colleagues in Finance and myself, March 1 of this year, had meetings with other Ministers of Labour from other jurisdictions, with the federal Minister of Labour. It brought to their attention at that time, too, that those gaps still exist. We had the indication that they might be looking at fixing those gaps. All along, we thought that there would be something coming to fix those gaps —$500. Can the provinces top up?
I mean, the member will know that Ontario was trying to do the same thing. They asked the federal government if they — the federal government — could top up and the province will pay the federal government, and the federal government said no to it. We said: can we top up? So we had some indications that there may be a model, that they could work with us, that they may be able to fix those gaps that we were identifying, a different way to deal with it — fix the initial issue of one or two days. Also, is there a way that we could top up the $500 without a clawback? The answer came back.
Even after the budget was delivered two weeks ago, we continued to work with them. My colleagues in Finance were working at it. We had some indications that they might be able to fix it. They might be able to come up with a solution that could be used as a model for other provinces. But then we realized, and they came back to us, that no, they can’t do it. So then we were on our own to make sure that we come up with a made-in-B.C. solution to fix those gaps, and that’s why this bill is here.
G. Kyllo: If the minister could also maybe just provide a bit of clarity for this House of when it was first understood or acknowledged by government that there was considerable risk for workers that did not have access to paid leave in the province.
Hon. H. Bains: If I understood the question correctly, I think the question was: when did we realize that workers in B.C. have no paid sick leave? Maybe the member could clarify.
G. Kyllo: No. The question was: when was it that government actually acknowledged or came to the understanding that workers that do not have a paid sick leave program are at increased risk of actually obtaining the COVID virus? The minister has indicated, obviously, that the purpose of the bill is to provide paid sick leave so that workers who are ill or otherwise not able to go to work are entitled to paid leave, under this bill.
The question is that…. Obviously, this bill is satisfying a risk. The question to the minister is: when did government come to the realization that workers that currently do not have a paid sick leave program are at increased risk of receiving COVID in the workplace and then also the potential for workers that obtain that virus and taking it back to their families?
Hon. H. Bains: Look, when the pandemic hit us, no one knew what kind of virus this is, how it’s going to hit us. Different countries took different approaches. Different provinces took different approaches in order to overcome the spread of the virus. It was changing.
Sometime last year, as we moved forward, we wanted to make sure that the economy, as much as we could, kept running in the province of British Columbia. We decided that that’s the best way to keep people working and keep the economy going. Then, at the same time, we realized that there were workers who maybe were spreading COVID at workplaces, because there were some factories and operations who were being shut down all across the country. So you need to put some measures in.
That’s why WorkSafeBC works with all different sectors — 32 different sectors. WorkSafeBC put together safety protocols for them, safety plans for them. Within each sector, individual businesses were to draft up their own safety plans to make sure that we stop the transmission or minimize the transmission at workplaces. It just evolved every day.
Then, I think, it was understood that if workers need to take time off, then they could stay home. That is the best way of stopping transmission at workplaces. That’s why we made all those changes to make sure that they have job-protected leave. If they need to stay home, there’s a job-protected leave provision there. If they become ill at the workplace, their claims will be accepted on a presumptive basis. We made those changes.
Then, the other thing, in order to stop transmission at workplaces, was to make sure that everyone is vaccinated. We made that easier and removed some of those roadblocks. So I think that we’ve been working all along to ensure that workplaces can continue to operate safely and that workplaces are safe. All those measures were put in place to stop the transmission at workplaces.
G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for the information.
If we go back to the outset of the pandemic, our chief medical health officer had lots to say to British Columbians about the potential risk. We knew that with the virus, quite often, some of the symptoms — the loss of smell, loss of taste, increased temperature and fever…. There were many different signs that individuals may have COVID.
I appreciate that a significant amount of work was undertaken by WorkSafeBC to establish some protocols with respect to providing worker protection. I believe it was also the health officer that came out and told British Columbians: “For the most part, if you’re feeling unwell, stay home. Don’t go to work.”
Businesses made significant efforts to try and undertake the opportunity for workers that had the ability, potentially, to work from home.
But if we go back to the time when it was certainly made apparent by our chief medical officer and also some of the undertaking in the work of WorkSafeBC with respect to protocols…. I know even in this Legislature, every morning when we arrive in this place, we have to actually answer a series of questions. Have we been ill? Have we been unwell? Do we have a fever? There are many different checks that are undertaken. If we answer yes to any of those questions, we’re encouraged, even here at this Legislature, to stay home.
There was a point in time when government was fully aware of the potential risks of transmission of COVID bringing it to the workplace. So my question to the minister is that at what point in time is he able to confirm to this House when government was aware of the potential risk of the transmission of COVID in the workplace, which obviously directed much of the work that WorkSafeBC did last spring?
Hon. H. Bains: Look, the member will know that we put together the Economic Recovery Task Force — the Premier did with the Finance Minister. We met with them on a regular basis. There was real anxiety by the employers group that this is a national emergency and there needs to be some kind of a national solution. They were worried about workers coming to work, spreading COVID and other people getting ill and operations getting shut down and that they shouldn’t be asked to carry the burden either. So they themselves, along with the Premier, reached out to the federal government and the Prime Minister. They wrote a letter that there needs to be a national solution to it.
What we could do on the parallel side here…. We were doing everything that we could do to protect those workers, to give them the right to take time off with the job-protected leave and WCB changes, as I mentioned before. And then work with the business group to work with the federal government to come up with a national program.
September last year, as a result of those efforts by businesses, by the Premier — and some other Premiers, also — the federal government announced the program that we talked about earlier. We thought that would fix it. They were talking to us and we were talking to them that there would be a national solution coming.
When the program was announced, we identified gaps. We went back to them, they listened, and they fixed it, to an extent, by extending two weeks to four weeks. But the initial two days, as I said, two and a half days or the $500, they didn’t fix. So we continued to work with them. I explained that in my previous answer.
Right until the end we had some indications. Ontario tried. They didn’t agree with them. Then we proposed a different proposal, a different model. They were open to that. Right up until we finally made a decision to draft our own bill, our Finance Minister and her ministry were working with the federal Finance Minister and their ministry.
Other ministers were involved, trying to come up with a model that would fix this national solution. Then we got the answer that they couldn’t do it. Therefore, we were forced to come up with our own solution, made in B.C. As the Premier said, if they don’t do it, we would do it. Here we are.
G. Kyllo: I appreciate the additional information from the minister. However, maybe I’ll rephrase the question. What I’m trying to determine and identify is when government became aware that there was increased potential risk for workers for COVID transmission in the workplace.
Maybe I’ll phrase the question this way. Can the minister share with this House when WorkSafeBC established the guidelines specifically requiring workers that were feeling unwell to stay home and their request for workers not to come to work when they were feeling unwell?
Hon. H. Bains: It wasn’t WorkSafeBC’s directive that when you’re sick, you don’t come to work. It was the PHO, provincial health officer. They were saying to stay home when you’re sick. That’s been the directive right from the beginning. The best way to stop the transmission of COVID is to stay home. Don’t travel. Don’t meet people. Don’t shake hands. Wash your hands. Keep six feet, two metres, apart when you’re shopping, when you’re out if you have to go out. Those are the directives from the PHO.
Now, at workplaces, there were some jurisdictional issues. The provincial health officer’s orders and whether WorkSafeBC can enforce them — initially, there was that question as well. PHO and WorkSafeBC worked together so that. Number one, the safety plans for each operation must be there. It was the provincial health officer’s directive. Then WorkSafeBC helped put those safety plans together. Then they worked out an arrangement where WorkSafeBC would be helping to enforce provincial health officer orders at workplaces. I think all of those things were happening.
Also, to clarify to the member, the businesses wrote that letter, I’m advised, on May 13 last year, almost urging the federal government to come up with a national solution. Our Premier was also urging the federal government, because these decisions took place during our Economic Recovery Task Force meetings quite often.
So they, together, lobbied the federal government. The federal government listened, and then they came up with the federal sick program. Obviously, as we mentioned before, there were flaws in it. We’ve been working with them all along to make sure to fix those flaws. They came somewhat, some way. But then the other couple of areas…. They tried, they said. But even with Ontario…. I said other provinces tried. It didn’t work out. So we were ready to go if we got the answer from the federal government that they were not going to cooperate with us or work with us and fix those gaps.
G. Kyllo: What I’m trying to establish…. Maybe the minister might be able to provide this clarity. The minister referenced in his answer that on the direction of PHO, the public health officer, WorkSafeBC undertook to establish some safety guidelines. I do understand that those health guidelines specifically gave reference to workers, encouraging workers to stay home if they’re feeling unwell.
If the minister might just provide some clarity on what date was it that WorkSafeBC initially provided the safety plan guidelines that were provided to businesses all across the province, as far as some of the best efforts that they might undertake in order to prevent the transfer of COVID in the workplace.
Hon. H. Bains: WorkSafeBC, on the advice of the CDC, posted on their website on March 12 advice to workers to stay home if you’re sick. Then they worked with the provincial health officer to come up with the safety plans. Those safety plans were announced when the province announced reopening certain parts of the province and the industry and the sectors. It was May 6.
G. Kyllo: I appreciate that.
As the minister has confirmed, March 12 was the date that WorkSafeBC, I guess, through their website initiated the request that workers who were feeling unwell stay home and not come to work. It was a little while later, May 6 was the date, that WorkSafeBC provided the actual safety plans and the guidelines and best practices for businesses to follow. It’s apparent that as early as March of last year and certainly by May 6, when the economy started to open up again, government was aware of the potential risk for workers for the transmission of COVID in the workplace.
To the minister, I’m just wondering if the minister can share…. In the middle of a health pandemic — a global pandemic, the single largest health crisis that we have faced in British Columbia in over 100 years — they had the financial resources with the $5 billion COVID spending plan that was approved by all members of the Legislature.
Why is it that government waited until this week, over a year later, before tabling this piece of legislation?
Hon. H. Bains: We need to remember that March was pretty…. To think about it, it was the front end of the pandemic, and everyone was trying to figure out how to deal with this. WorkSafeBC, in their role to protect workers at workplaces and their health and safety at workplaces, working with the employers to ensure that workplaces were safe, posted that March 12. They were very proactive, in my view, and advised the employers and the workers to stay home if they were sick, on the advice of the CDC.
Then the province, businesses and labour were working together through that task force. “How do we reopen?” The member will know there were stages of reopening of the economy. On May 6, safety plans were announced by WorkSafeBC, because that’s the time we were reopening the economy, 32 specific sectors.
In the meantime, at the same time…. May 6 was when we were reopening the economy. May 13…. I mean, the discussion took place prior to that, but finally, on May 13, the businesses wrote a letter to the Prime Minister that it should not be up to the province, because they were worried about the cost to them. They were worried about the cost to the province. It was a national emergency and should be dealt with, with a national solution. They wrote. Our Premier wrote, “Look, we need that program now,” and they listened.
It took some time, but in September, they announced their program. Yeah, you could say that they took longer, but they were working with us. We were working with them. Businesses, the government, labour — they were all saying to the federal government, “It needs a national solution,” and they delivered.
I said that before. I think my answer…. I have repeated many times that there were flaws. There were gaps in it. They fixed one gap by extending two weeks to four weeks, but another two remained. We continued to work with them. We had the indication that maybe there was a solution to it. Different kinds of models were being considered.
Then the third wave starts. People are starting to realize that we need to take extra steps — again working with the federal government — that we need some solutions here. There were indications there could be some different ways to resolve this problem, working with the provinces.
Then we saw that in their budget, there was no mention. Then we got on the phone again. My colleagues got on the phone again. They said no to Ontario first, because that was a different model being looked at. We said there was maybe a different model that we could look at, by provinces topping up rather than the federal government topping up and then reimbursement by the provinces. “If that doesn’t work, what about our model?” Also, how do we fix the first two and a half days?
There was indication that there may be an opportunity to come up with a new model that could be used across the country. Then finally they came back. They were not able to deal with those issues. Then we quickly had to put together our own solutions. That’s exactly what this bill will do. It fixes that gap — the two and a half days that the workers, if they lost, weren’t entitled to any benefit for from the federal program in that particular week.
This program will ensure that if a worker wakes up in the morning and feels sick — feverish, coughs, shows those signs — that worker can stay home. They have the ability to stay home now, knowing that they will not lose any income. That’s the purpose of this short-term solution that we are proposing during the pandemic, which will take us till the end of this year.
Yes, we also understand that many businesses are struggling to survive, as the member and other members of this House have canvassed so many times in this House. We want to make sure that they’re not asked to carry the whole burden of dealing with this issue.
But employers understand that it is in their best interest to make sure that the workers who are sick stay home, because we’ve seen if they don’t. Over 70-plus businesses had to be shut down because of a COVID cluster in those operations in the last few weeks. Then the loss is a lot bigger.
Having a program that the businesses understand — that if we allow our workers to stay home if they are sick without loss of pay, it’ll benefit them; it’ll benefit the workers. But we understand that the businesses are hurting as well. So we said we would reimburse those employers who allow their workers to stay home who are sick, up to $200 per worker, per day. I think it’s a win-win situation.
G. Kyllo: I do appreciate the minister for that additional clarity. I do have some additional questions, with respect to timelines. But at this point, I’d like to actually turn this over to my colleague, the Leader of the Green Party.
S. Furstenau: Thank you to the member for Shuswap and the minister.
I’ve been enjoying this conversation quite a bit. I’m a historian, so I’ve been making a timeline. I’m just trying to understand all the things that have been happening since March of 2020.
The minister has indicated that May 6, 2020, was when the WorkSafe safety plans were brought forward, an indication that everybody was understanding the risk of COVID in the workplace and the risk of infection being transmitted in workplaces.
The minister indicated that there was work being done to encourage the federal government to put out a sick pay program, which they did September 2020, and that that program had gaps.
Then there was further work, further conversations, between provincial ministers and the federal minister about addressing those gaps. The Minister of Labour has indicated one of those gaps was addressed.
Then eight months went by, and we find ourselves with a bill for sick pay in British Columbia which covers three days for an employee. The minister, in his response just now, said that this bill will ensure that a worker can stay home knowing they will not lose any income for three days.
We know that the gaps in the federal program still remain. The program requires application retroactively. It’s not funds that can be provided immediately, so for people who are living paycheque-to-paycheque, the federal program really doesn’t meet their immediate needs, and it pays less than minimum wage. So workers can stay home knowing they will have income for three days, and then beyond that, they can apply to the federal program, which we have universally agreed has gaps.
Between September 2020 and May 2021, we have gone through the second wave of COVID and we have gone through the third wave of COVID. Those waves have been increasingly devastating in terms of the cost to people’s health and to people’s lives in this province and across the country.
These ongoing conversations between the provincial ministers and the federal minister seem a little leisurely, given what was unfolding in people’s lives between March 2020 and May 2021.
My question for the minister. Given all that we know about the gaps in the federal program and about the realities for workers in this province — for whom three days, if you have tested positive for COVID-19, is neither sufficient for recovery nor is it sufficient to protect health. The people are being faced with the same choice, which is, “Do I stay home, protect my health, protect the health of my colleagues and protect public health at the cost of not being able to pay my bills?” — because it takes longer than three days to recover from this illness.
Does the minister think that this bill is sufficient to address the immediate needs of workers in B.C. today?
Hon. H. Bains: I think the member knows that the federal government, when they came up with that program, set aside about $2.4 billion for that program. Up until now, they have utilized about $454 million. So there’s a lot of space there. They had the capacity, and we were given the indication that we would fix it.
Now, the best solution was that our bill was three days, plus if you were able to top up. But they would not allow us to top up without a clawback. Right along, we were not sitting idly by. I listed a whole number of different things that we were doing to support the workers and the businesses as soon as the pandemic hit us. The first priority was the health of our population. Then it was to make sure that the workplaces were safe, those who were operating the essential services.
We worked with the employers, worked with workers, their representatives, to ensure that workplaces were safe. And there was enforcement. I can tell you, the numbers of inspections by WCB during the pandemic are enormous, in addition to their normal work and normal inspections. It was not just to establish the safety plans and then leave it to somebody else to self-discipline it. No, it was to enforce and make sure that the workplaces were safe.
Now to the real question that the member was asking: is this sufficient? We believe it is a sufficient answer to the gaps that exist. This is the first three days for a worker to make sure that they are fully paid. If you work three days and then on Thursday you feel sick, you go for a test. So on Thursday and Friday, you’re waiting for the result. These three days will fix that. They will not lose any money. Before, they would have lost those two days, and then they would go on a federal program.
Now, we could have topped up, which we offered to the federal government. Once they go on the federal program, the initial three days are covered to go on the federal program. Then we would top up. They would not allow us, with their clawback. So we had to do the best that we could do here.
I think this is a sufficient bill. It is a balanced approach. The workers will be able to stay home knowing that their wages will continue on for three days, and they can go on a program from the federal government if they need longer time off.
Also, the 50 percent of workers who don’t have any sick plan at their workplaces today — many of them are low wage, non-union sector mostly. Many collective agreements, public sector — they already have sick leave plans.
So it is to deal with those workers who are at the lower end of the wages, non-union workers. Their wages will be protected. They know if they need to take time off because they’re sick on one day, two days, three days, their wages will continue on, and we will support the employer so that they don’t carry the entire burden of this program either.
S. Furstenau: I will ask one quick question, and I assume we will be resuming this.
I appreciate the response from the minister in that he believes that this is sufficient as it stands. I just want to walk through what that would mean for somebody.
As a person earning close to minimum wage, maybe just above minimum wage, indicating that your expenses every month are pretty much what your entire paycheque is going to cover…. We know that in British Columbia, there are far too many people who are living at that precarious place, where one missed paycheque is catastrophic. It could mean losing housing. It could mean not eating or having food for your kids. It could mean catastrophic consequences.
That person tests positive for COVID-19, has three days covered by this provincial program, and then has to apply to the federal program, which provides less than minimum wage. This means they are actually going to earn less in that segment, those two weeks. Ten days, minimum, is the infectious period. This is what we’ve heard from the health officer. Do not go out. Do not spend time in your workplace. So now they are actually having a diminished income, having already existed right at that precarious edge.
Does the minister really think that that is sufficient for some of the most marginal workers in British Columbia, who have suffered the most in this pandemic?
Hon. H. Bains: Member, the scenario that you put together — the plight of minimum wage workers in this province, this country — is real. Right now, we’re talking about the pandemic to ensure that workers have the ability to stay home when they’re sick so that transmission at workplaces is stopped.
That situation exists forever. Those workers who have worked long enough, if they become ill, what rights do they have? They go on the federal sick benefit program, the EI sick benefit program, which pays, again, less than their wages. So we could talk about…. I think we would probably share the value of the plight of the lowest-paid workers in this province and what are they’re facing when they lose one day, two days or lose their job all together. That situation is real.
I think today we are talking about the pandemic. During the pandemic, how do we support these workers so that they don’t lose money when they wake up in the morning and they need to take that day off?
They will be covered with this bill, and then they would go on to the federal program. My suggestion is that our bill is designed to work in collaboration with other support systems that are in place, especially the federal program.
Now, as I said before, had they allowed us to top up the $500 without a clawback, that would’ve been the answer, but they would not allow us to do that. So we did everything we could to fix the gap so that we could move on and provide support to those workers, at least for those three days. Then they could go on the federal program.
Hon. Chair, noting the hour, I move to report progress and ask to sit again.
The Chair: Ah, well. We’ll get there in a moment, but hon. Members, you’ve heard the motion. We’re going to adjourn — I think that’s the request here — this debate for now. We will come back when we get that opportunity.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 12:01 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions and progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until one o’clock this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND
RECONCILIATION
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:14 a.m.
On Vote 33: ministry operations, $50,740,000.
The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?
Hon. M. Rankin: It’s my pleasure today to speak about Budget 2021 and acknowledge first that I’m speaking to you and members from the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.
Joining me today is my deputy minister, Mr. Doug Caul. Mr. Caul has been in the public service since 1992 and was appointed in 2015 as deputy of my ministry. It’s a great honour for me, personally, to have been appointed to this ministry.
It’s a privilege to take part in what is my first estimates debate.
I want to acknowledge my predecessor, Scott Fraser, who I think tried to build relationships not only with Indigenous peoples but also with members who are joining us today for the debate, members across the floor. I hope to emulate his approach today and work with all three parties in the spirit of reconciliation.
I’ve returned to the ministry after many years away. I was a treaty negotiator way back in the ’90s, and I’ve seen significant change. I’ve seen change in the business community, in local government, who have risen to the occasion as we embrace, as a population, the challenges and opportunities of reconciliation. I believe I bring a perspective that can be helpful to this task because I have served as a lawyer and a negotiator and represented government, industry and First Nations during my career.
However, none of that experience could possibly have prepared me to be a minister during the pandemic. I want to acknowledge the strong response of First Nation leadership in keeping their members safe and, therefore, keeping all of us safer. I’m committed to continuing to work in partnership with Indigenous peoples to navigate this crisis safely, together.
The first item in my mandate letter, in fact, refers to the pandemic and keeping people safe. We have had some challenges as we navigate this unprecedented and protracted public health emergency together, but we’ve also seen a new level of coordination and cooperation between government and nations over the past 14 long months. I see this as a concrete example of progress in shifting our government-to-government relationship.
That changing relationship is evident with Indigenous peoples being prioritized for vaccinations, as their communities have faced much higher risks from epidemics in the past. COVID-19 is no different. Evidence shows that Indigenous peoples are disproportionately affected by COVID-19, both with the rate of positive cases and for hospitalizations, and sadly, deaths. That’s why all Indigenous peoples 18 and over are eligible to get their first dose of the vaccine.
Vaccinations, I’m proud to say, have been offered to all First Nation communities in our province, and more than 80,000 vaccines have been administered to First Nations across B.C. I’m so happy to report that over two million people in British Columbia overall now have been vaccinated with their first dose. That gives me great hope that this pandemic will soon come to a close and improve things for all of us.
Important discussions on economic recovery after COVID-19 are underway. As we continue to plan and roll out our recovery efforts, First Nations’ participation is absolutely vital. They will have a strong voice in B.C.’s economic recovery planning. The $10 billion StrongerBC Economic Recovery Plan included significant funding to advance reconciliation and build a more inclusive economy. I’m thinking of such things as the $90 million to support expansion of broadband to 200 rural and Indigenous communities, $5 million to Indigenous Tourism BC to provide relief for Indigenous tourism operators.
A little about my mandate as minister. As government takes actions to support recovery, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples will remain a key principle. As you know, every minister has been tasked with advancing reconciliation in their mandate letters, guided by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which, I’m proud to say to British Columbians, was passed unanimously in this House in 2019.
Part of the implementation of the declaration act includes establishing a secretariat to coordinate that work and deliver on the action plan in consultation and cooperation with First Peoples. That’s why I’m honoured to be responsible for that. Our government has made substantial progress over the past few years, setting a strong foundation for our continuing work to advance true and meaningful reconciliation. Together with Indigenous Peoples, we’ve been working to build a more prosperous future with revenue-sharing and affordable housing.
In 2018, our government provided $50 million on language revitalization. We have a new First Nations justice strategy, a new K-to-12 curriculum so that children are taught about Indigenous history and culture. Improving the child welfare system is another priority. We are making innovative agreements with First Nations to support self-government and self-determination across our province. Budget 2021 continues that work. It supports reconciliation and ensures that Indigenous Peoples remain an important part of our economic recovery.
Of particular note, Budget 2021 provides $60 million in dedicated, annualized funding for Indigenous participation in land and resource activities. That’s dependable funding in our base budget for work that, historically, has been funded in an ad hoc way, out of contingencies. It’s now part of the core funding of our ministry. That supports First Nations engagement, stewardship, negotiations and economic development related to natural resources. This work is vitally important to advance reconciliation and to enhance relationships and collaborative activities with First Nations, industry and government.
Budget 2021 also provides funding for 30 new positions to be split between my ministry and the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. That will make sure that we have the necessary people in place to implement agreements, including land transfers. We need to keep working together to make a difference in the lives of Indigenous Peoples. That’s what we are doing in Budget 2021.
There’s another critically important part of my mandate, and that is the declaration act, the implementation of that work on reconciliation. It was a year and a half ago — that historic moment — when this House was the first government in our country, and one of the first in the world, to embrace the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. That gave us enormous responsibility to carry out what can only be described as a generational task and a challenge — work to start undoing 175 years of colonialism in our part of this world. The bill was an historic milestone, but it was just one step.
Now we’re into the real work, the real implementation, which is, in my case, the creation — in collaboration and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples — of a five-year action plan. The work of engaging deeply with First Nations and Indigenous Peoples has been underway for over a year, despite the pressures everyone faces during the pandemic.
That work is underway, and we expect to release a consultation draft, the first one on an action plan that will be coming out in the coming weeks. We’ll be launching a broad consultation process to seek further input from Indigenous Nations, organizations and from individual Indigenous People. Also, I’m working on the secretariat which I referred to earlier.
Reconciliation is about working together, government-to-government in respectful partnerships, to recognize the inherent rights of Indigenous People guaranteed in our constitution. We’re committed to doing that as we rebuild the province after the pandemic, as we negotiate treaties and other kinds of arrangements that bring lasting change. I know this is a big task, but I’m anxious to move forward. We’ve made important progress; we’ve got much to do. The declaration act provides us that path. We can build an inclusive economy. We can embrace what the world is now calling ESG standards. We can look at our CleanBC as one component of that.
When international investors look at the social part, they will see a government, the first in our country and the first in North America, that has embraced the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. I say that that puts our economy in very good stead, going forward — a leading guidepost for our future development. We can get better outcomes by working together. I look forward to our discussion today.
The Chair: I now recognize the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. Would you like to make any opening remarks?
P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for the opening remarks. I’m new to this portfolio myself, and I do look forward to the rest of the day and questioning, on behalf of all British Columbians, the intricacies of the budget laid out for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
I am going to, in the interest of time, keep my opening comments very brief. I will be turning our opening questions over to my colleague, who is our most recent former minister of this ministry and the member for Nechako Lakes. He will not be able to join us this afternoon, so it makes the most sense to have him engage in his localized questions now. Then I’ll spend the better part of the afternoon, before the Green Party comes in, to ask questions. With the Chair’s permission, I’ll turn the first questions over to the member for Nechako Lakes.
J. Rustad: There are a few issues I’d like to go over with the ministry. To start off, I want to talk a little bit about archaeological overview assessments. This is something that is done through the heritage act. It’s done through Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, but obviously, the information that comes in, associated with this, is important information for the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
What I’m wondering, in particular, is: in what ways does the ministry utilize the information that does come in from archaeological overview assessments?
Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for Nechako Lakes for the question. As he properly noted, the Heritage Conservation Act is the responsibility of the Minister for Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. The information that the archaeology branch provides our ministry is very helpful in a number of ways.
Often when we are negotiating comprehensive reconciliation agreements or other treaties, for example, it’s important to note what the cultural resources of a particular nation are. We take that into account, and preservation decisions are negotiated, often, to note the existence of heritage resources across the province. That would be one example, one way, in which our ministry uses that information.
J. Rustad: Thanks to the minister for that answer. Obviously, the information that comes in is important. It’s part of discussions and the various components that the ministry does look at. What I’m concerned about is that there seems to be a significant delay in actually getting permits for this information to be collected. Obviously, when there are activities out on the land base, it’s important to do this work in advance.
I guess the question to the minister is: in the delay that’s coming in and in getting the permits to get this work done — the delay coming in the door — how does that impact your ministry? Is there anything your ministry can do to help support getting these permits issued so that this actually important work can get done out in the field?
Hon. M. Rankin: I thank you for that thoughtful question, Member for Nechako Lakes. Often delays are frustrating for everyone. They’re frustrating for First Nations. They’re frustrating for people who are involved in the local communities where cultural resources are confirmed to exist. The courts have made clear that there is a duty to consult and accommodate First Nations. That often takes a great deal of time, as the member will know.
We are trying to address that through a number of different techniques, one of which we call strategic engagement agreements. Often these are bilateral agreements, but they may involve others. That will allow us to sit down and work together to try to make it a little quicker, because there’s a great demand and anxiety to make sure the protections are there.
I think we have to blame the courts to some degree, if I may, because the responsibility to consult and accommodate is a constitutional duty binding on the Crown, both federal and provincial. We take the importance of discharging that responsibility very seriously.
J. Rustad: Being aware of the legal requirements and in agreement that those requirements are important, we ought to make sure we follow them. But we’re in a situation where the archaeological information is something that the First Nations should want, that the ministry should want. And there shouldn’t be a lot of work that’s required, given that this is simply looking for archaeological information. It’s not actually doing the work on the ground.
That is why it’s curious why there’s such a delay. I have heard, of recent, that even some of the First Nations seem to be reluctant to want to see this work go forward. Perhaps if the minister could, if the minister has heard of these sorts of issues…. Or could the minister provide some insight, from his ministry’s perspective, as to the importance of this archaeological assessment information both to First Nations and to, of course, the government and why there may be this reluctance or delay, both on the ministry side as well as the First Nations side, to actually want to collect this information?
Hon. M. Rankin: I would agree that the delays are often frustrating. They’re frustrating to me, and they’re frustrating to others. We have local staff distributed across the province who work closely to try to enhance the decision-making, the protection of cultural resources.
I point out that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act actually has an exemption that specifically addresses the importance of safeguarding these kinds of resources. We take the obligation to consult and accommodate very, very seriously, as we of course must.
There are always ways to improve this. One of the ways, as I mentioned earlier, is through such tools as the strategic engagement agreements — SEAs, we call them — that are found across the province. We can do better, I think, but we really always have to go back to the legal obligation imposed upon us by the constitution.
J. Rustad: I’m going to switch to another topic that I just want to touch on briefly, which is treaty land entitlements up in the Peace River country, with treaty 8, in particular, with the negotiations with the Blueberry First Nation. There has been a lot of engagement with the Blueberry Nation, with the other communities, around this. There is significant resistance within the Blueberry First Nation itself to a treaty land entitlement agreement. Yet things seem to still be proceeding.
Does the ministry intend to complete the treaty land entitlement agreements with the Blueberry before — or I guess, excluding…? Sorry, let me try to rephrase that. Does the ministry plan to complete these agreements with the chief and council, or are they going to ensure that there is a full engagement and a vote within the nation itself in order for the agreements to be able to be completed?
The Chair: Members, before we go on, I’d like to remind that all members must keep their masks on unless they are speaking. Please and thank you.
Hon. M. Rankin: I very much appreciate the question. The treaty land entitlement process involves a long-overdue requirement to make good on land in the treaty 8 territories. This process of negotiation with the federal government, Blueberry and other nations and the province has been going on for a very long time and involves hundreds of millions of dollars that the federal government is required to pay, once we conclude those negotiations. So we’re obviously — in the interest of British Columbia and in the interest of, in this case, the Blueberry — anxious to do just that.
The member is absolutely correct. We’re advised there has been some difficulty in leadership, and it’s been contested by some councillors and community members. At this time, however, we’re continuing to work with the current elected chief and council, and our negotiators will continue to respond to the leadership issue and directions as things go clear. But I want to make it clear to the member that we are making good progress.
As he will no doubt be aware, there has to be a band council resolution. They have provided it already, a signed band council resolution by chief and council, indicating support for all of the treaty land selections at place. There will have to be a ratification vote as well. Irrespective of the challenging issues facing leadership, the membership will have to pass on whatever our negotiators are able to achieve. That will give the community the opportunity to finally say yes or no to the package to be negotiated.
J. Rustad: I think the reason for raising this is there have been a number of meetings that the chief and some councillors have held with the province, associated with the treaty land entitlement, that the other councillors were not even invited to or made aware of — the councillors that were in opposition. So it is troubling in terms of the process that’s undergoing with the Blueberry First Nation, which is why I asked the question particularly around the need for this broader community engagement.
I recognize, of course, that we have elected chief and councils. Those elected chief and councils have the authority to enter into the agreements. But at the same time, there is also this need for the broader community engagement.
I guess I just want to confirm. The ministry does recognize the authority of the elected chief and council. But does the ministry also recognize that there does need to be that broader community engagement, as opposed to entering into an agreement that, quite frankly, a future chief and council that may represent a different interest, for example, may actually want to be able to nullify or back out of?
I guess part 2 of that question is: does a future chief and council have an opportunity to back out of such an agreement that may be a split agreement within a community?
Hon. M. Rankin: You know, the key to us in a circumstance like this is twofold. One is that the determination of who is the chief and council is ultimately a federal responsibility under the Indian Act. The governance regime is for them to determine. But the second key point on this is that the Blueberry River First Nation settlement and land agreement must be ratified through a majority vote by community members before any settlement can be finalized.
If there’s a change in leadership and that leadership is not inclined to support this package and the membership agrees with them, then of course, there will be no agreement. Conversely, if the membership, having been in this process for so long, is of the view that it’s in the interests of Blueberry River membership to agree, then of course, irrespective of what the leadership says, that membership will vote in favour.
We will not proceed unless and until that ratification has occurred.
J. Rustad: I want to switch to the third topic I’d like to be able to cover here today, with the Wet’suwet’en First Nation. We just talked about the circumstance of a band council resolution and, for negotiation to be able to move forward, the need for a ratification vote within the nation.
We’re in a situation where the province has entered into an agreement with the Office of the Wet’suwet’en, with the Hereditary Chiefs, where we have opposition from many of the elected chiefs and councils to that agreement. The elected chiefs and councils have informed me that they have not been engaged, that they are not part of the process and the discussions.
How does the minister plan to reconcile the interests of the federally recognized Indian Act chief and councils for the Wet’suwet’en First Nation with regards to the process of an agreement which also is talking about resolving land issues?
Hon. M. Rankin: Well, I appreciate this important topic being raised. It’s one I’ve had personal involvement in. I know the member himself appreciates the complexity of the historic work that is going on with the Wet’suwet’en. As he will be aware, in 1997, it was the Hereditary Chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en who won a case in the Supreme Court of Canada called Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa — a case that decided, famously, that there is Aboriginal title in the Wet’suwet’en territory but did not tell us where that is and what it means on the ground.
The member will be aware that in 2014, in the Tŝilhqot’in area, there was another title case, a case in which the courts did delineate 1,700 square kilometres of land in the so-called declared title area where it was “Aboriginal title,” and the parties have been working closely to try to determine what that would mean on the ground. It was the Hereditary Chiefs, I repeat, who won that important victory in the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa case. The chief justice famously said, “We are all here to stay,” and we’ve got to negotiate.
That’s what we should have done, and didn’t. We did not resume those negotiations, I’m sad to report, until April of 2019, almost a generation later. Here we are, trying to figure out…. I served as the provincial negotiator in that process for some time. Both the Hereditary Chiefs and British Columbia have said that they would like to avoid further litigation on title, but we need to work together to determine what that means on the ground. Funding was recently announced to facilitate that historic work, and our federal partners are very much part of this process.
I have worked with the Hereditary Chiefs, but I’ve met with the elected members of the Wet’suwet’en people as well, in the communities that they are responsible for. I’ve delivered to them the same message that I have repeatedly delivered on behalf of the province to the Hereditary Chiefs. That message is: we need to find unity. We need to have the ability — when we sign, we hope, an agreement with the Wet’suwet’en — that it have the support of the collectivity. After all, it is the Wet’suwet’en collectivity, the Wet’suwet’en Nation, that has those rights, the Aboriginal title, which we know — since the courts told us — exists in that territory.
Therefore, we want to ensure that the unity occurs, in whatever process the Wet’suwet’en consider valid, to demonstrate support of their community for this historic agreement, which we hope we are able to succeed in achieving, together with our federal partners. That is why we are doing this. The need for that unity is a matter, I stress, to both sides equally. We just hope that that can be achieved so that we can get on with this historic work that we should have done long ago.
J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister. That didn’t quite answer the question, but perhaps let me put this in a little bit different way.
On that important landmark case back in the 1990s, what led to that case was that the unified people elected councils behind the Hereditary Chiefs who’d brought that case forward. They were unified both with the Wet’suwet’en and the Gitxsan, and that was the success of that case. Similarly, in the case that the minister had referenced in the Tŝilhqot’in area, which was originally called the William case, that was a place where there was unity amongst the people in moving forward. The court recognized, as the constitution does, that title rests with the people and not necessarily, of course, with the leadership style.
We’re in a situation here with the Wet’suwet’en where there is not unity, where there is division between the elected and the hereditary. The elected, who have important roles in terms of the responsibilities for the people of the Wet’suwet’en, are not aligned, are not part and have been left out. As a matter of fact, they aren’t even getting updates with what’s going on in the information, in many cases, from the last that I’ve heard.
This is a very troubling case, because they do not have the unity within the nation, yet the province and the federal government are proceeding with negotiation with the Wet’suwet’en people, with the exclusion of the very people — particularly those representatives from the elected side — that should very well be part of that discussion.
This is why I enter this. I’m in full agreement that I would like to see reconciliation. As a matter of fact, when I was minister, I made many efforts to try to find a path to be able to bridge the differences between the elected and hereditary and find a way to do a nation-building exercise so that we could get on with some discussions around title. Unfortunately, that just wasn’t there. The will was not there by the parties. So as, obviously, these discussions go, this could be very troubling when I hear from some elected councils that they may be forced to take court action to try to actually get engaged and involved in the very process that is supposed to be there to resolve rights and title and long-term reconciliation with the Wet’suwet’en people itself. So it’s troubling that we’re not seeing the province…. At least, it doesn’t seem to be that the province is stepping up in terms of engaging with all of the people of the Wet’suwet’en and are excluding, in particular, the elected side.
To the minister: how will the province support reconciliation across the Wet’suwet’en people so that there can be a unified Wet’suwet’en people to be able to negotiate with and ultimately resolve this long-outstanding issue?
Hon. M. Rankin: Before answering the question, I want to commend and acknowledge the member’s work, when he was minister, in his efforts to find a path forward in this difficult terrain. I know that he made efforts to do just what we are trying to do as well.
I would point out that I have met with the elected leaders of the Wet’suwet’en, just as I, of course, have met with the hereditary leadership. I’ve encouraged them, with as much clarity as I can, that that critical work is necessary if we are to move forward together.
I acknowledge that during the pandemic, it has been very difficult for the community to come together in the way that we would have liked. It’s difficult enough for us to conduct negotiations on Zoom. I can imagine it’s difficult internally as well. But I think the fact is we just provided additional funding, as did the federal government, to the Wet’suwet’en, with a specific request that that be used for the purposes of creating a constitution, to create the kind of unity that is necessary if we are going to succeed.
So there have been meetings that I’ve had with both sides. I have made the same speech to both sides about the importance of unity, and, ultimately, it’s the nation. As the member properly pointed out, the title rests with the people, with the collectivity of the Wet’suwet’en nation. So therefore, we have to have evidence, as the province, that they have that support before we would go beyond…. I think that message is delivered.
I would encourage both sides, as I’ve done again and again, to come together. I’m hoping that with the pandemic coming to a close, if we’re fortunate, in the next while, that important work can be undertaken and their interests can be aligned.
Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.