Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In Section C, I call the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, followed by the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

In the main chamber, I call second reading of Bill 16, Supply Act.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT (No.1), 2023

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 16, the Supply Act (No.1), 2023, be read a second time now.

Existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2023. Bill 16 provides interim supply for the ministry operations and other appropriations for approximately the first three months of 2023-2024 while the House completes debate of the appropriations presented in the ’23-24 estimates. Interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is required to ensure continuation of government services until the final supply bill comes into force.

Bill 16 also provides one-third of the combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the 2023-24 estimates for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements. The one-third authorization provided for in relation to these disbursements is higher than proportion authorized in relation to ministry operations, as the disbursements prescribed in schedules C and D are not evenly distributed throughout the year. Therefore, the higher level of interim supply is required to accommodate the payments that will be made under these schedules.

Bill 16 also authorizes the full amount of the disbursements referred to in schedule E of the 2023-2024 estimates. Schedule E of the estimates outlines the revenue collected on behalf of, and transferred to, specific programs or entities. There is no impact on the operating results, borrowing or debt resulting from the collection and transfer of this revenue.

These interim supply appropriations are based on the accountabilities and allocations outlined in the 2023-24 estimates. The final supply bill for the 2023-24 fiscal year will incorporate these amounts to ensure it reflects the sum of all voted appropriations to be given to government in that fiscal year.

P. Milobar: I rise to Bill 16. Just have a couple of quick comments. The opposition, of course…. This is a fairly standard bill routine that comes through every year to keep the doors of government open, as the minister referenced in her comments as well. We have no interest as the opposition to not see the government still in operation as we move through estimates.

[2:45 p.m.]

Certainly, though, I would not want any votes that we take around budgetary issues to be misconstrued or misunderstood by the government, as we saw during supplemental estimates recently. Although we will be supporting Bill 16 as it moves through to keep the doors of government open, of course, we also have that with the caveat that as we move through estimates and peruse the bill. the budget. in its entirety, much as the government used to do when they were in opposition, we will likely be voting against the overall budget.

Certainly the supply bill, in its three-month term here to keep the doors of government open, we don’t take issue with. We fully understand how things were calculated with the various schedules to front-load some of the money based on contracts and construction schedules and time frames like that.

We look forward to moving forward with this bill.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move second reading of Bill 16, the Supply Act (No. 1), 2023.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 16 be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. A. Dix: I’m calling Bill 15, the Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2023.

BILL 15 — VITAL STATISTICS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. A. Dix: I move that Bill 15, the Vital Statistics Amendment Act, be read for a second time now.

I rise to speak about these important amendments to the Vital Statistics Act. The amendments help people born in British Columbia who wish to make a change to the gender recorded on their birth registration, who would like to have a birth certificate issued without a gender indicator displayed. According to the 2021 census, British Columbia is one of the most gender-diverse provinces, with roughly one in every 200 people identifying as transgender or non-binary. In addition, two-spirit people have vitally important traditional roles within Indigenous communities.

In recognition of the gender diversity that exists in B.C. and the trauma that people feel when misgendered or faced with unfair barriers to self-determination and gender expression, we’re following through on a commitment to modernize the ways we manage the recording of gender and processes relating to the changing of an individual’s gender.

We have made some systemic changes that support individual rights to self-determination, including changes initiated in 2018 to enable the use of gender X on identity documents and changes in 2021 that allow a change to the gender indicator on drivers’ licences, identification cards and the B.C. Services Card without the affirmation or sign-off of a physician. Last year we introduced a policy that people aged 12 and older could change the gender on their birth registrations without medical sign-off.

The bill before you today proposes amendments to the Vital Statistics Act that will continue and reinforce this approach. The Vital Statistics Act governs the recording and reporting of all information related to vital life events in British Columbia, from birth through to death, and establishes the Vital Statistics Agency, which is responsible for administering the records and procedures related to these life events. All births in B.C. must be reported to and registered by the Vital Statistics Agency.

The first amendment proposed of the two amendments proposed in this bill will remove the requirement in section 27 of the act for people 12 and older to obtain confirmation from a physician or psychologist when they apply to change the gender indicator on their birth registration. This will bring the legislation into alignment with the policy implemented last year.

Moving away from a medical model of gender identification removes real barriers to two-spirit, transgender, non-binary and other gender-diverse people in the province — the barriers they face when trying to change their identification documents. People know, and each person knows, their gender best. Requiring medical sign-off on gender designation reduces an individual’s ability to legally change their gender. Updating the legislation to reflect the policy we introduced last year will ensure an easier process for people to have their true genders reflected on their birth certificates and other identification documents.

People under the age of 12 will still need a supporting statement from a physician or psychologist as a part of their application to change the gender indicator on their birth registration. This age was chosen because it is commonly considered to be the age at which youth are capable of giving consent on their own behalf and of making independent decisions of significance to themselves.

[2:50 p.m.]

For example, in the case of an adoption or a name change where a minor 12 years and older is affected, their consent is required as part of the process.

This change will align B.C. with several provinces and territories that do not require a medical sign-off for changes to the gender on a birth registration. All other requirements for a person to apply for an amendment to the gender indicator on their birth registration will continue to be in place. All minors must continue to seek the consent of their parents and guardians as a part of their application.

In the same spirit of support for equity and self-determination, we’re also proposing an amendment that changes the information that must be included on a birth certificate. Under section 36 of the act, the registrar general of the Vital Statistics Agency can issue a birth certificate upon application from a person requesting one. The certificate is based on information recorded in the birth registration and must contain the sex designation of the person it relates to.

Currently the gender designation F, X or M, as recorded in the person’s birth registration, is automatically displayed on the birth certificate to fulfil the act’s requirement for sex designation. However, gender-diverse people may not recognize themselves in those descriptions.

B.C.’s gender-diverse community has long shared the trauma that one feels when misgendered or faces unfair barriers to self-determination and gender expression. Furthermore, a person’s gender may not be relevant in all of the possible circumstances where a birth certificate might be issued and produced as a piece of identification. Therefore, the amendments we are proposing would remove the requirement in the Vital Statistics Act that all birth certificates must be issued with an indicator of the person’s gender on them.

This means that if a person applying for a birth certificate wishes to omit the gender indicator, they can do so. This change is consistent with and upholds an individual’s equality rights under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Ontario and Nova Scotia already offer birth certificates without an indicator of gender. International jurisdictions, such as the Netherlands, have begun the work to provide genderless government-issued documentation as well.

In conclusion, removing unfair barriers to self-determination and equity for two-spirit, intersex, non-binary, transgender and gender-diverse people is another step we can take together to make all British Columbians feel respected and valued.

I ask all members of the House to support this bill at second reading.

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the minister, ever so briefly, and thank him for laying out very clearly what the amendments accomplish. I think what’s important today to recognize is that, in fact, what this bill — the amendments that have been tabled — does is actually bring legal standing to the policy changes that were announced previously.

When I went back and sort of looked at what had been said, I was very moved by the thoughtful comments of people who had participated in this process. Perhaps one of them said it best when they talked about people having a legal right to have their names and gender markers recognized.

One of the issues…. As the minister knows, obviously, this is second reading. There will be some questions, although not many, because in going back and looking at the policy changes that were announced, there is relatively little that is different here. But we recognize that British Columbia is a very gender-diverse province. The minister has described this as an important step in reflecting inclusivity in our province.

One of the things that I think is important for people to recognize is that parental consent is still required in the case of minors. The minister certainly included that. Obviously, the main thing that we’re doing today is making sure that when there is documentation, British Columbians have the opportunity to have that information accurately reflect who they are.

The minister pointed out, I think very clearly, that there are two clauses to this bill. I think the last time that the minister brought a bill to this House, he and I debated a bill for a period of time that had over 600 clauses, as I recall. This one has two, and the minister described the difference between the two.

[2:55 p.m.]

The first clause does allow a person aged 12 or older to apply for an amendment on the person’s birth certificate without a physician’s or a psychologist’s confirmation. That actually has already been taking place, as I understand it. The minister can walk through that, I hope, for me in the committee stage. I understand that that took effect in January of 2022.

What I’d be most interested in, actually, is looking at whether or not the system has become more transparent, easier for people to manoeuvre their way through, because one of the concerns that was expressed prior to this step being taken was that there were a lot of barriers when it came to making an application and how difficult it was. So at that time, when the original announcement was made, there was concern about the streamlining of this process, how it would work, did the government actually make sure that that was going to be as effective as possible.

It is important to note that those who are under the age of 12 will still be required to provide that confirmation from either a practising registrant of the College of Physicians and Surgeons or a practising registrant of the College of Psychologists. Again, the requirement for consent from parents having guardianship or other guardians of the minor — that’s subsection 27(2)(d) — remains unchanged.

Clause 2 actually allows an applicant for a certificate to request that the person’s birth certificate not include the designation of a person’s sex — in essence, a two-clause bill that actually brings legal standing and legal status to the policy changes that the government brought forward in order to ensure that people have the ability to self-declare their gender on identity documents.

I look forward to continuing our discussion simply through a series of questions in committee. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to respond today.

Hon. A. Dix: I want to thank the member for Prince George–Valemount. I think when you’re dealing with issues of human rights in our communities…. We do, in our constituency office, frequently deal with people who have challenges in expressing themselves in society. I think it’s really valuable to have serious exchange and debate but also support from members of all sides of the House for changes we bring forward.

This is an area of public policy, in the time the member and I have sat together in this House, that has evolved. I think doing it together, being supportive together and saying as a Legislature, “We support people’s individual rights,” is one of the things that we can critically do. That doesn’t change the fact that there needs to be discussion, debate and accountability, of course.

Also, it’s important that we do what I think we’ve done today and in our discussions, which is to say to people who are two-spirit and intersex and non-binary and transgender and gender-diverse people in our communities that they have our support. They have our support when they are facing some of the most difficult challenges. We know, when we look at social determinants of health, that many people in those circumstances face some of the most significant challenges in our society.

I’m very appreciative of the comments of the member for Prince George–Valemount.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. A. Dix: I believe the Minister of Jobs will be coming down to the House very shortly. I’m going to call Bill No. 14, and I think she’ll be here within a short period of time to deal with the next bill. So if I could ask for a two-minute recess so she can get here.

Deputy Speaker: This House stands in recess for two minutes.

The House recessed from 2:59 p.m. to 3:04 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: I call the House back to order and recognize the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation.

BILL 14 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MODERNIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. B. Bailey: I move that the bill be introduced and read a second time now.

Madam Speaker, I’m pleased to present Bill 14, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Modernization) Amendment Act. Words matter. Whether written or spoken, words have a powerful effect, and all British Columbians deserve to see themselves reflected in the words we use to describe government programs and services.

[3:05 p.m.]

This bill will modernize B.C.’s legislative framework by amending more than 230 instances of outdated gendered and binary language — amendments found in more than 200 provincial statutes, amendments that will ensure that all British Columbians see themselves reflected in our laws. Words matter, especially when it comes to promoting inclusion and eliminating discrimination, and this bill represents a key step to furthering our government’s commitment to do just that.

Adrienne Smith, litigation director at the Catherine White Holman Wellness society, a trans clinic, put it this way: “Trans and non-binary people, particularly youth, can be erased by laws that only use ‘he’ and ‘she.’” Bill 14 signals “to those people that they are important and that they are included and protected by the law.” Modernizing language isn’t just a nice-to-have. It’s a necessary step towards creating a more inclusive society.

It also happens to align with legislative drafting best practices, so the bill also improves clarity by proposing minor amendments to various acts that will, for example, repeal outdated sections and reflect the way technology has changed the language, especially as it relates to working and meeting virtually.

What’s key is that Bill 14 will systematically amend provincial laws to remove outdated gendered and binary language, better reflecting the diversity of our province. British Columbia will become the first province in Canada to do this, because legislative modernization and reform…. Bill 14 is one way that we can promote inclusivity and equality for all British Columbians.

T. Halford: I want to take an opportunity here to speak to this important issue, because it is one that I think is pivotal to the conversations that we’re having every single day. I know that in my house, with my children and in our family, we are continuing to have this dialogue on such an important matter and on these changes.

I think they’re changes that are necessary to reflect where we are as a society and how that goes. I know that growing up, those conversations did not happen when I was in school. They didn’t happen when I entered the workforce. I think it’s absolutely necessary what the minister has highlighted today — that there are changes that need to be made, that there are things that need to happen to bring us to a much, much better space than where we are today.

I want to thank the minister, and I want to thank everybody that has done the work in terms of bringing this forward. I think that when we look at modernization — in any facet, but in what the minister highlighted today — it’s absolutely essential that we do the work necessary, that we have those conversations and that we are able to move forward in a way that understands how society has changed and how we have evolved — that whether it’s in our school system, in our public sector, in the private sector, in this House, we’ve evolved in a way to be able to have those conversations.

I think that the work is necessary. I think that it’s absolutely vital, and I look forward to making sure that we on this side are doing everything we can to continue those conversations and making sure that they are absolutely necessary. To the minister’s words that….

When I look at some of the challenges that are brought forward…. I had the opportunity on Friday to host an organization in my riding, the White Rock Pride Society.

[3:10 p.m.]

The White Rock Pride Society was actually one of the first meetings I took as an MLA. The work that they are doing…. When we talk about inclusivity, one of the major challenges that they had is making sure how they are promoting what is important to them in terms of values, and how are we echoing that today in this House.

I think that when we look at some of the challenges that individuals face, it’s absolutely necessary that we continue to do the work that is incumbent on us to bring forward the challenges that individuals face in every single community. I think that it’s important work and an important step. I want to make sure that we do realize that every person faces different challenges.

We want to make sure that we continue that work. We want to make sure we continue that dialogue so that when we are standing up in this House and when we are meeting with organizations like the White Rock Pride Society and when we are continuing to have that dialogue, we are doing it in a way that is respectful.

With that, I will take my seat.

A. Olsen: I just want to rise today and speak in favour of Bill 14, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. This bill will amend over 200 different pieces of legislation, removing outdated, gendered and binary language. In effect, it ensures that our laws are inclusive and affirming of gender diversity. This is a good thing.

For several years, we’ve seen amendment acts update gendered language one by one as bills are brought forward updating the acts, making sure that they’re reflecting the language that we’re using in our society today. This bill before us is a proactive step to systematically update the province’s laws, updating hundreds of pieces of legislation all at once.

For a very long time, the laws that were written and passed in this building were not written with the diversity of the public in mind. Instead, they were written with an eye of a patriarchal, heteronormative, colonial society in which we live. We still face challenges on this front, so it’s essential that we move through our roles as individuals and as elected officials and that we uphold the importance of human rights and elevate the voices of marginalized groups.

This legislation also comes at a time when we’re seeing increased legal attacks on the rights and safety of trans and LGBTQ2S+ communities in our neighbours to the south. I’m proud that in our jurisdiction, we are celebrating and respecting gender diversity and inclusivity and updating our laws to reflect that.

Finally, this bill also provides for updates such as allowing documents to be delivered by email and repeals obsolete provisions, ensuring the ongoing clarity and modernization of B.C.’s legal landscape.

I want to just take a moment to raise my hands to the members of the public service. This bill has 1,200 clauses in it, and I know that it’s taken some effort for us to review each and every one of these clauses.

It’s a lot of work, just as it must have been a lot of work for the public service to begin this process and to ensure that this — I think, probably, what will be a first go at this — was inclusive. Having 200 statutes across multiple ministries included in this is an indication of the level of work that was required. I just want to take a moment to raise my hands to the public service who did that work.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to this important bill. I look forward to continuing to support legislation in this spirit as we go forward.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to this bill. Like the member before me mentioned, the bill is very extensive. There are a lot of clauses, and going through each one was…. Yeah, it took quite a bit of time. But although the bill is extensive, it’s actually quite straightforward, so I don’t feel like I need to say too much to it.

[3:15 p.m.]

If you want fairness, if you want equality and if you want laws that welcome and that include, then you have to modernize your legislation. You have to modernize your language. I believe that this, actually, brings that language up to date and allows it to be much more inclusive.

It’s important to promote fairness, to allow each member of our communities and of our province full inclusion. This removal of gender language and of the outdated words that have been used in the past to talk about people experiencing, let’s say, mental health issues, for example…. Well, these are important modernizations that will help to reduce stigma and that will help to improve inclusivity and improve and build our community.

I also believe…. Some of the other important aspects are just modernizing — things like having B.C. Hydro not just approve board resolutions through telex and telegraph. I don’t remember the last time I telegraphed someone, but I’m sure it’s still used somewhere. Obviously, just as we’re modernizing these outdated modes of communication, we’re also modernizing our language to become more inclusive. That is the crux of this bill and what we are attempting to do.

As I noted earlier, this is very straightforward in nature. I believe that we all want to move towards fairness and equality. In doing so, the modernization of the language in this bill will help us.

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the members who spoke on this bill.

I’d like to take a moment to thank the better regulations legislative team, who provided advice and legislative drafting services. They continue to work diligently on the better regulations for B.C. amendment process, and their work is truly appreciated.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Bailey: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 14, Miscellaneous Statutes (Modernization) Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. A. Dix: I am going to again ask for a couple minutes of recess, just for the Attorney General to come down.

I’m calling Bill 11, the Election Amendment Act, at this time. Then I’d also request a five-minute recess.

Deputy Speaker: This House will stand in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:18 p.m. to 3:28 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: I call the House back to order and recognize the Attorney General.

BILL 11 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be read now a second time.

This legislation acts on the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendations for changes to the Election Act. The amendments respond to recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer’s May 2020 report Digital Communications, Disinformation and Democracy and the CEO’s May 2022 report Recommendations for Legislative Change.

The general concern outlined in the disinformation report is that there is an increasing difficulty in meeting the act’s principles of transparency and fairness in light of the increasingly complex and sophisticated means of disseminating political communications.

To address these concerns, the amendments will establish restrictions on making specified types of false statements about candidates, senior officials of political parties and vendors and contractors providing services to Elections B.C.; establish restrictions on deliberate disinformation about the electoral process; establish more specific criteria for what constitutes an independent third-party advertising sponsor; require all digital platforms that publish election advertising to remove non-compliant content within a specific time frame, following notice by the CEO; give the CEO regulatory authority to establish content and format standards for authorization statements on election advertising; and extend the definition of canvassing on a commercial basis to include the transmission of online messaging.

[3:30 p.m.]

The 2020 provincial general election was the first election held during a pandemic in British Columbia. An unprecedented number of voters voted by mail and at advanced voting. The amendments will streamline the vote-by-mail process and update the criteria for ballot adjudication.

Overall, these amendments will provide new measures to protect the integrity and enhance the accessibility and efficiency of provincial elections in B.C.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 11, and I apologize for the delay. Just wanting to stand and speak to some of the changes that are being put into this bill and some of the recommendations from the CEO of Elections B.C. that are not finding their way into this bill and maybe some of the questions that we’ll have as this bill moves through the remaining parts of this legislative process.

We do recognize the process that has been involved in order to draft this legislative amendment today and including the CEO’s ability to authorize locations for mail ballot drop-off beyond electoral offices or voting places. A campaign period — election advertising is now going to be more broadly defined to include electronic communication instead of simply text messaging. Recognizing that this allows people to write the name of a party leader on a write-in ballot to vote for that party’s candidate in their riding. I’ll come back to that in just a second.

The CEO doesn’t currently have to issue a mail-in ballot if they don’t think that there’s enough time in order for the voting member, citizen, to return it. It requires mail voters to provide a date of birth as a shared secret to confirm their identity when voting. It removes the requirement that the mail-in voting be done before a witness and allows for the curing of mail-in ballots returned with errors, so voters can correct mistakes to allow the votes to still count.

I think all of these initiatives that I just outlined are laudable initiatives, save one. And I’ll speak to that. I think it is important that we recognize that the accessibility of our elections is there for all British Columbians — those who don’t have a fixed address, for example, or maybe those who may have made a mistake in that process. I appreciate the effort that’s being taken by government here to ensure that British Columbians are able to have their say in one of the most important acts in our democracy, which is to go out to the poll and to vote.

I recognize that in this bill we have the ability for, and I mentioned this, people to write the name of a party leader into their ballot instead of their party’s candidate. I recognize that during the snap election in 2020 this was a particularly challenging aspect for voters, in that it was being done in a pandemic. It was a snap election, meaning it wasn’t planned. In some ridings, no party had a candidate until quite some time. Because of the pandemic, we used mail in ballots to an extent that I don’t think have ever been used in this province previously, so we saw an awful lot of write-in ballots.

[3:35 p.m.]

I think the idea of writing in the party leader’s name into a ballot goes against the electoral system that we have, where members from their community put their name forward to represent their communities. This idea that we can simply just have leader-style politics is kind of like they do down in the States, to some extent, when they vote for the President. It’s a focus on the leader of the party rather than actually those individuals who have been nominated and elected to be the candidate for their party.

It was indicated to me that during one of the ballots back in the 2020 election — in the West Vancouver–Sea to Sky riding, I believe — there was a different position that was taken by Elections B.C. on this. Now, in this report that the CEO of Elections B.C. has given to the minister, in order to draft this legislation, he has changed the position, maybe, from what was in the judicial recount decision.

I think we need to be very careful if we are moving away from 87 MLAs elected here, all in the same way, by a majority of the members in their riding and we’re moving towards more of a leader style of politics, where the focus is on the leader of the political party. I think we need to recognize that that is a system that has evolved over the decades. That is not how this institution is supposed to work, as it was historically set up.

It has evolved that way. This place is about the political parties that exist here. It’s about the sparring between the political parties that exist here. It is about the consolidation of power by those political parties that exist in this House. That’s what this chamber has become, and, I believe, what this amendment will further entrench: a lack of understanding and awareness, for some British Columbians, of who their candidate actually is.

In my riding, for the first four weeks of the election, I had the Premier’s signs up all over my riding, promoting somebody who wasn’t running in my riding. You know, I still beat the Premier in my riding during that election, as it turns out. He did not win in Saanich North and the Islands. He wasn’t running in Saanich North and the Islands.

What it did…. I can talk about what it did. As I was standing having a conversation with people on the street in Sidney, it brought a sense of confusion into that race. I didn’t know the Premier was running in Saanich North and the Islands. Well, he was not. People were legitimately confused.

This is the single most important act in our democracy: going to the polls and selecting the person that you want to represent you in your riding. Indeed, we all, most of us, run for a political party in here, and the collections of candidates that run under those banners form a government. They form an opposition, they form a Third Party, and they form a fourth party and maybe a fifth party.

The reality here is that if we are changing our laws that are going to serve to further confuse British Columbians, I think we need to pause and reflect on that. It was confusing. You know what? I think the Premier of the day got what he was looking for. He got the outcome that he was looking for, and that’s fine, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing for us to do.

I think it’s important to acknowledge some of the things that the CEO of Elections B.C. had in their report and that, for some reason inexplicably, are not appearing in this bill.

Prohibiting the spreading of misinformation about the political officials or the elections process. Imposing monetary penalties on those who spread misinformation. Providing criteria for what constitutes an independent third-party sponsor. Allowing voters to use date of birth to confirm identity to vote by mail. Allowing ballots to be dropped off at CEO-designated drop-off locations.

[3:40 p.m.]

Some of these are not…. Oh, sorry. I should say that those were in. Here are the things that are not in the…. This is my confusion. This is what happens when your notes walk in at the moment that you’re supposed to stand up and speak.

There are aspects of this bill that do not cover recommendations that were made by the CEO. From the 2020 report, require online bots to disclose their automated nature. That seems to me, in a world of AI, something that we should be aggressive…. In fact, I would say that this government has been very slow on the rapidly changing digital landscape. We are five years behind, perpetually, because of the way that we update our acts and because of the way that we view this. I would say that this is something that is a missed opportunity in this bill.

Expand the definition of “election advertising” to 12 months before an election if the ads endorse a candidate or a party and six months if the ads are solely issues-based. This would reflect the trend towards permanent campaigning in our politics, which we’re seeing.

Require third-party advertisers to be B.C. residents, using Canadian funds and bank accounts. Back in 2013, we spent a considerable amount of time talking about foreign money and the influence that it’s having in our political system. It seems to me that this would be an aspect, a remnant, a legacy of the system that was in place back in 2013 that could have been addressed in this legislation.

Impose penalties for fraudulent or incomplete nomination forms and nomination contest reports, and ban advertisers from sponsoring content on platforms that fail to remove illegal content. The reality is that if we don’t get ahead and ensure…. Those who own and operate these digital platforms do not believe that we are going to penalize them for allowing fraudulent or incorrect information to just linger in that digital landscape. This would be a way for us to be able to ensure…. Many of these platforms are driven by their advertising models. So banning that advertising on platforms that don’t conform, I think, would be one of those pieces.

These are issues…. I’m very happy with the fact that some of the aspects of this bill are moving forward. I have some pretty substantial questions, frankly, about the move towards a leader style of politics. That, frankly, I think, is outside of the way the system of our government and our elections should work.

I have some questions for the minister as to why it is that some of these pieces were ignored — the correct ones, the ones that I got right. Why the ministry and the minister decided to leave these out for now. It could be that there’s another bill coming, and that would be fine too. We will be pressing at the committee stage as to why those pieces were left out.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I call Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, on the adjourned debate by the member for Shuswap.

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2023

(continued)

G. Kyllo: It definitely gives me a great deal of pride to rise in the House today and speak to Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. Just before the break, I did have an opportunity to start my remarks with respect to government’s fiscal plan for spending for this current fiscal.

As we know, last year government projected a signifi­cant budget deficit. I believe about a $5.4 billion deficit. As we know, the government received a significant windfall, which changed the numbers by about $11 billion from the initial plan.

Now, for members watching from home, the government operates on about an $80 billion a year budget. When you have a look at a potential $11 billion swing, that’s government’s opportunity to provide a financial fis­cal forecast and then to come back.

[3:45 p.m.]

We’re certainly happy to see that things are looking more positive than government initially forecast. But it harkens to some of the concerns that we have about government’s ability to actually have a good understanding of the financial picture of government. All the swing this past fiscal has been in favour of British Columbians and in favour of government. We’re fortunate for that. But it certainly calls into question government’s ability to actually provide accurate financial forecasts.

This current year’s budget, which is being put before British Columbians for debate…. We certainly have a considerable amount of concern with respect to the accuracy of the spending plans of this government.

We know, on a multitude of different factors, ranging from the quality of life of British Columbians, everything from health care…. Some of the worst results in the country. Crime at an all-time high. Housing affordability has never been more unaffordable. Homelessness. The amount of street crime impacting businesses and families around the province has never been worse.

For a two-term government, now almost six years in power, six years in office…. On many of these factors, the quality of life in British Columbia has gotten demonstrably worse.

As we look at the significant surplus that government has and their desire to have those fiscal moneys out the door by March 31, just a few short days from now…. They’re on a spending spree. Governments definitely have choice. We recognize that governments have choice. But when you try and put out those monumental dollars in a very short amount of time without the proper safeguards in place to ensure that the money is being spent wisely, it should cause British Columbians significant concern.

The Ministry of Agriculture, just as an example. Their base budget is $106 million. And what did we see in the supplemental estimates? An additional $110 million, basically an effective doubling of their budget within a short amount of time. When the minister was asked very specific questions…. “Minister, what specific request did you make of Treasury Board for your ministry?” Well, none was had.

As the questions were put forward to the minister, we saw, I guess, a lack of answers and a lack of rigour from this government. We saw moneys that were basically put out the door not so much because there’s a need or necessity within the ministry but because that was something that the Premier’s office chose to delve out.

Now, as we look at the funding for this current budget…. I’ve got significant concerns about government’s choice in respect, or a lack thereof, of taxpayers. Government has choice. They have the ability of making a determination, with legislative changes, on how projects are being tendered and how services are being delivered to British Columbians.

What we have seen is significant growth in the public sector. I think all members of this House would have a great deal of respect for the services that are provided by the public sector — nursing, our health care system. I see our Health Minister cheering. Yeah, absolutely. We all rely on health care funding.

What we’ve seen under this government’s tenure is actually a reduced amount of spending as a percentage of the fiscal budget. Health care funding dollars represented 42 percent of all tax dollars in the province back in 2017. Sadly, that percentage has actually dropped. Yes, there are more gross aggregate dollars out there in the system, but as a percentage of the overall funding envelope presented by this government, we’ve actually seen a reduction to just 39 percent.

Now, 3 percent doesn’t sound like a lot. But a 3 percent reduction on an $80 billion budget…. That’s actually a reduction in the actual importance that this government has on the health care system. We’re seeing that play out with hospital closures and emergency room closures around the province, negating the opportunity for residents to get timely service. We’ve seen challenges with the ambulatory care and wait times upwards of an hour or two.

[3:50 p.m.]

I’ve had a number of issues even in my riding of Shuswap where individuals would actually make a call for an ambulance in that time of need only to be told: “Well, we’re not sure when we can dispatch an ambulance.” Individuals are waiting for upwards of two hours in order to get that opportunity to actually get transferred for the care that those individuals require.

We have a government that has choice. They have a significant surplus carried over from last year, yet what do we see? A change in focus on where they’re actually investing those hard-earned dollars that British Columbians all pay. When we look at value for money, we have to give consideration to how some of these projects are going out.

The community rip-off agreements, as they’re now being touted and actually recognized around the province, the community benefits agreements, are negating the opportunity for 85 percent of construction workers in the province from actually working on many of these public sector jobs. We’ve seen cost overrun after cost overrun after cost overrun. Meanwhile, we have 85 percent of construction workers largely being cut out and negated the opportunity of working in their own communities on these public sector projects, yet what do we see? Project after project going grossly over budget and British Columbians getting less for more.

I’ve shared in this House that one of the very first community benefits agreement projects that was ever put out by this government, the Salmon Arm west highway expansion project, $162.7 million, 6.1 kilometres of four-laning…. Because of government’s choice to use their community rip-off agreement, what did we see? A $20 million cost overrun and only half the project built. Think about that, $20 million more for half the project.

Who is benefiting from these agreements? Certainly not the taxpayer. Taxpayers are paying more money for less projects. And we have a burgeoning public sector — 128,000 new hires, a 33 percent increase in the public service just in the last 5½ years at a gross cost of almost $10.8 billion a year in additional wages and benefits.

I think as we look around, we just have to ask ourselves: what level of service are British Columbians receiving that has actually improved? A 33 percent growth in the public service, and service delivery has never been worse. Wait times for ambulatory care, service in our hospitals…. We’ve gone from No.1 in Canada for cancer outcomes to No. 10.

We see significant backlogs in permitting. Whether you’re looking to obtain a permit for a cutblock in order to provide the necessary fibre to keep our mills busy and operating…. Significant delays. B.C. Timber Sales — over 400 days. They represent 20 percent of the cut in our province. They went over 400 days without issuing a single cut permit — 400 days.

You know, I certainly am hearing from the forestry companies back in my riding that the forests are there. The mills are needing that fibre in order to keep running and keep operating, yet we’ve seen a significant delay. A mill in Merritt recently curtailed on account of just that very thing: the inability to get permitting. One of the communities that I represent, the community of Salmon Arm…. The Salmon Arm marine park wharf — it’s been in existence for over 80 years. Their lease renewal was up three years ago.

[3:55 p.m.]

As a standard protocol, the leases that are issued by the ministry have to be renewed. It’s typically a fairly simple process, but for some reason, this ministry has such a backlog. Even with the huge increase in the number of bureaucrats that are now working in the public service, they can’t seem to get even a simple renewal out the door. Salmon Arm has been waiting over three years just for a renewal.

They also wanted to move forward with a new lease application for the foreshore at Canoe. Now, this is a community pier and boat launch that has been in existence for well over 60 years. The lease was never formalized. Salmon Arm made an application to the government. It actually applied for a foreshore lease which would allow them then to undertake some significant leasehold improvements on the boat ramp and the pier section. That also has been delayed now over three years. When Salmon Arm requested a bit of an update on timing, they initially were told: “Call us in June, and we should, hopefully, be able to provide you an update at that time.”

Timely access for permitting for everything from cut permits in order to provide that access, the necessary fibre to keep our mills and our forest workers working, or even the support of municipalities around the province that require either lease renewals or lease applications to be approved so they can undertake to provide those necessary upgrades…. What do we see? Delay after delay after delay. When government is choosing not even to provide necessary services to our municipalities, one can only have increasing concern about how British Columbians are being served.

When it comes to health care, there’s an amazing facility in my riding. It’s the only hospital in the riding of Shuswap: Shuswap Lake General Hospital. It has been providing invaluable service to not just the community of Salmon Arm, which is, by the way, one of the fastest-growing communities with a population under 25,000 in British Columbia. It’s rated by Maclean’s magazine, I think, as the most desirable place in all of Canada to live. But it has needs.

The ambulatory service is due for a significant upgrade, the single operating room no longer meets national health care standards, and they also have a requirement for additional ICU beds. The services that are available in Salmon Arm at Shuswap Lake General — they call it acute care, so it doesn’t even stand up to what we would deem to be the ICU. There’s a requirement and a need, and government has been waiting. We have been waiting at Shuswap Lake General, as have the surgeons and the hospital staff, for a significant amount of funding to at least move forward with the planning stages. But what are we seeing? Delay after delay after delay.

My concern is that the amount of capital funding that’s available is diminished, and the opportunities for some of these very necessary hospital expansion projects around the province — not just in Salmon Arm, but in other communities — is being delayed. And why? Because of cost overruns on other projects. As I mentioned earlier, the whole idea of value for money.

The Cowichan District Hospital, which was announced back in 2018, was initially budgeted between $400 million and $600 million. But last year, just towards the end of November, we saw government come out with an update. So that project that was initially budgeted between $600 and $800 million is now $1.45 billion.

Why? Because, again, government has made a choice to exclude 85 percent of construction workers and to let that project out under their community rip-off agreement, which denies opportunity for the majority of construction workers to work directly on that project.

[4:00 p.m.]

Again, that’s a choice of this government, a cost overrun from their budgeted amount, $455 million, not because the hospital is bigger, not because it has more service delivery, not because there are more beds. This hospital at Cowichan district, at $1.45 billion for 201 beds, $7 million a bed, will be the single most-expensive hospital ever built in North America, from the numbers that I’ve been able to find.

Get this. The existing Cowichan Hospital is nine years newer than Shuswap Lake General, the hospital in my riding that has been waiting for even a $30 million or $40 million expansion. Yet government, through choice, through this community ripoff agreement, is blowing $455 million of additional spending — so money for this community benefit agreement, which favours 19 of the NDP’s handpicked unions, but for other very important projects around the province, there does not seem to be either the will or the capital in order to advance these projects.

We have a look at the significant budget surplus that government just spent. I was having a conversation with a locally elected municipal leader. For those of you listening from home, you may not be aware, but government chose in the last days of last month to provide $1 billion of additional funding to municipalities — $1 billion.

When government was asked on how they came up with $1 billion, well, it wasn’t because they looked at all the different financial asks of municipalities and put that together and said: “Okay. Look at this, what municipalities are looking for, and the gross aggregate cost of that is $1 billion.” No, they picked an arbitrary number and decided that that was the amount of money that they were going to choose to provide to municipalities.

I know municipalities have significant funding challenges when it comes to infrastructure, and I don’t deny them the access to additional funding. But why did this government choose $1 billion? Would $800 million have sufficed, which would have provided maybe $200 million that could have gone to the different health authorities around the province so that they could advance some of those very important projects?

Health outcomes are one of the single largest concerns in this province, yet with a huge $2.7 billion of surplus cash that government found themselves in, they chose not to use a significant portion, or any of those funds, in order to help advance some of the funding shortfalls that we’re seeing in some of our hospitals and other health authorities around the province.

Again, it comes down to choice. It’s some of the choices that this government is making that is causing life to be just that much harder for British Columbians.

Crime. We hear day after day; we see it in the newspapers; we see it on our streets — the amount of increasing crime and all of the other hardship that creates for communities. Yet when given the opportunity for this government to take proactive efforts, especially for violent and repeat offenders, to give direction and encourage Crown counsel to put a reverse onus on those individuals….

If you have an individual that is committing crime day after day, week after week, just continuing to turn them back on the street is a huge frustration for our RCMP and police officers around the province. It only exacerbates the problem. I was just reading the news today. An individual that was arrested in possession of a bunch of stolen goods was released back onto the streets and the very next day was pulled over intoxicated and driving a stolen vehicle.

[4:05 p.m.]

Now, thank goodness that impaired driver didn’t hit somebody or kill somebody. That individual was in custody. They were turned back on the streets and then chose to get impaired, steal a vehicle and drive on our streets.

Government has the tools and the legislative ability in order to make change, but they seem so reticent. Only when coming kicking and screaming did they finally decide to take action. It’s putting additional cost pressure on municipalities. It’s putting additional cost pressure on businesses.

I had an opportunity to meet with a fairly large retailer, a retailer that we would all have a lot of trust and confidence in, in British Columbia. That large retailer had reported losses last year because of the impact of crime. Their staff are being verbally and physically abused. The amount of additional security cameras and investigative measures they have to go through when an employee is assaulted or even verbally assaulted, the amount of time and energy they have to expense in order to investigate those alleged incidents, the amount of theft, the breakage….

You have organized crime preying on some of our most vulnerable. This is actually unbelievable. They will go to the streets and get five or ten people and actually give them a wish list, a shopping list. They will go in and steal from these stores and run out. So organized crime is now preying on some of these homeless populations.

I see that I’m coming towards the end of my time. Budget day should be a day where we have hope for the future. I’m seeing a lot of the same challenges which have been evidenced over the last six years, and I have a significant amount of concern over the direction where this government is going.

C. Oakes: It is an honour and a privilege to be able to join the debate today on Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

For many of us, the last two weeks we’ve been out in our constituencies, constituency week, and we’ve had the opportunity to talk to many people. It’s always incredibly important for each of us, as legislators and as representatives, to hear clearly what our constituents are saying and to bring that here to this fine chamber and ensure that their voices — the voices of, in my case, the residents of Cariboo North — are heard.

In response to the budget, some of the comments that we’ve heard…. There were some challenges, of course, that we heard in our communities.

As I begin, I’m going to break it into two points: some of the initial responses of what people were saying and where I think we could get to. I want to lead my comments with where I think that there are some tremendous opportunities. We still have time before March 31. We still have time to reflect. For example, the Minister of Transportation is here. Perhaps the Quesnel River Bridge and rail overpass could find its way into the budget yet. Perhaps there are projects that are so critically important in our communities that could find our ways — clearly very much needed in our communities.

At first glance, this budget really has been uninspiring, with record-high spending and record-low results. After nearly six years of worsening results, Budget 2023 offers nothing new but the same NDP rhetoric and empty promises. Budget 2023 is the seventh NDP budget, and after six years, we see the same terrible results that have left the province in multiple crises.

Life has never been more unaffordable, with the highest gas prices and housing costs in North America. I know people in the Cariboo going to the grocery stores right now are really, really struggling. People are literally dying because they cannot access basic health care. Emergency rooms are shutting down in every corner of the province.

[4:10 p.m.]

I committed to several people in my constituency of Cariboo North who have shared, recently, their very difficult stories of the experiences that they’re facing right now in our community of Cariboo North and G.R. Baker Hospital. They wanted me to raise it here in this Legislature. They wanted me to share their stories of the struggles that they’re seeing in our health care sector and how there is a disconnect in what the budget announced and what is actually happening as results in our community.

We’ve got to do better. We’ve got to figure out a better way of making those very important changes in our communities. Boy, in our communities right now, people are really, really struggling. Like every community, Cariboo North is very much struggling with violent prolific offenders. We’re seeing vicious, random attacks and assaults. We see this catch-and-release justice system, and people are frustrated. They’re angry. They’re also saddened. They’re saddened because there just aren’t the services.

I sat with a family for three hours. My heart goes out to them. They shared with me a very personal story of a loved one that is struggling right now and was flown down here to Victoria to the hospital — had struggled with addiction for many, many years. The family has struggled, as well, to support their loved one.

They found their way back into our community, and I sat down and talked with them and looked at options. What are the options in our communities where we can possibly provide support and treatment for their loved one in the North? It’s an Indigenous family. As we walk through these very difficult conversations, and as we walk through the emotions of it, there’s just no place in our communities. There’s no place for treatment. There’s no place for the necessary supports that our families need.

When we look at the budget and we look at the steps that the government is taking, for communities like ours, we feel…. I use the word “abandoned,” and it’s because we can’t find the supports that our people are expecting. We know we can do better. We know that in our communities, there have been some very strong plans that have been put forward on how we could address treatment for addictions and mental health supports in our communities. We just want to see those plans get approved through government and that that funding finds its way so that we can help people on the ground.

Last week in Prince George, there was the Indigenous health conference, where a lot of discussions were shared about how we can improve upon things. I want to bring that story into this House because there are working groups across this province who are doing extraordinary work on how we can get results on the real, serious concerns that we have in our communities.

I’m going to turn now to where a way forward can be. One of the great privileges we have as representatives is to have the opportunity to talk and listen to so many incredible people doing great work across this province. Recently the Vancouver Board of Trade put forward a very important document around solving B.C.’s workforce challenges.

Whether it’s health care, whether it’s our business community, whether it is our skilled trades, whatever the sector is, understanding what the workforce challenge needs are in British Columbia is a critical component of how we are going to solve important issues. The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade’s report talked about the immediate action that we should be looking at. First of all, as they’ve outlined — the provincial government checks — there will be over one million job openings in British Columbia over the next ten years.

[4:15 p.m.]

We all know that in a world of rapidly developing technologies, shifting employee expectations and demographics and steep international competition for talent, B.C. must attract and retain the talent it needs to meet the staggering number of job openings across all sectors.

They talked about businesses continuing to face labour market challenges. In September 2022, the data from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s Business Data Lab revealed that difficulty recruiting 40 percent and retaining 34 percent of talent continues to impact Vancouver businesses across every sector, with a slight uptick when compared with the previous quarter, and that in health and the social assistance sector, the number of vacant positions in Canada rose 90 percent during the first quarter of 2022.

These are very real challenges. I know that British Columbia isn’t alone in this challenge. I know that. I know that jurisdictions across the globe are facing these very real workforce challenges.

What I haven’t seen, and what I was hoping for and expecting for in this budget, is how in British Columbia, with the world-class post-secondary system that we have, are we seeing the types of necessary investments that we need so that not only can we lead in competitiveness, that we answer the real challenges of productivity right now? What does that look like for a workforce and as we develop that, and how does industry, academia and the workforce combine to make sure we’re solving the real solutions that I identified that I heard in my community a little bit earlier?

One of the things that the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade has identified is that, in the short-term, labour market challenges continue to negatively impact businesses, and it’s time to make sure that we’re maximizing labour force participation here in B.C. as soon as possible. By making sure the labour market is equitable and accessible to all, we can see B.C. become a place where the skills and talents of all residents are fully utilized, and everyone feels welcome and included in the workplace.

When we look at this budget, and today when we talk about the pressing labour market challenges that we have, how are we accelerating the inclusion of newcomers, people with disabilities, Indigenous people and other groups who have been historically marginalized or barred from fully participating in civic life? Where are those elements within this budget to make sure that that is happening? This is a critical aspect of how we can include diverse workplaces and lead to more productivity and innovation by making full use of individuals’ strengths and talents and benefit all of us in British Columbia.

Workers play an indispensable role in supporting the day-to-day activities that underpin the operation of the economy, the social economy, the caring economy — all aspects. The impacts of these labour challenges are far-reaching, resulting in detrimental impacts on not only businesses’ ability to maintain and expand sales and production but the broader economy and the caring economy as well.

These labour challenges are nothing new. So why are they the most acute right now? The simple answer is that contemporary labour challenges are having real and pronounced consequences on businesses and the economy amidst an already challenging post-pandemic, inflationary economic reality. When we have a labour market mismatch, which we currently have right now — posing multifaceted challenges to businesses and staffing, sales costs, client experiences, increased red tape, increased taxes, increased legislation — that makes it more difficult for businesses to operate here in British Columbia.

According to the BDC, 45 percent of businesses faced higher labour costs, while 44 percent experienced a decline in sales, and 43 percent had to pay higher operating costs as a result of hiring challenges. Labour shortages also fuel employee burnout and turnover, jeopardizing morale, well-being and business productivity.

[4:20 p.m.]

You know, it’s interesting. As we get ready for the estimates process, of course, we read countless articles and documents and research, and we certainly appreciate all of the support we get from our very capable staff. I had the opportunity to review the recent labour market outlook.

Why this labour market outlook is so critical for the conversation of how we support and meet the challenge of the workforce labour, the challenge that we currently experience, is because the provincial government and their team — and I certainly appreciate all the work that they’re doing — work to produce this labour market outlook, and that Labour Market Outlook is the document and the tool that’s used to develop the Future Ready skills process, which is how the post-secondary sector is prioritized and the different programs that the government makes choice of the 25 percent on how they invest in it.

It’s critically important. We know in our regional communities where those gaps are and how critically important it is that we are aligning our post-secondary education system with the needs in our communities and how we can support the development.

On page 44 of the recent edition of the British Columbia Labour Market Outlook…. I want to talk about the Cariboo, and I want members in this Legislature to, for a moment, contemplate what I’m about to read and translate that into the experience we’re feeling right now on the ground in our community. Again, for members of this Legislature, Cariboo North is…. We have been traditionally one of the most forest-dependent communities and integrated forest economies in North America.

We have some outstanding companies. I talk about the employees and the strengths of the manufacturing sector in my riding and how skilled and capable the men and women who work in that industry are — many have done it for multi-generations, like my family — the logging contractors, the people that are working directly on the ground to make sure that the natural resource economy is vibrant in British Columbia, whether it’s forestry…. The other really strong opportunity in our area is around mining. Huge potential in mining.

I want to talk about forestry and mining for a second. When we talk about the housing crisis, I want to remind all members of this House about the importance of the lumber, the value-added sector, in building homes for today and for future homes for communities across this province and how critically important that sector is and has been and will be in the future. I want to talk about the mining sector and how critically important that sector is as we build out into the future and meet the needs of a greener economy for all. It’s critically important. These jobs are critically important.

We go to page 44 of the 2022 edition. This is the most recent of the British Columbia Labour Market Outlook. Here’s what the outlook says is on the horizon for the Cariboo. We’re lining up all of our funding around this outlook.

“The Cariboo region is in the centre of British Columbia. It has many logging towns in mostly rural areas with large forests. Besides the urban centre of Prince George, the area is known for the logging hubs of Williams Lake and Quesnel.

“The region is the third largest in geographical size, but less than 5 percent of B.C.’s residents live and work here.

“The region’s largest industries are other retail trade (excluding cars, online shopping and personal care); hospitals, food services and drinking places; elementary and secondary schools; wood product manufacturing; ambulatory health care services; and forestry, logging and support activities.”

Wait for it.

“In the next ten years, the Cariboo region is expected to have 18,500 job openings. About 93 percent of these jobs will replace the existing workers, and 7 percent will come through economic growth. Employment demand is expected to grow at an average of 0.2 percent annually during the next ten years.

[4:25 p.m.]

“During the next ten years, the industries with the fastest growth will be publishing industries; travel arrangement services; museums, galleries and parks; private and trades education; universities; oil and gas extraction; and warehousing and storage.”

I want to reflect on that. We’re a natural resource sector region with manufacturing jobs, good, family-supporting jobs that have served our region for generations, and in the eyes of this government, our future in the next ten years is publishing? How many publishing jobs are going to replace the forest sector jobs? I don’t know. How many warehousing and storage jobs are going to replace the mining sector jobs? Where is mining? Where are the forest sector jobs? Where is value-added? Where are all of the very important, real jobs which we depend on in the Cariboo riding in this outlook? It’s not here.

I don’t know. Travel arrangement systems — is it because they expect everyone to move from British Columbia to Alberta? Is that what is on the horizon, under the NDP, that their outlook for regions like mine is: “Well, folks, you may as well leave. Look, we’ve got publishing, travel arrangements, and warehousing and storage”?

Is that the expectation from this government — that we’re all going to move? Is that the best, under the NDP, that we can do, to say: “Hey, we’ll line you up so that we can just ship you off to another part of the country”? It’s not good enough, not on our watch.

We believe that better is possible, and I want to talk about that a little bit. Boy, I have been so fortunate over almost the last decade to meet so many extraordinary people, so many innovative people, so many entrepreneurial people, so many caring people who have such a strong vision of opportunities for the Cariboo.

You know, whether it’s…. Look, I had the oppor­tunity…. I want to applaud the government on this, the approval of the Artemis Gold net-zero mine. It’s going to be a huge opportunity for the region. In fact, it’s going to be a huge opportunity for British Columbia and Canada.

When we can move these types of projects forward, it is good news for British Columbia, but there are some other projects that we’re waiting on. There are permits that we’re waiting on. The Osisko mine project, out in Wells, is another critically important project that creates good-paying jobs for our region. It’s the right thing to do, and we encourage the government to be looking at that.

I want to talk about investment in universities and colleges and making sure that we’ve got the right fit in our communities. I had the opportunity to meet with the research universities over the break weeks. Boy, they’ve got some exciting initiatives. They want to talk about how universities have the capacity to mitigate wildfire. They were talking about work that’s being done at TRU right now. That is a really good program, but why is all of the training happening in Hinton, Alberta? Why can’t we bring that to British Columbia?

If we have these extraordinary universities, and we have extraordinary people that are working on the ground, I say: “Let’s bring the training back into British Columbia. Let’s look at that.” How can we mesh TRU and the work that we’re doing to provide the necessary training right here in British Columbia? I think that’s a good place to start.

Let’s look at the logistics supply chain. You know, the research universities are looking at how you can look at highly developed databases and advanced technology for supply chains. I think that’s a great place to look at and invest in our universities, to see how we can move those exciting initiatives forward.

How about the health care system and health policies and the diagnostics? How can we look to the universities to help solve some of the health care challenges that we’re having right now?

[4:30 p.m.]

You know, they also talked about the need to support relationships with the Indo-Pacific region and how we can look at Singapore. I think it’s an important conversation that we have here in the Legislature — to look at that.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The B.C. Business Council has come forward to talk about encouraging businesses to invest and to look at competitiveness. I think that is another very important document I’d like to bring forward or at least turn the legislators’ attention to. I think it’s critically important. When we look at productivity and we look at how, from a competitive marketplace, we are losing the strength that we’ve had and what that impact is on our economy, it’s important, because skills gaps incur a considerable cost to the economy. If skills vacancies are not addressed….

Taking the tech industry as an example, unfulfilled roles could lead to a GDP loss of $200 billion to $300 billion over the next decade and a $5.2 billion to $8.4 billion loss in income tax for the province. Unmet skills demand in active listening, critical thinking, reading comprehension, speaking, monitoring and coordination has shown its economic cost. A recent report by the Conference Board of Canada showed that the unrealized economic value of these six skills, of highest cost, was a staggering amount of $25 million.

In another report that has a B.C. focus, the Conference Board of Canada estimates that skills deficits have already cost B.C. up to $4.7 billion in forgone GDP and $616 million in tax revenues as a result of many British Columbians not having the right skills to contribute to the economy. Let’s start listening to some of these folks.

I know my time is running out, so I want to bring the students voice into this perspective.

Interjection.

C. Oakes: Yes, thank you, Minister.

Well, I think this is a great opportunity. The Minister of Health is here. I wanted to share with him what the students have shared. It’s a great idea and something that we should be looking at.

The students, the AMS society and the GSS society of UBC, are going to be here tomorrow. I hope that members put it in their calendars to take the time over the next couple of days to listen to the students. They always bring thoughtful solutions to all of us, and I think it’s critically important.

The AMS and GSS societies of UBC are recommending creating a third category under the B.C. loan forgiveness program for those working in health care and social assistance. This will help mitigate the health care shortage by incentivizing more post-secondary and graduate students to pursue these career paths, thereby addressing the anticipated labour gap.

To the Minister of Health, I’d be happy to share their recommendation on to them. I think it’s a great solution. I think the more opportunities…. I’ve heard this for many years — that we’ve got to start understanding the importance of training in our communities and making sure that we’re retaining students in our communities. That’s why I’ve always been a very strong supporter of making sure that we have access to advanced and post-secondary education right across the province.

Housing was another big one that all the student associations have brought forward as a critical need. I know that there have been funds that are put forward in the budget. But students are saying: “Look at more opportunities to put that investment in place.”

I’ll make a plug for our North Cariboo Community Campus, a fantastic facility in our community. It’s a partnership. We have the College of New Caledonia and the University of Northern British Columbia that have programs. They collaborate on programs in that facility.

There are a couple of things we need. We desperately need the LPN program. Again, to the Minister of Health, that’s a really critical, important one. It will certainly help the G.R. Baker Hospital and alleviate some of the challenges I began my comments off on today. That is a very important one.

Housing. I think if we had student housing at the North Cariboo Community College, the benefit of that would be that we would be able to attract people to take, for example, the nursing program in our community. We know that we can get them into the hospital or into some of the care facilities and make their homes in the Cariboo.

[4:35 p.m.]

It’s such a great place to raise a family and to live. That’s why those programs are so critically important. They talk about supporting housing.

I guess, in closing, the students are here over the next few days to talk about the serious issues that they’ve seen on campus around the increase in sexualized violence and gender-based violence on campus. It’s a significant issue. Steps have been taken on all sides of the House, and I think it’s critically important. But one of the things that the pandemic has highlighted…. Look, we can go back and forth on political ping-pong on all sides of the House, but at the end of the day, we’ve got students that have been really impacted. We’ve got to figure a way to come together and help find that support on campuses, because it’s critically important.

I know policies is one piece, but we’re hearing directly from the students that more financial supports need to be on the ground, because not all of the post-secondary institutions have the financial resources to ensure that they are adequately staffed and supported to make sure students have a safe place to be supported. Look, we can do better. We must do better.

I guess, in closing, I think we can do better. I have a very optimistic view, and that optimistic view comes from the privilege I’ve had to meet with students from across this province who…. Boy, they’re gifted. They’re talented, and we just need to give them a chance.

Sometimes they’re feeling a little hopeless right now. They’re feeling the affordability crunches like everyone is. I think we should be listening to them and making sure that our post-secondary sector is one that meets their needs, because at the end of the day, if we can find that pathway for students, we can help solve those workforce challenges that are right across the board so that we can make sure that we’ve got people on the ground, whether it’s helping in health care, social services or our businesses.

We’ve got a great province in British Columbia, and we want to make sure that we continue to be the best that we can be.

M. Morris: The Budget Implementation Act. British Columbia, I think, is in a crisis situation. Nothing seems to be functioning as it should. We’ve seen an increase in crime. We’ve seen an increase in the opiate deaths we have in the province. We’ve seen an increase in the number of industry players that are shutting down right across the province. Thousands of people are out of work across the province.

We’ve seen tax increases that are impacting every facet of British Columbia, when it comes to people buying groceries, when it comes to people putting fuel in their vehicles so they can go from point A to point B and trying to access our health care system when and if they can.

It is a disaster out there. It is not more affordable, and it is not better than it was a number of years ago. I’m just going to look around my riding itself. With the Mackenzie hospital facing continual closures and shutdowns because of a lack of staff, because of a lack of nurses…. The Prince George hospital is in a crisis situation, not being able to meet their staffing demands, not being able to provide the services. We’re a regional hospital in Prince George not being able to provide the services that we have there.

I was speaking with a Prince George surgeon not too long ago. Things like the homelessness and the impacts that homelessness has on our health care system…. There were four leg amputees in the month of January in Prince George as a result of homelessness and people overdosing on opiates and freezing. That’s not counting the multiple fingers and toes and other digits that were amputated as a result of the cold weather that we have up in Prince George. Not enough is being done there.

We have Moccasin Flats. The council in Prince George is designating it as a place to camp, as a temporary measure until we get some more hard-and-fast rules in place.

[4:40 p.m.]

It’s not a solution to the problem. If we had only started building those addictions and recovery centres six years ago, or before that…. The health care crisis was declared in 2016, when I was still the Solicitor General, and work was going in that direction at that particular time.

If only…. And that’s what this budget looks like, a lot of “if onlys.” If we had done all these things early enough in the process. If only we had developed some regional psychiatric treatment centres in Prince George and other areas across the province here, we might have been able to resolve a lot of the issues.

In my experience as a police officer over the years — I spent 32 years as a police officer — I would say the majority, 80 percent, of the crime that we see in the province is a result of drugs and alcohol addictions and mental illness. If we were able to resolve that, we would be able to decrease the amount of crime that we see on the streets, in a major way.

That hasn’t been done yet, and I don’t see anything in the budget that is going to take us in that direction. There’s no capital in the plan to build these regional mental health facilities and addictions recovery centres that we need so drastically right around the province.

I look at the remote First Nations communities that we have in the province, Kwadacha in the north, Tsay Keh, Takla. There are a number of them scattered throughout the province here. I’ve been into every single one of them over the years. The violence that we see in those communities is attributable to the alcohol and drug abuse, with no facilities around to help them — no facilities. There are no resources for the chief and council to rely on to bring relief into those smaller communities.

A lot of times what a lot of those bands do is they’ll pass a band council resolution banning those indivi­duals from those communities, and they end up in Prince George. They end up in the homeless camps that we have through­out the province here, and it only exacerbates the problem.

When I see a lot of money being shovelled out the back of the truck with the supplementary budget process that we’ve just gone through here as well, with no real accountability and no real forethought as to where this money should go, it’s indicative to me that I think this government has been ill-prepared. Over the last six years, there’s nothing that I’ve seen that has prepared them. There’s been no planning in place to deal with the opioid crisis, the mental health crisis and the addictions crisis that we have, and a number of those other factors that we see within our health care system.

To talk a little bit about the resource sector — and that was another glaring omission from the budgetary process and the Budget Measures Implementation Act — we see forest revenue declining by $1 billion in the province this year, and it’s not because of the old growth. It’s not because of the number of policy changes; it’s a result of lack of fibre. It’s a result of a number of things out there that we have to look at and that we haven’t really been looking at as closely as we should. I think this government has admitted doing that. This government, basically, hasn’t looked at the resource sector, right across British Columbia, in any meaningful way.

Forestry aside, I’ve lost a lot of jobs. I’ve lost thousands of jobs in my riding with respect to the forest sector. With other opportunities that we have in British Columbia from the resource sector — with oil and gas, for an example, and with the petrochemical side — we have enough resources in British Columbia to develop a major petrochemical industry in the Interior of the province.

We could be producing the products that we need right across the board for the automotive sector, for the aerospace sector and for the technology sector. All of that could be produced right here in British Columbia without changing too much. In addition to that, the downstream manufacturing opportunities from the petrochemical side — the polyethylenes, the polypropylenes and all the….

Deputy Speaker: Member, if you could refer it back to Bill 10, please.

M. Morris: Yes, I’m talking about the budget implementation act, hon. Speaker.

Those are the kinds of things that would add the revenue into the budget process for British Columbia, so that we can enhance the services that we’re providing to British Columbians in housing, in policing, in corrections — in all those areas that we have deficiencies in right now. I think the sooner that we start looking at those things, the quicker we can get to see that balanced budget in the future here.

[4:45 p.m.]

The other part of this is the prolific offenders, the catch-and-release system that we have. I know that there’s some money allocated to that. I know there are some changes that we see coming towards that, but….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, it’s the Budget Measures Implementation Act, and it references taxation. If you could just relate, please.

M. Morris: This government is very good at implementing the taxes that provide these kinds of services, but it is not making anything better in the province here. The implementation of all these taxes that we’re talking about here, and the changes to these tax structures that are noted in this particular bill, don’t point in the direction of making our health care system any better, making our criminal justice system any better, or making the resource sector operate any better and more efficiently.

It’s not talking about what we are doing with 130,000 more public sector workers in the province. Where are they all, that we can’t put them into the places that are really going to make a difference in some of our smaller communities?

There are a lot of changes that the Budget Implementation Act addresses, with the tax changes that we have there. That’s all it is, just tax changes. There’s nothing to show where we’re going to bring more revenue into the province to help relieve the resource sector deficiencies that we see and the health care deficiencies that we see right across the province here.

I’ll leave it at that, Madam Speaker, because I know that we have another speaker after me.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act. I know that I’ve got some watchers on the other side that are going to be holding me very accountable.

Today I want to talk about the significant changes that are proposed within Bill 10, changes to the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, the GGIRCA. These changes, in addition to the new energy action framework that was announced last week, and the approval of new LNG projects, natural gas projects, will significantly impact energy and climate policy in British Columbia.

What I’ll be trying to understand is how these pieces, and specifically the piece that’s being outlined here in Bill 10, interact with the other pieces that are moving. However, the implications of these changes mostly won’t be understood or determined for a number of months, as much of the detail is going to be coming through the regulations of this bill and further consultation for those other pieces.

The province has the legislative authority under the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act to regulate emissions from industry. In March 2021, B.C. set sectoral targets covering emissions across the economy. The oil and gas industry is currently responsible for around 50 percent of the industrial emissions and 20 percent of B.C.’s total emissions. The sectoral target for the oil and gas industry aims to reduce emissions by 33 percent to 38 percent by 2030.

Amendments to the GGIRCA that are made here in Bill 10 exempt large emitters from paying carbon tax up front and introduce a new made-in-B.C. output-based pricing system or OBPS, output-based pricing system, to match the federal government’s carbon pricing schedule, beginning in 2024. The success of B.C.’s output-based pricing system will ultimately rely on its ability to incentivize emissions reductions through stringent emissions thresh­olds, regular updates to the output-based pricing system rates and the validation processes that hold emitters to account.

Given the current lack of details around B.C.’s output-based pricing system, I look forward to hearing the answers from the minister, at committee stage, about this government’s decision to pursue a made-in-B.C. system, rather than utilizing the federal model, and how these changes relate to B.C.’s LNG strategy and our reliance on carbon offsets to meet our climate targets.

[4:50 p.m.]

In addition to the changes to the GGIRCA under Bill 10, and in relationship to the changes that are made to that act under Bill 10, this government just announced a more significant change to energy policy with the new energy action framework.

Under the new framework, the province requires all proposed LNG facilities in or entering the environmental assessment process to pass an emissions test, with a credible plan to be net zero by 2030. However, this does not apply to the already permitted projects Cedar LNG, LNG Canada’s phase 1 and 2 or Woodfibre LNG. Net zero does not encompass upstream emissions — the emissions created when exported fossil fuels are burned overseas.

Similar to the changes made in this bill, Bill 10, to the GGIRCA, the new framework also lacks in details, and I have many questions. How will net zero be defined? Is this government relying solely on carbon credits to be net zero? How will the new emissions cap and other regulations like stricter methane rules affect industry investment in the sector? How do the changes in Bill 10 speak and interact with the new framework, that’s also largely undefined?

I’m worried that the sector ultimately won’t be held accountable. We’ve got an output-based pricing system that’s being outlined in here, but what message is this going to send to the fossil fuel industry? If we let the industry get away with a credible plan to be net zero, I think we’re going to lose. A credible plan to be net zero could just be purchasing the cheapest offsets that are out there.

Other methods of decreasing emissions produced by the gas sector could include carbon capture and storage, but the recent international panel on climate change report noted that this would be the most costly and least effective way to tackle the problem that we face and which is partly being addressed here through the bill that we’re debating today.

The energy action framework also establishes a clean energy and major projects office to fast-track investments in clean energy and technology. It seems, at first blush, like an office to greenlight more greenhouse gas emissions in the province. This new office will not necessarily increase solar, wind, geothermal or tidal energy, all of which the IPCC report says that we need to be investing in robustly.

The new framework that was announced after Bill 10 was put on the table also includes a regulatory cap for the oil and gas industry to ensure British Columbia meets its 2030 emissions reduction target for the sector. The details of this are unclear, as the province still needs to engage with stakeholders on the design of the regulatory cap on oil and gas sector emissions, including on issues like how the cap will be allocated, credit training and verifiable offsets. I’m worried that this consultation process will become yet another source of delay.

I wonder how the province’s emissions cap for the oil and gas industry will be operationalized. What will the starting point be for the cap, and how will it be allocated? How will the cap be harmonized with the intentions of the federal emissions cap in the same space? Most importantly, how does this government intend on enforcing it? How will the changes that we’re debating through Bill 10 and the province’s move from their current carbon tax system to a new output-based pricing system for large emitters factor into the carbon accounting related to the new emissions cap announced outside of this process?

It’s clear that in Bill 10, the changes to the output-based pricing system…. As with the energy action framework, the devil is very much hidden in the details. What’s clear, however, is that this government is trying to reconcile fossil fuel expansion with climate action.

The new output-based pricing system proposed in Bill 10 will be used to meet emissions targets. However, the government missed the previous goal of 33 percent reduction by 2020, with emissions instead remaining more or less unchanged from the 2007 levels.

[4:55 p.m.]

The most surefire way to limit emissions, I think, is the obvious one that everyone in this room knows, and that’s to stop expanding the fossil fuel infrastructure. However, this government did the exact opposite in approving Cedar LNG and giving Ksi Lisims the green light for an environmental assessment.

Cedar LNG, a floating facility to be constructed near Kitimat, will export three million tonnes of LNG and produce 1.2 megatonnes of emissions annually for 40 years. Upstream the project would add an additional 39 megatonnes, about the same amount of emissions produced by putting 8.4 million cars on the road for a year or driving around the planet 12 million times. The government used the energy action framework as a smokescreen for green-lighting more fossil fuels.

Even before the approval of Cedar LNG, critics were warning that B.C. is unlikely to meet its 2025 or 2030 goals. How does this government reconcile the need to reduce emissions while approving new emissions-intensive fossil fuel projects?

In order to reduce global warming, we need to act urgently, within this decade. The recent IPCC report makes it clear. Avoiding the worst-case scenario is only possible if we stop expanding oil and gas and coal projects. It doesn’t matter how many of these output-based pricing systems or how many times we try to shift the focus somewhere else. If we’re increasing emissions and we are allowing the largest emitters to not have to pay up front, the reality is that those emitters are going to continue to emit.

Missing in this discussion is the need to limit fossil fuel production as we move to net-zero emissions by 2050. We urgently need to figure out a managed decline of the industry and a fair transition for workers and communities, or we might find ourselves in the situation that my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie noted, with the hundreds and thousands of jobs that have been lost in his riding.

We are addicted to fossil fuels and the revenue they generate. The recent surge in global oil and gas prices has resulted in record profits for oil and gas companies. Shell just posted record profits of $40 billion U.S., doubling last year’s record profits, and Shell owns the largest share in LNG Canada.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on Bill 10, please.

A. Olsen: We’re talking about an output-based pricing system in Bill 10 that companies such as Shell are impli­cated in. How is it that I am not able to speak to the system that is going to be implicating them?

This province is too dependent on those revenues from the oil and gas industry. In February 2023, the province released an updated labour market outlook, with major projected growth in the oil and gas sector.

I can sympathize with how difficult it is to change a system. We’re partly trying to make adjustments through this output-based pricing system. This government has the opportunity to do just that. They have a majority and the support from the public. A recent poll found that a majority of British Columbians would rather see the provincial government directing its investments and support to clean energy projects than new fossil fuel projects.

We have an opportunity to be global leaders. Instead, we’re following. Despite this government’s rhetoric on the need to reduce emissions and act on climate, they’ve been ineffective in curbing emissions and meeting our legislated targets. Approving more LNG projects adds fuel to that fire.

The changes in Bill 10 to the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act exempt large industries from paying the regular carbon tax up until a certain limit. But that limit is set by a regulation by this government without the input of the Legislative Assembly and without the ability for debate.

[5:00 p.m.]

What I outlined in this speech is the reality that there is a large number of complex measures that are being put in place, all at the same time, mostly with very little content involved in them. They are frameworks. The details of them have not been thought through, the impact.

How, of the energy action framework that I noted, do the approvals of LNG impact with this output-based pricing system? And the fundamental question: why is it that we are allowing multinational, billion-dollar profiting corporations to be able to shift their responsibility away from paying what British Columbians…? At the very least, if this is just about money, then they should be paying what British Columbians expect them to be paying: their share.

So as we go through this, we will be asking the questions, the tough questions, of this government. How is it that they are going to achieve what they say that they’re going to achieve? That is, meeting our climate action commitments while approving more fossil fuels, expecting there to be more jobs being created in an industry that should be sunsetting and expecting those revenues to pay the way at a time in which we’re facing a climate emergency.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

A. Olsen moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), reported completion of its consideration of the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Amending Agreement (No. 2).

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the House will be in recess for a few minutes as we prepare for the address of Valerie Cross in accordance with the order of the House earlier today.

The House recessed from 5:03 p.m. to 5:12 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: I call the House back to order. I invite Valerie Cross, Chemkwaat, of the Tsawwassen First Nation to address the House.

Address by Indigenous Leaders

V. Cross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, or in my language, hay čxʷ q̓ə, Squiqel, səy̓em̓.

Also, thank you to Minister Murray Rankin for the invitation, thank you to Premier Eby for having us here, and thank you to the honoured members of this legislative House, the big House, for having me address you today.

I would first like to acknowledge being on the territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, specifically my Song­hees relatives and the Esquimalt First Nation. I’m Valerie Cross; my ancestral name is Chemkwaat. It comes from my great-great-grandmother on my Squamish side. My grandfather Tchwheelum was from Tsawwassen First Nation, and I’m a very proud Tsawwassen First Nation member.

I’m also an elected official at Tsawwassen. I’m an executive council member, and I’m also a Legislative Assembly member. I also share a similar role with Mr. Speaker. I’m the Speaker, the Squiqel, of our Legislative Assembly here. So I’m sharing a few feelings that he might have on managing debates and discussions today, and learning a few tips from him as well.

I’m here with my relative, my friend, my outlaw, former Chief Kim Baird, Kwuntiltunaat, who has come to join Tsawwassen First Nation as our interim CAO. She was also our former chief negotiator for our Tsawwassen treaty.

I do bring greetings from our Chief, Laura Cassidy, who unfortunately, early this morning, fell ill. I got an early morning phone call, saying: “Please, can you go with Kim to Victoria and come to this important meeting on my behalf?” I can never say no to Chief Sxʷamisaat, so I’m here representing her today. I hope I do her justice.

Again, hay čxʷ q̓ə, thank you, for allowing me to address the Legislature. We are here today because of the importance of this treaty amendment to our people. This is the second time that Tsawwassen have been invited to address the Legislature. The first time was to introduce the legislation to enable our treaty.

[5:15 p.m.]

Today we are here to make an important amendment to that treaty, and because our treaty is about our ongoing relationship with the government of B.C., we think that there will be more amendments to come.

While we are grateful for this opportunity to speak, we are a little bit worried about this additional process on this topic to which Tsawwassen views as a very obvious needed amendment. Your report covers this matter in detail, but let me say that the end of section 87 exemptions was a difficult issue for Tsawwassen First Nation during treaty negotiations.

To secure our members’ support for the treaty, Tsaw­wassen government had to commit to providing measures to mitigate the effects of losing these exemptions — the changes to their fiscal stability. The tax exemption was the main reason why some Tsawwassen members opposed the treaty.

The policy of ending section 87 exemptions has been a significant obstacle in treaty negotiations. You’ve heard this, I’m sure, from many of our relatives in treaty negotiations. I’m quite certain it’s a big part of the reason why we don’t have more treaties in the province. Again, I’ve heard this from the mouths of many of you today, but I believe this will change, because of the recent change in federal government approach. Canada did indeed change its policy in July 2022. It will no longer seek to end section 87 exemptions for treaties, nor is there any prospect of exemptions being removed from other First Nations.

British Columbia advised us early September 2022 that it would align its policy with Canada. Government’s broader reconciliation work no longer contemplates the removal of the tax exemption, so it makes sense that it would be the case for those nations choosing the treaty path. Otherwise, it would continue to be a huge disincentive to finalize treaties.

Canada and Tsawwassen have already consented to this treaty amendment months ago with zero politics, and because of the nature of this amendment, Tsawwassen First Nation doesn’t believe that there’s anything substantive to debate here today.

But I am here today. We are here today. Kim and I should be at home today dealing with some important issues and work being done in Tsawwassen. Regrettably, we are missing an important community safety meeting on important matters relating to our community’s wellbeing, health and safety, issues surrounding our battle against drugs, substance use recovery and asking our community to lead us in how to move forward together to create, a safer and healthier community.

This is just one of the many initiatives we are undertaking to rebuild our community, and through this rebuilding process, we now happen to be massive contributors to the economy in our region. We’re proud to be contributors to the economy in our region. We’re happy to be taking our place, finally, in the economic wellbeing of the region, instead of being left out.

The economic benefits to Tsawwassen post-treaty are supporting improved services to members and significant investment in on-land infrastructure. We’ve built a new youth centre. It’s a beautiful youth centre and a wonderful gathering place for our youth. Construction is underway for our new elder centres that we promised them many years ago that they would have. We’re finally seeing that coming to fruition.

This year, we expect to complete construction of a 36-unit affordable housing development to bring more of our people home, to provide affordable housing for our people and bring them home onto the lands which we connect so deeply with.

[5:20 p.m.]

On-land developments provide employment opportunities for both members and non-members. Industrial, commercial and residential developments are flourishing and generating revenues at all levels of government. Nonetheless, this relatively short period since the treaty came into effect has not been enough time to completely eradicate the economic challenges caused by generations of colonialism.

This is a narrowly targeted exemption. It applies only to Tsawwassen former reserve lands and to Tsawwassen members on reserve lands anywhere in Canada. Those former reserve lands are a relatively small portion of Tsawwassen’s treaty settlement lands.

For example, Tsawwassen members will still pay PST on purchases at Tsawwassen Mills mall and will pay income taxes on wages earned from employment at the mall or any other industrial or commercial developments on Tsawwassen lands. This amendment will do nothing more than put Tsawwassen members in the same position as other Indigenous Canadians with respect to taxation.

The amendment contemplates that Tsawwassen may choose to end the section 87 exemption in the future and enter into revenue-sharing agreements with Canada. This position and proposed amendment is more in alignment with reconciliation because it better recognizes Tsawwassen’s jurisdiction and decision-making authorities on tax matters.

We have in place a temporary measure amendment of the tax treatment agreement to preserve the personal income tax exemption for the 2022 and 2023 tax years. We still need to complete the treaty amending process to make that change permanent and to restore the section 87 exemption for transaction taxes.

The delay in finalizing this amendment is causing real stress and uncertainty for our members. Residential subdivisions are being delayed while we await restoration of the property transfer tax exemption, simply transferring lands to a younger relative to enable them to build their homes. Some families have delayed the probate of estates while they wait for the section 87 exemption to be restored, because of the effects of the probate fees. Members contemplating significant purchases are waiting until the treaty amendment is complete and the PST exemption is restored.

Again, while I appreciate the opportunity to address this body, I really hope that this has been an unnecessary step, because the whole government should support this amendment. That is who the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty relationship is with: the whole of government, not just any one party. We have waited for decades for the federal tax policy to shift. I’ll say that again. We have waited for decades for the federal tax policy to shift, and we are very impatient to see this amendment happen as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my community, Tsawwassen First Nation, I urge the Legislature to support the treaty amendment.

Hay čxʷ q̓ə, c̓∙iθamə cən.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the Legislative Assembly members, please accept our sincere thanks for addressing this House today. We are honoured to have you here today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 29 on the order paper, standing in the name of the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 29 — AMENDMENTS TO
TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION
FINAL AGREEMENT

Hon. M. Rankin: I move, formally, Motion 29 standing in my name on the order paper.

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to clause 6 of Chapter 23 of the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia consents to the amendments to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement set out in the attached Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Amending Agreement (No. 2).

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION FINAL AGREEMENT AMENDING AGREEMENT (No. 2)

THIS SECOND AMENDING AGREEMENT (this “Amending Agreement”) is dated for reference the 17th day of November, 2022

AMONG:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Implementation of Indigenous Rights and Relationships, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada

(“Canada”)

AND

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

(“British Columbia”)

AND

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION, as represented by the Tsawwassen Government

(“Tsawwassen First Nation”)

WHEREAS:

A. On April 3, 2009, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement came into effect;

B. The Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement provides for its amendment and specifies requirements for the amendment of various of its provisions;

C. The Parties have previously agreed to amendments to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement;

D. The Parties agree to propose further amendments to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending Agreement;

E. The Parties have determined that the processes set out in clauses 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of Chapter 23 – Amendment apply to the proposed amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending Agreement;

NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree as follows:

PART I – DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

1. In this Amending Agreement:

“Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement” means the Tsaw­wassen First Nation Final Agreement among the Tsawwassen First Nation, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia, as it took effect on April 3, 2009 as amended.

2. A reference to a Chapter by number and name is a reference to the chapter of that number and name in the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement.

3. Words and expressions appearing in this Amending Agreement that are not defined in this Amending Agreement but are defined in the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement have the meanings ascribed to them in the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement.

Part II – PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

4. The proposed amendments in English to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement are set out in Schedule 1.

5. The proposed amendments in French to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement are set out in Schedule 2.

6. The proposed amendments will take effect in accordance with clause 9, Chapter 23 – Amendment of the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement.

PART III – PROCEDURES

7. This Amending Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts. A signed counterpart may be delivered by one Party to another Party by facsimile or e-mail transmission and a facsimile or e-mail so transmitted will constitute an original document. Signed counterparts held by a Party, taken together, will constitute one and the same instrument.

8. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Amending Agreement may be executed by electronic signature, which will be considered as an original signature for all purposes and will have the same force and effect as an original signature on paper. Without limitation, “electronic signature” will include faxed versions of an original signature or electronically scanned and transmitted versions (e.g. via pdf) of an original signature.

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Implementation of Indigenous Rights and Relationships, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, signed this ________ day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

Heather McLean
Assistant Deputy Minister
Implementation of Indigenous Rights and Relationships
Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada

Witnessed by: ___________________________________

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, signed this ________ day of December, 2022.

___________________________________

The Honourable Murray Rankin
Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

Witnessed by: ___________________________________

FOR TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION, as represented by the Tsawwassen Government, signed this __________ day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

sxwamisaat
Chief Laura Cassidy

Witnessed by: ___________________________________

Schedule 1

The Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement is amended as follows:

1. The reference to “12th” is deleted in subclause 16.b of Chapter 20 – Taxation and replaced with “14th”.

2. The reference to “12th” is deleted in subclause 18.b of Chapter 20 – Taxation and replaced with “14th”.

3. Chapter 20 – Taxation is amended to add the following numbered clauses immediately after each of clauses 16, 17, 18 and 19 respectively:

16.1 Despite clause 16 and subject to clause 18.1, as of the day this clause comes into effect, section 87 of the Indian Act applies to a Tsawwassen Member who is an Indian.

17.1 Despite clause 16 and subject to subclause 1.a and clauses 18.1, 18.2 and 19.1, as of the day this clause comes into effect, section 87 of the Indian Act applies on Tsawwassen Lands that were Reserve lands or Surrendered Lands on the day before the Effective Date.

18.1 Clauses 16.1 and 17.1 only apply so long as section 87 of the Indian Act itself remains in force.

18.2 Clause 17.1 only applies to an Indian during a period that section 87 of the Indian Act applies to the Indian.

19.1 Tsawwassen First Nation may enter into a tax agreement with Canada or British Columbia that limits the application of clause 17.1 to the extent specified in that tax agreement.

4. The reference to “clause 16” is deleted in clause 39 of Chapter 2 – General Provisions and replaced with “clauses 16 through 19.1”.]

[Schedule 2 available for inspection at the Office of the Clerk.]]

I rise in the House today to bring a motion that would amend the treaty.

[5:25 p.m.]

Before I start, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate Tsawwassen First Nation, congratulate them on their ongoing efforts to create a powerful, sustainable economy that benefits their members as well as other British Columbians, with jobs and opportunities.

I want to, again, recognize Chemkwaat, Squiqel of the Tsawwassen First Nation, Executive Councillor Valerie Cross, and, of course, Kwuntiltunaat, Kim Baird, who is the chief administrative officer for Tsawwassen First Nation. Of course, I would be remiss in not recognizing the Chief, Laura Cassidy, the elected legislators and members of the Tsawwassen First Nation, who may be observing this debate virtually today.

The purpose of this amendment is to implement a tax policy change that the government of Canada and British Columbia have made in our respective treaty mandates. One that’s been identified and noted by Valerie Cross a moment ago is the substantial barrier to First Nations in concluding modern treaties.

The Tsawwassen treaty has unlocked enormous economic development and growth in their part of our province. It has had enormous positive effects for Tsawwassen members and other British Columbians. It has supported economic development, created new jobs, new housing and a positive collaborative working relationships with their neighbours. The success of the Tsawwassen treaty in this regard has been acknowledged by all parties in this place.

Giving up the section 87 exemption was a difficult concession the Tsawwassen nations asked of their members in order to conclude the treaty. We heard about that a moment ago. This treaty amendment will provide Tsawwassen with the ability to self-determine if or when the time is right for their members to give up their tax-exempt status.

The new policy allows treaty members to continue to keep their tax-exemption status in their treaties indefinitely or until a treaty nation determines that it’s appropriate to end it. This exemption will apply only on the portion of the treaty lands that were former reserves and other reserves in Canada. This is effectively the pre-treaty status quo.

The new policy approaches to section 87 tax exemption in treaty is consistent with the principle of self-determination and upholds the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-government. It signals our commitment to support British Columbia’s existing modern treaties and to conclude more treaties with nations who have chosen that path to reconciliation. This policy change applies to both existing and future treaty.

This amendment demonstrates that the modern treaty relationship can evolve and adapt to changing circumstances over time, rather than remain fixed and frozen in time and locked into policies born of information and views that are no longer relevant in today’s reality.

Tsawwassen and Canada have already consented to this treaty amendment. British Columbia is the last party to consent. The amendment will come into effect on the day this Legislative Assembly provides that consent. This new policy aligns better with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Treaties established a new relationship between First Nations, British Columbia and Canada based on mutual trust, respect and understanding. The work that’s before us today embodies the living relationship between the government of Canada, British Columbia and Tsawwassen First Nation, a relationship that is able to evolve over time. This is a result of a significant commitment by the provincial and federal governments to honour and nurture our treaty relations as well as to reach new treaties, we hope, in the future.

It’s my great honour to rise in the House today with the support of Tsawwassen First Nation and move this historic motion to give British Columbia’s consent.

M. Lee: I rise to support this motion on behalf of the official opposition. I know that as we hear Coun. Valerie Cross address us here in this chamber, it’s important to hear her voice. I appreciate the effort that former Chief Kim Baird and herself have made to journey over here to join us in the chamber today.

[5:30 p.m.]

As I expressed during the committee process, it’s regrettable that, in the way and the manner in which we’ve had to discuss this motion, the government chose not to refer this motion to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, because we could have had the dialogue in the manner in which I think is respectful to the leadership of the Tsawwassen First Nation, as opposed to having them sit there and observe the process without a voice.

So I do value Councillor Cross’s voice here in the chamber, after we had the committee debate to get the clarity on the bill, on this motion. That was necessary.

I know that members might be aware that I’d written a letter to the minister back on March 8 to ask and request that this motion be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. With the House Leader for the official opposition, the two of us thought that we had an agreement, in response to that letter from the Government House Leader as well as the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, with the House Leader for the Third Party.

I just reflect to you, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my comments that point, because I’m quite struck by the position that all members of this House are forced into because this government chooses to manage the House in the way it does. I know that the Tsawwassen First Nation does not want to be caught in between government and the official opposition on a matter that is this fundamentally important to their nation. I also know, as Councillor Cross referred to, this ought to be an all-of-government motion, a whole-of-government resolution of the House.

Under the terms of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement, an amendment can be put forward by any party to the agreement. This is what the Tsawwassen First Nation has done. They’ve proposed this amendment. Well, what happened when they made this proposal, as confirmed in the committee process? The federal government and the provincial government signed an amending agreement. But they signed this amending agreement back on November 18 and December 5 of 2022.

Members in this chamber have been called back to the House since early February, five weeks before the government tabled this very important motion to make the amendment that’s important and fundamental to the Tsawwassen First Nation. This government chose to table that motion the day before we were to take our two-week constituency break, four months after the parties had agreed by signing this amending agreement.

The minister made reference on the committee side to Christmas, other process, in response to my point that Bill 2…. When this government brought forward significant legislation relating to Indigenous peoples to recognize the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, that was a significant piece of legislation. Despite the members in this House on the government side debating their own bill at committee stage in a manner that was disrespectful to Indigenous peoples and First Nations, they chose not to bring forward this motion.

So I hear Coun. Valerie Cross speak about the disappointment of the Tsawwassen First Nation as to the delay. But that delay falls at the feet of this government. This government put us in this position.

[5:35 p.m.]

I do appreciate and again respect that time and what this process today that we had has taken away for more important matters or important, pressing matters for the Tsawwassen First Nation.

It’s with that deepest respect that I had reached out to the Tsawwassen Nation in my way, on behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition, my colleagues, including the member for Delta South, to ensure that the Tsawwassen Nation knew that the role we have to do is not just to hold this government accountable for motions and legislation they bring forward but, as I discussed with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, on other matters relating to this tremendous progress we all need to make in this House around economic reconciliation, reconciliation with the First Peoples of our province.

We have to ensure that we have the opportunity to have that discussion in this House to ensure that the public understands the changes.

I didn’t intend to start my comments in that manner, but I did want to at least take that moment to respond to some of the disappointment that Coun. Valerie Cross expressed in her comments. I do appreciate it. I hope that she would understand, and I hope the leadership, including Chief Cassidy and council, will appreciate the role that we play and the situation and the way that we’ve been forced into this review in the manner that we’ve just done.

I do think it’s important to reflect at this juncture. When the final agreement was entered into on the floor of this House, back in October 2007, there was second reading and committee stage, bringing forward the final agreement with the Tsawwassen First Nation. Today, as Coun. Valerie Cross referred and introduced, we have former Chief Kim Baird with us in this chamber.

As was noted, when that treaty was entered into between the government of British Columbia, the government of Canada and what was referred to as the urban-based First Nation, the Tsawwassen First Nation, Chief Baird was recognized as the first female chief to lead her nation to this stage in the Treaty Commission process, to lead her community through the ratification process. She, indeed, was the first female chief to come to the Bar of this chamber and provide words about the importance of this treaty.

Our colleague the member for Abbotsford West, as the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, was acknowledged by the current Minister of Indigenous Reconciliation, in the committee stage, for the work that he did at a different time when the public discourse about our relationship with Indigenous peoples and First Nations in our province wasn’t as positive as it is today.

Particularly as we look at following the work with the Nisg̱a’a and now Tsawwassen First Nation, the importance of this first modern treaty to be entered under the B.C. Treaty Commission process, that was the work done back in the lead-up to 2007, which in itself was a 14-year process.

I do understand the importance of looking at these modern treaties and the need to reflect, as is set out in the agreement itself as to a process around “periodic review,” as it’s termed under article 23 of the agreement, which is 15 years after the effective date the parties have agreed that they would review this agreement.

That is coming up. We know that on April 3, a few days from now, it will be the 14th anniversary of this treaty agreement. We know that a lot has changed even in the last year in 2022.

[5:40 p.m.]

The federal government, as has been noted by both the minister and Councillor Cross, did provide a change in policy back in July of 2022. In part, this came from submissions and considerations from First Nations leaders and the challenges of the modern treaty-making process to remove the barrier that many nations have been facing, which is the discontinuance of the section 87 Indian Act exemption.

We know, with the work that occurred under the former government, that those modern treaties were put in place. We’ve seen, with the Nisg̱a’a treaty and the seven other nations that have entered into modern treaties in this province, it does take a long time. There are complex issues that need to be addressed. To the extent that the removal of this barrier will assist more modern treaty nations to step forward to be part of a new arrangement, that would be an important step forward, as was recognized just now in the committee chamber.

The minister and I had a discussion and recognition of the ongoing work that this government is doing. It’s standing beyond the work that was done under the former government around the fiscal framework and the new relationship, as former Premier Gordon Campbell called it under his tenure. That new relationship is important and has taken many years.

We’re at a juncture now, post-UNDRIP. And as called for in this government’s DRIPA action plan — the importance of renewing and considering the new fiscal relationship with our First Nations. We’ve seen the importance of that in terms of Bill 38, in respect of Indigenous self-government, for nations to take back care of their children.

The arrangements between the federal government, provincial government and First Nation governments in terms of the fiscal transfers, revenue-sharing…. The dotted lines on the current diagram that’s in the discussion paper of this government for the new fiscal framework need to be defined, obviously. It’s in that context that we, as members of the official opposition, wanted to understand what this important next step is. I must say that in response to questions from myself and the member for Abbotsford West, the answers were disappointing from this government.

First of all, we’ve had the situation where there were months of delay. Now we’re back in this House, really eight weeks after this should have been brought forward by this government. In the sixth week of the session, we now have this opportunity. We had it in a very limited way.

So we had a very compressed discussion. In that compressed discussion, the minister, with his ministry team, was not able to spell out the arrangement in terms of the quantum of the arrangement that is under the current Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement. This is a point that I do think is important to understand. When the final agreement was entered into, as called for under the agreement, under chapter 20, the parties would also enter into a tax treatment agreement, coming into effect on the effective date, which was April 3, 2007.

In response to our questions, the minister was able to confirm that there are other tax transfer agreements in place, some of which relate to the so-called transaction taxes referred to in the agreement. This would cover, for example, PST, GST, motor fuel tax, property transfer tax.

[5:45 p.m.]

Under the terms of this agreement, the government has been collecting tax on behalf of the nation — in effect, from members of the Tsawwassen First Nation — and then transferring those funds back to the Tsawwassen First Nation. There definitely is a flow of funds, so to speak, in the relationship that the Tsawwassen First Nation has with the provincial government under the terms of this agreement.

But what the public understood, when this agreement was passed, was that section 87 exemption would no longer apply on the eighth anniversary of the agreement, which was May 1, 2015, and the 12th anniversary of the effective date, which is, effectively, 2019. As we just heard from Councillor Cross, there was an extension of that exemption for another two years around personal income tax.

I think it’s important that members in this chamber understand that there was a complementary arrangement with the province for the collection of tax and for the return of those funds to the nation. I appreciate it’s obvious to the chamber here that I’m speaking here, reflecting as we do this, on what I heard in the committee chamber.

What I heard in the committee chamber was this. The minister does respect — and I do believe members in this House would do the same, for recognition of self-determination of the Tsawwassen First Nation — that when the nation makes the request to cease the provision which effectively will remove the section 87 exemption, the nation makes that because, through the rights of self-determination and self-governance, including under the treaty, we respect that decision. As to where the funds to replace when the government does not provide those tax transfers any longer, where the nation makes that up, that is for the nation to decide. That’s what we respect here.

I do think, apart from my concerns around process and timing and delay by this government, it’s disappointing that the government did not turn its mind to the quantum of the transfers that is occurring under these agreements. I appreciate the minister did say, for privacy considerations, that number could not be shared, and he did describe that number as being negligible and immaterial — certainly in the context, in his words, as the benefits which I believe we recognize from the entering into and the sustainment of these important modern treaty agreements.

Having said that, when we’re at the committee stage and we’re asking about the fiscal framework that this government is embarking upon further with First Nations and we’re understanding the financial impact, I think, as members of this House, as the member for Abbotsford West said, we need to have that information.

Also, because of this: in respect of the other nations that have treaties, like the Nisg̱a’a and the other six modern treaty nations, there was significant discussion around whether this amendment, this motion to amend, will effectively cause the other nations under their current agreements to reopen their treaties. There was discussion as to how to term that, whether it’s a catch-up or a follow-up provision. But I think the minister and his team around him did understand the point.

The ministry hasn’t done that work, couldn’t share that information, that analysis, as to what this would mean under those other modern treaty arrangements. I do think, regardless, what we end up with is the point that any of those modern treaty nations can come forward to this government and ask for the same sort of amendment. As we go forward to support this motion, we do so understanding, first of all, that those other treaty nations will be looking for the same change to their modern treaties.

In the context of the committee stage, the minister was unable to tell us not only about the financial quantum that exists between Tsawwassen First Nation and government here, the transfers back and forth, but also in respect of those other modern treaty nations.

[5:50 p.m.]

Now, the reason for that, the minister said, was because we are here to focus on this particular motion, hence the reason why I requested this go to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, because this is more than just one amendment, one motion to pass one amendment.

Again, with respect to the Tsawwassen First Nation leadership…. I hope they appreciate and understand that the reason why we’re having this discussion and, even, the reason why I’m taking more time than usual on a motion response like this is….

We just had the committee debate. There was no moment, no time, for me to share this discussion with my other colleagues, other than those members who sat with me in the committee chamber, like the member for Delta South and the member for Abbotsford West. Apart from those members who had the opportunity, with two other chambers running at the same time…. They haven’t had the update from me. So this is the update.

Hopefully, some of the questions of my colleagues, which I made the effort, with the member for Abbotsford West…. We addressed them in the committee stage. They’re on the committee record. I do think we have a better understanding for the public and for those members who are seeking more information and more clarity about this particular amendment.

I’ve tried, in my remarks here, to share with the House, including members on our side of the House, the information as to the implications of this change. The recognition of how it places the relationship with First Nations within the overall fiscal framework and recognizes, as we go forward, as Councillor Valerie Cross also remarked in her comments to this chamber, that the Tsawwassen Nation will be seeking other amendments to their treaty agreement.

In answer to my question…. When I asked about that, the minister said that he’s not aware, at this time…. I think he said…. Sorry, I don’t have the Hansard in front of me. This is from memory. I believe he said that he can’t speak to, let’s say, any of those proposed amendments at this juncture and answer the question of whether the province of B.C. would seek any amendments under the treaty. That’s certainly their right, as well, in light of the overall fiscal framework. Again, we don’t have that answer.

These are the reasons why it was important to have that fuller discussion here about this particular motion.

As I say, despite the fact that there has been a lack of information provided by this government about some of the fiscal parameters of this amendment, as I mentioned in my comments…. Despite the fact that there have been challenges with the process to get to this juncture, I do recognize the principles that are at stake here.

I do recognize the need to move forward, with the Tsawwassen First Nation, with this motion. I also do recognize the importance of hearing this in terms of where the federal government is as a partner in this, recognizing what the B.C. Treaty Commission has said in calling for this change as well.

I hope this will lead to a better path forward with modern treaty nations. I also hope that, in the future, this government will pay the respect to First Nations and give them a voice at the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. So when we have the further discussions with these further amendments coming from other modern treaty nations, we have the forum to have the discussion and not have it in the sort of tortured way that we just had it now.

I appreciate, again, former Chief Kim Baird and Councillor Valerie Cross. I recognize that the two of you, alongside many other members of your nation, including Tanya Corbet, put in so much work so many years ago. We tried to pay the respect to you and your efforts in the manner in which we’ve had to come across this way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I look forward to supporting this motion.

A. Olsen: Mr. Speaker, ÍY SȻÁĆEL SIÁM.

SȾHENEP TŦE NE SNÁ. ZȺWIZUT TŦE NE MÁN. TELQUILEM TŦE NE SILE.

My name is SȾHENEP. My dad is TSAYWESUT. My grandfather’s name is also TELQUILUM.

[5:55 p.m.]

We need to figure out how it is that we’re related. My grandfather was from Lummi. So not too far away, from a geographic perspective, from Tsawwassen. When I hear that name spoken, it’s close to me.

Welcome, Chief Kim Baird, to the House today.

I feel like part of me wants to sort of apologize for this whole thing. It’s unnecessary on a variety of different fronts, frankly, and I feel sort of embarrassed with the way this conversation and this situation has unfolded.

If you grew up on an Indian reserve in this country, then you know what tax exemptions are and how they’re talked about and, really, what it’s about. If you’ve not grown up on an Indian reserve in this country, then it’s unlikely that you understand how tax exemptions are used against Indigenous people and how what might seem like a seemingly innocuous conversation about tax exemptions and whether or not a Crown government should grant a tax exemption to an Indigenous nation with a treaty and an agreement to make those treaties and the policy changes — how those feelings might be. I just want to acknowledge that.

Tax exemptions are often used as part of the narrative around Indigenous people that, frankly, we’re hoping to leave in our past and move on from. Unfortunately, it shows up today here in this institution, because it really is an instrument of this institution — those stories that are told about Indigenous people and tax exemptions.

If you look right down at the root of it, of course, it’s an important reality about sovereign nations and how they interact with each other and the rights that they have from each other and the liberties that some sovereign nations may take over other sovereign nations and how they might use power and authority over them. So I think that it’s important just to acknowledge that and to name that.

I think it’s also just important to acknowledge and to name the day that you had to spend here today. I mean, you may have wanted to come and hang out with us here in Victoria, in the Legislature. But as you pointed out, as Chemkwaat has pointed out, there’s other business that needs to be taken care of in your community today that you weren’t able to take care of because of this process that’s happened.

I think that, from our perspective, there’s a time and a place to make a point, and then there’s a time and a place to allow that point to be made elsewhere. There’s no doubt I have expressed my challenges with the management of this assembly, of maybe the process to how we get here today, the decision that’s made about a policy between the federal and provincial governments, about how we use or not use our committees to be able to have discussions about policies that are going to be implicating not just the Tsawwassen agreement but also the other agreements and how those conversations are probably better at a higher-level policy.

When we’re sitting in this assembly and we’re speaking with the leadership, the speaker from another nation, we should be here like we are in our families in the longhouse. We should be unified. That’s a failure of this House to not be unified before today, and I’m sorry for that.

Interjections.

A. Olsen: No, please don’t take advantage of that.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: What happened this afternoon is an embarrassment of this House. The way that business is conducted between Indigenous nations, to stand up and play our politics in this place in front of leaders of an Indigenous nation is inappropriate. I was going to leave that out until we decided to start banging our desks in this place.

I’m sorry. I’m embarrassed. I’m embarrassed because we should have done this work about the policy so that then there are not questions about what happens when other nations want to bring it up.

[6:00 p.m.]

This agreement doesn’t have implications for other agreements. If those nations want to bring forward this request, because that’s the desire of those nations, they have every right to do it.

We should have had this conversation at a high policy level. I have been asking, as I have, alongside my colleagues, to be using the Aboriginal Affairs Committee for exactly this purpose. There is a time and a place. But this business was done. The policy was passed. The opportunity to take advantage of that was not before us, the way that it has been used here.

We have a situation where…. We have the leaders of another nation sitting here. We have members standing up and leaving. What is that saying about this place? It has been 40 minutes. We can’t even spend 40 minutes to listen and to honour this conversation. We asked them here. We demanded that they be here.

This hits right at the core for Indigenous people. There are certain narratives in this country that have been used to define Indigenous people, and taxation is one of them. Our relatives in Tsawwassen have made the decision for the right to self-determination, which we have all agreed to in this House, and to take control of their taxation.

My colleagues in the official opposition are correct. These policy decisions need to be made at a committee level. We can build all-party support so we can stand, just like we do in our longhouses, together, as a family. When we invite the leaders of other nations in here, we are doing business as a family, just like the business that they brought before us was done in their house.

They didn’t bring any of the politics or the business. They came and made a request of us. We need to be prepared and to be able to respond to that request in the unanimity of the whole Legislative Assembly.

Yes, the government has the right to make this policy change. They have the majority. Even if we wanted to drag it out…. We could, and then, in the end, the decision would be made. But those are weak decisions. Those aren’t strong decisions.

As the government has repeated over and over again, when we talk about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act…. The strength in that act was that this House stood together as a family — an indication to Indigenous people that we stand together. No matter what happens in our elections, we are moving forward on this journey, in this direction, in full agreement.

That’s the benefit of that committee, which the member from Langara was pointing out. That’s the benefit of that process. The questions of the members in the official opposition about the amount and all of that could have been asked. It could have been done in camera. There could have been members from the Tsawwassen technical team here to have the conversation about it. We could have come out of camera. We could have had that conversation. That was at a time months ago, and we missed that opportunity.

The reality of what has played out today is…. In my opinion, as I’ve seen these relationships go, it’s unacceptable for us to introduce the partisan aspects that have been brought into this. We are undermining the credibility and the integrity of our work together as a Legislative Assembly in delivering a consistent message to our relatives and to leaders across the province that we can act as a Legislative Assembly and that we can use the tools of this Legislative Assembly in an effective way to ensure that when we have guests in our House, we’re not playing politics in here. We are speaking as a family, united.

[6:05 p.m.]

I can tell you. If this happened in our longhouse…. If a family does not act together, you hear about it. This isn’t a popular thing to stand up and say, but I feel like I need to say it. If this was a family that was not acting together in unity….

The onus is on the government to do it properly. The onus is on us in opposition to do it respectfully so that when we have guests in our House, they see us working together. That is what’s going to demonstrate to the Indigenous people in this province that we are serious about reconciliation.

I absolutely support our relative’s right to self-determination. I absolutely recognize the extreme obstacle…. The requirements that the federal and provincial governments put on the B.C. treaty process are the reason why nations, including mine, are not part of the B.C. treaty process. I am thrilled that we are no longer referring to these as final agreements but living agreements between legitimate governing bodies in this province. If we continue on that path, then we will be working towards reconciliation in a good way.

Please, let’s use the tools that we have in here so that when we have guests in our House, we can operate as a family, just like we do, in a good way. Then the questions that are put in front of this place are done in the appropriate place, not here, at the last minute, with the guests sitting here watching this debate happen. There is a time and a place for that. It has made me very uncomfortable to listen to this conversation while we have these guests in our House.

With that, I’m going to take my seat. I’m going to support this motion. I will support the motions of the other Indigenous nations that want to bring this question forward as well. This is their right to self-determination.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak these words today.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close the debate?

Okay. The question is the adoption of Motion 29 on the order paper.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call continued second reading on Bill 10.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2023

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on this matter, the minister will close the debate.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that we close debate on second reading of Bill 10.

Motion approved.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Conroy: I think there’s opposition on the other side.

I move that Bill 10 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[6:10 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Okay. We’ll wait for Section C.

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

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:12 p.m.