PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, TRADE AND TECHNOLOGY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $120,323,000 (continued).

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to introduce staff who are here: Steve Anderson, Jennifer Burleigh, Michael Loseth, Jamie Hammond and Christine Little.

[2:45 p.m.]

S. Thomson: I’ll have just a few questions here. I know we’re under some time limitations. I want to just cover off a few areas, and then we’ll probably follow up with some specific written questions that will probe some of the areas in a little bit more detail. Last week, we were discussing the India program and the India market in some of the market development work through FII.

I wanted to just focus a little bit with a question with respect to the China market and the work of FII. I think the minister will have looked at the numbers and seen some of the trends in the numbers there. The service plan for FII identifies some of the significant risks in the China market, some of the challenges there: the economy, the rate of growth in the U.S., competition from Russia and the EU, potential impacts of SLA and things — all pointing towards challenges in the China market.

It also notes that FII will be working with the ministry and with industry on evaluation and looking at possible adjustments and changes to approach in the China market. I’m just wondering if the minister could advise on the status of this evaluation in relation to the service plan and the performance measures that are in the service plan. Is there active evaluation underway? Are there specific targets that have been set for the China market?

I know the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and rural economic development is travelling on a trade mission to China in November. Has this particular trade mission had a different focus than some of them previously, in terms of the work that will be done there in relation to some of those challenges in the market and some of the evaluation work that is underway?

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you to the member for the question. The goal of the China wood trade is strategically to increase the value of wood being shipped to China. Previously, the metric was the average value of the wood itself being shipped into China. The new metric, since about two years ago now — which I think would coincide with the member’s tenure as minister — is to track the average value per cubic metre.

[2:50 p.m.]

For 2016, the last fiscal year, the target was $192 a cubic metre, but the actual was only $174 a cubic metre. The target for 2017-18 is $196 per cubic metre, and the figure to date, to July, is $203. So it’s on track. It looks like the target that’s been set will be achieved.

S. Thomson: Hopefully, this will be a quick response on this question.

One thing I was wondering about was the status. We know this is a partnership approach — industry, provincial government, federal government, through FII. Maybe I could ask: what’s the status of the federal partnership support for the Canada wood program? Does the minister see any risks in terms of the federal commitments, both in terms of funding and longer-term programming?

Hon. B. Ralston: I just want to thank the member for the question.

The partnership there that operates and directs the process of encouraging and supporting Canada’s wood exports into the China market is the FII, the federal department — Natural Resources Canada — and industry.

In June, there was an announcement by Natural Resources Canada of a further commitment of $45 million. So that’s for the second half of this fiscal and then two further fiscal years. That’s not simply for China, but it’s for all diversification into all markets. But it is a substantial commitment.

I should add, too, that this morning, I met with the Canadian Ambassador to China, Mr. McCallum, and he confirmed — I don’t think it’s a secret — that the federal government is strongly committed to developing further trade ties and enhanced trade with China in a range of commodities and a range of services. So this would be consistent with that approach.

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to hear that, because the federal participation and continued support for it is a key to the success of the program. They were always actively involved in our programming and our missions, and I just wanted to make sure that it was on the record that that commitment is maintained.

I take it from the minister’s answer that he doesn’t see any great, immediate risk on the horizon that would see any decreasing commitment from the federal government in terms of that support.

I just wanted to switch now and ask a little bit about softwood and the SLA issue.

[2:55 p.m.]

The minister indicated in his opening comments at the beginning of the estimates here that it was of the highest priority for the government and a critically, critically important file for the industry, as we all know. We tend to get a little bit of conflicting information sometimes.

In July, the Premier, at the time, made a statement that he was quite optimistic about the potential for a deal. That seems to have slipped in some ways. The Premier said, just recently: “The softwood lumber deal is in a tough spot. I think we’re going to be hearing some negative in the days ahead.”

The CEO of West Fraser said that a softwood war end is not near in recent comments. Kéta Kosman, who is the publisher of Madison’s Lumber, put out a more optimistic statement. Now, I know we don’t always take everything that’s said in the press as gospel.

There are lots of different views. I just wonder if I could ask the minister what his current perspective is on the state of negotiations, on the state of play in the negotiations, whether or not he remains or is optimistic that there is a potential for a deal, or whether he shares the view of the Premier that it’s in for some tough times and negative days ahead — given his responsibility for the file, under his ministry, what his current view is of the state of play and the state of negotiations.

Hon. B. Ralston: As the member will know from his experience on the file, the softwood lumber negotiations are a dynamic process and, certainly, views change for a good reason. The Premier was there in Washington and met with Mr. Ross and Mr. Lighthizer on July 26 and July 27. I think the thinking at that time was that prior to the opening of the formal commencement of the NAFTA negotiations, there was an opportunity for a possible deal. I think that was somewhat of a consensus, and that had to do with the internal dynamic of the American trade team. That proved to be wrong.

I think the view of both our government and the federal government is that a negotiated settlement that works for both countries is the right solution, but the coalition continues to put the interests of its members ahead of everything else, including what is good for the American economy. As you will know, there’s certainly divided opinion in the United States about whether a negotiated settlement for softwood is a good thing. But on our side, that’s our position.

We’re not optimistic. At this point, I’m advised that a deal can be reached prior to the U.S. Department of Commerce releasing the final duty rates. Of course, there’s always the alternative. We would naturally be reluctant, but we are prepared to vigorously defend our interests in litigation, if it’s necessary.

[3:00 p.m.]

S. Thomson: Thank you for that perspective. I wanted to raise the point…. I remember, when I was minister and had some responsibility for the file, being criticized or being questioned around if there was a deal there — that we could have had a deal if we’d just been a little bit more aggressive in terms of some of the work, noting that it is a lead by the federal government.

I just wanted to get that perspective, because I think what we’re seeing now is that as the minister and the government are facing the dynamic nature of those negotiations and the importance of getting an agreement that works for British Columbia and for our industry, it’s not quite as simple as it might have been portrayed at the time — that there was a deal there and we could have had it.

We said at the time that it had to be an arrangement that worked, and I think we’re finding now, with the government in their work with the industry, that it’s critically important to make sure that this agreement, ultimately, when it can be achieved, is one that works. I think we all need to work collectively, on both sides of the House, to make sure that that’s the case, working with our industry, because it’s critical for supporting jobs. We know that the U.S. claims and the Lumber Coalition claims are unsubstantiated, both in terms of subsidy allegations and injury allegations. So that work needs to continue.

I share some of the pessimism that the minister has around an imminent deal. It’s going to take a lot of continued work. I just want to say that we agree, on this side, that that is critically important work and that we all, working with our industry, need to make sure that, ultimately, it’s a deal that works for British Columbia, being 55 to 60 percent of softwood lumber production in British Columbia.

I’ll close there and turn it over to my colleague. As I mentioned, I do have some other specific questions around the export market development program — a couple more questions on softwood — that I can put directly to the minister. I also noted that in this process, this is not one where you want to negotiate elements of the arrangement in a public process here. They’re the kinds of questions that we can deal more directly with the minister on.

I thank the minister for his responses and look forward to the rest of the discussion this afternoon.

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for his summary.

The only, I suppose, point of difference that I would want to emphasize is that the Premier did go to Washington and meet with Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and U.S. Trade Representative Mr. Lighthizer. That was not work that was undertaken by anyone in the previous government. Those are the two key negotiators. Perhaps Mr. Ross thought he had more clout than it turned out he did. But certainly, the case was taken to the very highest level in the American administration. So far it hasn’t yielded the fruit of an agreement.

Generally, I agree with what the member has said. We look forward to the prospect of a negotiated settlement, which would be in everyone’s interest.

T. Wat: Because of limitations on time, I will have a number of written questions that I’d like to submit to the minister for some answer and response.

When the government was in opposition, in general, the NDP was quite opposed to the spirit of free trade agreements, except the minister supports the first-ever Canadian free trade agreement with an Asian country — with South Korea.

On the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The previous government was a strong advocate for this TPP, particularly for British Columbia because of our geographical location. We are right on the Pacific Rim. But the minister said a few times that he was not in favour of the TPP. Since I don’t have time, I don’t want to quote him. He said it a number of times. When the previous government tabled a TPP motion on April 14, 2016, the entire NDP caucus voted against the TPP.

[3:05 p.m.]

Now that the minister is in charge of this file, I want to know: what is the government’s current position on TPP?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. The member is correct when she said that…. In opposition, we did support the Canada-Korea free trade deal. A number of the elements, which I won’t go into here, were ones that made it worthy of support.

What has happened to TPP, as the member knows, is that the United States withdrew, given the statement by the current President of the United States. There is no formal negotiation underway at this point. I probably wouldn’t want to say more, following on what the member for Kelowna-Mission said and not wanting to negotiate it in public.

T. Wat: I’m sure the minister will pay attention to all the media reports and some of the reports coming from the business association. All the indications are that, now, the 11 remaining members of TPP will commit to proceeding with the pact, with the agreement, when they meet in Vietnam next month for the APEC summit, even though the United States is not going to be part of it. The Canada West Foundation, as well as the Business Council of Canada, already issued a report saying that now, with protectionism rising in the United States, TPP is all the more important.

The fact that the 11 other members are so enthusiastic about reaching this agreement…. I would like the minister to say what this government’s position is on TPP, if the 11 countries are going ahead, and whether the minister has been talking to his federal counterpart on how he feels about TPP without the United States.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: As the member has commented, trade relations with many countries in the Asia-Pacific are an important component of the future not only of the province but of the country. Certainly, that’s a focus of the federal department of trade, International Trade Minister, Mr. Champagne. There are a number of openings for the promotion of future trade opportunities in Asia.

What I would say is that we are in discussions with our federal counterparts in Trade, but that’s in a very preliminary stage. I’m not really at liberty to reveal what the positions that might be taken are. They are not yet formed, and again, following on the comments of the member for Kelowna-Mission, it’s not prudent to negotiate a trade position in public.

T. Wat: I take it that the minister hasn’t made a decision on whether we will support TPP.

I also want to put on the record and to know whether the minister has been talking to his federal counterpart on whether we are advocating for the going ahead of the TPP with 11 members, without the United States. As I quote the Business Council of Canada and also the Canada West Foundation…. They have been saying that, actually, TPP without the United States would work to the great benefit of British Columbia. Right away we will have ready Asian trading partners: Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore, not to mention Brunei.

I’d just like to know the minister’s and this government’s position on TPP — whether you are pushing ahead with the federal government, like what we did when we were the government. We have been advocating for TPP. We have been engaging in active discussions with the federal government.

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, we are actively engaged with the federal government. But before any support would be indicated, a clearer view of the Canadian position — the federal government is negotiating on behalf of Canada — would be required before any decisions would be made.

T. Wat: I just want to emphasize, again, that the province does have their own position when they talk to their federal counterpart to say whether they’re in favour or not.

I turn to NAFTA. The U.S. negotiator last week called for an end to Canada’s supply management system for dairy, chicken, eggs and turkey within the next decade. What is this government’s position on this one? Do you have any plan to help the B.C. agriculture industry if this particular ending is to come into place?

[3:15 p.m.]

[B. Ma in the chair.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The member is correct that the U.S. negotiating team took a very strong position opposing Canadian supply management. That is not supported by the federal negotiators, including the federal Foreign Affairs Minister, Chrystia Freeland, who is leading the negotiations. She will look out for Canada and protect Canada’s interests, and we support her position.

T. Wat: I just want the minister to let this House know whether…. As you know, if there’s an end to the supply management, our agriculture industry will be seriously affected. Do we have a plan in place? Now that we know that the U.S. negotiation seems to be very serious, do we have a plan in place to try to help mitigate the lost opportunity for our agricultural sector when this comes into play? We have to plan ahead.

Hon. B. Ralston: I think the premise of the question is perhaps a little unduly alarmist. I mean, the negotiations are ongoing. It’s still too early to predict an outcome.

[3:20 p.m.]

Some of the popular media talk about some of the negotiating tactics that may be considered. Who knows? It’s not clear. I wouldn’t want to give the impression that there’s a crisis emerging. I’m hopeful and optimistic that as negotiations continue, a deal acceptable to all sides will be worked out.

T. Wat: I do agree with the minister that we have to be optimistic and positive. But on the other hand, as a government, I think we have to be fully prepared for any eventualities.

Now I turn to trade missions. When the minister was in opposition, the minister was very critical of trade missions — in particular, trade missions led by the Premier. Let me quote. The minister said, on February 14, 2015, in the Times Colonist: “I would have thought that this was part of what staff at trade offices in foreign cities did…was to try to persuade business to invest and locate in British Columbia. Why you need another $3 million to duplicate the same work by sending the Premier on a trade mission, I don’t understand.”

We learned last week that the Premier was talking to the Chinese media — the minister of state was present at the round table — that he is planning to lead a trade mission to China, Korea and Japan. So I would like to know what the minister’s thoughts are about the Premier’s taking a trade mission, since you said when you were in opposition that our overseas trade and investment offices are enough to attract trade and investment.

Hon. B. Ralston: A proposed visit by the Premier in a delegation is important, I think, as a new government, to set the tone with key stakeholders in those countries to get to know the Premier and the objectives and goals of the new government. That kind of face-to-face communication at that level is important. That’s not to minimize the ongoing work of the federal trade commission offices nor of the trade network.

Certainly, the member makes reference to and quotes a newspaper article. I’m always very loathe to comment on any newspaper articles in which I’m quoted because sometimes that’s not accurate. Certainly, there was a concern about the cost of the mission, and that was the key concern there.

T. Wat: I take it that the minister has changed his position on trade missions for the Premier. From the headline of the two newspapers, Chinese dailies, the Premier will focus on LNG, and he is hoping that he can have a meeting with PetroChina during his China visit to facilitate the building of an LNG export terminal next year.

[3:25 p.m.]

Again, when this government was in opposition, the Premier, together with a number of ministers, was so opposed to LNG. I wonder: is there a change of position on LNG now?

Hon. B. Ralston: Just for the record, I want to disagree with the member’s characterization of what she called a changed view in missions. The mission that we’re speaking of is in the planning stage. We will pursue missions with focus and expect to meet with those who are proposing investments in British Columbia.

On LNG, the news conference that the member is referring to…. That’s why I’m not going to, unfortunately, rely on her characterization of what was said there. The Premier was answering a question about a trip that weekend to Kitimat to the site of the LNG Canada site. That’s a project that both the Premier and myself, in opposition — I was the LNG critic — supported consistently, publicly.

[3:30 p.m.]

For the member, I know that’s been a standard tactic for many years by the Liberal government, now Liberal opposition, to say that we opposed every single project. Unfortunately, the facts are otherwise. It just wasn’t true. The LNG Canada project was a project where Shell was to lead, and that’s a project that we supported. All the elements were there.

What the Premier was talking about in that news conference is…. And he did mention that market conditions mean that there’s a glut of LNG on the market right now and conditions are not optimum for that to proceed immediately. But there may be a decision, at some point in the future when market conditions change, for that project to proceed. That’s why he was heading up to Kitimat to have a look at the site.

I’m reluctant to disagree with the former minister, but unfortunately, her characterizations of the positions are just flatly wrong.

T. Wat: I base all my questions on the reports from the Chinese media, so maybe the minister can clarify with the Chinese media.

For this government’s position on LNG, when they were in opposition, we can quote tons and tons of quotes from many of the current ministers and other private members on their position on LNG, but as I said, we don’t have time. I’m not going to go to that.

I just want to refer to the minister’s earlier answer to the Premier’s trade mission. The minister said, when he was in opposition, that he was concerned about the cost of the Premier’s trade mission. Can the minister tell us: what is the budget allocated for the Premier’s Asia trade mission?

Hon. B. Ralston: As the member may recall, when she was the minister, there is an annual budget to support international trade missions — that’s plural — led by the Premier and ministers, or the Premier’s designates, as ministers.

The budget is unchanged from the previous year. It’s $500,000. But for this specific mission, the projected cost — which would include official delegation and support staff, travel, ground transportation, visas, meetings, ceremonies, luncheons, gifting, third-party services — is not yet finalized.

[3:35 p.m.]

Travel mission costs are proactively released and will be released once the cost is finalized. But it’s not anticipated that the cost of this mission will take the entire budget for missions — plural.

T. Wat: Since the minister was so critical of the previous Premier’s trade mission costs, will the minister again commit that the forthcoming trade mission by the Premier will not exceed that of the previous Premier?

Hon. B. Ralston: The full costs of the mission are not yet known. What I will say is that the effort will be to run as economical an operation as is possible that’s consistent with the requirements of conducting a mission that is an important one and where we are representing the people of British Columbia. There won’t be anything other than that.

I can’t really make that commitment, given that the previous Premier took a number of missions. I’m not aware of the cost of all of the previous missions so I’m unable to make that comparison.

T. Wat: Given the time limitation…. There are so many questions I’d like to interact with the minister on, but unfortunately, we are not given enough time, so I will leave it to my colleagues to ask other questions.

Thank you so much. I would like to thank the staff for all your hard work, for supporting the minister on all the questions. And I will submit a list of questions for follow-up.

J. Johal: My question to the minister will focus a little bit on his mandate letter. I want to quote from it, particularly in and around the issue of UNDRIP. “Government will be fully adopting and implementing the United Nations declaration on rights of Indigenous people and the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” It goes on to state: “As minister, you are responsible for moving forward on the calls to action and reviewing policies, programs and legislation to determine how to bring the principles of the declaration into action in British Columbia.”

My question is: can the minister enlighten on any progress that he has made towards meeting this direction?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for the question. The government, as you know, has made a long-term commitment to lasting reconciliation with First Nations in British Columbia. The embrace of UNDRIP is new, but we feel we are building trust with our First Nations partners, which, in fact, will bring stability to the investment environment.

At the First Nations leadership conference in September, led by the Premier, that process was initiated. Obviously, this is a long-term process. But the commitment — and that’s why it’s in my mandate letter — is a commitment by the government. Every minister is contributing to that development of building trust that will bring economic opportunities that previously didn’t exist.

[3:45 p.m.]

J. Johal: I appreciate the minister’s comments, particularly in regard to long-term commitment and, of course, building trust with First Nations partners. As he is well aware, as we’re all aware, in regard to building confidence for investors as well, that is important. But they also require that jurisdictions are transparent in regards to their dealings. The issue of UNDRIP still looms large for investors and the business community here in British Columbia and, of course, foreign investors as well.

My second question. With the requirement for implementing UNDRIP set out in the minister’s mandate letter and those of all his cabinet colleagues, can the minister explain how this requirement is going to impact the government’s ability to render decisions to the betterment of all British Columbians?

Hon. B. Ralston: We come to government with the view that implementing these principles will be to the benefit of all British Columbians. In the long run, that will enable us to create the kind of economic prosperity and good jobs for everyone that we desire. That’s the commitment of the Premier and of the government. Obviously, that is a long-term process of implementation, but that’s the commitment.

J. Johal: I thank the minister for his response.

Years ago I interviewed a former Premier. He once told me that capital is mobile. Investor confidence is very important in regards to attracting global investment. He happened to be sitting in the back row behind the government today and is a very smart man.

I think, in regards to clarity, particularly in and around UNDRIP, it isn’t just a long-term commitment, or even a short-term or medium-term one, because it does impact the ability to attract investment.

I want to dig a little deeper in regards to this subject. Free, prior and informed consent — there are opinions, on both sides, on whether or not this term represents a veto on proposed or existing projects. Does this minister believe this section of UNDRIP represents a veto on job-creating projects?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question.

A couple of years ago, not that long ago, I attended a seminar, continuing legal education, on Aboriginal law. Pierre Lebel was there as one of the leaders of the seminar. He’s the chair of the board of Imperial Metals — very experienced and knowledgable about Aboriginal and Indigenous law in the country. Basically, his interpretation of the way forward was that if you did not have a partner, it was very difficult to move a project forward.

Partnership — consultation, early and often — is the way forward. I think, for most companies, that’s the formula that’s working for them, and that’s the formula that I think will work in the future. So consult early and often, and build strong partnerships with First Nations. And projects will move forward.

J. Johal: I wouldn’t disagree with the minister in regards to partnership and early consultation. In my previous career in the LNG industry, that’s something which was etched in our minds from day one. Many proponents live by that every single day. Even on our side of the aisle, when you talk to colleagues like Ellis Ross, they will tell you that as well, with his vast experience in regards to moving his community forward in regards to resource development and consultation.

There is also a concern in regards to veto power and what UNDRIP means, particularly its interpretation. My question to the minister: with many overlapping land claims and disagreements within First Nations about a specific job-creating project, does the minister believe every project requires absolute unanimity from any First Nation potentially affected?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: As I said previously, the implementation of UNDRIP will create and require partnerships, and I believe the member agreed with that. It will also bring certainty and predictability to the land, creating the opportunity to create economic benefits, including good jobs. So the commitment of the government is to the UN declaration, which has been adopted by 148 countries, including the federal government of Canada.

J. Johal: I think most investors would want certainty, and I certainly would agree with them, in regards to the issue of consultation, early and often, with any project. But the issue of UNDRIP is an overarching concern for industries from forestry to mining to LNG, oil and gas, pipelines, small businesses to large businesses. I’ve heard that repeatedly from many groups. The question: is the minister developing a plan in order to calm investor fears that implementation of UNDRIP will mean that no job-creating projects will be approved in B.C.?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I might make reference to the Indigenous Business and Investment Council, which is working closely with the previous government and with this government. Its objective is to show that industry and First Nations working together can attract business investment to the province and lead to greater Indigenous inclusion in the economy. We’re optimistic about the benefits that are waiting for us as we go forward.

J. Johal: There’s no doubt that industry, government and First Nations communities need to work together in regards to greater clarity in attracting investment throughout our great province. Of course, the overarching concern is still UNDRIP and how this government will implement that and how that will impact specific projects, from oil and gas to forestry to mining.

Now I want to move to another topic. We had an organization called the Premier’s LNG Working Group, an organization that was put together by the previous government so that various entities throughout our province could work together — from organized labour, First Nations communities, educational institutions.

One of the lessons from Australia that we’ve learned is that the access to labour is huge. You have to work with all the proponents and entities, or it drives up labour costs. In some cases, I think in Australia, chefs were making $175,000, and it drove up costs for some of these projects. I think on one project — the Gorgon project, which was budgeted for $37 billion — it actually cost $54 billion to complete.

In the Premier’s LNG Working Group, every few months the proponents would get together with organized labour, educational institutions and First Nations organizations and talk about what is required when LNG projects do move forward.

My question to the minister is: are you planning to continue with the Premier’s LNG Working Group? I’d love to know what the status of it is at this particular point.

Hon. B. Ralston: The answer is yes. The member’s question is timely. The group will be meeting this Friday with the same terms of reference. The only additional term will be that they will have a term of reference to look at local hire on public projects, in addition to their previous mandate.

A. Olsen: Following up on the line of questioning that was here just prior to this one, I’m wondering. Oftentimes UNDRIP and these questions around Indigenous rights and title and such are used in order to cast fear. One of the questions that I have is…. The federal government has adopted UNDRIP and committed to adopting it. It would, therefore, be prudent, I think, for the province to take that very seriously, because there could be further uncertainty created in our province by not adopting it and having such an imbalance between the federal and the provincial policies.

Can you talk to what kind of impact that would have on the economic and the uncertainty or the certainty of job creation and, as well, industry in British Columbia in the future?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for the question. As I mentioned earlier, the declaration has been adopted by the federal government, and we see it as the way forward that will create jobs and prosperity for everyone in the province, including Indigenous people.

G. Kyllo: I’m going to segue back to the international business activity program. The international business activity program, the IBA, is a provincial program. It was set in place back in 1988 to encourage the growth of international financial business activity in B.C. through income tax rebates for eligible international business activities — largely international financial services but also including other target sectors, such as international film, TV distribution, as well as patents related to life sciences in green technology.

IBA-eligible activities are estimated as representing close to $2 billion in direct economic output in B.C. in 2015, with a large majority of participants indicating that the IBA program was an important factor in deciding to locate or retain their IBA-eligible activities in B.C. As I mentioned, the program has existed since 1988 and has been continuously supported by successive governments up until this year. In September, the current NDP government announced its intention to discontinue the IBA program.

To the minister with primary responsibility for delivering this program: will he advise members what information or analysis was relied upon in making the decision to kill this successful capital attraction program?

Hon. B. Ralston: The analysis of the program was conducted by the Ministry of Finance and was announced in the budget. It is a decision of the Ministry of Finance. These issues were canvassed extensively in the estimates of the Ministry of Finance. I really have nothing to add to that very extensive discussion — I’m sure the member is aware of that — in the Ministry of Finance estimates.

G. Kyllo: With all due respect, the minister is responsible for attracting investment capital to our province. This program has been very successful in the past number of years. I note that the IBA program was unique within North America.

Unlike other business attraction programs that are offered in other jurisdictions that tend to focus on front-end subsidies like property tax exemptions or other incentives, the IBA program is respectful to taxpayers by offering tax rebates to attract and retain firms that can grow and operate profitably over time. Some of the successes…. Over the past ten years, Vancouver’s Global Financial Centres Index ranking improved from 27th in 2007 to 17th in the most recent September 2017 report, making Vancouver one of the fastest-rising cities, ranking fifth out of all North American cities.

The current government certainly likes to talk about fact-based decision-making and finding a new way of doing business in B.C. However, it appears that by the lack of information and due diligence that were undertaken by the ministry…. It’s apparent the decision to cancel the IBA program is something that should certainly be reconsidered.

I appreciate that this was canvassed through the estimates of the Minister of Finance. However, with the minister having direct responsibility for economic growth and job creation in British Columbia…. A question to the minister: did you undertake any consultation or have any arguments or discussions directly with the Minister of Finance in order to help support and see that this program retains itself in B.C.?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The decision was taken by the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance analyzed the program using actual taxpayer data — which, as the member will be aware, is confidential. The conclusion — based on that analysis of actual taxpayer data, as opposed to anecdotal evidence — was that the program created few jobs and offered little new or incremental economic benefit. So the decision was that the $25 million spent on the program was better invested in areas that are important to British Columbians, such as education, health care and transit.

In general terms, British Columbia remains and continues to be an internationally competitive jurisdiction: competitive corporate tax rates; our geographic location; state-of-the-art ports, airports, rail, road systems; a highly educated and diverse workforce, and particularly in technology. Companies come here and want to invest here because of the talent here. We are a very attractive destination for investment and continue to be.

The decision was made by the Ministry of Finance based on analysis of actual tax returns, and their assessment was that the benefits were very few, given the amount of money that was spent.

G. Kyllo: To the minister: is he able to share with this House the report that led to the decision to actually look at cancelling this program? As I mentioned, it had been in place since 1988. My understanding is that significant investments have been undertaken in British Columbia.

I mentioned significant increases in the rating of the financial services sector in Vancouver specifically. It’s my understanding that this program shows net positive financial return to British Columbians. So to the minister: is he able to share with this House the report to which he refers that led to the decision?

Hon. B. Ralston: As the member will understand from his time in government, this was a study undertaken by the Ministry of Finance based on actual taxpayer data. That is confidential data, and that’s a fundamental part of the system. The government has an obligation to protect the privacy of all taxpayers, and therefore, we’re not permitted to discuss details about any taxpayer at all.

That’s a cornerstone of the system. The principle of taxpayer confidentiality is well established in case law and has been upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the country. So that’s the basis on which the decision was made, and that’s where it has to stay.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that individual data with respect to specific companies certainly could not be shared, but the aggregate of the information which led to the decision, I’m sure, would be able to still pass the requirement of our freedom of information. I’m hoping that maybe an executive summary that just goes over the aggregate results that led to the decision certainly should be able to be shared with this House. It would not be providing any direct information on specific companies, but having a look at the value of the program and the overall aggregate benefit to B.C., I think, is certainly something that could be shared with this House while still fully meeting the requirements of freedom of information.

Hon. B. Ralston: I understand the member’s point of view, but this is a Ministry of Finance decision. It’s not within the jurisdiction of this ministry and technically not part of the estimates of this ministry, in the sense that the data that was analyzed was conducted by the Ministry of Finance.

[4:15 p.m.]

This was canvassed extensively in the Ministry of Finance estimates by two of the member’s colleagues on behalf of the official opposition. So I’m afraid I’m not able to answer any further questions, despite the questions that the member has posed.

G. Kyllo: Well, so much for the champion of business attraction. It’s pretty obvious that these different business-attraction vehicles actually have been of great success to British Columbia. It’s unfortunate that the minister has not stood up for this program.

It’s also my understanding that firms that have been participating in this program were not consulted to actually have a look at what the value to them directly has been with respect to the IBA program.

In any event, I’ll move on. Another attack on businesses and growth is the elimination of the revenue-neutrality provision of the carbon tax. The previous government created the award-winning revenue-neutral tax that saw reductions in carbon emissions alongside economic growth. The minister seems unconcerned with piling costs on business and driving away investment.

Did the minister, as the one responsible for jobs and growth, speak up against removing revenue neutrality from the carbon tax?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I think the import of the member’s question is about investor confidence and what the government is doing to attract investment in British Columbia and new investment in particular.

The government is actively committed to establishing British Columbia as a preferred location for new and emerging technologies by supporting venture capital investment in start-ups, measures to increase the growth of domestic B.C. tech companies and removing barriers to attracting and repatriating skilled workers.

We’ve discussed with other members the international trade network, which focuses on globally attracting investment to British Columbia. Last day, we spoke about the major investments office, and I gave a list — I can refer the member back to the record there — of projects that are being actively worked with and encouraged to complete an investment and build projects here in British Columbia.

The commitment of the government to attracting investment, to building the economy, to building good, long-term jobs, not for just the top 1 percent but everyone in the province, is firm and ongoing. That’s our commitment, and that’s my task, and that’s what I’m doing.

G. Kyllo: The question actually had to do with the removal of the neutrality of the existing carbon tax. The question was: what has the minister done, if anything, to support the requirement that was previously put in place to have the carbon tax revenue-neutral? In any event, we have seen increases in the corporate tax rate by 1 percent and a 2 percent increase in the tax rate for B.C.’s highest-income earners.

We’ve seen a concerted effort to look at putting up huge opposition to significant projects that would actually be of benefit to British Columbia. Like “using every tool in the toolbox” — I think that was the quote that I heard earlier with respect to killing the Kinder Morgan pipeline. We see significant efforts being undertaken to look at cancelling Site C, one of the single largest capital projects ever undertaken in the history of this province.

I’d like to thank the minister for his time. I’m going to turn the floor over to my colleague, who just has a few more closing comments. Thank you, Minister, and thanks to all of the staff for all of your work in providing answers through estimates.

J. Johal: I just have one more question. I want to touch on a commitment made in the NDP’s finance platform. It says: “We will work with interior and northern communities to ensure they have technology infrastructure they need to attract and support technology companies and to create good jobs for tech workers locally.”

What does the minister have in his budget for expanding the tech industry in rural British Columbia, and what is his ministry doing in regards to expanding technology studies to rural B.C. colleges and universities?

[4:25 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Let me just say, sort of in general terms, that sometimes it’s assumed or feared that technology opportunities or the technology industry is really confined to the Lower Mainland, when, in fact, that’s not the case. Certainly, through B.C. Innovation Council, a venture acceleration program — and there are 15 locations throughout the province.

Technology is revolutionizing not only some of the more virtual reality or ultimate reality. That’s a big part of the supercluster application that the government is supporting strongly. The bid came through the first hurdle and is now one of the finalists in the federally initiated supercluster program. But there are opportunities for technology to revolutionize the resource industry.

At one event, I was introduced to a company called LlamaZOO. What they’ve done, using visualization technology, is create a program that enables a mining company to create a digital double of the ore body and explore ways of more efficiently and economically extracting the ore from below the ground, thereby doing it more efficiently, saving money and making the operation more viable. So many traditional industries in the resource sector can benefit and are benefiting from innovation in the technology sector.

The B.C. Growth Opportunities Tour is a program initiated by the B.C. Innovation Council. It has on its roster stops at Prince George, Nelson, Victoria, Surrey, Kelowna and Kamloops. Myself and my parliamentary secretary were briefly at the one in Kelowna. That’s a forum where companies come forward and, in eight to ten minutes, usually about ten to 12 of them explain what they’re doing and how they might be of service to people who’ve come to hear them. The idea is to create knowledge and awareness of those companies and create a demand for their services.

Rural British Columbia will benefit and is benefiting from changes in technology. I think if you can make resource investments more economical, then the return on investment for resource companies, when they do make those decisions to go ahead, is one that will benefit all of us and create more jobs and future investment in the province.

J. Johal: I want to thank the minister for his answers. I think we have more questions, but we will submit written questions to the ministry in a few days.

I just want to wrap up. I want to thank the minister and his staff, especially, for making themselves available. I know it takes a lot of work, so we do really appreciate all of you being here today.

I think we can also agree the minister’s responsibility to grow B.C.’s economy and create family-supporting jobs is there. What we heard also so far is that he’s working and the ministry staff are working on various strategies. However, they are unable to share some of them with us today, in regards to giving us a clear direction or measurable targets. We’ve seen no plan to date, no timelines and no targets. We look forward to seeing more of that in the weeks and months ahead.

[4:35 p.m.]

I also remind the minister that we are at a point in our economy…. The unemployment rate is at about 5.3 percent, the second lowest in the country. We’ve seen over $9 billion in economic expansion since the advent of the B.C. jobs plan.

There are a lot of clouds ahead as well, as he is very aware, in regards to an increase in the corporate tax and the elimination of the revenue neutrality of the carbon tax. We don’t know what the implementation of the $15 per hour minimum wage will look like at this time and the handling of the softwood file as well.

We’ve seen one major proponent, Pacific NorthWest LNG, not moving forward in regards to that particular project. We’ve seen this government also state that they’ll use every tool in the toolbox in regards to the Kinder Morgan project and challenging that major investment in this province as well. We still have to look at the broad impacts of UNDRIP on this province and recently, of course, the Minister of Agriculture’s letter to a very lawful business as well. So there’s lots to discuss, I’m sure, in the weeks and months ahead.

I do want to thank the minister and the staff once again.

Hon. B. Ralston: Just to conclude, I don’t agree with the member’s characterization of dark clouds and a bleak future in front of us here in British Columbia. In fact, I would think very much the opposite.

Some of those steps that the government has taken, whether it’s reducing the tax on small business, reducing MSP premiums, which are…. Since 50 percent of MSP premiums are paid by employers, it’s, in fact, a reduction in tax that benefits business.

The opportunity to make life more affordable for British Columbians and the number of investments that have been announced, and continue to be announced, as we go forward…. Whether it’s Fortinet in Burnaby, DP World in Prince Rupert, AltaGas in Prince Rupert or a number of projects that are advanced by the major investments office, the future is bright in British Columbia. I don’t think the members opposite should confuse their defeat with the future of British Columbia.

Vote 33: ministry operations, $120,323,000 — approved.

The Chair: The committee will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:37 p.m. to 4:47 p.m.

[R. Glumac in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $40,890,000.

The Chair: Is there a statement that you’d like to make?

Hon. S. Fraser: I’d like to begin by thanking my critic opposite for being here today. I’d like to recognize the territory of the Lekwungen-speaking people — that’s including the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations — and thank them for allowing us to do the work we’re doing here today.

Joining me today are my deputy minister, Doug Caul, and Assistant Deputy Minister Wes Boyd. I’ve got Assistant Deputy Minister Laurel Nash, Associate Deputy Minister Neilane Mayhew and, last but not least, Doug Scott, assistant deputy minister.

As government, we have tremendous opportunity to do things differently to build a strong future for all people in British Columbia. Our government has a vision of British Columbia that puts people first, one that will make life more affordable, improve public services and kick-start an economy that works for everyone.

Good jobs and sustainable and shared prosperity can only be achieved if we take action on reconciliation. Our vision of reconciliation is being developed in partnership with First Nations and Indigenous peoples in this province. Partnerships are vital to the social and economic well-being of Indigenous people and also vital to our economy.

Bold and difficult conversations are starting to happen. Over two days in September, ministers and executive staff held 566 meetings with hundreds of First Nations leaders at the First Nations leadership gathering in Vancouver. We’re listening, and we’re learning. We have started building the respectful relationships that we need to create real change.

[4:50 p.m.]

Each Indigenous community has unique interests and challenges. The common theme I hear in communities is that they want government to respect the basic human rights that are outlined in the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples — the right to self-determination; freedom from discrimination; access to education; good health care and improved social and economic outcomes; the principle of free, prior and informed consent.

We must confront together the fearmongering that the UN declaration is a threat to development. No. UNDRIP is about human rights, and it is the path to unlocking the opportunity and unlocking the shared prosperity of this province. It’s about the opportunity for Indigenous peoples to be involved in every step of development, throughout any development process. It’s about engagement and partnership from the very beginning.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs described the declaration as a blueprint. I agree. It’s a blueprint to reconciliation — realizing that blueprint will take some challenging conversations and some bold action. It is no less than a fundamental redesign of the Crown-Indigenous relationship. We’re seeing similar efforts at the federal level. The timing is right.

The Budget 2017 Update supports the ongoing work of the ministry and enables us to start figuring out how we transform government, how we make it work with First Nations, Métis and all Indigenous peoples. The budget supports the incredible work that’s being done day in and day out by our staff and our executive here in British Columbia and across the province at regional offices.

Ministry staff, including those that are here with me today, work directly with Indigenous communities and leaders to create a government-to-government relationship that’s based on reconciliation and respect. They are negotiating and implementing treaties, developing community benefit and resource agreements and working with communities on clean energy projects and skills and employment training.

They’re starting to work with First Nations leadership on new approaches to how rights and title are to be addressed, how treaty negotiations can be revitalized, how social and economic outcomes can be approved.

This is complex work that crosses all levels of government and all ministries. This ministry has been very successful at creating connections that advance reconciliation. That means we are in a good place to start building a clear, cross-government vision of reconciliation and how we are going to adopt, firstly, the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action and the Tsilhqot’in Supreme Court decision.

These three pillars will guide our work to support stronger, healthier Indigenous communities and self-determination. This work will take a discomfiting reckoning with our past and with our present. We know we can create a government-to-government vision of reconciliation that benefits all British Columbians.

I mentioned earlier that we’ve been listening and learning. One thing Indigenous leaders have been requesting for a long, long time is access to government gaming revenue. We’ll be negotiating with Indigenous leaders and communities on expanding opportunities for their share of gaming revenue in British Columbia, like many other provinces.

My ministry will be working closely with the Ministry of Finance and the Attorney General to do just that. We are still early in the process, and determining a structure has not yet been established, but it’s coming. I know First Nations are eager to see results. This is a government priority, and we’ll be seeking to advance this as quickly as possible.

I know Indigenous leaders have been calling for a greater share of benefits that come from resource development within their territories. Sharing revenue has been lauded as a powerful reconciliation tool that supports the spirit of the UN declaration.

Forestry, mining, gas and oil are key job and business drivers for many First Nations across the province. We will be exploring options to broaden the scope of resource-revenue-sharing and continue work to ensure that Indigenous people are partners in how resources are developed in their territories.

We know First Nations have a strong interest in growing a clean energy sector in British Columbia, and they have been. Communities are exploring power generation through solar, hydroelectric, biomass, ocean thermal. We are supporting this through the First Nations clean energy business fund. Money returned to the fund through land and water rents has significantly increased as projects have come on line.

This has provided for a $4.2 million increase in the fund. A portion of this additional funding, $700,000 per year for three years, is dedicated to helping remote First Nations communities reduce their reliance on diesel-powered generators.

[4:55 p.m.]

We’re working on at least ten different projects with Indigenous communities, and I’m looking forward to announcing these in the upcoming months.

We’re also ensuring that we’re supporting Indigenous social, educational and cultural integrity. Our ministry provides a number of outstanding Indigenous organizations funding through the first citizens fund. After an era of some very low returns, the fund has shown some improvement and will provide approximately $1.5 million to support programs this fiscal year. This fund supports Indigenous small business development, business loans, language preservation, bursaries for post-secondary and assistance for elders.

A number of these services are provided through Aboriginal friendship centres in this province. There are 25 of them throughout the province. Friendship centres provide critical cultural and social services to Indigenous people who live in urban areas off reserve. My ministry is working to provide them more reliable, dedicated funding and support.

They are important hubs for the community. They do great work with youth. We’ve seen this during the wildfire season — the work that they did during the emergency, where centres tirelessly fed and supported evacuees and people in need. I’m looking forward to working with the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres and friendship centres across British Columbia on how we can better support them.

We’re also talking about directly supporting the revitalization of Indigenous culture and languages. I’ve been doing this job from the opposition benches for 12 years, and I would note that every community I’ve met in the province has urged that we do better supports for languages, which, in many cases, are being lost. This government is committing to providing the resources to deal with that.

Our ministry also supports skills training so Indigenous people can take advantage of jobs in their community. Over the past two years, more than 2,700 people have accessed training supported by B.C.’s Indigenous skills training development fund. Of people trained last year, 52 percent have found jobs, and at least 21 percent have gone on to further training and education. Over the past three years, 57 different skills training projects have received funding, and 15 projects involving more than 20 First Nations communities are underway right now.

In conclusion, we’re talking to Indigenous leaders and communities about how to move forward in partnership on many issues — revenue-sharing, rights and title, treaty, health and social well-being. This is going to require many conversations, and sometimes those conversations may be challenging. We’re not restarting everything that’s come before us. We want to expand and enhance what is already in place.

The foundational commitment document developed with First Nations Leadership Council is an example of that. The multilateral report on the pace and costs of the treaty negotiations is another. The Métis Nation relationship accord developed with Métis Nation B.C. is another still. The social determinants of health MOU developed with First Nations Health Council is another. Great work has gone into these initiatives, so we’re going to build on them and make them even better.

We need to have conversations about how we implement the UN declaration and how that might reflect different meanings in different communities. Through this dialogue, we can provide better certainty and increase economic development in important economic sectors such as mining, forestry and tourism. It’s about being inclusive, with information on resource development flowing from the very beginning, with respect and with recognition.

As we go forward with Indigenous people, we want to ensure that our work is understood and supported by communities, local governments, industry and other stakeholders. This means ensuring effective engagement with stakeholders, having discussions earlier and more often. Our approach will include increasing emphasis on talking with local governments and industry stakeholders. I hope to see this work result in deeper relationships and partnerships built between Indigenous people, industry, stakeholders at all levels of government.

I want to thank you, and I’m looking forward to taking your questions.

D. Ashton: Thank you for the opportunity to stand here today. First of all, I would like to also recognize the First Peoples of these incredible lands that all of us call home for giving us the opportunity to share them. It’s something that has been bred into me by my family, and it’s something that I continue to push along to my kids.

[5:00 p.m.]

I would like to say to the minister: thank you for your respect that you continually show since I met you four-plus years ago.

Minister, I have with me today MLA Ellis Ross, a former chief councillor. MLA Ross will have a couple of questions. Also, we have some other people that are coming in. They’re caught in the crossfire of two different estimates at this point in time. They’ll be coming in.

I would also like to thank your staff that are present here today — the staff from the ministry but also the staff in your office. They’ve been very, very forthright. Any questions that I’ve had have always been answered incredibly promptly. Having the opportunity for a prebriefing about 2½, three weeks ago made a big difference. I have to say that they’re absolutely exemplary. It’s something that you as a minister should be very proud of, because there are an awful lot of good people in that ministry that are doing very good work. I just want to thank them myself.

I heard in your quick opening discussion about some of the things that have taken place. We know that the government has changed, just as of recently, and there are a lot of things that are going to continue to move forward that the previous government was involved in.

You also heard me stand up in the House not that long ago and say that I was brought up to never walk behind anybody, never walk in front of them, to walk beside them for mutual benefits into the future. Again, that’s something that my father and my mother instilled in me, and it’s something that I continue to press to my children.

To be very frank with you, I see that in you. That makes a difference, I think, in the direction that both of our parties will go into the future. It will make a big difference, especially in this ministry and especially for the items that you touched upon. I think it’s incredibly important, not just for us here in B.C., the newcomers, but for the original people of British Columbia and, specifically, for our entire country. That direction will make a difference, and it’s a direction that both parties have gone. One has gone, and another is going and carrying on. I sincerely think that that is going to make a huge difference as we go forward.

Some of the things you touched on and a bit of history. The opportunity of treaties with nine First Nations have taken place; agreements-in-principle, eight AIPs with 12 First Nations; incremental treaty agreements, 23 with 27 nations; clean energy revenue-sharing agreements, 50 agreements with 37 First Nations; investment funding for clean energy, 15 agreements with 15 Nations; mining agreements, and this is single- and multi-project economic community development revenue-sharing, 32 agreements with 44 First Nations.

Forestry consultation and revenue-sharing agreements, 262 agreements with 156 nations, and 120 are active at this point in time with 140; reconciliation agreements, 17 agreements with 35 nations; strategic engagement, seven agreements with 37 First Nations; pipeline benefit agreements — I won’t give the exact number, but there are a number with 29 First Nations, about which 48 have been publicly announced; economic benefits, three agreements with First Nations; and resource-sharing, one agreement with five First Nations.

These were steps in the right direction. I hope, with the utmost sincerity, that your government will continue on these, in the direction. There may be some changes in courses in the road, but I really think it’s a good direction for not only the First Nations but, again, as I said, all the people of British Columbia.

I don’t have a lot of opening remarks. I would like to jump right in, if you don’t mind, if I could pass the first question along to you and your great staff.

During the election, your party had said that they would fully implement UNDRIP, but now we are hearing that there will only be principles. I’m just curious: what has changed? There has been talk — I’ve heard it in the House and outside — about full implementation or adopting the principles. I pose to you: what is the direction that your government is proposing on taking with this?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thank you for the opening from my critic.

I’d just like to say, too, that I’m pleased in his role, and I welcome the questions. I also don’t believe that one party is a holder of reconciliation. I believe it has to be all members of the House and all people in this province if we’re going to move together successfully. I truly believe that.

I just wanted to touch on my mandate letter. While my counterpart cited the principles, I just want to be clear here and quote from my mandate letter: “As part of our commitment to true, lasting reconciliation with First Nations in British Columbia, our government will be fully adopting and implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.”

It’s to fully adopt; it’s not…. I mean, there are principles involved, certainly, but my mandate is to fully adopt the UN declaration.

The Chair: Member, just a reminder, if you could address your comments through the Chair.

D. Ashton: Yes, I apologize. Through the Chair, what provisions, if any, do you plan to leave out of UNDRIP? Specifically for ones that are coming in, what sections will be empowered through the UNDRIP?

Hon. S. Fraser: I just want to reiterate. My mandate is to fully adopt the UN declaration. There are 46 articles in the UN declaration, and I will be working to adopt all of those.

It’s a holistic document, if you will. Certainly, it’s a human rights instrument, so there’s much to do. I’ll be working with First Nations, Indigenous leaders, Indigenous organizations, stakeholders and communities to bring all members of this House to fully adopt the UN declaration. All 46 articles are the plan.

D. Ashton: Again, through the adoption, will the minister empower all those articles?

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, I’m not entirely sure what the member means by empowerment, but I am going to be fully adopting the UN declaration. There are 46 articles there. I can’t predict what that will look like, because we’ll be doing that in partnership with First Nations and Indigenous people, Métis and Inuit in this province. So empowering — I’m unsure where he’s going with that.

E. Ross: Congratulations to the minister on your new position.

[5:10 p.m.]

UNDRIP, rights and title case law, treaty — that’s what I’ve been doing for the last 13 years. I did it with the goal to get our people out of dependence. My goal was to basically get to a point where we could financially say no to Indian Act funding. We came close. We came very close using rules and case law that exist currently in B.C. and Canada. Throughout those years, I had to really collaborate with government and with industry to achieve our respective goals.

You’ll have to forgive me. For so long, when UNDRIP first came out, I couldn’t understand how it would be implemented alongside the policies and legislation and case law. I’ve been trying to figure out, in a practical sense, how it would be applied, given all the success of a band like mine and other bands throughout B.C.

One question I have in particular. Overlap has not been solved yet, whether it be treaty or rights and title case law. How will UNDRIP be applied to First Nations engagement when there are two or more First Nations with varying strengths of claim?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for Skeena for the question. As he knows, and rightly so, overlap issues are a challenge. They have been a challenge for a while, inside and outside of treaty process. It’s going to require collaboration, with First Nations and government and between First Nations, to address the overlap issues.

The UN declaration is a human rights instrument. I’m not precluding one or the other. Overlap issues are being dealt with and have to be dealt with by and with First Nations. We know that government will be a part of that, but I’m not sure I see this related to the UN declaration.

E. Ross: I’m not quite sure of the answer. If it’s full adoption of the United Nations declaration on Indigenous rights to help resolve, I’m assuming, the issues already existing, overlap is one of the biggest issues stopping all First Nations and, potentially, projects already in B.C.

Just to be clear, will UNDRIP, being a human rights tool, as you suggest, not be used to settle overlap issues? Is that the answer I’m hearing?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. Again, First Nations will be needing to deal with overlap issues, as they have been, inside and outside of the treaty process. That’s part of what’s happening now. Challenging though it might be, First Nations have been embarking and addressing overlap issues.

There are still grey areas there, especially areas where there is, arguably, historic use by more than one nation. That is being recognized, but these solutions will be found through collaboration within and amongst First Nations. We certainly play a role in that. But the UN declaration — again, it’s a human rights document that recognizes, through its 46 articles, the pathway towards reconciliation, which we have adopted.

I would comment that we aren’t unique in that. I know the member for Skeena knows that 148 nations around the world have embraced the UN declaration, including Canada. Overlap issues will continue to be a challenge, but I believe that First Nations — and us, working with First Nations — will continue to be collaborating to address that.

The treaty process always recognizes the challenges of overlaps. It’s one of the key challenges in the treaty process. Part of my mandate is to work on the treaty process to improve it, if you will, to take away the bottlenecks within the treaty process and to address some of the challenges within that process. Again, that would include overlaps.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. Maybe I’m not making myself clear. I’ve been involved with overlapping issues and had to resolve them within treaty, within rights and title case law, as well as through economic means and linear projects.

I’m well aware of the toolkit. I’m just unaware of what UNDRIP can add to that toolkit. Does it complement that, or is it something separate? How is it being proposed to be brought in to help resolve just one of the many issues affecting First Nations — but one that actually limits the growth of B.C. and limits the growth of First Nations themselves?

I’m just not sure, given what I’ve done over the years to resolve overlap successfully for linear projects. How does UNDRIP get applied in these situations where we’ve already made a tremendous amount of progress with government and amongst ourselves as First Nations?

Hon. S. Fraser: I’ll try this a slightly different way. The member, rightly so, talks about examples where he has worked on addressing overlap issues.

[5:20 p.m.]

Those processes will continue, I’m sure, amongst many nations in the province that have overlap issues. I know that in my constituency, there are a number of nations that have dealt with that through the Maa-nulth treaty. They have addressed their overlap issues and found reconciliation that way, through collaboration.

I’m not aware of any article in the UN declaration that purports to solve overlap issues. I’ve never said that the UN declaration will be used to address those overlap issues. Those overlap issues exist, and they have to be addressed through collaboration. Inside and outside of the treaty process, we’re committed to doing that. But that’s not the same as supporting the UN declaration and implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. I don’t believe the UN declaration has ever purported to specifically, in any of the articles, address overlap issues. I’m not aware of that in the UN declaration.

E. Ross: Sorry to my colleague here. It’s just that, through a minister of the Crown…. The strength of claim is a duty of the Crown to resolve. We know that with the existing case law.

Maybe the UN declaration doesn’t mention it, but we are talking about the duty. With the duty being implemented — or without it, say, in cases of First Nations working collaboratively and bilaterally or in treaty — it still falls back to the Crown to address the rights and title, and overlap is a significant portion of that. Maybe without saying it, UNDRIP…. Maybe it doesn’t mention it specifically, but overlap is a big issue. It is a duty of the Crown to resolve.

If it’s not going to be used to resolve overlap, then is it safe to say that the existing processes that are in place to resolve overlaps will continue without UNDRIP principles?

Hon. S. Fraser: We are not moving forward in a vacuum on the UN declaration. UNDRIP is…. We initiated the discussions on the UN declaration at the leadership gathering in September. I know the member was there. The members were there. All three members were there. I’m glad you were. The member from Saanich, the Green member, attended too.

We will be working with First Nations to implement the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. The overlap issues are an important issue. They’re challenges. We’ll be working with First Nations to address those inside and outside of the treaty process. There’s no…. I never cited a specific role of the UN declaration to address the overlap issues within the province. Maybe someone will find some way to do that, but I’m not aware of that. That’s not what…. We’ve adopted the UN declaration without qualification.

[5:25 p.m.]

I fully hear the member’s concerns about addressing the overlap issues. We will continue to work with First Nations and support them on addressing those, through the treaty process and outside of the treaty process too, with resource benefit agreements and such. The overlap issues have an effect all across the province.

The leadership council is aware of these challenges too, and B.C. summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the assembly. Certainly, we will continue to work with them all, including individual nations, to address these as we move forward.

Again, the UN declaration is not a specific tool for addressing any overlap issues, although it may be that it will end up that it does by bringing nations together in a way that maybe hasn’t happened before. We shall see how that unfolds. We’ll work cooperatively with First Nations to implement the full UN declaration.

J. Rustad: It’s nice to see staff here. I just want to thank your staff for the work that they carry on to do as part of the ministry.

A question on UNDRIP. The minister has said that UNDRIP is a human rights document. How would UNDRIP potentially influence resource activities, such as forestry, on the land base?

Hon. S. Fraser: The 46 articles within the UN declaration will provide certainty and predictability on the land base. The idea that this will hinder resource development, I think, is not accurate. It’ll get us out of a cycle of conflict that’s been too much of our history with First Nations. It’ll potentially get us out of the courts and allow us to unlock the true potential of this province by making First Nations true partners right from the beginning, right from the get-go, in resource development involving First Nations.

I know I’ve heard the term involve…. Before you develop anything, develop a relationship with First Nations. This is a unifying concept, the UN declaration. I truly believe it will actually bring more certainty to all the land-based resource use industries — forestry, mining, all uses. Tourism, for that matter — any part of the economy. Having First Nations as true partners in the economy is going to bring more certainty and more benefit, not just to First Nations but to local communities too.

J. Rustad: I want to explore that a little bit under section 35, rights and title, which clearly lays out First Nations rights and title. How exactly does UNDRIP bring additional certainty or predictability — I can’t remember the exact words that the minister has used — on activities that happen on the land base, when it’s a human rights document?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: The UN declaration will help us get to a place where First Nations are partners in resource use, where we close that socioeconomic gap that’s so glaring in this province and other parts of the country. Again, allowing participation in an economy in a true partnership is something that gets us out of conflict. It gets us out of the cycle of courts and litigation, which does bring more certainty and does bring more predictability to the province.

J. Rustad: Can the minister please explain how a human rights document can impact resource development and resource activity and participation and engagement in the economy when those things are not human rights issues but are constitutional rights and title?

I’m confused as to the wording that the minister is using with regards to UNDRIP as compared to rights and title under the constitution. I’m wondering if the minister can clarify that.

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, there are 46 articles within the UN declaration. I still see the document as a holistic document, as a pathway towards reconciliation. It’s about making healthier communities. It’s about making sure that human rights are provided. It’s about making sure that languages are protected. There are healthier communities that are participating in the economy. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip put it best. He said that this is about First Nations managing wealth, not poverty. This is a good thing for the economy, where all British Columbians will benefit.

J. Rustad: I agree completely. Healthy communities and all that are obviously worthy goals that need to try to be achieved, and the UN declaration helps with that. But what I’m trying to really drive at here is that intimidation letter that was sent to fish farms by your colleague, quoting the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples as the rationale for this.

[5:35 p.m.]

I’m trying to understand how the minister is saying that it is a human rights document and that it’s about healthy communities and about healthy people, yet it’s being used in an economic sense as a reinforcement of rights of Indigenous people for activities that are happening on a land base. I’m trying to understand how the minister squares those two positions.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for his question. I’ll reiterate that the UN declaration is a human rights instrument. It is something that has been part of my mandate. It’s part of the mandate of every minister, including the minister that the member opposite refers to. I believe it’s supported by First Nations in this province. It was termed to me as a breath of fresh air when we committed to adopting the UN declaration and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action that were part of addressing the horrible legacy of residential schools.

If the member opposite has a question directed at the Minister of Agriculture, I would suggest he do that. I’m following my mandate, and I’m doing that in partnership with First Nations.

If members opposite have an issue with us taking forward the UN declaration as part of our platform, I would suggest they are not representative of First Nations and Indigenous peoples in this province, nor in this country, nor in the world community.

J. Rustad: The minister didn’t answer the question, and I don’t know why the minister wouldn’t want to answer that question. It’s a pretty clear question about the utilization of UNDRIP as part of a mandate. As the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, you oversee and have responsibility across relations with First Nations in all aspects of things that government is doing, even though other ministries have, of course, their role and importance in how they do things.

Specifically, what I’m asking around this is about the situation where you have some First Nations who are supporting illegal activity on the land base, or on water in this particular case, who have rights and title, who have UNDRIP, and there are some who are opposing.

The Minister of Agriculture wrote a letter quoting, citing, UNDRIP as one of the rationales for why there was a letter of intimidation. What I want to know from the Minister of Indigenous Relations is, when you have a situation where you have First Nations that have rights and title and have UNDRIP and have the strength for an activity that’s happening and you have those that are opposed…?

Why would this government utilize UNDRIP in an economic sense — although the minister has said it is a human rights issue — in terms of that letter, and how would the minister resolve that particular conflict over an area where there are multiple nations, some in support and some opposed, with various strengths of claim over that area? And why would they be picking one particular side of this discussion as opposed to playing the fair honour of the Crown and being neutral in supporting nations as they try to work through this issue?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: On the issue of the Alert Bay meeting that happened, there was a meeting that I attended as the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, along with the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier. We went there based on an invite from a number of chiefs, many chiefs, at the big house in Alert Bay. I was honoured to be there. It was the first time I’ve sat in the big house, and we heard their concerns and their perspective.

I think that’s part of the ongoing dialogue. I understand there are different perspectives on that, and I welcome those. Open discussion and dialogue and being willing to take part in those discussions are, I think, important.

I would just remind the member that it’s not just my ministry that has a mandate to address the UN declaration and to implement the UN declaration. I am doing that in my role as Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, but all ministers, whether it’s the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Agriculture, have that within their mandate letter also.

D. Ashton: Minister, I’m just curious. Who is recognized in Canada — I’ll just be specific, British Columbia — to speak on behalf of First Nations? Is it the elected council, or is it the Hereditary Chief?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. As he knows, different nations have differing governing structures, and we look to them to work with them on a government-to-government basis. We will have an open dialogue, and learning about each other is part of my job, I believe. Certainly, I don’t think there’s one answer to that question. It varies from nation to nation.

D. Ashton: I thank the minister for the answer, but I know that there are issues that we have seen as of recently where you have a hereditary chief saying one thing and you have an elected council saying the other. My question is: who does the government listen to?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, thanks to the member for the question. I’ve been doing this job…. It’s my fourth month, and I’ve met with hereditary chiefs and elected chiefs in council multiple times. I look to those nations to inform me, to give me the wisdom of their governance structure and who is best to represent their interests. It can be complex. I understand that. Sometimes there are differing opinions, I suppose, on who is responsible. But I welcome input from the hereditary chiefs and from elected chiefs in council. I use their wisdom and advice to help inform me and us on how best to proceed when I’m working with those nations.

E. Ross: I guess the one clause that’s of interest and controversial is free, prior and informed consent. That’s the real issue when it comes to project development, because we are still a resource province. That’s where we make our revenues.

In terms of permits, environmental assessments, authorizations that come from the Crown, is it your expectation that these permits and certificates will not be issued until you have achieved free, prior and informed consent?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for Skeena for the question. He’s raised free, prior and informed consent. I raised that too. It’s cited numerous times in the UN declaration, in various articles. It is about involving First Nations from the very beginning. The goal is to achieve consensus and support for projects.

What I know doesn’t work is not involving First Nations from the very beginning in a project in their territories. That’s a recipe for conflict, strife, litigation — all the things that bring uncertainty and unpredictability to the land base.

E. Ross: We’re talking about a specific process, though. We’re talking about the issuance of a licence or an authorization or a certificate that a project needs to succeed. That’s where it really matters, those steps leading up to a project getting off the ground and providing benefit for all British Columbians, including First Nations. My question is: will a certificate, an authorization, a licence or a tenure be withheld until free, prior and informed consent is achieved? That’s the question.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Free, prior and informed consent is a process, and we will be working with First Nations, Indigenous peoples, to find out how best to apply it. But it is a process that needs to involve First Nations from the beginning on projects that are happening in their territories, to make sure that there’s a true partnership there, that First Nations are receiving benefit from there.

I would note that it has never been considered a veto — the 46 articles. I’ve read them numerous times in the UN declaration. There was no mention of the word “veto.” That’s not the spirit, intent or the word. It’s not in the UNDRIP.

This is about bringing certainty, predictability, to the land base, ensuring that government and First Nations move in partnership. We will work with First Nations to develop the means and mechanism to do that, to bring more certainty and predictability to the land base and ensure that local communities, First Nations and non–First Nations, get benefit from the resource use within their territories.

A. Olsen: To the minister: congratulations on your appointment. This is the first time that I’ve had the opportunity and honour to speak to you officially, in your role, on Hansard. I know that your appointment was very well and widely accepted amongst the Indigenous leaders that I’ve talked to, so congratulations and good luck. As you’re sensing, I think, today and on many days, it’s probably one of the most challenging files in our province.

If we’re going to hang on UNDRIP here, for maybe the rest of estimates, and poke around, I think it’s important to note that it is a social, environmental and economic document. It’s not just a human rights document. To the point that was raised earlier about — and I’m going to pronounce the name wrong, and I apologize to my relatives up north — the Musgamagw Dzawada’enuxw, the folks in Alert Bay that you met. Is there conflict from the various First Nations in the area around…?

We’ve heard a lot about the fish farms up there. My understanding in talking with the leadership is that they are pretty much unanimous within that area, those fish farms, that there isn’t that conflict. I think it was suggested that there are overlapping claims and that…. I think we need to clear that up, for the record.

My understanding from the leadership there is that the fish farms that they’re talking about…. They’re pretty clear. They’ve got the leadership; they’ve got unanimity. What they’re talking about is, in fact, applicable when it comes down to the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. We’re not talking about the confusion that I think is trying to be created here. It is pretty clear that there’s a voice that’s being spoken. Is that the sense that you’re getting from these folks?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for his question. As the member knows, I did attend the event at the big house in Alert Bay. I wouldn’t call it unanimity, but by my count, there were 40 chiefs, hereditary and elected chiefs, who were all present and speaking as one. But there are other perspectives out there. We’ve had at least one other nation that has contacted the ministry with a different perspective. So I wouldn’t say it was consensus but a very strong show of unity from the vast majority of nations in and around Alert Bay and the Broughton Archipelago.

A. Olsen: Just as a follow-up, in terms of the line of questions that’s been made with respect to free, prior and informed consent, I’d just like to point out that this is the one that’s been hung on — the free, prior and informed consent. But in just scrolling through the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, there is a lot in this document that perhaps would make people feel uncomfortable if we’re not willing to address it. And a lot of the questions have been actually answered in this document. I should point that out as well. It’s pretty clear.

Just in terms of the Tsilhqot’in case and the respect of free, prior and informed consent, could you speak to how your ministry is going to be addressing the Tsilhqot’in case, which says, basically, that there’s some kind of retroactivity, as well, if this work is not done in advance? Can you talk about the economic benefit of getting free, prior and informed consent or getting UNDRIP implemented so that these relationships are straightened away, noting that Tsilhqot’in said, or the Supreme Court said, that you better get this sorted out because of these investments and the uncertainty that’s created by the fact that some of these projects could get shut down if this work isn’t done at the front end of it?

Can you talk about the tension that’s here in this province, that has existed in this province, should First Nations decide to take some constitutional challenges on the government and the potential impact that that could have on our economy and maybe the benefit of adopting UNDRIP?

[6:00 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, thanks to the member for the question. I would submit that we are, as a province, in a far better position economically to negotiate in good faith, with respect and recognition of previous court decisions like Tsilhqot’in, Delgamuukw. The courts have always cited that the province seems to be missing or not getting the picture. They should be negotiating with respect and recognition and get out of the courts. Even the courts say that, which seems counterintuitive.

We’ve got companies that have taken positions. I’ve gone to the B.C. Business Council. They understand the reality of not moving forward with UNDRIP. It is about uncertainty and unpredictability. Big companies across Canada, like Suncor and TD Bank, are saying the same thing. They’re specifically citing free, prior and informed consent, saying that governments are behind on this. This is where the courts have said we have to go. Resisting this causes strife, conflict, litigation and the opposite of certainty and predictability on the land base.

I agree with the member opposite. I think you said it better than I did. We need to address First Nations issues in partnership with First Nations, recognizing rights and title, case law, court decisions, the incredible tools that we have available to us like the UN declaration, in general, and the TRC calls to action.

We don’t have to make this stuff up. We don’t have to find a means and a way to move forward with reconciliation, which will bring the certainty and predictability to the province. We’ve got the tools already. All we have to do is have the willingness to implement them with First Nations as partners, and we’ve committed to that. It’s about certainty and predictability on the land base, and this is exactly how we get there.

D. Ashton: To the minister: who defines how UNDRIP will be implemented within government?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to my critic for the question. We have to work collaboratively across government. All ministries and all ministers have a mandate letter to implement the UN declaration, to look at their policies and legislation, even, to try to adjust it to make sure it’s in keeping with the UN declaration. There’s no single answer for this. There’s no one entity. All ministries need to be responsible within their own areas of applicability to address the UN declaration.

I would also submit that, because we’re doing it anyway, I’ve got a pretty good open dialogue with my federal counterparts, so we’re working closely with them too. I believe the way to move forward is…. There have been other attempts at reconciliation by previous government — actually, the Liberal government previously under Gordon Campbell — to bring reconciliation forward that have failed because, I would submit, it didn’t involve other ministers and ministries.

[6:05 p.m.]

Reconciliation can’t be done in a vacuum or from a single ministry. It has to be done across the spectrum of government.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister for the answer on that. But the question is: is your ministry overseeing or advising other ministries regarding the implementation of UNDRIP? Are you the quarterback for government for it?

The Chair: I’ll take this opportunity to remind members and the minister that it’s through the Chair. There is no “you” in this chamber or first person. It’s all in the third. Thank you.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to my opposite for the question. Yes, we’re the lead on this. We are providing advice to other ministries on how to do that, on how to move forward on anything within the various ministries’ purview that relates to First Nations. We try to provide the expertise and the advice and, in some cases, the resources to do that.

D. Ashton: Mr. Chair, please excuse my “yous.” They are meant with the utmost of respect to the minister. Thank you. I’ll watch my “yous.”

The Chair: Not a problem.

E. Ross: To be clear, I’m not trying to confuse this issue. I’m not trying to create confusion. After 13 years of utilizing the existing rules in B.C., I actually was part of a team that delivered good living standards to my people. I offered them a future. What I’m trying to do is clarify the confusion I have with UNDRIP. But if it comes out as trying to confuse the issue, that’s not what I’m trying to do. I’m trying to see how UNDRIP gets implemented when there’s been a lot of progress already in B.C.

You heard the list of agreements already signed by First Nations between government and industry. So I didn’t really get a good answer to my question about UNDRIP being applied in terms of the issuance of licences or permits or authorization or certificates.

Maybe I’ll take a different approach. Where projects have proven, meaningful consultation, especially on the side of government and on the side of ministry, and it’s following case law principles…. In that case, will free, prior and informed consent still be applied to this and therefore restrict issuance of a licence or a certificate or an authorization from the Crown?

Hon. S. Fraser: I would just like to comment on one of the comments made by the member for Skeena. He said that great progress has been made. In some ways, there has been progress made. In other ways, if you look at some of the socioeconomic conditions — child poverty, children in care, graduation rates — there’s a whole series of statistics — I don’t like to use that term — that are pretty grim and would show very little or no progress being made in closing a socioeconomic gap and allowing First Nations to have every opportunity to drinking water, health care, education, retaining languages.

[6:10 p.m.]

The UN declaration is so much more than it’s being distilled down into. I would repeat that free, prior and informed consent is not a veto and that involving First Nations from the beginning in projects, as true partners, is a way to certainty and getting us out of the court and providing predictability, not just for government but also for industry and for business and for the economy. I would also submit that the interpretation, which I respect, from the member for Skeena, which seems to be negatively reflecting on the UN declaration, or at least parts of it, is not reflected by the vast number of First Nations and Indigenous peoples in this province.

Indeed, at the leadership gathering in September…. I would remind the member that Grand Chief Ed John actually singled out the member for Skeena in a very collegial way. But he did say that he strongly disagreed with his interpretation of the UN declaration and that the room and the vast majority of First Nations represented there do see the UN declaration as a valuable tool for addressing the socioeconomic indicators that I talked about just a few minutes ago as well as the economic indicators that we’ve talked about throughout this process so far and that will help bring certainty and predictability to the land base, which will benefit First Nations and non–First Nations communities as well.

In my community, certainty has been achieved through the treaty process with the Maa-Nulth treaties. Local communities are benefiting from that too. The treaty process is not for all.

The UN declaration addresses a whole canopy of issues — socioeconomic issues, economic issues, language issues, fairness issues, basic human rights issues, issues around the right to not have discrimination and racism. The member for Skeena may have his opinions about the UN declaration. I do not believe they have been reflected by any of the First Nations I’ve been working with and talking to from the leadership gathering on, when we started these conversations and indicated that we are going to be pursuing the full implementation of UNDRIP.

E. Ross: I don’t have an opinion on UNDRIP, and I didn’t express one. I’m trying to understand how the government will implement this, given the enormous direction given by case law already in Canada. The only thing I’ve seen that really had progress for my people — not for my leadership, not for my council, for my people, the people that were living on 60 percent unemployment, that were experiencing child poverty like you speak of…. The only thing that resolved that was engaging and using rights and title case law in B.C. That’s the only thing.

I’ve been through treaty, I’ve been through the Indian Act, and I’ve looked at all the social programs that were imposed on B.C. and Canada. I’m not really trying to criticize the government’s opinion on UNDRIP. I’m not trying to do that. I’m just trying to understand how it gets applied, with all the existing stories out there, in terms of positive benefit that came to communities.

Fifteen out of 16 First Nations from Prince George to Kitimat signed off on the pipeline agreement. There are a number of agreements already that my colleague cited. I just want to know: is UNDRIP going to complement that, or is it going to stall it? The way I see that is…. When a project comes to town that proposes to benefit a First Nation, it will boil down to the permits and the authorization certificates that that company can acquire.

I don’t really have an opinion. I just don’t want to see progress be stalled, either for B.C. or for the projects and, in saying that, for First Nations. That’s all I’m trying to get at.

Maybe I’ll take a different approach to this, then. I understand that you’re trying to adopt the principles of UNDRIP into the way government interacts with First Nations. I’ll leave it at that. Is there any expectation, from your government, that UNDRIP will conflict with existing case law?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I would note that case law that the member for Skeena refers to has been telling government to develop relationships, to work cooperatively with First Nations people, and the UN declaration is a pathway towards doing that. It’s a tool — a powerful tool, I would submit — to bringing about reconciliation, to bring certainty and predictability to the land base, which includes business. The UN declaration is an incredible opportunity to bring about reconciliation.

Now, how we will do that will be developed with First Nations, and that process has begun. We’ll be working with First Nations, Indigenous people, Indigenous organizations in the province, to unravel how we best apply this so that there are deliverables, timelines, so that we can show that we’re making progress. We’re doing that in partnership with the federal government also, who have also made commitments around the UN declaration. That’s where we’re going.

I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology, report progress on the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:17 p.m.