Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 16, the Securities Amendment Act, 2018. In Committee A, I call continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SECURITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 16 be now read a second time.

I apologize, again, for my voice. It’s coming back slowly, but it’s slow.

The amendments to the Securities Act allow the self-regulatory organizations in the securities industry to file decisions with the court. There’s a reason for that. By allowing the self-regulatory organizations to file the decisions they make after hearings with the court, they will be able to enforce their decisions as court orders. The changes to this legislation are changes to encourage fine collection, to encourage more accountability in the industry, to support good investors and good dealers when it comes to investment, and to ensure that if there are bad apples, we have more opportunities to be able to capture them.

Just to give an idea of the current situation, currently, if these organizations impose monetary penalties or costs on their members after they’ve gone through disciplinary hearings — so they’re required to go through a disciplinary hearing — they’re very limited in their ability to collect those fines, those moneys owed. What often happens is that the individuals give up their membership. They quit the organization in order to not pay a fine or in order to not address the discipline. That’s the way that they escape being able to pay a penalty.

In the current situation, the only opportunity that the self-regulatory organizations have is an ability to pursue outstanding moneys owed by applying to the B.C. Securities Commission. That’s the opportunity they have to ask for an order for someone to comply.

[2:35 p.m.]

This is a process that the self-regulatory organizations are not using and haven’t ever used because they believe it’s too resource-intensive. They also believe that it may lead to duplication of a lengthy hearing at the commission level, which again isn’t going to achieve what we all want in this Legislature, which is to ensure if someone is disciplined, they actually pay the fine that they’re disciplined for.

A number of these self-regulatory organizations, but one that I think that most members in the House will know, IIROC, which is the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, requested B.C. to move in this direction, to provide the ability for decisions to be filed with the court. We’ve also seen that other provinces have moved in this direction. Alberta, Quebec, Ontario, PEI and Manitoba have moved. So B.C. is a little behind when it comes to moving in this direction.

What IIROC has told us they’ve seen in those provinces that have given this opportunity is an increase in the fine collection. They’ve seen that when the decisions go directly to the court, that does provide disincentive, and they actually are able to collect fines. I think that’s an important piece to note in this legislation.

This legislation also ensures that if a person is affected by a self-regulatory decision, if they appeal that decision — they’re going through the process, they’re having a hearing, and they appeal the decision — the self-regulatory organization can’t file with the courts until that appeal process has been finished, followed and resolved.

Not to get in the way of an actual hearing that’s happening with the self-regulatory organizations, people will still have the opportunity to go through that process, to receive a decision, to appeal the decision, and once that appeal is done, the self-regulatory organization has the ability to take that decision to the court system. I think that’s important to note.

There’s also a provision in this new statutory power to the self-regulatory organizations. We have also added a new regulatory-making power for additional conditions or parameters around the power for the self-regulatory organizations, around the use of the power if necessary — so providing that same opportunity for government as well.

I just think it’s important to note, as I wrap up second reading on this bill, that it seems very straightforward. I think it’s a pretty straightforward piece that other provinces have moved on, but I think the important piece of this is the impact. That’s just the piece that I want to close with.

There are many British Columbians who invest their life savings with dealers in the securities market. They presume that they’re going to be treated well, that it’s going to be a legal process, that their money will be safe from fraud. When that doesn’t happen, this has devastating consequences on individuals and their families. This is often at the end. Often when these frauds happen, it’s at the end of someone’s career. They may have invested their money to build up for retirement, and it changes their entire life plans. Often you have people who had planned to retire, because of health issues and otherwise, who have to go back to work because they don’t have the resources there.

I think the other piece that’s important to note is that we’re talking about a few bad apples. To support all of the good dealers in the market, we need to make sure we take care of these bad apples. Unfortunately, people often remember the one bad story. They don’t remember the good experiences. They don’t remember the investors who are doing their lawful job and who are helping people prepare for retirement or prepare for changes in their financial situations.

I really see the move in making these changes to actually support the quality in the industry, to support enhancing accountability within the industry for people in the capital markets, for good dealers, which are a key part of our economy, a large part of our economy, but also to make sure that they are accountable to the people who are participating. I think that’s an important note in this legislation.

The last thing I’ll say. More work is being done to address fine collection in the B.C. Securities Commission. This legislation does not address the issue of the B.C. Securities Commission and more work that needs to be done in working with the B.C. Securities Commission. Those will be future changes that will come forward in future legislation. They’re not linked here, but I wanted the members to know that that’s also work that’s being done, because that fits with the work that’s happening here at the self-regulatory organizations as well.

[2:40 p.m.]

T. Redies: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 16. I want to thank the minister for her opening comments. I think a number of us had questions around the context and what was trying to be achieved here, so that was helpful.

As I understand it, this act will empower the self-regulatory bodies prescribed by regulation — in this case, the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, from my past life, fondly known as IIROC, and the Mutual Fund Dealers Association, known as the MFDA — to file a decision with the Supreme Court for the purposes of collecting fines and remuneration.

This act will also enable that a decision that is filed with the Supreme Court…. It will empower the regulatory body to act on those decisions as if it were a judgment of the court. And it will provide the regulatory power in the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or, more to the point, cabinet to prescribe classes of decisions that may not be filed with the court. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would also be able to decide any conditions that would have to be met before any decision could be filed.

On the face of it — again, with the minister’s clarification — this is a fairly straightforward bill. As someone who spent 25 years in the financial services business and in wealth management, I can very much appreciate the context and how this was being brought forward. Having witnessed the devastation of individuals who have been hoodwinked by less professional, duplicitous investment dealers, it’s really important for the overall industry for the trust and confidence to be there. I think this will help make that happen.

As noted, the bill effectively gives cabinet the authority to give regulatory bodies the ability to file decisions in the Supreme Court. Right now only the securities commission has that power, as the minister indicated. This act would expand that to other industry self-regulatory organizations.

I accept that the government is very sincere in this process and simply wants to allow decisions to move ahead and the right things to happen so that the regulatory bodies can collect moneys owed to them and deal with offenders. But I was a bit curious about the circumstances that made this legislation necessary.

We understand a little bit more about the context — who it’s aimed at. I’m a little bit curious about why it’s being brought forward now and what entities are pushing for its enactment. My concern isn’t necessarily about these two organizations but the fact that cabinet would have the ability to extend this same power to other organizations without first consulting the Legislature.

I’m sure the members on the opposite side know that we’re not opposed to industry self-regulation as a principle, and we understand that sometimes cabinet orders are simpler and faster in the scheme of things. With that said, removing the need for cabinet to consult with the Legislature is a bit of a worrying trend, and we’ve seen that now on a number of bills that have come forward during this legislative period.

I think I’ll be looking to ask the minister some questions around how she sees this open-endedness, going forward, with respect to other regulatory bodies and what would be the consequences and implications from there.

I should point out…. Although I was not a member of the previous government, when the members opposite sat opposite…. When that side of the House sat on this side of the House, they were very concerned about expanding the ability to make decisions by cabinet order. So I want to be, again, very clear there are no accusations being made here. I believe the minister has good reasons to expand cabinet authority in this specific case, I just want to understand the implications, going forward, for other bodies.

With that said, I look forward to canvassing this issue in the committee stage and to further understanding the context behind this bill. Thank you for allowing me to speak on it.

R. Glumac: I stand in the House today to speak to Bill 16, amendments to the Securities Act. There are over $1 billion of unpaid securities fines nationally. Collection rates on these fines are low across the entire country. In Quebec, the collection rate is roughly 20 percent — slightly higher than Ontario and Alberta, where the collection rates are 18 percent.

B.C. has the worst track record for collecting fines in the entire country. The B.C. Securities Commission has almost $500 million of unpaid fines outstanding, but it’s expected to collect only 2 percent of that amount.

[2:45 p.m.]

Of the largest penalties — those that are $1 million or more, which account for nearly all of that, $458 million of the $510 million…. In those cases, the collection rates are less than 0.1 percent. Those fines represent the worst acts of fraud that, in many cases, have devastated people’s lives.

This bill has been brought forward to begin to address this problem, and thank goodness for that. Thank goodness that we are now in government so that we can responsibly address the inaction of the previous government on this and so many other issues.

Just like how we are addressing the issues left behind at ICBC, just like how we’re responsibly addressing runaway real estate prices, just like how we’re addressing affordability, just like how we are now finally investing in the education that our young children deserve, here we are yet again directly taking on the many challenges that the previous government ignored. Here we are, and we will tackle these problems, because we are here to represent all British Columbians. That includes seniors that have worked hard and saved hard, seniors that are increasingly becoming a target for fraud.

The latest statistics show that 41 percent of seniors have experienced some level of financial abuse. One in 12 seniors is seriously affected by financial abuse to an extent that resulted in considerable financial loss.

Let’s take an example — the case of David Michael Michaels. He’s a self-proclaimed investment adviser, or he was, who improperly advised 484 clients to buy $65 million worth of investments that are now virtually worthless. At the same time, he pocketed $5.8 million in commissions.

He talked seniors into taking out loans on their homes, homes that they spent a lifetime to pay off. The average age of his victims was 72. Many will not be able to pay back the money they lost in the years that they have left.

Imagine if this happened to your parents. I think about my dad and how he worked his whole life. He worked in the bush for the forestry industry, and every day he got up at four in the morning and worked and came home exhausted so that he was able to put us through school. Now, finally, he’s able to retire, and just imagine if he was somehow tricked into losing his entire retirement savings.

This is something that is happening, and the fines that are being levied on this kind of activity are not being collected. There are no deterrents on this.

Let’s talk about another example — a woman named Paula. It’s not just seniors that are 72 years old that are experiencing this. Paula is a woman that retired recently, and she wanted to invest her money responsibly during her retirement years. She considered herself a knowledgable investor. She was presented with documents that promised a relatively modest rate of return, and it convinced her to invest $500,000.

In the end, she lost it all, and she was forced to declare bankruptcy. She had to go back to work, and she says that this has devastated her life, not only financially but psychologically. Paula is not alone. There are almost 5,000 fraud victims on record in British Columbia, who’ve lost a total of $185 million.

Let’s be clear. This legislation will not solve all the problems with investment fraud, but it’s a good start. Investment advisers are currently being fined for an assortment of inappropriate actions, such as misappropriating funds, falsely endorsing signatures and making unsuitable investment recommendations. They are being fined, but the fines aren’t being collected. This legislation takes those first important steps in changing that.

Specifically, it gives the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada and the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada more power to enforce these penalties. It allows them to file in the courts, which will greatly improve fine collection rates and help to punish and deter fraudulent behaviour.

[2:50 p.m.]

By going to the courts, these individuals can be forced to give information on what assets they have. They may have to produce tax records and bank statements, and there are mechanisms to find out if they’re trying to hide these assets by transferring the assets to someone else to escape paying the penalty.

Our government is working closely with the B.C. Securities Commission on other proposals for strengthening penalties and deterring fraudulent behaviour. This is just the beginning of addressing this problem. There’s more to come, and I’m very happy that we’re introducing this legislation today.

R. Sultan: Coming in halfway through this account of distressing tales of seniors finding their savings impaired through actions of outside parties, perhaps having to go back to work and finding all the money they worked hard to save all their life is somehow not what they believed it would be, made me think that perhaps I had come into the middle of a discussion of the impact of some of the real estate taxes of this government on my North Shore constituents, because this is very similar to the stories that I hear frequently.

Nevertheless, having made that point, I must agree with the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam that this is a long-overdue stiffening of sanctions which, unfortunately, are necessary in the world, particularly a west-coast world which is peculiarly populated by scam artists and fast-buck people who seem to be able to sell some fanciful story of rapid wealth to vulnerable people.

I think too, however, that the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam should acknowledge that this this bill did not just spring onto the order paper — de nouveau, I guess, is the phrase — but rather has, in fact, been part of the pipeline of legislation that has been worked on for some time in the bowels of the Ministry of Finance under a different government. Nevertheless, I give the government, the new government, full credit for bringing it forward at this time.

Just a bit of context of my own. I speak as a former member of the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada myself. Certainly, this should help clean up the act, as it were, of many fraudulent operators — a phrase that brings to mind, as frequently used from my own banking days, a warning about “fraudulent operators” there in town. But I cannot resist commenting on a peculiarity of how this mechanism will actually work in practice. I make these observations not in the sense to criticize the bill but to observe that it seems to me to step over certain what I always believe are constitutional boundaries.

Here we have the Legislature — that’s us — being asked to decide about a proposal being brought forward by the executive branch of our government — not the Legislature, of course. It, in turn, will delegate powers to a private association of mutual fund dealers and other issuers of securities having no particular relationship with the government whatsoever, except a franchise to operate a self-regulatory association, which in turn will, under this bill, be given the power to impose obligations on the court system, the judiciary, who will, in turn, pursue ill-gotten gains from the fraudulent operators of British Columbia, which we appear to have in abundance.

Now, I am no constitutional legal expert, but it seems to me there’s enough crossing of boundaries there to confound anybody. If I were a member of the judiciary, I would in passing, perhaps, reflect on the trend here for a whole series of actors who somehow employ me as a bill collector.

[2:55 p.m.]

Perhaps with consultation, but who knows? There’s no evidence that, in fact, the opinion of the court and whether they felt this was a suitable obligation to take upon themselves is appropriate.

I just make that somewhat whimsical observation, because while it’s easy for us to be critical of the court system, it’s obviously an attempt to use the power of the court, which is enormous, in what I think we would all agree is a good cause. But should this become a trend, and if I were a member of that institution, I’d say: “Well, hold on here now. This isn’t exactly the intent of the courts as originally constituted.”

Nevertheless, just to add a bit of context of my own, this is partly a carryover, one must presume, of the glory days of the Vancouver Stock Exchange and such colourful figures as Murray Pezim, Voisey’s Bay, the Hemlo discoveries and what even today I’m told is 1,200 mining companies — most of them very, very minute — who operate in Vancouver and who provide ample opportunity for rather magnificent magnification of their prospects for the gullible.

The viability of the exchange has been not on entirely solid grounds for many years. The enforcement and the regulation of new issues on the exchange has always been a chronic problem. We have seen rapid changes in the capital markets, which, in some sense, have long ago left the trading floor behind, and even the independent volition of traders now has been taken over by algorithms. They will, really, on a computerized basis, do all of the hard thinking for you and claim, in fact, superior investment results.

This has left the promotion of dubious products — it would appear, from the record — in the hands of operators who don’t even bother with the pretence of having anything to do with the Toronto Venture Exchange or actual publicly traded securities. They just want to get your money and make a good story.

Here we have the securities commission, which is still operating under a name which may be rapidly becoming obsolete. We’re really hardly talking about securities here. We’re really talking about a brand of white-collar theft and crime being clamped down upon by the government. I appreciate the government for doing that.

The final remark I would make — and perhaps the minister would have an opportunity to shed further light on this aspect — would be on the fruition of the dreams of better regulation, more efficiency, lower costs and more honest markets if we would only have a national securities regulator. This was one of the issues that I dove into when I first came to this Legislature many, many, many years ago, because it seemed important and sexy and was a field in which I had had some personal experience, in Toronto and Montreal and elsewhere.

Whatever happened to the national securities regulator? Does anybody care? In the days of blockchain and cryptocurrencies, has it, like so many other things, been left in limbo? I look forward to a bit of a progress report from the minister as we examine this bill further during committee stage.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: It’s a pleasure today to rise and to speak on the amendments to the Securities Act. As my colleagues have said previously, I am sure that this kind of an amendment doesn’t really have passionate opposition to it because we can all see that it is much needed.

As we know, my colleagues across the way were in government for 16 years, and apparently, this was one of the legislations that was somewhere in the process. We’re delighted that we’re taking action on this so quickly and are actually moving on this and bringing it into this House and hoping to move it forward.

As we all know, there is nothing more important or more critical to British Columbians — I would say people all over the world — than when they start to think about their retirement security, their savings. People work hard. It doesn’t matter how much you make. Well, it does matter, because it affects the quality of your life, but whether you make $20,000 a year — in which case, you can barely make ends meet — or if you make $100,000 or $200,000 a year, people are thinking about saving for their retirement.

There’s a vulnerability there when we have, not all but some, unscrupulous investment advisers. What can happen in that case is people can lose their life savings. They can lose their retirement security. What these particular amendments do is actually give another tool to the regulating agencies, to the SROs.

What it allows them to do is, once the fines have been assigned…. There is not a problem with getting fines assigned and finding guilty those investment advisers who are doing wrong, who are the fraudsters. That’s not where the issue is. They are fined. Where the problem comes in is, once they are fined, there are no tools in place to have the regulating agencies go out and collect the money. What these amendments do is allow those fines to be filed in court and, then, for enforcement of collection of those moneys.

My colleagues across the way…. The number of self-regulating bodies grew by huge numbers, and it seemed that government went arm’s length from so much of the regulatory role that used to be in the hands of government and moved it over, outside of government. That has created some difficulties.

This series of amendments will give people an assurance, will give people like my aunt or my mom or my uncle an assurance that there are teeth to the rules that the regulating bodies have, that their job is not just to fine, that they can then use the court system to collect some of those moneys as well.

Though I have to be clear here, for many people that is very little kind of solace. The fact that you have been abused — that’s what fraud is — and you have lost your life savings due to bad advice, poor advice and sometimes wrong advice by an unscrupulous investment adviser does leave you with long-term damage.

While I am standing here, I’m thinking of all the work that still needs to be done by government to enact protections, whether it is for children, whether it is for environment, whether it is into our monetary system. One of the things that keeps coming to my mind every time I listen to the word “fraudster” is the money-laundering situation that has been allowed under the previous jurisdiction, previous government, to become very, very scary and almost be branded as a “B.C. special” — so very scary for us.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m so proud of the fact that our Attorney General is taking that issue very, very seriously and is doing his due diligence, and we’re looking forward to the recommendations and the enactments he will bring out as a result of that.

I bring that up now because in many ways it links to this. It is about that security that people in British Columbia need to feel. It is about, whether it’s a consultant who is misleading and what kinds of consequences there are for those consultants, whether it’s an investment adviser…. If they do mislead and do fraud, which is a criminal offence, there will be serious consequences. They’re not just going to be allowed to get away with it.

I’m always surprised that it’s taken us so long to bring forward legislation to give the regulating bodies an opportunity, a tool, to actually collect the fines that are assigned. It almost seems bizarre that all of this time, for years, we had a government that just sat there, knowing that they didn’t have the tools, didn’t have the enforcement, and just allowed it to be.

Once again, kudos to our Finance Minister for bringing this forward and making sure that we do give a sense of security to British Columbians that they do have a government that is taking action, that is not going to look the other way when it comes to money laundering, when it comes to a housing crisis that was allowed to reach a point where British Columbians are very, very scared whether they will ever be able to own a house into the future — or whether it was, as I said previously, the money laundering and also the other costs that have gone up so much.

It is always, as a government when you come in, that you have these ideas. Every person who runs wants to do the very best. Here in this legislation, in these amendments, I think we will get agreement on all sides of the House, both sides of the House, that this is a good amendment and an acknowledgement that the Finance Minister, the current Finance Minister, is acting on this in a very timely manner to make sure that we give the self-regulating agencies the tools they were looking for.

Let me read into the record the quote from the regulating agency. “As a public interest regulator overseeing the investment industry under the authority of the British Columbia Securities Commission and other members of the Canadian Securities Administrators, our mandate is to protect investors and to support healthy capital markets,” said Andrew Kriegler, president and CEO of IIROC.

“Having better tools in our enforcement toolkit will enable us to hold wrongdoers accountable and provide British Columbians with greater confidence to invest. Being able to collect penalties through the courts will send a powerful message that if you harm investors, you will pay the penalty.”

That’s what this is about. It is sending a strong message that there is a change in government in British Columbia — that if you do wrong and you harm citizens, there are going to be consequences, not just on paper but those that will be enforced through the courts.

Mr. Speaker, as you’ve heard me say a few times, let me finish off by saying that I’m very, very proud that our Finance Minister has acted on bringing these amendments forward in such a timely manner to give British Columbians some sense of security that we are there to protect their interests.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 16, the Securities Amendment Act, 2018, which, as we’ve heard from the other speakers, does provide self-regulating bodies the capacity to be able to enforce fines that they levy against investors who operate in fraudulent ways and who harm the people who trusted them.

[3:10 p.m.]

It does seem a little strange that we would have to bring this in, as has been pointed out by some of the other members — that a regulating body had no capacity to actually enforce its regulations when those regulations were broken, which speaks to some of the inherent problems that we see with self-regulation across the board in this province. Many examples with the professional reliance model also speak to this.

It is interesting to note the extent of the problem, which the Globe and Mail reported: “The amount of unpaid securities fines in Canada is more than $1.1 billion, a massive figure that shows that many of these sanctions are being ignored among white-collar criminals and fraudsters.”

I think that this does give us a lot to be concerned about. There’s an enormous amount of money in these fines that is owed back to people, based on the fact that people have been subjected to fraud by the investors that they were supposed to be trusting. As the member from Port Moody pointed out, B.C. actually has the worst track record for collection.

I think some of the other questions have been raised by members speaking to this bill. I will look forward, in committee, to hearing some of the answers to those questions.

I think, ultimately, what it comes down to is that we live in a civil democracy. We expect that government is acting in a way to protect us and to protect our interests. Then we discover, through a series of decisions that are made over time, that the protections are given to bodies further and further away from government and that those protections are actually very weak and very unable to provide us with the protection that we should be expecting in our society.

I support this step, but I think that it does open up a conversation that we should be having — and, I think, that has begun here today in the chamber — about how we are going to ensure, moving forward, that we see the kind of protection our citizens should be able to expect when it comes to matters as serious as their financial health as well as, across the board, environmental health and their health in general.

Whether industry self-regulation should be seen as the panacea or answer to all these things…. I think there are some serious questions raised about that.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, the Minister for Mental Health and Addictions will close the debate.

Hon. J. Darcy: I’d like to thank the members who have spoken on this issue.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Darcy: I move that this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 16, Securities Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Darcy: I now call estimates for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, and he is entering the House.

[3:15 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:17 p.m.

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $43,914,000.

Hon. S. Fraser: I guess, at this point, it’s the second time I’ve done this as a minister. I believe I will make some opening comments at the beginning of this budget estimate.

I’d like to begin by recognizing the territory of the Lekwungen-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations and the land we are gathered on in this building.

With me today I have my deputy minister, Doug Caul. I’ve got Chief Financial Officer Ranbir Parmar. And I have other staff that will be coming in and out as this budget estimate unfolds.

I am incredibly proud of what Budget 2018 has accomplished and will accomplish. It does so much for so many people across British Columbia. We are putting people first and making life more affordable.

Through Budget 2018, we are making truly historic investments. One billion dollars in child care marks the beginning of a made-in-B.C. universal child care plan. More than $7 billion over the next ten years to address affordability and the housing crisis is the largest investment in housing in the history of this province.

The budget fully eliminates Medical Services Plan premiums by 2020 and makes record investment in infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, transit. This is real, transformational change in our society that will be felt for generations. We’re making life more affordable and rebuilding the services that people need. We’re making choices that put people first.

I am honoured to be part of a budget that demonstrates a true cross-government approach to reconciliation, breaking down the silos. A number of leaders have told me they’re noticing changes in our government-to-government relationship. These are our First Nations leaders from across the province. They appreciate our commitment to the recognition of rights. There is an optimism that we are embarking on real change in B.C. to substantially improve the lives of Indigenous people.

[3:20 p.m.]

We are at a unique moment, I would say, in our political history where we are strongly aligned with the federal government in our commitments to reconciliation, and I work closely with my counterparts from Ottawa. I have heard extensively of the hope this has stirred amongst Indigenous leaders — from hereditary chiefs and matriarchs, elected leaders, Métis people and Indigenous peoples living in urban communities.

I’ve also heard the skepticism and the caution. Look at the past ten years, 50 years, 150 years of our history. Look at what has happened in recent court decisions in the last months. We recognize that as a province there’s a long way to go to build trust, but change is coming: over the next three years, $30 million to support Indigenous child care and early learning. Our government is also investing $20 million to address the overdose health crisis.

I would note that change is happening, perhaps not as fast as some would like, but it is coming. Just a quote from a meeting I had with the Carrier-Sekani in Prince George a few months ago: “We are actively seeking to do constructive damage to the status quo.” I love that: “Do constructive damage to the status quo.” Part of the way is working with Indigenous peoples on how to integrate the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples in ways that are seen and felt, not just heard. We’re building our reconciliation framework that will start to address this issue.

The transformation we’re looking for also requires significant investment across the board. That’s what you see in the provincial budget. I mentioned some of those already. These investments are going directly into Indigenous communities and into services to better support Indigenous families: affordable housing, language, child care, mental health and addictions, reducing poverty, improving access to justice and revitalizing the environmental assessment process.

It’s more than half a billion dollars to support affordable housing for Indigenous people over the next ten years. Our government is working with the Aboriginal Justice Council to improve how Indigenous peoples interact with the justice system in this province. There’s $2 million to support the creation of a new Indigenous law program at the University of Victoria.

I was honoured to be asked to speak at a forum on that in Victoria several weeks ago. I wasn’t sure how many people would show up, and the theatre was to capacity. It was overflowing, and there were people waiting outside to come in. This is truly exciting. This program is groundbreaking. It’s the first of its kind in the province. Actually, it’s the first of its kind in the country. I believe it’s the first of its kind in the world.

Our government is revitalizing the environmental assessment process, as I mentioned, in collaboration with Indigenous groups, to ensure that Indigenous interests and legal rights are respected. There’s more than $250 million over the next three years invested in Indigenous priorities and reconciliation, in collaboration and in consultation with Indigenous peoples. These investments are critical steps towards reconciliation.

I am particularly pleased about $50 million going to help revitalize Indigenous languages. Supporting language revitalization is a key mandate of my ministry. We’re working alongside the First Peoples Cultural Council on this effort.

As I’ve spoken with Indigenous peoples from all over the province, in my time before this when I was critic, I have heard over and over again how important language is to the well-being of Indigenous peoples and communities, how knowing your language strengthens the culture and the very health of the communities, how it helps to connect children to their heritage, community, values and, importantly, to the very lands that they come from.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission heard how survivors were punished for speaking their language, how the residential school system imposed cultural genocide and scarred generations. The commission recognized the importance of language and culture to the health and well-being of Indigenous communities.

[3:25 p.m.]

Our government absolutely recognizes this too. It is why we are putting a significant investment towards revitalizing Indigenous languages in this province.

The First Peoples Cultural Council, a Crown corporation, has been working for decades to train Indigenous speakers and to document and preserve languages in British Columbia. They’ve worked hard to get the public and the government to understand and recognize the connections between language and health, and they’ve worked hard to get government to acknowledge that there is an urgent crisis, that all Indigenous languages in British Columbia are in danger.

There’s a lot of work to do across government and with communities. So many Indigenous languages need to be taught and then spoken and passed from generation to generation. We need to ensure that that happens. Our investment with the council is an excellent step in making significant progress.

I am also very pleased that our government, for the first time ever, is providing B.C.’s Aboriginal friendship centres with stable core funding. This funding will support the day-to-day operations of friendship centres. These centres — there are 25 of them in the province — have been around for 60 years and have been seeking this kind of core funding for nearly 20 years.

I would note that the Finance Committee that travels the province every year is a cross-government, cross-party, non-partisan committee. For many, many years, they have made unanimous recommendations to government to actually provide core support and funding for Indigenous friendship centres in this province, and they have been denied for years and years. We’re changing that. We have more than tripled their financial support, with an additional $6 million, in partnership with the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres.

Every friendship centre I visited is exceptionally warm and welcoming. They provide an incredible range of services, things like job support and training for the health and well-being of children and families, and to maintain — it’s critical — connections to culture and history.

Stable funding will allow friendship centres to focus on delivering the critical services instead of worrying about keeping the doors open, finding funds. Keeping people, continuity, is important, especially in dealing with youth that are looking for help. They build trust with the people in the friendship centres. It’s very hard to keep people working if you don’t have stable core funding.

The investments our government is making have been carefully considered with one thing in mind: what actions can we take to build a better future for Indigenous and non-Indigenous British Columbians? Too many issues have been ignored by past governments for far too long. We have a special opportunity to change that.

This is a tremendously exciting time in our history. We are committed to doing things differently. We are taking new approaches based on partnership, respect and recognition of inherent rights of Indigenous communities. Our work must live up to the values of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, to the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and to the Tsilhqot’in decision. Our actions and aspirations are focused on supporting prosperous, healthy and self-determining First Nations communities.

We are listening, and we are learning and charting a path forward together. Through this budget, we are making choices that will fundamentally transform our relationship with Indigenous people and make life better for all British Columbians.

In closing, I’d just like to state that I have been doing this job as minister for nine months, and I was a critic for the ministry for the better part of my 12 years previously. In my short time, relatively speaking, of nine months in the job, from the beginning I have made an effort to try to meet all of the people that work in the ministry.

[3:30 p.m.]

I have been so impressed by the level of dedication. It’s palpable, the excitement to move ahead in this direction. So many people in the ministry have been waiting to be able to do the mandate that the Premier has provided for us.

I would put the staff of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation on the highest level. I would pit them against anyone else in any other ministry. They do so much, and they’re so dedicated to their jobs. I’m honoured and proud to work with them.

D. Ashton: To the minister, I want to thank him for his opening remarks.

I, too, would like to recognize the original people of this land, specifically here on Vancouver Island, and thank them for the opportunity to allow us to share these lands and to live together. It does make a difference for each and every one of us.

I come from a different area of the province where there is a good working relationship on a continual basis, and I am always the first to take the opportunity to thank those members in that particular area for allowing myself and my family to share the beautiful lands that I call home.

Also to the minister, I would like to take the opportunity to thank his staff. They have always been forthright, in coming, and I know how hard they work on these files. I know their dedication, and it does make a huge difference to the direction that this province is taking, not only now but in the past. My thanks, on behalf of this side of the House, goes out to those hard-working individuals in the ministry.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Madame Chair, nice to see you.

Just a quick clarification for the minister. There is myself and several other members of the opposition that would like to ask some questions over the next period of time. There is also a member from the Third Party. What we’re trying to do is to coordinate it so that as we ask a question about a specific area or a specific reference, we bring everybody in at the same time so there wouldn’t be that jumping around. I’ll do my best to try to coordinate that, and I’ll start off, if we could?

Are there any changes in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, or the supplemental, that have happened since the publication of these documents?

The Chair: Minister of Indigenous Relations.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the proceedings today.

Before I answer, Jessica Woods, my assistant deputy minister, is also joining me today. She wasn’t here a moment ago, so I apologize for omitting that.

Since the budget has been tabled, there have been no changes.

D. Ashton: There was a wonderful announcement a few days ago about the North American Indigenous Games and a substantial contribution by the government for that. My question to the minister is: is there any contribution by the ministry to those games that we hope will be successfully brought to the south Island?

Hon. S. Fraser: To the member for Penticton, I just want to note that we’ve been working well together, and I welcome the questions.

I was part of the announcement for the games that was held here at the Legislature just a couple of days ago, and yeah, we’re all very excited about it. The announcement was $3.5 million from the province. It did not come specifically from the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, no.

D. Ashton: I want to thank the minister for his answer.

I would just like to jump to a letter dated April 16, which was in my receipt this morning, from the minister and signed by the minister, regarding some issues that the province and citizens of the area — both with the local bands and citizens that have freehold land in the area — have been facing.

[3:35 p.m.]

There is a decision that has come forward, and I know the ministry has been working. But there is a period of adjustments that the minister has spoken to in the letter — it’s regarding the seclusion of private lands and submerged lands from the appeal — that has really led, as we both understand, to some really complex negotiations regarding the environment and regarding the freehold land up there.

I’m just curious if the minister could enlighten me and enlighten those who will be listening about the direction that the government is taking to try and get some resolve, not only for the private landowners up there but also for the people that have been using British Columbia public roads for egress to those particular pieces of land.

Hon. S. Fraser: If the member for Penticton could just give me a clue about any details about the letter. I’m not sure which issue he is referring to. If he could let me know the nations involved or the region involved, that would be helpful.

D. Ashton: Specifically, what steps is the government taking on this really difficult situation up there? There will be other MLAs, specifically one from there, that I’m sure will have some questions regarding this. In the letter, it says that B.C. is taking clear steps to resolve the issue. I’m just curious about what those steps are.

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, to the member opposite, I’m not sure…. He’s mentioned the region, but I’m still not sure which issue he’s referring to. If he could give us a little more detail, I’d be happy to answer the question.

D. Ashton: I’ll be specific. To the Chilko Operators Association, there has been, in my understanding, a proposition that has come from the government regarding possible financial opportunities or settlements. I’m just curious about a specific direction that the province has taken on that.

I do come back to the Tsilhqot’in lands, and about egress and access through the lands, that have been awarded by the Supreme Court of Canada, and specifically to the various Chilko operators that run tourist operations in the area — i.e., lodges — for the avail of wildlife viewing.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question and the clarification. We’ve been communicating with the tourism operators, as the member knows. We’ve met on this issue before. We have advised the operators that we are working to conclude a two-year bridging agreement that will provide the short-term certainty that they are looking for, and we have agreed with the Xeni Gwet’in to make best efforts to finalize the agreement before June 1 — so just the day after the House is scheduled to rise.

We’ve identified resources to help the Xeni Gwet’in move forward with the tourism investments and are supporting an appraisal process now — I think that’s what the member was referring to — for a number of tourism operators who have indicated interest in a potential sale for their businesses. We’ve reached out to the operators and got their agreement to pursue this type of action. That’s where we’re at right now.

[3:40 p.m.]

I know that as this unfolds over the next few weeks, while we’re in the Legislature, if there’s any progress on that, I’d be happy to meet with the member and other members who I’ve met with already on this, to update them.

D. Ashton: I need to state, at this point in time, that the minister has always been forthcoming with information when I’ve asked, but this letter was on my desk this morning, and I just wanted to clear it up. I know that the MLA from the area will have some questions.

The prospect is that there may be a two-year bridge until things can get sorted out there. During that period of time, will there be access guaranteed to the various lodges that have had issues garnering clear and safe access for their visitors?

One thing — and I’m quite sure the minister realizes — is that these people do not just phone up on Friday and make a reservation for Saturday and Sunday night. These reservations, these lodges are international, and there needs to be some certainty and security coming forward, in my opinion, while negotiations take place between the province, the federal government and the various nations involved in this to ensure the safe and continued operations until some settlement, or whatever takes place, can continue.

Through to the minister, if he could just let me know what has taken place to allow owners of these lodges the opportunity to ensure that their clients will have the opportunity of egress, but, as important, that the lodges will have the opportunity to continue their advertising internationally to bring people to see, visit and experience this incredible province that many of us call home.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks, again, to the member for the question.

I’ll go back a little bit, just for context. The Tsilhqot’in decision, a landmark decision, certainly predates us as government. It goes back to the previous government. I think it designated 1,700 square kilometres of title land to the Xeni Gwet’in, to the Tsilhqot’in people. The situation we arrived at is complex and complicated on the ground. There’s no real precedent for this.

I’d like to comment that I think it’s an example of why it’s so much better to address issues of rights and title — and reconciliation, for that matter — through dialogue and discussion as opposed to having to rely on the courts. The courts have their place, of course, but sometimes legal decisions or court decisions can make a complicated issue even more complex.

This one that we have inherited from the court decision is complicated for everyone on the ground. I do not have all the answers, but what I do know is that our ministry staff are working closely with the operators and with the Xeni Gwet’in. The bridging agreement is, in part, of course, to deal with the issues that the member is raising. That’s underway, and I’m hoping for a successful outcome to those discussions. Again, the hope is that we’ll see the results of that by June 1.

D. Ashton: I appreciate the minister’s answers, but as I’m sure he realizes and his staff realize, these people are on edge at this point in time.

I would just point to the minister’s third paragraph on the bottom. It says: “In addition, provincial staff continue to identify ways to ensure all parties may continue to operate in the north Chilko Lake area in a manner that protects the health and safety of the people, grizzly bears in their natural environment.”

That’s terrific. That is wonderful, but these people…. Unfortunately, in this court decision, if I remember correctly, 326 pieces — and I may be off a little bit on that — of private, deeded land were encompassed in this setting or court decision from the Supreme Court, from the federal government.

To me, since these lands, many of them, are occupied and many of them commercially based, one of the biggest issues out there is ensuring the safe egress of people coming into these lodges.

[3:45 p.m.]

My hat is off to the government if they can continue to help negotiate through this process, but in the meantime, these tourist operators are sitting waiting with bated breath to ensure that their customers and themselves are going to have continued access to these tourism properties, these lodges, not only for this season but, if it is going to be a two-year process, that they can get out.

Their livelihood is bringing people in to their lodges. So if the minister could just enlighten myself and these people on the direction that he hopes to take to ensure this egress of people that are coming to our province to view the aspects and the wonderful vistas that British Columbia has to offer.

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, thanks to the member opposite. I would say that the bridging agreement is designed to do exactly what the member has suggested — trying to bring certainty for the operators, as well as to make sure that there are potential options for some of the operators who have indicated that they have an interest for a potential sale of their business. We’re looking at all of those options as part of the bridging agreement.

I would, again, reiterate that this is a unique situation — a court decision laid down here. It did not provide any guidance in this regard. It was a landmark decision, but it was a stark decision in the sense that it designated title for the first time through the courts in the province of British Columbia — I believe that’s the case — but it did not provide any remedies for addressing the issue around the tourism operators that are operating within that territorial boundary. So that’s what we are trying to address right now with that bridging agreement.

D. Ashton: I would like to thank the minister, but time is of the essence. It was a court decision, but there is also freehold-titled land within that area where people have a right to their property. I give accolades to the minister, his team and also to the government for putting forth a proposal for willing-seller, willing-buyer, but in the meantime, these people have to survive — survive in the sense of being able to operate what many have put a lifetime in there creating.

I would just ask that the minister and his staff work diligently. We are now past mid-April. June 1 is not that far away. I know that there are an awful lot of people out there just hanging on, waiting for some form of direction from the government. With all due respect, the government is in power now, and it’s a decision that has to be made to allow these people, one way or another, some resolve to this issue.

I would like to thank the minister for his comments. I just hope I’ve been able to instill until one of my peers comes in here who actually represents the area and that I know will have a few more questions.

I would like to swing over at this point in time to employers health tax. I will give the minister a bit of a heads-up. Can the minister confirm that MSP for most Indigenous people is currently paid for through the First Nations Health Authority?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks again to the member. If I could step back one step, I just want to assure the member that we and the ministry do understand the urgency of the issue for the tourism operators in Chilcotin and within the title lands. I understand the urgency, also, as stated by the member. We are working diligently to try to address that. Any changes, as they unfold over the next few weeks….

[3:50 p.m.]

I’m hoping that before June 1, I’ll be able to meet with the member and the other members that I’ve met with already several times and our staff has also. That’ll be happening. I appreciate the member’s questions.

Now, specific questions on the employer health tax. It’s not under the purview of this ministry. I hate trying to shuffle off to another ministry, but I would note that the Minister of Finance would be the person to actually answer these questions.

She has yet to do her estimates. I’m certain she’s glad today she’s not doing her estimates. She does have laryngitis, and this is a long process. I think for the Minister of Finance, it’s probably longer. But we do not have details on tax policy, the employer health tax, at our disposal. It would be the Minister of Finance.

D. Ashton: I thank the minister. But does he have any idea how the transition from MSP to the employer health tax is going to work for the First Nations Health Authority?

Hon. S. Fraser: I could speculate, but I suggest that that’s probably not appropriate. The Minister of Finance will be able to definitively answer these questions.

D. Ashton: Is the minister aware of any conversations with the federal government regarding this transitory period of time that is taking place here in B.C.?

Hon. S. Fraser: No, I’m not aware.

D. Ashton: Has the minister or the ministry consulted with First Nations on the possible and potential effects the employer health tax may have?

Hon. S. Fraser: It is my understanding that the individual organizations, businesses, non-profits — all number of groups — that have issues or questions with the employer health tax are in discussions with the minister and Ministry of Finance.

D. Ashton: Has the minister received any feedback from First Nations with questions regarding the health tax or some of the concerns they have regarding effects on their payroll?

Hon. S. Fraser: The only discussion that has come up regarding the employer health tax has been with a couple of Aboriginal friendship centres in the province. There are 25 friendship centres within the province of British Columbia, and there were some questions around how the tax would be applied. I urged them to contact the Ministry of Finance and work with them to answer those questions and get clarification.

D. Ashton: I would like to thank the minister for his answer. He did bring up the friendship centres. We have canvassed that in question period. But has there been any further consultation regarding the employer health tax with the friendship centres? Would the minister be requesting that the friendship centres be exempt from this tax?

Hon. S. Fraser: As I’ve mentioned, I have suggested that they speak directly with the Ministry of Finance and the Minister of Finance who, I know, are aware of questions coming from non-profits and other organizations as well as friendship centres. I know that work is ongoing. I would leave it to the Minister of Finance to address those issues. I would not be making recommendations to the Minister of Finance. She has a staff and a knowledge base around this that exceeds my role as Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

[3:55 p.m.]

I would say that officials from the friendship centre that I’ve spoken with on this were working diligently with the Ministry of Finance, if they had any issues at all.

D. Ashton: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer. Does the minister know what the payroll is of the New Relationship Trust at this point in time?

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for the question. I just would note: I do not have the answers. The New Relationship Trust is a creature of a piece of legislation, the New Relationship Trust Act. It is an independent agency with an independent board of directors, so we do not have the payroll. We’re just not privy to that.

D. Ashton: The government funds it, it’s a bulk funding, and then they act as independents with their own separate board. Is that correct? There is no direction, influence or guidance given by the ministry for the trust?

Hon. S. Fraser: It was back in 2006, when the board was created. It was, actually, around the time the leadership council was also established, I think, with the three organizations — the Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the B.C. Assembly of First Nations.

It was created to oversee a $100 million trust provided by the province. But it was then established under an act as an independent body, as such, with an independent board of directors. We do not, as a ministry, actually fund the trust. It’s a creature of its own kind. There are members on the board, I know, from the leadership council that was created around that same time.

D. Ashton: Are there any appointment opportunities by the provincial government for the board members of the trust?

Hon. S. Fraser: B.C. appoints two of the seven board members. The First Nations Leadership Council appoints five members, and then they act as an independent body with the makeup of the seven-person independent board.

D. Ashton: I’d like to thank the minister, again, for his answer. My peer from Cariboo-Chilcotin is here to have follow-up questions, I’m assuming, with regard to some of the questions that I had posed to the minister.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, and thank you for bringing your staff here. They do a good job. They have a difficult…. You have a very difficult ministry, and a lot of work has to be done. I know how hard the staff works.

[4:00 p.m.]

Of course, you’re well aware of the issue in the title lands, as is your staff. I have been engaged in this incident since it began, because I was fortunate enough to be elected when the decision came down. When will we get a final decision for the tourism operators who cannot get proper access, egress, whose tourists are being — how should I say it? — aggravated, hassled when they come? When will their permits be issued for a long term? What is going to happen out there with the operators and the Xeni Gwet’in?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for the questions. As she knows, we’ve had discussions about this before, and I’m sure they will continue as we work toward solutions.

I will remind, again, that this situation on the ground is unique. Its inception was through a landmark court decision that has never happened before in the province — and, I don’t believe, in Canada either. It did not provide a remedy on the ground. It designated a title for the Xeni Gwet’in of about 1,700 square kilometres of land — a significant court decision.

It’s another reason to negotiate. It highlights the need to negotiate rights and title and reconciliation issues rather than allow the courts to make those decisions — recognizing, of course, that courts have their place and their role. But they do not provide…. The court decision added to a very complex situation, and I know the member knows that.

We’ve agreed with the Xeni Gwet’in to make best efforts to finalize the agreement by June 1. We have a bridging agreement we’re working on to address the needs of the operators. That’s a two-year bridging agreement that we’re working with them on.

I mentioned just earlier, before the member came into the chambers, that some of the operators have indicated an interest in the potential sale of their business. We’re looking at those opportunities, too. I know there’s an assessment process there that could happen between the Xeni Gwet’in and the operators. We’re looking at those options, too. So we’re being creative.

I would hope that if we are successful with the timeline of June 1, we will have some news. I would be very happy to again have a meeting with the member and her colleagues, as we’ve met before, to update on that issue and how it’s going. Some of this is still happening as we speak — these discussions. There is a sense of urgency. The member opposite from Penticton, our critic, has highlighted that urgency a little earlier, too, and we’re well aware of that.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I cannot stress enough about the urgency. Everybody was hoping that there would be some kind of a contract or agreement made. This has been in the works for two years now. Part of the equation is ready; the other part of the equation is not ready.

Minister, I know that your staff is working hard, but unfortunately, we have to get this resolved. Time is of the essence for the betterment of the province of British Columbia. I’m sure you understand why I’m pleading. I want to see the parties work together, to communicate. If this goes the other way, I really don’t like what I’m hearing. Time is of the essence; it is urgent.

I don’t know what my colleague asked. I couldn’t get here earlier. What about the other people in the title lands who have private freehold titles — their access, their egress? What is going to happen down the road in the future?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for her question. I understand the urgency. I appreciate that.

[4:05 p.m.]

She also mentioned that this work has been going on for two years. As she knows, it spans governments and the election period and everything that goes with that.

It’s a complex issue. We’ve always maintained that we need to try to maintain the access and egress issues. Those should be maintained. Certainly, that’s been the position of the ministry, and that’s part of what we’re working on with the bridging agreement that we’re hoping to have finalized by, basically, the time that we’re finished in the spring session here. That sense of urgency — I understand it. We understand, and we’ve heard that.

D. Barnett: That access and egress, will that be for all the public — not just the private landowners but people that actually have gone for years and years through the now title lands to the Crown lands — to do recreation and other activities that they’ve always done on the Crown lands?

Hon. S. Fraser: As I have stated already, the access and egress issues for private freehold lands within the title area…. Our position is that continues and that the access and egress continue. The issue of the title lands themselves was decided by the court. The court is a blunt instrument, relatively speaking. I don’t know if that’s the right term. These are title lands established by the court, belonging to the Xeni Gwet’in of the Tsilhqot’in Nation. That is the decision of the court.

I can’t speak to the access-egress issues on title lands. But, again, referring to the freehold lands…. Access and egress — our position is that they continue.

D. Barnett: Some of the, of course, operators’ permits have run out, and they have no security for permits after a certain period. I forget what the date is this year.

Will these permits be renewed for any length of time? If they can come to some kind of an agreement, will they just be temporary? Will they have to go through this year after year?

Hon. S. Fraser: That is the nature of the two-year bridging agreement. Those are the discussions that are happening right now — exactly.

D. Barnett: Off to another topic, Minister, the Nenqay Deni accord. My constituents would like to know where the Nenqay Deni accord is. When will the ministry be having public meetings once again?

When we started the Nenqay Deni accord, of course, it was stated that this would be open and transparent. People within the Chilcotin — ranchers, lease holders, trappers, guide outfitters, etc. — would like to know how the accord is moving forward, what kinds of agreements the government has made with the Deni accord and what kind of land use to these industries and guide-outfitters and trappers has been made. When will they be made aware of some public information?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: The Nenqay Deni accord, as the member knows, was signed by the previous government just following the court decision, the Tsilhqot’in decision that designated the title lands for the first time. We, as a new government, have reaffirmed our commitment to work with the Tsilhqot’in and Xeni Gwet’in on the Nenqay Deni accord and the Tsilhqot’in people.

Stakeholder engagement is, I think, always a part of that. That’s anticipated. I would note that there is work being done internally by the nation to deal with internal capacity issues. There’s not, to my knowledge, anything tangible to start that engagement yet. But when there is, there will be engagement.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. It’s very important that we have this open dialogue, and I sincerely appreciate your efforts. Hopefully, sooner than later, we have open dialogue. People, of course…. When you don’t know what’s happening, sometimes you create, yourself, some issues that really aren’t there. Thank you for that.

In these negotiations and this dialogue over the operators out there, what fee, if any, is being paid to the Xeni Gwet’in to allow these operators to keep operating, as they have been, out there in the title lands?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks for the question. The fees, if they were…. First of all, just to step back a moment, if they’re on Crown land — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, that ministry — it’s the standard fees. The operators would pay the standard fees.

[4:15 p.m.]

On title land, the government is collecting fees on title lands and providing, I think, the same fee schedule. That’s then provided to the nation, just within their title lands. I believe it’s the same formula as it is on Crown land.

D. Barnett: Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. I probably didn’t. Is the Xeni Gwet’in or the Tsilhqot’in Nation being paid by the provincial government to sit at the table and negotiate with the government for the tourism operators? In other words, are they paid to sit at the table and negotiate this two-year binding agreement, or is this just something that is part of their Nenqay Deni accord agreement? Is there any money being paid to the First Nations?

Hon. S. Fraser: There was no specific funding made available for the bridging agreement — except that there were funds that, I think, came with the Nenqay Deni accord in general, but nothing specific for dealing with the operator issue.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. Just to clarify, there are no funds being paid to the Xeni Gwet’in or the Tsilhqot’in Nation to sit at the table and negotiate this two-year agreement. All funds are coming — for their legal, lawyers, etc. — out of the Deni accord funding. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Fraser: Yes, that’s correct. There’s no money being provided for dealing with the issue with the tourism operators.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that.

I do have a trapper, who is in the title lands, who has lost part of his trapline, part of his facilities. He’s put a lot of money out there, and of course, he can no longer trap. I’m sure that the minister has received quite a few letters from him. If not, I can certainly provide you some.

Is the minister aware of this case? If not, this trapper certainly would like to become engaged with the ministry staff. Could you give me some guidance as to whether this has come across your desk, the staff desks? If not, could you give me some guidance on how this gentleman can become engaged with your ministry?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Actually, we’re not aware of this specific issue. I’ve spoken with staff. I haven’t seen a letter, and neither have they. I would suggest that if the member could get us the contact information, we’d be happy to engage.

D. Barnett: I’m shocked because I know the staff in Williams Lake has got it. I will bring you a file next week like you’ve never seen. So thank you for that.

Just going back to the title lands for a moment and the issue with the tourism operators, the negotiations going on with the province and the tourism operators and the Xeni Gwet’in and the Tsilhqot’in Nation. If the ministry does provide funds for the Xeni Gwet’in or the Tsilhqot’in First Nation for this negotiation process, will the same amount of funds be granted to the tourism operators?

Hon. S. Fraser: The funding arrangement that came with the Nenqay Deni accord was negotiated by the previous government. We’ve honoured that, but we don’t anticipate providing similar funds for the operators. Again, that was a negotiation that happened prior to us forming government.

On the previous issue around the trapper, just a thought. Maybe he had discussions with ministry staff on the ground and/or maybe the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, as far as the trapping licensing goes. I think that’s under their purview. That might have been the confusion. But we’d be happy to engage.

D. Ashton: To go back to it, I would ask, not only on behalf of the member but for fairness and equity…. If a situation arises where the bands will be asking for additional funds to sit down at the table and negotiate, I would just ask the minister that accommodation be made also to those on the other side of the negotiating table, because there are expenses incurred on both sides.

I’m looking into the future. I’m sure the minister’s future is no clearer than mine. But if there is a request for funding, I would ask that that request also be brought forward, for information, to the titled landowners and also that accommodation be made for themselves, through the province, to be able to sit at the table and negotiate.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, the funding that has been provided, which we’ve honoured, was negotiated through the Nenqay Deni accord by the previous government. In our bridging agreement, we’re working with the parties, including the operators. That’s how we’re dealing with this as a ministry and as a government. There are no…. Those are the only funds that have been provided. I’m not anticipating….

I don’t want to speculate how we go beyond that, but we are working to get this bridging agreement completed by, hopefully…. The goal is June 1. There have been no specific funds designated to the Xeni Gwet’in or the Tsilhqot’in National Government to deal with these discussions, except the funds that were already in place through the Nenqay Deni accord.

D. Ashton: I appreciate the answer from the minister. I guess it was more of a statement. My statement is that if there are additional funds requested, through a negotiation process, to get us up to June 1, and to be able to open these lands for the business operation of the individuals up there with the freehold land, I would just ask that the ministry — i.e., the government — consider the opportunity to ensure that the other stakeholders are offered fairness and equity in the situation to be able to come forward.

There are a lot of costs, as we know, attached to this. These individuals, to be very frank, are pressed at this point in time — not only on time but also while watching their livelihoods dwindle away while answers are being queried and, hopefully, brought forward by a specific point in time.

Again, it was more of a statement to say that fairness and equity have to prevail for both sides in this.

Hon. S. Fraser: I do acknowledge the member’s statement, but I would also remind that this is all the result of a Supreme Court decision — a blunt decision, as it was. But I do acknowledge the member’s statement.

D. Barnett: In September estimates, the minister promised to look into the issue of Tsilhqot’in rangers harassing private landholders and people doing lawful activities on the water. The minister promised he would provide information in writing on this once he looked into it. Has the minister looked into this matter?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. I would note that we did receive a request on this issue from the previous minister, and we did respond. It was on a letter dated March 13, this spring, 2018.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I will look for the answer.

A couple more questions on the Tsilhqot’in. I congratulate the federal government, the provincial government and the Tsilhqot’in Nation for the signing of the tripartite collaborative emergency management agreement. I think this is a very positive step. Nothing but good things can come out of these types of agreements.

I do have a couple of questions around this. I have been asked these questions by many people within my own riding, and of course, you’re the only one that can give the answers. What is in the agreement as far as facilities, training equipment? Where will they be posted? What dollar value is on…? What commitment has the ministry made to the First Nations? And what kind of commitment back from the Tsilhqot’in Nation to the province of British Columbia for emergency services?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome back.

To the member, first of all, I’d be happy to share a copy of the agreement with her so that she can see all the details, which we may not have time to go through in that kind of scrutiny today.

At the announcement, I was there with Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, the Attorney General. But Minister Philpott’s ministry is actually federally responsible, so they have provided funding to set up, I think, a steering committee to look at a number of things, including a feasibility study. And they would be funding the feasibility study, too, towards an emergency centre that could potentially be set up in the region.

It’s an exciting time. This tripartite agreement is a step forward. I think it’s in keeping with the spirit and intent of the UN declaration, and of course, it respects the deep generational knowledge the Tsilhqot’in people have when it comes to, on the land, addressing the fire issues that they have been addressing for generations and for millennia.

[4:35 p.m.]

We can all learn from that as part of this tripartite agreement. So we’re all very excited about this. It’s not just important, I think, certainly for the Tsilhqot’in people, but it’s for all the people in the region.

I think it’s something that will be looked at in other parts of the province to see how to provide protections, protecting life and property from the catastrophic wildfires, like the Plateau fire last year. The Tsilhqot’in people were ground zero for that. I think that was the largest wildfire of its kind in the province.

There are exciting things afoot here. Well, emergency management B.C. will be working closely with that. Our resources from within government will be at the table. The funding for this and the steering committee and the feasibility study, I believe, are all set up through the federal government. Minister Philpott would be the lead on that.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for that. So there is no funding from your ministry or the provincial government towards this tripartite agreement?

Hon. S. Fraser: There is no money from MIRR, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, and I don’t believe any money from the province.

D. Barnett: Around the same topic. My riding is 44,000 hectares. I have 13 First Nation communities. They’re all great, hard-working communities. This is great that this is one of the nations.

I have the Ulkatcho, who are at the very far end of my riding and who are quite isolated. I do know, Minister, that they have, for the past two or three years — we were in government, and we gave them some funding — been asking for equipment in case of an emergency like this.

Is your ministry going to be working with the other First Nations to provide some emergency management equipment or agreements so that they can participate and look after their communities in the same way?

Hon. S. Fraser: I note that emergency management B.C. and Canada are working with communities to develop emergency plans.

My ministry has not been directly…. We have indirectly been involved, but if Ulkatcho wants to, we could help to facilitate work with emergency management B.C. They may well all be doing that already, but I just don’t have that information.

D. Barnett: Thank you for that, Minister. I will be talking to them, probably, on Friday and will ask the question. If they haven’t had the opportunity to work with emergency management B.C., I will get back to you. Even if they have, I will get back to you.

This agreement. You said that the federal government is giving funding for a feasibility study, and you’re going to give me a copy of the agreement, which I sincerely appreciate. What is the time frame to have the feasibility study done?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I believe the answer is six months. I’ll confirm that for the member, but I believe it was six months — the plan.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for that. One more question around the fires. If it’s six months, that takes us well into fire season. Will there be any assistance for the Tsilhqot’in First Nation before that by way of equipment or training, etc., just in case we have another wildfire in the Chilcotin in May or June?

Hon. S. Fraser: We do know that the wildfire branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is actively engaged in these discussions now with the Tsilhqot’in. Again, I could…. They would be able to provide more details. I don’t have those details here. That’s happening right now.

We are aware that we are coming into another season, potentially. Hopefully, it won’t be of the nature of the previous season, which was unprecedented, but as Joe Alphonse said so eloquently at the announcement of the tripartite collaborative agreement, climate change is upon us. It would be foolish to not expect that we’re going to see more of this, not less, and we have to be prepared. So those discussions are ongoing now with the wildfire branch.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I will certainly ask Forests, Lands and Natural Resources.

Another topic that I would like to…. Maybe you can’t answer. The Ministry of Children and Family, of course, is still the ministry that is in charge of removing children from homes — First Nations homes, other homes. Through all these negotiations in process, is there going to be another method…? When there’s a complaint against a First Nations family and somebody goes in and removes those children from those homes, is your ministry going to change the method that this is exercised in?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. It’s a serious topic. I know the minister responsible takes these issues very seriously. My ministry does not have any direct role there, but I would note that there is new legislation coming forward this session from the Ministry of Children and Families. That may well be addressing some of the issues that the member is talking about here.

[4:45 p.m.]

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for that. I’ll be anxious to participate in the legislation.

I would now like to go on to the Northern Secwepemc treaty updates. If you have to change staff, we can wait a minute. Last fall in estimates, the minister was asked about progress on the NStQ treaty, which currently is at stage 4 in the treaty process.

The minister mentioned that the agreement-in-principle was yet to be signed by the province. To quote the minister from last fall’s estimates: “I’ll be working with the NStQ, with ranchers and with affected stakeholders and will move this process forward.” That was Hansard, October 31, ’17. How has the minister, to use his own words, moved this process forward?

Hon. S. Fraser: There is considerable work underway. It has been underway since October of last year — work with the NStQ, of course, but also with ranchers in the area. The hope is that as we get to the agreement-in-principle, we will have all parties on side, celebrating this agreement. That’s the aim. We’ll continue that work as we get through the season, into the summer months.

D. Barnett: Minister, I’m a little bit confused. The NStQ had signed the agreement-in-principle in April 2016. Could you please clarify: has your ministry signed it or not? From what I understand from what you just said — I’m maybe understanding it incorrectly — you’re negotiating now with the ranchers and the NStQ. Does that mean the AIP is back open again?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Just for clarification, in 2016, the NStQ signed off on the AIP; the province did not. That’s what we’re working towards now.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. Could you explain to me why the ministry and the province have not signed the AIP?

Hon. S. Fraser: We continue to work with the local communities and the stakeholders, the ranchers. We look forward to signing in the near future.

D. Barnett: Minister, could you please clarify for me how many ranchers, over the past year, your staff has been in contact with, in negotiations with? It’s because I am in contact continuously, and I have not heard from the ranchers that there have been any new talks.

Hon. S. Fraser: There are 55 ranchers in the area that we’re addressing here, and ministry staff have met with all 55 of them over the last two years.

D. Barnett: Yes, Minister. Back two years ago, yes, and up to, probably, August of 2016, I know they had all been met with. But from there, moving forward, have there been any new negotiations? Especially because of the fires, have there been any changes in maps, boundaries, etc., that would affect the ranching community more?

Hon. S. Fraser: Ministry staff have worked with those most impacted from the last wildfire season. I don’t have the details, with the negotiators, of who they’ve specifically met with and when. But I would be happy to invite the member to…. We could sit down when we have that information and make that available to her.

[4:55 p.m.]

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I would appreciate that, because I’m sure I’ll get the phone calls, when things calm down from the fire. A lot of these ranchers are still dealing with losses — fences, hay, you name it. Things are not that good for an awful lot of them.

My last question, hopefully, will be the historic decision by the federal Supreme Court of Canada over the city of Williams Lake. The Supreme Court of Canada did say that the Williams Lake Indian Band were the first settlers, and they were removed. So they’re in negotiations now for compensation with the federal government.

Has the province been engaged at all in this court decision or in any of the process leading up to the federal court decision?

Hon. S. Fraser: This was, as the member, I think, knows, the specific claim between the Williams Lake Indian Band and the federal government. I’m not aware of any involvement from our ministry or our government.

D. Barnett: As you have not been involved or engaged in any of the process, do you know…? I guess probably not, but I’m going to ask anyway. They’re in negotiations with the federal government over compensation. Will this settlement become part of the treaty when the treaty is finally signed?

Hon. S. Fraser: At this time, we haven’t had any reason to suggest it would or not. That would be a question for the federal government. We haven’t been…. It’s a specific claim, and it’s been dealt with between the two parties, so I just can’t answer the question. It would be up to the federal government to, I guess, make that determination.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for accommodating me today. I wait to get a copy of the agreement and the other issues that we’ve talked about here. I’m sure you’ll get back to me soon, and we can sit down and talk about the other issues that I raised. Thank you very much for your time.

E. Ross: I really used rights and title case law to basically provide a better future for my people. I thought I understood case law, especially the last significant court case that dealt with Aboriginal rights and title, which is the Haida court case on a duty to consult and accommodate when it comes to government decisions. But it’s outside interests and all these buzzwords that are adding confusion, daily, to the Aboriginal leaders who are trying to deal with this on-the-ground issue.

[5:00 p.m.]

My question to the minister is a fairly simple one. In terms of the decision-making that the minister has to make, through the ministry and on behalf of the Crown, when it comes to specific communities that are dealing with the impacts of a project, who does the minister believe represents these communities in regards to the decisions that the Crown has to make?

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for the question. I’m not sure which court case or case law he was referring to, but our policy, where we’re heading, is that we’re engaging with First Nations to provide guidance on who to engage with. We’re not making assumptions.

I know if governments get it wrong, it can almost be a divide. It can divide communities and such, so we’re looking for that guidance from within First Nations.

E. Ross: Well, at some point, the Crown is going to have to send a referral to a First Nation to understand their interests around a project’s impacts on their rights and title. So what’s the address, and what is the name and title of the person on that referral when that letter is sent to the First Nation in question?

Hon. S. Fraser: I guess, in answer, there is no simple answer, and there’s no one answer. We engage with the nations and ask advice on who to engage with. That could vary from nation to nation. There’s no single address or simple single answer for this.

I think it’s important that we have those engagements, and I know the previous government was dealing with who to deal with also. That is something that’s not new to our government. We’re engaging directly with First Nations, getting their advice on who best to deal with within their nation.

E. Ross: Just trying to get an understanding of that. There’s no real understanding of who to engage with officially and legally to address rights and title. So officially, for legal purposes and to execute the duty of the Crown, who do you ask for advice, specifically, to understand who represents the community in question, then?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: We are clear. I don’t think we’re having any confusion with the nations we’re dealing with about who to consult with, because we are asking. I mean, I meet with hereditary chiefs, elected chiefs and council. We have, of course, the leadership gathering every year too.

We get guidance on who to deal with. In some cases, in the larger territory, it might be hereditary chiefs or a body representing the hereditary chiefs that is appropriate. On reserve, sometimes it’s the elected chief and council but not exclusively. This can vary. We get that advice, and I think that brings clarity to all parties as to who the appropriate people and bodies are to negotiate or to work with.

E. Ross: Thank you to the minister. It sounds like you engage with a number of different groups and a number of different members regardless of their title.

The Chair: Member, ask all the questions through the Chair.

E. Ross: Don’t use “you,” right? I keep forgetting that.

Apologies to the Chair. To the minister through the Chair, it sounds like the consultation doesn’t really start until the Crown now determines who represents the First Nations interest. For that, there is no consultation on that question. There’s a number of meetings that are held, which are not really on the record, to determine who represents the First Nation.

A referral can lead to bigger things. A referral can lead to legal questions in court, but it also can determine the future of a First Nations community as well as a group of people. So at what point does the minister believe that they’ve got the right legal authority, in terms of an entity or a person representing a First Nations community, in respect to the Aboriginal rights and title?

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m a little bit confused. As with the previous government, we meet with nations all the time. I met with Chief Crystal at Haisla, earlier this week, and members of the council, Brenda and Kevin.

It’s not unlike the other side, when they were in government. We negotiate based on a leadership structure. We seek advice from the nation as to what is appropriate to make sure that we get that right and do not get into a divisive situation, as I mentioned before. We want to avoid that. We do rely on the nations themselves to advise us as to how best to approach negotiations and with whom.

[5:10 p.m.]

E. Ross: I’m just trying to understand. Who does the Crown recognize as a legal representative of the community? Is this question or topic brought up with a First Nation before the Crown decides to send out a referral or on a decision made by the Crown? Is that brought up with every single community before the Crown decides to go down a certain path — to determine who represents a First Nation in terms of the impacts of a project?

Hon. S. Fraser: I’ve been doing this job as minister for nine months now. But for years, for decades, government — whoever is government — has been working with nations. Sometimes it’s appropriate to deal with the natural resource office, maybe the hereditary chiefs. In some cases, the guidance is that the appropriate body is the natural resource office of the elected. It can vary.

We’re not starting from scratch here. We do not go and initiate a conversation by: am I talking to the right person? Governments have established relationships. Certainly, governments learn if they’re addressing the right leadership body or not, and we react to that. I’m not sure how else to answer the question.

E. Ross: Given today’s situation, I think it’s important that we start to determine, in your words, the leadership structures before we engage in this type of activity. Going to court is not a good thing for First Nations — or anybody for that matter, if anybody gets it wrong.

I’m just trying to understand your answer in respect to what the previous practice was. You’ll just continue the engagement, the consultation, with the existing structures as per past government practices? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, and I do understand that it’s a confusing question. I’m confused about it myself just because of the activities that are going on today.

On a related topic, then, there are a number of terms being thrown around in terms of engagement with First Nations, in relation to impacts — infringements of rights and title. I thought I had a good handle on the principles of case law that could lead to an outcome for all parties involved — whether it be the Crown, proponents or First Nations. But now I’m starting to get confused with it because there are a number of words being thrown around.

Specifically, there’s “support” for projects, “consensus” for projects or “consent” for projects. It seems to me that everything I’ve learned in terms of reading case law for the last 14 years I might as well throw out the window unless we can define exactly what it is we’re talking about or what we’re trying to achieve with First Nations.

Does the minister have an opinion on which word is relevant when we’re talking about consultation and accommodation of First Nations in regards to rights and title impacts?

Hon. S. Fraser: To the member, thank you for asking for my opinion on this. I know that I worked on a body known as the Clayoquot Sound central region board. It followed the conflict in Clayoquot Sound back in the early ’90s — a record amount of civil disobedience in Clayoquot Sound and Nuu-chah-nulth territory. Following that, to address the conflict in the region over land use decisions, the government of the day created what was called the Clayoquot Sound central region board. It was a unique body at the time.

[5:15 p.m.]

I still like it. I think it’s a model that should be looked at again, and we may well. It had ten members and two co-chairs. Five members were appointed by Nuu-chah-nulth; they were Nuu-chah-nulth leaders. They included hereditary and elected chiefs. They were decided by the nations themselves. Ahousaht made their appointments. Tla-o-qui-aht made their appointments. Hesquiaht made their appointments.

Then the other five were basically local government leaders. I was a mayor in Tofino at the time, so I got the honour and opportunity to sit on that board. So there were five community leaders, really, and two co-chairs, one appointed by the province and one appointed by the Nuu-chah-nulth. So it was dead even. The leadership, the co-chair mix of the board was even, and the board makeup was even.

Every resource decision, every application, came through this board. What we were striving for, and we always got…. I was on the board for four years, and the board had been around for, I think, a total of maybe seven or eight years before it was dismantled. It was consensus-based. Again, that’s a term that some people use lightly or whatever, but it meant that the decision was made when we arrived at a consensus. All parties, all ten members of the board, agreed with the decision.

I thought it was an incredible experience to learn how diverging viewpoints and perspectives could come together and actually come to consensus. That’s what we did then.

I think decision-makers should learn from that, working with First Nations in partnership as we are moving forward as a government now, as opposed to…. Not just doing transactions, but working together to try to achieve consensus in a decision on the use of the land. It’s so important, because those decisions, I think, will be intrinsically better. My hope is to move government towards that, our ministry towards that, in our deliberations with First Nations.

The issue of consent is somewhat different. As the member knows, the UN declaration cites, in several articles, the issue of free, prior and informed consent as opposed to consensus. Again, I think that’s the step that’s beyond mere consultation and where previous governments have just made a tick on a box somewhere and said, “We’ve consulted with a nation,” whether they liked the decision or not. It was sufficient for past governments.

That is no longer acceptable. Not by this government, but not, I think, by everyone in general. I believe all members of this House believe that we have gone well beyond that to seeking consent, the path to consent being the “free, prior and informed” part.

For instance, our environmental assessment process, which is being reviewed right now, is keeping in mind involving First Nations from the beginning of a process — the free and prior part. Free, prior and informed is being part of that process from the beginning. That is, again, how you get to consent and/or consensus in a decision.

I wrestle with some of these terms myself. I understand where the member is coming from. He asked for my opinion on how we use these terms. That’s my interpretation, personally, as how I sort of view these things as I move forward as the Minister of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

E. Ross: Consensus, though, is not 100 percent agreement. It’s just a general agreement. The Kamloops band who voted 80 percent in favour of an agreement for Kinder Morgan…. They only got 80 percent, but that is general agreement. They didn’t get 100 percent.

No entity apart from the board you mentioned can get 100 percent, especially when you’re talking about a community of Aboriginals who don’t agree on anything, let alone a major project. I’ve yet to see any community across B.C., whether it be Aboriginal or not, agree on anything.

[5:20 p.m.]

If it is consensus and you’re just looking for general agreement, then I’m just going to assume that if a First Nation community supports a project with consensus, you’re really looking for majority agreement, because that’s what consensus means.

In terms of your definition of “consent,” under UNDRIP, consent is defined as permission. Without permission, this all comes back to statutory decision-making and the Crown’s decision-making powers.

The Crown has got more issues to deal with. They’ve got a larger population to deal with, a larger land base to deal with. It’s not just this issue. I do understand trying to address all of the issues for Aboriginals, especially under UNDRIP and existing case law for Aboriginal title.

In terms of the statutory decision-making, then, which word or term or collection of terms is the ministry comfortable with using in terms of their decision-making? Will it be “consensus”? Will it be “consent”? Or will it be “support”? Or will it be a combination of all three? Or is there something else that I’m missing that will guide the Crown’s decision-making?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for this line of questioning.

I’ve seen and I’ve heard from nations in the last nine months that they are seeing a difference on the ground in working with government ministries, that the conversation has opened up.

I know I provided my staff, through my deputy, a letter early on saying that there are issues that have historically been, by other governments — the previous government included…. There were topics that no one went to and that were basically taboo to talk about: inherent rights, consent, title even.

I said: “Take those prohibitions away. Let’s open the conversation up.” Let’s make sure we’re involving First Nations in partnership on the land base — that they be part of the process of land use planning, which is being reviewed now by my colleague the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Like my colleague the Minister of Environment. He’s working on environmental assessment, again, involving First Nations in the decisions as free, prior and informed partners in that decision-making process and utilizing traditional ecological knowledge as part of that decision-making, as opposed to, again, the tick in the box.

What I’m hearing is that it’s allowing more certainty on the land base. More predictability is happening too. Better decisions, I think, are being derived from that broader conversation and working together in partnership.

[5:25 p.m.]

Maybe it’s somewhat utopian of me, I agree. The member has talked about how consensus is hard to get. I’ve been a member of local government, too, and it is hard to get. But what we did get in the Clayoquot Sound central region board were better decisions. When those decisions were arrived at, they were bulletproof decisions. The proponents had certainty when they came onto the land base with their projects, because they’d gone through that maybe a bit more rigorous process.

It was sometimes a little more time-consuming but a better decision and out of the realm of conflict. Again, another “c” word — “consensus,” “consent” and “conflict.” Well, consensus and consent are the ways to get around the conflict, getting us out of the courts. Again, no disrespect to the courts. They play a role for all. But we should always work together first. The courts should be the last option to take to get out. Courts can provide more confusion.

The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin has raised the issue, and my critic has raised the issue, around what’s happened on the land base around the Tsilhqot’in decision. It was a landmark decision, yes, but it was a very blunt instrument. It has led to more complexity and confusion, I think. That’s why, as a government, we are moving in the direction that we are moving in.

We are working with First Nations and their government structures, using their advice to us as to who to deal with, who’s best and who’s most appropriate for us to be working with on the decision-making process. In some cases, as I’ve mentioned before, it could be a hereditary body. It could be an elected chief and council. In many cases, the nations have established these already, in most cases, and we know who government has to speak with and has to work with.

There is no confusion that I’m seeing there. I’m seeing more certainty and a refreshing aspect of dealing on a government-to-Indigenous relationship. It’s working.

E. Ross: Thank you to the minister. I have to disagree with the concept that this free, prior and informed consent is a new thing. It didn’t just happen with this new government.

In fact, if anything, when I became Chief, I was well aware of the proactive nature of industry and government even before I knew what UNDRIP was. I was dealing with referrals regarding LNG, forestry, proposed mining, because it was the principle of case law. The judge in the case law said it’s best if you get out there ahead of time and work with First Nations, and they advised government to do the same.

I experienced it, not only from the politicians who were in government at the time. It was also built into a protocol that we signed with the B.C. government so that the B.C. staff could phone us up anytime before an issue became a real issue so we wouldn’t end up in court. So this idea that this free, prior and informed consent…. It might be a different term today politically, but it’s always been in place, ever since I’ve been in council, and it has always been built on, always been improved upon. So this idea that it didn’t exist prior to UNDRIP is false.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

My concern is that politically, if we don’t define the decision-making of the Crown under UNDRIP because of words like “consensus,” “consent,” “support,” or whatever it is going to be, or we don’t determine who represents the rights and title or represents the community in respect to these infringements, the First Nations are going to end up in court again for the next ten, 20, 30 years. First Nations have been in court at least since 1982.

Now, these resources could be better spent on jobs. They could be better spent on training, education. A small First Nations community trying to deal with the impacts of a project but see it as a way to get out of their social issues could use those resources better, instead of going to court to define, basically, what is political idealism under UNDRIP. I just don’t agree with that, unless the government truly defines the consultation and accommodation process legally, in terms of their decision-making, when they implement UNDRIP.

[5:30 p.m.]

I have not heard one real definition of UNDRIP yet. In fact, I’ve heard so many different versions of it: it’s a human rights document; it’s a blueprint for success. It’s so many things. But I still haven’t seen proof of how it gets implemented into the Crown’s decision-making process. That is concern around the rollout of UNDRIP.

In terms of the impacts and the infringements of government decisions on First Nations’ rights and title, there are hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of permits, authorizations and tenures that have to be renewed, right today. We had this argument over a number of years. It could even go down to the level of fishing licences or hunting licences that have to be renewed or applied for.

In terms of the existing permits, authorizations and tenures, will the renewal of a tenure or a permit or authorization for an existing operation be subject to UNDRIP or any other type of new implementation of decision-making from the Crown to refuse that permit or authorization until UNDRIP is implemented fully — or achieved, for that matter?

Hon. S. Fraser: As a government, we all have mandate letters. It all involves…. Every minister has a mandate letter to look at their internal practices, policies and legislation, to bring them in line with the UN declaration. We, as a ministry, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, are bringing forward a framework on how we move forward with the UN declaration. It’s a guide, and it’s a guide that we have embraced, along with the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action, too, the 94 calls to action. We’re using that as a guide also. These are things that all ministries have.

We do believe that rather than achieving a tick in the box saying that consultation has happened with a nation, involving the nation — the free, prior and informed part — is the way to bring certainty to the land base, whether it’s through permitting or whether it’s through the environmental assessment. All ministries have been asked to look internally on that. We don’t do permitting in my ministry — that’s not what we do — but there have been instructions to all ministers to make sure that they are in line with those concepts within the UN declaration.

I know the tick in the box is a recipe for conflict. It is not acceptable any longer. The direction that we are going, I believe, will bring us away from that conflict in many ways and — the member was talking about confusion — take us away from confusion. I would also note that the federal government is moving in a similar path.

It’s a unique time in history, where you’ve got the federal government and the provincial government talking the same language here in concert with First Nations and First Nations groups — the leadership council, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the assembly and the Summit — again, working closely with them too. It is complicated and complex when you try to…. This is a busy ministry. We’ve been given a pretty tall order, a bold direction by our Premier. But we are moving on it, and we’re already seeing the fruits of that success.

[5:35 p.m.]

We have nations that are engaged in a way they haven’t been before. They might have felt disengaged in the past. It’s heartening. We heard from, met, nations from the north that were talking about…. They’ve seen the change on the ground. They can feel a change in dealing with various ministries — that there’s a different attitude, a different approach. And it’s a positive approach.

E. Ross: With respect, the UBCIC, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, and the Assembly of First Nations don’t represent rights and title, and they don’t represent communities. At the end of the day, it’s the communities that have to deal with these referrals that deal with government decisions. Whether or not good or bad, they end up with uncertainty, having to go to court to define some government decisions.

I’m just trying to understand. It goes back to certainty as well for both parties if this is not answered. So if an existing operation that’s been in operation for, say, 25 years needs a permit or a tenure renewed, that authorization or permit will not be renewed unless they get free, prior and informed consent from the First Nation. Under UNDRIP, am I correct in saying that that’s where the government is heading?

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, dealing with First Nations as partners, doing the free, prior and informed part, involving First Nations and listening to First Nations about their concerns and the knowledge and wisdom that they bring to the table, which has not always been the way governments have done things, does lead to certainty and agreements on land use, on any range of land use issues which, without that, have led to conflict.

We are changing that. We are moving away from a conflict model, a model that does not respect the involvement of First Nations in a meaningful way from the beginning of a project. As my example, on the Clayoquot Sound central region board, we will get better decisions by working in partnership with First Nations, as we did in Clayoquot Sound. And I would say, those relationships continue to today. The local governments there work together with the First Nations, the Nuu-chah-nulth governments, supporting each other on initiatives.

We’ve got other examples, again, bringing certainty. The Maa-nulth treaty — the nations that took a route through the treaty process. Currently there are now voting director seats on the Alberni Clayoquot regional district board. The chair is John Jack, Huu-ay-aht First Nation. He is now the chair of that board.

We’re having governments working closer and closer together, bringing more certainty, whether it’s around permitting or land use or economy of scale of working together on projects.

The member is alluding that we’re moving in a direction that’s causing confusion. I submit I completely disagree. It is the opposite direction that we’re going to go and that we’re going in. We’re also working with business on this, the board of trade. These are concepts.

There’s a group of businesses throughout…. I think they’re known as the Boreal group. It includes the TD Bank, Suncor. Big corporations are telling governments to move forward with this kind of approach to certainty using free, prior and informed — those concepts within UNDRIP.

[5:40 p.m.]

They’re telling us. Companies that are doing this stuff ahead and business organizations that are ahead of governments, in many cases, are doing this stuff, too, working in partnership with First Nations to bring certainty and predictability to the land base for all — for First Nations and for business and for government.

We may have to agree to disagree in this conversation, because it keeps going in a circle, and it’s not dealing directly with the issues within Budget 2018. We’re debating and disagreeing on a philosophical approach to how we do things, but it’s academic. We are doing these things. We have been directed through our Premier, who has told all ministers to move in this direction.

We are playing the key role, as the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, of changing the Crown-Indigenous relationship in this province in a way that, while the member may not agree with it, is the direction we’re going.

I just want to clarify. When I cited the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the First Nations Summit and the Assembly of First Nations, I never did say that they were representing individual nations. They do not, and they know that they do not. But they do play a key role as political bodies in their in own right. For those nations that are involved in the treaty process, they are involved with the B.C. First Nations Summit. For those nations that are not in the treaty process, many of them are in the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and are active leaders there. Some are members of both organizations.

Of course, the Assembly of First Nations plays a different role as the regional body in British Columbia, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. Chief Terry Teegee, of course, is the regional chief there. I met with him earlier today. We are all working in the same direction. There is a feeling of enthusiasm and excitement out there about the changes of this government, especially in the timing of it with the federal government.

I would note that at the forum last week, last Friday — it was Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, but I was only able to attend Friday — in Vancouver with Minister Bennett, one of my counterparts in Ottawa, we had over 300 chiefs and councillors in that room — more than at the leadership gathering, I think. The feeling that the province and the federal government are moving in exactly the right direction to change the Crown-Indigenous relationship was palpable, and there is excitement.

We can continue on this circular argument of disagreeing about this, but the feedback I’m getting from nations; chiefs; hereditary chiefs; elected chiefs and councillors in the province; representatives from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs; the assembly and the summit; other organizations like the Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres; and the First Peoples Cultural Council, a Crown corporation that now has the resources to address issues of languages, is that this is an exciting time.

It’s a time of optimism. It’s a time of bringing certainty and predictability to the land base and fairness and a new relationship where First Nations, Indigenous people and the government of British Columbia work in partnership.

E. Ross: I don’t think it’s a philosophical argument or going around in circles. I’m trying to ask a specific question in relation to the Crown’s decision-making. I’m not asking about the response to a speech. I’m not asking about a palpable optimism in the air. I’m talking about the Crown making a decision on a permit or a tenure that has to be renewed. I mean, the Crown, at some point, has to make a decision.

Maybe I’ll get really specific here, even more specific, to see if I can get an answer on how the Crown will determine the decision for a tenure or a permit or an authorization for an existing operation, because for some of these operations that have been in business for the last 25 years, there are some real consequences if a government decision is not made or if a tenure is taken away.

A fish farm, for example. If they don’t meet the timelines to restock their fish farms, those fish they have that they’re going to restock the farm with will die. So there are some real time limits that the Crown has to consider when they’re making a decision.

[5:45 p.m.]

In that respect, will the Crown not renew the tenure for a fish farm if they don’t get free and prior consent from all the First Nations, whether it be hereditary leaders, band members, boards, elected chief and council? Will the Crown withhold, or even take away, that tenure if they don’t get that free and prior informed consent?

What I’m asking is: are all Crown decisions regarding existing tenures and permits…? Will it be even retroactive to existing tenures, permits and authorizations?

Hon. S. Fraser: The question from the member is better directed to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, as we do not do permitting in the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. That’s not what we do.

However, we are participating in a process with my colleagues the Minister of Agriculture; the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; the Minister of Environment; and the Premier. With respect, we were invited to the big house in Alert Bay. It was a great honour.

We are learning from the nations in the Broughton what their concerns are about protecting their way of life, the marine environment that they’ve relied on for millennia. We are respecting those concerns. We have initiated a process that is moving along. That is the way that we are dealing with things as government.

I am not responsible, as the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, for addressing permits or permit renewals. That is not my job. If that’s the specific question that we’ve spent the last 40 minutes going around getting to, I would suggest that he’s addressing it to the wrong minister.

E. Ross: The question originated around UNDRIP and the implementation in regards to decision-making by the Crown, by the government. You know, call it going around in circles, but I didn’t get an answer in any of that — then only to find out that the implementation of it will not come out of it in terms of permits and authorizations. I’ve got to go to the other ministries to understand how that rolls out.

I just don’t understand how it could be consistent with different ministries if there’s not one central idea in relation to Crown decision-making, if there’s not one idea in terms of how it’s going to roll out in in terms of Crown decision-making. I just don’t see the certainty, especially when you’re talking about these tenures and permits for existing operations.

I will take the minister’s answer at that, and I will change the topic a bit, specific to the Nisga’a. The Nisga’a are the only First Nation up in northern B.C. who signed a treaty in our territory, but they still need an economic base. They still need the jobs. They still need the opportunities to support their treaty.

They are currently lobbying the federal government to lift the tanker moratorium for their oil and gas dreams. I understand that that’s a federal jurisdiction, not provincial, so I’m not going to ask you about it. I’m just giving you an example of what they’re pursuing to support their treaty.

They’ve requested that I ask for any updates from the Minister of Indigenous Relations regarding the Nasoga Gulf. Has there been any work done on that in terms of the minister’s ministry, in terms of Nasoga Gulf? That really is one of the anchors of their economic dreams, going forward.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. Nasoga Gulf — this is around a term sheet that was signed by the previous government. We’re working with that term sheet. My deputy met with the Nisga’a within the last week. This is continuing work. We’re honouring the agreement. It’s a government being a continuing body, so that work continues.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. Last question. The Nisga’a are trying to find an economic basis to support their treaty. They bought one of the largest hunting licences in our territory, which covers a large swath of different territories, including our own — the Haisla’s territory. We sent a letter of support for them to purchase the licence.

They were terribly upset in terms of the grizzly bear ban, because they were going to use that as an opportunity for employment and revenues. So with the Haisla’s support — a letter of support, by the way, to the Crown — to purchase the licence…. I was wondering if the minister’s ministry has any comment around their concerns or complaints around the ban of the grizzly bear hunt.

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m aware of the issue, just by happenstance, but that is all being dealt with through Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development — the longest name of any ministry. They’re the ones responsible for permitting — hunting permits and such.

E. Ross: Well, thank you, Minister, and we’ll see you tomorrow.

T. Stone: It’s a pleasure to rise and ask a few questions of the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I represent Kamloops–South Thompson, as the member knows well, so the First Nations whose territory falls within my constituency include the Tk’emlúps, Neskonlith, Adams Lake, Little Shuswap and Skeetchestn. There are just a couple of specific issues that I was hoping to canvass with the minister today.

First, I wanted to ask the minister about on-reserve infrastructure, which I’m well aware is a federal responsibility, predominantly. But in meeting with a number of the nations within my constituency, each of them highlighted for me a recently signed, bilateral agreement between the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada that I think was largely focused on flowing infrastructure dollars on to reserves across Canada. This was obviously a specific carve-out for British Columbia to, I think, particularly focus on mitigation relating to flooding and the wildfires, as well as, upgrading water systems and so forth.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide some direction for me that I could pass back on to the Kúkpi7 in my constituency, and that is: who is the single point of contact? Which ministry here in British Columbia is the single point of contact?

I would say frustration is probably not quite the right word, but they know this agreement was signed. Like every other First Nation out there, these nations have a list of needs, and they really want to engage. They’re just not sure which ministry here in British Columbia is the lead ministry with respect to this bilateral agreement that was recently signed with respect to infrastructure funding flowing from the federal government.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks for the question. It will be through the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, although we would be happy to assist in dealing with that — or as the point of contact or bridging that point of contact. We’d be happy to do that.

Just a note on another issue too. We’re working on some Indigenous housing within our budget. I’ve talked to the minister responsible, and we’re trying to break down some of those silos, the barriers about who is responsible, federal or provincial, where there is some work being done. There may be some ability to deal with some infrastructure stuff, even on reserve, through some of the funding they’re budgeted for. That work is unfolding now. I think it’s pretty exciting.

This on-reserve, off-reserve stuff…. One level of government is responsible. No, the other level of government is responsible. I find that’s confusing. The members are probably familiar with the concept of Jordan’s principle, where a child on reserve had health problems. There was basically a fight about jurisdiction, about who does what.

At the end of the day, the child was falling through the cracks of the system over provincial or federal jurisdiction. My hope is that we see some of these barriers dropped and the level of responsibility shared more — to the best interests of the nations and dealing with the issues that way, as opposed to in silos, as has been traditionally the way with federal and provincial stuff.

T. Stone: Perhaps what I could suggest is that I follow up in writing outside of the estimates process and indicate more specifically which First Nation is most immediately concerned about engaging with respect to tapping into these infrastructure dollars. The minister’s staff could then point us in the right direction, if that’s okay.

It does segue to my next question, though. The minister’s comments were appreciated in the sense that it’s probably the single most common theme that I hear from the First Nations leaders in my constituency, in terms of a frustration, and that’s the jurisdictional finger-pointing: who’s responsible for what, and where are there overlaps?

I think we saw this in a very prevalent way with respect to emergency management in 2017. Very significant flood events across lots of the province, particularly in my backyard, followed by some of the worst wildfires that we had seen in a long time.

This question is particularly…. Well, I’m going to ask it in the context of some great work that Tk'emlúpsemc did in reviewing their experience in dealing with both the floods last year as well as the wildfires. Just for the minister’s benefit, I really want to underscore — on the record, as well — that all Kamloopsians and folks in and around Kamloops were very, very proud and appreciative of the efforts of the Tk'emlúpsemc for stepping up in a big way.

At their peak, they were looking after almost 1,200 evacuees on a daily basis — 1,500 meals they were providing, 30 staff engaged daily. They went through eight pallets of water and two pallets of eggs. They had hundreds of animals of every sort that you can imagine, which were on their lands. As well, they were processing up to 700 ESS forms through the wildfire part of the emergency.

[6:00 p.m.]

There is certainly no question that they were willing to step up and not just look after folks in their community. The minister would be well aware of where Tk'emlúpsemc, where the reserve is. It’s very much within what we would consider Kamloops. The city and the Tk'emlúpsemc and the regional district worked very, very seamlessly together on a wide range of initiatives. It’s a tremendous example of partnership.

They really stepped up, but they need some better support to better prepare. I think we know these kinds of events are going to happen again.

To my question. Just for a little bit more context, the Tk’emlúps, Fred Seymour, sent a letter to both the member for Kamloops–North Thompson as well as myself. I just want to read a couple of the paragraphs into the record. He said:

“I’m writing in regard to a number of concerns that have arisen in connection with the emergency management services funding agreement that is currently in place between the province and Canada, which directly affects TTS. In September 2017, we sent out a number of letters to our local ministers outlining numerous concerns related to the floods which occurred this spring, the following forest fire evacuations which took place throughout the summer months and, finally, the lockdown event as a result of a gunman.”

That took place in October.

“As of yet, we have not heard a response to any of these concerns, despite promises made by both the province and Canada to ensure that we would be privy to the same standards and resources as any other community. This has not been the case.”

Interestingly enough, the agreement that Canada and British Columbia signed, the emergency management services funding agreement, in April of 2017 bears my signature as the former minister responsible. In it…. The whole point of this was to ensure, to highlight, that Canada and the province wish “to provide equivalent emergency management services, including prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, to the jurisdictions of lands set apart by Canada for the use and benefit of Indians bands to protect lands and assets as well as key public environmental values.”

This was a really landmark effort to work together and to ensure that First Nations had the ability to build the same levels of capacity, from an emergency management perspective, on reserve as exists off reserve.

The Tk’emlúps te Secwepemc Chief went on to say that this has not been the case: “The training events offered to our community have been at a lower standard than those offered to surrounding municipalities. We have now also been denied a grant that would allow us to fund emergency training, to retain the volunteers needed throughout times of emergency and to purchase storage containers that would help make crucial items for emergency centres….” He lists a number of items.

He’s really concerned, and their council is really concerned. They went to the All Chiefs, the First Nations and cabinet meeting, and met, I believe, with yourself and with a number of other ministers.

I’d like to know if the minister could outline for me what efforts are underway. I know that emergency management is in the Solicitor General’s ministry. But certainly, the minister here today must be involved in those discussions and advocating on behalf of what he knows to be the needs of Indigenous peoples across British Columbia.

Could the minister provide any comments on this particular issue of ensuring that our First Nations communities are able to continue to step up, as they did in last year’s events, but be able to do so with the capacity to truly meet the test?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for the question. I just want to concur — the Tk’emlúps te Secwepmc, the work that they did to house hundreds and hundreds of people that were evicted from their homes over this horrendous wildfire season that we just passed. They just gave of themselves so much. I would note that I went to Kamloopa when the wildfires were raging around Kamloops too. The air quality was quite bad — but just the resilience and attitude of people there.

Kamloopa went on. It’s a huge powwow. It’s the biggest of its kind, I think, in all of Canada, hosted in Kamloops by the Tk’emlúps te Secwepmc. I learned a lot at that point in time, too, about just what was done during the wildfires to help so many people from as far away as Williams Lake. They were made to feel welcome. They were given comfort. They were fed. They were provided services. It was moving, to say the least.

On the bilateral agreement, I realize that the minister signed that. The ink wasn’t even dry when the floods hit, and then the wildfires hit. As far as being implemented, it was like implementing on the fly. There was no time to plan from that. I think when that…. It was a very, very soon timeline.

I would note that EMBC, emergency management B.C., and Wildfire are working together. We’ve worked with them, too, on this. We learned a lot from the fire season, the floods. I would note that today, this very day, on Ashcroft reserve, the first foundation is going in, in a rebuild. Things are happening.

Then I guess what we’re looking at now is the after-action review. That’s the George Abbott–Maureen Chapman report following this horrible season we had. It’s coming out on the 30th of this month. I think that’s the day. That’ll help inform both the Solicitor General and, of course, the Minister of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, again, responsible for EMBC and the wildfire branch.

[6:10 p.m.]

Certainly, this will help inform them on how to move forward. And, of course, all the lessons that we did learn from First Nations — certainly, Tk’emlúps te Secwepemc amongst them — on how to do things better as we move into this next season. I know there are areas of the province that have had a significantly larger snowpack this year, too. So flooding may be an issue again, and it may even be worse. The timing is right for this. The results of the after-action review couldn’t some sooner.

T. Stone: Well, thank you, Minister. Can I, then, assume that the work that Maureen Chapman and George Abbott are doing — which the minister, I believe, just said is likely to be released at the end of this month, on April 30, around there — will fully take into account the analysis that I know various agencies and government have been undertaking since the wildfires?

In particular, I’m thinking that right after the wildfires were over, the Solicitor General and Peter Prendergast — he’s the head of the central provincial regional emergency operations centre, the PREOC up in Kamloops — actually paid a much-appreciated visit to the Tk’emlúps te Secwepemc and met with the Kúkpi7 and council.

They made some commitments in that meeting that they were working on a gap analysis. The fires were still simmering a bit, but as soon as the fires were out, there would be a gap analysis done with the band. That would inform any changes in protocols and, hopefully, inform some investments as well. That would enable the band to actually improve their emergency management capacity.

Is that the minister’s understanding — that that gap analysis was done and that it will be part of the work of Maureen Chapman and George Abbott that we will learn about soon?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks, again, to the member. During the fire season, there were lessons learned as things unfolded, and changes were made as things unfolded too. But EMBC was working with wildfire and actually with representatives from our ministry, too, on gap analysis work. That has been led by EMBC. How they’re utilizing that now would be best placed there. I don’t have the details on that.

To the other part of the question, the 30th of April is when the report is supposed to be presented to government, I think. Obviously, subsequent to that, it’ll come out, and I think we all look forward to that. I can’t really speak to what’s in it, because I haven’t seen it yet.

[6:15 p.m.]

Suffice to say work on gap analysis and major changes made to how to do business in these cases were unfolded — actually, changes happened, and we learned — during the wildfire season — you know, the school of hard knocks. As always in those situations, you learn from mistakes, and I know we all learned a lot during that season. The gap analysis will, I’m sure, go a long way for EMBC to fill those gaps.

T. Stone: Okay. I understand that the report is expected to be provided to government by the end of April, and then at some point thereafter, presumably, government will determine what to do with it.

Hopefully…. I think we’re all expecting there’s probably some really good, useful, helpful recommendations in this report, considering the two individuals who are responsible for doing the work. I know that the interaction that Maureen Chapman had with the Tk'emlúpsemc was very well received, and they said it went well.

I, again, will just flag for the minister that Tk'emlúpsemc is very much of the view that they feel like they and other First Nations aren’t being treated as municipalities are being treated — or other levels of government. So hopefully, coming out of this, there will be some recommendations that will address their desire to ensure that there is some equity there.

The last thing I’ll say about it, again, because I’m so proud of the work that they have done, Tk'emlúpsemc has developed an emergency social services development program. It’s a new initiative to their band that they would really like to set in motion for the forthcoming…. Well, flooding is pretty much upon us now, but certainly, as we get deeper into the flooding or the freshets around the province, but also the potential for wildfires in their territory.

They have developed this emergency development program, and this is the program that they’re looking for a little support, a little bit of capacity or a little bit of funding from some level of government to bring to life so that they can be better ready to support their people and to support the broader Kamloops community, should we be faced with these kinds of unfortunate weather-related or climate change events. So if I can leave that piece there for the minister.

I really quickly wanted to move to a totally different, unrelated issue. This relates to gaming revenues, which again, I understand, at the highest level, relates more to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing — and Finance, to a certain extent.

Kúkpi7 Seymour did receive a letter from the Finance Minister dated November 3, 2017. In it, it says: “As part of government’s commitment to reconciliation, at this time, government is committed to working with First Nations leaders and communities on the development of a framework for a share of provincial gaming revenues. I will be working closely with my colleague, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, who will be leading this work.”

I’m wondering if the minister could provide some details for this House as to where he may be with his work on this issue of potentially providing some gaming revenues to First Nations communities.

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. It is part of my mandate letter, addressing the issue of gaming revenues — how the provinces do a share of gaming revenues with First Nations in their provinces and their jurisdictions, and we have not. I know that the First Nations Gaming Commission has come out with some very, I think, innovative ideas on how the province of British Columbia can move forward in a similar way, using examples rather than reinventing the wheel.

There are other provinces that are doing this quite successfully. The benefits to First Nations in everything from providing safe drinking water to housing initiatives and all sorts of things…. They are quite successful. Ontario is a model that I’ve looked at a bit myself.

That work is underway right now with the First Nations Gaming Commission. They’re mandated through the First Nations Leadership Council, the tripartite group there — the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Summit and the Assembly. There’s a mandate there to move forward with that, so the commission is doing that, working with us.

I understand they’re moving ahead well. I think Joe Hall came out of retirement from the Gaming Commission to do this. He’s been waiting a long time to see this maybe moving forward. I’m anxious to see the results of that work and the recommendations that come out of the work with the First Nations Gaming Commission. I don’t have an exact timeline, but the last I was informed about this was that the discussions are going very, very well. I’m hopeful that recommendations will come forward that will help address some of the revenue stream needs of First Nations and Indigenous people in the province.

T. Stone: Can the minister confirm, or is he prepared to comment on whether the…? I read his mandate letter and, obviously, the wording that the Finance Minister has used in the letter I just read into the record.

I’m assuming that “a share of provincial gaming revenues” means a share of the existing pot of gaming revenues that are generated and that are made available currently to municipalities and other organizations.

Is it the minister’s understanding that those organizations that receive gaming revenues today are to remain whole moving forward and that what we’re really talking about here are net new gaming revenues that will be provided to First Nations? Or should existing recipients of gaming revenues be starting to brace themselves for potentially seeing a reduction in their revenue so as to cut First Nations into the existing provincial gaming revenues pie?

Hon. S. Fraser: Good question. What I’m anticipating is that the recommendations will be referring to a share of the government’s portion. I don’t mean local governments; I mean the provincial government’s share. It’s not like splitting the pie up and diluting the money that’s out there for local governments. I think that’s how it’s done in other provinces.

Although, to the earlier comment that existing funds, the options…. I’m not sure what’s going to come forward. It might be existing; it might be future funds; it might be a combination of both. I don’t know. What I’m anticipating is that it will be a share with the provincial government’s portion.

T. Stone: I appreciate that, Minister. I just heard from a number of municipalities that just want some level of assurance that the revenues that are there today, the revenues that flow today, will not be compromised through the well-intentioned commitment on the part of government to provide gaming revenues to First Nations.

[6:25 p.m.]

I’ll maybe ask the minister one last time if he could just perhaps more definitively indicate yes or no that the existing revenue streams won’t be affected — that what the government is really looking at is providing net new revenues.

With that, that’s my last question. As the Indigenous peoples in my constituency say thank you, they say kukwstsétsemc. So kukwstsétsemc to the minister for answering these questions today.

Hon. S. Fraser: To the question, again, let me put it clearly here. First of all, this isn’t about creating new casinos. Just so those watching this event are not confused either, this is about a share of the provincial revenue from gaming, not the existing gaming grants portion. That’s not what we’re talking about.

It’s sharing, as other provinces do. I mentioned Ontario, but it’s also Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick. We’re an outlier on this one. I think the idea is that it’s a share of the provincial government portion. It’s not going to be coming out of the existing funds that go out to all the good organizations and local governments that currently are there. They’re not going to be linked.

A. Olsen: It’s wonderful to be here in budget estimates this afternoon. It’s budget estimates here. So turning to the budget, I just want to know…. It’s pretty clear what the ministry has in its budget. I’ve also noted throughout the conversation that’s been going on today that the minister has been talking about the responsibility of all ministers. All cabinet ministers are mandated to implement the agenda of the government with respect to Indigenous relations and reconciliation. Outside of the minister’s ministry, the other ministers have an extended responsibility.

Can the minister highlight, at a high level, what investment other cabinet ministers and other ministries are making as well? It’s just so we can have a broad idea of what the government is investing in improving the relationship with Indigenous people.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for his question. I would also like to note on record that the member has given me solid and wise advice on a number of issues, and I very much appreciate that. It’s great to be able to…. This kind of cooperative government is a good thing to have.

In answer to the question, I’ll quote from here, “Reconciliation is a cross-government priority,” as the member mentioned. We’ve made investments and increased support for a wide range of Indigenous priorities, including $550 million over ten years to support the construction of 1,750 housing units for Indigenous people. That’s over half a billion dollars.

There’s $50 million to support the revitalization of Indigenous languages, which I was referring to earlier in my opening statements; $30 million to continue the Indigenous skills training program, so that’s, I guess, through Advanced Education. There’s $20 million to support Indigenous communities to address the overdose crisis, and that’s obviously from the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions; $6 million to support Aboriginal friendship centres, and that’s from us.

[6:30 p.m.]

There’s $5 million to continue the work on treaties and other agreements, environmental stewardship initiatives and socioeconomic development; $2 million to assist the University of Victoria in developing the first Indigenous law program in the province, in the country, in the world that’s utilizing the expertise of people like Val Napoleon and John Borrows, key people there; and $2 million to support the Moose Hide Campaign to address men standing up against violence towards Indigenous women and children, a great initiative. Those are examples of that sort of cross-government work.

I also note, though, that the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is working closely with Indigenous groups, the leadership council and Aboriginal friendship centres in developing their plan, their poverty reduction strategy for the whole province. First Nations and Indigenous people are advising, in a major way, in the work that he’s doing also.

Also, and these are not quite as tangible as actual numbers here…. The Minister of Health is here today in the House. Of course, at this point in time, he’s been making sure that there is representation from Indigenous people on health boards, and he’s advised me on that.

We’re seeing different ways of addressing each ministry, looking at involving First Nations, investing in First Nations. The Minister of Environment is involving First Nations directly in the rebuild of the environmental assessment process, again, to ensure that First Nations are involved from the very beginning in a meaningful way when proposals come forward in their territories.

Similarly, the Minister of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations is involved in a review of the whole land use planning process in the province, again, working with First Nations to make sure they’re involved too. We’re all working in different ways throughout our ministry, and there are many other examples I could give. That’s to name a few.

A. Olsen: Earlier we heard a rather long series of questions which I’m not sure that I quite understand. Nonetheless, there is a division within the Ministry of Indigenous Relations that is responsible for…. It’s called the reconciliation transformation and strategies division.

Now, there were a lot of questions, perhaps trying to deconstruct all the work that’s been done over the last 150 years and start over again. The minister and I have had a few conversations about the transformation that’s going on. Perhaps the minister can outline. It looks like $1.7 million is being invested in this particular piece.

Can the minister explain what value we are extracting from that investment that’s being made? What’s the plan, going forward, to address some of the broader, more challenging and sometimes philosophical issues dealt with by political scientists or sociologists, as we’re working through this? What’s the value that we’re extracting from this?

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. We’re quite excited about the new section in the ministry. Jessica Wood, my ADM, is leading that charge.

Her role is…. First of all, it’s not a new investment. It’s not new money. It’s a redirection of money for this priority. In the broadest terms, it’s to develop a reconciliation strategy to implement UNDRIP and TRC and to support that implementation throughout the ministries. We’re taking the lead on that. Of course, this section of the ministry is developing the strategies to affect that lead.

A. Olsen: Thank you for that, Minister. I think that it’s definitely money well spent, considering there’s a whole-of-government approach to this. I don’t think…. As a province, we didn’t just make up that this was the time to have it. We’ve arrived here over….

I think the member for Skeena pointed it out. There’s been a long case law that’s got us to where we’re at today. I think that the most recent piece of case law — it’s probably not the most recent now — or the most substantive and public one is the Tsilhqot’in case. I think, as case law does, it continues to evolve. Now we’ve arrived at the situation in which title has been identified, and I think that there have been substantive changes happening.

I come from a community that has a pre-Confederation treaty. We have the treaty process that has been unfolding in this province for 20 or 25 years now. When it comes to UNDRIP and the government’s commitment to UNDRIP, I have a few questions around the decision of the government on Site C that I’m compelled to ask.

I think that the commitment of the government to implement UNDRIP, and then there are some First Nations in the area that very clearly have issue with it…. I think it provides a good idea of how it is that we navigate this and how we manage the situation in which…. Perhaps this process was started and there weren’t the right kind of relationships on the ground at the beginning. How do we learn from that?

The first question that I have is: what was the government’s — and I’m going to use quotes, because this is directly from Tsilhqot’in — “substantial and compelling purpose” to violate treaty 8, at least two of those communities, when the BCUC found insufficient demand for Site C and when alternatives were available? From the Ministry of Indigenous Relations perspective, how can we justify that?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. For clarification, it was not our government that initiated this project. I know the member knows that, but we’re on the record of Hansard here. We were in opposition at the time, and myself and my colleagues, of course, all raised significant issues around the construction of the Site C dam under circumstances when the previous government was moving forward without the informing wisdom of the body that’s actually tasked with overseeing such projects — the B.C. Utilities Commission, which the member referred to.

When we made the wrenching decision…. It was, for myself and all of my colleagues, a difficult decision. But it was informed. I travelled to the Peace. I spent a week meeting with the Treaty 8 nations, visiting in the communities, making sure I had that perspective. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources was there for some of that time also. We brought back those perspectives to my cabinet colleagues as part of the deliberations.

At the end of the day, the question became whether or not the project had passed the point of no return. That was a difficult decision to arrive at. We brought in experts from outside to try to determine that. We had dueling experts, occasionally, going through this. At the end of the day, the project was over 25 percent completed, and it was, indeed, regretfully, deemed that it was past the point of no return.

The role of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples is certainly…. I just want to be clear that we did not initiate this project. We raised great concerns about it from the very beginning. We came in later in the game, and it was, again, a difficult decision.

We continue to work with the Treaty 8 nations. On the day of the difficult decision, I was on the phone for most of the day and, I think, the next day, too, with the nations there. While there was disappointment amongst nations there, although some were in support of the decision to continue, we’ve all agreed, and we are continuing to work together on all sorts of initiatives.

A. Olsen: My apologies. I didn’t mean to suggest, in the question, that the decision was made by the current government. I want to be clear that this was a decision to proceed with the project.

I’ve got a number of questions that are moving along towards the Douglas treaty. Noting the hour here, I’m hoping that we can continue to pick it up.

There is now some court action that’s been taken with respect to infringement. The Supreme Court determined the duty to consult was expense. But now there is a treaty infringement issue that is being dealt with, by my understanding, in the civil court. Perhaps you can’t speak to it. But in general terms, when we’re dealing with these pre-Confederation or old treaties, the decisions that are being made….

[6:45 p.m.]

In light of the Tsilhqot’in case, every day that we continue these projects, the infringement grows — if, in fact, there is one. Is there any thought in terms of pausing, in the specific case of the Site C dam project, which is the one that we’re talking about, based on the fact that actually our liability is growing every day, if in fact, that court determines that there is an infringement?

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, I appreciate the question from the member. I know he genuinely cares about this issue, as do I.

I can’t speak for what’s before the courts, specifically. The decision to continue with the project has been made, and we are where we are on that. But along with the decision, the province confirmed the continuation of commitments made under interim benefit agreements and tripartite land agreements with the Treaty 8 nations. Those are all continuing.

The commitment to activate B.C. Hydro’s $20 million agricultural compensation fund and establishing a provincial food security fund, exploring options to develop a Peace River legacy trust and to consider the implementations of a new Indigenous clean energy procurement stream are all part of what we’re trying to do differently after making the decision that it was too late to stop this project.

Also, a commitment to ensure that project benefits assist local communities, and to increase the number of apprenticeships for First Nations, training and workers hired on the project. So despite the fact that the project is continuing, it is continuing in a different way, with respect to the Treaty 8 nations.

This is an old treaty, but we’re working with the federal government to address the land issue. There was insufficient land provided. There were mistakes made in the population calculations for the land quantum. We’re in the process of fixing those, too, with the federal government. There’s a lot happening around the decision to continue.

A. Olsen: I recognize that those two questions were particularly tough. I did it because I think that not only are they important questions, but also there are examples of other pre-Confederation treaties much closer to home which I think set the framework within the current debate that’s been going on in Canada right now about what’s in the national interest, what a constitutional crisis is, who is within the national interest and who is without the national interest.

Currently there are more than a dozen treaties on Vancouver Island which protect the right to hunt as formerly and the right to fish as formerly. There’s been some case law that has further defined that. The Saanichton Bay Marina case comes to mind with respect to the right to fish and what that is.

In speaking to lawyers, I’ve had them say to me that these are some of the strongest fishing rights in North America that are granted to the WSÁNEĆ and to the Snuneymuxw and others that signed those treaties.

I guess when it comes down to that right to fish and knowing that we collectively…. I represent Saanich North and the Islands, but we, collectively, represent those First Nations.

[6:50 p.m.]

Are you as a minister, in your ministry, advancing this as part of the discussion, as part of the narrative around the current discussion around Kinder Morgan, whose tankers…? The pipeline ends, but it fills boats that go right through the heart of Saanich North and the Islands, which is the heart of WSÁNEĆ territory and those WSÁNEĆ First Nations that signed, in 1852, with James Douglas, our predecessor.

Is the provincial government, and is your ministry, advancing this, or would you look at opportunities to advance this as something which is actually very much part of the national interest that we get dealt with, in light of the fact that we just had a conversation about cases before the court dealing with infringement?

Hon. S. Fraser: I rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.