Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee on Bill 16, the Securities Amendment Act, 2018. In Committee A, I call the continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 16 — SECURITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

On section 1.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I will do my best. I apologize for the voice. No one is more frustrated than I am at not having had my voice this week. I appreciate the ministers who have filled in on a couple of bills. I look forward to the discussion on Bill 16.

I’ll just take a moment to introduce my staff that I have with me: Shauna Brouwer, who is ADM from policy and legislation, and Tim Prisiak, who is the senior policy adviser for the policy and legislation division. I look forward to the questions.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. We don’t intend to test her throat too much this afternoon.

I just want to thank my co-critic for her comments in second reading. As always, she did a great job.

I think it is important to reflect on this bill. As has been noted by both the minister and my colleague, this is about strengthening enforcement and preventing fraud, and I don’t think that that’s particularly a partisan issue. What we really want to do today is make sure that the bill does reflect exactly what the government’s intentions are. Generally speaking, I think we are supportive of that.

Let’s look at just a couple of things in section 1. It amends the definition of “decision” to limit the scope of the definition’s application. Could the minister just explain for us the general purpose of section 1?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member, and thank you for the initial comments.

I think we had a little bit of a discussion in second reading about the purpose of this bill and why we brought it forward. I think the member has identified that very well. This really is an issue when you look at fines. I think all of us, all British Columbians, would expect that if someone is levied a fine that they would come forward and pay that. That’s not happening, so this is, in part, one of the steps that we’re taking to address that.

In section 1 — and the question that the member asked — if you take a look at the existing provision, it says: “‘Decision’ means a direction, decision, order….” This section identifies the scope of what a decision is. It ensures that the term “decision” applies only to the statutory decisions by the commission, the executive director or the designated organizations. It basically defines the scope of those decisions.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate the answer.

Could the minister speak a bit more specifically about the limiting of the scope and the definition’s application? Why is it necessary to limit the scope? What was the rationale for thinking that it needed to be narrowed? That’s really the key piece of this particular section. Could the minister just explain why it was necessary to limit the scope, and what was the purpose of that?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: This is a technical section, so I wanted to make sure I have the information correct.

The current provision is unclear. The direction that we’re taking in this legislation is that it would only include decisions under the statute. So it wouldn’t include decisions such as hearing decisions that the organization may have that are contractual with their members, for example.

This is limiting to make sure that we’re very clear about the fact that it only includes decisions made under this statute that can then apply. It doesn’t include routine decisions or hearing decisions that may have happened contractually, non-statutorily with their members and the organization.

S. Bond: That’s one of the things I appreciate about the minister. I know that she does work hard to understand the details, and I very much appreciate that. That is a helpful clarification.

I know that in the minster’s second reading comments, she reflected that there had been a request for government, actually, to make some of these changes. Could the minister just outline for us who asked? Was the limiting of the scope one of the things that — making sure that it was compact…?

It probably is more relevant to later sections in the bill, but maybe just a sense of: how did we get here today? Who asked for it? From the minister’s perspective, does this bill meet the test of the stakeholders that came and said: “Look, we need to fix this”?

Hon. C. James: As the discussion occurred — and I know that the member will have seen the discussion in the media around fines and unpaid fines — we were approached by IIROC and by the mutual fund dealers, who came to us to say that they wanted this change.

I think the member will remember that in second reading, I talked about the other jurisdictions that have already moved in this direction. Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and P.E.I. have already moved in this direction.

IIROC, in particular, said that they certainly felt that it made it easier for them. It gave them another tool to be able to look at collecting fines. They approached us to say that they wanted B.C. to move in the same direction, and we certainly agreed. They are very supportive of the changes that are here. It mirrors what’s done in other provinces, and it mirrors the direction that they were looking for.

S. Bond: My last question on this section. I appreciate that the minister anticipated I was going to go to jurisdictional progress that had been made in other jurisdictions.

In crafting British Columbia’s bill, then — I think the minister did answer it, but I just want to be sure — we took a look at other jurisdictions. Is this consistent? Are there variations in how the issues were captured in legislation in other jurisdictions, or are we now seeing sort of consistent tool kits across the country?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes, in fact, the effect of this legislation is identical to other provinces — the end result. There are some details that relate to our legislation compared to their legislation.

The only province where this legislation would be considered significantly differently, of course, is Quebec, just because of their differences and their civil law. Their legislation looks very different than ours, but the effect of the legislation across the country now is very similar.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

T. Redies: This is probably the main section of the bill, so we have a few questions on that. I guess I start off with the news release in the minister’s speech. It referred to empowering two groups that we were talking about — the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, or IIROC, and then the Mutual Fund Dealers Association, or MFDA.

If ensuring that these two groups can act on their decisions and file them with the court, why not list them in the legislation? Why give cabinet these broad powers to pick reg authorities at will?

Hon. C. James: We did review all of those issues. I’m glad the member asked the question, because that was one of the questions that was asked when we were drafting the legislation and taking a look at it.

I think it really is a reality of today’s securities market, which is that the market changes rapidly, organizations change names and new organizations may come in as there’s a gap there in the securities market.

For example, in 2008, IIROC itself came together from two organizations. So it was actually two separate organizations, the Investment Dealers organization and the Market Regulation Services Inc. They came together to form IIROC. You see that often in the market.

What we wanted to make sure was that it didn’t require us to come back to the legislation every time an organization changed its name or you saw a merger between organizations. This allows the prescribed names of the organization to be changed in regulation and not required to come back in legislation.

T. Redies: That’s a bit curious to me. I know I’ve spent 25 years in the financial services business, and I haven’t seen that many changes to associations like IIROC and MFDA. I guess my question would be: if they morph into a new entity, are you saying that their powers under the legislation would cease?

Hon. C. James: As the member pointed out, there may not have been a lot of change moving up to this time period, but I think if you look at the markets now — if you look at Bitcoin, if you look at other organizations that are coming on board to address the changes that are happening in the securities market — we are seeing more change and more variety of organizations coming in.

[1:50 p.m.]

There is a possibility that if you identified all the organizations in the legislation and, for example, an organization changed its name twice or changed its name and then did a merger, that wouldn’t create the kind of clarity that would be needed to ensure that they were able to carry out their duties under the legislation.

This really is making sure that we can be as clear as possible and provide that clarity as it’s needed for the organizations that are going to have these additional powers.

T. Redies: These are, I think, sizeable authorities. I guess, again, having not seen that much change — you mentioned entities like Bitcoin, etc. — it would seem to be odd to….

Let me rephrase myself. What would be the process around another organization or association coming forward? What would be the criteria for the cabinet to make that decision — that they should give the same authorities that they’re giving to the MFDA and IIROC?

Hon. C. James: The process right now is the B.C. Securities Commission makes that decision. It’s not government who would make that decision. The B.C. Securities Commission would have to go through a recognition order for anyone new who would come in — or a name change, to recognize a merger, those kinds of things.

It’s not the government that would make that decision. They would go through the B.C. Securities Commission. They’d be authorized. A recognition order would come forward from the B.C. Securities Commission to make a change to the regulation to add an organization that had gone through that due diligence of the B.C. Securities.

T. Redies: Just to clarify, to the minister: you’re saying that as long as it meets the B.C. Securities guidelines, then cabinet would automatically give those associations or entities the same legal powers?

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member for the question. I’m learning a lot about the process of the Securities Commission.

The Securities Commission would bring forward a recognition order. The minister, themselves, would have to go through an approval process. The recognition order would go through to the securities policy branch of the Ministry of Finance. They would do their due diligence. A lot of that’s already been done, obviously, through the B.C. Securities Commission. But it’s another check and balance that occurs.

It goes through the policy branch. All of that due diligence occurs. It comes back to the minister for approval, then has to go to cabinet and then has to be approved to be added.

T. Redies: Can the minister advise us if the minister consulted the Attorney General regarding the legality of delegating powers to implement judicial decisions to a private entity?

Hon. C. James: Yes, we did. I consulted, and all that’s cleared.

T. Redies: I perhaps should have been more broad with my question, because I think you know which one’s coming.

[1:55 p.m.]

What was the opinion on this? This is, I take it, a lawful exercise.

Hon. C. James: I should have said in my yes response that we would not be bringing something forward if there were outstanding issues and we were told that it did follow the legal process. I think that’s important to state — that it would not be coming forward otherwise.

Yes, the Attorney General was very closely involved in the drafting process. Leg counsel reviews the draft. There were absolutely no concerns raised. So all of this has gone through that process.

T. Redies: I had to ask. Did the minister or the Attorney General consult the judiciary in this process to determine their thoughts and their opinion on it?

Hon. C. James: This was part of the discussion, again, in taking a look at the legislation — what weight this would have on court resources, for example. In the discussion that occurred, with both the Attorney as well as the drafters going through the legislation, the only resources that would be required from the courts would be time from filing clerks, because basically they’re filing the decision with the courts, which then gives them the ability to be able to utilize that and collect the fines themselves.

The only time that we see that there may be some possibility could be appeals of the decisions, using the courts. But again, it is expected that it’s simply clerk time in filing the resource, which would not add an extra burden on to the court system.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

S. Bond: I think that we can tell there’s some collegiality and some agreement with this bill.

Section 4 just builds a little bit on the discussions we’ve had earlier about regulation, adding regulation around these sections, and in previous bills as well. Perhaps the minister…. Let’s start with the minister explaining for us — if she will, please — the reason behind changing the language. The language moves from “prescribing those decisions” to “prescribing classes of decisions.”

Can the minister explain, first of all, the difference and why it was important? Despite the fact that we know that other jurisdictions have used similar processes, why did we move from “those decisions” to “classes of decisions”?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: This is, again, a technical piece, where it’s actually correcting what should have been in the legislation to begin with. It says: “prescribing those decisions.” It actually should have said, “prescribing classes of decisions,” which is why you see in (28.1) that we’ve actually used “classes of decisions.” That’s the correct language. Basically, we’re just correcting the language in the clause above that.

S. Bond: Thank you for that, to the minister. Am I correct in suggesting that this section allows regulation to change at any time the kinds of decisions that are subject to an appeal?

Hon. C. James: This legislation gives a new power to the self-regulatory organizations. The B.C. Securities Commission provides the checks and balances on that power and follows the robust work that needs to happen. What this regulation does is it ensures that if the Securities Commission is not able to provide that robust work that is needed to ensure that this power is used in the proper way, this gives government an opportunity, through regulation, to put restrictions on the power to file with the court.

It’s one more check and balance, just in case, because these are new powers going into place. This gives the opportunity for government, through regulation, not to expand but in fact to restrict powers if the checks and balances weren’t in place through the Securities Commission.

S. Bond: In essence, it is an oversight provision. Should there be issues at the self-regulatory level, the government has the ability then to step in and to change the conditions for an appeal?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Just to clarify. This is related to filing decisions, not related to an appeal. For the appeals, over self-regulatory organizations, fines or penalties, the appeal process actually has to be finished before they can file the decision with the court. This regulation only applies to filing the decisions with the court and restricting their ability to file the decisions with the court if the due diligence didn’t happen.

I think the member’s description of oversight is correct. It provides government with that second oversight, after the B.C. Securities Commission oversight, that we believe is robust and needs to be there. Because this a new power, it’s one more check and balance to put in place.

S. Bond: That was a very helpful clarification. I do want to make sure that through all of this…. The minister did a good job of this in her second reading remarks, but I just want to, before we finish the bill, provide the context that she did and reflect on that for a moment.

This is a reaction to a small group of people who choose to act inappropriately. I think that is a fair description of the minister’s comments, and we certainly agree with that. I think it is very important to remind people that there are a lot of great people in this industry. This is not about the entire group. It is about that small group of people who choose to behave badly.

The minister, in her comments in second reading — so I’m assuming that allows me the latitude to ask the question — did reflect on the issue of the B.C. Securities Commission and the fact that this is not related to that but additional work is coming. I’m wondering if the minister would just be prepared to reference that for us, in a sense of what comes next from that perspective.

I know she will forgive me. Our colleague did make reference in his second reading remarks about the national securities regulator and what on earth has happened to that. I know he was most eager for a progress update, having spent much of his career working on that particular topic. Before we wrap the bill, if the minister wouldn’t mind making several comments, because in a very tangential way it is related to this bill. If she would do that, that would be most appreciated.

Hon. C. James: Yes, I’m happy to make some remarks related to the issues that the member raised. I think, as the member said, I raised this in my second reading comments, that a few bad apples can taint the entire industry for many people. If they have one experience — their neighbour or relative or friend or as a news headline reads — then they presume the whole industry is having difficulties.

I think it’s even more important, from my perspective, to address the few bad apples, because it helps, in fact, the good people who work in the industry. I think that applies in any profession. It’s not unique to this profession. I think it happens in any profession. You need to have good, solid accountability in place to be able to address those issues. So I couldn’t agree more, and that’s really the work that’s been done.

I don’t want to speak to all the things we’re looking at with B.C. Securities Commission. I know the member will look forward to that legislation coming. That’s the next piece we’re working on.

It’s obviously more complex at the securities commission end, because you are talking about individuals who may skip provinces. I talked about individuals who will quit the self-regulated organization to be able to not pay a fine. When you’re talking about the B.C. Securities Commission, you often have people who will have scams between provinces, who will leave the country, who will transfer assets to a spouse or to someone else to be able to avoid accountability.

We are reviewing all of that work and obviously having discussions as well at the federal level about work we can do together, because this really needs work being done across provinces and across the sector.

[2:10 p.m.]

Update on the national securities regulatory initiative. Happy to give that update to the member, who, I know, would be interested. Often people here refer to it as the cooperative capital markets regulatory system.

B.C. is still participating in this project. I admit we have expressed our concern about the length of time that much of this work is taking. We’ve said that we will not hold back on changes that we believe need to be made to our own securities market. If needed, we’ll move ahead with those anyway. But we are continuing because we still believe that that project has worth.

All jurisdictions are continuing along on that joint project and looking at the work that needs to be done. Progress is moving, albeit a bit slower than I think all the jurisdictions involved in this case would wish it was.

S. Bond: Thank you for that. We do want to express our gratitude. My colleague and I, my co-critic and I, want to thank the staff and the minister for her information on this bill.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:11 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SECURITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 16, Securities Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. James: I call second reading of Bill 10.

[2:15 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — FAMILY MAINTENANCE
ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

The Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2018, makes two types of changes to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act.

One, amendments are proposed to replace a requirement to file in the land title office the entirety of a family law order or agreement with a requirement to file a notice containing only the information needed to identify the order or agreement. The act currently allows a family law order or agreement that contains a support obligation to be registered in the land title office against the titled property as security for the payment of child or spousal support.

A family law support order or agreement often includes clauses about other types of family law issues that are irrelevant to the purpose of securing payment of support and which contain sensitive information. For example, parenting arrangements clauses often include the names and birthdates of children. The bill replaces the requirement to file a full support order or agreement in the land title office with the requirement to file a “notice of maintenance order,” which contains only the information necessary to identify the order or agreement. A similar form is currently used for filing property agreements between spouses in the land title office.

Two, amendments are proposed to grant authority to the director of maintenance enforcement to direct the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to cancel the driver’s licence of someone with significant support arrears. Currently, the director of maintenance enforcement can only direct ICBC to refuse to issue or renew the driver’s licence of someone with arrears of over $3,000.

Because drivers’ licences are generally renewed only once every five years, this measure often has little immediate impact on the behaviour of most debtors. The bill adds authority for the director to direct ICBC to cancel the driver’s licence of someone with child or spousal support arrears exceeding $3,000.

This provides a more immediate impact or potential impact on non-compliance with support orders, encouraging debtors to enter into arrangements to pay those arrears sooner. The ability to act more quickly against the licence of a debtor also increases the director’s willingness to accept more debtor-friendly payment arrangements.

M. Lee: It’s an honour to take my place to speak to this bill. I will preface my remarks by saying that I plan on supporting this bill. I think that all sides of this House support any measures to help ensure that families entitled to child or spousal support payments can depend on them and plan around them. In these situations, stability and predictability are key, and I understand that the amended legislation, as proposed, is designed to accomplish exactly that.

After reviewing the bill and having a briefing with ministry staff, I do have some specific questions about the bill, which I would like to address at the committee stage. But just to mention a few here on second reading, the bill, as the Attorney General mentioned, gives the ability to the director to direct ICBC to cancel a debtor’s driver’s licence when that person is in arrears under a maintenance order for more than $3,000.

Of course, there is recognition, under the current act, that if government takes away the ability of a person who is in arrears to drive, who needs to drive to work or look for work, government may effectively make it impossible for that individual debtor to pay back what they owe, and that would certainly be counterproductive. But there are, of course, discretion and abilities for the director to work out payment schedules and other arrangements with that debtor under the act.

Under this proposed amendment to accelerate and provide another administrative lever which can provide for more immediate payment…. From not having ICBC renew or provide a new driver’s licence — that was under the current act — to something now that would be accelerated to cancelling that individual’s driver’s licence…. I would like to canvass, at the committee stage, with the Attorney General the process that would apply for the debtor to satisfy the director, such that that driver’s licence may not be cancelled within this accelerated time frame. That is moving from what’s provided now, a 30- to 60-day time period before ICBC’s notice is provided.

[2:20 p.m.]

My question will be: what time and opportunity does that provide, under this accelerated mechanism, for the debtor to make satisfactory arrangements with the director so that the notice to ICBC may be withdrawn and the debtor’s licence is not cancelled — if, of course, that debtor is able to demonstrate that he or she needs that driver’s licence in order to continue to earn an income to make the payments?

I would also like to canvass, at the committee stage, the proposed amendments relating to the director providing further notice to ICBC where a debtor has failed to comply with a payment arrangement — that is, an arrangement that they entered into in order to avoid having that licence being cancelled in the first place under this proposed amendment.

An issue to consider is that there’s a specific one-year period that’s provided in the proposed amendment as to when the director may be able to effectively move forward with the cancellation of the driver’s licence. A question as to why that one-year period is provided for in that manner in the first place or whether it should be unlimited in time.

Secondly, the period of time in which a debtor is able to be provided notice of this further cancellation has been shortened under this amendment from the 30-day period, which would be under the current act, from my read, to a ten-day period. So that is something else that I’d like to consider, particularly when the immediacy of this process will be that much more accelerated.

I look forward to canvassing these issues and others with the AG during committee stage and look forward to supporting the bill through the rest of this process.

R. Singh: It gives me great pleasure to stand in support of Bill 10. While working as a counsellor in my previous role, I heard from so many families that were having issues. They said how disappointed they were with the family maintenance enforcement, the delay in the payments, and how much it affects their families, especially the children.

I’m so glad, with this bill, that our government is proposing two amendments to strengthen the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act to ensure children and families receive the support they’re entitled to. The first change would allow ICBC to cancel the driver’s licence of a payer with substantial arrears, creating the possibility of immediate consequences for nonpayment. Right now the FMEP can instruct ICBC to refuse to issue or renew the payer’s driver’s licence at the time of renewal only. I think bringing the cancellation of the driver’s licence right when the enforcement branch is aware that the person hasn’t paid the amount and they’re in arrears will help the families in the long run.

It is all about our children. We know that when these payments are not met, it is the children who lose out on various things that they have rights over. I have heard from families and I’ve heard from women who have said that because of these nonpayments, for the basic necessities that the children rely on, they are not able to even fulfil those, like giving them nutritious food, putting them in extracurricular activities, recreational activities that our kids require.

I think this bill and this amendment will bring families to a level playing field. I want to say that most of the time these things happen, it is usually the male spouses who are not paying these amounts. So this bill will help to bring it to a very level playing field. It will reduce the power imbalance we have at this point.

[2:25 p.m.]

A lot of times people use this. In not making the payment, they want to show how powerful they are and what kind of effect they can bring on the families and how the families can be affected by the decisions that they are making. So I think this is a long time in coming. I know it is just one step to ensure that the family maintenance enforcement works properly, but I think it will go a long way. It will help our kids and it will help our families to get the resources that they require.

Once again, I stand in favour of the bill, and I really appreciate this coming from our government.

S. Furstenau: The Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, 2018 serves two purposes. First, it allows notice of the maintenance orders to be registered with land title offices, rather than registering the maintenance orders themselves, which are lengthy documents that often contain sensitive, personal information. Subsequently, this change would streamline the family maintenance process while simultaneously minimizing the circulation of sensitive materials. Through regulation, this encourages increased respect of family privacy.

The second purpose of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act is to allow the director to cancel a debtor’s driver’s licence as a result of a notice of failure to comply with their family maintenance agreement. This provides another tool with which debtors can be made to comply with their family maintenance agreements, and as the member for Surrey–Green Timbers was pointing out, this is a much-needed tool in some cases.

We did have initial concerns that cancelling a debtor’s driver’s licence might further impede their ability to make family maintenance payments. However, upon closer investigation, we realized that the ability to cancel a driver’s licence is only one tool in the toolbox, and cancelling a driver’s licence is not a first resort. If a driver’s licence is necessary to a debtor’s employment, arrangements can be made. These issues are handled on a case-by-case basis that allows for some flexibility.

If a debtor has had their driver’s licence cancelled and subsequently pays their money owed, they will have to pay approximately $76 to have their licence reinstated, but they can do so quite quickly and have their licence reinstated within the week.

Additionally, allowing the director to cancel the driver’s licence brings B.C. up to speed with similar legislation that already exists in all other provincial jurisdictions, excepting Quebec.

With this in consideration, we support the change to streamline and enforce family maintenance practices in B.C. in the hopes that it will make family maintenance enforcements a more comfortable, helpful process for the families and the individuals involved.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate in second reading around Bill 10, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2018.

This is an important piece of legislation. What this legislation does is it streamlines the provision of family maintenance orders, and it also strengthens, in a very substantive and meaningful way, the penalties. Essentially, for somebody who is $3,000 or more in arrears on family maintenance payments, they face the potential of losing their driver’s licence for not being current in their payments. This can happen fairly immediately and, certainly, will have consequences, and I’m sure it will go a long way in keeping people more current on their payments.

This is an important piece of legislation. We know that in those cases where there have been separations or divorces, where there are family maintenance payments to be made, it often is a critical piece of the income for a single parent.

We know the work that we’ve been doing around poverty reduction, the research we’ve been doing. We look at the poverty rates in this province and in the country, and almost 40 percent of single-parent families live in poverty in British Columbia. A number of those families have arrangements where there are, in fact, family maintenance arrangements put in place. In some of those instances, we certainly know that those maintenance arrangements have not been upheld appropriately by the parent who is obliged and expected to be making those payments to support their children.

[2:30 p.m.]

In most instances, not all but in most instances, this is the case of a single mom caring for kids and a dad who may, for whatever reason, not be fulfilling their obligations under family maintenance enforcement. I think we have a situation here where this is something that needs to be corrected. I’m really pleased, as members on the other side have said, that they concur, that we need to strengthen the tools available to be able to deal with these issues.

This is not just a bureaucratic or administrative issue. This is a very real, on-the-ground issue for people who are vulnerable and who are trying to take care of their children and who need those dollars and those resources coming in and need some certainty that those dollars, those cheques, that money is going to arrive every month, as they expect it to arrive, as the courts have directed that it should arrive. We need to ensure our obligations as government. Our obligations are to ensure that in fact those orders are enforced.

This legislation, I think, gives us a very good tool. People will find ways to work around this. It’s a very small number of people, but they will find ways to work around this. But I believe that we will get their attention if we’re suggesting that they’re going to lose their driver’s licence. That will get people’s attention pretty quickly. I think it is a very good tool to do that.

I also think it’s positive that it’s structured in a way that ensures that when somebody complies, there’s not a long-drawn-out process in order to be able to get back your privilege and right to drive, to be able to get your licence back, to be able to do those things and move forward with that. That’s important as well.

This is a piece of legislation. It’s pretty straightforward. It’s fairly simple, I think, in how it approaches the problem. I’ve learned, over my years here, that sometimes things that are relatively simple solutions often are the best solutions in terms of actually getting where you want to go, that those things that kind of just look for the way to address issues is positive.

I know from the many people I’ve been talking to, particularly in the last number of months…. As we move forward around poverty reduction issues, move forward looking at ways to support what are largely the single moms who my ministry supports, and we look at how we ensure that they have the best opportunities and the resources they are entitled to, to take care of their children, and making sure that they have those resources, including the resources that should come from the other supporting parent in these cases, I think that this is positive.

I think it is going to move us forward. I think it is going to address this problem in many, many situations where it can be addressed. There will always be other challenges. There’s no doubt about that. But this is just a very meaningful, straightforward approach to make sure that those parents who are taking care of the kids have the support that they deserve, the support that they are entitled to and that, unfortunately, they don’t always get, for a variety of reasons that I think we’re probably all aware of.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I’m really pleased to support this legislation. I’m pleased that we can move it forward now. Again, I’m pleased that I believe this legislation will receive strong support throughout the House, on both sides of the House, from members who I know want to ensure that those parents who are facing challenges of taking care of their kids and entitled to this support are, in fact, getting it in communities and constituencies across British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. S. Simpson: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 10, Family Maintenance Enforcement 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.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll take a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 2:35 p.m. to 2:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Standing Order 35
(Speaker’s Ruling)

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF
URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE —
REFERRAL OF JURISDICTIONAL
DISPUTE TO COURT

Mr. Speaker: I’m going to call this House back to order.

Hon. Members, today the hon. member for Abbotsford West sought to move adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 35 in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance — namely, “necessity, advisability and consequences of referring to the Court of Appeal the question of British Columbia’s ability to regulate or limit the transportation of energy products on federally approved and regulated pipelines and rail lines.”

The Government House Leader responded, noting the standing order’s requirement of urgency and also observed that the estimates of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy provided extensive opportunity to discuss the matter, having closed just yesterday after 37 hours of debate.

The Leader of the Third Party also made a submission. Indeed, the 1992 decision by Speaker Sawicki, cited by the member for Abbotsford West refers to a limited set of debate opportunities, which has not been the case with respect to this particular matter.

I also note that Standing Order 35 states that the notion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session. It appears to the Chair that the specific matter proposed for urgent debate has indeed been canvassed extensively.

Further, the member notes the new circumstances arising in the matter, the formal reference to the Court of Appeal expected in the coming days. I find this to be a recent occurrence in an ongoing matter and, hence, not applicable under Standing Order 35, as per MacMinn’s Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fourth edition, page 84.

Consequently, I find that the application regarding Standing Order 35 cannot proceed.

Hon. S. Simpson: We’d like to call the estimates for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, but we would ask for a short recess while the officials arrive.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands in recess.

The House recessed from 2:40 p.m. to 2:48 p.m.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

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

J. Rustad: I’m just curious. Last fall we canvassed some questions around the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, and that’s also being canvassed a little bit here.

I’ll start off with the question: is the Ministry of Indigenous Relations responsible for the oversight, across ministries, of the implementation of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. We are, as the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, responsible for the oversight and guidance of the UN declaration throughout government. As the member knows, it is part of every minister’s and ministry’s mandate letter from the Premier to address the UN declaration in their own respective ministries. But we are the overseers of that process, if you will.

J. Rustad: Is the ministry contemplating legislation in terms of the implementation of UNDRIP, similar to what the federal government is doing?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks again to the member for the question. In the mandate letters that we have received, that my colleagues have received in other ministries, is to look at practices, policies and, as well, legislation, legislative change. Everything is on the table at this point, and I would note that the federal government is moving in that direction also, with the Prime Minister’s announcement a couple months ago of moving forward with a rights recognition framework. They’ve certainly indicated they are looking at legislative change at the federal level.

J. Rustad: Through various estimates, both last fall and this spring, a number of ministers have provided what seems to be varying definitions of their interpretation of the UN declaration of the rights of Indigenous peoples, or UNDRIP, as we’re calling it. The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations called it a political statement. The Minister of Energy and Mines says it’s a process. The Minister of Environment says the key, for him, is to have informed consent. The Minister of Indigenous Relations has talked about it being a human rights document and a road map to reconciliation.

Will the ministry provide a clear definition to all of his colleagues with regards to what exactly the interpretation of the UN declaration of the rights of Indigenous peoples is?

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for that question. It is all of those things. I don’t think any of those are inaccurate. As the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, we are advising ministers and ministries on the issues of implementing UNDRIP. That’s happening through various processes.

[2:55 p.m.]

I would note that there are deputy committees that are bringing together the highest level of the provincial bureaucracies to bring common voice to these things. Each ministry has had different roles in addressing UNDRIP, and they’re often unique roles. Some of the ministries are dealing with issues of permitting. Other ministries are dealing with poverty reduction. Health, of course, has its own unique roles.

All of these ministries are approaching their portfolios, if you will, their roles as ministries, in different ways because they are different ministries. But we’re the common thread, as a ministry, through that.

J. Rustad: It begs a bit of a question. It is one document, the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. I do understand that various ministries will have different components that will be impacted, in terms of how it gets implemented. But it is one document. The definition of a document should be fairly clear in terms of what this document is and what this document is trying to achieve, yet we see a variety of perspectives.

Perhaps the minister could provide a little more clarity in terms of how this could be viewed as a political statement or a human rights document or guiding negotiations or other types of components when there may be varying views and perspectives in terms of just what it is.

Along those lines, the minister has stated that it is a human rights document, and traditionally human rights documents are understood as protecting individuals from the power of the state. I’m curious as to how that guides negotiations through some sort of process of free, prior and informed consent. It seems to be confusing in terms of the definition, and I must be missing something, so I’m offering the minister an opportunity to perhaps provide some clarity on those points.

Hon. S. Fraser: As the member knows, the UN declaration is an instrument that includes 46 articles. Some of those apply at the provincial level. Some of them are under the purview of the federal government. As I’ve mentioned before, some articles within the UN declaration will have application within some ministries and maybe not others. So there’s no universal definition here. Each ministry has its own role, as I mentioned.

But there is a commonality here, and it’s in the mandate letters. It says:

“As part of our commitment to true, lasting reconciliation with First Nations in British Columbia, our government will be fully adopting and implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. As minister, you are responsible for moving forward on the calls to action and reviewing policies, programs and legislation to determine how to bring the principals of the declaration into action in British Columbia.”

We are seeing that happening, as we speak, amongst ministers in their respective ministries.

J. Rustad: The United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples as a document refers to both individual and collective rights. Could the minister explain how UNDRIP, or the UN declaration of the rights of Indigenous peoples…. I apologize. It’s easy to use acronyms in here, but for those watching at home, we want to make sure they understand what we’re talking about.

Can the minister explain how the UN declaration of the rights of Indigenous peoples as a human rights document will distinguish between which articles will be handled between the province and individuals or the province and the First Nations collections?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: As the member knows — he was part of the former government; he was in the executive council — government and ministries address issues dealing with individuals as well as with collectives and groups. That’s part of the job of government. This is nothing new.

The UN declaration doesn’t change that in any way. We will continue to do that. We’ll work with individuals and/or First Nations as a group, and there are certainly First Nations organizations we’ll work with as collectives. I don’t believe the UN declaration is taking us down a different path in that regard.

J. Rustad: I’m still a little confused with this. Given that a human rights document talks about individual rights and First Nations in terms of collective rights and title, I guess the question is: when you’re looking for free, prior and informed consent, do you require that at an individual level or do you require that at a collective level?

How does that apply as a human rights document for First Nations and Indigenous Relations, as part of negotiations between the province or, quite frankly, as expectations for First Nations, as to how it will be implemented?

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m sorry. I didn’t catch the link to the articles that refer specifically to “free, prior and informed consent.” I missed that in the previous question. I apologize.

Free, prior and informed is the route to go towards consent, as opposed to — and we canvassed this somewhat yesterday with the member for Skeena — the process of having a tick in a box and calling that “consultation” as a method of addressing a relationship with First Nations. It’s no longer acceptable. The standard is higher.

We have determined that achieving consent is a better way to go, working with First Nations. The way to do that is to involve First Nations from the very beginning. That’s the “free, prior and informed” part. It helps us, I think, as a government, to work closer with nations in true partnership.

I would note other ministries, as part of fulfilling their mandate for UNDRIP, are approaching that in different ways. The Minister of Environment, for instance, is undergoing a review of the environmental assessment process in the province with the goal to modify that process so that it involves First Nations right from the very beginning of a project or a proposal coming forward, so that First Nations can be involved at the beginning, so that we can be utilizing traditionally ecological knowledge, for instance, as part of that process.

Again, these are ways that we have determined and decided to move forward with. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is looking at other ways of dealing with land use planning that involves First Nations in a way that has not been done before. These are the routes to consent as opposed to a mere consultative process that requires somebody to just tick off the box that says that they’ve sent a letter to First Nations and their requirements have been met as far as consultation goes.

J. Rustad: Perhaps I didn’t clarify the question clearly enough. Just on a curious note, on the land use planning side of things which was started in the ’90s, the First Nations were excluded under the previous NDP government.

Regardless of that, the challenge or the issue here is that with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people being defined as a human rights document, which is traditionally understood to be protecting individuals from the power of the state, where does that power rest with Indigenous people under the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people for something like free, prior and informed consent? Does it rest with the individuals? Or does it rest with the nation?

The reason for asking that is that a human rights document applies to the individuals, which is why I’m curious as to whether that’s the interpretation of the ministry.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m not sure where the member is going with this. I’m not even sure what he’s looking for as far as a response. I’m not sure I understand the line of questioning.

For instance — again, we canvassed this with the member for Skeena yesterday — there are some nations where when we are working on, for instance, a consultation…. As we are working on, let’s say, a hypothetical proposal for some sort of industrial operation within their territory, in some cases it means that we are dealing with the elected chief and council. For some nations in some areas, it involves dealing with hereditary chiefs or a hereditary chief.

We look for guidance from the nation. As the member was a minister before on this file, he’s well aware of that. I guess if you’re…. Sometimes the member, before as minister, will have met with an individual chief — elected chief or hereditary — to address issues. Sometimes it’s chief and council. Sometimes it’s a hereditary body.

In some cases, we are addressing some of the more global issues, dealing with one of the leadership council groups — the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations of British Columbia or the First Nations Summit — and sometimes all three, too, with our leadership gatherings. Again, the member knows that from his previous role.

We deal with the appropriate person or persons or bodies. I believe that that’s the same, in many ways, as what the member did when he was in my place in this ministry.

E. Ross: Yes, we did talk about this yesterday. I was trying to get the same answer in terms of who the Crown would consult with, based on previous practices and now based on UNDRIP, but I didn’t get an answer.

There are so many different definitions and interpretations and headings on what UNDRIP is supposed to be. The only one, the only term that I was concerned with, really — apart from the blueprint, the holistic approach, the protocol statement, the road map to reconciliation — was the human rights reference.

Maybe I’ll give an example of the concern in terms of the community — not talking about provincial organizations or boards or Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs or anything, for that matter. I’m talking about a community that has to deal with the consultation and accommodation process on a project that will impact their rights and title. Just an example of the concern, and I’ll try to make it as simple as I can.

So 800 individuals in a band need some form of consultation on a project that will infringe their rights and title, and 799 members, of those individuals, give consent. I don’t know how you put my quotation marks in Hansard, but 799 individuals give their consent. One individual does not give consent, and this individual is not a hereditary leader, is not a chief and council. They have no real title or authority to represent the people.

Under UNDRIP, the definition of a human rights document…. Does this mean that the Crown’s decision-making will be affected by this one person that does not give their consent?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: In the example that the member for Skeena is referring to where there are 800 members, and then he refers to the 799 and one…. The member opposite was a leader of the Haisla Nation, was elected. Previously, the member for Skeena served in a role of leadership with the Haisla Nation. There was a process and an established body that government deals with. We would go to them when we’re working on a consultation process or working in partnership. We look to the nation for that guidance of who to deal with if there is a….

For instance, I met earlier this week with Chief Crystal from the Haisla Nation, the current chief. She is the elected representative of that nation. I think it’s wholly appropriate that we deal on a nation-to-nation basis with her as the elected representative. I believe that I will follow her guidance when it comes to advice and partnerships with the nation. I see no conflict with this.

The human rights document aspect of the UN declaration…. I think that’s one of the accurate descriptions of the UN declaration. It’s dealing with human rights, like the right to preserve culture, languages, to have healthy communities, the rights to education and fairness in education, child welfare. There are many human rights aspects to the UN declaration.

We have legislation in the country that deals with human rights specifically. We have begun a human rights commission. We’ve reinstated the Human Rights Commission. We’re in the process of doing it now as a government. There is no conflict in dealing with individual or group. I mean, human rights are human rights.

I’m hoping that’s going to answer the question appropriately.

J. Rustad: Let me make this really straightforward. If ten people approve and give their consent — ten Indigenous people give their consent at a particular nation — and one person doesn’t give their consent, is that sufficient for something to move forward? Or does the ministry require 100 percent of the individuals to give consent?

Hon. S. Fraser: Perhaps I should refer to the human rights document that we’re referring to, the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. I’ll begin with article 19 here. “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain free, prior and informed consent.” So they’re referring specifically through “their own representative institutions.”

Article 20 says: “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.”

These are the human rights aspects, or touching on the human rights aspects, of the UN declaration. It’s giving clear guidance that governments will work with Indigenous peoples through their own representative institutions.

[3:15 p.m.]

That is what we do as government. There is no conflict here. It is within the nations, through their own representative institutions, that we’ll address some of the issues around 799 to one. We will be addressing the issues we deal with, with the nation, through the accepted institution or body. It could be the elected chief and council. It could be hereditary chiefs, as I mentioned.

The member is trying to go somewhere with this as far as the individual versus the collective, but there is guidance, as I just pointed out, within the UN declaration as to how and who governments deal with. And that, I think, is quite clear. Certainly, it’s stated in article 19, but I believe it’s also referred to in other articles. I just have not found them. There are 46 articles here.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for that very lengthy response to a simple question. I’m trying to keep this simple and straightforward. The point of the matter is, if you’ve got a group of people that’s supporting a particular activity or agreement or project and you have a group of people that isn’t, the authority for who approves it lies with the elected chief and council or the hereditary or whichever First Nations bodies. That means that individuals may not have the right to consent because it’s the nation that ultimately would give the consent. That’s the point of what I’m trying to get at.

A human rights document is about an individual’s right. If all individuals have the right to provide consent, that would require 100 percent of everybody to always agree. Whereas a document, then, that applies to First Nations and First Nations rights…. If it requires a nation to provide that consent, they may not have 100 percent agreement within the nation.

I find that curious because…. That’s apparently what the minister has just said, which is fine. I understand that, and I don’t oppose that. But the Premier said just yesterday: “I reject the notion that this is a majority rule situation,” with regards to First Nations approval of a project. That plays at odds a little bit, but not really, because it’s multiple nations we’re talking about in terms of that.

The point of this question, I guess, is…. So it’s okay for a group within a nation to not approve as long as the nation approves. How many nations out of a group would have to oppose a particular project before free, prior and informed consent would be considered achieved for a project that spans multiple nations?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I believe, in the comments made by the Premier, which the member is referring to, he was referring to not individuals but individual nations having the right to defend their rights and title. I think that’s probably consistent — it is consistent — with the constitution, with section 35.

Again, I am unclear as to where the questioning is going or even the nature of the question. It’s a strange way to bring us into an estimates process for the budget.

J. Rustad: The line of questioning should be obvious. The reason why it should be obvious is that we have 203 nations in this province. There are projects of a wide variety of natures that cross multiple nations, and it’s rare to have 100 percent uniform consent within those groups of nations. So the question becomes: if one nation, or let’s say ten nations, out of a group of 50 opposes a particular project, does the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and their right for providing consent mean that that project can’t proceed?

Take the example of Site C. Site C had agreements with a number of nations. There were two nations that were opposed to the project. Obviously, those two nations did not provide consent under the definition that we just talked about here, yet the project has gone through. So the question to the minister is: should Site C, as a project, have — as a requirement for it to be able to proceed — 100 percent of the nations to be able to support the project?

Hon. S. Fraser: I note that we have moved, I guess, from the argument of individuals to individual nations. So the member has changed the channel a bit on the questioning.

As far as individual nations go, I believe they have the right to voice their concerns on behalf of their nations. That might differ from other nations. That’s not unlike what happens with municipal governments who might have differing perspectives, as do different nations. Different provinces have different perspectives, as representative bodies for their own jurisdiction, and they have the right and duty to defend the rights of their individual jurisdictions — whether it’s a province, a nation, a municipal government, a city or a town. I believe that’s appropriate.

[3:25 p.m.]

We have moved, then, I see, from individual to the collectives. I think it’s good to have various perspectives and opinions in all of these cases. That’s healthy, I believe, and it’s to be expected.

J. Rustad: Let me ask the question again more directly. In the case of Site C, you had two nations that did not give consent. Was that sufficient for the ministry and for the government, under the definitions of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, for that project to proceed?

Hon. S. Fraser: I would note that the Site C project was brought forward by the previous government. That member was a member of the executive council that refused to allow the appropriate processes to unfold.

The jurisdiction of the Utilities Commission of British Columbia was usurped by the previous government. There should have been full public hearings, a whole process that went through that — processes where the nations could have brought their issues forward to voice concerns or support. That whole process was denied in that one project, Site C.

As a new government, we had the dubious honour of having to deal with a project that was denied its due process, and our decision was a wrenching one. It was based on the former Premier, Christy Clark, and her assertion that she would push it past the point of no return without the appropriate role of the oversight body of the B.C. Utilities Commission. Indeed, she had done that. That was the unfortunate truth of that.

J. Rustad: Let me try this from a different angle. With two nations opposing Site C, were their rights under the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples denied?

Hon. S. Fraser: It’s a good question for the member to ask, I guess, himself. He was part of the government that initiated a project without the due process that would have allowed those nations to have a meaningful role in the process through the B.C. Utilities Commission.

I guess you could argue that that government did deny rights, but whether they were rights under the UN declaration, I don’t know. That’s a bit of an apples-and-oranges question, because the previous government denied the premise of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and refused to embrace the concept and refused to embrace it as a human rights document. So again, that would be a judgment call for the member to make regarding his own government’s actions.

J. Rustad: Well, let me just correct the record here. The B.C. Utilities Commission has no rights and has no standing in terms of addressing First Nation rights. That’s between the Crown and First Nations. Regardless of that, the reality is that the current government had an opportunity to stop the project. They did halt the project. They had a review going forward.

The question is…. Whether or not he agrees or disagrees with the 30 years of consultation and the fact that all of this is held up in a court of law, the fact is that when the government of the day made the decision to move forward with Site C, there were two nations that did not give consent. Was consent required for a project like Site C to be able to move forward?

Hon. S. Fraser: I believe in the rights of individual nations to stand up for what they believe is right. I spent the better part of a week meeting with Treaty 8 Nations in the Peace region. So did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. When the difficult decision was made that the previous Premier and government had indeed pushed the project past the point of no return, I spent the better part of two days talking to all the nations.

[3:30 p.m.]

We have agreed to move forward, in a way, on reconciliation agreements dealing with previous failures of government, the colonial governments, to address the land issue appropriately on energy projects. That’s the nature of the UN declaration, having that type of relationship.

I would note that in my conversation, when the decision was made, with Chief Roland Willson, he expressed that they were disappointed in the decision, certainly. But he also said…. There was a large number of the community who were on this conference call at the same time, and he said: “It has not gone unnoticed that a minister of the Crown has been spending this much time with us on this project, on this decision.” Despite the fact that they were disappointed with the nature of the decision, they said it had not gone unnoticed that I was taking the time to work with them through that.

We continue to work closely with Chief Roland Willson and the other Treaty 8 Nations in the spirit of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

J. Rustad: I just want to note that the minister didn’t really answer the question. Perhaps I’ll ask a different question, then, with regards to the United Nations rights of Indigenous peoples.

For the Kinder Morgan pipeline project, there are 30, 40, 50 nations — whichever number you want to look at — that have signed agreements that are in support of the project. There are other nations that are opposed to the project. If that project were to proceed, would the rights of those nations opposed under the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples…? Would the fact that those nations did not give consent give grounds for stopping the project, in the minister’s opinion?

The minister looks a little confused, so maybe let me restate this. There are many nations that are impacted or potentially impacted by regular rights and/or the title perspective along the Kinder Morgan route.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Many are in support, and some are opposed to the project. If this project were to proceed, would the minister say that their rights under free, prior and informed consent would be violated and that the project shouldn’t proceed?

The Chair: Minister.

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

[3:35 p.m.]

On the Kinder Morgan project, on the scenario that the member has put forward, I certainly don’t want to speculate on what might happen. No one will know how courts make decisions or what the ultimate decisions will be.

The rights of individual nations to be able to have their say on what they believe affects them is key to certainly all aspects of the UN declaration. I would not want to speak for nations. Nations speak for themselves as to whether or not they believe they have rights that have been violated. I would not presume to speak on behalf of nations in that regard.

So 203 nations in the province. Many have voiced strong opposition to the project, as the member knows — the Indigenous leaders from around the province. Not just the ones on the pipeline route, but from all over the province.

I would note the member for Skeena, in his leadership role for the Haisla Nation, said: “What I have made clear is the idea that our people have a mandate to have absolutely no bitumen or crude oil on Haisla territory.” That’s a nation that’s not on the pipeline route. I respect the member for Skeena in his role of standing up for protecting the environment, the territory that they have been in for millennia and their rights to take part in all the activities that they have over history. I believe he was defending those rights appropriately, like the other nations who have opposed this project and others.

There are always going to be different perspectives on projects. We should as government, I think, welcome those and not take them for granted. They should help to inform us in our decision-making process.

J. Rustad: What I’m trying to drive at here is: at what point does free, prior and informed consent or the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people…? At what point do those rights, as defined under that document, provide an opportunity for a nation to be able to prevent a project from moving forward?

I understand the consultation and the whole work and the trying to get consent and the engagement and all the process and the authority from the nation, etc. But at what point does that give…? Or does it? Maybe it doesn’t. At what point does that give a nation the right to prevent a project or a development from occurring?

Hon. S. Fraser: The articles that refer to free, prior and informed consent in the UN declaration, of course, we have adopted. We are supporting the UN declaration as part of our government. The free, prior and informed is the route to consent. There are going to be differing opinions.

[3:40 p.m.]

I don’t know if the member is suggesting that only a negative opinion would be acceptable. There are proponents and opponents to some of the projects that the member is talking about. Is he suggesting that both perspectives wouldn’t be heard or that only one would take precedence?

As government, we need to make decisions, and we need to be informed by nations. There will be nations that have differing perspectives on all projects, including this one. There are those that are in approval of many projects, and there are those that have concerns and oppose them.

I have an interesting scenario. While the member is trying to sort of spread fear about working closely in partnership with First Nations, utilizing the UN declaration, I’m sure he is familiar with how the municipal system works, for instance. You can go to a public hearing down the street here in Victoria, a council meeting, for instance.

There could be a proposal for a monstrosity of a building going up in a quiet, sleepy, little neighbourhood that everybody loves. As part of the rezoning for that, which is dealing with land use, there would be a public hearing. At such a public hearing, the public might come out and say loudly that they do not believe it’s appropriate to change the land use, through zoning, to allow for an inappropriate structure or business in the area. There might be some that say…. The developer that wants to build the project might say: “No, no. This’ll be good for the neighbourhood.”

If the council, the government of the day, were to see, listen to a number of people that are opposing the project and say, “No, we’re going to heed that advice,” does that mean that those people somehow were able to stifle democracy or be able to shut down a project? They might well have been able to shut down a project. The only difference in the discussion is it’s not a First Nation.

J. Rustad: An interesting analogy that the minister went on at length about. Unfortunately, the people in the neighbourhood don’t have the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people behind them, in terms of how that would work.

What I’m trying to get at is the decision-making process for a government on a project, whether it’s a fish farm, a pipeline, a mine, anything. If the First Nation does not provide consent, will the government ignore that or accept that as being a veto in terms of a project going forward? I mean, I’ve been talking and asking about this all along. I asked about this in the fall, and the reason I’m asking this question is because there is tremendous uncertainty in the province.

I’m not creating anything. People are asking me this question. People are asking me, and companies are asking me: what does this mean? I am trying to figure out how to get an answer, because I’ve had different answers from different ministers for months. I simply need an answer. If there is a project that’s going forward that does not have consent of a nation, is that grounds to block the project from advancing?

Hon. S. Fraser: Actually, what spreads uncertainty is going to court. You know, we have a lot of conflict with decisions made by government. First Nations are going to court because their concerns were not appropriately respected and listened to in any meaningful way, or they were not involved in the project from the very beginning. To have free, prior and informed is the route to getting us out of a route of conflict.

You don’t have to take my advice for it. Business groups like TD Bank, Suncor, have all been calling on government to get on with it, to move forward. Many businesses and business groups have already understood that this is the route to certainty and predictability on the land base.

[3:45 p.m.]

The member mentioned a whole variety of different projects and asked if that’s a veto. Here’s how we’re dealing with this issue: with respect and recognition and utilizing the concepts and the articles within the UN declaration.

The member mentioned fish farms. It’s been raised by a number of nations in the Broughton Archipelago, on the east side of Vancouver Island, who are very concerned about the health of the marine environment and the health of the wild salmon. They have brought those concerns to government. Unlike the previous government, what we did as ministers, including the Premier, is we went and met. We went to the big house. This is a great honour to be bestowed on a government — to be invited to the big house. I don’t take that honour lightly. None of us did.

We have initiated a process that is built on respect and recognition. We are working closely with those nations now in that process. We’ve developed that process together to try to find ways to protect the marine environment based on advice from those nations’ traditional ecological knowledge. We are working closely with industry on this.

This is the route to bringing predictability and certainty and getting out of a never-ending spiral of conflict that often ends in the courts. The courts can lead to decisions…. The courts can be a very blunt instrument that can make decisions that do not take into account all things. It can cause ripples that affect certainty and predictability that the member was suggesting would happen because we work in partnership with First Nations with respect and recognition, based on the articles within the UN declaration, based on the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I don’t know if any of the members over there attended any of the hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but I did.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m glad the member did.

I did in Port Alberni. I did in Vancouver. I did in Victoria. We take those calls to action very seriously.

We are not alone in the world in adopting the UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. The world community has adopted the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples as a fundamental human rights instrument, a guide towards reconciliation for Indigenous peoples from dark, colonial pasts. The government of Canada has signed, without reservation, the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, along with 147 other nations.

Now, the fearmongering of this member, who should know better…. The only group that doesn’t support the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples is this former government. They’re trying to undermine the work not just of us working in partnership with First Nations and Indigenous peoples in this province, who do support what we are doing, but he’s also undermining and denigrating the work of 148 nations in this world that have put human rights at the highest level of priority.

This is the estimates for the budget of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. Now, I’ll duke it out with that member any day on defending human rights.

We have initiated a human rights commission. We’ve done so with full consultation with Indigenous people and First Nations to make sure they are included in that commission. Yes, human rights are important. The route to reconciliation we have decided as government…. Based on all of our work with First Nations and Indigenous people in this province, based on the similar work of 148 nations, we have chosen that path. They may disagree with it, but shame on them for disagreeing with it.

[3:50 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for that lecture. I have to admit. I’m asking a very simple question. I’m simply asking for an answer. That’s all I’m asking for, and I still haven’t got it. I still haven’t got the answer.

I have had lots of insults, if you want to call that, hurled, etc. I have no problem with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. I have no problem with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations. We were implementing most of that as it was. We just needed some clarity around one topic, which is all I’m asking the minister for.

The minister did say something that I think is right — uncertainty by going to court. You’re right. It does create a tremendous amount of uncertainty. It creates all kinds of challenges. Why is your government going to court around federal jurisdiction and creating the uncertainty in this province? Thank you for answering that question and providing the same response that I have. Why are you creating this uncertainty around something like that?

The simple question I’m asking is this. I’m trying to figure this out. We’ve got a situation, for example, with LNG Canada, where you’ve got every First Nation from the upstream all the way to the coast in support of the project, even the coastal nations, but you have one nation that isn’t. Is that sufficient to stop that project from advancing?

I get that you’re going to have to work and you’re going to have to do this and you’re going to have to have all the consultation and try to bring everybody together to have a big kumbaya and agree. But the reality is that from time to time, you will get a nation that won’t agree, no matter how much effort goes into it, no matter how much consultation and how much work happens on it.

The question is: is that sufficient enough to prevent a project going forward, or at what point does a project advance because there is a majority interest? I’ll quote from Star Trek, if you don’t mind taking just a quick moment. “Do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?” It’s an interesting question, but it’s why I’m asking for clarity around this.

There are projects all across this province. There are investors that want to come in and invest on the landscape — billions of dollars of potential investment. They just need to know. They need to know the rules of how this government will operate on the land base.

You may never get 100 percent consent. You look at Tsawwassen First Nation, a nation that is proud of its treaty. It’s proud of what it’s doing. It went and asked its people whether it should advance with the development that it has on its property — a fabulous development; a series of developments that are happening. They had 96 or 97 percent, I think it was, who said yes, but 3 percent still said no. That’s why I asked this question. Clearly, that was the majority rules, in terms of that. The Premier has said just yesterday that the majority doesn’t rule in the case of, for example, Kinder Morgan.

It’s a simple question. It is a simple question that I’m asking to the minister. Is it a requirement for every nation to agree before a project like LNG Canada can proceed? Does every First Nation need to approve it? Does every First Nation need to have approved Site C? It’s a similar question, and it’s a similar challenge. But before LNG Canada makes a decision to invest $42 billion in the province of British Columbia to develop liquefied natural gas, it’s a question that they want answered.

It behooves me to ask this question in this Legislature to try to support families in my riding, to support families and communities right across through the north, to support the First Nations that want to help lift themselves out of poverty, to support the people that need to see this project advance. That is the question, and that’s why I’m asking the question. Is it required to have 100 percent of First Nations give consent, or is it okay if it’s one or two or more that oppose, for a project to be able to advance?

Hon. S. Fraser: Government, by definition, is a decision-making body. As government, we need to make decisions. Any government. Political stripes are irrelevant. Governments make decisions. We are committed to seeking the full input. We want to hear all opinions, all sides, from all nations affected by projects. That’s part of the decision-making process that we’re committed to.

[3:55 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer. I will take that as the way that it was described to me by the minister, which is that government has the right to decide whether a project is going to advance or not, regardless of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. That’s just what I heard.

I’ll turn it over to my colleagues for future questions.

Hon. S. Fraser: As Hansard will show, the member is inaccurate in his depiction of what I said. I just want to put that on the record to make sure…. If he’s quoting me, he is misquoting me.

A. Olsen: I find this a fascinatingly frustrating line of questioning, frankly. As an Indigenous person who comes from one of the communities that is impacted by this, directly affected by this — to use the federal regulator’s own language — this suggestion that a simple majority has the right to oppress a nation’s voice is an absolutely ridiculous one. Frankly, to have it advanced in here, I think, highlights some of the challenges that this province has had — not only magnified over the last decade and a half but going back many decades to the point of contact.

This line of questioning here would suggest that, as long as we get 90 percent or so of First Nations along the pipeline route or along a gas line or whatever, then they should have the right to oppress themselves. It’s a colonial suggestion. To quote Star Trek is astonishing, in the sense that there’s nothing colonial about that kind of operation going on in that television show. Exploring new worlds and creating new…. I guess not colonies. We shouldn’t call them colonies, maybe.

To the minister, does every First Nation in this province have the right to, as in article 33, “determine their own identity and membership in accordance with their customs and traditions” — govern themselves?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. We are implementing the entirety of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples — that article included — although I would note that the issue that the member is referring to is largely under federal purview. But I respect the rights of the nation to stand up for that article, and we would support them in that.

A. Olsen: It was just raised to me, from the member for Vancouver–West End that there’s such a thing as the prime directive in Star Trek, which means that they wouldn’t, in fact, colonize, should they run into…. So even Star Trek, I think, had it better than we’ve had it in the history of British Columbia.

Nonetheless, following through, do the majority of First Nations on a pipeline route or involved in a…? Does every First Nation involved in a project…? Does their opinion, do their feelings, does their position count in the decision-making of government, as equal to their neighbours and the other First Nations or nations that are involved in that project?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I think it’s absolutely essential that government hear from every nation affected. I’ll go back to the quote that I used earlier from the member for Skeena back in 2012. It was referring to a different pipeline but the same issue. “What I made clear is the idea that our people have a mandate to have absolutely no bitumen or crude oil on Haisla territory.”

Those perspectives need to be taken into account by government. If governments ignore the role of individual nations in protecting their territories, then I believe that that’s a recipe for disaster and conflict. Also, I just don’t believe that government will be making the best and most informed decisions that they can.

A. Olsen: I’m aware that just weeks before the announcement approving the Kinder Morgan pipeline happened, the company, the proponent, was on what I would classify as a last-chance tour. The last-chance tour was one in which they were quickly scheduling meetings with First Nations that hadn’t signed a benefits agreement. The number gets repeated in question period. In fact, the number is shown in their very own email, saying about how amazing they are in signing these agreements.

The last-chance tour was simply an announcement that was made that, basically, in communities that I’m aware of…. They stood in those communities and said: “We know that this pipeline is going to be approved, and this is your last chance to sign on and have something. Otherwise, you’ll be left in the cold.”

I’m aware of one First Nation, the Tsartlip First Nation, that sent a letter to the Premier clearly stating opposition. I was alluding to them yesterday in my question with respect to the Douglas treaty and the challenges that that poses and, potentially, the role that the provincial government can play, as Tsartlip and the other Saanich First Nations territory is in direct relation to the shipping routes and the piping routes.

I just would like to ask the minister: as part of this budget estimates process that we’re in, has the ministry been working closely with the Saanich First Nations, as part of this, to better understand the position that they have in an effort to better represent those very clear pre-Confederation-treaty legal issues with respect to liability, with respect to potential infringement — getting a deep understanding of that so that then we as a government can represent those interests, from our perspective, to the federal Crown?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for his question. I just want to say that we’ve heard from Saanich Nations and other nations’ concerns — what could happen in the event of a catastrophic bitumen spill off of our coast and the accelerated chances of such a spill with this project.

[4:05 p.m.]

As a government, it is that sort of advice that helps inform. Those concerns being heard, taking them seriously, is why our government is standing up for B.C.’s interests — the environment, the economy, tens of thousands of jobs — to protect our coasts for all of those that depend on it, First Nations and not.

Again, I think it’s the role of government to respect that those concerns are warranted. I respect the right of the Saanich nations to stand up for their territories and for the integrity of those territories. I think they’re doing their role, strongly protecting their territories and their way of life that they’ve utilized sustainably — the environment, their territories — for millennia. It’s important for governments to heed those concerns.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister. I’m glad that you, as the minister, were able to work your way through the questions. I think that the questions that came out over time, over the last hour or so, with respect to consent….

I’d like to acknowledge the fact that I think that our modern society, in many respects, is struggling with consent. I think that as a man in this place, and a man in this society at this time, I — I speak for myself, and I know that in conversations that I’ve had with my friends and colleagues — have been awakened to the tragedy that has been evolving in our society around consent.

I guess that it extends further. It extends further to Indigenous rights in our country and in our province. But I think that it’s important to note that our society struggles with this consent, because in the past, it’s not been something that we’ve been too willing to address directly. And I can understand.

It became clear to me that, actually, this whole thing was about the natural gas pipeline going across the northwest. That’s really what it…. It took a while to really work through what the question was about, but the question was about a natural gas pipeline. There are one, maybe two, Indigenous groups that are against it, and the real worry is: is that going to hold up? And that is a challenge for the government.

I’d like to point out that it’s not just fossil fuel investors in this province that are concerned. It’s the renewable energy investors in this province, partnered with memorandums of understanding to work with Indigenous groups in this province, that have basically been sent packing by former Ministers of Energy, because: “Not interested in that kind of development, only interested in fossil fuel development.”

I’m glad that we did get to…. As we were looking at consent, we did finally get to that LNG, northwest piece. The minister was able to tease it out.

I’ve got one more question, and then I’ll sit down for the rest of the afternoon here and listen through.

There is, just switching gears a little bit, a $1.3 billion investment that was announced by the federal government to get up to 17 percent of the total land mass in our country protected — parks and protected areas. The goal of this was to be done by 2020. We know, as we work through the marine conservation areas, that they want to get 10 percent of the coast protected by 2020 as well.

[4:10 p.m.]

We’ve got a group, the Indigenous Circle of Experts. I believe that you know Eli. Eli Enns has been working on this, trying to create a pathway for Canada to get to target 1.

I just want to, I guess, highlight and ask the question, as part of these budget estimates: what is British Columbia doing in an effort to take advantage of the opportunity, in partnership with Indigenous communities? Mr. Enns has been an advocate for tribal parks and other parks, Indigenous protected and conserved areas.

Will your ministry be taking a look at the opportunity that is there to attract that investment that the federal government is making into our province?

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, thanks to the member for his interesting work that’s being done by the Indigenous Circle of Experts. I’ve met with Eli numerous times on forums about tribal parks and such, and he’s excellent. He’s going to do very well.

I’ve been told that there’s work being done with the Ministry of Environment on this. We’re very interested in what the member is talking about. I don’t have the details from the Ministry of Environment. I wouldn’t suggest that we fire up their estimates again, because I think that was a record, and I don’t think the Minister of Environment would take that very well.

I will follow up with the member on this. I will discuss it with the Minister of Environment, and perhaps we can have a coffee and talk about it.

D. Ashton: A few minutes ago the minister had a diatribe against a former minister in the government, with Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. That’s between those two, hon. Chair. But in his conversation, he said the word “they,” which included me, and I take incredible exception to being branded with what that minister had said and to including me in it.

My history goes back an awfully long time. My grandfather worked diligently with Aboriginals in Saskatchewan. My father did. My grandfather died when my dad was 13 years old, grade 9. He had to go out and work. He carried that to Vancouver, and he worked with Aboriginals in Vancouver. When he moved to the Okanagan in 1955, he worked his butt off to ensure that he and my mother could get ahead. He always swept up those people that lived across the channel from where I was from.

I take incredible exception to being swept up in that diatribe. I would ask, hon. Chair, for retraction of the comments that the minister included me in.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, I heard what the member for Penticton said. I meant it with no disrespect. I certainly was not aiming it at him. I want to go on the record to say that I was not referring to the member for Penticton. I was in a direct conversation with my counterpart, who was the previous minister. I regret those statements and meant them with no disrespect. I’m sorry about that.

D. Ashton: Thank you for that.

I will just pass along to my peer.

E. Ross: I was listening to the previous questions from the previous member asking questions, as well as my colleague here. I just want to clarify something. It’s not that I oppose UNDRIP or the principles of UNDRIP, but I’m trying to understand it in the context of decision-making from the Crown. That’s all I was trying to do.

In terms of the politics and the political speeches being made in response to these questions and trying to dig deeper into this…. Like the perception that this was kind of a strategy leading up to a natural gas question. Yeah, it was, because it’s all the same issue. We are talking about certainty. We’re talking high-level certainty, high-level politics, and we’re generalizing all these comments.

Well, let me take it right back down to ground level. The reason why I bring this back to the fundamentals of what we’re talking about — whether it be Kinder Morgan, forestry, fish farms, LNG — is because I’m tired of burying people because of substance abuse or alcohol abuse or suicide. I was tired of going to my family’s funerals because of suicide. I was tired of trying to find ways to ship people home from Vancouver because they got thrown out of a second-story window down on Hastings.

I’m not trying to be cute. I’m not trying to be politically savvy. I’m trying to find a solution. I’m trying to find certainty. That’s all I’ve been trying to do for the last 14 years, and I thought I had a good handle on it, in terms of trying to read and understand the rights and title case law that came out of the Supreme Courts of Canada and B.C.

No matter what the other side of the House thinks, the previous government did not decide on any protocol on their own in terms of how to address this. In my dealings — environmental assessments, permitting, authorizations — I actually hammered out the process. I actually hammered out the reconciliation protocol that was signed between my band and the previous government, and it worked.

Without all the political grandstanding, the protocol said: if we have a problem with a permit, we can pick up the phone, and we can talk about it. It worked, and it’s still working today, to the point where political leaders like myself are not needed. The staff from B.C. can phone the staff of the Haisla Nation Council, and they can work out an issue.

For the last six years, proponents in my territory would come to me and say: “Look, I want to make an application for a project. I want to apply for an environmental assessment. Can I get your interest into my application?”

“Yes, you can. Sit down. Let’s talk about it. Let’s get some funding going. Let’s get some capacity going. Let’s get some knowledge into our memorandum of understanding.”

To trivialize a memorandum of understanding, and then what leads into a memorandum agreement, is disrespectful. It takes a lot of time; it takes a lot of money. We’re talking about a people that need it the most — 60 percent unemployment. In fact, the last thing I’ll leave you with is one of the first things that I said when I became chief councillor. I said that the next person that commits suicide in my community is my fault, because they’re depending on me for a future. It’s not government’s fault; it’s not colonialism’s fault. It’s my fault, because I promised them a future. The buck has got to stop somewhere. That’s entirely been my mandate for the last 14 years.

Now, I’m sure that these First Nations leaders — whether it be Kinder Morgan, forestry, mining, LNG — are thinking the same thing. But given the politics of all this, all these different statements and all these different political terms, it’s already a confusing enough world as it is — given the Indian Act, treaty, rights and title, all these different terms and all these different processes. It’s already a world of uncertainty, and now we’re throwing in UNDRIP and truth and reconciliation.

[4:20 p.m.]

How are these leaders expected to forge a future when they don’t even understand one process, let alone six? All I was getting at was trying to understand how UNDRIP would play into the decision-making of the Crown, given UNDRIP.

There was a mention of different First Nations being affected by a project. I’ve got the same kind of question, because a lot of First Nations haven’t resolved overlap. And it doesn’t even have to be overlap. It could be that there’s no territorial claim to a certain territory that has a project proposed.

It could have a portion of a reserve from another band in that territory. That’s not labelled as overlap. That band, because of the reserve, has a right to be consulted in some manner. I’m not sure how it is. But under the UNDRIP, there is no principle to talk about who gets consulted on a project when proposed in a certain territory.

Now, you referenced some of my comments in regards to Enbridge. I had 100 percent strength of claim to back me up — 100 percent. Whereas, some First Nations maybe have 20 percent. Some of them have zero percent. But under UNDRIP, the way it’s characterized, any First Nation can go in and have the duty to consult bestowed upon them because there’s no mention of strength of claim in UNDRIP.

This was part of the decision-making that flowed from the case law regarding rights and title over the last 30, 40 years. So will strength of claim play a part in how the Crown decides on Aboriginal issues regarding a project’s impact on an Aboriginal community?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for Skeena for the question. The overlap issues that he was citing are real, and there are contributing factors to those overlaps. However, I think probably the primary one is that the Indian Act itself has created the situation where we see ourselves with overlaps. In some cases, that ends up being conflicts.

[4:25 p.m.]

It is an issue that we…. Strength of claim, of course, is something that we consider when we’re dealing with the treaty process or outside of the treaty process with nations.

The UNDRIP actually provides mechanisms for nations — their inherent right to develop governance and work together to address overlaps. I believe it’s a complementary tool towards that.

Again, the specifics of the question — I might have missed that. I acknowledge the overlap issues that happen throughout the province. They are a creature, I think, largely of the Indian Act. That Indian Act model, I know, is something that we’re trying to address and get beyond. I know the federal government is also trying to get beyond it. And I know many nations are working together cooperatively to address their own overlap issues. We certainly encourage that and try to resource that too.

E. Ross: Thank you for that. Yeah, the Indian Act did contribute to that. Also, there were a number of other different processes that contributed to it. But my question is, specifically…. Strength of claim is addressed in case law principles, and the strength of claim is based on your evidence and your occupation of the territory prior to 1846. Every First Nation that understands case law understands this principle of case law. Government understands this principle as well.

My question is: in terms of strength of claim, how will the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples acknowledge this and take this into consideration?

Hon. S. Fraser: I don’t think I’m the expert on case law that the member is, but strength of claim is something we do utilize through the ministry in dealing with treaty and non-treaty. We’re moving more and more towards encouraging nations to work together, of course, with the recognition that there are often shared portions of territory throughout the province between nations.

[4:30 p.m.]

Also, I think we need to learn from the court decisions. Case law in this case would be the Tsilhqot’in decision. The Tsilhqot’in decision actually, for the first time in history, adjudicated a title, a confirmed title, of 1,700 square kilometres — in the Chilcotin, of course.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Part of my mandate, actually, from the Premier is to utilize that court decision, the Tsilhqot’in decision, in helping to address things, including informing things like strength of claim.

E. Ross: Yes, you’re correct. But the ability for First Nations to work together on overlap has been in place ever since I’ve been on council, back in 2003. I was part of a panel put together by First Nations to try to resolve and come up with protocol, and we failed. And it kept coming up. That right and that opportunity was always there, whether it was supported by government or not.

You’re correct. There are instances where First Nations do work collaboratively, but it’s not really on the land base itself but to share the benefits of a linear project going through both territories, which doesn’t necessarily solve overlap. It just solves the money, the jobs, the contracts, the training opportunities. So it doesn’t really do that. If we could get more of those across the province, great. That’d be awesome.

It’s interesting you bring up Tsilhqot’in. I was approached by a First Nation that disputed the title because some of their territory was taken up into the Tsilhqot’in decision. I have no idea how they’re going to resolve that.

I’m not sure that the minister answered the question. How will UNDRIP complement or even address the overlap issue, whether it be strength of claim or the evidence that supports the strength of claim?

Hon. S. Fraser: I just want to say that the overlap issues are complex. They’re very difficult issues. I know the member knows that, and no one knows it more than the nations in this province, the First Nations that are dealing with these. Again, to some extent, it’s a result of a colonial past and an Indian Act that is race-based. It has often led to divisions between communities, and the overlap issue and such is part of that.

The UNDRIP itself, the UN declaration…. I had a quick look through, but I do not recall any article in the UN declaration that actually refers to strength of claim or overlap.

[4:35 p.m.]

However, the UN declaration within its articles, within itself, does allow for and cites nations having the ability to rebuild themselves, to reconstitute themselves, to strengthen their culture, their language — in many ways, their identity. I believe that’s complementary to trying to address the complex issues of overlaps that the member refers to.

I don’t believe there’s any specific guidance for dealing with, again, the strength-of-claim issues beyond that. It’s certainly not specifically cited in the UN declaration. But it is something that we try to address.

I would note that a number of years ago I had a wonderful…. I was so honoured. I was invited by Chief Ken Hansen at the time to address the Yale First Nation. There was a ceremony in the canyon, up the Fraser Canyon. It involved Stó:lō, and there was a treaty. The Yale had achieved treaty, but in so doing, with all of the best intentions, I think, from government, it actually caused conflict and division between the Yale and Stó:lō Nations. Again, it was essentially an overlap issue, and jurisdiction was handed, through the treaty process, to Yale in a way that was disputed by many Stó:lō Nations.

It was a very unfortunate consequence to what should have been…. Treaty should not be creating winners and losers, in my opinion. I was an opposition critic at the time. I wasn’t in government. But what Ken was able to do, the chief at the time, was bring together again Stó:lō and Yale in a way that helped heal some of the rifts caused, with the best intentions, through a treaty.

He was willing to sacrifice the treaty itself in the interests of rebuilding community and rebuilding relationships amongst nations. I’ve always held that as a model for where priorities were put in the right place, and I applaud the work he did.

I believe that the work that is encouraged through the UN declaration — to rebuild governance, culture, history as a right for the nations — was depicted so graphically in that ceremony between Yale and Stó:lō. So I am hopeful that we will see UNDRIP complement efforts to address overlap.

I thank the member for raising this. These are difficult issues for all, especially for the nations themselves, but also for us in the ministry in how we deal with the issues of treaty and non-treaty negotiations.

E. Ross: Thank you for that. But I’m really trying to understand how UNDRIP gets applied in terms of the Crown’s decision-making when it comes to UNDRIP being implemented. At some point, you’re going to have to make a decision, and what I don’t want is the First Nations to have unrealistic expectations in terms of what UNDRIP is actually going to deliver.

By the way, overlap is not a colonialism. It’s not because of colonialism. Overlap was there long before the white settlers came along. There were a lot of wars over it, and it was always changing. That just fed into the white contact era as well.

In terms of the Crown’s decision-making, there’s another principle of case law that talks about meaningful consultation. Consultation, the way I understood it…. And by the way, the minister made a reference to my expertise in rights and title case law. I am no expert in rights and title. It’s just some of the things I pulled out to kind of try to build a future.

In terms of meaningful consultation, the term is called “two-way street.” I’m trying to convey to this House that this free, prior and informed consent was already there, based on my experience, going back to 2003. It was there in my work with the previous government.

[4:40 p.m.]

In looking at what’s happening now, in terms of this two-way street that has to occur for First Nations to be consulted, how much emphasis will be put on the record of a company attempting to obtain free, prior and informed consent if those efforts are rejected by the First Nation?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks, again, to the member for the question. What we are expecting from companies…. For instance, I think there was the example that they’re working to try to achieve free, prior and informed consent with nations. Simple consultation, as I mentioned before…. We’re well beyond that now. Companies are actually well beyond that now too. There are many examples in the province where….

Our expectations, of government, from companies is that they work very early on with First Nations, build relationships, involve the nations as partners with real benefits. I will give the member an example. I know he knows examples of this, too, because I’m sure, as the leader of his nation prior to his time here, he worked closely with companies. He’s cited that too.

In my constituency, there’s the Huu-ay-aht First Nation, which began working early on with a company known as Steelhead LNG. They are working together to put forward a project to government, already in partnership, right from the very beginning. This is truly about certainty and predictability on the land base.

What we’re seeing more and more are companies that get it. Before they even come to government for permits or whatever, they’ve already established strong relationships. I know it’s been said many times, but before you build anything in a territory, build a relationship. That is what the expectation of government is for companies, as the member asked. That’s what we’re encouraging, and that’s what we’re expecting.

[4:45 p.m.]

E. Ross: The last question, if I get a relatively specific answer, is this. When the Crown and the proponent are trying to find the basis for a decision, if the principles of case law are fully realized by both the Crown and the proponent, or maybe even exceeded…? They go beyond the principles, whether it be a protocol, MOU or benefits agreements and the attempts to consult and accommodate a First Nation.

If all of that is achieved but the First Nation still refuses to give consent, will the Crown’s decision be withheld under UNDRIP, even though the principles of case law have been exceeded and the Crown and the proponent in question have gone beyond what is expected under government practices, protocols or even existing case law?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member. We, as government, certainly respect case law, as the member has been referring to. But we are trying to move beyond conflict and having the courts make decisions. We are trying to move the dial on a relationship so that government and First Nations can work in partnership, using free, prior and informed relationships that will lead to good decisions on the land base.

There won’t always be agreement. We understand that. That’s just the way that things are in any situation with government. There will be disagreements, and we have to learn to respect that, and we do respect that. But we all have to recognize that that is the nature of decision-making. It’s often difficult.

[4:50 p.m.]

I firmly believe, as minister, that the concepts that we have — the articles within the UNDRIP, the UN declaration — will give us true guidance, and more and more and more as First Nations are treated with respect and recognition based on case law, based on the UN declaration and based on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Those relationships between business, government and the nation will lead to good, sound decisions. There will not always be agreement, but again, government has to make decisions, and we will. But this is a way to get us out of a pattern of conflict and into a way of true partnerships in decisions, where the benefits are felt throughout the province, not in isolated ways but in real ways — benefits to nations in the territories where decisions are being made. That’s the goal that we are seeking as government. We’re using the tools of UNDRIP and the TRC and the Tsilhqot’in decision to inform that.

E. Ross: Yes, I was expecting that kind of an answer. It’s fairly optimistic, given how UNDRIP has been presented as a blueprint for success, a holistic document, and what’s more troubling, as a human rights document, because the conflict that you’re talking about that you wish to avoid is already there.

Some First Nations have already stated on the record that in terms of their protests, it’s a fight to the death. They don’t take the same view that UNDRIP is going to be us all sitting around and we’re going to hammer it out until we come to an agreement before government makes a decision. If that’s the case, then the Crown’s decision date, when you make that decision…. That’s 20 years down the line — maybe the next generation. If these people truly believe that they will fight to the death on some of these projects, you’re not going to get that consent.

I’m not even talking about chief councillors or elected leaders or their chiefs. We’re talking about Aboriginals on these protest lines. So it’s this uncertainty and these unrealistic expectations that I’m trying to determine, in the context of the decision-making from the Crown.

I do wish to thank the minister for his answers. The Aboriginal issue in Canada and B.C. is extremely complicated. There have been many, many, many great people, whether they be Aboriginal leaders or people in this House, that have given it their best shot. There’ve been many great staff people I worked with over the last 14 years that were doing their best to get what was right, not only for the Aboriginals but for British Columbian society as a whole.

To a certain degree, especially for my people, there was tremendous success. The success of my people and the optimism that my band members have is because of the collaboration that I had with the previous government and the staff from the previous government. And I truly hope that this government can build on that. I do not want to see the day where we go back into court for another 20 or 30 years based on vague descriptions of UNDRIP as it relates to Crown decision-making.

That’s the only point that I was really trying to get at through this line of questions. Thank you again, to the minister, for your answers.

D. Barnett: First of all, Minister, thank you very much for getting me that tripartite agreement so quickly. I got it this morning, and I appreciate it.

I’m going to ask a question about the budget. In your budget, has there been a fund set aside for private land owners or guide-outfitters, for trappers, for tourism operators who have venues on Crown land? If negotiations with First Nations through treaties or reconciliation cannot be reconciled and therefore these operators will all be out of business, do you have a fund set aside for compensation in any cases like this?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: We have no funds set aside, as such. There’s nothing in the budget set aside. We do everything that we can to avoid compensation, as a ministry. We’re not a money ministry, as such.

I mean, if there are individual cases, presumably you could go to…. We’d have to go to cabinet or something. We have no funds set aside.

D. Barnett: I have another question for the budget. I just would like to know…. You do have a reconciliation pot of money, I understand, in your ministry. Is there not $200,000 set aside for reconciliation, or is that split between all the ministries?

Hon. S. Fraser: Can I just get clarification? Did you say $200,000?

D. Barnett: I meant $200 million.

Hon. S. Fraser: I’ve got the numbers here. As I stated at the beginning, to open the session here, the ministry operating budget for 2018 and ’19 is $43.914 million. Then there is treaty and other agreement funding, and that amount is $46.438 million. So the total is $90.352 million. That’s the combination of the two — ministry operations and then the other line is treaty and other agreement funding.

D. Barnett: Thank you for clarification of that, Minister, because there are some rumours going around out in my world.

Interjection.

D. Barnett: Yes. Well, that’s why I asked the question — so that I can go back home and I can say no.

[5:00 p.m.]

The $46 million, or whatever you mentioned there…. What is that exactly for — the second portion of your operating budget?

Hon. S. Fraser: It’s for implementing approved agreements within the treaty process or outside agreements, reconciliation agreements, those sorts of things that are outside of the treaty process because some nations represented through the First Nations Summit are within the treaty process. So they’ve chosen that route, and then others are seeking reconciliation outside of the treaty process. So it’s for both of those approved expenditures.

D. Barnett: So these agreements are like the economic agreements, forestry agreements that were signed under the previous government that you’re just moving forward, or is this for new agreements?

Hon. S. Fraser: Yes. The answer is yes.

D. Barnett: In each ministry…. You may not be able to answer this question. There are different agreements with First Nations for different dirt ministries, for revenue-sharing, etc. Are these all within your budget, or are they in each minister’s budget?

Hon. S. Fraser: Each ministry may have individual budgets for addressing some issues that might involve First Nations within, whether it’s Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations or whichever. But this is the budget that we have just for the treaty agreements and the non-treaty agreements.

Madame Speaker, I understand there’s a request for a break, and we’ve been going for a bit, so it sounds like maybe a good idea. Can we have a little break? Would that be all right — ten minutes? Sure.

The Chair: This House will recess for 15 minutes.

One last question, Cariboo-Chilcotin.

D. Barnett: No. I just wanted to say thank you, Minister. That was all.

The Chair: This House stands recessed to 5:20.

The committee recessed from 5:03 p.m. to 5:13 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

D. Ashton: I have some specific questions from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, who unfortunately couldn’t be here this afternoon. This comes directly from Chief Barb Cote of the Shuswap Nation. One of the questions that was asked: is there any specific funding for trade programs specific to the band?

Hon. S. Fraser: I would note that the province is providing $30 million over another three years to continue the Indigenous skills training development fund. But I would also note that this is no longer through our ministry. This is being handled by Advanced Education, Skills and Training.

[5:15 p.m.]

D. Ashton: I would like to thank the minister for that.

Another question is on funding for development of the curriculum of First Nations content in schools. Now, I know that may bridge ministries, but is there some form of reciprocity between the ministries regarding curriculum?

Hon. S. Fraser: There is no reciprocity between us and the Ministry of Education. But I do know that the minister…. This is important, also, to our K-to-12 education system. But for any details, I’m afraid he would have to go…. I don’t believe we’ve had Education yet. I don’t think those estimates have happened yet, so I believe the member will be able to find the answers at the upcoming estimates for that ministry.

D. Ashton: Is there funding to support regionalization for the ministry coordination of resources and services in specific areas in the province?

Hon. S. Fraser: Yes. A good question. We actually have eight regional offices. They’re largely embedded with other ministries too. We work closely with other ministries. I can actually give you the locations: Cranbrook, Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Kamloops, Nanaimo, Prince George, Smithers, Surrey, Vanderhoof and Williams Lake. And then, of course, we have our main government office here in Victoria, down on Jutland. That’s where there’s a large number of our staff working — out of that office. But the regional offices — we’ve got eight of them.

D. Ashton: Is there also funding support for community development and cultural initiatives specific to individual bands? Again, I’m just asking questions on behalf of Chief Cote.

Hon. S. Fraser: In our treaty and non-treaty negotiations, we do actually support some cultural programs and such. Yes.

D. Ashton: I would assume, then, Minister, that that request would come directly to the ministry? Is that the best way to access some of those funds for an individual band?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I think these have been done as part of negotiations with treaty and non-treaty. Any of our regional offices, if they want to put requests through those to see if there’s….

For instance, there is $50 million that we’ve allotted to the First Peoples Cultural Council. I laud that often, because it’s like a small Crown corporation. They do incredible work. I largely focus on the language element of that, but I would note that it is the First Peoples Cultural Council. There may be options there too.

Again, if it’s the same chief or if it’s someone else, if they wanted to just contact one of our regional offices, the closest one, they’d be able to give them some information on that.

D. Ashton: There is a request for a commitment for a regional government-to-government table and funding table dialogue and funding to support strength-of-claim assessments and strategic land acquisitions, specifically at Panorama and Golden. So there is a request.

I have a number here that I’ll give you. It’s apparently between $2 million and $3 million. This is probably more of a heads-up to the minister and the ministry staff that there will be a request coming through.

Hon. S. Fraser: I want to thank the member for that. We haven’t seen that request yet, but thank you very much for the heads-up.

D. Ashton: First Nations treaty process. Could the minister give me an update on if there have been any changes in the number of individual bands that have come forward and-or signed?

Hon. S. Fraser: Actually, it’s part of my mandate to work on revitalizing the treaty process. Part of that is we’ve been continuing on and supporting the multilateral engagement report on implementation. We’re working closely with the government of Canada — Minister Bennett, Minister Philpott — and also working closely with the B.C. First Nations Summit and, of course, the B.C. Treaty Commission.

In 2015, the commitment to the multilateral engagement process by Canada and British Columbia and the summit was a first step in trying to address and, certainly, recognize the need for change within the treaty process in British Columbia. The three parties — that’s Canada, B.C. and First Nations Summit — with the support of the B.C. Treaty Commission, are continuing to implement the multilateral engagement report, based on the recommendations that came forward in 2016, I believe.

[5:25 p.m.]

The parties have developed options to address the First Nations treaty loan debt, measures to improve accountability and transparency in funding allocations, clarifying the role of the B.C. Treaty Commission, and the work continues to address recommendations in the report.

We can do more, and we are doing more. We are in the process of adding to that now, and I’ll be reporting out on that when we have finalized some of that work.

D. Ashton: The minister has just brought up a point of interest — loan ratification and loan debt forgiveness upon treaty. I know there was some movement of funds back and forth, but what about ongoing debt that many of the bands have incurred? Is there any direction by the government to some form of settlement on that continual basis, or does it extend to treaty?

Hon. S. Fraser: The debt issue is an important one for those nations that have already incurred debt through, in some cases, decades in the treaty process and, of course, for those going forward or potentially entering the treaty process. But this is a federal issue. The province is not holding the debt; it’s the federal government.

I know that the federal government is working on that as we speak. I believe they’re looking at all the future loan issues, but also addressing the debt of those that have already incurred debt throughout the treaty process. So this is good news from the federal government.

I know the federal government has also been doing…. The Prime Minister had a speech two months ago now addressing the need to move forward with rights recognition. Those sessions have been happening already in the province. Last Wednesday, Thursday, Friday in Vancouver there was work done there.

It’s an exciting time for addressing issues that have been a real problem for the treaty process, treaty nations. The debt issue has been one of the top ones, but there are many things that we’re working with the federal government on. This one is a really good-news story.

D. Ashton: Incremental treaty agreements. Can the minister say if there have been any signed since he has taken his position in government?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: In early March — it was a great event, actually; Malahat First Nation — we signed the interim treaty agreement. It was wonderful. I got a tour of the lands involved. It’s a big step for Malahat people. They’ve got great ambitions for the future. It was exciting.

We’re working on a number of fronts inside and outside of the treaty process that are moving along nicely too. But the Malahat was signed — that’s the incremental treaty agreement — in early March.

D. Ashton: Forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements. Again, since the government has taken over, are there any new ones that can be publicly announced?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. We’ve signed 46 FCRSA renewals in ’17-18. So from April to June, we signed 20. July to September, there were nine. October to December, there were another ten. And then January through March, there were another seven. So the total is 46.

D. Ashton: I’m assuming that some of those had pre-negotiations. So there was collaborative work by both the previous government and the current government to ensure that those came forward?

Interjection.

D. Ashton: Okay, thank you.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for just one quick question, if I may. As the minister is aware, the All Chiefs meeting has taken place for the last number of years in Vancouver, and it has been, I understand, a very useful forum. I suppose I look at it very much like the UBCM in terms of having communities and community leaders having an opportunity to interact with their representatives and their members and the cabinet.

[5:35 p.m.]

In the past, that meeting has been exclusively open to cabinet members to attend. I know because I asked to attend on a number of occasions when this side of the House was in government and was told no. It was only open to cabinet, because if it wasn’t — if it was open to other private members — all private members would need to be invited.

Interestingly, in a new approach to the All Chiefs meeting, last year’s meeting was open to, certainly, cabinet; to the Green caucus; and, interestingly, now to all the private members on the government side. The only people who were not invited…. I see one of the members on the opposite side shaking his head. I’m happy to provide you with the press release issued by government that says: “Everybody’s invited but the opposition.”

I wonder if the minister may reconsider that particular approach and make the attendance at the All Chiefs meeting open to all members.

Hon. S. Fraser: I do agree. The event, the leadership gathering, is very important. I think of it, too, as similar to UBCM.

It’s got kind of a speed dating feel to it. We had a record number of meetings between chiefs and council and cabinet members and the Premier. It was a revolving door. It was fast. I lost a few pounds. My office was at one end of the convention centre, and I was required to attend a number of meetings, seemingly back to back, with the Premier, which were in the complete opposite end of the building. I was seen running from one to the other, and I was late every time too. A very worthwhile event.

It’s true. We opened it up to our caucus. I invited the three members of the Third Party, and I invited three members from the official opposition — the critic, the member for Penticton; the member for Skeena; the former minister. So we’ve opened up that process.

If I recall, the ones I went to before, I had to kind of crash them myself as opposition critic. I was not given, I don’t think, a formal invite. At any rate, we are opening it up in that sense.

J. Sturdy: Well, I thank the minister for that recommendation. I’ll take it as a recommendation.

I think it’s important for all members to have an opportunity to spend time with their First Nations elected representatives and build those relationships. I’d encourage government to rethink this and encourage them to think about allowing all members to attend without having to crash it.

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for his advice. I will consider it.

D. Ashton: I apologize for the bit of a diversion there.

The minister — and everybody, actually, in this province — wants a less litigative relationship with First Nations. The Haida Nation is preparing a title case for what the B.C. Supreme Court Justice Andrew Mayer says is called “incredibly expansive and complex….” Does the government intend on negotiating with the Haida Nation to avoid a more lengthy litigation process with the First Nation?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to my critic for the questions. Under existing legislation, we have a relationship with the Haida, and we have strong lines of communication. I’ll be travelling to Haida Gwaii in the coming months, when we get out of this place.

The issue of the courts…. I believe addressing issues outside of the courts is the preferred method. However, we recognize that going to court is always an option for nations, and we respect the right for them to take that option.

D. Ashton: Justice Mayer has recommended that the provincial and federal governments reach a settlement with the Haida following phase 1. Does the government intend on following this advice?

Hon. S. Fraser: We have a strong line of communication with president of the Haida Nation, Peter Lantin. I know our deputy has had conversations several times in the last month.

I’m not sure what the member was referring to when he said phase 1. I might need some clarification on that.

D. Ashton: Let’s move to the second-to-last question on that. I appreciate the minister’s comments. Does the minister believe that the Haida Nation’s title claim has merit?

Hon. S. Fraser: I certainly recognize the strong government-to-government relationship that we have with the Haida. I also recognize the very strong leadership there in Peter Lantin. The specifics of the question, I think, would be inappropriate, considering the court issue that the member had cited. It probably would be best for me not to comment.

D. Ashton: Noting the time, and the next questions are contiguous on each one, hon. Chair, I would just like to thank the minister. I know his dedication to this file and his commitment, and I’m very thankful for that.

[5:45 p.m.]

There are a lot of changes happening in the world, and there are a lot of positive changes that have happened in the past in British Columbia. I really hope that these changes continue on. I know the minister wants to see those changes. His dedication over the 12-plus years, if I remember correctly, of being a critic on this and his relationship with the First Nations do and will make a difference into the future.

I also want to thank the staff. I know how hard these individuals work in all ministries in the government, but particularly on this file. It’s a file that is a contentious file. It’s a file that will make a difference not only for our generation and for this and future governments, but it’s going to make a difference for those that are coming up to offer the opportunity of a life that we all would like to have in British Columbia.

Again, I would like to thank the minister and his staff. I would like to thank the patience of the Chair, yourself and other Chairs. At this point in time, I would conclude. I’d like to say that I have no further questions for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations.

Hon. S. Fraser: I just want to thank the member for Penticton in his role as a critic, as an MLA and as a colleague in this place. I’d like to thank him for his kind words. I have always enjoyed our interactions. I believe his comments are not just thoughtful and well informed. I think they also help me do the job that I need to do, and I thank him for that. I have no more answers.

Vote 31: ministry operations, $43,914,000 — approved.

Vote 32: treaty and other agreements funding, $46,438,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Fraser: I move that the committee rise, report completion of the resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, 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. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.