Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 36, Gaming Control Amendment Act.

Hon. D. Eby: I seek leave to table a report.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the 2018-19 Annual Report of the Environmental Appeal Board.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — GAMING CONTROL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

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

The province has a strong commitment to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The proposed legislative amendments are a significant example of how the province is moving forward to meet this commitment.

Specifically, the proposed legislative amendments are focused on achieving two objectives. First, it will amend the Gaming Control Act to facilitate and support sharing a portion of B.C. Lottery Corp.’s net income with First Nations of B.C. for 23 years. Secondly, it will also increase B.C. Lottery Corp.’s board of directors by two positions.

Once a long-term agreement between the province and the B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership — which I’ll refer to as “limited partnership” from now on — is in place, the legislation will establish a revenue-sharing entitlement to be paid to the limited partnership for distribution to eligible B.C. First Nations, who become shareholders in the limited partnership.

Currently this legislation requires the net income of B.C. Lottery Corp. to be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. Therefore, a statutory appropriation is proposed in this legislative amendment to facilitate the payment of the dedicated revenue from the consolidated revenue fund to the limited partnership.

The increase of the B.C. Lottery Corp.’s board from a maximum of nine to 11 positions will facilitate one position for the limited partnership’s nominee.

The total annual amount of the statutory entitlement would be equal to 7 percent of the B.C. Lottery Corp.’s net income, as adjusted in accordance with the long-term agreement, estimated at $100 million per year. These amendments also add an additional element of certainty for First Nations in B.C. on the longevity and commitment of the government to long-term revenue-sharing from gaming with First Nations in B.C.

The province and the limited partnership recently concluded an interim agreement that provides two years of funding to the limited partnership for distribution to eligible First Nations in B.C., who become shareholders in the limited partnership. Once these legislative amendments are concluded, the parties will be in a position to conclude a long-term agreement with the limited partnership. Together, the interim agreement, the legislative amendment and the long-term agreement facilitate the province’s commitment for sharing gaming revenues with First Nations in B.C. for a 25-year period.

[2:40 p.m.]

J. Yap: It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak in second reading to Bill 36, Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019. Let me say from the outset that as the official opposition, we welcome an approach and policies aimed at advancing reconciliation, creating opportunities and making life better for First Nations. We believe in opportunity for all of B.C., all British Columbians, and in shared prosperity.

Certainly, as we look at the situation with our relations with First Nations, despite significant effort and progress in the recent past, there remains a significant gap in income between Indigenous peoples in Canada and non-Indigenous peoples. The data shows that the total income of Indigenous people was, on average, 73 percent of that of non-Indigenous people’s average income. That was in 2005, and it has increased to 75 percent in 2015. It’s progress, but more needs to be done.

The population of Indigenous peoples as a percentage of British Columbia’s population continues to grow in importance. Following ten years of rapid growth, Indigenous peoples make up about 5.9 percent of B.C.’s population. That was as of 2016, and the share of Indigenous peoples in B.C. is expected to continue to increase because of an increased fertility rate — larger families than non-Indigenous people. That is recognized.

We do understand that the commitment of the government to share this stream of revenue, gaming revenue, is something that has been discussed in the past. The commitment has been made. This is an issue that has been canvassed over many years and involved discussions with previous governments, and this government is choosing to take action at this time. However, revenue-sharing, we believe, should be fair and should be equitable, and it needs to be done properly.

While we agree with the need to get this done, we have some reservations, some concerns, in the way that this frame­work has been proposed to flow funds from government to First Nations communities. We as legislators need to come together to address the history of colonialism and renew our relationship with Indigenous people, and I know that this government is highly dedicated towards this end. I know that the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is deeply committed, as is his government. We applaud that, but we do have concerns with this bill.

For example, we have a question in regard to the flow of revenue and the way that this legislation is proposed, and I will get into a little bit of detailed discussion on the framework that’s proposed, where a partnership will be set up, consisting of the First Nations that would choose to participate in this stream of revenue. It will be approximately 200 First Nations, who would be limited partners. They would be in this partnership with a group that is referred to commonly as the leadership council.

[2:45 p.m.]

This partnership of the leadership council and all the First Nations of our province would administer this flow of funds. This fund, as the Attorney General has said, would be 7 percent, which is indicated in the proposed legislation. In dollars, it would be about $100 million annually under a proposed 25-year agreement — $100 million per year over the next 25 years.

The proposed legislative framework puts in a new legal requirement for sharing of this revenue stream, gaming revenue, through an agreement. The Attorney General referred to an interim agreement that’s already in place with First Nations, where the funds would flow, as we understand it, in advance each year based on a 7 percent agreed-upon percentage of net revenue from gaming. However, instead of flowing directly to the First Nations all around the province, the proposal under this legislation is to flow the funds to a new entity, a partnership. We have some questions about the need to do this.

We appreciate the briefing that the Attorney General had offered us, myself and the member for Vancouver-Langara, on this. We canvassed this question. While we understand that the rationale for this has to do with the accounting rules and the financial administration rules, we wonder why there has not been an effort to look at flowing the funds directly to First Nations. I’ll discuss the concept of where the funds should be flowing.

We do understand that there have been some negotiations, some consultation, but we’re not clear on the extent of that consultation among the First Nations who will participate in this program. We’re not clear if all First Nations around British Columbia — all 200 — were involved in the consultations and the discussions and the analysis of what’s being proposed. So I do believe that that is something that needs to be addressed.

Instead of putting money directly into essential services for First Nations in areas such as child care, housing and economic development, the proposal is for the funds to flow into this entity which would then take applications, we understand, from First Nations to receive funds for specific projects. This adds an extra step in the effort to help First Nations, which we all want. We question if this is the best that government can do to provide First Nations with economic benefits and long-lasting security.

Certainly, as we look at our record when we were in government, economic opportunities and participation were central as part of our efforts towards reconciliation with First Nations. When we were in government, we worked to improve the quality of life for Aboriginal people through new economic partnerships, resource development, revenue sharing, and closing gaps in health, education, skills training and employment. Through resource development on First Nations traditional territories, we put revenues directly into the communities to use.

One of our proudest achievements, as all of us would know, is the development of LNG. The LNG sector in B.C., which we’re pleased that the government is supporting and is moving forward, has presented opportunities for our government and First Nations to work together. Throughout the province, 62 natural gas pipeline benefits agreements have been reached — 62, with 29 First Nations, for four proposed natural gas pipelines.

[2:50 p.m.]

In addition, when we were in government, we had close to 500 economic and reconciliation agreements in place with First Nations, including strategic engagement agreements, reconciliation agreements, forestry and clean energy project revenue-sharing agreements. The concept of revenue-sharing is something that all of us are comfortable with and that we believe in. We also participated in 63 different treaties, involving 114 First Nations.

To list a few other achievements since 2001, when we were in government, we invested $4.4 billion to provide affordable housing for low-income individuals and families. We were also committed to improving First Nations through apprenticeships and skills training, as well as other education programs. These were some of the many things that were done directly to support the economic, social and cultural needs of Indigenous people. And as I said, we believe more needs to be done.

However, we cannot ignore that there are still systemic obstacles to reconciliation. It’s critical that we invest in First Nations communities that need help the most. One of the criteria for applying for funds under this new revenue stream, the gaming revenue stream, is capacity-building. We applaud that.

In the time that I have had the privilege of being elected to this House, I’ve had a chance to visit First Nations communities around the province. All members probably have had the opportunity and can relate to the fact that there are some First Nations who really need help, who need support and assistance in increasing their capacity. There are others who may need assistance and capacity-building to a lesser extent.

There are First Nations that have embraced the mantle of economic development for a number of years and have built up their economic position through development within their lands, through engaging in trading activity, through participating in the resource sector. Some of these have become very successful, and we all, of course, are very proud of them and applaud them for their success. We want all First Nations to have the opportunity as we move forward.

With this proposed new stream of gaming revenue, one of the concerns that we would have is the need to ensure that the funding stream does flow to the First Nations that need help the most. We look forward to learning more about what the plan is for that to happen, because it’s not clear from the legislation, as it’s written, how that would happen. That’s something that we believe is very important: to ensure — and I think all British Columbians want to ensure — that the flow of funds from this revenue stream would flow to the First Nations that need the support the most.

Another concern that we have is how this agreement would affect, or potentially affect, other grant programs that are in place and that are dependent on the gaming revenue net income. B.C. Lottery Corp., the gaming…. The stream of revenue provides an important stream of income to government that helps to fund, as we all know, services that are important to all British Columbians.

[2:55 p.m.]

One specific program, the community gaming grant program, comes to mind. That’s one that I know all members of the Legislature are very familiar with, communities are very familiar with and community groups. Many depend on this important program. We have questions about how this new revenue-sharing could potentially affect the program that communities all around the province depend on, the community gaming grant program. That’s something we have concerns and questions about.

We also believe that there needs to be kept in mind a sense of how to ensure fairness in how the revenue stream is allocated. That’s another question that we have. At the end of the day, we want to see true benefits accrue to First Nations.

We want to see, through the efforts of the province in working with First Nations to help First Nations as we move along the path of reconciliation and as First Nations determine for themselves, under the concept of self-determination, how they would develop…. We want to see those communities continue to participate as they wish to and progress — economically, culturally and in every important aspect of life. And we want to make sure, as we do this, that all British Columbians feel that we’re doing this in the right way.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the federal government has a very important role in the administration of Indigenous communities and is obliged, under our constitution and statutes, to provide funding to First Nations. So one of the questions that we have is: has there been consultation with the federal government in terms of this program not taking away from their responsibility to provide the statutory funding to First Nations throughout British Columbia? So that’s another concern, a question that we have and would want to canvass in second reading debate.

To summarize, we understand the intent of this proposed legislation to share revenue, and we believe that while the intent is positive and we want to see this happen, we need to ensure — we have a responsibility as legislators to ensure — that it’s done in the right way. We have a number of questions, as an official opposition, on the specifics in this piece of legislation. I know that colleagues will raise specific aspects of what our concerns are, a few of which I have mentioned in my comments.

With that, I’ll take my place, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to engage in today’s debate.

Hon. S. Fraser: It’s certainly with pride that I stand here today in this House to support this piece of legislation which makes good on a promise that we made to First Nations. It was almost a year ago. This summer we shared nearly $200 million — it was about $198 million — of provincial gaming revenue with Indigenous communities. That represents the first two years’ worth of shared revenues from a gaming stream.

The money started flowing out to First Nations communities just last week, at the beginning of the month, and the benefits of this predictable and sustainable revenue stream are evident already.

The Nadleh Whut’en is a First Nation west of Prince George. The long-term predictable revenue stream has allowed that nation to start home-building — home-building for the first time in 30 years — to address overcrowding and a lack of housing. Our office got an email from Chief Larry Nooski just a few days ago. This revenue is starting to make a difference on the ground, in communities.

[3:00 p.m.]

The amendment before us makes it possible to extend our commitment to those communities for a full 25 years. As I said, we’ve already transferred the first two years’ worth over, so the next 23 years on. It’s the first time there’s been a revenue-sharing agreement between the province of British Columbia and First Nations that provides long-term, stable funding to those nations.

It’s nearly $3 billion that will be available to First Nations governments over that time, ensuring they have a steady, predictable source of income. Income like every government…. First Nations or any government, First Nations or non, need stable, predictable sources of revenue to fund their priorities. I would suggest that the Indian Act is not providing for that very well — critical things for every government, like infrastructure, like services that build healthy communities, and the staff to get it done. The member for Richmond-Steveston spoke about capacity — absolutely. Critical things for any government to be able to accomplish.

This revenue will mean First Nations can plan for the long term and invest in the services they decide that their communities need to thrive and prosper. In that way, the revenue stream is about truly, tangibly supporting self-determination, and that is what is at the heart of reconciliation. First Nations know best the priorities of their communities, and now they have the resources to invest in those priorities — priorities like social services to support families and Elders, education, infrastructure, cultural revitalization and self-government capacity.

We’ll see new community projects. We’re already seeing new community projects and programs and significant economic development that benefits the people in First Nations communities and beyond for the whole regions of this province. It will bring more prosperity to every part of this province. This legislative amendment is an important step on our shared road to true and lasting reconciliation. It’s just one step.

I’d like to reflect a bit on the history of how we got here. I’ve been in this place since 2005, that election. This is my 15th year. I was appointed by the leader at the time, who is now the Deputy Premier and the Finance Minister. She appointed me as the critic for…. At that point, it was the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Now it’s the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, and I’m honoured to be the minister.

As critic, one of my earliest meetings that I recall was with the First Nations Gaming Commission. They had been trying for many, many, many years for the government of the day to come to the table and discuss sharing of revenues.

I remember Grand Chief Joe Hall was one of the first people I met. He was representing the First Nations Gaming Commission, a body that was created through the leadership council. That’s the summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the Assembly of First Nations, collectively. He had beseeched me, as the critic, that government needed to move forward with revenue-sharing to provide stable, long-term revenue through gaming like other provinces were already doing. He explained to me that the government would not come to the table. The Liberal government at the time would not even discuss the issue. It was a non-starter.

I know that the imperativeness of the revenue-sharing was captured in 2007. “First Nations have been asking for gaming revenue-sharing to be negotiated by the province for years,” as I mentioned. In 2007, First Nations leaders presented the previous government with the B.C. First Nations investment plan. The plan recommended allocating, at that point, 3 percent of B.C.’s gross gambling revenue directly towards economic and community development initiatives in Indigenous communities.

At the time, First Nations leaders described the plan as “the single most important action the province could take to ease First Nations poverty and to begin to close the economic and social gap of all First Nations.”

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m not questioning the sincerity of the previous speaker, the member for Richmond-Steveston. I know that he was speaking from the heart. But when he was speaking of his government previously…. These requests were summarily dismissed. They would not even discuss the issue. The idea that long-term, stable funding could be transferred to First Nations to make what was acknowledged as the single most important action that government could take was dismissed by the previous government. They wouldn’t consider it.

Some of the actions the previous members spoke of, the other government, and the deals that they had made and the agreements they had made with First Nations, many of these were basically transactional in nature. This is not transactional. This is a game-changer on the ground for First Nations.

Just to put it in context, the revenue-sharing agreement aligns British Columbia with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia. This was already the way of things in other provinces and was denied by the previous government. So I am pleased to hear that it looks like the opposition will be supporting this.

I want to make it clear that some of the concerns that were raised just by the previous speaker I believe are unfounded. I want to make it clear to anyone watching that there is no impact on existing gaming funding that already goes out under other programs that benefit local communities and NGOs — non-governmental organizations — charities, those sorts of things. This will not have impact there, just to be clear, because those rumours get out, and it can do damage to what is a very important program.

I also want to say that our ministry staff…. We had technical people, First Nations Leadership Council and the First Nations Gaming Commission, and they worked hand in hand together to build this. They looked at other models from other provinces to determine the best way to make sure that the funds are going to be delivered fairly to First Nations, that there was an accountability process.

Importantly — an issue that was raised by the previous speaker of some concern — the limited partnership is a First Nations entity. This will not be run by government. This is being set up with First Nations, by First Nations. That’s important in self-determination, as the member cited also. So his concerns about whether there was any impact on federal government funding…. To be clear, again, this has already happened in a half-dozen other provinces for many, many years. This is not a new thing for the federal government.

I’m sure, from my conversations with my federal counterparts, they were quite surprised that B.C. was denying the access to such a stream of stable, long-term funding that can be used for long-term planning for nations. So there is no issue there, and there is no risk of that affecting anything with the existing funding, I think, coming from the federal government.

The more technical questions, I’m sure, will be answered by the Attorney, which is appropriate in the way of these things as we do a bill. We’re on second reading. We will go to committee stage, and those technical issues and concerns raised by the member for Richmond-Steveston will all be dealt with there, I’m sure.

There were concerns about whether or not this would be timely because of the use of a limited partnership to distribute the funds. I find it a bit ironic. I mean, this is developed in partnership with First Nations. So this is the best method for distribution of these funds.

There is a specific formula that speaks to how the funding will be distributed. Fifty percent is base-funding. It’s actually equal for each of the 204 now — with Binche, I believe — First Nations Indian Act bands in the province. The 50 percent will be split equally. Forty percent is based on population, which, I think, speaks to fairness and equitability.

[3:10 p.m.]

Then 10 percent is in recognition of geographic challenges, like for remote communities. I think a lot of this was based on the model from Ontario. It seemed to cover the needs of the communities in a very…. It was very reflective of that.

I’m quite pleased that we’ve, I think, come to a model that will provide the most benefit on the ground, where it is needed the most in First Nations communities, especially taking into account the challenges of remote communities. You know, the costs are higher. There are many challenges that we don’t even recognize if you’re living in more of an urban area. So I’m glad that those challenges are reflected in the formula that has been laid out here.

We have to take reconciliation seriously. This is a strong step in the right direction. As, again, I can’t understate how important…. For decades now, the First Nations of this province have been calling for government to do just this, and they have called this the single most important action that provincial government could take to ease First Nations poverty and begin to close the economic and social gap for all First Nations.

I am so pleased and proud to be standing here in a government that is taking those requests seriously. Closing the gap — yes, indeed.

E. Ross: It’s my pleasure to speak on behalf of my constituents of Skeena in terms of Bill 36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act. Before I get into what I intended to say here, I just want to make some corrections to the previous speaker.

Where to start? This is contractual. There was a statement saying that this is not contractual. It is contractual. You’re asking First Nations to join a limited partnership. That’s a contract. Underneath that, you will then ask them to be eligible to fill out application forms to apply for their own money. That’s contractual. There will also be an eligibility requirement that will be implemented within, I assume, the partnership agreement, the limited partnership agreement. Then that will be applied to the application. Those are contractual agreements.

Interjections.

E. Ross: Well, I heard contractual. I heard contractual.

Another thing I wanted to address is another thing I heard: “We’re looking forward to closing the economic gap.” Where have you been for the last 13 years? That’s what First Nations have been doing for the last 13 years, in terms of engaging in forest and range agreements, revenue-sharing agreements for mining, the 26 agreements that were signed with LNG, all the agreements that were signed for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline and on and on and on.

First Nations have been driving that economic gap, in terms of closing it, and they’ve made tremendous progress. This is not a new idea. You come to our communities along the pipeline route, and you’ll see all of the advancements and progress that were made in terms of addressing the economic gap. These are reports that came out here. This is what drove First Nations to engage with all of these major projects, because there was nothing else at their reserve level.

I’m sure that all of the people over there that espouse to have First Nations ancestry know this. Why aren’t you speaking to it? You come to our communities along the LNG pipeline route. The unemployment level is not 60, 80 percent anymore. If you’d come to our community during the modernization of the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter, there was no unemployment. That’s the economic gap. That’s the one you’re talking about.

To think that you guys just came up with this miraculous idea, and you guys are going to start it just from day one…. Day one was 13 years ago. What do you think we’ve been doing? It’s an insult to all of those First Nation leaders that have been working on this for the last 15 years and made tremendous progress, only to hear that you say: “We’re going to begin to close the economic gap.”

You did not begin it. You did not begin it.

Interjections.

E. Ross: That’s what he said. Is Hansard around? Can you repeat what the member said?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[3:15 p.m.]

E. Ross: “We’re so proud to begin to close the economic gap.” Wow. I’m just repeating what I heard. I mean, maybe my notes are inaccurate. Maybe I misspelled some things wrong there, but I’m pretty sure that I heard: “We’re going to begin to close the economic gap” and “This is not contractual.”

If you’re going to say stuff like this, at least back it up. To see First Nations people on the other side, who claim to have First Nations ancestry, laughing? Where’s that member from? Where are you from? What riding are you from?

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s talk about the bill.

E. Ross: I am talking about Bill C-36.

Deputy Speaker: Yes, let’s talk about Bill 36.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

E. Ross: Thank you. Very condescending of you, but thank you.

I appreciate the grace given to me by the member for Saanich North and the Islands. Thank you, I appreciate it.

Anyway, another thing I wanted to correct here or at least clarify. We were talking about this…. In terms of Bill C-36, it’s a great concept. Bill C-36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act….

Deputy Speaker: No, Bill 36, Member.

E. Ross: Didn’t I say 36?

Deputy Speaker: No, not C-36.

E. Ross: Oh sorry. Bill 36.

In terms of this, it’s not the first time a revenue-sharing agreement has been brought to the First Nations of B.C. from the provincial government. But there was a comment made earlier that said that this is in partnership with 203 bands. I find this remarkable. This is an incredible achievement when you are talking about 203 bands in B.C., and my only question around that is: how did you achieve this? How did you consult with 203 bands?

It took us almost six years to consult from band to band on an LNG agreement that provided revenues to the First Nations, along with contracts and employment. So in partnership with 203 bands? I’m going to be very curious, as we go into estimates, to find out what the consultation process was.

Interjection.

E. Ross: Committee stage, sorry. I’ll be curious about this, to see the record. To see the record and the response from 203 bands in B.C. — it’s going to be an extensive report. I’d be very curious to see what that entails in terms of that report.

There was also a comment made that this would not impact other funding coming from the gaming. That we’ll wait to see. We’ll probably have to wait to see in terms of community by community, region by region. If the rural dividend fund is any example of what that means, then we’ve got to be on our toes and keep an eye on the government decisions here.

Those are just basically the comments I heard, and I had to correct those comments or actually ask for clarification.

Anywho, in terms of Bill C-36 itself, the control amendment act…. I’ve got to say from the outset, in terms of gambling, this is a really tough topic to talk about where I come from, because gambling, from previous councils, was never approved by previous councils. It was never approved on behalf of certain Elders in my community. My council was approached many, many times to create a casino or bingo hall in our territory, and we were shut down. There was fundamental opposition to the idea of gambling.

Coming from a region 20 years ago that had 60 to 80 percent unemployment, and knowing all the social ills, I could understand why the leaders of my community didn’t like the idea of gambling, period, even though bingo, as we knew, all across northwest B.C., was providing good amounts of revenue for local programs in their communities.

To my Elders back home, I’m not endorsing gambling. I’m not saying gambling is a good idea or anything like that. I’m just talking about Bill C-36 in terms of what is being placed in the Legislature today.

[3:20 p.m.]

With that being said, just for the millions of people out there watching, commercial gambling, not including horse racing, generated $2.9 billion in 2014-2015. Now, in B.C., that includes revenues from casino tables; games like poker and bingo; slot machines; lottery tickets; on-line Play­Now.com, B.C.’s only legal on-line gambling site; and licensed gambling events such as 50-50 draws.

In addition, horse racing is big in B.C., and that can be conducted in person at racetracks in B.C. or on screen in teletheatres in communities around our province.

The gambling proceeds and gambling itself actually reach into different parts of B.C., all corners, even remote communities like my own, in my riding of Skeena. So we all know it’s there. We all know it’s regulated. It provides tremendous revenue. And the revenues, we know already, provide tremendous benefit, because that goes back to the organizations that use it in their own communities on an application-driven process.

What we’re talking about here is Bill C-36.

Deputy Speaker: Bill 36, Member.

Interjection.

E. Ross: How can you purport to have First Nations ancestry and knowledge of the culture when you know respect is one of the first things that First Nations actually ask for when somebody else is speaking? You wouldn’t be allowed in the feast hall with that kind of behaviour, to the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

Interjection.

E. Ross: What does that mean? Okay.

Bill 36 proposes to provide First Nations with 7 percent of B.C. Lottery Corp.’s net income for the next 23 years. It would build on a two-year agreement reached last August that transferred $194 million, give or take a few million, to the newly formed B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership.

According to a provincial news release, dated August 12, 2019, the money will be transferred to a newly formed B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership. The news release goes on to say: “Once First Nations join the limited partnership, they will receive the first year of their share of provincial gaming revenue.”

I haven’t actually seen the final agreement yet, but I was under the understanding that the revenues would go into a limited partnership, and then First Nations would have to apply for their allotment of the revenues. Anyway, we can get into that when we get into the details of the final agreement itself.

According to Michael Bonshor and Cody Hall, co-chairs of the B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership: “We encourage eligible First Nations to join the limited partnership and look forward to working with each community to begin receiving their annual distributive shares.” That’s a red flag. In one sentence, they’re saying they’re going to receive provincial gaming revenue, but on the other side, in the next sentence, they say they have to join the limited partnership before they can start receiving their annual distributive shares.

Interjection.

E. Ross: It will be application-driven.

Interjection.

E. Ross: It will be application-driven, though, based on the projects and based on the band council.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s not have a dialogue. It’s second reading. The member has the floor.

Please continue.

[3:25 p.m.]

E. Ross: Well, it does raise a red flag. If it is application-driven, and you’re actually applying to an entity apart from a government…. It doesn’t matter if it’s government or not. But if you’re applying to it and you’re making comparisons to the Indian Act and how the Indian Act didn’t provide for First Nations over the last 50 or 100 years….

First Nations — I don’t know if you’re aware of it or not — do not like applying for money. In this new era of consultation and accommodation, First Nations are more interested in generating their own revenue. They’re more apt to be, basically, going to a government-to-government relationship and actually signing government-to-government funding agreements. So the money goes directly to them.

Interjection.

E. Ross: What’s wrong with that?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

E. Ross: If it’s not application-driven, I look forward to clarifying that in the final agreement — and to be eligible. This is what I look forward to in the final agreement itself — to be eligible. What is the criteria going to be to be eligible? I know you have to join the First Nations Limited Partnership. I know that. What are going to be the criteria around that?

In saying that, there are going to be criteria in terms of what is accepted in terms of your share.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Carry on.

E. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a case…. If there are, basically, no strings attached and the government truly wants to help First Nations in terms of their social issues and close the economic gap, why make them join the limited partnership?

I’m going to assume, then, if you don’t join the limited partnership, then you are not eligible for any allotment of money or revenues.

Interjections.

E. Ross: I’m hearing crickets, so I think I must be right. Am I right?

Interjections.

E. Ross: Okay. In other words…. Well, there’s so much chatter on that side and so many questions, I just respond to the questions and the heckling.

Interjection.

E. Ross: I will. Thank you.

To me, this is not a done deal. We have the announcements, but it’s not a final agreement yet. It won’t be final in terms of complete participation until we get 203 bands signed on to the limited partnership. That’s when we’ll see success, because that’s what the government announced.

It all goes back to determining success. If there are some bands that do not want to join a limited partnership or do not want to join an application-driven process, then you can’t claim success in terms of a revenue-sharing agreement for those ineligible First Nations. In terms of that, the First Nations that are ineligible will be for two reasons. One is because they don’t agree with the structure or the format, and the other one is going to be for lack of capacity.

Now, I hear those words a lot, “capacity development.” Developing capacity. Yet I’ve never really seen anybody actually explain what that means on an individual level.

What does it mean? I mean, I can honestly say in 2003, I had no capacity. I was elected to council, and I thought that I was going to get on to council, and I was going to divert all the money that council had to my basketball programs.

Man, was I ignorant, naive and out of touch, because my band had no money. We were so broke we were in a deficit. We owed $3 million. If you don’t know what that means, under the Indian Act, that means the government can come in and put you into remedial management with the danger of then coming in, kicking you out of office all together and just keeping your health manager, as well as your social development manager. The rest of them — they send you home. That’s where we were in 2003.

In terms of capacity development, I had no idea what I was doing — not a clue — and there’s no orientation program. There’s no brochure to tell you what your job is or what a funding agreement is. Nobody was there to tell me what remedial management meant.

All I knew was my band had no money, and all they were doing was fighting for survival to keep programs going. That’s all they were doing. There was no time to talk about jobs, employment, contracts and engagement with major projects. There was no time.

[3:30 p.m.]

We spent the better part of six months just trying to get Canada to stop coming in and shutting us down and shutting down all our programs.

If you don’t know what that means, they bring in a third-party contractor, and they pay your bills for you, based on your funding agreement that comes from Canada. There’s a formula that actually pays off, in priority, your biggest debt first and then goes down to your lowest debt. It can take, on average, seven years for a First Nation to get out of it — seven years. I had no capacity to understand what these people were talking about. That’s capacity.

I was fortunate. I had a chief councillor who was very knowledgable, who went to university. He worked in the RCMP for a couple of years, worked for CN security. I had another councillor who had a business diploma. I was very lucky. These guys understood funding agreements. They understood business principles. They carried me and, I might say, the rest of my council through that six months. They convinced Canada not to shut us down. But it was painful. We had to lay off a number of people. We had to cut programs. We had to do a number of things.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

It’s actually good that this is on the record. The hard work that that council did started back in 2001, and I joined in 2003. My band is now reaping the benefits. A few years ago, we were actually awarded the first-ever ten-year block funding agreement under Canada. We came from remedial management to block funding to the first-ever ten-year block funding agreement in Canada. That is capacity.

For the most part, you have to sit at the table, and you’ve got to understand that. You’ve got to read this stuff. It’s above our pay grade. Apart from the councillor who had the degree in business, as well as our chief councillor, I was probably the only one that had a grade 12 diploma, which I got back in 1984. It wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. I didn’t understand numbers. I carried around an electronic dictionary for two years. That is capacity.

So when you’re asking some of these bands here that don’t have that capacity to understand these complex agreements and understand these complex structures, you’re asking quite a bit. There are a lot of bands that understand this. There are a lot of bands that are highly successful. They’re operating at a point where they don’t need government. They don’t want government.

There is a band down in the Okanagan that says that within seven years, they will be able to say no to Ottawa funding. That is an incredible achievement. That’s capacity. They based it on real estate, and then they branched out their business initiatives. That is capacity. These are the people we should be aspiring to be. They’re going to be independent within seven years. That’s their game plan. Fortunately, they’ve got location on their side. They have capacity.

My band…. I was lucky. We had location. We didn’t have any projects to come around, but we did have a couple of people that had strong visions, that took a lot of abuse, to change a direction. My name comes up a lot when it comes to LNG development, in terms of being instrumental. I was one small piece in a big piece of machinery that was clicking along whether I was there or not. It was councils from 2001 to today that actually put us there. I was lucky and grateful enough to be part of it.

Why did we achieve that? Capacity. Some of it came from an education, from college and university. Some of it came from life experience. Some of it came from the corporate world. But for us, it all pulled together. That is why my band is probably the next on the block to say: “We don’t want Ottawa funding either.”

When it comes to Bill 36, and we’re talking about capacity, and we’re talking about eligibility, we’re talking about 203 bands in B.C. There are a number of bands that aren’t as fortunate as some of the bands in the Okanagan or on the Lower Mainland that have been able to translate their assets into wealth for their people, or lucky enough to go through what my band went through. So I’ll be interested to see the formula, in terms of the revenue-sharing agreement, to see how the money will be allotted.

[3:35 p.m.]

Now, I know there is going to be a question about regional allocations as well as remoteness, maybe population, but I can tell you right now that there are needy bands in B.C. and there are not-so-needy bands. The needy bands, regardless, are going to have a really tough time coming to terms with this type of agreement if they’re looking to use this money as seed money for a business initiative. They’re going to have a tough time.

I’m only speaking from experience, because we tried this when we had no money, when we owed $3 million. We tried this. We came up with an elaborate business plan for communications, but we didn’t have our down payment for financing. We had no credit rating. We had no assets as collateral. So our business plans, we found out right away, couldn’t get financed.

This was before the days when these funding agreements came up where they would help certain bands in certain situations, but it was always underwritten by somebody else. It wasn’t underwritten on the assets of the band. By the way, we had no assets. This is a catch-22 for these bands that are in this position.

We’re talking about the application process for eligible bands when they’re going to use this pot of money for business initiatives. I would love to see the criteria and whether it’s going to be flexible enough to realize that most bands don’t have assets, because reserves aren’t assets. I know land is an asset to everybody else in B.C. Land is not an asset under the Indian Act. It’s not an asset unless the band itself goes into a certain arrangement with Canada, which many bands are afraid to do. They’re too suspicious of government.

In that respect, there are no other assets for a band that has never been exposed to either a major project or to some significant business interest on their lands. So there are no assets. Most of the assets they have are so outdated that they’re not worth anything, even if it was possible to put it on a business plan as collateral. So I’m very curious about the criteria of the eligibility in terms of Bill 36.

For those people that know First Nations communities, when I’m talking about assets, you’ll know what I mean. My band council office was actually an old residential school, and because of certain circumstances, I was asked to help manage our organization in partnership with my administration. During that time, a building inspector came in, and he gave me the news of the assessment that was done on the council building that we were in at that moment with all our staff — this old, beaten-down residential school, probably 70 years old.

He gave me the news, because he wanted to leave right away. I said: “Okay, just summarize it for me. What’s the verdict?” “Oh, you’re condemned.” “Why?” “It’s because your building code is out of date. You’ve got so much asbestos here. You’ve got mould all over the place. So we’re condemning you.”

I was so shocked. What am I going to do? I’m in charge of this organization. I’ve got to do something. So what am I supposed to do, then? He said: “Don’t worry about it. We condemned you seven times before already.” That’s not an asset. Same thing for our fire hall. I can give you these stories. These are stories that are all across Canada and in B.C.

I applaud the virtues behind Bill 36 in terms of closing the economic gap. But understand that there are capacity issues, and really, if you want to make a big impact, acknowledge the capacity issues of the most needy bands. Understand their situation, that they might not be able to reach every single criteria point, whatever that may be, when it comes their turn to apply for this funding.

[3:40 p.m.]

I will agree with this: closing the economic gap. There was a beginning. It was about 15 years ago. I’m pretty sure that this is going to help that, but it’s going to take time to realize that progress, that success. It’s going to take time.

I mean, you think about 203 bands in B.C. — not talking about your formula or anything — and you average it out based on what we know already. Maybe that’s $200,000 to $400,000 per band in B.C. That’s not a lot of money per band.

I know it’s annual. I do understand that if a band doesn’t sign on right away, or if they do sign on and they don’t apply for that funding, then that money actually goes into a certain pot waiting for them, which is good. But for most of the projects I put on the table in the last 15 years for my council, $300,000 was a drop in a bucket. It could be spent in a week.

I mean, you’ve got to do engineering plans. You’ve got to do consultant plans. You’ve got to do lawyer plans. You’ve got to do all this lobbying with the federal government and corporations. You’ve got to draw up contracts. It’s not a lot of money.

If it works, it’ll most likely work directly for the bands that understand application processes, that understand funding agreements, that can get to work right away and that can access financing — say, a mortgage over 20 years. They’ll have tremendous progress.

But for some of the other bands that don’t have that? Well, let’s face it, some of the First Nations bands in B.C. don’t even have communities. They don’t even have band offices. How do we access them?

First thing we do is: don’t make this process so onerous and so complicated, so scary, that they figure that they’ve got to go out to hire a lawyer. Make it simple for them. In that respect, if you want to have that conversation, I do question again: why not just put the money directly toward the First Nation themselves?

I agree with this. I support it. I just don’t understand the need for a middleman if you’ve already got agreement and you’ve done your consultation with 203 bands in B.C. Why that layer?

Interjections.

E. Ross: Yeah, why not? They’re still a legal entity. It makes for less bureaucracy, and you’ve got a direct relationship with a band that I’m assuming wants to build something significant for their membership and for their community.

It’s the criteria that I question. It’s the eligibility I question. It’s the legalities of limited partnerships I question — general partnerships. I worked on that stuff for 15 years, trying to understand limited partnerships and general partnerships. I still don’t understand it.

I had to do it in respect of major projects totalling — what? — $55 billion. I had to set up all these entities underneath it to take advantage of some of the contracts. On top of that, I had to understand all of the insurance and all of the liability issues and responsibility issues.

Like I say, I was lucky. I had some really smart councillors that were leading us at the time. I had a very smart chief councillor. Today, I still hope that we put in enough protections to actually achieve everything that we set out to achieve.

Back then, when we had no money, I would have got up, and I would have applauded this initiative. If the money came directly from the Crown to us, with little or no strings attached, I would have applauded it.

In fact, when we were talking about this being the first time for a revenue-sharing agreement, it’s not the first time that the government has come up with a revenue-sharing agreement. It’s not the first time. In 2006, we signed on to the first original forest and range agreement with the B.C. government.

[3:45 p.m.]

Now, for a band that had never seen revenue-sharing before, we were doing cartwheels. We couldn’t believe it. We spent the better part of two years negotiating under an entity. At that point it was called Turning Point. We negotiated for two years.

The difference there was that we knew the government was in the room, as a group. They talked to us. Then we all agreed that we should take back our agreements that were agreed to in principle at this group to our communities and tailor-make it to the needs of our specific communities. So we knew that consultation was there. We knew, in some form, this was going to be the accommodation for all the forestry activity happening in our territories.

The day the first cheque arrived we almost cried in our band council boardroom. It was incredible. We had never seen money like that before, with no strings attached. On top of that, we had no idea what to do with the volume of wood that was actually part of that agreement. We weren’t loggers. Had no equipment. None of us had even logged in the last 20 years.

I was a hand logger. Anybody know what hand logging is? You get in the tugboat, and because I’m bottom of the totem pole, I’d have to carry all the chokers and the tow line up into the bush, wrap it around a log, then run out of the way, and they’d drag the log into the water. That was my job.

Because of my experience, I was made the forestry expert. I was out of my league. I had no clue what I was doing. That goes back to capacity. That’s scary. That is really scary. Not having capacity to understand what’s going on, and then finding out: “Well, you’re the most knowledgable.” “Good grief. I don’t even know what I’m talking about.” “Well, we expect you to kind of explain to us the Forestry Act.” “No, not a chance.” “Well, can you at least understand the forestry regulations?” “No, not a chance.” That is capacity.

This is a reality of what you’re talking about when you’re talking about some First Nations. Now, I know a lot of First Nations can sit at the table, and they can negotiate. They understand exactly what you’re talking about. But for the most part, they probably have capacity hired to protect them. They have their advisers, consultants, their lawyers. They have their staff. They’re well versed in it, so it’s not all up to the councillor. But there are many councils that aren’t equipped like that.

Mine was one of them, back in 2003. In fact, what my band did back in 2003 was hire an ex–Indian Affairs staffer to be our lobbyist. It was probably the right thing to do back then because we didn’t know anything else about the outside world and what was happening. I believed that the Indian Act was the end-all. It took two years for me to figure out that the Indian Act is actually an artificial boundary. It’s a waste of time, and the more you debate it and discuss it and fight it, the more your people suffer.

In fact, back then there was a sentiment for new councillors — and I agree with this today, as I did back then — in terms of capacity. It would take you two years to understand how to do your job as a councillor before you could delve into the bigger issues of politics or major projects or environmental assessments. I agree with that today.

For a band like mine, who’s advanced so far in terms of the LNG industry, in terms of land transfers from the previous B.C. government…. I think it’s going to take them three years to get caught up. Never mind the Indian Act. Who cares about the Indian Act? It’s irrelevant for us. But I think it’s going to take three years for them to understand their duties as a councillor and understand all these major project development agreements we signed and all the agreements that we signed on land transfers. It’s quite significant.

Not only has our band done extensively well in terms of land transfers with B.C., we’re actually probably one of the only First Nations in B.C. or Canada that owns a water lot. Who supported us in fighting to get those water lots? It was the previous B.C. government. The water lot, in terms of commercial and industrial value, is worth millions. We now have assets. We can go get financing now, and it’s all built on capacity.

The world changes when you embrace rights and title and you embrace economic development, and the B.C. government is sitting there with open arms and willing to talk, and the corporations are there, sitting there, willing to talk, willing to negotiate and find that common ground. The world changes. Now not only is money not a problem, money comes to your doorstep.

[3:50 p.m.]

My band is not hurting for money. They haven’t applied for any provincial funding in the last five years. They just don’t need it. They bought an apartment complex a couple of months ago to address the housing need that’s going to happen in Kitimat. They’re actually going to build their own apartment complex. By the way, the provincial government contributed 50 percent to the apartment complex on reserve. We didn’t need the money, but my band took it.

The list goes on. China Investment Corp., the biggest investment corporation in the in the world, came to our council table, and they were asking us: “How do we get in on the projects? How do we lend you money so that we can engage with you guys on the major projects?” It was hard to explain to them that it’s not even our project: “It’s not even ours. Plus, we don’t want your money. We don’t need your money.”

Success begets success; that’s basically what it is. That’s what I’m hoping Bill 36 is actually aspiring to. This in itself is not going to close the economic gap, but if this Bill 36 actually provides that seed funding so that other bands can experience what we’ve experienced, it’s going to be a long journey, but it’s worth it.

That first forest and revenue agreement, which we signed with the B.C. government almost 11 years ago, put us on a different road, with the possibilities this opened up. If you come to my community, no one is going to complain to you about the Indian Act. No one is going to tear your ear off about that. They’re going to tell you about the latest job they’ve got, at 30 to 44 bucks an hour, no high school graduation. They’re going to talk to you about the training that they’re being sent away for in Alberta or New York. They’re excited. There’s a new era there.

That beginning…. Closing that economic gap started back 15 years ago. To be more precise, I think we finally opened our eyes to what was possible when, back in 2006, Kitimat LNG started to become a reality. LNG Canada actually beat them to the punch, but we were engaging with the revenues coming from Kitimat LNG for the better part of eight years.

It’s incredible what we can talk about if you want to talk about closing the economic gap and if that’s what you’re proposing to do. The only caveat I have is: don’t make it so bureaucratic, red-tape- and application-driven that First Nations actually turn their backs on it. If you did do the consultation with 203 bands, if you did do that consultation, you probably know this already. You’ve probably already heard it: “Why don’t you just give us the money directly?” I know that’s what I would have said. I could have made use of that money back in 2004 — incredible use.

When we’re talking about that, we’re talking about capacity. We’re talking about the ability for First Nations to engage in a process like this. There are a lot of First Nations that are stuck within the Indian Act and that can’t see a way out. All they’re doing is managing funding agreements. That’s all they’re doing. They’ve got no time to think about a job for their 80 percent unemployment. They’ve got no time to think about signing an IBA worth $500,000 a year to the band. They’ve got no time for that. They’re just trying to stay solvent. They’re just trying to stay within that 8 percent negative rule that comes with Indian Act funding. That’s all they’re trying to do.

In a band like mine, I can tell you…. This is my own experience. Asking for money, applying for money, lobbying for money — I don’t know what term you want to use — is so degrading. It’s so humiliating, especially when you think of the concept that most of those revenues probably came from our territory in the first place. Then you’ve got to go ask for it. You’ve got to apply for it.

[3:55 p.m.]

One of the things that turned my thinking around in terms of fighting the Indian Act was a problem that every First Nation faces in B.C.: housing. This is a federal jurisdiction on reserve. We all know that. I think it was the previous government that actually broke that barrier, that went into the Lax Kw’alaams reserve and started proposing building housing on the Lax Kw’alaams reserve. That was actually pretty brave. That was very courageous, and I see this agreement building on that.

Previous to this — I’ll give you an example of how degrading and humiliating this is — I was chosen to go to Ottawa on a lobbying trip, to lobby Ottawa, but I didn’t know what we were lobbying for until I got there. When we got there, we were lobbying for more money for housing, and we were told: “Sorry. You’re on the freeze list.” For those First Nations in here, you’ll know what a freeze list is. If you’re in non-compliance with the funding agreement — Ottawa puts you on a funding agreement — you’re not eligible for any more funding. In fact, they penalize you every time that you don’t take measures to address the compliance factor.

We went home and reported back to our council: “Sorry. There’s no money. They told us we’re on the freeze list.” At that point, I told my council: “I’m never going to do that again. I’m never going to go beg for money. I’ve got to find a different way.”

Well, after a month, I was in Vancouver. There were a bunch of my councillors down there, they were on their way to the Indian Affairs office in Vancouver, and they asked me if I could go. “Sure, I’ll go.” I go in there, and we sit down with the housing officer for INAC, and we say: “Hey, we’re here for housing. We spent the better part of the month getting ourselves into compliance, and now we’re here to talk about the future in terms of building houses on reserve. So where do we start?” And the housing officer told us: “Sorry. You went back on the freeze list this morning.”

That is a common experience. You can’t imagine the words that I used outside that office. I didn’t even wait for the meeting to end. I just got up and left, and I swore I would never do that again — never. Just to think about filling out an application form when I knew there was so much possible out there, it was just…. It didn’t appeal to me. Let’s put it that way.

So we could have used this funding agreement, this Bill 36, back in 2004. I understand that if it’s annual, we probably could have built anywhere from…. Based on the average funding we’re talking about here, maybe we could have built two or three houses a year. But that’s just one component of what First Nations are facing, in terms of the economic gap that I hear spoken to in this House a number of times. That’s only one component.

We’re not talking about the aging infrastructure, like the roads that may or may not be paved. We’re not talking about the water system that was built 60 years ago. We’re not talking about the Indian Affairs houses that aren’t up to code but actually don’t even have the same kinds of standards the rest of Canadians take for granted. And on and on and on.

It’s a different world we’re living in. There are so many groups, levels of government that are trying to address, in a real way, the economic gap, including the federal government. But to me, I can’t really conclude whether or not the economic gap is being addressed unless I see Aboriginal persons themselves not even worrying about the economic gap. That’s my measurement — especially for a young person.

If a young person today is making 30 bucks an hour and they’re on their way to building a career, then I don’t even want to hear them mention the words “economic gap.” There’s no need. If they’re talking about the mortgage that they have off reserve, great. If they’re talking about the RRSP that they just set up, great. That’s perfect. If they’re talking about the RESP that they’ve set up for their two-year-old daughter, that is perfect.

That’s the conversation I want First Nations to be having in the next 30 years. I don’t want to be talking about these piecemeal projects on how they spent ten years applying for a fund only to fix their band council office. I don’t want to talk about that. Substantial change that affects peoples’ lives — that’s always been my goal ever since 2005, and it comes from capacity.

[4:00 p.m.]

In terms of Bill 36, if a band has the capacity to access this fund and is okay with signing onto a limited partnership, then that means they’ll be able to be successful in terms of the revenues projected in this bill. If they’re that successful already, they’re probably not going to need it. It’s going to be a bonus. If a project is going to cost them $1 million a year, then the $200,000 or $300,000 that’s going to come from this fund will actually mean that $200,000 or $300,000 of their own money won’t have to be expended.

I’m hoping the formula that we’ve yet to see acknowledges this, acknowledges that there are some bands, through lack of capacity, that are not going to be able to address this and that are not going to be able to access this. Yet that should be the priority — extra effort put into those bands. We shouldn’t leave them behind.

It was a concept that I heard when we were negotiating the forest and range agreement, where a smaller band was actually projected to receive less revenue and less forestry volume just because of the size of their band. They were too small to fight on their own. There were only 200 people in their band, 100 living off reserve. The bigger band said: “We’re not going to sign on to the agreement unless that smaller band is actually treated fairly and actually given substantial revenues to help their own problems.”

Talked a little bit about the eligibility. For that, I’m assuming, without seeing the final agreement, there is going to be criteria. I know there are objectives and categories that would be put into this agreement that the First Nation will be able to apply for, which is good. It’s really good. But if there is a band out there that is okay already with their infrastructure, that is okay with their housing, then I can only imagine there are going to be bands out there that are going to want to use this fund for economic development purposes.

The only concern I raise here is that this fund be actually distributed to those bands, who want to participate in the economy, without prejudice. It should be straightforward in terms of what this band wants to engage in. If it’s something that they want to create on their own, on reserve or off reserve, it shouldn’t matter, as long as they meet the eligibility requirements. It shouldn’t matter what the nature of the business is.

Now, I’ve come across this before. I don’t see it as much today, but in the past, if you were engaging in a politically incorrect project, you would get ignored. There are a lot of options out there right now for equity in major projects. There are a lot of options out there now for partnering up with businesses in terms of equity to participate in the contract opportunities for major projects.

Now, the major projects we’re talking about are fossil fuels. We’re talking about Trans Mountain. We’re talking the majority of First Nations along the pipeline route who want to engage in equity talks, who want to own the pipeline. This is not new. This is not a new concept. I already see people shaking their heads. The prejudice that you have against Trans Mountain, is that going to fall into the eligibility requirements? Will it?

If a First Nation has ambitions to engage with LNG in terms of equity or in terms of Trans Mountain, will that be part of the eligibility requirements that it could certainly have? It should be without prejudice, because these issues that the government claims to know so much about, that you want to address…. These are horrible situations. The band council is in a catch-22 position. If they try to address it through economic development, they’re sellouts. They’re apples. If they don’t address it, it’s a dereliction of their duty. It’s a no-win situation.

[4:05 p.m.]

I haven’t seen the final agreement just yet. I haven’t seen the criteria. But I sincerely hope that whoever’s going to administer these funds does not take their political leanings into where these funds are going, because for a small band of 300 people on reserve, with 200 people living off reserve, an equity position could mean their future.

This is bringing back a lot of memories. You know, I meet up with all these Aboriginal leaders that I worked with over the last 14 years, and it’s all positive news stories. The LNG has brought tremendous progress to our people, not to their leadership, not to their organizations.

I can really respect a leader that says: “You know, we’ve got this chunk of money, and probably 98 percent of it went to the members. We got training programs, we got employment, we got contracts, and the people now have sustainable jobs. Now the people don’t need council. They don’t need government funding. They don’t need welfare. They don’t need unemployment insurance.” That is a true measure of success — a true measure.

An organization that takes this kind of funding and actually takes 50 percent of it as administrative costs or in wages — that is not going to close the economic gap. There are too many examples of that, all around Canada. There are too many examples.

I don’t know the structure of this, but $196 million annually and, on average, $200,000 to $300,000 going to every band, especially for the bands that need it. I hope the majority of that money makes it to these bands, and I hope that the people actually benefit from it. So I’m really looking forward to reading this agreement.

Closing the economic gap is fairly ambitious. Is it achievable? I don’t know. I’ve never known the answer to that question. On a band-by-band basis, it is. I can tell you by experience that it is. But it’s not dependent on government funding. There are a lot of factors that go into whether or not a band member will become successful or independent. There are a lot of factors, including their own initiative, that have nothing to do with council.

In a lot of circumstances, the council is actually responsible for the community’s future, as well as their band members’ future, in terms of opening doors, in terms of providing opportunities. That’s just on reserve. Slowly, First Nations that are gaining benefit are understanding the idea that the Indian Act actually doesn’t have any holds on them. Now, I understand Bill 36 is going to come with as little strings as possible, which I’m crossing my fingers for — that that’s the case.

When you’re talking about band councils, band councils are in a really bad spot in terms of what was passed on to them from previous councils. It’s tough to break that mentality, because Indian Act funding, for the most part, is restricted to members on reserve. Canada is supposed to be responsible for Aboriginals no matter where they are in Canada. It doesn’t matter if they’re on reserve or off reserve. That’s a grey area.

In terms of B.C., Aboriginals make up 5 percent of the population, and that number is increasing for a number of factors, not just increased births but a number of different factors. What’s even more interesting about this…. We’ve talked. I’ve heard this conversation a number of times in the House, talking about affordability. What’s interesting about these stats is that one in four Aboriginal people in British Columbia actually live in Vancouver.

[4:10 p.m.]

Now, if you’re a band like mine…. Probably 50 percent of my band membership lives off reserve. There are probably a few hundred living in the neighbouring town of Kitimat. There are probably 100 living in Terrace, maybe 20 or so living in Rupert and scattered across B.C. But there’s a large population of my people living in Vancouver.

One of the good things about money with no strings attached to it is a band council then has the flexibility to actually help all their people, no matter where they live, because it’s not abiding by Indian Act policy. This is a tough thing to cover, because a band council, when we’re looking at $200,000 or $300,000, has got to prioritize what they’re going to do with that money. Do they replace the water pipes? Do they replace the potholes? Do they fix up their dock? What do they do? Meanwhile, there are people living in Vancouver who are having problems with groceries. They’re having problems getting cultural food. They’re having problems making their rent.

Now, for those lucky enough to get into native housing, a lot of that’s alleviated, but not all. There are a number of First Nations living in Vancouver that don’t need it at all. But that doesn’t relieve us of our job to do our best to actually help them.

That’s what economic development does for bands like mine. That’s one of the biggest reasons why I supported LNG. Those years of political opposition, protests, all these philosophical arguments about LNG and China’s emissions, Canada’s emissions, the United States…. That’s all academic when you’re talking about what’s happening today. My band actually helps the band members no matter where they live in the world. They help them because the money they made off the LNG is not restricted by anybody. There’s no criteria.

Mind you, the band council had to set up criteria themselves. They had to set up accountability and transparency measures, but the goal was: let’s help everybody. That’s why our band has so many training programs. We own a private post-sec institute. We built our own soccer field. We renovated a soccer field. We built the fire hall. We built a rec centre. We build, build, build. And not one penny of it came from government money, because we didn’t need it. That is the true definition of independence, and that’s what economic development did for us.

It would have been easier if we didn’t have to go through so many rules and bureaucracy around applications for funding agreements. It would have been so easy, instead of spending two weeks going through a business application or a business plan, only to find out that you got turned down by the bank because you’ve got no finance credit rating, or you’ve got no assets.

I’ve got to keep coming back to it: eligible First Nation. There’s no need for it. If government…. If you created this partnership with 203 First Nations, I’m sure it came up, at some point, at least with one band out of 203. One band said: “Why don’t you just give me the money directly? Why do I have to go through a third party?”

I mean, it’s the band councils who are in charge of their community’s destiny, their future and their well-being. It would have direct benefit, and it would have direct payoff. You’d see the results instantly. First Nations could utilize that kind of money in a day.

There’s another term I heard over the last two years in this building. I heard it all around B.C. and Canada: reconciliation. I still don’t understand what people are talking about in terms of reconciliation. When I first read the term “reconciliation….” It was a word that was actually used by a judge when he was pronouncing his decision on a rights-and-title case, and it came down to consultation. I think this is important when we’re talking about the consultation that the government did with 203 bands in B.C. to come up with this Bill 36. But in terms of reconciliation, it’s used for everything.

[4:15 p.m.]

What the judge said, basically, was that we better come to an agreement here that satisfies all parties, because — let’s face it — none of us are going anywhere. In terms of the case law rulings as well, there’s another thing that was said by judges. They said that reconciliation or consultation accommodation should be done but also in the light of the greater society. That’s pretty important. Consultation accommodation in light of the greater society — that’s the Crown’s job.

I mean, at the end of the day, you don’t want to create animosity. And we saw that. We saw that already with the mountain caribou issue. There was misdirected animosity toward the First Nations that signed on to these agreements with the government. That wasn’t right. That animosity should not have gone to the First Nations.

That is not in the spirit of reconciliation. Reconciliation is supposed to bring parties back together. It’s not meant to divide us. And we’re dividing us by picking winners and losers. There are non-natives in my family. I have non-native friends. I live in a community that’s diverse — races from all over the place. I don’t want to fight with them, and I don’t want to argue with them based on an agreement that I signed with the provincial government.

When we’re doing the decisions…. I’m sure the government recognized this, and it was already mentioned before — that this will not impact different funding that is already laid out in place of the lottery revenues. I’m hoping that it doesn’t divide, that it doesn’t pick winners and losers. If it does and there are arguments coming out of it, then the term “reconciliation” will be meaningless — not if you create animosity out there.

In terms of the consultation, I’ll be going back to find out what my band thought about the consultation, what they thought about it in terms of the deliverables. I’ve got a number of chief councillors, as well, that I talk to on a regular basis. I’ll be talking to them. More importantly, I’ll be talking with First Nations that actually really need this kind of money.

I’m also an MLA. I have the experience of being a First Nations leader through council as well as being a chief councillor. And through the case law of Aboriginal rights and title and section 35, I learned a long time ago…. Actually, it’s the words of the judge that said none of us are going anywhere, so we better get along.

Everybody wants money — everybody. You’re talking about jurisdictions. You’re talking about regions. You’re talking about cities, municipalities. Everybody wants it. In my riding, if you come to it, actually, it’s one of the top topics for our municipality councils. And to be honest, I agree with them. I always have.

If we’re talking about revenues coming from resource development, then why not do resource-revenue-sharing agreements with the regions and the municipalities that are going to be most impacted? There is going to be a lot of pressure put on Kitimat and Terrace, a lot of pressure. We’re already seeing it — the amount of traffic that is actually impacting our highways and our roads.

In fact, the federal government recently recognized this with a $55 million investment in terms of replacing the Haisla Bridge. Now, it’s named Haisla Bridge, but the Haisla have got nothing do with it. But back when I was a chief councillor, I supported this idea in principle because I knew the LNG industry needed this. If we were going to have development in our territory, we needed to replace the infrastructure, including that bridge.

[4:20 p.m.]

That was one thing that the federal government recognized — that in terms of the need, it was going to be based on impact. There was a priority placed on Kitimat. Terrace has got the same priority.

It’s not just infrastructure. The amount of people coming into Terrace that are hoping to find a job in Kitimat or Terrace is placing incredible strains on the social services in Terrace and Kitimat. I don’t know if it’s optimism or best guess. I don’t know. But it’s actually increasing the problems that we’re seeing in Terrace. Kitimat not so much yet, but it’s coming.

In terms of the revenue-sharing, especially when we’re talking about the rural dividend fund, and also in terms of the word out there that there’s going to be a 5 percent decrease in terms of the government programming commitments, I’m hoping municipalities aren’t left out of this, especially in terms of impacted areas.

We all share these services. I don’t care if you’re in Kitimat, Terrace, in a remote part of northeastern B.C. or down south. We all share these services. We all share the same infrastructure. So if you improve a highway or you improve a hospital or build a hospital, it actually benefits everybody. So I hope that other jurisdictions are not left out or actually get their funding reduced or ignored. I know that at the recent UBCM meeting that was one of the concerns, especially in regards to the rural dividend fund.

I understand the issue the government is in, because this is all based on budget. And the budget actually is one of the biggest components when it comes to good governance, unless you want to increase taxes to pay for these services or unless you want to go into deficit financing, which is not a good idea in either respect.

There were a number of times that it was said — I’m just repeating what I said — that this is the first time revenue-sharing was actually created, but I was at the table when there were a number of revenue-sharing agreements created.

To be honest, the government is actually going through a learning exercise, and it only just started in earnest in 2004. Really, nobody understood the rules back in 2004. Nobody did. There was a case ruling out there, the Haida court case on the duty to consult and accommodate, but there was no definition given to it by the courts. So everybody had to try to interpret it and try to fix it, in terms of good governance and budgets, in terms of what a First Nation wanted and in terms of what the economic development community wanted. Nobody understood it. So there were a lot of mistakes made. There was a lot of progress made.

I already mentioned the forest and range agreement, that in exchange for volumes of wood as well as revenue-sharing, peace in the woods was achieved in our regions. Logging was allowed to continue because now First Nations were accommodated in terms of revenues as well as timber volumes. That was a significant agreement, and that is still paying off today for many First Nations. In fact, if I understand correctly, First Nations are back at the table asking for more volume, because they can see it provides employment as well as it provides revenues.

There is one revenue-sharing agreement, for lack of a better word, that was actually pretty significant for us, but we didn’t understand the politics of the day. It was an environmental revenue-sharing-type agreement made between the B.C. government and First Nations. Over the years, there was a lot of talk about how this was going to unfold. It ended up turning into what we know today as the coast opportunity fund.

[4:25 p.m.]

What you might not know is that there was an exchange for this. It was actually the B.C. government, in partnership with environmental organizations, that put together this pot of money if First Nations would agree to put land into protection. That’s how the coast opportunity fund came about.

The First Nations had to put something on the table, and that was the request from the environmental organizations. “If you secure land that will never be developed, we’ll put up our half of the money.” And B.C. went along with it.

Now, this was a one-time payment. But — and this goes back to capacity — I was at that table. I thought: “Great. This is going to be money. It’s going to come to us. I can protect this land through an agreement with the B.C. government. I can start utilizing some money for some of the stuff that I’ve got to do.”

Well, it wasn’t that easy. In fact, it was actually pretty surprising to find out that we had to go through a third party. This money that had been promised to us had been promised to be managed by a third party in two categories. One was an environmental fund that would always be replenished, and the other one was an economic development fund.

The environmental fund was actually meant for environmental projects as well as to provide capacity environmentally in terms of our organization. So that wasn’t a problem. I mean, we had more than enough environmental projects. We actually needed capacity in terms of dealing with some of the major projects coming in. That wasn’t a problem.

The economic development fund was a problem. I kind of outlined some of the issues that come up. When a First Nation tries to engage in economy, they just don’t have the assets. They don’t have the financing. They don’t have the credit rating. They’ve got nothing. So we didn’t even touch that fund. We were pretty insulted, after all that negotiation, when we found out that we had to actually apply to a third party to access our own money even though we had already put that land into protection. It was a sore spot for my council.

Mind you, by the time that LNG got up and running, we actually used that money to support LNG initiatives across the board. I think we depleted that fund. But it all came back in terms of employment and training for our people, so it had a benefit. But nobody seems to remember that fund anymore. It had an impact, but it wasn’t an instant impact. It took years to understand whether or not we did affect that economic gap. I don’t know if it did or not. I couldn’t tell you. It’s a measurement we never thought about.

Similar to that was the new relationship trust — 2006. This fund was $100 million, and we anticipated that this money would actually flow to the First Nations. Well, it didn’t. It actually went to a third party, and it became application-driven. I wanted no part of it, because I didn’t like applying for money, especially if you have a solid business plan or you have a solid project that actually guarantees that a person will get the training needed to actually engage in the economy for employment initiatives.

There are examples out there in terms of revenue sharing. And not one of these initiatives are perfect. But it’s a learning exercise from all levels of government.

The measurement I’m looking forward to will be whether or not the members themselves get themselves out of poverty. The measurement will be: are there more Aboriginals going into the workforce instead of going into prison? That’ll be a measurement. Will there be less kids going into government care? That’s a measurement. Will there be less band members on welfare?

I’m not just pointing this out for Bill 36. I’m pointing it out for every single initiative that I’ve seen coming down the pike for the last 15 years. It’s what a lot of First Nations will question when they come across this.

[4:30 p.m.]

I’m sure there are a number of First Nations that will be surprised to hear that they’ll have to apply for the money that’s actually allocated to themselves, or they’ll have to become a member of a limited partnership. It’s permissive. It’s almost to the point of paternalistic.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Yet there are so many examples of the previous government doing significant revenue-sharing agreements, whether it be mining, forestry, LNG-related. There are different ways to address some of the issues that First Nations are addressing without even thinking about a revenue-sharing agreement in the first place.

The environmental stewardship initiative, put together by the previous government, was actually meant to address a need that First Nations were facing all across B.C. How do we address issues in the environment in our certain territories? A revenue fund was put together, and in partnership with B.C., they cooperated and they picked up projects to work on. There are a lot of good examples.

From what I see, and I haven’t heard it mentioned here, this government is trying to build on the success already. They’re trying to build on it. They’re trying to build on the agreements that were signed with 154 nations that included over $420 million of revenue, forest revenue-sharing agreements. They’re trying to build on that. That’s great. Keep going. Fifteen years of success. This will add to it. That will help close the economic gap that’s been closed to a large extent already.

You will build on the fact that 62 natural gas pipeline agreements with 29 First Nations are already there waiting and are already receiving benefits. You’re going to build on that.

You’re going to build on the more than $26 million in direct mining tax revenue that’s already been agreed to with First Nation communities. This is going to add to that.

At some point, I think this huge puzzle is going to actually be put together. But at the end of the day, it’s going to be what these communities do with this money on behalf of their members, on behalf of their infrastructure needs. That’s what is going to matter.

You’re going to build on the land transfers actually achieved with bands like mine, which actually created the base for economic development. We’re not arguing about reserve lands or traditional territories. We’re talking about strategic land that has a value in terms of a lease that provides sustainable lifetime revenue for the lifetime of a project, which could be anywhere from 40 years.

Now, with the agreements that I have signed, that I was at the table with, they talked about that — 40 years. But in reality, these companies are talking about 60, 70, 80 years, and 40 years was just a marker to shoot for. That’s all it was. Rio Tinto Alcan, for example, in my community — 70 years and counting. They’re probably looking forward to another 50 years.

If you form agreements based on that, that’s sustainable. Government funding — not so sustainable. I mean, 7 percent of the revenues come from gambling. But if gambling goes down or the economy crashes, those revenues are going to crash too. Disposable income — if it’s not available, they’re not going to go out and gamble. They’re going to save that for groceries or mortgages, unless there’s a provision built into it that says that it doesn’t go below a certain threshold, which I haven’t seen.

You’re also going to build Bill 36…. You’re going to add to a whole list of reconciliation agreements signed between the B.C. government and First Nations over the last 15 years. You’re also going to build on the increase of Aboriginal students graduating from high school, going to college. I didn’t have to read the report to know that more of my community members are going to college because they broke away from the shackles of the Indian Act. They broke away from those policies and rigid rules. You get a First Nation like mine, where they get increased revenues that have no strings attached.

[4:35 p.m.]

We sent a woman to become a yoga instructor in Alberta. Under the Indian Act, you could never do that. A yoga instructor, because we felt that there were going to be ancillary services needed by the LNG industry that didn’t include direct employment within the LNG plant itself or the pipeline. We thought more about the families that would be coming and living in our region and how we build up the capacity for those people that want to come.

That’s important, because recruitment in rural areas is a real problem. When you’re talking about doctors, nurses, it’s a real problem. That’s what revenues without strings attached actually provides.

If these consultation agreements are as successful as it sounds…. Which First Nations said that they’re okay with going through a third party and having a condition of joining a limited partnership and then having a condition of filling out an application to apply for the money? Which First Nations signed up fully for that? I can almost bet it’s a First Nation that understands the whole process because they’ve been through it before successfully.

There are bands that are very successful in terms of accessing Indian Act money because they’ve been doing it for so long. They don’t know how to do anything else. But there are a lot of bands that are going to have trouble filling out application forms.

If it’s anything like my band, if you see limited partnership or general partnership, the first thing you do is send it to your lawyer. Then you’ve got to discuss. Then you’ve got to bring it to your community.

It’s been my pleasure speaking to Bill 36. I look forward to listening to more of the comments raised by my colleagues in this Legislature. I will take my seat.

A. Olsen: I’m glad to have the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019.

As I said during the 2019 budget process, this was indeed an important investment that the B.C. government is making in Indigenous communities. It’s a long time in coming. In fact, from my understanding, this request for access to gaming funds has been a long-standing one made by Indigenous leaders of this generation and of past generations. Until the announcement in Budget 2019, successive governments have ignored that request of Indigenous leaders. We find that today we are now having the conversation and we’re having the debate about a bill that actually brings this commitment that the government made in the budget into action through this legislation.

It’s basically a $3 billion commitment over 25 years to First Nations communities — funds that First Nations are able to access for the first time in the history of this province, somewhere between $250,000 and $2 million, depending on the number of communities that have subscribed to the fund. This is money that is going to be able to be used for all types of activities that are needed in the communities.

There have been a lot of comments that have been made in the House so far this afternoon with respect to capacity-building. These are exactly the kinds of funds…. This is the kind of project that these funds can be used to support. We know, as someone who grew up on a reserve in the W̱SÁNEĆ territory in Tsartlip, that much of the funding that comes to First Nations communities is program funding. It’s very specifically dedicated to certain projects, to certain activities, and the reporting on that is very tight. The accountability on that money is very tight.

This proposal is a proposal that allows for First Nations communities to be able to access funding through the gaming activities in this province and to be able to invest that money and put that money where they see fit. This is an important funding opportunity for First Nations, and I don’t think that it should be downplayed — the commitment that is being made here.

This is money that is going to be consistent. It’s money that the communities can borrow against. It’s money that communities can invest on, and it’s certainly a welcome investment being made by the provincial government.

[4:40 p.m.]

The relationship between the provincial government and the First Nations Leadership Council and First Nations communities is growing and strengthening. I’m very thankful for that, and I’m thankful for the investment that’s being made through this legislation, and it was made in Budget 2019.

That is the total sum of the comments that I have to this. I look forward to hearing the debate and the discussion as we go further through this in the committee stage. I just wanted to stand today and reiterate my support and my thankfulness, my gratitude. I raise my hands to the government for working with First Nations communities who have been asking for this.

Unfortunately, this has been a request that has been long ignored and one now that we’re able to say has been able to come to fruition because the people on this side of the House listened and worked with First Nations to make this happen. So I raise my hands to government. I raise my hands to the process that has allowed this to come to fruition.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

R. Leonard: I’m very pleased to be able to stand today in support of Bill 36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act. It is, as has been stated earlier, a significant step to further support First Nations in their self-determination.

I can’t help but think about the issue around equity and fairness when we have brought forward a world where there’s been systemic oppression, that we have systems in place that have not allowed communities to grow and to prosper based on how they’re able to create economic opportunities. This is a vehicle for economic opportunities.

In my own community, the K’ómoks First Nation has three different reserves. They have desires and vision to see economic growth, but they’ve never had the opportunity to tax, to raise the funds that are often needed to gain access to other funding opportunities. This will give them that space now to be able to really move forward with a lot of vigour on various opportunities.

It’s not just infrastructure, although infrastructure is some­thing that those of us from municipalities know very well. Residents want to see good sewers, and they want to see safe water supplies. These are opportunities now that First Nations are going to be able to move on, as have been listed earlier: health and wellness, safety, transportation, housing, business development, education, language, culture training, community development, environmental protection, capacity-building, fiscal management and governance.

These are all opportunities that have been rallied by First Nations for so long, and that desire has fallen on deaf ears for so many years. I’m very proud that we are able to take this action in a very collaborative process with the direction of leadership from the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and through the First Nations Gaming Commission.

This is not a top-down approach. This is what is being asked for. It’s not unlike the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which gets federal funding that is then distributed to local governments. Instead of First Nations going to this government to seek funds, it is going to be amongst the people of the First Nations who are handling their own funds. This is British Columbia finally joining along with five other provinces to do what’s right, to find a way to provide the funds for First Nations on their road to self-determination.

[4:45 p.m.]

I think that when you have an opportunity to do this kind of revenue-sharing, there are questions that we’ve heard today around fairness. Absolutely, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation made the point that revenue-sharing continues and is not in jeopardy. Revenue-sharing with local governments, including First Nations who host gaming facilities — Courtenay is one of those communities — is not affected, nor are community organizations and health services that already get gaming revenues. This is an opportunity for all of us to work together to help build a prosperous British Columbia for all people.

I think I’m going to stop now. I’m just so very proud that we are moving forward on a request that has been long-standing and that has been developed in a very fair process, in a collaborative way. I look forward to seeing the fruits of this, I expect when this legislation passes, soon to be entrenched and long-standing for 25 years — secure funding to be able to move forward and grow.

J. Rustad: I’m pleased to rise to add my voice to the debate on Bill 36. It’s always a pleasure to be able to bring the perspective of Nechako Lakes and of the people in my riding, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, to debates like this. I’m looking at the bill. I’ve read through the bill on a number of occasions here now. Obviously, it was raised as part of the budget commitment from last year.

I wonder how many bands in my riding — I’ve got 13 bands or so in my riding — signed band council resolutions that gave authorization for the money to flow through to the leadership council. It’s curious to me because the comments that I’ve heard from members that have spoken is that the agreement is between the leadership council — that is, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Summit. But those organizations have said over and over again that they do not have the authority to speak on behalf of the First Nations. They do not have the authority to sign agreements on behalf of the First Nations.

I was the minister responsible for the file for more than four years, and I spoke with them many times about agreements. They don’t have that authority. As a matter of fact, there was a time back before my time in the ministry where they did sign an agreement and tried to move forward an agreement. They were attacked by the bands because they didn’t have the authority to sign on behalf of bands. So I’m curious about this agreement and the revenue going forward to First Nations.

Having been the minister responsible in the past, I know very well that the First Nations need revenue, and they have lots of positive things that they can do in creating economic development and improving conditions. So I’m not opposed to the concept of the revenue.

When we were in government, we did oppose the idea of gaming revenue because we were the first government in Canadian history to actually share resource revenue. No other government was doing that. Other governments across Canada, when they were talking about doing things with First Nations, refused to go down the road of resource revenue. Instead, they went down the road of gaming revenue. I get that. That was their choice. We felt that it was more appropriate that the revenue going to First Nations come directly from the resources and the activities that were happening on their traditional territory.

This government has decided to go a step further than that. That’s what the government has decided to do, and that’s fine. I’m not going to oppose that particular step going forward, but I do wonder in the sense and the technicality of just how this is being done.

I remember entering many discussions with nations around the province, whether they were nations in my riding or ridings around the province. The previous member, for Courtenay-Comox, talked about three nations in her riding that were interested. There are six nations in Campbell River. None of them wanted agreements through the First Nations Leadership Council. They wanted government-to-government relations. They wanted an agreement with revenue that went there.

[4:50 p.m.]

As a matter of fact, I remember having discussions around forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements for revenue coming from the forest industry. I suggested at the time that we set up a system that would be able to support some revenue going to the First Nations forest council, and they were adamant. The bands I talked to were adamant, saying: “No, that’s our revenue. That shouldn’t go to them.”

How much revenue are we talking about here that will end up being under the control of the leadership council? What is the administrative cost? How is this process actually going to unfold? This is going to be a very interesting discussion when it comes down to committee stage, because there are a lot of unknowns in terms of how this is being done.

More importantly…. Talked about lots of consultation, talked about a collaborative process. There are no bands that’ve signed on to this. This is just with the leadership council. The authority rests with the First Nations. The authority of agreements and revenue comes directly from a First Nation. It comes from the band council resolution.

We signed, in the time that I was minister, about 435 agreements, and every one of those agreements was with a band council resolution, every single one of them. Every dollar. The agreements that were signed were government-to-government revenue flowing. Not a single one was done through a leadership council or that process, where the revenue would flow to a nation through a council, or through any other type of process, when I was in there.

Back when we set up the First Nations…. I can’t remember the name of it. We set up $100 million for the new relationship trust that was set up. That was the name of it. We signed so many agreements, I can’t remember the name of all of them. I didn’t sign that one. That was before my time. But that was set up.

It was set up as $100 million that was set to be able to benefit nations around the province. And guess what. We heard loud and clear from the First Nations they weren’t happy. Why? Because the money wasn’t in their hands. The money was in the hands of an organization outside of it, and they didn’t see that money directly flow through.

Now there is a process. There is money, and it’s certainly gone through and seen some benefits. But First Nations weren’t happy about that. So I’m actually very curious to see whether the First Nations have signed on and agree that the leadership council should be the ones that are responsible for yeaing or naying a project that comes forward.

After all, isn’t this what the Indian Act was all about — the paternalistic approach of they know best as to whether something should be approved or not, and the federal government can approve how money is spent or not within First Nations? That stuff goes back 150 years, 100 years at least, in terms of the Indian Act.

That’s not the approach we should be doing for reconciliation. Bands should be responsible for their own money and their own future and helping to build it for the nation. It shouldn’t have this process in the middle. I fail to understand what government is trying to achieve here. Why wouldn’t they just go out and do the agreements with the nations and have the money flow through to them, have a report back as to how that money is being spent, with the conditions, and trust the nations to be able to spend according to the way that they’ve signed on to the agreement?

Isn’t that what true reconciliation is — working together and opening partnerships and having First Nations responsible and capable of handling their own affairs and working in partnership to try to support those goals? Why are we creating this vehicle? Quite frankly, you’re going to have overhead, and there’s going to be an onerous amount of applications and process that has to be gone through.

My colleague from Skeena talked, and he has experienced it directly. For bands that don’t have the capacity to go through, how is that fair for them? How’s that going to work, as opposed to having the money directly flowing to the band and allowing them to build capacity and develop things? I don’t quite understand what the desired outcome is with that.

There’s another piece, as well, that I’m very curious…. I’m very curious as to whether or not the provincial government has engaged with the federal government on this issue. You see, any revenue that comes in to a First Nation is called own-source revenue, and that could potentially reduce the amount of revenue that comes in from the federal government.

Are we simply letting the federal government off the hook through this agreement, through the money that’s coming through, in terms of the money that will flow to the nations through federal agreements? Where’s that discussion? Is that being resolved in advance of this coming forward? I haven’t heard anybody talk about that in advance.

[4:55 p.m.]

Maybe because it’s gaming revenue, there isn’t a concern there. But it’s something, certainly, that needs to be known, and I’m sure the First Nations themselves would like to be part of those discussions, which apparently they weren’t.

Going through and looking at the agreement and the process through here, the other thing that comes to mind with this is government has the ability to change how much revenue it shares with charities and charitable organizations and sporting groups and others around the province. It has the spending authority to be able to change that. But with the First Nations, it doesn’t.

Now, that’s part of the agreement that’s gone in there, but there comes a time when government is in some fiscal challenges, and I think this current government is facing that today, given, certainly, the number of charity groups and other organizations that have told me they have received reduced funding over what they normally have received in the past. But it makes me wonder about that commitment and removing that ability for government to manage the books of the province from gaming revenues, which it does from time to time.

Is it fair and equitable, as one of the previous members who talked to…? It’s okay for other organizations that depend on gaming revenue to be at the whims of government and government process? I suppose. But it’s an interesting question and an interesting conversation that many organizations that have felt that their funding has been reduced over this past year would love to be able to have, I think, with this government.

One of the previous members talked about this being assistance in terms of a vehicle for economic activity. I can understand that. You know, revenue coming in allows some things. But why does it have to go through, once again, some other entity? Why isn’t it going just to the nation itself?

I wonder. Given that nations have different capacities…. Some nations — obviously, the Osoyoos band, the Haisla, Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh, a number of others…. Tk’emlúps comes to mind, Kanaka, McLeod Lake. They’re doing fine. Economically, they’re quite advanced. They’ve got a lot of revenue. They’ve got a lot of activities happening. Tsawwassen, some of the treaty nations, are doing just fine.

Is there a balance in this funding that goes out that recognizes the bands that are impoverished and that haven’t got opportunities — to receive a different type of share as opposed to a band that is doing well? Or is this just straight across the board? Or, as I fear, the bands that are doing well have the capacity and capability to make the applications and will get the money, and the bands that don’t have that capacity may lose out on an opportunity because they can’t put forward stuff. They haven’t got things planned. They haven’t got the process in place. How is that, then, fair and equitable? How is that, then, driving economic opportunity, particularly for those nations that are struggling?

That is why I come back to the main point: have the bands signed on? Are there band council resolutions? Why not have this money flow straight to the bands?

In all the time that I was minister and visiting many, many communities around the province and we had talks about economic development and revenue and trying to partner in terms of how we help nations build their future and what role government can play, nations talked to me about wanting to have gaming revenue. But not a single one of them said they were interested in having it go through the leadership council. Nobody advocated for that model.

I’m very curious in terms of the consultation and exactly what the First Nations would have to say with regards to this process that is set up. In many ways, I actually find it somewhat disrespectful by this government. I heard some of the members over across the way laugh. I took the job of going out and consulting and engaging with First Nations very seriously.

[5:00 p.m.]

That’s why we signed so many agreements. That’s why we forwarded reconciliation in this province farther than any other jurisdiction in this country. It’s why we saw First Nations entering into economic development and engaging and setting up companies. We helped, and we worked together. We’re partners, and we helped to lift each other up.

That’s what reconciliation is: working together and solving problems, trying to find those paths forward, not being disrespectful and not engaging with them and having an agreement with a leadership council. I can guarantee you there will be nations out there that aren’t happy about it.

I look forward, actually, to going out and having those conversations with the nations, particularly the nations in my riding. I know they’re excited about the idea of getting the gaming revenue. But I can tell you that I’ll be very surprised if they’re excited about a portion of that staying in the leadership council for management and having to work with the leadership council to get any kind of agreement or process forward.

To that end, when I think about economic development, the challenge that nations have faced…. I’m not an expert, having spent four years in the ministry, but I will say this. The challenge that the nations have faced can be summed up quite nicely in a book that Calvin Helin wrote called Dances with Dependency.

It’s a very interesting book. It’s not about drug or alcohol addiction. It’s about addiction to government cheques, money that’s coming in from governments. I wonder if there’s an attempt, in terms of the gaming revenue and this process…. Is this not just another government cheque coming in? What will that do in terms of being able to advance the opportunities for people in terms of being able to go out and build that economic capacity?

When you look at the sum of the stated goals of it, whether it’s various government services, etc.… Those are needed, but I’m not sure if that’s really laying the best foundation for economic activity and for building an economic future.

I remember talking with the Nisg̱a’a about their treaty and about what they hoped to achieve through the agreements that they had. The goal of Elder Joseph Gosnell was: “It’s high time that we not only have an opportunity to catch up to our non-Indigenous partners but, if possible, surpass economically.”

The treaty was about laying the foundation for building an economy, for building success, for helping the nation move from beyond managing poverty to managing success. I think revenue coming in can be helpful with that, but I’m not quite sure this would be defined as setting that kind of a stage.

It’s like I say. I’m not opposed to the idea of going forward and doing this, but I do have serious questions about the process and what’s going on and how this was set up. It seems to be more about paying off friends than it is about actually getting the resources to the bands.

Interjections.

J. Rustad: I see members on the other side seem to be shocked about that. Why are you working through the leadership council? Why aren’t you working directly with the bands? Why isn’t the money flowing directly to the bands?

The member opposite is heckling somewhat, and that’s good. Maybe heckle a little louder. I’ll be able to respond appropriately.

It does surprise me.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Interesting. Well, I hope the member opposite gets an opportunity to stand up and give those comments on record.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: I’m happy to defend my record any day with First Nations. The member opposite is talking about the record.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. The member for Nechako Lakes has the floor.

J. Rustad: Let me talk about the record of the B.C. Liberals under our government. There were virtually no agreements in this province in the 1990s with First Nations.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: There was one agreement, and it wasn’t even done. The Nisg̱a’a treaty wasn’t even done. The B.C. treaty process had to be done outside.

I can tell you this. The only other modern treaties were signed under the B.C. Liberals. As a matter of fact, of all the agreements that this province signed, over 500 agreements, just about every last one of them was under the B.C. Liberals.

[5:05 p.m.]

What did it do? We saw engagement on forestry, opportunities to cut wood. We saw opportunities for revenue there. We saw opportunities for mining — to engage in agreements with mining, both with impact-and-benefits agreements as well as with the revenue source agreements, engaging fully in the economy and activity. The LNG agreements, the LNG process that went through there, training agreements, environmental management agreements — there was a wide range. We opened the door so far in terms of going with these agreements that, quite frankly, we couldn’t keep up with the number of agreements and the number of processes that First Nations were willing to do.

What’s happened since then under this government? It’s gone silent. There have been a handful of agreements that have been signed. All of that process has come to an end. Why? I’m not sure why. It’s a good question.

We’re proud of the record we had with First Nations. It was a dramatic shift. When you talk about a First Nation that went from 65 percent unemployment to 15 percent unemployment because of working through agreements and advancing, that’s progress. That’s reconciliation.

We were well underway at implementing all of the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We had changed our education system, implementing that…. There’s so much that we did with First Nations. It’s remarkable. And to hear the members opposite say that we should be ashamed of our record? They clearly or simply have political blinders on. It’s like this agreement. It’s the political blinders, thinking they’re doing great things.

Get the money to the bands. Have the agreements with the bands. Have them sign the band council resolutions to be able to be part of it. That’s the route that should be taken with these types of things.

Make sure that you deal with things like own-source revenue. How is that being addressed? If you’ve got the agreement with the feds, you’re making sure that that’s not just going to be clawed back so there’s no net gain, or virtually no net gain, for the nations.

This bill is a relatively short bill in terms of the number of sections and pieces that are in here, but there’s a lot that I think will be up in terms of discussion at the committee stage. I look forward to being a part of that discussion as it goes through. I hope that when the minister comes up, the minister responsible for gaming, who is, I’m sure, listening to this discussion as it goes on….

I’m very curious, though, why gaming revenues for so many organizations around the province that depend on it are in decline. Now, the promise of this agreement was that it would have no impact. The promise of this agreement is that it would come out of the government side of the gaming revenue. But the reality is that many organizations around this province are receiving less, sometimes 50 percent less, from revenue. I’m very curious about just how that accounting is going to work. It’s going to be very interesting to see.

I’m hopeful that the minister will be able to answer some of those questions and not have to wait until the year-end report comes out next summer to see whether or not those gaming revenues and the amount going out has held to the amount from previous years.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The member opposite seems to think the same amount of money has gone out this year, and that’s good. I hope it has. Clearly, organizations in my riding and in other ridings that I have talked to where the revenue stream is down…. So we’ll see what the final numbers are when the budgets come in. It will be very interesting to see that process.

I support any vehicle that provides economic development and economic opportunity for First Nations. First Nations, as Joseph Gosnell has said, have been behind the rest of Canada economically for far too long. It is high time that First Nations had an opportunity to be able to engage fully in the economy and meet or even exceed where other people are in this country.

I fully support reconciliation. I support the goals of being able to bring people together to resolve the issues of the past and to find a path forward together. If gaming revenue is going to be able to help with doing that, I support the idea and the notion of it.

[5:10 p.m.]

There are serious questions in terms of how this process is unfolding and how it came to this agreement. I very much look forward to having those questions answered by the minister as we go through the process of committee stage on this bill.

With that, I know the First Nations in my riding…. I have talked to them many times. They’re very interested in engaging economically. I know Chiefs and former Chiefs in my riding that have tragically visited far too many attempted suicides. I know they are tired of saying no. They want to see economic development. They want to see projects go forward. They want to see a path to being able to manage prosperity.

That’s what I support fully. That’s what we supported when we were in government. If this path can help that, that’s good. That’s a positive. But let’s make sure it’s a direct benefit for the nations and not just a select group that is part of a management group.

With that, I will take my place. I look forward to hearing the other comments that may come from members in this chamber.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I rise to speak on this second reading of Bill 36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act. I’m rising to speak in favour of the act.

I can agree with at least one comment of the previous speaker, the member for Nechako Lakes, my neighbour. The point I can agree with him the most in his comments was that he’s not an expert. So fully agree with that.

I take his comments, though. I find the tenor of some of his comments quite disturbing. To characterize this gaming revenue, this first-time-ever sharing of gaming revenue from the province with First Nations, as paying off friends…. I don’t know if anybody can get their head around that. Paying off friends is the way he characterized this bill.

You know, I’ll be surely getting in touch with the B.C. Assembly of First Nations leader Terry Teegee, who is from the area that the member for Nechako Lakes represents, to make sure that he knows those offensive comments were made about him — that this bill was characterized by the member for Nechako Lakes as paying off Terry Teegee. That is absolutely a disgraceful kind of characterization of this legislation.

The member also displayed what I can only call a paternalistic attitude in his comments around this bill.

He characterized the flowing of revenues that will happen and that are going to be so important for First Nations in B.C. as another cheque coming in and characterized it as a dependency. He talked about Calvin Helin’s Dances With Dependency book, which was a very, very well-written book around dependency — addictions, especially. But characterizing flowing revenues from gaming, which First Nations have advocated for, for over a decade, falling on the deaf ears of the previous government…. To characterize that as a cheque coming in and creating further dependency is outrageous. I don’t know how it can be described as anything else.

Then to say that how the money will be spent is being left open to the First Nations who will be receiving this money…. The member for Nechako Lakes described that as…. Well, perhaps it’d be better spent on economic activity. In other words, he was better in a position to decide how this money should be spent in First Nations communities than the actual First Nations people who live in those communities. That is just a paternalistic attitude that was well on display during the 16 years of the B.C. Liberal government as well.

[5:15 p.m.]

What I think the member failed to grasp and what this legislation actually embodies is how extremely happy and the joy that First Nations displayed two years ago when we were appointed government and when we formed government. It was a joyous occasion. First Nations from across B.C. were overjoyed.

That’s because, in direct relation to this bill, it was typical that the previous government…. As the member for Nechako Lakes said: “We talked a long time about getting gaming revenue.” Well, they talked. They talked. They talked. We, as a government, actually did it. We did it. We have created a mechanism. We have created an act, this act, in order for revenue from gambling, from the B.C. Lottery Corp., net income for the next 23 years, to be flowed through to First Nations in this province.

The previous member talked about an Indian Act ap­proach. Well, exactly. That’s why we’re undertaking what we’re doing as a government to enshrine the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people into provincial legislation — that we look at every piece of policy and legislation through that lens, through the Truth and Reconciliation’s calls to action lens and through the Tsilhqot’in decision lens. Those are things we do to overcome the imposed Indian Act system that the member referenced.

These are things that are important to First Nations, the gaming revenue especially. I heard mixed messages from previous speakers, including the member for Skeena, around Bill 36, including the member from Richmond, including the member from Nechako, about how this revenue would flow to First Nations.

Some of them seem to indicate that there wasn’t the capacity to flow directly to First Nations. Others advocated for better oversight, it seems, for the money being flowed to First Nations. Well, you can’t have it all, every different way.

The mechanism that’s set up is very simple. The member for Nechako Lakes discussed and wanted to know about how it was fair and equitable. The participating First Nations can obtain their share of the gaming revenue based on the following formula. There’s no secret here: 50 percent is base funding, divided equally per community; 40 percent is based on population; and 10 percent for geographically remote communities. How could anything be more simple and straightforward than that when you are talking about fairness and equitability?

The member for Nechako Lakes then went on again to contradict himself, talking about…. Well, different bands, different First Nations, might have different capacities to apply for this funding, and therefore there would be some fairness issues.

Well, again, it’s quite straightforward: 50 percent, 40 percent, 10 percent. And the funds can be used for health and wellness, infrastructure, safety, transportation and housing, economic and business development, education, language, culture and training, community development and environmental protection and capacity building, fiscal management and governance.

In other words, it’s up to the community. It’s up to the leadership in that community to decide how the money is being used. What could be better than that? What could be more grassroots than that? That First Nations communities, no matter how big or how small….

I’ve got a First Nations community in Lower Post, a couple of hundred people on the Yukon border way up in the northeast part of my constituency. I’ve got another First Nation community, Witset, between Hazelton and Smithers — more centralized as far as services. Each of those communities have different needs, and this funding can be used, depending on the needs of the community and the leadership of the community. So it’s fair and equitable from that aspect. It’s also a very simple application process that the mechanism provides.

So very difficult to understand or to decipher the mixed messages coming out of the other side about this bill. I believe they’re going to vote for it, but their apparent opposition…. And, of course, they opposed sharing of gaming revenues with First Nations while they were in government for 16 years. So it’s no wonder they’re uncertain about this bill.

[5:20 p.m.]

The other aspect that has been covered and that I want to address is, actually, how this funding is different from other funding. I think, especially, the member for Skeena but also the member for Nechako Lakes fail to grasp an important aspect of this funding. That is the long-term nature of the funding.

The member for Nechako Lakes talked a lot about different agreements, one-off agreements. That’s something that First Nations are tired of — one-off agreements. The important part of this actual funding through the Gaming Control Amendment Act is that it’s long term. The funding formula is there. First Nations communities can count on it for the next 23 years versus not knowing from year to year whether they’re going to get an agreement with the government and whether there’s going to be funding available.

I can’t understate how important it is for First Nations communities to be able to go to the bank, for instance, and say: “Look, we’ve got this guaranteed source of revenue within a certain latitude, based on 7 percent of the provincial government B.C. Lottery Corp. revenues for the next 23 years.” That enables them to come up with equity for economic development projects, for infrastructure projects, that they didn’t have available to them in previous years.

That long-term nature is what sets it aside from the approach of the previous government, which was a transactional approach and not a transformational approach. This is a transformational approach. It’s long term. It’s saying: “This is a simple mechanism, a simple criterion to get the money into the hands of the communities that need it.” Then, based on the categories I listed, it is up to the community to decide where their needs are highest.

I can give an example of how this money and these resources could be so well used by communities that don’t have the access to this kind of funding now. That is an issue, a topic, that’s in the areas and the communities surrounding my home community, Hazelton. I was able recently — I don’t get home much anymore, so I was very happy to be able to be home — to attend the official opening of the Upper Skeena Recreation Centre, an incredible, incredible facility in Hazelton. It’s serving, as I said, the Upper Skeena and many First Nations communities.

I do want to say that it took an effort of the provincial government, of the federal government and of First Nations — an incredible variety of people on the organizing committee that were able to get this done, between a hereditary organization, a First Nations organization that represented band councils, various municipalities and the provincial and federal governments.

I do want to give credit that, while I was a member of the opposition, the then Transportation and Infrastructure Minister in the previous government was very helpful and made his staff very available for me to be able to access on behalf of that project.

We were able, then, to take the project over the finish line after we became government. We had an official opening — an amazing building, an amazing facility. It’s a health and wellness centre, in other words, for the community. A lot of pride is now part of that building. Buildings sometimes are simply buildings, but in this sense, it’s an amazing facility.

I also want to say a shout-out to the Hazelton Wolverines, the hometown hockey team. They’ve been sold out the last three games because of the new facility. Everybody wants to come and see it, even people from neighbouring towns like Smithers.

The point, as far as Bill 36 goes, is that there are now operating costs associated with this facility. This was anticipated, obviously, but the ability of the First Nations communities to contribute to those operating costs is limited. Of course, the ability to have property taxes is not available through that regressive piece of legislation, the Indian Act.

[5:25 p.m.]

The funding, for instance, is now available on a year-to-year basis without having to take it away from other sources of funding. The communities that surround Hazelton, First Nations communities, may simply decide to use a portion of that to support the operating costs of the Upper Skeena Recreation Centre, which is well used by all the communities in the region, including many First Nations communities.

That’s not simply a health issue, which it is, having a safe, healthy place to go — there’s basketball courts; there’s the ice arena — but also an economic driver. Now there’s a place for conferences to happen, to bring in entertainment. There are just all sorts of incredible spinoffs of the kind of funding now, the year-to-year consistent funding that the flowing of gaming revenues to First Nations will provide. This would be a good example of how communities might decide to use that. The repercussions of this Bill 36, in a positive sense, are endless.

There are also many First Nations communities in the constituency I represent that have infrastructure deficits. Now, I know some of the members on the opposite side have brought up trying to drive divisive wedges between First Nations and non–First Nations communities by saying: “Well, doesn’t this mean that other non–First Nations communities won’t have as much funding for their infrastructure needs as First Nations communities if Bill 36 passes?” Well, no, not at all.

I want to point out to those members who were speaking along those lines that the northern capital and planning grant that we announced, the Premier announced, of $100 million to communities across the north was an extremely welcome contribution to those communities across the northern corridor. It put into municipal coffers millions of dollars that they can use for infrastructure needs.

It’s not simply that we as a government are enabling the transfer of money from gaming revenues to First Nations as a continuing funding stream for infrastructure projects. We’re also dealing with the infrastructure deficit that was left for municipalities across the northern corridor, from Prince George to Kitimat to Prince Rupert, by creating the northern capital and planning grant. So we’re covering many, many bases.

The other area on infrastructure that all members of the House might not be as familiar with is the infrastructure in First Nations communities when it comes to things like roads and road maintenance, dust issues. These are areas where First Nations may decide to use that money to augment other revenues in order to create a safer, healthier community where dust is not such an issue. It can be a huge issue to people with respiratory situations or young people who develop respiratory ailments because of the dust.

Of course, we know that many of the houses in First Nations communities are substandard, with mould issues. With black mould, the respiratory issues can be exacerbated by dust outside of houses. That’s, again, where I’m so proud of our government taking the bull by the horns and addressing housing issues, not just off reserve but on reserve as well, with our housing initiatives that have led directly to additional safe, clean housing being built on reserve.

Bill 36 is something that’s long overdue. It’s going to be enabling approximately $100 million per year from the provincial net gaming revenue to flow to eligible First Nations, as I said. The eligibility requirements are very straightforward as far as how the funding criteria are established, and the application process is very straightforward. The ways that the money can be allocated are really dependent on local leadership and local needs in the communities.

[5:30 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

We expect that over the course of this agreement, the 23 years, about $3 billion in revenues will be shared with First Nations by 2045. Again, the long-term nature of the funding arrangement really enables First Nations to partner on projects, private projects as well. There are many economic development projects that have been brought to First Nations and brought up by First Nations. Almost always what the barrier is, is a lack of capital — a lack of own capital to create business partnerships. This kind of funding will enable First Nations to have the consistency and to create those partnerships.

I want to wrap up my comments on Bill 36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act, by saying that this is something that’s long overdue. It was something that First Nations had advocated for. Judith Sayers, for instance, advocated for years on this and was recently quoted in the media as saying that it’s about time it happened. It didn’t happen under the previous Liberal government. It’s happened across Canada in many different provinces.

It’s happening now under our government, under Bill 36. It’s going to be a simple application process. It’s a simple criteria as far as the funding formula goes. It can be used as communities desire. It’s a step forward in reconciliation, and it’s a step forward in the way things should be and the way this government understands the best relationships that can be with First Nations.

D. Ashton: It’s a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill 36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019.

As a kid growing up in Penticton, whose parents always did their best to ensure fairness and equity any way that they could…. They brought up not only myself but my two sisters, also, to ensure that. Many in this House have heard me say this. Don’t ever walk in front of somebody. Don’t ever walk behind them. Walk beside them for the opportunity for both into the future.

I’m very, very glad to see policies that are coming forward aimed at advancing reconciliation and creating opportunities that are going to make life better for all. There isn’t a day that I wake up…. I am, I’ll say, unfortunately one of those people that get up at an ungodly hour in the morning and get all the things that I need to do done before the phone rings or before I have to do something else on the farm or something.

There isn’t a day I don’t wake up and look out on the incredible vistas that many of us share here in British Columbia, and I’m fortunate to have those vistas in the Okanagan. To realize what my parents created and what I’ve tried to create for my children and the opportunities that are given to each and every one of us and how sometimes those opportunities haven’t flown in the other direction to the First People of the Okanagan, a group of individuals — or nations, now, as what we like to refer to — that have so graciously shared the incredible lands that I call home — i.e., the Okanagan. How they have shared those lands and how we, maybe some of us that came a little earlier than the vast numbers that seem to be moving into the Okanagan, moving into the areas around Penticton….

Maybe many don’t know that Penticton is a Syilx name that stands for “a place to stay forever.” There are so many people now that are moving in and realizing the efforts of not only the municipality of Penticton and the surrounding regional district but also of the efforts that take place through the Osoyoos Indian Band, the Penticton Indian Band, the Westbank First Nations and, I’ll come to the west a little bit, the Lower Similkameen and Upper Similkameen — how progressiveness has spawned investment and has spawned opportunities on their lands for the people of those nations. It makes such a difference to see — my witnessing of what Chief Louie has done for the Osoyoos Indian Band to the south.

[5:35 p.m.]

Then, listening to my peer from Skeena, I wish…. I know lots of us that aren’t in the House today are probably listening or having this conversation in front of us in our offices, on the TV. But to hear from a gentleman that was so fortunate to be able to see his nation be able to turn around, with not only the influx of money that is coming in now but the hard work of his council to ensure that the members of that nation have the opportunity that they couldn’t dream about ten or even 15 years ago. Now that opportunity is presenting itself.

It’s something that we, collectively, in the peoples’ House, the Legislature of British Columbia, should always keep in mind. It is being proposed here in the way of advancing additional reconciliation and creating opportunities. It’s a distribution of some of the gaming wealth that is taking place.

One thing I would like to say, in fairness and equity, that has come up…. The Penticton Indian Band, under Chief Kruger, was able to negotiate with the city of Penticton a substantial annual revenue coming forward from the city of Penticton, from the gaming revenues that they receive as a host community, but also from the people that run the gaming facility in Penticton. All of a sudden…. I take a look at this, and I hope there is a balance that takes place in the distribution of these resources that are coming from gaming revenues.

I, too, am an individual that doesn’t like a lot of red tape, that doesn’t like the opportunity that is given to bureaucracy sometimes. I, personally, would like to see this money flow directly to the bands, directly to those nations.

I say that word “nation.” It actually kind of brings gladness to me. I heard a young lady speaking. There was a discussion about the past, and she said: “We are many nations.” I’ve never forgotten that — ever forgotten that opportunity that is now being given to those original people of British Columbia. But how they look upon themselves…. They don’t look upon it as a band anymore or a sect of a group of the firstcomers. They look upon themselves as a nation.

I think what we need to do is we need to treat them each as a nation. We need to give them that opportunity. To vet or fetter that money through other bureaucracies…. I would just personally like to see it go and be distributed fairly and equitably. I hope that in hindsight — and the discussions that are taking place in this House today and will probably take place in the committee stage — maybe the government will have a second thought about how to distribute this money, and maybe they will agree that it would probably best be served for all if it goes directly to the nation.

You know, as revenue agreements go, it’s going to good places. We take a look at what has been spoken about, not only by the government but also by some of my peers here in opposition about the needs of child care, of housing, of economic development. Again, I look at why there must be a partnership involved in this, first of all. Why can it not go to those people that know what’s best for their own people?

I relate back to what the member for Skeena said about the trials and the tribulations that his council had when, all of a sudden, the money started to flow in. But the real trials and tribulations that they had before, that they had the opportunities that have been presented to that nation….

There is so much that lags, when we look at the development that many of us have been fortunate enough to see, and, unfortunately, what bands haven’t had and nations haven’t had the opportunity. There is so much that can be done. Let’s ensure that it’s done to the full amount of money that should go to each and every one of those. The Minister of FLNRO gave the percentages that are going to be a distribution factor on it. But let’s just make sure that 100 percent of that distribution percentage goes to each nation.

[5:40 p.m.]

There are opportunities throughout British Columbia. You don’t have to be a band or a nation in the Okanagan to enjoy the benefits of additional funds. Additional funds are something that, I would say, every First Nation, whether they need it or not, can put to good use. I’m glad to see that there are funds now. I’m very pleased to see that it is going to be specific over a locked-down period of time. It’s not a year-to-year funding.

I know that there will be others on the other side that say, “Well, that’s what we’ve been asking for all the way along,” whether it’s an arts council or a boys and girls club. They said: “Give us an opportunity of long-term, defined funding.” The government has stepped forward with some of these funds for the nations and specified it. I hope, in the future, that they would also consider that that opportunity persists to those that look at gaming revenues to help those in their various communities and give them specific tenure to funds over a specific period of time.

We’ve talked in this House on numerous occasions about what the development of LNG, liquefied natural gas, is going to do, not only to the north and not only to the coast. I take a look in the community that I call home, and I took a look at what happened in the oil sands in Alberta. Many businesses and manufacturing facilities in my area were involved in that and the wealth that it created. Not only people leaving the community that I live in to go work in Alberta, but I took a look at these businesses that were able to prosper and to hire more and more people.

Now, with what’s transpiring with LNG, I know people from bands that are working in the north at this point in time, facilitating that. That money is coming back home with their families and giving their families the opportunity of consistent income, which makes a huge difference to each and every one of them.

I know that the opportunities that were presented by the previous government in economic and reconciliation agreements with First Nations, and strategic engagements, have made a huge difference. I only hope that that is carried on in perpetuity by whoever sits in government in this House — that it enables the First People of the lands here in British Columbia to share the benefits that many, many of us have enjoyed in our lifetime and to be able to share in an equitable way.

It has been a big and large learning process just to be able to sit in here this afternoon and to hear the differences of opinion that have come from opposition and the differences of opinion that have come from government. But one common denominator is that we want to see everybody in this province progress. Many of us, if not all of us — and I should really qualify that as saying all of us — want to see it go forward where that progress is equitable for all. We don’t differentiate between anybody in British Columbia. We all progress at the same rate so that we can all enjoy the benefits that this incredible province has to offer.

There are still obstacles, unfortunately, in communities. That one-size-fits-all approach, I think, again…. I’ve asked that the government consider re-addressing the need and how these funds are distributed.

One size is not going to fit all, as it doesn’t just within the nations in my area. There are those with more prosperity, those that got off the mark a little bit quicker, those playing catch-up, those that are sharing their wealth. And they’re not only sharing it amongst the nation, sharing it in the communities, you know, because the opportunity is presenting itself. When people have disposable income, that gets spread everywhere in the community and in the area, and it makes a huge difference.

There needs to be a real long-term focus. I’m glad to hear the number of years that the government is proposing for this to last, but what we also have to do is ensure that, as we march forward, that isn’t changed by progressive governments in the future and that we make sure that what is said today is instilled and continues to be in place for the years of the proposal.

[5:45 p.m.]

The opportunities, again, that working together and recon­ciliation will bring to this province, not only in the eyes of those that live here but also in the eyes of those that look upon B.C. with envy and also for those that come to this incredible province for what we have to offer, are going to make a difference for each, and everybody, in this province.

I look forward to the next little while, here in this House and through the committee stage, and maybe some redress on the bill where we can work together and pass this legislation in a unanimous way. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward, again, to hearing from my peers on both sides of the House on the ideas going forward with Bill 36.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me incredible pleasure, I must say, to speak in support of this legislation, and I’ll tell you why. Shortly before I was elected, in 2008, was the first time that I was aware of a strong push from Indigenous communities, from First Nations leadership, to get access to gaming funds from the province of British Columbia, back in 2007. I’m sure it probably wasn’t the first time.

Clearly, the decision of former governments to not allow Indigenous communities to have access to gaming funds, in my mind, is racist. I’ll just say that. It’s a loaded term, and people may get all concerned about it.

Previous decisions to say that a city or a town had access to gaming funds but that a community of similar size that’s based in an Indigenous community did not have access to the funds, to me, was a race-based decision and one that is clearly not supportable if you believe in the equality and equity amongst individuals and that we’re all part of the human family. Unfortunately, that decision to ban, to discriminate and to keep Indigenous people from having access to gaming revenue continued for a long time.

In 2007, there was a concerted push by leadership of Indigenous nations across this province to get access to gaming revenue like the rest of British Columbia already did, like Indigenous nations across most of the rest of Canada already did. That was not heard. That message was repeated year in, year out, year in, year out, until today. In 2012, it wasn’t heard, 2013, 2014, 2015, all the way to 2019. That’s 12 years since I first heard the call in 2007 — I wasn’t even an elected MLA yet — that this was something that Indigenous leaders were in need of and wanted for their communities. But that didn’t happen.

To me, it illustrates the importance of elections. It illustrates, to me, the importance of electing parties that will listen to calls for equity, for equality, for reconciliation, and listen to the words of Indigenous people across the province. When, in 2007, First Nations leaders called for these investments from the provincial government, they called it “the single most important action” the provincial government could take to ease First Nations poverty and begin to close the economic and social gap for all First Nations.

Now, this was 2007; here we are in 2019. Only now, 12 years later, are we getting action to address what, at the time, was called the single most important action to address poverty and the economic and social gap that affected all First Nations in British Columbia. So I’m pleased.

I want to thank the Attorney General. I want to thank the minister responsible for gaming and the Indigenous Relations Minister — in fact, the government and the Green Party. Most importantly, I want to thank Indigenous leaders for not giving up, for standing up, for their community, to a policy that was frankly, in my mind, racist and one that caused division. It didn’t unite us as a province. It was a race-based policy that had no place and has no place in our society today.

It disappointed me to hear this policy change, this legal change, called, by the former Minister of Indigenous Relations, “paying off friends.” That, to me, completely downgrades, degrades, insults all those that have spent so many years trying to get this changed because they know it will make a big difference in their communities.

[5:50 p.m.]

Now, I’m not going to tell them how they should spend that money, because that is their business. It is their business. They have said, through the First Nations partnership, that their plan is for the money to go to health and wellness, infrastructure, safety, transportation and housing, economic and business development, education, language, culture, training, community development, environmental protection, capacity-building, fiscal management and governance. That’s been the discussion of where this money will go. It’s not an inconsiderable amount of money. It’s $100 million per year of money that is going into Indigenous communities that wasn’t there before.

Other Indigenous communities across Canada, other nations, did receive funding like this. In B.C., under the former B.C. Liberal government, they refused, again and again, to do anything to provide this investment in communities while continuing to give it to other communities. Until, of course, there was the whole debacle of them cutting gaming funds by 50 percent and on and on. We’ve gone down that road before, unfortunately, in this province, under the former government. While they cut gaming funds to culture, arts, health, etc., they continued to refuse to give any gaming funds to Indigenous nations. It was wrong then, and that’s why I’m so happy this is being corrected today.

Now, we might understand why the former government refused to do these things if we hear the words of the former minister responsible for Indigenous relations. He suggested this money could be just another government cheque. He said it wasn’t a good way to build an economic future in communities. He’s dead wrong. He was dead wrong when he was the minister, and he’s dead wrong now that he’s on the opposition side.

I don’t understand how you build economic development in a community if you don’t have money to support health and wellness, if you don’t have infrastructure, if you don’t have economic and business development, if you don’t have education, language, culture and training, if you don’t have environmental protection and if you don’t have fiscal management. All those are things you need in order to build a strong community and a strong economy for your people. If you don’t have the money to do any of those things, how do you start?

So no, I don’t see this as another government cheque. In fact, this money is going to be decided upon — how it gets sent out and how the money is spent in communities — by Indigenous people themselves. It’s not the paternalistic big government making these decisions in terms of how money is spent. It’ll go to the people themselves in their own communities. They’ll be able to make these decisions.

I think that’s the right way. It’s not paying off friends — a disgusting allegation from the B.C. Liberals. This is about helping people. This is about giving them chances and choices to build their own futures. This is about dealing with a racist policy that said: “No, you can’t get access to this money, while the rest of British Columbians who are not Indigenous do have access to this money.”

I hope the member might reconsider his words, but I won’t expect it, as that, unfortunately, has been a history in this Legislature. We don’t have to talk about the racist referendum which the B.C. Liberals put forward, asking whether Indigenous people had rights at all. It’s pretty self-explanatory that that’s not acceptable, but it is their history.

Gaming grants, gaming money, can be used to do incredible things. I know it’s already being used to do incredible things. An earlier speaker spoke about how this money was being used, I think, west of Prince George, by a local nation to build housing for the first time in 30 years. It’s pretty hard to have a good economy and a good future if you can’t have housing, if the housing that you have isn’t acceptable and is not a standard to live in. It’s pretty hard to build a future if that is something you do not have. This money is going to build housing now in communities across British Columbia, and it’s making a difference.

Hon. Speaker, I think this legislation, as you can probably guess, is long overdue. We should have done this a long, long time ago. We should have done this when Indigenous people first pointed this out as a glaring inequality, as a glaring case of putting one community above another. But we’re doing it today. We’re doing it today because it’s the right thing to do, and it will help people.

It’s not about choosing political favourites. Sometimes the accusations that get thrown at us reveal a lot more about those who are accusing. If all you can do in your own life….

I won’t go down that road, because I like to think the best of people. It hurts me when people like to think the worst of others.

[5:55 p.m.]

I’m trying my best. Based on the history that I’ve had in this House and based on what I’ve seen in communities and what I’ve seen across British Columbia, this is the right thing to do. I want to thank Indigenous leaders for making that case. For putting up with the racism. For putting up with the stuff that bulls excrete for far too long. They shouldn’t have had to do it in the first place, but they’ve had to.

We’re getting a change today, the right kind of change that we should have had so long ago. I want to thank the ministers. I want to thank the government. I want to thank the Indigenous peoples. It’s their voices that should have been heard long ago, and it’s their voices that required action long ago.

Inequality should not be allowed to stand. Racism should not be allowed to stand. We must move forward in this journey of reconciliation and put the us-against-them rhetoric that some decide to dip down into still far, far behind. There’s no reason to go that route when we know we’re so much richer, so much wealthier and such a better place to live when we do these kinds of things together and when we don’t set up those false divisions.

B. Stewart: I haven’t had the opportunity to listen to all the speakers on Bill 36, but I do want to talk about some of the fundamental issues that I think this side of the House, as well as the government, wants to address.

I can’t help but…. Some of the comments the last speaker made about racist remarks and the fact that we don’t care about people I find more offensive than the record that…. Our government has tried, and it’s not an easy solution. As we know, it’s not a quick fix or a quick win in terms of being able to make things right and in terms of making First Nations whole.

I was pleased to hear the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations talk about his community. I happened to visit his community when I was minister and meeting with his local community. As a matter of fact, they were part of Hockeyville, and it was their goal to be recognized and get some investment in their arena. I can tell that this Upper Skeena Rec Centre, which is a significant improvement and investment in that community, will pay great dividends for both First Nations and non–First Nations in that community.

I think that that goes to the heart of what it is that governments are trying to do with First Nations across Canada. The idea of equality is something that has been a very difficult and challenging goal and aspiration for many federal governments and, as well, many provincial governments.

I think back to when this government was first elected, or elected, in the early ’90s. They reached the Nisg̱a’a treaty, and I had the opportunity to travel with the Chief that signed that treaty. We talked about the struggle to get there and the incremental improvements to changing fundamental flaws that we have that exist in Canada. Some of it is solved by money. Some of it is solved by changes in statutes. There’s a lot of confusion about that. There is no simple path to making things right between First Nations and non–First Nations.

In British Columbia, we have 203 identified First Nations, which come in all different sizes and shapes and communities, whether it happens to be ones that are in the Lower Mainland in Vancouver…. We certainly hear lots about the ones that are extremely well off just because of the fact that they happen to have reserve or treaty lands that are in and around the Vancouver area. Whereas there are other ones, such as I mentioned up in Hazelton…. There’s far less opportunity there.

What is it that we are trying to do here? What we’re trying to do is deal with, as the minister said, a regressive Indian Act, the things that are, really, not very constructive in helping and in dealing with the fundamental issues, whether it’s health or infrastructure. We hear about it even in this federal election that’s taking place today, about the vast sums of money to bring drinking water in many communities across the country up to a standard that meets the Canada water standards, which I know even many of our municipalities and regional districts struggle with every day.

[6:00 p.m.]

We just had UBCM and were talking about tens of millions, in many cases, and hundreds of millions, in other cases, of infrastructure money that’s being poured into making certain that communities have safe drinking water. Everybody deserves that right.

I think that the issues and what we’re talking about with Bill 36 are something that is trying to address things. But I don’t know in the sense that I don’t…. Actually, the question I really have for the minister and the government is the consultation — that we obviously were unaware of a consultation, perhaps a little bit like a consultation that we know didn’t take place on mountain caribou. And we have many communities that are struggling with the impacts in terms of the resource sector.

In this particular case, we have an agreement that was signed in the summertime. And I know that the government has made it a priority and a commitment to First Nations — whether it’s through the all Chiefs summit or whether it’s actually been something where they have committed to groups like the all nations summit or the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the Assembly of First Nations — about trying do something that is proactive in moving that ahead.

I think the question that has been raised by members on this side of the House is…. We know that the communities come in different shapes and sizes, and I guess the partnership, as it’s described, doesn’t really describe in any shape or way or form as to how there’s an equality in this. Now, I don’t like to suggest that there have been inequities in terms of funding, but lots of money has gone to First Nation communities and through organizations where perhaps maybe there’s no level of accountability. Or the rules governing the way that the funds are to be distributed or whatever are left to the people that are running those organizations. I think that that’s a question that needs to be answered.

I mean, at the end of the day, we want the money to get in the hands of people that are in these communities, for all of the items that are mentioned in terms of the areas where this money can be invested: health and wellness; infrastructure, safety, transportation and housing; economic and business development; education, culture and training; community development, environmental protection; capacity-building, fiscal management and governance. Those are admirable goals.

One of the things I did hear earlier from the minister was that he mentioned, or I thought I heard him mention, that the cheque went out last week. Although the agreement might be signed, I’m a little bit surprised, and I’d be questioning how, without this bill being actually passed, this could have taken place. I’m sure that the Minister of Finance probably has ways of answering that.

I do think that one of the concerns that I have in the partnership is that an ill-defined — or maybe yet to be defined by the government…. How the administration of this…? I mean, who’s paying for the administration? It costs B.C. Lotteries money to administer the community gaming grant, so there is a cost. What are the limitations on that, and who defines what that is?

I think those 203 First Nations often are underrepresented in the organizations that have support for many First Nations, but their processes are not the same as what we would have in terms of our own democratic system, in terms of the accountability that I speak to. I think that those are things that are either ill-defined or undefined and should be considered when Bill 36 is actually brought into law.

I think the other consideration about consultation is that there are another almost five million British Columbia citizens that represent the non–First Nation population in this province that haven’t had a chance to have, necessarily, their say in it.

[6:05 p.m.]

Now, the member for Vancouver–West End had suggested that that’s why we have elections and that this is a priority, and he’s right. But I think the situation, when it comes to something that was set out with B.C. Lotteries, was that it was going to be spent.

It’s currently…. I mean, even in my own community, I see a grant just recently that went to a First Nation parent advisory group in one of the schools. Although it’s a First Nations school that’s open to…. Well, priority is First Nations and secondarily to non–First Nations. It just had a very substantial upgrade.

I think the situation is that people…. It’s my understanding that they have not had restrictions in being able to access funds through the community gaming grants or not ex­cluded. Maybe not for the same…. I know the community gaming grants don’t list the six or seven areas that are listed in Bill 36 here as being the priority items. So I do think that that’s a benefit.

No doubt, they have massive amounts of issues that we do address with municipalities through direct grants, either through UBCM or other gas tax sharing and other things like that that go back into those communities.

I do think that it may be a step in the right direction, but I still think that the issues around the accountability, the situation with the partnership in terms of the definition about who are partners within that group, and what does a small First Nation…? How do they get their voice heard in amongst all 203 First Nations, as well as the three large groups, the ones that I mentioned, that are part of the limited partnership?

Our government — one of the things that I think…. Recently this government signed a deal with LNG Canada. There are a lot of community benefit agreements, both First Nations and non–First Nations, that are benefiting from that. Those huge amounts…. Even the member for Skeena was telling me the other day that, you know, their big issue is actually having enough people to execute on all the things that they do. They have lots of resources to fill in all of these gaps that they’ve struggled with for many years, but that doesn’t mean that other First Nations or most First Nations aren’t struggling with some of those challenges.

I think the goal in this should be that we can’t forget about the fact that it’s a series of priorities in terms of trying to make First Nations whole. It is not an equal system, because we have the Indian Act. It is regressive in a lot of ways, and we need to find better ways to work with the federal government in getting First Nations to what we believed was a solution, which was through the treaty process — the Tsawwassen, the Yale First Nation and other treaties that we were able to sign during my time as being a member of government.

I look forward to some of the answers from the minister as we go through the discussion and the reading of this bill in answering the issues around accountability, how we make certain that this is fair and make certain that the money is getting down to the communities where it really is needed — the priorities, etc. Who’s setting that standard? I think that those are the important things.

I will take my place in the House. I look forward to continued debate on this, this evening, as well as into tomorrow as we move into, hopefully, the next stage on this bill.

J. Rice: I’m happy to rise today to speak to Bill 36.

Our government is proud to introduce the Gaming Control Amendment Act. The act will entitle B.C. First Nations to a portion of the B.C. Lottery Corp.’s net income for 23 years. Now, why 23 years? Because we’ve actually made a 25-year agreement and have already fronted the first two years of that funding.

This act will increase the maximum number of directors on the B.C. Lottery Corp. to 11 to facilitate the appointment of one position for a First Nations nominee.

[6:10 p.m.]

This will create a reliable long-term revenue stream for First Nations as part of our commitment to reconciliation. And I say a part of our commitment to reconciliation.

It will ensure that First Nations have a stable, predictable source of income to fund economic, social and cultural activities that directly benefit the people who live in their communities. Each First Nation can use the gaming revenue to support their own priorities, like enhancing social services, education, infrastructure, cultural revitalization and self-government capacity. Now, we’ve already transferred nearly $200 million to the newly formed B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership, providing the first two years of shared gaming revenue, as I just mentioned.

For those that are concerned about how this impacts the gaming revenue-sharing we have with local governments, well, it doesn’t affect local governments. The new gaming revenue-sharing arrangement doesn’t affect what com­mu­nity groups will receive and municipalities that have casinos or gaming centres in their communities that they host.

It was over a decade ago when I think First Nations in British Columbia started lobbying various provincial governments for a portion of the gaming revenue. Other provinces — Ontario and Saskatchewan, off the top of my head — share gaming revenue. And British Columbia? Well, we’re kind of late on the page to sharing our gaming revenue.

It was in the early 2000s that First Nations actually described the plan to share revenue as the single most important action the provincial government could take to “ease First Nations poverty and begin to close the economic and social gap for all First Nations.”

Now, the member for Skeena spent quite a bit of time talking about how offended he was at the term “closing the economic gap.” I just want to point out that these were words that Indigenous people had used themselves to actually describe their current situation. These aren’t our words. These aren’t the provincial government’s words.

This agreement is expected to provide First Nations with approximately $100 million per year. That’s factoring in an expected 2 percent annual growth rate. The province expects to share around $3 billion with B.C. First Nations over the term of the agreement.

One of the things I wanted to point out, because it’s really relevant to the Indigenous communities I represent in North Coast, is how the breakdown of the sharing formula works out. Participating First Nations can obtain their share of the gaming revenue based on the following formula: 50 percent base funding divided equally per community, 40 percent based on population and 10 percent for geographically remote communities.

These funds may be used by individual nations for health and wellness; infrastructure, safety, transportation and housing; economic and business development; education, language, culture and training; community development and environmental protection; and capacity-building, fiscal management and governance. So there isn’t really anything that this funding can’t support.

This agreement aligns us with other provinces, such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia, which already share gaming revenue with First Nations.

Now, the member from Skeena also mentioned that we hadn’t consulted with the federal government, when in fact the federal government was actually quite surprised and shocked that we weren’t already sharing provincial gaming revenue. And no, it doesn’t impact the funding that First Nations will receive from the federal government.

First Nations have been demanding equitable funding for decades. The members for Skeena as well as Nechako Lakes talked about dependency. The member for Nechako Lakes referenced Calvin Helin’s book, Dances With Dependency. I agree that it is a well-written book. However, I don’t see how sharing gaming revenue, which is essentially providing equitable funding to allow First Nations autonomy over their own priorities…. How does that create dependency? In fact, I can’t believe that the B.C. Liberals are opposing this and are speaking so negatively about this step.

[6:15 p.m.]

They’ve spoken about paternalism and how offensive this is in the face of reconciliation, which I actually find pretty offensive. You know, what’s paternalistic is an inequitable, top-down, clawback-ridden contribution system that’s been in place for decades. That’s what’s paternalistic — what First Nations have been facing for decades.

The member for Skeena talked about asking for money and how that was degrading and how humiliating that was, especially when you think of the concept that most of the revenues probably came from the territory in the first place. I absolutely sympathize with that statement. Here we are, a colonial government. We’re making a decision in this Legislature on how we share gaming revenue, which is essentially money earned from the land that we stole from Indigenous people.

The fact that we actually have to have this debate is really, really troubling for me. Really troubling for me. It should be a bill that is easy to pass, because it’s actually a really, really small step in the face of reconciliation.

First Nations have been advocating for shared gaming revenues for years, and in my opinion, that should be enough to guide the actions of this House. Settlers who created our own colonial systems are not the thought leaders on the way forward to reconciliation. So the member from Nechako Lakes offering that we are paying off our friends or that we’re somehow creating dependency — I think that is what’s really offensive.

Settlers created this system, and reconciliation is about standing with First Nations. It’s about standing beside them, taking actions that enable First Nations to reclaim their own agency. That’s what matters. And if First Nations have been talking and telling the government the same thing consistently for years, it’s a pretty good bet that this is a step in the right direction. We should all be voting in favour of this bill.

S. Gibson: A pleasure to rise here today in this, the people’s House, on behalf of my constituents of the Abbotsford-Mission riding, probably one of British Columbia’s finest ridings — unbiased, of course.

I’m pleased to be here to speak to this Bill 36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act. I want to acknowledge, first of all, the excellent presentations by my colleagues who preceded me here: the member for Skeena, in particular, because of his intimate knowledge of this community and some of the implications of what is transpiring, and the member for Nechako Lakes — I might point out that he served, when we were in government, as the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, so he has a special knowledge and understanding of some of the implications that we’ll be bringing forward as the official opposition, some of the concerns that we have noted — and also the member for Penticton, the member for Kelowna West and, kicking things off, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

It’s always controversial, really, in some parts of our province, even to begin with a discussion of gaming, which of course is a euphemism for gambling. I know in my community, out in the Fraser Valley, there’s always been a suspicion of gambling and its benefits to the province. I think we’ve seen folks, from time to time, that have crossed our paths who have, perhaps, become overly fond of gambling to the point where it’s affected their family life and, indeed, their own personal approach to life, sometimes with dire consequences.

[6:20 p.m.]

Also, I’ve seen elderly people with limited means buying lottery tickets and looking very distraught as they scratch them off and find that they have nothing to show for their limited investment. Nonetheless, I don’t want to belabour that, other than to say that anything we do in this House related to gambling sometimes can have a dark side.

I might point out, as well, that the formula, the manner in which we distribute funds from gaming, is really vicarious in many ways. I say that because people who are given to gambling — we don’t judge them, but it’s part of our culture and our lifestyle in this province — don’t go out to gamble and say: “Well, I’m going to be supporting this particular charity tonight as a result of it, or a particular sport.” As you know, gambling came in a number of years ago and has kind of taken off.

Gaming does support a lot of important social and cultural causes in our province. In fact, commercial gambling, according to the information I have been provided, in 2014-2015, generated some $2.9 billion. Clearly, it’s an important economic driver in our province — a lot of funding for all of us. As MLAs, we’ve called constituents who have been awarded various funds through the gaming grant system. Clearly, all of these folks are very pleased to have made applications. Sometimes these applications are extremely rigorous. But that’s all for a good cause.

A few remarks to add onto those made by my colleagues. Again, I appreciate the work that has gone into this. The act itself, actually, is really quite cursory. Some of the questions that we’re inquiring about — the official opposition, to government — really are silent here. I’m sure that we’ll have more clarification in due process.

One of the queries that I would have is: who will administer the funding? It’s not entirely clear. There is some sense on this side of the House that the more direct the funding to the various First Nation communities throughout our province, the more likely the benefit will accrue more widely and with more trust, you might say. We notice that that is something that is somewhat vague, perhaps. There’s some thought that it might be better to go to the band councils, who are closest to the various communities. But this would be something we’d like to pursue.

How will the distribution of these funds be made? We probably would like to find out more about that.

The application process. How will that be administered? Is there going to be some kind of documentation, forms, on line? Given that this is a significant, significant provision of funding to our First Nations communities, it would seem that there must be some fairly detailed application process. This has not been really enumerated or outlined in the documents that have been brought forward. It’s unclear as to how the various First Nations communities will meet the criteria and allow the funds to be dispensed to them.

My question also relates to how the various bands were consulted. I’m not clear on that. This is something that would be helpful. With greater consultation, it’s likely the more successful this enterprise will be.

What about the criteria? What about the consistency? My understanding is that there are certain communities that, perhaps, would not even need the funding, given their economic viability.

[6:25 p.m.]

Some, particularly, that have been identified in the Lower Mainland here, the North Shore, are functioning very well and are economically healthy, if I can use that expression, where others, perhaps in more remote areas, would significantly benefit. I’m wondering if that is going to be taken into consideration. Or is there going to be just a blanket approach?

Now, the word “partnership” is used in the act, but it’s not really quite clear what that means. I would like that to be explained more clearly. A partnership tends to imply equality on both sides. I don’t think that’s the case here, but I’d be open to hearing more information about that, if that would be salient. The equity of the disbursal of the funds would be required.

Also, what measure of research will be needed? Presumably, there’s some kind of body that’s going to research the expectations or needs of the various communities. There’s no mention of that. It would seem to me that without some level of research, funds could be discriminated in a very haphazard fashion. As a matter of fact, there may be funding going to communities that don’t even need it or that certainly don’t need it at the same level. If this is going to be something that is enduring — as we know, it’s over two decades — it would seem to me that the criteria should be acknowledged. Of course, with 203 nations, there’s going to be a lot of research required, in my view.

One of the sort of foundational questions that one might ask is: why pick gaming? Why was that picked? Why not, say, some other means? Why not from general revenue or with funding from some other agency? Why was gaming particularly selected?

Now, one of the concerns that has been articulated by others is that there are currently significant gaming revenues accruing to a huge variety of social organizations, sports and others throughout our province. The lament, the worry, is that with this formula, perhaps they will receive less funding. As a matter of fact, this formula is supposedly very consistent — the 7 percent figure. But will the other agencies receiving the funding year after year receive a similar kind of formula? Or are they going to be cut back?

I noticed this year, as I was phoning a number of people in my own riding who receive funding, that some of them are receiving less than last year. It’s not clear why. When I asked them if they would know that, they said no, they didn’t know. This formula seems to be fixed. I’m wondering if the formula for the other folks that are the beneficiaries of the gaming grants will also be fixed. I’m not clear on that. If it’s not, I think that would be a source of some complaint.

Now, why the figure 7 percent? Why not 6 percent or 8 percent? Where did that figure come from? Perhaps it was done through consultation. Is it because research has shown that 7 percent of the revenue accruing comes from First Nations? Perhaps that’s the criterion. I believe our population in our province is around 5 or 6 percent First Nations, so there may be some reason there, but that was never really clarified. That would be something that would be worth examining.

It’s interesting, as I kind of did a little reflection on this, that Washington state, which is just down the highway, down I-5 here, has a dramatically different paradigm. As a matter of fact, I was sitting in my office in my constituency recently, and a bus goes by promoting gambling on First Nations…. They don’t call them First Nations in Washington state, but they’re tribal communities. I’m advised that there are millions and millions of dollars spent in First Nations or tribal casinos in Washington state, just a few kilometres south of where I live in the Abbotsford area and further down towards Seattle.

[6:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The concern I guess we have is that we’ve got two sorts of strangely parallel means of raising revenue here in our province, trying to benefit the First Nations community, who do need some consideration, definitely. But at the same time we’ve got, in Washington state, a whole different paradigm where First Nations communities literally operate huge casinos, generating significant funding from our province.

One of the other points to note is that…. With these recommended changes, will we be providing other supports, or does this operate independently? In other words, is the government going to come to the First Nations community — the beneficiaries of this — and say, “Okay, this is what we’re going to provide. That’s it,” or are there going to be other additional revenues accruing?

Now, the reason I ask this is because this is a very significant allocation of funding. If there are other criteria funding — and I’m not talking about treaty funding, but other kinds of social funding over and above this — it could add dramatically to the funds flowing from the province to the First Nations. I’m not disagreeing with that or disputing that, but I am saying it would seem to me that government should speak about the complementary nature between the funding accruing to the over 200 First Nations communities and also the other funding that would be generated for First Nations. I think it would be useful to have that discussion.

It’s been a pleasure for me to speak to this. I think that our side of the House, or opposition, have some concerns. I think we acknowledge that the modus, in many ways, is honourable, and the intention is good, but it’s all going to come to the matter of execution and how this will be done in a way that is equitable, sensitive and also acknowledges the balance between the various criteria needed. I’m sure we’ll continue to have a good discourse on this as we go through the various readings of Bill 36.

Hon. J. Darcy: I’m very proud to stand in my place to support Bill 36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act. I want to speak to this amendment but also talk about it in the broader context of reconciliation in our province.

As members before me have spoken, this act will entitle B.C. First Nations to a portion of B.C. Lottery Corp.’s net income for 23 years. The first instalments have already been made on that, and very importantly, it will provide a stable, reliable, long-term source of funding for First Nations as part of our government’s commitment to reconciliation. This is what this is all about. This is about a commitment to reconciliation because it will ensure that First Nations have that stable, predictable source of income to fund economic, to fund social, to fund cultural activities that will directly benefit First Nations communities.

Each First Nation can use the gaming revenue to support their own priorities. There have been members opposite who have questioned who’s going to decide how that money is going to be spent — questions that are reminiscent of the paternalism that we’ve heard from previous governments, in this province and at the federal level. What this amendment says very clearly is: it will be First Nations who will make those decisions, whether that’s spending it on social services, on education, on infrastructure, cultural revitalization, capacity for self-government.

As previous speakers have mentioned, $200 million has already been transferred to the newly formed B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership, which is the first two years of this funding.

There have been questions raised about consultation. What kind of consultation has happened with First Nations, with Indigenous people, about this? It’s really important to note that First Nations have been asking for this since the year 2007. That is 12 years ago. I have only been in this House for six years, but I’ve certainly heard it at virtually every meeting, virtually every event that I’ve attended with First Nations in this province.

[6:35 p.m.]

It was back in 2007 when a presentation was first made to the previous government with the B.C. First Nations investment fund. That proposal would have…. They recommended allocating 3 percent of B.C.’s gross gambling revenue directly towards economic and community development initiatives in Indigenous communities. At the time, First Nations leaders were very clear. They described this plan as the “single most important action the provincial government could take to ‘ease First Nations poverty and begin to close the economic and social gap for First Nations.’”

That was in 2007. Here we are, 12 years later. Our government is acting. Our government consulted. Our government has listened. Our government, in Budget 2019, has committed not the 3 percent but 7 percent of net provincial revenue from gaming towards First Nations for 25 years.

I think we just need to imagine for a moment what a difference this will make in the lives of Indigenous communities across the province. The questions have been asked: “How will this money be allocated?” Well, it’s very clearly spelled out. It’s very, very clearly spelled out what the formula will be: 50 percent base funding divided equally per community, 40 percent based on population and 10 percent for geographically remote communities. That’s very clear. I don’t know why members opposite have talked about the uncertainty about that: “What’s the formula going to be?” It’s very clear.

Issues have been raised about who’s going to make the decision. Again, reconciliation is about self-determination. It’s about saying that we support First Nations, and we are prepared to provide the economic means for First Nations to be in the driver’s seat. They will decide how that money is spent, but there are six clear areas, which are also set out, of the purposes that the funding can be used for: health and wellness; infrastructure, safety, transportation and housing; economic and business development; education, language, culture and training; community development and environmental protection; and capacity-building, fiscal management and governance.

Frankly, we’re playing catch-up here. Several other prov­inces are way ahead of us. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia already share gaming revenue with First Nations. So we are, frankly, late to the game.

Now, I’ve been in the chamber here for about the last hour and a half and listening to several members opposite speak to this bill. I have to say that some of the comments that I’ve heard are very, very disturbing on several scores. The member for Nechako Lakes says this could create dependency — it was the word that was used, “dependency” — on government funding, as if somehow there is an addiction in the First Nations, a dependence on receiving a government cheque. There’s been questioning of the capacity of First Nations to make their own decisions, which, frankly, is reminiscent of the paternalism that has been present in these discussions and in government policy for far too long.

There’s been reference to paying off friends. This is a commitment for 25 years. This is a commitment that will extend far beyond the current government. First Nations have diversity of political opinions, as does everyone in this province. It is, frankly, insulting to say that this is about paying off friends. It is, in fact, a long-term, stable funding commitment that will outlast, no doubt, this government.

Then, just now, we heard the member for Abbotsford-Mission talking about: “Will this have a detrimental effect on others who might seek gaming revenue?” To me, that’s about fomenting division. That’s about pitting one group against another. Again, we’ve seen that for far too long in this province: trying to send a message to non-Indigenous people that they’re going to suffer, that they’re not going to get as much gaming revenue because Indigenous people are going to get 7 percent of the gaming revenue.

Then the questioning: “Why is it 7 percent?” “Does that correspond,” the question was, “to the percentage of Indigenous people in the population of British Columbia?” Well, I would say…. I think that the member who said that has gone now, but I would say to him: what about the disproportionate impact of poverty on Indigenous people? What about the disproportionate impact of racism on Indigenous people?

[6:40 p.m.]

What about the disproportionate impact as far as suicide rates and addiction rates in British Columbia for First Nations, as we all know, as a direct result of our dark legacy of racism, colonization and residential schools? We all know that history. So why would anyone stand in this Legislature today and question why we need to do this?

This is about reconciliation. This is one step. It is a critical step. It’s not the only step, but it’s a very, very important step. We have seen far too much of the paternalism that we’ve already heard in this House today, for generations in this province and this country. It’s time that it changed, and this legislation is about changing that. It is far overdue for us to say — as a government but also as an opposition — that it’s time that we supported self-determination for Indigenous communities and that we support the right of Indigenous people to be in the driver’s seat in determining sharing of resources but also determining how that money will be spent.

I also want to talk about this in the context of what our government is doing on reconciliation more broadly. This is one piece of it, but it is only one piece of it, and it’s very important to see it in the context of government actions that are planned and government actions that are already underway.

As the people of British Columbia already know, our government will be introducing new legislation that will implement the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, and that will form the foundation for our province’s work on reconciliation in British Columbia going forward. But we’re not waiting until that legislation is introduced. We have already been acting. In every ministry in government, the mandate of every minister is to act on UNDRIP and to act on the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

I’m so proud. I couldn’t be more proud of the actions that various ministries and our government have already taken, whether we’re talking about modernizing the environmental assessment process, initiated by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy; whether it’s the action that’s already being taken in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, implementing Grand Chief Ed John’s recommendations to help keep Indigenous children out of care and with their families and communities. Even more recently the minister has announced a really significant measure to end the practice of birth alerts, which meant that babies were taken from mothers, literally from the hospitals, from their mother’s arms.

We’ve committed over $550 million over ten years for the construction of 1,750 affordable housing units on and off reserve, the first provincial government in Canada to do so. That’s about reconciliation as well.

We have dedicated $50 million towards the First Peoples Cultural Council and First Nations communities to revitalize Indigenous languages. We’ve implemented a new K-to-12 curriculum that makes sure all children in British Columbia are taught the true history of Indigenous people in this country and learn about residential schools and learn about our dark legacy of colonization and also learn about the immense contribution of First Nations people today.

I would be remiss if I did not mention, also, that under the leadership of the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training, we have, in British Columbia, the first Indigenous law program in the world — the first one in the world.

All of those measures are about reconciliation. I want to also just talk a little bit about some of the work that my own ministry is doing in this regard. As I’ve mentioned, it’s a central part of the mandate of every minister in government to implement the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Our ministry, Premier John Horgan and I, a couple of months ago released something called the Pathway to Hope, which is our road map for building a better system for mental health and addictions care in British Columbia. One of the four pillars of that road map is supporting Indigenous-led solutions to improve mental health and wellness in Indigenous communities. There are a wide range of initiatives that we are already taking and that we will be taking that flow from the Pathway to Hope.

[6:45 p.m.]

All of these actions have been developed in very, very close partnership with First Nations, with the First Nations Health Council and with the First Nations Health Authority. Frankly, everything throughout the entire Pathway to Hope for building better mental health and addictions care has been done in partnership with First Nations.

We certainly do know, and I certainly learned from my first week on the job, that Indigenous peoples in British Columbia have identified mental health and wellness as a key priority through their own planning engagement processes. Indigenous people very much want to be able to reclaim their rich history of mental health and wellness as a priority, as they seek to break the cycle of intergenerational trauma that we have already spoken about. The Pathway to Hope recognizes that Indigenous people need to be — and we need to support Indigenous people and First Nations — in the driver’s seat in developing those solutions, in designing and delivering mental health and wellness programs in Indigenous communities.

We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the First Nations Health Council and the federal government to work in partnership — we did this over a year ago — to improve mental health and wellness programs and to achieve progress on the determinants of health and wellness. We’re doing that through a very flexible funding approach and partnerships, and as I mentioned already, for First Nations to be able to plan, design and deliver these programs in their communities.

A very critical piece of reconciliation — and everything we’re talking about today is about reconciliation — is also about embedding cultural safety and humility across the provincial system of health care, and mental health and addictions in particular.

We have also made a significant commitment to expanding First Nations–run treatment services. This is an area that has been sadly and badly ignored in this province and countrywide for many, many years.

Our government has committed, in partnership with the First Nations Health Authority, $40 million to build two new urban Indigenous treatment centres that incorporate traditional healing and wellness, as well as to renovate and rebuild a number of Indigenous treatment and healing centres in rural communities. This is absolutely critical when we recognize the effect of intergenerational trauma, what that means as far as suicide rates today but also what it means as far as the overdose crisis, where Indigenous people are dying at a rate three to four times the population at large. So making a significant investment in Indigenous mental health and wellness and treatment centres is a key part of our commitment to reconciliation.

In addition, the Minister of Health is working very closely with the First Nations Health Authority on First Nations–led primary health initiatives. This, as we know, is about multidisciplinary teams that, very importantly, will include mental health and substance use professionals.

I’m very proud to speak in support of Bill 36 today, the Gaming Control Amendment Act. It is, I think, a really, really solid demonstration of our government’s commitment to reconciliation, a commitment that is shown in the actions of all of our ministries across government and a commitment that will be shown very, very clearly when we introduce legislation that will enshrine UNDRIP in legislation in the province of British Columbia.

Thank you so much. I’m very proud to support this, very proud of the initiatives that our government is taking, and I hope that the members opposite can see fit to support this wholeheartedly. Wouldn’t that be a powerful message to send to First Nations and the people of British Columbia: unanimous agreement in this House?

R. Coleman: I have a lot to say about this particular piece of legislation too. I also agree with some of the comments on the opposite side about revenue-sharing with First Nations, which I actually negotiated government to government with the First Nations in many communities across B.C. over the last ten or 12 years, and also was proud of the fact that the first First Nations housing on reserve was actually done under my watch at the Lax Kw’alaams reserve up in northwestern British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

However, I will recognize, quite frankly, the time. Noting the time, I will reserve my position in this debate, and I’ll be glad to wax on for half an hour tomorrow after question period to give you my full opinions and thoughts on how we could do this well or even better.

R. Coleman moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.