Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee on Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[2:35 p.m. - 2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 35; J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

On section 116 (continued).

M. Lee: I just wish to pick up the discussion on 116. There was discussion with the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and the minister about the definition of “public interest.” Components that were referred to related to the transportation strategy — what’s for the common good of the people — as well as recognition of the importance of continuing to lower our carbon footprint.

Can I ask the minister what other examples or factors would be utilized to determine public interest — for ex­ample, in the area of public safety?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thanks to the member for his questions. It’s nice to have somebody else engaged in this as well. I think it’s a very interesting discussion on these pilot projects and what we’re going to be doing here.

[2:45 p.m.]

Yes, safety is obviously key to what we do as a ministry. We’ve got to make sure that everything is safe, so ensuring that safety is built in will be in the public interest. We had a discussion yesterday about whether people are going to having to wear helmets, and so on, and where people would be able to use these motorized personal mobility devices.

Safety will be key. That will be assessed, basically, through these pilot projects — what will come out to be the safest way for using them and integrating them into our transportation networks.

M. Lee: Just to ask further in the amendment that’s being added — that is, new section 304(2)(b). There’s a reference to “the objectives set by government.” We’ve covered transportation yesterday and road safety just now. But could I ask: what other objectives, in the public interest, would these proposed pilot projects need to meet in terms of…? What other objectives would there be for government?

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member is aware, this is enabling legislation. We do want to be prescribing what can and can’t be included. Other parts of “consistent with the objectives set by government….” I mean, it goes without saying, I’d say, that our environmental objectives through CleanBC, the objectives we laid down in our active transportation strategy of getting increasing people using active forms of transportation…. That will be part of it. With it, there are some infrastructure objectives.

We’re working also, obviously, within partnership with the municipalities. So if those municipalities have any specific objectives they’re trying to fulfil through their official community plans, they are now looking at these forms of transportation and these pilot projects.

There’s a lot of flexibility in this. As I say, it’s enabling legislation, so it will give the ability for everybody to get together and have good discussions about what it should look like in the different scenarios.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response.

The next section, which is the last section of this new provision to be added, refers to consent. So in the case of municipal councils, what level of involvement will municipalities have in being consulted and working through the parameters of a pilot project? What level of discussion and involvement will municipalities have in order to provide their consent?

Hon. C. Trevena: These pilot projects that we’re discussing — I think nearly all of them are going to come at the behest of the local governments or the treaty First Nations. So our staff, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure staff, will be working in partnership with the municipalities. There is an anticipation that this will be a joint approach. We’re definitely not going to be imposing on municipalities pilot projects that they don’t want.

Further, as the member can see, in section 304(3)(a)(i), “if the Lieutenant Governor in Council is satisfied that the municipality has authority to make bylaws….” But also that they are satisfied that there has been consent, that they are participating in this.

[2:50 p.m.]

We’re looking at doing this very much hand in hand with municipalities and working to see what it is that they want and how we can best make it work.

M. Lee: I think I understand, in the context of municipalities, what authority they would have to make bylaws. In the next provision, which relates to treaty First Nations…. In this area, knowing that we’re talking about pilot projects and recognizing the rights, of course, of First Nations to their territories on First Nation treaty lands, what will be the area of consent in respect of any overlapping rights that might exist between First Nations on treaty First Nation lands in respect of a pilot project?

Hon. C. Trevena: Treaty First Nations have the same authority as municipalities do over their sidewalks and streets. It’ll be working the same way with the treaty First Nations as with municipalities.

M. Lee: In the interest of the Nisg̱a’a, which is referred to here as well, where there might be a dispute between First Nations on various access rights, is there a concern in terms of what level of consent the government would be seeking in that context?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for these questions. It’s good to go right into the details of this. This would be something that we would be working through. We’re not specifying that in this piece of legislation.

As I keep coming back to, it’s working. This is supposed to be a collaborative approach, working with treaty First Nations wherever they are. If there is some conflict on jurisdiction, we will work that through. We’re not going to be imposing this on any First Nations, nor on a municipality.

We want to make sure that we’re working it through. That is going to be the approach — of absolute openness and discussion.

Sections 116 to 118 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank everyone for their participation in the debate on Bill 35. There’s been a lot of discussion on both sides of the House about it. It embraces many important aspects, and it’s moving along our government’s agenda in many significant ways.

I know there have been a lot of questions from the opposition in committee stage. We’re very pleased that we are able to make some changes that will really improve the lives of many people in B.C., whether it is in the field of social development or on our roads.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[2:55 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 35 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2019

Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2019.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 36 — GAMING CONTROL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 36; J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 3 p.m.

On section 1.

J. Yap: To the minister and staff, I look forward to the opportunity in committee stage to engage and try and get some questions answered. I know that my colleague the MLA for Vancouver-Langara will also have questions, as well as a number of other colleagues.

With regard to the first section, section 1, This section increases the number of directors at British Columbia Lottery Corp. from nine to 11. Can the Attorney General provide an explanation of why this change is being contemplated in Bill 36?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined, on my left, by Rhea Wilson, the counsel with Indigenous legal relations. On my right is Doug Scott, ADM, Crowns. Behind me is Ranbir Parmar, corporate services, Ministry of Indigenous Relations, and to my left, behind me, is Giovanni Puggioni. He was the chief negotiator on this. Thank you very much for staff being here to support me in doing my best to assist the opposition and the Third Party with understanding the act and the provisions.

Section 1 does increase the Lottery Corp. board by two. The reason it’s two is to preserve an odd number of directors so that the board doesn’t get deadlocked into a tie. The reason to increase the board at all is because part of the negotiations was an agreement by government that if the B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership nominated a director, that director would be recommended to cabinet.

It would still be at cabinet’s discretion whether or not to approve that individual, but the expectation would be, generally, that that person would then be appointed to the board so that there would be a representative of the partnership and of First Nations on the board of the B.C. Lottery Corp., given the investment, essentially, that they have, now and in the future, in the operations of B.C. Lottery Corp. because of the revenue-sharing.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response. Section 2.20 of the interim agreement lays out that the partnership will have the right to nominate a nominee, on behalf of the partnership, to the B.C. Lottery Corp. board. Can the Attorney General provide more details to the House on how this will work?

Hon. D. Eby: The government is making available to the partnership the resources and supports of the board resourcing office in the provincial government so that if they need support in identifying candidates or ensuring that candidates have the appropriate skills that the partnership is looking for, then that is available to them. That person will be nominated by the partnership, will be recommended to cabinet, and then the appointee on the board will be bringing their skills to fulfil the fiduciary obligations that the board has to the B.C. Lottery Corp. and, by extension, to the people of British Columbia.

[3:05 p.m.]

J. Yap: Does the minister anticipate that the partnership will put forward a list of names that, through their process, they would like to nominate and that then it would be up to the board resourcing — and, ultimately, to cabinet — to pick from that list? Is that how the process will work?

Hon. D. Eby: Everyone’s understanding is that generally, there would be a single individual put forward, but there’s nothing stopping the partnership if they wish to put forward a list of names of nominees. They can do that, but the understanding and expectation is that there’d be one individual.

J. Yap: I just ask from the perspective of whether the minister or the government would be duty-bound to accept and appoint the name that is put forward if it were just one name. Is that the expectation — that the government would accept the nomination if it’s just one name, in the potential scenario where the government may feel that the name put forward may not be suitable?

Hon. D. Eby: You can’t bind cabinet in that way. It’s cabinet’s discretion whether or not to appoint any particular board member. However, I think the understanding that everybody has is that there’s going to be a very careful and thoughtful process on the partnership’s part in identifying a candidate to recommend to government, and that would have considerable weight in the discussions of cabinet about whether or not to appoint that individual.

J. Yap: What would happen in the instance — potentially, if it occurred — where the minister responsible did not see fit to recommend the partnership’s nominee?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s difficult to have a significant discussion about hypotheticals, but I think if there were some sort of issue that came up, I would expect that the relationship between government and the partnership is such that there would be an active discussion back and forth about any concerns that were identified and that any concerns the government had identified would likely be shared by the partnership.

In a scenario where, for some reason, government was concerned and the partnership wasn’t, the ultimate decision is cabinet’s. Cabinet would make that decision, and if they decided not to approve a given candidate, for which discretion is preserved, then there would be a return back to the partnership for another nominee from the partnership for consideration.

J. Yap: From the minister’s response, which I appreciate, he’s affirming that it would be ultimately the discretion of the government, the executive council, to approve or not approve a nominee.

Hon. D. Eby: The candidate is recommended, nominated by the partnership and then recommended by the minister to cabinet, but cabinet maintains an ultimate discretion about whether or not to appoint that individual to the board.

J. Yap: Can the minister tell the House if any other Crown corporations have this type of arrangement where the Indigenous community can nominate a director?

Hon. D. Eby: There was a bit of a brainstorming here to see if we could think of something that would be analogous, and we’ve identified the First Peoples Cultural Council, which puts forward candidates that they recommend to government and that are then considered by cabinet.

[3:10 p.m.]

I think the record is appointed, but again, the discretion remains in cabinet on whether or not to appoint those nominees that come up from the council for the council’s board.

J. Yap: Just to follow through on that. What this section endeavours to do — to add the opportunity for government to appoint an Indigenous director, nominated by the Indigenous community…. This would not be precedent-setting. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. D. Eby: This is the only Crown we can think of that has a structure like this where a nominee is recommended by an Indigenous organization for appointment. So in that sense, it’s new. In the sense that cabinet retains ultimate discretion whether or not to appoint the board member, it’s not new. That is the existing structure for appointment of board members for Crown corporations.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response confirming that in terms of a Crown corporation of British Columbia, this is new. That being the case, can the minister advise this House what consultation was done to arrive at this decision to create this new structure?

Hon. D. Eby: The First Nations Leadership group, which is the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the summit, together have an organization under their umbrella called the First Nations Gaming Commission. The First Nations Gaming Commission had a subcommittee chaired by Grand Chief Joe Hall that was the lead negotiating group with the province for the agreement and for the structure of the agreement of how to move forward on this issue.

Once an agreement and broad terms were arrived at, the council, the lawyers within the Ministry of Attorney General, were consulted to ensure that the process was structured so it would be consistent with law. The chair of the board of the B.C. Lottery Corp. was consulted.

[3:15 p.m.]

The cabinet board resourcing office was engaged, as well, to ensure that we were structuring things properly. So there were a number of different technical sources of advice, as well as practical sources of advice.

I think it’s safe to say that this process was a co-development process with First Nations groups in the province through their leadership organization, the leadership group, and the subcommittee. I wanted to thank Grand Chief Joe Hall and his team for their work with our team in arriving at these terms and coming to this historic agreement.

J. Yap: I thank the minister for that.

It sounds like the negotiations were undertaken with representatives of the leadership council. I’m wondering if the minister can advise if other stakeholders, other First Nations, were consulted on what was being contemplated.

Hon. D. Eby: Engagement with First Nations communities was led by the leadership council. In particular, we understand that the three entities that make up the leadership council — the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, BCAFN and the First Nations Summit — went out to their membership through their structures and through their regional representation groups to engage with First Nations communities across the province, taking feedback back up through their channels to the group to inform the discussion.

My understanding is that on the First Nations side, there was quite a comprehensive engagement. Ultimately, the agreement was ratified by all three organizations of the leadership council — and, ultimately, we hope, by government, in passing this bill here today.

J. Yap: I appreciate that answer. I’m wondering…. In the spirit of nation-to-nation consultations, it sounds like the discussions were handled through the leadership council. It sounds like the minister is confirming that there were no direct consultations between the province and individual First Nations to get feedback on what was being proposed. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: This was a unique process in that it was a collaborative process with the First Nations Leadership Council. We worked with them, and they designed a process to engage with First Nations groups across the province through their structures and how they wanted the engagement and the consultation with First Nations groups across the province to go ahead.

Government supports that because we support self-determination, and we support Indigenous people making decisions about issues that affect Indigenous people. That co-development process was very important to the entirety of this negotiation discussion and the agreement.

It’s true that government did not co-design that process with…. Well, this was a process that was developed by the leadership council itself. We didn’t, then, take any steps to undermine that or to run a separate engagement with First Nations groups in the province.

We had confidence in the ability of this Indigenous leadership group to make decisions affecting Indigenous people and engagement in the province.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response and his affirmation that there was certainly a reliance on the First Nations Leadership Council to undertake their process. He mentioned a desire not to undermine their process. I certainly appreciate that.

[3:20 p.m.]

Of course, we expect the government, the province, to approach these matters with great respect for First Nations and their processes. I wonder if the First Nations Summit, after the process was completed, shared the results of their consultation or their process with the minister as part of their discussions to arrive at this new governance structure.

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that there were a number of issues raised during second reading. One of those issues raised during second reading was consultation with First Nations across the province. We received a response from the First Nations Gaming Commission to talk about what they did to engage with First Nations across the province.

They wrote to us:

“The consultation, which is extensive, has been coordinated through the Leadership Council and its delegate, the First Nations Gaming Commission. Discussions with government, which extended over many months, were led by the First Nations Gaming Commission.

“First Nations in British Columbia are entitled to participate as members of the Leadership Council’s three constituent political territorial organizations: the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. All critical aspects of the gaming-revenue-sharing regime, including the distribution formula and ratification of the agreements themselves, have passed votes on the floors of the Chiefs and Assembly at the political territorial organizations. In addition to this, the agreements have been ratified by the limited partners at the time they joined the limited partnership.”

The limited partners, in this case, are the 203 First Nations of the province.

“Consultation has been a coordinated effort and has included fully informing individual First Nations as to the key aspects of the revenue-sharing arrangements, seeking feedback and making a genuine effort to respond to their concerns.”

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s follow-up. It sounds like there was a fairly extensive consultation process that the First Nations Summit or Leadership Council went through, engaging with their constituencies.

I wonder if that process and its conclusion — perhaps the report — in the interests of transparency, was made public. If not public, was it made available to individual First Nations?

Hon. D. Eby: We don’t believe that there’s any written report summarizing the consultations that we’re aware of.

J. Yap: Is this structure in place in any other Canadian jurisdiction? I wonder if the minister can advise — in his due diligence, the staff review of this matter — whether this structure is in place in other provinces.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: In British Columbia, we have an example of a limited partnership structure that has been used before. It was actually set up under the previous government, the Pacific Trail pipelines partnership. It distributes revenue that comes from that project to 16 different First Nations that are limited partners.

In Ontario, there is a limited partnership structure like this for distributing gaming. We understand there has been litigation in Ontario in relation to the partnership, that it related to the commitment of the Ontario government to consider and appoint board members nominated by the limited partnership and that Ontario, allegedly, did not do that.

Our hope and expectation is that we will learn from the Ontario example and take seriously the nominations that are put forward by the partnership. But otherwise, it seems to have worked very well in Ontario as a mechanism for distributing gaming revenue, which is likely why the First Nations Gaming Commission was supportive of and advocated for establishing a partnership like this.

J. Yap: Does the government expect, with this being the first one, to add Indigenous-nominated directors to other Crown corps?

Hon. D. Eby: We don’t currently have any plans for that. I will note that the government has made a significant effort to have more Indigenous representation on boards in the province, and if the member is interested, I’ll get him some numbers.

We’re quite proud of the Indigenous representation, especially…. The Minister for Advanced Education has done an exceptional job in ensuring Indigenous representation on, if not every, almost every post-secondary board in the province, which is quite an accomplishment and long overdue.

It’s government’s intent to continue to increase Indigenous representation on boards and in various appointments and employment and so on. So although we don’t have any plans to have a nomination process like this currently for any of the Crowns, it remain a focus of government.

J. Yap: Why did the minister decide to add two directors rather than simply ensure that one of the current nine directors would be replaced by an Indigenous nominated director so that there would be one in place? Was it actually necessary to increase the size of the board?

Hon. D. Eby: We engaged with the chair of the B.C. Lottery Corp. to ask how the board was working. The chair identified for us that it would be preferable to add two positions to increase the skill sets on the board rather than remove one of the current board members. He felt that the board was working particularly well and that the perspectives brought by the two additional board members, including the nominee, would be very helpful to B.C. Lottery Corp’s operations and the board’s operations as it stood.

J. Yap: That being the case, with the board increasing, will the total remuneration going to the board, for directors, increase, as it increases the numbers from nine to 11?

Hon. D. Eby: These board members will be remunerated in the same manner as any other board member on the B.C. Lottery Corp. board — for expenses for travel, for various board-related events and a stipend for attendance at board meetings, these kinds of things.

[3:30 p.m.]

J. Yap: I understand the rationale, and the minister has provided the background on the proposal to enhance Indigenous representation on the Lottery Corp. board of directors.

Indigenous peoples in British Columbia are not monolithic. They are diverse. I wonder how this reality of a very diverse community of First Nations will be addressed in the selection of this director.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: The manner in which we hope to have a good representative of the partnership is through the structure that we’ve discussed, which is that the partnership will nominate someone that they feel is appropriate to represent the partnership’s perspectives on the B.C. Lottery Corp. board.

I wanted to note that simply because there is one nominee that comes from the partnership who is likely to be an Indigenous person — but not necessarily — that doesn’t mean that that would be, necessarily, the only Indigenous person on the B.C. Lottery Corp. board. We already do have one person of Indigenous heritage on the board. So it’s not like this is the only Indigenous representative that would necessarily be on the board. There may be other representatives. But the hope is that the partnership is able to identify representatives that best represent the perspectives of the partnership and its limited partners on the Lottery Corp. board.

L. Throness: I just have a few very general questions — I’m curious about the bill — that I would like to ask. The minister brought with him today an official who he announced as the chief negotiator on the bill and on items concerning the bill. We use words like “comprehensive engagement” and things like that. I’m wondering: in a more specific sense, how many meetings has the negotiator held with First Nations partners, over what kind of period? In particular, did the negotiator meet with individual First Nations, and if so, which ones?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that there were literally dozens of meetings over about 15 or 16 months to arrive at the agreement. With respect to consultation with First Nations, this issue was raised during second reading, and we got in touch with the First Nations Gaming Commission, which wrote to us the following in relation to consultation with First Nations. The First Nations Gaming Commission led the engagement, which we thought was appropriate.

“The consultation, which is extensive, has been coordinated through the leadership council and its delegate, the First Nations Gaming Commission. Discussions with government, which extended over many months, were led by the First Nations Gaming Commission. First Nations in British Columbia are entitled to participate as members of the leadership council’s three constituent political territorial organizations: the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

“All critical aspects of the gaming revenue-sharing regime, including the distribution formula and ratification of the agreements themselves, have passed votes on the floors of the Chiefs and assembly at the political territorial organizations. In addition to this, the agreements have been ratified by the limited partners, which are the First Nations of British Columbia — there are 203 of them — at the time they joined the limited partnership.

“Consultation has been a coordinated effort and has included fully informing individual First Nations as to the key aspects of the revenue-sharing arrangements, seeking feedback and making a genuine effort to respond to their concerns.”

L. Throness: I’m wondering: specifically, did the negotiator negotiate all aspects of the bill with the representatives of the First Nations? And in particular, did he negotiate the partnership agreement with individual First Nations?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: As I understand it, the agreement was negotiated with — I’ll take the member to the top of the structure — the leadership council, which is the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They have representation on the leadership council.

Then they have an organization called the First Nations Gaming Commission, which is under the umbrella of the leadership council. That First Nations Gaming Commission had a subcommittee chaired by Grand Chief Joe Hall. The negotiation proper was with this subcommittee of the First Nations Gaming Commission. That was the group that government was negotiating with and developing this in partnership with.

L. Throness: Just one more question for the minister. I would just point out that negotiations were with representatives of First Nations, but the funding disbursement formula of 50 percent, 40 percent and 10 percent to remote First Nations was not negotiated with remote First Nations per se.

What was the feedback? How was this formula — the disbursement formula where only 10 percent goes to remote First Nations, which are perhaps the most needy First Nations…? How was that 10 percent arrived at?

Hon. D. Eby: Just to ensure that the member has the same understanding that I do in terms of the distribution here, First Nations…. The money itself is divided into three pots. There’s a 50 percent pot, so there’s half the money. Then there’s a 40 percent pot. And then there’s a 10 percent pot. A rural or remote community can draw from all three of these allocations of money.

The 50 percent is divided equally among all First Nations. The 40 percent allocation is divided on the basis of population, so they would get a share of that population distribution as well. Then an additional 10 percent of the total only goes to rural and remote First Nations communities, and it is allocated accordingly.

So it’s not like only 10 percent of the money goes to rural and remote communities. There is a special supplementary fund only available to rural and remote communities, and that is in addition to the shared distribution and the population distribution.

With that understanding, I think it’s important to recognize that the engagement with First Nations, including rural and remote First Nations, took place through the leadership council and through the three entities, leadership groups, that partnered together in the leadership council. These three groups had meetings at which the revenue-sharing regime, including the distribution formula, had to pass a vote on the floors of their Chiefs and assembly at the various political territorial organizations.

[3:40 p.m.]

They advised us that there was a coordinated effort that included fully informing individual First Nations about the key aspects of revenue-sharing arrangements, seeking their feedback and making a genuine effort to amend or address or respond to their concerns.

L. Throness: This simply provokes one more question that I must ask. We have a few very wealthy First Nations in B.C. Westbank is the most wealthy First Nation in Canada. We think of Tsawwassen. Westbank, I think, has some 500 businesses on its properties, and it will receive the same amount in base funding, 50 percent. That’s $250,000 a year for the next 25 years, the same amount as a remote First Nation. I don’t know what the population is, but Westbank probably has a larger population, because it is more wealthy. So it will receive a larger share there.

I’m wondering why only 10 percent is hived off for a remote community. Why wouldn’t it be more than that and distributed more on the basis of need rather than on the basis of entitlement?

Hon. D. Eby: I think it’s important for the member to at least hear, if not agree with, the approach of government in this, how this distribution formula was arrived at and why it’s part of the agreement.

Government made a commitment that this would be something that First Nations would determine for themselves, that government wouldn’t be imposing a formula upon First Nations, that we wouldn’t decide what was best for First Nations. This would be First Nations making a decision about their own future, and the leadership groups would be accountable to their own communities.

That was the approach of self-determination. That was the approach that government decided to take. That is the formula that the First Nations arrived at through their internal processes, and that formed a key part of the discussion — co-development in negotiation of this agreement.

Sounds like the member has a different idea about how money could be distributed and what criteria he would use to determine who would get how much money. But it’s not about him. It’s about First Nations and about their own decisions about how the money should be distributed.

L. Throness: Yet one more question. I notice that the disbursement formula is not in the act. It is on the government’s website. I’m wondering what the authority is for the disbursement formula. I’m wondering if that formula could change, if it’s not part of the act, and how it would change, if it were to change.

Hon. D. Eby: I have a two-part answer. The first part responds to the member’s previous question, and the second part responds to his most recent question.

The B.C. First Nations Gaming Commission provided some responses to some of the issues that were raised in second reading, and the issues the member raised were among those issues they responded to. I think it’s probably best for him to hear directly from the commission about their decision-making process and the revenue-sharing arrangement flexibility.

They write that the initial distribution formula includes a 50 percent base share split equally among eligible First Nations, a 40 percent share based on population and a 10 percent share based on remoteness.

As a starting point, First Nations modelled the distribution formula after Ontario’s formula and modified it to suit our particular needs. The initial distribution formula was ratified by First Nations in assembly at the three political territorial organizations.

Now, on the issue of flexibility around the formula:

“Significant flexibility is built into the revenue-sharing arrangements to permit the distribution formula to evolve over time, for the weighting to change and to include other factors as experience is gained.

[3:45 p.m.]

“Going forward, the formula will be determined by First Nations to provide weighting of the existing criteria or addition of criteria. The initial distribution formula will be reviewed after a three-year period to assess whether it is meeting the needs and interests of First Nations.

“A review can also be initiated at any time by the province, the partnership or the political territorial organizations, pursuant to the periodic review mechanism built into the revenue-sharing agreement or initiated by limited partners themselves in accordance with the partnership governance mechanisms.”

E. Ross: To the Attorney General: thank you for those answers.

I just want to follow up on some of the criteria, in terms of who is eligible for this funding. I was led to believe, based on the statements I heard in this House, that there was a consultation with 203 bands — or 199 bands, whatever that number may be. There was nothing said in this House to discount that, so I was actually impressed that an agreement was made with 203 bands. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it happen in B.C.

Just to clarify, the leadership council is…. You’re correct. It’s made up of three organizations — Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Assembly of First Nations of B.C., and chief negotiators, which is the summit. But in either case, none of these organizations really represent communities at the ground level.

The summit is made up of, actually, chief negotiators who are in the treaty process. So those bands that aren’t in the treaty process aren’t actually a part of the summit. It’s actually a voluntary thing. Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is actually membership-driven. Same thing: if they don’t have a membership, they’re not a part of it. Assembly of First Nations is elected by chiefs and councils who choose to participate.

I understand this bill is intended to transfer money to communities that could really use it. I just want to clarify two things. Did the government rely fully on the leadership council to consult with 203 bands? If so, was the government aware of any specific process that ensured each band was consulted in a meaningful manner?

Hon. D. Eby: I worry that members may not be catching all of the discussion around this. So I feel like I’m repeating myself. But at the risk of repeating…. It’s better to repeat myself and ensure all members have a clear understanding than not.

This specific issue was raised with the First Nations Gaming Commission. They wrote to government to share what their process was. They write:

“The consultation, which is extensive, has been coordinated through the leadership council and its delegate, the Gaming Commission. Discussions with government, which extended over many months, were led by the First Nations Gaming Commission.

“First Nations in British Columbia are entitled to participate as members of the leadership council’s three constituent political territorial organizations — the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. All critical aspects of the gaming revenue-sharing regime, including the distribution formula and ratification of the agreements themselves, have passed votes on the floors of the Chiefs and assembly at the political territorial organizations.

“In addition to this, the agreements have been ratified by the limited partners, which are all 203 First Nations, at the time they joined the limited partnership. Consultation has been a coordinated effort and has included fully informing individual First Nations as to the key aspects of the revenue-sharing arrangements, seeking feedback and making a genuine effort to respond to their concerns.”

[3:50 p.m.]

I can also tell the member that in terms of which nations are eligible to join the limited partnership and to participate in this and eligible B.C. First Nations include Indian bands, treaty First Nations, self-governing First Nations established by statute. There are also provisions that would allow new Indian bands, new treaty First Nations and new self-governing First Nations established by statute to the list. There are also provisions that allow an eligible First Nation to identify another entity in the event there are name changes or that First Nations adopt or change their governance structures.

J. Rustad: Thank you for the answer to the question.

Having had the opportunity to work with the three leadership councils and with the bands, one thing that I have heard very clearly from the bands is that the leadership councils do not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the bands. Unless there’s a specific band council resolution that has gone from a band to the leadership groups, they don’t have the authority to be able to enter into these types of agreements on behalf of the bands.

What’s more concerning is that with many of these meetings, whether it’s the AFN, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs or the B.C. summit, more often than not there is rather low participation at their quarterly meetings.

I guess the question to the minister is: what authority did the leadership councils, the three leadership groups, have to enter into this agreement and to commit to this agreement on behalf of the bands?

Hon. D. Eby: It may be that the member doesn’t fully appreciate the structure. What has been established here is a limited partnership. All 203 First Nations are eligible to become limited partners in the partnership. They are able, once they become partners, to shape the policy within the organization. The partnership is not the leadership council. The partnership is a separate entity called the B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership. It’s not the leadership council.

Our understanding, as of about a couple of weeks ago, is there were 170 bands or nations that have signed up as limited partners.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that answer. The question wasn’t so much the limited partnership and the signing-up of the nations as part of that. The question is the terms which had been defined. The splits, these components that have been established between the leadership council and those three entities and the Crown…. The nations did not sign on to that. The nations only have an opportunity to sign onto the limited partnership, thereby giving their authority to that. The nations themselves were never consulted directly with that component — by government, that is.

I have spoken with many First Nation Chiefs. All had the same thing. First of all, they were surprised. They didn’t realize the formula. They didn’t realize the structure and restriction. They didn’t realize the cost structure associated with it. Certainly, they have not in any way agreed in advance to that structure that was set up and organized. I understand the signing on in terms of the limited partnership, but there was not engagement in there.

[3:55 p.m.]

Once again, I ask the question: how did those terms come up and be put in place, and where does the authority lie with the leadership groups that were part of the negotiations? I’ll ultimately put the question to the floor. Where did that authority lie rather than the bands themselves?

Hon. D. Eby: The member sets up a difficult scenario. He doesn’t agree with the leadership council. He doesn’t agree with the leadership council’s participation because he doesn’t feel it’s adequately representative. He doesn’t support a limited partnership where every nation has equal opportunity to participate as a limited partner. I don’t know what he’s suggesting in terms of what an appropriate structure would be. But every member nation gets to participate equally in the limited partnership.

With respect to the structures, the First Nations Gaming Commission writes, and he may have missed this:

“Significant flexibility is built into the revenue-sharing arrangements to permit the distribution formula to evolve over time, for the weighting to change and to include other factors as experience is gained.

“Going forward, the formula will be determined by First Nations, and it will be by those First Nations who are limited partners, to provide weighting of the existing criteria or the addition of criteria. The initial distribution formula will be reviewed after a three-year period to assess whether it is meeting the needs and interest of First Nations.

“A review can also be initiated at any time by the province, the partnership and the political and territorial organizations, pursuant to the periodic review mechanism built into the revenue-sharing agreement or initiated by the limited partners themselves in accordance with the partnership governance mechanisms.”

I don’t think anybody is saying that this is going to be perfect right out of the gate. They’re saying, very clearly, that there’s flexibility built in so that the partnership can determine for itself, going forward, whether things need to be reweighted, new additional criteria. These reviews can be initiated at any time.

If the member is saying, “This doesn’t seem to be perfect,” he’s right. But it’s a very good start, and it creates this structure that enables the discussions that will take place to refine the formulas as necessary as determined by Indigenous people themselves, as determined by the limited partners in the partnership going forward.

M. Lee: I appreciate the level of the discussion here and the opportunity to join my colleagues to understand the interim agreement that was negotiated between the government and the First Nations Summit, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

I heard the Attorney General indicate the status on the current 198 eligible First Nations that are spelled out or listed in the schedule to this agreement and recognize, as I understand, there are 170 that have currently signed up.

The concern that the member for Nechako Lakes is relaying here is that we have an agreement that government negotiated on an interim basis to effectively cover two fiscal years of government. Through the amendments under this bill, we’re now looking at an opportunity for government to continue with the framework that was put in place, effectively, with the leadership council.

For the reasons that the member for Skeena also discussed, there are considerations around whether there has been an appropriate level of consultation and an opportunity for each of the First Nations — 203 bands in this province — to have had that direct level of understanding of the alternatives.

There has been a distribution formula that has been presented as part of this limited partnership arrangement under the interim agreement. That formula, as we understand, was determined, effectively, by the leadership council with the province. But was there any consideration for different kinds of weightings based on need?

We recognize that First Nations and their ability to benefit in this province…. They are not similarly situated. There’s a recognition here of remote geography. But that’s only one indicator of the need. Some First Nations are blessed with what traditional territories they hold through the economic partnerships that have been struck with the over 500 economic partnership and reconciliation agreements with the previous government, but others are not. Others don’t have that same ability.

[4:00 p.m.]

This distribution formula was provided, as we understand, to each of the eligible First Nations. Even though 170 may have signed up, did they have a true understanding of the alternatives?

I’d like to ask the Attorney General: what is the status of the current review that’s contemplated under the agreement around this arrangement?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. We, a government, worked with the existing First Nations political structures in the province: the Leadership Council, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the summit. I understand the member to be suggesting that we should have done something different — specifically, that we should have gone out to the 203 First Nations in the province to negotiate this agreement directly.

It took 16 months to negotiate this with the existing political structures in the province. I can’t imagine where we would be in this process, and I can’t quite imagine what it would look like negotiating with 203, as one of the members noted, very diverse communities with very diverse and different perspectives.

What we have is a functioning structure, a limited partnership, in which all participating nations participate equally in shaping the future — a structure with considerable flexibility for refining or changing the distribution formula. If the partnership comes together and says, “Hey, this structure isn’t working, governments; we need a different structure,” I know, at least with our administration, that they would find an ear and they would find support to set up a structure that worked better.

I do understand that the member is pointing out the imperfection of the approach. I also want to point out the desperate need in countless communities across the province…. Well, not countless. We have a number of these communities that need the support for health centres, for community centres, for economic development, for housing. This revenue stream will be transformative, as it was for many nations in Ontario when that distribution system was set up in that province many, many years ago. So I think we have a real opportunity here.

I accept the member’s points — valid points to be made — about ensuring that we hear all the voices of the various nations in the province, balanced with a desire to get a structure in place that will enable that to happen.

M. Lee: Well, thank you for that response. I’d like to understand. I appreciate that we’re talking about the totality of the arrangement. It’s important that we understand what currently is in place.

With that in mind, what are the determining factors for determining how an eligible First Nation is accepted by the general partner to be a limited partner under this arrangement?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the best response comes to us from the First Nations Gaming Commission themselves. This is apparently an issue that was raised in second reading debate. They wrote to us:

“The partnership is fully inclusive of all recognized First Nations, including Indian bands, treaty First Nations and self-governing First Nations located in British Columbia. There are no other eligibility requirements.

[4:05 p.m.]

“There is flexibility built into the eligibility criteria as First Nations governance structures evolve, pursuant to principles of self-determination, over the 23 years of the agreement, to recognize other entities as may be established by First Nations.

“Any First Nation that subscribes to the partnership is entitled to its share of discretionary funding from the stream of gaming revenues subject only to very limited annual reporting and audit and usage requirements. This involves filing a brief report on use of funds together with the audited financial statements otherwise prepared to meet INAC reporting requirements.”

M. Lee: I appreciate that, as the member for Richmond-Steveston and myself had the opportunity to have a briefing on this bill, there was an indication by staff from the ministry that government does not have access to the partnership agreement itself. Recognizing that it is viewed by this government to be an internal matter among First Nations, what I’m hearing is that eligibility to be part of this limited partnership is only determined by the indication that’s set out in the schedule.

If you’re listed on that schedule, you should be able to become a limited partner. Can I reconfirm that that is the case?

Hon. D. Eby: I believe the short answer to the member’s question is yes. I do want to make one clarification, though, with respect to the limited partnership agreement. The interim agreement and the long-term agreement were gazetted. Because government is a party to those agreements, we are not a party to the limited partnership agreement. However, it has been shared with government.

I wanted to clarify that in terms of the member’s question.

M. Lee: Well, thank you for the clarification. That probably will facilitate some of the responses here that we could be asking.

Perhaps just with that point…. Of the 198 eligible First Nations that are listed in the schedule, based on what the Attorney General has shared with this House, 28 have not yet signed up as limited partners.

Can I ask what the delay is, that being the case, given that the funds have been transferred to the partnership?

Hon. D. Eby: To ensure clarity, because we are throw­ing around a number of different numbers…. I’ve been using 203, and the member used 198. Both of us are, in our own ways, correct. The Nisg̱a’a Nation is one name on the list of 198, but it’s a composite body of several different groups. That’s how you get to the 203 number, just by way of clarification.

What is clear is that — we just got an update — there are 171 nations that have applied as limited partners. There are 17 that are missing one document, so they’re just in the final process of becoming limited partners.

As for the difference between the 171 and the 198, I don’t yet have an answer for the member about any particular reason why those nations may or may not currently have signed up to participate.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. So it sounds like eligible First Nations are continuing to consider and sign up for the partnership. Who makes up the board of the general partner?

Hon. D. Eby: As we understand the internal mechanism of how the nations who are partners are governing themselves within the limited partnership…. It’s our understanding that there is a shareholding and then an elected board from the shareholders, but we don’t have details about that for the member. That’s an internal matter within the First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership, and we don’t have that agreement here with us to provide that clarity, unfortunately, for the member.

M. Lee: It may well be that there is a certain appreciation for how this partnership will govern itself. I raise the point to understand who, effectively, is that governance structure. It goes back to the point that the member for Skeena and the member for Nechako Lakes have been raising about what level of consideration there is by the 203 First Nations as part of this structure.

If I can ask, though…. There is a reference to changes that might occur under the interim agreement with an approval level by extraordinary resolution of the limited partners. What is that level required, in terms of a percentage or other indicator, of what an extraordinary resolution threshold would need to be met by the limited partnership itself?

Hon. D. Eby: I have just a question in terms of clarification for the member about his question. I wonder if he could guide us to the section of the interim agreement that he’s pointing to about amendments to the interim agreement.

I have an update for him in terms of what we’re hearing from the nations that haven’t yet participated. We understand that there are no refusals to date, that the nations that haven’t yet signed up are taking legal advice on their participation. So we’ll wait for them to receive that legal advice and make a decision for what’s best for their nation.

[4:15 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just to give an example of the reference to the threshold for approval, in, for example, section 3.3 of the interim agreement, on page 17, it states that the distribution formula may be amended by an extraordinary resolution of the limited partners, pursuant to the partnership agreement. So this is of interest, I would expect, to all First Nations. If there was going to be a change in the formula for distribution of the funds, based on that 50-40-10 model, it’s important to understand what level of approval is required for that change.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the reference. It was very helpful, and we’ve gotten our hands on a copy here of the partnership agreement.

The special resolution threshold is 66⅔ percent, and the extraordinary resolution threshold is 90 percent.

M. Lee: I will just say that section 3.3…. I appreciate that response. That would suggest that there is the ability, of course, for approval without unanimous consent.

So 10 percent of First Nations who are signed up for this arrangement could be effectively overridden by the vote of 90 percent of the limited partners. Was there any consideration by leadership council of that threshold?

Hon. D. Eby: This is an agreement between and among First Nations, and we have confidence that they are considering and determining the best way to organize themselves in terms of this structure. They set those thresholds for their own agreement, and I can advise the member that they did that. As to the consideration, specifically, that they went through, that was their agreement to determine.

M. Lee: I appreciate that response.

If I could take us to another part of the agreement to understand the arrangement under the partnership, there clearly would have been and still are, under section 4.7 in the interim agreement, “held amounts,” as the term goes. There are terms that are utilized in that section, around “permitted investments.”

I would ask the Attorney General: for whose benefit would those permitted investments be held to confirm that? Secondly, for any revenue that was derived from those funds, whose benefit does that go to?

I should just correct the section reference. That’s actually 4.7(b), in terms of the held amounts for investment income.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: “Held amounts,” section 4.7, refers to amounts that are dedicated to a particular nation that may not have signed up or may not be participating in some way to be able to receive those funds. The amounts must be held for the benefit of that nation or band.

They’re held in three-year increments. So it builds over three years — year 1 plus year 2 plus year 3. If after three years the nation hasn’t claimed those amounts, then it resets to zero and starts again. Year 1, year 2, year 3, and then it resets to zero.

The held amounts are invested, and permitted investments are low-risk investments. The interest or the revenue from those investments…. The member asked where that will go. We’re just clarifying right now exactly where that will go. As soon as I get that answer for the member, I’ll let him know.

M. Lee: I appreciate that. What I’m wanting to understand is the overall partnership structure, of course. That’s one element in terms of where that revenue might go.

Perhaps I can go to another question, in the meantime, around the actual administration of the partnership itself. What is that annual administrative budget for this partnership?

Hon. D. Eby: This is another one of those responses that the B.C. First Nations Gaming Commission has provided, and I think it’s probably helpful to read directly their own commitments on this.

“Using a limited partnership owned, controlled and accountable to First Nations, rather than a government agency, to distribute gaming revenues is in accordance with the principle of self-determination. There is value in First Nations managing and administering the funds themselves, rather than having the Crown directly involved. First Nations are capable of managing their own financial affairs.

“As stated previously, the partnership is to be run in a lean and mean fashion. Operating costs are targeted to be less than 1 percent of the average annual income of the partnership, and funds are placed in approved low-risk investments pending distribution.

“The partnership is mandated to receive, manage and distribute funds in the most cost-efficient manner possible. Its operations are subject to transparency and accountability to its constituents. All First Nations that subscribe as limited partners are provided with copies of the revenue-sharing and partnership agreements and are entitled to annual audited financial statements of the partnership.”

[4:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: To clarify, if it’s 1 percent of the annual income…. Could I ask: what is that annual income?

Hon. D. Eby: The estimate of the gaming commission is less than 1 percent. It would be less than 1 percent of approximately $100 million, so less than $1 million a year.

M. Lee: In terms of the existing revenue-sharing agreements that are in place around gaming with various First Nations, including the Musqueam in respect of River Rock Casino in Richmond, or revenue-sharing agreements with four municipalities in Victoria, Esquimalt, Saanich and Oak Bay, what is the impact of this revenue-sharing arrangement, global, versus those direct revenue-sharing agreements for specific First Nations with municipalities as well?

Hon. D. Eby: Okay. I have several answers for the member. They’ve started piling up a little bit here.

The member asked about the directors of the limited partnership. The initial board of directors are nominated by the provincial — pardon me, the PTOs — political territorial organizations and the leadership council. That is just the initial board. Going forward, they will be elected by resolution of the limited partners, so the nations themselves will elect the board. Then the interest from the low-risk investments will be accrued to the First Nation whose money is being held, waiting for that First Nation to claim their share. That interest will not be going anywhere else. It will be going to that First Nation.

Then the member’s question that I’m standing up on, in relation to municipalities. There won’t be any impact on municipal government share, which is calculated based on the revenue from the facility in their area. This is calculated based on the net revenue to government from the B.C. Lottery Corp. So that number comes after the host local government share, from the facility.

M. Lee: In looking at revenue-sharing, this is obviously an important topic in terms of entering into these long-term agreements. At what juncture, in terms of additional sharing of revenue and gaming revenue, ought there to be a consideration of that, in terms of what an individual First Nation is already receiving and what they may receive in the future — versus ensuring that we’re sharing all the benefits based on, at least, the current distribution formula that’s under the partnership agreement?

Is there a concern regarding ensuring on a 25-year basis — 23 years to go — that we’re providing the right level of funding to First Nations that perhaps should take into account what they’re already receiving under other gaming arrangements?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member may have suggestions about different ways to distribute the funds — different criteria, different deductions or additions. The structure of this is that First Nations will determine for themselves through this entity, this limited partnership in which the nations all participate on an equal basis and elect a board of directors and make decisions about how moneys should be distributed. It’s part of the government’s support for the self-determination of Indigenous people.

I’m sure that there are any number of suggestions about how that could happen and what should be taken into account. Likely, it’ll be part of the conversations within that limited partnership, but it will be determined within the limited partnership, not by government.

M. Lee: We are at a juncture now where this enabling legislation will effectively enable the government to commit to this revenue-sharing arrangement over the balance of what was contemplated, the additional 23 years. Could I ask the Attorney General: what is the status of the negotiation of the long-term agreement?

Hon. D. Eby: The completion of the long-term agreement is dependent on the passage of legislation and the final form of the legislation once it passes through the Legislative Assembly.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

So should the legislation pass through the assembly, and should it pass through as written, then the hope is that we would be able to enter a long-term agreement before the end of the year.

M. Lee: Just to ask: in terms of that timing, will there be an opportunity to complete whatever interim periodic review mechanism that’s spoken to in the interim agreement? Will there be actual further consultation about this arrangement with the First Nations that might go into the development of that long-term agreement?

Hon. D. Eby: In section 9.1 of the interim agreement, there’s an agreement between the parties that there won’t be a periodic review under the interim agreement unless there’s an agreement to do that otherwise, and there hasn’t been. What there have already been, having worked for a little bit under the interim agreement, are discussions about how those learnings will inform the long-term agreement, which is still being negotiated — subject to, of course, the passage of the legislation in this House.

The anticipated period of the periodic review is an annual review. So the first review would be within a year of the implementation of the long-term agreement, probably, but that is still a matter that is under discussion under the long-term agreement discussion.

[4:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just to clarify. I appreciate the reference to section 9.1. When I look at 9.2, there was an expectation that the parties would identify an initial periodic review of this agreement — which presumably means, of course, the interim agreement — and that the parties would need at least six months before the initial periodic review date to discuss what would be contemplated in that.

Has there been a date set for that initial periodic review?

Hon. D. Eby: The member correctly refers to 9.2, but 9.2 is reliant on 9.1(c). So 9.1(c) says: “The parties acknowledge that a periodic review will not occur under this agreement unless the parties have agreed to a periodic review when extending the term of agreement in accordance with section 8.2.” In the event that happens, under 9.1(c), then 9.2 kicks in, because 9.2 says: “If the parties agree to a periodic review as contemplated by 9.1(c)” — where “then” isn’t there, but there is a comma — “they will engage in the periodic review as follows.”

There hasn’t been an agreement to that, because what’s happened has been that working under the interim agreement, the partnership has identified opportunities for improvement already, and there’s been an informal back-and-forth and a discussion as part of the negotiation and discussion around the development of the long-term agreement. So the first periodic review would happen, if that is ultimately what’s agreed to in the long-term agreement, in a year from the implementation of the long-term agreement.

Again, I’ll stress for the member that if he wants a specific date, that is something that’s under negotiation and discussion under the long-term agreement.

M. Lee: I hear what the Attorney General is saying. I would have thought, though, that government, at this juncture, prior to recognizing the nature of the agreement — what this new entity, in terms of the PTOs, by definition, are having to represent….

This would have been the juncture, prior to the entering into of the 23-year term of a long-term agreement. This would be the time for the government to get a better understanding and ensure that all First Nations have been fully consulted, that they’ve had their views known — any concerns that they might have about the formula that was put out by the leadership council. This would be the time to have that level of engagement prior to entering into a new long-term agreement, for which, as we were just discussing, there is some contemplation of periodic review.

Really, this government and the leadership council have had, effectively, two years to work with this construct, and if there are concerns — at least concerns that we’ve been hearing from First Nation Chiefs that various members on our side of the House have been talking to in the time that we’ve had since the introduction of this bill — this would be the time to ensure that those concerns are being addressed.

Again, what level of comfort does the government have that that level of consultation is taking place with those limited partners prior to the entering into of a 23-year, long-term agreement?

Hon. D. Eby: These are still really early dates. We’ve got, as I advised the member, 171 nations that have begun the application process. Well, there are 17 that are on the verge of completing; the rest have completed the application process of becoming limited partners. But there are still a number of nations that are taking legal advice about participating and how they should participate.

The structure that, hopefully, all of the nations will be participating in, this limited partnership, will be the mechanism to identify concerns and issues and bring them forward to government through a democratic process where all 203 — or 198, depending on how you’re counting — nations are participating.

I have confidence in the structure that’s being set up to be able to bring those concerns forward to government, in addition to all of the usual means that nations have to bring issues to the attention of government, including the upcoming leadership group meetings that we’re having.

[4:40 p.m.]

There are many mechanisms for these concerns to come forward, and the key, I think, to all of it is an effective limited partnership structure that is governed by and for First Nations people. I think that’s what we have here.

M. Lee: Just to further this point, once we have this partnership entity that’s been fully installed through the membership of all of the eligible First Nations, those eligible First Nations, of course, will need to work within the confines of that partnership agreement. So for any alternative in terms of the distribution formula itself, the structure that is being imposed on First Nations at a $1 million or so cost per year, the administrative structure that’s imposed and this long-term arrangement….

Again, this is the juncture for which limited partners, including those who have signed up to be part of the partnership and those who have not yet done so, who may be seeking, as the Attorney General has mentioned, input from their legal counsel…. This is the time for them — those who haven’t signed up as limited partners yet — to fully understand the arrangement and their rights and their access to these funds and the overhang of the leadership council, the structure that’s been put in place over these funds.

Again, is there a further opportunity for government to have that direct level of check-in with First Nations, particularly those who have not yet signed up to be limited partners in this partnership? They’ve had some time now to do so, and maybe this is a capacity issue. Certainly that would be recognizable for some First Nations, but in terms of the time period in which they’ve taken to sign up, it may be an indicator of a lack of appreciation and understanding for the arrangement itself.

I think it’s incumbent on this government and this Legislative Assembly to ensure that there’s been the right level of consultation before eligible First Nations are having to further lock into…. It’s one thing for an interim agreement for two years, but now that that’s been put in place and there’s a….

If the Attorney General wants to describe it as early days…. We’re hearing from many First Nations, through their Chiefs, that, yes, it is early days, because they don’t actually fully understand all of the ins and outs of the interim agreement and what has been entered into here. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect in that regard, so we have some concerns around that, as to why that is.

Again, to the Attorney General: is there not a further opportunity at this juncture to ensure that government is receiving and ensuring that right level of consultation with First Nations?

Hon. D. Eby: In November, we have the leadership gathering, and we’ll have nations from all over the province, bands coming to meet with government, meet with opposition, share perspectives and concerns about what’s happening in the province, bring in local concerns. It’s certainly a good opportunity for us to hear about any concerns.

I’m going to be honest, though. People were pretty happy. They were pretty happy that after 20 to 30 years of lobbying for what First Nations have had across Canada for a long time, which is a share of gaming revenue, B.C. being the lone province holding out…. They’re pretty happy about the breakthrough. They’re pretty happy about a dedicated stream of revenue that they can use for housing, for community, amenities, for economic development.

All of these things are going to be quite transformative in a lot of communities, as we’ve seen in other provinces, including Ontario, that have a structure exactly like this. It was the inspiration for the structure here in B.C., according to the gaming commission.

[4:45 p.m.]

I do understand the member’s apprehensions about the structures and so on. But in terms of having a government…. The alternative, as I understand it, that the member is representing — that government should be negotiating directly with all 203 First Nations some kind of agreement, reaching agreement with all 203 First Nations and then distributing the funds…. Rather than using the partnership, government should be distributing the funds based on criteria set by government. That’s just a different approach. That’s just a totally different approach. That is not the approach that we took.

We believed that this was an urgent matter — to get these resources into the community. We worked with existing political structures. The agreement establishes a democratic partnership that participant nations are entitled as a right to join as limited partners and to vote directly for a board of directors to set their own priorities, to adjust the funding formula as is appropriate for their needs. If the member thinks that government could do that for less than a million bucks, I’ve got a lot of news for the government about how things work. It would be a very expensive process for the government to do it.

I do understand that there are different ways that this could have been done. But I’m not sure they would be better. First of all, we’d be talking about a significant delay in terms of the negotiation. It took a year and a half almost, as it was. Secondly, it would be significantly more expensive for government to administer. Third, and I think most importantly, it would undermine the principle that is informing this entire thing, which is around self-determination, around saying to nations: “You know best what the needs are in your community. You know best the priorities. Allocate this as you see most appropriate.”

This is a priority for our government, a priority and a philosophy that informed the structure here. I agree there are different approaches. But that’s not the one that we took.

J. Rustad: To the minister, I want to thank him for his responses.

I need to be clear with something, in terms of the questions and the perspective that we’re trying to bring to this. We’re not opposed to the money from the gaming revenue flowing to the First Nations. Okay? So you’ve come forward with a plan. The government has come forward with a plan in terms of how that can be done, and we’re trying to add some scrutiny in terms of how that plan was done. We’re also trying to make some suggestions or some thoughts around some of the concerns or issues that could also be thought about.

The minister had just stated that we’re suggesting that you should go out and negotiate with 203 First Nations. Having had the file, I understand the complexities of trying to take that approach. I don’t think that’s necessarily what’s being suggested. But what I’m concerned about is that in 2009, there was an approach where government engaged significantly — well, it was before that; it was a lengthy process — with the three leadership groups, the First Nations leadership groups in the province of British Columbia.

The leadership groups went out, and they talked to their members. They came forward. They entered into this agreement with the province. Then the First Nations themselves said: “Wait a second. This isn’t what we had anticipated. This is what we agreed.” There was a huge kerfuffle and significant backlash to the leadership council, and quite frankly, the leadership councils at the time were told they needed to go to the bands and get approval before they could enter into those kinds of discussions and agreements.

My concern is that even though the intentions here are good, we may end up in the same type of situation, where, as First Nations become more aware of what the agreements are, how this whole process works, they may come out and say: “This is not what we had envisioned.” For example, the Okanagan Indian Band had this view that they could take the money and put it into a trust and use it to purchase assets and have it as a long-term benefit for their people. Well, to my understanding, that’s not allowed.

There weren’t those discussions, in terms of the limits and the process and the components with the nations. Hence, raising the question about, once again, this approval process of the nations to the leadership council to be able to enter into and to be able to have these kinds of sign-offs or agreements with the province when they don’t have the authority given to them by the nations to do that.

[4:50 p.m.]

To the minister, I guess, why wasn’t that taken into consideration, those sorts of issues, as part of the process? Given the track record and the history of this problem in the past, is there a concern by the minister that we may be in a situation where what could be considered good news and what should be considered good news in terms of revenue flowing to the First Nations could ultimately end up getting tied up in some disagreements and disputes and challenges and issues because the leadership groups do not have the authority to actually enter into these types of agreements on behalf of the nations?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m sure the member can forgive me for misunderstanding the comments and the questions, including his. He said in second reading debate: “It seems to be more about paying off friends than it is about actually getting the resources to the bands. 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?”

When he says that that’s not what he was advocating, I accept that he’s come a distance from second reading, which is good, because he said some pretty terrible stuff during second reading about this initiative to support nations across the province. I think that the structure that we set up is one that will prove to be, as in Ontario…. Actually, I shouldn’t say: “We set up.” The First Nations set it up. What they’ve set up will prove to be as successful as it’s been in Ontario. It’s been quite remarkable — the impacts in those communities.

I will say that the previous government had its own approach to First Nations issues in our province, and we have a distinctly different approach. I know that we’ll have disagreements on this file, and there will be different perspectives. It is my hope that we have a different relationship with First Nations. We’re starting a different relationship with First Nations in the province than the previous administration.

I understand that the 2009 and the 2002 referenda and all of those things that the previous government did didn’t turn out super well. But we have a different approach here. We’re going to take a shot at it with humility and understanding that we’ve got a lot of work to do, and hopefully cross-partisan work to do, in repairing the relationship between government and First Nations that started well before we got here and will continue for many years after we’re done here.

J. Rustad: Well, the minister didn’t really answer the question. I appreciate that the question wasn’t an easy one.

Just to reiterate my comments from second reading, my comments are that the money should go directly to the First Nations, not through some structure that’s set up by the leadership council. I’m trying to explain why it shouldn’t have been set up and structured like that. I provided the rationale, and the minister ducked the question. I’m not sure. Maybe he didn’t understand the question I had — I’d be happy to repeat it again — or maybe there’s a reason why.

The question is that the First Nations Leadership Council does not have….

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Excuse me. This is committee stage. If the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations would like to get up and contribute, he can do that. But heckling, I thought, out of courtesy, wasn’t so much allowed in here. Well, I guess it’s allowed. Sorry. But out of courtesy, that’s not the standard practice.

The question, once again, is the authority that the leadership council had to enter into this agreement and to create this structure on behalf of the nations. The nations, unless they have given them band council resolution and given them the authority to do that…. They do not legally have the authority to enter into those agreements. That’s what we learned from the 2009 experience with the nations, and quite frankly, the nations were quite upset with the leadership council for taking on that authority without going through that process.

[4:55 p.m.]

From that point on, the leadership council made it very clear with government that they didn’t have that authority, but they were there and advising and advocating and working on various approaches. We worked with them to create the All Chiefs meetings. We worked with them on doing a number of things, but we never once entered into any types of agreement with them that would have assumed the authority for them to speak on behalf of the nations because that wasn’t the authority they had.

Once again, like I say…. I know the government’s intent in trying to do this, and I’m not trying to be in a position here where I’m arguing that the minister shouldn’t be doing this and taking this approach. I have a general concern that this could end up having a problem. Without having that authority, it does create a potential issue with the nations to the leadership council. Now, that could end up being able to get resolved through the limited partnership process.

The answer to the question to the minister is…. Was that a concern? Is that something that had been thought about? Was it not thought about? If it wasn’t thought about in terms of the potential risk in terms of that, does the minister have a process or a thought in terms of going out and actually asking the nations directly if they are interested in this process or if they’d like something different?

Hon. D. Eby: The member outlines a number of reasons why he wouldn’t enter into an agreement with the First Nations Leadership Council. We haven’t. We haven’t done that. I understand he has concerns about that. I can provide him with some assurance: we haven’t done that.

The gaming commission has set up a structure which is a limited partnership. All nations are entitled to participate as limited partners. When the master agreement is negotiated, it will go to this entity in which all of the nations are participating democratically. It will be ratified or not by them — not by the leadership council, not by the BCAFN, UBCICor the First Nations Summit, but by this group of the nations in a democratic process.

I hope that helps the member understand what we’ve done here.

A. Olsen: I’m just wondering if you could reiterate the number of…. You identified the number of First Nations in the province and the number of First Nations that have signed on to the limited partnership. Maybe you could just reiterate that.

Hon. D. Eby: There are 171 nations in either full membership as limited partners or on the verge of completing membership. There are 17 on the verge of completing membership of that 171 group. Depending on how you count nations in the province, there are 198.

The remaining nations are taking legal advice about — well, one can only assume about what — I’m sure, any implications that there may be for their nations in accepting or participating in this limited partnership so that they go in eyes open, which is always a good idea. So they’re taking that legal advice.

No one has refused yet to participate. When the long-term agreement, assuming the passage of this legislation through the House…. Our hope is that there would be a long-term agreement complete by the end of the year and ratified by this limited partnership and all of its limited partners.

A. Olsen: Did the provincial government not announce this was happening last year — one full year ago, almost — at the B.C. Chiefs and B.C. cabinet meeting — that the government had committed to this process and that there was notification that this process was underway?

Hon. D. Eby: It certainly was announced then. It’s been announced a number of times since then. There have been a number of different points of contact between government and nations across the province. It has been a topic of discussion.

We also have the upcoming leadership gathering, as the member knows, in November, when we’ll be meeting with chiefs and councils again.

A. Olsen: Was it a part of the budget discussion in the early spring that there was going to be some moneys available for First Nations and — it was widely talked about in the public — that this was also going to be a process and that there was a process for them to be a part of this?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I want to be forgiven for thinking that the member was paying attention. Yes, that’s right. That did actually happen, and there was that detailed discussion in the budget discussion as well.

A. Olsen: Just one further one. This is one where I’m quite…. I haven’t checked this, but I’m wondering if maybe this was all part of the throne speech as well. Maybe you don’t have that answer, but it seems to me….

The point here, of course, in these questions — and I’ll try to not ask the same question 30 different times — is that this has been a long-standing conversation that’s been happening. First Nations leadership across the province has been well aware of this at least for over the last year, if not going past several years. This is certainly something that Indigenous nations have wanted and have asked for. There’s been ample opportunity, through whatever leadership groups that they’re a part of and whatever group that they’re in communication with, that if this was a concern, government would have been notified of that.

Certainly, as an opposition critic to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and with respect to Indigenous issues, when those issues do come up, I can tell you that I’m notified. The point being…. There has been a lot of conversation in the public about this in several different ways.

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for Saanich North and the Islands for such in-depth and penetrating questions that he asked — very riveting information, I’m sure, for the people listening in, within the Legislature and beyond.

Back to the questions at hand, in terms of the structure that’s in place. I understand that this is the structure that has been put up. Like I say, the minister hasn’t really answered the question, once again, with that. The reason for raising these concerns is, quite frankly, going out and engaging with First Nations and speaking to Chiefs directly, which is what the government hasn’t done on this file, on this particular issue. Particularly on the details of what has been structured, I have come to the understanding that it is not supported.

The support for revenue certainly is there, and they want to see it happen, of course. The nations are all part of that, and it’s one of the reasons why…. I have stated more than once that I’m not opposed to the revenue going to the nations. But there hasn’t been the discussion between government and the First Nations, who are the rights and title owners and who are the only ones who have the authority to enter into revenue agreements with the province. That hasn’t been done, which is why I have this concern with the structure that’s been put in place.

Now, the minister is avoiding that question, and that’s fine. If he wants to take another shot at answering it, that’s up to him as well. But I do have another question I want to pursue, which is around the cost structure of having this limited partnership put in place.

The minister has stated that the anticipated cost is going to be 1 percent or less. Could the minister provide any sort of details as to the confidence of that particular number, or is that just a target or an aspirational goal?

Hon. D. Eby: You know, I do try to answer the member’s question. He says that I didn’t answer them. I feel like I’m operating in some kind of parallel universe.

Can the member imagine a structure more democratic, more involving of all of the nations in the province, than one where they can participate, as a right, in a partnership where they all vote and ratify together the long-term agreement? Can you imagine a more democratic…? It’s literally all the nations sitting together, approving the long-term agreement. It’s what’s happening.

I understand that he has concerns. I understand that he thinks this is some kind of a fancy job between friends. It is bizarre to me, that perspective. But anyway, that’s his view. That’s fine. Well, it’s not fine. I think it’s profoundly offensive. But anyway, that’s his perspective, right?

[5:05 p.m.]

I can’t imagine a more egalitarian structure than what the nations have set up here. He can, or he thinks that government can hand it out better. That’s his perspective.

In terms of the costs, this issue was addressed in an earlier question. I’m glad to revisit it with the member. The B.C. First Nations Gaming Commission wrote…. There were a number of issues raised during second reading, as they properly should be, by the opposition. One of them was around the costs of administration, and they write in response to concerns related to that:

“Using a limited partnership owned, controlled and accountable to First Nations, rather than a government agency, to distribute gaming revenues is in accordance with the principle of self-determination. There is value in First Nations managing and administering the funds themselves, rather than having the Crown directly involved. First Nations are capable of managing their own financial affairs.

“As stated previously, the partnership is to be run in a lean and mean fashion. Operating costs are targeted to be less than 1 percent of the average annual income of the partnership, and funds are placed in approved low-risk investments pending distribution. The partnership is mandated to receive, manage and distribute funds in the most cost-efficient manner possible.

“Its operations are subject to transparency and accountability to its constituents. All First Nations that subscribe as limited partners are provided with copies of the revenue-sharing and partnership agreements and are entitled to annual audited financial statements of the partnership.”

It’s not just that I have confidence in this, but it’s important that the limited partners have confidence as well, which will be underlined and reinforced, one assumes, by these annual audited financial statements of the partnership.

J. Rustad: So there isn’t a detailed breakdown in terms of what the costs are. That’s clear in terms of that. There is a target and a goal in terms of managing it.

I guess the question to the minister is on the elected board members. Will they be paid for their position and their time and their representation, including compensation for expenses, for any and all meetings that they would have to attend? I’ve got a number of questions along this line, and I don’t think the minister will be able to answer them.

The reality is this. You have a limited partnership that’s going to be managing over $100 million annually. It’s going to be flowing that money through. There is going to be money that will not flow through. That will be set in a trust that will need to be managed, that’ll need to have accountants, that’ll need to have decision-making around that. There is going to need to be a reporting structure, both back and forth to the nations as well as to the province, as part of it.

There will be, I’m sure, meetings of the members of the limited partnership. You know, one meeting in Vancouver, to bring everybody there, is in the vicinity of half a million dollars just by that itself, just to have them come down and have a meeting. If they only have a meeting once a year, that would eat up half of the budget that the minister is anticipating.

It seems to be completely unrealistic when you think about the structure that needs to be put in place to manage $100 million of flow-through and still have it be managed for simply less than $1 million, which is what the target is. I understand that is the goal or the aspiration that is being laid out.

When you start looking at the cost structure that needs to be put in place to be able to manage it, not to mention a facility that I understand is now being set up in Westbank…. And there will be costs associated with rent and all the rest of these types of things that’ll be put in place for it. It puts into question whether or not that target of $1 million is realistic.

I guess that’s why I’m asking the minister. Can the minister provide any kind of assurances, other than the targets? When you start looking at what all those cost structures potentially could be, associated with running this limited partnership….

Hon. D. Eby: We’re not running the limited partnership. All of the nations participate as limited partners. If they’re not happy with administration costs — if they think they’re too high, if they think too much money is being spent, if they think not enough money is being spent in order to allow them to participate fully in decision-making processes — then they have a remedy for that. They are shareholders, and they can ensure that their voices are heard in that way.

I hear the member’s concern, alternatively, that there’s too much administration cost and it should be done directly by government, or that it’s not enough administration cost because the cost of getting everybody down for a meeting is significant.

[5:10 p.m.]

These determinations about administration costs and ratios will be determined by the limited partners themselves, by the First Nations themselves. If they’re happy about how things are running, then they will ensure that that continues. And if they’re not happy, then they have a very clear route to address that. I hope that is helpful for the member.

One of the things that I’m curious about and I wonder about is the administration cost generally when the government issues funding. I agree with the member that $1 million does seem very conservative in terms of the costs of administration, because he knows and I know that government administration is expensive.

I do believe that the limited partnership will be a more efficient means of distribution and will have a benefit, which the commission has clearly identified, of building capacity. There’s a benefit in having First Nations administer their own funds for themselves. It’s an opportunity for capacity-building. It’s a development in Westbank. The member has suggested that it gives people an opportunity to participate in these kinds of processes and to have the benefits of self-determination — all the things, all the benefits that come along with that.

It’s not just the cost of administration. It’s the opportunity that comes with administering resources for a First Nation’s own benefit in the province, which is significant.

J. Rustad: This comes to the crux of the issue. If the member had spoken to the Chiefs directly, they would have told him that they are more than capable of managing their own money. I think the member agrees with that. I think in his statements, the minister has said that First Nations are more than capable of managing their own money.

So why have this job creation process in this limited partnership? Just give the money to the First Nations and allow them to manage it. Allow them to report back. That’s the issue. The concern will be that although the target is good to see, in terms of trying to manage this sort of thing for under $1 million, the reality is that governing is expensive. Managing is expensive. There are lots of things that get filtered in, in being part of it.

The difference is when government gives that money directly to the nations, it doesn’t come out of the money they give to the nations. With the limited partnership, it does. That means there’s money that’s going towards managing this structure and that is not going towards the First Nations and the goals and aspirations that government would like to see, which makes the process for the nations less effective, less efficient.

It’s also why the Chiefs have said that they don’t support the idea of a limited partnership. It’s not that…. I mean, they’re signing on to it, because that’s the only choice they have, because no one’s ever talked to them. The government hasn’t talked to them about these issues.

Before I get to moving an amendment associated with that, I’ve got a couple of other questions that I just need some clarity on. The minister talked about the INAC reporting requirements in terms of how this is registered and how this goes through the federal process and the federal oversight. Is the revenue that comes in from gaming to a First Nation considered to be an own-source revenue?

What my concern is…. If it is considered to be an own-source revenue to the nation, then the federal government can actually reduce the funding that they have coming to the nation by some or all of that amount. In which case, the money being transferred just becomes part of…. The same amount of money is there. It just comes out of a different pocket — the provincial government, as opposed to the federal government.

I’m curious about whether or not this is considered own-source revenue and whether it could ultimately be clawed back by the federal government.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: One of the pieces, one of the governing structures, that our government has adopted is the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Part of it talks about governments working with Indigenous-led organizations. The First Nations Gaming Commission has been around since the mid-’90s. They appear to be a group that has its own structure and its own mandate from First Nations communities.

Certainly, for the purposes of establishing this structure, we didn’t hear a huge number of people saying: “Don’t work with the commission. They’re not a good organization to work with. You should work with someone else, or you should do it some other way.” It’s hard to imagine how the structure that they came up with — this limited partnership with all of the nations participating equally and democratically to choose directors and set policy — is not kind of a perfect Indigenous-led organization. This was the solution that the First Nations came up with themselves.

Now, I understand that the member…. Well, he’s asking questions, which is his job in opposition, and it’s hard to know what his own personal thoughts are about how we should be proceeding with this. He has mentioned, a couple of times, distributing money directly to the nations. The challenge with that, of course, is that then government is setting the formulas and government is determining these things. You don’t get the benefits of self-determination and Indigenous-led organizations running Indigenous affairs, which is something that our government prioritizes in its values.

The member asked a specific question about own-source revenue — the concern being that if you start distributing money through the limited partnership to First Nations, the federal government will reduce federal grants to those nations by an equal or a proportionate amount. I have a happy piece of news, certainly, for the member — which is that the federal government has committed that they will not do that. They will not be reducing other grants or flows from the federal government based on the gaming revenue that a nation receives from the province.

J. Rustad: I’m happy to hear that that has been addressed, because, once again, the intent of this bill is to have the money going to the nations and have the nations be able to help build capacity, etc.

I guess one last question before I move an amendment to this. It’s just a question of curiosity. The limited partnership will be set up. Obviously, the members of that limited partnership can vote. If the members were to go into the first meeting — on year three, after the two years are done in the limited partnership and the rest of the money starts flowing in — and if in their first meeting, they were to decide to dissolve the limited partnership and have the money flow directly to the First Nations, is that something that is contemplated or possible?

Hon. D. Eby: One of the benefits of the limited partnership and of the equal participation of nations as limited partners in it is that this entity can provide direction to its own board in terms of its own mechanisms but also to government about policy and tweaks to the long-term agreement or anything like that. It’s actually one of the great benefits of this structure. It creates the very entity that, as members on the other side have been pointing out, is missing. This entity is able to speak, maybe not with unanimity but, certainly, with universal participation by all 198 First Nations — or 203, depending on how you’re counting.

[5:20 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Well, I’ll ask the question again, since it wasn’t answered. If the nations, upon their first meeting, decide to dissolve the limited partnership so that the money can flow directly to the bands, is that something that is contemplated or possible?

Hon. D. Eby: Sure. It’s difficult to speak about hypotheticals, and I’ve tried to just get broader levels so that the member can understand any recommendations that came forward from the limited partnership, whether it be to modify the limited partnership, to revisit the long-term agreement or to address something else — up to and including, one can only assume, dissolving the limited partnership. Obviously, that would be challenging. The long-term agreement is based on the limited partnership, and there would have to be a lot of discussions about it: how are we going to restructure? How are we going to determine priorities? It would, essentially, be a renegotiation or a rediscussion of that.

Fortunately, there would be a body that we would be able to have that discussion with. Hopefully, they wouldn’t suggest dissolving it before we’d completed figuring out how to move forward, but that is very hypothetical. The excitement, the enthusiasm around dedicated revenue and an Indigenous-led organization arranging and taking mandate from its members about Indigenous affairs — Indigenous people dealing with Indigenous business for Indigenous people — is, I think, a very positive thing. It has been received that way.

I think it’s a very proud thing. I think it’s very exciting, and we’ll see. The idea that on day one everybody asks for it to be dissolved is, I guess, theoretically possible but mostly just an interesting discussion in the Legislature, probably, in terms of the reality of how people are feeling about things.

J. Rustad: I find it interesting. The minister says that there’s all this excitement and near-unanimous support for this, yet in all the First Nations that I went and spoke with, there isn’t a single one that supports the structure — not one. As a matter of fact, they have all said the same thing to me, which is, “We have not been consulted; we have not been engaged” — every last one.

I could understand if there were some, and others that said yes. But every last one I spoke to had the same response. Hence, why I’m raising this is because if the response by the nations is such that they would rather have the money come directly to them, that they don’t want the structure, don’t want the overhead and don’t want this piece in place and that they’re more than capable of managing their own affairs, why hasn’t government heard that?

I don’t get it, obviously. Well, then again, when you ask the nations, I guess the reason for why government hasn’t heard it is because they haven’t actually gone and asked the Chiefs if this is the structure — or presented the options to the Chiefs, who are the elected leaders of their nations and who are, through that, responsible for the rights and title for those nations, in terms of bringing their issues forward.

That’s why I posed the hypothetical question. I appreciate that the minister views it from that perspective, but I’m asking whether there’s a mechanism for them to be able to do that. If the Chiefs are, as they have said to me, not interested in having that…. They don’t want to have the overhead. They don’t want to have that. They’d rather have the money just flow directly to the nations. I’m wondering if there’s a mechanism for them to do that within the structure that is in place: if they could dissolve the limited partnership and, rather, have the funds flowing directly to the nations.

Now, I get that there’s a formula that’s in place. Whether it’s perfect or not, I think there are all kinds of issues, and I’m pretty sure you couldn’t get unanimous consent around it because of the disparities between a wealthy nation versus a nation that has all kinds of challenges. Having said that, it’s perfectly fine to be able to start with that formula and make adjustments accordingly as they get input from the nations. That needs to be done directly with the nations, and this limited partnership, once again, creates this overhead that takes away from money that flows directly to the nations.

[5:25 p.m.]

There was one point, when we were working with the nations and with the First Nations Forestry Council, trying to determine how we could support the forestry council in the work they’re doing and this kind of stuff. I went to the nations, and I said: “If we were to take a portion of the agreements that we had to help fund it, would that work?”

Every single nation said: “Forget it. That’s our money. We don’t want any of that money going outside, because we need that money for what we need within the nation.” Even though the structure would be good and build capacity and allow the sorts of things that the minister has talked about, there was absolutely zero interest in doing that, because there’s so much need within the nations for the money.

This is the same situation. There is need for this money within the nations, and the minister has recognized that. They’re not interested in having part of it carved off or hived off to fund a structure that, quite frankly, could very easily be eliminated. Eliminate the middleman, and have the money flow directly in through the nations.

There are lots of mechanisms, whether it’s through All Chiefs or it’s through other types of meetings, so that the government could get feedback in terms of potential changes or issues and ways to change that sort of structure. This doesn’t need to be put in place. It’s a position of bureaucratic structure. Quite frankly, in every First Nation I spoke to, every Chief I spoke to said: “That’s not necessary. We are more than capable of managing our own resources.”

I talk to many nations that are out doing great work within their nations. They’re creating opportunities. They’re creating businesses. They’re supporting their people, and they’re utilizing the limited resources that they have, very effectively. Many nations are more than capable of determining how to approach the best options for their people, and many Chiefs have said that they’re tired of managing poverty. They want to start managing prosperity.

I applaud government for taking the money and going through there. It wasn’t an approach we took. The approach we took, quite frankly, was on revenue-sharing, on resources and resource activities within the nations. Quite frankly, no other province in the country was doing it when we did it. They all looked at the gaming revenue side. Well, that’s fine. But it didn’t necessarily lead to the same kind of engagement.

Through the types of agreements that we had, we’ve seen a tremendous number of First Nations people entering into the mining industry, forestry opportunities, LNG opportunities, other types of resource opportunities and engagement within the nations, even on things like independent power production. All these types of things were happening. First Nations were able to become partners in companies, to drive and create these opportunities for bidding on projects moving forward. It’s quite amazing — the transformational activity that happened over a relatively short period of time, in terms of First Nations engaging the economy.

I can see First Nations wanting to use this money to be able to do things like that, to be able to help to set up companies, structures and partners. There are some limitations within the way the definitions are in there. Government has got its rationale for doing that, and that’s fine. Those sorts of things can be changed.

My concern, once again, is that these First Nations would like to have the money go directly to them so that they can be the determining factors of their own future. You look at a book like Dances With Dependency. That’s what it talks about. Controlling that sort of future gives them control over where they can go, their own destiny. This gets most of the way there, but there’s this chunk that ends up having to get hived off to pay for the structure.

Like I say, there isn’t a First Nation I’ve run into that would like to have that — with the exception of maybe the Westbank First Nation, because, of course, they get this nice facility in their place, it’s going to be paying tax and it’s going to be supporting all their things. They’re looking at it and saying: “Hey, why not? Why wouldn’t we want this?” But other nations are in this position where, quite frankly, they would rather have the money come directly to them than pay the overhead.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

To that extent — in the spirit of trying to actually improve the bill from what we heard from First Nations — we presented to government the alternative, which is the amendment which I’m about to move. This alternative was designed to avoid the middleman, to have this come in.

We’re not trying to do this from a gotcha type of perspective, trying to shame government or anything like that. This is a general step to say: this is how we think this bill could be improved. This is what we’ve heard from the First Nation Chiefs, the First Nation leaders that we have spoken with, and we’ve spoken with a number of them from all around the province. This reflects the feedback that we’ve heard from the Chiefs.

[5:30 p.m.]

Now, government has gone through its organizations and the various leadership council groups. Like I say, that doesn’t give them the direct feedback from the Chiefs.

To the point that the member for Saanich North and the Islands is making: yes, they heard about this for the last year. They’re excited about the money flowing in, but they were never told the details. They were never told the structure that would be in place and the costs that would be in place. Even the target of less 1 percent…. The minister also says that this is likely conservative for managing this type of resource.

I can tell you that with a nation, whether it’s the Cheslatta Carrier Nation or whether it’s the Takla Lake…. For these nations, every dollar makes a difference. Every dollar makes a difference. You think: “Well, what’s 1 percent or 2 percent or 5 percent?” That’s a big amount of money, and that makes a big difference. Every dollar makes a big difference.

To that end, I think our goal, which we should be trying to do, is to maximize the dollars that can flow directly to the nation so that they can build up their own infrastructure as opposed to setting up these quasi government structures or types of things that ultimately eat resources and don’t get to benefit the people on the ground.

The book Dances With Dependency talked directly about that. It talked directly about approaches that ended up hiving off money and not getting the full results to the people as opposed to taking an approach that is focused directly on the benefits that can flow into the nation.

With that, I’d like to move an amendment, which is on the order paper, which is standing in my name, to section 2 of….

The Chair: Thank you, Member. We are still on section 1. We’ll have to deal with section 1 prior to the amendment to section 2.

Are there any further questions on section 1?

Hon. D. Eby: I just want to respond to the member’s comments. The member says that when he goes out there, he doesn’t find any support. Well, let’s just have a look at what he’s saying about this.

Several times today, in this place, he said that the leadership council is the one that’s administering that. It’s totally incorrect. He also said that in second reading debate. He said: “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.” Totally false. So if the member is out there saying, “Do you think the leadership council should be the ones yeaing or naying a project?” people might say: “No, I don’t think so. I think we probably need a different structure.” Of course. Well, that’s not actually what government has set up.

What else is the member out there saying? “It seems to be more about paying off friends than it is about actually getting the resources to the bands.” “Well, jeez, I’m not in favour of that. I don’t support that. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, MLA. Very interesting.” Also not true. The administration of this will have to be paid for one way or another. The member is going out and saying: “Would you like to receive more resources?” I can understand that people would say yes. “Would you rather have the administration costs go to having government make decisions about this, or would you rather have administration costs going to First Nations making decisions about this?”

The member has set up, in his second reading debate and in his questions today, a totally nonexistent structure. He regularly has, in his speech just now, compared zero administration costs, no cost of administration — there is no such option that has zero administration costs — with the administration costs of the limited partnership. Yeah, zero administration costs are fantastic, but they don’t exist. So if government is administering, it’s going to cost money. If the limited partnership is administering, it’s going to cost money.

I’ve been advised. The member and I were both looking at $1 million and saying: “Gosh, that doesn’t seem to be….” That’s lean and mean, for sure, in terms of costs. It’s apparently in line with the Ontario experience of the actual cost of administering the partnership in that province.

[5:35 p.m.]

The member may well find opposition to a structure that doesn’t exist. He may well find support for the idea of zero administration costs, which is not something that happens in the real world. There are administration costs. But I think that when we present the actual structure, when the discussions are about the actual structure, and when we have confidence in the political structures that First Nations have set up to engage with nations across the province, there will be support for this approach, and there is support for this approach.

I found his speech disappointing. I found his speech, if this has been his approach across the province, frankly irresponsible. He has an obligation, as a member of this place, to be accurate about what government is actually doing. It’s fine to go out and say: “Do you agree with a limited partnership, where everyone gets an equal vote and you make decisions about criteria and so on, and you ratify the master agreement? Do you agree with that, or do you think that that would be better done inside government?” That is a fair question to ask people

But to say: “Do you actually think that the leadership council should be the ones that are responsible for yeaing or naying a project that comes forward?” Totally irresponsible. “Do you agree with paying off friends instead of actually getting resources to bands?” Totally irresponsible.

This is a really important initiative. This is an initiative that will…. It requires the support of British Columbians to understand the importance of this on a couple of levels — support for First Nations, but also support for First Nations to make determinations about their own futures and to administer their own processes.

I understand that the member is in opposition. This is important, to raise these issues in opposition. I spent four years there. It’s an important role. But this, and his speech just now, is beyond the pale.

J. Rustad: Quite frankly, I found the minister’s response, now, offensive as well. I can tell you this. What I’m asking here is quite simple. Did the minister go to the First Nations and say: “By the way, we’re going to download the administration cost to you, so we’re not giving you 7 percent. We’re giving you somewhat less because we’re downloading those costs”? I can tell you that the minister didn’t do that.

The minister has set up a structure where the leadership council are managing partners. They’re managing partners of the…. So what is the fee, and what is the cost going to the leadership council, as being managing partners of a limited partnership? This is an unknown. All of these things are unknown in terms of the structure.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Oh, then sorry. I’ll sit down before I carry on, and if you could answer that, that would be great.

The Chair: Just a reminder to all, section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve said it five times if I’ve said it once. The leadership council is not the managing partner. The limited partnership has, as its membership, all participating First Nations, who elect their board of directors. Why is the member insisting on something that is totally false? He is attempting to sow division. He is attempting to make controversial something which is not controversial, which is the sharing of revenues with First Nations — long overdue, ours being the only province not sharing these revenues.

For 16 years, on the other side, they had the opportunity to do this. They didn’t do it. Now they’re going to stand up and pretend something is the case when it’s not in an attempt to sow division about a really important initiative about First Nations. I stand by my comment. It’s irresponsible at best.

J. Rustad: I realize that this conversation is well beyond section 1, but it has been going on for a while, so it needs to continue to its conclusion with this.

I look forward to going back and looking at the second reading comments and the structure itself. But if I’m wrong…. I’m pretty sure the minister said that the leadership council were managing partners, in terms of the structure that was set up on the limited partnership. That’s why they’re involved in it. The limited partnership, then, are the nations that come in and are part of this partnership. That’s a structure. They have a role. They’re playing a role as part of this structure. If I’m wrong with that, then I find that interesting, but that is what was said in the comments around the structure of this limited partnership.

It still doesn’t take away from the fact. One way or the other, it still doesn’t take away from the fact. The fact is that there is a download, through here, of the cost structure to the First Nations, instead of having the money just flow. How much cost does it take to just take the money, the 7 percent money, apply the formula and for government to write a cheque? That’s the most efficient form of cost possible. That’s it. That’s all that’s involved.

[5:40 p.m.]

It’s not any other complex or structure. It’s not First Nations coming down and having meetings. It’s not the costs associated with the board — accountants and all the rest of this piece that are part of it. Hence the discussion around this.

With that, let’s move on to section 2. We can carry on with this debate, and I’ll move the amendment.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. Rustad: I’d like to move the amendment that stands in my name to section 2. It’s on the order paper.

[Section 2 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Definitions for this Division

14.1 (1) In this Division:

“actual net income of the lottery corporation”, in relation to a fiscal year, means the net income of the lottery corporation as reported in the audited financial statement for the fiscal year submitted by the lottery corporation under section 11

(a) less the amount, as reported in the audited financial statement in which the net income of the lottery corporation is reported, that the lottery corporation makes provision for in that fiscal year for any payments it is obliged to make under agreements entered into in respect of lotteries under section 7 (1) (c), and

(b) as otherwise adjusted in accordance with athe long-term agreement;

“annual revenue sharing entitlement” has the same meaning as in the interim agreement;

“Designated First Nations” means all British Columbia Indian Bands, Treaty First Nations, including Nisg̱a’a Nation and Self Governing First Nations Established by Statute, as designated by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

“estimated net income of the lottery corporation”, in relation to a fiscal year, means the estimated net income of the lottery corporation for the fiscal year as presented to the Legislative Assembly in the main estimates under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act;

“interim agreement” means the Interim BC First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing and Financial Agreement dated August 2, 2019, as amended from time to time, between the government, the partnership, the First Nations Summit, the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs;

“long-term agreement” means an agreement, as amended from time to time, respecting the sharing of annual provincial gaming revenue between the government, the partnership, the First Nations Summit, the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs and a Designated First Nations, but does not include the interim agreement;

“partner” means a limited partner of the partnership;

“partnership” means the BC First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership or its successors or assigns.

(2) The minister must publish in the Gazette the interim agreement, athe long-term agreement and any agreement amending the interim agreement or athe long-term agreement.

Partnership’s Designated First Nations entitlement to lottery corporation revenue

14.3 (1) For each fiscal year beginning on or after April 1, 2021, the lottery corporation must pay to the partnership Designated First Nations in accordance with a distribution formula to be set by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by paying to the government on behalf of the partnership Designated First Nations, 7% of the actual net income of the lottery corporation for the fiscal year.

(2) The following payments for each fiscal year discharge the obligation of the lottery corporation to make payments to the partnership Designated First Nations under subsection (1) in that fiscal year:

(a) the payments under sections 13 and 14 into the consolidated revenue fund;

(b) the minister’s payments under section 14.4.

(3) For certainty, the government is not, under this Division, an agent of the partnership or a Designated First Nation.

Annual payments to partnership Designated First Nations

14.4 (1) On or before April 30 of each fiscal year beginning on or after April 1, 2021, the minister must pay from the consolidated revenue fund to the partnership Designated First Nations 7% of the amount that is equal to the estimated net income of the lottery corporation for the fiscal year less any adjustment under subsection (4) for the second preceding fiscal year.

(2) For each fiscal year beginning on or after April 1, 2021, if the actual net income of the lottery corporation for the fiscal year exceeds the estimated net income of the lottery corporation for that fiscal year, the minister must pay from the consolidated revenue fund to the partnership Designated First Nations the amount that is equal to 7% of the difference between the actual net income of the lottery corporation for that fiscal year and the estimated net income of the lottery corporation for that fiscal year.

(3) A payment under subsection (2) for a fiscal year must be made on or before the earlier of the following dates:

(a) the date that is 60 days after the public accounts for the fiscal year are made public under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act;

(b) the date specified in a the long-term agreement.

(4) For each fiscal year beginning on or after April 1, 2023, if the actual net income of the lottery corporation for the second preceding fiscal year is less than the estimated net income of the lottery corporation for the second preceding fiscal year, the amount payable under subsection (1) for the fiscal year must be reduced by the amount that is equal to 7% of the difference between the actual net income of the lottery corporation for the second preceding fiscal year and the estimated net income of the lottery corporation for the second preceding fiscal year.

(5) At the partnership’s a Designated First Nation’ss’ written request in relation to a payment for a fiscal year, the minister must pay from the consolidated revenue fund directly to a partner Designated First Nation that partner’s Designated First Nation’s share determined in accordance with a the long-term agreement, in which case the payment to the partnership Designated First Nations under subsection (1) or (2) must be reduced by an amount equal to the minister’s payment to that Designated First Nationthe partner.

Commencement

3 This Act comes into force on the date of Royal Assent.]

On the amendment.

J. Rustad: With that amendment, the structure that is being proposed as part of this amendment is meant to be an assistance or a way to be able to help government to be able to have the money flow directly to the First Nations as opposed to having it go into this limited partnership and there being a cost structure associated with that. The intent was to try to eliminate the middleman and have more of this revenue be able to flow directly to the nations. It’s the feedback that we heard from the Chiefs as part of this thing.

What I also find very offensive is that the government did not take time to actually talk to the Chiefs about this structure. That, quite frankly, is wrong. That’s not reconciliation. That’s not government to government. It’s very unfortunate government took that approach and now, quite frankly, is offended that someone would suggest that you should go out and actually talk to the Chiefs about what that structure should be.

With that, I move the amendment. I’m sure there are a few others on the opposition side of the House that would like to have a few words associated with this.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. The amendment is now on the floor.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment is an extension of the member’s ongoing thesis of a system that doesn’t exist — a system where there are no administration costs and where there is self-determination yet government administers everything.

Our government has made a really clear commitment around the priority and the importance of First Nations determining things for themselves. I understand that the member has a different perspective on this, although it’s hard to tell exactly what it is because he’s all over the place. He clearly has a different perspective because he thinks that government is best placed to administer money for First Nations.

It’s not simply cutting a cheque. There’s an auditing process. There’s a process where projects are submitted and accepted. That would all be done by government under his proposal. That is not something that we support. We support First Nations making their own determinations about projects, about the audited reports, about administration costs, about oversight. That is what we support. There is a philosophical difference here between our sides, clearly.

Beyond that, the amendment is clearly informed by a total misunderstanding of the structure — how it’s set up, how it will work — despite my best efforts to educate the member and assist him in understanding the true structure and that the long-term agreement will be ratified by all the participating nations. All the Chiefs the member talks about will have the right to sit around the table and ratify the long-term agreement.

Despite my best efforts to help him understand, he does not want to understand. The reason he does not want to understand is because he believes that this is not supporting First Nations in self-determination. He believes that this is “about paying off friends.” Well, that is one perspective, but it is incorrect. It is wrong on so many levels. It is as wrong as his misunderstanding about the structure, as his misunderstanding about the importance of self-determination and about the government’s efforts in relation to UNDRIP.

We may not come to agreement on this. But this is entirely the basis of his proposed amendment. I will not support it. I urge my colleagues not to support it. I urge his colleagues not to support it, because this is a breakthrough agreement with First Nations in our province, and I hope they will stand with First Nations.

E. Ross: It’s my pleasure to speak to the amendment put together by my colleague from Nechako Lakes.

I do understand First Nations issues in relation to these types of agreements. For 14 years, I actually battled with the previous government, including my colleague who just put the amendment together. We did it on exactly what we’re debating today. We did it with the new relationship trust. We didn’t agree with the formula. We didn’t agree with the structure. We did it with the coast opportunity fund that was put together by ENGOs and the provincial funding, even though the federal government took their funding away. We argued on that funding formula, on the structure. It’s the same thing we’re talking about here today.

[5:45 p.m.]

You know what? It’s been a really tough learning curve over the last 14 years. I’m not just talking about government. I’m talking about First Nations too. First Nations didn’t understand the duty of government or the powers of government. In return, government didn’t understand First Nations issues. It took a long time for us to find that middle ground, and we’ve made a lot of mistakes. We didn’t make enemies, but we made a lot of mistakes.

In fact, in 2009, my colleague from Nechako Lakes was talking about the mistake that the previous government made by trying to use the leadership council as a way to get an agreement signed with all First Nations. It was actually my chief councillor, Dolores Pollard, who got recently elected, that led the fight to defeat it. It took us two days. It took us two days to defeat it. It came down to a vote where the First Nations saw that they weren’t being consulted directly and that there was going to be some type of regional body set up to represent us all.

Now, that’s a principle that I can remember going back 15 years. Nobody represents my community except my chief and council. If First Nations have changed their approach on that, I haven’t seen it.

I remember beating up on my colleague. I remember beating up on the Premier. I remember condemning government for taking this approach. But then, after that, we walked away and said: “Okay, what’s the alternative?” That came down to a government-to-government relationship, and that’s what formed the forest and range agreement. Now we’re right back to it again.

The comments around this, apart from the politics of it, are basically on representation and how to get this money to First Nations that really need it, in my opinion — really need it. Fifteen years ago, my band really needed this kind of revenue. But two things I didn’t like, in terms of these funding agreements, were the pressure points. You’ve got to sign up for something.

Now, every band is going to sign up for money. No band is going to turn down money if they need it. If you’re in a deficit of $3 million, and Canada is coming in to shut you down, you’re desperately going to need that money. In some cases, it’s not just for projects. It’s to make your audit look good so that you don’t fall below that negative eight rule where Canada has to come in and take over all your bill paying for you. In some cases, you’re just trying to prop up your audit and make it look better.

I don’t expect anybody in this House to understand the true nature of what chiefs and councils go through. Even First Nations members don’t understand what chiefs and councils go through. To be honest, I’ve heard this before. First Nations have been lobbying for this for the last 20, 30 years. I didn’t know that. I was on council for 15 years. I was chief councillor for four. I had never heard this before.

I’m not saying it wasn’t done. I’m not saying it wasn’t lobbied for. But First Nations are one of the unique governments in all of Canada. On any given day, chiefs and councils are expected to address everything under the sun related to First Nations — everything. They’ve got to address health, education, welfare, water lines, sewer lines. They’ve got to address the pothole, fix the soccer field. They’ve got to come up with sports facilities. Everything you can think of that the rest of society has different organizations to look after, chiefs and councils across B.C. and Canada are responsible for — absolutely everything. On top of that, you add the protocol aspect. You add the treaty negotiations.

I can understand that maybe First Nations were lobbying for this for the past 30 years or so, but I can also understand why First Nations weren’t really up to speed on all of these initiatives. Because even after 15 years, there are a lot of First Nations issues I didn’t understand and I just didn’t have the time to understand, especially when you’re just trying to stay afloat, and especially if you’re just trying to resolve other issues that are probably more important than maybe $200,000 or $300,000 a year through a prescribed structure and process.

[5:50 p.m.]

You’ve got to think about these chief councillors who have to think about: why am I not doing anything about 60 percent unemployment? Why am I not doing something about a training initiative above and beyond the Indian Act? This is what chief and councillors go through every day.

I also want to talk about the idea that this is going to be transformative. I’ve heard that: “This is going to be transformative.” Well, I beg to differ. We’ve signed funding agreements with Canada. We’ve signed funding agreements with B.C. We’ve signed funding agreements with ENGOs. I can tell you that those agreements were much larger than the one we’re signing today, that the First Nations have signed or the leadership council is going to sign or whatever that PTO is — much larger funding agreements.

You know what? When we got the money, it wasn’t transformative change because that money can get sucked up in a week. It’s not transformative.

The first payment under the forest and range agreement that we signed with the B.C. government over ten years ago was $760,000. We were doing cartwheels, but it didn’t transform my community. It didn’t transform the members, so put this into a little bit of perspective. Take it from a First Nations’ point of view, in terms of what they see. And if you can, take away some of the pressure points.

A three-year time limit, and the money goes I don’t know where. But they’re not eligible for the money after three years. I don’t know where the money goes. Does it stay in that trust account? Does it go back to government? Does it stay with the leadership council? I have no idea. That’s a pressure point. Sign on with three years or you lose the money — apart from the idea that they’re going to take any kind of money with no strings attached anyway.

I heard another point: self-determination. I’ve analyzed that painstakingly over the last 15 years, trying to figure out what does that mean in the context of the Indian Act, in the context of treaty negotiations. The best solution I could find was self-determination is most achievable through engaging in the economy, especially major projects.

When we’re talking about the statement that was made that First Nations can decide for themselves how to spend the money, then why the definition of permitted uses? Why is there a list, six categories or so, saying what they’re permitted to spend this money on? Why? If First Nations have the ability and they’re fully competent to determine where the money should be sent, then why the categories? Why the reporting? That’s Indian Act. First Nations report, report, report continuously, depending on what kind of funding agreement they’re in.

If they’re in a comprehensive funding agreement, they report monthly. If you’re lucky enough to be in a bulk funding agreement like my band is, the reports are less. If you are in a self-governing agreement, the reporting is less onerous. But this is reporting.

I will hand it to the government in one case here. I did see one of the addendums, and it was a one-page reporting sheet. That was pretty cool. I like that. I could fill that out in a day. But I’m not the one who is going to fill that out. It’s the limited partnership that’s going to fill that out. They’re going to send it to the government. That’s pretty simple reporting, if that’s the only thing that the government wants. That’s actually pretty streamlined. But underneath that, there has got to be an auditing requirement for these funds. That’s reporting.

I just want to understand, in terms of auditing: what are we talking about in terms of that audited statement? Is it something specific for this chunk of money? Or is it a section within the Indian Act audit itself for the band? I didn’t see that. I didn’t see that in this agreement.

[5:55 p.m.]

Another reason why I support the amendment put together by my colleague from Nechako Lakes is the formula. I’ve seen a lot of formulas over the last 15 years when we’re talking about First Nations funding. I’ve raised this before. It’s not my idea, by the way. It’s not my idea. I didn’t come up with this.

In terms of funding, my band could see that we went from a have-not band to a have. We could see it in our future. We could see the projected payments coming out from ministry and government. We could see it adding up. That is what’s provided the transformative change in my community. Along the way, we realized that a lot of First Nations, especially small communities, were not in line for the same benefits my band was.

Now, I’m considered a medium band, 1,800 members; 800 to 900 live on the reserve, and the rest of them are scattered through B.C. When we were negotiating — this is something else we beat the government up on — the forest and range agreements, we could see the per-capita formula that was developed in terms of volume as well as revenue-sharing. Right away we could see — because we collectively negotiated an agreement — what we called the toolbox. Then we took that toolbox back to our respective communities, and we detailed it out, based on our specific needs as a community.

We could see that the smaller band within our organizations was getting steamrolled just because they were 300 to a band. That per-capita rate went to them, in terms of revenue and volume, and they couldn’t make a go of it. So the bigger First Nations, to their credit, said: “We will not sign an agreement until that smaller band is treated fairly. You’ve got to stop treating them like Indian Affairs treats them.”

This per-capita thing is outdated. It’s 20 years in the past. That’s how Indian Affairs operates. That’s how they operate their ec dev fund. So a small band of 300 people will probably get $2,000, and that’s supposed to be their commitment to an economic development future. A band like mine gets $97,000. It’s a per-capita formula. It’s not based on need.

I truly believe that we should be at the point now that we’ve progressed to a point where we can really talk about the First Nations that are well on the way to a nice, bright future. We can project it. We already hear it in the news. Some bands project to be out of the Indian Act within five years. That’s a have band.

Some of these bands are just getting started. A per-capita formula for — what? — $200,000 or $300,000? Some communities that are small are within municipalities or neighbouring to municipalities. They’re not categorized as needy because they’re close to services. That small band is still under the Indian Act, and they don’t have any resource development revenues. The formula’s not going to work for them

There are bigger bands on the west coast of B.C. that are huge — 2,000 members or 2,500 members — but do not have infrastructure. It was just recently that the previous Liberal government actually paved the roads out of one of those remote communities. Big band, but they have a lot of need.

The neighbouring band, just as big, actually got the first investment from the B.C. government in terms of housing. It was the first time the B.C. government had gone onto reserve and provided housing on reserve. That was through the previous Liberal government. That’s a big band that has a need. They’re remote. You can only get to them by boat.

Some of these big bands, in particular, aren’t on the B.C. Ferry route. They’ve got to be creative. They’ve got to create their own ferry service.

I really do appreciate the intent of this, because I think it’s building…

The Chair: Thank you, Member. That’s 15 minutes.

E. Ross: …on what the government has done for the last few years.

I conclude my remarks, and I look forward to speaking to the bill later on.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll be very brief so that the member for Chilliwack-Kent can speak.

The member asked some specific questions. Why are there permitted uses outlined in the long-term agreement — use of the money? Those definitions were set by the nations themselves.

[6:00 p.m.]

Where does the money go if it isn’t claimed after three years, and it rolls over? That money goes back into the pot. It’s redistributed out to the nations that are participating.

Those were the questions that I caught specifically. I’ll leave the rest of the member’s comments in relation to the amendment as being responded to by my earlier comments to the member from Nechako.

L. Throness: I want to speak to the amendment today as well. I want to make a number of remarks, and then I have a few questions for the minister.

Just for the benefit of my constituents, I’m discussing Bill 36, the Gaming Control Amendment Act. It’s discussing the sharing of gaming revenue with First Nations in B.C. It’s a short bill, but it’s really very comprehensive. And it’s very significant, because there are about 200 First Nations in B.C.

The bill will create a legal partnership called the B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership, involving whatever First Nations choose to sign on. They will share 7 percent of the annual net income of the Lottery Corp. for each fiscal year, which amounts to about $100 million a year, or approximately $500,000 per community per year, if it was divided equally. Over a period of 25 years, that is $2.5 billion, which is an enormous amount of money. The House needs to give careful consideration to this significant commitment.

Last week…. I want to address something that the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction said in his speech. He insinuated, on a number of occasions….

The Chair: Member, is this on the amendment? Just a question, Member. Is this on the amendment or the bill?

L. Throness: I’m developing the context for my argument.

The Chair: Okay, thank you. Just clarifying if it was on the amendment.

L. Throness: Absolutely.

Last week the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction insinuated that members of this House would show some kind of prejudice if they spoke against this bill or voted against it. I think that’s an awful insult to members on this side. It is our job to do that. I think that there is no prejudice in this House. I think that we are united in our desire to ameliorate the conditions of First Nations people, and I think we should think better of each other. I’m saying what I’m saying today out of care and concern for First Nations.

A decade ago I had the privilege of being the chief of staff to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for 18 months. I also worked for the Minister of Health, Leona Aglukkaq, who is from Nunavut. One of my files there was the First Nations and Inuit health program, which is several billion dollars, and that afforded me a bird’s-eye view. So I want to relate a few experiences that I had there as I develop the context for my remarks about the amendments.

I think it’s a historically wonderful thing that all of our governments are united in trying to better the position of Indigenous peoples in B.C. In other times and periods in history, First Nations people have been ignored, trodden down. We’re doing the opposite. I’m fully on board with assisting First Nations people, and that’s why I voted, in principle, for the idea of sharing revenue with them.

They are in a difficult cultural spot. They’re in a unique situation. Just 100 or 120 years ago they were a nomadic people that were unacquainted with western industrial civilization, and that introduction of that civilization brought enormous pain to First Nations people in the form of residential schools, the reserve system, disease, war and all sorts of other things. There is a gap, and we’re seeking to close that gap.

To illustrate this, I remember a visit that the federal Minister of Aboriginal Affairs received from three Indigenous men from the Northwest Territories. One of them said nothing because he couldn’t speak any English. Another was silent. The third spoke in very halting and hesitant terms about the issues in his community. But they were accompanied by a non-Indigenous lawyer in a three-piece suit from Vancouver. He did most of the talking, and I presume he was very well paid for his efforts.

As I sat in that meeting, I thought that if I were to go their community in the Northwest Territories, I would survive for just a few days. Just as they felt uncomfortable in Ottawa, I would feel uncomfortable in their community. So we need to close that gap.

One more short experience I’ll relate. When I worked for the national Minister of Health, we toured a house in Edmonton called the Larga house. The founder of that house, Bill Davidson, told us that he created that place for Inuit people who come down for medical treatment to southern Canada, as they call it, because of a story that he heard.

There was an elderly man who came down from the north for medical treatment. He was flown down. A taxi cab deposited him at the hotel, and the manager gave him a key to his room and said: “The elevator is over there.” He went to the elevator. A while later they found him in the elevator curled up, sleeping on the floor, because he thought that was his room.

[6:05 p.m.]

It was then that Mr. Davidson decided that Inuit people need a home away from home, and they need a sense of belonging when they come down for medical treatment. So this is just another illustration of the gap that we are trying to close in the legislation before us. But this bill isn’t perfect, and that’s why we’re seeking to amend it. And that is our job.

As an aside, I don’t think, over time, this will provide a net benefit to First Nations, because the bill intrudes into federal jurisdiction. Ten years ago, at last count — I’m sure it’s much more now — $10.5 billion was being given to First Nations across Canada by the federal government. This is already a very significant commitment. If we intrude on this federal jurisdiction, the federal bureaucracy will quietly and happily withdraw from that jurisdiction and say: “Thank you very much.”

I say that because I’ve worked with several federal bureaucracies on a number of occasions. They’re good. They’re sincere people. They’re very competent. But there are 100 knocks on the door every day from all across Canada for more funding — legitimate requests, needed requests. Federal public servants and the minister are under constant pressure to respond.

Since funding pressure will be relieved in B.C., thanks to this new guaranteed stream of income, bureaucrats will simply feel more free to respond to other areas of Canada, other expressions of need. Nobody in the federal government will announce this formally, okay. But if there is a guaranteed funding stream from the province, the amounts that B.C. receives from the federal government will automatically decline. New programs that could have been announced will not begin because the federal government will quietly withdraw from the field. First Nations in B.C., I believe, will not be better off because of this bill.

They would be better off if funding were provided on a case-by-case basis on the basis of need, which would keep the federal government guessing. They wouldn’t be able to plan ahead for partial withdrawal from B.C., and there would be more funding in total for First Nations.

Now let me get to the amendment. I quote from the minister’s website here. “Funding will be distributed to communities based on the following formula, developed by the First Nations Gaming Commission in consultation with First Nations through the general assemblies,” including the First Nations Summit, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

The government did not consult directly with First Nations. They did not consult directly, for instance, with the poorest First Nations. They consulted through the managers: the First Nations Summit, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They had a large say on how the money will be distributed. That money, to my mind, could go directly to the person on reserve, but it won’t, and I think that’s a problem.

I would point out that even the Attorney General noted today that he doesn’t know how much the administration costs will be and he feels skeptical that it could be $1 million. I would point out, for instance, that the CEO of the Fraser Health Authority told us, with pride, that administration costs were only 4 or 5 percent. What is 4 or 5 percent of $2.5 billion? It would be more like $100 million over 25 years. That’s a lot of money, and I think that’s a problem.

As chief of staff to the minister in Ottawa, I saw a very sad and unfortunate pattern over and over in the funding of First Nations. Every program was sort of like a funnel. The money would be poured into the top of the funnel. There would be points as it drifted downward where it would be syphoned off here and there. Consultants and lawyers in negotiating treaties — there were millions taken off. There are all sorts of First Nations partners who take a cut. Of course, there will be administration costs that we’ve already spoken about. That is a problem.

When you accumulate all these factors, far too often, very little in the end makes it down to the person most in need: the average person on reserve, usually in isolated areas of B.C. That is hugely unfortunate. I would point out that the funding stream — which is 50 percent to everyone, 40 percent based on population…. Ten percent extra only will go to the remote areas of B.C., which is the poorest of the poor.

We have the Minister of Poverty Reduction, who has a poverty reduction plan. Yet it is the poorest people, probably in the north and the far reaches of B.C., who will get the least benefit from this. The rich First Nations will get the most, and I think that’s sad.

[6:10 p.m.]

I think this bill should eliminate the middleman and give the funding directly to First Nations, and let them take care of administration costs. There is a better chance because of that that it would benefit actual residents on the ground.

I think this bill shortchanges remote communities in a major way. Housing on First Nations is hugely expensive. To build a school might cost $20 million, $30 million or $40 million, more than it would cost in urban areas. But quite wealthy First Nations in B.C., like Westbank perhaps, or Tsawwassen….

Westbank is the richest First Nation in Canada. Its land is worth $2 billion. It has 485 businesses on it, and it will be getting a guaranteed benefit every year of at least $250,000, while there are remote First Nations in B.C. that need much more than $500,000 a year, but they won’t get it because that money will go to First Nations that do not need it.

All government programs operate on the assumption of need. If I don’t need health care, I don’t get health care. If I don’t need welfare, I will get none. I think the principle of need should be extended to First Nations people.

I also wonder about fairness to those who live off reserve, and I heard this as chief of staff as well. Across Canada, roughly half of Indigenous people live in urban areas off reserve, and half live on. I’ve heard complaints from time to time that Indigenous band members who don’t live on reserve don’t get any benefits from the band. Now we’re introducing a stream of money that will go to the band on reserve, probably. We have no guarantee that members of the community will benefit in a roughly equal way. I think that’s a problem.

Wherever I can, I encourage Indigenous people, particularly young people, to engage, to keep their identity, to be proud of their history, of who they are and their culture, but also to get an education and a job and to enjoy all the benefits that Canada has to offer. I think this is important, because isolation breeds all sorts of social ills, and we should not be encouraging isolation. It’s my hope that First Nations will use part of the annual funding in these gaming funds to help their young people to engage with broader society.

I will close by saying that I very much hope that the government will agree to cut out the middleman, to stop other hands from getting in the way of that money and that it will go to the most needy people in the most needy areas of B.C.

The question that I have is…. About half of First Nations, as I said, do not live on the reserve. I’m wondering if there were any requirements or any consideration placed on First Nations to provide some approximately equal benefit to all band members. And I have one more question after that.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. Is the question to the mover of the amendment? We are on the amendment.

Interjection.

The Chair: I don’t see the member…. I guess I can’t say that.

L. Throness: Can I ask that of the Attorney?

The Chair: He is not the mover of the amendment, so it wouldn’t be appropriate.

L. Throness: Then I have no further questions, Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Seeing no further questions, the member for Saanich North and the Islands on the amendment.

A. Olsen: I don’t have any questions for the mover, but I do want to talk to the amendment.

It’s been very difficult, not because I lack the ability to follow basic logic or conversation, but it’s been very difficult to actually follow what’s been going on from the members on the other side of this House. The inconsistencies of the arguments, the inconsistencies of the comments that have been put forward are shocking.

On one hand, there has been this long narrative that started back in second reading, criticizing the government for not engaging and consulting with First Nations, Indigenous communities. And now we’re standing here negotiating our way through an amendment which was written in crayons on the back of a napkin.

Again, to the members of the official opposition, we’d be very happy to take a look at amendments that had taken advantage of the drafters which the government has given you, because it’s important that legislative drafters are engaged in a process in which we’re creating laws for the province. I certainly hope that when the members on the other side of the House were in government, they used the legislative drafters. There is still that opportunity.

[6:15 p.m.]

As we’re having this discussion, this debate about an amendment, after days’ worth of criticism of the government for apparently not engaging and consulting First Nations, we’re actually amending the bill with no understanding and no knowledge and no idea of what Indigenous communities say about the amendment.

Interjections.

A. Olsen: Go ahead.

It’s absurd. It’s absolutely absurd. The fact of the matter is that there has been so much misdirection spoken in these chambers. The Attorney General has risen several times to point out that actually, the statements that are being made are not even true. They’re not even paying attention to the answers and the responses that have been given and that have been informed by the staff that have helped to draft this. The fact….

Interjection.

A. Olsen: The ongoing statements around the First Nations Leadership Council.

It is clear that the members on the other side of this House have got something against the First Nations Leadership Council. That’s fine; that’s fine. But that’s not even the body that is going to be administering these funds. In fact, what is being established is an Indigenous-led body that is going to administer these funds on behalf of Indigenous people.

If the members on the other side of this House have a problem with that…. Frankly, as someone who grew up on a reserve, I’m not surprised. For the past decade, I’ve been living under that kind of approach to Indigenous relations. It’s not surprising that the former Minister of Indigenous Relations is the one that moved this, because….

Anyway, what we’ve been listening to here are complaints — ongoing complaints about a lack of consultation. Then the member who stands up and moves this bill says: “I’ve talked to a dozen.” There are 170-something First Nations communities that have signed on to this process. There are only maybe 20 more to go that haven’t signed on yet and that are in the process. So what about that? There are 170 First Nations communities that have signed on to this process, and here we are.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: Not knowing, right. They have signed on to this process. This has been a long-discussed process. We will not be supporting this amendment, because it’s just crazy.

S. Gibson: Well, you know, there’s never a right time to do the wrong thing and never a wrong time to do the right thing. I value the points made by the member for Skeena and the member for Nechako Lakes. Their remarks were convincing to me. They have persuaded me that if we don’t support this amendment, we’re going to go in the wrong direction. I’m shocked to hear dissenters about this, and I’m surprised, frankly, that the minister wouldn’t adopt this and say: “You know what? That makes sense.”

The consultation, we have been advised, was minimal. You heard the member for Skeena talking about how, really, what is being proposed here, and the lack of consultation, in many ways is condescending. I applaud the government for moving in this direction, but they’re doing it in such a way that really compromises the funding that will actually accrue to these First Nations communities. You heard, earlier, some of the remarks from our colleagues here, talking about the value of consultation and why the more funds go directly to the bands, the better it is.

I think, too, that the whole paradigm is based on an assumption that things are going to stay the same, largely. But we also see, from the research that has been done, that the communities change. Their needs change. Larger communities that look self-sufficient need more help. So the funding formula is really dubious in many ways, and it almost looks like it has been rushed into execution.

[6:20 p.m.]

Another point that I think should be made is the lack of understanding of the nature of First Nations and how they populate the province and how First Nations communities, in many ways, are autonomous, but they also depend on contiguous local governments for some of their services. That’s the way it is in my community. If the formula is based on per capita, it seems to me that a lot of the communities that really, genuinely need assistance and will benefit from this plan won’t receive the assistance that they might need.

I want to ask, too, particularly, a question, if I may, of the minister, through you, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Member, during amendments you can ask questions of your colleague who moved the amendment.

S. Gibson: Okay. We’ll leave that for another time. Thank you.

I would like to comment on the evaluation process of the plan. There’s a two-year interim agreement. How will the evaluation be done in such a way that the First Nations are fully engaged in that process? How will it be done in a way that allows them to have input into the evaluation to determine the success of the program? Presumably there’s some criteria, and we haven’t heard about that — ways that the First Nations can be engaged so that the evaluation will benefit those communities rather than kind of a one-size-fits-all.

Clearly, the amendment is a very good one. I would encourage those members who have it on the other side to see the benefit to it. It really addresses the concerns about adequately distributing the funds in such a way that maximizes the benefit to the First Nations communities. If we do it the right way, we’ll all be united in this House.

This amendment, I believe, is thoughtful and really speaks to some of the issues that have been discussed here in this place today. So I would encourage all members to support it. I’m pleased to do so today.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Kelowna–Lake Country on the amendment, to be clear.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister and staff for being here today. I will be speaking on the amendment, in favour of the amendment.

In particular, after the legislation was introduced, and in contemplation of the amendment, I had a conversation with Chief Byron Louis of the Okanagan Indian Band in my particular part of the province, the Kelowna–Lake Country riding. The riding starts roughly at Highway 33 in Kelowna and goes up to Oyama. About two-thirds of the riding is in Kelowna, and one-third is in Lake Country, population-wise. Really, the only predominant band that I have to work with — and I’ve been representing the people there for the last ten-plus years — is the Okanagan Indian Band. Westbank First Nation does have, of course, an interest in the area, but for the most part, my band is the Okanagan Indian Band.

I asked Chief Byron Louis about this particular piece of legislation and the possibility of this amendment. He encouraged me, before answering, to learn a little more about his band. Even though I’ve been representing their needs for many years, and I believe I’ve had their support for those years, I thought it would be good to go out there and do some research of my own. What I’d like do in support of the amendment is just to communicate a little bit of what I learned about the Okanagan Indian Band — what their needs are, what they do — and then share with you what the Chief told me regarding the amendment.

Just a little history on the Chief. Chief Byron Louis has over 26 years of knowledge and experience at various levels of the political spectrum, first as a duly elected councillor, then as title and rights adviser to the tribal council at regional level, and political liaison designate with the U.S.-based tribal public and private utilities and state and federal authorities.

[6:25 p.m.]

Over the course of his 20-plus-year career, he has served in various facets of political office concerning natural resources management, community-based economic development initiatives and public works, community planning, liaison and strategic development and negotiating with various levels of government and private sector — and, of course, has been re-elected as Chief for his people. So he definitely has the support and understands what the needs of his people are.

While the speakers in the Legislature…. In particular, the member for Skeena has very eloquently talked about the needs of First Nations across the province. I don’t want to reiterate those. I don’t, quite frankly, have the experience to do so. I have not walked in the shoes of the member for Saanich North and the Islands or the member for Skeena and others, so I won’t do that. But I do want to speak to the issues that were brought forward to me by the Chief that I represent and his people.

The Okanagan Indian Band is a First Nations government in British Columbia, located in the city of Vernon, just the north part of the Okanagan Valley, but also has lands in the Lake Country area. The band is a member of the Okanagan Nation Alliance, which covers not only, of course, in the Okanagan but goes down to the northern United States. As of October 2010, 809 of the Okanagan band’s population live on one of the bands own reserves, 430 men and 379 women, with 86 people living on reserves governed by other bands — 36 men and 50 women. Nine hundred people are living off reserve, and the band’s total population is just under 2,000.

When I looked at what the band does or how it could use the money that’s coming from the government, from gaming, and proposed by this amendment to be distributed directly to the band…. I looked on line on their website and also looked on other websites to come up with this shortlist that I will enter into the record in support of my discussion on the amendment.

The Okanagan Indian Band administration department oversees the daily management of band business and houses the following subdepartments: corporate services, finance, communications and human resources. Through their administration department, they are able to ensure that people are well taken care of. Funding provided to the OKIB is obtained through annual federal transfer agreements from the federal government, predominantly, such as general band administration, social services, education, public works and housing, natural resources, land development and community health services.

I’m going to, just for a few minutes, talk a little bit about each of these services that they offer and how these funds, if they were directly handed to them, might have more buying power. The communications department supports the OKIB chief and council departments and staff to distribute information to the OKIB membership, community and the public. What they fund is: websites, social media feeds — like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram — other communication tools, press releases, media advisories, their signage, their monthly newspaper, pamphlets, quarterly reports, annual reports, community engagements, emails lists, reports and presentations.

They also have an education department, which administers programs like the early childhood centre, their cultural immersion school, elementary and secondary support services, post-secondary support services, Six Mile Creek Education Centre. Their department recognizes that it’s extremely important that moral support, advisory services and financial assistance be provided to the band members who want to further their education and training and who are eligible for post-secondary funding. They offer a unique educational experience designed to enhance intellectual growth and promote participatory engagement.

They also promoted the community of growth. Preparing their children for the brightest future, their cultural immersion school is pioneering the field of education through their dedication and commitment to the students’ needs. Their goal is to promote the language and culture of the Okanagan people, and they welcome all prospective students to visit any time.

They’re also trying to revitalize their language. Despite the history of languages lost, Aboriginal Canadians are working together to revitalize their ancestral languages by preserving the knowledge of elders and teaching a new generation of speakers.

Their daycare is a combined school and childhood facility. The teamwork of a number of departments within the OIB and support of the chief and council has made this facility possible. In 1994, a needs assessment was completed by band members, identifying the lack of affordable, reliable child care, and legislation in ’94 allocated $720 million for First Nations and Inuit child care.

[6:30 p.m.]

The OIB was one of the first bands in B.C. to apply for First Nations daycare funds. They had a preschool building. It did not pass a safety inspection, so it was decided to build a facility and offer a first-rate early childhood education centre for the children that First Nations control.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Their philosophy of early childhood education is that a First Nations–controlled facility could be possible if provided a happy, healthy, safe and stimulating environment for children, which fosters their physical, intellectual, emotional, social, creative and all necessary cultural development. All areas are related to and dependent upon one another and are of equal importance to childhood development. So they have that. Their child care program is full-time and part-time, for ages three months to 12 years, and it’s open from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

They also have a public works department, which manages their infrastructure — infrastructure such as water systems, their parks, their roads, their buildings. They have future housing work with CMHC and INAC for future developments, subdivisions, working with members to secure mortgages through band-approved lenders.

In the lands department, they’re responsible for developing practices and reserve land policies and practices. They have a number of reserve lands — 10,000 hectares on Okanagan Indian Reserve No. 1, 32 hectares on No. 4, 65 hectares, and so on and so forth. On average, the lands department works with Indian Affairs to register documents related to OKIB reserve funds in the neighbourhood of 330 instruments per year.

They also have an environmental problem they need money for. They have unexploded ordnances on the OKIB land. These unexploded ordnances have littered the land at Madeline Lake and Goose Lake since the Boer War in 1906. Canadian soldiers were trained to fire live mortar, grenades and other munitions, including white phosphorus, on their lands. In 2014, over-70-years-old live mortars are still found, and cleaned-up agreement specifies that beginning in 2015, ten band members will be trained — so this is past tense — to become UXO technicians to help remove. So they also need money for that.

Community services. The OKIB has community services that are funded again. All programs are funded through Health Canada’s First Nations and Inuit health branch by the way of contribution agreements. The department must administer and provide these programs and services in a manner that complies with Health Canada — things like health, child and family services, social development, member services and employment training. Of course, they have health benefits.

They also have youth programs that are targeted towards youth, from seven to 18, and provide cultural physical activities and life skills programs. The youth programs are used to encourage OKIB youth to become involved in their community and build self-esteem. A number of things they do are taekwondo…. They have youth Eagle programs. They have canoe journeys. They have firearm safety, amongst other things like youth hunting, cultural camps, ball hockey, year-end waterslides.

What’s not on there, what I didn’t find on the different websites, was something that Chief Byron Louis and I were working on together when I was the Minister of Agriculture in the previous government, and that is to see more agriculture on their lands. He was looking for investment on that as well.

So a long list of things that the Chief has said that they could use funds for to support their people to close that gap. This is not Westbank First Nation, as people have identified. This is the Okanagan Indian Band. This is a band that needs assistance to help their people move forward.

When I asked the Chief what he thought of the legislation, to get to the finer point of things, the Chief basically told me — I’m going to paraphrase here — that he believed that the money should go directly to the bands. He did not believe in sending the money through an intermediary of any kind. He thought his band and other bands were well-equipped to handle funds directly, as they do right now with other pools of money that are coming to them.

He also had issues with the list of things that were being identified in the legislation. He would prefer that they would have more flexibility in what they could use the funds for. So with that, I believe that my role is to be the voice of the people of my constituency.

[6:35 p.m.]

In this particular case, the Okanagan Indian Band are the ones directly impacted by the legislation. The amendments to the legislation clearly do what the chief and council have articulated to me would be their preference, which is to have the money flow directly to them without any intermediary and give them more flexibility as to what they can use the funds for. Therefore, I will be supporting the amendment as it’s presented by the opposition.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll refrain from repeating myself on the issue of the amendment. But I will point out that the member was not correct when he suggested that there was a list in the legislation. There is no list in the legislation in terms of approved areas of funding.

M. Lee: Well, I’m just, in part, going to…. Perhaps we can talk a little more about that after we speak to this amendment. But maybe I should just ask a clarifying question in light of the Attorney General’s comment.

Under the interim agreement, there are, both in recitals and the agreement itself, the principles under which these expenditures or the revenue share can be utilized. Is that not correct?

The Chair: Member, we will just speak on the amendment. Thank you.

M. Lee: We’ll come back to that, then.

Let me just say that I certainly share the frustration of the member for Saanich North and the Islands, because I believe that all members of this House have been put in this position where the government entered into an interim agreement without the opportunity for members of this House to consult, as the member for Kelowna–Lake Country just indicated, with constituents, the First Nations partners that are resident in the areas that we represent in this province. There has clearly been a breakdown in the process here. That’s what we’re responding to.

We’ve been forced, in six days of debate here, where we’ve had Bill 35, a miscellaneous stats bill — 17 statutes which we’ve gone through in a thoughtful fashion in the way that we’re able to — and now Bill 36…. In six days of this House’s time, we’ve been able to get to two bills. In doing so, the opportunity for members of this side of the House to reach out to First Nations in our areas of the province has indicated concerns, concerns about this revenue-sharing arrangement.

Our response is to at least put on the order paper notice to all members of this House of what, in our view, is an appropriate amendment to consider. As we’ve heard from the member for Nechako Lakes in moving this amendment, this would be the opportunity to consider a different model.

Again, we’re being forced into this position out of concerns, indeed, around the way, the manner in which consultation occurred here. I understand that there are practicalities here. There are practicalities in the way that the government proceeded. But we are talking about a 25-year commitment, a 25-year commitment that…. Had this government had the opportunity to do it over again, I’m sure they would have brought it to the House at the outset.

As we learned from the briefings, it was indicated that this amendment was necessary because the government had effectively committed the province to a 25-year revenue-sharing stream, one that would hit the books of this government in one budget year unless the amendments that were set out in this amendment act were enacted. That discussion and that consideration should have happened at the outset of this arrangement. Because it didn’t, First Nations and members of this House are in this position where we do have considerations about….

[6:40 p.m.]

Well, let me say — the Attorney General made a comment earlier — I appreciate that there are other jurisdictions in this country that have followed a similar sharing of gaming revenue. We’ve heard from members of the House, here on this side of the House, that we support, certainly, the sharing of revenue with First Nations. But it’s how and the manner it’s to be done.

We are the first jurisdiction in this country to have entered into the kind of economic and reconciliation type of agreements, over 500 agreements that have been entered into. That was under the previous government. That was an effort to do revenue-sharing, to recognize the importance of building those economic partnerships and other partnerships with First Nations. So when we come back to the level of this model of revenue-sharing, we have concerns, because we continue to hear from First Nation leaders across this province about this arrangement.

I’d like to say that when we go through the questions on this section, we see the overhang of the partnership structure. In light of that, the amendment is proposed in order to have the direct funding flow directly to First Nations without the necessity of having an administrative structure imposed on top of it.

Now, I appreciate that that is going to take some additional effort here. That certainly is provided for in this amendment, where there will be a process necessary to do that by way of regulation — to enter into and consider the distribution formula.

Again, we have heard considerations of needs by First Nations. The formula that’s set out currently in the partnership agreement is 50-40-10, 10 being a remote geography consideration. That is certainly one indicator of need. As we hear from other First Nations, there are other considerations of need. There’s a differentiation between how First Nations are situated in this province. We’ve spoken to that on second reading and in the course of this debate at committee level. So I think it’s entirely appropriate that this amendment be brought forward.

I appreciate that there has been this back-and-forth about leg. council. Certainly, if given the opportunity, we’ve been able to utilize leg. council. Certainly, when you’re talking about two bills that have been brought forward, with no other bills being brought forward for debate on second reading into committee, there’s very little time to turn around on this.

That’s what this government has done. We haven’t had this level, particularly when we’re talking about an arrangement that was entered into close to two years ago. We’ve had the time. This government had the time to bring this matter to the House — the transparency to this House of what was being entered into on the interim agreement and now the long-term agreement itself.

I would like to, again, speak in favour of this amendment. It is a straightforward one, to include the term “Designated First Nations,” which replicates the categories of eligible First Nations which are attached to the interim agreement. That is entirely consistent. It substitutes directly a “long-term agreement” that would be entered into with each, in effect, designated First Nation — and that designated First Nations are to receive their portion of the actual net income of the Lottery Corp. as determined by regulation “in accordance with a distribution formula.”

Those effectively are the three basic structural amendments that we’re proposing. They’re straightforward. But it does enable the opportunity for this government to enter into a direct revenue-sharing arrangement with First Nations — 203. Yes, 203. I appreciate that that’s a lot. But the fact of the matter is this government has a responsibility to ensure proper and appropriate and fulsome consultation.

[6:45 p.m.]

It surprises me to hear from members on this side of the House, as they talk to First Nations leaders…. I had a conversation myself with one. I mean, I appreciate that we have not been able to do a comprehensive review. That’s the responsibility of this government. All we can do is reach out to First Nations in our communities and our areas of the province, and that’s what members of this side of the House have done.

It reveals a concerning disconnect, a misunderstanding of the terms of this arrangement — a desire to receive the funds directly, a desire to not have the kind of prescriptions that are set out under this partnership agreement as to what permitted expenditures would be.

I would urge all members of this House to consider this amendment and to consider the situation that we’ve been forced into in dealing with this. This would provide greater flexibility to enable that direct relationship to continue to be built with First Nations across this province.

We all recognize that that’s an important challenge to continue to do. We have a lot of work to do with every First Nation in this province. This model that we’re proposing would enable that direct relationship to continue to be established and to be furthered.

Again, I would urge all members to carefully consider this amendment, and I will certainly be voting in favour of the amendment myself.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m not pleased to get up to have to speak to this amendment. It’s unfortunate that this has occurred.

The reality is that we’re dealing here with a piece of legislation that was meant to correct a problem that the other side refused to address for 16 years. Every other jurisdiction in this country shares these revenues except British Columbia, which denied to go into a relationship with First Nations that would allow them the resources they needed to move forward on their interests. That’s what we’re discussing here today.

The member for Kelowna–Lake Country talked about his conversations with the Chief of the band in his constituency and talked about a whole array of issues that are important to that band. These resources, in fact, would support the ability of that band to address those issues, including, I might mention…. He talked about the issue of languages. I would remind the members on the other side that this is the government that put $50 million into the protection and enhancement of First Nations languages.

This is the right thing to do. We can all talk about going and having anecdotal conversations either with bands in our communities or with chiefs. Let’s talk about the reality of what this legislation does. This legislation creates a limited partnership, a partnership that is owned and controlled by First Nations, a partnership that today would be owned by, I believe, 171 nations that have signed on to this agreement.

Now, I don’t know about the other side, but I believe those nations, when they signed on, knew full well what exactly they were signing on to. They saw it as a vehicle and a tool to be used. It’s a 23-year agreement. It’s an agreement that opens the door for those First Nations to determine for themselves how they want to effect changes in this agreement through the limited partnership as they move forward. I expect they will do that, and they should be doing that, and it shouldn’t be some last-minute paternalistic move on the part of the Liberals.

It’s hard to take some of the comments from the other side seriously when the member for Chilliwack-Kent spends the first half of his comments talking about how, if we give this money to the First Nations, it’ll all be clawed back by the federal government, so maybe we shouldn’t do that at all. “Oh, but by the way, I support this amendment.” It’s a little hard to take.

[6:50 p.m.]

The member for Saanich North and the Islands spoke eloquently about this. He talked about what we need to do. We have heard from First Nations. They have been looking for this share of gaming resources for an awfully long time in this province. They’ve certainly been looking for it for all the time that I’ve been in this place. And they were denied even a fair conversation by past Liberal governments.

This government has said: “Let’s put the structure in place.” The structure will not be owned and controlled by the provincial government. The structure will be owned and controlled by the First Nations. They will make the decisions how that structure moves forward. That’s what self-determination is. That’s what moving to reconciliation is. That’s what it’s about to provide resources where the choices will be made by the First Nations for what is in their interests.

This game that’s being played by the opposition — and it is a game — is just inexcusable. It’s time to make reconciliation work. We will see that tomorrow. We could see that today if some wisdom hit that side and this inane amendment was pulled off the table and we proceeded with moving forward in what’s in the best interests of First Nations first, instead of that side trying to find what’s in their political best interests.

We have the opportunity to take another step down that path to reconciliation with this bill. It is the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do now. The structure that gets put in place moving forward needs to be a structure that isn’t owned by us, that is owned by First Nations. That’s exactly what this act does. That’s exactly what 171 nations who have signed on to this agreement are prepared to engage and work with. That’s where we should be going, and any thoughtful member who really embraces reconciliation would understand that.

The Chair: Further discussion on the amendment?

[6:55 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 37
Cadieux	de Jong	Bond
Polak	Wilkinson	Lee
Stone	Coleman	Wat
Bernier	Thornthwaite	Paton
Ashton	Barnett	Yap
Martin	Davies	Kyllo
Sullivan	Reid	Morris
Ross	Oakes	Johal
Rustad	Milobar	Shypitka
Hunt	Throness	Tegart
Stewart	Sultan	Gibson
Letnick	Thomson	Larson
	Foster
NAYS — 44
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Chow	Kang	Simons
D’Eith	Sims	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Malcolmson	Furstenau	Weaver
Olsen		Glumac

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

J. Rustad: I rise to reserve my right to raise a personal point of privilege.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 7 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 7 p.m.