Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 41, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2019.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — DECLARATION ON THE
RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ACT

Hon. S. Fraser: I would like to acknowledge the territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people and thank the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations for allowing us to do our business here today.

I move that Bill 41 be now read a second time.

Bill 41 will align B.C.’s laws with the 2007 United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the constitutional rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada. It sets the UN declaration as the framework for reconciliation in British Columbia, as called for by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s call to action No. 43.

Before I go further, I would like to read from the preamble to the UN declaration itself, which is included within the bill. I think it sets the stage well.

“Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,

“Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind,

“Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust,

“Reaffirming that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind,

“Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests,

“Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources,

“Recognizing also the urgent need to respect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements with States,

“Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organizing themselves for political, economic, social and cultural enhancement and in order to bring to an end all forms of discrimination and oppression wherever they occur,

[2:45 p.m.]

“Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over developments affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs,

“Recognizing that respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment,

“Emphasizing the contribution of the demilitarization of the lands and territories of indigenous peoples to peace, economic and social progress and development, understanding and friendly relations among nations and peoples of the world,

“Recognizing in particular the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well-being of their children, consistent with the rights of the child,

“Considering that the rights affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples are, in some situations, matters of international concern, interest, responsibility and character,

“Considering also that treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements, and the relationship they represent, are the basis for a strengthened partnership between indigenous peoples and States,

“Acknowledging that the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, affirm the fundamental importance of the right to self-determination of all peoples, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,

“Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used to deny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in conformity with international law,

“Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in this Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative relations between the State and indigenous peoples, based on principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith,

“Encouraging States to comply with and effectively implement all their obligations as they apply to indigenous peoples under international instruments, in particular those related to human rights, in consultation and cooperation with the peoples concerned,

“Emphasizing that the United Nations has an important and continuing role to play in promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples,

“Believing that this Declaration is a further important step forward for the recognition, promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms of indigenous peoples and in the development of relevant activities of the United Nations system in this field,

“Recognizing and reaffirming that indigenous individuals are entitled without discrimination to all human rights recognized in international law, and that indigenous peoples possess collective rights which are indispensable for their existence, well-being and integral development as peoples,

“Recognizing that the situation of indigenous peoples varies from region to region and from country to country and that the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical and cultural backgrounds should be taken into consideration,

“Solemnly proclaims the following United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect.”

That is our aim here with this legislation — legislation that was developed in partnership with the First Nations Leadership Council, legislation that provides a collaborative framework for reconciliation between the provincial government and Indigenous peoples in British Columbia.

I have spent some time reflecting on this point: developed in partnership with Indigenous peoples. When you think about the history of this province and the laws that have been created, how often could any of us truly say that?

[2:50 p.m.]

With this legislation, we are affirming the human rights of Indigenous peoples in law in this province, in British Columbia, instead of omitting them. We are setting a path that affirms our commitment to working with Indigenous governments instead of denying their role as governments. And we are taking a further step towards finally working together for important reasons like an economy that we all can participate in equitably, instead of investing in conflict, court cases and concessions. It is time not just to contemplate a new path but to forge one together.

This legislation is about ending discrimination, upholding human rights and ensuring more justice and fairness. Instead of uncertainty and lawsuits, we can build a robust and sustainable economy by working together. We can create opportunities for Indigenous peoples, families and communities so we all prosper.

A future shaped through sustained connections and relationships — that’s how we approach this legislation. We worked as partners with the First Nations Leadership Council, the leadership council that represents the shared interests of nations across the province, through the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. It is historic to have this kind of collaboration with Indigenous peoples. We are truly building a new relationship, government-to-government, based on respect and recognition of inherent rights. It’s a relationship that will be strengthened as we move forward together.

That theme of collaboration applies within the provincial government as well. I’m standing here today in this place as the B.C. Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, but I’m only one member of the provincial cabinet. We don’t work alone. We don’t work in silos. The work of each ministry crosses into other ministries. We work as a team. Nowhere is this more evident than in Indigenous Relations, which touches the work of every other ministry across government.

Pursuing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples is a cross-government responsibility. To truly demonstrate our collective resolve, reconciliation has to be a continuous thread that runs through every government policy and program. That is why the Premier mandated every minister in our government with the responsibility to implement the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action.

Now, the TRC called on governments to implement the UN declaration as the framework for reconciliation. The UN declaration has 46 articles. They emphasize the Indigenous rights to live in dignity; to maintain and strengthen Indigenous institutions, cultures and traditions; and to pursue development based on Indigenous needs and aspirations. The UN declaration is a statement of basic human rights of Indigenous peoples. It does not create new rights at the expense of other people’s rights. It expresses long-established human rights as they apply to Indigenous peoples — rights like self-government, to be free from discrimination, access to education, health care, and equitable social and economic outcomes.

These are the kinds of rights we all expect to have in the course of our daily lives, accepted and valued human rights that Canadians have helped define and fight for, human rights that are the foundation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, human rights that are reflected in the Aboriginal rights that are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of our constitution, rights that the courts have consistently and repeatedly upheld. That includes the Supreme Court decision on the Tsilhqot’in Nation, which recognized Aboriginal title for the first time in Canadian history. This historic decision set a new and higher standard for the recognition of rights of Indigenous peoples.

[2:55 p.m.]

The UN declaration is a widely respected international human rights instrument, both here in Canada and around the world. It has been endorsed by 148 countries, including Canada.

Adopting and implementing the UN declaration was one of our platform commitments, and that’s what we’re doing. The province has made significant progress in implementing the UN declaration since 2017. We’re modernizing the environmental assessment process through new legislation and implementing Grand Chief Ed John’s recommendations to help to keep Indigenous children out of care and with their families and communities.

We’re committing $550 million over ten years to support the construction of 1,750 affordable housing units off reserve and, for the first time, on reserve and dedicating $50 million towards the work of the First Peoples Cultural Council and First Nations communities to revitalize Indigenous languages.

We’re implementing a new K-to-12 curriculum that makes sure children in B.C. are taught about Indigenous culture and history, making sure that Indigenous children can see their cultures and histories accurately reflected in that curriculum.

We’re contributing more than $70 million to enhancing mental health and addictions supports for Indigenous peoples, shaped and delivered by Indigenous peoples, including two new urban treatment centres and six others to be renovated and rebuilt across this province.

We’re establishing the first-ever Indigenous program at the University of Victoria — not the first in the province, not the first in the country, but the first in the world; and making fundamental changes to the way that we make treaties to guide a long-term relationship instead of extinguishing rights and freezing our treaty relationships in time. And we’re sharing a stable, long-term source of revenue from one level of government to another so First Nations can invest in self-determination, cultural renewal and services that make life better for families.

This legislation will help us build on this progress and make a real difference in the lives of Indigenous families and everyone across British Columbia.

I want to acknowledge, also, the progress made by governments over the past 25 years. There are many lessons learned about what has worked and what hasn’t worked. An important lesson for all of us is that to truly make progress, we need to recognize the human rights of Indigenous peoples. That is the core of this bill, Bill 41.

Let’s talk about the bill itself for a few moments, please. I will draw your attention first to the interpretation section. That section would typically be called the definitions section. But for this bill, we didn’t want to take that kind of colonial approach, so we have called it interpretation instead of definition.

The bill acknowledges the aspects of the UN declaration that already reflect international conventions or international customary law and that already apply to the laws of British Columbia. While this bill does not, in and of itself, give the UN declaration legal force and effect, it does not delay or affect that current application of the UN declaration.

The purpose of the bill is to affirm the application of the UN declaration to the laws of British Columbia. The declaration will be a foundational framework for the work that needs to be done in relation to our laws in British Columbia. I will add that within our commitment to implement the UN declaration throughout government, its application also extends to policies and operating practices. Over time as laws are built or modified, they will be aligned with the UN declaration.

The bill requires government to develop an action plan. We will do that in partnership and cooperation with Indigenous peoples. The legislation will require annual reporting to monitor progress on the action plan, all in collaboration and consultation with Indigenous peoples. The action plan and reporting will provide transparency and accountability for the work ahead.

The bill, and indeed the UN declaration, recognizes the importance of self-determination and self-government. It will allow us the flexibility to recognize more forms of Indigenous governments than we have been able to do in agreement-making.

[3:00 p.m.]

This bill provides room for Indigenous peoples to make decisions about their governing structures as they attempt to move out from under the Indian Act. That could exclude, for example, governing bodies such as traditional cultural entities, multiple nations working together as a collective, hereditary governments or a combination of elected and hereditary governments. The important part is that it is based on what the nation chooses, and that supports a key element of the declaration around self-determination. That also provides clarity for government. I believe it will also provide more clarity for businesses and communities about who they should engage when working with Indigenous partners.

The final key aspect of the bill is to provide for a new and additional type of agreement. It’s providing a tool for the province and Indigenous governments to develop true joint decision-making agreements. This legislation creates the framework around how these partnerships will be built. It will provide structure and add clear processes for how joint decision-making would happen, while ensuring administrative fairness and transparency. Such agreements can support predictability for good projects to move ahead and a mechanism for Indigenous peoples to fully participate in decisions that affect them.

This legislation is enabling, so we won’t see the world change overnight once it is passed. It is a measured step on the shared path to reconciliation. A question often raised when we talk about the UN declaration is around free, prior and informed consent and whether that amounts to a veto. Countless officials, as well as leading experts, have explained in detail and with clarity how consent and veto are different, fundamentally different.

For example, James Anaya, the former special rapporteur for the rights of Indigenous peoples, has explained that free, prior and informed consent — that standard — is meant to ensure that all parties work together in good faith, that they make every effort to achieve mutually acceptable arrangements and that a focus should be on building consensus. This is quite different than veto. In fact, the UN declaration does not contain the word “veto,” nor does this legislation contemplate or create a veto.

This legislation does not limit the right of government to make decisions in the public interest, but there are many decisions where we need to make those decisions with Indigenous peoples. This legislation gives us the tools to get an orderly, structured, transparent process for that.

The province is expected to consult and cooperate in good faith, as called for in the UN declaration, when considering decisions that may affect Indigenous peoples. If government has met this condition, there may be occasions when a disputed project goes forward, and there may be occasions where a project does not go forward. Every project is unique, with many factors that go into the decision-making for approvals. But when you create and follow due process, that is not a veto.

What the legislation will ensure is that there is transparency and clarity in the process so that businesses will know from the get-go what is expected as they move through it. There is a better chance of agreement by working together, by involving Indigenous communities and listening to their knowledge and concerns. That way a project plan can address them.

Our government wants sustainable economic growth because it benefits people and communities all over this province. We are committed to growing our economy so that we can provide the services that British Columbians — all British Columbians — depend on. Indigenous governments are telling us they want the same thing. Too often we have found ourselves in ongoing cycles of conflict and court challenges. Litigation and conflict have been major sources of uncertainty for all of us. This new approach moves us towards respectful partnerships that foster predictability, good jobs and opportunities, while respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples. This bill will contribute to B.C. achieving its fullest economic and social capacity.

[3:05 p.m.]

I want, also, to point out that in many ways, the business community is ahead of government on this. Many companies have recognized the opportunities in moving forward in a collaborative way with First Nations, and they’re seeing the investment certainty that comes from that. We are proposing, with this bill, a consistency with many companies’ efforts. There’s a better chance of an agreement by working together. Outcomes will be better. Not working together and ignoring Indigenous rights almost guarantee disagreement. Bringing Indigenous people into the conversation from the beginning helps create certainty for industry and creates space for Indigenous peoples to benefit economically, socially, culturally.

Collaboration is already happening, and it’s working. This legislation codifies what is happening in many cases already on the ground. Because of the focus on the right to free, prior and informed consent, we don’t always see the conversation include the social benefits that I believe will come from this legislation.

This is about human rights — the right to things like self-determination, to education, to freedom of expression, to economic and social opportunity, and to enjoy those rights free of discrimination. They are the basis of our society. The UN declaration is a statement of the human rights of Indigenous peoples. Implementing it is about ending discrimination, upholding human rights and ensuring more economic justice and fairness.

I believe most citizens now understand that those rights have not been honoured for Indigenous peoples by Crown governments, but despite countless injustices faced as a result of colonization, it’s important to recognize the strengths and resilience and perseverance of Indigenous peoples. I have seen this in every community that I have visited as Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, as have the ministers before me.

Upholding and recognizing the rights of Indigenous peoples will foster harmonious and cooperative relations among British Columbians and Indigenous peoples going forward. So we want to keep building and strengthening our relationships together, based on the principles of justice, peace, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith. That is how we are approaching reconciliation.

Child protection, language revitalization, revenue-sharing, affordable housing, mental health and addictions, economic development and land use planning. By continuing the work we are doing in so many of these areas of government to advance reconciliation, I believe that implementing the UN declaration can help us achieve even greater things together — accomplishments that will make a difference to families and communities all across this province.

Together we can end the epidemic of Indigenous children in government care, see Indigenous students graduating from high school and attending post-secondary in record numbers, raise the standard of living so Indigenous families don’t have to experience poverty through generations. It’s going to take all of us — businesses, government, all members of this House and communities — in partnership with Indigenous peoples to get this right. This will be a lasting legacy that enables us to turn a corner in British Columbia.

Throughout this process, we are committed to being transparent and bringing all British Columbians along. We’ve been transparent getting to this point. Our commitment to implement the UN declaration is clearly stated in all ministers’ mandate letters. We announced the intention to introduce such legislation a year ago. We reiterated that commitment in the budget and throne speeches this year.

We’ve engaged with First Nations, local governments, business, other stakeholders. That will continue as we move forward with aligning laws and developing the action plan. This work will be done in collaboration with Indigenous peoples, with opportunities for engagement with local governments, with industry, with business, other stakeholders and the public.

The legislation is a framework to ensure the laws of British Columbia uphold the rights of Indigenous peoples. It will give us a plan for how to do that. It is a tool for bringing rules, transparency and accountability when the government works with Indigenous governments on decisions affecting their rights. It is another step forward that reflects our commitment to working with Indigenous peoples and all British Columbians towards a more just and prosperous future for all.

[3:10 p.m.]

It is not a switch that will change every statute and process in the government the day after this act is proclaimed, nor is it a veto over development. It is a measured next step in our journey together towards reconciliation in British Columbia.

Again, I want to recognize the efforts of previous governments, the efforts that they have made. These conversations and efforts have been going on for a long time, led by many in this House on all sides. I’ve used this quote before, from former Attorney General Geoff Plant, and it seems quite fitting to use it here today. He put it very eloquently: “The question that arises is not whether Indigenous people should have special protection, but rather whether we are finally ready to admit they are entitled to the same basic rights that most of the rest of us take for granted.”

We have a chance to show, not just our country but the world, what true leadership looks like. Let’s be the province that everyone points to as an example. Let’s commit to doing this together. People are going to ask why: “Why do we need legislation if things are already changing? The work is being done; partnerships are being built.”

Well, I’ve been an MLA for almost 15 years. I’ve had the honour to spend a good deal of my time with the Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation portfolio, both as minister and as critic. I’ve had the opportunity to meet people whose stories helped give rise to this legislation. I’ve met Indigenous people in communities all around the province — thriving, vibrant communities, in spite of the shameful colonial history and the intergenerational impacts that has created.

The atrocities of the past were created by the laws of the past. Ask those who are impacted how significant words on paper were in their lives. Ask yourselves: which side of history do you want to be on? I’m going to choose the right side of history, and I am confident that all members of this House are dedicated to reconciliation.

J. Rustad: I’m pleased to stand and take my place in this debate on Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

I want to thank the minister for his words in introduction. I know that many of those comments were very heartfelt, in terms of his desire for improving reconciliation.

It is a great honour, in the time that I’ve been here and in the time that I may still yet have in front of me to be here, to be able to stand and speak on behalf of the people of Nechako Lakes and, in particular, for the 13 First Nations that are part of Nechako Lakes. There are others, of course, with overlapping boundaries.

I’ve had an opportunity to work very closely with many First Nations in my riding — as well as, of course, through previous roles right across the province. I can tell you that it’s interesting to hear the stories from First Nations and their experiences, and an opportunity to share some of those experiences. I think back to many of the meetings, in some of the first meetings I had, where First Nation leaders and people in their ridings told me about their history and provided me with books and information. Believe me, I’ve got quite a library now of books on First Nations.

When you look at the history before contact, before Europeans came into the area, it’s quite interesting looking at how First Nations developed and how they worked together — quite extensively, in terms of their culture, in terms of their governance structure and in terms of trade. In fact, I think, when one of the first European boats showed up on the shore, the first thing that happened is that people went out in canoes wanting to trade, wanting to be able to engage in trade. That’s, of course, the basis of economic development. That’s the basis of our economy and activities.

This trade and this engagement carried on until a point in time where more and more Europeans and others came to these lands, came to these areas. Then we started running into some challenges and issues. There were conflicts that started up. There were particular actions, I guess, that governments took.

[3:15 p.m.]

As British Columbia entered into Confederation, there were approaches around trying to do some treaties and other types of things, but it was always from a very — as it has been put — colonial perspective.

It’s not much different than what has happened in other places around the world. When you look at the history, for example, in places like Chile or Venezuela or other types of places, or Colombia, where Europeans came in, they basically took over and wiped out culture and wiped out the sense of belonging. Matter of fact, I had an opportunity, as minister, to meet with a delegation from Chile that was trying to figure out: how do they rebuild that First Nation identity? It had been 400 years, and there wasn’t a sense of nations. There wasn’t a sense of leadership. There was just an understanding that there was something missing.

They came to British Columbia, and they talked to us about what we were doing, because we were leaders in many aspects in terms of what we did and how we worked with First Nations. So I think back on Canada’s approach, through the Indian Act, and…. Quite frankly — I’ll just say this bluntly — I’m actually kind of ashamed that Canada still has an Indian Act. I think it should go, and the federal government needs to figure out how to do that. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened.

The Indian Act has a long history and a painful history for many First Nations. In that experience and those engagements I had with First Nations around the province, they talked about, you know, how their right to potlatch was taken away, to form a government, the ability to bring together people to be able to work on and talk about issues; how regalia was seized; how people were put in prison if they tried to practise their way of government.

I think one of the more startling things for me, even though I had read and knew about residential schools and the impacts of that on First Nations people…. I had an opportunity to go and visit with the Stó:lō people out in Chilliwack. They have a little bit of a museum of artifacts and stuff. One of the sections they have in there is a section about residential schools. I know that at the time, when the nation put that in there, people were like: “Why are you putting that in here? My god, such a horrible part of our history.” The leadership at the time said: “But it is our history. It’s important that people learn and understand about our history.” So they had this.

One of the things that I saw there, which was shocking and surprising, was a list of the penalties, the punishments, that were to be dealt out. You know, we’ve all been through school. We’ve all seen the rules in a school. But to imagine that there would be severe punishment if you spoke your own language…. I mean, that’s just crazy to think about in today’s society, yet that is what was there. That was what the list was, amongst many other things that I won’t go into here today.

We often wonder, then, you know…. I mean, so reconciliation…. We’re advancing in our relationships. It’s important to think about where we have come from, and what has built to these moments today, whether it’s through agreements or through this legislation or other types of actions that are going on.

From the Indian Act, you know, advance…. Residential schools came to an end, and I think that was good. The one question that really was out there, whether it’s the white paper or whether it goes to the constitution in 1982 that recognized the inclusion of title as part of Indigenous rights, through various court cases…. But in the early 1990s, there was a decision in British Columbia to try to advance treaties, to try to advance this recognition and this methodology for dealing with the land question.

There has been some success — I would say limited success — for the nations that have gone through and actually succeeded in being in treaty. They’re seeing, you know, advancement of their culture, of their people, of their economy. I honour them and recognize the strength in what they’ve done. But for a majority of nations, it hasn’t been able to achieve what it was originally hoped to be. That’s really, you know, a key piece, which was around the land question. But I’ll come back to that in a bit. But that’s a piece that is still sort of hanging out there, very significantly, that governments…. Whether it is federal or provincial or Indigenous nations, we need to figure out how we come together and address that question.

[3:20 p.m.]

I look at, you know…. So we advanced from the treaty process and how developed and how relationships started to advance slowly. But they did start to advance in terms of engagement.

Then along came a different government in the early 2000s, and there were some rocky starts. But there was a decision, a deliberate decision, to work towards reconciliation. As a matter of fact, we were the first jurisdiction in the country — I think maybe even still the only jurisdiction in the country — that actually had the word “reconciliation” in the ministry’s title. We used to be the Ministry for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and that has since been changed to Indigenous. But it was about relations and reconciliation.

I think about where we came from through that period of time. I’ve been part of the government since 2005 through, and I had the chance and the honour of being minister for just over four years. That advancement in our relations and reconciliation was quite remarkable.

You look at the rest of Canada and approaches, and we are a decade or two ahead of where other governments are in their thinking and in their work with First Nations. Many governments are starting to catch up and do things, but it was a dramatic change in terms of how things advanced in British Columbia.

The first time there was ever revenue-sharing was here in British Columbia. That was something that we decided to do and we’re proud of, because there are activities and things that are happening on the land base that, for far too long, First Nations were excluded from.

They needed an opportunity to be able to engage economically, to be able to help build and support their people for jobs and for prosperity, quite frankly. That continued to advance, and it started off slow.

I remember when I was first appointed in 2013, we had what was called 18 non-treaty agreements or whatever. They ended up being renamed several times — reconciliation agreements and other types of things. But there were 18 of them. I was appointed, and the Premier gave me a mandate and said: “Your mandate is to get ten more of these agreements signed.” That was my mandate when I was first appointed in 2013.

Well, I’m pretty proud of the fact that by the time 2017 came around and I was in there for just over four years, we had signed 435 of those agreements, over and above what was done before — not ten.

As a matter of fact, after we achieved the first year and we had signed about 60 in the first year, the Premier’s staff had come in and said: “Well, you know you’re an overachiever, I suppose.” I kind of chuckled a little bit, and they said: “Well, what target do you want to set next year?” I said: “What target do you want?” How many of these do you want me to sign? There was so much opportunity to advance reconciliation in the work that we were doing.

As a matter of fact, quite frankly, the only thing that held us back from doing significantly even more of those was we just didn’t have the resources. We didn’t have the people to be able to advance more of those types of agreements. There were so many more that we were working on.

The First Nations were coming and saying: “We want to achieve this; we want to do various things.” We were open. How do we do that? How do we work together? How do we try to achieve these things?

As a matter of fact, we started working on agreements to start actually addressing land. We had three pilot projects to go outside of treaty to figure out: how can we start a process of transferring land and coming to that ultimate resolution, that ultimate issue that has been so sticky for governments for so long? And that was to deal with land.

Some of those pilot projects have advanced in other forums. Some of them haven’t gone forward, but it was a start and a process. I think back to my riding, and I think back to these agreements and the kinds of changes that have happened.

One of the nations that I’m particularly proud to work with…. I’m proud to work with all of the nations in the riding, but I want to highlight the Cheslatta Carrier Nation just for a moment.

When I was first elected, and then my riding changed to include the Burns Lake area and where the Cheslatta people were, I had an opportunity to meet, and I did that shortly after my re-election, which was in 2009. We talked about their priorities and issues, and they told me their story. They told me about what happened. I had no idea what that history was until I had the chance to have that meeting.

When the dam was put in on the Nechako River at the time, there was the standard protocol that was followed, which was in the 1950s. We think back now, and it’s just crazy to think that that was the way things were done, but there was a process.

[3:25 p.m.]

You can go back and look at the articles in the newspaper from the time, and it says: “Well, this is going to impact anybody. There are just a few natives living in the area.” That’s what the articles said at the time. It’s amazing how dismissive…. The fact that this was traditional territory and there were people living in this territory was just dismissed because it was deemed to be just natives living there. I was shocked when I read those articles.

I talked to the Cheslatta people about it. They said: “Yeah, when the dam was being built, there were people who came around to our communities. There were a number of reserves in the area, and there were homes and stuff that were built there. Somebody came and knocked on the door and said: ‘You’ve got two weeks to move. The flood’s coming.’”

That was the level of engagement. That was the level of respect back in the 1950s with First Nations. That’s our history. It’s important to remember that history.

So they did. They packed up their things, and they were moved off of their traditional territory. They were moved onto the traditional territory of other nations in my riding and set up a reserve there and set up their office and their life there. After they left, they burned the homes. They destroyed the homes.

Then, of course, the dam came, and the area was flooded. The area known as the Murray-Cheslatta system, with Cheslatta Lake, has not been usable for the Cheslatta people in the way that they used to use it. That was the impact back then. There was no engagement. There was no discussion. There were no agreements. There was no compensation.

The Cheslatta people, rather than fighting it through the courts and rather than going after that confrontational approach, decided: “We’ll work this thing through.” It took them more than 60 years to work this thing through, and I worked closely with them on this for a long time. I’m very proud of an agreement that was finalized by the current government — that we had just about finished up before the last election — to reach a reconciliation moment with them in recognition of that impact.

This was an important step because it helps them now be able to move forward. Instead of working on their past and dealing with their past, they’re now in a place where they can go forward with their economic developments, with their hopes, with the things they want to do for the people.

There’s still more to be done, but it was an important step. I was pleased to be able to be part of that kind of work. These are the kinds of agreements that we entered into with First Nations.

We took First Nation graduation rates and almost doubled them. They’re still well below where the non-Indigenous graduation rates are, but there was significant progress that was made in working with First Nations and recognizing and bringing First Nations in as part of the education system and trying to solve those kinds of issues, because education is very important to the First Nations people, the Indigenous people.

Matter of fact, we had some of the first on-reserve housing projects that started under our government, as well, of course, as projects off-reserve. That was a breakthrough back then, when we started to do that. I’m glad the current government is expanding and doing some more of those. But that was a breakthrough because of the conflicting jurisdictions with the federal government.

When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission came along with its recommendations, we immediately went…. Matter of fact, even before the report came out, when the rally was here in Vancouver — I think we had 100,000 people do a reconciliation walk, and I was proud to be part of that walk — we started right then, two years before the report came out, to change our curriculum.

We did that, so when the recommendations came out we had already changed and adopted our curriculum to have First Nations history and culture and values recognized within the K-to-12 education system. This is part of how reconciliation advanced.

I want to take a moment, actually, just to talk a little bit about Reconciliation Canada. The reason why I want to talk a little bit about Reconciliation Canada is that I worked with them, and we provided some resources and support in terms of their work. But they weren’t so much about advancing Indigenous rights and title. That was being done already. It was about how we bring together Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to understand one another, to understand our history and how to advance reconciliation.

[3:30 p.m.]

I really want to thank Chief Bobby Joe, as he’s affectionately known; Karen, his daughter; and the work that Reconciliation Canada has done. It’s been quite remarkable in terms of that work, really, across Canada — not just in British Columbia. But of course, in this province, it’s quite amazing in terms of how that has made a difference.

We talk about UNDRIP as a document advancing reconciliation and human rights, and I think those are important values. But I really celebrate the work that’s on the ground that really has made a difference, I think, within many communities.

There are frictions. There are things that are showing up today between Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and I don’t think those are healthy. We’ve got to find a way to be able to bridge some of those differences. But that is what it is. That was the approach that Reconciliation Canada took. They recognized where things were and tried to come in and find a path to be able to bring people together to talk.

These agreements and approaches that we took within government were primarily focused within economic and social agreements. The idea was to have First Nations be able to lift themselves up — support them, work with them — have people being able to start moving from managing poverty to managing other issues, such as prosperity and expansion. I think, quite frankly, that’s a goal that all of us have here.

I think it was the Hereditary Chief of the Nisg̱a’a who was down in the Legislature when we were celebrating the agreement — one of the Hereditary Chiefs — and he said: “You know, it’s long past time that Indigenous people not only caught up but, if possible, surpassed non-Indigenous people economically.” And I agree. Land is an important piece of that. Agreements are an important piece of that. Reconciliation is critical — understanding those rights, being able to work together and being able to advance to a common cause.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

When I look at the legislation that has been brought in, Canada is quite unique, when you look at our constitution. I don’t know if there is any other country — certainly, not many other countries, if there are — that has Indigenous rights, including title, enshrined in the constitution. It has a long history now of court rulings and proceedings that have provided definitions and really in-depth knowledge of just what that does mean.

I think that’s an important piece, because in the briefings and in the talk about this bill, it is within the context of the Canadian constitution. That is the floor. That is the basis of the bill. It has the potential to go beyond that. Certainly, it has the potential to reflect court cases and additional decisions that may come down.

For example, under this government right now, I think there’s a case from Haida, a title case. I’m very interested in seeing how that case advances through the courts. I’m sure that will have a further impact that will potentially change or adapt or adjust in terms of how things go.

It’s an important piece to recognize that Canada has this difference with that constitution, because that sort of right is not recognized in places like Chile or in Colombia, where they’re struggling to find a path forward in terms of reconciliation with their Indigenous people.

Supporting those rights and title, I think, supporting the advancement of reconciliation, is something that governments need to be doing. It’s just the right thing to do. Certainly, it’s what we were doing with all of our efforts. Did we agree with First Nations on everything? Of course not. That would be unimaginable. Just like there will be First Nations that don’t agree with the current government. These things happen, but that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a goal to advance reconciliation and to advance those kinds of opportunities.

Some of the things that I’m going to be very interested in talking about in the committee stage of this bill with the minister are going to be issues around land, issues such as overlap — how those are going to be addressed, how Bill 41 and the UNDRIP lens will be able to work through those kinds of issues.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’ll just give you an example. In my riding, we currently have…. One of the nations is Yekooche. Yekooche came out of one of the other nations and has kind of being settled in the middle of a number of nations. Well, they have overlaps in every direction. As a matter of fact, the Nadleh Whut’en want to be able to sign the pipeline benefits agreement and be able to advance their work with the Coastal Gaslink. They’re waiting for government to help resolve an overlap issue they have with Yekooche.

We started that work. Unfortunately, the work hasn’t been done yet. But I’m hopeful that it will, because I know that nation is very much looking forward to seeing those benefits. They’re still working with Coastal Gaslink as if it is resolved. But it needs to be resolved, and it should be a priority, quite frankly, for government to work through that issue.

When you look at these overlaps and challenges, they’re significant. They can’t be taken lightly. When you look through, you know, the joint decision-making and the path and process that needs to be done, those are big questions. How will those issues be resolved? Those are the kinds of questions that we’re going to need to talk about. And maybe there aren’t answers. But they’re important to have on and have a conversation about what type of approach will be taken towards thinking about and working through these kinds of things.

There’s a concern that has been raised, and I know some of my colleagues may talk about this. How does this impact potential court cases or other issues? I mean, I think it’s great to say that we want to stay out of the court, and that was our approach. We tried to do everything we could to stay out of court. But eventually, there were court cases and things that go forward. How does this work, in terms of influencing approaches through that?

There is a statement in UNDRIP, the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, that says: “Convinced that control by Indigenous people over development affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions and to promote their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs.” I like that statement. But what does it mean in practice? How is that going to be implemented on the ground?

These are the kinds of things that we’ll be interested in exploring as we go through committee stage on this bill. Committee stage will be very important. I’m sure there’ll be a rather lengthy period of time, in terms of questions and process and engagement that we will do with the government on this.

Similarly, with this new potential opportunity to engage with types of agreements with new Indigenous bodies — or, as it’s called, Indigenous governing body — there’ll be some questions that we have around that. We entered into some agreements with Hereditary Chiefs through process, as well as elected Chiefs. We entered into agreements, actually, with a tribal council, once band council resolutions moved up towards being able to enter a collective agreement.

I’m curious in terms of how this new type of recognition will work on the ground and how it works, particularly, where there may be some conflict or individuals or bands that may want to leave — how would that work? — or structure. I’d like sort of an understanding in terms of how these types of things lie.

As well, of course, there’s this new tool that’s being created, this new type of agreement that’s being contemplated for joint decision-making, which also will likely include liabilities as well as responsibilities, jointly shared as they go through. There’ll be updates that’ll come to the various statutes within government, I’m sure, as that advances through. How does that work in terms of those structures and processes? Those will be some interesting types of things that we’ll want to proceed with and look at.

There’s one thing I just want to stress here and think about. The minister had mentioned and talked about going out, meeting with stakeholders and various groups, working with Indigenous nations and trying to work through what this is and what isn’t and process. But there’s one piece I think that was missing from that. I hope the minister, through some of the other speeches, might be able to clarify. And that is the general public.

It was one thing that we learned, particularly through processes in the Peace country — not just with this government, but with our government in the past — as well as with the Stó:lō, with treaty and with other things. The general public isn’t necessarily kept up to date or engaged just because a local government or regional district is engaged, or because other entities may be engaged. The general public needs to have a sense of what this is.

[3:40 p.m.]

At the end of the day, I think back to that work that Reconciliation Canada is doing trying to bring together Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to understand one another and be able to move forward together to build that reconciliation, bringing the public along as part of this conversation is going to be important.

The question to the minister is: is there contemplation in terms of taking this out and having some public engagement in various areas around the province to allow for the discussion and the comfort level so that reconciliation can advance and we don’t end up with more friction points, like we’ve seen in a few issues that are arising today? That’s an important piece of advice I’d like to offer to the minister — to develop a plan to go out and have this kind of engagement, because it’s going to be an important conversation that government is going to need to explain.

Lots of people have lots of comments and fear. I’ve received emails and calls and these types of things already because of the fears of what free, prior and informed consent may be or what this is or what it’s not. Government needs to do some work there, so I recommend taking some time to go out and make that effort for the people in the province of British Columbia.

With this, once again, I’m very honoured to have a chance to stand up and talk about Indigenous people and the work we’ve done in the past — the opportunity, I think, to advance reconciliation, the opportunity to see First Nations engage.

I just want to reflect again to a former chief who, unfortunately, passed away, a while ago now. He had attended six attempted suicides in his community. Tragically, one of them had…. One of them, unfortunately, he wasn’t able to save. He said he was tired of his people not having hope. He was tired of saying no. He wants to figure out how to engage in economic activity, how to build and pride hope and opportunity for the people in his riding, particularly for the youth and the children.

Through this discussion, through discussions with the public, through advancing economic opportunities, if we can change that statistic, even a little bit, that would be a huge, huge gain. The types of agreements, the approaches we took were all about that.

Madam Speaker, it’s important. Thank you for my time here to talk about this. It’s an important piece, because at the end of the day, reconciliation is critical to make sure that everybody in this province has an opportunity to prosper.

A. Olsen: My name is TSUNUP. I’m the son of TSAYWESUT and Sylvia Olsen, the grandson of ZIȻOT and TELQUILUM. We’re from W̱JOȽEȽP, which is a Tsartlip village, in W̱SÁNEĆ territory, just north of here, on the Salish Sea. I want to acknowledge today our Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ relatives, on whose territory we do this work day in and day out. Normally, we do acknowledge this as traditional territory, but today I just want to say that we live and work here in the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ territory. They are still here. So while they have traditionally been here, they also are still here.

It’s with mixed emotions that I stand in this chamber today. It’s 2019, and there have not been many days like this one in the history of this territory that was formerly the colony and that now we know as the province of British Columbia.

This day is the result of a lot of work, and those workers who have brought us this day should be uplifted and wrapped in a blanket, like we do so often in ceremony — in potlatch or in other ceremony. However, I also have a deep sadness within me that for the past 200 years, this territory that we know as British Columbia and the people in this House of governance have created some of the most grotesque and despicable racist policy.

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s an oft occurrence that I walk the halls of this building with a sense of awe, as the history represented in the echoes of the footsteps bounces off the walls. My name is one of very few among those in the history of this province signed into that register of representatives elected to this House of governance. It’s in that context that I’m honoured to be able to stand in this place, humbled to be able to stand in this place and take my place in the debate.

Like I said, there have been very few days like this one in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, or anywhere in Canada for that matter. Few are the days in which legislation has been introduced that upholds the basic human rights of Indigenous peoples. It is a sad reality of a colonial story of our province and our country that, in fact, the opposite is true.

What has been debated and passed into law in Legislative Assemblies in our country is the oppression of basic human rights of Indigenous peoples. The laws created by institutions such as this one have been designed to structure and impose a colonial reality on Indigenous peoples. They are designs that break up complex Indigenous systems of governance, like the potlatch. It is evil systems that have been established to steal Indigenous children from their families and send them to residential schools or to non-Indigenous families, an era that we’ve colloquialized as the Sixties Scoop.

The result of these policies has desecrated our grandmothers, our mothers, our aunties, our sisters, our nieces and our daughters. These rules have created a society that needs a commission to study missing and murdered Indigenous women, a society that deliberately stole their dignity, their identity, and undermined every aspect of our sacred relationships with our powerful matriarchs.

The rules kept Indigenous people from voting, stopped us from hiring lawyers and protecting ourselves, and restricted our ability to apply for timber harvesting rights because they changed the rules to only allow eligible voters to hold them.

It’s an act in legislation that institutionalized segregation, apartheid, through the reserve system that still exists today. Even as these relationships change, we still use these boundaries of reserves and fight in our communities between elected and hereditary leaders through the lens of these colonial impositions. These rules remain on the books. The Indian Act is still alive and well in this country.

One of the common demands for people today is that I or we do not hold them accountable for what their grandparents did. Well, I don’t. We are all accountable for what we know and how we act on that knowledge. The legacies of those laws are everywhere in our society. They are the crisis in our child care, the crippling poverty, desperation, moulding houses, poisonous water, suicide.

At the same time as we acknowledge these atrocities — atrocities that are genocidal — until this moment today, we can almost find no laws that undo the colonial legacy. We see almost no laws that replace those laws with respect to Indigenous self-determination and the inherent right of self-governance.

But today we are changing that. Today is a day that generations of Indigenous people in this province have fought to see happen. The work that I have the honour of doing today is the work of many hundreds of our ancestors, our S¸ELELW̱ÁÁN, who fought through the inhumane treatment to lay the groundwork for this moment.

I feel today that even though this moment is a monumental step forward, it’s only one step. I must acknowledge all our community leaders whose sweat and tears and whose blood was spilled so that I can be here now. It’s the Tsilhqot’in Chiefs who were unjustly killed 154 years ago. It’s the Chiefs of the Interior tribes who petitioned Prime Minister Laurier in 1910 with a true message of reconciliation: “These people wish to be partners with us in our country. We must, therefore, be the same as brothers to them and live as one family. We will share equally in everything — half and half — in land, water and timber. What is ours will be theirs. What is theirs will be ours. We will help each other be great and good.”

[3:50 p.m.]

It’s the peoples on Vancouver Island, my ancestors, who, at the very beginning of settlement by Europeans, signed treaties with Governor Douglas, the Douglas treaties, to ensure that our rights were respected. It’s the waves of leaders who journeyed to Ottawa and to Victoria and made the case and fought for change. It’s the knitters who sat in Victoria and Vancouver airports making toques and socks and vests and sweaters to pay for their leaders to go and endlessly lobby government.

I raise my hands to our matriarchs and our Elders, the young and the old, who have kept our cultures vibrant, powerful, alive and beautiful. I raise my hands to our knowledge-keepers and our linguists who have preserved our language so our generations might know who they are as diverse peoples in these lands and on these waters. This is a day that’s in honour of you, a testament to your resilience, your patience, your wisdom, your courage, your ĆȺ — your work.

There will be some who fear this legislation. I understand, because with change comes fear. There will be others that fearmonger, some who take no time to understand the legislation but rally around ignorance inspired by vested interests. Some may even stand in this place and make ridiculous statements. They’ll ask absurd questions like “what is free, prior and informed consent?” pretending that they’re actually seeking truth and reconciliation.

The only thing we should fear is the failure of making these critical changes. It’s the failure to face and address the colonial legacy that challenges our society today — these laws, policies and practices that have caused the uncertainty over land and resources that has immobilized us in this province for decades. It is the failure to address the colonial legacy in our social structures and institutions that is causing the intergenerational harms to countless children, families and communities. It’s the failure to address the colonial legacy that ends up in court battles costing us billions of dollars, lost time, incredible waste — a culture of conflict that has stymied economic growth and investment in our province. Worse yet, it has cost us our dignity, our integrity, our decency and our self-respect.

It is for this reason that in 2015, the truth and reconciliation call to action No. 43 said that governments, including the provinces, must adopt and implement the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples as a “framework for reconciliation.” This framework is a critical guide to help us forward and move us out of the dysfunctional patterns, the cycles of despair, and accelerate the work, the acts, of reconciliation.

Some voices in this House would have us believe the UNDRIP is imposed on us by the United Nations. They undermine it. They’re ignorant of it. I believe it’s intentional. It’s important that this debate be based on truthfulness, on fact. The UNDRIP is a product of decades of deliberation, a feat of deliberative democracy undertaken by states including Canada, including some of our very own Indigenous leaders in this province and also Indigenous peoples from around the world.

This document is a statement of long-established human rights norms, including those in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the context of Indigenous peoples. These norms are not new. Despite what some of the voices in this place would like British Columbians to believe, these are norms that we have long upheld and defended as Canadians. These are central to who we are, and upholding them now is to honour the highest ideals and values.

The opposite is also true. To diminish them now, to undermine them now, is to stoop to the lowest places. Those who are inspiring the opposition to the implementation of the UNDRIP are not looking out for the best interests of British Columbians or Canadians. Instead, they’re looking out for and defending the interests of multinational corporations that wish to continue to liquidate our natural resources, hollow out our rural and remote communities and leave us nothing.

[3:55 p.m.]

There is nothing to fear in this legislation. It is the embrace of the best about British Columbia and Canada. It is the embrace of each other — friends, family, neighbours. The adoption of this legislation does not result in greater justice and peace overnight. This legislation is just the beginning.

There are some common myths, urban legends, whispers and rumours spread that have developed out of a lack of understanding of the UNDRIP or just pure malintent. I’ll devote a few minutes to debunking these myths.

First, let’s look at the biggest of them: consent. I find it really interesting that in 2019, when obtaining and maintaining consent is so important in every aspect of our society, there still is a question as to whether achieving free, prior and informed consent is not necessary when it’s an Indigenous person or government that we are dealing with. There are some in this place that have argued that.

Probably the most egregious aspect of this is that people who know better still stand in this place and in prominent offices in our society and act as if consent is not part of Canadian law — part of the legal debate that has evolved over the past 60 years on Indigenous issues in our country. It is discussed in numerous ways in our Supreme Court, in many cases, including Haida and Tsilhqot’in.

It seems completely lost, again, on people who should know better that this is, at the very centre, a founding principle of the common-law understanding of the relationship between the Crown and Indigenous people. Going back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Crown had to gain the consent of Indigenous people, and it disallowed the settlement of lands without treaties.

Another myth which has been designed to wedge British Columbians against one another is the confusion created by the deliberate defining of consent as veto. Again, these flames have been fanned by members of this assembly who have irresponsibly stood and stared into the camera and acted like they sincerely don’t understand.

Let me speak clearly. Consent is not a veto over resource development. No rights are absolute. It’s the case for our Charter, it’s the case for section 35 of our constitution, and it’s the case for the UNDRIP. Article 46(2) in the UNDRIP says as much. Of course, it benefits the fearmongers and the special interests that they represent to ignore the facts and just make up their own.

Consent is a commitment to working together and acting in good faith from the very beginning of a process. Again, let’s remember that it’s 2019, and it’s important that we begin any process with an understanding that it is consensual and that we check in regularly to make sure that we are maintaining consent. A consensus approach is one in which the focus is on ensuring that every effort is made — as the UN special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous people, James Anaya, says — to achieve mutually acceptable arrangements.

A third myth to be busted is that, all of a sudden, a bunch of new rights will be created. This is one of the most interesting for those who oppose this to try to rationalize. For the first time in the history of this province and in the history of Canada, this legislation is going to affirm human rights — norms that have been long established, but in an Indigenous context. They are human rights that Canadians have been supporting and advocating for decades. They are the rights that are established in our very own Charter.

Finally, I must address the myth that this legislation is going to create uncertainty. I find this one to be truly mind-boggling. What has industry been complaining about? It’s the uncertainty of the current situation. The current relationship creates uncertainty. This legislation lays out the framework for government to chart a path through the uncertainty, creating certainty. Indeed, the challenge of uncertainty is created not by respecting Indigenous rights, but by denying them, against the advice of our own Supreme Court.

We have seen a very expensive, in terms of direct cost and loss to potential investment, culture of conflict grow out of a lack of recognition of Indigenous rights. This is the result of forcing these arguments to the courts for Indigenous people to, again and again and again and again, prove their humanity. The current situation has not created clarity. It has created a murky, costly, frustrating and deeply unfair situation that, as I referenced above, should be clear, going back to the 18th century.

[4:00 p.m.]

As the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould stated in a speech to the B.C. Business Council back in 2018: “The uncertainty that we all experience today — Indigenous peoples, industry, governments and the Crown,” whether in relation to pipelines or any number of other projects, “has its roots directly in the history of denial and division.” It is clearly time for us to move beyond the resource colony mentality, the desperate attempt to liquidate the resources from these lands and waters that were enabled by the convenient doctrine of discovery and terra nullius for the benefit of multinational corporations, starting with the Hudson’s Bay Company.

I must raise my hands to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I raise my hands to his team, Jessica Wood and her team and Don Bain in the Premier’s office, who have helped negotiate these often-turbulent waters, navigating us to this critical moment.

The adoption of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples was a key plank in the B.C. Green 2017 platform. It’s an issue we shared with our colleagues in the B.C. NDP as a key principle in redefining the relationships in our province. As a result, this legislation became a central feature in our confidence and supply agreement with government.

The minister recognized and acknowledged that this was an important piece of policy work for me personally and understood and respected that from day one. I really deeply appreciate that. This is an important example of how this House should work. It’s an excellent example of how all elected people from all parts of this House can work together productively. Even, perhaps, when I was impatient, hoping for the legislation in previous sessions, the minister and his team continued to persist, acknowledging the numerous stakeholders that needed to be addressed if this legislation were to make it to this stage and eventually be successful in this place.

From the minister and his deputy minister through all the people working in the ministry, the work that is being realized here today is just the beginning. There is a legal and moral need for government to dig in and do the difficult work of recognizing Indigenous rights in this province. Today we begin surveying the terrain upon which we blaze a new trail. Today we mark the beginning of a new journey.

We raise our hands to an inclusive process that has been done hand in hand with Indigenous leaders in British Columbia. It’s a process that’s included industry and labour. This legislation is never intended to answer all the questions — rather, provide us a way forward together. It’s a step toward meaningful reconciliation. It begins an important alignment of all the other laws and embraces the challenge rather than excuses inaction.

This legislation puts us on the right path, and it gives us the right heading. It’s pointed to a good destination, building on a good foundation. The next step is to use this framework to transform our relationships with each other. It starts with putting together an action plan that meets the objectives of the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. It’s work that we must all do together. It’s work that all members of this Legislature, all political parties and of all backgrounds must do together.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to recognize the territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, that we meet on every day in this Legislature.

I’d also like to recognize the Premier and the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and their staff for the incredible work that they’ve done on this bill.

They managed to accomplish this in just over two years. They worked collaboratively with the First Nations Leadership Council, which includes the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who have been directed by First Nations Chiefs of B.C. to develop the legislation.

[4:05 p.m.]

I have to say the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation was tenacious in his work to ensure that we managed to get this bill tabled and that we managed to have it before us today. So I’m really honoured to speak in favour of Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. With this new bill, B.C. will be the first province in Canada to put the principles of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples into action, recognizing the human rights of Indigenous peoples. The legislation will mandate government to bring provincial laws into harmony with the declaration. It will require development of an action plan to achieve this alignment over time, providing transparency and accountability. It will also require regular reporting to the Legislature to monitor progress.

It will allow for flexibility for the province to enter into agreements with a broad range of Indigenous governments, and it will provide a framework for decision-making between Indigenous governments and the province on matters that impact their citizens. It is another step forward that reflects our commitment to working with Indigenous peoples and all British Columbians toward a more just and prosperous future for all.

I was so honoured to be here on October 24, when this bill was tabled — actually, October 24 is United Nations Day, recognized worldwide as United Nations Day, so I couldn’t think of a more fitting day when that bill was tabled — but to also hear the Indigenous leaders speak of their commitment and how they felt about this, how this bill was finally being introduced. I found it a really emotional and deeply moving day and one that I don’t think we will forget for many years in this Legislature.

This new historic legislation, which supports self-determination and self-government of nations, complements the work my ministry has been doing already to improve the lives of Indigenous children, youth and families. Reducing the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system by working with communities is a priority for this government as we move towards meaningful and lasting reconciliation.

It’s a key action in my mandate letter from the Premier. The letter was clear. Things need to change in the child welfare system for Indigenous people. We all know the system has failed them. We know that the trauma suffered by generations of Indigenous children and families has had devastating effects. We need to remember the children and families impacted by the damaging legacy of residential schools.

It is also important that we recognize the ongoing impact of current colonial systems and practices. We’re working collaboratively and respectfully with Indigenous communities to make a difference for families and to give social workers the tools that they need to do child welfare differently.

By focusing on prevention, collaboration and jurisdiction, my ministry is working on all levels to shift our approach to child welfare, from taking children into care to working to keep children safe within their families. We know children do better in life when they are connected to their families, their communities and their cultures.

We made changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act to give Indigenous communities greater involvement in child welfare decisions, to help keep their children out of care. We have nearly doubled the monthly rate paid to family members caring for young family members under the extended family program. Now a granny caring for her grandchild is receiving the same amount of monthly financial assistance as a foster parent.

I recently met with grandparents. They were overcome with emotion, as was I. I still get emotional when I think about it, because they tell me about the difference this has meant to their lives. One grandmother said to me: “We don’t do this for the money, but now that we have additional funding, we can actually raise our grandchild. We can actually raise them in the way they should be raised.” They can keep them in the family, connected to the community, learning their culture. It was such an emotional experience for myself as well as for the grandparents when they shared it with me.

We’re also changing the way we work with and support expectant parents and have ended the practice of birth alerts. No longer will health care providers and social workers share personal information about expectant parents without their consent. Instead, we’re providing voluntary early supports and preventative services to help them plan and safely care for their babies.

[4:10 p.m.]

This change to practice allows for a more trusting, collaborative relationship with service providers right from the beginning, and it empowers women, their families and their communities to work together to care for their children. We have to ensure that we have the supports in place to ensure a healthy baby is born to a healthy mom in a loving family. I know that this bill will help us to continue that practice in the coming months.

Through the Tripartite First Nations Children and Families Working Group, we have been working with the First Nations Leadership Council and the government of Canada to explore systemic changes to the child welfare system, including governance and jurisdiction. Additionally, we have all committed to ensure the new federal Indigenous child welfare legislation aligns with the work that we are doing in B.C. We have also started meeting quarterly with the First Nations Leadership Council executive, an important opportunity to hear from the leadership what’s working and what’s not.

Our work includes partnering with individual First Nations and the federal government to sign agreements that will ultimately see the nations exercise their jurisdiction over child and family services. I can’t tell you how often I’m told by First Nations that they never gave up their jurisdiction. It was taken away from them.

We have entered into separate agreements with the Cowichan Tribes, the Wet’suwet’en Nation and the Secwépemc Nation. I have to tell you, when we met with the Wet’suwet’en Nation up in their nation…. There was myself, Minister Bennett from the federal government and the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. We met and talked about what this meant to them, that we were actually going to be signing this agreement. We met with Hereditary Chiefs who said to me that they thought this would never happen. They thought that, in all the years they had been negotiating with governments, never would they see the start to jurisdiction become a reality for their nation and for their children.

After the ceremony and the signing, we had a huge feast. We had a group of children singing in their language. To watch the pride in the faces of the Hereditary Chief to hear these children singing in their language…. They explained to me how the language was being taught to the children in their school and how important it was for them. It made me realize that when…. Some people said: “Why would we spend $50 million on language for Indigenous nations?” I just had to hear those children singing in their own language to know how incredibly important it was and how happy the Wet’suwet’en were, not only to sign the agreement but just to see what was happening with their children.

Every time I meet with a different nation, I’m always struck by their commitment to their children, their belief that what happened in the past can’t be forgotten but that they must ensure that children are raised in happy, healthy communities, in their communities, learning their culture.

We know we need to continue to work in partnership to have long-lasting, sustainable change to the child welfare system. Like implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples actions, this change will take concerted efforts and meaningful collaboration by all levels of government. It will take some time, but we are committed to this work to ensure that children and youth are living in strong, healthy families where they are connected to their cultures and traditions.

Bill 41 opens new doors for us, as we continue to walk together towards jurisdiction, recognizing each nation’s inherent authority to care for their children and families in their own way.

E. Ross: On behalf of my constituents of Skeena, I’m pleased to be here to speak to Bill 41, declaration on the rights of Indigenous people.

[4:15 p.m.]

I’ve lived this for 15 years from the inside out, on the ground as a councillor and then as chief councillor later on. I remember every single agreement, announcement, initiative that was announced with great fanfare over the last 15 years, and every one of those announcements provided hope only to kind of wind up as a political discussion for decades. B.C. treaty process was one. The commitment declaration was another one. The recognition and reconciliation protocol was another one. There were just too many to mention.

What upset me most about it was a political discussion that didn’t provide immediate relief for my band members. This goes for Aboriginals all across Canada, who are suffering — from the high rates of suicide, the amount of Aboriginals going to prison, the missing and murdered women, poverty. So I might be cynical, I might have been around too long, but I’ve seen what happens when we make political announcements like this.

To be honest, once I started to realize the turnaround for my people under economic development — specifically, the modernization of the smelter in Kitimat, the forest and range agreement that we signed with the previous government and LNG — and when I saw the results of that, I’ve got to be honest: I got selfish because I wanted more. When you hear these stories of people, regular people, that are just happy that they have a future — that they’re going to be independent, that they don’t need council, that they don’t need government and that they’re well on their way — you get greedy for more of that.

I am really hoping that this declaration actually adds to the equation that we’ve already developed here in B.C. and Canada. I’m hoping it adds and builds on section 35 of the Constitution and the pursuant jurisprudence, the case law principles. We actually owe the success of LNG to section 35 and the case law. It’s all rooted in there.

The forest and range agreements that provided peace in the forest over the last ten years — we owe that to the Aboriginals that went to court to establish court and case law principles. We’re talking about Mikisew Cree, Gladstone. We’re talking about Haida. These are the people that did the real work to actually get First Nations out of poverty and get First Nations to the point where they could address their own issues on their own terms. Those are the real heroes.

I used those case law principles to establish a relationship with the provincial and federal governments. It’s why LNG is existing in B.C. as an export facility. That’s why Chevron is next on the docket. That’s why Cedar LNG for the Haisla is next. The results are measurable when you go talk to band members. The results are going to astound you when you hear them.

A single mom complained that she’d been working seven days a week and then they cut her back to five days a week: “Why did they take those extra two days away?” I was shocked. I hadn’t met anybody that wanted to work seven days a week, 12-hour days. It’s because she felt so prideful of what she was doing in providing for the family, buying a van.

This was my experience, and I did try everything. I’m hearing a lot of stories about what really happened to First Nations on first contact. I’m well aware of it. I researched it for two years in my own band office, through our archives. I’m well aware of it, of what happened to my band as well as what happened across Canada to Aboriginal nations. I’m no stranger to it.

I actually put together a pamphlet, a booklet, to describe to our people what reconciliation means in terms of what happened to our people historically — not with the idea to put anybody down, not to be political about it but to encourage the people of today and tomorrow to say: “It’s up to you to go out and fix your own future so that our people of the past didn’t have to suffer for nothing.”

I always had a perception that we should be moving forward, always moving forward. Acknowledge the past, but move forward. The social issues that we talk about in terms of statistics — that’s crazy. We all know that Aboriginal issues in Canada are a multi-billion-dollar industry. Just on Indian Act programming money alone, it’s a multi-billion-dollar industry. Then you include the legal bills, the consultants and on and on and on.

With all these billions of dollars for the last 30, 40 years, why have we not made a dent in the statistics of the social issues facing First Nations? It’s because we’re not focused on the individual. We’re not focused on concrete results. We’re not thinking about that guy that’s going to prison or who’s going back to prison. We’re not thinking about that.

[4:20 p.m.]

Maybe I’ve been around too long. I will be watching this closely, over the next two years, to see what the results are. But I’ve already seen results in our band, based on the existing case law and based on a working relationship with the provincial government — provides tremendous results.

By the time I became a councillor, I’d realized that, going through the archives and listening to my band members and listening to our people, it seemed like, for decades, generations of Aboriginals had gone through life with no hope. So the status quo was okay. Everyone was accepting of it. It wasn’t until a band council came along, in 2001, and said: “No, we’re going to go against the narrative. We’re going to go against the politics, and we’re going to engage. And the results have got to be measurable in terms of individual band members getting their own future on their own terms.” It worked.

Prior to that, as my first two years in council, I did try everything. I mean, I have heard this before: education is key. Yeah, if there is a good economy and there’s lots of jobs, education is the key. But if there’s no economy, training for the sake of training doesn’t lead anywhere. I had a lot of band members that we actually forced through training to get some education, and then when they found out that they didn’t have a job at the end of it, they got angry at us.

All this rhetoric about what’s best for the Aboriginals — I agree with all of it. But only if it affects the individual Aboriginal on the ground who’s suffering with these social issues and is looking for a way out.

I went to Ottawa. I came to B.C., Victoria, to lobby the government for programs and money. When I realized that all I’m doing is asking for more dependency, I refused to go on any more lobbying trips for more money. I refused.

It was actually a band member that wrote a book that convinced me that what I was doing was the wrong approach — going out and asking for more money so I could renovate my rec centre. He wrote a book, and it was called Beggars in Our Own House. That’s what cemented the idea that what I was doing up to then was wrong. It was the wrong approach. I was just taking the same old path that previous leaders had done, and it wasn’t really leading to any progress.

Now my band just got through buying an apartment complex for $11 million with their own cash. They don’t need government funding. They’re addressing their own issues on their own terms. They are truly on the pathway to independence. And it got them away from asking for money from industry, from government, from organizations. It got them away from that.

The first time that this really happened when I was the chief councillor, we were sitting at the table. We made a decision, and we decided to fully fund the project on our own. You can’t imagine the amount of pride I had. I pointed it out: “Do you guys realize that we’re not going to have to fill out funding applications? We’re not going to have to fill out reports. No one’s going to have to come in and audit us. We’re just going to build something, and our people are going to love it. They’re going to absolutely love it. Then we’re going to subsidize all the government projects that are in the territory already. We’re going to make them even better.”

Our government-owned dock that the federal government decided to come in and renovate because it was their dock…. They committed $3 million. Well, our band looked at the plan and said: “Well, we’ll dump in a few million of our own, and we’ll fix the breakwater while we’re at it.” That is independence. That is equal opportunity. That is actually being on the same level as government and saying: “Yeah, we know you’ve got money, but we’d like to match it with our own. Let’s have a partnership on some of these projects that we’re doing.”

Just recently the provincial government partnered up with my band for an apartment on reserve — $14 million. That was a project, actually, that I proposed under my leadership as chief councillor, and I wanted us to pay cash, but the conversation was: “No, we should amortize it over 20 years.” Okay, great, but as long as we don’t have to ask for government money. My band didn’t ask, the government just provided it, which is great. It’s another partnership. But it all comes from a theme of independence.

[4:25 p.m.]

In saying all that and looking at all these programs, looking at all these announcements, looking at all the politics, what I realize most: our people need opportunity — economic opportunity, to be precise. The forestry and LNG story in B.C. is a huge story for my band. It did provide my people the pathway to independence that we have never seen before in our lifetime. But it also triggered other opportunities.

I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but my band got into land-ownership. We didn’t battle the idea of who owned the land, if it was private land or Crown land. We didn’t battle that. When we got control of the land, we didn’t battle with the idea that it’s got to be added to reserve. If anybody’s familiar with the Indian Act, you know what I’m talking about. We didn’t battle with that.

In a way, when we talked about land, we reconciled with the society of B.C. We acknowledged that there is a system here of private, fee simple land-ownership that actually contributes to the tax base. We didn’t argue that. We just said: “Let’s buy the land, and let’s let the business that’s actually proposed to be located on that land pay the taxes. But let’s not beat up on the system that’s around us. Let’s reconcile. Let’s meet in the middle.”

In response, the previous B.C. government actually closed off a 60-year-old file on land that was neighbouring my village. It was called lots 305 and 306. Every successive government had refused to deal with this land, even though it was right beside my village. They refused to deal with it. It had no value because nobody can build on it except our band.

So imagine my surprise when…. Because to be honest, I didn’t trust government. I don’t care who you were. I didn’t trust government — if you were the NDP, Liberals. I didn’t trust anybody. So if they said that they were going to transfer me two lots of land that my band spent 60 years trying to acquire, I didn’t trust them.

My colleague from Nechako Lakes, who was the Indigenous Minister at the time…. To my surprise, at an all leaders gathering — one of the last ones I went to — we had a good discussion on all the issues. I completely forgot how hard we had lobbied the previous government on these two chunks of land. By the end of our conversation, my colleague from Nechako Lakes said: “Oh, by the way, I made a promise to you that I would get this land into your hands.” So he initialled a document, and he passed it over to me for my initial. I initialled it. Then we shook hands, and I got up and left. I didn’t know what I initialled. I just knew it was land. It was actually the commitment from the B.C. Liberal government to say: “Yes, this land is going to be transferred to you, and now we have an initial agreement.”

When I left the room with my councillor beside me and I saw really what it was, I was so excited that I told my councillor, “Let’s go back to the hotel. Let’s make some calls. Let’s start arranging the next steps to formalize this, and let’s get our village prepared for a huge celebration,” which we did have. We had meetings planned for the rest of the all leaders conference, and we just walked away from all of it. We didn’t want to meet with anybody else.

We jumped on a plane, headed home, had a huge celebration. We had a celebration in our village. We actually brought in all the seafood, all our traditions. We brought in our Chiefs, and everybody was happy. The member for Nechako Lakes gorged himself on crabs. It was such a momentous occasion.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Once we had established the relationship, the agreements just kept piling on. The land started coming in. And it was done without treaty. It was acknowledged that there were two types of systems in B.C. that actually looked at land in different ways, but there’s got to be reconciliation. There’s got to be some middle ground, and we found it, and nobody got hurt.

The hospital lands in Kitamaat Village, in the heart of downtown Kitimat, are another good example. We have now a condominium on that land that’s owned by the Haisla, but it’s in fee simple status. We agreed to abide by municipality bylaws, and taxation was set by B.C. All of this contributes to the well-being of band members.

Where did this success come from? It certainly didn’t come from me. I can’t take credit for this. I just picked up where my previous council left off, and I picked up where previous leaders from past generations went to court to establish the case law that breathed life into section 35 of the constitution.

[4:30 p.m.]

The Calder court case in 1973, brought by Nisg̱a’a First Nation leader Frank Calder and his tribal council, marked the first time the Supreme Court held that Aboriginal land rights survived European settlement.

Sparrow, in 1990. A Musqueam fisherman named Ronald Sparrow put his name into the textbooks of law schools by fishing with a net longer than was permitted and defined a right. This case was crucial because it was the first to delve into the issue of an Aboriginal right since the passage of the 1982 Constitution Act.

Delgamuukw — probably one of the biggest court cases that Aboriginals celebrated. The case confirmed Aboriginal land rights and Crown’s obligations to respect Aboriginal people’s lands — rights that predate British Columbia’s assertion of sovereignty.

The most effective case law principle that I utilized at every chance I could with the provincial government and the federal government and got the most results was Haida. The case defined how the honour of the Crown requires the provincial government to consult and accommodate, in good faith, on resource development areas where Aboriginal title and rights are asserted but not established.

This led to LNG development in B.C. This led to forest and range agreement acts being signed in B.C. with a lot of First Nations. It led to peace in the forest.

Underneath that, our people got jobs — meaningful jobs. It wasn’t make-work under government programs, like we had previously seen. Now our members could actually chart out their career paths. They could decide whether or not they wanted to be a faller, a bucker, a pipefitter or welder because they could see an immediate job for them, waiting for them.

Now, I’ve heard some discussion about how this House has got to work together on this — openness and transparency. But at the same time, I’ve also heard that members are saying that people who want to question this act are actually fearmongering when we’re talking about the word “veto.” That’s irresponsible.

Our job is to hold government accountable. Our job is to make B.C. a better place for everybody. So if you see people in this House questioning a decision by government and then you characterize that as fearmongering, that is irresponsible. What am I doing here if I’m not questioning a decision by government? That’s our job.

I’ve got to go back and report back to my Skeena constituents on what this actually means. For the most part, I know what it means. I just don’t understand one term, and I never have. When the declaration first came out — what, ten or 12 years ago? — I didn’t understand it. And for the most part, what I did understand, most of that declaration were rights that we already had. It went without saying that we had the right to self-determination. I knew that. We didn’t need case law to say that. We didn’t need a declaration. I knew that.

We have the right to preserve our own language. I knew it. Nobody ever came in to me and said: “You don’t have the right to preserve your own language and culture.” Nobody ever said that. A lot of that was empty promises in this declaration.

What we do know is that everybody in this House, including the Aboriginal leaders that joined us last week in the celebration, confirmed that the declaration does not represent a veto. Consent does not equal veto. I can agree with that. In fact, the Aboriginal rights and title case law actually says that — the case law that supports section 35.

What I don’t understand when it comes to the word “consent” are the different opinions of what that means. I don’t have an opinion. I didn’t have an opinion ten years ago. I don’t have one today. To be honest, I put my whole focus on Aboriginal rights and title case law on section 35. I didn’t really want to get into a vague debate about what consent meant because I understood what it meant in terms of case law. The one definition I heard or read recently was one that talked about agreement. Consent is agreement, which is great. The case law actually says that as well. The case law says that you should pursue agreement; you should pursue consent.

[4:35 p.m.]

One of the definitions I heard of consent, in terms of agreement, said that if the two parties don’t agree, then in absence of alignment, there is no agreement. So therefore, there is no decision. I don’t know if I’m reading that right, but isn’t that a form of veto? No decision from the Crown will be made unless agreement was made by both parties. We’re already seeing that right now in terms of permits and authorizations for forestry.

I’m sure the government is going to work this out somehow. But if it means inaction in terms of decision-making coming from the Crown, this is going to affect a lot of people that depend on the decisions so they can go mining, so they can go with their forestry careers, so they can continue with LNG operations. And I’m talking about First Nations, as well, who are going to be affected. There are a lot of people that depend on these permits so they can continue work or go back to work. So this matters.

But to say that I’m here trying to fearmonger or undermine this? No, I’m not. I’m trying to get clarity. That’s what I’m trying to do. There’s a lot riding on this. We definitely do not want to undo the 15 years of success that B.C. has seen in terms of relations with Aboriginal people. In that example, I’m using the First Nations along the pipeline route for LNG. I’m using the example of First Nations who signed on to forest and range agreements ten years ago.

Probably the most significant court case to come up recently was Tsilhqot’in. I was following Tsilhqot’in when it was still a forestry dispute. Then I watched it actually transform into a title case, because I had researched case law. I tried to read it, and that’s probably one of the hardest jobs in the world — to understand something so abstract like case law for Aboriginal rights and title. But having a basic understanding, I knew Tsilhqot’in was going to win. Based on the principles of previous case law, I knew Tsilhqot’in was going to win.

My question, and I conferred with my lawyers, was: what is this going to mean to my band, who is on a solid path? We’ve got goals and objectives. It all came down to what the political motive was going to be behind the band council. So when the decision came down, there was a huge rush that, somehow, we were going to take over B.C.

I was actually hiding out in Vancouver Island. I was hiding out. I was on a holiday at my auntie’s place down in Duncan when I checked out a news story that said Tsilhqot’in had won. I wasn’t surprised. But then I was surprised at the outcry of my people. I said: “Okay. Everything’s changed now. It’s a brand-new day.” Well, in that respect, it was. But it didn’t mean that we had to throw out all our plans and our success. We didn’t have to do that.

In the light of Tsilhqot’in, all I read into it and how it affected me was going to be that the duty to consult and accommodate was going to be heightened. It was going to reach a new level, because there are a lot of bands that can actually achieve the same thing that Tsilhqot’in did. But a lot of bands don’t see the need if they’re already seeing the success of land acquisition, revenues coming in, employment and training. That’s what treaty was supposed to achieve. For bands like mine, we achieved all that without Tsilhqot’in.

I convinced my council. I convinced my community. “It’s great. I don’t think we need it, but we’ll use it if we have to. But let’s stick to our goals. Let’s stick to our path. We’ve got a good plan.” Fortunately, my council agreed. My community agreed. And now we’re reaping the benefits of sticking to our plan, being focused on the relationship with the B.C. government, on the relationship with industry.

It’s paying off today in terms of the future of individual band members — not of my council, not of any affiliated organizations. The success of my people is guaranteed. I’m hoping in 20 years my people are not talking about suicides, not talking about residential schools. I’m hoping the next generation, two or three decades down the line, are talking about completely different issues than I am talking about today or talked about ten years ago. If they’re still talking about the issues that I talked about ten years ago or 20 years ago, I failed as a leader.

[4:40 p.m.]

I’ve been trying to get an understanding of how this relates to section 35 and the accompanying case law. I’ve heard a number of comments made about statement of claim. I agree with some of the comments that were made here.

When a band, through case law, is told, “You have to prove your existence before we consult and accommodate you,” that is offensive. I agree with that, and that’s what statement of claim does. Statement of claim says: “Well, you’ve got to provide your evidence to prove that you have a right to be consulted and accommodated.” I agree: that’s offensive. It always has been offensive.

But statement of claim has a purpose, as well, other than proving that you are the one that owns the territory, because, believe it or not, there’s a tremendous amount of overlapped territories in B.C.

Now, there’s a level of fairness we’ve got to talk about here when we’re talking about statement of claim. There’s a purpose behind it that actually benefits First Nations themselves. I don’t see the reason why a band in the northeastern corner of B.C. who has a project on the books that can affect their future for the positive…. I don’t see why they have to contend with a band from the southern corner of B.C. coming in to assert their right to be part of an environmental assessment or part of a project in their territory. Statement of claim actually provides protection for that.

We’re talking about reconciliation in this House, but First Nations haven’t reconciled with each other yet either. Overlap is evidence of that. We haven’t reconciled with our neighbours, let alone the people on the coast, let alone the people on the far west coast.

Our people still vividly remember atrocities that took place between First Nations that happened long before white contact. It wasn’t love and peace back before white contact. There wasn’t love and peace. It wasn’t like that. It was very warring. There were a lot of raids. Our people today still remember that, and they hold a grudge against those other First Nations that actually did that to us. I’m pretty sure my band did it to other First Nations as well.

It’s starting to disappear, but the older generation still remembers it, and there’s still a vendetta. That keeps First Nations from reconciling with each other. If people think that we were out there preaching love and happiness before white contact, they’re mistakenly wrong. We have clubs in the museum that were actually designated to be slave-killers. To prove how wealthy you are in our culture, I could afford to kill a slave. This actually speaks to all of the Indigenous cultures around the world. I’m even assuming that the English culture had something similar. We’ve moved beyond that, but First Nations haven’t reconciled that with each other yet either.

So statement of claim matters, not in respect of telling the government that we’ve been here since time immemorial but in terms of who has the right to be engaged in a project in a certain territory or region of the province. It’s only fair.

My band was actually consulted on some rocks outside Vancouver Island. This happened about ten years ago. It was some rocks that they wanted to turn into a conservation area outside Vancouver Island — on the southern tip, mind you. So we got this letter in the mail from Canada. “We want to turn this into a conservancy, and we want to know what your rights and title interests are.”

We talked and talked about it. I talked with my lawyer, and finally I said: “This is crazy. This is nonsense. There is no way that I can assert rights and title on a rock on the southern tip of Vancouver Island.”

My letter, what I wanted to write, was: “What the heck are you guys thinking? That’s not my territory. Why don’t you do some research?” But my lawyer convinced me to write something more sensible.

[4:45 p.m.]

It came out exactly like that. “This is not our territory. We don’t know whose territory it is. We have no interest in this. Please excuse us from this process.” That’s only fair, and that’s what statement of claim provides.

I can tell you, by experience, nothing has advanced Aboriginal issues more in Canada than the case law and section 35. Nothing. I can’t think of anything that actually overshadows that. We’re a living example up in Kitimat in terms of LNG and forestry. That’s why I’m hoping that this declaration, this bill, actually builds on the success of what Canada has done, started 39 years ago. That’s when reconciliation started — 39 years ago, section 35 of the Constitution. When a lot of countries around the world ignored and rolled over their Indigenous populations, Canada at least said, “Let’s recognize it,” and then the case law underneath that started to really enact it.

We can pass all the legislation we want, but we should be thinking about and enacting laws that stand the test of time. We should acknowledge the work that Canada and B.C. have done, not only in the last 15 years but in the last 39 years. Good leaders have done their best to recognize and affirm Aboriginal rights and title. There have been good leaders on all sides — First Nations leaders, federal leaders, provincial leaders — and they’ve done their best.

I don’t think for a minute that somebody in the federal or provincial government had enough animosity to say: “Yeah, we’re going to deny Aboriginal people their future.” I don’t believe that for a minute. Yet we failed to remember that nothing counts more than when Aboriginal rights are tested in court.

I’ve said this before — not only in this House, but I’ve said it at different conferences for the last ten years: UNDRIP is a remarkable document. But in terms of what happened to my territory, it’s 39 years too late. We could have used this 40 years ago when we were having trouble getting recognized by the federal government and the provincial government. But now that it’s here, let’s embrace it. Let’s figure it out. Let’s define it. Let’s define the terms like “consent.” Let’s define the terms of “joint decision-making.” Let’s define it.

Let’s not think that this is a point of arrival in terms of reconciliation. Reconciliation is alive and well and has been steadily progressing over the last 15 years. If anything, this bill will represent a new point of departure and one that may or may not be challenged in court. It will definitely be tested. It will be tested in terms of the authorization of permits and environmental assessments. It will be tested by First Nations who have overlap issues, and this is going to get complicated.

For those treaty nations who have overlap issues with their neighbouring bands who are not treaty, this will be tested, and rightly so, because the principles underlying section 35 have already addressed what to do in these situations. That’s what’s going to matter most: the legal precedents that are set in court and will be set in court in the future, not by legislation — if challenged or when it is challenged.

[4:50 p.m.]

Aboriginal rights and title is a very complex topic. I still don’t understand all of it. But what is UNDRIP? In my opinion, you can’t understand what UNDRIP is unless you understand what rights and title is, unless you understand section 35. But for the sake of this discussion, UNDRIP was passed as a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly 12 years ago and comprised of 23 preambular clauses and 46 articles.

When it was passed by the UN in 2007, only four countries voted against UNDRIP — Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada. All four countries were British colonies at one time or another, yet all four, arguably, were far more developed in the field of Aboriginal rights than dozens of other countries that were either unwilling or incapable of advancing the social well-being and economic well-being of their own First Nations. In saying that, I’ll argue that Canada is actually even better than United States, our neighbours to the south, in terms of addressing Aboriginal issues.

This is what I thought when I first read UNDRIP. My fear was that if we went down this vague, undefined declaration road, it would actually distract from my band’s path of independence. Independence was my sole goal, for my band members’ sake, for my kids’ sake. That was my goal: independence, self-determination. I didn’t want anything taking away from that because my ancestors fought so hard to get to this place.

Back in 2007 Canada’s Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said the reason it voted against UNDRIP was that it was not balanced and conflicted with Canada’s Charter of Rights. I don’t know if that’s true or not. I just thought about my own band’s path.

Almost ten years later this is what another federal minister said about UNDRIP. This was at a 2016 address to the annual general meeting of the Assembly of First Nations. Approximately 2,500 delegates were in attendance, representing First Nations from coast to coast.

This is what the federal minister had to say: “As much as I would like to cast the Indian Act into the fire of history so that the nations can be reborn in its ashes, this is not a practical option, which is why simplistic approaches such as adopting the UNDRIP as being Canadian law are unworkable and, respectfully, a political distraction to undertaking the hard work required to actually implement it.”

This was a quote from a federal minister. This quote came from the Attorney General of Canada, federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould. She said that. She said it was “a political distraction to undertaking the hard work required to actually implement it.”

She was here during the ceremony. She was sitting right up there. She was acknowledged by everybody. And I must say that I’ve always respected Jody Wilson-Raybould. Knowing her background, knowing where she came from, I’ve always respected her. When she made that quote to the Assembly of First Nations, my respect level went even higher, because what she said took courage — to honestly speak about UNDRIP. That took courage, because the narrative was going a different way.

Before politics, Jody Wilson-Raybould was both a treaty commissioner and Regional Chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. I believe that, like me, she understood Aboriginal issues inside and out. She understood the politics. She understood all the mechanisms. She understood treaty. She understood all of it. I also believe that she knows the same struggles that I knew and that every other band councillor and chief councillor in Canada faces in the fight to improve the lives of our people.

[4:55 p.m.]

Any attempt to improve the lives of Aboriginal people living on and off reserve is worth considering, as long as it is an immediate goal and is the ultimate goal. But if it needs 20 years of definition through the courts, I don’t support it. First Nations have spent enough time in the courts. They’ve spent enough money on lawyers, consultants, advisers. They’ve spent enough time. There’s a tremendous amount of literature out there put together by lawyers and judges and courts, but it didn’t provide a future for Aboriginal people themselves.

I know I’m going to sound like a broken record, but my priority has always been people. It’s never going to change.

Interjection.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. I’m not going to keep this short, by the way.

My main concern has always been people — all people. So if we’re talking about an initiative that improves the lives of all people, whether you’re Aboriginal or not, I support it — definitely, I support it. But I can’t support something that’s going to end up being defined by the courts, especially when we spent so much time already with the case law principles in Canada that actually help Aboriginal people on the ground.

Because actions, in my mind, actually speak louder than words. That’s what’s most important. One of the chiefs that were here last week said the same thing. They’re just words. I agree with Terry Teegee, the chief of the AFN.

Now, when I talked about Aboriginal business being a multi-billion-dollar business in Canada, those weren’t my words. Those were actually past Aboriginal leaders that spoke about it and actually proved it. Those Aboriginal leaders, like Jody Wilson-Raybould, who had the courage to speak in political realities and legislative realities, deserve the utmost respect — to speak against narratives. Because we’ve come a long way in Canada. We’ve come a long way in B.C.

I’m hoping that this UNDRIP bill is not an exercise or experiment, because we’ve made tremendous progress. Even if we do debate here forever about the word consent or veto or shared decision-making, ultimately, at the end of the day, if push comes to shove, the courts will determine those questions. All of the significant cases I outlined earlier lend a real voice to legal rights in Canada.

The Premier said that UNDRIP would not contravene section 35 of the constitution. I thank him for that. Nor can UNDRIP supersede or override all the case law that has led to the most progress for Aboriginal people. I agree with that fully, and I think I made that clearer today.

After all, UNDRIP is really just a statement of principles. UNDRIP actually doesn’t acknowledge or recognize the progress of a country like Canada when we’re talking about case law principles or the constitution. Only section 35 and the legal precedents established by case law are binding. Like I said already, most of what I read in an UNDRIP document ten years ago already existed in Canada, thanks to existing case law.

Plus, nobody is going to stop a First Nation from pursuing self-determination. No one’s going to stop them. No one’s going to stop their dream of being self-governing. There’s no law to stop them. Even the Indian Act can’t stop them.

It’s a different world today. That’s what case law did for First Nations. Where it really matters in today’s context and the last ten years is on the ground, when bilateral and multilateral agreements are signed between First Nations, industry and government. That’s where it matters. That’s on the back of section 35 in the case law.

[5:00 p.m.]

What I’m trying to understand is what the UNDRIP bill means in terms of going forward in B.C. There were comments about how we’re going to move away from transactional agreements, and we’re going to move more towards relationship building. That’s going to be a curious episode to watch unfold, because all the progress we’ve seen in B.C. right now is all based on transactional agreements. That’s a foundation of case law. The Premier says himself that it’s not going to contravene section 35 of the constitution or the case law.

Well, the case law says that if you’re going to infringe Aboriginal rights and title, then you’ve got to accommodate it. You’ve got to give something in return to justify that infringement. That’s a transactional agreement.

By the way, accommodation is not just money. Accommodation could be a technical change to the project description. It could be a routing change. It could be a number of things to accommodate a First Nations interest. I don’t understand how forming a relationship is going to keep B.C. moving forward in terms of forestry operations, LNG operations, mining operations or anything else that’s proposed for B.C.

You have to have a contractual agreement someplace. I don’t think any First Nation is going to allow a major development on their property just because they signed a relationship document. Those days are over. First Nations now are moving more towards contractually binding agreements that lay out the terms for revenue-sharing, employment, training, contracts. That’s the reality of today. That is a transactional agreement. If you do find some First Nation that allows development based on a relationship, introduce me to them. I’ll change their mind.

I mean, for this, all you’ve got to look at….

Interjection.

E. Ross: What’s this?

An Hon. Member: He’s just heckling.

E. Ross: Why are you heckling, speaker?

Interjection.

E. Ross: No, you’re not.

Deputy Speaker: Members will come to order. The member for Skeena has the floor.

E. Ross: We stayed quiet during your guys’ speeches.

Interjection.

E. Ross: No, you’re not.

I mean, we only have to look at the 345 revenue-sharing agreements that were negotiated by the previous government. That is a transactional agreement, in many different areas — environmental stewardship initiative, forest and range agreement, mining agreements, the power line that actually went by Nisg̱a’a territory. That was a transactional agreement, and it’s based on section 35 and the case law.

LNG Canada — transactional agreement. Chevron, Kitimat LNG, Cedar LNG — they’re all contractual agreements. Forestry — it’s a contractual agreement, transactional. It’s not based on a relationship.

To be honest, when I was a chief councillor, I didn’t want a relationship with anybody. I didn’t want a relationship with government. I didn’t want a relationship with industry. Give me something on paper that allows my people to dig themselves out of poverty. Give them a future. That’s what I wanted, and the only way that I could see that…. We need a transactional agreement.

Everything that we’ve done and accomplished in B.C. in the last 15 years was done without these principles, without UNDRIP principles. So I want to believe the government is saying that this is a way forward and it’s going to build on past successes. I truly hope that’s what happens, because if it does work out the way I’m hearing it, B.C. is going to be a really strong province economic-wise — really strong. We’re going to have peace in the woods on pipelines, forestry, mining, across the board. You name it.

First Nations will be less dependent on government funding, because they’ll have their own revenue streams, and their people will not be stuck on welfare. They will not be stuck in poverty and all the social issues that get attached along with that.

I still want clarity on agreement versus veto. Those Aboriginal leaders that were here before were my colleagues. I used to work with them at tables — separate tables and common tables. But I never remember having this talk about agreement versus veto. What I heard in the House last week was agreement is consent, consent is agreement, which is good. That’s what the case law says too.

[5:05 p.m.]

My question is: what happens in the case of non-agreement? That is my question. If there are two parties at the table, First Nations and the Crown, and the First Nation doesn’t agree, what happens? Does the Crown still go ahead and make their decision based on the interests of B.C. as a whole? Or do they just withhold their decision, which is what we’re seeing now in terms of the forestry sector.

Making no decision is still a decision. When you talk about that, if you have no decision for a certain amount of time that goes beyond the time we’re talking about in here, isn’t that a form of veto? I don’t know where to get clarity on this. Section 35 in the case law does say that the Crown has a duty to the province as a whole. You’ve got to consult and accommodate the best you can, but at some point, you’ve got to make a decision. So if there’s no agreement at this table, what happens? There are a lot of permits and authorizations, environmental assessments, that depend on the government making a decision.

Now, if you can answer that, can somebody tell me what happens when the Crown is at the table with three or four different First Nations, and three First Nations agree but one doesn’t? Does the Crown withhold its decision? If that’s not a veto, I’d like some explanation on what that is, if the Crown doesn’t make a decision until they get that final agreement. In some cases, this could take months, if not years. So just a little bit of clarity.

I’ve seen a number of different definitions of what “consent” means. That’s just one of them. When we’re talking about authorizations coming from the Crown — forestry, pipeline permits, mining permits….

You know, there’s this idea that somehow the colonialists want their permits so they can rape and pillage the land and make lots of money. Well, there are a lot of First Nations that are depending on those permits too. First Nations want to be loggers. The forest and range agreement enabled that ten years ago. They’re waiting on those permits. There are First Nations that are actually leading environmental assessments for their own purposes, for their own projects. They’re waiting for that Crown decision. They’re respecting the Crown’s authority, and they want it.

I think the first thing that I’d like to work together on with that side of the House is: what does it all mean — consent, agreement, veto — in respect of the Crown’s authority to make a decision that benefits all of British Columbia? I’ve heard the comment that we’ve got to work together on this. I would love to work on that. Include me in your discussions. Invite me to your meetings. I’d love to be a fly on the wall, because I just want some clarity. Like everybody else, I want certainty. I don’t want the certainty that we have achieved in the last 15 years in B.C. to go away.

For the most part, I understand the bill. I understand UNDRIP. I understand all of it. But the more opinions I read on this coming from leaders and legal expertise and advisers and consultants, the more confused this issue is becoming.

I just tried to read an 87-page document on consent. The title is “Consent.” It’s 87 pages on one word, but it didn’t define “consent.” It was written by a lawyer. Now I’m going to have to get another lawyer to review this and kind of explain to me what this means if I want to understand the principle behind that.

You know, in listening to the conversation over aboriginal issues in B.C. for the last couple of years, you’d think that B.C. is the worst place in the world when it comes to reconciliation. I have a different opinion. In fact, I have the opposite opinion.

[5:10 p.m.]

I mean, 39 years of reconciliation. To be honest, though, to be fair, there are a lot of First Nations that are not in the shoes of my band. They don’t have the same opportunity because of location or resources. They don’t have that — the remoteness. They don’t have the same opportunity. But the reconciliation between First Nation and First Nation can help resolve that. We can reach out, and we can help them. We can give them lessons learned.

But we can’t tell British Columbians: “You’re the worst people on earth, and you don’t respect Aboriginals.” Not up in my neck of the woods. I mean, it’s been a rough, rocky road for sure — no doubt. It hasn’t been pretty, but it’s not like 100 years ago. It’s definitely not like that. In fact, when I was explaining this to my parents…. I was trying to explain every step of the way what we’re doing, as well as explain to our community. My mother’s comment was: “I wish I was 40 years younger, because we never had this opportunity.” So we can’t go on convincing British Columbians that this is the worst place in Canada when we talk about reconciliation. That is not a good road to start on. We should acknowledge the progress that B.C. has had in the last 15 years, which started in 1982.

You know, the biggest significant advancement in terms of reconciliation that affected my band, as well as all the bands from Kitimat to Prince George, as well as down the channel, was LNG. Now, back in 2004, nobody knew what LNG was. I didn’t know what it was — no idea. But the first project proposed for Kitimat was actually an import facility, and it was proposed, like, $600 million. We fought hard to get those guys off of Crown land and onto our reserve where there was less environmental impact. We fought for two years, but when they finally agreed, we could see that by changing it to an export facility, we could reap the rewards of working with this company and working with the province.

When we talk about the LNG final investment decision that was made by LNG Canada, we can’t think that this just happened lately in the last two years. It didn’t. This story started in 2004. It took a lot of successful councils to actually hammer that agreement down. You go back even further. My band started looking at import facilities back in the ’80s under Pac-Rim.

There was always this willingness to bring in industry, bring in economic development, but we just couldn’t get it over some hurdles. Ten years to reconcile all of these agreements, and it was tough. Our council was always changing over. We’d have a sea change of government, change of staff, but we were focused. It wasn’t funny. It wasn’t pretty. It wasn’t amicable. I think I mentioned once before that the biggest fights I had weren’t with the government. They were with my colleagues. It wasn’t fun beating up on somebody like that. It wasn’t fun looking at a government decision that actually affected us in a negative manner.

It’s my opinion that when we were doing this in the initial days, our actions on both sides were actually based on ignorance. We didn’t know much about the provincial government and the minister’s duties, and in turn, the provincial government didn’t understand what we were going through in terms of an Indian Act band and in terms of what we thought about our interpretation of Aboriginal rights and title case law.

Eventually we came to a common ground, and then things went smoothly. In fact, if anything, the previous provincial government and the Haisla actually walked side by side, and industry had no choice but to get in line. They had to come to the table. Industry couldn’t play off government against our First Nation. They couldn’t do it because the government, according to case law, had a fundamental duty to acknowledge and address Aboriginal rights and title.

[5:15 p.m.]

The previous government took it to a different level, of course, but now we had industry…. The first step was to get government to understand — a mutual understanding. The second step: get industry to understand that actually, the provincial government and our First Nation are on the same page. All the First Nations from Prince George to Kitimat benefited from that. That’s why you have all the agreements from all the elected band councils from Prince George to Kitimat. It came through dialogue.

You know, the reconciliation I’m talking about wasn’t just us sitting at a table creating relationships. We signed a protocol agreement with the provincial government that actually still exists today. We had reviewed other protocols that had been signed by other First Nations, and the one thing we noted was that it was too complicated. It was too bureaucratic. If we had to call in a lawyer or a university student to explain to us the agreement that we had developed ourselves, it wasn’t going to work.

Our band actually put together a simplified protocol that just basically said: if we have general agreement on a project, then all we have to do is develop a way for our staff to phone the provincial staff if an issue comes up. That’s all it should take: just a phone call. The council should not have to get involved. We shouldn’t have to call the ministers or elected leaders of the provincial government. The staff from our respective parties should be able to hammer it out.

It worked; it’s still working today. That’s why you don’t see political leaders jumping in to have a tussle with provincial governments at every single issue. It’s because the staff have been mandated, on both sides, to deal with the issue. That was a form of reconciliation.

By the time industry got on board, the problems that we’d had to hammer out became less and less. Industry understood that the provincial government was not going to allow any permits to go ahead unless our rights and title had been fully satisfied. So the industry came to us and said, “Okay, we want to get your interests into the application before we submit it,” and it worked wonders.

When the provincial government phoned us up and said, “Hey, we just got this application for a permit. What do you think about it? What do you think about your rights and title? What do you think about consultation and accommodation?” we’d just say: “Don’t worry about it; just process it. They’ve already talked to us, and we’ve seen it. It’s in the application. They’ve already addressed it.” It made things move a lot quicker. That is reconciliation. That is meeting on common ground. That is a process that should be built upon. It should be duplicated.

Now, shared decision-making is an old idea — I came across this idea when I became treaty chairman, back in 2003, for my band — but we abandoned it a long time ago. We did all the research within treaty, and it kind of died on the vine quietly. At first we championed it, and we loved it. But then we realized that actually, it doesn’t really accomplish what we’re trying to achieve.

In my opinion, as treaty chairman, there was just too much bureaucracy, too much negotiation, too much legalese, too much responsibility and definitely too much liability. I really felt that my band was not ready for liability. I felt that for the long term, we weren’t ready for responsibility. We had no continuity as a band council. Our elections were every two years, and we had no corporate memory. I tried to fix both of those — corporate memory and continuity. I tried to fix it, but I couldn’t do it.

One of the reasons I gave to my band members and my council was that if we have shared liability on this shared decision-making — we both sign that decision, both minister and chief and council, and we share in the liability — things might go great, but then, 50 years down the line, something might go terribly wrong. The chief and council, 50 years down the line, who’d have no idea that we had actually signed this agreement on shared decision-making are going to be confronted with a Mount Polley disaster, and they’re going to have no idea of how to deal with it.

[5:20 p.m.]

That’s what continuity means. That’s what lack of corporate memory means, and I couldn’t do this without a good governance structure. So I abandoned it. I didn’t talk about it anymore. Plus, by then the Crown and the industry were already incorporating all our interests into the permits and applications and into the environmental assessments.

The ignorance of First Nations towards the Crown and the Crown’s ignorance of First Nations’ issues got resolved just by education. That’s how it got resolved. We pulled in a lobbyist in 2010 that was supposed to help us come down here to Victoria and actually lobby the provincial government. Well, before he did that, he gave us a lesson on what government was. That’s where we understood finally, for the first time, that government, the B.C. government, has a duty to all British Columbians. They have statutory decision-making authorities. They have a responsibility to be accountable and transparent not only to us but to all British Columbians.

We softened our approach to the government. We had their support. We had their backing, but that was the first time that I ever heard the word “fettering.” It was actually a deputy minister that told me this: that what we were actually asking, in the early days, was for a minister to fetter his decision-making powers. So I pulled out my electric dictionary and looked up the word “fettering.” And then I understood. We abandoned the idea of shared decision-making.

The other thing that I also realized back in those days was that some of the decisions we were making, some of the agreements we were signing, were putting non–First Nations in a very distrustful atmosphere. It was always complaints from the local governments that what the government was doing with us was actually secret negotiations with my band, and it was going to affect, somehow, the municipality, the regional district or somebody along the pipeline route. I understood this.

I understood when government would come down and say: “Well, we have to disclose this to your neighbours. We have to disclose this to your neighbouring First Nations. You can redact. You can edit. You can leave out the business information, the sensitive information, but we’ve got to tell them the nature of what we’re doing here.”

We understood this, and we actually agreed with it because we didn’t want the negative backlash to come back on our people. We didn’t want our people to go shopping and then be confronted with somebody that said that somehow we took away their future, their job. We didn’t want that. So we understood why government had to do this on behalf of all British Columbians. It puts First Nations in a bad spot if it’s done in a bilateral fashion and in secret, and it’s only disclosed after you sign the agreement.

We were still trying to formulate this process on how to interact with our neighbours by the time I left. It came down to relationship-building — trust. Unfortunately, I never did establish that, but it was always in the back of my mind because we don’t want B.C. to be divided simply on the basis that we want to uplift Aboriginals in B.C. We don’t want that. We don’t want animosity from First Nations to non–First Nations or likewise. We don’t want that. That does not benefit anybody.

You know, the lines are starting to blur between the Indian Act world and the province of B.C. in terms of Crown authority and Crown lands. First Nations themselves are private land owners now. My band owns private land. We pay taxes on it. Our band members own land in the municipality of Kitimat, Terrace, Rupert and Vancouver. They own property. It’s not reserve land. So when we’re talking about people that are having a fear of what that means to private property owners, in terms of UNDRIP, well, we’re talking about First Nations too.

I personally, myself, don’t think that any government is going to say: “Okay, we’re going to subject private land owners to some type of third-party authority.” I don’t think the B.C. government intends to do that, but it’s a concern. Somehow we’re going to have to go back to all our ridings, all 87 ridings, and say: “No, that’s not an issue. Your house on your property that you purchased in fee simple status — it’s okay.”

[5:25 p.m.]

Now the rights and title case law does speak about private land, but it hasn’t been defined yet in terms of what it means.

You know, everything that I read in the declaration, UNDRIP, were things that I thought were already in place in B.C. and Canada. It took me a week to go back and read all the case law, as well as read up on UNDRIP again to kind of get acquainted with it, because I haven’t read anything regarding this in the last five years. Didn’t have to. Things were going too good for us to go back and retouch on those case law principles or UNDRIP.

I’ve already said that a lot of the stuff in the UNDRIP declaration was already there, like self-determination. It was already there. The right to preserve your own language and culture — it’s already there. Nobody’s going to stop us. But free, prior and informed consent — that is a principle of UNDRIP. But in practice….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Member.

Members, if you could please reduce the volume of your conversation or take it outside if you need to have this conversation. You’re interrupting my ability to hear the speaker.

E. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Where was I? That was humorous, by the way.

Deputy Speaker: You’ve got time.

E. Ross: Free, prior and informed consent under UNDRIP. Now, when I first looked at this, I thought: “Well, the case law already provides for that.” It’s a part of case law that you have to meaningfully consult First Nations on a project that’s going to infringe rights and title. You have to be informed.

What it didn’t talk about, what UNDRIP didn’t talk about, is that consultation, in terms of free, prior and informed consent, has got to be a two-way street. That’s what case law in Canada says. If I refused to consult on a Crown authorization or permit, then I did so at my own detriment, because if the Crown was meaningfully and honourably trying to consult and accommodate our rights and title, then I had a duty to respond. If I didn’t respond, I had to find a different avenue to present my interests.

That’s why I didn’t put much thought into free, prior and informed consent. Consent is part of case law, in terms of: that’s what the Crown should be pursuing. It’s always an aspiration that all parties should have consent. So it’s not a new word. It has already been in practice for many, many years. That’s why we have LNG. That’s why we have peace in the woods.

I have a conclusion here. But I’m going to try and condense the conclusion, because I think a lot of this stuff I already said before.

In conclusion, I’m looking forward to the next two years to see what the results are of this bill. I don’t understand it fully. I’ve never understood UNDRIP fully, based on what I’ve already said.

I think if there is one thing that I take away from this, it’s to think about last week when we had the ceremony in the House. We had the Aboriginal leaders sitting there. We had Jody Wilson-Raybould sitting in the audience, as well as the architect of that motion that was made federally, and we had the leaders of our respective parties stand up and make comment. Well, the one thing that jumped out at me was a number of leaders in this House, including the Aboriginal leaders, said: “We are all in this together.”

Now, I’ve got a billboard in between Kitimat and Terrace with my picture on it, sadly to say. It says that exactly. It says: “We are all in this together.” That’s what it says. That is not my saying. That is actually…. That came from a judge when he was describing the judgment of a case law principle that came out. Basically, what he said was that we’ve got to learn to reconcile.

Interjection.

E. Ross: Who was it? Was it Delgamuukw? Yeah, to my colleague from Stikine. Yeah, that’s right, Delgamuukw.

[5:30 p.m.]

Basically, what he said was that we better find a way to reconcile, because let’s face it, none of us are going anywhere. The Leader of the Official Opposition said the same thing. The Aboriginal leaders said the same thing. And I echo that statement.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

It was actually the judge that made me first think about that, over ten years ago. I’ve always spoken to it. I spoke to it while I was on council. It really went back to what we’ve already established under section 35 in the case law. These are all principles that Canada, and B.C. in particular, has been trying hard to achieve.

At the end of the day, I have non-native family. I have cousins, uncles and aunties. I don’t want to alienate them. I don’t want anything in terms of trying to address the First Nations issues in B.C. to be the cause of division of the society we have in B.C. I don’t want to divide our communities. I don’t want to divide our families. Most certainly, I don’t want to create animosity between First Nations and non–First Nations. I don’t want that.

I was really glad that a lot of leaders spoke about reconciliation in terms of we’re all in this together. If you looked at the definition of “reconciliation,” it actually means: “Let’s bring it back together.” So if you read that definition alone, then it somehow implies that at one point in history, we were together. Somehow, we separated, and now we’ve got to reconcile. I believe in that fully.

I do hope that this bill and the declaration achieves us coming together, even more so than what we’ve done in the last ten years, which was incredible progress. And I hope that this doesn’t end up in the courts or in legal hands for the next ten or 20 years, because we don’t want to go back 20 years in time. We want to build on our successes to date, and we definitely want to build a strong future for all British Columbians.

S. Malcolmson: I’m honoured to represent Snuneymuxw territory and to represent Nanaimo in this Legislature and so honoured, at this historic time, to be one of the people that gets to speak to Bill 41, the act to implement the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples; to bring this United Nations legislation, enacted in 2007, into law so that from this point on, every provincial legislation — as did our environmental assessment revamp last year — embeds the UN declaration immediately in it; to get these fights out of the courts and to start working together — incorporated with full recognition of the Indigenous rights, human rights, that do exist, moving forward in a way that incorporates them into everything we do.

I’m thinking of my friend Bob Chamberlin. He was, a year ago today, working hard with a big team and with our provincial government to work using the principles of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples to hit one of British Columbia’s most intractable problems. For 30 years, people on the coast have been fighting to protect wild salmon, to protect jobs, to protect our coast. We could not get past the logjam of conflict over fish farms.

Just a year ago, although it was very quiet in the background, our government was working with three First Nations in what we call the Broughton Archipelago on a consensus — not a negotiation but a conversation — where two governments sitting down together found a way through. Their work was so compelling that at the last minute, industry, which had been fighting, understandably, for their jobs, for their economy…. This came out of the courts and moved to a big circular table, which ended up being able to achieve the breakthrough that we’ve been waiting decades to get.

[5:35 p.m.]

It was a great announcement that the Premier made, along with a number of the ministers here who I’m now honoured to serve with, to say that there had been an agreement reached on moving 17 fish farms out of the wild salmon migration routes.

In the year following, these are the results that we’ve had from that work already: four fish farms already out. In 2020, another two fish farms. In 2021, another fish farm. And then, in 2022, another six. These are all done on a timeline that works with jobs, that works with keeping salmon farming going, but not in a way that is placed in the wild salmon migration routes. In 2023, there will be a final seven that are covered by this agreement, which may remain if there is consent of the affected Broughton First Nations and if the DFO licence is given.

Again, a way to use the principles of UNDRIP to change the outcome of legislation. This was the first decision-making in Canada that was based on UNDRIP. With the passage of this legislation, we can see that there can be so much more.

I’m very grateful to my friend Bob Chamberlin. They used traditional ecological knowledge. They used shared decision-making and accessed the independent science for testing viruses, building on the work that Alexandra Morton fought for, for so long. Now we have this embedded in agreements.

I’m also thinking of my friend Romeo Saganash, who joined us. He’s a Cree leader from northern Quebec. That he was here sitting in the gallery on this momentous day last Thursday says a lot. Romeo is a New Democrat Member of Parliament that I served with in the previous parliament. He is a residential school survivor. So was his family before him. He was the deputy Grand Chief, Council of the Crees. He was also the first Cree lawyer in Quebec.

He went to the United Nations to build the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. It was his life’s work. Then, when he was elected as a Member of Parliament, he turned it into legislation that we weren’t sure that the Liberal government would support. They did in the end. Then, at the final minute, it was blocked by Conservatives in the Senate — a great disappointment.

His bill, C-262, was supported by KAIROS, by the Mennonite community. People from the faith community, in particular, marched across parts of the country to Ottawa to urge that this bill, the UNDRIP legislation, federally be enacted.

Following the ceremony here last week, it was so good to be out with our old friend Murray Rankin, with Romeo Saganash and Leah Gazan, his partner and newly elected Member of Parliament, and to have Romeo say to us: “You know, I hoped it would pass in parliament, but I always thought it would come to British Columbia.” And now here it is, another person’s life’s work bundled in and reflected in this legislation.

There is so much hope and optimism. I’m so proud of the work of Snuneymuxw chief and council. Chief Wyse is following in the powerful footsteps of his mother, who made agreements with all the local partners. And just now, in just these past couple of weeks, Chief Wyse is signing agreements with the Port of Nanaimo, with the city of Nanaimo. I think it’s coming with the regional district. It’s all about relationships and not fighting in the courts but working hand to hand. We know we will not protect our coast, our jobs, our people without all governments at all levels partnering.

I echo the words of Terry Teegee and Ed John in this chamber. We do hope that there will be unanimous support in this House for this groundbreaking legislation and that we will be moving forward together in a good way when Bill 41 is passed and that we will show the rest of Canada what reconciliation in action looks like — the certainty, the economy that can be freed up by this and the great optimism it expresses.

I thank the minister and his team for making this happen.

My great thanks to the voters of Nanaimo for allowing me to be part of this government, to be part of this historic work.

D. Ashton: As elected officials, we are all committed to building a future that’s full of opportunity and prosperity for everyone in British Columbia. Every British Columbian deserves that opportunity to meet their full potential. We owe this much to all of us and, in particular, our children and the next generations, who will be the stewards of this great province.

[5:40 p.m.]

We all know that opportunity is something that we must create, and it does not just happen. That is why every government, regardless of political stripe, has always invested so heavily in education and other services and supports that help our children and families prosper and succeed.

We also know that our natural environment must be protected for future generations. It is part and parcel of our mutual responsibility for the success of our communities. British Columbians are especially connected to their natural environment and intuitively have a deep appreciation and connection to it. We all know and can all agree that for far too many years, not all of us have shared fully the opportunity that is available to so many British Columbians within this province. Fortunately, we took the first steps in significantly turning this around over ten years ago in forestry and in LNG industries, for an example.

In particular, too many Indigenous people have struggled to achieve the same level of prosperity that has been attainable for others, which is not acceptable. Many Indigenous communities have faced a disproportionate level of child poverty, suicide and impoverishment to other populations. It has been a challenge, recognized many years ago, and something government has wrestled with to help change this course, working closely with Indigenous leaders across this wonderful province.

The UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples is built on the concept of supporting rights, freedoms, dignity and a quality of life for Indigenous peoples. Those same ideas apply right here in British Columbia. Furthermore, this government has stated it will be based on section 35 in jurisprudence, which can only build on the successes of the last ten years. These principles are something that all British Columbians can support.

The B.C. Liberals have always committed to working together towards true reconciliation for all Indigenous people in every part of this province. We have demonstrated this with meaningful actions towards reconciliation over several years, many of which focus on the closing of serious gaps that existed in education, employment and public health. While gaps still remain, much of this work started more than 50 years ago and still continues to this day. It is work that we all support and work that we are all committed to taking further action on together.

We know that partnerships are essential to reconciliation. Economic partnerships that build opportunity for all British Columbians will be critical to all of our futures. Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act protects and respects Indigenous and treaty rights and has led to the establishment of duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous communities.

Meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples is what B.C. Liberals have done for the past 15 years. In fact, by 2017, we had signed more than 500 agreements with First Nations across this wonderful, great province, 345 of which were revenue-sharing agreements with 242 different First Nations.

British Columbia was the first province in the country to share revenue from mining, from forestry and other resources with First Nations. The agreements mentioned were signed with nearly all of more than 200 First Nations in British Columbia. They were designed to ensure understanding and to recognize the needs and the values of each community, because foundational to each of these agreements are the principles of dignity and mutual respect.

As part of the B.C. jobs plan, the B.C. Liberal government created a new Aboriginal Business and Investment Council to work more closely with First Nations to foster wealth-creating partnerships. Between 2001 and 2015, the First Nations fund provided nearly $51 million for 1,737 business loans to Aboriginal businesses.

In 2015, our government launched the Aboriginal skills training development program to invest up to $30 million over three years to fill training gaps for First Nations who wanted to participate in the emerging LNG sector. From 2008 to March 2016, the Aboriginal trades training initiatives program helped cover over 3,000 Aboriginal peoples to receive skills training.

[5:45 p.m.]

Through the Canada job fund, $6.7 million in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 was directed to support over 753 Aboriginal clients to access trades training.

In May of 2016, we hosted a children and families gathering with the First Nations Leadership Council. That gathering was the result of the Premier’s commitment at the 2015 B.C. Cabinet and First Nations Leaders Gathering to host a meeting in 2016 to bring together child-serving agencies, individuals and communities to talk about ensuring Aboriginal approaches for children in care and who need support. At the time of government transitions, at least 40 of Grand Chief Ed John’s recommendations from his report Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification: From Root Causes to Root Solutions were already underway, and the province was reviewing others to see how they might be incorporated.

When it comes to education, our government increased the six-year high school completion rate for First Nations students from 39 percent to 63 percent. The number of credentials awarded to Aboriginal students in the post-secondary education system increased from 27 percent — to 3,440 in 2014-2015, and from 2,634 in 2009-2010 — under the B.C. Aboriginal post-secondary education training framework and action plan. And 93 percent of school districts in British Columbia had Aboriginal enhancement agreements that established partnerships between Aboriginal communities and school districts to meet the educational needs of Aboriginal students.

In health, B.C.’s First Nations Health Authority was the first provincewide health authority of its kind in Canada. It worked with First Nations, Health Canada, the B.C. government and the provincial health system to improve health programs and services and foster a health and wellness approach that reflects First Nations culture. In 2015, the provincial government, regional health authorities, the Provincial Health Services Authority and First Nations Health Authority signed the Declaration of Commitment: Cultural Safety and Humility in Health Services for First Nations and the Aboriginal People of British Columbia.

When it comes to public safety, our government co-hosted the B.C. family gathering event for over 350 family members of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. The province has shared the feedback with the federal government and participants in the Roundtable on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. And in September of 2016, the province provided $2,500 to support the work of the Moose Hide Campaign, a growing movement of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men dedicated to ending the violence against women and children.

All of these things and more have been steps on the path to reconciliation and demonstrate our party’s commitments, our beliefs, our dedication to ensuring that we can continue to work with First Nations as they work towards self-determination and independence.

With this bill now before us in the House, it is important to carefully review and consider the intent and implications. We owe that to every single Indigenous person in this province and every other citizen. We know at any time there are significant processes of change, reconciliation and perceived change in the approach to engagement with First Nations and Indigenous peoples, and it will generate many questions. Those questions will include: what about grazing rights for cattle on Crown leases? How do we manage our parks and the use of B.C.’s massive back country? Will the forest industry need to make adaptations, and what will they be? How will mining activity and other resources be affected? Will there be any impacts to private land and homeowners?

These questions will be posed to the government of the day as each election cycle comes and goes. They will also be asked here in the House and also in the public by media and by all the people that we represent, our constituents. As a society, we will need to address them, and all the while, we will need to respect the needs, the hopes and the dreams of everyone involved, most especially the people in each and every one of our communities.

[5:50 p.m.]

This is now the responsibility of government as it is the expectation of all British Columbians. If we can build on the two decades of progress and the efforts to help support Indigenous communities improve their prosperity, the reward will be true and lasting opportunity for everybody in British Columbia to get ahead. We need to be transparent. We need to be open. We don’t want to see a repeat of the mountain caribou process, where First Nations were put in a bad spot. This will mean we can all realize our dreams right here in British Columbia.

As we move forward reviewing this bill, we must do so in the spirit of unity, and we must do so guided by the principles that everyone in this great province must feel a sense of belonging, that British Columbia is our home, that we will be respected here, that we will have a full sense of citizenship, that we will be treated with respect and dignity on each and every day. This is the standard that we owe every single British Columbian.

That is why I’m proud to stand here in this Legislature and welcome an opportunity for real and substantive discussions on how we can achieve a higher level of reconciliation with the Indigenous people of this province of British Columbia.

Hon. D. Donaldson: It’s hard to describe the joy, the pleasure, the happiness and how grateful I am to be able to rise in the second reading of Bill 41 to express my support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It’s a historic moment. It’s a moment where B.C. becomes the first province in Canada to put the UN declaration into action, to enshrine the UN declaration in legislation, recognizing in law the human rights of Indigenous peoples.

I want to take just a couple of moments here to describe why, through personal experience, I find this so important. Before I became an MLA, I was working and living — I still am — for 30 years in Gitxsan territory, working in community economic development. What struck me is the opportunities in the Hazeltons, on Gitxsan territories and around the province, the opportunities that the land provides, yet how few First Nations people were able to take advantage of those opportunities — not just to see the opportunities but to act on them.

It begged the question and became a question in my mind and many other peoples’ minds: what is it that allows a person to see that opportunity and then act on that opportunity? That’s a complex question, and it has many facets to it. But what we do know is what stifles that ability to see that opportunity and to act on it. What has stifled it in many areas, and where I live as well, is the continual unrelenting abuse of basic human rights that is part of colonization. Many have been able to overcome that continual and unrelenting abuse of human rights, but many, many more have not been able to.

I think of the young people — I categorize people from 18 to 28 as young people — that we used to work with, before I became an MLA, in community economic development. There was this core of young people who could not see a future for themselves and could not see a future for their community. They had no ability to imagine that they could impact that future, their own or of their community.

We know that that’s complex and multifaceted, but it’s also why the introduction of this bill and the introduction of it in first reading and today is such a joyous, joyous occasion, because the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act is about recognizing the human rights of Indigenous peoples in law.

[5:55 p.m.]

We know there are myths around the word “consent” being part of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and that meaning of “veto” that was dispelled by none other than the B.C. Assembly of First Nations representative Terry Teegee, who spoke to that during first reading and made it clear that consent does not mean veto.

We know about the myth that this act will increase uncertainty for business on the land base, because we have the Business Council of B.C. supporting this initiative. We have the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. associating this approach that we’re taking. We have LNG Canada supporting this approach. We know that the myth that this will create more uncertainty is exactly that.

Why it has such relevancy when it comes to the economic aspect is that human rights and economic self-sufficiency are linked, that human rights and becoming a master of one’s own economic destiny — whether that’s an individual destiny, whether that’s the destiny of a community or a nation — are linked.

That’s why this bill is so important, because this bill fundamentally is about a transformational approach, not a transactional approach. Many people wonder what that means — transformational versus transactional. Transactional approach has been the approach that was taken in the past with First Nations in B.C. from the provincial government. That’s a project-by-project approach. In other words: “If government does this, will you agree to do that so a project can proceed?” Yes, that is important, but it’s fraught with all sorts of risk and challenges if we only do that on a project-by-project basis.

Everybody knows, especially people in First Nations communities, how much energy and capacity that takes and the time involved to always proceed on a transactional approach. In fact, a transactional approach is what the courts have directed must occur. This bill is not about consultation. That’s something that has to occur. That’s been clear in successive court cases — and then accommodation, if infringement is found. That’s a transactional approach.

Yet instead, what we’re talking about here with this bill is a transformational approach, where we make a bigger framework. We as government with First Nations make a bigger framework, based on shared principles, shared ethics, shared values and shared morals. The projects will fall under that. That overall transformational framework that is embodied in Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, has been missing in the past. That transformational approach gets us out of the boom-and-bust cycle that many First Nations communities in rural areas face, because it’s been based on single projects. This is truly a new relationship, as embodied by the declaration.

I want to read a quote into the record from a good friend of mine, Gitanyow Hereditary Chief Glen Williams, in reference to this declaration and this act. He says: “My grandfather, a Gitxsan High Chief, said to me in the 1980s: ‘You watch. One day our Gitxsan way of life; our traditional laws; our lax’yip, the territories, will be enshrined in the white man’s laws, non-Indigenous laws. It will be a small, faint light. Then it will begin to glow, and then it will glitter in their supreme law.’”

Glen goes on to say: “With B.C. legislating the UN declaration, it will signal and provide opportunities for meaningful coexistence, true redress, to be recognized as the proper rights holders, partnerships on the lax’yip to jointly manage, plan and share the economic fruits.” That is what Glen Williams said, and that’s what his grandfather, this High Chief, said about what we’re doing here today.

I just want to finish off on these brief comments in such joy and happiness when I think about what it really means in the end. What it means to me in the end is going back to those youth that I described that couldn’t imagine a future, couldn’t imagine themselves in a future in their community and couldn’t imagine them having an impact to change that future of the community. Well, after this legislation, my hope is that into the future, when I do drop by and visit these young people, they will be able to imagine a future. They will be able to imagine a future they are part of. They will be able to know that they will be able to shape the future that they are part of.

That’s what we’re all working towards in this honourable province. Hon. Speaker, I want to thank you very much and express my strong and grateful support for Bill 41.

[6:00 p.m.]

R. Sultan: I’m pleased to join the debate on Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Although I’ve been counselled by my good friend, the member for Skeena, that we should look forward, not look back, I think in terms of the non-Indigenous persons of this province — indeed, of this Legislature — to understand how we got where we are, it’s worthwhile to just briefly summarize three reasons that I think we are facing this bill today. My reasons are, if my rather mangled translation is partially accurate, Secwépemc, Squamish and Haisla.

Let’s start with Secwépemc. About 10,000 years ago, the ice sheet covering British Columbia, about a mile thick straight up…. If you started chipping away the roof of the Legislature a mile higher, you’d emerge in the clear air. Well, that ice sheet had melted sufficiently to allow our original British Columbians to populate a few bare spots, living off the land.

About 5,000 years ago, the Secwépemc people emerged, populating the lands stretching roughly north-south from Kamloops to Barkerville and roughly in an east-west direction from about Pavilion, say, to Golden — present-day names, of course. With a peak population estimated at possibly 7,000, they were reduced to not much more than 2,000 after the introduction of European diseases.

I rely upon a remarkable book authored by Secwépemc Chief Ron Ignace and his wife, Marianne Ignace — both PhDs, by the way — published by the McGill-Queen’s University Press. I commend that volume to you if you want a true understanding of the history of Aboriginals in this part of the world.

Here’s a synopsis of what this peoples’ contact, the Secwépemc contact, with our forebears added up to. In the late 1850s, a gold rush on the Fraser and Thompson rivers not only brought about the establishment of the colony of British Columbia but also precipitated a smallpox epidemic which killed about two-thirds of their population.

Then the Ignaces, in their book, relate:

“Settlers trampled over our land, supported by ordinances from 1866 to 1870 and onward that disallowed us from being granted or to own fee simple title to the lands we had occupied for thousands of years” — ordinances prevented that — “instead giving away our lands to settlers.

“After reducing, rescinding and denying the reserves which had initially been set out in 1860s, British Columbia joined the Confederation,” of Canada, “leading the federal government to enact the Indian Act applying to our lands, which established small reserves, comprising about 1 percent of the original traditional territory and dismantled the ways we ran our affairs over the objections of Elders and ancestors.”

That, fellow MLAs, is our legacy in dealing with one of the better-documented, large-scale real estate transactions in British Columbia’s history. I was unaware of it until our member for Fraser-Nicola arranged for the B.C. Liberal steelhead caucus to have lunch with the Ignaces and other band council members recently. It was a memorable experience.

Next, second example, the Squamish history. Earlier this year Angela Sterritt of CBC News described the little-known history of the Squamish in Vancouver. Synopsis: they were forced off the reserve, which had been allocated to them in what is now trendy Kitsilano, put on a barge to North Vancouver with two-days’ notice, and their homes were burned down.

[6:05 p.m.]

Did this happen about the time of Christopher Columbus or maybe Samuel de Champlain? Well no, actually. It happened a few years after my father arrived from Sweden to live in Vancouver, not that long ago, although he never talked about it.

Some history. In 1877, under the Indian Act, the federal government gave about 34 hectares of the land along Kitsilano Beach to the Squamish Nation, naming it the Kitsilano Indian Reserve. Khatsahlano, by the way, was the name of one of their Chiefs. But living on the beach, in what would in a few years become known as the Kitsilano neighbourhood, didn’t last for long, and 36 years later, the B.C. government forced them out so that the city of Vancouver could expand.

How did they do that? Well, the federal government amended the Indian Act, making it legal to remove Indigenous people, without their consent, from reserves within an incorporated city or town. Simply, Vancouver was expanding, so they had to go. As I’ve already said, they were given two days to pack up, were offered a small amount of money to get on a barge, and they were towed across English Bay to West Vancouver and North Vancouver. Their descendants are in fact, many of them, living in my constituency. As soon as the Squamish were gone, the government burned down their homes and their sheds.

In 1977, the Squamish Nation accused the federal government of having failed to protect their reserve lands, and they regained a small portion of their earlier reserve, plus a cash settlement which would add up to about the purchase of, maybe, 100 houses today, if you drove a sharp deal — not much. Do current members of the Squamish Nation, whom I bump into and talk to regularly, remember this history? They sure do.

A third story, the Haisla story. Let’s talk about what happened to the Haisla, up in Kitimat. I’m indebted to our member for Skeena and the chief councillor of the Haisla Nation for much of this information.

In Haisla territory, the first recorded contact with Europeans took place in 1792. One of Captain Vancouver’s smaller boats travelled into part of their coastline. These British mariners were met by eight Haisla in two canoes, the first Indigenous people the sailors had ever seen during their expedition.

They reported that the Haisla behaved in a very civil and friendly manner and presented them with two 70-pound chinook salmon, the finest ever seen during Vancouver’s voyage. The gift-givers were compensated with a small piece of iron and — as Vancouver reported in his journal, at least — left well pleased with the exchange. This was the first encounter with Europeans, and it was marked by cordiality and generosity.

The consequences of European settlement, however, had already been felt and lasted long after the mariners went home. Wave after wave of infectious disease, introduced in North America from Europe, had already killed most of the Indigenous population. I think that applies to most of North America.

Then the missionaries arrived. Their impact on cultural property in the Haisla was immediate. One Elder said: “When Christianity came, my great-great-grand-uncle went down to the beach and burned everything. He’d been told: ‘The Lord would not receive you if you looked to your treasures.’” Masks, spoons, whistles, regalia, headdress — everything went up in smoke, a cultural calamity which could never be remedied.

The Haisla occupied a territory spanning over 5,000 square miles. However, the reserve base ultimately set aside for the Haisla was measured in hectares. The commissioner described the reserve land he had allotted with some pride, it appears, as “low sandy ground, subject in many places to overflow” and “very worthless, being a steep hillside” and, thirdly, “a fishing station valueless for any other purpose.” Obviously, he felt that it was his job to give them the least valuable land that he could find.

[6:10 p.m.]

There were other fringe benefits. In 1884, Canada amended the Indian Act, banning potlatches and dances known as tamanawas. Participants engaging in such behavior could be imprisoned for two to six months.

A quarantine centre for influenza and tuberculosis was transformed into a residential school at Kitamaat. Children living at the school were permitted to stay with their parents only on the weekends, even though their homes were only a short walk away from the school. They were forbidden to speak the Xa’’islak̓ala language, even amongst themselves, and they were prohibited from hiring lawyers to help with land issues.

I didn’t realize this. They didn’t have the right to vote in provincial elections until 1949 or in federal elections until 1961. My goodness. I think it is healthy for us non-Indigenous folks in this chamber to understand a little bit better how our forbearers behaved. This is our history. A wonderful legacy. Supreme Court Justice Beverley McLachlin says Canada attempted to commit “cultural genocide” against Aboriginal peoples in what she calls the worst stain on Canada’s human rights record. I can’t really disagree with her. This lady calls it the way she sees it.

What can we do now? Well, we certainly, in the immediate past, did not ignore that history. Today, we have, as our member for Skeena has reminded us repetitively in his scholarly discourse on Aboriginal law and relationships, section 35 of our constitution, and we have treaties with First Nations, and we have Aboriginal rights and title embodied in case law, another prominent feature of the remarks of the member for Skeena. We have, most importantly, well-educated and determined citizens living in Indigenous communities, well aware of their heritage, well aware of what the non-Indigenous population submitted them to, and now we have a host of new legislative tools, shall we say, including UNDRIP.

These are the cumulative protections against what has happened before and will help us ensure that it doesn’t happen again: section 35; the case law; the treaties; the agreements with individual First Nations in British Columbia. The list goes on.

We, on the B.C. Liberal side of this House, can be very proud of the past 16 years, referred to so often by our friends opposite. On our previous watch, we, the representatives of the party on this side of the House, negotiated over 500 agreements with nearly all of the 200-plus First Nations in this province — 500 agreements. We negotiated with them on the basis of dignity and respect and reconciliation.

We were instructed to begin every speech…. I notice this practice has been picked up by both sides of this House and others. Civic officials, when I hear them talk of, for example, dedicating a totem pole in front of the RCMP division E memorial to the missing and murdered women just last weekend in North Vancouver, say, “We are on the traditional territory of” — what? — “the Coast Salish people,” or the Squamish or the Tsleil-Waututh, and so it goes. These were the proclamations of understanding of our status on these lands that we were taught, as B.C. Liberals, to open all our speeches with, and we did. It’s gratifying to see that the folks on the other side are fast learners, and they picked up on it and do it as well.

[6:15 p.m.]

We negotiated with them and established this basis of dignity and respect. We signed five full-fledged treaties. No small undertaking. We also signed eight agreements-in-principle — the forerunners of treaties. We also entered into 50 clean energy agreements with 27 First Nations. We also entered into individual mining agreements with 32 First Nations. We also entered into 262 forestry agreements with 156 First Nations. We also entered into 62 pipeline benefit agreements with 29 First Nations. That’s only a partial list. It goes on and on.

Let me conclude by asking a question. The government opposite has been in office for two and a half years. What does their list look like? Can they point to any agreements at all?

I just ask the question with you. I look and I look, but what I find is mostly speeches, statements, reports and plans — not action plans but just plans. However, they are very good at giving us speeches, reports and not action plans, I must admit.

D. Routley: First, I’ll answer the question the member poses opposite.

We have the first First Nations cabinet minister, a woman, in the cabinet of British Columbia — the first First Nations woman cabinet minister in the history of this province. The first Métis woman elected, and Finance Minister.

We have had First Nations leadership in this House, drumming their approval and partnership of this agreement. It’s really unfortunate. I really love the member opposite who made those remarks, but I think it’s unfortunate, and it doesn’t need to be that way. I’m not going to contribute to that right now, other than to answer that question.

I’m very proud to stand here as the provincial representative in the B.C. Legislature for the lands, or part thereof, of the Snuneymuxw First Nation, Cowichan First Nation, Penelakut, Halalt, Stz’uminus and Lyackson. So I’m very fortunate. I have six distinct First Nations in my constituency, and they all have varied and sometimes competing interests.

As we, on Vancouver Island, look at the difficult task of settling claims where there is essentially no Crown land to be traded because of the Dunsmuir grant of the 1890s, we are faced with a terrible and a vexing problem of untangling a lot of knots that have been created by the history between newcomers and First Nations and the many promises that were made and not fulfilled. That was the task that was given to my colleague in front of me here, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. The Premier has tasked this entire government with that task primary in all of their mandate letters.

This is important. Gestures are important. Speeches are important, as long as they’re followed through with action. For so many generations, First Nations have listened to words that promised action and promised reconciliation — only standing at their shores, waiting for a partner with integrity and with promise, those hopes dashed against the rocks of despair when cynicism takes over because of unfulfilled promises.

This is a very difficult problem for any government to grapple with, so I hope that the members opposite, as we did when we were in opposition, will recognize the principle that these are nation-to-nation negotiations. Certainly, no independent member in this House, I believe, should have a modifying voice to any agreement that’s signed by one or any of those nations.

Much has been said here about transaction versus principled agreements. To me, listening to the Elders from those communities I mentioned, the difference is permanence. What they want to see, I’m told by them, is permanence. You can only have that through agreements and through this recognition of rights. I’m very happy to stand here and support that. In supporting it, I want to tell you the stories of a few people from my past and people I represent now.

[6:20 p.m.]

The first would be the White family of Snuneymuxw. Doug White I, Tiqwup, was named in the Regina v. White and Bob case. In that case, they were charged with fishing out of season within Douglas treaty lands. The Douglas treaty was a treaty signed by some Vancouver Island nations and some others, but it has never been adequately recognized.

In that case, in the 1960s, Mr. White and Mr. Bob won the right to fish. Thomas Berger, the judge at the time, said that provincial laws could not interfere with the terms of any treaty. This was an important milestone for First Nations rights and title, although it didn’t address title. It only addressed their right to fish in the spot they stood and made no reference to territory.

Mr. White’s contribution is something that the people of Snuneymuxw are so proud of. His family have continued their service to the community and to the province. Doug White II, Kwul’a’sul’tun, was Chief of Snuneymuxw. He was a very successful lacrosse player, part of the Native Sons Lacrosse Club. He won the Tom Longboat Award, and he is in the Nanaimo Hall of Fame for lacrosse. He has served the community diligently and selflessly for his whole life. He still serves his community on local council and other interests.

Ellen White, his wife — Order of Canada and Order of British Columbia in 2011. Her name is Kwulasulwut. That means “many stars.” She is an amazing woman who was trained as a midwife, assisted her first birth at nine years old and delivered her first baby at 16. She spent 30 years as a lecturer and storyteller at UBC. She established the First Nations studies program at Vancouver Island University. She won the B.C. Community Achievement Award in 2007.

Finally, the grandson of Doug White I, son of Doug and Ellen White, Doug White III, Kwulasultun. He is a treaty lawyer from Snuneymuxw who has lectured to the Organization of American States and to the United Nations. He has worked on treaties throughout this province. He’s a spectacular individual. He has served as Chief and as councillor of the Snuneymuxw council.

These people, to me, epitomize the achievements of a family through the generations of obstacles that they’ve faced. Now, in this liberating time, a time of realizing opportunity and potential, they are still at the front, serving their communities. I want to pay tribute to them. I know how important this bill is to them.

I want to tell you about Richard Thomas, Chief of Lyackson. Richard Thomas is, I believe, 84 now. In my service, 14 years in the Legislature…. He was 70 when I started. He’s still Chief. He and his band are homeless. They are from Valdes Island. There is no infrastructure on Valdes. The band is scattered in the other nations adjacent and neighbouring, with family. Mr. Thomas and his wife lost their home and were living, for a time, in their son’s home, without a home of their own.

I thought, when this happened…. Mr. Richard Thomas, to me, is one of the most noble people, one of the most honest and generous people that I have ever met, yet he was the homeless Chief of a homeless nation. How could that exist in this province in these days? The Snuneymuxw — without adequate drinking water, until this past year, on one of their reserves. How these things could continue is a tragedy. But these are the tools we need to bring reparation to that.

[6:25 p.m.]

So transaction versus principled agreements. Transactional agreements are important insofar as transactions go. But when it comes to the rights, the title, the recognition throughout the legislative efforts of this province, it is impor­tant and it is essential to have the tools that this legislation will give us.

Now, as the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group, five of the nations that I represent, reach stage 5, Mr. Richard Thomas is, he says, “overwhelmed by how long it has taken to get here.” He was tasked by his grandmother — and remember that he’s 84 — with bringing the band home. It’s a deep determination of mine that I will also live to see that happen and be serving in this Legislature when it does, I hope.

The White family is a story of achievement and excellence. Mr. Richard Thomas is a story of a noble struggle for justice. The next person that I want to tell you about is a dear friend named Dano Thorne.

I went to school with Dano. I grew up in the Cowichan Valley. The Cowichan Nation is the largest nation by population in the province, so sometimes half my class were First Nations. Dano and I played a lot of sports together, organized sports as well as road hockey — lots of road hockey.

Dano was an angry guy, right? He was disconnected from the teachings, as they would say. He responded with anger, and it was exhibited in his life. He ran into a lot of trouble. Then Dano found those teachings, reconnected with his heritage, and he became a fantastic, devoted servant to his community. He was a member of the Canadian national soccer team. Now he spends his life taking kids and First Nations soccer clubs around the world to compete in tournaments and to compete against other Indigenous communities around the world.

Dano is a story of the wreckage that could have occurred in his life. It could all go back to the residential school experience. But he’s also an example of how when respect and connection is made, something really lovely happens, something so restorative. I have such a love and respect for Dano. I’m so proud to be able to mention his name in this House.

I will end, but I will say that reconciliation takes many different forms. I didn’t realize, in my own life, that I had witnessed a really touching moment of that, in that my grandfather was a golfer. He golfed often with two men, Ernie and Ed Elliott. Ernie and Ed Elliott have both served on Cowichan council. Ernie was band manager for a long time.

When they finished golfing, they would sit down with a notebook, and my grandfather translated hundreds of Hul’qumi’num words, in whatever phonetic achievement he could bring to it. I found those books when I was going through some things when my mom passed away. I was so touched. I think it speaks to me that gesture is important. Speeches are important. Recognizing language is important. Respecting culture is important.

Answering the call of those who have been suppressed and oppressed by the ravages of colonialism, answering the call and being there for them and investing and doing the things we need to fix this relationship are the things that we need to do.

Now, finally, with this legislation and many of the other efforts that have been made by this government and, I will acknowledge, by the previous government under Premier Gordon Campbell and going back to the 1990s with the first modern-day treaty, the Nisga’a treaty…. Now, with these efforts, we are finally building the tools required for us all to build a new house together, for us all to come together and create the kind of province that will liberate people and allow them to thrive.

I’m proud to support this legislation. I hope every member in the House will. Let’s get on with the task of real reconciliation.

[6:30 p.m.]

P. Milobar: It gives me a great honour to rise and be able to speak to Bill 41 around the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

I think it goes without saying that all of us in this House are concerned with the welfare of all British Columbians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and securing a future for ourselves and all of our children. I think, certainly, the comments and the debates that we have heard so far today would be very indicative of that on both sides of the House.

In my two-plus years in the House, I think this is the smallest amount of back and forth during speeches and debates I have heard. I think that speaks volumes to how seriously everyone does take Bill 41 in front of us.

However, this does involve, as any good democracy does, debating legislation and expressing the concerns of our constituents from different regions of the province. Debating and questioning does not necessarily need to translate…. Too often in our society, I think it translates to an automatic opposition piece.

But it is important, I think, that all Indigenous and non-Indigenous people fully do understand how the government sees this bill in practice and in action. People need to have a full understanding of all its ramifications moving forward. That’s how I see both today and as we move into committee stage doing just that — a good public policy debate to make sure that all out there know that the government has well thought out all possible permutations of this bill being enacted.

There are 198 distinct First Nations in B.C., each with their own unique traditions and history as well. There are more than 30 different languages spoken by First Nations. This includes close to 60 different dialects. We also know that First Nation populations are some of the most vulnerable and poverty stricken populations in the country.

We, as a country, and we, as citizens of British Columbia, all owe an equal opportunity and a fair share of wealth that this country provides from our natural resources…. We know that opportunity is something we must create, and it does not just happen.

That is why every government, regardless of political stripe, has a responsibility to uphold our laws and advance the interests of all people, especially our Indigenous people. That’s why under the previous government, as we’ve heard before today, close to 500 economic and reconciliation agreements with First Nations were concluded between 2001 and 2017, during those 16 years. Nearly 400 of those agreements were reached from 2012 to 2017.

To be more precise, under the previous government, B.C. signed no less than 345 revenue-sharing agreements of various types with 242 First Nations. That means something. It reveals the pace of progress is being determined by a commitment to make a difference in the lives of the current generation. Rather than wait an estimated 300 years for the land claim process to resolve itself, the previous government acted.

It’s one thing to adopt aspirations in legislation. It’s quite another, however, to raise literacy rates to record levels; to make the hiring of First Nations a priority in any new resource project, including LNG, as we’ve seen the hope and prosperity that that project is bringing to northern British Columbia; and also to provide the hope and prosperity where helplessness and poverty once reigned when a project, such as an LNG project, may not be in that area.

[R.Chouhan in the chair.]

None of this happened without action. Under the B.C. jobs plan, the previous government created a new Aboriginal Business and Investment Council to work more closely with First Nations and to foster wealth-creating partnerships. To kick-start grassroots initiatives, the first citizens fund, created under the previous government, provided nearly $51 million for 1,737 business loans to Aboriginal businesses.

While it’s important to invest in organizations on the ground, we also have to invest in people. In 2015, the previous B.C. Liberal government launched the Aboriginal skills-training development program. This represented up to $30 million invested over three years to fill training gaps for First Nations who want to participate in the emerging LNG sector. This investment paid off.

[6:35 p.m.]

A little more than a year ago the final investment decision was made for LNG Canada. This project represents the largest private sector investment in Canadian history, and it will benefit all Canadians. I’m pleased to see the current government under the NDP and the members opposite express support for the LNG industry.

As I referenced, with this being so far north within the geography of British Columbia, and certainly farther away from the major population centres, this project includes all 670 kilometres of the Coastal GasLink Pipeline to safely deliver natural gas from the Dawson Creek area to the LNG Canada facility near Kitimat, B.C. By supporting this project, we are also supporting signed agreements with 20 First Nations who will benefit from the Coastal GasLink Pipeline project.

Signed agreements with First Nations have also resulted in announcements like today’s that Top Speed Energy intends to build a processing facility near Terrace. We’re talking about a facility that could process 150,000 tonnes of LNG per year. All of this will, of course, benefit the environment by converting overseas users of coal and other dirty fossil fuels to using the cleanest-burning fuel on the planet. Ultimately, this will contribute to the conversion of the global economy to cleaner and more sustainable industries based on renewable sources of energy.

It is also welcome news that the current NDP government recognizes the increased need for liquefied natural gas in the maritime sector. Specifically, the B.C. government is joining the Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority and FortisBC to establish the first ship-to-ship LNG marine refuelling, or bunkering, service on the west coast of North America. This will prove to be an important development in environmental protection if future cargo ships and cruise ships will be powered by natural gas instead of heavy bunker fuel or diesel.

The previous B.C. Liberal government also placed a premium on social development, as well as economic development. For example, in November 2016, Grand Chief Ed John of the First Nations Leadership Council released his report entitled Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification: From Root Causes to Root Solutions. The Grand Chief was appointed in 2014 as a special adviser to provide a detailed analysis on Indigenous child welfare in British Columbia. At the time of government transition in late 2017, at least 40 of Chief John’s recommendations were underway, and the province was reviewing others to see how they might be incorporated.

I’m pleased, once again, to see that the current government is continuing the support and commitment to the children of British Columbia. This kind of work does and is producing results. Since 2000, the six-year high school completion rate for Indigenous students has increased from 39 percent to 63 percent. I also understand that the rate has now increased to 70 percent among students of Indigenous background. While still more needs to be done, this remains a common goal regardless of political stripe.

I should also mention here that the number of credentials awarded to Indigenous students in the post-secondary education system increased from 27 percent in 2014-15 under B.C.’s Aboriginal post-secondary education and training framework and action plan. I understand that number continues to climb, according to recent statistics.

Naturally, proper learning cannot take place without proper health and those services in place. That’s why the previous B.C. Liberal government established the B.C. First Nations Health Authority. It was the first provincewide health authority of its kind in Canada. It works with First Nations, Health Canada, the British Columbia government and the provincial health system to improve health programs and services for First Nations. It also fosters a health and wellness approach that reflects First Nations cultures.

On UNDRIP, we all know and can all agree that not all of us have shared fully in the opportunity that is available to so many British Columbians in this province. In particular, too many Indigenous peoples have struggled to achieve the same level of prosperity that has been attained for others, which is simply not acceptable.

[6:40 p.m.]

Some First Nations communities have reached unemployment levels of 65 percent or higher. Indigenous youth in particular suffer a heartbreaking rate of suicide. The population overall suffers a higher-than-normal incarceration rate compared to all other populations in Canada. This indicates something. The B.C. Liberals have always been committed to working together towards true reconciliation for all Indigenous people in every part of the province. As I indicated earlier in my speech, we demonstrated this with meaningful actions towards reconciliation over several years. We focused on closing the serious gaps that exist in education, employment and public health, yet gaps still remain, despite a concerted effort over the 16 years of active government.

We know partnerships are essential to reconciliation. Economic partnerships that build opportunity for all British Columbians will be critical for our future. Many of my colleagues have been discussing the importance of section 35 of the Canadian constitution. Section 35 affirms that Aboriginal rights exist in Canada and cannot be extinguished by any means. This means existing Aboriginal land rights can no longer be extinguished without the consent of those Aboriginal peoples holding land interest. It also means Aboriginal consent would be required for legislation purporting to extinguish Aboriginal land titles, even if compensation is paid.

Finally, meaningful consultation must be undertaken with the affected Aboriginal communities if questions arise with respect to government regulation of land rights. So we need to be cognizant of the rights when discussing UNDRIP. All of the questions raised in this debate need to be carefully considered.

The Premier has also said UNDRIP would not contravene section 35 of the constitution, nor can UNDRIP supersede or override all the case law that has led to the most progress for Indigenous people. Ultimately, we can’t ignore section 35 of the constitution and associated case law. To date, they have provided us with forest and range management agreements, mining agreements and LNG agreements.

During the ceremonies that preceded the introduction of the bill, it was stated that we were all in this together. I couldn’t agree more. We should remember this at all stages of this debate and keep in mind that we have here a unique opportunity in our generation to make a difference to an entire generation of First Nations that did not have hope in the past.

Adopting a vision is one thing, but as we all know, actions speak louder than words. That’s a critical piece, when you think of all of the historical documents that have been referenced here today, all of the attempts across political spectrums, across provincial and federal jurisdictions to try to advance reconciliation, to try to advance things on a way forward. Actions speak louder than those words and those documents. Ultimately, that’s what our communities need to see, what our First Nations need to see and what everyone in the province of British Columbia needs to see — action.

We intend to make sure that we fully query Bill 41 to make sure everyone understands just how Bill 41 will result in action, what the impact of those actions will be, so that all Indigenous and non-Indigenous people can move forward with some certainty of what a piece of legislation being brought forward from the government will mean to their everyday lives.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this time on Bill 41, and I look forward to others’ debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure, because it doesn’t happen very often…. In the almost 24 years I have been a member of this House, the number of family members who have been here to see me I can count on two fingers. One of those is here in the precinct today, and I’m going to take her for dinner after the House adjourns. That is my niece Cameron Farnworth, the daughter of my brother Peter. She is a student at the University of Victoria, and this is her first visit to the Legislature. I would ask the House to please make her most welcome.

[6:45 p.m.]

Debate Continued

R. Singh: It is with great pride that I stand today to talk about Bill 41. I know that I was very emotional last Thursday, October 24, and so were a lot of my colleagues, when the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation introduced this bill for the first time in the B.C. Legislature.

By introducing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, our government has made history. Not only has B.C. become the first Canadian province to bring on such important legislation. This initiative is a step towards truth and reconciliation that calls for dignity and respect for the original inhabitants of this land. Bill 41 proves that our government respects the rights of Indigenous peoples as enshrined in the international bodies. The bill ensures that the history and culture of the First Nations are permanently embedded in the collective memory.

I can say that being a South Asian woman, I feel much more deeply connected with the Indigenous peoples, as we both share a history of resistance against racism and colonialism. Today while I am standing here, I know that this is because of the efforts of our pioneers, our elders who made it feasible for us…. The right to vote — they got us that right. Because of that, people like me and many thousands can vote and also run for office.

Unfortunately, many of our Indigenous people got this right much later than even the South Asian people, in the late ’60s. We share that history together, and it is such an honour and such pride to stand and talk about this history and the work of our pioneers. It goes for Indigenous peoples as well. What we have been able to achieve today and what we have been able to bring to the Legislature by creating this history did not happen overnight. A lot of people have made sacrifices. They have struggled to be able to come to this point.

This is not something that we will be able to achieve overnight. We will have to continue working towards it. I know that we are making progress, but we have to keep on working together to make a much stronger B.C. and bring provincial laws into alignment with the UN declaration. We are committed to a concrete plan, developed with Indigenous peoples and regular reporting on the progress. We are making progress, and we will continue to work together with Indigenous peoples to build an ever-stronger, more inclusive and more just B.C. that will create a better future for everyone.

I can say that that is a better future for our future generations, our children, who will look back and look at this legislation and see that what their pioneers did, what the members here did, made a better world, a better province. I think that globally, we are doing better for them.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this.

T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak in second reading to Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. I’m very proud to stand here today in this chamber to speak to what is, I believe, one of the most significant pieces of legislation that has ever been brought before us here in this Legislature.

I’m proud to stand on behalf of my constituents back in Kamloops–South Thompson. I’m proud of the fact that many of my constituents are Indigenous peoples, that there are a number of different First Nations that are located up in Kamloops–South Thompson. The Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc peoples, right in Kamloops; the Neskonlith Indian Band; the Adams Lake Indian Band; the Little Shuswap Lake Indian Band; the Skeetchestn Indian Band; Whispering Pines — these are all First Nations and a part of the Shuswap Nation in our part of our great province.

[6:50 p.m.]

I approach this second reading debate with a great deal of hope and optimism — cautiously so, but nevertheless an underlying sense of purpose here. We are to deal with a piece of legislation that speaks so strongly to the values that I think all British Columbians hold near and dear to their hearts, and that is the partnership that exists between all of us. That is recognition of the fact that urban British Columbia is better when rural British Columbia has its back and vice versa. Indigenous peoples are stronger when non-Indigenous peoples understand better and are more fully aware of their situations and vice versa. Indeed, when we enter into a discussion and debate with one another to better understand one another, we’re going to end up with better results for all of the people of British Columbia.

I think that every member of this House supports reconciliation. Every member of this House supports the notion of wanting to replace walls with bridges, replace placards and protests and the anxiety and concern with handshakes and agreements. All British Columbians want there to be the opportunity for every single citizen of this province to realize their full potential, whether that individual lives in Kamloops or on the Neskonlith reserve lands, whether that person lives in Lake Cowichan, whether that person be in Dease Lake.

But every single British Columbian wants to put food on the table for their kids. Every single British Columbian out there wants a good job. We all want to be able to look after our kids and our grandkids. We want to know that the decisions we’re making today have the best interests of our kids and our grandkids and our great-grandkids — that their interests are first and foremost in our minds.

To make this happen, it requires tremendous commitment, lots of hard work. The results are not always seen as quickly as all British Columbians would like to see. But they do happen when you’re committed. They do happen when you put your shoulder into it.

There’s no question that Indigenous peoples have had a tough road, a disproportionate level of poverty, suicide, impoverishment, higher unemployment levels than the rest of the British Columbia population. We addressed that through meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples. Our former government…. For almost 16 years that was the approach that we took — to strive for meaningful engagement, strive for reconciliation, to work on those partnerships. I believe that that’s the current overriding objective of the current government, and that is a good thing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

By 2017, our former government had signed over 500 agreements with First Nations across British Columbia, and 345 of those were revenue-sharing agreements with 242 different First Nations. British Columbia was the first province in the country to share revenue from mining, from forestry and other resources. These were revenues that were shared with First Nations. The agreements mentioned were signed with nearly all of the over-200 First Nations in our great province.

They were designed to ensure understanding and to recognize the needs and values of each community. Every community is different. Just as Port Coquitlam is different from Coquitlam, so are two First Nations different from one another. But that uniqueness and that diversity and that difference is really what makes this province so truly great — so truly great when it’s harnessed — because foundational to each of the agreements are the principles of dignity and mutual respect.

As part of our former government’s relentless focus on jobs through our B.C. jobs plan, I’m very proud of the fact that we created a new Aboriginal Business and Investment Council to work more closely with First Nations to foster wealth-creating partnerships. Between 2001 and 2015, the first citizens fund provided nearly $51 million for 1,737 business loans to Aboriginal businesses.

I have a lot more to say in second reading on Bill 41, but I would like to take this opportunity to note the hour and reserve my right to continue my remarks at a later date.

T. Stone moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Simpson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.