PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 1:04 p.m.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $50,740,000 (continued).

P. Milobar: Thank you, Minister, for the answers to the questions ahead of lunchtime there. I’ll follow up on a few of those areas and then move into some other material as well.

[1:05 p.m.]

I guess my colleague from Nechako Lakes had asked a few questions around archaeological assessments, and certainly, those are a concern across the province, in terms of length of time. I don’t think anyone disputes that they need to be done anymore. I think it’s been well established that that process needs to unfold. But the timelines and the backlogs of trying to get things approved moving forward through that process provincially seems to be an issue that we’re hearing from everybody.

The minister referenced that the strategic partnerships as how those programs are funded, in terms of the government side of the equation. I’m just wondering, then, if the minister can confirm and explain why, with the recognized backlog…. According to the Estimates book, on page 124, the strategic partnerships and initiatives division has seen their budget go from $22.8 million last year to $18.8 million this year. It seems to be a $4 million cut. What type of impact will that have on archaeological assessments?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thanks to my colleague, the member, for his question. As we said this morning, of course, the first point of entry is that the Heritage Conservation Act and its implementation — the archaeology branch, etc. — is the responsibility of FLNRORD, the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. That is where that is housed. But the member quite properly points out the length of time and delays that the process often entails.

The backlogs and delays are a function of many things. I said this morning that one of the key reasons for that, of course, is our duty to consult and accommodate and to do so in the time that it takes to do justice to that constitutional obligation.

I did speak this morning of strategic engagement agreements. I think the member is referring to a division that is called the strategic implementation and priorities partnerships division of our ministry. He noted the budget for that entity had gone from $22.8 million to $18 million, suggesting…. Understandably, the member would assume that is a cut. In fact, I’m advised it’s an internal reallocation of monies to another division within the same ministry.

Indeed, of course, in macro terms, the budget of our ministry has, in fact, gone up dramatically this year. That particular entity does not see a cut, but that funding has been reallocated to another division.

P. Milobar: Just to clarify. From the minister, then, is the area that the minister was talking about earlier this morning a different funding area than the strategic partnerships and initiatives division, and if so, what actual line item within the Estimates book would that be in?

Hon. M. Rankin: As I started to say earlier, the funding for the program that the member is referring to is actually the funding responsibility of another ministry, the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development. It would be that ministry that could answer the member’s question.

P. Milobar: Well, I’m just reading the Blues from this morning. The minister, this morning, had mentioned the strategic initiatives or strategic…. I’m trying to find the right language that he was using, and I’m trying to ascertain whether or not this strategic partnerships and initiatives division is, in fact, the same area that the minister was talking about in regards to the consultation issues that need to happen under the purview of his ministry.

I recognize that FLNRORD is responsible for a lot of the other archaeological areas. I’m talking about the areas that the minister was specifically referring to earlier today under his guidance as a minister and whether or not this is the same funding area or not. If not, where was that area that he was talking about within his estimates area?

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I can confirm that it is a different funding area. It is that, as I said, of FLNRORD, the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development.

I think there’s confusion in the language. I referred this morning to strategic engagement agreements, which are a tool by which many of these issues normally rise within the purview of our ministry. We, by coincidence, have a division of our ministry called the strategic partnerships and initiatives division. So I think that that may be the cause — the similar language — of the confusion.

P. Milobar: Then I guess I’ll ask the minister where the $4 million…. The answer was that it was an internal transfer. I do recognize that overall, there is a global increase within the budget of ministry operations, and certainly, governments move money around and set different priorities.

Where was that internal transfer taking place? Which division did it move to within the existing budget?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thanks to the member for the question. He’s quite right in pointing out that the decrease in the budget of the strategic partnership and initiative division would show a $3.996 million decrease, and he understandably asked where that money went.

Well, $2.3 million was a realignment to the deputy minister’s office, $1½ million of which is for communications, correspondence and submissions teams, and $180,000 to support First Nation events, including the First Nation leadership gathering, which is a shared-cost arrangement.

Of that $3.996 million decrease, $1.34 million is a realignment to corporate services to support shared-cost agreement priorities, central agency chargebacks and salary operations; $800,000 is a realignment to another division, an NROD division, to support increased funding on negotiations and treaty work; $700,000 is a realignment to another division, the RTSD, $500,000 of which is for the First Nations Leadership Council agreement, which is a grant, and $200,000 to resource implementation of the declaration act.

I could go on. There are a few other items to support implementation of agreements: $863,000, or seven FTEs, for that purpose; $189,000 for negotiated wage increases; and finally, a $92,000 realignment from the NROD division to support land use planning for the implementation of the shíshálh agreement.

P. Milobar: Sorry. Can I just clarify with the minister? All of those shifts that were just listed off by the minister are the actual $4.1 million or $3.9 million reduction? Or are those what is still left being funded?

Hon. M. Rankin: Right. I should have been clearer. The majority of what I described were, in fact, reductions, i.e., transfers — realignment to other divisions. But what came into the strategic partnerships and initiative divisions was the additional lift — seven FTEs — to support implementation of agreements, $189,000 for negotiated wage increases and $92,000 realignment from one division, the NROD division, to support land use planning and implementation of the shíshálh agreement.

Essentially, there were ins and outs to this division. But I want to reiterate, as the member properly noted, that the global budget of the ministry has, in fact, significantly increased.

[1:15 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I’m jumping forward now to page 16 in the actual budget document — not the estimates, but the budget document — where there’s the discussion around reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. That ties in with the $60 million I referenced earlier and the minister just referenced as well.

I’m just wondering about the $60 million that is the ongoing funding, it says, “to support a range of activities, including engagement with Indigenous Peoples on legislation, policy, and programs; negotiation capacity; and initiatives that increase participation in land and resource activities within their territories.”

I’m just wondering how the $60 million was arrived at. What type of calculation or discussion took place with the minister and his staff to arrive at that — that $60 million would be an appropriate sum spanning a province with 203-some individualized First Nation bands?

Hon. M. Rankin: The issue of the $60 million increase needs to be explained in the following way. The ministry has been able to achieve an additional $60 million in funding for reconciliation work, now in our base budget — funding for activities that historically have been funded through contingencies. I hasten to add that we still have the ability, as previous governments have, to use contingency funding, but I’m very proud that the ministry was able to persuade the Treasury Board that we need to have the stability of base funding for the work we can predictably do.

The member asks exactly why that figure was $60 million and not some other figure. It aligns quite nicely with the historic experience of the ministry in achieving contingencies over the calendar year that tend to have amounted to a sum of that kind. I stress that that is money that we use for our purposes, but it’s also money that we hold for other natural resource ministries so that we can work together, for example, on finding out boundaries and doing the kind of work that’s required to clarify exactly what the survey results would be for a particular treaty.

I confirm that the funding includes, particularly, support for our negotiation and agreements with First Na­tions. Engagement with Indigenous groups on natural resources and economic development–related initiatives would be an example of what that money is, in fact, used for. Stewardship and land use planning would be another example — strategic forestry agreements to support our legal obligations to expand the First Nations role in the economy.

[1:20 p.m.]

There could be also engagement on activities on the lands within the nation’s territories under various policies and agreements, like the Forest and Range Practices Act; Heritage Conservation Act, of which we’ve spoken al­ready; timber supply review; B.C. flood risk strategy. In other words, this is about engagement on a number of projects, important projects on stewardship, as well as natural resource agreements and the like.

I want to reiterate that the $60 million, to try to answer specifically the member’s question, tends to reflect the amount of money that in past years has been taken from contingencies but now happily finds its way into our base budget to fund the kind of work in partnership with other ministries that we need to undertake to do the kinds of things I’ve indicated.

P. Milobar: If I’m hearing the minister correctly, it sounds like the $60 million actually made permanent in the budget, not from contingencies, has the same scope of work that was previously being undertaken by the ministry and government in general. Or has there been additional capabilities for government to engage with Indigenous nations through this new permanent funding versus what was happening in government, regardless if the money was coming from contingencies or not?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think I can say to the member that he’s essentially correct at one level. The $60 million is money that historically would have been taken from other contingencies, but now is happily found in the base budget. I stress again, however, that we have additional funding available, as we always would have, for contingencies that come along from time to time.

I should point out, as well, that there’s been a large increase of $77.621 million in this budget to fund treaty and other agreements, a significant increase because that matches the cost of our signed agreements, and our work in implementing those.

There’s also been an increase in non-treaty payments of $80.031 million, some of which is revenue recoveries to fund revenue-sharing agreements and the like.

I should say, at this point, I’m very proud that this ministry and this government is not simply tying its wagon to the B.C. Treaty Commission process. We’re proud of our work with our modern treaty partners, and that work is continuing.

We also are engaging in a number of new kinds of agreements, one of which the member may be familiar with in Lake Babine, which we call a comprehensive reconciliation agreement. There are others, of course. With shíshálh and Carrier-Sekaniin other parts of our province we’ve seen this new tool being used.

We’re not limiting ourselves, as we try to move from a world of transactional, one-off agreements to long-term, stable agreements with Indigenous communities. They too can have certainty on the ground, as they re-develop their economies.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for that. Certainly, I’m sure there’s relief with Indigenous communities that the government is intending on funding agreements that they’ve signed and contracted to sign and undertake. With that $77 million, one would assume that would happen either way, whether it comes from contingencies or within a budget, if the government has actually signed a contract.

I’m trying to focus in more on the $60 million, because the $60 million has been portrayed as this new way of engaging with Indigenous nations, under the backdrop of DRIPA, and that there will be a new way to engage and better engage and enhance engagement with Indigenous communities.

What I’ve heard from previous answers, though, is that the scope hasn’t exchanged, the type of things being worked on hasn’t changed, and, in fact, the $60 million came from historical dollar figures of what was being used from government to fund these initiatives.

Previously, the money was coming out of contingencies. Was there work being left undone at $60 million being funded with those contingencies?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I do hope I haven’t been the source of the confusion. The increase in the budget of $77.621 million to fund treaty and other agreements includes the $60 million of which we’ve spoken. That is the base funding amount that now exists in our budget which, before, was not found in our budget, and which represented many, many individual trips to Treasury Board to see if contingency funding could be made available as we entered into some of the agreements that we’re trying to undertake.

I should also point out that, as the member’s well aware, the declaration act involves a number of other possible agreements. We have the possibility of consent agreements. We have other sorts of opportunities. That is why the ministry’s budget has been increasing.

We have a number of things that the funding can be used for. Perhaps I can just summarize: negotiations and agreements with First Nations, resource development activities and a wide variety of other activities that include engagement with Indigenous groups on natural resource and economic development–related initiatives.

Simply put, we are involved in so many different opportunities with First Nations around the province. We are not limiting ourselves to one particular theme. But what we are doing is trying to expand the number of tools in the toolkit so we can engage with the First Nations on the ground as they wish, what meets their needs, going forward.

That is what’s exciting about this budget and the fact that the $60 million of which the member has spoken is now part of our base budget — I think a recognition by government that this work will continue. We are, of course, engaged in many, many new alternatives, which is why the $77.621 million increase for the funding of treaty and other agreements was put into the budget.

P. Milobar: Well, let’s be clear. So 77.16 may have been put in for treaty and other arrangements. And $60 million of that is for this program that we’re talking about, this program that has been ongoing, this program which had 60 million arrived at as a dollar figure because that is, historically, what the government has been spending on this type of engagement with Indigenous nations. Can the minister confirm that the $60 million means that it is not enhancements to any of these areas than what was happening at a historical level?

I understand it previously used to be out of contingencies. But the work, nonetheless, was still happening. The work was still being done. The engagements were still being done with Indigenous nations. So whether it was coming out of contingencies or whether it was in a base budget, there was a certain amount of work being accomplished for $60 million. That is how the $60 million wound up in the budget, and it means there is no expansion of any substance to the existing and ongoing work that was already happening within government with Indigenous nations.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member’s point, but I would say very clearly in reply that $60 million of the $77.621 million is now in our base budget, as I’ve said. The good news is that we are still hopeful, and we’ll continue to go to Treasury Board to get as many dollars as we need to engage in other agreements. That ability to get contingency funding has not disappeared. We expect it will continue, and Treasury Board is awaiting our arrival.

So all of that money which the $60 million represents we can still go and try to achieve for other agreements if nations are ready and we are ready to commit to these kinds of agreements. So I think it’s important to note that the ability to get contingency funding remains, as it has always remained. But on top of that, we now have the certainty of $60 million in our base budget.

P. Milobar: Well, I’m not trying to be difficult here with the minister. I’m just looking for a straightforward answer in terms of if the $60 million in the base budget is based on historical work.

[1:30 p.m.]

Yes, it was acquired through contingencies and multiple trips to Treasury Board. But if the $60 million is being based on that historical workload and work level being done by the government, it stands to reason, then, that this existing $60 million put in the budget, although into a fixed line item, will provide the same amount of scope and scale of work, in the same areas with Indigenous communities and government, that have been happening with government and those Indigenous communities over the last several years.

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m not sure how much clearer I can be. The ability to go to the Treasury Board, as we’ve historically done, to seek contingency funding for various agreements during the course of a calendar year remains. So, therefore, although the scope may accurately be portrayed as part of the $60 million historic, we still have that ability to go beyond that and frankly intend to do so.

P. Milobar: I can appreciate that the minister will and continue to do that as and when needed. Recognizing that the minister is new to provincial government…. I’ve never sat on the…. Well, I sat there for a glorious 17 days before we were summarily no longer in government, I guess.

Treasury Board is not the easiest — from my understanding — agency to go in and continue to seek more dollars. I can understand why the minister is happy that he was able to get it into permanent funding to continue doing the same level of work that was happening year over year in the first place. I take my hat off to the minister for that. That was a good accomplishment to get it into the permanent budget.

However, now that it is in the permanent budget, one could argue or one would assume…. I’m sure that the bureaucracy, which has been around this place much longer than either the minister or myself, would likely agree — either quietly or privately or whichever way you would like — that when there are line items in a budget, it starts to get a little bit harder at Treasury Board to start getting increased funding for permanent programming. But again, that was really the crux.

I’ve heard the minister say with the $60 million, despite some of the marketing that’s been done, there is not an increase to scope; there is not an increase to work being done. It has been built on historical contingency draws to provide X amount of work for $60 million between the government and Indigenous communities.

So that’s understandable how they got the $60 million, but I do think it’s reasonable that Indigenous Nations understand that that does not mean that there is a new, expanded level of work guaranteed to be happening under the backdrop of DRIPA.

Now, the minister mentions that it’s $60 million out of the $77 million, and the other $17 million is for treaty agreements. Is that $17 million for agreements that have already been signed by the government?

Hon. M. Rankin: I would agree with the member, very much. The Treasury Board does its job. The Treasury Board is there to make sure that moneys are expended only after a full justification has been provided. That’s their responsibility.

We accept that the scope of the $60 million, roughly, is what has been done in the past, but I remain optimistic that our track record with the Treasury Board will be good. The fact that we now have this permanence — I think the member made the point as well as I could — is a source of great pride in our ministry, that that has been achieved.

As for the difference between $60 million and the $77.621 million, I confirm that money would be made available for existing treaties.

P. Milobar: I’ve done this in previous estimates with other ministers as well. I always find it interesting when announcements get made on budget day and dollars get packaged and it’s three-year commitments and there’s very little in the first year and then everything is back-loaded on year 3. Or things like the $60 million get packaged as new programming, new expansion of services, when, in fact, they’re not.

Could the minister say then…? If the minister had been unable to achieve the $17 million in the budget, what would have happened to those signed legal agreements that the government had with Indigenous Nations?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I would start by saying that all governments in modern times have, regardless of their political stripe, seen fit to meet their treaty obligations. The $17 million of which the member spoke will be honoured, will always be honoured, has never not been honoured. Of course, the honour of the Crown is of paramount responsibility. So no issue there.

I would, with great respect, differ with his characterization of how the government described the $60 million of which he spoke. We’ve been very clear that it’s a gigantic victory to have permanent funding in our base budget. I commit to the member that if there are contingencies — funding — that we need to get in order to put more tools in the toolkit or enter into more comprehensive agreements, I will be the first in line at the Treasury Board. I’m very proud of our record in doing so.

The Treasury Board, I reiterate, has its responsibilities and does an excellent job in fiscal management. But our ministry — given this government’s global commitment to reconciliation, which every member of cabinet has in his or her mandate letter — is something that gives me great confidence, that if I go to the Treasury Board and have a credible rationale for an agreement, I will fare well.

P. Milobar: Well, the premise that the minister started all this off with was that this is certainly so that we don’t have to go through the vagaries of Treasury Board. The minister’s mandate letter…. And the minister is correct. I think every mandate letter talks about UNDRIP and implementation of UNDRIP and doing it in a meaningful way.

The largest lift that we have found in this budget for this ministry this year is around the $77 million, $60 million of which is going to do work which has historically always been done. It is not an expansion of that work, and, other than having to go to Treasury Board for the $60 million, that same level of work will continue. And $17 million of which is to cover off contractual obligations that would have been covered off whether UNDRIP existed or not.

Could the minister point me, then, into the budget, where there is a substantial increase from activities that would have happened last year, non-contractual increases in this year’s budget for reconciliation efforts happening within Indigenous communities?

Hon. M. Rankin: Perhaps I could provide some examples of the kind of modern agreements that are the subject of the $60 million.

[1:40 p.m.]

We have done an historic agreement with the Cheslatta, who live on Ootsa Lake — enormous problems with the old Alcan development. Lake Babine is a modern, comprehensive reconciliation agreement. The Carrier-Sekani.

These agreements are hundreds of millions of dollars. These agreements have been taken…. Along with our federal partners, I hasten to add. The funding has been from both governments. These agreements are part of our commitment to reconciliation for which we now have certainty. These are all examples of agreements we’ve had to go to Treasury Board to ask for funding for. Now we don’t need to do that.

I want to reiterate that our ability to go and seek contingence funding is on top of this certainty that we’ve achieved with the $60 million. I think it’s an enormous achievement. I’m very proud of it.

P. Milobar: The question, though, with respect, was if the minister could point me to where in the budget his ministry has seen a substantial lift to support UNDRIP initiatives that were not already happening on a yearly basis, be it funded through contingencies or by legally bound treaty negotiations, contracts that they had to fulfil, given which calendar year they may fall into to have to start to commit that.

What exactly new funding, expansion of programs, expansion of things with the lens of UNDRIP is in this minister’s budget this year?

Hon. M. Rankin: I don’t know if I can be of any more assistance to the member. He pointed out, quite correctly, that the achievement of permanent funding in base budget is something significant. He acknowledges, I think, that the ability to go and seek Treasury Board approval remains in place.

The scope may appear to be the same to the member, but what he is neglecting to understand or to point out is, as new agreements come forward, we will continue to go to Treasury Board in the hopes that we will have those agreements funded, as we have in other circumstances, historically.

As I also said earlier, any treaty or other agreement, fiscal responsibilities, have always been honoured by the Crown and will continue to be so.

P. Milobar: I understand full well what the minister is saying. However, the minister seems to be unwilling to acknowledge or point me to substantive increases in his budget around Indigenous reconciliation, around UNDRIP initiatives.

When you look at the table on page 16 in the budget book, table 1.2.4, “Investments to support reconciliation” — $60 million. We’ve established that’s for the same scope and scale and amount of work that was happening every other year. That doesn’t cut the test.

Skills training initiatives for Indigenous peoples. I would’ve expected the minister would’ve at least pointed me to that $17 million, except it’s only for this year because there’s an asterisk next to it. That’s a pandemic and recovery contingencies allocation.

The simple fact is that if I am an Indigenous leader in British Columbia right now, and I read this without having the opportunity to go back and forth with the minister as I am right now, my expectation is that the government has added extra resources to facilitate UNDRIP. But in fact, the government has not added.

The leadership of Indigenous Nations don’t give a whit whether it comes from contingencies to get the work done or it’s in an actual permanent budget. They expect a certain amount of work to be done. The expectation, on the heels of UNDRIP being passed, is that there would be an expansion of that work, that there would be an expansion of capacity-building in Indigenous communities, that there would be an expansion of access to professionals and other advisers they may need to properly scrutinize things like a mine application or impacts of a forestry cutblock.

It’s not reasonable to think that an Indigenous nation in a rural and remote area, it’s not reasonable to think a small non-Indigenous community in a rural remote area, would have the wherewithal to hire that type of expertise to give them proper advice as they’re providing comment, let alone free and prior informed consent comment.

[1:45 p.m.]

Again, I’ll ask the minister if the minister could point me, in his budget this year, to where there is any substantial uplift in regards to UNDRIP, in regards to expanding what has historically been getting done within the province between the government and Indigenous Nations, be it on consultation and accommodation, be it on capacity-building, be it on honouring treaties that are negotiated and signed and are legally bound for the Crown to live up to.

Hon. M. Rankin: The member will be aware that the contingencies of which I’ve spoken now several times would not show up in this ministry’s budget but rather with Ministry of Finance, which would allocate those contingencies. We continue to live in hope, I think with great optimism, that that money will be made available to the ministry on top of the now permanent funding of which we’ve now spoken, the $60 million.

To put this in broader context, yes, there have been more people that are involved in the ministry to work on declaration act issues. We can talk about that. The context is that we are involved in, as a government, many, many other programs that, of course, are administered by other ministries but for which we are involved in negotiation.

A comprehensive forestry agreement, a so-called FCRSA, is an example. We have a revenue-sharing agreement that was, admittedly, put in place a couple of years ago, but which shows $3 billion — 7 percent of net revenue from gaming — to be shared over 25 years with the 204 nations in British Columbia.

It sounds like the member is trying to somehow suggest that our ministry, as a function of the entire government, has had its budget atrophy. It’s much the contrary. The government, as a whole, has done enormous additions to the reconciliation agenda, including with substantial expenditures, some of which I’ve just mentioned.

The fact remains that contingencies will not show up in our budget. It will be that of the Ministry of Finance. We’re optimistic that our track record with Treasury Board will continue to be a very good one and that we now have the permanent $60 million of which I’ve spoken.

The Chair: Sorry. We have a technical issue, so we’re going to have to recess for a few moments. Thanks for your patience.

The committee recessed from 1:47 p.m. to 1:55 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We’re currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

I now recognize the minister — no, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

P. Milobar: Well, I’m sure that to the viewers at home, the back-and-forth probably sounds like we’re on a closed loop, anyway. Whichever way we go, we’ll probably be fine.

I’m going to move on, but it sounds very clearly like the $60 million is not an expansion of any of those services. I recognize that contingencies are there, but the contingency option was there if the minister and the ministry had required $100 million to make it, on average, every year. What is in this budget is the average. I say that because….

When you read through the budget — the minister is correct — it doesn’t…. When you actually read every word exactly, it does not indicate that the $60 million is new. In fact, you don’t get to any language around “new” until you get down near the bottom, where it says: “Budget 2021 also supports reconciliation through a range of new investments.”

That has nothing to do with the $60 million. It has to do with the skills-training initiatives for Indigenous projects, like I say, which is COVID money. It has to do with some Head Start programming based on culturally based child care for Indigenous families — which is a great initiative — and the First Nations Health Authority culturally based mental health and addictions services. That’s about $12 million for those two programs. I don’t take issue with that at all.

I guess I was looking for the minister to maybe point me to that as new money within his budget. Instead, we heard about a reliance on contingencies if there’s going to be an actual, meaningful expansion to things happening under the backdrop of UNDRIP.

In keeping with what was listed as new and in looking at the minister’s mandate letter, it says: “Extend our support for cultural preservation and revitalization by funding key projects designed to preserve and respect Indigenous cultures, including the retention and revitalization of First Nations languages.” Is there any new money in this budget for that work, or is it just part of existing funding envelopes from last year’s budget as well?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m pleased that the member is taking us to language revitalization. I just want to, perhaps, for the record, conclude on the points that he was raising earlier.

It needs to be understood that the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is part of a government team. All the members of executive council are mandated to address reconciliation from their ministry perspective. It’s really unfortunate that the funding position of one ministry is not understood in that broader context. Additional funding in the ministries responsible for child welfare, forestry or education…. All of this needs to be understood.

Let’s talk about housing. This government, I think for the first time in history, provided $150 million for Indigenous housing, both on and off reserve. As a former federal Member of Parliament, I found it exciting but unusual that a government would put money on to federal enclaves, reserves. But I was proud of the fact that they did that, because there was a need. Ottawa, we hope, will step up. The Prime Minister has received a letter from the Premier asking for more money for Indigenous housing, one of the five priorities that the Prime Minister has been asked to address.

[2:00 p.m.]

There’s money, I mentioned earlier, for gaming. We’re revenue-sharing to the tune of $3 billion over 25 years, where 7 percent net revenue of gaming is made available to the 204 nations in British Columbia. This is an enormous achievement that we’ve worked on together with Indigenous partners. I could go on and on. The point I’m making is: to simply take one piece of the puzzle and to suggest that there’s little or no change, I think is an unfortunate and frankly unfair characterization.

The certainty of $60 million versus the vicissitude of going up to Treasury Board and hoping for the best is a very different world, as I know you’ll understand, Madam Chair. But I reiterate. We have every ability to go to and ask Treasury Board for additional funding for our purposes, and we will do so.

The member referred to language revitalization, which gives me an opportunity to say how proud all British Columbians should be that in 2018, this government made a $50 million investment in revitalizing First Nations languages. There are 35 different languages and other dialects spoken, sadly, by less and less people as Elders pass on in our province. We want to preserve that cultural heritage.

I have the honour of presiding over a Crown corporation made up of Indigenous leaders called the First Peoples Cultural Council. It has annual operating funding, but they are responsible for the multi-year funding, the $50 million that I talked about, to help First Nations revitalize language. The money hasn’t been fully expended. That money will continue to be used for that important purpose.

There are many other things I could talk about in language revitalization, but this is an historic achievement — $50 million, for the first time, in 2018, for the sole purpose of revitalizing endangered Indigenous languages.

P. Milobar: That sounds wonderful, and that was a project that started in 2018. If memory serves, this minister became a minister in 2020. The mandate letter I’m reading from is this minister’s mandate letter, not a 2018 mandate letter. That’s the letter I’m asking questions around in terms of languages.

The minister touched on supports from other ministries. He’s absolutely correct. However, I’m not in those other ministry estimates. I’m in these estimates, asking this minister about his budget and things that are under his purview. In fact, the supports that the minister talked about are mentioned in his mandate letter as well. It’s very clear: “Support the work of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy,” and, “Support the work of the Minister of Education to put more Indigenous languages into B.C.’s curriculum.”

It’s very clear that those are things this minister is supposed to support — not fund, but support. However, my question to the minister about his mandate letter was about the mandate piece in his letter from the Premier that says he is to “Extend our support” — as in the government’s — “for cultural preservation and revitalization by funding” — this minister is supposed to be funding — “key projects designed to preserve and respect Indigenous cultures, including the retention and revitalization of First Nations languages.”

Now, it’s wonderful that there was a $50 million fund for language set up in 2018 and that there’s still a bit of money left in that. The question, though, is: in this year’s budget, which we’re actually debating and asking questions on, can the minister point me to what supports and funding programs are new — not existing programs, but new programs — to help fulfil the minister’s mandate letter? This mandate letter was created before this budget, which means that sometime between this mandate letter and this budget, the expectation from the Premier and the residents of British Columbia is that the minister would be making headway on the direction that the Premier set out in his mandate letter.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I first would point out to the member that I agree entirely with his point that funding is at the centre of this. Of course, I would reiterate what I think I said earlier. The mandate letter is a mandate letter that requires me to work with other ministries in a supporting role, as the member has said.

But the mandate letter is a four-year commitment. The member pointed out, quite properly, that I was only made minister and had the honour of such in 2020. There’s lots of work to do. I have had a very positive set of discussions with several federal ministers. There is the Minister of Heritage, Monsieur Guilbeault, who is responsible for the historic Indigenous Languages Act of Canada, which has enormous amounts of new money. You can be sure that we’re going to do our best to receive funding from that source, as I’ve told the minister in no uncertain terms. I’ve also spoken with Minister Bennett about that issue as well.

The mandate is a four-year commitment. I accept what the member has said entirely — that funding is going to have to happen. There is still money available from the historic investment of $50 million being administered by that Crown corporation I spoke of, the First Peoples Cultural Council. Money is still available to them to do that work. The member should know that I will do my best to receive additional funding, I hope from federal sources and, indeed, in collaboration with my other ministry colleagues, to make sure that we get the job done.

P. Milobar: Hopefully, moving forward, the language programs don’t need to rely on contingencies.

The minister also mentioned 7 percent of net gaming revenue. Can the minister, then, confirm: with casinos being closed and gaming revenues way off, has that dollar figure been adjusted downwards in this year’s budget? Or has the government created a contingency fund to cover off the difference of what would have normally been projected pre-pandemic versus what is actually happening during COVID?

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member’s question concerning the limited partnership with whom we are engaged in sharing revenue. This is an important initiative. I’ve spoken about it before. Under the Gaming Control Act, we have a long-term agreement with the First Nations limited partnership to share 7 percent of gaming revenues. In ’21-22, it is estimated that just over $58 million will be distributed to the First Nations through the gaming revenue sharing limited partnership.

The member is absolutely right. Everyone will know that casinos have not seen a lot of businesses in the last while due to the pandemic. We have made no decisions yet, but we are in active discussions with the limited partnership about the effect of the pandemic on gaming revenues, something that none of us could have foreseen. We anticipate the need to discuss the implementations of the shortfall, as well, with the First Nations Gaming Commission, but we haven’t had those discussions as of yet.

P. Milobar: Well, every year there are projections made, moving forward, based on historical issues. It’s probably why there was still $60 million in contingencies every year for Indigenous consultation, because historically, there was always a draw on contingencies at that level, so it would go into a back account to make sure it was there as needed.

I’m just curious, then. What would have been the projection, recognizing it was a different minister last year, in last year’s budget? When this agreement first came in, what would have been the projected expectation? It obviously wouldn’t have been $58 million. What would have been the projected revenues for that agreement for this year, pre-COVID, that would have been first anticipated?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for the question. In 2019, the province paid the First Nation Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership $196.84 million, two years’ worth of gaming revenue, based on the B.C. Lottery Corporation’s estimated net income for the two fiscal years 2019-20 and 2020-21. Just in the last little while, we paid $58 million to the First Nations through the First Nation Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership.

The member asked what the estimate would have been. Well, given the compounding of interest and $3 billion over 25 years, we reckoned it was about $95.5 million. So there’s a shortfall, a significant one. As I said to the member, we are having discussions. No decisions yet have been made as to how to address that shortfall.

P. Milobar: We spent a lot of time at the beginning hearing from the minister about the vagaries of going to Treasury Board and trying to draw upon contingencies for things that actually are constitutionally needed to be done — like accommodation, consultation, discussion, capacity building, treaties, all of that — and the minister being uncomfortable that that would have to go through contingency requests at Treasury Board, time and again.

That’s how we wound up with the $60 million in the budget, instead of through contingencies. That’s how we wound up with the $17 million in this year’s budget to acknowledge some signed agreements that happened over the last year or, at least, take effect this fiscal year and need the $17 million, which is, again, totally understandable.

We have a 25-year agreement, signed, for 7 percent of net gaming revenue. That agreement anticipated and had a schedule, as the minister said, of around $100 million a year for 25 years. That’s what the signatories were expecting. That’s certainly what all of the media coverage around that agreement was, when it was first presented.

Yet when we hear $58 million because of COVID, understandably, and a government has $3.1 billion built into a budget for a slush fund for COVID-related issues, and we have a revenue drop because of COVID-related issues, I’m at a loss to understand how much negotiation would need to be happening with the leadership to make up a $37 million shortfall.

[2:15 p.m.]

I guess, why is this agreement, this signed legal agreement that had a very clear expectation level set out for First Nations leadership around gaming revenue share…? Why was it not just made whole or, at least, close to whole — I’m sure that the leadership would be reasonable and understand what an approximation would be — instead of now needing to go through the vagaries of Treasury Board, cap in hand, needing contingency funds, when there was $3.1 billion sitting there to draw upon while this budget document was being created?

Did the minister go to bat for the extra $37 million that was missing while the budget was being created?

Hon. M. Rankin: I don’t think the member would suggest that the pandemic was something that could have been contemplated when the agreement was entered into. That’s what lawyers call a force majeure. Who would have ever anticipated something like this, where the revenues would decline so precipitously?

The member is wrong when he says that there’s a schedule of payments or the like in the agreement. There’s not. It’s a very clear agreement that said that 7 percent of the net revenue from gaming will be made available over 25 years to the 204 nations. That is what we are committed to do, and that is what we will address during our negotiations that will have to take place to deal with the force majeure of the pandemic. We look forward to those negotiations.

P. Milobar: Unlike the minister, I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I’m not suggesting that I’ve read the contract. I’m suggesting that I have listened to all of the government fanfare and discussion around the agreement.

The minister, in fact, referenced it in his first answer to me, saying that based on assumptions of $3 billion paid out over 25 years, accounting for a little bit of inflationary pressures, it would be around $95.5 million, because that’s how the $196.84 million was arrived at for the first two years of the agreement. So I was not referring to a hard-and-fast schedule. We all know it’s 7 percent of net revenues.

That’s why I started out asking the minister: what were the projected revenues last year, anticipated pre-pandemic, for this year? That number has been known. That number has been known at $95.5 million.

The question was: knowing that there was going to be a $37½ million shortfall in gaming going into this budget, and knowing the minister’s aversion to needing to go to Treasury Board regularly for funding, and knowing that there’s a written contract with the leadership around…? Why would the minister not have not gone to bat instead of having to go to a $3.1 billion pandemic contingency fund, to not say to Treasury Board and cabinet colleagues as the budget was being produced: “Hang on. There’s a gaming shortfall here because of the pandemic. Maybe we don’t need $3.1 billion in contingencies. Maybe we could just try to approximate, within a reasonable area, the $95.5 million”?

Again the question that was actually asked was: did the minister attempt to make the agreement close to the $95.5 million and get rebuffed and told to go to contingencies, or did he just not try at all?

Hon. M. Rankin: I find it interesting to hear the member for the party that formed government for so many years and refused so continuously to provide one penny for gaming revenue now talking about this issue so passionately.

I reiterate: I’ve told him the exact number that was anticipated. He asked for that projected revenue. I made the point of $95.5 million. I think that he accepted that. I told him that, last week or just a week before, we actually paid $58 million, so he knows what the shortfall is. He knows that it’s my responsibility to address this issue, and I will do so in the fullness of time.

This is a pandemic. This is a force majeure clause under the contract. We stand by our contractual commitments and will honour them to the full.

[2:20 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Speaking of contractual and tying in previous questions around the Wet’suwet’en agreements and discussions that were happening, I’m just wondering. The minister had mentioned how he had been involved previously under contract by the government to engage in some of those discussions and how as minister, he finds it imperative that all sides try to work together, which I fully agree — that the electeds need to be working with the hereditary system, as well, to try to find a way forward within their own areas and territories.

At the time that the minister was contracted — and this will lead to a few subsequent questions, I guess — was the minister contracted and enabled and empowered by the government to have the same conversations with the elected bodies in the Wet’suwet’en as he was contracted to have with the hereditary side and system within the Wet’suwet’en?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for giving me the opportunity to talk about the historic work that I was asked by the Premier to do with the Wet’suwet’en Nation. His question was the extent to which I was also encouraged to work with the elected membership.

I was, of course, asked to work with the Hereditary Chiefs who had won the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa case of 1997, but I was also, of course, to deal the nation through their traditional governance system, their smoke feast, which I attended with the Premier and ministers, as at the time, I was a provincial representative. It was a great honour to do that — an historic set of negotiations, which continue, I’m happy to report, today.

Of course, as part of that responsibility, I was aware of some of the tensions within the Wet’suwet’en community. Although I don’t think I actually met at the time with the elected members, I think maybe once or twice, if I’m not mistaken, my primary responsibility was to undertake the negotiations with the Hereditary Chiefs.

As I said this morning, everyone acknowledged and made clear to me my responsibility to ensure that anything we achieved, if we were able to do so with the hereditary leadership, would have to have the support of the Wet’suwet’en collectivity. I hope that that work is going to take place.

The government just recently provided a term sheet, we call it, some additional funding to assist them in that critically important unity-making work. I’m hopeful that we will see something emerge from that, the federal government now being part of the negotiations that we can all be proud of.

P. Milobar: So it sounds like the contract was not directly to engage in an official capacity on behalf of the province or otherwise with the elected bodies of the Wet’suwet’en.

The minister had mentioned earlier about the, I believe, $7.2 million in terms of funding provided to the Hereditary Chiefs, mainly from the federal government. Could the minister please provide me a breakdown of who was funding how much of that money that was, I believe, directed towards the hereditary houses?

Hon. M. Rankin: It was the province that provided $7.22 million to the Hereditary Chiefs to deal with particularly, as I said, governance capacity, unity-building activities and to facilitate the ongoing discussions under the 2020 MOU, which of course, my predecessor, Mr. Fraser, and Carolyn Bennett were engaged.

[2:25 p.m.]

Some of that money has been used for refurbishing a school, renovating a school: the Lake Kathlyn School in the Smithers area. It will be, I think, intended to be the seat of the governance system for the hereditary leadership. Some of that was important stewardship work — water stewardship, engaging on environmental issues, wildlife management — some of the things that are of great im­portance to the Wet’suwet’en people.

The moneys are allocated under an agreement. To the member’s question specifically, it was provincial money alone. There have been other federal funds made available, I understand, as well.

P. Milobar: Thank you for clearing that up. Can the minister maybe elaborate: did that $7.2 million come out of the $60 million of funding that we’ve previously been talking about?

Hon. M. Rankin: No, it did not.

P. Milobar: I guess I’m a little confused by that answer then. Was there something in the $7.2 million that would have fallen outside of the realm of what was allowable and what’s envisioned for that $60 million to fund?

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s just a question of timing, I think. Of course, that money came out before the budget was finalized, with the $60 million permanent funding in the base budget. I think it may be seen as a great example of our success in going to the Treasury Board and seeking funding for important work. It came from the contingency funds that are made available to our ministry from time to time.

P. Milobar: Wow. This minister might have the highest batting average going, for contingency funds out of government from Treasury Board. Was the $7.2 million, then, year-end money? Was it part of pre–March 31 surpluses accumulated throughout government, unspent from various programs and still available? Or was it already part of contingencies in this fiscal plan that we’re talking about? If so, which contingencies would it have come out of?

Hon. M. Rankin: Madam Chair, I appreciate the member’s compliment about our track record at Treasury Board. We are pretty proud of it, but we do our homework, and I’ve got a great team that helps us put that together. The particular ask here, the $7.22 million, came out of Budget 2020-2021 and was another contingency success.

P. Milobar: Okay, so that was year-end money last year, then, it sounds like, based on the timing of when the announcement happened. Thank you for clarifying that, to the minister.

We have $60 million still — a typical, average year, which is good. This would have been eaten up, 12 or 13 percent of that $60 million, otherwise. I guess the question is: if we’re trying to bring all parties together, and you have two very defined forms of governance within this area of the province, why has the government not fully engaged with the elected bodies in the way they have with the hereditary side?

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question, and it gives me the opportunity to reiterate and to commend the member for Nechako Lakes who was here this morning. I commended him for his efforts to do just what the member proposed: to try to get the elected and the hereditary systems together. That remains a challenge. I acknowledged that this morning as well. I have met, I know, in March with the elected leadership, for quite some time, and reiterated my great hope that they would be able to connect with the Hereditary Chiefs through their systems of governance.

After all, colonialism changed the historic decision-making processes of the Wet’suwet’en, as so many other nations were affected. Our commitment was to work with them as the Indigenous governing body, consistent with their traditions as hereditary leadership. In some parts of the province, we’re working with elected leaders, chief and council primarily. In other parts of the province, we’re working with hereditary leaders. In many nations, there’s an effective amalgamation or partnership between the elected and the hereditary systems. I continue to hope that the work that the member for Nechako Lakes has indicated was underway would bear fruit.

[2:30 p.m.]

It’s a long, difficult process. It has not been helped by the pandemic, and we are hopeful that an agreement can be reached, in the near term, with the federal government, the provincial government and the hereditary leadership.

P. Milobar: I’ll have several more questions here in this area, because as we’ve been trying to get reports of what’s actually been happening with contracts in terms of engagement, we know that the minister was engaged by the province specifically to deal with the hereditary side of the equation and not purposely contracted to engage meaningfully with the elected bodies. My understanding is that the minister of state for FLNRORD, at around the same time, was contracted by the province to deal specifically with the hereditary side as well.

The reason we’re meaning to ask some of these questions is because when we’ve tried FOI’ing to find out what work was actually done, what engagement happened, what type of outcomes were coming forward, the minister of state, according to my notes, was required to provide verbal reporting weekly or more often, as circumstances dictated, to the chief of staff, to the Premier, to the deputy minister and special advisor as well, and other officials designated. “A brief written summary of his engagements will be submitted at the end of the work.” Well, that work is long since completed.

When we FOI, no records were found of any submitted written reports or notes regarding verbal reports in the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, despite the reporting requirement in the contract and further notes and reports to the Premier’s office that suggest good and frequent communication with the minister’s office.

I guess my question to the minister is: will we be able to access and be able to review what work was undertaken by both himself and the minister of state of FLNRORD in regards to discussions with the hereditary chiefs? Taxpayers did pay about $240,000 between the two for about nine or 12 months work, and we’re just simply trying to access some of these reports. The elected leadership would like to know what’s in these reports, and I’m asking the minister if those can be made available.

The Chair: Members, we’ll now take just a five-minute recess while we undertake cleaning and safety protocols in preparation for a new committee Chair.

The committee recessed from 2:32 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.

[A. Walker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for the question. We were talking before the break about the nature of the negotiations and funding of the negotiations with the Wet’suwet’en. I had the honour of being asked by the Premier to undertake that initially. Then, of course, when the MOU discussions occurred, I was not any longer engaged. But during the time I was there, the negotiations were very, very complex. The member for Nechako Lakes, this morning, I think, acknowledged that very clearly.

I had numerous briefings with the deputy minister, with the Premier’s office, and with the minister, Mr. Fraser, at the time. As the member will appreciate, there weren’t a lot of written records. The records would go something like, if they were prepared: “We are continuing to make progress. We are continuing to meet.”

I was given a mandate. I was consistently told — and said publicly so often, when I was in Smithers and the territory — that we really need to insist that the important unity work be undertaken. Money was provided to assist in that direction. There was nothing, I think…. I can’t think of what written records would have been available that wouldn’t simply say: “We are continuing to meet and working hard to achieve an honorable agreement.”

As someone who was very much engaged with freedom of information through my academic career and believe very much in it, if there was a record, I would fight for the member’s right to retrieve those records. All I can really report would be that there were no such records, because I was simply asked to go and negotiate. I was given instructions to work within a mandate, and that’s precisely what I did.

P. Milobar: Over that time frame, there was about a quarter-million dollars invested in yourself and others to try this engagement. People need to get paid. I’m not suggesting that shouldn’t happen or anything like that. Obviously, if you’re doing work, you deserve to be compensated.

But it seemed to be — and previous questions to the minister were that the direction and, in fact, the contract were very clear — that it was meant to be engagement, officially, with the Hereditary Chiefs, not the elected. The problem we’re finding is that — as the member for Nechako Lakes articulated as well earlier, and as I’ve had a few conversations with folks from up that part of the world — there’s a frustration growing that the elected side of the equation that the minister speaks about needing to be together, to be one, continues to be left out of finding out what was being discussed and what was being reported.

The resources the province is providing to one side of the conversation are not being provided to the other side of the table. We’ve just heard…. There’s the quarter-million dollars. Now there’s $7.2 million provincially, all out of last year’s budget.

Can the minister point me to where in this budget there is any money for the elected leadership to meaningfully try to engage with the province and with the hereditary system on the same type of financial support footing that we’re seeing with the hereditary side of the discussion?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I don’t recall specifically a request for funding from the electeds that would show up, but I can tell you that they are in receipt of considerable funds through such things as pipeline benefit agreements and what are called FCRSAs, the forest consultation and reve­nue-sharing agreements. They are in receipt of those funds to do the work that they do. My mandate was to work with the Hereditary Chiefs, the people who brought the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa case to the courts. I did that in good faith. I’m proud of the achievements that we’ve made. I think we are making progress.

I’ve said over and over again, as recently as March, when I met with the elected Chiefs and council, that it’s important that that unity work continue, that an agreement must have the consent and demonstrate the support of the collectivity called the Wet’suwet’en. There has been nobody trying to suggest just how that will be achieved, but we expect to be able to report that the agreements we achieve have the support of the community who the Hereditary Chiefs are representing.

That can be done, that assent can be provided, in any number of ways, but we have to be satisfied — and they well understand that — that their membership supports it. That is a message I delivered, in March, to the elected leadership. I have done that on several occasions, and I will continue to do that.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for that answer. But referring to revenue-share agreements on pipelines, other forest projects and things of that nature that elected bodies would enter into, anticipating certain amounts of revenue in a certain way that they were planning on expending for the betterment of their community, and expecting them to just dip into that to match 100 percent–backstopped provincial and federal government firepower, so to speak — the manpower behind the hereditary side of the equation — creates what feels like an imbalance.

We’ve been hearing that for quite some time. The government has certainly been hearing I; I know I’ve been hearing it. If I’ve been hearing it, I can guarantee that the minister has been hearing it. He was deeply ingrained in the conversations right from the get-go. So was the Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations — very well-versed — and voices around the provincial cabinet table.

We’ve heard from this minister about the importance of all sides in that area needing to work together and ultimately come together on a way forward. I agree with that, but it gets pretty hard to find that way forward when one side is much more heavily resourced from the provincial government — with a minister who, previously, was tasked to work exclusively for that side and not the elected side — and when there’s no resources provided for the elected side.

I hope the minister can see why even the elected side of the equation has a little apprehension, given that his contract with the government was not to work with them directly on behalf of the province. It was to work for the hereditary system. Now, as minister, there are no resources in this budget that he can point to, according to his last answer, that would support the elected officials to be able to start to engage on an equal footing, with provincial and federal funding, to provide those types of conversations.

I guess the question, then, to the minister…. He has a well-established track record of going to bat at Treasury Board, and there’s no money in the budget. Is the minister prepared to go to Treasury Board to get contingency funding to try to make sure that the elected officials within this whole conversation start to feel like they are on equal footing, to try to accelerate and try to find these conversations to end in a good place?

Hon. M. Rankin: I just would point out to the member that the negotiations that I was asked to undertake were with the Hereditary Chiefs, not the elected Chiefs, because it was the argument that the Indigenous governing body responsible for lands and resources in Wet’suwet’en territory was, historically, the Hereditary Chiefs. Of course, elected Chiefs have great responsibilities under the Indian Act for administering their reserves and the like, but the advice we were given — and the court’s decision in 1997 — was to the effect that the Hereditary Chiefs were the proper Indigenous governing body, and we acted accordingly.

[2:45 p.m.]

In other words, my negotiations were with the Hereditary Chiefs, not the elected Chiefs. Imbalance is not, in fact, an appropriate way of describing it. The member, quite properly, talked about the need for all sides to come together, and that is precisely why the majority of the $7.22 million that were just recently made available to the Hereditary Chiefs was to engage in that unity-building work. That is what it is for.

We continue to — as I say, as recently as March, when I met the elected Chiefs — encourage them to get together, notwithstanding the pandemic and all of the difficulties that that poses for all of us, to find a way where we can have their assent for any work that comes out of this historic process. The federal government and the provincial government, after the MOU was signed, are engaged with the Hereditary Chiefs. That is who we are dealing with. We have encouraged the elected Chiefs to get involved in that process, and we’ll continue to do so.

P. Milobar: Well, whether the government likes it or not, they’re in the middle of this back-and-forth between the elected and the hereditary system up there, and this is part of the problem. Once the government has inserted itself into these discussions, there is an expectation — from both the elected and the hereditary, frankly — to make sure that the government is seen to be engaging in a meaningful, good way with all parties.

When you have elected Chiefs and councils, they rightfully and understandably expect that government will deal with them as well. It’s not as simple as saying, “Well, the electeds should just go talk to the Hereditary Chiefs, because we gave them $7.2 million, so there’s some money there for them to be able to try to work through this,” when the government had very clearly hired the minister, when he was in his private realm as a lawyer, as their voice, as the minister has just reaffirmed. That’s my whole point of my questions: he was explicitly hired to work with the Hereditary Chiefs, not the electeds.

The Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations was hired directly to work with the Hereditary Chiefs, not the electeds, and there has been a one-sided feel of a conversation that the provincial government and the federal government have engaged fully on the hereditary side and have done precious little to try to broker some sort of coming together. Simply saying, “We hope that you will” and “We encourage you to” does not necessarily make it so.

I guess the question to the minister, then…. One of the big sticking points, to this point, is that the elected bodies still, to my knowledge, have not had access to the MOUs. They certainly weren’t involved in the negotiations and discussions with the MOUs. Will they have a meaningful role to work on, in some form, or even have access to those MOUs and be able to actually provide, directly to the provincial government in a meaningful way, any input on the way forward?

Hon. M. Rankin: The MOU, I should say, from the outset, is a public document. It’s a short document, but it’s a document that’s been public for many, many months. It is, of course, an agreement signed by my predecessor, by Minister Bennett and by the Hereditary Chiefs.

It was in 1997 that the Hereditary Chiefs won the historic victory. Our negotiation has been with the Hereditary Chiefs. It is the Hereditary Chiefs that are party to the MOU. Those are the three parties: federal government, provincial government and the Hereditary Chiefs. It is to be hoped that the elected leaders will see fit to join this process, but as the member will well understand, it is not for us, as the public government, to insist on any particular thing happening with our negotiating partners.

We can encourage. We can provide the funding to make sure that the resources are there to allow that to occur, but it is ultimately for the Wet’suwet’en as a self-governing nation to determine how they present themselves in this negotiation. It is the Hereditary Chiefs that won the court case. We took a generation, sadly, to get back to the table. We are at the table with them now, and we would hope that they would do the work required to get their membership to agree to whatever comes out of these historic negotiations.

[2:50 p.m.]

P. Milobar: That’s one set of conflict points happening, but it’s happening on a pipeline area, an LNG project that this government supports.

I’m going to switch gears now and talk to this minister’s potential resourcing of a different conflict on a pipeline project that this government does not support, that has been going on for three years and that has had no support from this government to try to resolve either.

In Blue River, we’ve had the Tiny House Warriors occupying a piece of Crown land and wreaking havoc on people’s quiet and enjoyment of their own private properties. At the campground next door, their clients are driven away by loud noise repeatedly. Town people down trying to swim at the river have had harassment issues. Everything’s well documented. I’ve brought this forward to government now several times. I did it in estimates last year as well.

The request was really quite simple. We don’t expect, in my riding, that there will be some magic solution to this. It’s a long-standing dispute.

The area First Nation, the Simpcw Nation, has an agreement with the pipeline company. They provide a lot of contract services. Their natural resource company in the valley is actually the largest employer in the valley. They do a lot of great work up and down, and they get along great with the residents of Clearwater, Barriere, Blue River, Valemount. Their territory is quite massive, and they do a great job.

They’re frustrated, as well, that these protesters have set up and have not been moved along or talked with in any meaningful way. The request I had last year and the answer I got back was: “We don’t direct policing.” Well, it’s funny. They tend to direct policing, it seems, if it comes to other societal issues, but it isn’t this minister’s issue to deal with policing.

FLNRORD does not want to take action with them being on Crown land. I’ll go and chat with them again. The Attorney General doesn’t want to take any action through the prosecution services in any meaningful way. The police feel frustrated. They’re doing what they can do, but small rural detachments don’t have the manpower. The community is completely frustrated. The elected chief and council in that area are completely frustrated. There have been no resources provided to try to engage in a meaningful conversation between the protesters, the community and the company — zero. And it’s been going on for three years now.

Is there any money in this year’s budget to try to engage with some actual dialogue, to be a mediator of this, to try to find some way to open a conversation, recognizing that the protesters aren’t too eager to be moving along? Not talking hasn’t worked for three years.

Is the minister prepared to get some resources into the Blue River area to try to engage with the community, with the First Nation, with the protesters, in a respectful way, and with other impacted parties around trying to solve this impasse? Because it’s not working. Silence and indifference from government is not an answer.

Hon. M. Rankin: I want to thank the member for his continued advocacy on behalf of his constituents in this difficult situation. I think I would start by saying we are open to any ideas that he may have to assist us in finding a peaceful resolution of this complicated issue.

[2:55 p.m.]

He prefaced his remarks by talking about how we have, perhaps, different perspectives on different pipe­lines. I suppose that’s true, but it’s irrelevant. It’s absolutely irrelevant.

We are here to ensure that the right to engage in peaceful protests is upheld but that unlawful actions do not occur. We do not, contrary to what I think I heard insinuated, direct the police in any way, shape or form. They exercise their discretion independently of government, always have and, I certainly hope, always will.

Enforcement decisions and individual investigations in the Blue River context occur at arm’s length from government, and government cannot and will not interfere with the police. The public has a right to peaceful protest, and that is a core element of our democracy that I’m sure the member would acknowledge.

In this particular case, we would welcome the member’s suggestions as to how we might be able to find a resolution to this long-standing conflict.

P. Milobar: Well, to be clear, I didn’t suggest that I was expecting this minister to direct police. What I’m saying is that over the course of time, there have been nuanced other areas of government where the Solicitor General and the Attorney General have indicated, between the prosecution service and police services, how enforcement will or will not take place on various things and how prosecutions will or will not happen on various things.

That’s fine. I’m not taking issue with that, and I’m not suggesting that we run into Blue River with a massive police presence. I didn’t ask for that last year. The community hasn’t asked for that.

The community has been pretty clear that they’re fed up. The community’s perspective, rightly or wrongly, is that on a pipeline that the government spent years fighting in federal court, spent years saying “every tool in the toolbox,” a pipeline that the government to this day still doesn’t actually want to have happen but will grudgingly accept the Supreme Court decision that it’s happening…. There have been zero resources from this government to try to engage with the protesters and the community and the First Nations in that area on this standstill. Zero.

I was raising these questions last year in estimates at the same time that this minister and the Minister of State for FLNRORD were getting paid a quarter of a million dollars to get in the middle of a very contentious issue happening on a pipeline that this government did want to see happen. So I think even the minister can see where the public perception of the residents of Blue River is: out of sight, out of mind. Not a project the Premier wants. They can tolerate and put up with three years’ worth of public disorder.

Just three weeks ago we had a protester chain themselves to the boom of a crane at a worksite. Now, they were dealt with. There was a proper injunction in place, and that’s fine. It put a lot of people at risk. Those are big industrial sites. Crane booms aren’t exactly something to be messed with.

We’re talking about the day in, day out and the inability of this government to try to even remotely engage with the community, with the Simpcw chief and council and with the protesters. The request, I think, has been fairly clear for the last few years. Why are there not resources to try to have some intermediary? Surely there must be some other retired federal MP we can send in there to work on this. I asked that last year. Must be. That’s who we hire to send in and try to take care of contentious issues.

The people of Blue River have spent three years asking this government for some sort of resources and help, and they have gotten none. They will get police response when it’s warranted. That’s expected, that’s understood, and that’s fine. We’re talking about the day-in, day-out situation that is being created in a small town.

Will this minister provide resources, provide somebody on behalf of the government to try to meaningfully engage in a conversation between the chief and council, the community and the protesters so that the chief and council in the community can get some peace and quiet restored back into their area?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: In respect of the actual project…. Before I talk about the potential way forward, I need to reiterate…. Whether or not this government has a particular stance on a particular pipeline is not relevant to this dispute. The member seems to be suggesting that it does.

The courts have determined, as you well know, that this project, the Trans Mountain pipeline, is of legitimate process and should proceed. It has a valid environmental assessment certificate with 37 conditions. There are about 1,500 provincial permits required. It is permitted. It is a project that has been permitted by the government. Any member or minister’s particular position on that is not relevant, and it is particularly irrelevant to the policing of this conflict. So I just want to put that on the record as clearly as I’m able.

The member, however, has said…. I accept that he’s not asking for a massive police presence, to use his words. We are open to any suggestions that he might have. He’s made one, and it’s one I’ll take under advisement. As I understand it, he’s suggesting we bring in a facilitator or a negotiator of some sort. That may be an approach.

But I do want to let the member know that our representatives from British Columbia met with Kúkwpi7 Loring and Kúkwpi7 Casimir of the Simpcw and the Tk’emlúps Nations just this past August to discuss the situation and determine ways to work together to address their concerns. The province is committed to continue discussions with those two individuals and to meet the people of Blue River as well.

I think the member does an excellent job in articulating the frustrations that are felt when a long-standing conflict of this sort emerges and seems to be intractable. But I always find…. I do not believe there’s an intractable conflict. We just need to find better ways to engage. We will continue to look at all sorts of opportunities. If the member has ideas — he has given us one today — we will take those under advisement.

P. Milobar: Well, thank you. I was aware that back in August — not just August, but we’re almost at August again, so nine months ago — the meeting happened. Two very strong Chiefs. I have a lot of respect and time and admiration for both kúkwpi7s. They do a great job representing their communities. They are both integral areas within my riding, certainly. I have no doubt, after my meetings that I’ve had over the last better part of two decades with those two Chiefs, that they made sure the government knew exactly what they were thinking and exactly what type of help they needed and resources they needed.

I’m assuming that as the minister said, there was a meeting to find out what type of help and supports they would like to see happen. Has anything been actioned on behalf of the provincial government based on that meeting? I find it hard to believe that those two Chiefs would not have had an ask of something of government.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member reiterating that there were meetings with Kúkwpi7 Loring and Kúkwpi7 Casimir. I share with him the perspective that these are two very strong Chiefs in his community area.

However, to the specific suggestion that the member made about the appointment of a facilitator, the fact is that the Simpcw have not asked for such a facilitator during our meetings, nor have they asked for subsequent meetings on this topic.

Again, I reiterate that if the member has suggestions that would be acceptable to the parties, such as the one that he has proposed, our door is very much open to trying to find a resolution to this long-standing dispute.

P. Milobar: Well, I would suggest the minister also connect with the regional district director and others in that area as well if he wants to feel the sentiment community-wide. As I say, when I convey the sentiment that this is on a pipeline that the government opposed, I am essentially repeating back to the minister what I hear repeatedly from people up and down that valley.

[3:05 p.m.]

The minister can feel that that’s not factually accurate all he would like, and I don’t think that there’s necessarily a big bull’s eye drawn on this part of the world in some government back room, but I’m not doing my job representing my constituents if I don’t convey back what their feelings are to the government and to the minister.

I know that the minister appreciates that and understands that. I know it would be a different response, not so much from this minister but from the benches pounding away, if I said something similar in question period, so I appreciate the estimates process to make that clear. But I do hope that there is a way to meaningfully try to bring some resolution to this issue in a peaceful way, because that’s what all residents in the valley have been saying.

Government has more resources in this situation than anyone else, and after three years, there have been no government resources. One meeting with two Chiefs nine months ago does not cut it, not when you look at the area that we were just discussing earlier and the resources that were being pumped into that area by the province, and still are. But I’ll move on. I have less than an hour to go, so I should continue and move on.

In the minister’s mandate letter, it also says: “Expand our government’s support for Aboriginal friendship centres that serve the needs of local Indigenous communities while playing a vital role in connecting urban Indigenous Peoples from across the province to their home communities.”

Can the minister point me to where in the budget or how much or what extra resources are in this budget to fulfil that part of his mandate letter?

Hon. M. Rankin: I just want to complete the answer to the last question that the member opened with, concerning the controversy in Blue River. I reiterate that we are available to meet the Chiefs at any time. We are committed to try to find a resolution. They have not asked for a facilitator, but our door is open.

Again, to the member, if there are additional ideas that could help us address this, we’d be happy to.

I utterly reject the premise that…. The sentiment may be what it is, but I hope that the member will acknowledge that we are committed to the law. This is a permitted project. A law enforcement issue of this sort…. It’s of no consequence what my particular view might be about the Trans Mountain pipeline or the LNG pipeline or the like. We’re a nation of laws. We’re a province committed to that. Maybe there’s sentiment to the contrary, but it is wrong. So I don’t want that to be left on the record with any uncertainty whatsoever.

[3:10 p.m.]

On the issue of the friendship centres, there is no specific new money in the budget for this important mandate. I reiterate what I said earlier. This commitment to friendship centres is real. We have a four-year mandate in the mandate letters, and I continue to deal with friendship centre leaders all the time.

In fact, yesterday I met with the head of the friendship centre, Barb Ward-Burkitt, who runs an incredible operation in Prince George and is chair of my minister’s advisory council on women’s issues. She is just an amazing dynamo and a great asset to the friendship centre movement.

The province provided $7.8 million in COVID-19 relief funding to provide extra funding support to all 25 friendship centres across the province. I think it’s important to note that that helps to provide supports like meals and food hampers, care packages for seniors, education kits for children. It helps keep staff and clients safe with new handwashing stations, sanitation, safe work spaces and personal protective equipment.

Friendship centres, as the member pointed out, quite properly…. The urban Indigenous population are served to a great degree by friendship centres. We have one in Victoria, under Ron Rice’s leadership, that does enormous good work in the community. They’re all over — 25 of them. We are committed, over time, to address their funding needs and to do so, of course, with minister Marc Miller, the federal Minister of Indigenous Services.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that, Minister. So a couple more Métis-related questions for you. The government had a Métis Nation relationship accord. It was 2.0. It was signed in 2006. It included commitments to provide regular reporting.

Can the minister give an update on the most recent time there was a report published?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: It took me a moment to get the answer. I wanted to be sure. It was a very specific question posed, and I wanted to make sure I had accurate information. I have spoken with our assistant deputy minister who is responsible for this division.

I want to start by saying that the Métis people have constitutionally protected rights. The province recognizes that. They were affirmed in our Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. There are probably 90,000 Métis people living in British Columbia. They’re an important community. The member quite properly referred to the Métis Nation relationship accord II. We continue to work through that accord to cultivate a better relationship with the Métis people so they can access good social and economic opportunities that make a difference in their lives.

We are trying to use this accord as a springboard to establish a long-overdue better relationship with the Métis population, often called the invisible Indigenous population of our province. I can report to the member that there has been no report that has been written. COVID has been our enemy. The report is still outstanding. It requires to be undertaken jointly with the Métis Nation British Columbia, and that work is ongoing. Active discussions, I’m advised, are underway.

P. Milobar: Well, I appreciate that there’s not been a report issued recently. The question was: when was the last report issued? I’m wondering if we can get a follow-up on when the last report issued was. It was signed with the previous government — the 2.0. What progress, then, has been made, in addition to the report, with the Métis Peoples of B.C.?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m sorry if I misunderstood the question. When was the last report? I cannot report that. I do not have that information. I will undertake to provide that information to the member.

As to what progress is underway, as I said earlier, there are active discussions. We have to come up with a joint document. We’re doing so together. I can report to the member that I, as minister, have had conversations with Métis leadership on several occasions now, not only through the declaration act process, in terms of the action plan work that we’re doing, but also in terms of alignment of laws, where we’ve involved Métis leadership in describing the legislation that needs to be aligned and current bills that are going forward. They are very much engaged in that process.

So in addition to the relationship accord II, we also have a very vibrant relationship that we’re trying to create with the Métis Nation B.C.

P. Milobar: I’m just wondering if the minister — the ministry, the government — supports distinction-based funding for Indigenous governments. If so, and if it’s not in place already, will there be advocacy on his part to ministerial colleagues?

Hon. M. Rankin: A very interesting question posed by the member. He talks of distinction-based funding. I want to start by saying that British Columbia’s programming, that’s available from the Ministry of Education, Advanced Education, any number of programs…. The extent to which they are earmarked for Indigenous Peoples would, of course, include Métis.

[3:20 p.m.]

We point out again that section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, very clearly connotes Métis as part of Indigenous Peoples. We live in the spirit of that commitment, that constitutional requirement. I mentioned earlier that there are 90,000 Métis People we expect, we believe, most of whom live in urban areas. There’s a challenge to reach them and to provide them with the services that they are entitled to, but we do our best.

There are other Indigenous Peoples — many more, of course — who have land-based treaty rights, either treaty rights or Aboriginal rights and title, based on their connection with the land. The Métis do not have land-based rights in British Columbia, at least that’s our understanding. Of course, they do in the prairie provinces, but they do not here.

Inevitably, there will be a distinction. We go back to where I started: Indigenous Peoples, as defined in the Constitution Act, 1982 — “aboriginal peoples” there — definitely includes the Métis. We’re working hard to establish a good working relationship with our Métis citizens.

P. Milobar: Given that the minister is indicating that the government does not feel the Métis have land-based rights — I’m not arguing either side of that; I’m just restating — the commitments in DRIPA…. How will the government then recognize duty to consult all Indigenous bodies? Does that mean that with DRIPA and the land-based view of the minister that there will be one set of consultation on projects and initiatives moving forward, and a different set based on land rights, or not?

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question. The action plan under the declaration act is a very, very exciting process I’m currently engaged in. In doing so, we’re dealing with the complex array of Indigenous Peoples who exist in our province.

For example, we have modern treaty. Think Nisg̱a’a. Think the Maa-nulth, Tla’amin. We have modern treaties — Tsawwassen, of course. We have the Douglas treaties, a different category of treaties on Vancouver Island. We have treaty 8 in the northeast, ancient treaties, and in McLeod Lake Indian Band, that has adhered to treaty 8. And we have Métis. And, of course, the individual First Nations — 204 in the province. I mentioned 35 languages.

It is a very complex world, and we are trying our best to ensure that we meet First Nations and other Indigenous Peoples on their own terms to make sure that we have a viable reconciliation and that economic and social prosperity is shared widely.

The action plan is an example of how we’re working with each category of those nations and Indigenous Peoples. For example, we’re working in specific issues to address Métis, specific issues of interest to the modern treaty alliance, specific issues to deal with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and First Nations Leadership Council, etc.

We have all of these governing bodies, plus the proper rights and title holders on the ground, which would be the 204 nations that exist in British Columbia. Inevitably, therefore, there will be distinctions because of the complexity of the various Indigenous groups that call British Columbia home.

I’m happy to say that the action plan under the declaration act, which we’re hoping to bring out in the next short while, will give us a great illustration of how we’re working to meet the specific needs of those differing Indigenous Peoples.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that. It is really just trying to get some background. Obviously, I’m sure that the minister hears from a wide range of Indigenous groups, as I do, and everyone is wondering where the government’s head space is at with these various issues. But the minister does actually provide a perfect segue with that answer. I was going to be moving on to the action plan.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’m just wondering if the minister could reconfirm, for the viewing public at home, those four people tuning in right now, just what the original timeline for the action plan was.

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for the question.

There is no timeline in the declaration setting out exactly when an action plan has to be created. There is one in the federal act, interestingly, but not here. I would have hoped, if I can be totally candid, that we would have had this done by now. We hope to bring and expect to bring a consultation draft forward in a matter of weeks.

I stress that the act does have a very specific requirement. It says that the action plan has to be created “in consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples.” I take those words very seriously.

It’s not just our list of things that we want to accomplish over the next five years. It’s a plan that is engaging all of those various Indigenous Peoples that I spoke of earlier. To do that right, in the age of COVID, unfortunately, has taken time. I wish we didn’t have COVID. I wish it were done.

I am happy to report that the consultation draft will be out in a matter of weeks.

P. Milobar: Will the consultation draft, then, be released publicly, or will it be strictly for the people and the agencies and the groups that were consulted on the development of the draft plan?

Hon. M. Rankin: It will be a public document on a website the government is now creating.

P. Milobar: Could the minister, then, walk us through what the envisioned process will be once it’s released in terms of how long there will be for public commentary, if any, and what the process is for making any amendments or changes to a draft plan? Or is it meant to be a draft plan to inform and educate — what is, essentially, a final document — but it will be at least public so people can understand it before it gets enacted?

Hon. M. Rankin: The action plan has been the subject of a lot of action. We’ve engaged with so many Indigenous Peoples. It’s been really quite wonderful — the level of involvement that we’ve managed to achieve despite COVID. I’m very happy that the consultation draft will be coming out in a few weeks.

I want to stress that this has involved not only dialogue with Indigenous Peoples but with many others and, frank­ly, often negotiations within government to make sure that the various agencies and ministries are committed to this and lined up and that realistic, achievable things can be done.

We don’t simply want aspirational ideas. We want things we can look to in five years and say: “We did that. That was a practical, achievable result, and we achieved that result.” That is what we’re looking to do.

As I say, we’ve talked to all of those groups I talked about earlier, which are part of the fabric of Indigenous communities in British Columbia. It will be public for a period of time, the consultation draft — probably a few months. Summer is going to get in the way; we acknowledge that. But we want another opportunity for feedback.

[3:30 p.m.]

I can honestly say there has been enormous involvement of Indigenous groups to the stage we’re at now. I’m very pleased with where the action plan is at, but there could be lots of feedback. That’s what we want. That’s why it’s a consultation draft. That’s why it’ll be widely available. After that feedback is provided, we hope that we can get the work done in final form by the fall.

P. Milobar: Well, that’s good to hear. I was worried we were heading down the caribou plan road again. It was up in the Peace area. It sounds like that’s not the case at this point.

In terms of flipping back, then, to the minister’s mandate letter. I appreciate it’s a four-year term, but mandate letters get changed from time to time. And we wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t check in on progress that is or isn’t happening that the Premier has directed the minister to do.

One of the bullets, about three down on page 3, is: “Bring forward for cabinet consideration a plan to create a dedicated secretariat by the end of 2021 to coordinate government’s reconciliation efforts and to ensure new legislation and policies are consistent with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.” I’m just wondering the status of developing that secretariat and if the timeline will be met for the end of 2021.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member raising the secretariat as one of the core commitments of mine in the mandate letter. I hasten to say yes. It will be done by the end of the calendar year, as advertised. We’re well underway. Had terrific feedback from the First Nations Leadership Council and others. But it’s an internal government operation. Where should the secretariat sit in government to be sure that First Nations and other Indigenous people see that it is a serious undertaking and has the status required that people will see it as a serious undertaking within the system?

How do we make sure that it actually gets its job done? Those are the challenges. The federal government uses the expression “machinery of government.” I’ve consulted widely with experts on public administration to make sure that we don’t create something that doesn’t have the clout to do the job that’s required, which is, I think, just to keep the government’s feet to the fire on the implementation of the declaration act.

I think that work is quite exciting, and as I say, it’s under­way, with the kind of consultation and cooperation I referred to, not just with Indigenous peoples this time but with government and experts on public administration.

P. Milobar: Just to clarify and confirm, though, with the minister, then…. I know he referenced that it’s an internal kind of government working document, but it’s in a public mandate letter. I’m assuming that trying to figure out where it fits into government and which ministry best to maybe be the quarterback to it moving forward and things of that nature is what the minister is talking about. But the actual structure of it, where it will be located and how it will operate — all of those things will be made public once cabinet signs off on that creation?

Hon. M. Rankin: Absolutely, yes.

P. Milobar: Okay. Thank you for that. It says also: “In collaboration with Indigenous partners, deliver the action plan required under the declaration.” That’s the action plan we referenced earlier. There’s also language around im­proving government’s relationship with Indigenous people and “Facilitate partnerships around key decisions on regional land and resource use allocation.” Are all of those being tied together within the action plan? Or are those all going to be seen as individual ways forward?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think that the action plan will, of course, do a lot of things and impose a lot of obligations on a lot of ministries. That’s to be expected because our whole government, as I say, through all the mandate letters of all the ministers, is committed to a very significant shift in our relationship with Indigenous peoples, and reconciliation is at the fore.

[3:35 p.m.]

The specific question that was asked, however, would not be necessarily part of the action plan. Our commitment to engage in long-standing agreements — agreements that are durable, I guess I should say — that are not simply transactional but are comprehensive, that deal with self-government and deal with economic prosperity and the like…. Those are the things that I’m mandated to do.

As the mandate letter said, it’s to move away from simply a particular forest and range agreement here or a pipeline benefit agreement there or something specific and transactional and to create comprehensive reconciliation. That is sort of the lens through which I’d ask the member to examine that particular subject.

P. Milobar: Thank you. I just have one or two more questions. Then I see the member from Saanich has signed on from the Green Party, and he’ll be carrying the rest of the questions through the rest of the day till close.

The minister has referenced a few times that trying to create the action plan during COVID has created issues. That’s understandable. It’s understandable, especially when you consider some communities would be very hard pressed with communication issues and bandwidth, if they have connectivity at all. So that’s totally understandable.

I just want to get a sense, though. With COVID itself, in terms of within the ministerial operations, has there been any secondment of resources from MIRR to other areas of government, or have the slowdowns been essentially just strictly the practicalities of trying to gather and properly communicate in the middle of COVID?

Hon. M. Rankin: I may have not grasped the member’s question adequately. Perhaps he might rephrase it.

I can say that members of our ministry staff are constantly moving to support Ministry of Health or work with the First Nations Health Authority in the context of COVID or perhaps work with the Attorney General’s ministry and might find themselves sitting in those chairs for some period of time. That’s the nature of mobility in the public service. That’s particularly felt in our ministry.

Of course, within our ministry, people have moved around. With the declaration act, there have been many people who have moved from one part of our ministry to another in order to undertake those responsibilities. But perhaps the member could restate the question so I can be sure to do justice to it.

P. Milobar: Sure. It may not be relevant this year. I know last year when we were doing estimates, obviously in the height of COVID just unfolding in front of us, there were a lot of different ministries where staff were seconded out to do more direct COVID-type support initiatives, and it did dwindle down and slow down workflow because of that. As I say, I understand the plan being slowed down because of communication and travel restrictions and those types of slowdowns.

I’m just checking to see if there was any impact with secondments out for COVID measures that also impacted the plan’s development or not.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thanks to the member for that thoughtful question. I understand that there has been lots of mobility, but during COVID, not as much, because many of our members stayed in place. We have had people redeployed — fires, floods, COVID. There’s been some movement as a result of fires and floods particularly. I don’t think that’s been an issue that has been of any great concern within our ministry in recent months.

[3:40 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Okay, thank you. We find that with some ministries, COVID becomes the answer for everything, and then when you really drill into it — how was that COVID? But it doesn’t sound like that was it, other than, as I say, the obvious communication and logistical issues.

Just a last kind of follow-up. The most recent I can find is a Q1 2020 report from B.C. Housing. They haven’t issued an updated one. But in the minister’s mandate letter, it does talk about helping support B.C. Housing around Indigenous housing initiatives and things of that nature.

Here we have the Indigenous housing fund. This is a report on page 5 from the Q1. I’m not expecting that the minister would probably have the B.C. Housing report, obviously. But it’s initiated, 674; in development, 98. Now, I should say “initiated” is announced, but not necessarily funded. In fact, they’re not funded. “In development” means they’re on their way — so 98 there. Under construction, 326; and completed, none. This was the Q1 2020 B.C. Housing report.

I’m just wondering: does the minister have an update on actual completed units for Indigenous housing and what the most recent completed units would be through B.C. Housing that he works with?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think that’s very fair for the member to be asking. I don’t have, of course. It’s the Attorney General and the Minister Responsible for Housing and B.C. Housing that would be particularly involved.

The fact is, since 2018, through the $550 million Indigenous housing fund, we have been investing, as the member pointed out, in Indigenous housing, both on and off reserve. I stress again just how unusual it is for a province to be constructing housing on reserves. I’m very proud of that. I may stand corrected, but I have never heard of that occurring in Canada before. There was such an obvious need, and we stepped up to address that need. There’s a ten-year commitment to support building and operating 1,750 units of social housing.

The member pointed out that my mandate letter speaks to that commitment to work with the Attorney General and the Minister Responsible for Housing to bring the federal government to the table to match this funding and help build much-needed housing both on and off reserve. I’m happy that the Prime Minister has received a letter from our Premier requesting a federal commitment to match our $550 million investment.

I’m also happy to report that I’ve had personal conversations on more than one occasion with my federal counterparts, Minister Miller and Minister Bennett, asking for them to step up. Of course, I’m happy also to report that the federal budget does contain significant possibilities for that investment. You can be sure that we’re going to do our best to get British Columbia’s fair share.

P. Milobar: I could stand to be corrected, but my understanding is…. I believe it was actually former Minister Coleman who had funded, as Housing Minister, some on-reserve housing as well in the past. So it has happened in British Columbia, by my understanding, in the past, but it’s good to see some other projects move forward. There’s always a need for safe and secure housing, be it on reserve land or non-reserve land. That’s always good to see.

I will now cede the floor to the member from Saanich, from the Green Party. I’ve probably got the wrong riding name. He’s smirking, so I think I do. I apologize for that. I think he knows who he is, though.

Thank you for the time today.

The Chair: Thank you, Member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

We will take a two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:44 p.m. to 3:48 p.m.

[A. Walker in the chair.]

The Chair: I now recognize the member, virtually, for Saanich North and the Islands.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity, and thank you to the minister for taking the time and to my friends and colleagues in the B.C. Liberals for providing this time for us to ask some questions.

First of all, I’d like to congratulate the minister on his appointment to this really important role. As I’m asking questions today, they’re largely going to be in the context of that role and over this term of this mandate that his government has — just wanting to have discussion, I think, in broad terms, about what the minister’s approach and philosophy are in this role.

I know that my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson has asked some questions with respect to the action plan. I know that this was one key part of this. I’ve heard the minister respond, I think, to the impacts that COVID-19 has had on the development of the action plan. Maybe, perhaps, the minister can provide a little bit more detail as to exactly how that has delayed or impacted the development of the action plan.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Welcome to my colleague from Saanich and the Islands. It’s wonderful to be able to discuss these important issues with him.

You know, we had hoped to get the action plan out last year, no question about it. But COVID made it impossible, not only because government was disabled from doing its regular work — at least initially; we’ve come around since then — but of course, Indigenous communities were properly focused on keeping their members safe. You’ll recall the early days of the pandemic and how stressful it was for so many. I think we’re back on track. I would remind the member, Chair, that there is a need to consult and cooperate — those magic words in the declaration act — which we take very seriously.

We’ve had an enormous amount of engagement with all the Indigenous groups, and many individual nations as well. We’re going to get this document out, and the consultation draft, in the next few weeks. We hope to have it underway and done by the end of this year. It’ll be a five-year commitment. It’ll engage many ministries and agencies with things that are achievable in the real world. It’s not an aspirational document. It’s a document that we think, working in partnership with Indigenous Peoples, are things we can achieve together.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister, for that response. With respect to the consultation on the action plan that the minister refers to, I think that there are two groups there. There’s the rights and title holders, which are in the individual Indigenous Nations across the province, as well as Indigenous leadership groups. Memberships reflect various aspects of those Indigenous Nations work­ing together.

I’m just wondering if the minister can provide a little context around what kinds of consultation and engagement has been done with the representative groups — the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, as an example, and the Assembly of First Nations. Then what level of consultation is being done with the specific rights and title holders, the individual Indigenous Nations and their leaderships?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thanks again to the member for the question. You know, we’ve had the opportunity to work closely with the First Nations Leadership Council — the treaty summit group; of course, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs; the AFN, which the member referred to — but we’ve also dealt with numerous specific rights and title holders, the individual nations.

I mentioned, of course, the Alliance of Modern Treaty Nations, and I mentioned, earlier today, the role of the Métis Nation B.C., who also are Indigenous Peoples for purposes of the declaration act. I think it’s important to also point out that the UBCIC…. They have, of course, undertaken their responsibilities to work with the proper rights and title holders, whom they represent. I think, all in all, we have had the benefit of input from a wide array of the Indigenous Peoples and their associations in this province.

A. Olsen: We often hear or see, in letters and advocacy letters coming back from the Indigenous leadership groups that the minister was referring to and that I was referring to, that the engagement that the government undertakes with them should not be misconstrued as engagement or consultation that’s done with the rights and title holders.

I’m just wondering if maybe the minister could provide his perspective on how he’s navigating that really tricky area — where, certainly, it is a benefit to get the opinion of the leadership groups. I certainly have a deep respect for the work that they do on behalf of Indigenous People across the province. However, there seems to always be the caveat there, so I’m just wondering how the minister navigates that tricky space.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: That’s an excellent question, and a really insightful one. The member is absolutely right. The engagement, in the context of coming together with an action plan, is very different in kind than the kind of consultation that is required with the proper rights and title holders, the individual nations.

I completely accept that that is a challenge, especially in the time of COVID, where many of the proper rights and title holders…. If they had access to broadband or Internet, that’s one thing. Some of the remoter communities do not and have not. Of course, COVID has taken their attention elsewhere. So it’s been a challenge.

But there is a difference between engagement, as he puts it, and consultation. Again, we rely on the leadership groups to ensure that that takes place, that they are in touch with their individual nations. I believe that they have done so very, very well. But the point of the consultation draft, among others, is to give those individual nations the opportunity for themselves to see what is contained in this consultative draft, to allow them to see firsthand, on a website and through whatever processes we can generate to reach them, that they feel engaged and involved in this creation of our first action plan.

It’s so important that we get it right, and that’s why one would like to simply say, after all of this time and all of these meetings: “Let’s just get it out the door.” But no. I think the member puts his finger on one of the key reasons why we must have a further round, hopefully over the summer, so we can get it done by fall, in which the proper rights and title holders are fully engaged.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister. Perhaps the minister actually started to answer what my next question in this line of series is, and that is: what is the process? So often I hear from the Indigenous Nations that I represent, that reach out to me, that they often get notified about something that government is doing, whether it be the provincial, federal or local governments, regional governments. They get notified. Then, oftentimes, there are challenges in responding in the time frame.

What is the time frame that the provincial government is going to set for those Indigenous Nations to provide their feedback on the action plan?

Hon. M. Rankin: The process has been a rather cumbersome one to date, and I’ll answer the member’s question a little bit later.

I should start by saying that Chief Tom, well known to the member in his W̱SÁNEĆ community, is the vice-president of the UBCIC and has been very much involved in this process as one of many. But the engagement on the action plan actually started in February of 2020. It has included general assemblies of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, First Nations Summit, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations as well as First Nations directly, the Alliance of B.C. Modern Treaty Nations, Tŝilhqot’in National Government, Métis Nation B.C., the Minister’s Advisory Council on Indigenous Women, urban Indigenous coalitions and other Indigenous organizations.

As I say, during the pandemic, we continued to soldier on. Between March and July of 2020, we undertook an early analysis of known Indigenous-identified priorities across government, and with Indigenous partners, continued that work. Then in July….

Between July of 2020 and January of this year, the province engaged Indigenous partners on what their priorities are for the action plan. We held 80 separate meetings with 75 Indigenous partners, with hundreds of Indigenous Peoples in attendance. There were 29 written submissions, as well, received from Indigenous partners. The First Nations Leadership Council, as I said earlier, carried out a complementary engagement approach. They en­gaged with 11 First Nation organizations and received eight written submissions.

Since then, we have committed to getting out, within the next few weeks, the consultative draft on the action plan, a wrap-up of all of that work of things which the ministries — and I hope First Nation leadership and Indigenous leadership — will confirm is a very viable, attainable, practical, doable plan for five years of what we hope to be able to achieve together. That consultative draft will come out in a matter of weeks.

Then, of course, summer gets in the way. I hope, despite the website and all of the other ways we’re going to try to reach Indigenous Nations, that by the fall, we’ll be able to get a finalized action plan completed.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister and Members. We will now take a brief recess while we undertake cleaning and safety protocols in preparation for the next committee Chair.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.

[M. Dykeman in the chair.]

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the outline of the process to date and as well, I think, the minister’s hope for getting the information back by this fall.

I’m just wondering if there’s any specific direction that’s going to be given with respect…. Well, let me put it this way. Is it clear how the feedback that you’re going to receive from Indigenous leaderships across the province is going to be informing…? If this is a draft, how is the information that comes back from Indigenous leaderships going to shape and mould, further to what the consultation and engagement process has already been involved in, in terms of developing the document that you’re going to be sending out?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thanks to the member for Saanich North and the Islands for that question. I would start by reminding him that we have had enormous involvement from Indigenous Peoples to this point in time so that when the consultation draft hits the street and when it goes live on a website, we hope that it will be well-received, because it will be the product of enormous input from Indigenous Peoples.

[4:05 p.m.]

Exactly how it then proceeds is a function of the information we receive. Obviously, if there are serious deficiencies or difficulties that are identified, we will act accordingly. I’m hard-pressed to predict just how that will occur, not knowing the nature of the input that will be received.

A. Olsen: Thank you. Totally fair. I think what I’m trying to get at here with this question is simply….

As the member noted, my Chief, Chief Thom, is a member of the executive of one of the Indigenous leadership groups in our province. As someone who grew up on a reserve and in an Indigenous community, I’m very well aware of much of the sentiment around consultation and then how that consultation informs the end product.

So I’m very wary, when you send out a draft seeking more consultation, that actually, even though the original document was informed, you’re going to be sending out to a very large list of people and seeking their feedback. So there’s going to be some expectation — and rightly so, I think — that there’s receptivity to actually changing the document, depending on what it is.

I guess I’m just trying to highlight and to get from the minister the sense of receptivity to making the amendments. I recognize that there’s no way for the minister to presume what’s going to be in that feedback — just, rather, the approach, more than anything.

Hon. M. Rankin: I understand, having listened and engaged with many First Nations over my career, the wariness that the member refers to about consultation. I totally understand that and the frustration often that that…. People roll their eyes when they hear that word. The member is right in flagging that.

There’s something quite different about the declaration act. Section 4 refers to not just consultation but magic words. It says this: “The action plan must be prepared and implemented in consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous Peoples in British Columbia.”

Now, I stress that, because we’ve tried mightily to put meaning to the word “cooperation.” We have not rested on simply “consultation.” The member has talked about being wary about that word, and I get that. We have tried, really, to make this a cooperative effort. This is the first action plan that will ever have been created under a declaration act anywhere. It’s certainly the first in Canada, because we have the first and only act in Canada.

What’s important is…. We are not going to please everyone. I can’t imagine a political enterprise that ever does. But in that cooperation and in that consultation role, I think we’ve really managed to find practical, viable, doable things that will make a difference to the lives of Indigenous Peoples here.

That, after all, is what is motivating us — to make real change, to make positive change in real people’s lives. That is why we are doing this. That is why we have been able to engage that wide array of Indigenous leaders and rights and title–holding nations. We all want to get this right. It’s too important not to.

A. Olsen: I really appreciate that response. I thank the minister for it and for the openness that he’s demonstrating with this.

Of course, as he points out, this is the first declaration act of its kind in Canada. That also sets the expectations very high. In the tone and the response of the minister, I certainly sense that he understands the gravity of that. The expectations were set so high with the passing of the declaration. We really celebrated the passing of Bill 41 into legislation. From that perspective, there are a lot of people that are looking at this and looking at this process. Therefore, it’s precisely the reason why I’m asking this line of questioning. Without having seen the draft action plan, of course, it’s very difficult to speak to the specific aspects of it.

[4:10 p.m.]

Further to the consultation and engagement, the member for Peace River North asked some questions — it wasn’t in the context that I’m going to ask them — around elected and hereditary leadership. We’re talking about the leadership of nations as well as the representative membership groups that form the leadership council.

I’m wondering — again, it’s another tricky area, created by the Indian Act, which we all either live under or have to work under — about the minister’s perspective navigating the areas around hereditary and elected leadership in Indigenous Nations. What kind of infrastructure, potentially, is he going to put in place in order to be able to engage that in a healthy and productive way, considering that for so long, it has not been healthy and it has not been productive — the engagement between Crown governments and Indigenous governments in this area?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for a very thoughtful question. I would be remiss if I didn’t say…. Because he referenced the historic achievement of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in 2019, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge his leadership and his very important role in creating that historic legislation and making it a reality. So I salute that.

I want to say that, really, in the issue of the relationship between hereditary and elected leadership in British Columbia, I start with the declaration act. There, “Indigenous governing bodies” is a term to be defined by Indigenous Peoples. It is not for public governments, in a paternalistic way, to define how they wish to present themselves to public governments, to the federal or provincial governments. That, I say, is at the heart of self-determination. That is at the heart of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

That is why we have worked so hard to consult and cooperate with Indigenous leadership in order to get it right. The days of the old Indian Act, as the member rightly points out, where dictation was made and rights were trampled on — that is not what reconciliation can be about and is about. I think it’s in the spirit of reconciliation, in the best sense of that word, that we are pouring meaning into the declaration act.

On the specifics of whether it’s hereditary leadership or elected leadership, that depends on what the nation wishes. I can advise, and I’m sure the member is well aware, that in some circumstances, we work closely with an elected band and council. In other circumstances, we work with a hereditary leadership. And in many other circumstances, we work with a combination, a hybrid, of those two that works very well for particular nations.

That is for the nations to decide for themselves. What the Indigenous governing body is to be is entirely in their hands, and I say, with respect: that is entirely how it should be.

A. Olsen: I couldn’t agree more. It’s a beautiful answer, and I really appreciate it. I think there are two aspects of this. I’m going to venture down one, and then I’m going to venture down the other. The first is around the fact that the colonial governments, the Crown governments, established the elected leadership through the Indian Act. That largely disrupted the Indigenous laws and Indigenous governance that had thrived in the territories that we acknowledge every day in this Legislature. What that’s done is that it has created confusion on the ground in First Nations and Indigenous communities, but it has created confusion in the broader public as well.

In terms of the budget estimates discussion, in the first of two questions that I have, has the minister considered putting in place a funding mechanism that can invest, that can be available to Indigenous Nations to be able to financially support that really important governance work within the nations? What mechanisms are in place now for self-determination?

[4:15 p.m.]

This requires work. It requires people to be dedicated and focused on this work. I see this happening in W̱SÁNEĆ right now, and it’s beautiful what’s happening. However, it’s expensive. I think that part of this discussion needs to be around: from a Crown government, how do we financially support that work that, frankly, Crown governments disrupted, historically?

Hon. M. Rankin: Again, I appreciate the question very much. The member asks about funding mechanisms in respect of these important governance relationships. In 2018, a document which is called Concrete Actions: Transforming Laws, Policies, Processes and Structures was the product of work with the province, the Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Several actions are listed, and the outcomes expected from that.

Action No. 2 — the first was to implement UNDRIP; we can put a check mark beside that, although the implementation part continues — is to the member’s question. It talks of Indigenous Nations and governance-building.

The first goal is: “Establish an Indigenous commission designed, established and driven by First Nations, to pro­vide certain supports to First Nations,” consistent with “rights of self-government and self-determination.” It goes on to suggest that the commission would support First Nations, upon request, with respect to boundary resolution, nation- and governance-building, constitution development, policy development and the like. So there was a recognition back then, not that long ago, of that important work that the member refers to in the so-called Concrete Actions document. We’re committed to that.

Now, on the funding front, we are doing that on a one-by-one basis, you could argue, Madam Chair. For example, in the Wet’suwet’en, $7.22 million were expended just before the last fiscal year-end in March, to fund the Wet’suwet’en, in this example, to do that kind of governance work, that kind of capacity-building, constitution-building work, that will be essential as we basically try to put colonialism in our past.

There’s an acknowledgment that that work needs to be done. We accept that that work needs to be done, and we’re doing it in that one example by funding the work so that the nations themselves can determine what their best path forward is. Other nations will, of course, choose a different path.

A. Olsen: Thank you for that. I think the minister’s response provides the gravity of the situation that we face and, as well, the scope and the scale of the work that’s yet to be done. I know that in Indigenous Nations across the province there are a lot of eager people that are ready and willing to do that.

Again, I think it’s important to acknowledge that none of this work is going to be done, necessarily, or should be done through volunteerism, although a lot of it has been done through volunteerism. I think it’s important that we have people that are dedicated to that. So I would just encourage the government to look at ways that they can expand the scope of the one example that the minister provided. I’m only saying “one example” because he only provided one example. I’m not suggesting that there aren’t others. I know that there are.

The second question I wanted to ask in this area has to do with the province of British Columbia and the non-Indigenous population. I think one of the most tragic things, for me, is seeing the depth of confusion and, frankly, some of the really toxic narrative out there around Indigenous governance, elected governance, hereditary governance within Indigenous Nations, historic and ancient laws, ancient Indigenous laws. It really comes from a lack of education, a lack of understanding and an overall ignorance, from myself and from many British Columbians, around Indigenous governance, laws and cultural practices.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister has engaged his ministry on how it is that the province can, I think, do better in educating British Columbians about the extremely complex landscape that existed here pre-colonization and assist with Indigenous Peoples who are, as we highlighted in the first question, still trying to reorganize after significant disruption by Crown governments over the last 150 years.

We need the space to be able to do this important work. Frankly, it’s not there. We see it in Fairy Creek. We saw it with the Wet’suwet’en. We see it in every one of these disputes that gets to a boil in the province — really unfortunate and toxic narratives around it.

I’m just wondering if the minister has turned his mind to how it is that we, as a provincial government, can better inform the people of British Columbia about what this means and the important work that’s underway due to the good work that we’ve done to this date.

Hon. M. Rankin: Very thoughtful question again. First of all, although I acknowledge entirely that the work has to be done with non-Indigenous populations at the provincial level, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out, of course, that the primary responsibility, constitutionally, for this engagement is the federal government. I think they have recently been stepping up to do the right thing.

When I was growing up, I did not know about the legacy of residential schools. It took…. The population, I think, was largely unaware. When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report came out with its calls to action, I think it was a wake-up call for lots of Canadians who just simply were blissfully ignorant about our history. We are coming to terms with that.

I had the opportunity yesterday to be at a conference with one of my heroes, Justice Murray Sinclair, who was a senator and was speaking, like me, to the Senate, the Independent Senators Group, to talk about the federal bill on the declaration act. He led that work. That was groundbreaking work, and I think it was educational for the Canadian population to know about the complexity that the member referred to. The non-Indigenous population did not know very much, and I was one of them. But I think we all are learning more.

I’m very proud that our government is working to make sure that our children aren’t as ignorant as I was when I grew up and knew nothing about this history. For example, in the K-to-12 curriculum, there has been a transformation. All subjects and grades in the B.C. school curriculum now include Indigenous perspectives, and several Indigenous-focused courses were introduced as part of the new graduation program. K-to-12 educators gain a non-instructional day to focus on Indigenous perspectives so they can be able to communicate that history.

I think it would be fair to say that it’s impossible to graduate from high school without knowing something about the Indigenous culture and history in our province. That’s how it should be. It’s taken a long time.

Also, the commitment our government has made to revitalizing Indigenous languages — $50 million provided in 2018 to do that. Having a First Peoples Cultural Council, a Crown corporation accountable to me as Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation — that’s doing that hard work to make sure we don’t lose the language, which is so important to culture.

Specifically, to the member’s question, I think one instance of that, one important aspect of that, is that we now have the ability to graduate from a law school in our province, the first in Canada, with a degree in both common law and Indigenous law. That is, of course, what our government, with the federal government, put at the University of Victoria in their Indigenous law program. So you will be able to understand the two traditions that the member alluded to.

These are just some of the things, and the opportunity that the declaration act — I want to end on this point — provides for us to do that generation-changing work is an opportunity we should not miss.

A. Olsen: I’m often reminded of the fact that we are where we are today after 170 — roughly, let’s say — years that have passed. We often want change to happen. You know, I think there was a lot of expectation that the day after the DRIPA passed there was going to be remarkable change.

[4:25 p.m.]

I think, from a legal perspective, there was a pretty remarkable change, but it was not visible to the people. I’m often reminded, and I think the minister has captured that well in his response, that we have a long journey ahead of us, just like it has been a long journey to get to where we are today. So I certainly appreciate that, and I recognize that it’s not going to be possible to get in front of everybody to inform them of things that they don’t necessarily know or understand or that are still actually being defined by Indigenous People and that we have a right to define and take as long as we darned well want to, to define it. So I appreciate the response to those questions.

Just a couple more questions with respect to the Declaration Act. Section 3 of the Declaration Act talks about legislative alignment. We ran into this already in this first spring session of this new government with respect to the Firearm Act, just in terms of the potential impact that that act had on Indigenous hunters, as one example, and some of the specific language in that act.

It became pretty clear that the specific rights and title holders who had been in the courts in B.C. and been all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada hadn’t necessarily had their consultation on that act. I’m just wondering if the minister can talk a little bit about section 3 of the DRIPA with respect to the legislative alignment and the expectation that he has, with respect.

I recognize that this is part of the action plan, but I think the new laws coming forward are the ones that are going to be the most pertinent. There’s new legislation being proposed every day in these sessions — and then the plan to review older legislation that’s already on the books.

Hon. M. Rankin: The member has put his finger on a very key aspect of the Declaration Act that we should have spent longer today speaking of, which is the alignment of laws contemplated in section 3.

I guess that there are two categories. There are new laws, and the member referred to a new law — a bill — that was before our Legislature recently. Then there are all of those laws and regulations that are on the books, thousands of them. How we are committed to aligning those laws over time to make sure that we are consistent with the values of the UNDRIP…. That’s a tall order.

I’m hoping…. I extend my hand to the member and ask his assistance as we go about that work. There was a change that he was responsible for ensuring took place as we debated one bill on firearms in the Legislature, because he quite properly pointed out the Saanich treaty, a Douglas treaty, and its implications. That law could have an implication for those kinds of treaty rights. Of course, the law was amended accordingly.

But we have lots of work to do. There’s lots of work to do. How do we deal with that body of laws on our statute books and in our regulations to ensure that they are consistent?

Some people may remember the challenge we had when the Constitution of Canada was changed to provide equality rights in 1982. How do you change all of the laws that might be discriminatory from a gender perspective? In the case of British Columbia, the Attorney General of the time, Mr. Brian Smith, used the Law Reform Commission to undertake that work. In other parts of the country it was done through the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Attorney General, or elsewhere.

How do we do it here? And how do we do it when we do it in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples? It’s not simply a pure legal exercise. How do we prioritize all those laws that are on the books, all of those regulations? What’s more important? Well, we work in partnership. We start with the ones that we are advised are the most important.

Sometimes people tell me things like forestry legislation, child and family legislation, heritage conservation legislation. But it’s not for me to do that. It’s to be done in cooperation with Indigenous governing bodies and institutions of this sort.

[4:30 p.m.]

That is the existing statute law that has to be reformed. Then again, we have to make sure that when laws are coming forward for debate in the form of bills, there’s an opportunity for us to engage with the Indigenous leadership so that the bills that are coming forward that could conceivably have an impact on their interests are ad­dressed. That is what we’re trying to do.

I hope that the secretariat that’s being contemplated — and will be, hopefully, in place soon — will be the forum for much of that work to be done. It’s not easy, but it’s important. It’s never been done before. We’re committed to doing it and to doing it right.

The Chair: Just for clarification, Members, discussing legislation or the need for legislation is not in the purview of the Committee of Supply.

Member.

A. Olsen: Thank you for that note. I’m wondering if maybe my next question is…. I look to the Clerk and to the Chair for direction on this. Happy for to you shut me down if that’s the case.

I just wanted to ask the minister if there’s been any discussion with the Attorney General with respect to litigation directives. I note that the former federal Justice Minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, a few years back, gave a directive.

I’m just wondering, just in the context of the alignment and the commitments that were made — I’ll speak very generally about that — in the declaration act, if perhaps the minister has engaged with the Attorney General to discuss the potential for a similar litigation directive here in British Columbia as a part of an alignment with respect to kind of bringing ourselves into the 21st century and making sure that the type of litigation that’s happening in this province is in alignment with the commitments that we’ve made to Indigenous People through the DRIPA.

The Chair: Yes, Member, that question is in order.

Hon. M. Rankin: Again, I thank the member for the question. Trying to think of the best way to proceed.

I have spoken at length with the former federal Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould, MP, about the directive that the member refers to at the federal level. I think it would be fair to report that the First Nations Leadership Council has engaged with me on seeking something similar to a litigation directive in our province.

I would remind the member, however, that that decision as to whether that should be forthcoming is the responsibility of the Attorney General, and he will no doubt make a decision in due course.

A. Olsen: Thank you. I sense that over the next little while, there are going to be a few responses from the minister that remind me that I should be talking to other ministers about them.

I think it’s important, in terms of the secretariat…. This is a good way for me to, I think, segue to questions about the secretariat specifically. One of the challenges…. We learned about this challenge, since 2017-2018, when we were talking about salmon, for example, where there are seven, six, five ministries that all have some kind of regulatory or legislative or agency over something to do with salmon.

I think that when we’re taking a look at the declaration act…. We proposed a secretariat for salmon, and now there’s a secretariat for aligning the ministries around the commitments that are made in the declaration act, recognizing, of course, that having no centralizing body makes it very, very difficult and makes it very difficult to have these kinds of conversations.

I know that the minister and I have had a conversation in the past about the secretariat, and he mentioned, earlier in budget estimates, in discussions with the member for Peace River North, that the secretariat is coming and should be announced by the end of this year. I’m just wondering, perhaps, if the minister can maybe shed some light for me and for British Columbians on where that….

[4:35 p.m.]

I mean, I’ve got some ideas of where it should be located. I really have a strong opinion. I think that this ministry, Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, is a really critical and important ministry in terms of bringing all of this together and ensuring a cross-government approach. I’m just wondering if that is the perspective that the minister shares in bringing this forward or if there have been some decisions that have been made around how this ministry, Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, is going to play a role in that.

Hon. M. Rankin: I first want to acknowledge that the member is absolutely right. There is a challenge to coordinate amongst the various ministries. He used salmon as, I think, an excellent example. That’s why, in his wisdom, the Premier thought a secretariat made sense, rather than leaving specific responsibilities for that coordination, as he called it, in the hands of one minister.

The secretariat is designed to help government coordinate reconciliation efforts to make sure that new laws and policies are consistent with the UN declaration. That’s what it’s about, because there are a lot of ministries doing a lot of different things. The idea of the secretariat to coordinate, I think is an excellent one.

As the minister responsible for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, however, I want the member to know that I am proud to work very closely with my colleagues, both in social ministries and in resource areas, and have a good relationship. That kind of responsibility to collaborate at the ministerial level is built into executive government.

The member said he had a strong opinion as to where the secretariat should fit in the B.C. government. I welcome the opportunity to talk with the member about his ideas. That is exactly what has been the subject of a lot of conversations with the First Nations Leadership Council, which has provided a very thoughtful submission in writing on this topic, as well as my conversations with some of the leading experts on public administration in Canada. I’ve had a very exhilarating set of conversations with leading experts in this field.

We want to get it right. On the one hand, we want to make sure that it’s serious and senior enough that First Nations and other Indigenous organizations recognize that it’s being taken seriously by government. We also want to make sure that it’s not window dressing, that it truly has that responsibility and gets to the meat of the matter. Exactly where that should fit in the system is, indeed, a live issue, and I would welcome the member’s views on how we can get that right.

A. Olsen: I think the minister is absolutely grappling with the exact things that need to be grappled with in this. He’s absolutely right in terms of making sure that it has the authority.

I think it goes back to a question that I asked of the minister a number of months back, or a number of weeks back, with respect to forestry, and the role that the minister sees…. How the minister sees the role of the Minister of Indigenous Relations, whether he’s in the seat or somebody else. I really see that there needs to be a strong advocate on behalf of Indigenous People within government, one that has authority and one that isn’t necessarily the Premier. I think the Premier has another role as well.

We can have further conversations from that. I have not actually had a conversation with the First Nations Leadership Council about their perspective either. Perhaps we can leave that for another day, although I really would like to maybe explore a little bit further with the minister whether or not he sees his role as one of being supportive of what his colleagues and the other ministers are doing…. Whether he sees the role of the minister as supportive or as one that has more authority, now that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act has been passed, to ensure that the other ministers and the other ministries comply with the commitments that have been made.

I personally believe that the quickest way to erode the confidence in the declaration is if the government is not following through on the commitments that have been made. I’m just interested to hear what the minister’s perspectives are on that.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the member’s right, The declaration act is really significant legislation. We all know that. Again, I acknowledge the member’s participation in making it as strong a law as it is. It’s only going to work — this agenda, this commitment, this generational commitment to reconciliation — if we all work together.

I take it as my core responsibility, to answer the member’s question, that I engage with my colleagues to make sure that reconciliation is top of mind. But I really don’t need to do that, although I will. The reason for that is that every single minister’s mandate letter speaks to that very commitment right up front: CleanBC, dealing with COVID, reconciliation. You can read them all, and they all say that because it’s a government commitment.

I am the minister responsible for Indigenous relations and reconciliation, so I suppose I have a particular commitment to that. But all my colleagues do, and I can report to the member confidently that that is taken extremely seriously around the cabinet table and in conversations with my colleagues. I think the proof will be in the actions that this government takes during its mandate over the next 3½ years.

A. Olsen: Thank you for that, Minister. I would say that it’s not an easy task that the minister has, being the first minister to have to navigate this. It’s a significant challenge, and I wish the minister very well in navigating it.

I’m going to have to shift gears here a little bit. Earlier in the discussion around the budget there was discussion around funding of agreements. I think there are a couple of different parts to fundamentally changing the relationship between Crown and Indigenous government. One of those is the legislative framework, which we’ve spent the better part of the last 45 minutes navigating and discussing — the legislative side of it, the work that we do in this chamber.

I think that it’s a really important thing to highlight, as the member from Kamloops north was talking about — the funds that are available to the minister to be able to provide agreements. The minister was saying that there’s always the ability to go back to Treasury Board.

I think it’s important to acknowledge at this point that Indigenous nations and Indigenous leaders are looking for the ability to see benefits off of the territories that they’ve inhabited since time immemorial and not have to have that relationship necessarily be going to the provincial government. That doesn’t actually reflect the rights and title that I think the court system has said repeatedly, and in addition, this declaration act that we passed.

I’m wondering if the minister can maybe talk a little bit about the other piece of this, which is the ability for Indigenous nations to self-realize through being able to extract economic benefit from their territories in a way that they see fit. That’s true self-determination. Having to come and ask the minister or to sign an agreement with the provincial government, asking for money and have that minister then have to go and argue and defend those arguments to Treasury Board is not, I think, the full self-determination that we’re talking about.

I’m just interested in the minister’s perspectives on this aspect of providing stable, renewable, reliable revenue streams for Indigenous Nations. I know that this government has done some of that through gaming revenues, and there have been benefits agreements. However, those benefits agreements are tied to specific activities that are, frankly, a reflection of the interest of the provincial government, not necessarily….

[4:45 p.m.]

I’m not going to say it’s not, because it could very well be, the reflection of the desires of an Indigenous Nation. However, it’s not necessarily that, and those benefits agreements don’t necessarily reflect that. I’m just wondering if the minister has contemplated the other aspect of this, which is the ability to realize economic benefit from the land without having to necessarily be tied to coming to a provincial or a federal government. I’ll leave it at that.

Hon. M. Rankin: It is true that there are a number of transactional agreements that have, over time, engaged nations. He talked of them as benefits of different kinds, benefits agreements in the pipeline context or in the forest context or in the fishing context and the like. But I think his point is an important one: that at the core of self-determination is that nations need money, like any other government, to provide government services to their members.

That is why, in 2018, when the document I referred to earlier, the Concrete Actions document, was worked on and agreed to by the First Nations Summit, the Assembly of First Nations, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and British Columbia, one of the key goals — to the point the member made very directly — was to strengthen the economy and a renewed fiscal relationship.

A key theme that is at the fore here is strengthening Indigenous economies. We talk a lot about a new government-to-government relationship. That requires, however, new approaches and models for coexistence so First Nations can exercise their respective jurisdictions and share their respective revenues generated from resource activities on their lands. This relationship is no different than the one we have with other levels of government.

The commitment is made in the Concrete Actions document to “design and implement new models of fiscal relations, including a systemic fiscal mechanism consistent with” the following kinds of principles. I won’t read them all but, very specifically to the member’s question, recognize “the economic component of Aboriginal title.”

In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada decided the Tŝilhqot’in case, finding the existence of Aboriginal title on 1,700 square kilometres of a declared title area, and it was important, in the court’s judgment, to say that there is “an inescapable economic component” to Aboriginal title. That’s the language of the court.

This document has the government of British Columbia agreeing with Indigenous leaderships that there is an economic component of Aboriginal title that has to be recognized, and to recognize First Nations as key players and drivers in the economic landscape, and to recognize, as I said earlier, that all governments, including Indigenous governments, require multiple streams of revenues to support their capacity to be strong and effective in serving the needs of their citizens. It goes on to talk about the reciprocal accountabilities and transparency in the governments that must be created in a democracy.

I think the member is absolutely right. We need to reorient our fiscal relationship with First Nations. We committed in 2018 to do just that. It’s a task that will take a lot of time and a lot of patience, but we’re on our way to that new place.

A. Olsen: I’m very encouraged with the minister’s response and the minister’s keen awareness of this. I would say that it’s important to acknowledge that one of the key tools of domination of the Crown over Indigenous People was the making illegal the Indigenous Peoples’ involvement in the economy that they had developed and were very well developed at the time of contact. I can only think of our reef net, our SXOLE, that sacred fishing technology that our people used in the Salish Sea as Straits Salish People, and it being outlawed and not being allowed to use it because it was too efficient.

[4:50 p.m.]

Shortly after, the power balance changed. After a devastating virus attacked Indigenous People and the power balance changed, the European settlers no longer needed Indigenous People as provisioners. We largely saw the economic involvement of Indigenous People — entrepreneurs, well-developed entrepreneurial activities — be taken away and made illegal.

I think that, just as we have changed statutes and are looking at making the laws align, this is going to be an absolutely critical and key component. If we are serious about this — and I believe that the minister is, and I believe that the government is — we will see this change happen, and it won’t be after all of the resources have been harvested. It will be before that. It won’t be when there’s nothing left there. It will be when….

I think that one of the key narratives, historically, in this province and in this country has been that Indigenous people can’t be trusted with land. That’s what this all comes down to: a relationship between Europeans and Indigenous People and land, who controls land and who controls the ability to generate the revenue and the economic development off of that land.

I really appreciate the minister’s response. I can see from his response that his eyes are wide open to the fact that this is something that’s going to absolutely need to change if we are serious about what our commitments are to reconciliation.

I want to shift gears here, if I may. Sorry for that long-winded response to the minister’s response. I just want to confirm the time that I’m going to here. Are we closing down at about 5:25, to the Clerk? Is that correct?

The Chair: It’s 5:15, Member.

A. Olsen: It’s 5:15. Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to shift gears here a little bit to talk about cultural preservation and revitalization. I sent a note to the minister in the House the other day about a project that is going on in my community, but these are projects that are going on around the province in terms of rebuilding houses of governance and houses of culture, I’ll say. In Coast Salish territory — in our territory, W̱SÁNEĆ — they are longhouses, but they take many forms.

I got the opportunity to see the opening of the Heiltsuk longhouse at Bella Bella. What I saw there, and what I witnessed there, was a beautiful demonstration of Indigenous law, Indigenous culture and Indigenous governance. I can’t help but draw the connection to how that new home for that place brought to life what was…. How that came alive in front of our eyes.

I’m just wondering if the minister, in terms of cultural preservation and revitalization…. He’s talked about languages [audio interrupted] the government has considered making investments in the buildings, in the physical infrastructure of governance. The ancestral governance, the ancient governance that happened, happened in these houses.

I can’t help but draw the connection — as we are talking about Indigenous self-determination, as we’re talking about Indigenous governance and the ability of Indigenous People or the encouragement of Indigenous People to sort out, sort through the complexities of the world that we have now in 2021 — if this wouldn’t be assisted with a substantial investment like the province made in Indigenous languages, in those houses of governance and culture?

Hon. M. Rankin: An excellent question. I, too, have been moved by the longhouses in which I’ve had the opportunity to participate in cultural events. I know what he’s talking about to be part…. For example, he mentioned Heiltsuk and the Bella Bella example of that new longhouse. I’ve had the opportunity to be in feast halls with Wet’suwet’en and observe how their governance system has worked, and it’s very moving. If a non-Indigenous person has not been part of that in the past, it’s extraordinary.

We wish to preserve that culture, just as we wish to preserve languages. It’s sad to many of us that so many of these languages are spoken by such a small number of Elders, yet there’s wonderful work going on.

[4:55 p.m.]

The museum, last year, did a terrific job with the language issue. I’m very proud to have a Crown corporation consisting — I think the only one — solely of Indigenous people, called the First Peoples Cultural Council. So $50 million, as the member pointed out, was provided in Budget 2018 — multi-year funding — to ramp up work in First Nations, not just in language, but in culture. I point out that the First Peoples Cultural Council supported 11 Indigenous cultural heritage infrastructure grants, for a total of $3.75 million in funding this year, some of which, I hope, achieves some of the things that the member wishes in the cultural realm.

I had the opportunity to be part of a virtual ceremony just earlier last month, when the Premier — and I think it’s fair to say, without any risk of sounding political — was successful in persuading the federal government to come to the table, and to put a significant amount of money on the table, to deal with the destruction of the residential school at Lower Post, B.C.

I was moved by the ceremony. There were certain members of that community that were afraid and could not face going into that building, downstairs, where some horrible atrocities occurred during the residential school era. To see the plans for the new building, and the cultural renaissance of that community, and to see the joy in the people’s eyes that had witnessed this event, was very, very moving.

I acknowledge that the federal government put the lion’s share of that money, as they should. Much of this, as the member will appreciate, is in Indigenous communities, for which the federal government has primary fiscal responsibility. But it was this Premier and this government, I think fairly put, that persuaded the government of Canada to do the right thing. That would be an example of the kind that the member talked about in Bella Bella, which I will never forget.

A. Olsen: I’m certainly not going to suggest that anything other than what the Premier had done — and what, perhaps, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and other ministers do — in order to advocate on behalf of Indigenous People and the commitments that we as a Crown government have made on behalf of this institution would be anything but exactly what the job is that we would expect of the minister and the ministers and the Premier. Certainly appreciate that work. It’s not political at all. It’s the commitment that we’ve made, and he and the minister should be congratulated for that work. It’s important work that needs to continue.

With respect to the First Nations cultural and language council…. Sorry, I’m completely not getting the name of it right here. The investments that are being made in culture and language and revitalization are critical. Our relatives from the Métis Nation B.C. have raised to me, directly, that they feel very much left out in terms of the investments that were made in languages. As I check the legislation for the First Peoples’ Heritage, Language and Culture Act, the preamble talks about: “…to (a) protect, revitalize, and enhance First Nations heritage, language, culture and arts.”

Of course, we know that the very specific language of First Nations means that our relatives who are Métis or who are Inuit would not be able to access that fund. I’m wondering if the…. Maybe I’m not allowed to ask the question about the specific act, but I’ll ask the question of the minister — if there’s been a consideration as to whether or not there’s a way to be able to also invest in the preservation of a very distinct linguistic group and language of the Métis people.

The Chair: Member, you’d be correct. The place to ask about specific legislation would be in the House.

[5:00 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Okay, thank you. I’ll reframe my question, then.

With respect to Métis languages that the minister has raised several times throughout the discussions today around the investments that were made, rightly so, in 2018, of Indigenous languages…. Unfortunately, the Métis language has been excluded from being able to access those benefits, and I’m wondering if the minister has considered removing those obstacles.

Hon. M. Rankin: I share the member’s enthusiasm with the work of the FPCC, the First Peoples Cultural Council, and the $50 million that they’re working with to do this incredibly important but very difficult job revitalizing languages.

I found it surprising that there were 35 different Indigenous languages in British Columbia. I didn’t know that. I think we have over half of them in Canada here in this province, and some of them are very distinct. Some of the Cree languages, for example…. Cree can understand each other, whether they’re from Saskatchewan or northern Quebec. But in our case, some of the language groups, like the Ktunaxa and the Tla-o-qui-aht, are very, very distinct and small, and it takes a lot of work to make sure that those languages are preserved. The work is undergoing now, and I’m very proud of the council for that work.

As for the Métis language the member refers to, he, I think, is correct in pointing out that the statutory mandate is to deal with First Nation languages. Given that we have 204 First Nations and 35 languages, that is work that I would urge them to continue to do. But I can say that I have spoken specifically about this issue with the federal Minister of Heritage, Monsieur Guilbeault, about the Métis languages, about how they can work together. The federal government has new, as the member will know, Indigenous languages legislation and funding as well. I’m hoping that British Columbia can achieve some of that. That may be the route, short of statutory amendment here, to do that work.

I think we have our hands full, in short, with preserving the languages for First Nations in our province. I acknowledge the important work of preserving Métis language. I think the federal government is in a better position to do that than are we.

A. Olsen: I, of course, recognize the linguistic diversity of this province is vast and recognize the challenge that we have. I think it could be probably argued that $50 million isn’t going to be nearly enough to preserve those languages. I know that in my own territory of W̱SÁNEĆ, our language SENĆOŦEN is really coming alive through our school. It is, in large part, due to the fact that there have been investments that have been made for people to be able to take the time to do the important work of preserving that language. It’s actually not even an act of preservation. It’s a more active role than that. It’s one in which, like I was talking about earlier, we need to be able to have people who are just thinking about the language and not thinking about anything else.

This isn’t going to be preserved or enhanced through volunteerism. It’s only going to be preserved and enhanced through people actively working on this situation daily. As the minister’s ministry refers to Indigenous People — and Indigenous People in this country are inclusive of First Nations, Métis and Inuit — I would suggest that we also have a role. But I recognize that that role, at this stage, may be to advocate on behalf of the Métis People and Inuit People in this province, with the federal government.

[5:05 p.m.]

I’ll be encouraged to continue engaging with the minister with respect to how we as a province can, perhaps, maybe do more than that as well as maybe not undermine the work that’s being done, as well, with First Nations People in the province.

I’m going to switch gears one more time. I see we’ve got about ten minutes left. This is going to probably get into some areas that I wouldn’t say are less comfortable, but it’s going to be more difficult.

I think, just in terms of when we see the kinds of roadblocks that happen, the tension around land and around resource development that we see on Vancouver Island…. We saw it in the Wet’suwet’en territory. I’m wondering how the minister…. Often times it gets put to the Minister of Forests, or it gets put to the Minister of Energy and Mines, or it gets put to the minister that’s responsible for Lands and Natural Resources. It gets moved from being a relational issue or a relational situation with Indigenous People to a resource situation.

I’m just wondering: what is the minister’s role? When we see the video that we saw last week, a very sad and disappointing confrontation between resource workers and Indigenous People, what is the minister’s role in intervening in that situation? Or does the minister play a role in intervening in that situation?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s a timely one.

I can say that I was disappointed and disgusted by the verbal abuse and the racist language that I also saw on the video to which the member refers. There’s no place in B.C. for racism — period. Our government is committed to addressing racism at its core.

In the context that the member refers to, the RCMP are involved. I understand that the harvesting may have paused in the area, pending the outcome of an independent investigation.

The member asks what I, as minister, do in circumstances of that kind. I know that in the context of the Fairy Creek example — I think he was alluding to that — the Pacheedaht are in the final stages of a treaty negotiation. I’m hoping that we can achieve that and, through that, avoid some of the polarization with respect to forestry activities in their territory.

We are strongly in support, and the treaty will confirm our support, of Pacheedaht’s desire to have a greater degree of management and stewardship of their territory. After all, that’s what treaty is about, and that is what I think government and government-to-government engagement is about as well.

We’re going to continue to work with the Pacheedaht, engage with them as they develop their integrated resource stewardship plan for the area. That’s something our ministry can contribute to, along with our colleagues in the ministry responsible for forestry.

These conflicts are to be avoided and are sad for all of us when they occur. The incident, particularly, that the member referred to is a very disturbing one to me.

A. Olsen: I’m trying to do my best, Minister, as we get to maybe my last question or my last couple of questions, to not actually reference specific situations, because I recognize that I don’t speak on behalf of and I don’t have authority to speak on behalf of those specific Indigenous Nations or their leaders.

[5:10 p.m.]

I’m hoping to actually use these situations to talk about the overall approach of this provincial government, rather than any of the specific ones, because I recognize that the minister is involved in these conversations, as are the leaders. But I appreciate the response with respect to that specific situation.

There are a couple of other instances of this that I think I can probably package up. It’s more about, actually, the minister’s relationship to the cabinet colleagues, to the cabinet, as well, and I think this gets to the heart of a number of questions that I’ve asked today.

When I think of the report on racism in the health care system and the specific situations around, say, for example, whistleblower legislation and the ability and the protection for people within health care to be able to provide that information….

When I think about litigation that’s going on in the provincial government — that’s the Ministry of Health — and the provincial government litigation, the decisions to maybe appeal a court decision at a B.C. Court of Appeal — a B.C. Supreme Court decision…. The decision of another minister in another ministry to appeal that decision when it would further erode and undermine the confidence and the trust — sorry, I should say potentially could further erode and undermine the confidence — that Indigenous people have in the commitments that this government has made around reconciliation….

Another example of this is the woman from Cowichan. Maybe not Cowichan, but Hulq’umi’num’, anyway — one of our relatives here in Coast Salish or Hulq’umi’num’-speaking territories. They tried to name their company in an Indigenous language, yet B.C. registry services….

I’m just wondering. When these situations come up, does the minister get involved in saying that the overall action of this government is to move towards reconciliation and that we need to be able to make changes to accommodate for these kinds of things and become a fierce advocate for those changes within other ministries? I recognize that soon, maybe, a secretariat will be responsible for this. But I’m just wondering, as we wrap up here, if the minister can provide, in one final question, the role that the minister plays in this with the cabinet overall.

Hon. M. Rankin: Although I do have some concluding remarks, they will be brief. The member has signalled this will be his last question, and it’s a very good one on which to end.

I want to start by reiterating what I’ve said on several occasions, because I think it’s important. Yes, I am the minister, and I’m proud to be responsible for efforts of the government at one level for reconciliation. But all ministries, all ministers, have this as their central mandate: CleanBC — our commitment to address the existential threat of climate change — is on everyone’s mind and everyone’s mandate; reconciliation; and getting us through the pandemic. Then we have our specific issues. But I guess I start by saying that, because I don’t want the member to portray this one ministry as solely responsible.

So to his example, FLNRO, Ministry of Forests, is equally responsible. In the context of the old growth report, the Merkel-Gorley report that the member is well aware of, the first recommendation is that we “Engage the full involvement of Indigenous leaders and organizations to review the report and any subsequent policy or strategy development and implementation.”

Indigenous engagement will take time, and not every First Nation, as the member would certainly agree, has the same perspective on any issue. Nor should they. I guess I start by saying…. My first point is that all members of the cabinet are engaged.

At the political level, sitting around the executive council table, I believe I do as good a job as I can in addressing my mandate as the member particularly responsible for Indigenous relations and reconciliation. But I am responsible, as all members are, for the well-being of all British Columbian residents. As part of the executive council, we all share that responsibility.

[5:15 p.m.]

I get involved, therefore, advocating at the political level, ensuring that that aspect of my mandate is at the fore. But I want to stress that I also have a very talented ministry, consisting of a lot of dedicated public servants who I’ve had the opportunity, over the last few months, to get to know and, in some cases, get to re-engage with after many, many years.

What’s really exciting is that they’re all over the pro­vince. They deal with different nations, with different interests. So at the staff level, I want the member to appreciate that they are engaged with their counterparts in various ministries, be they social ministries or resource ministries. They get involved and try to do the same thing at the local level, a nation-to-nation level, as I try to do around the cabinet table.

The member will understand that if we are to do this right, if reconciliation is to really be something that we achieve, it’s going to take all hands on deck. Our government, through our Premier, has made it clear that that is everyone’s responsibility. Perhaps mine is particularly acute, but everyone has that responsibility. I do that as a member of executive council, but equally important, my team, my staff, the people in the ministry are doing that day in, day out, on the ground, across this beautiful province.

The Chair: Noting the hour, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks before I call the vote. Very briefly.

Hon. M. Rankin: I would like to make a very brief statement, if I may. I realize it is the hour, and I want to begin by thanking my colleague from Kamloops and my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands for their participation and for their very thoughtful questions. I’ve mentioned a couple of times, particularly to my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands — congratulations on his leadership. I look forward to continuing to work with him, as he is an important voice for reconciliation in this province as well.

I want to say that the Premier has often put it this way: reconciliation is hard work, and there’s a great deal of work ahead. Staff in the ministry and my office are ready to roll up their sleeves and get to it. And I’m very grateful, as I said just a moment ago, for their dedicated service. I want to also acknowledge that our ministry and public service as a whole do their work in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples who live in this province, on the ground: our treaty partners, First Nations, Métis, people with treaty 8 rights, people with Douglas treaty rights.

We are dealing with people within their unique traditions and cultures and history in the different parts of our province. It’s exciting work; it’s important work. And we do this work with more than 200 First Nations who have been stewards of this land since time immemorial. We’re grateful for the many important relationships, partnerships and collaborations that are so essential as we work together, all of us, to do this generational work called reconciliation.

With that, I say thank you, Madam Chair.

Vote 33: ministry operations, $50,740,000 — approved.

Vote 34: treaty and other agreements funding, $117,063,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the committee rise and report resolutions and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:19 p.m.