PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dykeman in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $49,815,000 (continued).

M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity to continue our estimates process here.

By way of comment, I know the member for Saanich North and the Islands had the opportunity to ask a question to the minister about the status of the Wet’suwet’en MOU. We have some further questions to follow on with.

I’ll just turn it over to the member for Skeena, and then I’ll follow on with his questions as well.

E. Ross: We all understand that the MOU was signed between Canada, the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs and the B.C. provincial government in 2020.

In terms of the rights and title negotiations, as it’s titled in the press release that came from the B.C. government, can I ask the minister: how is it going? What’s the progress on this? How far has the B.C. government come along with these negotiations?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for Skeena for the question. Our negotiations, of course, on rights and title in Wet’suwet’en territory are in respect of the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa case over 20 years ago. Our efforts to negotiate that have been pursuant, as the member indicated, to an MOU with the government of Canada, the Hereditary Chiefs and the province of British Columbia.

Our government has continued to work on those matters through COVID, through some of the difficulties that everyone in this place will be aware of. The progress, I can confirm, has not been as quick as we had hoped due to these factors and others, but we are, of course, hoping to meet them in the near term. In fact, I’ve invited both the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs and the elected leaders to a summit in the hopes that we can make progress on Wet’suwet’en reunification.

[2:40 p.m.]

E. Ross: This all came about because of protests and disputes on the pipeline — specifically, Coastal GasLink — that’s going to feed LNG Canada in Kitimat. Is the pipeline completion in that neck of the woods, in Wet’suwet’en territory…? Is the completion of that pipeline dependent on the outcome of these negotiations that the province is currently undertaking?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member.

The conclusion of the negotiations is not dependent on the pipeline at all. As I indicated in my opening question, in response to the member for Skeena, this is historic work about rights and title that is involved, fundamentally, in implementing the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa.

E. Ross: That’s quite encouraging to hear — that the timeline and the progress of the pipeline will not be affected by these negotiations. It is a lawfully approved pipeline.

If these negotiations will have no connection or no bearing on the pipeline completion, can I ask the minister what kind of timeline does the minister see, in terms of successful outcomes of this MOU negotiation of Wet’su­wet’en rights and title?

Hon. M. Rankin: I would respond to the hon. member by pointing out that the project to which he refers is a fully permitted project and that the timeline for which he seeks a prediction is a matter that, of course, as one of the three parties involved in that negotiation, I am in no position to predict.

E. Ross: It’s good that we differentiated the pipeline construction from these MOU negotiations. The only reason I ask this question in terms of the successful outcome of the MOU negotiations is because rights and title is one of the most complicated topics that I’ve ever come across in Canada. You’ve always got to think about case law in terms of being in the abstract.

I’m not quite sure where the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples fits in, but when we’re talking about a timeline to these kinds of negotiations, you’ve already got templates in terms of what we’re talking about.

Currently what you’re talking about is undefined rights and title. Yes, it’s complicated, with the division of powers between elected, between hereditary leadership versus the houses who have actually petitioned this government to allow the members of the Wet’suwet’en people have their voices heard as well. I’m sure the minister has that letter in hand as well.

To show the members of this Legislature how complicated this is, the Nisg̱a’a final agreement is an example of defined rights and title. I’m assuming that the B.C. government is actually negotiating the same provisions, if you’re trying to define title, as you will find in the Nisg̱a’a final agreement. In this case here, when we’re talking about defined titles, we’re actually talking about 22 chapters, and that’s just the general provisions in terms of how to define Aboriginal rights and title.

You also have the broad general framework of Tŝilhqot’in title that was actually decided upon in the courts of B.C. and Canada.

Can I ask the minister: is the minister following the framework that was already laid out in modern day treaties — like, say, Tsawwassen final agreement or Nisg̱a’a final agreement — as a pathway to a successful conclusion of the MOU negotiations?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member’s recognition of the complexity of Aboriginal rights and title in Canadian case law at the moment. He’s absolutely right.

The template to which he refers — namely, the modern treaty process, of which the Nisg̱a’a, 22 years ago, is our first example — is but one model. It may not be this model. What we are doing with the Wet’suwet’en is trying to implement the MOU to which he referred earlier.

E. Ross: Every First Nation leader knows about the principles of rights and title as laid out in Tŝilhqot’in as well as in modern-day treaties.

Maybe I can ask something more specific. The MOU mentions jurisdiction. In that respect, is the minister discussing law-making authorities? To be more specific, is the minister discussing with their Canada counterparts the paramountcy of laws when it comes to these negotiations underneath the Wet’suwet’en MOU?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member is absolutely right. Jurisdiction is mentioned in the MOU.

What we are dealing with, however, first and foremost, is governance. I think that is the key point. There are interface agreements later which will talk about how the governance system, the houses that the member referred to and others will interact with public governments, federal and provincial. That’s very much part of the final implementation of the MOU, going forward. But at the moment, we are struggling with the issue of governance.

E. Ross: Yes, I can understand that. I mean, 22 years of just the Nisg̱a’a final agreement actually highlighted those problems right from the outset. That’s why it brings up a number of different concerns, not only from the Aboriginal perspective but from a British Columbia citizen’s perspective.

There are more issues to come. It is private lands on the table. It is public assets on the table, like forestry roads, highways, even properties that house government facilities like hospitals or schools. Even this Legislature is on undefined rights and title land. That’s why it’s so dangerous to play politics with rights and title.

These questions have already been answered in agreements like the Nisg̱a’a final agreement or the Tsawwassen. If the government is actually stuck on governance, there is going to be a subset of problems coming underneath that that will have to be resolved in some manner. The questions will remain the same. The issues will remain the same.

In light of this government not quite out of the governance section just yet…. Is there a schedule that has been outlined in terms of which topics will be discussed when that would give us a broader understanding of what the government is talking about (1) in terms of B.C.’s interests and (2) in terms of completion of these negotiations?

Hon. M. Rankin: I agree with the member entirely — that it is dangerous, to use his words, to play politics with Aboriginal title and rights.

[2:50 p.m.]

These are difficult negotiations. It’s not a surprise the Tsilhqot’in decision went to the Supreme Court of Canada. It has been years in which people have tried to ensure how the federal, provincial and First Nations governments can put meat on the bones of that.

We are trying to do the same sort of thing with the MOU to which the member refers. It lays out topics, as the member knows. I can say, categorically, that the private lands issue to which he refers…. Private land will not be on the table.

“Is there a schedule?” he asks. Not any sort of schedule I can point to. But I can reconfirm that the most important issue at the outset, which we’ve said at the table in a way, is the issue of governance.

M. Lee: Let me just say at this juncture, having been through up to about two hours now with the minister in this estimates process…. Dare I say that if I did the math, comparing this minister to his colleagues…. This minister and the team around him seem to have the ability to give succinct, to-the-point responses in a relatively short manner. I think that’s just a demonstration of the understanding, let’s say, of the minister and his portfolio.

What we’re trying to do here, of course, is to get clarity. I think the member for Skeena, in addressing a number of questions in succession, is trying to get there, as well as the member for Saanich North and the Islands previously.

Just to follow along with that, to be more specific, as well, when we look at the MOU…. What the minister has responded to in the past has been the summit of hereditary and elected leaders within the Wet’suwet’en First Nation. That, of course, originally had a six-month timeline to it. I appreciate the pandemic, as it made things more challenging. The member for Skeena just asked for a better sense of the timeline.

Perhaps, in the response, the minister can address: when will that summit be held? What is the expected outcome and goal of the summit? Is there a strategy that is going to be coming out of that, or is there some plan going into the summit itself for resolution?

Hon. M. Rankin: First of all, let me say to the member for Vancouver-Langara how much I appreciate those kind words and the respect I have for the duty of the opposition members to seek that clarity. We’re also trying to seek clarity as we go forward in these negotiations.

Particularly, being a negotiator…. I know members across the way will have done this kind of work as well. It’s very hard to do negotiation through a Zoom channel or a Teams link. I personally understand the difficulty, having done a lot of it in my career. I think we need to recognize that sometimes those negotiations require to be face to face, and we simply don’t have the ability to do that. That’s a fact, and it’s a sad fact.

I also think it’s entirely appropriate that the member would seek to know the schedule. I think we would like that as well. All I can say at this point is that we have made a written letter. Both the federal minister and myself sent it to the leadership of the hereditary leaders as well as to the elected, with a view to having a summit as soon as possible. That continues to be our goal. We are awaiting them. Of course, we need to ensure our federal partners are also able to come to the table soon.

Our goal is a very straightforward one. We want a frank discussion about the challenges that we have. It’s no surprise to anyone encountered in this difficult set of negotiations. We want to get the job done. We’re committed to doing so. We put our hand out to our negotiating partners, and we want that meeting to take place just as soon as we can.

M. Lee: I think it’s fair to say that from the time the MOU was entered into, in February of 2020, with the federal partners…. There is an understanding that the elected leadership of the Wet’suwet’en is also needed to be in­cluded as part of the next steps. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Rankin: Yes.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Lee: In terms of the reference to Delgamuukw that I’ve heard this government say in response from time to time, in terms of doing the work…. The minister did refer to that in the first part of this estimates process — that after that decision some decades ago, the work that was necessary to be done, in terms of negotiating with the Hereditary Chiefs, with the Wet’suwet’en, hasn’t yet been done.

Could the minister describe for us the specific points of concern coming from that decision vis-à-vis the Hereditary Chiefs and how that is coinciding, let’s say, with the strategy around reunification for the nation?

The Chair: A reminder to all members. Hansard can’t pick up unless the microphones come on. So if you could just wait to answer till you’re recognized, please, so we can get your answers recorded in the record. Thank you.

Hon. M. Rankin: The question is a very good one. We have, of course, said initially that we believe we are engaged in doing what the Chief Justice of Canada said in the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa decision — namely, negotiate.

We know, and the members opposite know, that it is the collectivity of a nation that has the Aboriginal title and rights in a particular part of our province. It’s always the collectivity. Who speaks for that collectivity? Is it the Hereditary Chiefs? Is it the elected Chiefs? Is it some combination of them? In different parts of the province, that question is answered differently.

Initially, in the Delgamuukw case, there was a tighter alliance between the elected and the hereditary leadership than there has been over the last few years. But that fundamental question is why I return to the signal importance of dealing with the issue of governance. We cannot, as public governments, negotiate and conclude an agreement unless and until we’re persuaded that they have the membership’s interests at heart and a mandate from the membership of that collectivity. That reunification issue is something that we take to be our first priority.

M. Lee: I meant to include this earlier. The recognition of clarity for the questions from the opposition and the Third Party is also with a view to something the minister had mentioned previously, at the outset, which is that we also want greater clarity and certainty for the types of projects, investment decisions, partnerships with building healthy communities across this province. I think we share that with Indigenous communities, of course. The member for Skeena certainly has been a strong advocate for that.

I just want to ask a few questions, again relating to the MOU. The member for Skeena did touch on this. In the context of the MOU, paragraph 4 says simply that B.C. commits to engage in these negotiations, consistent with DRIPA.

[3:00 p.m.]

Could I ask the minister to give his sense as to the meaning of that particular clause in the context of what we’ve been discussing here?

Hon. M. Rankin: We, of course, share entirely what the member has, I think, properly stressed: that it is in everyone’s interest in our province to provide clarity for partnerships, businesses, communities — all British Columbians, Indigenous or otherwise. That is what this vexing land question has been about since before British Columbia joined Confederation, and we’re tasked with trying to do something that we might all have wished to have done a long time ago.

Paragraph 4 of the MOU talks about doing this activity consistent with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. The member will know that a central feature of the Declaration Act, as confirmed in the first theme of the action plan under that act, is self-determination — self-determination and self-government.

Section 6 of the Declaration Act talks about Indigenous governing bodies. Who are the proper rights and title holders? Who has section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 rights? Who are those people? It goes right back to where we started — the central importance that we recognize of ensuring that we have the negotiating partners that truly represent the Indigenous collectivity, the Aboriginal rights and title holders of the Wet’suwet’en people.

M. Lee: I appreciate that when Bill 41 was tabled on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, we spent, at length, the member for Abbotsford West and myself with the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, over five days in committee. I know that the team around the minister remembers that well.

I can say, of course, that an Indigenous governing body certainly was one area of the bill, among many, that needed some clarity and discussion. I appreciate that we are spending time on one particular important area of our province, whether it’s historic, vis-à-vis the Delgamuukw decision, the current situation around the lands, of course….

There are many other examples that we could be spending time on, but we don’t have that time, unfortunately. I’d love to have more time to talk about other situations, but this is the situation we’re talking about here. In that context, I would say that at the high level, the kinds of learnings and discussions and clarity and certainty that we’re discussing here are helpful to understand how government will work with First Nation leaders and others for other situations.

Keeping that all in mind, when we talk about proper rights and title holders, recognizing that it is held collectively, as the minister has just responded to twice…. In the context of understanding “Indigenous governing body,” the MOU does make reference, as the minister did, to the Wet’suwet’en houses as the Indigenous governing body.

I’d ask if the minister could elaborate upon that legal recognition that is confirmed in the MOU, vis-à-vis recognizing that rights and title are held collectively here — the recognition that there is a need for the Wet’suwet’en Nation reunification strategy, the summit that the minister has talked about. How is that all going to square here in terms of recognition of who is the proper rights and title holder here and the Indigenous governing body for the Wet’suwet’en rights and title?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The hon. member has certainly put his finger on one of the complexities, for sure. The Wet’suwet’en Nation consists of five clans, 13 houses and six Indian bands — bands created under the Indian Act. One of the central features of the MOU is to negotiate on the basis, the legal recognition, that the Wet’suwet’en houses are the Indigenous governing body holding Wet’suwet’en Aboriginal rights and title, in accordance with their Anuk ’nu’at’en.

I think that underscores yet again the critical importance of ensuring, given the complex arrangements in the Wet’suwet’en Nation, that we get it right with respect to governance.

I point out to the hon. member that every Wet’suwet’en member is a member of the house and clan to which they have been historically associated, and that, of course, includes the elected leadership as well. Again, I think that will give some indication of the complex world in which we are trying to resolve these historic issues.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. I think it is indicative of the fact that this minister understands the complexities, certainly, involved in what we see at times, which has perhaps been oversimplified, let’s say, either by the media or others locally. But I think as long as there is a recognition of the collective rights there with the Wet’suwet’en people in the way that the minister described, that is a helpful way to go forward. We look forward to further discussion with the minister about this.

I wanted to just take a small, technical opportunity here, given that my colleague the member for Skeena mentioned jurisdiction in the way that he did. Is the minister aware of a recent Quebec Court of Appeal decision relating to a federal act restricting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and youth and families?

As I understand it on a quick read, as I have become aware of this case, there is jurisdictional commentary, let’s say, that is going to be subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada by parties involved. But there was cautionary language, I suppose, of some sort by the Court of Appeal as to the ability, let’s say, of legislation to supersede the federal jurisdiction vis-à-vis Indigenous rights.

Could I just get the minister’s quick response? What I mean by that is any high-level response to that consideration in looking at how we develop legislation in this province, recognizing that that decision seems to have some relevance and import.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member asks if I’m aware of the decision. Very much so. I’ve had a chance to read the Quebec Court of Appeal decision. The member’s absolutely right. It’s complicated. There are issues of paramountcy that have been discussed — Indigenous laws under the child welfare legislation there and the federal role under this. It’s going to be something that, I think, all of us are going to look at the Supreme Court of Canada for guidance on.

Beyond that, I think I would be remiss to say too much because, of course, it will be our Attorney General who will make the decision and whether and how and to what extent B.C. gets involved.

M. Lee: At this point, I’d like to turn to my colleague the member for Penticton. He has some local issues to ask questions about as well.

D. Ashton: To the minister: always a pleasure to see you, Minister. Just a quick question. I’m going to drag you back down south.

I’ll open my remarks by saying my question is based on the incredible respect that I have for Chief Crow, his council and the entire Lower Similkameen Indian Band. But about a week ago, sir, an IPCA, an Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area, was announced for an area called the nʔaysnúlaʔxʷ. That area is an access route for people that are hunting, fishing, hiking. There are some commercial ventures in the area.

I wondered if the minister could explain how that IPCA designation is going to affect those people that I brought up that share those incredible lands and waters, along with the bands in the area.

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s a pleasure to answer questions from the member for Penticton. I, too, have enormous respect for Chief Crow. I’ve spoken with him on many occasions, but not about this.

I say that because the notion of an IPCA, to which he refers, is a federal policy construct that doesn’t exist in B.C. law on land use. How it would apply in the nʔaysnúlaʔxʷ area is, of course, something that I’ve asked my officials to reach out to the Lower Similkameen Indian Band to try to understand.

At this stage, we haven’t had that conversation. As I say, it’s a federal construct. How it would work, if it could work — all of those questions remain to be discussed with the Chief and, of course, with our federal counterparts.

D. Ashton: Minister, thank you very much.

I’d like to quote. It says: “Licensees in non-Syilx water and land users in the watershed area will be given notice regarding how the new IPCA declaration will affect them.”

I’m assuming there’s going to be some consequences. All I am asking is…. Time may be…. I won’t track that. Time is of the essence. I mean, the nʔaysnúlaʔxʷ is opening up now. The sməlqmix is lifting up access, again, to those lands.

Again, the utmost of cooperation with the Lower Similkameen Indian Band and also some parts of the Upper Similkameen Indian Band is imperative. But I know that there are many people questioning what is going to transpire under this IPCA.

Again, I just ask. If it’s not possible at this time, if some news could be forthcoming from the provincial government for those affected in that area.

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the member read from a declaration from the Lower Similkameen Indian Band. I take his point that this is a matter where timing is critical.

[3:15 p.m.]

I have, once again, asked my staff to reach out, having received this just a week or so ago from the Lower Similkameen Indian Band, to see just how they intend the province to be involved and what it would mean. This is something that we look forward to discussing with Chief Crow and his council.

M. Lee: I will have the member for Peace River North joining us in about 15 minutes, virtually. In the meantime, if I could turn to another topic.

The minister, in his introductory comments, talked about the new fiscal relationship framework that is going to be worked on — and, obviously, there to support Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination. We’ve had that discussion as that being one of the key items in the DRIPA action plan as well.

Certainly the minister has talked about, by way of example, the model for forest revenue–sharing. Perhaps I could ask the minister to continue to refer to and give us a sense as to what will be considered for this new fiscal relationship, recognizing that we will have some subsequent questions relating to the revenue-sharing arrangement as well. That’s another area; I appreciate that. Certainly, if the minister could describe for us what that new fiscal relationship framework might look like.

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m very pleased the member took us back to the new fiscal relationship framework. Action 1.4 in the action plan is something that we, of course, co-developed with Indigenous partners.

It starts by saying: “Co-develop with Indigenous peoples a new distinctions-based fiscal relationship and framework that supports the operation of Indigenous governments.” It goes on to say: “…whether through modern treaties, self-government agreements or advancing the right to self-government through other mechanisms. This work will include collaboration with the government of Canada.”

I emphasize two words — the notion of “co-developing” this. The other important words are “Indigenous governments.” Like any governments, Indigenous governments need stable, dependable, long-term funding. We’ve heard this from all sorts of governments. The province asks that of the feds. The municipalities ask that of the regional districts. It’s exactly the same needs that Indigenous governments have.

That is why I’m proud that our government brought in revenue-sharing from gaming to the tune of some $100 million a year for each of the 204 nations so that they would have that stable revenue that I referred to. That agreement is in place until 2045, again giving that certainty that they can go forward and do things that are important to their community.

That is what we’re going to co-develop. That is going to go beyond the forest revenue–sharing piece to which the member referred. It’s going to be dealing with other revenue sources and other sources so we can ensure that the Indigenous governments in our province are on a stable fiscal footing.

M. Lee: Last year the minister used contingencies to supplement lost investment revenue from the first citizens fund. Will the minister be considering doing that again this year?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The first citizens fund has revenue that has been relatively stable year to year, slightly up in the service plan going forward. Basically, those changes have simply been due to fluctuations in the interest rate, because it’s a fund drawing interest, and everyone will know our interest rates so far have been pretty low.

M. Lee: In terms of recognizing what is contemplated under the service plan, if revenues for the first citizens fund continue to be low, are there any longer-term strat­egies for ensuring that First Nations have stable revenue sources?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m glad that we’re talking about the first citizens fund, because it has been one source of revenue that has been around for some time. As I said, it fluctuates due to interest rates, but it provides programming — a lot of good programming for languages, for Elder services, and the like.

Of course, those programs are also very much funded in our base ministry budget. For example, the strategic partnerships and initiatives development program area is one area of our ministry that would be involved in supplementing those kinds of funds. In other words, the fund is there. We use is for what I’ve just indicated it’s used for, but of course, every year we must supplement it in order to ensure that those programs are well funded.

M. Lee: In terms of the B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Limited Partnership, there was a one-time grant by the government and this ministry to supplement lost gaming revenue in 2020-2021. As I understand, gaming revenue in 2021-2022 was also lower than expected. Will the government be providing a similar grant to support that shortfall as well?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you for the question about the gaming-revenue-sharing with First Nations.

This has been something that in the first three years, has involved an expenditure by the province of almost $255 million of sharing of gaming revenue with First Nations, something I’m very proud of. It represents a 7 percent share in our gaming revenue so that First Nations can have that stable funding that I referred to.

It goes straight to the…. It is limited partnership that regulates it, but then the money goes to the 204 First Nations to dispense in order to have that stable government and go forward with projects that are important to their community.

The member alluded to the fact that not that long ago $74 million was provided to the First Nations in a one-time grant for the simple reason that the province was committed to making them whole. The pandemic has taken an enormous toll. People were not going to casinos; therefore, the revenue was down dramatically in a way that no one could have foreseen.

We thought it the right thing to do. We made that contribution, and it was well received in an announcement made in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago that I had the pleasure of attending.

There is no plan, of course, at this stage to deal with such a program in the future. That will be a decision, if made, of the government at that time.

M. Lee: Is there a shortfall for 2021 and 2022 of approximately $42 million?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: In 2020-2021, due to the decline in gaming revenue due to the pandemic, First Nations gaming revenues were approximately $74 million lower than anticipated, as I said. Therefore, there was that one-time payment that was made.

The answer to the member’s question is yes. In 2021-​2022, we transferred over $58 million, but that left a shortfall of $42 million. I’m stressing that this payment was over more than a calendar year. That would be the reason for that number being different.

M. Lee: I appreciate this response from the minister. I do remember at length the discussion of the bill that the government brought forward relating to this new revenue-sharing relationship.

Could I ask the minister…? As we look at this revenue-sharing arrangement, that is a 42 percent…. Well, $74 million to make up the shortfall in the previous year and a $42 million shortfall in the next year, which is 2021-2022, is a pretty wide shift. What has been the impact, from the minister’s understanding, to the First Nations who have been relying on that level of funding?

I do certainly appreciate the concern relating to stability of funding, but of course, we’re trying to build up towards less dependency, more self-determination. I would expect that this revenue-sharing arrangement is one to help First Nations and Indigenous communities get there, so to speak.

When we talk about the swing, let’s say, of the $42 million, what is the impact, from the minister’s understanding, to First Nations because of that shortfall?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m hopeful that the First Nations will see that the impact has been minimal, because we have, through the numbers I’ve described earlier, made them whole. That was the entire objective of the one-time grant.

I say again that the $74 million was to cover 2019-20 and then 2020-21 fiscal years. There was a shortfall in the one year that the member referred to, but the $74 million covers both years, and we made them whole because of the precipitous decline in gaming activity during that time.

We hope we don’t have to ever do this again, and they hope we will never have to do this again. I understand that things have picked up nicely in that industry, and I’m hoping that First Nations can share, as they will, to the extent of 7 percent of the net revenues, going forward till 2045.

M. Lee: Just to clarify, the shortfall funding of the one-time grant of $74 million, then, is to cover 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Rankin: Yes, that is correct.

M. Lee: The additional shortfall of $42 million for 2021 to 2022 — how will that be addressed?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I hope I haven’t been the source of confusion here. As I said before, $74 million was transferred, on a one-time basis, to cover the 2019-2020 fiscal year and then, secondly, the 2020-2021. That, of course, was transferred in the following year, the current year.

There is no shortfall this year, thankfully, hopefully. We expect revenues to be where they should be, based on the pandemic coming, we hope, to a close.

M. Lee: I appreciate that. I wanted just that clarity. I think, from the minister’s previous answer, I wanted to make it more explicit. There’s an assumption there that as we get through the rest of this pandemic, gaming revenues, such as they are, will return to a better level, at least from a revenue-sharing perspective.

I wanted to ask…. Overall, the minister mentioned…. When the First Nations Gaming Commission was an­nounced in 2019, there was a projection by the government that this may lead to the provision of $3 billion over 25 years. So far, as I understand it, the revenues have been much lower than expected.

Can First Nations still expect to receive that quantum of revenue over the balance of the 25 years?

Hon. M. Rankin: The key number is 7 percent. Seven percent of net revenues through audited statements will be allocated and transferred to First Nations for the purposes I’ve described. That number is going forward to 2045, and that is what they can expect. That’s about all I can predict at this moment.

M. Lee: Just recognizing, of course, that there are different sources of revenue to be shared with First Nations. Last year there were seven mine projects with revenue-sharing negotiations anticipated or in progress. As I understand it, there are 48 of these mineral revenue-sharing agreements in place currently.

Can the minister provide any update as to the status of the negotiations on those seven further mineral revenue-sharing agreements?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member asking about the ECDAs, as we call them, the revenue-sharing from mining, the tax revenue. The economic and community development agreements are between governments and various First Nations to share direct mineral tax revenue on new mines and major mine expansions.

There are many that are outstanding, that have been negotiated over time and that are available on the website for anyone who might wish to see what those agreements look like.

I can say that we are in the process now, along with our colleagues in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, of trying to ensure…. That new fiscal relationship framework I talked about earlier would include a transformation of that kind of revenue-sharing — revenue-sharing from forestry, revenue-sharing from ski resorts and any number of other activities across the province. That’s very much going to be the central part of the co-developed framework I referred to.

M. Lee: Madam Chair, we will just take a break from that line of inquiry and turn it over now to my colleague the member for Peace River North.

D. Davies: I’d like to thank my colleague for an opportunity to ask a couple of questions to the minister and to thank the minister for his time.

First of all, I want to thank the minister. He and I have had a number of discussions around a couple of areas — the Red Creek subdivision, Charlie Lake lands — regarding the TLE properties. I understand that the minister did have a meeting. That was set up quite some time ago for this afternoon.

I guess, first of all, maybe I’ll open up…. If the minister could give a quick synopsis of how he thinks the meeting went with those stakeholders this afternoon.

Hon. M. Rankin: I welcome my colleague from Peace River North to this meeting and appreciate the questions a great deal. It’s been a pleasure to work with him on things that are so important in the northeast. I definitely know he has his finger on the pulse. I did have a meeting with certain members from the community at Red Creek and also at Charlie Lake.

I should just say to those who aren’t engaged in the specifics that this, of course, involves something called TLE, treaty land entitlements. This is a legal liability that goes back to the late 1990s. It probably goes back further than that. Land that was not made available and that had been promised to First Nations in the northeast. That was part of treaty 8, and that land never came.

It has taken us a long time, but we are poised to have a successful resolution in the near term of these treaty land entitlement negotiations with the various nations in the northeast. It’s an exciting time. I’ve been talking about it with my federal counterpart. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars are coming to the northeast nations as a consequence of these negotiations.

British Columbia’s part, as the member well knows, is to deal with the land portion of that. To that end, our ministry has led a public engagement process. It has been ongoing for some four years. There have been some concerns raised, as always occurs when land is selected in particular areas. We have done our best to try to resolve those negotiations.

[3:45 p.m.]

Today, as the member alluded to, I had another conversation with the members of two communities, near which land has been selected by the Blueberry River First Nations. I think it’s a fair statement that we have done a considerable amount, through those negotiations and engagement processes, to reduce the size of the parcel at Red Creek from what had been originally requested by Blueberry. We found options elsewhere for the community.

We also ensured that there be a corridor between the land owners and the TLE lands to allow access behind the private land owners’ parcels. We hope that good neighbours will come together and sort out any kind of issues that may continue in that area.

The member also referred to Charlie Lake, an important area near Fort St. John. The members today on the call asked me why that was important — why a land selection in Charlie Lake was important to the Blueberry River First Nation. I think the answer is that the Charlie Lake Caves is the oldest known archeological site in the Peace River area. It’s along the banks of a lake that’s named after Chief Charlie Yahey, who was a prominent Blueberry River Chief many, many years ago.

To date, there have been no lands owned by the First Nations in that area. So it was something that was significant. The nation confirmed to me, through the new Chief, that they indeed continued to be interested in the land selections at both Charlie Lake and at Red Creek.

I’m hoping that neighbours can come together, as I said in the call, with some of the talented people that were represented on the call, to see if we can resolve any outstanding issues that may arise as a result of that land selection.

D. Davies: Thanks, Minister. We certainly are quite excited about the Charlie Lake Caves. I’ve had the opportunity to go out to those and see the future plans to have our local Indigenous communities build those up into something much more exciting and something we can certainly share with tourists as they come through the area.

From the minister’s statements there regarding, specifically, the Charlie Lake lands. I understand there was some discussion around the concern…. It is quite a ways away from where the Charlie Lake Caves are. But the lands that were selected have been designated watershed for the last 50-plus years, as part of the government, to protect those lands. There has been a lot of build up around the lake itself, development and such. It was thought to be very important to protect these lands. Of course, now part of the lands that have been selected is this watershed.

I’m just wondering if the minister can let us know where the stance of the provincial government is on making sure that there continues to be protections in place of this important watershed that was designated by the provincial government some years ago.

Hon. M. Rankin: Before I begin, I’d just like to salute the member for Peace River North for his efforts in reconciliation in his riding. I’ve read his editorials in the newspaper. I’ve heard him speak in the House passionately about Indigenous issues, and I want to thank him for that leadership in his community.

I also think that it’s important to note at the outset that in those two land selections that the member refers to, Charlie Lake and Red Creek, there’s no…. The indication of the First Nations has been categorical. There will be no industrial activity. For example, at Charlie Lake, the parcel would be used for an Elders facility, and at Red Creek, the parcel would be used for housing.

[3:50 p.m.]

Now, the watershed is, of course, a key concern at Charlie Lake. That came through loud and clear in the meetings that I’ve had with the community. I said, on both occasions, and I stand by it, that any development that would occur would have to meet the same or better environmental requirements that would have existed under B.C. law.

Given that they will be subject to federal jurisdiction, I am confident that, like any environmental legislation, if it’s properly enforced, the standards will be at least as rigorous if not more rigorous in respect of any development that occurs at Charlie Lake.

Through proper land use planning and through collaboration between neighbours — Indigenous and non-Indigenous — I see no reason why this development can’t occur in a way that meets everyone’s interests.

D. Davies: Thanks for that, Minister. I appreciate the comment around reconciliation. I truly do believe that most residents in my riding and throughout the North do recognize the importance of reconciliation, but we want to make sure we get it right. We want to make sure we get it right for our Indigenous communities. We also want to make sure that we get it right for the residents in order that we can live as neighbours and move forward. So I do appreciate that.

Building on those questions, and probably my last question, to let my colleague from Vancouver-Langara know, I guess the next question is: as we move forward on, specifically, these two subjects that we’ve been talking about, Charlie Lake and Red Creek, what is the process?

Can the minister give some assurances to the residents and stakeholders in those areas that they will be brought along on this process as partners — the information to be shared — so that they do know, in fact, what is going on as opposed to finding out way down the road after the fact?

I think that’s been the biggest thing we’ve heard, over the number of years, around the TLE negotiations — that it’s been veiled in this cloak of darkness with very little transparency. Can the minister confirm that there will indeed be some transparency to the residents, and what does that look like?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you again to the member for the question. I do not accept that the residents have been in any way, shape or form kept in the dark. Indeed, there have been extensive engagement efforts over several years with stakeholders, local governments and residents to make sure the various interests are well and truly understood by the province in this regard, both with respect to Charlie Lake and Red Lake but, of course, elsewhere as well. I’m talking open houses and other efforts that I’m aware of that have been made.

We will continue to do that. We will continue to engage. We know how important it is. We look for people of good will to come together and try to resolve those differences so we can create economic development that’s environmentally sustainable at Charlie Lake and at Red Creek, and we will continue to ensure that the local governments are involved.

I’ve had some very, very good meetings with the local governments of the area, and to a person — whether it would be a regional district representative, a councillor or a mayor, through all of the areas — I know there’s a great commitment to get it right, as the member said. I think that we are committed on that journey to do the same thing. It’s never easy, but we’re going to do our best.

M. Lee: Thanks to the member for Peace River North for giving the big thumbs-up. I’m ready to continue.

The minister, in his previous response, referred back to co-development. I certainly understand that, under provisions of the DRIPA action plan. Then he used the word “transformation,” so I wanted to come back to that word.

[3:55 p.m.]

Previously in estimates, I did share with the minister my opportunity to talk to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation relating to the review of the Mineral Tenure Act.

When looking at the move forward with mineral tax revenue-sharing agreements, including around mines relating to Myra Falls, Fireside, Endako, Kootenay West gypsum, Red Mountain, Cariboo Gold and Silvertip — to name a number of mines which, I understand, are currently under negotiation — some of these mines, which include Huckleberry, Kitsault and Mount Polley, are in care and maintenance or have been paused.

We’re talking about the ability of new mines to move forward, mines that might be under care and maintenance now — economic opportunities, certainly in terms of job creation for Indigenous people working at these mine sites. So it’s not just as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation and I talked about. It’s not just, as he put it, the communities that are affected but also industry itself.

Can the minister come back, for my purposes and my understanding…? When he uses the word “transformation,” what does the ministry have in mind when we’re talking about this area — first, in the Mineral Tenure Act review and, second, in the co-development in this sector vis-à-vis these mineral tax revenue-sharing agreements? Is there a change, then, in how this will be approached, when he uses the word “transformation”?

Hon. M. Rankin: It gives me an opportunity, in replying to the member, to talk about, really, the transformation point that he made in a couple of contexts.

First of all, the support of the B.C. Mining Association, the Association for Mineral Exploration and the like has just been absolutely staggering. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the B.C. Business Council. The support for the work that we’re doing has been so strong and so appreciated.

I really do think that British Columbia can be a jurisdiction for the 21st century where the ESG commitment — environmental, social and governance — is a real thing. Investment decisions in the trillions of dollars, as you know, Madam Chair, are being made on the strength of whether a jurisdiction has a commitment to ESG principles.

The social part of that ESG is Indigenous co-development, and that’s the other transformational part about what we’re doing. As I read from the action plan, we are co-developing these new economic arrangements, these new revenue-sharing agreements. That’s transformational. Working with who the Indigenous governing body is, as identified by that First Nation — that’s transformational.

Much is transformational, but I go back to where I started. What’s equally transformational is the fact that there seems to be a growing consensus in our province that we must do transformative change in order to ensure that the future is open to enlightened companies that want to do mining in a way that truly reflects those ESG principles.

M. Lee: The minister referenced in response, at the outset of this particular session, members on this side of the aisle who have had experience in the industry negotiating agreements, both for industry and with First Nations. Certainly, I’m one of those members of the House who have that experience.

[4:00 p.m.]

I appreciate what the minister is referring to in terms of ESG. I would say that that balanced scorecard for investment purposes, both by institutional investors as well as investors in a public-company context…. Many mining companies in British Columbia continue to access the public markets. There is a recognition, of course, of the opportunity. So I appreciate what the minister means when he says “transformation.” Certainly, B.C. has been under something that is…. I think this is the magnitude of what the minister’s predecessor, the minister himself, the team around him, and the secretariat all have to work with.

There’s tremendous transformative opportunity here but also, of course, the need to have clarity and certainty, not just for the kinds of communities that the member for Peace River North referred to — people living in communities, living in partnership with First Nations. We’ve talked about the Wet’suwet’en peoples with the member for Skeena, in getting clarity around what the governing body would mean, moving forward, and other jurisdictional considerations. These are the kinds of aspects that this government, as it walks through its 89 steps on the action plan, need to have greater certainty and clarity around.

When I ask the question, in the case of mineral tenure revenue-sharing agreements, recognizing the item dealing with the Mineral Tenure Act review, the reason why I’m asking this question, of course, is also to understand the timetable, the certainty of the process.

I would say, quite frankly, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation was not able to address that yet. We did hear from the minister previously that there’s an expectation that individual ministers in the cabinet, accountable to the Premier, will have understood and embedded in planning purposes — in their current year of budget for each of the ministries — the assessment as to what they should be doing to meet the individual action items that are specific to their ministries in this budget year.

From the minister’s colleague, I heard a real lack of clarity, let’s say, meaning: “Well, we will determine over this coming year what the timetable might be, what the scope of the review might look like.” I would say to the minister, of course, that that does raise some concerns as to where we are going with this. I appreciate the overall outcome, where we all want to be, but if we don’t have a clear mandate and a framework as to how we’re going to implement DRIPA, like in the Mineral Tenure Act review, we may see a lack of clarity and certainty.

Timing is one thing; scope is another thing. The substance matter of the review is a third thing. The impact on how mineral tenure revenue-sharing agreements will be dealt with in the meantime is a fourth thing, while investors seek other jurisdictions to put their capital in — not just the mining company management teams and their boards of directors but the investors in these companies.

As much as we see the transformative opportunity here, others might say: “We see political risk.” I’m not saying in respect of First Nations; I’m saying in respect of this government. So how the government manages this relationship is important.

Again, I obviously went long on that statement, but I’d like the minister’s reaction to what I’ve said in the points that I’ve made.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for such a thoughtful question.

The need for clarity and certainty is not just something that Indigenous governments are looking for — I alluded to that in revenue-sharing, so that they have the revenue to support their governments in a sustainable way — but I agree entirely that it’s needed for those who make multi-million-dollar investments in our jurisdiction.

It is something that we take very seriously in our government. I know I speak to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation about this regularly. So there is no question that the member is right about that.

What is important that I repeat, though, is the level of commitment that I find on industry’s side to that new kind of approach. This a very different world than the one several years ago, when I was first involved in this field.

I cannot stress the partnership that we have, as a government, with the industry associations, with whom I speak regularly about these issues. I think that that gives me hope that we’re going to get it right. There is that…. Any kind of…. Every industry decision is a function of risk and reward, and there are, of course, difficulties. But by creating the kinds of relationships not just that the government creates with Indigenous people but that the industry itself is creating on a daily basis, on a regular basis…. That, I think, is going to lead to the transformation we talked about earlier.

I think that the action plan is a five-year plan, so over the life of that plan, we will build a better British Columbia together. But I couldn’t be more buoyed by that future when I think about the role that the industry now wishes to play in that regard.

M. Lee: Certainly, I recognize the change over the last, let’s say, 26 years that I have been involved on commercial transactions and looking at industry and their partnership with First Nations in this province — and, perhaps, four years before that, federally.

I would say, though, to the minister, in terms of the way that he articulated his response that, again, with the limited time that we have in this estimates process, I am only using the approach to select certain areas that we can explore at this estimates stage.

One area that I did explore, again, with the minister’s colleague is in the clean energy sector. When I talked to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation about the nature of partnership…. As the minister would know, there are a number of electricity purchase agreements, long term, that have been negotiated and entered into that date back close to 20 years.

My understanding is that there are five to seven First Nations that are in the process of some form of negotiation with B.C. Hydro in terms of the renewal of that. As the minister would, I’m sure, say to me, as the Minister of Energy has, that is something that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation has some purview on in terms of what’s in front of B.C. Hydro.

I was talking to the minister, though, in terms of the specific DRIPA action plan item, which relates to the co-development aspect to enhance stewardship and the environment, but also in terms of the specific items relating to the clean energy aspect and the opportunity that’s there in front of us.

Could the minister provide his understanding of item 4.43, which is the co-development of recommendations on strategic policies and initiatives for clean and sustainable energy?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member and I share a great passion for this particular sector, the clean energy sector, and 4.43 is an example of one of the action items in the action plan that is the responsibility of another ministry. I want to stress that that’s not meaning we won’t be fully engaged as a ministry in assisting in that regard. But they have to take responsibility to the people of B.C., through the action plan, for efforts in that regard and the extent to which they are implementing that important action item.

I think I would be remiss if I said too much more about that item, given it’s the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

M. Lee: I would suggest that this is an example of an example — of what we can do to have this discussion. It brings me back to the initial discussion we’ve had in this estimates process as to the role of the secretariat, the role of the minister, the accountabilities that flow up to the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier.

Using this as an example, if I could recap and perhaps get the minister to comment. My understanding is, over the first year of the five-year DRIPA action plan, for example, in respect of item 4.43, it would be the minister’s expectation that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation will work to develop the measures, the targets, as to what would be accomplished to deal with this particular 4.43. I know the minister himself, the Minister of Energy, has said that’s what the year is going to be utilized for: to deal with scope, timing and other process considerations.

As the minister does that — the Minister of Energy, that is — who is responsible for…? Is it the Minister of Energy, for example, that would be responsible for feeding into the secretariat those measures so that when we look at the annual report for 2023, as the minister and I here have discussed, those measures would be spelled out in that annual report? Something that myself or other colleagues of mine would be able to then discuss in the next process perhaps — whatever juncture of opportunity we might have.

Is that the way that these measures would flow? If that’s the case, is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation…? Who in his ministry will actually be feeding those measures to the secretariat, if I have that flow correct? Is it the deputy minister or an ADM within the ministry who has that responsibility?

Secondly, to what degree does the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, or the ADM responsible for the secretariat, have any say on whether that set of initiatives meets the specific item here, which is 4.43?

Hon. M. Rankin: Just for the record, I should confirm that the person who is heading up this new, exciting initiative, the secretariat for the Declaration Act, is an associate deputy minister, and that is not an ADM. It’s confusing, but it’s an assistant deputy minister.

It allows me to say that it’s within our ministry that the tracking of action plan commitments takes place. We have an assistant deputy minister whose job it is to do that. That is, I think, where the responsibility lodges.

The accountability for the delivery of each of those actions is with the ministry. It’s for them to find the budget, for them to treat this with the same level of concern that they treat mandate letter commitments.

[4:15 p.m.]

As I’m proud to say, every single ministry in our government has something that they must do. This action plan has been co-developed with Indigenous peoples, so we know that it’s important to them. But it’s also feasible and doable from the perspective of the ministry, which gives me comfort in saying that we will get this done. All of these actions will be initiated within the five-year term, and the sooner the better. Some have already been implemented, as you know.

I think that that responsibility centre, to use the federal jargon, is with our ministry, not the secretariat. The secretariat is more involved with the alignment of laws under section 3 of the Declaration Act.

M. Lee: Well, thank you, Minister, for that clarification. I appreciate the response and, certainly, the reminder of the roles. I do recall that discussion with the member for Saanich North and the Islands. But that, in itself — the response that the minister gave in this way — does reaffirm or clarify the different roles that the ministry plays versus the secretariat.

I will say, then, to the minister that when I had the opportunity to discuss this item, 4.43, with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, that minister, in response to my line of inquiry — certainly, at least in my view — didn’t demonstrate, let’s say, the directional importance of 4.43 in terms of what it means in the context of the DRIPA action plan. I say that because just as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation asked me, at one point, why I was fixated on this particular item in the area of First Nations, I reminded the minister that I am the critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

His response also seemed to rely, overly so, on the nature of affordability. I appreciate that we have — collectively, members of this House — back-and-forth about affordability in this province and the challenge. But in the context of 4.43, I wouldn’t expect necessarily that this would be the minister’s response about how we co-develop recommendations on strategic priorities and initiatives for clean and sustainable energy, for First Nations–led clean energy opportunities.

My understanding is that of the approximately 13 percent of energy generated through independent power production, close to 12 percent of that — meaning 12 out of the 13 percent — involves First Nations. So at this juncture, with the significant capital investment by First Nations that are involved on run-of-river projects, including on Vancouver Island and other parts of this province — other clean energy projects and opportunities that are there — the kind of certainty that’s going to be necessary in the meantime…. Again, we come back to certainty and clarity.

We talked about Mineral Tenure Act review. In this context, it’s about understanding what this is going to look like to those five to seven First Nations that are in the process of having discussions with B.C. Hydro as to what their renewal will look like — their renewal terms. Of course, as I understand it, what’s being proposed to them is the Mid-C pricing on the U.S. marketplace.

Again, I appreciate that I cannot get into that level of detail with this minister. I appreciate that. But I’m just saying that when we talk about transformational opportunities here, I would suggest to this government that a transformational opportunity will be to consider and continue and grow the level of First Nations involvement in clean energy opportunities.

I’ll just make one other comment for the minister. I did raise one other point, which is to do with the B.C. Utilities Commission Indigenous Utilities Regulation Inquiry. There is quite a full-scale report on what this will look like in terms of those First Nations that want to operate Indigenous-led utilities.

I understand there are projects in the Okanagan that are being looked at and considered. My recollection of the Minister of Energy’s response to me was that the recommendations, which were put out over two years ago, will need to be considered again.

[4:20 p.m.]

We are talking about the B.C. Utilities Commission, the independent regulator in this province. I think that this report is well situated, at 84 pages. It certainly has recommendations as to what should go forward. Again, I think not only are there certainty and clarity considerations, but there’s opportunity missed for those First Nations.

I would invite the minister to consider…. As we look at this five year action plan and we turn it over to individual ministers, my urging to the government would be to ensure that each of these ministers understand the opportunity in front of them when it comes to First Nations-led opportunities — in this case, for clean energy.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the points made about the B.C. Utilities Commission and, in particular, the reference to the BCUC inquiry on the regulation of Indigenous utilities. That is specifically, of course, mentioned in action plan item 4.43, and I’m confident my colleague, who will have the responsibility for implementing that, will take that into account — the report to which the member refers — because no one wants opportunities to be missed by First Nations. People are committed to trying to ensure that that part of economic reconciliation is clear.

I can’t speak to the specifics, obviously. The discussions that are taking place with the First Nations he referred to — B.C. Hydro, the minister and ministry. That would be going beyond my remit. But I can say, with confidence, that from the Premier on down, the government members are committed to reconciliation, committed to finding those opportunities for First Nations, and I’m confident that every minister is aware of his or her obligations under the action plan. That, I think, should give us all comfort.

This is an all-of-government commitment. Every ministry — not just my ministry but every ministry — has work to do, and the Premier has made it abundantly clear to all of us that this is a key priority of this government.

M. Lee: I appreciate the framing of this as a key priority to government. Certainly, as we heard from the member for Boundary-Similkameen, at one point, there was some statement of some note that he was suggesting to First Nations that the path forward for First Nations in this province will be around clean energy, as opposed to other forms of energy production that that particular member didn’t think was the right thing to do for First Nations.

There are other considerations there, I’m sure, when that member says that. But I’ve got to say to the minister that the responses I’ve received…. This is how the challenge with the DRIPA action plan is. There are two things here. One is the opportunity that myself needs to take, and my co-critics in respective specific ministries need to be very alive to the individual 89 items in the DRIPA action plan, to see where those opportunities are and where they’re being missed and trying to get certainty and clarity. That’s what we’re trying to do.

I’ve only been able to do that in certain instances. This is the reason why, in the words of the Minister for Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, I’m fixated on this particular item, because in response, I did not really here from the minister any sense of a plan. If this is really, truly the case from the member for Boundary-Similkameen, in his words, that this government believes that this is the path forward for First Nations in this province, I don’t see it. I don’t see the plan that this government has to ensure that that’s going to be the case.

I see a one-year horizon before we even know what the government’s view will be on this B.C. Utilities and regulation inquiry report. Now, I know that the minister will say to me that we are talking about co-development, and there is a role here for Indigenous peoples and First Nations.

I say that to you because recognizing where we are in this session, as we have the opportunity over the coming months, as I have had in talking to some First Nation leaders, I do hear from them as to the concerns that they have about where this government’s policy is and plan for clean energy development in the face of these contracts that are coming up for renewal and the way that the government has approached this.

[4:25 p.m.]

I do think that this is a concern that I would point out to the minister, and I know that I will continue to hear from other First Nation leaders in our province about the status of their projects, the status of their investments in this sector, the opportunities that they might see in working in the clean energy sector.

What is the message, then, to those First Nations that are looking to this government to ensure that there is a plan to go forward in this area?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the question. In the course of his remarks, he mentioned the issue of the 89 actions that are in the action plan and the need to ensure that there is uptake, that there are opportunities there that are recognized by First Nations.

I would just remind the member that this action plan was the subject of enormous consultation at the individual rights and title holder level, to individuals, as well as, of course, with the leadership groups within British Columbia. So I’m confident that those opportunities are there and that the Indigenous population of British Columbia is well aware of those opportunities. After all, they co-developed them, so they should be.

It’s part of our job to ensure that we are accountable for that, and that’s why we have an annual report that will address, every year, the extent to which we are meeting those commitments. I’m not in a position to talk about the contracts to which the member refers, but I am able to say with assurance that we’re building this out together — the Indigenous population and British Columbia. The tool is the Declaration Act.

I remind the member we are also involved not just in the items there but the implementation of the action plan. That is where First Nations will be fundamentally involved, because we’re committed to consult and cooperate in that work, and that is something that is fundamental to our relationship.

M. Lee: I appreciate, just before we take a break for a few minutes, with the limited time that we have….

I appreciate the response. The consideration around the DRIPA action plan…. What I thought the minister was also going to say, because I’ve heard this before as well, is that the DRIPA action plan itself is not the only action that this government takes with respect to our relationship with First Nations and Indigenous peoples in this prov­ince. There are other ongoing initiatives.

However it works, I’ve heard that this is a priority of government — that is, initiatives with First Nations and the clean energy sector. We’ve certainly had a history in this province, under the previous government, dating back to the early-2000 period. Certainly, in my time at B.C. Hydro…. I fully appreciate what independent power production looks like in this province — the amount of opportunity that needed to be invested in as we look at that coming forward now.

We’re at a juncture now which….I would hope that as the government goes forward, in the expectations that have been set both in the adoption of UNDRIP and this particular action item, in 4.43, that the government is managing how those expectations will be met. As much as there has been co-development of the DRIPA action plan, as the minister has referred to, there are also missed expectations, I believe, between how government talks about this being a priority, yet B.C. Hydro continues to negotiate in a way that is not going to be sustainable, as I understand it, for those First Nation–led energy projects.

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m obviously not in a position to comment on British Columbia Hydro’s role and responsibility here, but I can agree with the member’s comment, and I should have said what he said — namely, that the action plan is a list of actions co-developed with Indigenous people, 89 in number, on a number of themes.

As the member put so well, this is not the only initiative, on reconciliation, of this government — from housing initiatives to gaming to reform of the resource sector — to ensure that First Nations are more engaged than ever before. In so many different areas that are not reflected in the action plan, our commitment, I think, is self-evident.

The Chair: Members, we’re going to just take a quick ten-minute break.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.

[M. Dykeman in the chair.]

M. Lee: To change the topics now, I’d like to explore with the minister the relationship, the current priorities, that the government has with Métis Nation British Columbia. Can the minister list out the key priorities as to what the government is dealing with in terms of Métis Nation B.C.?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m pleased that the member asked about our evolving and important relationship with Métis Nation B.C. I should start by saying that Métis people are integral to the rich cultural fabric of British Columbia and to all Canadians. They have section 35 constitutional rights, and those are confirmed, of course, though they need not be, in the Declaration Act, as they are, of course, an integral part of the Indigenous community in British Columbia.

There are more than 20,000 Métis citizens and 39 char­tered communities represented by Métis Nation British Columbia, and there are 90,000 self-identified Métis peo­ple in British Columbia.

The member asked about our evolving relationship. I can confirm that the province and Métis Nation B.C. signed what we call a letter of intent in October of 2021 to establish a new partnership to respect self-determination through what we call a whole-of-government approach. The former relationship will be phased out as new agreements are negotiated with what we are calling a Métis relations working table and a senior leadership table that will address the strategic capacity and the social, cultural and economic needs of MNBC.

M. Lee: Certainly I’ve had the opportunity to meet with representatives of Métis Nation B.C. and recognize the significant portfolios that members of their leadership take on.

As the minister refers to the LOI and the new relationship coming forward, can the minister outline what is being considered in terms of levels of resources for engagement, as we were talking about in the previous session, as opposed to just referring to it as capacity? What levels of additional resources would government be providing to Métis Nation B.C. for that next step forward?

Hon. M. Rankin: I should start as well, before answering the specific question concerning resourcing, to say that there are a number of action plan items that are directly related to the MNBC, the Métis Nation B.C., that were co-developed with that institution. I just could talk about that later if the member would like.

[4:45 p.m.]

On the specifics of the budget, we provided, as a ministry, $745,000 in fiscal year 2021-2022 to support a number of things: capacity in governance initiatives, participation in the Unified Aboriginal Youth Collective, engagement on the Declaration Act, as well as enhanced mental health and wellness and cultural supports for Métis residential school survivors and their families by expanding the Métis counselling connection program of MNBC.

In fiscal year 2021-2022, the B.C. government committed $14.3 million through shared-cost programs with MNBC as well, and there are many new and expanded programs outlined in Budget ’22 and 2023 that will be available to Métis people, including new supports in child care, justice, digital connectivity and health care.

M. Lee: Before turning to specific items in that LOI, as the minister has invited that possibility, I wanted to ask…. We talked before about the distinctions-based approach. In the context of looking at the new relationship with Métis peoples in this province, what elements of that distinctions-based approach will be utilized by the government in terms of how it will approach the action items under DRIPA?

Hon. M. Rankin: I am glad the member raised this phrase that we refer to frequently in the action plan. The distinctions-based approach is something the province is committed to because the province, I think, is required to conduct its relationship with First Nations, Métis and even Inuit people in a manner that acknowledges the specific rights, interests, priorities and concerns of each of them while respecting and acknowledging these distinct peoples have unique cultures, histories, rights, laws and governments.

I think, as I said earlier, that all Indigenous people have section 35 rights under the Constitution Act, 1982. Also, of course, under the UN declaration, all Indigenous peoples have the human rights that are expressed in that document.

It’s important to note that not all rights are uniform or the same among or between all Indigenous peoples. So when we say a distinctions-based approach, we note that it may require that the province’s relationship and engagement with each of those peoples have different approaches or actions and can result in different outcomes. Specifically, the Métis people have, as suggested, perhaps different rights than First Nations would have but still have the kind of human rights and constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights that are referred to in section 35.

M. Lee: Under the terms of the LOI back in October 2021, there’s reference to the new working table. If the minister could just go through, for our benefit here, the understanding as to the timetable and items for that working table as it proceeds with the work necessary. The minister referred to some of the items that will be discussed by that working table. Would the minister please, again, run through those particular items that will be part of the agenda for the working table itself?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member is absolutely right. There is a working table that has been created, and it’s now officially underway. That has been created under the letter of intent.

[4:50 p.m.]

It will be a hub for engagement with MNBC and government that will formalize dialogue and integrate our engagement with the priorities identified by the MNBC. All of government will be involved.

I understand that an initial part of those conversations has been to identify the priorities of Métis Nation — in other words, to scope out those priorities. The focus, we anticipate, although we are in early days of that dialogue, will be health, social and economic opportunities for Métis people.

M. Lee: With the time we have left, we will, hopefully, have the opportunity to talk about some of those social issues for Indigenous peoples and Métis people in this province.

One other topic that’s not necessarily in the three categories, depending on how you define it, is wildlife management. I do recognize that in the bill discussion around the wildlife management amendment act, I was able to join the member for Nechako Lakes to, at one juncture, talk to the Minister of Forests around the nature of that bill and what was being amended and the fact that it was part of a document that was a bit of an intentions paper in terms of Together for Wildlife, if that’s the correct name of the title of that document.

In the context of the amendments that were being proposed, there was a significant dialogue between the Minister of Forests and the member for Nechako Lakes around the nature of the amendments. The one area I just wanted to cover briefly here with the minister is relating to Métis people in the province of British Columbia.

In the area of wildlife management and traditional hunting rights, can the minister provide a basic statement as to what those rights might be for Métis people in British Columbia?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: At the Métis relations working table that I referred to before, we are in the early stages of trying to identify the core interests of the Métis people through their representative, MNBC. At this stage, I think it would be premature for me to identify what that might mean in the context of wildlife or hunting or the like.

I’m aware of the conversation that occurred between the member for Nechako Lakes and the minister on that particular bill. I’m certainly aware of that, but to this time, it has not been something that has been identified as a priority. We’ll look forward to that, should it occur.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response on the current status. As we reflect upon the number of topics we have ex­changed dialogue on during these estimates, I look forward to going back to the minister’s office to pick up on some items for briefings related to specific topics that we might be touching on here, just to follow on.

I would like to now turn to a very important area that was certainly identified by the government, I do recall, after the 2017 election in their throne speech. That is the priority of government to support Indigenous language revitalization in the province of B.C. I appreciate that, first of all, there are a number of items set out in the DRIPA action plan, which include 3.15, 4.29, 4.30, 4.31, 4.32 and 4.38.

We have not taken the opportunity to go through every single of the 89 action items listed here, and I’m not asking the minister to do that necessarily with these five action items. But perhaps, just by way of opening here, I could get the minister to comment on this list of five particular action items, just to get a sense from the minister as to what he sees, within these five items, as being some of the initial steps to continue along with in this first year of the five-year DRIPA action plan.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you very, very much. I appreciate the member raising this important question.

I start by saying that language is, of course, central to cultural identity and something that I’ve learned is of central importance to Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, many of whose languages are close to extinction, sadly, given colonization and the history that has occurred.

We are home, in this province, to some 34 First Nation languages, more than half of all Indigenous languages in Canada. The federal government has, not long ago, enacted Indigenous languages legislation. I’m pleased that a British Columbia well-respected Chief, Ron Ignace, has been made the first Indigenous languages commissioner of this country. I have had the opportunity to meet with him. I’ve also spoken with the minister responsible, the Hon. Pablo Rodriguez, who is, of course, centrally involved in this endeavour.

I think it is something that we’re hoping we can collaborate with our federal partners on to protect those languages, some of which, as I say, are unique. There are some — what the anthropologists call — language isolates that have really…. Unlike the Cree language or the other languages that might be spoken with different dialects across a large swath of Canada, there are some languages that are just spoken by a very small community, and the number of Elders that continue to be able to speak them, sadly, gets less and less.

[5:00 p.m.]

However, the British Columbia government, in an unprecedented move back before I was elected — and I’m very, very proud of this — in 2018, made a multi-year commitment of $50 million to support the work of the First Peoples Cultural Council to support Indigenous communities to reclaim their language and thereby their culture.

This is an organization. It’s an Indigenous-led Crown corporation for which I’m, as minister, accountable. I have to say, its reputation across the country, as I get further into this…. It’s just so, so highly regarded by our federal counterparts and elsewhere.

We are committed to this revitalization work. The member is quite right in pointing out a number of instances in the action plan where that has been spoken to. We’re going to work together with the FPCC, as it’s known, to ensure that that vital work continues. There have already been so many things that have been done. So 470 language revitalization projects have been funded by the First Peoples Cultural Council. Communities are developing exciting language revitalization plans.

Some people may remember a year or so ago, the RBCM, the Royal B.C. Museum had this extraordinary explosion of Indigenous languages education that the public was made aware of. I think I was one who, at the time, did not realize the exciting work that’s underway.

M. Lee: I appreciate the overview the minister has provided. Just to break that down, one of the points that the minister touched on was that we all grow older, and certainly, Elders in Indigenous communities do as well. The pandemic has been particularly challenging, including for Elders in Indigenous communities. I understand that 51.9 percent of fluent Indigenous-language speakers are over the age of 65 years old, which put them, of course, through the life of this pandemic at a high-risk age bracket.

Is there a particular strategy the government has de­ployed to ensure or support Elders who wish to pass on the teachings of language through to younger Indigenous peoples?

Hon. M. Rankin: I really appreciate the member’s question. Yes, it’s true. Especially during the pandemic, it’s been a challenge. Many Elders are, of course, the knowledge-keepers. They are not only getting older, like all of us, but they also were subject particularly to concerns about the pandemic over the last couple of years. How can we keep this vital work going, but at the same time not compromise their health or take risks unduly?

I think the FPCC deserves enormous credit, because the safety of employees and the people that they serve has been a priority throughout the pandemic. What have they done? They’ve made sure that the Elders are safe. They have provided, for example, online innovative solutions to make sure that they can support this work, even though people may not be physically present with each other.

There have been computers made available. They have had webinars. They have had videos. Online learning op­portunities. Taping of the language, making sure that it can be preserved if it’s, in some cases, as fragile as sadly, it is.

[5:05 p.m.]

All this training material allows the teaching of languages to be made available across a more geographically diverse audience, and I think that’s one of the keys to the success of this organization. They’ve been flexible, they’ve been innovative, and I think they’ve found creative solutions to ensure that those knowledge-keepers’ knowledge has been preserved.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister.

When I look at the service plan for 2022-2023 and the period from 2023 to 2024 in terms of the number of individuals receiving language training from the First Peoples Cultural Council, the FPCC, the targets for 2021-2022 in the 2022-23 service plan go from 900 to 250 in 2022-2023; a similar reduction in the 2023-24 service plan, from 1,200 for the same period to 500.

Can I ask what the reason is for the decrease?

Hon. M. Rankin: A question of clarification for the member. Which performance measures in the service plan of the First Peoples Cultural Council is the member referring to? We’re having trouble locating the material.

M. Lee: The heading is “Number of individuals receiving language training from FPCC.”

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the clarification. I have it now. The baseline in 2018-19 of 814 was based on, of course, the delivery through the COVID period, a lot of it online, etc.

[5:10 p.m.]

The years following, which are less but then show an increase to 500 as a target in ’24-25, are a function of being conservative in our estimates — not really sure at that point when we did the estimates just how many more in-person opportunities there would be for training. So I think that might explain to the member the reason for that apparent decline.

The prediction was based at a time of COVID, and now, as we get into more and more in-person trainings, hopefully, post-COVID, if that’s the right word, then we are being conservative in terms of the estimate. We didn’t want to overstate what we could achieve.

M. Lee: I appreciate that. This may be a very similar response from the minister in terms of another item, but I only raise it because of the importance of this area, as we’ve been discussing.

I also note that another item entitled “Number of new data points added to FirstVoices.com” has projected to go from 40,000 target to 38,000 in 2022-2023. That’s in this current year’s service plan and the next year’s service plan as well, from 40,000 to 37,000 for the same period. Can I ask: what’s the reason for that particular decrease as well?

Hon. M. Rankin: Maybe I can use this opportunity — the member flagged a specific piece of jargon for us — for those that may be watching or reviewing this. When we talk about “Number of new data points added to FirstVoices.com,” what we’re talking about is new words or phrases — individual, specific data points for each of the languages involved.

Now, I think the answer to the question, however, is essentially what we said before. It’s a conservative estimate as we go forward. I don’t think it means there’s much more that I can say about that. It would go from 40,000 in 21-22 to 30,000 in 2024 to 2025. We’re simply being conservative in our estimates.

M. Lee: One other related question to these first two items is tools and resources that are there to provide an accessible way for learners to attain fluency. I understand the targets for these numbers to support language, arts, culture and heritage revitalization…. That target was 24, but there were only nine tools or resources created. This year’s target of 25 has fallen to eight, and next year’s has decreased from 26 to ten.

A two-part question. Why were the targets not achieved last year, and why were the goals revised downward for this and next year?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thanks very much for the question. A couple of things, I think, are going on here. On page 13 of the service plan, the member will have seen that targets, it says, have been revised downwards since last year’s service plans — this is the answer to why — “to reflect the challenge of training during COVID-19. The First Peoples Cultural Council expects this performance measure to grow once in-person training is safe.”

The targets for the new tools and resources have been revised downwards since last year’s service plan because some upcoming FPCC resources, like the comprehensive toolkits, are significant and require more time to create. So I think that some of the toolkits they’re creating are larger and more time-consuming as a result.

Secondly, there is an increasing approach to provide grants to communities so they can undertake work that has already been established by FPCC. So rather than building new tools, it’s a question more about grants to communities so they can implement those tools in their own way in their own communities.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister. To go further with funding now, the $50 million in language funding that the province provided to the First Peoples Cultural Council in 2018 was expended. Will the ministry provide any further funding beyond that initial amount for operational funding for Indigenous languages?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member is right. This unprecedented, historic grant that the province made — I think the only province ever to do such a thing and the only government ever to make such a radical, fundamental commitment to language revitalization and preservation — inevitably had a period of time, and it is coming to a close. The member is right in pointing that out.

We do, as a government, recognize the need for both short-term and long-term funding solutions to continue that work. I can report to the member that I have been in direct communication on a number of occasions with both the FPCC, of course, but also with the federal minister, Pablo Rodriguez, and before him, the Hon. Steven Guilbeault. We’re working on multi-year funding. We’re working on the federal government stepping up.

I think the member heard me say earlier that half of the Indigenous languages in our country are here in British Columbia. So we think it’s only fair that British Columbia receive a commensurate amount of federal funding as opposed to just a regional, typical template type of funding arrangement. I think we’re getting somewhere in that dialogue, and I’m hopeful that we will have some good things to say.

[5:20 p.m.]

I wish to make sure I won’t be misunderstood. The federal government is committed to this. There’s no question that they’re committed to support the continuing work to revitalize and protect Indigenous languages across the country. I’m really excited that Kúkpi7 Ron Ignace is now the first Indigenous languages commissioner. I’m sure his good work will help us in that regard.

M. Lee: I understand that when the unmarked graves at residential school sites across the country, including British Columbia, were confirmed here in this province, there was certainly additional federal government funding to assist in addressing those confirmations of unmarked graves. What was the status of funding under the $50 million from the province for this program?

My understanding is that there may have been a shift of resources from the province towards the same initiative, with federal government money being used for language revitalization. Was there some sort of shift and adjustment when that occurred?

Hon. M. Rankin: The answer is no.

M. Lee: Was there additional funding, then, that was provided from the province to Indigenous peoples and communities for addressing the aftermath of those confirmations of unmarked graves here in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Rankin: I very much appreciate the member alluding to this tragic circumstance of the Indian residential schools and the Indian hospital sites and findings and the trauma that that has triggered — intergenerational trauma. Our government stepped up and allocated, as I think the member would know, $475,000 for each of the 18 residential school sites and the three Indian hospital sites in British Columbia to make sure that the communities have the support they need to move ahead in their own way, at their own pace.

We’ve said over and over again that we are standing with Indigenous peoples as they identify what they want to do in their circumstance. There’s been a dramatically different approach in different parts of our province, reflecting the diversity of Indigenous peoples. We’re working hard to ensure the federal government makes resources available to the communities as well, and I do believe that they have demonstrated a real commitment to the same end.

I should also say, perhaps, as important, we retained two individuals, Charlene Belleau and now Chief Lydia Hwitsum of the Cowichan Nations, who have been working as First Nation liaisons with the communities affected. Charlene, in particular, has been critical for facilitating dialogue among communities and assisting them as they navigate complex issues like this.

Our philosophy was summarized in the phrase No Wrong Door. As people were reeling from these findings, we wanted to make sure that wherever they went, whether it was somebody they met from our ministry in treaty negotiations or other reconciliation agreement negotiations, or whether it was somebody from the more service-oriented kinds of work that the ministry provides, there would be an open door.

[5:25 p.m.]

We’ve got an individual in our ministry who’s tasked, I think, exclusively or almost exclusively to address these issues from a funding point of view and make sure nations are…. That the moneys are available for First Nations to take the steps that they do.

I really want to stress the critical role and thank and acknowledge Charlene Belleau and Lydia Hwitsum for the work they’ve provided in liaison with those communities. It’s been another essential part of our outreach.

M. Lee: Just to confirm, that funding of the $475,000 for each of the 18 Indigenous communities and the three Indigenous hospital sites — that was new funding and wasn’t part of the $50 million funding stream for Indigenous language revitalization?

Hon. M. Rankin: Yes, Member. That is correct.

M. Lee: The service plan for the First Peoples Cultural Council, under the risk section, certainly underlines the importance of what the FPCC is doing to advocate to funders, including this government, regarding the urgency and time-sensitive nature of language, arts and cultural heritage revitalization work. That is a direct quote from the service plan itself.

When I look at the financial plan summary for the FPCC…. When they look out to their forecast budget and plan over the next three years, from 2022 to 2025, the expenditures are fairly consistent, in the $35 million, $36 million to $40 million, $41 million range, and equivalent revenue of similar amounts. When I look at the ministry’s allocation of that from a revenue point of view, it goes from $1.3 million to $7.6 million, back down to $1 million in each of the other two years of the remaining plan.

Obviously, the minster has talked about, here, the post–$50 million funding that the province has put towards this. But as we look out, in terms of the First Peoples Cultural Council, the provincial allocation of their funding will go down to, in some years, in the 2½, 3 percent range.

What will be the provincial government’s stance on this as it looks at item 4.30, which is supporting Indigenous language revitalization through sustainable funding? What does that mean for this government in terms of the level of support that is going to be necessary to meet that DRIPA action plan item, 4.30?

Hon. M. Rankin: I believe the member is absolutely correct. This is a fundamental issue. It is one for which I’m pleased that we seem to be in a good place with our federal partners in seeking both short-term and long-term funding solutions. The FPCC has an international reputation, and wherever I go, I hear praise for this organization, and I certainly hear it from the federal government. They recognize that there’s no sense in reinventing a wheel when you have such an extraordinarily effective body.

Our goal as a government, given that there’s a federal statute on this very point, given that there’s a minister whose responsibility, whose mandate letter, like mine, contemplates a continuing role for the federal government in this, and given the Indigenous languages commissioner appointed from our province…. I’m very confident that we will achieve a multi-year funding arrangement with the federal government. I think that might be the key reason for why the numbers are what they are.

We accept the importance of this task. We do believe that after our unprecedented language grant, the first in Canadian history, with such an extraordinary amount of funding, it’s now time to work more closely with the FPCC and the federal government to ensure that we have stable funding, not just a one-off funding like we started this program with — as I said, unprecedented though it was — but to be put on a level playing field of a continuing funding relationship with our federal partners.

[5:30 p.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate the point that the minister is making. Certainly, what’s identified in this financial plan summary is an increasing level of grants from the federal government, which is anticipated by the First Peoples Cultural Council, from $14.6 million to $23.1 million to $36 million going out, and then a number to be determined for the last year of their financial plan. So I certainly acknowledge that that is the expectation here, and that’s consistent with what the minister has said.

Just coming back to the initial $50 million and looking at the overall financial plan of the organization, the FPCC, what is the minister’s assessment as to the work that’s been done by the FPCC in terms of enabling this framework for language revitalization for Indigenous peoples in this province to date and the work that remains to be done by the FPCC, going forward?

Hon. M. Rankin: I really appreciate the member’s commitment to this issue and his recognition of the central importance of this to Indigenous culture, going forward. We are in a grim place, at some levels, and the member started with that recognition. I think, really, what we are trying to do, given the importance of this task, is make sure that if we have half of the Indigenous languages in our country, we expect the federal government to recognize that through funding commitments.

Of the $50 million that was provided…. I would like to reiterate, to amplify a couple of points I made, just to indicate to the member how extraordinary this success has been, despite COVID. The number of language funding grants that communities have received has increased fourfold, from 112 in 2017-2018 to 473 in 2020-2021. The number of people receiving language training is almost five times higher than previously, from 175 that were being trained in 2017-2018 to 864 in 2019-2020. But for reasons the member will understand, that went down to 292 in 2020-21 due to COVID.

And 33 of the 34 Indigenous languages in B.C. are being documented and archived, as well as FPCC-funded work from Qualicum First Nation, who are reviving what is called a sleeping language of their own. Over 4,150 language immersion opportunities were created in 2020-​2021, supporting people on their journey to language fluency.

I’ve encountered people who come to me at various venues and say they’re taking languages — young people in their 20s who open their conversation in Haida, which is, I think, a language isolate and therefore an endangered language. I have people from the Ktunaxa who also start and talk — young people who have taken courses, that have benefited from language training. In other parts of the province, it’s quite extraordinary what’s being achieved.

It’s really an unheralded success story, and I salute the government, before I was a member of it, for taking such a bold step. We’re now going to build on that. We’re going to build on it with our federal government, and we’re going to do our best to make sure languages are preserved and revitalized in British Columbia.

[5:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: I think, with the time that we have, I will put that on the list. As the minister has acknowledged, I do have a significant interest in this area, so certainly, I would look forward to further conversation around the progress that’s been made and the progress that still needs to be made in this area.

I’m just going to turn now to Indigenous children in care. We know that under section 4.17, there’s a very significant DRIPA action item that is to…. With the minister and myself, we can certainly spend time parsing through language and understanding the significance of the language. It doesn’t say “co-develop.” It says: “In collaboration with….”

If the minister wants to comment on whether that means anything different, but certainly, I just note that. “In collaboration with B.C. First Nations and Métis people and the Inuit, continue implementing changes to substantially reduce the number of Indigenous children and youth in care through increased prevention and family support services at all stages of contact with the child welfare system.”

I know the minister knows this well, but in 2020-21, we continued to see 68 percent of children in care being those who were Indigenous, Métis or Inuit. And 37.4 out of every 1,000 Indigenous children and youth in B.C. are in care compared to two out of every 1,000 non-Indigenous children and youth. These are very concerning numbers that I know the government and the minister are aware of.

We know also that the Representative for Children and Youth has recently released a report expressing grave concern around the lack of transparency around child welfare funding for Indigenous children and youth. Can the minister provide us with information about how much funding is being given to child welfare services for Indigenous children and youth?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m really pleased that the member identified such an important priority as reflected in action plan item 4.17. It says: “In collaboration with B.C. First Nations, Métis people, Inuit, continue implementing changes to substantially reduce the number of Indigenous children and youth in care through increased prevention and family support services at all stages of contact with the child welfare system.”

I can advise the member that the Minister of Children and Family Development is seized with this utterly — talks passionately about the need for reform. The report to which the member speaks I’m not able to…. I can acknowledge that I’m aware of its existence, but I know that that’s something which she is particularly committed to address. I think that this item is really of critical importance.

To the language question, why “in collaboration” as op­posed to “in consultation”? It’s not something for which we are co-developing a program. It’s something in which we say we are collaborating to continue implementing changes. I think there’s a slight difference there.

M. Lee: As we come down to the remaining time that we have in this estimates discussion, as I’ve been saying throughout, there are many areas that we can probe in different ways. Certainly, in areas that….

For example, in this particular item, 4.17…. The Ministry of Children and Family Development is tagged with, so to speak, this particular item. I know the minister appreciates this, but certainly, across this province, as we continue to have discussions with Indigenous leaders in various communities, we know the importance of what has been a challenge — that’s one word to call it, but it doesn’t say it in enough strength — that’s been faced by Indigenous peoples with the child welfare system.

[5:40 p.m.]

The minister talked about the intergenerational trauma from residential schools. We know the various Sixties Scoop and millennial scoop situations as well. But as we look at how we move forward, we recognize the importance of children and families to Indigenous peoples and the displacement in the urban context.

There’s a lot to pull back together again. Again, when we talk about the role that the minister plays across our relationship with Indigenous peoples and First Nations leaders in this province, I know that this particular item is very high on the list. It certainly is in my conversations with Indigenous leaders.

I also recognize that as we look at, for example, the recent settlement with the federal government of a very significant dollar amount, in the $20 billion to $40 billion range, there will be additional resources and changes coming. Again, the minister had commented in response to my questioning around Indigenous language revitalization that the federal partnership is going to be important.

Recognizing that, what I’m asking the minister is…. The importance of this to Indigenous leaders and First Nations across our province…. Could the minister share some additional thoughts about where the government is heading in this review and the next steps that can be provided for something that continues, in terms of the high-percentage numbers of Indigenous children in care here in B.C.?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member is entirely right. Child welfare reform is fundamental. Of course, that is something we saw reflected in an earlier question, in terms of the federal legislation that’s now going to be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. So it’s an issue that is gripping the entire country.

In answer, specifically, to the question, I think the government’s priorities are exactly articulated in the action plan. Remember that the concept of the action plan is that we come up with outcomes that are sought to be achieved, and those outcomes, of course, are co-developed with the Indigenous leadership and individual peoples and nations — but with the province. So we ensure that these are outcomes that we can genuinely commit to achieving.

The two that are most salient to the member’s question are these. In the action plan it reads — the outcome they wish and we all wish: “Indigenous peoples care for their own children and youth in their communities and exercise jurisdiction over their own child and family services through systems and practices they determine for themselves, with family preservation prioritized and children and youth kept within their families and communities.” Secondly: “Indigenous children in need of protection are cared for by their community, and where they cannot be cared for by their community, they are connected to their communities and cultures.”

Those are co-developed outcomes that we are committed, as a government, to achieving. It is the responsibility in our government of the Minister of Children and Family Development to do just that, and I can assure the member that she is focused entirely on that objective.

M. Lee: Certainly, the displacement of children and youth off reserve — for example, into the urban context — has been challenging for so many families. The importance of moving back to jurisdiction over child care for First Nations and Indigenous peoples will be important. Certainly, that’s understood in the action items that the minister has referred to.

This is where it’s all connected, of course, which is the fiscal relationship, the ability to provide sustainable funding to First Nations and Indigenous communities. And this is part and parcel, in terms of the priorities of this minister, in terms of ensuring that the priorities amongst the 89 action items…. I’ve only had the time here to focus on several action items out of 89. I wish I could focus on all 89 with the minister and have this very fulsome discussion that we’ve been having here in estimates.

[5:45 p.m.]

I am trying to provide to the minister some encouragement as to the kind of role that the minister plays. Again, when we discussed this at the last session last week, in terms of the estimates process, we talked about the role of the minister changing from the so-called diplomatic role to one of advocacy within government to drive forward the priorities under this action plan.

I would just ask how the minister sees this particular action item, recognizing the importance of the financial funding model that’s going to be required. When Indigenous communities and First Nations assume greater responsibility for family support services — which include mental health, addiction services and the like — to youth, for example, I know, in talking to Indigenous leaders, that they have concerns about where the other funding is going to come from.

How does that work through — in the purview of the minister, I would expect, across the board — to understand how these priorities will fit together with the new funding relationship as well?

Hon. M. Rankin: I agree with the member’s position entirely. I think that when he says there’s a need for a new fiscal relationship framework, he’s talking about a sustainable funding model for the governments that First Nations in some cases are recreating or that in some places are vitally ongoing. They need the funding. That’s why we need this new fiscal relationship framework, to provide that kind of stability so that they can do this work, all the things we’ve talked about, but with a particular focus on this critical area of youth and families.

I think the member is absolutely right. Every ministry has this responsibility. My responsibility — I think it’s true — is to be an advocate for reconciliation amongst my colleagues, but they have that ongoing central responsibility, both in their mandate letters and now in delivering on this action plan.

More specifically than the general fiscal framework that we’ve talked about is 4.16, where an action has been identified to “co-develop a B.C.-specific fiscal framework, in partnership with First Nations, Métis and Inuit, and in consultation with key Indigenous organizations, to support and move forward with jurisdiction over child and family services.” That specific item is, of course, the re­sponsibility of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I know, because the minister and I have talked about it, that this is critically important to her work.

M. Lee: Just by way of example, could I ask the minister to comment…. I understand that there’s been a recent agreement with a First Nation to give them more control over child welfare. Could the minister describe the nature of that agreement, and how other First Nations may utilize this as an opportunity in the area as we continue to look at this five-year action plan and the items that the minister has referred to here?

Hon. M. Rankin: I would have to say, in response to that question, that the details of that agreement to which the member refers are better in the purview of the Minister of Children and Family Development.

[5:50 p.m.]

M. Lee: Recognizing the nature of the minister’s title of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, obviously there’s a lot to those words, as the minister just described them in the answer before the last. I wanted to ask the minister for his comment on the relationship with First Nations by way of the new litigation directives that have been put forward by the Attorney General to government lawyers.

I know that the minister cannot comment on specific actions in front of the courts — like the class action suit that was recently launched against the province by former youth in care. In terms of the relationship that we see with First Nations, can the minister provide some comment about the government’s position, through the Attorney General, on dealing with lawsuits?

Hon. M. Rankin: I know my colleague is, himself, a lawyer, and he will be aware of the recent pronouncement by Mr. Justice Malcolm Rowe in the Desautel case last year, where he said: “Reconciliation is rarely, if ever, achieved in courtrooms.” Our goal is, of course, to avoid litigation, wherever possible, acknowledging that there’s a place for litigation, and the fundamental rights of all people in our province — including Indigenous people, of course — to avail themself of litigation, should that be needed.

The litigation directive, which was part of the action plan item, is a responsibility of my colleague at the Ministry of the Attorney General. I can advise the member that I’ve had a number of prominent Indigenous rights lawyers come to me and say how pleased they were with the tenor of that directive. It owes some of its origin to work that was undertaken at the federal level by the former Attorney General. If compared side by side, I think it stands up pretty well.

Again, it’s a new way of ensuring that when we do find ourselves in civil litigation and First Nations are involved, the kind of respect that should be given to them is confirmed in the actions of the Crown lawyers who are participating in the court case.

M. Lee: I appreciate that response from the minister.

I wanted to also turn briefly to action items 4.21 and 4.22. Certainly, as much as we focus around the province on various initiatives, as we’ve touched on here with some of my colleagues as well, we also recognize the importance of the relationship with Indigenous peoples in the urban settings, including in Vancouver and across the Lower Mainland, for example. Could the minister provide an update on what this next step forward with key Indigenous urban leaders will look like for the provincial urban Indigenous advisory table that’s contemplated here?

When we talk about “urban,” perhaps the minister could clarify what urban settings the members for this advisory table will be drawn from, for example, and the kind of work that this table will focus on. Similarly to the table we talked about with the Métis Nation, I presume that there is going to be some workplan developed. If the minister could comment on the types of priorities that would be looked at, as they look at developing a five-year plan and then implementing it as well.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member puts his finger on a very, very complex issue and a very important issue. The member is right: the majority of First Nations peoples in our province do not live in their home communities. They live in urban settings. Reaching them, when they’re far from their language group, their cultural group, their leadership, is indeed a challenge. We accept that that’s something that we have to do better.

As a result of that, we have regional coalitions now that exist in the following centres: Prince George, Surrey, Vancouver and Victoria. We are proposing to create an urban advisory table to help deal with the very problem the member identifies.

That urban Indigenous advisory table will develop and implement a five-year plan to address the priorities of urban Indigenous peoples and meet with ministers and executives every year to discuss what works, what doesn’t work, what innovations should occur and then the challenges that support the social, cultural and economic needs of urban Indigenous peoples.

Our ministry, I can advise the member, has provided $100,000 to host the initial dialogue sessions with urban Indigenous leaders across B.C. to develop the urban Indigenous advisory table. It’s to grapple with the commitments that are made in the action plan but also to recognize the fact that this is a group of Indigenous peoples — indeed, the majority, which is troubling — that actually don’t live in the communities that they come from.

I’ve talked about this challenge with my federal counterpart as well. This is a challenge across Canada. The same issues occur in the urban centres of the prairie provinces, Quebec and Ontario, for example, and they face the same challenges as we do. We’re trying to figure out a way to do it — our approach, as I’ve articulated. They are also trying to grapple with this difficult challenge.

M. Lee: Certainly, as we commemorated Red Dress Day last week in the House, I noted the number of areas, including in my riding of Vancouver-Langara, which continue to see the symbolic representation against the vio­lence against Indigenous women and girls in our province, including in the urban context, like the Downtown Eastside. I think the minister and I both made comment on that last week. I saw those displays at Langara College, along 49th Avenue, and at the Marpole-Oakridge neighbourhood house, also in my riding.

Clearly, this is a concern for so many British Columbians who live in the urban context and have an appreciation and understanding of the work that needs to be done. I’ve had the opportunity to talk to…. When the action plan refers to the key Indigenous urban leaders and what that means, I know that for some of the Indigenous women that have been involved with some of the local organizations, we’re the first ones in Canada to focus on Indigenous women in the urban context, in Vancouver. There certainly is a lot of work to be done, as we all know.

[6:00 p.m.]

As we look at these very challenging situations and how we can do the work to support…. When the minister looks at this in the consultation process — to look at these two items, 4.21 and 4.22 — what’s the linkage between leaders of First Nations and other Indigenous communities on reserve and in traditional territories of this province and these urban leaders, in terms of how they work together to recognize…?

Of course, when we talk about language and culture, when we talk about children in care — and another item that I will talk about, if I have time, which is Indigenous peoples who are incarcerated — there are so many things that are connected here to the original Elders in the way we need to bring Indigenous culture and learnings and understandings back in this province. So how does that connection point work with these particular action items, from the minister’s perspective?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member focused on something that I think is the case. That is the linkage between an urban Indigenous population and their home communities.

[6:05 p.m.]

It would be fair to say that varies with the nations’ concerns. Some of them have enormous connection with their members. The Tahltan, the Nisg̱a’a come to mind. Certainly, the modern treaty nations must do an excellent job in ensuring that their members, on and off, out in the communities, are engaged.

Others, I think it’s fair to say, don’t have that level of…. Maybe they haven’t got the resourcing, even if they wanted to, to do some of the things that were required. I was up in Ahousat recently. I know that they were telling me that they have people who are here in Victoria who are community members and look out for others. If there are social issues, they take responsibility for that. It was really quite a touching story that the Chief told me.

I really think to do justice to the member’s point, I think I’d have to say that that linkage that he refers to really varies quite dramatically.

We need to know better how we can then plug in. We don’t have a good read on that. That is, of course, why this $100,000 to start the ball rolling with the coalition of urban Indigenous councils is so important. We need to understand, along with the Indigenous service providers, the people in the community, how we can best assist.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that sometimes this requires collaboration with the federal government, who may have primary responsibility in an Indigenous community under the Indian Act. We also have responsibility, particularly when they leave that community. How can we, as public government, best support them?

This is the complex world. The member acknowledged the complexity of this issue that we’re trying to navigate. But the first step is to listen. The first step is to hear from the people in the urban communities who are Indigenous service providers, who are members of the Indigenous communities, perhaps with varying perspectives on this, just exactly how we can help.

The Chair: Just a reminder to members that we will be needing to wrap up at 6:15.

M. Lee: Thanks for the reminder, Madam Chair. I may be able to squeeze in three questions, then, in the time we have remaining, with the minister’s pace.

In terms of Indigenous people’s overrepresentation in the justice system, items 3.12 and 3.13 use language that talks about prioritizing the implementation of the First Nations justice strategy and Métis justice strategy.

I know from my time as the Justice critic that this was actually in the lead-up to the First Nations justice strategy that was brought on by this government. There was a First Nations justice summit related that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and myself attended back in the 2017-​2018 period on the Musqueam First Nation lands, which has certainly assured a territory with my riding of Vancouver-Langara.

I certainly do appreciate the work that’s gone into the lead-up to this, and I spent a considerable amount of time visiting with First Nation courts around this province and recognizing the importance of that approach.

As we look at the words “substantial overrepresentation and reduction,” there are no measures, of course, as to what is the target. First, I would expect that there will be…. This is another example of the targets that ministries will need to spell out in their first year, recognizing that in this case, there have been fulsome strategies put in place. Is that the minister’s expectation in this area?

Hon. M. Rankin: I was, I’m sure, as shocked as the member was to read in the Globe and Mail last week that in federal prisons — just to give a good sense of what a crisis this issue is at the federal level — Indigenous women, who represent one in 20 population, represent one in two of people incarcerated in federal institutions. I don’t have in hand the provincial numbers, but that, I think, demonstrates the importance of the member’s question.

We have, in the action plan, to the question of what the target is. The outcome is identified by the co-developed action plan as follows: the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in the justice system is eliminated. That’s the outcome that’s targeted.

The actions supporting that are 3.12 and 3.13, which essentially talk about the need to prioritize the implementation of the First Nations justice strategy to do exactly what the member alluded to — to reduce the substantial overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples incarceration.

[6:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: Item 2.4 just comes back to a key section of DRIPA, in terms of section 7 agreements. I understand that the government currently is considering some of these arrangements under section 7.

Can I get the minister’s assessment as to — well, in this case, I can use the word “capacity” — the capacity to enter into these agreements, both from a government perspective as well as from a First Nation perspective, in terms of how these agreements are being looked at? Can the minister provide an update as to what that currently is looking like?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m very pleased this question was raised. I’m excited to advise — I think the member may be aware — that we are in the final throes of what will be the first of those section 7 agreements with one of the key nations. I think that will be important to denote. When people talk about free, prior and informed consent, they will have a good understanding.

Business is certainly enthusiastic about the results that we are achieving: a clear framework for negotiating joint and consent agreements that will provide predictable requirements for transparency and accountability through a very elaborate set of requirements that are codified in the Declaration Act. I’m very excited about the possibilities that we are achieving. As I say, we’re close to having our first one, and there are others that are in active negotiation right now.

M. Lee: I certainly will provide a longer list of items to obtain more briefings on, because there are lots of good items here that the minister is referring to.

The clear framework approach to even section 7 agreements under the DRIPA act certainly will be helpful to understand when we look at negotiations between government and First Nations, including in the area of consultation for permitting in the mineral tenure space or energy projects or the like. I know that in talking to other proponents in industry, which the minister just touched on, the clear framework of environmental approvals or the permitting process, the nature of consultation required with First Nations, is not all that clear, necessarily, at times, between the provincial and federal jurisdictions.

Is this clear framework approach that the minister referred to…? Is that the approach that the ministry would be looking at adopting and implementing and developing in other key areas that I just referred to?

Hon. M. Rankin: It often is, when you have a brand-new tool in the toolbox, which is what section 7 is — it’s not found in the federal act; it’s exciting to see it come to fruition and be implemented — that you need somebody to go first. You need an example. You need a test case.

That is what we’re doing with the Tahltan — a First Nation that has a very elaborate governance system and a very strong track record. I think that once we have such an agreement, the framework will be a good template, a good precedent for others that are thinking about this.

We have identified who the Indigenous governing body is. We’ve identified the kinds of steps that an agreement like this would require, not only what is in the Declaration Act itself, all of the steps about accountability and making sure the local governments and industries and everyone is aware of the work that’s going on — no surprises — but also, I think, the predictability for future steps, like the permitting process that will be relevant.

[6:15 p.m.]

I mean, we have the environmental assessment the member referred to, but we also have the subsequent permitting, whether or not that can be made more coherent — provide more accountability to industry, more predictability to industry — and, I think, provide the kinds of outcomes that Indigenous peoples and their governments have been asking for, for a long, long time.

I’m very excited about section 7. It’s a tool that exists nowhere else in the country, and I think this first test case will give industry a kind of sense of what will happen. If somebody has to go first, we’ve got one. I think it’s going to be a useful learning experience.

The Chair: Member, we are at the end. We are at 6:15 now.

M. Lee: I thought you said I could have one more question.

The Chair: I thought so too, but I can’t anticipate everybody’s time.

M. Lee: Can I just have one quick…? The minister can table this, but just to say I will combine my last question with my final closing comments, in three ways. One is to say thank you to the minister and his staff for the pace at which the responses were coming.

We covered some good ground here in the six hours that I was provided with. I wish I had more time, but there are items that I would follow on with the minister’s office. I know that the minister has welcomed that in the past.

I include in the section 7 agreement and the significance that he just referred to. I do think I would invite your staff to check your record and your pace here, because I think you’ve set a new record for your government team. And I think you set a higher standard in terms of response with your team. I appreciate that. You should be a good example to the rest of your colleagues for the rest of this estimates process as well.

I will ask one last question, which I think should be a simple one, which is…. Item 2.2 is finalizing the draft principles that guide the province of B.C.’s relationship with Indigenous peoples. I know that that, of course, is significant work that’s been started and continued under the previous government and into this government. But can I ask the minister: what is the timetable for that finalization?

Hon. M. Rankin: Recognizing that we’re over time, I’ll be very quick. I just want to say a sense of gratitude for the member for the thoughtful questions that were posed and the collaborative way in which he’s approached this exercise. Keeping us accountable is his job, and he’s done it well. I appreciate that very much.

I’ll be happy to offer briefings on some of the specific issues that we only touched on. You have my word that that will happen, should you wish.

On the specific question that is asked, on 2.2, we have not yet set a specific timetable.

The Chair: Thank you, Members and Minister.

Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any brief closing remarks before I call the vote.

Hon. M. Rankin: I have made them. I recognize we’re over time, so I will leave it to you, Chair.

Vote 33: ministry operations, $49,815,000 — approved.

Vote 34: treaty and other agreements funding, $115,629,000 — approved.

Vote 35: Declaration Act Secretariat, $3,213,000 — approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.