Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call second reading of Bill 25, Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 22.

In Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — HAIDA NATION RECOGNITION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

(continued)

M. Lee: I am pleased to resume and complete my remarks on second reading on Bill 25, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act. I’ve done this in three parts. This is the third part. I have spoken about the call from the B.C. United official opposition, the Leader of the Official Opposition and myself on March 22 to put a pause on this process when we saw the initial news release put out by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

After that, the agreement was provided, circulated and then completed, finalized. I would say that I appreciate that I have now received, as of last Friday — thank you to the minister’s office for providing it — a black-line copy of the difference between the initial agreement that was posted and the agreement that was signed.

Other than some clean-up of some nature, there is a particular item which is relevant to the discussion we’ve been having to date around fee simple interest. It is defined in the agreement, which is carried over under this Bill 25, as you would well recognize, that “‘Fee Simple Interests’ means all Fee Simple Lands and all rights, titles, estates, interests and charges” and that the phrase “in existence…on the Effective Date” has been struck out. That was in the initial agreement that was made available publicly, but these key words are words that we will certainly explore at committee stage.

I know the minister and his team will take note of that. The wording in the bill itself, Bill 25, is consistent with a forward-looking aspect, let’s say, in terms of how that would be looked at. It’s not just as of the date of the agreement, in terms of fee simple interests. I raise this as an illustration or an example of the reason why we do need the time and clarity to understand what the parties, the province of British Columbia and the Haida Nation, have come to agreement on and what it means, particularly when it comes to fee simple interests.

[2:45 p.m.]

Of course, the agreement, as it was first circulated, suggested that the fee simple interests that would be protected, in effect, would only be those that are in existence on the effective date, the effective date being April 14. That has since been addressed on the signed agreement, but it just demonstrates the level of clarity and understanding that the government continued to want to have with the Haida Nation. That is something that we will certainly pursue at the committee stage.

I want to also reflect on the Haida Nation Recognition Act itself. This is Bill 18, as it was back in April and May of 2023. We had, as many members of this House know…. Certainly, we know in the official opposition, when the government brought forward its closure motion…. That day we were put on very tight timelines. I look at the second reading transcript. Let me just rephrase there.

I’m actually referring to two different acts here. The act that was put on closure was the Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, Bill 39. When I look at the second reading transcript for that bill, this just demonstrates that when I talk about the pace and the work that this government is doing, we recognize the importance of that work in terms of the implementation of UNDRIP.

I’ve talked in other quarters like Energy, Mines in esti­mates last Thursday about what the government’s own position was on UNDRIP and how it is an illustrative tool. It’s forward-looking, and it’s not to be parsed through as individual articles. We will have that further discussion in ministerial estimates, I would expect, next week. But in respect of section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, and as we look at the recognition of the Haida Nation itself, when we have an Indigenous governing body enter into a section 7 agreement under DRIPA, as was contemplated under the ill-fated Land Act amendment proposal, it is subject to judicial review.

This Bill 39, back in November of 2022 — different session, different portion…. There was closure brought to a number of bills in that infamous session, including, of course, the Health Professions Act that we opposed as the official opposition. I know that on this bill, Bill 39, that I’d said at the time was connected to Bill 37 and an energy bill as well…. I know that the member for Abbotsford West had a vigorous discussion with the Deputy Speaker at the time about the closure on this. Eventually, as I got on and got to my feet on this bill, I talked about the importance of this bill in the time that I had, but then I was cut off too.

I don’t believe we ever went to committee on this Bill 39. We never had the opportunity to talk about the nature of this bill, the impact it has on First Nations, the impact it has on Indigenous governing bodies. This is an example of the kind of rush process the government has moved forward with, the inability to have questions asked and answered, the restrictions on our ability to ensure that, even for First Nations, of course, they have a clear understanding of their governance obligations under that particular bill that holds them accountable, as well, in terms of their decision-making that they might have under a section 7 agreement.

I know that, to date, we still only have two agreements with one nation in this province in 4½ years, the Tāłtān. I heard this morning from Skeena Resources, who are the partners of that first agreement, the section 7 agreement. That was to be the big signal about how we’re going to go forward with First Nations in this province with the section 7 agreement. Skeena Resources has to report out to their investors, their shareholders, and they’re treading water, literally.

It’s not because of the nation involved. The Tāłtān are doing their best to work through the environmental permitting and other considerations of Eskay Creek. It’s not even an expansion of footprint. Arguably, it’s going to clean up their footprint from the historical mine that’s been there. I only say this because they expected — the company and probably the Tāłtān — that mine project would be in production and open by 2024, this year. I heard this morning, and it’s out there in the public record, that it’s going to be delayed for another two years, late 2026.

[2:50 p.m.]

This is the first agreement. So as we talk about the importance of agreement-making with First Nations and the accountability structures that are there, the judicial review procedures and the kind of rigour that is being put to that particular project, as I understand it, in the environmental process, I understand that part of the challenge has been a slowdown in terms of focusing on non-material items.

It’s just an example of the challenge that we look at when we go forward with First Nations, and we try to do the kind of partnership and the move forward for shared prosperity.

The other bill I was referring to, though, is the one that’s being amended here, and that is the Haida Nation Recognition Act. Bill 18, as it was then, in May of 2023, passed on third reading. At the time, again in a different session, again we were on time allocation. I had 45 minutes in committee to talk about this bill — 45 minutes.

This is the fundamental framework that Bill 25 is amending. Here we are. We’re back. I’ve had more time on this bill at this juncture than I had on that bill back then. And I’ve taken it, because it’s important. It’s important that we all understand the fundamental nature of the change here.

I will say to you, at the time, when I asked…. It’s a five-clause bill. The first clause, of course, is arguably the one that’s most relevant to what we’re dealing with in Bill 25. Clause 1 says: “The government of British Columbia recognizes that the Haida Nation has inherent rights of governance and self-determination, and the Council of the Haida Nation is the government of the Haida Nation.”

I think in terms of the latter point, we understand that. They have a 50-year constitution. They have a clear governance structure, including with Hereditary Chiefs and peoples, Elders.

In terms of sub 1(a), “the Haida Nation has inherent rights of governance and self-determination,” when I asked the minister about what that meant and how that would be defined and what’s in the scope and extent of that inherent right of governance and self-determination, the minister said: “I think the answer to that is that these rights are deliberately not defined in this bill. These are not defined because, of course, they will evolve with the jurisprudence as courts pour more meaning into the words in section 35 and define what inherent rights mean.”

The minister went on to say: “More importantly, perhaps, is these rights predate B.C.’s Legislature. These rights are those that predate contact, and it’s an effort to ensure that we can move forward with the nation in defining together, through negotiations, the exact scope of that — what they mean in the here and now, in the province of British Columbia, in the country of Canada.”

Well, there are a couple of things there. One is yet again this government brought forward a framework type of recognition of the Haida Nation. It didn’t define what that important inherent right of governance and self-determination meant. As I’ve talked about at length both on that bill and when this bill was first introduced, we have tremendous recognition for the Haida Nation, the history of those peoples, their governance structure. This is the first nation in our province to receive this type of legal recognition.

When I went on through that bill and asked about, in the course of what we’re dealing with for First Nations and the government structures themselves, what does this mean, what standards are set, again the government says it’s to be determined, including with the Wet’su­wet’en peoples.

Here the minister did acknowledge that there are negotiations. We know that. The previous government, and we’ve talked about it before with the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act in 2009 and 2010, had recognized the framework and the reconciliation work that’s important with the Haida peoples and the Haida Nation. These negotiations have continued on. But I asked why the government at that point did not indicate…. If one looks at it, and we will go through the committee transcript with the minister in the committee stage on Bill 25, no mention of this. No mention of title.

[2:55 p.m.]

In fact, when asked further…. I only had time for five questions, I believe. Maybe one or two more, but it looks like five questions. The minister actually put the focus on determining jurisdictions of management in Haida Gwaii in the areas of parks and protected areas. That is the example of negotiation that the minister referred to.

Well, of course, a year later we have a bill come forward that still says, in the transition period…. We’re still figuring that out for the next two years. So it’s three years after the first recognition.

Again, my main point is this. There was no mention of title. Now, of course, we would all recognize that title has been the core issue for the Haida Nation for decades, at least in the courts and through this Legislative Assembly, if not prior communications with previous governments over many decades and centuries.

But the fact of the matter is you’d think, if we’re talking about something as fundamental as Aboriginal title for the Haida Nation in the way that this bill is bringing forward, that the government had an opportunity to define what that meant, to at least alert the Legislative Assembly that this was the first step in bringing forward, a year later, what this is today.

We are now down to less than three weeks left in this legislative sitting. That’s the reason why we’ve called for this bill, Bill 25, to be made an exposure bill in order to have the full review and discussion of this new form of title that the government has put forward.

I’ve set out, in my previous remarks, some of the nature of Aboriginal title, some of the elements that we will explore further at committee stage. Those elements include exclusive use of the land. We’ve talked about the communal nature of Aboriginal title. We’ve talked about inalienability in terms of the title itself.

The other aspect that I should talk about is fiduciary duty of the Crown. Once there is recognition of the title for the Haida Nation as Aboriginal title, that means that government has the responsibility to obtain the consent of Aboriginal title holders as set out in Sparrow. So the Crown, post the recognition of title under Bill 25 to the Haida Nation, has a fiduciary duty to Aboriginal title holders in respect of decisions that are being taken regarding their title lands.

This elevates the obligation and responsibility of the Crown beyond a mere agreement. And this is the agreement that underlies this bill.

I know, as we’re talking about Aboriginal title, that it ought to inform the rights of governance that are referred to in clause 1 of this act that we’re amending by Bill 25, that there is an interplay between title rights and the inherent rights of governance. Certainly, we will want to understand at committee stage what the understanding of the government is in terms of the Haida’s self-governance rights vis-à-vis this Aboriginal title that is now being recognized.

Of course, as I’ve discussed in my second reading speech on Bill 25, that whole transition period when we’re working out jurisdictions and, as the minister said, the province stepping back from responsibility, it’s going to be important to understand why it is that we had, a year ago, recognized inherent rights of governance, and now we’re backfilling as to what they mean.

[3:00 p.m.]

I would say, again, that my concern is the continued use and description by the Premier of our province, currently, as to the way this will serve as a template for other title settlements, arrangements, agreements with First Nations and our province.

I would say: will that also mean that nations will have their own recognition acts? Will it also mean that we’ll have recognition of their inherent rights of governance and self-determination in the way this has been done to date?

If that’s the case, it actually underlies the point as to why we need additional time to understand the direction and the approach of this government. For too long, what we’ve seen is…. They have some plan, but we need to know what the plan is beyond their 89 five-year DRIPA action plan that they’re completing their second year of now. We need to know their plan.

What is their plan that underlies the Land Act amendments? What is their plan that underlies some of the other section 7 types of arrangements that are land-based? What is their plan with this bill and this being a template? Something is driving this. Something more than just reconciliation and the importance of the relationship that we have with First Nations to move forward in this province.

I would say that as we look at…. I talked about the federal-provincial jurisdiction. I would say, even with the passage I read from the minister on committee…. There’s a recognition that the negotiation is also with the federal government. Again, the federal government has backed away from this table in terms of this agreement and this bill.

It has been noted that in Ottawa, as I understand, in the Senate, Bill S-16, an act respecting the recognition of the Haida Nation and the Council of the Haida Nation, first reading, February 8, 2024…. The federal government is a year behind the timing of this provincial government. They’re doing now, in February, what this government had done last May of 2023.

What’s the next step for the federal government? This is not even on the floor of the House of Commons. It’s stuck in the Senate. What’s the plan? What’s the plan in terms of the jurisdictions, federally and provincially, in respect of the Haida Nation?

I would say…. We know…. I mentioned this in my first part of my speech, I believe. The honour of the Crown is referred to in clause 2 of this bill, sub 4.1(2) of the act. Honour of the Crown, I will just observe, is something that the courts determine. It’s not something for a government to determine.

Does that mean a government today could put in legislation that a bill does not engage the honour of the Crown? Is it up to a government to bind a future government in this manner, even the other way? That’s what it suggests. That’s something we’re going to pursue at committee stage.

Some other examples of areas to probe. So 4.2 uses the term “if and as necessary.” This is: “The government of British Columbia acknowledges that the Haida Nation has consented, if and as necessary….” Well, the words “if and as necessary….”

What is it? Does the government not understand whether it’s necessary or not? It’s an “if.” Under what circumstances is it “if”? What circumstances is the consent of the Haida Nation necessary or not necessary? I would have thought it would be pretty clear by now. It’s not clear? It’s not clear in this bill? What is left to be defined here?

Government is so confident that they brought forward a bill that actually is the roadmap, the template, for other nations, and we’re using the terms “if and as necessary” about the consent. Don’t we know? Does this government not know? Is that why we have a two-year transition period — to figure it out later? The details to be figured out later. That’s the approach that we have said….

[3:05 p.m.]

British Columbians need more than that. They need better than that. They need clarity. They don’t need: “We’ll figure it out later.” That’s what we’ve been seeing from this government for the last seven years, particularly since UNDRIP has been passed.

There are times where we don’t even get to figure it out, as I said. Closure around the Judicial Review Procedure Act. And 45 minutes on this actual act itself at the beginning.

Another illustration of this is the proposed section 4.3 in clause 2 of Bill 25. It uses the term “confirmed and continued.”

We’re talking now Aboriginal title. It’s the right to possess land. It’s the right to decide how to use it. We’re now saying the bill is going to confirm and continue fee simple land. As I’ve discussed throughout, how do we deal with the exclusivity around Aboriginal title for the Haida Nation versus the exclusivity of fee simple land?

I would say that the considerations around these questions are important. As we know, in many parts of this province, there are other Aboriginal title claims. Some have been dealt with through treaty. Some of them have been dealt with through modern treaty, some of them have been dealt with through the courts, in a couple cases, two, and some to come. If this is the new model…. Others to be dealt with under this kind of model. But does that mean under this model with a First Nation?

Government says: “We recognize your title claim to the entire territory that you’re claiming.” In this case, Haida Gwaii. “But you’re going to consent to the fee simple interests to continue. We’re going to confirm and continue it under this bill or under the agreement.”

Does that mean today, for those nations that are looking and asserting title, if they don’t consent to that continuance…? What does that mean? What does it mean to private property interests and fee simple interests? That is something that we will certainly discuss.

I wonder whether, in the Tsilhqot’in decision…. Again, fee simple lands were excluded from that title declaration by the courts. It wasn’t sought.

Why isn’t it that this Bill 25…? If the minister says that the private property rights are there in perpetuity…. Why isn’t it that the government just didn’t exclude private property itself, if that’s the case? Why have a title interest to all of the title and then exclude private property through agreement by consent?

These are the kinds of fundamental questions that we will ask at committee stage. This is the reason why we need the time to deal with this. I would say, as well, the reason why that’s important…. We need certainty.

I would expect that the non-Haida peoples on Haida Gwaii, as they look at this agreement and understand the implications of it…. I understand, again, that there are many citizens and many residents who have very good relationships with the Haida peoples. They live and work side by side. I respect that. I understand that generally.

I hope the kind of clarity that we’re trying to accomplish here gives some certainty, not just to those people who have private property, who have mortgages on their homes, on their lands. But if they do choose to sell their lands at some point — the government agreement says willing-buyer, willing-seller, like in a treaty — they’re not undermined by this. A bank won’t actually fund the mortgage because there’s no certainty in title.

The land title office, to the extent that you can rely on that, meaning you do rely on that…. That’s the reason why we go through all that legal rigmarole, including through a notary public. We understand what’s being required and what’s bankable, what a bank can look to for the debt that they’re extending.

I would say…. So 4.4, interim measures, talks about the fact, in 4.4(1), that there’s a need…. They “are necessary to reconcile systems of law and governance on Haida Gwaii.” What does that mean? Certainly, we know in the Tsilhqot’in decision, there were very specific rules for what the provincial government could or could not do going forward, in the face of that title decision.

[3:10 p.m.]

We see, in sub (3), as I referred to earlier, that decisions and enactments provincially are to be administered consistently with Aboriginal title and section 35 of the Constitution Act. Does that mean, just like we saw with the Land Act amendments, that decision-makers, under the Land Act, will need to get the direction of the Haida Nation?

That is a change, as I said earlier, in my previous remarks. As much as we’re talking about working out the jurisdictions in the transition period, this is a change. Is that what that means?

I think that the agreement itself is not referred to as dated…. The agreement date is April 14, 2024. I question: if there are amendments to come, what will that mean?

In the last few minutes of my speech on Bill 25, I just wanted to raise another point. I’ve hit on this in little ways on this third part. We are less than three weeks to the end of this session, about 4½ months from the calling of the election. When I look at all that this government has brought forward and the ways that they’ve done so: incrementally, in secrecy, with a clear lack of transparency, a lack of consultation…. It’s just like the Land Act amendments. This is the reason why we’re calling for this bill to be an exposure bill.

When I look at the individuals who are behind this effort, I think about the special adviser that was appointed by the Premier to his office and also the adviser to the government in terms of the implementation of UNDRIP, DRIPA. I know that the previous Premier, John Horgan, in answer to my question when I was expressing concern about how the scales were being tipped on proportional representation and how the details are going to be worked out later, after we go to a vote on the referendum in terms of the forms of voting system, said, “Well, you should just google it,” so I did. Government by google. This is how we find information. This is how we have to rely on the Internet to find transparency.

When you google the names of the two individuals that I’m talking about, they come together in an article that was…. There may be other articles that they have co-authored together. But there’s a very interesting one called “Rising to the Challenge of Reconciliation.” It’s dated January 8, 2023, a few weeks or months after one of these individuals, the special adviser in the Premier’s office, was appointed to that new role. If you look at this article, it talks about the history and the challenge of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and First Nations in our province.

Much of it I understand and recognize in terms of the restrictions, the discrimination systemic in the history of our country against Indigenous peoples in so many ways. But there are two points that are made here. One is that in order to deal with reconciliation or the relationship with Indigenous peoples…. It’s been a turbulent transition. “The work of dismantling laws, policies and practices that have supported injustice…. But the essential and constructive task of building deep patterns of justice and unity now requires transformation, not reformation.”

I just park that comment for a moment, and I go to the conclusion. The conclusion states: “True reconciliation is emblematic of these new imperatives” — the imperatives that they’re referring to in their article — “and achieving it, like addressing other pernicious forms of injustice and creating enduring conditions of peace and harmony, will require human affairs to be ‘utterly reorganized.’ We must all be persistent and audacious in our efforts to advance and achieve this outcome.”

I wonder if there is more to it than what we are seeing. We are in the official opposition. We just see what the government posts at engage.gov.bc.ca for the Land Act amendments, what we are seeing here in the last three weeks of the legislative session. I wonder, though, what’s at stake. What are we talking about here truly?

[3:15 p.m.]

Is it that the Premier and this government, by their two key advisers, are talking about deconstructing and reconstructing the laws of our province? It’s not just about reconciliation and reformation; it’s about transformation? What kind of transformation does the Premier want here? What kind of uncertainty is he bringing to this province? What kind of audacity and audacious nature are we talking about when we have to utterly reorganize human affairs?

This is what I want to have a deeper understanding of, and this is the reason why this Bill 25 needs to be an exposure bill.

I look forward to the committee debate on this bill.

A. Olsen: It’s my pleasure and honour to rise and speak to Bill 25, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act. This is another moment in the history of the province of British Columbia that I’m proud to stand here as a Member of this Legislative Assembly. I bear witness to this moment and take my place in this debate, and I’m proud to stand with the government and celebrate this historic moment.

This is a point that I will make several times over the next 45 minutes or so, as I am the designated speaker for the Third Party. For the first time in British Columbia, the provincial government has advanced Aboriginal title through agreement and legislation, rather than through litigation. We have an opportunity to embrace recognition, and perhaps that’s what the member who spoke before me, previously, is talking about. Transformation in this province is representative of a government that is embracing recognition rather than a policy of denial, which has been the hallmark of this provincial government for decades, for more than a century.

Let’s acknowledge this moment in our history, this remarkable moment that a province with a deeply sordid history with Indigenous people again stands at the forefront of Indigenous-Crown relations in this country.

As we have already seen in this debate, the policy of denial is still a real part of the identity of British Columbia. It’s unfortunate that it appears we will stand divided on this approach, as some voices in this chamber grasp for what they feel is a winning political strategy by firmly anchoring us to a losing legal one. Even as they say one thing about truth, reconciliation, rights and title, their actions demonstrate a commitment to denial and delay.

I raise my hands to all the people behind the scenes: the ministry leaders and administrators, the legal and political policy analysts and advisers, the negotiators. I raise my hands to the powerful Indigenous leaders in the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, in the Premier’s office, the team in the Declaration Act secretariat, who have navigated this tricky and often treacherous terrain.

It is your resolute strength, working in a sprawling institution whose culture has evolved over time, resisting this policy approach, that has created an ecosystem in which the transformation my previous colleague was talking about being evidenced in this bill can thrive.

No matter the amount of political will that I’m about to elevate, this initiative does not happen without the leadership of all of you working in the government. This initiative doesn’t happen without the leadership of you all working in a good way, with your lived experience and your commitment to overcome a deeply embedded inertia on Aboriginal title and the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples on these lands.

I look across the way at the people in the executive council, who are the public and political face of this initiative. The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, as a lawyer, has worked for decades in Indigenous and environmental law and has, no doubt, watched the case law emerge and solidify — indeed, likely experiencing a personal evolution in his own political and legal philosophy over the time. When I look over the previous work of this minister — work that sometimes I criticize — to this day here, I see evidence of the transformation that we’re talking about.

[3:20 p.m.]

As we stand at the precipice of this historic moment, however the political will was gathered and assembled, however life was breathed into the decision to agree and legislate rather than litigate, my hands are raised.

Also, the Premier, as a lawyer, has the depth, experience and history to understand the strength of the claim and defence. He stated clearly the weak position British Columbia has on the lands of Haida Gwaii. The signals the Premier sent from the first day, where and how he was sworn in as Premier, the advice and legal theory he has surrounded himself with — there is an early indication of this approach. He followed those early signals with a fundamental shift in how we do business with respect to Aboriginal title in this province.

There is no doubt that I have many critiques of this Premier. I am disappointed in the arguments that have been made by our lawyers and courts. I am dismayed by the approach this government has taken with injunctions, allowing corporate profitability and reputation to go ahead of Aboriginal rights and title. I’m saddened by the process of the Land Act amendments, exposing them to the leveraging of desperate politicians. However, there is no doubt that this Premier empowered his minister and executive council. My hands are raised to them.

Resolute political will is a necessary ingredient in producing such a landmark action that we are talking about today. For the first time in the long and awful Crown-Indigenous history of this province, JSIṈSET. We have become grown up. Heeding the advice of the courts, advancing Aboriginal title through agreement and legislation, rather than litigation.

Yet what I hear from the opposition benches on both sides of me is the howling of fearmongers, the voices of denial. I heard the official opposition critic lead his colleagues into this debate. I could hear him and his reinforcements coming long before we saw those red coats. The pipes and drums echoed off the marble here, announcing their arrival.

The defence he deploys in this theatre, decades-old Supreme Court decisions and agreements from a generation ago, daylights the outdated strategy. The long jurisprudence evolving over nearly 75 years, and he and his colleagues arrive at this debate with muskets to deliver the first volley of lead shot: complaints that this assembly is moving too fast.

Is the Supreme Court moving too fast? Is the Supreme Court of British Columbia moving too fast? The 30-year negotiations of the B.C. Treaty Commission — is that moving too fast? So when is the right time, then?

The arsenal they draw from, arguing that the pace of reconciliation is too fast, encouraging the provincial government to tarry yet a little longer in the refuge offered by the policy of denial that grounds the political and legal theory that has been displayed here. From this perspective, there is no good time to advance a policy of recognition. Or perhaps, if I were to cede any territory here, the good time for recognition is always later, long after we’re gone from this place and a new cohort of MLAs has inherited the mess created by our lack of courage.

From this perspective, there is no good time to negotiate agreements and move legislation. For nearly two hours, the member trawled the room, baiting the members of this government so that then he could raise his voice in righteous indignation and claim that this was silly season. As soon as the member heard a peep of a response, the slightest tug on the line, he springs into rhetorical action, trying to set the hook.

“Clearly, Chair,” he claims, “based on the bleating of the protests on the other side, this is no time to be creating agreements and passing legislation regarding this relationship between the province and the Haida,” which has been politically and legally evolving for decades. Now we debate legislation that comes after that long process. The member and the leader published not one but two joint statements calling for a pause to do more consultation.

[3:25 p.m.]

Is that what his B.C. Liberal colleagues did once the treaties that were negotiated were completed? Of course they didn’t. Did they create an opaque consultation process that the member is calling for here? No, of course they didn’t. Is the member calling for a consultation with British Columbians on whether we should reconsider the policy of denial? No, of course he isn’t.

Why is denial the default position? Because it’s cheap, easy and divisive politics. That’s why. Because it’s easier to punch down on vulnerable people than it is to elevate, educate and emancipate. The B.C. Liberals brought those agreements to this chamber in the form of legislation. They invited the Indigenous leaders onto the floor, and they celebrated their collective effort just as happened last week when we celebrated the government-to-government agreement with the Haida. In fact, those celebrations and those proceedings followed the B.C. Liberal template.

The official opposition is dedicated to making this season sillier than it needs to be. British Columbians should know we are about to see a show where member after member of the official opposition will stand in here and claim the pace of reconciliation is too blisteringly fast, calling for us to delay, distract and deny. However, that is far from what is in the best interests of British Columbians. The theatre, which would be far more entertaining if it were led by the star cast member from the Abbotsford players, is about the political ego of a political party that failed to identify the values that inform this political compass.

See, politics are easy, but governing is difficult. The official opposition’s willingness to sacrifice the best interests of British Columbians for their own benefit is sad and dangerous. It appears that they’ve calculated that they can exploit and leverage the low-information landscape. Our public education system has failed to teach British Columbians the legal and political truth of our tenuous situation. And the official opposition is prepared to exploit and leverage that for political gain. If any members will pause, I hope it’s the members of the official opposition before they lead us down a painful and expensive path.

The opposition critic can stand in this place and complain about how the government invited the Haida into our House to take care of business, just as always has been done in important Houses in this territory, yet his party agreed to that ceremony happening at first reading. I personally heard the assurances myself. The official opposition supported the process that happened last Monday. For the record, Mr. Speaker hosted a meeting of all the House Leaders. All were represented at that meeting.

We discussed the plan in which the Government House Leader gave us notice. It was a clear plan for the proceedings. It was not a surprise, and there was plenty of time for all the political parties to deliberate internally on it. In fact, due to the confusion of previous legislative processes involving Indigenous leaders, which both I and the official opposition House Leader raised substantive concerns about, the Government House Leader suggested we should codify the process he presented for this and all future occasions where a treaty or an agreement involving title is being introduced.

All parties agreed that legislation involving Aboriginal title would be addressed as per the process set by the precedent of the former B.C. Liberal government when treaty legislation was introduced. The Government House Leader answered a few questions. His responses apparently satisfied those with concerns, and the process was agreed to. I will note here that there were assurances that there was agreement from all parties on the process.

How does the official opposition critic stand in here and complain after the fact his colleagues were disrespected? How does he claim in good conscience that the government’s actions disrespected this House?

[3:30 p.m.]

Do the members of the official opposition even know that their party agreed to welcome guests into our home at first reading? Do they know that the government respectfully brought forward the process they would like to use to ensure the work was done in a good way? Do the members of the official opposition know that this was the agreement? Does the Leader of the Official Opposition know how his critic is making a very respectable member of their team look to the rest of us that were in that conversation?

I am only raising this because if the public and media only hear the side of the story that was shared earlier, they would be led to believe that the government was up to some kind of shenanigans. The member claimed the government acted disrespectfully, but British Columbians need to know the truth about how this happened and who is actually acting disingenuously in this.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Is this the kind of leadership that British Columbians can expect from the Leader of the Official Opposition, the leader of the B.C. United? He sends a messenger to confidently deliver one message privately — nothing to worry about. But then, when our guests arrive, he sits there in his seat like a cloaked bird of prey, while his critic stands up and starts the public process of kicking dirt at our respected guests while they’re in the room.

Do they even care how disrespectful this is? The poor form while our House is full of Haida dignitaries, here by the invitation of all the members of the Legislative Assembly…. That’s the embarrassment. That’s the message that is sent to all Indigenous leaders in our province about the kind of leadership at the tiller in the official opposition right now.

While the leader of the B.C. Conservatives had the sense to temper his desire to undermine and divide for at least the moments we had guests in our home, the same cannot be said for the demonstration of the official opposition. They call for delay. They claim there is a better time later, in the future, to deal with Aboriginal title, after some undefined consultation process. Yet they can’t keep their word, their assurances, on how they will handle the introduction of a bill at first reading.

On one hand, they outline decades of jurisprudence on Aboriginal title, and on the other hand, they pretend like Aboriginal title is new, like it’s the first time that we’ve been confronted by it. They know that we’ve been on a path to Aboriginal title since the first cases after the Indian Act was amended in the early 1950s, 70-plus years ago.

That time those amendments allowed Indigenous peo­ple in Canada to fundraise and to hire lawyers, to seek legal advice to advance land claims. To think that the federal and provincial governments felt their position so tenuous that they would make a law that would restrict Indigenous people from having lawyers to defend themselves should be enough of an argument, laid out just in and of itself, to stand on its own, to demonstrate that we are in no way moving too quickly on Aboriginal rights and title.

Prior to those early 1950s amendments, it was illegal for Indigenous people to hire lawyers to defend themselves. That’s part of our collective history. They and all our legislative predecessors did everything they could to ensure the path was long and the journey was fraught with lawyers, courts and great expense.

While some members of this House have removed the red coats, choosing to step out of the colonial sludge to embrace the new story to tell ourselves about who we are, for others, it remains a struggle.

Reconciliation is both a group and an individual project. Government has a responsibility to bring British Columbians along, to invest in ensuring that everyone who lives here has a truthful account as to how we arrived at this point today. Governments, for decades, have failed to do that. Other opposition parties — well, they’re choosing to prolong the pain.

[3:35 p.m.]

We as individuals have a responsibility to reconcile, while government carries the responsibility to reconcile in the best way we can on behalf of all British Columbians. That responsibility begins the first moment after our executive council is sworn in, and it is a responsibility they carry until the first moment of the swearing-in of a new executive council.

There has been a specious argument laid out here that because we are so close to the next election, the work of government should stop, that somehow their mandate ends before it ends. Did it start after it started? Do the members argue that the executive council is too new to make decisions? Of course they don’t. Does the member consider that this government is the most experienced in this matter? They’ve been involved in all of the discussions and negotiations as this issue has developed over the last four years.

Presumably, there is a belief that there is this sweet spot, 18 to 36 months, where it’s okay for a government to make decisions. Outside of that, they are either too new or too close to the next election. It’s absurd. But it’s this approach, it’s this mindset that is exactly, precisely how we got to this point today, where decades pass, and the people in this room adopt a policy of denial and then never move away from it. The status quo is too easy to maintain, especially if you benefit from it.

As a result, there have been decades of commitments from our executive and legislative branches to ensuring that every inch of ground ceded to Indigenous people has to be fought for, standing with the Attorneys General at the ready, right on the other side, pushing back with the full force of government lawyers. Up until 70 years ago, Indigenous people weren’t allowed to have their lawyers on the other side.

While the executive and legislative branches of government have been laggards, the judicial branch has a different history. For at least the past 30 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has been encouraging the provincial government of British Columbia and others to stop the steady flow of court cases and the mounting legal bills, accept the futility of their policy, recognize Aboriginal rights and title and create an effective table for government-to-government dialogue and decision-making. They have urged us to create a negotiated approach, with the end point being agreement, and perhaps legislation.

After many Supreme Court decisions like Delgamuukw and Haida and Tsilhqot’in, this provincial government decided to abandon denial and try another route: the policy of recognition. That’s what we see in front of us today. Recognition is unfamiliar for Canadians. There is more tied up in our culture and identity than we can imagine that makes it challenging for us to recognize Aboriginal title and the inherent rights of Indigenous people on these lands and territories.

On this point, I agree with the opposition critic that the public needs to be included in the government’s work. However, it should not be used as a way to effectively obstruct progress, as has been the experience of Indigenous people in this province for decades. We have been moving forward together since Idle No More in a more collective way than this country has ever experienced. As the truth of our history emerges, some eagerly, some indifferently and some reluctantly began that slow march of reconciliation.

This is why I devoted so much time in the beginning of these remarks to note my disappointment of the quality and content of the current and adjacent affairs to this bill. It’s why I’m offering as much resistance in the form of sharp critique of the destructive and divisive work of my colleagues on the opposition benches who seek to undo progress because they can dangerously leverage the majority of citizens against the minority.

After years of working together, the provincial government and Haida have come to an agreement, saving the Attorney General from having to mobilize a team of lawyers to lay out a divisive and, frankly, dehumanizing argument before a court makes a decision in which they are likely to decide against the province and once again reaffirm their past encouragement for the legislative and executive branches to get this business from out in front of the judicial branch.

[3:40 p.m.]

Why? It’s because in all those decisions, we’ve witnessed the province lose ground, case after case. Despite the misinformation being pushed by the populist leader here of the B.C. Conservatives, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act that he wants to repeal only affirms rights that already exist. It doesn’t create new rights. The Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act doesn’t create new rights. There are no new liabilities being created. This agreement and legislation recognize rights and title that exist, making it a foundation for a discussion, going forward.

However, a dangerous populist who cares little for the truth would have you believe that they can and that it is good and right to repeal an act that affirms human rights. They would have you believe that forcing title recognition to come from litigation, like the arguments against Bill 25, is a better and more certain route than agreement in legislation. They know they can exploit a deeply embedded Canadian cultural belief of mistrust and contempt if not for Indigenous people, then for the situation of Indigenous people.

I’m calling it out here because we, as a society and as individuals, can acknowledge that we all carry some of this shame with us. We all inherited just a little bit of it. Historically, it’s been easier to ignore it and bury it under excuse and justification. However, by identifying the shame of how bad we have allowed it to get, we can seek to reconcile.

There is no need for ugly arguments from the Attorney General that force the Haida into court to defend their humanity. That is what is so disappointing by the way the opposition parties have approached this issue: without the courage to deal with this issue now, wanting to push the issue further into the future, like the legislators before them, knowing that Aboriginal title has always existed, as has the liability associated with decades of alienating Aboriginal title. This is not new.

However, the approach to address it like a mature institution at a table, government to government, in a multi-step process of recognition — that is new. What we’ve seen from the other opposition parties, what they will not directly address, is the reality that the Crown’s denial of Aboriginal rights and title has led to the uncertainty and the fears that they are stoking, weakening the investment climate, creating conflict, harm and intergenerational poverty for Indigenous peoples.

We have the leader of one of the parties saying, “Wait,” and the leader of the other party saying: “Tear it down.” Both are economically irresponsible, damaging the well-being of British Columbians by perpetuating economic and social uncertainty. I hear, from the one leader who sits right next to me, complaints that the Supreme Court of Canada made a mistake in the Tsilhqotʼin decision when it comes to the land occupied by infrastructure. “The courts got it wrong,” I heard.

Yet now there’s a position that almost assures us a constant and steady march to those wrong-headed courts, choosing uncertainty over a more responsible approach, government-to-government negotiations, agreements in legislation, where we can make sure we get the details and a flexible plan thoughtfully laid out.

It is increasingly uncertain, and the provincial record in front of the court is not improving for the province of British Columbia, but one thing is certain. The leaders of both of the other parties are more comfortable dividing British Columbians against Indigenous people, turning the majority against the minority, through fearmongering, rather than engaging in the difficult work of facing down the legal reality that our legislative ancestors left us with.

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s important to acknowledge that litigation on Aboriginal title has been in front of the courts since the 1970s. Like I said earlier, the courts have implored us to sort it out, saying to use legislation and agreements to do so. We hear the other opposition leaders talk about economic reconciliation. What we’re doing here today is effecting the advice of the Supreme Court of Canada, which last month said: “Make legislative reconciliation by braiding together both common law and Indigenous law, with the Declaration Act as the guide.” How much longer do we talk and not act?

I saw a video from one of the leaders claiming that these agreements are a threat to private property rights. What he doesn’t address is the fact that the risk to private property owners is actually the status quo. The uncertainty exists because of the following: the Crown grants private property rights. The courts have found Aboriginal title to exist. The courts have also found that Crown title is burdened by Aboriginal title. As a result, Crown title, including the fee simple interests that derive from it, has an element of uncertainty until the issue of Aboriginal title is dealt with, until true reconciliation takes place.

Did the leader of the B.C. Conservatives share that little bit of legal reality in his populist rhetoric? Of course he didn’t. Did he share with British Columbians that through the Haida agreement as it’s laid out, for private property owners on Haida Gwaii, this uncertainty is removed? The Haida have now confirmed that they acknowledge and agree in accordance with their title and their laws that fee simple interests shall exist as they always have.

The burden on the Crown title caused by Aboriginal title has been addressed on Haida Gwaii with this act. True reconciliation is taking place. The end result is that private property interests are secure, certain and clearer on Haida Gwaii than they have ever been since contact, with the passing of this.

Folks, it’s the status quo that threatens the certainty that all British Columbians seek. Why are we not hearing that from the leader of the B.C. Conservatives? Why doesn’t he want certainty for Indigenous people and all private property owners in British Columbia? Well, I think it’s because Indigenous people are an easy target for his dangerous populism. And as we’ve seen time and again, they never hold back on punching down.

If the opposition leaders were more interested in a good-functioning British Columbia than their own desire to obtain the Premier’s seat, then they would be congratulating the fee simple landowners of Haida Gwaii. When this law passes, their fee simple tenures are on the strongest footing ever and anywhere in the province.

What they don’t want is to confront the Aboriginal title…. Sorry. What I’m not hearing from the opposition leaders is that Aboriginal title is being decided in British Columbia. Whether by the court or by agreement, Aboriginal title in B.C. is being decided. We have a choice between the uncertainty of litigation and decisions, court decisions, or the certainty of agreement and legislation.

In the same week as Bill 25 was introduced, the B.C. Supreme Court decided on an Aboriginal title case involving the Nuchatlaht respecting about 11 square kilometres of Nootka Island. We need to be honest with British Columbians. Whether it’s by litigation or by legislation, both are setting precedents for British Columbia. Both come with a cost.

To lead people to believe otherwise is just disingenuous. To divide British Columbians is poor politics, and it’s bad leadership. We’ve seen the leaders claim to support Aboriginal title when facing First Nations leaders. Then they spread disinformation and unsubstantiated fearmongering in front of a different audience. Aboriginal title exists. The liabilities that are the result of alienating Aboriginal people from the title to these territories exist. We cannot escape that.

[3:50 p.m.]

That’s what makes this type of politics so dangerous. We need to move past litigation and into agreement and legislation for all the reasons they claim to be concerned: certainty for private property owners, improving business investment, managing the massive liabilities this Crown government continues to carry as a result of the decisions and fears of former members of this Legislative Assembly to alienate Indigenous people from the title to their territories, and the health and well-being of Indigenous people and communities.

I’d like to provide some context for how this feels as a Haida person. As I’ve done in the first iteration of the Haida Nation Recognition Act, 2023, I’ll share some words from my colleague, Gud Takin Jaad, Rose Williams.

“[An Indigenous language was spoken], good people. I’m a proud member of the [an Indigenous language was spoken] Eagle Clan, and a proud Haida citizen. I grew up on our homeland, Haida Gwaii. The English translation means ‘islands of the people.’ The Haida Nation has been living with these lands and waters since time immemorial. Most recent archaeological evidence has shown we’ve occupied the archipelago for at least 15,000 years. It is remarkable.

“The stories of those who have passed before us are shared throughout the nation, greeting the ears of our children before they become earthside. Our creation stories, Raven and the Clamshell, How Raven Stole the Sun, The Great Flood — they depict a time long ago, a time when our people first found their way to Haida Gwaii, a time when they began to shape communities, traditions and systems of governance. These stories were, throughout recent history, dismissed as fiction. Yet as more evidence comes to light, we see our stories as close descriptions of the true history of the lands.

“We use our stories to pass on knowledge between generations and communities, to describe where we came from and to where we are going. The stories of [an Indigenous language was spoken] are reminders of our values: practice gratitude, do not be greedy and have respect for all living things.

“Our stories are a reminder of the values and laws that guide us as Haida people and the responsibilities we have as citizens of Haida Gwaii. We recognize that all these things are connected and that we need each other to survive. To move forward and together in this world we must practice yahguudang, respect for all living things.

“For millennia, we’ve stewarded the lands and waters of Haida Gwaii. We owe our lives to Haida Gwaii. We have a responsibility to uphold the sacred relationship. Through reciprocity, gratitude and the fire burning in our hearts, we’ve maintained our role as stewards of these lands.

“The first paragraph of the Haida Nation constitution translated in X̱aayda Kil and X̱aad Kil reads as follows: ‘The Haida Nation is the rightful heir to Haida Gwaii. Our culture is born of respect and intimacy with the land and sea and the air around us. Like the forests, the roots of our people are intertwined such that the greatest troubles cannot overcome us. We owe our existence to Haida Gwaii. The living generation accepts the responsibility to ensure that our heritage is passed on to following generations. On these islands, our ancestors lived and died, and here, too, we’ll make our homes until called away to join them in the great beyond.’

“The Council of the Haida Nation finds its roots in resistance to colonial occupation and extraction. It was established in 1974 with the recognition that we needed a governance body that represented the values and rights of Haida citizens. Last year we celebrated the passage of a monumental piece of legislation, the Haida Nation Recognition Act. This legislation recognized the Council of the Haida Nation as the government of the Haida Nation.

[3:55 p.m.]

“The Council of the Haida Nation was not created under the purview of a colonial authority by way of the Indian Act but rather through the efforts of community. It encapsulates the voices of elected officials, Hereditary Chiefs and Matriarchs. Their decision-making is guided by Haida law and values. The day that legislation passed third reading continues to fill my heart with joy and hope.

“I again express my gratitude to the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands and the B.C. Green caucus for the opportunity to share my words in this space during debate of Bill 18 last year and now for Bill 25. I didn’t think I’d be witnessing such significant moments at this age, much less be given the opportunity to have my words shared in this House.

“As I shared during Bill 18 debate, we are reclaiming and revitalizing that which makes us Haida. Not long ago our language, our culture, our connection to the land and our very existence were threatened. Our people have endured centuries of colonization, forced displacement and resettlement, disease, the stealing of our ancestors and our children, the attempted destruction of our culture. Yet, we survived.

“A population of 30,000 was decimated by smallpox to a mere 600 Haida. Yet, we survived. Guided by the voices of our ancestors and propelled by our responsibility to protect the lands, waters and all living things on Haida Gwaii, we have not only survived but thrived.

“I reflect often on our resilience and resistance, which has carved the space for us to be here today. The standoff at Lyell Island has become famous around the world. Haida stood strong at the foot of old-growth logging on Athlii Gwaii, standing up for Haida law and rights. My relatives were arrested at Athlii Gwaii, and more have been arrested at countless standoffs between extractive industries and protectors of the land.

“We have a deep respect for the lands, waters and our neighbours. Everything depends on everything else. We must find a way to harmonize our ways of being with the future of abundance and yahguudang, respect for all living things.

“In the early years of my undergrad, I wrote academic papers on the significance of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. I explained why provincial and federal governments should move to create legislation that would harmonize B.C. and Canadian laws with UNDRIP.

“In 2022, wearing my raven’s tail headband, I sat in the B.C. Legis­lature and watched the B.C. cabinet introduce the DRIPA action plan. I was a legislative intern at the time. It was the first time while working in provincial politics where I felt true hope.

“In 2023, I sat in the gallery again wearing my raven’s tail headband, this time as a constituency assistant. I watched the passage of Bill 18, the Haida Nation Recognition Act, and was again filled with hope. To hear our songs in this place, it brought life to the cold marble. The pillars that are always stagnant, steeped in the past, seemed to reverberate with the drums and shift towards a brighter future.

“And now in 2024, we celebrated the introduction of this bill. Again I sat in the gallery, this time as a policy analyst, wearing my raven’s tail headband and my button vest. I felt so much gratitude for my nation and the great work that has been done to get here.

“I celebrate the work of this province in recognizing the vital role we have in governance and stewardship. We will continue to uphold Haida law and fight to protect the lands and waters which make us Haida.

“This legislation is significant. We have fought for so long to exercise our sovereignty, our rights and our place on Haida Gwaii. It is an honour to witness this. Finally, Haida title.

“Just as we have been inspired and encouraged by other nations in our fight for title, we hope we can inspire others to take these steps toward self-governance. We hope Crown governments of B.C. and Canada will continue to see the value and necessity of Indigenous law and governance.

“Our culture is the language. It’s the land. It’s the water. It’s the people. And now, with our title finally recognized by the province — almost — we can proceed with harmonizing the laws of Haida Gwaii with our culture, values and teachings.

[4:00 p.m.]

“We look forward to seeing the federal government participate in this agreement. We must all continue to unravel the colonial history and laws that have caused so much harm. We must work together to weave a sustainable and hopeful future based on yahguudang.

“háw’aa.”

Those were the words of my colleague, Rose Williams, a member of the Haida Nation, who has worked in our offices, as she said, for the last few years and has brought such rich understanding of our relatives in Haida Gwaii.

I’ll just end with these remarks. I can understand the challenge that British Columbians have with reconciling these steps that government is making, the government-to-government negotiations that happen in this place on behalf of all British Columbians, that have always happened for all British Columbians. We will undertake a process in which the opposition parties will have plenty of time to go through it, to ask questions of the minister, to ask questions of the government as to what their intentions are, the process that is going to unfold.

Reconciliation is a journey that we walk together. We cannot see the end of the trail that we walk on together. It’s one that we will walk together for a very long time. We, as a government, have a responsibility to take care of the business that our legislative ancestors have been running away from.

And no matter what the Premier says about this being a template for other First Nations or other nations across the province…. He might be commenting on the fact that this might be a template for the government to follow. The reality is that we’ve got many diverse nations across the province who are going to want their rights and title to be expressed in their own unique ways.

To suggest that any of these processes will happen exactly as the last one did…. They might be informed that way, but it is important to recognize that the government has a big job in engaging First Nations across the province and their unique cultures. As we see this process unfold, and as other nations in the province experience the next months and years ahead, that will inform how other agreements are signed.

It is time for us to celebrate, in this province, a policy of recognition. It is time for us, in this province, to abandon a policy of denial. It has led us to exactly the position that we stand at today: deeply impoverished First Nations who may be supported and helped with economic reconciliation but who deserve legislative reconciliation as well, who deserve government-to-government relationships, agreements and the promise of self-determination. It should be there, but we recognized that when we passed the Declaration Act.

With this, I’m grateful for the positive steps that we’re taking forward together. I look forward to the remaining stages of the debate on this bill. I will be there as the discussion unfolds. I appreciate the opportunity in this House to speak a few words on this important occasion.

With that I say HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

E. Ross: It’s an honour, and it’s actually a surprise to talk to the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024, because for 20 years, this was basically a big part of my life: Aboriginal rights and title, as dictated by the courts.

But really, the clause that got it going in the first place was section 35 of the Constitution of Canada. Now, when that was first announced in 1982, I went to the rec centre for the announcement where our council announced this. And I, along with all our band members, cheered. I had no idea what I was cheering about. But I did think that for the future, going forward, we’d be recognized in our own territory as people.

[4:05 p.m.]

Well, nothing happened. Life went on. We were still unemployed, still living in poverty, still living on welfare. But all the court cases from 1982 to 2004 started to define what section 35 was. The Haida court case of 2004 was finally the closest thing to a silver bullet to getting government to act honourably — provincial government and federal government.

The chief councillor at the time for the Haisla Nation Council said: “Rights and title have got to be the foundation of our future going forward.” I was the only one at the council table that put up my hand and said: “Okay, what is rights and title?” We lived in poverty not only as a people but our band council. We had one computer in an old, condemned residential schoolhouse. We didn’t have phones. We had no funding. We were in deficit. You had to take your turn to go onto Yahoo, mind you, on one computer and try to figure out: what is rights and title?

As people started to donate us laptops and cell phones, I was able to research more and research people’s opinions of what rights and title meant — Canada’s version of rights and title, B.C.’s version, lawyers, consultants. Everybody had an opinion. But the one thing that stuck out to me was that government had to act honourably. I hear that in the speeches all across here — trust, honour.

There’s fake outrage coming from these members talking about how members of the opposition are reacting to this act. Yet when you look at what our jobs are as MLAs, this is what we got elected to do — not just in this act but every single act. The opposition is here to hold government accountable — in some cases, in extreme detail. If you don’t have the official opposition in B.C., you get a dictatorship. The Westminster model dictates that we have to criticize and investigate every single act that comes through this place. If we don’t do it, we’re not doing our jobs.

Our job as official opposition is to hold government accountable without prejudice, without emotion. I tell you that there were times, even when I was chief councillor, that I had to check my emotion at the door, my own personal feelings, because I had to think about what was best for my people and what was best for the future. It’s hard. It’s extremely hard to put aside your beliefs. The idea that somehow politics is creeping into this place, with all the outrage of how the opposition is behaving when all we are saying is: “Let’s investigate what this means….”

To be clear, I know the Haida people. I trust the Haida people. But I think where the distrust or mistrust lies is in how this government deals with Aboriginal rights and title. I’m sure the Haida are acting honourably. They want to act honourably, every step of the way.

But this government, based on the accusations of Doig River and Halfway River…. They’re saying that this B.C. government has acted dishonourably. The petition to the court by the Doig River and Halfway River First Nations says that this B.C. government deceived First Nations in terms of their rights and title interests. Doig River and Halfway River say that this B.C. NDP government omitted information when dealing with Doig River and Halfway River’s Aboriginal rights and title. They go on to say that this government misrepresented information. Two First Nations in a petition to the court have said this.

Doig River and Halfway River First Nations have also said that the B.C. NDP gave Blueberry River a veto on permits for natural gas as well as for forestry permits, as well as for mining. Doig River and Halfway River have treaty rights, which is a huge subsection of Aboriginal rights and title. So is it any wonder why I am questioning and speaking to this bill the way I am?

[4:10 p.m.]

I did try to highlight, in terms of rights and title, what UNDRIP meant in B.C. I’ll repeat it again. When I was chief councillor, I thought UNDRIP was redundant. We already had a lot of those rights of what UNDRIP said. A lot of it wasn’t needed. I did know that, basically, UNDRIP was more of a statement. Now I hear it’s called enabling. The NDP had to go to court against Gitxaała to tell them that UNDRIP was not legally enforceable. Gitxaała First Nation truly thought that UNDRIP was legally enforceable on mining tenures.

The NDP argued otherwise: “It’s only an interpretive aid.” Guess what. The court agreed. You shouldn’t play games with Aboriginal rights and title, especially when you’re considering some of the most disadvantaged people in Canada. Aboriginal rights and title is not new, but there are different levels to what we’re talking about here. The roadmap for reconciling Aboriginal rights and title has been in place since 2004, the Haida court case. We’re not talking about defining it. That’s the difference here.

If what I think is happening here, this government is trying to define Haida rights and title, but when you look at all the success of First Nations that signed on to LNG agreements, from Prince George to Kitimat to Gitga’at to Gitxaała, yes, they used their rights and title for consultation and accommodation, for benefit agreements, for jobs, for training, but they didn’t define it. That’s a difference. That’s a huge difference.

No matter what kind of impact-and-benefits agreements we signed, our rights and titles still exist on the land base, on the pipeline route, on any Crown land that was taken for construction, for mining. If they signed an impact-and-benefits agreement, it was only a placeholder: “Until they define rights and title, we’re going to sign an agreement with you.” They did not define it, and they did not surrender their title. It’s a very nuanced argument.

The idea that, somehow, private land will be affected is the truth. As per case law, that’s the truth. I’m not so sure that Haida is willing to go so far as to restrict private land access, or ownership for that matter, but I don’t know how you’re going to define it in a document like this. If you really, truly want a guarantee that private land will not be affected, a 100 percent guarantee, then Haida will have to agree to surrender their rights on private land. I don’t think any First Nation is willing to do that. That’s definition.

Think about this. A First Nation, in court, claimed all of Richmond — all of Richmond. Can you think about all the roads, the infrastructure, the hydro lines, the businesses, the malls, the water, the sewer? They claimed all of Richmond, and the judge had to figure out: “How do I make this process go ahead without bringing all the landowners into a court case?”

I seriously doubt that the First Nation wanted title over Richmond. I seriously doubt it. They did have a right to the claim; I understand that. I don’t think they resolved the overlap issue, but I think they were trying to leverage something else. Whatever that something else was, I’m not quite sure.

You look at this place here, the B.C. Legislature. The land that this sits on is actually here because the sitting government at the time, the B.C. Liberals, compensated the First Nations who claimed this land that the Legislature sits on. I read that agreement. In my opinion, the agreement that actually allows us to do our business on this land was an accommodation — that’s what it was — meaning that the First Nation that got the money for this building to exist did not give up their rights and title to this land.

[4:15 p.m.]

The claim to this land still stands. If that First Nation comes back and they want to make a larger claim on it, yes, the court will consider the accommodation of the money, but they’ll also say they did not surrender the rights and title. So you’ve got to start over.

Rights and title is one of the most complicated topics I’ve ever come across. That’s why I spent 20 years reading up on it. A lot of it is interpretive. The courts have told us what the problem is, they’ve told us what the solution is, but they didn’t tell us how to implement the solution. That’s hard. Really, reconciliation — I hear it every time. On every single issue that comes up when you’re talking about First Nations: “Oh, it’s reconciliation.”

Well, the court didn’t say that. The court said there’s undefined title in B.C. There’s also Crown title. We’ve got to learn how to reconcile those two titles. We’ve got to learn how to coexist. We’ve got a larger population in B.C. with laws, infrastructure and land ownership, and we’ve got to figure out how we coexist there with Aboriginal title that is undefined. We’ve got to figure it out.

Accommodations for projects is a short-term solution, if you think 60, 80 years is short term — for the lifetime of an LNG plant, for example. Also, the forest and range agreement that was signed in 2006 — a very short-term solution to Aboriginal rights and title on the land base — is another agreement that the B.C. Liberals brought in. To claim that somehow we don’t know what we’re talking about on this side of the House, or that somehow we’re fearmongering….

If you think about it, all this comes from the case law. The private landowners all across B.C., in every single municipality, in every single town, are part of what they characterize as the larger society. The courts spoke to that as well. Part of being that larger society are First Nations, because 50 percent of First Nations live off reserve. They live in our towns and our cities. A lot of First Nations own mortgages and private land outside reserves.

The court said: “You’ve got to do everything you can to address rights and title. You’ve got to go above and beyond. Whether or not you reach an agreement, you’ve got to keep one thing in mind: you’ve got larger responsibilities to the greater society. You’ve got to consider other issues, as government.” That’s what the court said.

Now bring in the Land Title Amendment Act that was brought in, in secret. And now members of this House are getting up and saying: “Oh, it was taken out of context. Oh, it’s fearmongering.” Well, the public didn’t think that. The public got scared because they had no idea what was going on.

“Don’t worry,” government said. “We’re going to create an online consultation process.” Well, not everybody goes online. There are parts of B.C. that don’t even have Internet. Town halls — to go into every single community, for full transparency and accountability, to describe what was happening — would have been a better job. Then people wouldn’t have been so angry. They wouldn’t have been so fearful.

To all those people that are talking about this in terms of unceded land: put up your property first. Donate your property, your mortgage, for the First Nation. Put your money where your mouth is, because your property is subject to rights and title. If you want to accommodate that, you want to create certainty, lead the way. Sign that deed.

I take offence to members of this House saying that I’m fearmongering when all I’m trying to do is follow the rules that were laid down by the judges in the courts of B.C. and Canada.

I had to, myself, understand the limits of Aboriginal rights and title as a chief councillor. Where I found out most that I had to push back was on overlaps. I didn’t like it when the B.C. government ruled against me that I didn’t have strong enough evidence in the overlap area, but I respected it, because the government of the day was right.

[4:20 p.m.]

It takes a lot of guts to make the right decision, especially when you’re doing it on behalf of a province.

In terms of what is happening right now, we seem to understand the basics of what this government is proposing. But have you really, truly thought it out in terms of unintended consequences? If this government is sincere in saying that private property is not at risk, rights-of-way are not at risk, water, sewer, forestry permits, mining permits — if they’re not at risk, then we’re going to have to see it in writing. If you’re talking about shared jurisdiction on the land base in terms of decision-making, we’re going to have to see it in writing.

What you’re really talking about is defined rights and title. And guess what? We have examples in B.C. of what defined rights and title looks like. There are three parties at the table currently up to date that have signed defined rights and title agreements here in B.C. It’s done through the B.C. Treaty Commission. The three parties at the table are B.C., Canada and First Nations.

If you look at the Nisg̱a’a treaty, you’ll find very specific clauses in terms of what rights and title means in every aspect of life in B.C. on a daily basis. If you’re going to define it, and you’re going to define it to a level that exceeds the Nisg̱a’a treaty, the Nisg̱a’a treaty has the right to come in and take advantage of the same benefits. If you give a First Nation law-making authority above and beyond language and culture, Nisg̱a’a has the right to come in and take advantage of that as well.

There’s a clause in the treaty that says if there are asserted rights and title benefits that are given to a First Nation, then the treaty bands have the same right to it as well. When the forest and range agreements were signed in B.C. in 2006 by the B.C. Liberals and First Nations, that agreement was actually better than the forest agreements inside the Nisg̱a’a treaty. So who was there in line to get the same benefit? Nisg̱a’a.

If you’re going to go down that road and you’re going to define these rights, and Nisg̱a’a wants the same rights, you’re going to have to open up a constitutionally protected document, because Canada is signatory to that. That’s going to take a long time. If you do that, as well, you’re going to have to think about the provisions of the treaty. There’s a clause in the treaty that speaks to the paramountcy of laws.

Nisg̱a’a, Maa-nulth, Tsawwassen have all agreed to the paramountcy of laws, meaning the First Nation can’t make its own laws around speeding, murder, stealing. The paramountcy of laws says that treaty First Nations to define their rights, agree to abide by the laws of B.C. and Canada. In some circumstances, they agree to the regulations of B.C. and Canada.

If you’re going to define rights, for example, and you’re going to allow First Nations the unfettered right to go hunting at any time of the year, to shoot any species of animal, to shoot any gender of animal because that’s what asserted rights are, that’s what it is….

Well, Nisg̱a’a has defined rights. They’re not allowed to go out and exercise an Aboriginal right to hunt every single day. Nisg̱a’a traded up that Aboriginal right to hunt, and they agreed to abide by B.C.’s regulations on hunting, meaning they’ve got to think about the management plan for the region or a management plan for the province in terms of wildlife populations. And they’ve got to submit their name into a lottery for a moose tag.

[4:25 p.m.]

Myself, I don’t have a treaty. I haven’t got defined…. I can go out and shoot a moose anytime I want. I can shoot a deer. I can shoot a female moose. The only things that restrict me are health, safety and conservation. That’s the paramountcy of laws. I’m not allowed to discharge a firearm near a community or a highway.

Nisg̱a’a took that a step further. They also did it with fishing. They did it with salmon. The only real species that they have full control of is oolichan because nobody else eats oolichan except First Nations. This is defined title, and it took Nisg̱a’a over 100 years to define it. A hundred years. Now, if you look at another treaty like Tsawwassen, it’s not as extensive as Nisg̱a’a because, basically, all Tsawwassen’s lands were all eaten up. It was all taken away. All the wildlife was taken away. Their lands are polluted, overdeveloped. They were part of the Agricultural Land Reserve.

But they had something different. They had the opportunity for economic reconciliation. They’ve got a railway right beside their treaty lands. They’ve got the ferry going out there, the Tsawwassen ferry. They’ve got Agricultural Land Reserve that wasn’t developed, so they built a big mall in it. Totally separate, different set of circumstances, but that’s what they wanted because they didn’t have much of anything else.

They can’t go hunting on their lands. In all my years of coming down here, I’ve never seen any wildlife in Vancouver. I’ve never seen any seals swimming around Tsaw­wassen by the ferries. I’ve never seen whales, not like my territory. It’s a different set of circumstances, but if you’re going to define it, you’ve got to think about the limitations that were placed on treaty bands, especially when it comes to law-making.

In terms of shared decision-making, I think we’ve already covered that Halfway River and Doig River say that a veto exists right now, and it’s with agreement with Blueberry River First Nation. That’s what the court case is about. Everybody swore in this House on behalf of government that there’s no veto. Well, that Blueberry River agreement was a rights and title agreement, and it was defined.

We could have debated that in this House in the same manner we’re debating this act, but the agreement we got on this side of the House was blacked out. We didn’t get any crucial information. We had no idea what the government was thinking about in terms of rights and title, in terms of a treaty band. Now we find out, according to Doig and Halfway River, their rights were taken away and given to Blueberry, including atmospheric benefits.

Where is the outrage from all these MLAs talking about respect and honour? Halfway River and Doig River wanted to take the carbon credits from their territory, and they wanted to monetize it, but they can’t because it was taken away by an agreement with the B.C. NDP government.

The thing about it is that Halfway River and Doig River trusted this government. They were pressured into signing those agreements that were basically placeholders. They were told their rights and title would be addressed. Then after the agreement was signed with Blueberry, and after they signed the agreements with Doig in Halfway River, B.C. left and never went back.

That is a shame. That is a disgrace. There’s no way that anybody on that side of the House can plead ignorance. It was done knowingly. Taking away the rights and title from a First Nation, in this day and age, especially when you look at UNDRIP…. Most of those clauses in UNDRIP were protocol in nature, but the last clause said it would be based on section 35 and the case law.

Well, the case law says that you’ve got to address rights and title openly, transparently, in an honourable manner. Where is the outrage? How come the Green Party is not in here screaming their head off about Halfway River and Doig? Where are they? I hear them criticizing us. How come they’re not talking about how this is going to look going into the future?

[4:30 p.m.]

I get what Haida is trying to do. I do trust them. But we did the same thing in Haisla. Our objective was to relieve poverty, and the only way we could do it was to address rights and title with the province of British Columbia. We did it, and we resolved poverty. We brought in revenues, not only for our own band but for every single other band from Prince George to Kitimat.

We didn’t have to define it. I had the opportunity to take my band down the same road as Tŝilhqot’in — the same opportunity — but I chose not to. What I wanted, and what I felt I could deliver, were jobs, land, training and revenues, which all spoke to independence and self-determination. Is it a politically correct way to do things? No, it’s not, but those were the objectives, and my band council, my community, achieved them.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

It wasn’t easy, because every step of the way, everybody opposed us for pursuing LNG. Even members of this House, who are now sitting in government, opposed LNG. They even signed anti-LNG declarations and showed up at protests. Nobody talked about the idea of a Haisla member or anybody along the pipeline route getting out of poverty — nobody. Even to this day, I haven’t heard it. What I hear is fake outrage about MLAs just trying to do their job as legislators. That’s what I hear.

I still invite you to come to Kitamaat Village and see how many young people got jobs and don’t need their elected council to help them anymore. They don’t need government welfare anymore. For 20 years, we’ve been doing this.

If we’re going to do this — we’re talking about the definition of rights and title — I think, on behalf of British Columbians, that citizens of B.C. want to know exactly what we’re talking about. They want to know the detail, because the majority of British Columbians don’t understand what “rights and title” are. I’ve been doing this 20 years, and I’m still not quite sure I fully grasp what rights and title are, but I do know there are two levels: defining it and accommodating it.

In fact, in Tŝilhqot’in, it’s not defined. Tŝilhqot’in was decided upon in the courts in the same manner we’re talking about here, but it wasn’t defined. It wasn’t reconciled with B.C. title. So nobody is quite sure who’s in charge up in Tŝilhqot’in.

I’ve been through this. As chair of the Haisla Nation treaty team for eight years, I’ve been through this. I’ve negotiated shared decision-making, and it was a constant decision to say: “No, I don’t want it. I don’t want the responsibility, I don’t want the liability, and I just don’t have the capacity. All I want is for our band members to get out of poverty. That’s all I want.”

What’s the objective? I can tell you: when you define “rights and title,” even with a treaty, that does not mean self-determination. Self-determination is largely built on economics, developing your own source of revenues. That’s self-determination; that is independence. We haven’t even touched the basics of what we’re talking about here now. We haven’t even talked about funding.

Nisg̱a’a gets a tremendous amount of funding annually to sustain their treaty, and it comes from Ottawa. Same with Tsawwassen. Now, there’s a clause that speaks to own-source revenue that gets deducted from refunding agreements, but we haven’t talked about that yet. Rights and title is complex, and it deserves the amount of time that we’re proposing here today.

Hon. N. Cullen: What a pleasure it is to join the conversation around the Haida title agreement. I was hoping my friend from Skeena could hang out and hear some of the things, because some of the concerns he seemed to have raised, when he occasionally touched upon the Haida agreement….

[4:35 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Minister, I would remind you that we don’t talk about attendance in the House.

Hon. N. Cullen: A number of concerns raised by the opposition over time, including from the member for Skeena, would be well addressed by looking through the bill that’s before us and by also carefully listening to what the Haida have said about this agreement, what the local government leaders have said about this agreement. And rather than look for ways to oppose the efforts of reconciliation, with respect to the Haida, I would offer to the opposition to look for opportunities to lean in and find ways that we can advance this.

I represent Stikine in the northwest, the largest riding in our province. A very beautiful place, and a place that has often been on the forefront of this question about rights and title — and how do we reconcile?

How do we reconcile the colonial acts that we have in this place here, in the Legislature, on the books in law, as well as the acts and decisions that were made by the federal government in previous generations and, in some cases, that continue today? I’m not sure I could find a better example of the opportunity and the effort and the compassion and the intelligence and the foresight of how to answer some of those questions, for a people, than what has been offered up here in this bill. The agreement that has been signed by the Premier and the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation just recently with the Haida on Haida Gwaii — I’m not sure there’s a better standing example in the country.

Now, this has been a process and a path that the Haida have walked for some would record as 150 years. There is a very clear understanding and definition of Haida Gwaii and the people who live there, the Haida, of having possession of that land, stewardship of that land since time immemorial.

In a previous life, I was privileged with being the Member of Parliament for the northwest. Haida Gwaii was within my constituency. Over just 30 years for me, I was offered time and time and time again a very slow and patient education not just about the Haida people, of the non-Haida people living on Haida Gwaii and of that path and that history — and in too many cases, an incredibly tragic history, the incidents of smallpox being introduced intentionally onto the island and killing north of 95 percent of the entire Haida population.

I’m trying to have folks imagine what the cultural devastation, the economic devastation, the political devastation of losing virtually everyone in one very short period of time, and the resiliency and the determination of the Haida to remain on Haida Gwaii, to remain in their culture and in their language, and to constantly engage us, as the provincial government and the federal governments, to say we’re going to come to a point where we affirm and recognize what has always been true, which, on Haida Gwaii, we must recognize the Haida as the stewards of that land and do that in terms of Aboriginal rights and title in this agreement.

The Council of Haida Nations was established 50 years ago — this is their 50th anniversary this year — for this explicit purpose: to construct a constitution, to then forward that constitution and an agreement to the federal government and the provincial government to recognize the stewardship of the islands.

What a remarkable sequence of events that we’re now here. I give great commendation to the minister; to Gaagwiis, the president of the Haida Nation; to Guujaaw, Gidansda, former president; Miles Richardson, the president before that; and the many leaders that have consistently talked to us and offered us the notions of respect, the notions of working together and that we could actually build a future in which everyone on Haida Gwaii could enjoy a much, much brighter future than the one in the past.

There is a referral to respect in the Haida…. And Gaagwiis, this was a remarkable day. I don’t want to talk about your attendance or non-attendance, but many of us were here to see the Haida come into the House and to be addressed by Gaagwiis, the current president of the Haida Nation, in what I thought was a very compassionate and very transformative way of appealing to us as individuals, us as leaders in this place.

[4:40 p.m.]

As he said: “To find it in our hearts to walk this path together, to each of us look within to understand what the opportunity is here.”

Just a few weeks before this, the minister, myself, the Premier and the member for the North Coast, who represents, very capably, Haida Gwaii, were at a signing ceremony on the island. The power of watching the community, the large Haida community, the non-Haida community come together…. The many people who had, over generations, fought for that moment, fought for the day when a Premier could come to the island and sign an agreement with the leadership of the Haida that would bring predictability, would bring certainty, would bring the future of what Haida Gwaii is going to look like for everyone in such a good and beautiful way….

There is another path, and that is a path that we’re more accustomed to in provincial and federal governments, of conflict and courts and colonialism. That’s one in which we are constantly fighting against claims by First Nations people as to what their rights are under section 35 of the constitution and what the honour of the Crown…. You hear this term often when talking about reconciliation — that the government has not held the honour of the Crown to be honourable. We are sometimes called hon. members. What does it mean? Well, it’s to walk in a certain way of dignity and grace, not in a self-caring way but in a way that represents the best of our communities, the best of the places we represent and the best of our province.

For so long, the Haida have been calling us to that higher purpose, to represent the honour of the Crown and to do it not by battling in the courts, not by having the conflict and the sense of colonial entitlement that has been so much described in the way that we’ve dealt with First Nations broadly, and the Haida in particular, on too many fronts, whether it was resource extraction, fisheries policy, child and family policy where so many Haida were taken from their homes.

I would ask my friends across the way and those standing in opposition or in reluctance to this: if not on Haida Gwaii, then where? If a clear case of First Nations rights and title cannot be seen and expressed by the Haida that meets every legal and constitutional test that’s ever been invented for a clear declaration of rights and title existing there, then where? If not the Haida people as partners, and the Haida leadership, elected and hereditary, as partners for government to work with, then who?

And if not now, then when? We hear calls for delay, more time. It’s too rushed. To describe to the Haida people, and First Nations more broadly, that reconciliation has been too rushed a process is staggeringly insulting. People have been at it for their entire lifetimes and people before them for their lifetimes, and so on. That we’ve come to this place with the Haida after decades of negotiation and arguing and fighting in court and struggle in which so much wealth was taken off the island….

All the while, we were arguing and debating and saying we needed more time. To now say this is too rushed, as some of the opposition…. The member for Skeena, their official critic, just talked about earlier that we should slow down, that it’s not clear. Man, oh man. You wonder if that’s a sincere argument or just yet another excuse for delay and denial and actually contributing to the uncertainty, the unpredictability and the conflict that so many across the way say they want to diminish. Why can’t we get more predictability on the land base? Why can’t we get more certainty for industry and understanding for investors?

Well, one of the ways you do that quite successfully, like this government has done with the Tāłtān, and the list will go on, is through coming to a negotiating table, agreeing and affirming what is obvious to everybody with enough intelligence to see it: that the Haida title case is incredibly strong.

What the Haida said was: “We’re going to go to court, but we’ll hold our court case in abeyance and give the negotiating table an opportunity to resolve this rather than leave it to judges in Ottawa to decide for us collectively what’s going to happen next.”

[4:45 p.m.]

Isn’t that better — never mind saving the millions and millions of dollars that taxpayers spend on these cases to lose, as the government consistently does over and over again when it comes to title with the Haida — to actually have a conversation in which the communities are involved, in which industry is involved, in which local government is involved?

I’ve watched the Haida go from community to community to talk about this agreement, to open the agreement up and say, “Here it is,” and I actually heard the opposition critic in his speech last week say he hadn’t even seen the agreement. “Where is it? It must be secret.” When it has been sitting on the government’s website, when it was on the news, when the agreement was released by the government upon signing, to say “I haven’t even seen it” seems to me, again, someone looking for an excuse to not support something that seems pretty obvious. It took me exactly 13 seconds to find the agreement by googling “Haida title agreement” and finding it, remarkably. It’s a wonderful tool. I offer it to my friends across the way.

If not on Haida Gwaii, then where? I would suggest to my opposition friends that the offer made by the Haida to sit down and talk about this again and again, as much as they need, is an offer that they should take up, because what they’ll find, if they don’t know this, if they’ve not spent time with the Haida, is a very reasonable group of people with very clearly defined rights that have slowly, patiently and determinedly over time negotiated us to this place and said: “Here’s where we can land and affirm what we know to be true.”

This is not the B.C. government giving anything to the Haida. This is simply us affirming what we know to be true: that Haida Gwaii has been occupied by the Haida since time immemorial. They have defended their island, they have governed their island, and they will be here forever. We talk thousands upon thousands of years and then say: “Well, how long has B.C. been around — 150, 160?” We’ve got to get the time scales right. The Haida have been patient with us, and we have been determined to get to this point and agreement.

To my Conservative colleagues down the way, I was incredibly disturbed by the leader of that party, who made a speech that maybe surprised some of us in this place, when the Haida were here. He said the following, and I’ll quote because I don’t want to get this wrong. This was on April 22, when we had this grand entrance and everyone got to talk. “I want to start by saying congratulations. The path has been a long journey for the Haida people. You’ve set out a very important milestone for First Nations across the province, as you have historically as well.” That was here talking to us and to the Haida.

Hours later he said, “It is not the right thing to be doing. This should have been resolved before this incident has come forward. This government has now put all of us in British Columbia at risk.” — and then claim that they’re not fearmongering. “Congratulations. The path has been a long journey. You have done this. You have done this well.” Hours later, to some friends on TikTok and Twitter: “We’re all at risk.”

On Monday, in his speech to the Haida: “This is a path that we need to do to be able to bring predictability and certainty for Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike. It is what has to happen in this province — an economic reconciliation. In the words of Joseph Gosnell, it’s long past time. The First Nations have been held back, and they have an opportunity to not only catch up but, potentially, surpass economically.”

Interesting thing for the Conservative leader to say about reconciliation, about the Haida agreement. Hours later: “What does this agreement mean to you? Who knows? The question really will become: is this province really going to be on the hook for trillions of dollars in compensation? Are you as a property owner going to have to be laying that compensation? Lots of questions out there, but this government has now created a predicament for the taxpayers and the people of British Columbia.”

We’ve heard this about private property on Haida Gwaii. Reasonable concern. What happens to private property on Haida Gwaii? I represented Haida Gwaii when the name was being changed back, and I can remember town halls. That was under a previous Liberal government.

[4:50 p.m.]

The Premier, Campbell at the time, had had a bit of a road to Damascus, right? If you’ll remember, he sued the Nisg̱a’a as they attempted to settle treaty, then said a really good idea would be to have a referendum in this province on Indigenous rights and title. Do you remember that chestnut? Wasn’t that a beauty? Let’s have a referendum on human rights. What a good idea, even though we already had a stack of court cases starting to describe rights and title, the then-candidate and eventual Premier says he’s going to hold a referendum. He had to abandon that disastrous project.

But he moved. If you ask Gordon Campbell why he evolved so much on this issue, he would point to the Haida, and he has in public speeches. So he’s affirming that we should no longer call those islands Queen Charlotte Islands. It kind of makes sense. Where did the name come from? Nobody really knows why they call it Queen Charlotte. No one knows. “Why we don’t call it Haida Gwaii?” which is what it’s been called forever.

But there was fear, there was worry within the community, within the non-Haida community. What’s this mean? What are the implications? I remember at a town hall I held in Port Clements, someone stood up and said: “I’ve seen the eviction notices down at the copy centre. The Haida have already printed the eviction notices for everybody, and they’re going to post it on all our doors. That’s what’s going to happen next. Retribution. What happens to property rights holders?”

I’m hearing the same kind of noise and fearmongering from the opposition when they say: “What’s going to happen with property rights?” Then I think: “Well, goodness, I wonder if the agreement actually speaks to that.”

And lo and behold, the very first page of the bill, section 4.3: “The following interests in and rights in relation to land on Haida Gwaii, whether arising before or after this section comes into force, are confirmed and continued: (a) an estate in fee simple; (b) an interest in or right in relation to land that derives from, burdens, or otherwise relates to an estate in fee simple.”

What’s going to happen to private property rights? Well, it’s described in the bill. But you wouldn’t know that, listening to the Conservatives or the United, because what they want to say is: “Gosh, if you own private property in Haida Gwaii and this agreement comes into place, maybe you’re at risk. Maybe that eviction notice is actually printed up down at the Kinko’s, and they’re going to come and stamp it on your door.”

Then they say, “We’re not fearmongering though. I haven’t read the bill,” even though it’s on the website, and: “I haven’t read anything about fee simple.” Even though section 4.3 talks about fee simple and private property rights, “Oh my goodness. This is coming across the entire province next, but we’re not fearmongering,” says the opposition.

No one’s going to buy that, because people can read. They can listen to what the Haida are saying. They can see what the province has agreed to and what is putting into a bill to pass into law and that we should be a little bit more courageous in this moment. I would call my friends forward and say: “Let’s embrace the hand that is being offered to us by the Haida to bring predictability, to bring certainty and a path in which we walk forward.” Because it is time. Because if not the Haida, then who? And if not on Haida Gwaii, then where? And if not now, then when?

This is the opportunity for us to be on the right side of history, to take courage, to express our understanding of what an agreement together can mean. To those that are expressing doubt or fear, we offer education, not fuel, to that fire and ignorance. And say: “We understand that you might be worried. Here’s the agreement in black and white. Here’s what it means for these islands. Here’s what it means for our province. And here’s how we’re going to mutually benefit from this. Here’s how we’re going to walk together. After 150 years, we can do this.”

What an opportunity, friends. This isn’t every day. This is not every day where you get to go to work, look at legislation, understand it, hear what’s being offered to us, and then turn back to the people that we represent and say: “Today is a good day. Today we advanced. Today we made progress. Is it all done? Of course not. Lots to do. But today is a good day.”

Let’s vote for this bill. Let’s pass this bill. Let’s walk this path together as we always should have.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to thank my colleague, the MLA for Skeena — and the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship — for his impassioned remarks, his knowledgable remarks, his thoughtful remarks and his reflection of the reality in the place known as Haida Gwaii.

I want to thank my colleague the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation for his decades of work toward reconciliation, for his decades of work to help move our society and our communities toward understanding and recognition of Indigenous rights, Indigenous title and the steps that are required for reconciliation.

Last Monday was a historic day in this chamber and in this Legislature and in this province. As the day unfolded, it reminded me of my time many, many years ago as a young man living in Terrace and, occasionally, as an employee of the provincial government, being sent to work in Haida Gwaii, then known as the Queen Charlotte Islands, without knowing very much at all about the history of the territory, the relations between the Haida and other residents of the islands and the relationship between companies that had been extracting resources without encumbrance for many, many decades.

But I learned. I witnessed. I saw. I also saw the efforts of people, Haida and other people who were working on or inhabiting the islands, to find a way to reconcile differences, to understand each other, to move forward together, to create a future together, a future that lifted everybody up. I learned about the conflicts, about land, the disputes about areas like Gwaii Haanas.

I also lived in the area when some of those — not all of those, but some of those — were resolved and saw the positive impact they had on everyone, but particularly the nationhood of the Haida people. As my colleague has so aptly pointed out, the self-governance, the self-identity, the self-assertion, the taking responsibility that they had always had for the land and asserting it in a very positive and forceful manner.

I also had a chance in the time I lived in the northwest to witness, at various points in my life, the presence of the Haida people, the presence of Haida leaders, the lessons that they taught many of us when they received us on the islands or came inland and talked to us about issues that affected everybody living in the area.

Those were important teachings for me. They were important teachings for my friends and my neighbours and my colleagues in northwest B.C. Over the last several decades, we have learned together. We have come a long way, as my colleague has said.

Last Monday was a moving day in so many ways in this chamber, when we saw people from all parties stand up and talk about coming together to officially, in legislation, recognize what has always existed and what has been affirmed by the courts, pursuant to our national constitution: rights and title for the Haida on Haida Gwaii. Could there ever be a clearer case of one nation and one territory in this province? I don’t think so.

[5:00 p.m.]

To hear the words of Gaagwiis and the words of leaders in this House speak to taking a step forward together was moving. To see the Elders from the Haida in this House, to see Haida people in this House, on the floor of this chamber, where they belong, at such an important moment of recognition was moving, uplifting and hopeful.

What it means for all of us is finding a way that we talk of reconciliation, of moving forward together, of resolving disputes in good will as neighbours who live here together now. But including people who came to this land and the people who lived here for millennia, who exercised their culture, their beliefs, their governance, their laws, their economies, their ways of ensuring their own well-being, all of which was disrupted hugely and significantly by settlers, in so many ways.

Seeing the opportunity to take this step forward is deeply significant, and it will very literally lift everyone. It will very literally allow the Haida and other residents of Haida Gwaii to find a life together that is more clear, to develop economies and ways of living together in a community that is more clear, where everyone can benefit, where everyone can thrive, where everyone can prosper.

I will also refer to my colleague the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship to say that I share his deep concern when, one moment in this House, we have leaders who say that they support the bill, they support the action and they support title, and then turn around and say that it is a threat to British Columbians’ private property rights, it is a threat to people on Haida Gwaii, it is a threat to all British Columbians.

They ought to know how deeply untrue that is, not just from the words in the bill, but from the statements of leaders, from the statements of the Haida, from the statements of First Nations and First Nations leaders around the province as we all try to move toward reconciliation. I believe it is both dangerous and cynical to appeal to people’s fears, for whatever reason I can only speculate.

But the danger is that we polarize British Columbia, that we set reconciliation back, that we feed the worst instincts of those people who somehow believe that Indigenous people in British Columbia were conquered and have no rights and have no title, no matter what the courts say. I believe those actions are irresponsible.

I believe it is important for the rest of us in this House to say very clearly to each other where we stand on recognition of Haida title, on recognition of Indigenous rights everywhere in this province, on the recognition of First Nations in this province so that we can continue the work of understanding each other, of listening to each other, of building a life together. It’s important for us to say to the Haida and First Nations throughout this province where we stand, what we believe, that we support reconciliation as a legislative body, as a government, but as every individual MLA in this House.

[5:05 p.m.]

A week ago was a beautiful day. It was a beautiful moment in this chamber. I’ve been here for almost 12 years. There are few moments that are moving, but most of them have involved steps of reconciliation with First Nations, with welcoming them, with listening to them and with striving to understand them and trying to take concrete steps to build a better future together.

Let me close with the words of the Haida president and leader, Gaagwiis: “Recognizing that Haida Gwaii is Haida land” brings hope of learning, in the words of Gaagwiis, “from the mistakes of this colonial experience together and to draw upon Haida culture and values to heal, to make things right and take the best of what we all have to offer from our collective experience….”

“With this bill, we can face the truth head-on and instil hope that we can face the troubles of this world together based on respect and not fear, that we can heal our relationships with each other and the land and the waters, that we can change our behaviours as humans, change the systems that are harming this earth and each other and have hope that as a result of our collective efforts, these supernatural forces would take some pity on us.”

Those are powerful words. The future and how we approach it, the future and how we live together, and the future and how we address the mistakes and injustices of the past are in our hands.

It’s a moment that calls for openness, for good faith and for honesty. It is not a moment that calls for political cynicism or advantage. It is a moment when truly everyone in this House, no matter from which party or political perspective, owes a duty to every British Columbian and to every First Nation in this province, with the greatest seriousness and with the greatest sense of responsibility, to come together to take one important step in addressing the wrongs of the past.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Seeing no further speakers, I call the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation to close debate.

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s just a pleasure to follow such eloquent speakers today on Bill 25. I want to thank everyone who spoke for their comments over the past while as we discussed this important bill, this historic bill, in second reading. I want to particularly acknowledge the eloquence of my colleagues the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy and the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, who members will have heard just recently and, before that, my colleague the House Leader of the Green Party for his very passionate and thoughtful speech as well.

I would like to provide, if I may, just some observations and clarifications at this stage, as I close the debate — some broad context and then some specifics, if I may. The broad context is that our government is committed to advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. I think that needs to be said. We’ve clearly demonstrated that over a number of years. We do this because we firmly believe that advancing this work makes for a stronger, more prosperous province for everyone.

I also remind all members of this House that reconciliation is a shared responsibility. Everyone in the province has a role to play.

Our government is guided in this work by the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That commission shed light on the legacy of colonialism that many Canadians were not fully aware of until their proceedings.

We’re guided in this work by the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. We do that through the Declaration Act, passed unanimously in this place in 2019, and through the accompanying five-year action plan, which I have the honour of stewarding as Minister for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

[5:10 p.m.]

I note that a key goal of the 2022 Declaration Act action plan is…. I want to quote it. It was co-developed with First Nations Leadership Council and many of the rights and title holders. It says: “…to achieve government-to-government relationships based on respect, recognition, the exercise of Aboriginal title and rights and reconciliation of Aboriginal and Crown titles and jurisdiction.”

One of the outcomes that the action plan contemplates is this: “The rights of Indigenous peoples, including First Nations title, are exercised, recognized and respected and cooperatively implemented, including through treaties, government-to-government agreements and other constructive arrangements.”

Those words — treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements — are the very words in the articles of UNDRIP. Our commitment, as we seek to advance reconciliation, is to meet First Nations where they’re at. For some nations, reconciliation is about treaty. For other nations, it’s about reconciliation agreements of varying kinds. For some, unfortunately, court has been seen as their best option.

Adversarial litigation is not the way our government wants to engage with First Nations. The courts have urged us, over decades, in many rulings, to take a different approach. I suggest that that is the approach reflected in Bill 25. The Declaration Act action plan makes our intentions in this regard crystal-clear. “The province recognizes the need to shift from patterns of litigation and expensive and slow negotiations about title and rights to cooperative implementation through effective government-to-government relationships.”

In my opening remarks, I spoke about the ongoing work with the Haida Nation toward the goal of title recognition, work that has been ongoing for decades but which moved forward in a significant way under the previous government. I believe that the B.C. Liberals under Gordon Campbell truly made a difference because in 2010, they brought in the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act, an act which created shared decision-making bodies, a solutions council, a management council, to deal with land use decisions on Haida Gwaii, something that has never been done in other parts of the province.

As I referenced in my opening remarks, and as the official opposition critic member opposite acknowledged in his comments, I’ll bring your attention to one further piece of context as well, which is specific to B.C. and unique to Canada: few historic treaties were signed in our province, and only a handful of modern treaties have been concluded. This has left lingering questions about unceded territories and title claims across most of our province, resulting in ongoing uncertainty on the land base.

Over the past 40 years, the courts have provided greater clarity, and our government is following that jurisprudence. Now, I provide all this context in order to show clearly that the Rising Tide agreement with the Haida and the legislation before us now are not rash. We’ve entered into this agreement in a considered and deliberate way. It’s a tangible expression of the goals we’ve set out in trying to achieve reconciliation, which I referenced earlier.

We’ve made steady progress along this pathway with the Haida Nation, with transparency and clear intentions, for decades. While it is a new form of agreement, we’re recognizing title in the same form as the common law and the courts have declared in cases like Tsilhqot’in and Nuchatlaht most recently. Government is saying, through this legislation, that we will act as if the courts have made a declaration, nothing more and nothing less. Government has the same obligation to Tŝilhqot’in and any other nation that obtains court-declared Aboriginal title. I will remind members about the strength of the Haida title claim and of our prospects in court, as the member for Nechako Lakes noted in his remarks in the introduction of Bill 25 on first reading.

Bill 25 and the agreement it supports is a measured next step along a clearly set out pathway forward for reconciliation with the people of the Haida Nation, a people whose presence on Haida Gwaii is confirmed through archaeological evidence going back more than 10,000 years; a people who have been represented by a democratic government, the Council of the Haida Nation, for 50 years; a people who have been guided by a clear constitution for 20 years. And no other nation claims Haida Gwaii.

[5:15 p.m.]

Support for and acknowledgment of the right of the Haida people to title over Haida Gwaii extends across the archipelago in Haida and non-Haida communities alike. It is clear that the Haida Nation has a very strong case for title, a fact that the Leader of the Fourth Party recognized when he was Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and that he relayed as part of his supporting and welcoming remarks in the first reading of this legislation last week.

In this context, it hardly makes sense to continue to pursue a court case that the province is sure to lose, a court case that would waste millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, only for the courts to tell us what we already know. Government has strong confidence in the legal ground that we are standing on. Many legal professionals with expertise in the field of Indigenous relations and constitutional law have reinforced the merits of our approach, notably Geoff Plant, former Attorney General of British Columbia, the law firm of Bennett Jones, and others.

Perhaps the most famous academic on this topic, the greatest expert on Aboriginal title, is Prof. Kent McNeil of Osgoode Hall Law School, whose work has been cited, to my knowledge, in every single case that has ever been decided by the Supreme Court on Aboriginal title. He has said some things that I want to read into the record for this debate.

He had this to say about the Rising Tide agreement we signed with the Haida Nation: “The Haida title lands agreement is a very progressive step toward settling one of the many outstanding Indigenous land and jurisdiction claims in British Columbia. The province and the Haida Nation have done what the Supreme Court of Canada has been encouraging governments to do for many years — namely, settle these claims through negotiation and agreement rather than litigation. The Haida agreement is definitely an important step in the right direction.”

While it is true, as I and my esteemed critic across the aisle both well know, when you get five lawyers together, you end up with at least six legal opinions — I acknowledge that — I think we also both know it’s true that the Supreme Court has been admonishing governments for many years to stop litigating and get on with negotiating, as Professor McNeil reminded all of us in commenting on the province’s work with the Haida Nation.

Therefore, in light of this, I am confident that the courts will be deferential to our approach — an approach, I will emphasize, that is very clear in its protections for private property, which makes up 2 percent of the land base of Haida Gwaii. This protection is not just for some interim period — as some, unfortunately, have incorrectly interpreted — but in perpetuity. The words “in perpetuity” are not in the legislation because, as the members should know, legislation is always speaking, and as such, the words are not necessary.

The legislation is providing certainty to both the interests that currently exist in relation to fee simple lands and to those that are created or will be created in the future, like future mortgages. The agreement and legislation don’t freeze the right to fee simple lands in time. The Haida Nation has clearly and explicitly consented to ongoing and permanent protection of private property interests and to B.C. and local governments continuing to exercise jurisdiction over those lands.

With this explicit intention, both in the agreement and the legislation, for any court to clearly see, I find the scare tactics on matters of private property protection to be disingenuous at best. All this is to say that I categorically reject the alarmist rhetoric that has been brought forward on this question. It is simply incorrect. Private property is protected — full stop. I don’t know how we could make it clearer in the agreement or in the act. It has never been on the table in our negotiations — full stop.

I want to quote again the pre-eminent legal expert in our country on this topic, Professor McNeil. Here is what he wrote me:

[5:20 p.m.]

“My understanding of the Haida title lands agreement is that fee simple interests on Haida Gwaii are fully protected and remain under provincial jurisdiction. The Haida Nation can acquire fee simple lands, but only by purchase from a willing seller, by gift or through a will or transfer from British Columbia in case of escheat. Until acquisition of fee simple lands by the nation by one of these means, they will remain in private hands and will not be subject to Haida control or jurisdiction. So I do not think fee simple holders have any cause for concern.”

Conversations with the mayor of Daajing Giids, Lisa Pineault, have confirmed that people get this. They understand that this is the case. This is a made-in-Haida-Gwaii solution to a problem. They realize that they’ve had the sword of Damocles over their heads since Aboriginal title was first sought in 2002.

This uncertainty has now been removed, and they get that. The people on Haida Gwaii and their elected leaders that I’ve met, so many of them, understand that.

“So I do not think fee simple holders have any cause for concern.” Those are the words of the person who is most responsible for the jurisprudence of Aboriginal title in Canada.

Nor, I will add, does this agreement create a new liability for the provincial government for damages in relation to private property. The fact that fee simple was created over Aboriginal title lands and how that impacts the titleholder nation is an issue that already exists in B.C. It is not created by this recognition. In fact, that question is being litigated in other places in the province right now — for example, in litigation brought forward by the Cowichan Tribes.

I also want to address the question of precedent, which has been raised as a criticism. This agreement is historic in that it recognizes title without requiring a court to do so, but this agreement is context specific. As I’ve indicated in my remarks here today, Haida Gwaii is its own very speci­fic context. It may be difficult to replicate the unique conditions at play in this particular set of circumstances. A nation with no overlaps, a long history of progression and positive collaboration with B.C. towards title, a strong governing body — that’s Haida Gwaii.

Throughout the province, though, we are all here to stay. Those were the famous words of Chief Justice Lamer in Delgamuukw: “We are all here to stay.” And our government is working to figure out a way forward throughout British Columbia.

As I said earlier, in different ways, with different First Nations, as they see fit, we are prepared to talk treaty agreements or other constructive arrangements. This is a path to better, stronger relationships that create a more prosperous future for us all — a way forward where we do the right thing, a way forward where we negotiate instead of litigate.

I urge all members of this Legislature to uphold what I believe is our shared intention to move toward reconciliation, to uphold the principles expressed in the Declaration Act, which this House passed unanimously, now five years ago, that include recognition and implementation of First Nations title and rights in self-government.

There are times in history when you want to be on the right side. This is one of those times. This is a matter that transcends partisan politics. I urge all members to do the right thing and to support this bill.

I look forward to our committee debate and our continued discussions, and to answering the questions that have come up, as we go through the bill in greater detail.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 25, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024.

Division has been called.

[5:25 p.m. - 5:35 p.m.]

Second reading of Bill 25 approved on the following division:

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 25, Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call, in the main chamber, committee on Bill 20, First Nations Mandated Post-Secondary Institutes Act.

[5:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — FIRST NATIONS MANDATED
POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTES ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 5:41 p.m.

Hon. L. Beare: I’m looking very forward to this committee stage on what is, actually, a wonderful bill.

With me today, in support, I have Tony Loughran, an assistant deputy minister at the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills. We have Fiona Cubitt, the executive director of Indigenous policy and engagement; and Kelly Fitzsimonds, our senior legal legislative analyst.

The Chair: Yes. The committee is now in order, and we are here with Bill 20 on clause 1.

On clause 1.

C. Oakes: To the minister and her team: thank you very much for the opportunity to go through a very important bill with some opening comments.

This is a unique bill in the sense…. This is the first one, in my time in this Legislature, that really talks about the ongoing commitment of funding. That’s certainly something I’ve heard.

I have an Elders working group in my community. They raised some questions for me to bring forward as opening remarks. They’re trying to figure out where they would fit in the bill. So probably the best time for that is in these opening comments.

One of the things that the Elders working group brought forward as a barrier around First Nations post-secondary is around the INAC funding requirement of full-time students. When you look at the full-time student assessment…. There’s a higher requirement to access funding of what is considered FTEs. Students with families or other responsibilities need to be able to access education at their own pace and not be penalized for doing that.

How will this bill work in conjunction with other bodies — for example, INAC — that work closely to direct financial assistance to First Nations students?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: To be clear, this isn’t funding for students. This is funding for the institutes themselves. It’s operational funding. This is complementary to the student funding, which is separate.

This funding provides certainty to the First Nations–​mandated institutes to provide that ongoing operational funding.

C. Oakes: It does impact both the students and the post-secondaries because of the requirement of what is considered a full-time equivalent.

The funding model that exists within British Columbia does impact students. It is relevant to the conversation on this bill. The Elders had asked me to ensure that it’s acknowledged and raised — that it is a barrier.

This bill is all about creating opportunities and breaking down barriers for First Nations students. I think it is important that their comments are reflected in this bill and that it is something that is identified, recognizing, as we move forward, that maybe there’s a more fulsome conversation that also has to happen on the federal level when we’re looking at success for First Nations students. I think it is relevant and important.

Another aspect of this is currently, in order to access some of the post-secondary education opportunities in British Columbia, the Elders have raised concerns that a credit card is often needed to register and to access, for example, transcripts. This is another barrier that the Elders working group raised with me.

Are we looking at ways to tackle that as a barrier, as well, as we move forward and look at success for our First Nations students?

Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member for raising this concern. It’s always important to hear concerns from students and from community.

This bill doesn’t address that. This bill is very much a piece of legislation about providing funding to the institutes to provide capacity, ensuring that they have that stability and that ongoing support.

I hear the concern, and I’m happy to take that back. We have an ongoing relationship and table with FNESC and other groups, and we can continue this conversation outside of this bill.

C. Oakes: What is unique about this piece of legislation that we are moving through today is…. Unlike other post-secondary institutions, the minister has a great deal of authority — and the importance of the direction that the minister has.

The other thing that was requested or brought forward is…. Often, in recognizing credentials and, for example, receiving a Dogwood diploma or necessary upscaling…. One of the barriers that the Elders brought forward is…. Often, if you’re doing a Dogwood diploma, if you fail one part…. For example, you fail your English, but you pass your math. You have to do everything all at once.

[5:50 p.m.]

Does this bill provide the opportunity for greater flexibility to ensure that, at the minister’s direction, we are able to achieve the Dogwood diploma abilities in more of a modular process to help our Aboriginal learners achieve success?

Hon. L. Beare: Again, to the member, the piece of legislation is about providing stable, ongoing funding to the institutions, so the member’s asking questions outside of that. But again, I hear the concern and very much appreciate the spirit in which it’s being asked.

I will let the member know that in funding these First Nations–mandated institutes, we are providing important pathways. These institutes provide programming and pathways and support to students to continue on with that education and provide students with that choice. We are providing them, through this legislation, the ongoing, stable funding.

I hear the member’s concern. It’s always something I can take back again and look at. But also, the institutes themselves do provide those pathways to students.

C. Oakes: We had the opportunity last week to go through the estimates for post-secondary institutions. One of the things that was identified was…. The minister put on record that ten financial institutions are struggling with their operating budgets.

NVIT has been facing a significant financial operating budget for several years now, relying on year-end funding to balance its budget. Because this is a bill that talks about ongoing year-to-year funding, what could NVIT expect, in the way of financial support, through this bill?

Hon. L. Beare: The institutes that are being discussed in this bill are First Nations–mandated and –led institutions. They are not part of the public sector institutions, the public post-secs, one of the 25 that we have here in the province. This is something new. This is providing ongoing, stable funding to the First Nations–mandated and –led institutions outside of the public sector, so NVIT is not contemplated within this bill.

[5:55 p.m.]

C. Oakes: Well, I think it’s really important, especially….

I am going to read into the record, because the MLA for Fraser-Nicola has been a tireless advocate for NVIT. I think it’s important that as we talk about First Nations post-secondary, we talk about NVIT.

I’m going to go through this because the First Nations leadership in the Nicola Valley, who represent the five founding bands of the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, wrote to the government to express grave concerns regarding the financial support provided to our Indigenous post-secondary institutions.

“Established in 1983 by the five local Indigenous bands to enhance the quality of life for Indigenous people in the Nicola Valley, NVIT stands as the sole Indigenous post-secondary institution in B.C. Today we continue to provide innovative Indigenous education for First Nations throughout the province, aligning with a distinctions-based approach outlined in the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

“Furthermore, we acknowledge and uphold the federal impact of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s calls to action on the provincial government, particularly concerning education, health, reconciliation and addressing inequalities for Indigenous people. Our concerns align with the possibility that NVIT might not be able to fulfil its original mandate set by the founding bands and the fundamental objectives of DRIPA. It’s crucial to safeguard NVIT’s commitment and obligation to the Indigenous communities it serves.”

Am I understanding correctly that the Indigenous institution for British Columbia will not be receiving the ongoing funds that this piece of legislation that is being brought forward in this House today will receive?

Hon. L. Beare: I want to separate what is estimates-type conversation regarding NVIT, which is not contemplated in this act, from the purpose of the act. In saying that, I want to let the member know how much the incredible work that NVIT does and the work that the ministry does to support NVIT on an ongoing basis….

They are provided with ongoing annual funding through the block transfer system. That’s the public post-secondary system that is completely and entirely separate from this bill, and it’s a conversation that we had in the estimates debate.

With that, then, put aside as the estimates debate conversation, I want to bring us back to the purpose of the act, because this is an amazing piece of legislation that is doing something new.

[6:00 p.m.]

This act acknowledges the importance of First Nations–​mandated institutes and the role they play in B.C.’s post-secondary education system. This act commits government to providing ongoing operational funding to eligible institutes and provides capacity funding for emerging First Nations institutes to help gradually build educational opportunities directly within First Nations communities.

Now, the critical aspect of this work is that it has to be done in consultation and collaboration with First Nations to reflect on the aspirations and the understanding of what educational opportunities can best support youth in their community. It’s vitally important that we are doing something new and amazing with this act by supporting these emerging institutes, providing that operational funding, and giving institutes the ability to build that capacity as we build out the emerging First Nations–led institutes across B.C.

C. Oakes: Well, this is the first piece of legislation that has been brought forward in this House and that directly talks about operating funding. So it is a very relevant conversation, when a bill talks about ongoing eligibility for operating funds, to be talking about funding.

Further to that, I’m going back to NVIT just for a moment, because NVIT provided credit to the government, underscoring the government’s support for First Nations–mandated post-secondary institutions. I imagine that they’re very surprised today — they sent a letter to the government expressing their concerns and their financial challenges — to have a bill introduced before this House that really sets forward and underscores the support of working with First Nations.

NVIT is a mandated First Nations post-secondary institution, is a member of the Indigenous Adult and Higher Learning Association and works closely with preserving Indigenous languages, everything that was identified in the press release that the government has set forward. Again, trying to understand the context, we have a mandated sole public First Nations post-secondary institution, am I clear to understand that they are not going to be eligible for funding in a bill that’s the First Nations Mandated Post-Secondary Institutions Act?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I know the member knows this, and I want to be very clear that NVIT is part of the public post-secondary system. It’s one of our 25 public post-secondary institutes across the province. NVIT is established under the College and Institute Act and is one of our public institutions that is funded under that act. They receive ongoing block funding annually, pursuant to the College and Institute Act.

This act that we are bringing forward today is something entirely different, and it’s dealing with First Nations–mandated institutions. This is a brand-new piece for emerging institutions, as I talked about earlier, where NVIT is established under a separate piece of legislation, part of the College and Institute Act.

I do want to let the member know that I absolutely agree on the vital importance that NVIT plays in our post-secondary system and the role that they have within community. I had the great fortune of touring NVIT probably about three weeks ago, I would say, and to witness the commitment to culture, the commitment to community, the choice of programming, the classes that are being offered, the trailers that NVIT has purchased to bring education directly into community and provide courses and classes in community. The work that this institute is doing is absolutely amazing.

I will continue to work with NVIT within the public post-secondary system. I’m really excited to talk about the First Nations–mandated institutions that we’re going to be supporting now as part of this act and the new First Nations–led institutes that we’re going to be supporting there.

C. Oakes: Why it’s relevant is that on March 14, NVIT wrote the minister, on behalf of NVIT’s board of governors, in a follow-up letter sent to the minister by the Chiefs of NVIT’s five founding First Nations, that the board of governors shared their concerns, raised by the Chiefs, that the lack of financial support for NVIT puts our ability to fulfil the original mandate set by the founding bands in jeopardy, and that the lack of financial support is unacceptable and requires an immediate solution.

NVIT’s financial situation has caused the institution to make difficult and challenging decisions regarding layoffs and program cancellations and has put the NVIT board into a difficult position as they contemplate the approval of a deficit budget for a second year in a row. It’s very relevant that we are talking about a First Nations Indigenous post-secondary institution that is in financial crisis and that has no access…. You’re building out a second system to support Indigenous learners when you have a post-secondary Indigenous institution that’s financially struggling. It’s a very relevant conversation.

Our post-secondary institution system is on the verge of collapse because of the funding model challenges. We’ve heard from the Chiefs that NVIT is now faced with layoffs, and programs are going to have to be cancelled. Then we have a bill that is talking about funding other institutions, at a time when an Indigenous First Nations post-secondary institution is in a financial crisis.

[6:10 p.m.]

They’ve asked the minister for financial assistance, and it’s alarming that they are not going to be able to access the funds today that are announced in this bill.

When the ministry was looking at putting forward this bill, who did they consult with?

Hon. L. Beare: Extensive collaboration was held with the First Nations Education Steering Committee and the Indigenous Adult and Higher Learning Association, and that’s been ongoing since summer of 2022.

In November 2022, we did outreach to the modern treaty Nations. In July 2023, there was a notification to all First Nations in B.C. and a letter to First Nations Leadership Council regarding the policy. In January 2024, all First Nations in B.C. received a letter, as well as the First Nations Leadership Council, regarding the proposed legislation.

And when we tabled the bill in the House a couple of weeks ago, we had members of the First Nations Education Steering Committee and the Indigenous Adult and Higher Learning Association in the House to celebrate the tabling of the bill alongside us.

C. Oakes: NVIT is also an esteemed member of the Indigenous Adult and Higher Learning Association. But now we are understanding that, through this consultation, NVIT is not actually eligible for ongoing operational funding that’s identified here, which highlights another layer to this. How were the public post-secondary institutions consulted with this piece of legislation, and how will they be a part of being able to access these ongoing funds, because the post-secondary institutions in British Columbia are also required to ensure that they have Indigenous partners and Indigenous programming?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: Again, the member is conflating acts here. I want to be very clear that NVIT is established under the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act and is part of the public system. They receive ongoing annual block funding through that act, pursuant to the Colleges Act.

We are talking about the First Nations Mandated Post-Secondary Institutes Act. This is something new. This is something that we’re doing to support First Nations–mandated institutions within their communities and provide brand-new ongoing funding to these emerging institutes to provide support for learners directly in their communities.

I think maybe we should just take a quick second. If we look at section 2 of the act, it very much says that under this legislation, a First Nations–mandated institute, mandated as part of the legislation, has to be within British Columbia, is mandated by one or more Indigenous governing bodies acting on behalf of one or more First Nations in British Columbia and is mandated to provide post-secondary education.

So these institutions were created by First Nations to meet their unique needs of learners in their commun­ities. They enhance members’ skills, and they con­tribute to individual and community capacity-building. This includes amazing work like revitalizing First Nations languages and cultures.

The governance structure of the institutes is that they’re established by the First Nations that they serve. Recognizing the autonomy of these institutes, the legislation does not provide provincial oversight of these institutes, which is entirely different from, as I was saying at the beginning of my answer, the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act, which provides that direction and that ongoing funding through the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act that NVIT is a part of.

C. Oakes: Bill 20, the First Nations Mandated Post-Secondary Institutes Act. NVIT is the sole public-mandated First Nations post-secondary institution and, as I mentioned before, is part of the Indigenous Adult and Higher Learning Association. They wrote to the minister and the ministry to describe how they are financially challenged, that they’re having to cut programs, that they’re laying off staff.

[6:20 p.m.]

So here, on the one hand, we’re talking about the needs to ensure that our Indigenous in community, by Indigenous leaders, which is what NVIT is…. It is struggling financially. And here we have a government that’s entering or bringing forward a piece of legislation that is all about operating funds, when you have one that’s existing right now that’s in trouble. So it’s a relevant conversation.

How much money is going to be available on an annual basis to the First Nations Mandated Post-Secondary Institutes Act?

Hon. L. Beare: The member said it exactly in her question. NVIT is the sole public First Nations institution that we have in B.C. which is established and made under the College and Institute Act and is part of the public system.

I absolutely recognize the letter that was sent to me. That is ongoing work I will do with the institute outside of legislation and bill debate on a very specific bill that does not touch NVIT, and as part of estimates conversations when they’re had over the years, and the member and I just had that.

For the funds available, there is $6 million in operational funding available for eligible institutes, as well as $450,000 in capacity funding.

That’s it for that question.

C. Oakes: What budget will this money be coming out of?

Hon. L. Beare: To the member’s question, the funding is allocated from the StrongerBC future-ready action plan, and that’s within the ministry. This is dedicated funding under that plan, with a total of $6 million to operations, as I said earlier, and $450,000 allocated for capacity funding.

Noting the hour, I look forward to continuing this debate with the member going into tomorrow.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.