PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); H. Yao in the chair.

The committee met at 2:59 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $59,002,000 (continued).

[3:00 p.m.]

T. Halford: I want to thank the minister and his staff for the time today. I just have a few brief questions to the minister.

I’ve had the opportunity, in my riding, to meet and develop a very good relationship with the SEMYOME First Nation. Has the minister ever been briefed by the SEMYOME Nation on the proposed biofuel plant that was on the SEMYOME land?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for Surrey–White Rock for the question.

I, of course, have met Chief Chappell of SEMYOME on many occasions. The question of the biofuel piece did not arise. We had a meeting of what we call the First Nations Leadership Gathering, and I just confirmed with my staff that I did not take a meeting with him on that subject. However, I can report that my officials have received information about that.

T. Halford: Sorry. I misunderstood part of the minister’s answer there. My question is specific. Has the minister, either by staff or by the SEMYOME Nation, whether it’s the nation itself or Chief Chappell, been briefed on the proposed biofuel plant on the SEMYOME land?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you, and I apologize if I misunderstood the member’s question. I reported that I had not been directly briefed. I’ve just had occasion to consult with my staff to answer the second part of his question, and none of my MIRR staff have met with him or been briefed on the topic.

T. Halford: This topic has been in the news for the last couple of years. I think some of the frustration, on the local side, community side, and obviously on the nation side, has been with the fact that people are feeling like they didn’t have enough information. In meetings with the SEMYOME Nation, it has also been indicated that this was highlighted and discussed at length at an all-leaders meeting on more than one occasion with this specific minister. Is that incorrect information?

Hon. M. Rankin: Yes.

T. Halford: The minister is, then, telling this House today that he has never talked to the SEMYOME Nation specifically on the proposed biofuel plant on SEMYOME lands? That’s what the minister is confirming today?

Hon. M. Rankin: There was a meeting at the First Nations Leadership Gathering in 2023, as I indicated earlier. I didn’t have the opportunity to meet with the Chief or members of the SEMYOME at that time. However, my deputy did.

We’ve checked, and the topics discussed were policing, access planning for Beach Road, the environmental assessment and cumulative effects with respect to Boundary Bay and archaeological remains, economic development and the Peace Arch Park. The topic did not arise.

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for that clarification.

Did any member of cabinet, including the Premier, have any meeting specifically on the proposed biofuel plant that is residing on SEMYOME Nation land?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m sorry. I do not have access to the calendars of my fellow cabinet members.

E. Ross: In terms of the policies of the Indigenous ministry, is there anything specific to economic reconciliation or any types of mandates in regards to economic reconciliation?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for Skeena for the excellent question, so important. I was thinking, when he asked it, about the book written by Clarence Louie, the well-known Chief of the Osoyoos Nation, who says that the only kind of reconciliation that he’s interested in is economic reconciliation. It’s at the core of so much.

I appreciate the member putting his finger on economic reconciliation, because it’s our view as a government, and certainly in our ministry, that if First Nations can succeed through economic development, it raises all boats. It avoids permitting delays, and things can get achieved much better in partnership. That’s our general stance on this issue.

The member asked where it appears, that commitment to economic reconciliation, in policy. Let me start with the mandate letter that I received from our Premier on December 7.

It’s a long document, but in it, notably, is the following requirement: “Continue to improve our government’s relationships with Indigenous peoples by moving from short-term transactional arrangements to long-term agreements that recognize and support reconciliation, shared decision-making, self-determination and economic independence, including advancing work to co-develop the new distinctions-based fiscal relationship with Indigenous peoples.”

That would be the first important indication of that policy that the member seeks.

The second statement of that policy appears in our current service plan, filed, of course, in the Legislature. It says, as objective 1.2, that we “support First Nation communities in advancing self-determination and governance-building.” The key strategies — there are three under that heading — are as follows.

“Continue engagement on the new distinctions-based fiscal framework, co-developed with First Nations in partnership with the Ministry of Finance, that supports the operation of First Nations’ governments.”

Secondly, “continue to advance work with other ministries and First Nations partners to co-develop and implement new policy frameworks for resource revenue–sharing and other fiscal mechanisms with First Nations.”

[3:15 p.m.]

Finally, “collaborate, align and leverage opportunities with the federal government to support First Nations self-governance, culture, language and heritage.”

Finally, I’d like to reference our action plan. As the member knows, there are 89 concrete actions indicated in the five-year action plan legally required under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Several of them, of course, relate to other ministries, because all of government has a commitment somewhere in the 89 actions that are listed.

The Ministry for Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation has several. I’ll just, perhaps, highlight a couple for the member.

First, in action 4.39: “Work with the province’s economic trusts and First Nation partners to develop a mechanism that ensures inclusion of First Nations at a regional decision-making level.”

Second: “Ensure Indigenous collaboration in the development and implementation of the B.C. economic plan, including a technology and innovation roadmap.”

Thirdly: “Prioritize and increase the number of technology sector training opportunities for Indigenous peoples and other groups currently underrepresented in B.C.’s technology sector.”

Finally, 4.42, an action entitled: “Co-develop economic metrics to help evaluate progress as reconciliation is advanced. The baseline data will begin to address the persistent gap in Indigenous-specific economic metrics, and through this co-designed effort, build a comprehensive set of data to measure indigenous economic well-being and track progress over time.”

Those are, I think, three indications of where policy is found on this critically important topic of economic reconciliation. I appreciate the member asking that question.

E. Ross: Thank you to the minister for that. It’s not news to me. I mean, that’s exactly how LNG was achieved. Our problem with it, I guess, for lack of a better term, was that we didn’t codify it. As far as I know, it didn’t show up in policy. But over the years, from 2004 to 2017, it wasn’t just my band that actually developed that playbook. We developed it in concert with all of the bands from Prince George to Kitimat.

The one thing that we did put in front as a priority was economic reconciliation. And we asked specifically for all the First Nations to leave their politics at the door and just think about their people in terms of jobs, revenues, contracts, training. And it worked. So the model, if it’s codified someplace…. Yeah, there’s a playbook from long before that came along. In fact, that’s why the forest and range agreements came to be in 2006.

No matter which way you call it, it’s like I’ve said before: reconciliation is not new. But it does raise the question of why more projects aren’t getting approved. That’s why my question is in terms of economic reconciliation. I understand the minister has something to do with his colleagues at the cabinet table in different ministries, in terms of these projects getting approved or actually at least getting moved forward in terms of the interim approvals.

In terms of economic reconciliation, sitting at the cabinet table, would the minister say that economic reconciliation is one of the highest priorities at the cabinet table?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the member was right in his opening comments about the need to codify economic reconciliation measures, to actually write them down. That’s why I highlighted, in reference to the action plan, commitments of the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation. It actually talks about metrics, actually talks about being able to measure things — I think that’s essential — and that we have specific targets, requirements that deal with, say, unemployment, or that deal with, say, the technology sector, as I mentioned earlier.

The member then asked — I think I’ve got this right — if economic reconciliation is one of the highest priorities at the cabinet table. I think the answer is absolutely, yes. I think it would help if I gave three current examples to perhaps put some specifics behind those generalities.

The first is, of course, that in the recent budget we established a First Nations equity financing framework with, initially, $10 million, but loan guarantees up to $1 billion, to be reviewed annually. I confess that I heard that idea initially from my colleagues in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, at meetings, and then Ontario has one. It seemed like an absolutely essential thing to do, because First Nations often don’t have the capital to co-invest in some of the opportunities that otherwise pass them by.

I think the idea of loan guarantees from the government is a very important initiative. It’s one of those things that, in retrospect, you ask: why didn’t we do this years ago? Well, we’re doing it now. The federal government has, in their last budget, of course, provided even more funding in this vein, for which we’re grateful. That’s going to, I think, help immediate capacity needs for First Nations considering equity participation in priority projects.

That is something that I think is very significant. As I said, the account will have a cumulative loan guarantee limit of $1 billion, and it will be reviewed every year. We’ll see how it goes. That was the first thing I thought would be specific, to answer the member’s question.

Perhaps two others just are very topical at the moment: the B.C. critical minerals strategy includes actions to advance partnerships with First Nations to enhance critical mineral infrastructure like the North Coast transmission line, as well as actions to support our commitment to reform the Mineral Tenure Act and ensure alignment with the UN declaration.

The First Nations are integrally involved in the development of the B.C. critical minerals strategy. There’s an advisory committee. Government-to-government discussions are underway. I just had a conversation today with a Chief about participation in a nickel mine near their community under that important strategy — again, one where the federal government is likewise engaged.

Finally, I’ll just mention, because I raised it very briefly, the co-ownership opportunities for the First Nations in the North Coast transmission infrastructure. Everyone knows that there’s increasing demand in the northwest, and B.C. Hydro is advancing planning for a second line from Prince George to Terrace. That project provides an opportunity to explore First Nations ownership of these new B.C. Hydro transmission lines, again to advance economic reconciliation.

[3:25 p.m.]

I could go on with other examples, in forestry, and so on, but that gives some flavour, I think, of current projects and current initiatives that I hope provide some clarification for the member.

E. Ross: The minister jumped ahead to one of my questions I had planned to ask in relation to economic reconciliation, but we’ve got to go back to something the minister just mentioned: the North Coast transmission line, Kitsumkalum specifically. Now, this goes back to our previous conversation around Aboriginal rights and title, and the impact in the consultation and accommodation that took place.

The Kitsumkalum willingly allowed their rights and title to be impacted by the North Coast transmission project, to go through their territory. They allowed that with an agreement with B.C. Hydro. In exchange for their rights and title to be impacted, B.C. Hydro, through the Crown, of course, said that they would entertain a bioenergy project for the Kitsumkalum First Nation.

Well, just recently, B.C. Hydro told them that they would not honour that agreement. Now, Kitsumkalum has been fighting for that, at the very least for the government to understand this was, basically, the Crown agreeing to entertain a bioenergy project. So the Kitsumkalum Chief now has said: “Why would I want to participate in a second round of consultations when the first agreement wasn’t even honoured?”

This is why I’m asking the question: how much pull does the Indigenous Minister have at the cabinet table when we’re talking about economic reconciliation? He can name off all these projects and all these initiatives, but the bottom line is that economic reconciliation doesn’t happen unless a project is approved and the benefits start flowing. LNG is a perfect example; the forests and range agreement is a perfect example.

If the minister does have any types of measurements on LNG Canada, for instance, on the impact with all the First Nations from Prince George to Kitimat, Gitga’at as well as Gitxaała, then they’ll know that the impact is huge in resolving poverty.

On what the minister just said, is there any intention of the B.C. government to honour the original Kitsumkalum agreement for a bioenergy project they signed to in ex­change for their Aboriginal rights and title to be impacted by the northwest transmission line?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member references a commitment he alleges was made by B.C. Hydro, I think in respect of the northwest transmission line project. I think it was a commitment from back in 2012, when the northwest transmission project was initiated.

I will be happy to undertake to speak to the colleague who was responsible for B.C. Hydro, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, if the member would like me to do so. I say that because, as I said yesterday in these estimates debates, reconciliation is a commitment that all of government, all colleagues around the cabinet table, are committed to. I will happily ask the relevant colleague to provide information on this specific project that the member references.

E. Ross: It sounds like the minister doesn’t know anything about this project, if he has to ask his colleague for information on it, yet it’s an impact-and-benefits agreement. It’s an agreement that addresses rights and title being infringed.

The result of it…. I know the transmission line was supposed to open up more opportunity up north for mining and whatnot, but the Kitsumkalum Chief was really looking for a future away from the Indian Act, by basically agreeing that, yes, he would allow his rights and title to be infringed in exchange for a number of considerations. Front and centre was this bioenergy project.

It was more than just trying to create a future for his people in terms of jobs, revenues and contracts. It was also meant to address the decadent forest product that we have in Skeena. So 50 percent of it is decadent, and there’s no real pulp and paper mill in our region. If you do consider trucking it, you’ve got to truck it great distances to actually process this wood, which doesn’t make it economic.

The point being it goes back to the original question and saying: where is the priority of economic reconciliation lying not only within the Indigenous Ministry but also at the cabinet table? As I understand it, every single minister was given a mandate to put reconciliation at the top.

I want to know, and I don’t expect an answer here: how soon can the Kitsumkalum chief and council get an answer on when they will be seeing their IBA revisited, specifically for the purpose of their bioenergy project?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the question. As the member will know, many of the various ministries and agencies like B.C. Hydro engage in impact-and-benefits agreements on a regular basis — different kinds, of course. This being the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, we support them in any way that we can as they go about that work.

I’m happy to bring this forward to Chief Councillor Roberts when I next meet him. I’ve met him several times. He has never raised this topic with me. We are very close, I’m hoping, to being able to announce that we have come to, after such a long time, a modern-day treaty with the Kitsumkalum, as well as the Kitselas Nations. This is an exciting moment.

I will continue to talk to Chief Councillor Roberts about economic reconciliation opportunities that I know he’s hoping and we’re expecting the modern treaties will usher in for the nation.

E. Ross: I brought this up with your colleagues, not just this year but years before, and I never really did get an answer on it. And I do get it. It does cross different ministries. You could address it in the Energy Ministry; you could address it in the Forestry Ministry. But nobody wants to take responsibility for that IBA. And I think that’s where it’s got to start, and that’s where it’s got to end.

In fact, the mandate letter that the minister just actually read into the record…. This is why I asked the question about how much pull the minister has at the table, because the mandate letter says that the minister will lead work across ministries to implement the Declaration action plan and consultation cooperation with Indigenous peoples, including reporting annually on progress.

Well, there is no progress on this IBA. It’s one of the components that will make Skeena stronger, not just for the Kitsumkalum people but for the forestry industry. Skeena, just like everybody else across B.C. — we’re taking a beating. We know that close to over 30 mills across B.C. have shut down or curtailed operations. Skeena is no exception. Hopefully, we have a plan to get out of that.

I’m really asking for a timeline here, because we are heading into election, and I hate to see the Kitsumkalum go without an answer in terms of when specifically they can see an answer from any level of government, with any minister. I think if it’s not going to start with the Forestry Minister, it’s not going to start with the Energy Minister, then the logical place is the Indigenous Ministry, especially in terms of the mandate letter that was written to the minister from Premier Eby, as well as everything from the Declaration draft action plan to DRIPA to all these other announcements. Yet we’re seeing nothing being followed through on the ground.

Can I get a real basic time frame? It doesn’t have to be exact. But can I get a specific time frame on when the minister plans to give the chief councillor of Kitsumkalum a call? Time is pressing. He is suffering from cancer. From what I understand, it is terminal. If that’s not the case, I know the account development officer, Diane Collins, a very good, smart, capable woman. She would love a conversation about this.

Can I get an idea of when the minister plans to call and contact Kitsumkalum about the bioenergy project?

Hon. M. Rankin: Yes, I will undertake to do just that. I’ll call them. I’ll call the individual.

I appreciate your reference to the health challenges of Chief Councillor Roberts. I’m well aware of that. I’ve spoken with him and, of course, visited him in the community, and also the nearby Kitselas. We’re making progress for sure, in that part of the world, on some of this.

With the flow of federal funds into the community, as the member will know, should treaty be ratified, there will be an economic uplift for everyone in the northwest as a result of the work we’re doing together.

[3:40 p.m.]

I can report to the hon. member that in those conversations, he’s not once raised, I’ve never had anybody raise this issue with me, which I think is interesting.

That doesn’t mean that I won’t undertake to do just what I said — that is, to call them and advise the member of where the state of play is on that topic.

The member references my responsibility as leading the work for the action plan across the ministries. I do that. Every ministry, however, has their own responsibilities. We wrap up their work.

We annually report. We’ll be doing so at the end of next month. We’ll have another annual report, and we’ll talk about which of those 89 commitments — where we’ve made progress, where we’ve completed. We hope, over the five years, and expect that we will have completed each of those action items or at least commenced them all.

It’s my job, as Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, as the member said, to lead that work, and to be sure that individual ministries and agencies take responsibility, because, I’ll say it again, reconciliation is the responsibility of all parts of our government.

E. Ross: To the minister, yes, and that’s the whole point of my questioning — what type of role the minister plays in leading the work across ministries to implement the Declaration Act’s plan to achieve independence and self-determination.

Without any real strength at the table, these are just words. I don’t see how any of the policies of the other ministries have been adjusted to actually reflect the Declaration Act action plan or the independence or self-determination terms in these agreements, specifically permits and specifically the ability to follow up on an impact benefit agreement that was signed in 2012, especially when you consider that this government got rid of the standing offer program for clean energy and then brought it back with different terms. Well, this is basically an energy plan.

Would it be out of line for myself to tell Kitsumkalum to expect a call from the Minister of Indigenous Affairs within a week?

Hon. M. Rankin: In my last answer, I committed to following up by making a call and advising the member accordingly, and I’ll do so.

E. Ross: I was asking for a specific time frame. I didn’t want to be exact in that time frame. Is it going to be a week? Is it going to be a month? Is it going to be two months?

I just want to be able to tell Kitsumkalum that I brought it up again, and there would be some type of communication coming from this government. So is there any type of time frame I can give to Kitsumkalum in regards to communication coming from the Indigenous Minister?

Hon. M. Rankin: I have committed to the member to make the phone call to the community and to advise the member, and I will do so.

E. Ross: Okay. But it’s okay for me to say that it’ll be within a week. That will be all right? Would the minister object to me telling Kitsumkalum to expect a call within a week?

Hon. M. Rankin: I don’t wish to belabour this point. I’ve made a commitment to the minister on the record, in this proceeding. I will do so.

E. Ross: Okay, that’s a non-answer. So I’ll act accordingly. Thank you.

By the way, this is not politics for me. I mean, we’re jousting here with words. That’s what we’re doing. And we’re using all these different agreements and all this different legislation to get around the idea of what it really means for an Aboriginal living in poverty.

[3:45 p.m.]

I lived this. It’s not gamesmanship for me. I really, truly believe First Nations like Nisg̱a’a, Kitsum­kalum, Kitselas, Haisla, Gitga’at, Gitxaała, xʷməθkʷəy̓əm — they need an alternative to the Indian Act. They need a way out of poverty. They need a way away from suicides and the violence of poverty, which I don’t think we have to go into.

We were on such a great path from 2004 to 2017, and we saw the results. So when I see a project coming up in B.C. that needs the approval of the B.C. government, I don’t care if it’s First Nations or not. I do know what the impact means in terms of economics.

I’m not trying to belabour anything. I’m trying to get to a point. I mean, it’s pretty specific language in some of the agreements I’ve seen, but I’ve never seen the action be specific.

In terms of the reconciliation, the economic reconciliation that we’re talking about here, we talked about Kitsumkalum and their need for the government to fulfil their obligations for an IBA they signed in 2012. The economic reconciliation — is that basically without prejudice to all sectors?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I want to start by acknowledging that the member for Skeena is…. I appreciate his passion. His commitment to eradicating poverty and his experience as a leader in the northwest is well known. I acknowledge that with gratitude. I also don’t think this is a partisan issue at all, and it’s not politics for me either. I think it’s important that we agree on that at the outset.

Economic reconciliation is a vast topic. One area that the member will be familiar with where I think we can show the kind of concrete change that he’s seeking to put his finger on is in the forestry sector. We, as the member knows, have had these things called FCRSAs, forest consultation and revenue sharing agreements, for some time. In April of 2022, we more than doubled the forest revenue-sharing, increasing the amount available to be shared with First Nations by about $63 million a year.

I can say that as of the winter of this year, over 80 percent of eligible First Nations have one of these FCRSAs and are receiving interim revenue-sharing increases along the lines that I’ve mentioned. Not only is this important for First Nations who need, as the member will well know, stable sources of funding for their governments, but it also is very important to the rest of the community, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, because of the opportunity that provides to have more stable fibre supply, to keep mills open and create jobs in small towns, including in the northwest.

I should say that with the FCRSA, the doubling of revenue, and so on, which has had such an impact on those First Nations that I’ve met with, it’s just one component of something we call the new fiscal framework. We’re working across government, not just in the forestry context but in mining and ski hill development and in other areas of the economy, to ensure that we have that same stable funding. The new fiscal framework is designed to achieve just that.

E. Ross: Yeah, I’m well aware of the forest and range agreement. I was on the other side of the table negotiating on behalf of my band, along with other First Nations. We actually cooperated on it and actually brought the agreement back to our respective communities for refinement. So I’m well aware of that.

To be clear, that agreement was actually made to address the impact of forestry operations on Aboriginal rights and title. That’s how it started. It wasn’t really out of the goodness of anybody’s heart, whether you’re talking about the previous government or this government. It had to be addressed, and it was actually a novel way to address it across the province, instead of individually, nation by nation. So I’m well aware of that agreement.

In terms of oil and gas, is the minister promoting oil and gas within the respective ministries that is encouraging to implement the declaration action plan?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member asked about oil and gas issues. I would point out — of course, I’m sure the member is well aware — that in 2021, there was an historic decision of the B.C. Supreme Court in the Yahey case where the court found that the cumulative impacts of years of oil and gas development had affected in a negative way the treaty rights that the Crown was committed to honour. Our government chose, rather than appealing that decision, to work with the Treaty 8 Nations, starting with Blueberry, but others as well, to reform the oil and gas industry in that area. We’ve done so.

To the member’s specific point, revenue-sharing is a key element of that, as is restoration of the land. We’ve entered into a number of very complex agreements. The Ministry of Indigenous Relations has been working with other ministries, particularly Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, to do that, and we’re very proud of the new balance that we have achieved or are trying to achieve in that part of the world. That is part and parcel of the economic reconciliation measures that I referred to, but in the specific context of oil and gas, which the member asked about.

E. Ross: Now I’m thinking the minister can see my notes, because he keeps jumping ahead to my next questions.

The Blueberry River agreement — yes, a very well-known agreement. But in that respect, Halfway River and Doig River are taking the B.C. government to court over this, the Blueberry River agreement, specifically that the B.C. government knowingly took away Halfway River’s and Doig River’s treaty rights to the land, as well as the benefits, and actually transferred them to Blueberry River.

[4:00 p.m.]

That is a huge initiative, and those are huge allegations by a First Nation. It actually contradicts not only section 35 of the constitution; it contradicts the Haida court case and actually contradicts the Tsilhqot’in court case — where, basically, the honour of the Crown is supposed to be upheld with openness and transparency.

Now, I know the minister can’t talk about the litigation while it’s in process, but can I ask: is the Crown trying to correct this away from the court process?

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. M. Rankin: Welcome to the chair, Madam Chair. Good to see you.

The member asked a question about litigation ongoing that involves the Doig River and the Halfway River First Nations, in Treaty 8 territory. I appreciate the member’s recognition that we are not able to talk about matters before the court.

I can say, in answer to the member’s question….

[The bells were rung.]

We’re good. Saved by the bell, literally. But I may continue?

The Chair: Yes, you may.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you.

I was saying that, despite the fact that we can’t talk about active litigation, I can answer the member’s question, with some optimism. I can report that we are having very active dialogue with the nations that the member referenced, and it is my hope that we’ll have an answer in the near term that will be positive in nature, but of course one doesn’t know.

I should say, just at the outset — the member will know: when the Blueberry River First Nations made their historic claim, the claim area was a vast area that included the Doig and others. I just wouldn’t want the impression to be left, to anyone listening, that it was the province which asserted that claim area. We had to respond to a lawsuit raised by the Blueberry River, and the implication, as the member well knows, has given rise to this litigation. Again, I’m really hopeful that our positive conversations will yield fruit in the near term.

E. Ross: In regards to the Blueberry decision, in terms of what the courts decided, it wasn’t a strength-of-claim case; it was an impact case. I’m not even clear on whether or not the courts actually made any effort to determine the strength of claim. But it does lead to an interesting question, going forward, because there are initiatives on the table right now for doing something similar with another First Nation.

[4:05 p.m.]

I understand that strength of claim won’t be as big an issue as what we’re seeing in Doig and Halfway River, in what they’re claiming. But is strength of claim…? Does your ministry have a strength-of-claim policy in terms of the new agreements, going forward?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member asked about strength of claim and initially started to reference the historic Yahey case.

I can confirm, as the member would know…. It was a case involving the cumulative effects of a First Nation’s ability to exercise their ancient treaty rights, their Treaty 8 rights. So different than the normal approach, the more frequent use that occurs outside of Treaty 8 territory, if I can call it that.

The member then asked about our strength-of-claim process. We do strength-of-claim assessments. It’s a method to determine, I think, a First Nation’s strength of claim in a particular area.

The member will be well aware of the fact that often there are competing claims in British Columbia. The government uses ethnohistoric data experts’ testimony and the like to try to come up with an understanding of just what nation was where for the purposes of consultation obligations under the Haida test, and so on.

The member and I discussed the Haida case at length the other day. I can report that the two Crown governments, federal and provincial, have each put in place documents or policies that are on their respective websites. I’m going to reference them.

The federal government’s policy, entitled Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation: Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult, March 2011, is found on the federal website. On the provincial website, we have a document dated May 7, 2010, called Updated Procedures for Meeting Legal Obligations When Consulting First Nations. That particular policy is housed on the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship website.

E. Ross: I read that document back then, back in 2010.

I assume, given the explanation of the new agreements going forward from today, there’s no real need to change the policy of the B.C. government in terms of strength of claim.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member’s question, I think, is really an important one. He raises the question about how these documents, with which he’s familiar, dating back now 14 years…. Do they need updating? Are they still actively relevant, if you will, given the changes in case law, and so on?

I would say…. They precede the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. So that’s the first point.

I think it’s fair to say that they still provide clarity on the minimum standard of consultation and accommodation post Haida. That, I think, is why they continue to be relevant. Since then, of course, we have a Declaration Act secretariat, headed up by Jessica Wood here, that has a responsibility, as a central agency of government, to work with ministries and First Nations to ensure that our policies, our practices, our laws are aligned with the commitments of the declaration.

Our goal, quite simply, is to move from consulting and accommodating to partnerships, to find if we can work more effectively together in our policy-setting, in our legislation and the like. That’s the path that we’re on now.

E. Ross: I agree. I’ve never seen a government-endorsed model that could actually provide any more direct path to reconciliation apart from what the court said.

That’s what we actually exercised in Haisla, but it wasn’t easy. We had many examples of overlap, where strength of claim was the issue. The governments just didn’t want to make a decision, yet it was the Crown’s duty to make a decision, based on the spectrum as well as the strength of claim.

I do get the politics. You are telling one First Nation they don’t have as strong a right as another First Nation or maybe several other First Nations, like in our case. We’ve got six bands all claiming the same territory. It’s next to impossible to try to weave through that, especially when you’re talking about economics.

We did solve it on a couple of occasions, where we did get some overlap bands that had a strength of claim. But to get them to actually walk away from their claim…. We actually invited them into our territory to participate in the LNG economy. That was just one way to do it. Another way we did it was…. With another First Nation, we agreed to disagree. If ever an event came up where a project was in the overlap territory, we agreed to work together on the economics. I seriously doubt that government can impose that type of initiative on First Nations.

I actually agree with that. I’m not sure of any other examples of that around B.C., where First Nations agree, for the betterment of the people and the betterment of the province, to put aside their strength of claim and try to work together, but I do know it’s possible.

[4:20 p.m.]

What I really want to talk about is, basically, the transboundary agreement with Alaska, as well as the United States, bordering on the Kootenay coal mines. Is the minister part of this committee?

Hon. M. Rankin: Before I, maybe, go to the question that the member asked in the latter part of his remarks, I just want to say how much I appreciate that approach that the member referred to up in the northwest, where First Nations have come together and found a constructive way to agree to disagree or to cooperate where there are overlap areas. That really is something hopeful and something that we encourage.

In fact, one of the things that our ministry is committed to doing under the action plan is to try to create “consultation and cooperation with First Nations” — some sort of commission that would essentially resolve, perhaps using culturally appropriate ways, perhaps led by an Indigenous facilitator, addressing this very problem that the member has raised. I think it’s a really important one. If we can sort it out, I think everyone’s better off.

I sometimes am sad to hear conflicts that seem unnecessary that persist historically, for good reason perhaps but standing in the way of the economic reconciliation that the member has been focused on today. I just want to acknowledge and appreciate that work and wish that it could be replicated more broadly.

Now, the member asks about…. I just want clarification on the second part of his question. Is it the international joint committee reference for the Elk Valley water quality that the member is referring to? Is he asking if our ministry is represented on that body? Or is he referring to something in Alaska? We weren’t clear.

E. Ross: In regards to the former part of the minister’s answers, in terms of the commission trying to promote cooperation amongst First Nations, along with the Crown and as well as with each other, that was tried and failed as well. I was part of that process, and it failed spectacularly at the summit, where it all exploded on the second day, where First Nations….

We couldn’t agree on the terminology, couldn’t agree on the process, and we couldn’t agree on the committees that were actually being set up. It’s a very difficult situation to resolve, so until somebody comes up with a better idea, I think the cooperation on economics is probably the best way to go, because I don’t see a long-term plan.

In terms of the transboundary panel, I guess that is what it is. It is a federal committee, but it is delegated to the province to resolve provincial issues with our neighbours.

[4:25 p.m.]

We do have one down in the Kootenays that I understood was transferred back to the federal government to resolve, in terms of the selenium that’s being leached into the creek and then into the United States.

I haven’t heard anything in terms of the dispute in Alaska, where there are similar issues. The Alaskan First Nations are asking to be recognized by the Canadian and provincial governments in terms of their claim that Alaskan First Nations are required to consult with Indigenous people on projects impacting their ancestral lands in Alaska. This has the Eskay Creek gold mine caught in the middle.

Given the provisions of the environmental assessment, for example…. There is a legal proceeding, which is external to Canada or B.C., that has proceeded. That environmental assessment has to stop until that legal proceeding is completed. Well, that could take years, and that’s not even talking about which court actually deals with it.

The core of the question is…. We’re talking about rights and title. We’re talking about section 35. We’re talking about strength of claim. Does the minister have any participation in what’s going on with the Alaskan transboundary panel and the Alaskan First Nations claims?

[4:30 p.m.]

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

Yes, the Southeast Alaskan Indigenous Transboundary Commission consists of a group of American tribes in the state of Alaska. We are aware of their assertions that there is, as the member has properly said, impact of certain economic activity on the Canadian side of the border on their territory and their rights.

On April 23, I wrote a letter — along with my colleagues the minister responsible for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy — to them, to the environmental assessment office of British Columbia, outlining our intent to advance a policy approach on what would be an appropriate level of consultation and accommodation with these American-based tribes, as they call themselves there.

We committed to do so, however, only after we consulted with Canadian Indigenous groups and, of course, the industry associations and affected proponent in Canada.

E. Ross: To the minister, thank you for that.

Does the meaning of consent…? Will that apply to Alaskan tribes as well? The meaning of consent as outlined in the DRIPA action plan.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member of Skeena. The member, I believe, asked if there was a definition of “consent” in the action plan. We’ve now had a chance to review. The only reference to it is in the context of a very narrow part of the Declaration Act, sections 6 and 7, which enables agreements with Indigenous governing bodies, including joint or consent-based decision-making agreements that reflect free, prior and informed consent language that occurs in the actual declaration, the UN declaration.

That is the only reference we can find in the action plan. I trust that answers the question from the hon. member.

M. de Jong: We may never know. The progress of bills, legislation and estimates is such that the opposition has had to reach back into the far end of the bench to bring someone in.

In all seriousness, I came in at the tail end of that exchange. I thought that my colleague from Skeena was perhaps coming at this from a slightly different direction. So I’ll just take a moment to pursue that. That is: to what degree, if at all, in the aftermath of DRIPA…?

Maybe the best way for me to ask this question is to provide an example. I am a proponent of a project located within British Columbia. There’s something I wish to do. Let us assume it is a land-based, resource-based project. It doesn’t impact water flows. It doesn’t impact, directly, transborder issues in the way the minister would know that might engage in IJC or something along those lines. It is located within not just the traditional territory of a British Columbia-based First Nation, but within the traditional territory of an American tribe.

Does the government believe…? Is the government of British Columbia now proceeding, in the wake of UN­DRIP, differently than it would have previously? Does it believe the incorporation of UNDRIP, in the way it has been incorporated into B.C. law, now imposes a specific obligation on the government of British Columbia to consult to consult — I’ll start with that — with a U.S.-based tribe?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Welcome to the member for Abbotsford West. Of course, he’s very modest. He used to be in my chair, so he’ll know the process very well, and I appreciate him contributing to the debate. The question is an excellent one and a very timely one, building upon questions from the member for Skeena.

The premise was that a project in Canada may not have any transboundary water impact on an American tribe, but it may in fact be the subject of asserted claim by an American tribe in our country, in our province. What happens then? I think that is the question. Does UNDRIP have anything to say about that on consent?

I start by saying no. UNDRIP has had no impact, in our judgment, on that topic. What is critical, the member will know, is that the Supreme Court of Canada, now three years ago, made a decision in a case called R. v. Desautel, which dealt with the Lakes Tribe of the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington state. They had successfully argued, when one of their members had shot an elk in the Nelson area of the province, that they had Aboriginal rights in the province of British Columbia. The Supreme Court agreed with them.

We, and my counterparts across the country that border on the United States, are grappling with the implications of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment.

The member’s question, I think, is an important one. One of the things that we’re doing in our province is advancing regulatory tools to clarify just what approach we should take to carry out our constitutional obligations with U.S. tribes that have credible assertions of section 35 rights in British Columbia and how to progress with engagement in the interim. It will not surprise the hon. member that some Canadian-based Indigenous groups will not be pleased with the implications of the Desautel judgment. We’re grappling with that today.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the minister.

We spent a considerable amount of time, at the time the UNDRIP legislation was working its way through the House and through the committee, discussing that concept of free, prior and informed consent. I don’t want to revisit the discussion of a definition and what that implies is necessary, but it does strike me as a legitimate question.

I’ll stick with the example. If we stick with the point the minister has made, that Aboriginal rights can exist in B.C. for Aboriginal peoples whose tribe — I’ll use that term in the American context — is located outside of B.C. and Canada, it doesn’t seem much of a stretch to suppose and anticipate that that tribe, or a member of that tribe, would make the argument, or attempt to make the argument, that they, too, in certain circumstances, are entitled to provide free, prior and informed consent.

[4:45 p.m.]

Does the government have a position with respect to an argument that would be advanced in that way?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member is attempting to link up UNDRIP and the issue of free, prior and informed consent.

[4:50 p.m.]

I think our starting point isn’t UNDRIP. Our starting point is section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Of course, I know the member, through the debates of 2019, will remember that was always the hook that we hung our hat on, if I can put it that way.

Section 35 has been interpreted, in the Haida case in 2004, to create this very strong duty to consult and accommodate. We start with that. Now we have another judgment, three years ago, that says: “Oh, by the way, that also applies to American bands if they can prove that they have Aboriginal rights in Canada.” Ethnohistoric evidence was led, and the court concluded that they do. Now we’re grappling with the implications of that.

The lens through which we’re looking at this is section 35 and the classic duty to consult. Should it be altered, in light of the fact that they reside in the United States but have proven Aboriginal rights in this country? That’s what the provinces across the country that are bordering on American territory are grappling with.

I’ve had conversations with my federal counterpart on the very topic that the member raises. The consent issue is not the starting point. The issue is: do they have these rights that we need to examine, exactly as we would do if they were on Canadian territory, given that their rights are on Canadian territory, but they are not?

M. de Jong: Let’s come back to the second part of that, and I’ll ask the minister to address the first part of his answer, where he points out the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

Let me ask: today, where a project proponent is seeking approval in circumstances that, in the face of notice from an extrajurisdictional tribe, could engage that obligation via section 35, what is the government of British Columbia’s position on that?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you very much to the member for the question. There’s the duty to consult and accommodate that I tried to address in my last answer, the Haida test, but there are also, of course, statutory issues. I take from the member’s question, when he used the phrase “a proponent seeking approval,” that he was contemplating an environmental assessment certificate for a large project. I think it’s relevant in that.

The member will remember that in 2018, pre-UNDRIP, the government brought in amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act. They talked about something called “participating Indigenous nations,” and the government had tools to engage with participating Indigenous nations.

I should say that the province is intending to clarify its approach to carrying out these obligations to engage under the Environmental Assessment Act with U.S. tribes if they have credible assertions of section 35 rights in British Columbia. We’re doing so, recognizing that there is what we might call a distinctions-based approach here.

There is a difference. “Yes, you have Aboriginal rights in Canada. Let’s assume that they’re proven,” as they were in Desautel — not just asserted but proven. “Then we have an obligation, under Haida, to address those in a meaningful way, to consult and accommodate.”

That may be different, hence the distinctions-based language, from how we do business with those First Nations that have proven rights in Canada and are resident in Canada. We’re in the process of trying to figure out exactly what that means. As I said, that is an open question — a policy that’s being discussed actively across this country.

M. de Jong: Then, maybe to confirm the point…. I acknowledge I am speaking in very abstract terms here and every project will engage different statutes and different considerations.

As a general rule, a project proponent seeking governmental approvals under the Environmental Assessment Act, for example — and, perhaps, other statutes — needs now to be aware that the duty to consult and possibly accommodate is a duty that, the government of British Columbia accepts and believes, extends beyond the borders of British Columbia into other foreign jurisdictions — most probably, the United States of America.

Hon. M. Rankin: Right. The member puts his finger on a really important point. I mean, on April 23, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada told us that where there are proven Aboriginal rights in Canada, we may have a duty to consult and, perhaps, even accommodate. To the proponent, in the member’s question, we’re all subject to the rule of law.

The province has to figure it out, and proponents have to figure it out as well. This was a decision that the province lost in the Supreme Court of Canada, and we’re all grappling with the consequences.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I can switch gears for a moment. I know the minister had a general conversation about this earlier, but I might want to tackle this from a slightly different perspective.

[5:00 p.m.]

I want to go back and solicit the minister’s thoughts on where we’re at with the Treaty Commission process, and I’ll do so in this context. There are lots of ways to describe the Treaty Commission process. I suppose, using today’s terminology, one way would be to describe it is as a mechanism for securing a form of reconciliation through the ambit of a comprehensive settlement agreement. We have seen some of the products that emerge from that.

Nisg̱a’a was not a product of the Treaty Commission process. The five treaties with the Maa-nulth First Nations were, the Tsawwassen and one or two others. I’m trying to….

Beyond the comprehensive settlements which, in the case of the Treaty Commission process, we call treaty settlements, has there been a comprehensive settlement since the last treaty? By that, I mean…. The Tŝilhqot’in, of course, was court-imposed. I suppose one could say it’s somewhat comprehensive, but it was not the product of a negotiation. The minister has made that point many times.

What is taking place and what the House is considering vis-à-vis Haida Gwaii — I think I’ve heard the minister describe that as a framework. I think the term I might have used at one time was something akin to an agreement-in-principle framework, that is hopefully going to mature into something more comprehensive.

Why don’t I start…? Maybe I’m missing something. I recognize that there have been other sectoral agreements that have been negotiated and arrived at. But has there been a comprehensive settlement agreement on the scale of a treaty settlement since the last of those Treaty Commission final agreements was concluded?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member turning the attention to the B.C. Treaty Commission process, because he’s right. Nisg̱a’a predated the modern process with the BCTC, which is a tripartite commission, appointments from three levels of government, if you will.

The last successful comprehensive treaty was in 2016, with the Tla’amin up in the Powell River area, in the Sunshine Coast. That’s the last one. Since that time, though, there has been an enormous amount of negotiation work going on under the auspices of the B.C. Treaty Commission.

I’m happy to report that we are currently in advanced treaty negotiations with three nations: the K’ómoks, in the area of the Chair’s community; and with the Kitselas and Kitsumkalum Nations, in northwest British Columbia. We’re hoping that we can achieve something in the next short while with each of those three. It’s been many, many years.

We’re trying, over the years, to work with Canada and the First Nations to create innovative new approaches, given the often horribly long time it has taken to achieve modern treaties. We’re trying to provide more flexible mandates.

For example, we’ve agreed — the member will know, from in the House — that no longer do nations who choose the treaty route have to give up their tax exemptions, both at the provincial and federal level. And we’ve provided more flexibility where we have, perhaps under our current policies, the ability to get together every 15 years and assess whether there are changes that might be made. We’re trying to ensure that these aren’t frozen in time, these agreements, but rather can be somewhat flexible.

Of course, they’re formal and finalized and constitutionally protected. But in that context, we’re trying to agree that there can be other constructive approaches that can be achieved. Now, that is the issue of the B.C. Treaty Commission process, a very strict process involving the federal government.

In addition to that, we have non-treaty forms of agreements. We’re very proud of some of the work that we have done in what we call comprehensive reconciliation agreements. They generally involve adopting incremental approaches to rights and title. They provide upfront benefits but allow First Nations to work on complex governance, jurisdiction and title issues over time.

Back to where I began. When the member says comprehensive, we usually think of two key aspects. One is the land question, transferring land or arranging for pre-settlement land, but also a self-government component. There’s also, of course, a very large fiscal component, primarily the responsibility of the federal government.

The two things that make it comprehensive, in our view, are the elements of self-government as well as the land question.

M. de Jong: I will confess a certain bias, and it is this: a lingering enthusiasm for the treaty commission process, I suppose influenced in part by the fact that I was fortunate to be around and in the minister’s chair at a time when it, I guess one would have to say, was at its most productive, if the measurement for productivity is the successful negotiation of final comprehensive agreements.

I say that to ensure that the minister is not under the impression that I’m somehow hostile. But at a certain point, I suppose it is the job of oppositions to put the question to ministers responsible: are we making any progress, and are the energy and the funds being invested getting us anywhere?

There was a time — I’m now going back to days when I had another role, a different role in this place — where we candidly identified lead tables and said: “We believe that there is a sound prospect for negotiating, to completion, comprehensive treaties in the following cases.”

[5:10 p.m.]

The minister may have just alluded to two lead tables or three lead tables. My question is: does the ministry still take that approach? I mean, between stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3…. I think we all get the fact and understand that negotiations exist in different stages and sometimes gain a momentum that can drive them to completion. We haven’t seen that, as the minister said, in nearly ten years. Well, eight years, I guess.

Do we have lead tables? If so, are they lead tables that, in the life of this parliament, are likely to produce either an agreement-in-principle or a final agreement?

In a moment, I will ask the minister to confirm the investment of public funds that is taking place. It’s one of those basic questions that says, ultimately…. For the money we are investing, are we getting anywhere?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member asks about the colloquial term of “lead tables.” I think it’s fair to say that we’d call tables that are very close to completion along similar lines. There are ones where we have decided as government that there’s a very good prospect of speedy resolution — I use that term advisedly — that we could be closing on those treaties or agreements-in-principle.

I mentioned the three that are, we hope, in that category. I could also say that there are two others that are just about in the same boat. They are the TTA, the Te’mexw Treaty Association, here in the lower part of Vancouver Island, a number of smaller nations that have come together to pursue treaty. The other one is the Metlakatla in the northwest. These are two that are also, we hope, very close to crossing the finish line.

The member asked if they will do so in this term of government. I think it unlikely. But we’re hopeful that we can show significant progress to the public with the three that I’ve mentioned.

I could also note, because the member talked about the stages of the modern treaty process, that we have entered into two agreements-in-principle in 2018 and 2019 — one with the paaʔčiidʔatx̣, near Victoria, out near Sooke, another with the Northern Secwepemc Nations. That should give us some hope that the process is going to yield results in those contexts as well.

M. de Jong: For the, I think, five tables that the minister referred to, is he able to quickly advise the committee whether the success he is referring to is an agreement-in-principle or a final agreement?

Hon. M. Rankin: On the specific question of the five that I mentioned, for the three that I initially mentioned — namely, the K’ómoks, the Kitselas and Kitsumkalum — we are at the stage where we hope a final agreement — that is, the full language of the treaty — has been more or less signed.

We hope to have an ability to have initialling of the…. The member will be aware of what that entails. Everything is settled. It’s just an initialling. Then it goes to ratification, first by the nations and then by the federal and provincial governments. I meant to make sure that member understands it is the final stages of the five-stage process.

As for the other two I mentioned for which we have agreements-in-principle, Metlakatla and the Te’mexw Treaty Association, they’re very advanced as well. We’re hoping that they can be completed in the very near term.

M. de Jong: Okay. Let’s just briefly focus on the three tables.

One of the dilemmas that First Nations have faced and was a factor in the previous final agreements emerging out of the Treaty Commission process was the accumulated debt of the First Nations engaged in the negotiation and how that was dealt with in the final agreement. Does the minister have information available that he can share with the committee for the K’ómoks, Kitselas and Kitsumkalum…?

I think the minister will anticipate what I’m driving at. Are we still confronted, and the passage of time suggests to me that we probably are, by circumstances where the accumulated debt of an individual First Nation can exceed what the mandated financial settlement would be?

[5:20 p.m.]

The passage of time tells me that circumstance can only have gotten worse, not better. But I am speculating.

Hon. M. Rankin: The member raises a really good point about the past practice of advancing loans that often could completely eclipse the amount of financial benefits that a nation would get from treaty. I’m happy to report, and the member may not be aware, that in 2019, the government of Canada changed its policy.

As I can tell you, we advocated strongly on that so that no longer is there a loan program of this sort. There’s grant funding for First Nations, but they never any longer have to face the prospect that the member described.

Indeed, I can report that some modern treaty nations — Tsawwassen comes to mind — actually received money back, because they had the loan, and the government of Canada, to their credit, repaid that loan. So after the fact, they’d already had a treaty, and they paid it back.

But none of the five that I’ve mentioned are going to face this prospect.

D. Davies: Thanks to my colleague. Just for a couple minutes. I think I’ve got two hours, right?

An Hon. Member: No.

D. Davies: Okay.

Question. I know my colleague from Skeena did canvass a couple questions on the Blueberry decision. It relates to Doig River and Halfway River. So I think I’ve already got the response that I’m going to get, due to the litigation. Maybe I’ll ask my question. Then we’ll see what the minister has to say.

Given the concerns that have been raised about the significant control over land management decisions that were granted to the Blueberry River First Nation, potentially at the expense of Doig River and Halfway River First Nations treaty rights, how does the minister justify this allocation of authority, and what steps are being taken to ensure that the treaty rights of all impacted First Nations across the province are going to be respected?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Welcome to the member for Peace River North.

The member anticipated properly that I’m not able to talk specifically about litigation that’s ongoing, at the behest of the Doig River or the Halfway River First Nations. What I can, of course, remind the member is….

The genesis of all of this is the Yahey judgment. It was the claim area that the Blueberry asserted and which the court worked with. I wouldn’t want it to be understood that somehow the province was the one that caused this difficulty. We were responding to a judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

That’s the first part I wanted to make. On a happier note, I wanted to report to the member that we have had some very productive conversations and ongoing dialogue with the two nations referenced. I hope that we can report a positive outcome of those negotiations.

The member’s focus on land use planning, I think, is really a critically important observation. We think that any effective response to the Yahey decision…. It was about the infringement of treaty rights as a consequence of oil and gas activity, forestry and other activities that had made it effectively impossible, the court determined, for the nations to exercise their treaty rights. We think land use planning is at the core of a positive resolution of this issue.

I think the member referencing land management is a very critical thing. We see a role, which the nations have never had in the past, to be involved in land use planning in their territory, working with the companies, working with local government, working with stakeholders of every kind.

We think that’s the best way to achieve a respect for the treaty rights but also to ensure that oil and gas activity is not affected in a negative way. Indeed, there can be some benefits that First Nations achieve from this, as well as the restoration of the land, as well as the delineation of where activity can occur and where, perhaps, it ought not to occur because of culturally important areas, environmentally sensitive areas or the like.

We think it all comes back to effective land use planning.

D. Davies: Thanks to the minister.

Then how does the minister respond to the accusations from Doig River and from Halfway River that the consultation process regarding Blueberry was insufficient and didn’t meet the legal standards required under Canadian law? Can the minister detail the specific steps to ensure that all the affected parties were properly consulted?

Hon. M. Rankin: I regret that it’s difficult for me to answer that question in light of the premise of the member’s first question — namely, that this is before the courts.

I told the member that we have a pathway to resolving this issue of whether our consultation was effective. I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the very matter with which the court is seized presently.

D. Davies: All right. Thank you to the minister for that.

I’m kind of switching gears, then, I guess, beyond the agreement and the conflict with the other nations. I’m hearing from a number of companies that are still struggling to get permitting up in the northeast. That’s within the area of Blueberry. I’m wondering if the minister can give a bit of an update on how that process is coming along.

[5:30 p.m.]

[S. Chant in the chair.]

One of the big things that we saw, obviously, was the lack of capacity to administer that. I’m just wondering if the minister can kind of give us a bit of an update on the permits, the permitting process. What supports have been put in place for Blueberry to assist on the permitting, which doesn’t seem to be happening very quick right now?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member asked about the permitting implications of the Yahey judgment and our decision as a government not to appeal that judgment but to work to find a better way on the land.

I guess I should start by pointing out that had we not done that, given the finding of the court, the conclusion that the court reached, there would be no permitting. It needs to be stated that as a result of our decision not to wait three years, ten years, however long an appeal up to the Supreme Court of Canada would have taken and then determining exactly what that meant on the ground, we chose to try to find a negotiated resolution through that.

As a result, we reached the historic agreements that the member refers to with the Blueberry that provided for collaborative land, water and resource stewardship to support their members to exercise their Treaty 8 rights but to also have a role, as I said earlier, in land use planning, in restoration activities on the ground. We also entered into revenue-sharing agreements and letters of agreement with the remaining Treaty 8 Nations. The member has referenced a couple of them earlier.

These agreements, we think, create a new balance for responsible resource development with treaty rights not being infringed any longer and a better way to manage cumulative impacts.

[5:35 p.m.]

Now, we are currently implementing those agreements, including some very important work on land use planning I referenced earlier, and working closely with industries and other First Nations, other Treaty 8 First Nations, I dare say, across the provincial government as well. So many agencies are involved, and the effort is to ensure that permits are moving.

I concede that that hasn’t always been the case, but I think that increasingly, there have been more permits. There is certainly less permitting than occurred before the Yahey decision, but I go back to my earlier point: the court found that that was an unsustainable degree of permitting. We’ve found a way to create a balance which, we think, will meet the needs of everyone in the northeast.

D. Davies: The minister answered part of my question, but obviously, we see, from before the decision was made to where we are now, that decisions are slow to come.

Going back to the capacity of the nation itself, I’ll ask the question again: what has been done to support the nation in building up the capacity to work with whatever the partners are and to get some of these permits moving?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m sorry, Member. I forgot that part of the question.

We acknowledge, 100 percent, that First Nations have suffered from lacking the capacity to do the brand-new work that we’ve agreed needs to be done in order to meet the Supreme Court’s requirements. I remember from earlier in my life, going up into the northeast and dealing with First Nations that were just deluged with consultation responsibilities — and companies, governments, agencies. It was just — not surprisingly, for often small populations — very difficult to meaningfully respond to the well-meaning consultation efforts of industry and government.

We have, since then and as a consequence of this judgment, provided an enormous amount of funding, directly and indirectly, to First Nations to ensure that they can be more effective in grappling with the challenges of permitting — in a complicated environment, frankly, given all of the complexities that the member will be well aware of — and doing business in the northeast seasonally and that kind of thing. I think the answer to the question on capacity is: we acknowledge the problem, and we’re addressing it head-on.

D. Davies: I apologize to my colleague here; I’m taking a little more time.

I still don’t think I’ve got the answer to my question or at least not to what I’m trying to articulate in my head.

There have been dollars allocated to support providing funding to ensure that they’re more effective. That’s nice. But what does that look like, and what is being provided?

Still, at the end of the day, when I have different organizations reaching out to my office, there seems to be nothing happening. I want to know, and I want to be able to tell people, “This is how the capacity has been increased,” not to say, “There has been money allocated,” and walk away.

What actually is happening on the ground so that the minister can update not only this room but the residents of the northeast and such? What is happening on the ground to support Blueberry in moving forward and getting through these permits?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I start with the observation that the Blueberry River First Nation is itself a government. We have an agreement with them. How they choose to allocate that, let them be….

I would not want to be seen as speaking for them. They have that responsibility to meet their contractual obligations. I can say, though…. We have given them what we consider to be a sufficient amount of money to discharge those obligations that they have undertaken under these agreements.

M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity to step away from Bill 21, and the support from the member for Abbotsford West by joining in that committee review on that bill, so that I can at least have the remaining time that I have, on behalf of the B.C. United official opposition, to complete the estimates with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I’m disappointed that I was not able to participate in more of the dialogue here.

I will say that in respect of the questions that the member for Peace River North has been asking the minister, in the aftermath of the announcement by the Premier at the resource forum a year and four months ago…. We were all put in the position of trying to understand the details of the arrangement. The minister and his deputy and others provided some details to us before the agreements were made public.

We know, in parallel, the other treaty nations, including Doig River and Halfway, were also being asked to sign some form of letter agreements, with details to follow, on the understanding…. The details that this government shared with these First Nations in respect of the important agreement that was reached between the province of British Columbia and the Blueberry First Nation was on a basis that was being explained to these nations.

I had the opportunity to fly up to Fort St. John a month or two ago to meet with the chief and council of Halfway River specifically to talk about their challenges with this government in the aftermath of the Blueberry agreement. Of course, the minister has talked about the fact that that has been under some legal proceeding, where we do have two First Nations, two Treaty 8 Nations, challenging this government about a lack of transparency, a lack of process consultation, misrepresentation and other points that they’ve made in their proceedings.

In respect of this year’s resource forum…. I had the opportunity to sit with the member for Peace River North and the chief and council for the Doig First Nation as well. Chief Trevor was the featured speaker at the resource forum, of course, on the last day. This is the kind of recognition of where this government has been in the pathway it has been on.

Certainly, we need to make bold steps. I appreciate that the resolution of the matter, in terms of cumulative impacts for Blueberry and Treaty 8 Nations, has been an important one. But when nations themselves are complaining and putting legal petitions against this government about their process, it raises questions. It raises questions, certainly, about the path to reconciliation and about what we talk about — the Leader of the Official Opposition talks about all the time — which is the importance of bringing everyone along.

Everyone along doesn’t just include the non-Indigenous British Columbians. It also includes everyone, including First Nations. In this case, the Doig River First Nation and the Halfway River First Nation.

The members for Peace River North and Peace River South live this every day. I’ve attended meetings with them with other Treaty 8 Nations. The challenges they live to explain to British Columbians about….

[5:45 p.m.]

Something I talked to the minister about a year and a half ago was just to urge this government…. There is really a lack of appreciation and understanding around Treaty 8. The responsibilities of this government, the Crown, to live up to its obligations under Treaty 8, which has led to many challenges…. I’ve had discussions with the Fort Nelson First Nation Chief, as well, about that. That, again, of course, is over successive governments. I appreciate that, in terms of the economic impact on their lands.

Still, in terms of where we’re at, the pace of what has come forward…. It is important that we note how we bring about that shared prosperity, how we do it with British Columbians in a way that British Columbians, like the constituents and the other stakeholders for the member for Peace River North…. We have a deep and a good understanding.

To the extent that we, the opposition, have the opportunity to ask the minister responsible…. This is the challenge that we have. These are the constraints that get that level of clarity.

We can only encourage the minister, of course, to continue to communicate with the public locally about the nature of those agreements and how things are progressing with the Blueberry Nation in terms of capacity-building. That is something we called for, meaning the Leader of the Official Opposition, in terms of our resource prosperity plan, the importance of all of that.

I will just make that comment and move to something I highlighted when we first opened estimates a day or two ago. I wanted to have the opportunity to bring us back to some of the important discussions around the DRIPA action plan.

I know that in the All Chiefs meeting before the pandemic…. I wasn’t the critic at the time, but I did attend that meeting, like many of our B.C. United official opposition members, to meet with First Nation leaders as they meet with the executive council and leadership of government.

I know that there was a special panel discussion to deal with overlapping claims. This is amongst the First Nation leadership themselves. They talked about, in November of 2019, the fact that they were planning a special session to be held. As I understand…. I know, at the time….

It was March of 2020. I understand, in talking to some other First Nation leaders…. The meeting had actually begun around the dentist conference, at the same time, and the rugby sevens and all the other activities that were taking place as the pandemic shut down the province in the appropriate health measures kind of way. I would say…. As a result, as I understand it, that work was meaningfully, because of the health pandemic, paused.

Here we have the DRIPA action plan. We’re now coming into year 3 of the five-year plan.

The minister had referred to, in the course of the discussion to date on Bill 25, the important work that needs to still take place about the new institution, designed and driven by First Nations, to provide support to First Nations in their work, governance rebuilding and boundary resolution in accordance with First Nation laws, customs and traditions.

I’d just ask the minister. What is the current status of this work at this juncture? What does the minister intend to accomplish in the next year, meaning in the third year of the DRIPA action plan? What are the milestones and the targets that his ministry and this government are working on with First Nations and the federal government of Canada to develop this new institution and to progress the necessary work to deal with the overlapping boundaries and other governance rebuilding considerations?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Welcome to the member for Vancouver-Langara.

Some initial comments about the work in the northeast. I can just remind the member that the litigation that has led to this was launched, and I think he acknowledged this, under the former government, the B.C. United government — or B.C. Liberal, as it then was — in 2015. It was our government that had to address the implications of that judgment.

I think the member’s comment about bringing everyone along is important. I think in the Peace River context, I’ve had extraordinarily good engagement with local government and industry leaders over my time in this office. The former mayor of Dawson Creek, Dale Bumstead, has been an incredible ally in this, as has a number…. The Mayor of Chetwynd. I could go on and on. Regional district directors, all of whom are very well motivated to try to find a resolution in a good way.

I salute the leadership of local governments there, because we are bringing people along. They’ve been very effective in that regard.

The member was asking about…. I think the question was: what have we been doing to address the vexing issue of overlaps? I say vexing because it isn’t just a problem for the…. It affects everyone. If we cannot find resolution amongst First Nations, often we can’t make progress, and we can’t have the economic activity that comes through economic reconciliation with First Nations, because they get stuck in conflict.

[5:55 p.m.]

I truly believe that we have to work better. First Nations are well aware of this. This probably takes us, to be very specific, to action plan 1.1, the very first one. Perhaps I should, for the record, read it. It says that “in partnership with the government of Canada, establish a new institution designed and driven by First Nations to provide supports to First Nations in their work of nation and governance rebuilding and boundary resolution in accordance with First Nation laws, customs and traditions.” That was something that we hoped would be underway much more than we have progress on to date.

I think the member alluded to this, but the sad story is that there was a gathering, the Shared Territories and Overlaps Forum that was started. On day 2 of that forum, the pandemic was declared. I think the member will well understand how frustrating that was for so many of us, because that could have led to some really positive events.

I think the member will also acknowledge the multiple demands, the multiple priorities of our Indigenous partners. It has been difficult to get to the next stage. But we are talking about a focused conversation with First Nation leaders — the key thing being to identify what specifically the purposes, the roles, the functions of that institution would be.

One idea I’ve been promoting is that we create best practices through actual positive results. Work with individuals, before going to a full-bore commission with the government of Canada and First Nation leaders, to showcase success through a facilitation, perhaps culturally appropriate through First Nation leadership, using the good offices of local First Nations, and create a success record that would allow us to build upon that in order to then have, for the commission, a roadmap — not just a theoretical roadmap but examples of where we have had success, so we can say: “Aha. That is where we can work together.”

This work is very, very important to our ministry. It’s important to me. I want it to succeed. I hope I’ve given some explanation to the member for the reason for the delays.

M. Lee: Just in the time that we have…. I appreciate the minister, of course, bringing us back to 1.1 of the DRIPA action plan, which was certainly my intention in the wording that I read into the record as well.

So turning to another DRIPA action item. I’ll just take this one next because I know that Mr. Purnell has been waiting. I don’t know if he’s had a question that would have involved him in response. Certainly, I would have had more of an opportunity to have more discussion here. And I will say that as the minister appreciated, I didn’t mean to only point out a few individuals for recognition. But given that I already did point out Mr. Purnell, I would say this.

At the All Chiefs meeting that I also went to — I think it was last November — I was impressed by Mr. Purnell’s tone and presentation. I think it was at the last All Chiefs meeting, when he was on a panel and I was discussing that with some other First Nation leaders. I think he’s a great example of individuals in the public service that are doing the important work of bringing together the work on the fiscal framework. I’ve had the opportunity to sit with Mr. Purnell, as my fellow colleague, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson as their shadow minister for Finance, some time ago.

There was a discussion that was consistent with what I saw at the All Chiefs meeting as well, but I want to just take the opportunity again, because these estimates processes are important opportunities to at least look at, at this juncture, where we are and where we’re going — obviously, 1.4 in terms of the co-development of Indigenous peoples of a new distinctions-based fiscal framework, a relationship that supports the operation of Indigenous governments and the like.

[6:00 p.m.]

As the minister knows, I do understand the initial initiatives of this government, in terms of gaming revenues, for example. The forestry area, though — I’d like to have that update in terms of the discussion paper, the ongoing review and then next steps.

If the minister could just walk me through that on the record, I’d like to get the indication of that. This is a very important piece. We talk about capacity-building. We talk about, again, under the Leader of the Official Opposition’s resource prosperity plan, capacity-building and those supports, and the fiscal relationship, as we saw in the Indigenous self-government bill, around care for children, taking back responsibility for children.

I had that discussion with the former Minister of Children and Family Development. When I asked, “Well, where’s the money coming from?” the answer was: “We’re still having this tripartite discussion with the federal government.” I’m not here to ask that specific question, but I think it’s just an example of the importance of the overall fiscal relationship and understanding — in collaboration, again, with the government of Canada — as to where we are with this particular DRIPA action item, 1.4.

Hon. M. Rankin: I’d like to start by thanking the member for recognizing the extraordinary quality of the public servants that we have in our ministry. Particularly, you’ve referenced Mr. Purnell, who I agree has done extraordinary work, in the new fiscal framework work across government. I think the negotiations, frankly, are probably harder within government than they are with First Nations, but I’ll leave that to others to characterize.

The member started by asking about forestry, an update in that matter, and I’m happy to do that. I should say that in April of 2022, our government decided to double the forest revenue-sharing that occurred with First Nations, by about $63 million every year. As of this winter of this year, over 80 percent of eligible First Nations will have active agreements. We call them forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements.

Under the increased rates, the province expects to share about $162 million in forest revenues with First Nations in this fiscal year. We’ve done significant work to ensure that First Nations have the steady government, the dependable funding, and forest revenue is important to so many. We’re very proud of that as an initial — I stress, initial — part of our commitment to create a new fiscal framework.

I should also say that the language in these FCRSA agreements, which predated UNDRIP, was unacceptable to two or three nations I met with, that wouldn’t even accept the money until the language was changed. I’m happy to report that the language has changed to be less offensive, in their mind.

The member specifically then asked about action plan item 1.4, which is to “co-develop with Indigenous peo­ples a new distinctions-based fiscal relationship and framework that supports the operation of Indigenous governments, whether through modern treaties, self-government agreements or advancing the right to self-government through other mechanisms. This work will include collaboration with the government of Canada.” That is the work of Mr. Purnell and his team in creating a new fiscal framework.

[6:05 p.m.]

To be successful, we know we can’t do things the way they’ve been done in the past — the past government’s short-term transactional arrangements. Rather, we need new and respectful ways of working together. As I stressed earlier, First Nations governments, just like any other government, need dependable sources of funding. So we’re co-developing this fiscal framework that takes into account, we hope effectively, their Indigenous rights. I’m happy to talk further about that work if a member has specific questions about it.

M. Lee: Regrettably, I don’t have more time to talk about that particular item. I only have ten minutes left. The House Leader of the Third Party is waiting patiently to come in after me. I would just mention that to the minister so he can regulate his time as well, in response, because we do have to end at 6:15 on the clock.

I will bypass a question, but I would just note this and make a request. I would have wanted to have the opportunity to ask, as well…. This is just one question with no supplemental, so to speak. In any event, 1.3 of the DRIPA action plan…. We know, of course, the importance of utilizing section 6 and section 7 of the Declaration Act.

I know that the minister, at the last All Chiefs, had the opportunity on a panel to hear from First Nations leadership about why it is that in 4½ years, now coming on five years to date, there’s only been one nation, the Tāłtān, that has two section 7 agreements relating to Eskay Creek and Red Chris.

The First Nations leaders that I heard on the panel had expressed some level of concern, let’s say, about the lack of progress with other nations on section 7 agreements. I heard the minister’s response, which is that: “Well, I understand, but there are a series of other agreements that the government is making progress on, for section 7, including of a regional nature.”

I don’t, at this juncture, have the time, unfortunately, to hear an update about section 7 agreements, which is what I would be asking. I would ask that the minister — as he usually does, in a good way, through his deputy and his staff — arrange a separate briefing for me, as an update after the House rises, so that I can at least have that better understanding. It is, of course, a topic of discussion that I have with other First Nation leaders as we look at the implementation of UNDRIP.

With my eight minutes left, I wanted to have the follow-on exchange, as a follow-up to the questions I raised when I started estimates on Monday at the end of the day. I was asking questions relating to Dr. Danesh. There were some items relating to his compensation in 2023. There were some items that the minister didn’t have at his fingertips. I wonder whether the minister has that information at this juncture and if he could share it on the record, just so we can clear the record, meaning there’s closure on that level of questions.

I will ask the supplemental question, as the minister shares that information, so that the minister can give his view. Really, when it comes to compensation by government, for whatever reasons…. The minister, at one point in his response, indicated that Dr. Danesh has worked for other ministries. It’s not just the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

In the work that he’s done — including, as I understand it and the minister referred to, with the Ministry of Attorney General — there’s other work that Dr. Danesh has done. Does the government, in the context of that work, consider Dr. Danesh to be an independent? I know that Minister Rankin referred to Dr. Danesh in some of his response to me earlier, that he is an “independent facilitator,” but I wanted the minister to specifically turn his mind. Minister Rankin said it was his report as the independent facilitator.

The Chair: Member, you’re reminded to use Minister of Indigenous Relations, not his name, if you don’t mind. Thank you so much.

M. Lee: Right, sorry. I’m just trying to fit this in, in the next minute. Thank you, Madam Chair.

It’s in Dr. Danesh’s report, as the independent facilitator, that the minister was referring to in respect of the work of Dr. Danesh.

[6:10 p.m.]

I’m asking the minister specifically, in the context of his compensation arrangements, does this minister still have, and can the minister share, any further information about the history of Dr. Danesh’s compensation with the government, including with his ministry?

Is the minister of the view that Dr. Danesh is an independent for the purpose of the work he has been doing on the section 3 implementation of DRIPA in terms of the alignment of laws?

Hon. M. Rankin: I, too, am struggling to be as quick as I can, given the timelines that are involved.

I should say that on sections 6 and 7, consent-based agreements…. I’d like to thank the member for his party’s support of consent-based agreements at Prince George. They very clearly took that commitment on, and we appreciate that.

The ‘Namgis First Nation, along with Western Forest Products, has recently entered into…. We have a mandate to negotiate, with the enthusiastic support of the company and, I should say, the regional district and local government officials, the first section 7 agreement under the Forest and Range Practices Act.

I think that’s helpful. I can’t speak of others that are on the drawing board, but I wanted to let the member know that. Specifically, I hope the member would acknowledge that we’ve done our best, given his role as the official critic, the shadow minister, to provide briefings. We’ll be happy to do that on section 7 should that be what he would wish. Happy to do that.

In respect of Dr. Danesh, yes, we did undertake to review the compensation issue. I can report…. In the 2022-23 fiscal year, for both the Declaration Act secretariat and the ministry, the total compensation was $137,347.12. That is the number. That involves work with facilitation, with DRIPA, with the Wet’suwet’en, with DAS. Any number of things that he did over time in that regard.

Do I consider Dr. Danesh independent? I absolutely do. We’re thrilled to be able to take advantage of the expertise of someone of that calibre. The member will know that he has worked for the government of Canada at the highest level. He will know that he has worked for First Nations in different parts of the country. He has indeed worked for our government as well.

I can’t think of a more independent role than that and being able to work on all sides of the table. His expertise is highly regarded, from coast to coast, in our country. We’re thrilled that he can help us.

A. Olsen: As I was coming into the debate here, there was a discussion that was happening around overlapping territories. It was interesting. I was having a discussion about this just this morning. Who wakes up in the morning, on a sunny spring day, and has a conversation about overlapping territories? It is, indeed….

One of the biggest challenges that we face is unwinding the confusion that has been created over the last, I don’t know, several dozen, a dozen decades, maybe, a long time in this country, entrenching the governance conversation that the Crowns have been having with Indigenous people.

[6:15 p.m.]

That is, basically, Crowns having a conversation with themselves, or Crowns having a conversation with the entities that they’ve created. That, in some parts of the country, has been okay. We can navigate it fairly well. In other parts of the country and in other parts of this province, it becomes a bit of a jurisdictional quagmire, as we’re seeing, taking urban centres for an example.

The Haida Nation Recognition Act is, I think, a recognition in and of itself that where you’ve got an island or an archipelago of islands, and the jurisdiction is very clear, progress can be made much easier. Where there are multiple nations, all with their own politics, and, as well, the politics of the Crowns added on top of that, it becomes a very, very challenging place to negotiate.

That doesn’t mean, though, that the communities that exist in those aren’t impoverished in ways that they need desperate support for. I appreciate the line of questioning from the member previous around overlapping territories and then around stable, consistent, reliable funding. Navigating our way through the crushing poverty that’s been created by all of the last decades is as necessary, if not more necessary, in urban centres as we see the gap between communities vary very wide.

I just want to ask a question. The minister talked a little bit about what’s been happening around overlapping territories. Has there ever been an initiative undertaken in the ministry to just create a way, an incentive or some kind of program to let First Nations just have this? What is underway, I should say, to just create the environment where it is better to sort these out, the overlapping territory claims and the overlapping challenges, to empower First Nations to do this work?

Hon. M. Rankin: Welcome to the member for Saanich North and the Islands for participating and for his excellent question. I think the words the member used were really appropriate.

[6:20 p.m.]

He talked in this context of overlap and sorting things out, empowering the First Nations to do the work. I think that’s the phrase he used, and I think that is very accurate.

What we’re hoping to do in consultation and cooperation with the First Nation is to put meat on the bones of action plan item 1.1, which was again co-developed. It was a commitment to create some sort of Indigenous commission. The member will have heard me say that, unfortunately, COVID got in the way, but we’re still trying to grapple with how that might work.

In the meantime, we’re trying to empower First Nations, where there are overlap situations, to work amongst themselves in any culturally appropriate way, perhaps with a facilitator, perhaps with several people in Indigenous circles who are very skilled in this area. I’m thinking of former Grand Chief Atleo as one example of many who can help facilitate dialogue and make things happen.

I think, with the benefit of some success by them, that we can create the commission that we are committed to working on under the action plan. We’re going to try to provide as much support to First Nations to empower them, to use the member’s words, to do this important work.

A. Olsen: I think it’s important to acknowledge — I think we’ve seen it emerging here in the most recent years; since 2017, I’ve seen it emerge — the power that First Nations have, inherently, within ourselves, within themselves, within the nations themselves.

I think one of the challenges that First Nations have confronted time and time again is that the political power is consolidated in this building. So when I use the term “empowering” First Nations, it’s uncomfortable to hear it brought back to me. It’s uncomfortable to say the words, but it really is the discomfort that it is this institution, that in order for the self-determination that we envision through the Declaration Act, through those articles of the Declaration Act, to happen, there has to be a decision made in this building, under the current landscape that we’re working in, that that’s going to happen.

So that’s the context in which I use the word “empowering.” It’s not that this institution need give any power or create power that doesn’t already exist. It’s just that the control of that has been in this building for that time.

I think back to a meeting that one of my community members…. A community leader in my community talked about an event in Vancouver. I think it was just the federal Crown that was hosting this meeting. They called together the group, and the First Nations kicked out the federal government and said: “Let’s caucus.” They got together and met, and they came up with their own set of agenda items that they wanted to debate and discuss.

That’s the kind of thing that I’m hoping that we can see again, because if there’s anything that should send a message to First Nations people that the timing is different here in British Columbia now, legally and forever, it’s that there’s a government in this country that’s prepared to sit down and talk about title.

To me, the most empowering thing that has happened is that we’re sitting here debating another act in another House, at another time when the minister gets done here, eventually, that is the most empowering message this institution can send First Nations. That is that if those overlapping claims get sorted out internally, if the boundaries, the relationships get cleaned up and sorted out, if the operating agreements, the joint ventures, the cultural events, however they want to sort that out, then there’s a pathway to come and sit in here and talk about title in a way that’s never been available to First Nations. That, to me, is something that’s very exciting.

That was just in the context of the overlapping territory conversation that was happening. So I appreciate the response.

I do have a question about the Declaration Act engagement fund. That was another issue that I’ve raised here time and time again, I guess, maybe, over several years. and just the fact that…. You know, I’m just reiterating the reality that First Nations engagements continue to increase, yet the ability for those offices across the province to be able to process all of that paperwork and to make sure that the consultation is being done in a good way….

[6:25 p.m.]

This Declaration Act engagement fund, I believe, was last year or the end of the year before. I’m just wanting to see if the minister could provide an update. I’m not sure if he’s already done it in the estimates, but I just would like to find where we’re at with that fund.

Hon. M. Rankin: I really appreciate the member’s question about the Declaration Act engagement fund. I appreciate it because the member is right. In our legal obligation and our political commitment to do right by First Nations and do what the courts have told us to do, consult and accommodate, that has led to a plethora of paper that descends upon First Nations, with limited capacity to do the work required. The member has put his finger on that in the past, and I personally have experienced it both in my current role and in my former life. I’m in violent agreement with the member on this point.

In the context of the Declaration Act, we thought it was really important that we could provide the ability…. On top of the work that I’ve described — First Nations are being required to engage and are asked to engage on so many topics under the Declaration Act — we needed to provide additional capacity for them to do that. I was so proud that last spring we announced $200 million to respond to that, so that they could engage in all of the items under the Declaration Act that are involved.

I wanted to give the member actual information, as of today, on the questions he has asked. So far, 189 First Nations have applied to the fund, over $49 million has been committed, and 59 First Nations have submitted workplans.

As the member knows, the New Relationship Trust, which is an arm’s-length body to government, is administering this. So that we don’t have a conflict of interest and can’t be accused of bias or anything of the sort, it’s at arm’s length to government. The New Relationship Trust has collected data that will be used to develop a dashboard that we can share with various ministries to support our relationship-building and our implementation of the Declaration Act. This is, I think, welcome funding to do what so many nations have asked.

I remember X̱elsílem of the Sḵwx̱wú7­mesh, for example, coming to the announcement and saying: “This is something I’ve asked for, for so long, and I acknowledge that this will make a difference to First Nations.”

A. Olsen: The limitations on capacity are mostly economic in nature. We talk about limited capacity. Most often it’s the lack of ability to hire a team of staff to be able to inform answers and questions. We don’t see that in First Nations.

[6:30 p.m.]

In fact, I often see the same administrator of this program at this meeting also being the administrator of that program at that meeting, and then a whole other host of Crown administrators and bureaucrats around the table, dealing with these little slices. In First Nations communities, it’s the same person. It’s just the crushing workload.

I think the subscription rate on that fund is an indication of what I think the member previously was talking about and what I’ve talked about and what I believe X̱elsílem has talked about and many First Nations leaders have talked about.

That is that ability to be able to generate revenues off of the land, recognizing the title that’s there, recognizing those inherent rights that are there, so that it’s not a fund that’s funding these engagements, but it’s the economic wealth that’s being generated off of the land. We have come to reconcile our relationship with the actual reality of what this province is, which is a mosaic that, really, I don’t think was necessarily envisioned at the beginning of it, but it’s what we have today.

I think it’s exciting to see that that fund is being subscribed to at the rate that it is and that it’s running efficiently. It will run out, just as the language funding came to a natural end, but the language programming was necessary and needed to be continued.

I’m just going to ask the minister a fairly high-level question. Then I’m going to turn it over, because we’re going to attempt to try to get this done by the end of today, so that then the staff can be done for tomorrow and start their workplan afresh. We’re going to attempt it, if the minister’s answer is very short. I’ll stop talking, and I’ll make a very short question.

We’ve had a number of issues dealing with other ministries: protection of Indigenous foods — natural, wild foods — in relationship to forestry; Indigenous names on birth certificates and things when it comes to Citizens’ Services; dock management when it comes to Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

I just want to give the minister an opportunity to reflect on how it is that the Ministry of Indigenous Relations, the Declaration Act secretariat…. How is it that the ministry is moving together with the other ministries to ensure that we’re getting outcomes that are consistent with the Declaration Act, consistent with the action plan? This has been an evolving process for this ministry, and I just wanted to give the minister an opportunity to reflect on that.

Hon. M. Rankin: The member will know I’m trying desperately, with the incentive he’s provided, to speak very quickly and cover a lot of ground, in the hopes that his prediction comes true.

I start by saying, to a very serious question, a very serious answer. All of our government has, since the Declaration Act and, hopefully, before that, in its inception, really had a sea change. I think it always turns on the people, and I think there has been a recognition across government. I’m not sure if it was the findings at the residential school. I’m not sure if it was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission or the missing and murdered indigenous women report, Buller report, or all of the above.

The catalyst of the United Nations declaration has really seized the public service in a meaningful way. Our ministry, and particularly the Declaration Act secretariat, which is a central agency, have really, I think, done remarkable work in a really short amount of time. It’s not perfect, but there has been a cultural change. I think that there is no one who could examine where we are in 2024 versus where we were in 2017 and not acknowledge that work.

I’m very grateful to the member for putting his finger on, really, perhaps, one of the most meaningful pieces of all: the willingness of our government to do what the courts asked us to do in recognition of Aboriginal title in Haida Gwaii.

[6:35 p.m.]

In a specific response, I want to say that the Declaration Act secretariat is engaged with the requirement in section 3 to align our laws, past and present and upcoming, with the United Nations declaration. That’s a tough job, reflecting for a moment on what that must entail.

They’ve supported legislation and policy development across the government: the Anti-Racism Data Act, the Health Professions and Occupations Act, the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act, Accessible B.C. Act, Forest Statutes Amendment Act, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, Interpretation Amendment Act, Emergency and Disaster Management Act, School Amendment Act. Those are just examples from the last session. There are many more I could say.

In each case, those statutes had the benefit of the consultation and cooperation with First Nations leadership, and we’re very proud of that sea change that reflects.

A. Walker: I was going to begin by asking for an update of the treaty negotiation process for all of the overlapping First Nations in my constituency, but I will narrow it down to the Te’mexw treaty.

I recently attended an open house, a town hall–style meeting, and there were concerns raised by property owners who said they were not consulted, that they were not… Maybe that’s not the right word, but that they were not a part of the public information meeting. I recognize the government has had multiple information meetings in the constituency.

Can the minister provide an update of where the Te’mexw treaty is at right now, what public engagement sessions have been hosted in the community and what residents in the constituency or in this treaty land can expect for future engagement?

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the intervention by the member for Parksville-Qualicum and appreciate that he’s attending some of the engagement sessions we’ve had in his community.

When the member talks of the Te’mexw Treaty Association, I think it’s important to put context down. That covers a lot of the southern part of Vancouver Island: the MÁLEXEŁ Nation, the Songhees and others. Particularly, I’m assuming in the member’s constituency it would be the Snaw-naw-as treaty. That is a component group, if I might say so, of the Te’mexw Treaty Association.

What have we been doing for engagement? That was the question.

Well, we have hosted, in that particular area, the Snaw-naw-as treaty, eight in-person open houses and two virtual open houses. These eight sessions included 563 in-person attendees and 59 virtual attendees.

Secondly, we’ve established an online govTogetherBC website to provide information on the treaties, including a dedicated email address where the public can post questions.

Thirdly, we’ve sent out 840 letters to individual land­owners and interest holders informing them of the upcoming treaties and inviting questions.

We’ve responded to individual phone calls and emails to those who have asked for more information, and a response will be provided to all questions received.

That I think is a record we are proud of. That I think is emblematic of the kind of work we do in engagement across British Columbia.

A. Walker: I thank the minister for that. It’s important work, and it’s important that we all do this work together. I appreciate the efforts that are being made to ensure the community is aware of what’s going on and can feel a part of that process.

The Snaw-naw-as First Nation is further ahead in the treaty process than the Qualicum First Nation. The Qualicum First Nation, through their Saa’men Economic Development team, have just recently opened the Qualicum Crossing, which is a service station, but it’s also going to be a restaurant. It’s a real hub for the community.

The challenge with the service station is that, at some point, the Ministry of Transportation decided it would make sense to plan ahead for future overpasses, something that I would like to see more of on the Island Highway. But in this area, it’s going to be a long time before that happens.

[6:40 p.m.]

I’m wondering if there’s been any communication from the Qualicum First Nation to his ministry as far as removing this dirt berm that prohibits the visibility of this fuelling station that’s right on the highway and if I can get a commitment from the minister that he will work with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and the Qualicum First Nation to see if a solution can be had to this problem.

Hon. M. Rankin: In my zeal to answer questions quickly, for the reasons that I outlined earlier, I hope I can provide a very simple and positive answer to the member.

First of all, I’ve had the opportunity as minister to visit the Qualicum First Nation, and the fact that they have brought back an official language, the Pəntl’áč language, is really a cause for celebration. There’s a lot of community work that led to that, and I’m delighted with that result.

The member’s question — I will undertake to speak to my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. I’ve noted the question and will be happy to provide him an answer in due course.

A. Walker: Yeah, the work is incredible with the Pəntl’áč revitalization effort. It’s still in the early stages. I know the members on that team are still going after the province and federal government for a few more dollars to try to continue that progress along. It’s incredible to see a language that was referred to as “sleeping” — to be reawakened. That’s an incredible initiative.

For the forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements that are in place right now in the province, 136 First Nations are listed on the website out of 203 nations. Not all First Nations are in a particular territory that would benefit from this. Obviously, we look at the Lower Mainland; there’s a lot less forestry activity. Of course, processing exists, but not so much the raw creation of logs.

What work is being done by the ministry to ensure that those nations have access to other economic development initiatives? Looking at what’s being done or proposed federally, the concept of a revenue-sharing agreement with property transfer taxes or other sorts of revenues that may exist on lands that don’t have access to forestry tenures, is this something that’s being considered?

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member’s question, because I think it’s a very, very important one. It’s true that a great number of First Nations have been able to participate in the forest economy, but the member is right. That, of course, wouldn’t apply in urban areas and the like.

I said earlier today that we expect this year to share about $162 million in forestry revenues with First Nations under that of FCRSA process.

I should also say that all of the First Nations in B.C. share in our gaming revenue-sharing, about $100 million per year to support the priorities of First Nation communities.

[6:45 p.m.]

I know that when the pandemic happened, the member will know that we made those nations whole when people were not going to casinos. We recognized that they needed this funding because they depend on it for running their government, like any other government. That’s the start of revenue-sharing, and that work is also under review.

I don’t think, in the interests of time, I will go into all of the changes that are occurring under the new fiscal framework, but what I can say is yes, we did work on the forestry context. We’re working on the mining context. We’re working on those ski hill development areas where there’s revenue from that that might be shared. We’re recognizing that it cannot be limited, for the reasons the member articulated, to simply resource revenue-sharing. We accept that, and changes are going to be made accordingly.

A. Walker: Last question. This isn’t to Bill 25 in specific but just generally. How important is it to the minister that we in this House seek consensus, and what work is being done to ensure that as negotiations take place with First Nations to come back to this chamber, we can do everything in our power to be able to have a united front and be able to really engage with First Nations in a meaningful and cooperative way?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for a very topical question. I promised the leader of the Council of the Haida Nation, Gaagwiis, that I would do everything in my power, in the example he gave, to bring everybody along. I think the strength…. I’ve never given a speech about the United Nations declaration act without referencing the power that unanimous support in the Legislature provided government.

I say it was not something that one government did. It was a government that happened to do it, but it did it with everybody in the Legislature supporting it. As I said, that’s a theme that I take very, very seriously and I always refer to.

It would be, to me, wonderful if important initiatives, historic initiatives, could attract the support of all sides of the government. I’m going to continue to do my best to deliver on the promise that I made to Gaagwiis.

The Chair: Members of the committee, we have three votes at this time, so seeing no further questions, I will ask the minister if he would like to make any closing remarks.

Hon. M. Rankin: I regret that I don’t have any closing remarks to make.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and all members.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call vote 34.

Vote 34: ministry operations, $59,002,000 — approved.

Vote 35: treaty and other agreements funding, $94,704,000 — approved.

Vote 36: Declaration Act secretariat, $4,567,000 — approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:49 p.m.