Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we call Bill 23, the Anti-Racism Act.

In the Birch Committee Room, we call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

The Speaker: Members, pursuant to the motion that we passed earlier, now we will have statements made by members who will not be seeking re-election.

Personal Statements

FAREWELL ADDRESSES
BY RETIRING MLAs

F. Donnelly: I’d like to start my final address in this place by acknowledging that I’m on the traditional territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, and thank them for welcoming us to their land and working with this Legislature on a pathway to reconciliation.

It’s been an absolute honour to serve the people of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain over these past four years. Coquitlam–Burke Mountain is an amazing community, with so many talented people. Our area is a vibrant part of the Tri-Cities and, indeed, British Columbia.

I’m proud of what our government has accomplished for our riding and our province. As a member of the 42nd parliament, which began in a global pandemic, I was part of a team that successfully transitioned our province and economy through COVID, strengthening programs and services that British Columbians rely on.

We delivered affordable housing, health care and child care and introduced the DRIPA action plan, the new energy action framework, CleanBC, the nature agreement, conservation financing and the watershed security strategy. We’ve strengthened training and education, helped tradespeople and improved working conditions, and so much more.

[1:05 p.m.]

I’m proud of what our government has delivered for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. During the 2020 election, Burke Mountain parents told me how badly the community needed a high school. When I was newly elected, they reminded me, it seems like almost daily, until we delivered on that promise.

I remember the day when then Premier Horgan, the Education Minister and I announced $135 million for that new, 1,000-seat high school. It felt incredible. Big thanks to parent advocates, especially Isabel Silvestre and Damian Stanley. Thanks also to school district 43 in the city of Coquitlam.

Other school highlights include opening Coast Salish Elementary and adding new spaces for both the École Panorama Heights Elementary School and Scott Creek Middle School.

I’m also very proud of our government’s $71 million investment to save 290 units of affordable housing at Tri-Branch and Garden Court co-ops, 132 units at Hoy Creek co-op, 164 units at Robert Nicklin Place and 14 new homes at kʷikʷəƛ̓əm First Nation.

We also expanded the emergency room at Eagle Ridge Hospital, opened the Red Fish Healing Centre for Mental Health and Addictions and renamed Riverview as səmiq̓wəʔelə.

I’m also proud of our office’s work to engage specific communities. We hosted a successful multicultural lunar new year event with the Tri-City Chinese Community Society and Golden Maple Arts Association. We held an important Iranian leaders round table with the Premier, and I was very proud to host a “woman, life, freedom” performance right here in the Legislature’s Hall of Honour. Thank you to the Iranian Seniors Club, and specifically Mojgan Strudwick and Melody Mohebkah for organizing.

Last summer we held a very successful multicultural B.C. Day celebration, and we’re looking forward to holding another one this August. We also held an economic summit with the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce, and we worked with the chamber to host a well-attended round table with the Minister of Trade.

I’ve mentioned a number of community organizations who I’ve worked with, and I’d like to acknowledge and thank a few more.

kʷikʷəƛ̓əm First Nation.

Members of Parliament Bonita Zarrillo and Ron McKinnon.

City of Coquitlam.

School district 43.

Immigrant Link Centre Society, Igor, Reihaneh and Ali.

Tri-City Chinese Cultural Society, Linda Li and Ernest Wu.

Tri-City Iranian Cultural Society, Behzad Abdi.

Tricity Futsal, Medi Tavassoli.

Tri-Cities Seniors’ Action Society, Ken Kuhn.

Golden Maple Arts and Cultural Society, Jean Liang.

BaoBao Arts Centre, Xiaohui Wang.

Jr. Black Achievement Awards, Candy Knoll.

The SHARE society, Claire MacLean.

The Coquitlam legion, branch 263.

Coquitlam Library.

The Hoy-Scott Watershed Society.

Burke Mountain Naturalists.

SUCCESS.

Tri-Cities Pride.

Operating Engineers, Brian Cochrane.

B.C. Building Trades, Brynn Bourke.

Coquitlam fire rescue, Steve Piccolo, Steve Farina, Keegan Gordon, Chris Bond and Gary Sehn.

CUPE Locals 561 and 386.

New West and District Labour Council.

Coquitlam Express.

Adanacs.

Community Land Trust, Thom Armstrong.

Tiffani Duzita.

Speaker, none of us do this work alone. We each are supported by a team of people. My constituency staff, who have gone above and beyond the call of duty, are an exceptional team: Linda Asgeirsson, Justin Smith, Perisa Chan and Melody Mohebkah.

I can’t thank you enough for all the help you have given me and the people we served.

I also want to acknowledge past CAs Kaitlyn Gorman and Brett Collins.

On the political side, I’ve had a hard-working EDA, who have contributed so much, including president Sebastien Anderson, Ben, Kevin, Carolyn Daylen, Justin, Linda, Frank, Mary-Lou, Melody, Francine, Jewels, Jeanette, Philip, Adam, and Silvia.

And a shout-out to past presidents Brett and Matt, to vice-president Jody Wickens and donor Fred Soofi.

My political career has spanned 21 years, seven as a Coquitlam city councillor, ten as a Member of Parliament and these last four years as the MLA for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. For all of those years, my wife, Linda, has been by my side, quietly supporting me. We have been together 32 years, married for 22. For my entire elected life, through seven elections, she has been there for me. But now it’s time for me to be there for her.

With that in mind, I have decided not to seek re-election this fall.

I also want to thank my parents, Val and Cy. They have supported me and my brother through everything we have done, from sports to university and now in my political career. Thank you.

Also, I’m looking forward to spending more time with my grandson Brody.

Brody, I am so proud of you.

[1:10 p.m.]

Speaker, another family that’s important to recognize is my political family. As MLA, I have served under two Premiers, three ministers and worked alongside an amazing team of colleagues and been supported by a fantastic staff.

To the Premier: keep taking action. You’re doing a great job.

To the Whip: thanks for all of your support over the years, and thanks for never cracking a smile during any of my statements. For once, finally.

To the AG: you’re a rock star, and I’m sure there will come a time to use those three words.

To the EMCR Minister: you are also a rock star, with the cutest baby ever.

To the Environment Minister: thanks for your passion, perseverance and friendship.

To the Minister of Indigenous Relations: you are a true gentleman and a scholar and a good friend.

To the WLRS Minister: it’s been one heck of a ride.

To the Minister of Health: thank you for getting us through a global pandemic. I am so impressed with your never-ending energy.

To the Minister of Tourism: it was so great working with you.

To the Minister of Social Development: keep rocking it, sister.

To the Minister of Trade: I always enjoy hearing you predict that we are going to win that vote.

To the member for Richmond-Steveston: thank you for your friendship, guidance and support.

To the member for Burnaby-Lougheed: your passion for child care is incredible. You have such integrity.

To the minister of Powell River–Sunshine Coast: you are the best.

To the Scotch o’clock trio: cheers and thank you.

To the member for Richmond-Queensborough: keep being bold, my friend.

To the member for North Island: thank you for your friendship.

To the member for North Coast: you are an amazing representative.

To my mermaid colleague, the member for Vernon-Monashee: you do this job with grace and have the best QP quips.

To the member for Boundary-Similkameen: you are a Renaissance man.

To the member for Burnaby North: thank you for your friendship.

To the member for Surrey-Panorama: you are the energizer bunny.

To the member for North Vancouver–Seymour: thank you for coming to my aid.

To my current and former seatmates, I have had an absolute blast with you all.

To my Tri-City MLA colleagues, it’s been a pleasure representing our respective communities over these past four years.

To the members for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, Vancouver-Kensington and Vancouver–West End: your experience is inspiring, and you have represented your communities so well.

To our two newest members for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Langford–Juan de Fuca: you are both such welcome additions to this caucus.

To my cool cat colleagues: thank you. You are simply the best. It was an absolute honour to have shared, struggled, discussed and battled together with you.

To all my NDP MLA colleagues: thank you, and best of luck in the 43rd parliament.

I’d also like to give a shout-out to B.C. NDP president Aaron Sumexheltza. It was so nice working with you, my friend.

To my Green Party MLA colleagues: thank you for raising tough issues.

To the member for Prince George–Mackenzie: I’ve appreciated your perspective and passion for wildlife, forests and forestry.

To all members of the opposition: thank you for holding our government’s feet to the fire and striving to improve governance in British Columbia.

To the fabulous LAs — Helena, Kieran, Midland and the whole crew: thank you.

To the WLRS team — Scott, Marshall, Lisa, Nick, Haley, Matt and Jane: best team ever.

A shout out to the interns. Best of luck with your careers.

Speaker, in 1997, I was given the honour of a lifetime by the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation, who named me Iyim Yewyews, which means “strong swimmer” in the animal world, or orca. They gave me this responsibility to look after salmon, a responsibility I take seriously. I’ve enjoyed making change in my roles as Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Aquaculture and as B.C.’s first ever Parliamentary Secretary for Watershed Restoration.

Thank you, Premier.

Before I conclude, I just want to acknowledge a few special people: John Cashore, Diane Thorne, Dawn Black, Dave Driscoll, Tanya Jarzebiak, Cheryl Greenholz, Jordan Point, Murray Ned, Nastrid Newman Zajac, Mike Minear, Jason Wong, Ken Ashley and Har van Druszak, Oliver Brandes, Tim Morris, Roberta Webster, Corey Tull and Mark Gifford, Kim Stevens, Ted Van Der Gulik, Dane Chevelle, Robert Clark, Kevin Estrada and Kevin Scott, and my good friend Doug Radies.

Speaker, I’d like to conclude by thanking all those who make this place tick, starting with you, Speaker, and your staff.

Kate Ryan-Lloyd, Clerk of the Legislature, and her amazing team.

Ray Robitaille, Sergeant-in-Arms, and his security team keep us safe.

The Hansard team.

Those who repair and clean this place.

The legislative dining staff — Lisa, Tamara and the whole team.

[1:15 p.m.]

And to the sessional officers: I am definitely going to take note of your excellence.

Thank you, Speaker. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. Thank you for your service to British Columbia and Canada.

Member…. What should I call you — brother or member?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s an honour to be able to address this chamber and others on the traditional territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples.

It has been an honour to serve people on the traditional territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and the səlilwətaɬ.

I want to begin by thanking all of the many staff who have worked alongside me in my constituency office, in my minister’s office, people who work for this Legislature, who take care of us, who assist us, who help us. There are far too many to name. I’m pleased to see a number of them up in the gallery today, surprising me. None of this could be done without the support of these people.

It’s also important for me to thank my family and the people who have supported me, like many people who have come to this chamber. This can be a hard life on families. I entered this chamber with one partner. I leave it with another partner. Both Joanne and Rebecca have been a tremendous support for me always and on a continuing basis.

I remember the day I sat in this chamber in 2013, waiting to be sworn in, and the sense that I didn’t expect to feel, the strong sense of emotion and pride that came with taking a seat in this chamber. It was a tough election. We were elected to opposition. Learning a bit about the history on that day and walking down through the centre to sign in was exceptionally meaningful to me. I hope I’ve upheld that honour.

Equal to that honour was what I learned when I door-knocked in my constituency, first running for the nomination, then for the seat and then, on a continuing basis, talking to people on their doorstep, meeting with people in my office.

I remember very clearly a feeling I had in the middle of my first campaign. Whether I was elected or not, my life would always be enriched by the conversations that I had had with people about what mattered to them, about what they hoped for and what their fears were. It is something for which there is no substitution in terms of connecting with our communities.

I want to speak a bit about some of the many things I love about my constituency of Vancouver-Fairview, now Vancouver–Little Mountain.

Little Mountain Neighbourhood House and the role the neighbourhood house plays in supporting newcomers to British Columbia, in supporting seniors, in bringing people together for projects like establishing the now flourishing Riley Park Community Garden. It is such a great example of what people can do in their communities and neighbourhoods.

The South Granville Seniors Centre, which I visited many times, and the role that they play in supporting people in that neighbourhood, in giving them community, in giving them much-needed meals, in advocating for them.

Right next door the Pacific Theatre, which has occupied the bottom of the church for 40 years, providing cultural enlightenment and entertainment to so many people.

It’s an area I’ve always hoped to be able to deliver a revitalization for. I hope my successor is able to do that as well.

I think about the things that matter to people in my constituency — from day one, housing, housing, housing. Whether it was parents wondering if their children would be able to afford to live in the neighbourhood where they grew up. Whether it was renters concerned about renovictions from the buildings in which they’d lived for decades, in some cases, facing, in some cases, unscrupulous landlords. And the actions that we were, ultimately, able to take to support those people.

[1:20 p.m.]

Overseeing or helping to support new housing initiatives in my riding. Whether it was below-market rental housing or supporting the people in a heritage building at 10th and Main to maintain their sense of community, in the building that had been purchased by people from away and where they were trying to ultimately move everyone out. Those things matter in communities. Those things matter to people’s daily lives. Playing a role in that, however small, is one of the most important things we can do here.

I think about the arts organizations in my riding — the mural fest, the jazz festival, the Beaumont gallery, the round tables that we held to hear from people, particularly during COVID, about the challenges they had maintaining their work on culture, whether it was a physical space in which to work or simply managing the ongoing day-to-day costs.

I also think about the work that we’ve done in government, of which I’m so proud to have been a part, making measurable, incredible strides on delivering affordable child care for families and working on housing — an almost intractable problem, on which we are taking bold action every day and building places for people to live. Addressing the issue of schools in our ridings, most recently, the announcement of the long-awaited Olympic Village school.

The actions we have taken on reconciliation. I’ll never forget the time that I visited the community of Klemtu and the surrounding area with the Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation, going out on the water with their guardians and hearing from them about how the changed relationship between our government and them made a difference to their connection to their history, their Elders and their community. It was an honour to introduce a revitalized Environmental Assessment Act in this House that was the first piece of legislation to reference the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people.

The work we’ve done on a plastics action plan, clean coast, clean waters, cleaning up kilometres of shoreline in British Columbia, dealing with plastic waste and making our marine environment more like it should be.

The healthy watersheds initiative, which led to the watershed security strategy, which will make a huge difference in this time of climate change and drought and our concerns about fisheries.

Of course, supporting expansion of parks and campgrounds throughout the province.

Maybe the thing of which I am most proud, and still most hopeful that we can advance in a tremendously expeditious way, is CleanBC — our plan to fight climate change; our plan to lower emissions; our plan to build a clean energy, clean technology economy that supports everyone in British Columbia and abroad.

I will miss the people. I will miss the visits to people on their doorstep or where they work. I’ll miss the farmers markets. I’ll miss the libraries and talking to the dedicated librarians who not only were concerned about books but were welcoming people who needed a place to shelter in their communities.

I’ll miss this House in many ways, although not every way. I think it’s important that we find ways to do what British Columbians expect of us — that is, to find more ways to collaborate across the aisle on issues that are important to British Columbians and therefore should be important to every single one of us, whether it is through committees, whether it’s through debate or whether it’s through listening to each other’s ideas and finding ways forward together.

I remember a conversation I had with the Quebec Minister of the Environment and the Fight Against Climate Change, as they so poetically named him. He told me that they had five different parties in government in Quebec, but the one issue that none of them disagreed on and which would continue no matter who formed government was taking meaningful action on climate change.

That is one of the issues — and perhaps for me, the most important one — but not the only one on which we all have a duty to be serious, to understand the critical nature of the emergency we face and to find ways to take action together to build a clean economy and reduce emissions in British Columbia and be a model. Not say that we’re too small to make a difference, be a model for other provinces, for other nations around the world. We can take action together.

[1:25 p.m.]

Although I occasionally have a bit of a twinge about leaving, I look forward to more time with family, to my partner, to my stepkids. There’s still time to continue to work on the things that are important to me and British Columbians, and I intend to find the time to do just that.

I want to offer thanks to my colleagues — all my colleagues in this Legislature, because we’re all sent here to do better for British Columbians — to the many staff, again everywhere, who’ve supported me; to advocates with whom I’ve met; to my constituents; and to the many people who’ve worked on my campaign. Everyone has had a role in supporting me every day. It’s made a difference.

It’s been an honour to be here. I won’t be far.

Thank you very much. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Before we recognize the next member, I just want to say, Members, I have to leave to attend another meeting. But that doesn’t mean I don’t love you. You are very wonderful members. All of you have made a huge contribution to benefit the well-being of this province, and I’ll talk to you later.

Keep up the good work. Don’t stay away from us. Come back, and we will love to see all of you.

Thank you so much.

G. Kyllo: It is truly a privilege and an honour to stand today and to express some remarks about the journey that I have been on as the elected member for Shuswap.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Less than 1,000 British Columbians have ever served in the role of MLA. When you think about it, over the 140-year history of this province, it’s a very small group. It really is a privilege and an honour to represent hard-working men and women and constituents of Shuswap.

It’s a position that I certainly have not taken lightly. I’m certainly a proud Canadian, a very proud British Columbian, but I do love the Shuswap, which has been my home for 46 years now.

My lovely wife, Georgina, and I were high school sweethearts. We have our 36th wedding anniversary coming up this fall already. I can hardly believe it. And we’ve absolutely been blessed with four beautiful, kind, compassionate daughters — Sarah, Brittany, Angela and Samantha.

These girls are everything to me, and they’ve also been incredibly pro­ductive over the last number of years, providing me with a total of 12 grand­children — eight granddaughters and four grandsons: Maya and Eve and Kylie, Siddhalee, Nova, Hannah, Adison and Journey; and also my four grandsons, Nolan and Harvey and Sawyer and little Noah.

I absolutely love my family to the moon and back. They have been here to support me through this journey.

I’d like to just share a little bit about that path.

My grandfather Melvin Kyllo a miner-prospector-trapper-barber from Hudson’s Hope, had four boys. My dad was the second of the four boys. My grandfather Melvin was actually appointed the magistrate during the construction of the W.A.C. Bennett dam.

My father, Glenn Kyllo — we lived in a small little community just south of Fort St. John on the Peace River called Taylor. I think Taylor was about a whopping 280 citizens at the time that I lived there. My dad was very active in the community and was also a councillor and a mayor for a number of terms.

I think that must have rubbed off on me somewhat, because as I got into high school, I ran for student council. I was student council president during my graduating year and then continued to try and be of service in the community, whether it was being on the volunteer fire department, chamber of commerce, High Country Tourism Asso­ciation — many ways to provide service in the community of Sicamous, the home that I love so bloody much.

[1:30 p.m.]

As luck would have it, the one thing that actually got me into politics was mosquitoes, of all things. You think that mosquitoes can’t be motivating? Well, in this one particular year back in 2011, Sicamous decided that there was some confusion with respect to larviciding. They stopped larviciding, and the community was overrun by mosquitoes. You literally could not go into your backyard. I think we spent about $7,000 on mosquito repellent at our manufacturing plant. Guys were wearing mosquito netting.

I was complaining about mosquitoes to many members of the community, and a friend said: “Kyllo, instead of complaining about it, why don’t you run for council and see if you can get this sorted out?” That was my initial path. I ran for council in 2011. I was appointed deputy mayor.

We had a disastrous debris flow that really devastated the community. One of the other houseboat rental companies in town, Waterway, was just absolutely devastated by some of the flooding that occurred. We were on a boil-water advisory for over seven or eight months. That was when I met Premier Christy Clark for the very first time. She came up to the Shuswap.

Because I was on council, we met to talk about the needs of water treatment for our community. I’m not sure if this is fortunately or unfortunately, but I must have made an impression on Christy. She saw something in me, maybe, that I didn’t see, and she encouraged me to seek a nomination for the B.C. Liberal Party. I said no.

Christy would not take no for an answer and had a private meeting with my wife, and then she introduced me to my good friend and colleague Todd Stone. Todd and his wife, Chantelle, worked behind the scenes to encourage Georgina that this was absolutely the best thing for us to do, and here we are 11 years later. It was 11 years this month since I was first elected.

I spoke earlier about my wife, my children, my dad and my grandfather. Family is so important to me, but I’ve also got a new family, a family that I have come to love, respect and admire: Jackie Tegart, Todd Stone, Coralee Oakes, Peter Milobar and Doug Clovechok, my roommate and so many others. It truly is an experience like no other. The friendships that we make in this job of service to our community are so important, and I know that the friendships that have been created will carry on long past my departure from this place.

Representing the hard-working men and women of the Shuswap has absolutely been so heartfelt for me. As many members here will know, you typically don’t have constituents come to see you with bouquets of flowers and kind words about their experience with government, to the bureaucracy. Quite often they’re about ready to light their hair on fire. They’ve exhausted every avenue. That’s when they present themselves to the constituency office.

I’ve been so blessed to have Holly Cowan, my constituency assistant, who is one of the best and just one of my amazing friends. She, along with Cheryl Leite and Bonnie Gavin, have done such an amazing job of providing that initial support for constituents, always having time to listen, being very thoughtful with understanding what their issue is. Then we would go about that work to try and find resolution for constituents. That has definitely been some of the most rewarding parts of my career and tenure as the MLA.

Being part of government from 2013 to ’17 was absolutely fantastic. I was very proud to be appointed as Parliamentary Secretary for the Jobs Plan. We were very happy that we had the fastest-growing economy in Canada, the lowest unemployment rate in Canada. I quite often share in communities that a healthy community is a working community. Where you have higher rates of unemployment, you end up with all kinds of societal pressures. We certainly have seen that in the past.

There are probably two initiatives that I was very proud to be part of. The first was for increasing organ donation registration rates in the province of B.C. My lovely wife, Georgina, her friend Naomi Low — now, I think, Yardley….

Naomi was working for the Kidney Foundation, and she shared with me the challenge with the low registration for organ donation rates in the province. Working with Andrew Wilkinson, who was then the minister responsible for Citizens’ Services, we undertook some work through the different B.C. service centres to increase awareness.

[1:35 p.m.]

It was amazing. Some of those initial outreach projects…. We increased the organ donor registration rates to where it literally helped to increase and save lives in British Columbia. When you think of the work that we do here, nothing could be more important than having that type of an impact.

There were many other amazing opportunities that this role afforded, but the one that I think has the biggest community benefits throughout the Shuswap is the Shuswap North Okanagan Rail Trail. We were able to get support from my colleagues, back in 2016, and $2.17 million towards the purchase of the former CP rail corridor extending from Sicamous down into Armstrong.

That initial funding covered a third of the construction costs. The regional district of North Okanagan, the Columbia Shuswap regional district, along with Splatsin First Nation, the three parties, acquired the land, but it wouldn’t have happened without that initial investment.

Many thanks to my colleague the then Minister of Trans­portation, who was able to free up a few dollars to allow that to happen.

There is an event happening tomorrow where they actually have completed a pilot section for a portion of the rail trail. This is something that has such huge community and broad support. It has brought all of the communities together — you know, the Shuswap, 8,400 square kilometres. The communities of Sicamous, Salmon Arm, Arm­strong, Enderby and Spallumcheen along with the broader regional district all came together and all very much in support of this particular project. That one, I know, will be there to benefit generations ahead of us.

I have hardly touched on any of the points that I was planning on speaking about today. Back to family.

I spoke a bit about my grandfathers and my dad, who passed away when I was just 29. I did feel a little bit cheated there, but there was another amazing man that came into my life, Knud Thomsen. Knut is my stepfather, and sadly, he passed away a couple of years ago.

Our fathers and the male figures in our life have a huge impact, I think, on all of us, but not quite the same impact as the women in our lives.

My mom, Marianne.

Mom, you are an absolutely amazing individual.

She’s 4 foot 11, and she is a fireball for sure. My mom turns 84 this year, and there’s nothing slowing her down. She’s so active with my girls and our grandchildren, her great-grandchildren.

My sister Janice Bridle, now living in Calgary.

Janice, I haven’t spoken your name in this House, but I just want to let you know that you also are inspiring to me, as well as my grandmothers, Edith Kyllo from Hudson’s Hope and Jean Duran. Jean was actually the first notary in Fort St. John and, I think, the first notary north of Prince George.

I know, hon. Speaker, I am over time, but I just really want to say thank you to all of the residents of Shuswap for affording me the opportunity to be your representative.

To my broader B.C. Liberal, now B.C. United family, I’ll be back. [Applause.]

J. Sturdy: I have to admit that when this opportunity came up, I first considered not taking advantage of it only because we know how few are actually listening, for the most part, unless of course you really mess up, and then everybody knows about it. So much of it is just rhetoric, but there are many that are worth listening to, including all present company, of course.

I’d like to mention a couple of them.

One of them was my colleague Ralph Sultan, who served in here for many, many years. He had a rags-to-riches story, that guy. He’s an East Van boy, growing up in the ’30s. I remember him telling me a story where he had to eat lettuce sandwiches for lunch because that’s all they had to eat. Ultimately, he became an engineer at UBC, went on to Harvard, a PhD in economics, chief economist of the Royal Bank, always thoughtful and always considerate and always worth a trip to the chamber.

[1:40 p.m.]

Another one would be Mike de Jong. I thought I was going to get in trouble saying that, but obviously there’s some leniency here. The member for Abbotsford West. I have always been so impressed by his breadth of parliamentary and legislative experience and knowledge, not to mention his stamina in surviving 30-some-odd years, which is remarkable for any politician. I think we all understand or appreciate that his career may not yet be over, likely to be seen on a different stage, bringing the same ability to distil issues into essential principles and understand and articulate consequences. He’s an amazing guy, and I hope to hear his farewell speech.

I was skeptical about the value of what I could contribute today, but then I realized that there are others in my life over my political career that do deserve the recognition of this House. One of them is a gentleman by the name of Drew Meredith. It happens to be his birthday today, so I hope the House will join me in wishing him a happy birthday. He really started me on a political path.

He was the mayor of Whistler from 1986 to 1990, which was an incredibly dynamic and important time in the evolution of that very important community for this province. He was pivotal in convincing me to run for mayor of Pemberton, which started me on the track to this place. He became a political mentor. I was fortunately able to return the favour in some regards. He just moved to Pemberton and bought a farm, and I was able to help that poor city boy out.

Clearly and obviously, without family support, it’s not realistic that any of us could make the commitment that it takes to serve the citizens of our communities or the province. Certainly, my family is no different. I recall when my wife and I were mulling over the idea of a political run, and she asked me: “Well, if we don’t try, would you regret not trying?” That was a great question, and, frankly, the decision was made. I certainly have only rarely questioned that choice.

My daughters, Thea and Emma, will really have a difficult time remembering when their dad was not an elected official. We have to be reminded that it’s tough on them as well. Just one example was during a particularly challenging time with teachers. My daughter was in a science class at high school and had to endure a teacher disparaging her dad in the classroom, until the teacher was reminded that Thea was actually sitting in the classroom and this was entirely inappropriate. But it was just a reminder of the challenges that our families have to face because of the choices that we make.

Of course, I have to mention my mother, Martha. She has always been my biggest supporter, unwavering even when she is right to be concerned, and probably has been. I want to thank them all for their patience with me and their support of me.

Of course, the staff deserve the acknowledgment, as all of us do.

Firstly, I’m going to recognize somebody that we might not expect, and that’s a gentleman by the name of Leonel Martinez. Leonel is a Mexican farmworker. He’s been coming back to work at my farm for 18 years. Without Leonel and all the other Mexican workers that come back again and again, it’s unlikely that my farm would be operating, whether I followed a political path or not.

We should all appreciate the contributions that seasonal agricultural workers make to getting local food onto your plates. They deserve recognition, and they also deserve a path to citizenship, which they don’t have right now.

As we all know very well and have heard again and again, our constituency staff truly carry the burden of day-to-day constituency work with very little fanfare. In my case, Nicola Bentley has been with me almost since I was first elected, and I’ve relied on her good judgment without fail all the time.

Andrea Flintoft has been relentless, in fact, I would say ruthless, as an overseer of the inbox and the calendar.

[1:45 p.m.]

Our newest addition is Megan Veck, who has proved indispensable. She’s the youngest member of our team, and if I have any regrets, it would be that our time together will be relatively short. But I have no doubt she will go far. Given her abilities, I have little doubt that she’ll succeed in whatever she chooses to do with the rest of her work life.

Here in Victoria, I’ve had many different LAs over the years, but certainly, Louise Denis stands out. She is amazing. She is hard-working. She is incredibly thoughtful. Even after all this time, even yesterday she continues to surprise me.

Thank you to Louise.

What else do I have to say with my remaining time? Maybe I will reflect on what I consider a win and a loss over my term in both government and opposition.

In terms of a loss, it’s that I haven’t been successful in shepherding into existence regional transit in the Sea to Sky. I’ve been at it since I was mayor. We kept a small part of the service alive when Whistler pulled their funding for the Whistler-Pemberton commuter, but the bigger vision has always been to connect Mount Curry with Pemberton, Pemberton with Whistler, Whistler with Squamish, Squamish with Britannia Beach, with Furry Creek, Lions Bay and into Metro and the TransLink system.

Despite the B.C. Transit 25-year future plan and an MOU between the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and the Líl̓wat Nations, the district of Squamish, the resort municipality of Whistler, the village of Pemberton and the Squamish-Lillooet regional district that lays out a plan for governance and funding to build out over decades so that we can steward the limited capacity of the Sea to Sky Highway and connect residents and visitors with their jobs, health care services and recreation without having to possess a car or a thumb…. Frankly, that is the only choice that people have today, and it’s unacceptable, but it is the reality.

I thought the Premier had made a commitment to me last summer. As long as I held up my end of the bargain, and I won’t share what that is, we could and should get it done. But it turns out I was wrong. So far, that remains in the loss column, although I haven’t given up yet.

On the win side is convincing government to apply a cumulative effects assessment framework to Howe Sound. It is a highly complex area to manage for many, many, many values — three regional districts, seven municipalities, two First Nations, vast provincially administered lands, federal jurisdiction over the oceans and many, many, many competing interests. It’s a highly visible, highly desirable location, and it is important that we get it right.

Given all that’s going on, given the growth that we’re seeing in the area, the environmental recovery of Howe Sound can’t be compromised. Yet the demands of people, of economy, of conservation and of culture are increasingly difficult to reconcile. While there are clearly compromises to be made, overall we need to be confident and understand whether or not we’re moving in the right direction. The cumulative effects assessment framework, I believe will, over time, help us out.

It was the first marine CEF and quite a small one at that, but it provided us with a range of ecological value components to consider, and, over time, will give us the trends for the health of the region. I think it’s a valuable tool. After all, if you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it. It’s important that we manage it well, manage it for multiple values and manage it for multiple generations.

There’s more to say, obviously, but time is short. I’d like to finish with my gratitude.

The time I’ve spent in public service has served me well. It’s given me important friendships that I hope will last the rest of my life. I know myself better because of my time here. It has strengthened me. It has given me more appreciation of the vastness and the variety of this province and its people.

It has been an honour to serve not just the residents of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, but all the people of the province of British Columbia. It truly has been a privilege.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Applause.]

D. Ashton: Thank you for the opportunity today.

I’ll never forget the first day I walked in here, and it wasn’t when I was elected to be an MLA. It was when Speaker Barisoff had asked me to come down for a budget.

[1:50 p.m.]

I sat over here, and as a student of geology at university, I looked around this place and went: “Oh my gosh, what a beautiful, beautiful room.” And then I got to see the library, and that was enough after that.

This place and the people in it have always held me in awe, absolutely in awe of the things that we do here. Just quickly going through some of the thanks.

Two wonderful kids. My son Coleton has a degree in biology, got a job. He’s working for Environment now. I always said: “Tread carefully. Don’t mention my name.” He laughs. He’s a really good kid.

My daughter Chantal has a degree in criminal and northern justice. I don’t know where that came from, but she lives in Whitehorse, a long way away. I tried to go see her last summer, but due to an accident that I had, I couldn’t do it. This summer I’m going up to see her. I’m going to take the trip and make sure it’ll be a good one.

She got grabbed when COVID came and got stuck into health. She works in a clinic up there, overseeing an injection site. It’s not a safe injection site; it’s an injection site for mumps and measles and everything else. They just built a new clinic and made her head of the clinic, which is incredible.

I asked her: how does your job compare to what you took university for? She says: “Dad, it made me think on my feet, and it’s made a difference.” She does make a difference up there.

My two sisters, Lana and Jenny are holding the houses down and holding the farm down. We don’t have a big farm, but we’re incredibly proud of it. When I see Jordan and the amount that he has, on a continual basis and that…. My kid sisters are doing an incredible job on it.

I really want to thank the people from where I’m from, the wonderful people of Peachland, Summerland, Penticton, Naramata, the SnPink’tn Indian Band, also, who put their trust in me during the election to be able to represent themselves here in the Legislature.

I’ve often said that I don’t care if you voted for me or you didn’t vote for me or you didn’t vote at all. I’m here to try and make a difference, to try and help you. To be very frank, it’s been incredibly successful.

We’ve done a lot over the years. I look around this House, and collectively, we have to make a lot of decisions here. And collectively, we have to go back to the people that we represent, explain how we did or didn’t come to the great accomplishments. But, overall, the government that we have in this wonderful province works. Yes, we have our differences. We show them sometimes.

I’ve only got mad in this House once. I wasn’t in the House. I was at home, and I was on Zoom. There was a comment from the Minister of Labour — and I’m a great fan of a lot of the things you’ve done — about something, and he just caught me at the wrong time. Maybe the medication didn’t help. I’ll tell you, if you roll back the tape and have a look and read my lips, look out. Anyway, it’s one of those things. And having the honour to work with each and everybody in here is absolutely incredible.

When my parents raised us, all us kids, they always said: “Treat everybody like how you like to be treated.” I’ve always tried to do that, and I’m always going to do that. They also said: “Always give back. Make sure, whatever you do in your life, to always give back as best you can.”

Over the 11 years that I’ve been here, I’ve made some incredible friends. Some have gone now, haven’t run again. Some are not in the House. Many aren’t in the House because we’re all busy in the different Houses. But I’ll tell you, I’ve made some incredible friends here. There are so many in this House.

I’ll start in this Legislature. I’ll start with Ms. Kate. Again, we can take a little bit of liberty here.

Ms. Kate, your staff are incredible. I see all of you and what you do and how you keep us in line and how you keep this system working here. Thank you. People just don’t realize what you and your crew do. Absolutely unbelievable.

Sergeant-at-Arms, the people that are here to help us and keep us safe and to keep this place functioning, thank you. I know the members who are in the House that help us. They’re on duty all the time. Thank you for the ice cubes all the time. My dentist loves you. It’s one of those things; you get a bad habit of chewing on things. So to each and every one of you.

When we step outside, to the people that keep these grounds just immaculate, just absolutely immaculate, this Legislature, we all should be so proud as British Columbians of what this place means to many people and how this place looks. They’ve just done an incredible job.

[1:55 p.m.]

I have a couple of good memories here, to be honest with you. One of them was a gentleman that I had the fortune to be with on council. I won’t mention any names, but he brought his sister down here — she was a little bit older, very, very sick — and asked if she could come in the Legislature. I made arrangements after the session had closed to come in. The Speaker said yes, and I also asked the Speaker if it would be possible if she could sit in the chair, and he said absolutely. The gentleman took some pictures of his sister and that, and she passed away about two or three weeks later.

Those columns behind you, sir, with the leaves on them — her great-grandfather carved those. Pretty cool, when you think about it. That was one of the things that they wanted to do. Her great-grandfather actually was the carver on both of those, so that’s pretty neat to see.

The other one, for the folks maybe listening…. We have a lot of committees here, where we work together, and we really do work together.

I was fortunate to be on the Finance Committee for numerous years. One of the benefits or detriments of the Finance Committee is you do a lot of travelling with staff, with our friends across the aisle and ourselves. It’s a great collection of individuals that are out trying to listen to the people of British Columbia to help the process along for Finance and the budget.

Again, I was always taught that when you have a good day, you say thanks, and you do it. We had finished a long trip, and we were coming back, and I snuck three bottles of bubbly onto the airplane. Except the pilot heard them go clink, clink when I was getting into the airplane. He kind of looked at me like this, and he said: “You’re not drinking those on the airplane, are you?” I didn’t even answer him. I just kind of got back on the airplane.

You know, when you’re flying at about 24,000 feet and there’s gas in a bubble, well, they have a tendency to go off. And he knew right away as the cork hit…. It bounced between the two pilots and came back. But you know what? It was worth it. We all got a good laugh out of it. It was fun, to be honest.

I could go on. We all work hard in here. We’re all incredibly proud of what we do. I’m absolutely honoured to be able to work with everybody — everybody in here. I’ve never liked politics in my life. I’ve always liked good governance. And I’ve got to tell you: 99.9 percent of the time, good governance is practised in here. The people of British Columbia should be incredibly proud of each and every one of us that are elected.

Yeah, we have our disagreements on it, but in the direction…. You get the peaks and the hollows and the peaks and the hollows, but direction-wise, we’re still heading in the right direction for all the people of British Columbia.

I want to thank each and every one of you that are here for the friendships that I’ve earned and will always remember and will always cherish. Unlike my peer Greg, who said that he might be back, I’m not going to go back. I actually was retiring. Dad always said that “you’d be surprised; sometimes opportunities come your way,” and another opportunity has tentatively come my way.

I will never, ever, ever forget each and every one of you and never, ever forget what I’ve learned in here and never, ever forget how much of an honour it was to serve the people of British Columbia. Thank you very much.

Please enjoy yourselves, and thank you again for the memories. [Applause.]

S. Robinson: I really appreciate the opportunity to give some final words here in this chamber.

I’ve had the tremendous privilege of serving the people of Coquitlam-Maillardville since June 2013. And I say June, not May, because I wasn’t actually elected on election day. It took several weeks and several counts before I was declared the winner. It’s been a wild, an absolutely wild 11 years.

I love that you brought Kleenex.

I can never have imagined what this ride would have been. I got into politics because of homelessness in my community. I got myself elected to council at the urging of the member from Burke Mountain. Little did I anticipate that ten years later I would be Minister of Housing. I could not have predicted that.

To the voters, to the volunteers and to the donors who believed in me as a representative in this magnificent place and returned me here again in 2017 and 2020, I say thank you.

[2:00 p.m.]

While the last four months in this place aren’t ending as I would have envisioned, I have absolutely no regrets. I came here to use my voice and to make a difference, and I know that I have.

I am so appreciative of the support of my family and my husband, Dan Robinson, who promised me when we were just 21 years old and were talking about getting married that he wouldn’t get in my way, because I didn’t want anyone to get in my way. He has not only supported me to do this but in absolutely everything else that I have done.

To my son and son-in-law, Aaron and Kyle Demes, and my daughter, Leya Robinson, and son-in-law Omar Gigi, the efforts that I have made here in this House have been for them and for their generation, and their children, should I ever be so fortunate as the member for Shuswap to have grandchildren.

I also want to thank my in-laws, Sandra and Gary Robinson; my dad, Irv Dardick; his partner, Arlene Howard; and my mom, Rhoda Dardick, who passed away in 2014 and who never got to see me become a minister of the Crown. She would have been delighted when I became Minister of Finance. You see, she was our family’s finance minister, and it was her values that guided me as I crafted two budgets for British Columbians that resulted in surpluses.

I’m especially grateful for the opportunities I’ve had to work with John Horgan, Carole James, the member for Port Coquitlam and so many others who have become friends.

I’ve been privileged to work with amazing, amazing deputy ministers Kaye Krishna, Heather Wood and Bobbi Plecas, all talented women who know their files. They are incredible, non-partisan professionals who care about British Columbians. They made me look good. My thanks to them and to their staff for their work, sometimes into the wee hours of the morning.

I’ve had amazing chiefs of staff — Jade Ashbourne, Liam Lawson, Lauren Montgomery and Eric Peters; and assistants Molly Henry, Kaitlyn Gorman and Erica Williams.

Special thanks to Lori Larson, who kept me watered and fed, and Christine White, who has been there to keep me organized from the very first day I became minister in 2017.

I also have to thank the amazing CAs who have worked with me to serve my community. They carry the load for all of us — Laura Gullickson, Linda Asgeirsson, Iti Kalsi and Natasa Arezina; and of course, my constituency executive volunteers over the years, especially Matt Djonlic, who has been an outstanding executive assistant, volunteer and leader.

Now, there are folks who make this place work and that I want to thank.

First, the Speaker and his team for all that they do, especially for the chocolate.

Everyone in the Clerk’s office, ably led by Kate.

The folks from Hansard, who make me look tall in this place.

The professionalism of this staff keeps us informed about the rules of this place. They make sure that we have what we need to properly represent six million British Columbians in making sure to accurately record what is being said in these chambers. Their work is outstanding.

I want to thank the Sergeant-at-Arms and the people that work out of his office. Unfortunately, they’ve had extra work to do these last months for me and my staff, and I want to say thank you. I want to thank the sessional officers who keep us well hydrated; offer tissues, cough drops and pencils; transport our notes, and otherwise do their best to keep us happy. I’m sure they put their mileage on every day they’re here.

I love our democracy. It works because we all believe in it. Now, I’ve had the gift of being in opposition, then in a minority government, then in a majority government and then as an independent member. I have experienced it all.

I want to take a moment to thank the various critics I have had over my several files — the member for Kamloops–​South Thompson, the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson, the member for Peace River South and the member for Cariboo North. They did their jobs well, and they never made it personal. I want to say thank you to them for appreciating that we all have our jobs to do and having enough respect for this place and for me that they focused on the task at hand.

I have two more thank-yous for the B.C. United caucus.

The member for Vancouver-Langara does right by the Jewish community and does the work for the right reason. He has supported me when I was in cabinet when I was the sole voice for the Jewish community, and when I was tossed from cabinet. He continues to be there for the Jewish community, and I know that we are in good hands with his voice.

I want to thank Ms. P. When I was first elected, she made a point of welcoming me to this place, and I remember her sending me a note about a speech that I gave and her acknowledging my words and my passion behind them. That little note meant the world to this newbie.

I also want to take time to acknowledge and thank the press gallery. Our democracy depends on them. While some of them are part of the furnishings of this place — yes, I am referring to Vaughn — others are fresh-faced, and they bring a perspective and an analysis of what is happening here.

[2:05 p.m.]

This motley crew of journalists have all been professional and kind, especially when my cancer came back and when I was forced to leave cabinet. Yes, they have columns to write, and at times, I may not have agreed with their characterization or commentary. But that is what they are tasked to do.

More than just doing their jobs, I have to say they all checked in on me as a human being. I thank them for their kindness and their friendship, and I thank them for their tireless, mostly unsupported, unvalued efforts to tell the story of what is happening here.

My parting words in this place are for those who decide to put their name forward for public office, and I want to speak to those folks directly.

Know yourself and your values. There is no such thing as a perfect political party, just the party of best fit. Yes, you need a thick skin, but make sure that it’s not so thick that you no longer feel the pain of others. Come into this business with your integrity, and be sure to leave with your integrity. Be courageous. If you get yourself elected, recognize the privilege to serve all the people you represent, not just those who supported or voted for you.

Finally, I want to speak to all British Columbians and to say thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you for allowing me the honour to serve all of you. It has been one of the greatest gifts of my life.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Applause.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Just to finish this point, I want to say thank you. It’s been an honour to serve with everyone who has spoken today.

M. Starchuk: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

M. Starchuk: Today in the gallery, we have a group of kids from Frost Road, with Mrs. Olson and Mr. Schuch, that are visiting here from my tiny little place of Cloverdale. I got to meet them outside before they came in.

I want to just tell you that what you’re here to do right now is not going to be seen by very many other students that come to this place. These are the farewell addresses of the MLAs that are no longer seeking election. So they get ten minutes-ish to tell the people the stories of their time here in the Legislature, their time and their career to get them to where they are today.

I would ask everyone in the House to please make the children of Frost Road welcome.

T. Stone: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement of condolence.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

Tributes

JORDAN MASON

T. Stone: I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Jordan Alexander Mason, born June 9, 1986, here in Victoria. He tragically passed away last week, far, far too young.

In October of 2013, shortly after I first arrived in these buildings, Jordan came to work in my office as an executive assistant. New to the Legislature, he had started as an intern to the Minister of Education before finding a more permanent role with the Minister of Transportation.

Jordan was an enthusiastic and kind individual with an easy smile about him. He may have been new to politics but it took him no time at all to find his feet.

He became fast friends with many of his colleagues and even managed to rent a suite from a certain Global B.C. reporter, Keith Baldrey, although perhaps, in addition to Jordan’s charm, his father, Gary, may have had a hand in that.

I do remember one occasion when Jordan joined me on a tour of the Nanaimo Port Authority. In fact, this was my first trip as a minister.

[2:10 p.m.]

When we arrived at the port, Jordan and I, we were greeted enthusiastically by the port board members. We were actually early, which, for me, was a shocker. Ten minutes went by, 15 minutes went by, and 20 minutes went by. Next thing you know, we were 20 minutes behind schedule.

There was all this casual banter going on. We finally suggested that maybe we should start the meeting. The board chair turned to Jordan and said: “Young man, it would be terribly inappropriate to start the meeting before the minister has arrived.” Now, I took it as a compliment, but Jordan nearly fell out of his seat. He was speechless.

Beyond Transportation, Jordan would go on to work in several ministerial offices during his time as a staffer, including Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, led at that time by the member for Prince George–Valemount, as well as Advanced Education. He left the political side in 2016 to work in the public service, eventually establishing himself as a policy analyst in the Ministry of Health.

Outside of work, Jordan was a sports enthusiast, a dedicated Seattle Seahawks fan and one heck of a good golfer. He played senior varsity golf in high school, and he would go on to have an impressive collegiate golf career at Washington State University.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

If you asked Jordan what he was most proud of, what his true love and true passion were, it wouldn’t be any office or ministry or any Seahawks touchdown or the longest drive he’d ever hit on a golf course. Far and away, Jordan knew his biggest accomplishment was convincing the woman who had conducted his first government job interview back in 2013 to marry him.

What defined Jordan was his unequivocal, his unreserved love for his wife, Laura. Jordan knew Laura was indeed one heck of a catch. I can say that because I also had the privilege of working with and getting to know her while she served as my ministerial assistant when I was Minister of Transportation. She is kind, smart, fun and caring.

Jordan described Laura as his true partner in crime, a person that made him laugh, kept him honest and was the best companion that he could ever have asked for. They were married in December of 2018.

Over the last several years, Jordan found himself facing his toughest battle against cancer. He faced it with courage, all the while supported by his family and Laura. During long hospital stays and sometimes painful nights, through it all, Laura was right there beside him.

Sadly, last week Jordan ultimately lost his battle. Jordan’s passing reminds us to be so very grateful for the precious time that we have, for the opportunity to follow our passions and for the people who come into our lives.

On behalf of the official opposition and, I’m sure, all members of this House, we send our deepest condolences to Jordan’s family and friends — in particular to his father, Gary, no stranger to members of this House and the gallery above; also to his mother, Barbara; his brother, Geoffrey; and of course, his beloved wife, Laura.

To them we say: thank you. Thank you for sharing Jordan with us.

We are so grateful for his public service, for his vibrant personality, for his easy smile and for the chance to be a part of his life, even if just for all too short a time.

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

A. Olsen: I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: While we’re in between business here, I want to acknowledge…. Earlier today I talked about the changes that were being made to the standing orders, and I referenced my colleague from Cowichan Valley. I didn’t reference the person who has been working behind the scenes with me on this, Laura Ferreira, our staff.

It’s really important that we always acknowledge the work that’s done behind the scenes to keep issues moving, to keep making sure that the item is on the agenda with the Government House Leader.

I want to take a very brief moment to raise my hands up to Laura Ferreira for the incredible work that she does for our caucus, as a team, but also on this important issue for our caucus.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 25 — HAIDA NATION RECOGNITION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 25; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:18 p.m.

The Chair: I call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 25, Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024.

On clause 2 (continued).

M. Lee: I wanted to respond to the minister’s response to myself at the beginning of this next segment of the review of Bill 25. I appreciate the minister’s acknowledgment of some of the statements that I made at the outset.

The minister referred to two items. One is the support that I had provided, with the official opposition caucus, to the act itself, the Haida Nation Recognition Act, a year ago, Bill 18, as it was then known. It was on the basis of the recognition, of course, of the Haida Nation itself, which has been under successive governments, including under former Premier Gordon Campbell. The Leader of the Official Opposition has been an executive council member as a member of his cabinet. There’s a clear recognition of the history and the need to strengthen that relation with the Haida Nation.

[2:20 p.m.]

Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, was brought in with a significant amount of attention by this province and First Nation leaders across this province. Given the nature of what is addressed here as this new model, this new template, I’ve said that it’s important that we have the time and the space to have this review. I appreciate that the minister is providing that.

We will have, of course, through the course of the remaining balance of our debate on this bill at committee stage, a continued focus to seek clarity and certainty about this model. We had that effort in understanding the provisions of the underlying agreement. This legislation puts into effect certain components of the agreement.

When the minister refers to the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which I and the official opposition caucus for the B.C. Liberals, now B.C. United, had supported in adoption, we had the opportunity at committee stage to have five days of committee review.

We are now on the third day, and I would recognize, of course, that we’re not even on full days. It’s now 2:20. We have about three hours left in the rest of this day. That’s not a full day, depending on how you count the hours. I appreciate the minister is counting hours, and we’ve got a running time clock.

I do recognize, to First Nations leaders across this province, that there were letters received under the review of UNDRIP. I do recognize that there are considerations and concerns about language use, balance, dialogue, partnership, relationship, all of those things. Of course, as we said from the outset, that’s why we put out a statement on March 22 — before the agreement was entered into, when it was not even available — based on the minister’s first initial news release.

We called for a pause. That’s why, when the government did not do that pause and proceeded to sign the agreement on April 14, introducing legislation on April 22 in this House on first reading, again we called for this to at least be made an exposure bill.

The next steps under consideration, based on the dialogue and the questions that we have, to understand clause 2 of Bill 25, will inform our approach to the balance of this committee process. That’s why these discussions are important.

I say that not just to the minister but to those who are interested in this proceeding and wondering what we’ve covered to date, what we intend to cover in the days that come. I will correct myself that there are eight clauses to this bill, of course. In particular, there are probably four clauses of some import. Some of the subsequent clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 are consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation, to incorporate what is referred to here. We will obviously need to look at that.

I hope that I’m being clear enough for those who are concerned about timing. Our expectation, of course, is that we will complete the review with this government in the days that come. After today, we have four days left in this legislative session.

I do not expect to see on this bill, as we did not see, for example, on the bill that I joined my colleague the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, with the former Minister of Children and Family Development, MCFD…. On Indigenous self-government, in that responsibility of taking care of children, that particular bill was not closed upon. It wasn’t closed out. We had the full opportunity. Government recognized the importance of that.

[2:25 p.m.]

That’s just another example. It certainly is our expectation that government would enable and allow for that. I am saying, as well…. There are others I’m hearing from who are concerned that government is going to bring closure to this bill. We won’t even have the opportunity to complete the dialogue and get the amount of clarity and certainty, at least in respect of the way the bill is currently written.

With that in mind, I’d like to come back to the minister’s response relating to governance, because it is important. When I asked the question, to which the minister replied, it is, obviously, to recognize that the 204 nations in our province are distinct in their own ways. Their governance structures, although similar in some cases, are different. They have entirely different histories and all of that. I understand that, but that wasn’t my question. My question was based on the fact….

As we had heard on Bill 18, the Haida Nation Recognition Act, a year ago, the very act that we’re amending here in Bill 25, this was an important step for the Haida Nation. They were the first First Nation in this province to get this kind of recognition. They weren’t to be under the Society Act anymore, the Council of the Haida Nation itself. This was a necessary step, an incremental step, in strengthening and restructuring — these are the words of the minister — the relationship with the Haida Nation.

What I’m asking…. Let me just make one more point here. The reason it’s important to have the discussion at committee stage…. The minister used Bill 41 as an example, UNDRIP, DRIPA, this bill, Bill 25. If you just look at these two bills, why it’s important is that in our view, what we’ve seen over 4½ years is that this government has raised expectations with First Nations. That’s the reason why.

On DRIPA, we see, to date, only two section 7 agreements with one First Nation in 4½ years, the Tāłtān — Eskay Creek and Red Chris mine. I have heard First Nation leaders at All Chiefs Gatherings with the government question: “Why is it that we’ve only had two agreements under that provision in 4½ years?”

I know the minister has said, including in estimates yesterday to me, when I was able to join for some time, that there are many others in progress. We’ll see that, I hope, but in terms of the expectations raised by the Premier about this being a new template and a new model, we need to understand what this is.

To the extent that other First Nations are looking at this and saying…. “Well, why would we go down treaty? It would take decades to get through that process with the federal government at the table. Why can’t we just forget about the federal government? Why don’t we just focus on the province of B.C. and get an agreement like the Haida got? Get recognition of all our title, asserted, claimed or otherwise?”

The minister has referred to, at particular junctures…. It’s not just a unique history. It’s a very hard-earned history by the Haida Nation and their peoples to struggle through the court system, to struggle with successive governments, to get through the various hoops and hurdles, the various reconciliation tables, agreements and all of that, and to get the recognition they got under this act.

All I’m asking the minister is: is that the same expectation for another First Nation that is looking to this government or a government of British Columbia in the future?

Under clause 2, 4.1(2) says: “For certainty, the recognition in subsection (1) engages the honour of the Crown.” This is the attempt by this government to set the standard for future governments. Regardless of whether this government continues after October, 4½ months from now, they’re binding future governments by engaging those words in this bill. It has serious implications on future governance of our lands.

I think it’s important that we understand, at this juncture, what the expectation is of the government of British Columbia? As they negotiate, as they have a First Nation, another First Nation in British Columbia, the other 203 First Nations…? Pick one, if you like. The minister referred to a few of them.

[2:30 p.m.]

If they come to British Columbia government and say, “Well, we also want a very similar template agreement, which the Premier has said we can get,” will the government at that point say, “Well, wait. You’re not recognized. You don’t have a separate statute that recognizes you as a nation”? As we did with the Haida Nation a year ago and as the federal government is currently doing now, a year after the provincial government did. Are these the further steps that nation will have to jump over and jump through?

M. Starchuk: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Starchuk: Joining us in the gallery now is a group of grade 5 students from Frost Road Elementary. The teacher they’re with right now is Mr. Heacock, and some other parents that are making their day in Victoria so much better.

When I meet them downstairs, I often give them a very difficult question. Today’s question was: what is my favourite colour? Somebody answered it correctly, and they now own a purple MLA pen from Cloverdale. I want to say thank you for guessing my favourite colour.

You are here today at the committee stage of the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act.

I won’t take any more time. Would everybody here please make this group of people from Frost Road Elementary feel welcome.

Hon. G. Lore: I also seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Lore: A group of students from Vic High in Ms. Georgina Hope’s class joined us today, had a chance to watch question period, and I had a chance to speak with them over lunch outside today.

This incredible group of students raised questions about education, about post-secondary education, housing, home­lessness, environment — about the actions they could take and what they want to see us take as government. This group of student leaders who joined us, who are in the House, also wrote letters to the Premier, to the Minister of Environment and had a chance to speak directly with the Minister of Environment.

I am inspired by the youth leadership out of Vic High, and I want the House to please help me make them and Ms. Hope feel very welcome.

[2:35 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the question. I appreciate turning to the content of the bill as he has done.

The question was: will B.C. require, in the future, legislation of this sort, i.e., the first phase for part 1 of this bill and now the part that deals with land? Will both components, as I understand it, be required?

The answer is that we intend to deal with First Nations as they present themselves to government in the future. They will vary, as the member alluded to. There’s a vast number and a great variety in our province.

Some have the powers of a natural person already. In the case of the Haida, that was not the case, but in some other cases, there already is that power. So I think it’s fair to answer the member by saying that we intend to deal with First Nations on an individualized basis, taking into account the unique characteristics of each nation.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that response. That is consistent, also, with the minister’s response at the end of the Bill 18 discussion, where I asked the question: does this set a new standard for the province in respect of what the government of British Columbia is looking for — a new governance standard, let’s say — for this kind of recognition?

The minister gave a similar response as he just gave. We know, of course, even under Bill 41 and DRIPA…. We’ve seen this in other pieces legislation from this government, including, even in the Police Act…. The member for Prince George–Mackenzie was debating recently with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General that the term “Indigenous governing body” continues to be utilized and defined under DRIPA, for example.

The linkage is that there was recognition of the Haida Nation itself under the underlying act that this Bill 25 is amending now. The minister took my question appropriately to address both components, both the recognition part and now the title recognition part.

I would suggest that that seems to confirm that the recognition of…. Literally, the lead-in on the bill…. The act currently says: “The government of British Columbia recognizes that (a) the Haida Nation has inherent rights of governance and self-determination.” Step 1.

Step 2, clause 4.1(1) of this bill: “The government of British Columbia recognizes that the Haida Nation has aboriginal title within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to land on Haida Gwaii, as described in the Schedule to this Act.”

Two steps. It would suggest to me, though…. I’ll ask this question this way. In order to have the second step, the recognition of Aboriginal title to a nation, in this case the Haida Nation, the first step ought to occur. That is, and if I just interpose the minister’s response and work with it, that there has to be a recognition by the government of the inherent rights of governance and self-determination of that nation.

[2:40 p.m.]

My understanding is that the Recognition Act itself gives that recognition by statute. This title recognition is the first for any nation in this province, so we’re breaking new ground with the Haida Nation. They’ve broken new ground many different ways. That would suggest that it’s more than just about the identity of the nation itself. It is the recognition by the government of British Columbia through a statute. That’s what I’m getting at.

Is that step necessary? If I look back at the discussion on the original act, there were indications that this was necessary for future governance arrangements. The recognition of the Haida, giving them the powers of a natural person, which the minister just referred to, was necessary in order to move forward with further negotiations, hence this title agreement that the government entered into with the Haida Nation on April 14.

Again, is that not a necessary step with a First Nation that wants to pursue another title agreement with the government of British Columbia in order to have the government of British Columbia recognize that they have Aboriginal title within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act — to have the first step done, which is a statute in this House recognizing their inherent rights of governance and self-determination?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question. It was essentially, I think, whether as a first step, there needs to be a statute of recognition, as there was in the case of the Council of the Haida Nation and Haida Nation generally.

In this process, we of course are dealing with collectives — what the courts have referred to as rights-holding collectives. That is, Aboriginal rights are held by collectives. We as a Crown government, both federal and provincial, must understand the nature of that collective so that we are in a position to engage on a government-to-government basis with that entity.

In the case of Haida Gwaii, which of course is what we’re here to talk about today, that evidence was clear. There’s historical evidence of continuity, and they have a history of governance that I’ve referred to frequently in this place, a constitution, 50 years of Council of the Haida Nation, and so forth. So in the case before us, there was no difficulty in identifying the collective with which we hope to engage on a government-to-government basis.

As I said in my previous answer, our goal is to work to meet First Nations on the ground, as they wish to be identified, and work with them in each case in a different fashion. There is no simple rule in this process as we discharge the obligations of the Crown and try to do what the Supreme Court of Canada urged us to do in the Tŝilhqot’in and other cases.

M. Lee: I understand the minister and what he’s conveying. Certainly I’ve heard, again, conceptually, the framework of that response in other ways.

I just wanted to ask the minister, though, as a follow-on to that…. There is some level of recognition that the government of British Columbia would need to get to in order to recognize — and I use that word not in a statute way, necessarily, but it does lead to the actual use of the word “recognition” — the rights-holding collective.

Can I just ask the minister, though…? I mean, he has described what that looks like for the Haida Nation. For other nations, he’s indicating…. Well, it depends on who we’re talking about, their history and what that means.

We are then saying that the government of British Columbia is open to recognition for other nations which establish what? The question is the “what.” It’s the unbroken history. It’s a constitution of 50 years. Not many nations necessarily have that governance model yet. Obviously, both the federal structures imposed on the nation in terms of Old Massett and Skidegate, Hereditary Elders…. All of that, in terms of how you define a nation, has come together under the Council of the Haida Nations. They’ve been able to put it together under one governance structure.

[2:50 p.m.]

Can I ask the minister just to describe…? I do think it’s helpful, because it helps set some understanding, let’s say, for not just First Nations themselves but also for other British Columbians about what the path forward is going to look like in terms of recognizing First Nations for the purpose of title recognition through this new model.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:51 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — ANTI-RACISM ACT

Bill 23, Anti-Racism Act, reported complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. M. Dean: Now, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 23, Anti-Racism Act.

Division has been called.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Bill 23, Anti-Racism Act, read a third time and passed.

[2:55 p.m. - 3:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the Douglas Fir Room, we call committee on Bill 21, Legal Professions Act.

In the main chamber, we call Bill 25, Haida Recognition Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 25 — HAIDA NATION RECOGNITION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 25; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:08 p.m.

M. Starchuk: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

M. Starchuk: Joining us in the gallery today is a group of grade 5 students from Frost Road Elementary, who are here with Ms. Hoyano.

I want to say that what you just witnessed was the unanimous decision and vote where everybody stood in favour of the Anti-Racism Act that just got passed. This will be a point in time in your life where you’ll say: “I was there when that took place.”

Now that you’re here you’ll be listening to the committee stage of the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, another historic bill that’s coming before the House to be turned into law.

This is a very special moment to be a grade 5 student or one of the teachers or one of the parents that are in the House today.

Would everybody join me in making the children from Frost Road Elementary very welcome.

Debate Continued

The Chair: I call the committee to order, of course, recognizing the Minister for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

On clause 2 (continued).

Hon. M. Rankin: I’d like to begin by acknowledging, in the House, the presence of Doug White, the special counsel to the Premier on Indigenous reconciliation. I believe Jessica Wood also is here, who is our deputy minister in the Declaration Act secretariat.

[3:10 p.m.]

Of course, in answering the member’s question about future governance requirements, etc., I’m hard-pressed to provide a one-size-fits-all or a set of criteria, which seems to be what the member wants. We’re here to talk about a particular bill with a particular First Nation, the Haida.

Haida’s governance is clear. I’ve said that on many occasions. Fifty years with a stable government called the Council of the Haida Nation, a written constitution and the like. We recognized last year that governance system through legislation.

We do think, in answer to the member’s question, that a strong government-to-government relationship is an essential component of working toward title acquisition. Of that there’s no doubt. That is why we’re bringing forward Bill 25, which is, of course, what we are here to talk about today.

M. Lee: I share the member from Surrey’s enthusiasm, as he welcomes elementary students from Frost Road Elementary in Surrey to the chamber, about the historic nature of Bill 25, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act.

The response from the minister, though, is cautious about not spelling out what the application or usage of this new template, this new model for recognition of title through agreement and legislation in this manner, as to the way it would be utilized in the future by this government or a government that succeeds this government, recognizing again in sub 4.1(2) “the honour of the Crown.”

So what this government has done is…. We have a Premier that has said this is a template, a new model. We have a bill that says it engages the honour of the Crown. It sets very high standards of what any government of British Columbia is expected to do, with this Bill 25, but also because of what the Premier has said.

This minister has said at times during this committee debate that there are some challenges. He has acknowledged that there are some challenges as to how this would be replicated — that was, I think, the word he utilized — for other First Nations in this province.

I’m just trying to get at the clarity, because the way the official opposition has been approaching this bill is the way the Premier has positioned the agreement and the bill. Our concern is how this government has gone forward in more than just an incremental step, in a fundamental change as to how title could be addressed under this new model, under this new template in the way that the Premier has characterized it.

Having said all that, in terms of the Haida NA Recognition Act, we’ve talked about the agreement itself, the Rising Tide Haida title lands agreement. I would also say, of course, that the reason why this bill discussion needs to unfold in this way is that we are amending the Haida Nation Recognition Act, as I’ve said. And in doing so, we are now recognizing Aboriginal title, which is connected to the first step, which is the recognition that the Haida Nation has inherent rights of governance and self-determination.

When you put together the two recognitions under this act, which is section 1 of the act, which is not being amended, and now new section 4, under part 2 of this act, under Bill 25….

I’m asking the minister, knowing and acknowledging that the inherent right of governance and self-determination is to be left…. Determination of the scope of these rights of governance and self-determination is to be left to negotiations. That’s what the minister said a year ago when this act was brought to the floor of this legislative chamber. A year later the government enters into an agreement with the nation that they recognize under that statute. That’s negotiation?

[3:15 p.m.]

The scope of rights of governance and self-determination still is not yet spelled out, because there hasn’t been an amendment to that section of the bill, of the act. Nothing has changed there. What has changed, though, is the recognition of Aboriginal title. We know that under the agreement, the third component that we need to understand here, there’s a two-year transition period that’s spelled out as appendix A, “Transition process,” in the agreement.

In terms of the jurisdictions, in the words of the minister, the province of British Columbia is stepping back in their jurisdiction, the Haida Nation is presumably stepping forward into that jurisdiction — on land management, for example, protected areas, forestry, what is going to be under the two-year transition process. The details are to be worked out after the agreement comes into effect this summer and after this bill is completed in some fashion here in this session.

As you look at both the governance recognition right in section 1 and the title right in section 4, I’d ask the minister…. Now that we’re a year later in the negotiation, and this agreement has been entered into between the nation and the province of British Columbia, what is the minister’s current understanding of the scope of jurisdiction, the scope of the rights of governance and self-determination of the Haida Nation by virtue of this agreement? What’s his understanding of that at this time?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member’s question was on the current understanding of the rights of the Haida to self-determination and jurisdiction, I think, if I understood the question properly.

As the member knows, in our canvassing of the agreement previously, appendix A to that agreement says at clause 2: “The initial focus of the transition process will be on land and resource decision-making,” with a commitment of the parties to begin negotiating “by addressing protected areas, fishing lodges and forestry.” Clause 3 says: “Either party may provide a written notice of its readiness to negotiate a particular subject matter” for inclusion in schedule A.

The member is right that the agreement does therefore not exhaustively set out the scope of jurisdiction. It’s rather to be a matter in the context of title and, therefore, of land and resource management, to be determined through negotiation, after the transition period of at least two years. Those topics that are to be addressed together and through negotiations have been outlined specifically in the act.

I want to also acknowledge that this work builds upon the historic 2009-2010 legislation introduced in the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act, which, of course, created the Haida Gwaii Management Council, the solutions table. It’s through that and, subsequently, the framework in 2021 and then, in 2023, the Recognition Act that we’ve been discussing so far this afternoon. It’s all a trajectory to being able, now, to talk about title through these specific schedules, to deal with those aspects of title listed in the agreement.

M. Lee: The minister is saying, in effect, that since last May, with the recognition of the Haida Nation, with this broad recognition of their inherent rights of governance and self-determination, there is no further clarity around what the rights of governance and self-determination are for the Haida Nation, meaning the scope of it. There has been no further clarity through negotiations, other than the agreement which recognizes title.

The agreement which recognizes title, of course, contemplates another two-year transition process. I note the minister has now said, a few times, “at least,” but it does say it’s “estimated to take two years.” I don’t know if the minister is indicating now that it’s going to be more than two years. That would be the meaning of the words “at least,” of course. That seems a bit of a change.

I would ask, then, just to be clear: with the recognition of governance and self-determination rights under this act a year ago — and the agreement itself now, in this bill, with those inherent rights of governance and self-determination — what jurisdiction, at this time, does the Haida Nation have over private property rights, those holders of fee simple interests, on Haida Gwaii?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question. I should start by saying that I appreciate the member correcting me. I have been using the words: “at least.” That’s because that’s the expectation in conversations with the parties, both in Haida Gwaii and, of course, in the province. But the member is absolutely right. The words in the agreement are “estimated,” so I confirm that.

Then the member asked about fee simple, and I’m glad that he did. That, of course, is in the section we’re dealing with. It’s set out in this clause 2 at section 4.3, which says: “The following interests in and rights in relation to land on Haida Gwaii, whether arising before or after this section comes into force, are confirmed and continued: (a) an estate in fee simple.”

[3:30 p.m.]

I think the member would agree that it’s equally clear in clauses 4.4 to 4.6 and following — well, in the entire section, 4.4 to 4.10 — in the agreement. I’m hoping that the clarity that I’ve read into the bill, as well as in the agreement, will provide the clarity I’ve been trying to communicate ever since this debate began with respect to fee simple interests.

M. Lee: I know that we’ve spent some time together, and the minister has counted the hours with his team. I hope that the team, with the minister, understands the approach that I’m using. I’m not only focused on fee simple interests here. I did raise the question, but let me ask the question a different way so we can come back at that.

I think the minister’s response to me is: “Well, the language of the agreement between 4.4 and 4.10 set it out.” Of course, the clauses in the agreement that are consistent with that, although we’ll get to that, are 4.3 and 4.2.

What I’m focused on, though, is the linkage between the recognition of the rights of governance and self-determination for the Haida Nation under section 1 of the act and the new section 4 that’s being brought in under Bill 25.

The other way to ask the question is: other than what is contemplated between the parties through negotiation in terms of the scope of the rights of governance and self-determination for the Haida Nation — spelled out in the agreement, as the minister just pointed out — and the bill itself, is there any other known, negotiated or otherwise, recognition of rights of governance and self-determination of the Haida Nation that have been understood, agreed to, by the province of British Columbia and the Haida Nation?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the question. The member asked about the type of jurisdiction and law-making authority that the province may have recognized in the past. The starting point is where the member, I think, took us, which is the recognition of the governance last year. In 2023, we recognized that the Haida Nation had the powers of a natural person.

That was the first place where, I think, the member could see that we’ve changed, by our agreement in this place, to ensure that they had those powers that they had not, in the past, had to exercise. Of course, as the member knows, under corporate law or…. There’s a significant degree of ambit of authority that those powers connote and confer. That was what happened last year when that was done.

As I’ve spoken of, this is an incremental process. The agreement that is before us, connected to the bill that we’re debating, sets out a process to recognize, on land and resource issues, certain things.

I’ll take the member to section 3 of the agreement. Clause 3 says two very specific things. “The Haida Nation exercises its jurisdiction on Haida Gwaii in accordance with inherent Haida title and laws.” In addition, “British Columbia exercises its jurisdiction on Haida Gwaii in accordance with provincial law.” The point is to recognize the exercise of those jurisdictions and to reconcile them through the transition process described in appendix A, which we’ve, of course, talked about so far. That is confirmed in the bill before us.

We’re still on clause 2. In section 4.4, it talks about interim measures in relation to land, dovetailing with the agreement’s appendix A, which talks about the same incremental process. It says in clause (1) of 4.4: “The government of British Columbia acknowledges that the measures set out in this section are interim measures and that changes to the laws of the Haida Nation and the laws of British Columbia are necessary to reconcile systems of law and governance on Haida Gwaii.” Essentially, what the agreement said, the clauses in section 3 that I just read from the agreement.

Then it says: “Enactments of British Columbia in relation to Crown land continue to apply in relation to land that is held by the Haida Nation in aboriginal title.” I think it’s worth repeating that. “Enactments of British Columbia in relation to Crown land continue to apply in relation to land that is held by the Haida Nation in aboriginal title.”

[3:40 p.m.]

Then it goes on to provide greater detail. It says: “For certainty, enactments of British Columbia that are applied by subsection (2),” which I just read, “in relation to land that is held by the Haida Nation in aboriginal title are to be administered consistently with that aboriginal title and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

The member, I hope, will agree that that connotes a very incremental process of the kind that we’ve described in previous debate.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s fulsomeness of responses to work with the agreement provisions and the bill as to what it sets out. It’s, hopefully, clear that despite the words on the page in the agreement and the bill, there are questions to be asked and there is a need to have clarity and certainty as to what is being entered into, how it’s being implemented and what the model is that’s being structured here.

With the self-determination and governance rights recognized under section 1, outside of the agreement provisions and what is contemplated around title here, are there any other governance rights or self-determination rights that are recognized at this juncture by the government of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question. The member has pointed out earlier, and we agree entirely, that this bill before us and the agreement at issue are not treaties, are not modern treaties or any kind of treaty. Modern treaties, as the member will know, define in very specific terms governance arrangements on various topics that First Nations and federal and provincial governments agree to, and that is not what is before us here. Similarly, treaties deal with fiscal arrangements. That is not what is before us here.

Rather, this is an agreement by which we have confirmed as a province the existence of Aboriginal title as defined by common law, and we’ve agreed together to a process to define our respective jurisdictions and reconcile them. That is what section 3 of the agreement talks about. That, of course, is the entire concept of the bill that we are here to debate.

I hope that is of help to the member.

[3:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: The minister is getting now to the point that I’m concerned about. Sometimes I think that when governments and parties negotiate an agreement without stepping back from it and then present it, it needs to hang together and make some sense.

I appreciate that the agreement itself says that this “is not a treaty,” in section 8.8 of the agreement, “but is part of a reconciliation process.” The reconciliation process that is referred to in 8.8 of the agreement is also consistent with what the minister said when this initial act was passed last May. This is what I keep coming back to in this line of discussion. It is: what are the rights of governance and self-determination for the Haida Nation? The answer from the minister was: “Well, it’s going to be determined by negotiation.”

At the time, with the limits of time that we had a year ago, I took that to mean there would be future agreements that set out the governance rights and self-determination rights. The minister refers to treaty, and certainly, there is a model. This is not a treaty. We understand that. But what it is, is that we have a statute that gave recognition to the inherent rights of governance and self-determination. We were prepared to support that on the basis that this would be spelled out by future negotiations between the Haida Nation and the government.

Today as we continue to debate Bill 25, of course the framework is, “We’re still addressing this. We’re still figuring out jurisdictions,” as the minister pointed out, under appendix A, the transition process appended to the agreement.

In the meantime, what this government has done is entered into an agreement to enter into another process to determine what the jurisdictional governance rights are, even over private property rights. Today in this chamber, the minister is not able, of course… When we’re being asked to review this bill, which does say fee simple is protected and confirmed and continue…. Those are the words. The jurisdiction of the Haida Nation, the recognition of the inherent rights of governance and self-determination seem to, of course, come overtop of that. We know that Haida title comes underneath it.

We have, conceptually, the rights of governance and self-determination of Haida Nation overtop of all the peoples, the lands of Haida Gwaii. We have Haida Nation recognition in step 2, recognition of their underlying Aboriginal title to Haida Gwaii in totality underneath fee simple lands. But they’ve consented to those fee simple interests to continue…. They’re confirmed and continued.

There’s no treaty. There’s no understanding. It’s not spelled out in terms of the hundreds of pages of governance provisions that set out the parameters of the jurisdictions. Those pages, those schedules, will be determined through the two-year transition period.

So it is a bit like the cart before the horse. This goes back to the initial statement that we put out back on March 22, which is that we’re being asked to consider this as a province and figure out the details later. This is very much that. This is what I’m hearing from the minister. When we’re even talking about section 1 of the statute that recognized, again, the rights of governance and self-determination of the Haida Nation a year ago, this is the progress we’ve made.

In any of what is not defined as the rights of governance and self-determination of the Haida Nation, which is recognized under section 1 of this act, is there any aspect of that that affects private property rights for those private landowners on Haida Gwaii?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member referring to the language of the legislation about fee simple with the clarity that is contained in that. It talks of “confirmed….” The agreement confirms and continues, as I think the member has accurately stated. What that means for people who live on Haida Gwaii is that there’s no change to private property whatsoever.

B.C. continues to have the rights. The fee simple is protected under B.C. jurisdiction, as the agreement states. B.C. has recognized the Haida’s ability to make laws, but only in the context of the agreement that we’ve looked at so far, in a scheduled and an orderly way, where each schedule will address aspects of the jurisdiction.

In the specific context, which the member has taken us to, of fee simple, I don’t know how much clearer one can make it in the agreement and in the act. There will be no change to private property, local governments, public infrastructure. Programs and services will continue under current laws.

There’s a transition period later, but with respect to fee simple, there is absolutely no change for private property, whether used for residential, business or industrial property. All of that remains under B.C. jurisdiction in perpetuity. That is what the agreement says. That is what the Haida have agreed with us to do.

M. Lee: I do have a few other ways to get at this. My reference to 4.3 of Bill 25, clause 2, is just to read the words. We will have the opportunity to talk about what they mean in terms of confirmed and continued.

I am still probing, though, the two rights, the two recognitions of governance and self-determination, so I will just ask the question this way. Is the following statement correct? That the Haida Nation has no jurisdiction, no rights of governance to regulate private land currently under the agreement and Bill 25, by virtue of their undefined section 1 inherent rights of governance and self-determination as spelled out in the act?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the answer to provide the clarity the member’s seeking is that our government-to-government agreement confirms that the Haida will not exercise any jurisdiction over fee simple lands and that fee simple lands will remain under B.C. jurisdiction. This is not a transitional provision. This is outside the transitional process that we’ve described so far. So yes, the Haida have rights to governance. The member’s right in confirming that, but that will not be jurisdiction over fee simple.

M. Lee: Thanks to the minister for that confirmation as we will look at the actual fee simple provisions and the transitional interim measures as well.

To finish off this portion of the governance as it relates to title as well, we would suggest…. As we look at the Tŝilhqot’in land title decision of 2014, we’ve talked about a few aspects of that. The minister, in a previous committee process in response to one of my questions, indicated that the Haida, of course, from the very beginning, had sought title recognition, asserted their title to all of Haida Gwaii.

To clarify, though, in terms of the Tŝilhqot’in, although private property, fee simple lands were excluded in the proceedings with the Supreme Court of Canada, my understanding is that the Tŝilhqot’in were also looking for title to their entire claim area, including for fee simple lands. This is relevant, Mr. Chair, in the context as a reference point for how this new model is being developed.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I’d ask the minister to reconfirm that’s the case, because my understanding is, from my recollection of the way the minister answered before, that there was a slightly different suggestion that it was never sought.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member asked about the Tsilhqot’in case. Of course, the nation involved, as part of the Tŝilhqot’in National Government, was the Xeni Gwet’in. In their so-called caretaker area, they indeed asserted a claim for Aboriginal title over that entire area. They were unable to meet the evidentiary standard required by the courts, and the court awarded them a smaller area, which is called the declared title area.

I can confirm, as the member noted, that they ex­cluded from the ambit of that claim any fee simple interests in the territory.

M. Lee: What is the minister’s understanding, though, in terms of the Supreme Court of Canada review and position when having to be confronted with any applications, including of the Xeni Gwet’in, recognizing that the proceeding did refine itself or narrow itself into the ambit that ultimately presented itself to the Supreme Court of Canada review?

With that decision legacy — meaning the chain that proceeded, for that nation, to the Supreme Court of Canada but to other reviews of title, the main question being the ability for Aboriginal title to coexist with fee simple lands — what’s the minister’s view of the jurisprudence in this area? Is this something that is an area of settled law, or an area that’s still to be determined?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I think it’s our view that private property as fee simple interest and Haida Aboriginal title can coexist through a negotiated agreement and legislation recognizing Aboriginal title that confirms the continuation of fee simple lands. That is exactly, of course, what the agreement provides: for the coexistence of fee simple and Aboriginal title.

The member asks about other court cases or other authority in this regard. I can advise the member that there are other cases in which fee simple has been sought by — at least an Aboriginal title claim has included fee simple. That was not the case, as I noted, in the Tsilhqot’in Xeni Gwet’in case. That was not the case in the recent Nuchatlaht case, where fee simple interests were explicitly excluded.

There are at least two that come to mind that are currently being litigated, one involving the Quw’utsun and a claim to property in the Richmond area, and the kʷikʷəƛ̓əm First Nation out in the Tri-Cities area, which has included, as part of their title claim, fee simple lands.

The Haida also claimed fee simple land in this case filed in 2002. Part of our effort to resolve this litigation was to be able to confirm that fee simple lands, under the act and under the agreement, would be “confirmed and continued” and remain under B.C. jurisdiction.

I’m confident that we are doing what the courts have asked us to do so frequently and so powerfully in the past. Therefore, I am confident that the efforts that we are making to do this historic work will be the subject of a court…. Should this ever be litigated, should this principle arise, the courts would be deferential to our efforts to do exactly what they have so frequently asked us to do.

M. Lee: To be clear, what the minister read out was a summary of what the agreement in the bill says. But there’s no jurisprudence. There are no Supreme Court of Canada court decisions that actually back up the approach and the structure of what the government is currently doing here. There’s never been a ruling that says Aboriginal title can underline fee simple interests and can coexist. Is that not correct?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I’d start, I suppose, with the fact…. In paragraph 115 of the Tsilhqot’in case, the court talks about title being confirmed by agreement or court order, contemplating that agreements of this sort would be made.

We need not wait for a particular Supreme Court of Canada to tell us, on a specific matter, how to proceed, because they have, in many cases, and I want to ensure that we read into the record, asked us to do the work before us.

I go back to Delgamuukw, where Chief Justice Lamer stated at paragraph 186: “I do not necessarily encourage the parties to proceed to litigation and to settle their dispute through the courts. As was said in Sparrow,” section 35 “‘provides a solid constitutional base upon which subsequent negotiations can take place.’”

“Ultimately, it is through negotiated settlements, with good faith and give-and-take on all sides, reinforced by the judgments of this court, that we will achieve what I said in Van der Peet…’the reconciliation of the pre-existence of Aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.’ Let us face it. We are all here to stay.”

In Haida Nation, in 2004, Chief Justice McLachlin said, at paragraph 20: “Section 35 represents a promise of rights recognition, and ‘it is always assumed that the Crown intends to fulfil its promises’…. This promise is realized and sovereignty claims reconciled through the process of honourable negotiation.”

In the case of Clyde River v. Petroleum Geo Services Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada has said: “True reconciliation is rarely, if ever, achieved in courtrooms.”

[4:15 p.m.]

At the trial level in Tsilhqot’in, the late Justice David Vickers stated, at paragraph 1,357: “In an ideal world, the process of reconciliation would take place outside the adversarial milieu of a courtroom. This case demonstrates how the court, confined by the issues raised in the pleadings and the jurisprudence on Aboriginal rights and title, is ill-equipped to effect a reconciliation of competing interests.”

Finally, I’ll just quote Mr. Justice Rowe, in the Supreme Court of Canada three years ago, in the Desautel case. “Negotiation has the potential of producing outcomes that are better suited to the party’s interests, while the range of remedies available to a court is narrower. The settlement of Indigenous claims has an inescapable political dimension that is best handled through direct negotiations.”

In this agreement and in this legislation, the province is doing what the courts have exhorted us to do ever since Delgamuukw, a case that was decided in 1997.

M. Lee: The minister just demonstrated the reason why I said in committee a day or so ago…. We haven’t, in my seven years in this chamber, had the discussion and review of how we address Aboriginal title. This is actually the first bill that directly addresses Aboriginal title in the manner in which the minister just read through for various court decisions.

It wasn’t answering my question. He did give a good review of what the courts have said about how we should approach, as a province, as a government, with First Nations, and address long-standing unresolved issues that we need to resolve in order to move forward the province.

Even the statements of the minister, of course, open up many avenues of discussion and debate, which are meaningful to understand where this government is taking this whole province. This new model of addressing title in the manner that it’s doing…. It’s not resolved in the courts how Aboriginal title and fee simple interest can coexist. It’s not a resolved area of the law.

In the face of that, the minister is saying that the courts encourage us to do it by negotiation and by agreement. It’s the reason why the minister referred to earlier…. There are active litigation proceedings, which this provincial government is proceeding in, with respect to kʷikʷəƛ̓əm and Quw’utsun.

I have three different avenues to pursue in the next few minutes here that I have before turning it over to my colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

I will just ask this question. In 2017, I understand there was an application made in respect of the Haida. The application was made around giving notice to the 150 landowners on Haida Gwaii as to the nature of the title proceeding, which has a court date of 2026.

The court ruled against the consideration or decision to give notice to these 150 landowners. Otherwise, they could be enjoined in the action. In the actual proceeding itself, the lawyer for the government put forward statements that related back to the question around Aboriginal title and fee simple lands coexisting and mentioned and referred to a Supreme Court of Canada decision that called that concept of coexistence to be an absurdity.

That was the position of this government in September of 2017. What has changed in the approach of this government, with their lawyers, in respect of Aboriginal title and fee simple lands being able to coexist? That was a submission by a government lawyer in the course of that proceeding. I acknowledge that that proceeding did not get approved. But that is an example of how this is unresolved.

I’m asking the minister to confirm that that was the position of government back in September 2017. What has changed in terms of the approach that we now see in this agreement and in this bill?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for raising an argument that was made on September 27.

I don’t have at my fingertips the quote that the member is raising. I wasn’t, of course, the minister at the time. Nor does the legal services branch, Ministry of Attorney General, counsel that so ably has advised me here, have it at her fingertips. We’ll look into that and find out what was said at that time.

I can confirm that the position of the government now is very clear, and it’s reflected in the agreement and the act before us today.

M. Lee: I will perhaps have the opportunity tomorrow to provide the paragraph reference or some citation to the minister through his staff, and that is something that we can, then, speak to more about next Monday.

I would also just ask the minister this. When we’re talking about the Tsilhqot’in decision, I understand that there’s recognition in the minister’s own briefing notes that…. There are statements that say, in terms of that particular First Nation, that: “They effectively own the land. They have the right and responsibility to manage and control how it is used. Similar to private property, Aboriginal title means the nation owns the land and resources in the declared title area.”

This does get back to the question that we’re talking about in terms of self-governance and the rights there of self-determination. So again, with the Tŝilhqot’in Nation and that decision, does Haida…?

[4:25 p.m.]

Just knowing where the end posts of this are, right? We have this transition process that’s going to determine the transfer of jurisdiction. But what is the endpoint here? Is that the endpoint? Is Tŝilhqot’in, in the statement I just read out, in terms of managing and controlling the land and how it is used…? That would presumably mean over private property. Is that part of the scope of the governance rights that will be part of what is to be determined?

In other words, does the Haida Nation have similar, greater or less governance rights over Aboriginal title than the Tŝilhqot’in Nation?

Hon. M. Rankin: Madam Chair, perhaps, if it would be, with your indulgence, that after this answer our team could have a bit of a break, if that’s acceptable to the parties.

Thank you very much for the question. I think I should go back to the member’s last assertions concerning positions taken in litigation earlier. I think the member, being a lawyer, will know that positions taken in a negotiation are not always the same as those taken in litigation. Also, he will know that government’s positions over time dramatically have changed.

I can only refer to the history of the Delgamuukw, which has been the subject of many articles and the like, how the position of government was radically different. As a new government, the Harcourt government of the day came in and took a very, very different position in that litigation, an historic title litigation, so it may be true that a position was taken in a court context that may or may not reflect what the government of the day would do in a negotiation context.

In any event, positions change over time. The Delgamuukw case was the 1990s. This is now 2024. We are trying to do, as I said earlier, what the Tsilhqot’in judgment asked us to do.

Now, the member asks the question: are the rights in Haida more or less, greater or lesser, than in the Tsilhqot’in case? We are negotiating and confirming Aboriginal title. We are doing so, as the court said, as if made by a declaration. Aboriginal title is what the courts have said in that case and in other cases. And we’ve confirmed that that common law Aboriginal title is what we are talking about here.

The difference is critically important — that we’ve said in the agreement and in the act, as explicitly as we possibly can, that British Columbia continues to have jurisdiction over fee simple and that that will not be affected by the work we have done with respect to Crown land. We instead have, in respect of Crown land, come up with an orderly transitional process that has been the subject of our discussions to this point.

The Chair: Based upon the request, we will take a ten-minute break. We’ll come back at 4:40.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:41 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order.

P. Milobar: I just have a few questions for the minister as we close out today. I recognize it’s a Thursday, and we’re done at around quarter after five or whatever.

First off, I just want to be abundantly clear. I’m not a lawyer. I don’t profess to be a lawyer, nor on TV. These really are a little bit more of a layperson read of things, just for the minister.

I do want to preface the questions I’ll be jumping into. To be completely clear, I don’t expect….

I’m not standing up and trying to even remotely pretend to be or purport to be trying to represent the opinions or the thoughts of the Haida. I know that the government isn’t either. These are really questions directed at the government about the government’s intentions and way forward on this bill. We, I think, can both agree that the Haida are more than able to speak on their own behalf and will speak on their own behalf as their own government.

That’s really the backdrop to these questions. I just wanted the minister to understand where I’m coming from. The first is really around…. I’ll get into 4.4, a little bit on clause 2, as well as appendix A as it ties into 4.4. We’ve been hearing a lot of questions from our critic about concerns around private property lands.

The government has, on their website, informational documents. It used to be titled “Draft agreement on the Haida Aboriginal title.” I understand why it would have said draft. It was posted on April 3. It has now been updated on May 3, and it’s just “Agreement.” That agreement, obviously, is in front of us now and no longer in draft.

I do understand the changes in it. A lot of it is just changing referencing to be a little more up to date now that the agreement is actually out in the public realm.

I’m wondering why, though, the government chose…. On the April 3 document, there were some hot links for the draft agreement. “Read the draft agreement.” “Read the draft agreement fact sheet.” “View a presentation to local government councils.”

Now, I understand why “Attend an upcoming information session” may have been dropped off because those have happened. But why are those other three documents no longer accessible on the government website, with the May 3 update?

It would seem to me that that would be an easy way for…. People, now that there’s a bit more awareness around this, would have been able to go in and see the presentation that was given to local government councils, the draft agreement fact sheet and the agreement in a draft form, as it was, as well.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson for raising this issue. I frankly did not know that some documents were taken down, and we’ll put them back up. There was no intention…. I don’t know why those…. I think they were leading up to what the member properly termed a draft agreement and the work that had been done to that point in time, but there’s no reason for us not to have them, and I’ll take that under advisement.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for looking into that. Hopefully, it is just a simple updating and editing error, and they can just be back in, more for background information than anything else.

In terms of 4.4(1), it states that “the measures set out in this section are interim measures….” Now, the minister, in a couple of previous answers, had said to my colleague: “Well, of course, there’s a transition period later.” That was actually in the midst of an answer around private property rights and fee simple lands.

Could the minister confirm whether the interim nature of this bill actually does have any effect at all, moving forward, with that transition period later, as we keep moving along with this bill?

Hon. M. Rankin: I want to make sure I grasp the question accurately. I think the architecture of this very short bill is as clear as we can make it: 4.3 deals with fee simple lands, and 4.4 deals with what we term “interim measures in relation to land” — therefore, separate and apart from fee simple.

I think that what the member was suggesting was that there may have been some overlap or some kind of conflation of those two sections. That’s why they’re drafted as separate sections. That’s why, in the agreement, there are sections dealing with fee simple, and then there are transitional provisions that are put in an appendix. We’ve done our best to distinguish, as carefully as we can. two different categories.

I hope that I’ve accurately understood the member’s question.

P. Milobar: Maybe I’ll loop back around to that as we get into my appendix A questions.

Can the minister explain what is meant by the phrase, “the measures set out in this section are interim measures”? How will that have any effect on the amendments that are being made to a number of the acts in this legislation, such as the Agricultural Land Commission Act?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question from the member. Interim measures are set out in 4.4 in relation to land; I don’t want to read them again. Later in the bill there are consequential amendments to a number of acts. At the risk of making it confusing, maybe, after our negotiations take place, there may be later amendments to some of the legislation here.

I’ll give an example, if I may. One of the consequential amendments is the Park Act. As the member would know, the first category of measures on Crown land that are to be negotiated are protected areas, parks, and so forth. Over half of Haida Gwaii is in some park or protected-area status, so the Park Act would be amended consequentially to add it. The Park Act would now read, if this bill is passed: “This act is subject to….” It puts a number of statutes down — the Environment and Land Use Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, and it would add the Haida Nation Recognition Act, as an example.

I guess, to be clear, the provisions in 4.4 are interim measures that are aligned with appendix A in the agreement, which we’ve discussed at considerable length here already. The consequential amendments are separate, and they’re not intended to be interim in nature.

P. Milobar: With appendix A, as I read through it, on A-2, it says: “The initial focus of the transition process will be on land and resource decision-making on Haida Gwaii, and the parties will begin by addressing protected areas, fishing lodges and forestry.” The minister just touched on some of that in his last answer as well. It seems fairly straightforward.

I went on and did a little search on the government’s website around woodlots and forestry, and it looks like there are only four in Haida Gwaii — a couple thousand hectares, about 10,000 cubic metres annually, of an annual allowable cut.

[4:55 p.m.]

Is the government…? I’m not entirely sure if we can get an answer on this right away or not, but hopefully. Are those the only woodlots — in other words, are there just Crown tenure–type woodlots on Haida Gwaii, or are there any private woodlot areas that would be impacted as well?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m going to try to answer the member’s question as clearly as I can with the information I have. He asked about the existence of private woodlots, a form of Crown tenure, on Haida Gwaii. I think the context is interesting. I’m going to set out several categories.

There are privately managed forest lands held in fee simple by Mosaic on Haida Gwaii, 10,000 hectares.

There are also two TFLs, tree farm licences, one held by A&A Trading and the other by a Haida-owned entity called Taan.

Thirdly, there are two forest licences held by Husby Forest Products.

Finally, there are small woodlots held by the Skidegate and Old Massett Councils, respectively.

To my knowledge, those are the only ones. If I’m wrong, I will correct myself and advise the member.

P. Milobar: That will probably suffice for where I’m trying to go with this. I’ll just use Mosaic as an example, because that probably hits closest to the nose. The minister has said that there will be no impact to fee simple lands, yet it sounds like Mosaic has fee simple lands in forestry. One of the first areas will be forestry. How will that be accomplished, then, without impacting fee simple lands, if you actually have forestry that is on privately owned land?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question from the member concerning fee simple and privately managed forest lands by Mosaic. I have spoken at length with Mr. Gough on a couple of occasions.

The key point on this is that because they are fee simple, they’re not affected whatsoever by our work here. Because we say there is no impact on fee simple, they’re not affected. It is under a different statute, the private managed forest legislation. I think that’s the simple answer to the question.

P. Milobar: Well, but it seems like…. Based on the government website, there were only a couple of thousand hectares on the government site, yet it sounds like Mosaic is around 10,000 hectares. It sounds like the privately held lands are actually a much larger area, within Haida Gwaii, of forestry.

Again, this is around that initial focus of the transition process being forestry. I’d have the same questions, I guess, around fishing lodges. What is the scale and scope, then, that the government is trying to get to on this transition process, with the initial resource decision-making, if fishing lodges and forestry and things of that nature seem to be potentially more in fee simple, privately held hands than in Crown leases?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: There is a very small amount of fee simple property in Haida Gwaii, 2.2 percent of the land base. Half of that, almost, I’m told, is held by that private managed forest licence, the entity I described as Mosaic. It is 10,000 hectares — I checked that number — despite what it might have been saying elsewhere.

A lot of it they haven’t logged, and don’t intend to for a long time. My information is that they are only producing about 2,500 cubic metres a year from their private managed forest lands. Again, not relevant to this because it’s fee simple property.

In terms of the other interests, though, the member is quite right. Fishing lodges normally — aside from fee simple, which would not be affected — in each case would have, no doubt, a foreshore lease for the dock or the facilities that they would need to run that operation. There have been active conversations with the forest interests on Haida Gwaii, as well as with the fishing lodges.

I was very pleased that Mr. McCulloch, the vice-president of Langara Fishing Adventures, sent a very positive release to us, which we included in some of the media relating to the initial agreement: “We congratulate the Haida people and your leadership on your most recent accomplishment on your reconciliation journey in gaining this recognition and look forward to working together with you, as always.”

John Mohammed, with whom I’ve spoken, is the president and owner of A&A Trading. I mentioned he has a TFL. They are “excited for the Haida and this long-awaited recognition of their title. We look forward to the opportunity to support the Haida and the province as they work through the transition and into the future.”

As I say, active conversations with various stakeholders underway, those who have an interest in Crown land, for the transition process must occur and are occurring.

P. Milobar: I want to make something really, really clear as well. Mosaic, the fishing lodges — none of them reached out to me. When I’m asking these questions, other than the fact the minister offered up the Mosaic or Langara names, it’s not on behalf of any of these. I recognize the land masses we’re talking about are much smaller in Haida Gwaii, compared to other areas of the province.

However, I ask these questions on the backdrop of a Premier who has described this agreement as a template agreement. That’s not myself as a layperson, non-lawyer describing that. That’s a Premier who is a lawyer, who was also the Attorney General for five years.

When a Premier with that as a background says that, it carries a little more heft to people around the province concerned about what the provincial government’s direction is or isn’t and how a piece of legislation might be used, moving forward.

[5:10 p.m.]

The reason I’m asking is because you may not be technically impacting the footprint of the fishing lodge, but if they don’t have access, if the negotiations are going to centre around the foreshore and even access to fish, you have a lodge at a certain point.

If you have a cutting area that requires a forest service road across Crown land, and that Crown land will be the purpose of the forestry discussion, you don’t have much of a cutting area left if you can’t actually physically get in to work that area. And the list goes on and on and on.

That’s where I’m trying to drill into the initial focus of the transition process in appendix A as to the ramifications. It may not be the ramification that your fee simple title is up for discussion, but if all the surrounding area and everything that surrounds it is how you actually derive a living from that title or need access to the Crown area to make that usage of your physical fee simple land workable, does the minister not see how that becomes a bit more of a concern, potentially for people in Haida Gwaii but also for people across this province, when the Premier has described this agreement as his hope that it’s a template agreement, moving forward?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

I’d like to acknowledge again the leadership of the Gordon Campbell government in 2010 that created the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act. In that, as the member will know, there was a solutions table set up for the management of the AAC. Other land and resource decision-making has been jointly achieved in Haida Gwaii for, now, 14 years.

In this part of our province, thanks to that process, we’ve had joint decision-making. I can say that in very rare circumstances in those 14 years has a consensus not been achieved, which goes to the unique circumstances, really, in the amazing interdependence of that community.

The member talks about those who derive a living on Haida Gwaii, which, of course, is critical. Half of those people are Haida; half of them, 55 percent, are non-Haida.

In our meetings with the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Steelworkers, we’ve had enormous and very positive support for the work we’re doing on Haida Gwaii. In the engagement sessions virtually, and in the various communities of Haida Gwaii in recent months, people have come forward, workers, to say that they recognize this as a positive step forward. I think a fair reading of the record would confirm that.

The member talks about, though, and I want to be clear on this, how those who derive a living from the land base would want to know just what this transition means as we take down various schedules, the first of which is protected areas.

There’s a thriving tourism industry in Haida Gwaii. Those interests, both local and at the provincewide level, the Outdoor Recreation Council and the like — we’ve met with them. We’ll continue to work with all of them. Forest interests — we’ve talked to them. We will continue to work with them. Fishing lodges — very much the same. But yes, the member is right. Ever since Aboriginal title was something that the courts confirmed, not as a matter of government policy, but as a matter of the law of Canada, we’ve had to respond.

[5:15 p.m.]

All parts of Canada have had to respond to this reality of Aboriginal rights and title, and we’re doing it in Haida Gwaii in a way that’s unique. We’re doing it by way of negotiation, and we’re achieving what we think will be a prosperous outcome for all residents of Haida Gwaii, Indigenous and not.

P. Milobar: This will probably be, time-wise, our last question. I see one chamber is already here.

So 4 is: “The parties will seek to reach an agreement on a schedule within 12 months.” You jump down to 6, and it says: “The parties may agree to change the 12-month time period to reach an agreement on a schedule.”

Seven then says if you are unable to reach an agreement on a schedule, you enter another two-month dispute resolution agreed to by the parties. The process may include a tribunal, mediation, arbitration or another mechanism established under Haida law.

That is all pretty straightforward. It seems like there’s a 14-month max there for the two parties, the province and the Haida, to come to an agreement on a new schedule.

Eight, though, says: “The resolution reached under the agreed-upon dispute resolution process will be considered final, and the parties will take steps to amend this agreement and recommend changes to existing British Columbia legislation and Haida laws as required to implement the resolution.”

Now, does 8 in any way waive the rights of the Haida or the provincial government to actually go to court if there’s still disagreement, based on whatever resolution through a tribunal, mediation, arbitration or another mechanism established under Haida law happens? Is this waiving all future rights of either the province or the Haida to actually access the courts if they don’t agree with what happened in 4, 6 and 7?

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member’s question. The process that sets out…. He cited the various sections. I won’t repeat it. It’s set out in the appendix.

Clause 8 is the one he focused on, and there are two phases. The first is that the parties would have to determine which of those dispute resolution processes they would have to agree on. Would that be mediation? Would that be arbitration? Would that be some sort of tribunal set out in this section? Then the parties’ firm commitment to each other…. Their intention is to seek a resolution through those processes. That is what the agreement entails.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:19 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

Hon. D. Coulter moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m., Monday, May 13.

The House adjourned at 5:20 p.m.