Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2024) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 9, 2024

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 434

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Personal Statements

Farewell addresses by retiring MLAs

F. Donnelly

Hon. G. Heyman

G. Kyllo

J. Sturdy

D. Ashton

S. Robinson

Tributes

Jordan Mason

T. Stone

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 25 — Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024 (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. M. Rankin

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Anti-Racism Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 25 — Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024 (continued)

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Lee

P. Milobar

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Anti-Racism Act (continued)

T. Wat

Hon. N. Sharma

K. Kirkpatrick

Bill 21 — Legal Professions Act (continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. N. Sharma

K. Kirkpatrick

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2024

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

MLA s

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

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

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

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

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

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 i