Final day before Legislature break keeps focus on Freedom of Information changes, with Skeena's Ellis Ross among the week's debaters

The members of the British Columbia have wrapped up their most recent stretch of Legislature work, the MLA's breaking as of last night for a period of two weeks over the Remembrance Day period, before heading into their final two weeks for the fall session starting on the 15th.

Thursday provided for another extensive review of the BC government's plans to amend the Freedom of Information process in the province, a topic that has made for some heated debate in the legislature and much discussion outside of it.

During the course of the final two days of the week at the Legislature, Skeena MLA Ellis Ross has been in the thick of the discussion in the Chamber, raising a range of themes and concerns related to the NDP plans for Freedom of Information Access.

Of note from the Thursday exchanges in the Legislature is the impact of the plans for the Bill on First Nations in the province, a theme that Mr. Ross spoke towards extensively in the morning session.

I understand the intention of clause 9, but I think it's got to be reworded, based on the definition that comes back on the definition of "Indigenous leadership." But in response to my colleague's questioning around the individual band member, we've got to remember that we're talking about two different topics here. 

In relation to what the minister is talking about, the First Nations are not, in fact, partners. 

The Crown has a specific duty when they're trying to address the Aboriginal rights and title in question, in terms of evidence, and I assume that's what the minister is talking about. 

Specifically, maybe we're talking about strength of claim, that the Crown has a duty to assess and determine what next steps should be made in terms of Aboriginal rights and title. 

But the First Nation member in question that needs access to information regarding their community and their Aboriginal rights and title is probably not covered by their band council or their band leadership that we're talking about, because many band councils and leadership around B.C. do not have freedom-of-information policies. 

And maybe in questioning, the band member is not looking, really, for a response in regards to what their band member talked about but is looking for the information regarding how the government reached a decision in relation to Aboriginal rights and title that he's asking about — or maybe some other issue related to that community's interests. 

On top of this, you've got to remember that when we're talking about Aboriginal rights and title, we're talking about a unique set of interests held by the rights of First Nations of B.C. It's referred to as sui generis in terms of case law. 

And That's important. 

But does the minister agree that the band member in question, although they have these rights under the Aboriginal rights and title case law, also has the added rights of being a B.C. citizen and, therefore, should be treated in two respects in terms of getting information from the Crown?

Mr. Ross also expanded on a range of other areas of concern related to the topic prior to the break for lunch, noting as to how some of the government's work on the changes is proving to be confusing for British Columbians.

Towards some clarification on the topic for the Skeena MLA, Citizen's Services Minister Lisa Beare would later in the session, offer up the government's view towards the new wording as opposed to the previous provisions in place, framing the changes as the provincial approach to UNDRIP.

The principal purpose of the new term "Indigenous governing entity" is to replace the current term in the act, "Aboriginal government," to ensure that this legislation refers to Indigenous peoples rather than Aboriginal peoples, to better align with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. 

The scope of who is captured by this definition has not changed. 

The member noted that the term "Indigenous governing entity" is different than the term used in the Declaration Act, Bill 41, "Indigenous governing body." 

As noted yesterday, the term used in Bill 22,  is"Indigenous governing entity," includes an Indigenous governing body as that term is defined in the Declaration Act. 

But also other Indigenous entities that exercise governmental functions. It was important to the ministry to use a broader term to be inclusive and to ensure that Indigenous entities currently considered an Aboriginal government, can be considered as an Indigenous governing entity under these amendments. 

We recognize that the governance structures within Indigenous nations vary, and the term "Indigenous governing entity" allows government to address the appropriate and appointed entity regarding access to information and privacy matters in cases where an Indigenous governing body has not been tasked by its peoples to address these issues specifically 

Put more simply, the objective is to use a term that is more reflective of contemporary terminology and standards regarding Indigenous self-government and self-determination while ensuring that it is broad enough that entities which were previously covered by the term "Aboriginal government" in the act are not excluded.

Mr. Ross's line of questions and observations can be reviewed from the Legislature Archive page starting at the 11:47 AM mark.

Video of the Thursday AM session can be viewed here, with Mr. Ross's participation again at the 11:47AM point.

The discussion on the proposed FOI changes has been a fairly extensive one over the last few weeks, which we have explored a few times during that period.

October 27 -- NDP uses majority to push Freedom of Information Bill through second reading
Octobre 20 -- Stikine's Nathan Cullen speaks in defence of NDP government's Freedom of Information changes as part of extensive Tuesday debate

The most recent debates can be reviewed through the archive pages of the BC Legislature for this session.

The topic has seen some interaction from the members of the Northwest, with Mr. Ross as noted above and Stikine MLA Nathan Cullen both having taken some strong interest in the debate from very different perspectives.

Still to be heard on the topic is North Coast MLA Jennifer Rice and how she may view the themes of changes for the FOI process. 

Something that her constituents may have some interest in, should she provide some talking points for review, whether in the Legislature chamber or through her social media stream.

To explore some more themes from the Fall session, see our archive pages for the Northwest MLA"s below:

North Coast

Skeena

Stikine

As well, you can check out our recaps of the work of the Northwest trio from our MLA's Week Archive page.

Cross posted from the North Coast Review.