Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, November

21, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 42 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 3), 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 42; H. Yao in the chair.

The committee met at 11:15 a.m.

On clause 110 (continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2023, to order.

T. Stone: Happy to be back in this clause of this bill with the minister. I think this is the

last clause that relates directly to the North Island-Coast Development Initiative

Trust Act. However, it's a clause that is contained in some of the subsequent amendments

that are provided for today. I understand the language that "technology and innovation"

is replacing.

I want to circle back to an exchange that we had when we were discussing this legislation

about ten days ago. That was that the different trusts had actually done a lot of

work in coming together as a group, understanding that there was going to be this

opportunity to make recommendations on legislative amendments to their three respective

pieces of legislation.

As the minister knows well, there is quite a list of proposed changes that were deemed

to be, largely, housekeeping. This one here would appear to be one of quite a number

of housekeeping changes. I say housekeeping, as it's been described to me by the executive

directors or the folks that are running each of these different trusts that a number

of the proposed amendments that were brought forward were simple name changes. They

account, in this

section of the legislation, to actually changing one word or two

words to a different word or a couple of words, but those changes are not substantively

changing the intent of the clause in question.

I guess my question to the minister, first, would be: from her perspective, what is

her explanation for the significance of this particular change, such that it was basically

the only one of very few amendments that were suggested by ICET and the other trusts?

It's one of the very few housekeeping changes that were actually proposed and embraced

by this government included in these amendments.

What is so significant about this one that set it apart from all of the other housekeeping

changes that were suggested but not acted upon by the government insofar as this legislation

in front of us here today?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: We did receive a list from the various trusts of minor changes that they were looking

for. Unfortunately, the timeline of that was in July, and we were already quite a

ways along in regards to the legislation.

We, of course, are going to open this legislation again. That's our intention in regards

to ensuring co-governance with First Nations, so know that there is another opportunity

to do that type of tweaking. The timeline, really, to have this piece come forward,

and why it's coming forward now, is to ensure that one of the trusts, ICET, is recapitalized

in a timely way.

T. Stone: Okay. Well, I appreciate the explanation for why this particular housekeeping change

was accepted and incorporated into these amendments. However, I'm not sure that folks

associated with these trusts will really buy the explanation that there was a timeliness

issue with respect to the submission of ideas.

As was pointed out to the minister when we were going through some preliminary questions

relating to these three trusts about ten days ago, it's this government that actually

mandated the trusts through nine independent legislative committees — again, all required

by this government — and eight regional advisory committees — again, under the purview

of this government — to actually bring forward recommended amendments, improvements,

to the legislation.

Missing from the minister's answer, perhaps, was some acknowledgment that it's actually

the government that sets the timetable for all this stuff. It's the government that

directs organizations like these trusts and, as I said, the independent legislative

committees and the regional advisory committees to actually do the work that government

wants them to do to bring forward ideas and suggest changes.

It's this government that determines what legislation they're going to bring forward

in any legislative session. The government sets the parliamentary calendar. The government

determines, frankly, what order the bills are introduced and how much time is spent.

All of that is in the purview of this government.

So did the minister really intend in her last response to, essentially, reflect that

there is some blame on the part of these trusts to not get information or suggestions

in a timely fashion to the minister? Or is the minister prepared to acknowledge that

— with the reality that she, the minister, and government set the timelines for this

stuff — there is some culpability on the part of government here for not allowing

enough time to actually bring forward amendments from the very committees?

You know, local representatives are on these committees, these legislative committees,

to actually bring forward ideas, a lot of which are very simple. And I'll get to a

few of those simple ones in a moment.

Again to the minister, did she really intend in her last response to suggest — and

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't, but I want to put the question

to her anyway — that these trusts didn't get the ideas in soon enough? Or will she

acknowledge that perhaps there's some culpability on the ministry's part and the government's

part in terms of the timelines that they allowed for suggestions to be brought forward

for consideration and inclusion in the legislation that we have in front of us today?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: We are fortunate to have a very good working relationship with each of the trusts

that we're discussing today. The focus of this particular legislation is to ensure

the ongoing good work of ICET and to ensure their capitalization happens in a timely

manner that can allow them to continue the work that they're doing.

In regards to the additional changes, some of which are housekeeping changes…. A very

important piece of work, which has been going on and which is continuing, is the work

to ensure co-governance with First Nations. That work will lead to us opening up this

legislation again. At that time, we'll have a chance to make the additional changes

that are needed.

T. Stone: Well, I certainly know, from having received feedback from the three trusts, that

there is appreciation for the capitalization that's taking place in these amendments.

No doubt about that. With the caveat, with respect to ICET….

The minister would be well aware of the request from ICET for a much larger capitalization

so that they can change the model with which they actually deploy the funds that they

manage. The government didn't act on that part.

Generally speaking, the trusts are comfortable, I think, with the capitalization that's

taking place with respect to the additional dollars that are being flowed to them

as a result of this legislation.

Actually, there's a second caveat. That is that the three trusts had all unanimously

requested that the hard-coded funding cap be removed. Frankly, if there wasn't a hard-coded

funding cap in the legislation, which will continue to be there, even after these

amendments are done, we wouldn't have to come back to a legislative discussion to

continue to push dollars to the trusts, over time, regardless of which government

is in power. The government has decided to retain the hard funding caps in place,

even after lifting the capitalization amounts that are provided for in this legislation.

Aside from all that, again, what the minister is saying…. In terms of why more of

the housekeeping suggestions that were recommended to government, after laborious

efforts on the part of nine independent legislative committees and the eight bodies

made up of local government representatives within these trusts, after they did all

of this work….

Some of the recommendations that they came forward with are very simple. For example,

ICET made the audacious recommendation to have their name actually properly reflected

in the legislation. Very simple and, one would think, quite practical. Yet that was

not included in these legislative amendments.

[11:30 a.m.]

My question to the minister would be…. The amendment in relation to this clause….

She explained the motivation for why it's here, technology and innovation. Can the

minister explain why a very simple, basic, practical request that ICET made for inclusion

in this legislation, being the actual reflection of their name, was not included,

and how could the government have possibly considered that there wasn't enough time

from when that recommendation was made to when the legislation was drafted and approved?

How could it not have been included by this government?

Hon. B. Bailey: Again, just to reiterate to the member opposite that really, the focus of this miscellaneous

amendment act, the piece that refers to the trust is about ensuring the continuation

of the capitalization of these trusts. That's the priority and the burning issue to

address.

We do have an opportunity coming up to take a more fulsome look at the trusts and

to ask the important questions that we need to ask in terms of how these trusts continue

forward, how they work together, setting up co-governance with First Nations and a

number of other — what the member has described as — housekeeping matters, some of

which are quite important, like name. All of that work will happen as we continue

to do work with these trusts in the coming year.

The Chair: Member, just before we continue, I just will ask for a favour. If you could help us

see the relevancy behind your line of questioning with clause 1, that would be much

appreciated.

T. Stone: I appreciate you seeking clarification on that. The relevancy is that we have three

trusts here. The amendments provide for several changes to the legislation that governs

these trusts. There was an extensive legislative review process done by each of these

trusts, in good faith that they would bring forward recommendations.

The relevancy of my questions is that I'm simply canvassing with the minister, who

seems to be quite willing to answer my questions, the rationale for why very specific

recommendations that the three trusts actually made through their legislative review

processes have not found their way into this legislation. There are a couple that

have. A vast majority haven't.

[11:35 a.m.]

It would seem to me to be…. Certainly, the trusts, who expect these questions to be

asked in this transparent way in this Legislature, expect that there should be some

explanation from the minister as to the rationale, the thinking, behind not including

legislative amendments that were recommended. That's what I'm canvassing.

Again, to the minister, simply, I'm not buying it, and I don't think the trusts are

buying the rationale that's being provided here for why a simple thing like taking

the organization's name and incorporating it into the legislation, why that would

not have had enough time for consideration by the government to include in the legislation.

These legislative committees and these regional advisory committees of the trusts

were charged with the responsibility to actually do this work, like, last year and

then early this year.

They all rushed to meet a government-required deadline to have all of their recommendations

into government by June of this year, and that's five months ago. I have been involved

in the drafting and review of government legislation, having sat on the government

side. I have participated in legislative review committee processes. I know the difference

between really complex legislation and fairly straightforward legislation.

I know that the minister does as well, which means, again, on behalf of ICET, who

very much would appreciate an answer: why was a simple request of including their

name as it currently exists not considered and included in this round of legislative

amendments which we are discussing here today?

Hon. B. Bailey: I feel like we're going in circles a little bit here. I've answered this question

a number of times.

To be clear, the focus and the priority is to ensure that ICET has capitalization

to continue to do their important work.

We have created opportunity to work with all of the trusts, with whom we have a good

relationship. We are going to do quite a lot of work coming up. We know that we need

to do the work on co-governance with First Nations and that there are a number of

other issues that need to be addressed in the coming days.

The important thing today is to ensure that ICET can continue with certainty, and

that's what we're focused on putting in place. I am very confident that ICET would

understand that priority and support it.

We have further work coming up, and the work that the trusts have done will be included.

So there's nothing lost or not gained from the important work that's already occurred.

The Chair: Member, the clause under consideration relates to the purposes for which the money

in the regional account may be spent. If you could please help me appreciate how your

question is relevant to clause 110.

T. Stone: Thank you, Chair.

I want to ask the minister this question. This is, again, a concern that the trusts

have after being asked to undertake extensive work on their end, like lots of meetings,

lots of time. There were lots of hours from good-intentioned people that went into

developing recommendations, a lot of which were housekeeping matters, like a name

change, that were not included in these amendments.

I guess the question really is: how can the trusts work on a go-forward basis with….

The minister has mentioned there's more legislation coming at some point in the future.

How can these trusts work on new legislation that will be encompassing of incorporating

First Nations into these committees, as we canvassed previously, to make sure that

there's First Nations representation on these committees and that First Nations are

eligible to receive grants and that First Nations are part of the decision-making

process of all of the above? This is complex legislation that needs to be developed.

[11:40 a.m.]

How can the trusts have any confidence that the work the trusts do to input ideas

and recommendations on this much more complex legislation the government says is coming

when the government wasn't prepared to incorporate very basic housekeeping measures

in this legislation that the trusts actually spent a heck of a lot of time, effort

and energy to develop and consider and recommend forward to this minister with, I

would argue, ample time, they felt ample time? They felt they were meeting all the

deadlines as required by government for consideration in this legislation here today.

Again, how can they have any trust that a much more complex subject matter, the incorporation

of First Nations into these trusts, will look, feel and work differently and more

efficiently and, at the end of the day, have a result where the feedback of these

trusts will actually find its way into the legislation, when we can't even seem to

find enough time, effort or priority within government to incorporate, in these amendments,

the appropriate current name of ICET in the actual legislation, the act, that governs

ICET?

Hon. B. Bailey: Hon. Chair, I think I've answered this question four times. It has been asked and

answered.

T. Stone: No, you have not answered this question. I appreciate that you've responded to what

I've asked, but you haven't answered this question. The trusts want….

The Chair: Member, Member. Through the Chair, please.

T. Stone: Through the Chair. Thank you for the reminder; I appreciate it immensely.

The minister has not answered these questions. These are very basic, simple questions,

and we're getting some push-back here about the relevancy of what we're talking about.

The trusts expect us to be asking these questions. It's about the content of what's

in the bill, the content that should be in this bill, based on what was recommended,

and comments that the minister has made about the future, in terms of legislative

amendments that are coming and that will need to involve the cooperation, the energy

and the work of these trusts.

Let me ask one more question. Can the minister speak to any sense of timing around…?

You know, she made a comment earlier. This is relevant. In a previous response here

today, she said not to worry, essentially. The minister said that ideas and recommendations

from the trusts that have been made to this point and that weren't included here today

will be considered and, potentially, included in legislation in the future.

Can the minister advise, through this place, the trusts out there that are doing this

this hard work? Can she advise the trusts as to what that timeline is actually going

to look like, moving forward?

Hon. B. Bailey: Well, first, the trusts are very aware of what the timeline is, because staff are

engaged with them on a regular basis, doing this work.

For example, on October 11, 2023, NDIT announced the creation of an Indigenous engagement

plan to work on five key themes, including communication, governance, education, programming

and relationships. NDIT has established an Indigenous advisory committee to further

the development of the plan and advise NDIT on how better to work with Indigenous

peoples moving forward, including discussions on how to approach action 4.39.

This is work that we're doing very closely with the trusts. So there's no confusion

by the trusts, which the member is suggesting there might be. They're in fact very

engaged with our staff, doing this work collectively with us, and are well aware of

the timelines.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada