Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section C

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, November

9, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 39 — ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

C) on Bill 39; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 1:09 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 39, Zero-Emission Vehicles

Amendment Act, to order. We are on clause 12.

Clauses 12 to 17 inclusive approved on division.

On clause 18.

[1:10 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: What is the purpose of having a forecast to report, what kind of information will

be prescribed in this, and will there be any consequences if forecasts are not met?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, this is a new provision in the act, and the purpose is to add a new requirement.

It'll require suppliers to submit a forecast report that contains information about

the anticipated supply of motor vehicles that will come with each model year report.

Now, there currently is not a requirement to submit such a report. The purpose of

it…. It really is essential to the province in tracking the ZEV market as it progresses.

This is something that's been learned from other jurisdictions that do have this requirement.

It will help the province make informed decisions about investments in ZEV infrastructure

— charging infrastructure, for example. It will help to inform any potential future

changes to the ZEV act.

[1:15 p.m.]

Yesterday we talked quite a bit about different mechanisms that are in place to be

adaptive and responsive to things, not quite in real time, but as the results roll

out. This is an essential tool for being able to do that better. If a supplier fails

to submit it, there is a prescribed penalty, and that is described in the act.

R. Merrifield: If this reporting happens to notice a negative trend within the forecasting, would

this be an opportunity, then, for the advisory council — or whatever body that that

information goes to — to adjust the ZEV targets, or would that have to come back to

legislation?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, this is one source of information that could be used by program staff, by the

zero-emission vehicle advisory council, that will provide feedback into the program

design.

The act prescribes the sales targets at milestone years — so 2026, 2030 and 2035 —

but the regulation describes the in-between period, so there would be an opportunity

to amend the regulation in between those milestone years. If it was deemed wise to

change the sales targets in those milestone years, then that would have to come back

for a legislative amendment.

Clauses 18 to 32 inclusive approved on division.

Title approved on division.

A Voice: I have an amendment.

The Chair: I'm sorry. It's too late.

Hon. J. Osborne: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:18 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 43 — MONEY JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

C) on Bill 43; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 1:53 p.m.

On clause 27 (continued) .

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 43, the Money Judgment

Enforcement Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Act to order.

M. de Jong: At the beginning of these proceedings, before the lunch break, I asked a couple of

general questions, and I neglected to ask the ultimate follow-up question. We're dealing

with these consequential and transitional amendments as part of a separate bill. We

talked about that briefly and how that happened. The question I didn't ask, which

I suppose I should, is: was there a particular reason the Attorney chose to table

the bulk of the consequential and transitional provisions in a separate piece of legislation?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question. We introduced the legislation in the spring and allowed people

to get a sense of it, and then we were able to take the time necessary to think about

the consequential transitional provisions. As we talked about, it's a very large piece

of legislation impacting many different other pieces of legislation, so it was just

the time that we needed to have to do that.

M. de Jong: Back to 27, I did just want to pursue this question a little bit. Again, like the

main piece of legislation, examples are helpful here. So I have commenced an action

against a First Nation. It may be a B.C. First Nation that has business interests

in Alberta or an Alberta First Nation. Well, I went through the example of the cultural

artifact that comes to British Columbia temporarily. Under the previous creditor's

remedy regime, that item was exempt from seizure.

I just want to be clear. As a result of the amendment in clause 27, that cultural

item is no longer exempt and could be seized.

The Attorney's answer to that is that to the extent that a First Nation has concerns

about that, it would be up to the enforcement officer to decide whether or not that

item was to be seized, although my recollection of the legislation is that the judgment

creditor would be in a position to direct that if that was the only asset. If that

was the only asset available, the judgment creditor would be in a position to direct

the enforcement officer to seize that item, and it would be exigible as a result of

this amendment.

Hon. N. Sharma: I think the member has articulated a very complicated situation, where many factors

would make it so it would fall outside of this piece of legislation. Of course, it's

fact-specific and art-specific. So I'll just give a general sense of what would be

at play in this matter.

First of all, ownership, when it comes to a First Nation, is communal ownership and

guided by a whole area of law. I think, quite at the offset, it would fall down based

on that, whether or not it's one particular owner or not, or even up to the First

Nation government to be able to give authority or ownership over something that's

communally held.

The second is that there is a potential for other pieces of legislation to be party

to that, including heritage or artifact conservation legislation we have in B.C. that

would make it so it was outside of this.

Also, if it was on reserve, we wouldn't have any authority on reserve land under this

legislation.

[2:00 p.m.]

Then even if you were able to pin it to one individual ownership of that through the

workings of the provisions we've put in place, a third party, like the nation government,

could come in and intervene to protect that piece if it's of importance.

Clause 27 approved.

On clause 28.

M. de Jong: I just wanted to confirm that the change here is the replacement of the term "court

bailiff" with "civil enforcement officer."

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

Clauses 28 to 32 inclusive approved.

On clause 33.

M. de Jong: One of the things I resolved a hundred years ago when I left law school was to never

repeat the word "novation," but I have broken that vow today merely to ask the Attorney

two questions.

Is this the provision that seeks, under the new creditor remedy regime and money judgment

enforcement regime, to perpetuate the general rule around novation? I'm not being

mischievous here. If I am correct and this is the general rule relating to novation

in mortgage and mortgage foreclosure situations, if she could summarize what the practical

affect of these provisions are when a foreclosure occurs.

Hon. N. Sharma: Okay, so the purpose of this provision is to, I guess, force a choice, right? You

either are foreclosing on a house or a property to satisfy your debt, or you're using

the money judgment enforcement in a different way. So it just sets up that.

[2:05 p.m.]

In an example, if you've already initiated a foreclosure proceeding on a property,

then you are prohibited from using the other enforcement mechanisms for the same debt.

M. de Jong: In that respect — and this is the question — are there any substantive changes? Does

this effect any substantive changes around the creditor remedies or the means by which

creditor remedies operate with respect to a mortgage and mortgage foreclosure? My

sense is that it does not, but that's the question.

Hon. N. Sharma: It does not.

Clauses 33 to 41 inclusive approved.

On clause 42.

M. de Jong: Just to be clear, the Creditor Assistance Act…. I'm obliged to our staff for having

located it here, in the attic. As with the Court Order Enforcement Act…. But in this

case, the Attorney, in the legislation, purports to repeal the Creditor Assistance

Act in its entirety.

Is there any need for transitional provisions, or does the money judgment enforcement

legislation capture, in a timely way, all of the necessary provisions contained within

the Creditor Assistance Act?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes. The Creditor Assistance Act is no longer needed. The specific reason for that

is because the whole purpose of it was to share pro rata with a judgment creditor,

but that's covered now under the Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

There is a transitional provision related to this. I haven't even pulled it up, but

if you'd like me to, we can look for it.

Clauses 42 to 71 inclusive approved.

On clause 72.

M. de Jong: I'm on 72, which adds to the Land Title Act a

section 211.1 and 211.2. I'm looking

at 211.2, which is, in my copy of the bill, on the next page.

I wondered if the Attorney could explain the two-year expiration — this creates a

two-year expiration — versus the expiration period under the Money Judgment Enforcement

Act and explain what I believe is the difference between the length of the enforcement

and the length of the expiration of the period of time, the two-year period, versus

the Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: This one is not a change from the Court Order Enforcement Act. It reproduces the two-year

limit, and the reason is that after a consultation with the land titles office, they

felt it was important to retain that two-year timeline out of the need to make sure

that all their registry or titles remain current.

Clauses 72 to 75 inclusive approved.

On clause 76.

M. de Jong: This is a question that probably has relevance. We're now into the transitional provisions,

part 9 of the bill. I'll ask the Attorney to put on the record the general intention

here.

I presume it is to allow for a seamless transition for those who have money judgments

under the existing regime to transition into the enforcement capacity offered by the

new legislative regime — which, as I recall from our earlier conversation, isn't likely

to take effect until the operational, until the latter part of next year or even 2025.

I can't remember.

The minister answered that question, and I can't remember what the specific answer

was, the end of 2024 or into 2025. The minister can clarify that in a moment.

The point is that if you are a person, today, seeking to go before a tribunal and

secure a judgment and become a judgment creditor today for the foreseeable future,

for the next year or two, you are going to be operating under the existing enforcement

provisions.

These next sections that we're dealing with allow you to transition, eventually….

In fact, they require you, at a certain point, to transition to the new regime. If

the minister can confirm the general accuracy of how I've described it.

Then secondly, the question I'm going to have is: what additional payment of fees

does that transitioning require? Does the transition occur automatically? We talked

a few moments ago about pushing a button to notify, for the civil dispute tribunal

— notifying the registry. Is this going to be a similar exercise, where there's an

automatic transition, or as a judgment creditor, am I going to have to go and pay

a whole series of additional fees to move into the new regime?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: The purpose of these provisions is that, as the member correctly stated, before this

comes into force, which we're expecting in early 2025, the existing rules under the

Court Order Enforcement Act would apply. So if somebody does have a writ that they've

received under those normal proceedings, then they can use that to enforce their rights

up to, usually, the one-year expiration date. So the timing of that is linked.

Then, if they choose to transition to the Money Judgment Enforcement Act, yes, they

will have to pay the fees. We described, I think at length, our desire to make sure

that those fees are nominal and that there's a high access to justice from that. Then

they will be able to avail themselves of all the different tools that the new regime

will have in place for them to get their debt satisfied.

M. de Jong: This is most assuredly a procedural question.

I am a judgment creditor who has received my judgment from, let's say, the small claims

court in the spring of next year, and I secure on that, in order to execute on that

judgment, a writ of execution that is valid for one year. I'll just use the date May

1 of next year. My writ of execution expires on May 1, 2025.

At that point, pursuant to what will be clause 77(4) of this act…. Is that what requires

me, at that point…? I won't be able to renew a writ of execution. My only option will

be to register and transition over to the money judgment enforcement regime.

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

Clauses 76 and 77 approved.

On clause 78.

M. de Jong: I just want to check here. We are dealing with proceedings against land. There's a

deeming provision here which suggests to me that the judgment creditor in this case

doesn't need to do anything, that the registration against land, it represents…. It

is deemed to be properly registered, and that will continue under the new regime.

Am I correct in that regard?

Hon. N. Sharma: The answer is yes to what the member's question was, and the reason behind it is so

you don't lose your priority that you may have had.

Clauses 78 to 81 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. N. Sharma: Before I close this off, I just want to acknowledge the hard work of my team here.

We had Natalie and Tyler sitting beside me for most of the time.

This work goes way back from just this committee stage and all the dedication and

improvements. It's always nice when we can reform justice systems to have people be

able to access the remedies that they should seek in their system in a more meaningful

way. I just want to acknowledge the years of work that this took and really congratulate

the team from my ministry for getting to this stage.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:20 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 42 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 3), 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

C) on Bill 42; S. Chant in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

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

Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023, Bill 42, to order.

Hon. N. Sharma: I just wanted to welcome the staff team that is now joining me here, and a special

shout out to Dotan Amit. This is his first time in committee but also overseeing the

first piece of legislation. He's joined my team, so everybody can welcome him.

It's going to be a good process, I think. Natalie Barnes is here as well.

On clause 1.

M. de Jong: Welcome, again, to the Attorney and to her able staff, some of whom are here for the

first time.

I have a few questions, really, about

part 1 of the bill in its entirety. That'll

be sections 1 through 15. I'll ask them all as part of

section 1, and we won't have

to pursue it further. The upshot is the replacement of the term "master" with "associate

judge."

The first question that I suppose the Attorney should probably put on the record is

the impetus by which the change is being made in the first place. The term "master,"

for those who practise in the courts, is a long-standing term. It's changing. What

was the impetus for that change?

Hon. N. Sharma: As I'm sure the member would agree, words matter, especially when people are entering

the justice system and encountering what can be a very intimidating system. I know

that it has long been advocated for by our Chief Justice Hinkson of the Supreme Court,

and we were glad to make the changes.

We think it's part of the court being more accessible and open to people, and removing

words like "master," I think, are part of that.

M. de Jong: So specifically, it was a request from the court itself, from the Chief Justice.

Hon. N. Sharma: That's correct.

M. de Jong: Second question. It's simply to confirm that nothing in these 15 clauses, provisions,

alters the jurisdictional authority of what was a master and will now be an associate

judge. They largely grant temporary, or what the lawyers call interlocutory, orders

on applications of that sort. They have some other jurisdiction as well, but the point

is that the change in name is not changing in any way, shape or form the jurisdictional

authority that the new associate judge, formerly masters, will have.

Hon. N. Sharma: That's correct. It's a change in name but not in any of the other powers.

M. de Jong: My last question might seem like an odd one. What's the proper form of address now

when appearing? It won't be "Associate Judge." Will it be "Your Honour"? Will it be

"My Lord"? What will the appropriate term of address be when appearing before an associate

judge?

Hon. N. Sharma: The terms "My Lord" and "My Lady" have gone by the wayside, thankfully. In this instance,

"Associate Judge" would be the term.

M. de Jong: Sorry, I don't mean…. It doesn't matter to me. But it seems odd. I don't think people

would appear in court and refer to Associate Judge. I think they would…. It might

be Your Honour, but I don't think it would be: "Yes, Associate Judge."

[2:40 p.m.]

Has anyone given any thought to…? In the case of a master, it was, in my day, "Your

Honour." But what would the proper form of address be? There is a difference. These

are not full Supreme Court Justices. They are associate judges.

Hon. N. Sharma: This is something that wouldn't be, obviously, contemplated in the legislation but

in the purview of the chief justice of the court. I'm just informed, by letter, that

Chief Justice Hinkson has said that he would ask people to properly address them as

"Judge" and then the surname.

Clauses 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

M. de Jong: I think this is where the Attorney is going to say: "I'm out of here."

If we might recess for just a moment, Madam Chair, we'll determine what the next ministerial-level

exchange is going to be.

The Chair: Okay. This committee is now in recess until we have the next minister and staff.

The committee recessed from 2:41 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.

[S. Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

3), 2023, back to order.

Clauses 16 to 25 inclusive approved.

The Chair: I call a recess until the next minister, staff and critic are all in place. Hopefully,

that will be fairly briefly.

The committee recessed from 2:51 p.m. to 2:59 p.m.

[S. Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole, on Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

3), 2023, back to order. We are on clause 26.

Clauses 26 to 69 inclusive approved.

On clause 70.

K. Kirkpatrick: On clause 70 — actually, to 72 — language is changing regarding ending tenancies to

require the landlord to pay a penalty to "unless" from "does not." Can the minister

explain why this change was made, and does it increase the scope of the landlord's

obligations under this section?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: No, it does not.

K. Kirkpatrick: The first part of the question was: why was the change made?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's a housekeeping measure. It's to align with changes that were made two years ago.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just to clarify, then, it's housekeeping. So this change is not going to have any

impact on decisions at the RTB. The reason is for housekeeping.

If the minister can explain also what that is aligning with.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I already said that it doesn't have…. It's housekeeping. It's a housekeeping amendment

to align the onus and test for compensation with

section 51(2).

Clauses 70 to 72 inclusive approved.

On clause 73.

K. Kirkpatrick: This is dealing with timelines and establishing priorities for dispute resolution

for the RTB.

Can the minister explain? How will this actually ensure that the RTB decisions are

timely?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's an overarching principle statement. So tenants and landlords will be able to

get through the dispute resolution process more quickly and easily, meaning they will

get a resolution to their dispute faster.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

How will it be determined that this has been successful? I mean, are there actually

going to be numbers attached to this in terms of expected time?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: This takes me back to estimates. We canvassed this at great length.

I shared with my friend across the way that we do track call times. We track a whole

host of measures, and that's how we'll be tracking the results from this.

K. Kirkpatrick: In estimates, the minister promised that there would be more FTEs at the RTB. In estimates,

we learned that only half of the positions that had been committed to had been filled.

Can the minister tell us how many FTEs have since been filled?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I don't want to get too far into estimates, but I will share with the member that

45 of the 50 that we were hoping to hire have been hired.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

What are the current wait times for all three categories of RTB hearings? So that's

money, standard and emergency. How does this compare to the previous two years?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can't give the member the information now for two years. I can give the member from

last year, if that works.

We've seen, overall, a 32 percent reduction. Last year, at the same time, we had 4.3

weeks for emergency applications. It's 3.1 now. We had 16.3 weeks for a standard application.

We're at 11.2. Monetary claims alone were at 35 weeks. Now we're at 19 weeks.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

What is the average call wait time at the RTB, and how does this compare to the previous

year?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I shared with the member, we've made significant improvements. For example, the

percentage of calls that were answered within 20 minutes…. I think I shared with the

member last time that we were at…. Fifty-nine percent of the calls were answered within

20 minutes. This month we're at 90 percent.

The average wait time before a call gets answered was, last year, 23 minutes and eight

seconds. Now it's eight minutes and 23 seconds.

Clauses 73 to 75 inclusive approved.

On clause 76.

K. Kirkpatrick: This enables the RTB to assess claims for damages under 49.2. This exempts renovictions

from the small claims threshold. What will this impact have on RTB wait times?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would say to the member that it's not quite how the member characterized it. This

is also a bit of housekeeping. It "clarifies, for the purpose of determining whether

the director may resolve a dispute, that compensation received under an order made

under

section 49.2 of the Act is excluded from the calculation of the amount claimed."

So, repairs. This, again, is part of the housekeeping.

Clause 76 approved.

On clause 77.

K. Kirkpatrick: The threshold is very high when we're trying to look at whether something is a vexatious

application or frivolous. How will that be determined by the director?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There will be some policy guidelines put in place around this. Examples would be individuals

that…. They're repeat visitors. They continue to come, or they try to use the process

to harass the other person, or there are court decisions that impact it. But that's

the frame of what it would be. The policy guidelines of how it would be put in practice

will be developed.

Clauses 77 and 78 approved.

On clause 79.

K. Kirkpatrick: Would this provision enable the director to require two parties to proceed to a facilitated

settlement, or does it remain optional under this section?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: People would be required to go through the process. If it's not successful, then of

course they would go through the normal process.

Clause 79 approved.

On clause 80.

K. Kirkpatrick: What type of reasons would there be to dismiss an application that's going to be added

to regulation? Just an example of what's being contemplated.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Applications with no possible chance of success, where the director was not notified

of the application being served or dismissing an application for dispute resolution.

Clauses 80 and 81 approved.

On clause 82.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister provide an overview of how the facilitated settlement process will

work going forward?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The type of disputes that will be targeted initially in this pilot project are things

like repairs, orders for landlords to comply with the act, monetary disputes under

$5,000 and disputes about rent increases. Over the course of the pilot project, the

RTB may identify other dispute types for facilitation, and the purpose of the facilitation

is to assist landlords and tenants in resolving disputes in a way that is accessible,

speedy, flexible and addresses the needs of all the participants.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister provide an estimate of the impact on wait times from having the facilitated

settlement process?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's hard to say exactly on one measure. Collectively, we believe it would make a

significant difference. It's very similar to the Civil Resolution Tribunal. So not

only does it help with the process; it's an important process for education. Also,

when a dispute is resolved together, it actually helps address future challenges as

well, because both landlord and tenant figure out how to navigate these challenges.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister, and I do appreciate the facilitated settlement process.

I think it's a good way to move forward.

Now, are the facilitated settlements obligatory? And how many parties need to consent

to mediation?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It would be required. But what we believe will happen is, if there are multiple issues,

some of the issues will be resolved. Then we only have to book a hearing time for

whatever is remaining, as opposed to setting a hearing time and then having things

being resolved in between. It's about efficiency of the whole process.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just so I've got a clear vision of it. We're looking at mediation, and you're going

to have people that are going to be coming in who are upset. They're emotional. They've

had very difficult relationships with the other party, and now they're being put in

a scenario where it's mediation.

Are they in the same room? Is it going to be more dispute resolution, where you've

got the parties and somebody representing them and coming back and forth between rooms?

Or how is that going to work, taking into account the emotional level there?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think my friend across the way raises a good point. There are cases when emotions

are high.

First thing would be these mediations would happen either virtually, through the phone….

But we will be hiring. As I mentioned to the member earlier, there are five spots

remaining. Those are to hire skilled professionals that will help set up a framework

and help facilitate those mediations.

K. Kirkpatrick: To confirm with the minister, there would be options in terms of the mode of that

mediation. It can be by Zoom, it can be just on the phone, or it can actually be in

person as well?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that's correct. Through COVID, a lot of these things were happening virtual,

happening by phone — more accessible to people. So yes, that's the case.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will those participating — they may be able to do this now, and they probably can,

but just so I understand — be able to have legal counsel with them in mediation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A lot of these cases are on smaller items, and staff inform me that it's really rare

that somebody comes with legal counsel. But nothing precludes them from doing so.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I believe I heard this over there, but just for Hansard's sake, what is going to be

done to ensure that mediators are properly trained and settlements are procedurally

sound? Are those mediators going to be…? What is their background? Are they certified

mediators from the Justice Institute?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Mediation training will be an important piece of it, but obviously, we're looking

for a whole host of skills that will be needed for these roles.

Clauses 82 to 84 inclusive approved.

On clause 85.

K. Kirkpatrick: We're expanding the form in which hearings can be held, with this clause. Will this

enable all hearings to be recorded? We have heard complaints from individuals about

inconsistencies in whether things are recorded or not.

Hon. R. Kahlon: They're all already recorded, so that will continue.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Will this be sensitive to the needs of rural and remote

communities, where travel and communications technology is not always consistent?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, of course. Predominantly, it's done over the phone right now. So that's fairly

accessible for folks anywhere.

Clauses 85 to 105 inclusive approved.

The Chair: I call a recess while we get our next minister.

The committee recessed from 3:28 p.m. to 3:29 p.m.

[S. Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole back to order on Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 3), 2023, on clause 106.

Clauses 106 and 107 approved.

The Chair: This committee shall go into recess while we get the next minister and staff in place.

The committee recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:33 p.m.

[S. Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole, on Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

3), 2023, back to order. We are on clause 108.

Recognizing the House Leader of the Official Opposition.

On clause 108.

T. Stone: Thank you, Chair, I appreciate that.

This next handful of sections, which are the responsibility of the Jobs Ministry,

really are straightforward insofar as what's provided for in the legislation — the

top-up of funding for each of these three trusts: the Island Coastal Trust, Northern

Development Initiative Trust and the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust,

or ETSI, as it's called.

I'm going to ask a few questions just about the funding. Then I've got some other

more general questions about what each of these trusts has identified, in letters

to the minister, with respect to suggested amendments that these trusts had hoped

the government would consider.

I'm hoping that the minister will be willing in this engagement to just provide some

answers or her feedback on things that the trusts had really hoped to see that didn't

end up in these amendments.

[3:35 p.m.]

Perhaps, to the minister, I just wanted to make sure what her preference would be.

Would she like me to do the general questions all in this first section? Then we can

talk about the funding in each of the respective trusts, or does it matter to the

minister?

Hon. B. Bailey: No preference.

T. Stone: No preference? Okay, thank you.

First off, with respect to the funding –– again, very, very straightforward in terms

of the top-ups that are provided for and that, certainly, the official opposition

supports.

I guess my first question to the minister just would be: as with any expenditure of

dollars that is focused on economic development initiatives, which these are, I'm

wondering if the minister could provide some details for us as to how the minister

or what measurements the ministry uses to track the impact of these investments.

Hon. B. Bailey: Each of these trusts are independent of government, and they report out annually to

their communities and to the public. Those annual reports are available on their websites.

T. Stone: Does the ministry have any performance indicators that the ministry –– you know, kind

of a lens that the ministry looks through with respect to the provision of an investment

of $10 million in each of these trusts and the payback, the return on investment insofar

as these taxpayer dollars being invested? Are there any performance indicators that

the province has in place to track the effectiveness of these investments?

Hon. B. Bailey: Similar to the first question, each of these organizations is separate from government,

and their report-outs are provided. But I will say that, certainly, we have reviewed

and get the opportunity to review these report-outs and see the, quite honestly, excellent

leveraging that these organizations are able to do with the investments that we make

in them. So it's not a requirement. The KPIs are not a requirement to government,

but they are available and worth looking at.

T. Stone: I guess the answer, what I heard there, was that there are no performance indicators

that the organizations report out. And the report-out is what it is.

[3:40 p.m.]

I'm wondering if the minister…. I mean, she would be well aware that there are different

leveraging models employed with these trusts. In some cases, the investment is…. The

principle is leveraged over a longer period of time. In other cases, there's more

of a grant-type model where the dollars — the principle that is provided through these

funding allocations like this — are actually just spent down. Very different models.

I'm wondering if the province has done any work on really assessing, again, from a

performance perspective, these different models — the different leveraging models

that are used — to really determine which models and which tools used by these different

models actually provide better bang for the taxpayers' dollar.

Hon. B. Bailey: It's my understanding that at the time these trusts were originally stood up, each

trust had the opportunity to make a decision about the investment model that they

would employ. Some trusts did direct-impact investment. Other trusts set up an endowment-style

fund.

The investment that we're hoping to make with this piece of legislation, the $10 million

each for the three trusts, provides about a four-year runway for us to do some of

the work that's needed in terms of the analysis of the different types of investment

models and where we're going forward.

T. Stone: Well, I'm happy to hear that there will be some analysis for this, as the minister

says, runway period over the next four years. But again, it begs the question: has

there not been any analysis done over the past four years or the past eight years

to determine, within the ministry, the effectiveness of the different models that

the minister has acknowledged exist?

At the end of the day, the programs, the investments that these dollars have been

invested in — again, in different ways — have had huge and positive impacts in the

communities and the regions, for sure. But some models…. There's a complete drawdown

on the investment, or the principle, if we can call it that. In other models, there

is a leveraging of that principle in a different way.

So I just want to ask one more time if the minister can say…. Has there been any analysis

done on the effectiveness of these different models over — pick a time frame — the

past four years, past eight years that would have informed, in part, the government's

decision to move forward today with the request, through this legislative process,

for the advancement of an additional $10 million to each of these trusts?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: As I stated prior, that is part of the work that we have ahead of us.

T. Stone: It's easy to just say no, I guess. We'll circle back as part of the estimates process,

I'm sure, next year in the budget, and so forth. But I find it very interesting that

the minister can't and won't indicate that there has been any analysis done. It's

all we can infer, with an answer like that — that there hasn't been any analysis done

on the effectiveness of these different models and the leveraging of the investments

that each of them employs. We're talking about $30 million of taxpayers' money, moving

forward.

So good news to hear that there appears to be some work on analysis, moving forward.

We'll pick that part of the discussion up at a later date.

I just want to move now to a few general questions. The three trusts work very, very

closely together. They have a very collegial relationship. They often, as the minister

knows well, write letters. Often they're joint letters. They certainly share information.

They've also been very good over the years, with successive governments in power,

at being very inclusive of all of the MLAs that are within their region. I certainly

know that when I was in government, I had a certain level of access to ETSI, in the

southern Interior. I have the same level of access to ETSI as an opposition member

now.

I think that's an important feature of each of the three trusts — that they work very

closely with all of the MLAs, regardless of political party. They work with all of

the local governments in their regions and many other organizations and stakeholders.

So that's all very good.

I say all that because I think they've done some really good work and have been engaged,

it would appear, with the ministry for quite some time in an effort to be very proactive

and constructive in bringing forward proposed legislative amendments.

Now, having, again, served on both sides of the Legislature and understanding how

legislation is created behind the scenes before it even appears in committees in the

Legislature…. There are two types of amendments. There are significant policy changes,

new provisions of legislation. That can often take a lot of work and can often require

a lot of calculation and investment of time, and so on. Then there are other types

of amendments which are more housekeeping in nature.

The three trusts have written to their various elected officials, have provided copies

of a

summary of proposed legislative amendments. Many of these are very simple. They

would appear to be very administrative in nature. It, therefore, would be…. It's perplexing

to them, the trusts, and it's perplexing, I think, to others like myself as to why

very few of these suggested amendments worked their way into the amendment we see

here.

I'm going to hope the minister will provide some insight into the decisions that were

taken to get us here, where, aside from the $10 million top-ups and a couple of items,

a lot of these really good suggestions were not included.

The first one I wanted to ask the minister about was that the trusts had proposed

that enabling language be added to this legislation that would allow the trust to

add Indigenous representatives to their regional advisory committees. This particular

item has been recommended in each legislative review of the trust for years.

[3:50 p.m.]

It's consistent with the government's goal in

section 4.39 of the DRIPA action plan,

and it was endorsed as a priority item by representatives from many, many local governments

and Indigenous advisory committees. It just strikes the trusts as, frankly, odd and

unacceptable that Indigenous communities don't have a seat at this particular economic

table.

So I'm just wondering when…. This one I would not put in the category of housekeeping

measure. This one is more about…. As we continue the journey down the path of reconciliation,

I would really appreciate the minister explaining why this particular recommendation

that the trusts have made has not been included in the act. This was a valuable opportunity,

with these amendments, to do so here and now.

Hon. B. Bailey: Absolutely. There's no question about the importance of ensuring that First Nations

have representation in all three of these trusts. That is deeply important work. That

work has already begun.

This is an opportunity for us to ensure that the trusts, particularly ICET, are not

at risk of not continuing while we do that work. The opportunity that funding the

trusts at this moment in time gives us is that it allows us to ensure their continued

deeply important work while we do the quite complex and ongoing work of changing the

nature of the governance of these trusts and who sits around the table at these trusts.

So it's not that it is excluded. It's that this amendment, this $30 million — $10

million dollars for three trusts — allows us the timeline needed to do that deeply

important work.

T. Stone: Well, DRIPA became law in this province a number of years ago. This government has

been in power through that whole time. So could the minister explain why that work

hasn't been done? Why is the allocation of $10 million more at each of these trusts

over…? As the minister put it, it provides an investment window of perhaps up to four

more years of runway.

Is it the investments we're talking about here today that provide the time frame to

actually, on a forward-looking basis, do the work around including Indigenous representatives

on these trusts, as opposed to having done the work over the previous years? One would

have thought that even just in the time that this minister has been in this portfolio,

there could have been progress made on this particular action.

So I'm just wondering…. Again, I understand that the minister is going to answer all

the questions with: "Well, that's a forward-looking thing. We're going to work on

that, moving forward." It does beg the question about why that wasn't done as part

of the process that led up to bringing forward amendments here today.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: This work began in early '22, before I was minister. The reality of it is that each

of the different trusts and the different governance groups of the trusts have a number

of different communities that they are working with and consulting with and collaborating

with and having conversations with. It's important work that takes some time.

We are committed to this work being done correctly and successfully, but it's also

important that the trusts know that they have the ability to continue their important

work. It's really a timing issue.

T. Stone: Does the minister have a time framethat's a little bit tighter than "at some point

in the future" or the four-year runway ahead? Is this something that…? I mean, we're

talking about a seat on an advisory council or a seat on these trusts that would be

filled by an Indigenous representative. It would seem to be fairly straightforward.

From a timing perspective, is the minister looking at, perhaps, bringing forward legislative

amendments in the spring session next year, which would be a good number of months

away, to facilitate the inclusion of Indigenous representation on these trust advisory

committees?

[H. Yao in the chair.]

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: This process is, in fact, being led by the trusts, and they and their boards will

determine how long it takes. Once complete, we are committed to ensuring that the

legislative changes that are necessary to ensure proper representation with First

Nations are part of the governance of the trust.

T. Stone: One last time. Is there a time frame? Like, is there a time frame for this work to

be concluded? That's the question. The minister answered the previous question saying

that there's the work underway — that the ministry is doing stuff. And it's then:

"The trusts are leading the work."

I mean, the ministry is flowing $10 million to each of these trusts. The minister

has said that it was very important, these dollars, in part because it buys the time

necessary to do this work. I'm just looking for, on behalf of the trusts and, I think,

Indigenous communities: what is the time frame? What is it, from an expectation perspective?

What would the minister like to see? What is the minister working towards to have

these Indigenous advisory committees actually created and filled for that very important

Indigenous representation?

Hon. B. Bailey: As I've mentioned, the time frame does live within the trust. The governance of the

trust is leading the process and the consultations and the redesign of what this will

look like. It's expected that that will occur within 2024. But the important thing

is that this process is thorough and comprehensive and led by the trust.

A. Olsen: I'm somewhat taken aback by the minister's responses, because as has been made very

clear, in 2022, at least the Island Coastal Economic Trust presented…. They're the

only ones that I've talked to directly. They presented a comprehensive vision and

case for investment.

All of the minister's answers that have just been provided to my colleague the official

opposition House Leader were answered in that case. All of the questions that the

House Leader of the official opposition asked about reviews have been done nine times.

It's a legislative process.

Three legislative review processes for each of the three trusts have been completed.

The legislative review committees…. The legislative review committee for the ICET

— I'll speak to the one that I know the most information about — came back and talked

about how this community-led vehicle is a critical community-led vehicle. They responded

to that. The legislative review committee said: "Do you have First Nations on there?"

What did they develop for this minister, the previous minister? The document that

this government has been sitting on for the last year was the first co-led trust they

recognized. As my colleague said, the three different trusts chose different approaches

to how to spend that initial investment that was made by my colleague and his former

colleagues when they were in government.

The current leadership under the ICET has said: "No. We don't want to have a sinking

fund, one that disappears and goes away. We want to have a fund that is a solid community

investment vehicle led by First Nations and local government community leaders. We

see the vision. We've laid out a document on how we're going to achieve that vision.

And what we need is an investment from the provincial government so that we can start

that." "Founding money" is what they've said.

In fact, it went so far as to highlight for the minister the amendments that could

be made in the act in order to achieve this. So I'm astonished, actually, that the

responses have been framed that we're waiting for the work to be done. The work has

been done. What hasn't happened is they haven't found a partner to make that investment.

[4:05 p.m.]

At the moment that we had last spring where the government had found…. It went around

the couch and shook the cushions and found billions of dollars. We didn't find an

investment partner, even though the work had been done.

The first question that I have is this: what does the minister consider the work of

the legislative review committees in the context of the questions that my colleagues

were asking, which was a review of the effectiveness of the organizations and the

impact that they've had and then the recommendations that they made to this government?

Hon. B. Bailey: I think we're talking about two different processes here. One is the periodic legislative

reviews that occur approximately every five years. But the member is also talking

about the proposal that we received from ICET, which included language and aspirations

in regards to First Nations inclusion and governance. That work is undergoing right

now, and it's my understanding that that is not complete. What we're looking for is

all three of the trusts to complete that work, and then we'll move forward on legislation.

[4:10 p.m.]

A. Olsen: We had a situation where in Budget 2017, the former B.C. Liberal government announced

a $10 million rescue of the ICET fund. It had run its course, as has been profiled.

It was established as a sinking fund, probably going back to the beginning of it.

They might have done something different, but we didn't have the benefit of doing

that.

The B.C. Liberals announced in that budget $10 million. The B.C. NDP ended up forming

government after the 2017 election. They agreed with that budget allocation. They

extended that money, basically kicking the can down the road.

I guess I have a bit of a disagreement as to the state of where things are at, because

I've been part of these discussions. I've had lots of discussions with my local government

colleagues about where they feel we're at. I think what this debate has already been

able to uncover is that the position the trusts are in and the position the government

thinks they're in are two dramatically different spaces. There is, I believe, a philosophical

difference between the work that the trusts want to do and the minister and the ministry

and what they want to achieve from it.

There was a remarkable opportunity for a commitment to be made to extend the life

of the ICET, but to extend the life of these three trusts, at the time that we had

a massive surplus. What's happened is the government has made the decision to extend

the $30 million.

All the questions that were asked by my colleague about the analysis and making sure

that there's value for money…. All of those legislative review processes have found

that these are useful community economic development vehicles. The types of projects

that they support are the types of projects that build community. Community theatre.

Critical docks for community connections. These are the things that basically, this

decision….

Rather than invest in these trusts long term, these decisions actually just kick the

problem down the road another four years. The reality is that the way the answers

here have been profiled is that we're committed to it. Well, but that has never been

the indication that's been made. That's never been the inclination that is felt, that

the government is in support of this.

The work, the lobbying, the advocacy — all of that has been excellent work, but it

has fallen on a situation where we're given a short-term commitment of an extension

of another $10 million. We're in exactly the same situation. There's no commitment

on behalf of this government to the long-term investment that needs to be made.

What's actually happening is this money is extending the life. All of the work is

being requested to be done with absolutely no certainty at the end of this. Is the

minister suggesting that with this four-year extension that these trusts have been

given, there is some certainty at the end of it that Indigenous people will finally

be included in these funds? They'll finally have seats at the table, decisions being

made? There will finally be a sustainable amount of money that's being committed and

invested by the province?

Is that the context that we are to read from the minister's responses, that this is

work that's in process and being done and that there's certainty at the end of it?

The sense that I have is that there's nothing but uncertainty for these trusts.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: Two things in response to that question. One is that the member is suggesting that

the proposal reflected some degree of completion in regards to the consultation needed

with Indigenous governments. We don't see it that way.

[4:20 p.m.]

In fact, looking at the 2022 proposal, I'll just share some of the writing included

in it, which is: "Any legislative action should be preceded by sufficient consultation

with Indigenous governments within the region and should receive their prior consent

before being put before the Legislative Assembly."

That's where they were in 2022, and we agree with that sentiment, of course. That

work is ongoing now.

In regards to the question of certainty, two of the three trusts employed a different

model of investment, where they use an endowment model. They are not at risk of running

out of investment dollars if they continue to invest at the levels that they have

been investing at. The one that did not, ICET, has been investing approximately $2

million a year.

The funding that we're bringing forward, should this bill be successful, is consistent

with that funding. This allows them time to continue the quite excellent work, in

fact, that they've been doing. But importantly, it provides us the timeline to do

the work, to talk about the kind of certainty that the member is asking for, to plan

with them on what the solution is, going forward.

We don't have it yet, frankly, and we have that work ahead of us. But we're creating

the timeline to be able to do it.

The Chair: Seeing no other questions, shall clause 108 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

A. Walker: I move that Bill 42 be amended by adding a new clause, 108.1 to ensure there is Indigenous

government representation at the regional advisory committee.

[ CLAUSE 108.1, by adding the following clause:

108.1

Section 3 is repealed and the following substituted:

Composition of regional advisory committees

(1) A regional advisory committee, whether under

section 2 (3) (

b) or otherwise,

may from time to time determine the size of, and the manner of appointing members

to, the regional advisory committee and the role of, and the manner of appointing,

the chair of the regional advisory committee, but in doing so the members of the regional

advisory committee must

(

a) ensure that the only persons who are eligible to become members of the regional

advisory committee are

(

i) elected officials of municipalities or regional districts that are,

in whole or in part, within the region, or

(ii) Members of the Legislative Assembly who have been elected, in whole or in part,

by electors from the region, or

(iii) Indigenous governing bodies

(

b) provide an opportunity for municipalities or regional districts within the region

that have populations of less than 500 to be represented on the regional advisory

committee,

(

c) establish the terms of office for members of the regional advisory committee,

and

(

d) ensure that if a member of the regional advisory committee ceases to meet the

qualifications for membership set out under paragraph (a), that individual immediately

ceases to be a member of the regional advisory committee.

(2) In this section, “Indigenous governing body” has the same meaning as in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act .]

The Chair: I call a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:41 p.m.

[H. Yao in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 42 back to order.

We are now on clause 108…. There is an amendment on the table right now.

Does the member wish to speak to the amendment?

On the amendment.

A. Walker: I want to thank the minister for taking the time to answer these questions regarding

this trust. The ICET, Island Coastal Economic Trust on the Island is a significant

economic contributor for those projects that have difficulty finding financing.

It has been raised by colleagues from other parties here that there is a lack of Indigenous

governance on the trust's regional advisory committees. This was raised first not

in the 2011 legislative review. It was raised when the act was first introduced by

members of what is now the governing party. There are two members, who are currently

sitting MLAs with the government party, that advocated in 2006 for Indigenous representation

on the regional advisory committees.

This has been in the business plan. It has been in…. Most of the strategic reports

and strategic plans that this trust has put out are a request of government to enable

Indigenous participation on these RACs.

The minister began by mentioning that this trust is very independent from government

and then said that government was working on consultation with First Nations to ensure

that they had participation on this trust. They're waiting on ICET to do this work.

The fact is that the work doesn't need to be done at that level. We're not talking

about additional funding. We're not talking about changing the governance structure

in the sense of how to allocate that funding. We're just trying to ensure that there

is Indigenous participation on the RACs.

We have a meeting coming up in, I think, a week and a day. MLAs are also invited to

participate, but they don't often do.

If a First Nation governance body is unable to attend a RAC, there's no cost to that.

There's no impact on that. We're not talking about changing fundamentally the structure

of the organization, but to allow First Nations to have representation in these discussions.

The question I have, as I conclude my remarks here, is…. We have a very clear path

to get that First Nations governance. It has been asked for, for nearly 20 years now.

The question, I guess, to the minister is: why is government not supporting this initiative?

The Chair: I have reviewed the new proposed amendment and find that it is in order.

I invite any member who would like to speak to the amendment to do so now.

A. Olsen: I think that this aligns with the initiatives of the provincial government in recognizing

the…. We're having incomplete discussions if Indigenous governing bodies are not involved

in organizations such as this.

It has been made exceptionally clear that it is the desire of the trust to be inclusive,

rather than exclusive, as they currently are.

As my colleague has said, it was raised by the government themselves, when they were

in opposition, that this was a missing component to Indigenous governing bodies or

Indigenous leadership. Indigenous voices were a missing component to the voices at

the table.

I'm here to stand in support of this amendment.

[4:45 p.m.]

T. Stone: I, too, on behalf of the official opposition, am happy to stand in support of this

amendment.

I appreciate the work that my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum has done in pulling

the language together for this. Is it perfect? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

As I said in a number of my earlier questions here today, comments which have been

echoed by the House Leader for the Third Party and now the member for Parksville-Qualicum,

it's time to get on with taking action. There's a point at which talk, engagement,

consultation and whatnot are important, but at a certain point, it's time to take

action.

This entire process, as has been detailed earlier today, has been going on for a number

of years now, all consistent with the principles of DRIPA. Certainly, when you talk

to representatives of ICET, the Northern Development Initiative Trust and ETSI…. They

are all keen to advance this work and to see it come to fruition.

The other members of these trusts, the locally elected officials, are already working

with Indigenous communities to varying degrees and in varying ways. They're all engaged.

They are championing this as much as the Indigenous peoples are. Certainly, the rhetoric

from government would suggest that this is what the government also supports.

I really hope that the government will take to heart the efforts of the members of

the opposition here, across different parties, and the independent as well, that really

are saying…. It's time to take the good work of these working groups — the planning,

the engagement that has already been done — and set a firm timeline for actual implementation

of the concepts so that Indigenous peoples, Indigenous communities, can be represented,

have a voice and be party to these funding discussions, decisions, allocations, as

they rightfully should be.

We would support this amendment.

The final comment would be that we would want to ensure that all three trusts be dealt

with equally in this manner; that the working groups across all three trusts that

are engaged on these matters be charged with the responsibility, within a firm timeline,

in partnership with Indigenous peoples and the provincial government and the locally

elected officials, to actually get on with making what's being proposed here, which

has actually been promised to Indigenous peoples — that this promise, this commitment,

be converted into action and that happen much, much sooner than later.

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to all the members who spoke to this very important topic.

Of course, our government is deeply committed to ensure that Indigenous voices, Indigenous

leadership and Indigenous government are involved in these trusts. That's the work

that we are doing. We were the first province to adopt UNDRIP. This is deeply important

to this government, and we're absolutely committed to this work.

We know that this work has been a multi-year process. That's the time that has been

required. That's the time that the trusts are taking. The trusts are leading this

process, in conjunction with First Nations in their communities and in their areas

that they're investing within.

It's so important that Indigenous voices be at that table. That will happen. It's

why the Declaration Act specifically identifies this as an action under 4.39.

We have been working with the trusts. The trusts are leading this process to ensure

that full consultation occurs and that the nations within their realm have been deeply

involved in the recommendations on what that representation is going to look like.

This work is ongoing right now. It's happening. It will continue to happen in 2024.

Once all three trusts have completed this work, we will move forward on legislation

that puts it into law.

The Chair: On the amendment to add clause 108.1, shall it pass?

Division has been called.

[4:50 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.]

Members, before restating the question, I remind all members that only permanent members

of

Section C or their authorized substitutes may vote.

The question is: shall amendment 108.1 pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

yeas — 4

Doerkson

Kyllo

Olsen

Stone

nays — 7

Bailey

Beare

Chow

Glumac

Heyman

Kang

Sharma

On clause 109.

T. Stone: Just one question on this section, and this applies to the same funding allocation

point for each of the three trusts. I will only ask at this one time. I wanted to

reflect again not just the feedback but the recommendations from the trusts with respect

to the fact that there is a hard funding cap for each of the trusts.

The recommendation that the various legislative working groups have jointly brought

forward would see there not being a mention of a hard funding cap. Right now in the

legislation, it says $50 million. By adding the $10 million, obviously it goes up

to $60 million. The point is: why does there need to be a hard-coded number? If this

legislation passes, it'll be $60 million.

The feeling is that continuing with this hard funding cap is inconsistent with most

other public bodies. It's very operational, not at a governing level as one would

expect for legislation. It also makes it difficult for the government to ever truly

reinvest in these trusts without having to bring forward legislative amendments.

The question would be: has the minister considered making a change to these hard funding

caps? If she has, why is there no consideration for that, insofar as it's not reflected

in the amendments that we see in front of us here today?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: What I would say in response to the member's question is that this is a consistent

practice with prior administration of the trusts. It allows the Legislature to have

a say on the funding of the trusts and to allow for debate to happen in regard to

what that funding level is.

T. Stone: I just wanted to clarify the record. I had said $50 million to $60 million, and I

meant $60 million to $70 million. I know the minister…. She's nodding her head. Obviously,

with the other two trusts, it's going from $50 million to $60 million each.

Again, I totally understand that this has been the practice to this point. The act

is written the way it is. There have been a number of tranches of new funding advanced

from successive provincial governments. I guess I'll ask one more question on this

point.

Is the minister open to considering changing this particular hard funding cap in the

future and just leaving it open-ended so that future governments, this one and others,

have the additional flexibility of more quickly and easily advancing funding to these

trusts, as a government sees fit, without having to bring that specific measure to

the Legislative Assembly for an amendment?

Hon. B. Bailey: I think what I would say to the member in regard to that question is that these trusts

are set up to be quite independent. I think it's really important that the Legislature

have the opportunity to debate and have thorough discussion about the level of funding

that goes into this trust. Those caps do allow for that debate to occur.

A. Olsen: Again, I think that it's important for us just to reflect on some responses that have

been given when the minister suggests that this has been consistent practice.

I think at one time, in 2017, when ICET, the Island Coastal Economic Trust, had got

to the end of its money, the consistent practice of the time was to kick the can a

little further down the road: four years.

[5:10 p.m.]

Well, here we are at that same rusty can, and the government was given the opportunity

to either put some foundational funding in place so that that fund could be robust

and be a community investment vehicle over the long term. It chose not to do that

and chose instead to change from $60 million to $70 million to do the consistent practice

of the one time that it happened previously, as best as I can see.

The other thing, which is interesting, is that if we're going to use the language

of consistent practice, then let's apply it consistently. I kept hearing over and

over and over again, as I was advocating for this over this past year, that they couldn't

act on behalf of the ICET without acting on behalf of the other two trusts that were

there. The ICET, admittedly, even all of the board of directors — everybody around

the table — understand that the decision was made way back in 2006 that it was going

to be a sinking fund.

They have a different vision for that. They've expressed that different vision. The

consistent practice…. If this government was going to follow consistent practice,

as the minister suggests today, then it would have been fine to just have an engagement

with the ICET, recognize what they need in their unique circumstances and engage them

in that instead of creating this narrative that you can only have a conversation with

all three of these. They're all three independent of each other.

That's the reason why

section 109,

section 113 and

section 116 have to be independently

amended. If they were all the same thing, if they were all just one thing, we would

just have to amend it once. But what is inconsistent is the way that the government

is practising. That's what's inconsistent. We sit here today and hear that what we

need to follow is consistent practice when really, actually, what we're doing today,

and in this process, is creating a consistent practice. You can't have a consistent

practice until you have, I think, more than just a single instance of something.

With that, I'm going to actually give the opportunity to the government and the opposition

to remove the cap and repeal

section 17(1) of the act and repeal it from that act.

I'd like to move this amendment.

[ CLAUSE 109, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 17 (1) is amended by striking out “$60 million” and substituting “$70 million” repealed . ]

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: I think it's important just to reflect this. This has been the request of the ICET.

This is the direction that they would like to go. They would prefer that there is

no cap. This doesn't require more consultation with the ICET. It doesn't require more

conversations with the mayors and councillors that make up those RACs. It shouldn't

require more consultation or discussion with the MLAs that sit or should be sitting

on those RACs with the community leaders.

This is the request. This is what the community has requested of this government.

If it's not supported, then this is the government who is not following the recommendations

of the review committees and of the ICET. I strongly suggest and strongly hope that

the government will repeal this and give themselves the flexibility to act and to

be…. I was hoping that this government would be inclusive of First Nations. They've

shown a desire not to be.

What I'm hoping is that they will follow the advice of the Island Coastal Economic

Trust and support this to repeal this

section of the act.

The Chair: I have reviewed the proposed amendment. By proposing to remove a limit, the proposed

amendment has the effect of increasing expenditure of public funds, and therefore

it has an expenditure by implication. Therefore, this proposed amendment is not in

order.

Amendment ruled out of order.

[5:15 p.m.]

The Chair: Now returning to reconsidering clause 109.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your ruling.

I'm just wondering if you could provide some greater rationale than that. I'm not

proposing the government spend any more money. I'm just proposing that the government

doesn't have a limit. It could still choose to give $1. It could still choose to give

$10 million. It could give more than that. This proposal is not suggesting that the

government needs to spend the money. It's just removing a restriction that it has

unnecessarily put on itself.

The Chair: The amendment itself actually opens up expenditure limits and, therefore, has an expenditure

associated with which….

It allows expenditures. So indirectly, it will access government funds.

A. Olsen: Is the Chair taking the position, then, that this motion obliges the government to

do something?

The Chair: I believe this motion actually creates an opening and allows people to have access

to government funds. Therefore, I'm going to say this is not in order.

A. Olsen: I would, I think, with respect, just say that this motion doesn't open up any more

opportunities than the government takes themselves. This is simply saying that this

cap, which has been created by previous governments, has a limitation on government.

I recognize that aspect of it.

However, it doesn't require the government to spend any more money. It just creates

an opportunity for it in the future to make a different decision than the one that

they're making today. It actually opens the door for them to be able to make a different

decision than the one they're making today.

It's a curious ruling, but I accept it.

Clause 109 approved.

The Chair: I'm going to ask the minister to note the hour.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:18 p.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