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

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

BILL 42 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 3), 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 42; J. Sims in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

On clause 110 (continued) .

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 42, which is Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 3), 2023. We are on clause 110.

Clause 110 approved.

B. Stewart: Having not had the luxury of looking at Hansard to see where we got on 109, I guess I'm questioning a question on 109. Did that pass?

The Chair: According to my notes, yes.

B. Stewart: Madam Chair, I know that there are two of my colleagues here that had questions on

109 that they wanted to further pursue. I just wonder if we could at least honour

the opportunity. Being that in the other House, they were doing other work on Bill

44 earlier, if they might have a chance to speak to this?

The Chair: The Chair will accommodate that.

I'm going to seek consent from the committee, so we can go to 109 to give a member

a chance to ask questions because they were not in the room, on clause 109, at the

time. I'm looking for consent.

Leave granted.

On clause 109.

The Chair: Consent has been given. I am going to recognize the House Leader of the Third Party.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Madam Chair. We're getting ourselves resituated back with Bill 42.

I just have a question. I attempted to introduce an amendment right before we adjourned.

That amendment was ruled out of order by the then Chair. I guess I just have a question

on the procedure, and I have a question on the ruling of that amendment being out

of order.

I have a private member's bill that is standing on the order papers. It was accepted

by the Speaker. It stands on the order paper, and should the government decide, however

unlikely it might be, to debate it, it then has seemingly passed all the tests to

be a legitimate private member's bill that doesn't do what the Chair previously said

the amendment that I tried to table for clause 109 did, which is spend money or open

the door for money to be spent, which was the ruling.

I'm just wondering if I can get an understanding of why it is that I can have a private

member's bill doing exactly the same thing, which is essentially repealing the line

out of the legislation.

[1:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Thank you very much. We went back to deal with the clause because I believed the member

had a new question that was related to the clause itself.

As to the ruling of the previous Chair, I'm not going to be commenting on that or

taking any actions on that, either. Also, you're referring to a piece of legislation

that is not before this committee. This opportunity was to ask a question about clause

109 only.

Clause 109 approved.

On clause 110.

B. Stewart: Madam Chair, thank you for that accommodation, and I apologize for the time taken

on that.

I just want to understand. It's my understanding that this amendment is to….

A. Walker: Point of order.

The Chair: State your point of order.

A. Walker: Thank you, Chair. I stood to speak before 110 but after 109, I had my place and rightfully

stood in this place.

The Chair: Let me try to clarify. You were not on 109, or were you?

A. Walker: After 109 passed, I had an amendment that I am to bring forward that will amend the

bill that we have before us, for 109.1, and I was intending to speak before we got

onto 110.

The Chair: Just give me a minute, please.

For clarity, you are not going to try to amend 109, but you have an amendment to the

bill that will go before 110. Is that correct?

A. Walker: Correct.

The Chair: Then I now recognize the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

A. Walker: I move an amendment that will add a new clause, 109.1, that will amend clause 18 of

the original act, which removes the ability for the trust to ensure that donations

only go into the general reserve account.

[ CLAUSE 109.1, by adding the following clause:

109.1

Section 18 is repealed and the following substituted:

Management of Regional Account

18 The North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust must manage the Regional Account.]

The Chair: We are going to be taking a five-minute recess so we can make copies and make sure

that everyone has them.

The committee recessed from 1:43 p.m. to 1:51 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

On the amendment.

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

3), 2023, back to order. The amendment has been circulated to all members now, so

I invite the member for Parksville-Qualicum to make his remarks.

A. Walker: Thank you, Chair. We've had quite a lot of engagement with the trusts over the last

while, especially the ICET, Island Coastal Economic Trust. They've gone through significant

struggles. They were capitalized, just like the Southern Interior Trust, with $50

million, but unlike that trust, they wound down their assets.

They had to be bailed out once already, to the tune of $10 million, and this bill

will enable government to bail them out again. We have, through the debates in the

committee stage, discussed the importance of Indigenous participation on the RACs.

While the amendment didn't pass, we know that the minister is committed to that. We

know that good work will continue, and we will see that.

The challenge with this trust is that even with the capitalization of $10 million,

the trust is still in that same framework where they're winding down their assets.

They're not able to live in perpetuity, because that endowment is certainly not large

enough to be distributing what they're familiar with distributing — the $2 million

or so a year — while having the overhead to run the operations of the trust itself.

This amendment is about providing that trust with some flexibility. The act first

came in, in 2006. Is that right? It has been around a long time. This provision has

limited the trust from the ability to be able to seek private, public and charitable

donations, and to have those donations go into an account that is separate from the

regional account.

We've heard from ICET, which will be very different than the other two trusts that

are very well capitalized. They're able to sustain their operation, but Island Coastal

Economic Trust basically has their hands out. They're in a situation where they know

— government says it'll be five years — that realistically, in three years or so,

they're going to have to come back to government again to have a conversation about

what the future of that trust looks like.

They have tremendous opportunities on the Island with some very innovative businesses.

Mosaic, on the Island, has their new program to decarbonize, or at least take carbon

credits from forests. It's generating significant revenue for Mosaic, where they can

keep old-growth forest intact and generate revenue from that, instead of removing

that fibre from the land base — to have a partnership.

I'm not saying Mosaic is doing this, but to have an agency that is able to generate

revenue and that wants to put it into an endowment for clean investments on our Island,

investing in a future, having that attached to their name…. Forcing that funding that

could be coming in to go into the general account limits how that money is to be spent.

The trust has been asking for this for a while now, but it's especially important

now that we know that that trust is close to dissolution.

I was on the regional advisory committee at the RAC. This is the table where all the

MLAs and mayors will discuss the direction of the trust. It is still palpable. The

conversation about the dissolution of this trust is still happening. It is a sad thing.

We have seen almost 20 years of this trust investing in our communities. A large portion

of their energy right now is focused on: what is it going to look like when this trust

disappears, if this trust disappears?

[1:55 p.m.]

We're definitely thrilled to see the province stepping up with $10 million, but to

have that donation linked to an account as inflexible as the management in the regional

account is dramatically limiting the ability for this trust to go out to private donors

to seek investment, to recapitalize, without reliance on the taxpayer, on the provincial

government.

I can see opportunities where, perhaps, a large telecommunications company wants to

see investments in a specific area. They want to get credit for these types of investments,

as any corporation would. These are a mechanism to get their name out there and increase

their reputation. To have those donations then go into a regional account would limit

that intent immensely.

On this amendment, I've heard from the CEO of the Island Coastal Economic Trust about

the importance of this flexibility. The first question to the minister is: have they

had a similar conversation with the CEO of ICET? What are the minister's and government's

thoughts on this initiative?

The Chair: The amendment is in order. So we will proceed.

Hon. B. Bailey: We have received communication this summer from the trust, and this was one of a number

of different items that were brought forward.

We want to do this work with the trust. There are a number of different issues that

are not included in the changes that we're making in this current legislation. That

is by design, because we have a significant amount of work to do together, including

ensuring that there's a co-governance structure put into place.

We are going to need to open the legislation again in order to do that work. It's

at that time that we'll be going through the additional changes that this trust and

the other trusts are hoping to explore. We look forward to doing that work with them.

B. Stewart: This amendment does bring up some openness — ICET has invested, I believe, over $50

million on the Island — on the opportunity to have the benefit of having some of those

industries being able to reinvest, perhaps, in their sector.

I know the member for Parksville-Qualicum used Mosaic, which is a large forestry company.

With all of the issues in terms of value-added, I'm sure that they and local First

Nations would have a lot to say about that, rather than just handing it over to the

general account.

[2:00 p.m.]

This is an area of flexibility that is not unreasonable, and I think it should be

considered. The trust now is 18 years old. The amounts that have been recapitalized

into ICET, this $10 million, I'm sure will be welcome. For sectors that maybe could

see the benefit in helping small producers, why would we restrict it and not allow

them to do that?

I don't know about this term, the "co-governance" that the minister just mentioned,

but I do think that it sounds to me like there are further amendments that they're

working on. Co-governance. Is it her intention to consider a way of incentivizing

businesses to put money back into ICET and the other trusts?

Hon. B. Bailey: A couple of things in the member's question. One, the reference to co-governance is

in regards to the Declaration Act action plan, action 4.39, which guides us to move

towards co-governance with economic trusts.

There is a lot of work that has been done already moving us in this direction. It's

happening currently, and that work will continue. Because of the importance of this

work and the priority of it, we will be opening this act again to include that work.

At that time, we will be exploring other opportunities to make the changes that the

trusts have brought forward, including the one that is being discussed now.

It is not, in my view, the right place for us to do that work. We need the trusts

in the room, and we're going to do that work with the trusts when we open up the act

again.

B. Stewart: I know, from talking to the Economic Trust of the Southern Interior for B.C., and

some of the discussions they've had with NDIT and ICET, that they have spent a lot

of time reimagining how they can do this.

Now, I realize that the co-governance and what the minister has just shared with us

here is a really important part, but I think that they're trying to move ahead. They

have been working, I'd say, aggressively and actively with the RACs. These are big

groups of organizations. The amount of consultation that goes on and the pace at which

we kind of step up and address some of these….

The Chair: Member, I don't want to interrupt, but I'm going to. Can you please make sure that

your remarks are based on the amendment and on the amendment only?

B. Stewart: I guess really my question, Madam Chair, would be: how is it that the work that they've

done is maybe considered to be irrelevant? Why is it that it wouldn't be considered

at this time?

These other things that the minister just mentioned,

section 4.39 of the plan to have

co-governance as part of the Declaration Act…. I guess my question is: is this other

information not as important, that it should be considered at this time, being that

we're opening up the act, and we have that?

Anyways, I think that the amendment is a good first step.

The Chair: Thank you. I didn't hear a question related to the amendment in there, so we will

go back to the member for Parksville-Qualicum to close debate.

A. Walker: My understanding, in chatting with the Clerks, is that for motions brought forward,

whether by government or opposition, in the committee stage, debate will go back and

forth and questions can be asked through the Chair.

Could I seek clarity as to whether that's the case or not?

[2:05 p.m.]

The Chair: If there is any other member who wishes to speak on this motion, to make a point,

I will recognize them first. Then I will go back to the member for Parksville-Qualicum

to close the debate.

A. Walker: I'm confused by that ruling, as it's not been the precedent set in this House. Even

in this session we've seen, in committee stage, amendments have come forward in the

main chamber. We have seen an active opportunity to be able to ask questions in committee

stage. The ruling, which….

Of course, I'm not contesting the ruling of the Chair, but that dramatically limits

the opportunity for government. If they are to bring forward an amendment, it prevents

an opportunity for members in opposition, or even of government parties, to ask questions

of amendments brought forward in committee stage. Committee stage, as far as I know,

through the precedents that we've seen, is an opportunity to ask questions.

I see the Clerk and the Chair have consulted. I don't know if there's something that

the Chair would like to say, but I would certainly not want to lose my opportunity

to speak.

The Chair: Member, you are not going to lose your opportunity to speak. You brought the amendment.

You got to speak. Other members in the House got asked if they wanted to speak. Nobody

did, so this is your opportunity to speak and close. Then the minister will respond.

A. Walker: I think that also contradicts the ruling of the Chair. I'm not disagreeing with the

Chair, but if we're treating this as a motion and the mover of the motion gets to

speak last, then it would be unusual for a Chair to set the precedent that somebody

else would then be able to speak after that position.

The Chair: Member, I've provided some leeway for the amendment after the fact. So the amendment

got moved. You brought the amendment. You got to speak. Others got to speak. One person

did. Others did not. So you say what you have to say now, because then we're going

to be moving on to the next item.

A. Walker: I respect that. The challenge will be that I'm not sure how to get questions answered,

I guess, through this process.

The minister has mentioned that the Island Coastal Economic Trust, whether it's the

CEO or members of the board, have communicated in the summer their desire to see this

change take place.

Now, of course, Chair, I can't really ask questions, because I can't expect an answer

on this. So I'm sort of at a loss of how to proceed with committee stage. But it was

brought forward that the minister stated that this wasn't the right time to be discussing

this type of an amendment and that these discussions will take place later.

Looking through the notes from the Attorney General as far as what this miscellaneous

statutes amendment act was going to bring forward, it was specifically a portion that

says in addition…. The description originally talks about the recapitalization of

the fund for $10 million. It says that in addition, the bill will introduce some secondary

amendments to the act, clarifying the role of third-party contribution agreements

or arrangements, updating the purpose of the regional accounts and other minor amendments.

In the actual description from the Attorney General on this act that is brought forward

by government, it says that we were going to have a conversation about that — that

this bill will have an impact on seeking clarity for third-party donations and how

those arrangements take place. Based on the ruling of the Chair, I find myself in

this really awkward situation where I can't even ask questions in committee stage

on this. I'm not challenging the Chair on that, but that has certainly created some

limitations here.

The minister has also mentioned co-governance, and as we discuss the ability to change

the way that donations from third parties come into these regional accounts, there

is a tremendous opportunity, with participation from the federal government, to ensure

that as investments come in through that lens of co-governance, there is an opportunity

for that funding to be dedicated, isolated and implemented in a way that moves forward

with reconciliation.

This clarity is being sought not just by myself and other members who have spoken

in favour of this but from ICET itself. I'm not sure the Chair fully recognizes the

anxiety of running an organization that has as an uncertain future but big, bold ambitions

for what they'd like to see as far as reconciliation, as far as investment in our

communities.

The idea that a conversation took place at some point in the summer with the minister

and then maybe some time in the spring we're going to have a conversation about clarity….

[2:10 p.m.]

This trust is desperate. They are looking for certainty. They want to be able to go

into communities, whether those are business communities, Indigenous communities,

and seek investment to recapitalize the trust because government has already said

that that limit is at $10 million, but there is no clarity as far as how that investment

can be kept out of the regional account.

This amendment is about providing that certainty, that clarity. It's about providing

that flexibility to a trust that has already invested $59 million on Vancouver Island

and coastal communities, that is having a huge positive impact.

There are more First Nations that they represent –– not that the ICET represents the

First Nations, but constituents of the economic trust –– than there are municipalities.

And this limitation of government to restrict the ability for donations to be able

to be flexibly used is a huge impediment. It has obviously been expressed to the minister

and, I guess, through committee stage.

I can't ask questions on this, but I would certainly hope that members of all sides

of this House would support this. It's a request that's been asked for by the Island

Coastal Economic Trust. We need them. They need us. Let's work together and get these

things done. It seems like common sense to me. Thank you, Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Now I'm going to be putting the question….

M. Lee: Madam Chair, I just rise here in the committee room. Just hearing the conversation.

Based on the minister's last response previous to the member for Kelowna West…

The Chair: Member, could you…?

M. Lee: …I do have a follow-on question…

The Chair: Member, could you…?

M. Lee: …for the minister in respect of…

The Chair: Member, please.

M. Lee: …section 18 of this bill…

The Chair: Member.

M. Lee: …and the amendment that is affiliated to it.

Yes?

The Chair: We do have a Chair in the room.

Interjection.

The Chair: I know. We have a Chair.

M. Lee: Yes.

The Chair: You had an opportunity to stand up and speak before. I made it very, very clear. Anybody

who wanted to speak before the mover of the amendment closed –– to rise and speak.

You did not rise and speak at that time.

I'm now going to be taking a vote on the amendment. That vote is going to take place

now. After the vote has taken place, then we will be moving on to the next clause.

M. Lee: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll speak to the next clause then.

The Chair: Thank you.

Members, you are going to be moving to vote on an item that has been moved by the

member for Parksville-Qualicum. You have all been provided with copies.

Amendment negatived on division.

On clause 110.

Point of Order

A. Walker: It is customary in this place that when a member stands, they are requesting the floor.

So we're not quite at clause 110 yet. I would like to request….

I'm not sure what the parliamentary procedure is, but in council it would be a point

of parliamentary inquiry. If I could get some clarity as to how a Chair previously

during this session has allowed multiple questions on committee stage of amendments,

how that was previously allowed and now it is not allowed. If I could get a ruling

on whether this change is permanent and if the Chair is aware of the previous protocol

that existed in this place.

The Chair: The Chair takes notice of your request and will get back to you.

House Leader of the Third Party.

A. Olsen: Thank you. I'm going to move an amendment to 109.1.

[ CLAUSE 109.2, by amending the following clause:

109.2 6

(1) Directors of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust must be appointed

in accordance with this Division.

(2) Subject to

section 7 and to subsection (8) of this section, the board of directors

of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Island Coastal Economic Trust

is to consist of 13 individuals of whom

(a) 8 are to be appointed by the regional advisory committees, with each of the 2

regional advisory committees appointing 4 of their number as directors, and

(b) 5 are to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

(3) Subject to

section 7 (3), the term of office of a director of the North Island-Coast

Development Initiative Trust Island Coastal Economic Trust is,

(

a) if the director is appointed under subsection (2) (

a) of this section, 2 years

from the expiry of the term of the retiring director that he or she replaces, and

(

b) if the director is appointed under subsection (2) (

b) of this section, 3 years

from the expiry of the term of the retiring director whom he or she replaces.

(4) Nothing in this Act prevents

(

a) a regional advisory committee from removing and replacing, in accordance with

any procedures it has established for that purpose, any individual the regional advisory

committee has appointed as a director of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative

Trust Island Coastal Economic Trust, and

(

b) the Lieutenant Governor in Council from removing and replacing any individual

the Lieutenant Governor in Council has appointed as a director of the North Island-Coast

Development Initiative Trust Island Coastal Economic Trust.

(5) If a director is removed and replaced under subsection (4),

(

a) the regional advisory committee or the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as the

case may be, must promptly notify the directors of the North Island-Coast Development

Initiative Trust Island Coastal Economic Trust of the replacement appointment, and

(

b) the term of office of the replacement director is the remainder of the term of

the director he or she replaces they replace s .]

This amendment is to replace language in

section 6 of the act. I'm recognizing that

we've passed that act's section. However, in light of the discussion that was raised

here about some specific requests that the Island Coastal Economic Trust had made

of this government for changes well prior to the drafting of this bill, this amendment

replaces some basic gendered language in the bill, in

section 6(5), just removing

"he or she" and replacing it with "they" and turning it into the singular.

The committee recessed from 2:15 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

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

3), 2023, back to order.

Going back to the House Leader for the Third Party.

A. Olsen: Just reflecting that the amendment brought forward should have been 109.2. I believe

you have my copy of that now.

Speaking to it. We're going to get it printed?

The Chair: We are now going to get it printed, so we will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 2:26 p.m. to 2:34 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

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

[2:35 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I'd like to just acknowledge, as we come back from this recess, the hard work of all

of the staff here in the Legislative Assembly that allow us to do this work and to

raise important issues. That's what is reflected in this amendment.

As my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum noted earlier about being on the RACs, the

regional advisory committees, for the Island Coastal Economic Trust…. I also sit on

that same advisory committee and have really spent a number of months listening to

our colleagues at local government talk with passion about the Island Coastal Economic

Trust. They do a lot of really great work, and it's not their primary job. Their primary

job is to be elected officials in their community.

They come together with a spirit around the Island Coastal Economic Trust that actually

was really what inspired me to pick this issue up and make a big deal about it — not

only is this an important investment vehicle for our communities on the coast and

on Vancouver Island, but to see the passion with which our local government officials

do this work and their staff.

We went away last week, and we came back now for the last couple of weeks of the session,

and we had a regional advisory committee meeting. On that, we saw amendments that

were suggested to the government a long time ago that could have been brought into

this Miscellaneous Statutes and Amendment Act bill. A simple name change. The way

that the communities and the way that the community leadership and the leadership

of the organization sees itself. Making a basic request to change the name of the

organization, to have that reflected the way that we see ourselves.

Another one is to remove gendered language. I recognize that we'd made a significant

way through the bill, the actual act, but I felt it necessary to honour the request

that's been made from the Island Coastal Economic Trust and to do something that,

really, is an exercise that we've been doing numbers and numbers of times. There's

no reason why we moved the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act here today and not

have this just basic change of language to reflect the kind of language that we're

using today.

I hope that this is just an oversight that we didn't do this now that it was open.

I recognize that it's numbers of times throughout, maybe five or six times, I think.

I've picked one here with this amendment. I'd like this amendment to change. I'd like

the other gendered language, now that we have this act open, to change. If it means

that we have to set this aside and just bring some amendments forward that just do

that, I think that this is an opportunity.

We've heard the minister talk about the work that needs to go ahead. We know that

the government has put $10 million that allows the space for that to happen. I think

that while we've got this open today, we could fix that gendered language in this

clause 6, as is proposed in 109.1, but in the other four or five locations throughout

the bill as well.

I think it's a reasonable request, and I hope that government supports it.

The Chair: The amendment is in order.

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the member for bringing forward this proposed change. I do want to get

clarity on the wording, but certainly, we share the perspective that it's so important

to have language that's inclusive. People deserve to see themselves reflected in language.

I think the member is correct to suggest that perhaps this might have been an oversight.

There's a lot of work happening in my ministry to make sure in fact that we are correcting

for outdated language that doesn't include all British Columbians. Last spring, for

example, we passed legislation that brought changes to 2,300 instances of gendered

and binary language that wasn't necessary, from 21 different ministries and 210 provincial

statutes.

We're working our way through another batch of statutes right now. It could very well

be that this is coming, but I take no issue with the suggestion of making this amendment.

[2:40 p.m.]

I do have two points I would just like to have further understanding on though, please,

if I may.

If I could please ask for clarity on the wording "term of the director replaces they

replace"? I'm just not sure exactly what the change is.

Then my second question is: will the member be bringing amendments for the other pieces

of gender legislation that he spoke of?

A. Olsen: In my haste, in this amendment, admittedly, the word "replaces" should also be struck

out, and then it will be grammatically correct, as the minister has picked up.

I don't have the other amendments in front of me for the other locations throughout.

This was an opportunity to raise the issue and to be able to have a discussion with

the minister on it. I recognize that making this amendment is fixing one of them.

It doesn't fix the other ones.

Maybe we can symbolically pass this amendment and note that another misc stats amendment

act will be coming — not this session, I hope — in the spring, where maybe that other

gendered language can be changed.

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you very much to the member opposite for that change in getting our grammar

correct. I would agree with the member, in terms of passing this symbolically, and

we'll continue to do our work to clean up the language going forward.

The Chair: Minister, we do not pass things symbolically no matter how much we want to at times.

So I would suggest that we….

I will be putting the question on this. What you may want to say is that you are going

to look in the other areas and make sure that the language is consistent with the

intent of this.

Hon. B. Bailey: If I could just provide clarification by what I meant symbolically, I agree with the

member's suggestion that we make this change as is proposed. We are doing work going

forward with all of the trusts. This legislation is going to be up again. We'll bring

the additional changes at that time.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Now, all those in favour of the amendment 109.2 put forward by the House Leader for

the Third Party.

Amendment approved.

The Chair: We're now moving on to 110. So if anybody has questions on 110, this is a good time

to rise.

On clause 110.

M. Lee: As I was saying earlier in respect of clause 109, I wish to ask the minister, in response

to her previous responses here at committee…. She referred to action plan 4.39….

Interjections.

The Chair: Member. Member, we are not going to go backwards. We have finished with 109. Two amendments

came up. We've dealt with those amendments, and now we are on 110.

I had already put 110 on the floor, and we are moving forward. Thank you.

Do you have any comments to make on 110?

M. Lee: I do.

Clause 110 amends the relationship between First Nations and provincial economic trusts.

Is that not the case?

[2:45 p.m.]

The Chair: While the minister is getting ready to answer the question, I do want to remind people

that once the Chair calls on the member, it is absolutely imperative that you do not

just proceed as if the Chair has not spoken. Thank you.

Hon. B. Bailey: Clause 110 amends

section 20(1) of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust.

The purpose is to remove “Olympic opportunities” and add “technology and innovation”

as one of the purposes for which the money in the regional account may be spent. The

existing provision

section 21 of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust

defines the allowable areas of investment the trust may use its funds to support.

M. Lee: In removing Olympic opportunities, does that preclude a First Nation from opportunities

to participate, for example, in bids as led by Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh,

Líl̓wat Nations in respect to the 2030 Olympics?

Hon. B. Bailey: I'm having difficulty trying to follow the reasoning from the member opposite. So

110 is in a

section in regards to the North Island-Coast Development. It has nothing

to do with MST.

M. Lee: The minister referred earlier in terms of the amendments and the relationship between

the province's economic trusts…. This bill deals with the North Island-Coast Development

Initiative Trust, as I understand it. So the amendments to the sections that we're

looking at do enter into working with the province's economic trusts and First Nation

partners, as the minister referred to, as required under DRIPA action plan item 4.39.

I'm asking the minister: when the term “Olympic opportunities” is removed…? We know

this government, of course, shut down the opportunity for First Nations to lead an

Olympic bid for the 2030 Olympics. So when it talks about Olympic opportunities here

in clause 20 of this bill, I'm asking the minister: why is the Olympic opportunities

being removed? How does that limit the opportunity, of course, for First Nation partners

to develop the mechanism to be included as part of regional decision-making for First

Nations, as required under clause 4.39 of the DRIPA action plan?

Hon. B. Bailey: I believe they're trying to make connections between things that have nothing to do

with each other. This language in the trust does in no way impact the ability of any

First Nations to pursue any opportunity.

[2:50 p.m.]

M. Lee: The reason why I'm focusing on this clause is because the word "opportunities" is

actually, literally, what's being removed from this clause. Clause 110 of this bill

is amending subsection 20(1) of this act, the North Island-Coast Development Initiative

Trust Act, to delete the words, subsection 21(e): "Olympic opportunities."

We know because there's been a past history with this government as to the relationship.

When we're talking about including First Nations — in this case, under 4.39, as the

minister cited, under the DRIPA action plan — and the importance of including First

Nations at a regional decision-making level, we've seen that opportunity get squashed

in the 2030 Olympic bid, when the Premier and this government decided to walk away

from accommodating what those nations had put forward.

So when I see the words here in this particular act, recognizing that it's on a regional

basis for the north Island–coast area, which is the lead-in language to this provision….

We see the opportunity in the minister's response before — recognizing the important

work with the province's economic trust and First Nation partners to develop a mechanism

that ensures inclusion of First Nations on a regional decision-making level — that

there's precedent here. There's precedent from interest from First Nations to actually

look at Olympic opportunities.

I ask the question because there's recent history of a sore point with other nations

in our province: the Musqueam, the Tsleil-Waututh , Squamish and Líl̓wat Nations.

Again, when this term is being removed and substituted with other words relating to

innovation and technology, I think it's important that we understand the purpose of

the deletion.

I recognize that this is in the context of understanding the way that this minister

and her ministry is approaching the work, the important work, between First Nation

partners and the province's economic trust, as referred in 4.39 of the DRIPA action

plan, to develop the mechanism for inclusion of First Nations at a regional decision-making

level.

This, when I look at the provision in the proposed amendment, does not do that. It

actually excludes First Nations, potentially, depending on the relationship and this

mechanism that the minister is working on — which I wanted to ask about previously,

but we've already been through that, Madam Chair, as you know — as to what the relationship

is and the work that's being done.

Here's another example where language is being deleted from the framework for the

north Island–coast area and the economic trust relating to that.

The term "economic opportunities" does obviously refer to and could…. As we saw with

the four First Nations that were involved in leading that 2030 bid, and as we see

other Olympic Games and even the 2030 games, that might still be possible because

there has been no decision, as I understand it, made by the IOC yet. There's still

a possibility.

So to First Nations that are looking at this, including any possible participation

in north Island, which is, I presume, possible, when we remove these words, does that

not exclude First Nations from the opportunity to work with economic trusts in relation

to economic opportunities for the Olympics?

Hon. B. Bailey: No, it doesn't.

M. Lee: The minister, in her last two responses, first suggested that it doesn't preclude

opportunities. Now it does not preclude these opportunities of any sort.

The language here is an exhaustive list. I do not see this as an inclusive list. I

don't see other categories. I don't see prescribed by regulation. I see this as an

exhaustive list. So where are the words that actually say "Olympic opportunities"

in this amended list?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: A couple of things I want to say about this in talking about

section 110.

First of all, North Island Coast Development Initiative, or ICET, should they have

interest in pursuing…. The example that the member opposite has given is an Olympic

bid. Should they have interest in pursuing that, there is nothing stopping them from

doing that. The amended list, while striking "Olympic opportunities" for its specificity,

still we have economic development, (g), or tourism, (c), so such a bid could very

easily occur under those circumstances.

The inclusion of the words "technology and innovation." Development of the technology

and innovation sector has been a growing priority since the inception of the trust

and is highly aligned with the trust mandate of economic development. The trust currently

supports technology and innovation projects. However, this change provides a formal

and explicit mandate for the trust to bolster their important work in this area.

In terms of modernizing the account purposes, the addition of technology and innovation

is an evergreen category that will allow the trust to advance opportunities in all

sectors of the regional economy.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for her response. It does take us back to the overall

part

4 of this act, which does, of course, relate back to the regional account. This

section

that we're discussing, clause 110 of Bill 42, relates to, under the heading "Purpose

of Regional Account…."

The member, my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum, had proposed an amendment previous

to clause 109 of the same bill, 42, in relationship to the management of the regional

account. Just for the purpose of the sequence of this act, you might think that the

purpose of a regional account should come before the management of the regional account,

but here we are.

[3:00 p.m.]

It does give the opportunity to come back — given the sequence of discussion at the

committee level, which the Chair has spelled out for us — to talk to the minister

again about the regional account. Clearly, as spelled out under clause 110 of this

Bill 42, as it relates to amending subsection 20(1) of the North Island-Coast Development

Initiative Trust Act, now we're talking about the purpose of the regional account.

"The purpose of Regional Account," as spelled out under subsection 20(1) of the act,

"is to support investment in the following in the North Island-Coast area…." It goes

on to list "(

a) forestry; (

b) transportation; (

c) tourism; (

d) mining…(

f) small business;

(

g) economic development; (

h) energy; (

i) agriculture" — and, by virtue of this amendment,

"(

j) technology and innovation."

I certainly do not take any issue with the inclusion of the words "technology and

innovation" — as the minister just described to us, that's certainly an important

area for investment — but what this amendment does is remove what is existing currently

under the act, the wording around "Olympic opportunities."

Yes, it doesn't preclude, as the minister suggested, First Nations in the north Island–coast

area pursuing an Olympic opportunity. Certainly, they're free to do that. They can

do that on their own, but that's not the point.

The point is that under

section 4.39 of the DRIPA action plan, amongst the 89 actions

of this government, this government is now into 20 months of delivery of implementation

against this DRIPA action plan, for which less than 15 percent of the action items

are actually related to economic reconciliation.

On the one principal item under the heading "Economic," there are roughly, probably,

four or five action items out of the 13 that relate to this ministry, the Ministry

of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation. Out of the four or five items, as I look

at it here, it looks like one out of five items in 20 months — and the minister is

coming forward with this amendment to pull out "Olympic opportunities."

I would say that this is actually consistent with the Premier's own stance against

the 2030 Olympic bid and that we look at this provincially — the importance of inclusion

of First Nations in leadership and recognition around economic reconciliation.

We have a DRIPA action plan as I mentioned, Minister, that only has 15 percent….

The Chair: Member, if you have a new question, please ask. I'm hearing the same question being

asked again and again. Please, if you don't have a new question, then…. If you have

a new question, get to it. If not, then let's move on.

M. Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Under subsection 20(1), the lead-in language says: "The purpose of the Regional Account

is to support investment in the following in the North Island-Coast area…." By removing

"(

e) Olympic opportunities," that means that the regional account is not to be utilized

to support investment for Olympic opportunities. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Bailey: To the member, no.

M. Lee: Again, Madam Chair, I fail to see that though. We've established that the minister

has said that First Nations are certainly free to pursue Olympic opportunities on

their own, but that's not the point.

The point is that we're talking about a regional account under this act, under

part

4, when it calls for allocations — that "The purpose of the Regional Account is to

support investment in the following…." It means…. I cannot see….

I really would ask the minister to help me understand the wording of this amendment.

[3:05 p.m.]

I fail to see how with this wording, as amended, a regional account can be utilized

to support investment in an Olympic opportunity. Is the minister suggesting that the

funds out of the regional account can still be utilized to support investment in Olympic

opportunities by deleting the words "Olympic opportunities"?

The Chair: Minister, you may answer the question one more time.

Hon. B. Bailey: Asked and answered.

M. Lee: Well, with respect, Madam Chair….

The Chair: In the interests of moving the….

M. Lee: Yeah. Well, with respect, I would just say this. I am a surprised by the minister's

response on the record here, because clearly, it doesn't make sense. So this, to me,

is a flaw in the drafting of this bill.

If it's the intention that the minister is under the view that Olympic opportunities

can still be funded by the regional account, if that's what she's saying on the record,

then I think the record should show that. I think that the North Island-Coast Development

Initiative Trust should know that.

They should know that the minister effectively is reading in the words, that despite

deleting the words, they're still there somehow. If they're still there, then First

Nations and others who are looking to get support for investment in Olympic opportunities

on the North Island should pursue that.

I hope that, as others look at this record in the future, the minister has confirmed

at least twice that that is the case.

With that, thank you for that discussion.

B. Stewart: On

section 110, I've got some questions about the adjustment to deleting. Not the

same question, but I'm just wondering how the existing sectors under

section 110 were

evaluated and whether the expansion of those was ascertained?

Hon. B. Bailey: The inclusion of the language "technology and innovation" is important, because this

sector continues to grow and provide economic opportunity. Development of the tech

and innovation sector has been a growing priority since the inception of the trust,

and it's highly aligned with the trust mandate of economic development.

The trust currently supports technology and innovation projects. However, this change

provides a formal and explicit mandate for the trust to bolster their important work

in this area.

B. Stewart: So in this re-evaluation, what other investments were considered that were maybe not

considered at this time?

Hon. B. Bailey: This was not a time of re-evaluation, in fact. We included this one change, but the

more comprehensive exploration of what the trust should and should not include will

be happening at a later date.

We will be opening up this legislation, because we're doing work on

section 4.39 to

ensure that there is co-governance with First Nations. At that time, there's an opportunity

to do a more fulsome exploration of other changes we want to see with the trust, as

guided by our partnership with the folks at the trust.

[3:10 p.m.]

That work is ongoing. It's upcoming. This change was a specific change that we wanted

to include to provide clarity. That focus on technology and innovation does, in fact,

fall under economic development, and we encourage that continued focus.

B. Stewart: I guess the question, then, is: was this change requested by the North Island…? I

see it's ICET still on its marketing here. But was it recommended by the North Island-Coast

Development Initiative Trust?

Hon. B. Bailey: Ministry staff had discussions with all three trusts in regards to the language and

the changes in the legislation.

B. Stewart: To be clear, then, the minister is saying that this recommendation, this conversation

that took place…. This is a recommendation from the trust to the minister.

Hon. B. Bailey: Yes. This was one of the recommendations on their list.

B. Stewart: I don't know the criteria or the metrics. But on

section 110….

I'm thinking about the industries that are in this particular area. It's coastal.

We've had many different opportunities for trades and ports, etc., in terms of activities

that are in Port Alberni or other places.

I guess I'm just wondering. How are they evaluated in terms of their importance? What

about fisheries, shellfish, recreational opportunities such as things like Mount Washington?

Is that a tourism one? I see tourism is on the list. I'd just like to be clear. What

are the metrics that are used to put one on the list or off the list?

Having been on the RAC for one of the other trusts, I worry about the fact…. Prescriptive

language sometimes prohibits or limits the regional directors, or even the executive,

from supporting something that maybe just seems to be outside of the box, especially

with new technology. I know the minister is very aware of that.

I only think about…. Is it necessary? What are the metrics you use for that?

Hon. B. Bailey: I understand that the trusts have a very robust mechanism by which they make investment

decisions. Adding this category of technology and innovation is helpful in terms of

being clear that it is considered part of economic development.

The two examples that the member shared are both examples that would currently be

captured. This is really just to provide additional clarity to the trust.

B. Stewart: Well, minister, I don't know. It's probably been in the DNA of anybody that's been

on the Island. The coastal fisheries have been impacted greatly by changes that have

been made by government. However, on the flip side of that, there's a ton of information.

[3:15 p.m.]

I'll give you an example. The underwater sea harvesters, the development with VIU

in terms of the propagation of geoduck and things like that. I realize that it might

seem small, but it's very important to the underwater harvesters, as it is to the

shellfish producers that are producing mussels and oysters and all of those things.

I was at the seafood festival with the owners of Fanny Bay Oysters. They were talking

about a new species that they wanted to bring up. I just think that being in that

sector, outside of government…. I just know that this is an explosive opportunity

for the government.

First Nations are very much a big part of the farming of different shellfish and seafood

and stuff like that. So I guess I'm just kind of…. I don't know why it wouldn't be

on there. Aquaculture is not even mentioned.

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question.

I, too, am very excited about the opportunities that we've seen happening, particularly

mid-Island, in regards to seafood. I've had the opportunity to tour the facility that

the member mentioned.

There is no question that this is deeply important work. The member mentions that

this is quite small. In fact, it has the potential to really be quite big. I think

there's a tremendous continued opportunity here.

What's different, though, Member, is there is an understanding that that is economic

development. It doesn't need to be pulled out and listed separately. It is economic

development. It has long been economic development,

whereas with technology and innovation,

perhaps sometimes it's less clear if, in fact, that's considered part of economic

development. Thus we're spelling it out quite clearly.

B. Stewart: Well, I know economics. I know that under the existing act,

section 20 talks about

economic development, and that is important.

I guess the real problem is…. Why do we have a list like forestry, mining, things

like that that are indicative of resource development? The things that I think government

has been talking a lot about are value-added and things like that. So why would we…?

We do want to add value to products that are being looked at. Sometimes it's these

little ideas that get…. They percolate up, and somebody grabs a hold of it. There's

an ability to get some of that support that you need, especially as an entrepreneur.

I guess my question to the minister is: how is aquaculture or fisheries different

than forestry or mining or the other things on the list?

Hon. B. Bailey: I wouldn't suggest that it is different. Economic development is a very broad category

which includes the category the member is speaking about.

Certainly, ICET has made investments in this category and continues to. For example,

they recently made a $60,000 investment to the seafood business accelerator. That

was matched by $126,000 from the applicant, for a total of an $186,000 investment

into that sector.

A. Walker: To continue with my colleague from Kelowna West…. When I looked through this list,

I hadn't really considered some of the conversations that came up.

As the member was listing through these initiatives, economic development…. One of

the items that we don't consider economic development but that truly is in our communities

is the non-profits in our communities for things like child care, for health care

and for education. When we talk about a thriving community….

I was talking to a mother the other day — a parent, I should say. This woman was talking

about how she was going to leave Parksville because the wait-list for our child care

centre was over 200 spaces long.

It would be interesting to provide the ability for an economic trust like this to

do economic development in more of a social space, which maybe wouldn't be captured

under this language. So a question to the minister is: has there been any consideration

for adding things like non-profits, health care and child care to this list? What

consideration would that have?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: The list that is being referred to was originally created in 2005. We've made one

small change to it to ensure that it's clear that technology and innovation can be

included.

There's going to be an opportunity for the trusts to do the very important work of

looking at what they would like to have included as we go forward. As I've mentioned

a number of times, this act will be opened up again in the coming years, as we do

the work, to make sure that it's inclusive under 4.39.

So there is an opportunity for that ongoing work, but we'll take that advice from

the trusts at that time.

B. Stewart: Just to the minister's point — she talked about opening up.

You used the term "the coming years." Is there a timeline when this is going to be

revisited and opened up for input or dialogue from the constituents that represent

ICET or the North Island-Coast Development Initiative fund?

Hon. B. Bailey: As we do the work to ensure co-governance, there will be opportunities to do that

type of consultation, and we'll be working with the trusts to ensure there is consultation

with communities as well. This is work that the trusts generally do.

That work to prepare us for inclusion under 4.39 has already started. The trusts are

doing that work right now, and this is work that's ongoing.

B. Stewart: I just want to confirm, based on what the minister just said, because…. The trusts

put a fair amount of work into preparing for this opening up for the changes that

are here, and in some cases, they don't feel that they've been heard. But I just want

to make certain that they are driving this in terms of helping the minister to be

able to deal with

section 4.39 and that they'll be listened to in terms of their recommendations,

albeit that it fits with government's mandate.

Hon. B. Bailey: Yes.

A. Walker: Just for clarity from the question from the member for Kelowna West. When we were

discussing the trust — I don't remember if it was yesterday or when it was — there

was a statement from the minister that said that this was going to be opened back

up in the spring. Then she just recently said that this discussion will take place

over the coming years. So I'm just looking for certainty, as the member had asked.

As we discuss

section 20(1) with the list of approved uses for this fund but also

ensuring Indigenous participation in the RAC, what is the timeline that this trust

can expect?

Hon. B. Bailey: I don't believe that I said that this would be opened up in the spring. If I did make

that statement, I misspoke. The timeline for this very important work is guided by

the work itself. This is not work that we're rushing. So I don't have a specific timeline,

but the work is deep and important and very engaged, happening now and continuing.

M. Lee: Just following the question from the member for Parksville-Qualicum, again, in terms

of the action item under the DRIPA action plan, 4.39…. As we know, it's a five-year

action plan by this government, and we're 20 months into that action plan.

So for the current year, are there milestones, then, for the balance of this year,

before the end of March of 2024, for which the work between the province's economic

trust and First Nation partners to develop the mechanism that will ensure inclusion

of First Nations at a regional decision-making level, as assigned by item 4.39 of

the DRIPA action plan…?

[3:25 p.m.]

Will there be milestones towards that in the second year of the DRIPA action plan?

Also, what is the expectation around the balance of the five-year action plan in year

3, year 4 and year 5?

Hon. B. Bailey: Timelines will be determined by the trusts themselves in the consultation work that

they're doing with their partners and meeting with their member communities, and we

support that process.

M. Lee: Just as a follow-on to the minister's response. The obligation, though, under the

DRIPA action plan, is on this minister and her ministry. So are there not ministry-set

timelines and accountabilities to the Premier and the Declaration Act Secretariat

as well?

If there are no timelines, that presumes, then, that if it's in the hands of the trusts

themselves, or First Nation partners, then it's also possible that this action item

would not be met by the end of the five-year action plan. Is that the case as well?

Hon. B. Bailey: Our staff team works quite closely with the trusts and ensures that they have what

they need in order to do this work. The timelines really are set by the trusts, and

we support that work.

A. Walker: I just want to read into the record the comments that were made on Thursday of the

week before last from the minister. I won't go through her commitment as far as governments

committed to UNDRIP.

[3:30 p.m.]

She said: "We have been working with the trusts. The trusts are leading this process

to ensure that full consultation occurs, 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 undergoing right now. It's happening. It'll continue to happen

in 2024."

So I'm just confused how, when we had this conversation about timelines for representation

on the regional advisory committees — which, again, is a different clause — the timelines

were also mentioned as it relates to adding these sort of approved uses under the

trust.

I'm just looking for some clarity on the timelines. The minister last week said that

this work is happening in 2024 and is now saying that it's a multi-year process. When

can these trusts expect that government will be there to make the amendments required

so that they can see these changes that they've been asking for since last summer?

Hon. B. Bailey: Yes, that work is happening in 2024 and may continue beyond that. But certainly in

response to the member's question, when the trusts are ready, we will be there to

do that work with them.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to my colleagues for the opportunity to ask this question.

It's a fairly specific question around the islands on the coast of British Columbia

and part of the Island Coastal Economic Trust. The mandate of this trust — to develop,

expand and create economic opportunities for coastal communities –– has certainly

been well embraced. I think as we look at the results that have taken place over the

last decade, or decade and a half, it certainly has been beneficial to these coastal

communities, especially some of the island ones.

There are, I think the minister will know, 40,000 islands on the coast of British

Columbia, if you go up as far as, I believe, about Rivers Inlet, which is where the

ICET extends to.

So I think it's reasonable to say that there are tens of thousands of islands south

of that, which are included in the Island Coastal Economic Trust, including Salt Spring

Island, which I learned a little bit more about yesterday from my colleague from Saanich

North and the Islands, which, with a vibrant community population of 13,000, within

the capital regional district, is obviously an important island, an important population,

an important part of our economy.

There is, I'd like to point out to the minister, one island — just one island of tens

of thousands — that does not benefit from the Island Coastal Economic Trust yet faces

all of the same challenges that island communities do. A dependence on ferries. A

very small commercial base — basically relies on a residential tax base — and has

very much wanted to be part of the Island Coastal Economic Trust.

I wonder if the minister could help provide me some guidance and provide the community

of Bowen Island with some guidance as to how they can take advantage or be part of

the opportunities that are created by the Island Coastal Economic Trust community

and a membership in that community.

The Chair: Members, leeway has been provided with respect to the debate on this clause, but I'd

like to remind members that the debate must be relevant to the clause under consideration.

If the member could relate his question back to clause 110, please.

J. Sturdy: Well, I think the opportunity has been clear here that it is being provided to amend

the terms, amend the opportunities and extend opportunities to different sectors.

I'm asking for a little indulgence from the Chair in this regard, and I'm sorry I

wasn't here earlier.

[3:35 p.m.]

If the minister isn't willing to enter into any discussion here, then she can just

say that. That's fair enough. But it's the only island of tens and tens of thousands

of islands that doesn't have an opportunity in this trust and does have the same challenges

as every other island on the coast.

I'd hope that…. I'm looking for a little guidance on how this island community may

have a chance to be part of a greater whole and a part of the same opportunities that

every other island on the coast of British Columbia has.

The Chair: Are there any other questions on clause 110?

B. Stewart: Just to the previous member's point, Madam Chair. The minister has brought up the

fact that this legislation was only open for a small little sliver of adjustments.

We've got lists of things that were to be considered, and ICET is no different than

the rest of them.

So the question to the minister that's being asked is just: is it open to the expansion

of this one island that's excluded or not? Is that going to be part of it? She's the

one that brought forward that.

The Chair: Members, if you can please tie it to clause 110, then I can allow the question.

A. Walker: I will read clause 20 of the original act that says: "The purpose of the Regional

Account is to support economic investment in the following in the North Island–Coast

area." The member has requested how to become included in the North Island–Coast area,

which is part of the clause that this bill is amending.

The Chair: Members, the clause under consideration is regarding the addition of technology and

innovation and removing the Olympic opportunities. If there are no further questions

on clause 110, I will call the question.

Clause 110 approved.

On clause 111.

B. Stewart: As I previously stated, there were a number of requests that were…. As this initiative

of opening up and reviewing the individual trusts, there were questions raised by

the trusts. I think that it's important that as we go into this, there are many questions

that were expected by the trusts to have been answered. They seem to have been either

ignored or there's been no response from the ministry about them.

I would like to read into the record about some of the ones that have been asked for

by NDIT, which I think, by all accounts, has been certainly a very shining example

of a trust initiative.

The government has helped it support connectivity in the North by giving it extra

funds, but because of the magnitude of the area, they asked specifically about things

like the mountain pine beetle account be changed to the forest community recovery

account, acknowledging that our forestry communities have far more to contend with

these days than just mountain pine beetle. So that's one of the things that they raised.

[3:40 p.m.]

They talked about name changes. These areas are to be more specific because of the

broad nature of the Northern Development Trust, which essentially goes, I think, north

of Williams Lake right to the Alaska and Yukon borders.

Maybe the minister could perhaps give us some opening comments on that, please.

Hon. B. Bailey: There are different categories of accounts held by different trusts. Specifically,

the NDIT has a number of different accounts. Currently the requirement to deposit

into the pine beetle account is quite restrictive, so we are making this change to

allow more equity and flexibility to NDIT with their accounts.

B. Stewart: The change that the minister is referring to, to bring more clarity — could she just

clarify the change that she's referring to? I know that the bill talks about three

or four sections we're going to go through rather quickly. But I think that with the

effort and time that have been put in by NDIT, ICET and ETSI, it's important they

do get some answers, if we can get them.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: Third-party arrangements enable the trusts to take on additional program delivery,

which support rural and regional economies.

Examples of third-party programs currently being delivered by the trusts include the

rural business and community recovery initiative, administered by NDIT, ETSI and ICET;

connecting British Columbia, administered by NDIT; GO fund, administered by NDIT,

a B.C. Hydro program; and the Northern Passenger Transportation Service, administered

by NDIT, ETSI and ICET. That's a MOTI program.

B. Stewart: I see in

section 1, which this refers to, it's talking about the one-time funding.

Just to be clear, could the minister please clarify that one-time funding? Which of

these accounts at NDIT is it going to be deposited into?

Hon. B. Bailey: It's in

section 111. That actually allows us to contract with the trusts. I think

when we get to

section 112, that's more specific to where the deposits occur. We'll

probably be there in just a sec.

[3:50 p.m.]

B. Stewart: I look forward to the clarification on that.

Obviously, this trust is complicated because of the number of issues and the different

accounts that it has.

There was a request to change…. I mentioned pine beetle, but there's also the change

to the Prince George account, being renamed the north centre account. Is there any

reason that that hasn't been addressed in this amendment?

Hon. B. Bailey: There were a number of suggestions that came forward from all three of the trusts

in July of last summer. Really, our priority with including this in the miscellaneous

statute bill, No. 3, is to ensure that ICET is recapitalized in a timely way. That

takes away the concern that there will have to be a windup coming of this trust.

I've had many meetings with ICET on this topic, so very important that we ensure,

should we be successful in passing this, that ICET can have the funding at the levels

that they have had, because we support the very important work that they're doing.

So that is the priority that we're focused on.

The other suggestions that have come forward are important. There's been some really

good work done, and that's going to move forward to when we open up this legislation

again in order to accommodate the changes that we need to make for UNDRIP, under 4.39.

So that work is going forward, but specifically, we wanted to move this legislation

forward in a timely manner, to ensure that ICET does have the capitalization that

they so desperately need.

B. Stewart: That information about ICET does kind of…. I know we're talking about NDIT right now,

so I'm assuming that it precipitated the recapitalization on the other two funds.

My question really was…. The changes that were put forward by NDIT were specific to

the regional accounts — like the Prince George account, the Peace region account,

the pine beetle account, etc. I guess I'm just kind of wondering if it was…. I realize

that recapitalization of ICET may have been the catalyst that brought this together.

And you can clarify that, Minister, but I do believe that these other changes…. It's

not very often that these bills have been opened up to these changes, and it is important

— this one especially.

NDIT has a massive amount of a board and a territory, and I know from what used to

be SIDIT — ETSI now — how complicated that is when you're dealing with dozens of communities

across the Interior. It has led to all sorts of other issues about the direction of

where these development trusts are going.

They've asked for these changes on the basis that these…. Obviously, I use NDIT as

maybe the best example of one that has been very successful or whatever, but they

want refinement. I can't understand, when we're talking about making this change,

why we wouldn't consider the other ones that they've asked for.

I go back to the earlier question about the Peace River region account being changed

to the northeast or the pine beetle account.

Hon. B. Bailey: In this case, we do know that this legislation will be reopened. So it's a bit of

a different circumstance than the example the member gave of not very often being

reopened. We do know there is an opportunity coming, and there's quite a lot of work

that we need to do, including the work that the member has described.

[3:55 p.m.]

So as we go forward, it's important that that work have the opportunity to be shopped

in its community, that the trusts will continue to ensure that they're doing those

consultations, and that the opportunity to make a number of changes, and not under

a really pinched timeline — that that opportunity is coming.

B. Stewart: We talk about…. It sounded like the minister was suggesting these changes would be

canvassed by the communities where they're at. Take the Robson Valley or the northeast

or northwest, places where northern development is, considering the timelines and

just looking on the horizon of what we had asked earlier here about

section 4.39 of

DRIPA and kind of making those things…. I realize that's very complicated. To layer

that on top of this is going to be extremely challenging, especially with the 205

First Nations in the province and picking out who has that.

Is that what's holding back the renaming — because of the fact that

section 4.39…?

It may see things differently than what they've asked for currently?

Hon. B. Bailey: No. This is a timing issue.

The Chair: Members, again, let's stick to clause 111 regarding additional one-time allocation.

B. Stewart: Okay. Thank you, Chair. And I will tell you that

section 1of this act, the actual

act, does refer to everything that I'm referring to. All of these names are in that

section, and I think if we're talking about one, it gives us the opportunity to ask

questions about the specifics.

These are recommendations, Chair, from the trust. They're not my…. I didn't create

them. They've asked for them. I've got pages here from all the trusts asking about

that, and I've been a member. I was actually a big part of starting these trusts.

I know the complications that have been created, because they weren't perfect when

they started out.

I think that it's important that things are dealt with in a timely manner. The minister's

predecessor and I spent an inordinate amount of time on trying to straighten out one

of the trusts that I knew a little bit about. I know it's not perfect, but we do need

to kind of keep moving ahead on it. And I think reopening it is fine, but these are

simple things that could easily have been addressed. That's why I keep going back

to it.

The Chair: Member, if you can take those concerns that you're raising and relate them to clause

111, I can allow it, which is around the additional one-time allocations. We're not

revisiting the whole section. We are revisiting this amendment.

B. Stewart: Okay. The trusts have entrusted the minister, Chair, to make some changes or whatever.

What it is…. The minister keeps saying that we're going to reopen this. And the problem

that I just described in the previous question was that if

section 4.39 is the reason

that we're going to reopen this, because of DRIPA, and layer that on…. Is that really

the reason that these have not been accepted?

These are the recommendations. Some of them in this particular clause and

section

may equally…. I mean, this is recapitalization, what this particular….

Section 111

is essentially a one-time allocation of another $10 million on top of the $50 million

that they originally received, I believe. Yes, that's under

section 113.

The question I'm asking is…. The reason that these changes that have been asked for

more than a year ago, according to the minister…. They haven't been accepted. And

I'm going into this quite deep because it actually is in this section. It's not something

that….

They've asked for specific changes to

section 1 of this act. And I'm asking: if we're

going to talk about the change in this particular case,

section 1 of the Northern

Development Initiative Trust Act, why wouldn't we answer these other questions that

the trusts have asked for?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: As I've mentioned a number of times, we know that there is an opportunity to do this

work in a fulsome way.

While there may be specific things that seem quite small, and perhaps they could have

been included, the issue is there are a number of them. Our priority and, I think,

the priority of ICET, with the support of the other trusts, is to ensure the capitalization

occurs. That's been the focus. We know that we have the opportunity to do that other

work. It's not slowed down by or linked to specifically what we're going to be doing

in regards to 4.39.

That work is occurring. But what it does provide us is an opportunity, when the act

is open, to thoroughly do the work ahead of us. That's what we'll do.

The Chair: Okay. Member, I've given leeway on this one. If you can ask a question relating to

the additional one-time allocation and not on the whole section, just clause 111.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try to be compliant.

However, I have pages of questions here. And the only thing about it is that…. I understand

that, but I think that it's…. I will go back to the one-time allocation. In this particular

case, this one-time allocation, because there's been….

Minister, I'd ask you this. The term "an additional one-time allocation…." We know

that some of these trusts have had multiple allocations. ICET, as you mentioned, has

had a top-up not once but twice based on this legislation. The Northern Development

Initiative Trust has had funds that have been not allocated into this specific account.

Why are we using the term "one-time allocation" when we may come back to this?

Hon. B. Bailey: I'm not really sure how to answer that. This is an additional one-time allocation.

It's happening one time, and therefore, we're calling it a one-time allocation.

B. Stewart: In that particular case, then, if the government decides, and that was in our previous

answer about ICET, that the fragility of ICET or Northern Development Initiative Trust

is deemed to be not adequate, they may have to come back. And that might mean that

the other trusts…. Possibly it won't be just a one-time, but there may be other further

consideration for top-ups.

Hon. B. Bailey: This is the only one-time allocation that we are considering at this time. It correctly

refers to it as a one-time allocation.

[4:05 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Okay. Since this is going to be reopened — we've already talked about

section 439

as part of DRIPA, and it's going to be opened up — these considerations or requests

that have been requested by the trust will be specifically answered by the ministry,

being that they are not answered today.

Hon. B. Bailey: I'm sorry. Could the member please restate the question?

B. Stewart: There were a number of things while there was consultation with the trust going on.

They put forward a list.

In the case of the three trusts, they put forward: remove the one-time development

allocation — exactly what we're speaking about right here. Remove the requirement

that directors of the trust must not accept remuneration other than reimbursement

of travel and out-of-pocket expenses. Update the purpose

section of each act, i.e.,

removing the Olympic opportunities — which we just finished dealing with in clause

110, I believe — and pine beetle recovery and replace with innovation and technology.

I think the minister rightfully has repaired that.

In the Northern Development Trust, they've asked about changing the name of the pine

beetle recovery account to the forestry community recovery account. They've asked

for the Peace region account to be changed to the northeast regional development account.

They've asked for the Prince George account to be renamed the north centre account,

to better reflect that it serves Prince George, Mackenzie, Fort St. James, Vanderhoof

and the Robson Valley.

"We asked the government to remove all gender binary language and update the act accordingly,

consistent with modernizing other government legislation. We've asked the government

to consider including the ability of us to provide remuneration to our board members,

as well, at our expense."

There are also some other small regulatory changes about changing Queen Charlotte

to Daajing Giids and Skeena–Queen Charlotte regional district to the North Coast regional

district. Those are some of the changes that they're looking for.

ETSI, which we're not talking about right at this time, have specifically asked that

the name be changed from Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust to the Economic

Trust of the Southern Interior of B.C.

Those are the changes that…. I just am wanting to make certain that these concerns

the trusts brought forward are going to be addressed when this is reopened, when we

look at DRIPA.

Hon. B. Bailey: Yes, they will be considered.

A. Walker: Just a point of clarity as we go through this clause 111. The member for Kelowna West

has asked questions that talked about the timeline, about when this is to be reopened.

This is based on the minister's response. I know it's a bit of leniency here. I just

want a point of clarity, though. If one of the trusts is well down that way with reconciliation

and has all of this work done,

whereas the other two trusts aren't, will that trust

then have to wait to engage with government to bring forward legislation, or will

they be able to bring that forward when they are ready?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: These trusts work quite collaboratively together, in fact, and they also collaborate

extensively with folks from Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation in this work.

We feel quite confident that all three of these trusts will be able to accomplish

this work in similar timelines.

A. Walker: In response to that, though, the question was: if one trust is ready to roll. They've

done their engagement with these First Nations governing bodies. They have proposed

their language to bring things into alignment as far as non-gender language. If they've

done all that work and they're ready to go, is it clear from this answer from the

minister that they will have to wait and hold until the other two trusts have completed

that work?

Hon. B. Bailey: Our team is working extensively with all three trusts, and we feel confident that

they will all come along around the same timeline, and we'll work at the legislation

at that time.

A. Walker: The question is really just a yes or a no. Ideally yes, all these trusts will work

together, and they'll ensure that all of this is able to move at the same pace.

But not all First Nations are at the position where they can be ready to make this

adjustment and to be participated into this,

whereas others may.

The question was quite clear. If one trust is ready, will they have to wait for the

two other trusts? Or if two trusts are ready, will they have to wait for the third

trust to get all this work complete before all three can move forward?

Hon. B. Bailey: Asked and answered.

A. Walker: Certainly, there was a response, but the response wasn't an answer.

The question is: if one of the trusts is ready to roll and has all this work done,

will they have to wait for the other two trusts to work with the ministry to get up

to speed before that work can continue?

Hon. B. Bailey: I feel like I've answered this question three times, so asked and answered.

The Chair: Members, once again, we are on clause 111, which relates to the definition of "additional

one-time allocation." I would ask that members restrict their questions to that clause.

B. Stewart: I think that where my colleague for Parksville-Qualicum is kind of going is that these

trusts, although they were attempted to be created equally, are not on an equal footing,

etc. As he mentioned, if they actually have done the preliminary work and have agreement

with First Nations, could they move ahead in reopening and addressing the concerns

they individually have?

I think the minister mentioned that this one-time allocation was precipitated by the

fragile state of one of the trusts, which is ICET, or the northern Island, and it

needed a top-up.

[4:15 p.m.]

But I guess the point about it is that if they're given instructions or their RAC

members take the time to try to facilitate and make the changes…. I can see from NDIT

that there are lots of changes they've asked for, because things have changed in the

last 18 years.

So I guess the question that I have for the minister is: is the terminology of one-time

application likely to be reconsidered when they reopen, knowing that $10 million on

a $50 million fund that is going to be topped up to…? Sorry. The original amount was

less than…. NDIT was $50 million. It's going to get a top-up of $10 million.

Is there going to be an opportunity for more funds? Because there is an allocation….

And the other clauses that we're dealing with here…. Clause 113 talks about a very

specific allocation of those funds that they're receiving.

I guess my question is: is the government open to other one-time allocations as they

open this up and revisit the things that are much more substantive that the trusts

have brought forward, such as NDIT?

Hon. B. Bailey: At this time, we are considering a $10 million top-up to the three trusts that have

been identified.

A. Walker: I just want to maybe reframe the question that we were going back and forth with before.

The minister, not last Thursday but the Thursday before, stated that the work is undergoing.

This is as far as ensuring the Indigenous participation on the RACs. It's happening.

It'll happen in 2024. Once all of the trusts have completed this work, we will move

forward on legislation.

Maybe I'll frame the question differently. If this work is done by the trust, which

has been identified as an independent body, will the government and the minister prevent

the legislative changes until the two other trusts have done that work as well?

Hon. B. Bailey: This question was now asked five times. I've answered it three times. Asked and answered.

The Chair: Are there any further questions on clause 111?

A. Walker: Yes. I'm just trying to frame my thoughts. The question was originally: will they

wait for another one? But when I asked the question of whether a trust will be prevented

from pursuing legislative changes, that's very different than working with the other

two trusts to move things forward. It would be very disappointing for me to hear that

government would actually get in the way of the legislative changes once that reconciliation

work has taken place by the trust.

The minister is obviously not satisfied with the question and claims she's already

answered it. So I will just leave it at that.

Clause 111 approved.

On clause 112.

B. Stewart: Clause 112,

section 10 that is being replaced.

Section 1.1. I just want to go…. You're

adding "unless otherwise directed by the government after the additional one-time

allocation and…."

I wonder if the minister could just help me understand where that is going to fit

into clause 10(1.1)(b). The only reason being is that it talks about receiving the

one-time allocation and a deposit, 60 percent of that allocation in the pine beetle

account and deposit 10 percent of the allocation into each of the regional development

accounts.

Could you just clarify where that's going to be added in that paragraph?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question. To explain what we're doing here, essentially,

if we transferred $10 million right now to NDIT, under the legislation, without the

changes that we're suggesting, they would be compelled to take 60 percent of that

into the pine beetle account and disperse the rest of it among the other accounts.

The change that we're asking to make would allow us to consult with NDIT on the account

allocation that best provides the intended equity and flexibility of the funding.

It provides more flexibility for NDIT to help us identify where they want to put that

funding, rather than being as prescriptive.

B. Stewart: I'm sure that that's a great amendment. I just want to be clear on that. This wording

section 112 will remove that restriction or allow, at least, a discussion.

I guess the question is: how many of these, like in subsection 10(1.1)(b), "(ii) deposit

10% of that allocation into each of the regional development accounts…"? Could she

just clarify how many regional development accounts there are, just so we have a better

framework and understanding of that?

The Chair: Just a reminder once again, Members, that we are on clause 112, which amends

section

10(1.1)(

b) alone.

B. Stewart: Thank you, but the

part I was reading from, Madam Chair, is actually that clause.

It has subsection (b). There are two clauses in there, which the minister just referred

to as being very prescriptive.

Interjection.

B. Stewart: No, they're prescriptive. It doesn't…. There's nothing specific about the regional

development accounts, and I just am trying to clarify if this is the intent — that

the government's going to negotiate or work with NDIT on where it's going to be? The

pine beetle account is obvious. As they've said, pine beetle is way different than

just what it was 20 years ago.

That's why I'm asking that question: to be clear as to what regional accounts are

going to be changed or impacted by this clause.

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question.

To be clear, there are a number of different regional accounts — I'll just read them

out to the member: the Cariboo-Chilcotin/Lillooet regional development account, the

Peace regional development account, the Northwest regional development account, the

Prince George regional development account, the cross-regional development account

and also the pine beetle account.

B. Stewart: Sorry, could I just ask the last two? I don't think I got it. I got the Prince George

regional account, and then I got the cross and something else. I just didn't hear

that right.

Hon. B. Bailey: No problem, Member. The last two were the Prince George regional development account

and the cross-regional development account.

B. Stewart: When I do the math on this and I take that section, I don't know how the math ever

worked in the first place. We've got five regional accounts, and we've got 60 percent

being allocated to mountain pine beetle. It doesn't make any sense.

[4:25 p.m.]

I guess I'm just questioning: am I misinterpreting this? Or have they had to do some

financial dance around this in the past? If you took the prescriptive method, it would

mean that you'd need 110 percent to make that balance.

Hon. B. Bailey: We haven't done a one-time allocation with NDIT since 2005. I'm not exactly sure how

that would have worked, but it's a good observation, and it points to the need for

the change that we're making.

B. Stewart: I do think this is odd. It creates that problem. I don't know how they've dealt with

it in the past. Anyway, I do think that it goes to demonstrate that there are adjustments

needed to the original act that was drafted in 2005. I think that's what they've been

getting at. Just to comment on this, and I think we're good on this clause.

Clause 112 approved.

On clause 113.

A. Olsen: Just noting that this is a clause, like the clause in 109, that amends the cap, in

this case from $15 million to $60 million, recognizing that the cap is slightly different

for the Island Coastal Economic Trust.

I'm just going to move an amendment to this that has been standing on the order paper.

[ CLAUSE 113, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 13.1 is amended by striking out “$50 million” and substituting “$60 million” repealed . ]

The Chair: Go ahead. It's on the order paper, so it doesn't need to be distributed.

A. Olsen: This amendment is exactly the same as a private member's bill that I have standing

under my name on the order paper. It was accepted by the Speaker.

I spoke earlier, when this sitting started this afternoon, about a decision that was

made by a Chair in a previous discussion — that this was out of order, or that the

amendment for 109 was out of order.

However, that happened right at the very end of the sitting prior to going for adjournment.

I guess I'm just curious how it is that I can have the exact same wording, be accepted

by the Speaker and by the Clerks and be sitting on the order paper for a debate, perhaps,

by the government. If they run out of legislative initiatives this fall session and

they need to fill some time, they could call my private member's bill.

My understanding is that these amendments and the amending bills go through all of

those checks, and they get deemed to be either out of order or in order and allowed

to stand.

I'm moving this amendment here because I think the rationale is that these trusts

have requested to have this; the Island Coastal Economic Trust did. All three of these

feel that having this cap is unnecessarily restrictive and doesn't allow the minister

and the ministry to work with them with the kind of flexibility….

I don't want to put too many words in their mouths, but basically, they feel that

the removal of this would allow for more flexibility with the ministry.

[4:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Thank you, Member. I've reviewed the proposed amendment, and by proposing to remove

the limit on the total of one-time allocation payments that government may make, the

proposed amendment has the effect of permitting increased expenditure of public funds

and, therefore, permits an expenditure by implication. Consequently, this proposed

amendment is not in order.

In recognition of what the member has just said, the private member's bill has not

been ruled whether it's in order or not at this point. It typically is done at second

reading, if you want to refer to Parliamentary Practice on pages 232 and 233.

If you look also on pages 297 to 298 of the Parliamentary Practice , fifth edition, you'll also see that it requires a royal recommendation, of which

only the members of the executive council have opportunity.

Amendment ruled out of order.

The Chair: We'll return to clause 113.

B. Stewart: I wonder if the ministry or the minister could provide a history of the funds that

have been allocated. As I go through the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act,

I see that they have these different funds. I'd like to know the principal funds that

were allocated.

This one is talking specifically about the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act,

but there are multiple accounts. I'm just wondering if she could clarify if there's

only one account that government has been putting money in, because it does talk about

money that is in other places where government has asked them to do services. So if

she could just clear that up.

Hon. B. Bailey: The government has only made one one-time allocation. But what we do is sometimes

contract with the trusts. With the Northern Development Initiative Trust, we have

a relationship with our ministry, with them, to hire regional economic development

officers, for example. That's a separate thing than the one-time allocation.

Clause 113 approved.

On clause 114.

B. Stewart: Clause 114 looks very similar to the clause from ICET that we were talking about.

I just would ask if the minister could confirm the list that NDIT — that they're going

to look at the revisions. I mentioned the specific changes in terms of….

They have a mountain pine beetle account. It's very different than ICET. But I think

what's really important here is that the whole shift in the forest sector has changed

dramatically — spruce pine beetle, other threats that are there. I think that just

being narrowly captured is definitely one of the things that….

I'd just like to know that they're open to and receptive to working with the communities

and NDIT on a revised set of parameters besides just technology and innovation.

Hon. B. Bailey: Yes, we're open to considering the proposals put forward.

[4:35 p.m.]

Clause 114 approved.

On clause 115.

B. Stewart: I think the only thing in this particular case…. I go back to some of the other things.

I know that

section 1 in the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act talks

about certain things. One of the things I've mentioned previously is their name change.

They haven't asked for a lot, I don't think, but they've asked for three items. And

in that particular case, I'm just wondering if the items that they asked for had been

considered.

There are three items: remove the one-time development allocation, include the option

to pay an honorarium to board members not already receiving honoraria from sources

to attend board meetings and update the list in the Southern Interior Development

Initiative Trust to include other activities that are maybe not listed there. Aerospace

— that's a good example. Okay?

My question is: in this particular case,

section 1 of the Southern Interior Development

Initiative Trust Act talks about the one-time allocation. But I'm just wondering about

the other items that are in there and if they were considered to being changed, as

they requested back on June 13, 2023.

Hon. B. Bailey: As I have stated a number of times now, we are going to be opening this legislation

again. There are a number of changes that were brought forward that we weren't able

to incorporate or consider because of timelines. In fact, we will be considering them

as we do this work, going forward.

B. Stewart: I think probably the one thing, to be honest…. It talks about the area and the Southern

Interior Development Initiative Trust. Can I get an answer why the ministry is not

willing to address, at this time, the request for a name change?

Hon. B. Bailey: It's not specific to any one request. There were a number of requests that came forward

that were not able to be considered due to the timeliness of getting this bill done

and the importance of ensuring ongoing funding for ICET.

Those requests will move forward as we open the legislation again, and we'll have

an opportunity to address those requested changes.

B. Stewart: So the question I have on this particular thing…. It's been at least three or four

years since Minister Ralston was responsible for this file. And then we made the significant

changes. The question that I'm just wondering about doesn't seem like….

I don't know what it takes, but it seems to me that if there's going to be a name

change, it has to happen in legislation. They've been advocating for this for some

time. I don't know whether they can just change the name, which actually they have.

They're operating as ETSI right now. I'm just wondering why it is so difficult to

make that change.

Is there any way that we can expedite this for this particular trust?

Hon. B. Bailey: As the member rightly noted, they are currently operating under the name that they've

chosen, ETSI-BC. We'll have the opportunity to consider more work as we go forward,

when we reopen the legislation next time.

Clauses 115 to 117 inclusive approved.

On clause 118.

[4:40 p.m.]

B. Stewart: I believe that we're changing…. Clause 118 is the Local Government Act. I believe

that there's somebody else that's going to be handling that. That's not within…. Right?

I think that 118 can't be passed.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Member. We have gotten to clause 117, and we're on clause 118.

We will call a brief recess to reset the ministry at the table. Thank you, Members.

The committee recessed from 4:40 p.m. to 4:49 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: I'd like to call the committee back to order.

P. Milobar: To the minister, thanks for indulging us as we are moving around the various chambers.

I apologize on behalf of our main critic. He's had some major surgical procedures

done, so he's unable to be here currently.

[4:50 p.m.]

We did just want to touch base with 118. Perhaps the minister could…? It gets very

convoluted when you're going from

section 649(1)(

a) and (b), the upset price for a

tax sale, with the substitution calculated in accordance with

section 246, the delinquent

taxes of the Community Charter.

Could the minister maybe explain the difference between the sections 649(1)(

a) and

(b), which are being removed, and why the substitution and the difference with

section

246?

Hon. A. Kang: The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act of 2023 introduced a new requirement to the

Local Government Act — a municipal tax sales provision. The intent of this is to stop

a tax sale. These amendments were made in response to recommendations by the Ombudsperson

following an investigation there.

Local governments will be required to serve a notice to a property owner and registered

charge holder of their intent to sell the property to recover unpaid taxes at the

annual municipal tax sale auction at least 60 days before the annual tax sale.

But this overstates the amount that the property owner must pay to avoid the property

tax sale, as a tax sale can be avoided just by paying the delinquent tax only, hence

the proposed amendment removes the

section references and substitutes a reference

to delinquent taxes only.

P. Milobar: We'll come back to that answer in a moment.

Could the minister…? When myself and my colleague read clause 118, it says: "Section

647.1(2)(

e) of the Local Government Act…." As we're reading what we believe is the

right version of the Local Government Act, 647.1(2)(

e) does not seem to exist. We

just want to make sure we have the right version of the legislation that we're dealing

with.

Hon. A. Kang: We made an amendment last year to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. It has

not been brought forth to action yet. But we realized that there was inconsistency

between the statement that is required, so before this has come in as

an act, we are

correcting the inconsistency that is needed.

P. Milobar: Sorry. My colleague from Parksville-Qualicum clarified that it was a change in miscellaneous

bill 3. Unfortunately, the book we rely on is supposed to have up-to-date legislation.

[4:55 p.m.]

Is the minister saying that although something was changed a year ago by miscellaneous

statutes amendments, we were supposed to somehow to know that by just reading this,

even though we're in what is supposed to be the most current version, pulled off a

shelf literally in this room?

How, as opposition, are we supposed to reasonably question when the clause is buried

in a miscellaneous bill from a year ago but hasn't actually been brought forward into

a new printing of what the laws are that you're now amending a year later?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much to the member opposite for the question.

The amendment was passed this spring, 2023. The legislation is not in force yet. Therefore,

it has not been printed. The King's Printer has not published it yet. It's not something

within my powers to have it published when the legislation is not in force.

P. Milobar: Sorry. I'm struggling with this a little. Perhaps the Clerk's office, in the background,

can come up with a more definitive answer or something. I'm not sure. I guess our

skepticism or worry here is we've had eight pieces of legislation in this sitting

alone that have had to be amended by this government because of errors and flaws and

things that they didn't pick up going through LRC.

If I'm hearing the minister correctly, we're now amending a piece of legislation that

actually hasn't been updated from the last time it was amended, and somehow the opposition

was supposed to know that. And we're defaulting to "The King's Printer hasn't done

their job," but we found flaws in legislation that we brought forward last spring,

a few months ago, and because it's not enacted, we're now amending it yet again.

Is it not enacted because 647.1 was subject to being enacted at regulation or at royal

assent?

Hon. A. Kang: So 64.1 is a new

section of the legislation. We recognized an error, and we are fixing

it. This is a good thing, because we are correcting it before it is in force.

This amendment corrects an inconsistency that we found, before it has come into force,

between the statement that is required to be included in the new notice of tax sales

and the tax sale requirements in the local government. This is a good thing. So 64.1

is a new

section in the legislation, and we caught an inconsistency. We caught a mistake,

and we're correcting it now, before it comes into force.

P. Milobar: I appreciate that with all the numbering, it can get confusing, but just to be absolutely

clear, we're talking about 647.1, not 64.1. I know what the minister meant.

I guess our problem, though, is we have a former piece of legislation that has now

been discovered to be in error and needs correcting. It only was going to take effect

by regulation. So here we are, several months later, and that regulation still hasn't

even been brought into effect. This change, 118, will only take effect based on regulation

at some future date. Lord knows when, at this point. What are the odds? We could have

a third amending piece here to 647.1 and all three of them waiting on some piece of

regulation.

[5:05 p.m.]

Municipalities are under a clock with tax sales. There are certain time frames that

they need to do them in the year. What is the expectation that the regulations will

actually be enacted so that these changes can actually be sent to the King's Printer

so the public and municipalities can actually have an accurate copy of what is happening

with the laws within British Columbia?

Hon. A. Kang: This is not a second amendment. This is a new section. We're now correcting a mistake

that we have seen in something that we passed in spring of 2023.

To the question of royal assent. If we had enacted this during the royal assent, it

would be too rushed for local governments. If we enacted in 2023, it would be a rush.

We passed this by regulation for 2024 of tax sales year so that local governments

will be prepared for the next tax season.

We did identify that as we passed this new

section that there was an error. So in

correcting this error, it is a good thing that people will not be overpaying what

has been incorrectly stated. The proposed amendment removes

section references and

substitutes a reference to paying delinquent taxes only, because that is the only

way that a tax sale can be avoided.

We are correcting an error that we made. It's a word error. We're not amending anything

else.

P. Milobar: Well, that answer opens up a whole other line of questions, then, because the minister

just said they're correcting it so people won't be overpaying, which means that they're

currently overpaying.

[5:10 p.m.]

Well, if it's correcting something so people won't be overpaying, that means they

are currently overpaying. This was changed in spring, and the deadline for tax sale

notifications is September 25 of this year for this current tax sale year, based on

the legislation — last Monday in September, September 25. It was changed in the spring.

The regulation wasn't even brought forward in time for municipalities to actually

enact the change, so people could not be overpaying, as per the minister's own words

in her last answer.

Now we're having to change a piece that hasn't even been enacted by regulation yet.

Its enactment date is the same as the previous piece, by regulation, with no certainty

that it's going to actually be changed in time for the last Monday in September.

Given the confusion on this clause, can the minister direct the opposition to where

exactly we can get the complete version of the Local Government Act that has been

amended So we can, at that point, based on the answer, seek a recess so we can get

a printed copy here?

Apparently, even the Legislature doesn't have an accurate up-to-date copy of the legislation

that is being changed here today. The book we're working off of literally came off

the shelf seven feet away from us. That is supposed to have all the current laws of

British Columbia in it.

The Legislature doesn't have an accurate copy of what we're amending. We can't seem

to get a clear answer from the minister, whether this is actually saving people money

from being overcharged or not, on a

section that was supposed to be brought in by

regulation and still hasn't, even though it was passed in the spring. Now this change

will have to wait for regulation moving forward.

Could we find out where exactly we can get a printed copy done? Then once we find

that out, we can take a short break to be able to get a printed copy here so the opposition

can actually properly assess the changes to a piece of legislation.

Hon. A. Kang:

Section 647.1 can be found in

section 13 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

2023, S.B.C. 2023, c.2. You can find it there.

[5:15 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Just to be clear, then, the minister is saying the only version of what's being amended

in this current bill, in Bill 42…. We need to go back to a different bill to read

it as a

section of that bill to then go and layer that in with the piece of legislation

that's in front of us, because you're not actually amending a piece of legislation;

you're amending a bill?

Hon. A. Kang: Yes. We are amending

an act that has already passed this spring, 2023, but is not

yet in force, so that when it comes into force, we will have corrected the error that

we have identified in terms of wording.

I have no control over when law gets printed, because it has not come into force yet.

P. Milobar: Well, I mean, when you read, and it says that we are…. "Section 647.1(2)(

e) of the

Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 2015, c.1, as enacted by

section 13 of the Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, S.B.C. 2023, c.2, is amended by striking out…."

One would assume it's actually part of the piece of legislation that you're reading,

not that we're going back to relook at a bill because that's actually what's just

been floating out there because the government hasn't seen fit to enact the regulation

in time, several months later.

I guess I would ask for a recess so we can go back and find the bill of

section 13

of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, from the spring, get that printed,

overlay that with the bill that's in front of us and then overlay that with the legislation

so that we can actually, as an opposition, have a clear understanding of what is or

isn't actually being amended and why, moving forward with this piece of legislation.

The Chair: I'll call a recess for 11½ minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:18 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

[M. Dykeman in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. If you could all take your seats and come to order, please, we'll

call the committee on Bill 42 back to order. We are on clause 118.

P. Milobar: To add to the further confusion, I guess, on the changes, and just so we're absolutely

clear in our thinking here, in

section 647.1 of the Local Government Act, there are

changes being made — changes that are still floating out there, because they're just

by regulation that hasn't been done yet. We're removing sections referring to

section

649(1)(

a) and (

b) in the Local Government Act and substituting that in with a

section

from the Community Charter.

Am I getting it right that somebody would have to go from one piece of legislation

to another and cross-reference sections from two totally different pieces of legislation?

Hon. A. Kang: Yes, that's correct. It cross-references through the Community Charter.

P. Milobar: When the Local Government Act was amended with Bill 3 in 2023, that's when the changes

in 647.1 came in, or when the concept of them was first introduced. That was dealing

with the Local Government Act.

I'm just wondering: is there not a concern that we're cross-pollinating two distinct

pieces of legislation by making you refer to one other piece of legislation as it

relates to tax sales? How does that make things less complicated, more streamlined

and less expensive for people?

Hon. A. Kang: No, this is not cross-pollination. The definition of delinquent taxes can be found

in the Community Charter.

P. Milobar: Well, thank you. I get that there would be a definition of delinquent taxes in the

Community Charter. My understanding is that the Community Charter deals much more

with municipalities; the Local Government Act still deals much more with regional

districts. But it's really about the fact that we're now changing out a

section that

was dealing exclusively with the Local Government Act and instead inserting a reference

to the Community Charter.

What is the purpose of that? Would it not have been easier — if you're amending the

Local Government Act anyway, by virtue of this legislation — to just amend the definition

you wanted to amend within the Local Government Act?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: We work with legislative counsel. We take the advice of legislative counsel, and that

legislative counsel will advise how to best express the policy intent.

P. Milobar: Well, when we've read through the various sections being removed and inserted by striking

out "amounts referred to in

section 649(1)(

a) and (b) [upset price for tax sale] are"

and substituting in "amount of delinquent taxes calculated in accordance with

section

246 [delinquent taxes] of the Community Charter…."

Again, 649(1)(

a) and (

b) is in the Local Government Act. That's being removed. We're

putting in

section 246 of the Community Charter. But when I quickly read through (2),

I don't see a fundamental difference in what is going to result in a change of costs

or calculations for either the municipality or the person who's subject to a tax sale.

Can the minister explain definitively the substantive difference in calculations?

They both refer to interest. They both refer to things of that nature. What is the

core difference that's necessitating this change?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Sections 649(1)(

a) and (b), of the Local Government Act section, refer to delinquent

taxes, taxes in arrear and interest to the first day of the tax sale and current year

taxes with penalty. As a tax sale can be avoided by paying delinquent taxes only,

the current

section 647.1 overstates the amount that can be paid to avoid a tax sale.

P. Milobar: Well, again, it's concerning that it's overstating it and still holding out in regulation

that hasn't happened yet.

I truly am not trying to be difficult here. I know we came into this….

Interjections.

P. Milobar: The government can laugh if they want. Given that we've had eight pieces of their

legislation that have needed to be amended in this sitting alone….

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

P. Milobar: This is yet another piece where we're amending a piece of legislation, not an actual

bill that has been enacted yet into law. Perhaps we could take a little time just

to make sure that municipalities and the public understand what is actually being

amended and that we haven't accidentally missed something that we've already tried

to amend before it became law.

Again, when I read this…. It's referring to amounts referred to in

section 649(1)(

a) and (b). However, 649 has a (1)(a), (b), (c), (

d) and a (2). It's silent on any of

those. I get that only those two, (

a) and (b), currently are referred to in 647(1).

Then, when you jump to 246, which it's being replaced with…. It's got a (1) and a

(2), a (1)(

a) and (b).

We're removing: "The collector is authorized to receive, for use of the municipality,

the following amounts from the proceeds of a sale under

section 645 [annual tax sale]"

— so that suddenly disappears completely — "(

a) the amount of delinquent taxes, taxes

in arrear and interest to the first day of the tax sale for which the parcel of land

and the improvements are liable for sale; (

b) the taxes, including penalties incurred,

for the current year on the land and improvements."

Instead, we're substituting in: "

(1) Any taxes in arrear remaining unpaid on December

31 in the year following the year in which it became taxes in arrear (

a) are delinquent

on that date, and (

b) bear interest from that date at a rate prescribed by the Lieutenant

Governor in Council under

section 11 (3) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act until paid

or recovered.

(2) The added interest under the subsection (1) (

b) is part of the delinquent

taxes and is a charge as in

section 245 (3) [taxes in arrear]."

The other part of 649, "Upset price for tax sale," is also: "(c) 5% of the amounts

under paragraphs (

a) and (

b) of this subsection; (

d) the fees prescribed under the

Land Title Act.

(2) The total of the amounts under subsection (1) is the upset price

and the lowest amount…." Now, this appears to be removing references to 649(1)(

a) and (

b) in 647(1), but it's not removing 649 completely.

How is there not starting to be a lot of contradictory pieces here? So 649(1)(

a) and

(

b) appear to still be in existence. Then you're going to have 246, which is in existence.

You're going to have 647(1), which refers to part of the one section. But then there

are other parts of 649 that are still going to be in existence. In fact, all of it

is still going to be in existence, all dealing with the same type of language.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The amendments to the Local Government Act made in the spring of 2023 require local

governments to provide specific notice 60 days prior to a tax sale to property owners

whose property is at risk of a tax sale. Certain contents of the notice requirements

are required by legislation — for example, the time and place of the annual tax sale.

The amendments being proposed at the time address an issue that has been identified

with the requirements related to the notice that local governments are required to

make. In particular, the Local Government Act requires that the notice sale include

a statement that if the amounts referred to in sections 649(1)(

a) and (b), which is

the upset price for tax sale, of the Local Government Act are not paid before the

annual tax sale, the collector will offer the property for sale by public auction

at the time and place stated in the notice.

This includes delinquent taxes as well as taxes in arrears and current years, including

interest and penalties. This has the effect of overstating the amount that must be

paid to avoid a property from a tax sale — a tax sale can be avoided by paying delinquent

taxes only — as the Local Government Act requires that property on which taxes are

delinquent be offered for sale at a public auction.

The amendments being proposed at this time will amend the notice content requirements

to refer to only what is required to avoid a property from a tax sale, by removing

references to taxes in arrears and current-year taxes owing.

P. Milobar: I'll try this again. We're amending the Local Government Act with clause 118. Back

in the spring, the Local Government Act was amended to create 647.1(2)(e). That's

what's being amended with clause 118.

Now, in that, what's being amended is a reference to

section 649(1)(

a) and (

b) in

the Local Government Act. Instead, the government would like to insert 246 from the

Community Charter.

I understand all of that. However, the heading of 649 is "Upset price for tax sale."

It's got more than (1)(

a) and (b). It's got a (

c) and (d), and it's also got a part

(2). So all of that is still actually remaining, as I read this, in the Local Government

Act. That is not being amended. It's not being removed.

If it's being removed, I would hope that the minister could point us to where they've

actually removed 649 out of the bill. The problem is…. If someone was to read 647(1)

in the Local Government Act, they would see one set of rules for a tax sale, which

would be 246 of the Community Charter.

[5:50 p.m.]

However, if they kept reading a little bit further in the Local Government Act, because

they chose not to go back to 246 of a totally different piece of legislation, they

would see other rules for the upset price for a tax sale in 649 because it's still

existing in the legislation. It hasn't been removed. The reference to it in 647.1

is being removed, but 649 is still fully intact within the Local Government Act.

How does that not create confusion around the rules for a tax sale for local governments

or the person subject to the tax sale that likely is not as versed? I've been elected

a long time. My colleague's been elected a long time. We're getting confused by this.

I can only imagine what a layperson who's under the stress of a possible tax sale,

trying to figure out what they should or shouldn't be charged, is going through.

They go to the legislation. They go to 647.1. They see something referenced as 246

in a totally different piece of legislation, and literally on the same page, in bold,

they see "Upset price for tax sale." Why was 649 not removed completely, then, if

we are now referring to the rules on the tax sale in a totally different piece of

legislation?

Hon. A. Kang: This amendment makes it more clear to the everyday person on what is required to avoid

a tax sale.

[5:55 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Again, this is amending clause 13 of Bill 3 from 2023. It's pulling out, in 647.1(2)(e),

the references to 649. But the heading of 649 is actually "Upset price for tax sale."

And 647.1(2)(d), right before the clause that this is amending, says "the upset price

of the property for the purpose of the tax sale."

Again, I fail to see how the minister