Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section C

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Monday, November

6, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 40 — SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

C) on Bill 40; F. Donnelly in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 40, School Amendment

Act, 2023, to order.

M. Lee: I will be leading the committee stage on Bill 40 on behalf of the member for Surrey

South as well as our opposition caucus here.

Let me just ask the minister. Can the minister please identify for us, for Bill 40…?

Which articles of DRIPA was the ministry cognizant of in order to draft the proposed

amendments to the School Act?

Hon. R. Singh: This legislation was co-developed with FNESC in accordance with the legislative requirements.

There were three specific commitments under the action plan that were adhered to in

this legislation.

M. Lee: I can certainly go to the DRIPA action plan.

Which of the 89 actions were specifically identified by the ministry in terms of meeting

their commitments under the DRIPA action plan?

Again, back to my first question, which articles of UNDRIP, attached to the Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, passed four years ago, was the ministry particularly

minded to in terms of responding and ensuring that the amendments brought forward

under Bill 40 were meeting the alignment of the laws of B.C. with the articles of

UNDRIP?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: Under the Declaration Act action plan, the commitments under that for education and

child care, action 1.6 talks about: "Co-develop an approach to deliver on the B.C.

tripartite education agreement commitment, in which the Ministry of Education and

Child Care and the First Nations Education Steering Committee will co-develop legislation

that requires local education agreements with First Nations where a First Nation wants

one and that requires the application of the provincial LEA at the request of a First

Nation."

Then in the action plan, 4.3 is: "Co-develop and implement a framework for the involvement

of Indigenous education councils in school district financial planning and reporting."

Action 4.4: "Identify, develop and implement mechanisms and approaches to enable boards

of education to better support Indigenous students, including increasing and ensuring

equitable access to education and safe environments."

M. Lee: I appreciate, again, the response on the specific action plan items. I certainly will

come back to 4.4.

Again asking the minister: which specific articles of UNDRIP are the minister and

the team around her of the view apply to the amendments that are being proposed here

for Bill 40?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh:

Article 14 of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples says: "Indigenous

peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions

providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural

methods of teaching and learning."

M. Lee:

Article 14 of UNDRIP of course goes on, just to read it into the record, for those

who might want to follow. I would expect that the minister intended, of course, to

refer to all of

article 14, which includes sub 2: Indigenous individuals" — which

is a term not defined under UNDRIP, I note — "particularly children, have the right

to all levels and forms of education of the state without discrimination."

Sub 3 says, of

article 14 in UNDRIP: "States shall, in conjunction with Indigenous

peoples, take effective measures in order for Indigenous individuals" — again, not

a term defined under DRIPA — "particularly children, including those living outside

their communities" — I would emphasize the words "including those living outside their

communities" — "to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture

and provided in their own language."

Let me, as I break this down, ask the minister to confirm that

article 14 of UNDRIP

is the only

article that the ministry was particularly focused on ensuring alignment

with for the purpose of Bill 40.

Secondly, I would invite the minister to take the opportunity to introduce the team

around her from the Ministry of Education.

Hon. R. Singh: I should have introduced my staff before. Thank you for pointing that out.

I'm joined today by Cloe Nicholls, who's sitting on my right. Cloe is the assistant

deputy minister, in our ministry, of governance and legislation.

On my left is Jennifer McCrea, assistant deputy minister, system liaison and support

division.

In the back, we have Dave Duerkson, who is the executive director, and also Francis

Recalma, who is the manager of Indigenous education.

For the purpose of this legislation, articles 14 and 15 were taken into account.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just to read into this, as we work through it,

Article 15 says: "Indigenous peoples

have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories

and aspirations, which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information."

And sub 2: "States shall take effective measures, in consultation and cooperation

with the Indigenous peoples concerned, to combat prejudice and eliminate discrimination

and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among Indigenous peoples

and all other segments of society."

Those words, of course, are not defined, what "other segments of society" means. I

don't know that that's a big focus, necessarily, until we get down into local education

agreements and Indigenous education councils and the work there.

Keeping in mind the definition here, what Bill 40 does is amend the definition of

First Nation in clause 1. Let me continue there by asking the minister to take the

opportunity to explain why the definition of First Nation is being amended under Bill

Hon. R. Singh: The current School Act does not include shíshálh and Westbank First Nations. The intent

of this legislation is to include them as well, as they are self-governing nations.

The purpose of the legislation is to include all the First Nations, not just the ones

in the Indian Act.

M. Lee: Just to further that conversation, in terms of treaty nations and the Nisga'a, how

does that get incorporated in the in the School Act or Bill 40?

Hon. R. Singh: The treaty First Nations and the Nisga'a Nation are referred to in the

Interpretation

Act. Therefore it is not necessary to define these terms here.

[3:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: As we will come to in the subsequent clauses of this bill, we see that, where utilized,

the term "First Nation" is alongside of a treaty First Nation or the Nisga'a Nation.

There is certainly incorporation of those specific types of treaty nations as well.

Let me just turn now to a question relating to consultation. Can the minister please

describe for us the nature and scope of consultation on the amendments to the School

Act, as set out in Bill 40, beyond FNESC?

Hon. R. Singh: This legislation was co-developed with FNESC, but along with that, 211 letters were

sent to the individual First Nations, and then 26 individual meetings were held, along

with a meeting with Métis Nation B.C., on the relevant pieces.

M. Lee: Perhaps the minister can just clarify what the number 211 refers to. I think she said

211 First Nations were contacted. Perhaps she can clarify that. And if that's the

case, 26 engagement meetings were held. Who were those 26 engagement meetings held

with? And how many of the 211 First Nations that were contacted actually responded?

Hon. R. Singh: The ministry sent out 211 invitations to First Nations, treaty First Nations, tribal

councils and Indigenous organizations. As of the end of October 2023, there have been

26 meetings, which include all eight modern treaty First Nations, 19 Indian Act bands

and Métis Nation British Columbia.

[3:05 p.m.]

In addition, FNESC has hosted regional meetings for the last number of years on these

topics, as they are from the B.C. tripartite agreement, which was signed in 2018.

M. Lee: In terms of the letters that were sent out to the 211 First Nations, treaty tribal

councils, Indigenous organizations, were the four federally funded urban Indigenous

coalitions in British Columbia, the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Executive Council,

Prince George urban Indigenous coalition, the Victoria urban indigenous coalition

and the Surrey Urban Indigenous Leadership Committee…. Were any of those coalitions

also on that list of 211?

Hon. R. Singh: The answer to that is no, because we were consulting directly with the rights holders.

But when it comes to the implementation, we will be reaching out to these organizations

as well.

M. Lee: Before just walking through that, the minister had cited subarticle 14(3). I pay note

to that. The government's view is that UNDRIP, of course, is illustrative and that….

I know the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation has said, in response

to myself in question period, that it's not intended that UNDRIP be parsed through

any particular article.

Having said that, if UNDRIP provides a basic human rights document for our province,

with our relationship with First Nations, Métis and Indigenous peoples,

article 14,

sub 3, does say: "States shall, in conjunction with Indigenous peoples, take effective

measures, in order for Indigenous individuals" — again, I don't know what that term

in context, in British Columbia, means necessarily, but that is for this government

to define — "particularly children, including those living outside their communities,

to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in

their own language."

As I understand it…. Perhaps the minister can confirm to me her understanding, or

at least the ministry's understanding, as to who the urban Indigenous coalitions represent.

We are talking about Indigenous peoples in our province who are represented, in this

case, by these four coalitions: one in Metro Vancouver, another in Prince George,

another here in Victoria and one in Surrey.

In Surrey's case, they represent what they estimate to be 13,000-plus individuals

— Indigenous peoples, living in Surrey, for example. The Metro Vancouver Aboriginal

Executive Council has 23 member agencies, for example.

What I'm hearing from this minister is that there was no level of consultation with

these urban Indigenous coalitions, even though UNDRIP itself calls for recognition

of ensuring that those Indigenous peoples living outside their communities….

[3:10 p.m.]

For Indigenous peoples, of course, who are living off reserve, who are living outside

of their traditional territories, who are even coming from other parts of our country

to escape the clutch of residential schools.

When I talk to representatives of these urban Indigenous coalitions, we're talking

about instances where young children were relocated off reserve to end up here on

Vancouver Island so that they could avoid having to be forced to go to residential

school. This is just but one example of the reason why Indigenous peoples in our province….

As we go forward, of course, their grandchildren, generationally…. This is what I'm

talking about: a family that came here in 1959, so likely grandchildren who are now

going through the school system here in our province. Again, why were the urban Indigenous

coalitions not consulted when it comes to the education of their peoples?

Hon. R. Singh: This legislation is primarily about First Nations, and we consulted directly with

the First Nations. We did discuss the members who live off reserve and are out of

the First Nations reserve borders. Urban Indigenous peoples will have an invitation

to be represented on Indigenous education councils. Boards of education will work

with their local Indigenous communities to ensure representation of Indigenous groups,

including urban Indigenous peoples, when extending membership invitations to an Indigenous

education council.

M. Lee: We will look at how the mechanism of an Indigenous education council will incorporate

the voices and the perspectives of urban Indigenous peoples, as the minister is suggesting,

as we look at the mandates and composition of the various models that are contemplated

under Bill 40 as we get there.

I would note, of course, to the minister that in terms of estimates and factual determinations,

it's been said there are 290,200 Indigenous peoples living in British Columbia.

More than 237,130 Indigenous people live off reserve, which is 82 percent of B.C.'s

total Indigenous population. Of these, 237,000 are First Nations, which represents

55 percent. Métis peoples represent 41 percent and Inuit 0.7 percent. We know that

Métis Nation B.C. has over 90,000 members of that nation, but 24,000 approximately

are registered currently.

What the minister is saying is that in the makeup of this bill, recognizing the structure

and appreciating….

[3:15 p.m.]

I know, in my discussions with urban Indigenous coalitions, that their representatives

know that First Nations and rights and title holders in our province are on a different

level, a higher priority, whatever the words will be that one might want to describe

that. They are not asking, certainly, for parity in any sense. But we're talking about

"Indigenous peoples" the way that it is defined and utilized under Bill 40. So when

I look at terms like "Indigenous student," that doesn't say an Indigenous student

who is…. As we come to that…. I'll just note it here, but we'll get to it when we

get to clause 4. I know the Leader of the Third Party will also have questions on

clause 4, apart from clause 2.

But it does use, under 87.002, the term "Indigenous students." So at the front end

of this bill, when we're looking at clause 1 and talking about the redefinition of

"First Nation" for the reasons the minister gave and we're talking about consultation,

I struggle with the lack of consultation that the ministry has provided to urban Indigenous

peoples, which they will define as people who are not just living in urban communities,

but Indigenous peoples who are living off reserve and outside of their traditional

territories.

So I will ask one more time. Is the minister not concerned that even as this bill

comes for review to this Legislative Assembly, there hasn't been that level of consultation

at the front end of the bill when we're talking about amendments to ensure alignment

with UNDRIP in the way that the minister has cited?

Hon. R. Singh: The B.C. tripartite education agreement is specific to First Nations on-reserve students.

This was signed by Canada, B.C. and FNESC on behalf of First Nations leadership.

Two specific pieces in Bill 40 are from BCTEA and apply only to First Nations students

who live on reserve. I already mentioned that the appropriate consultation with the

individual First Nations has happened. For IECs, the individual school boards will

be reaching out to other organizations, the urban organizations that the member is

referring to.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. Lee: I note that with the tripartite education agreement back in 2018, as described by

the minister, there was also reference, of course, to the First Nations Jurisdiction

over Education in British Columbia Act, the federal act, which was last amended on

July 1, 2023.

I appreciate that there is an overall framework with the federal government in respect

of education for First Nations peoples. But the minister's response does bring me

back to another point to be made here, which is that the minister also referred to

— and I did highlight this when she gave the response — the action plan item for DRIPA,

4.4.

So 4.4 does say: "Identify and develop and implement mechanisms and approaches to enable boards of

education to better support Indigenous students, including increasing and ensuring

equitable access to education and safe environments."

This is, as you well know, the DRIPA action plan tabled by government, the former

Premier and the current minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, back

in May of 2022, if memory serves me correct. This is a commitment of this government,

which has been tagged, so to speak, to the Ministry of Education and Child Care, as

every minister in this government knows, in brackets after their action plan items.

What does the term "Indigenous students" mean under DRIPA action plan item 4.4?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: The Indigenous students in

section 4.4 refers to "Indigenous" as defined in the Declaration

Act. This piece of legislation is just one step to fulfil action 4.4, to be more specific

in the education setting. It is any student that self-identifies as Indigenous.

M. Lee: Just to ask, then, further, to confirm my understanding…. The School Act, of course,

is the principal piece of legislation that the ministry is governed by when it comes

to the education of Indigenous students in our province. First, just want to confirm

that.

Secondly, when the minister says this is just one step in order to move forward with

the commitment set out in action plan item 4.4, is the minister indicating, then,

that there will be other legislative work to come forward — i.e., further amendments

to the School Act — in order to deal with Indigenous students who are not on reserve,

on traditional territory, i.e., urban Indigenous children or Métis children or students?

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: The School Act covers provincial public schools and all First Nations, Métisand Inuit

students who attend them. It does not apply to Indigenous students attending independent

or First Nations schools.

I also want to reiterate that this legislation is about creating equitable education

access to First Nations students. And action 4.4 is about boards of education supporting

Indigenous students. It will do that by relationship-building, capacity-building,

policy and procedure reviews and analysis of data. As I said, it's to ensure equitable

access and safe learning environments.

M. Lee: Could the minister just clarify the one statement that was there in her response?

I believe I heard her say, in terms of the School Act, in terms of what it doesn't

apply to…. If the minister could just clarify her statement. It sounded like it doesn't

apply to Indigenous students who attend private or First Nation schools. I think those

were the words she said. And if that's correct, could she just elaborate a little

more about that so-called exclusion or non-application?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: The Indigenous students who attend independent schools fall under the Independent

School Act. The First Nations on reserve are under the authority of the First Nations

under the Indian Act or under jurisdiction.

M. Lee: On the last part of that, Indigenous students who are on reserve are under First Nations

under the Indian Act. So I'm clear about the jurisdictions here and how we manage

the jurisdictions, can the minister then just elaborate a little further, in terms

of the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act? There is

contemplation, certainly, of sharing of jurisdiction there, including with the First

Nations Education Authority. Then of course, the minister has referred to the tripartite

education agreement as well.

So I'm clear as well, though, here, there is certainly a recognition of the jurisdiction

between the federal government, the province of British Columbia and First Nations.

When we say that Indigenous students are under the First Nation under the Indian Act,

there is, which is the reason why we have these amendments to the School Act, reference

back to what is going to be a new mechanism, as the minister has already cited, of

course, the Indigenous education council under the school district.

There is a way, of course, that this all comes back together again with the province

and the federal government. Just to clarify, though, it's not a stand-alone. There

is jurisdiction that is being utilized between the federal government, the provincial

government and First Nations as it comes to the education of their children on reserve

or traditional territory.

Can I just ask the minister if she could elaborate on that framework?

Hon. R. Singh: The changes before the House in this piece of legislation refer directly to students

who live on reserve and attend B.C. public schools. First Nation jurisdiction is where

First Nations have exercised authority to control their own schools on their own lands.

[3:40 p.m.]

M. Lee: I think we'll just leave that discussion there for now and turn to another item. We're

on clause 1. Just on the initial questions on consultation….

The minister also mentioned that of the 26 engagement meetings that were held, one

of them — perhaps the minister can clarify that it was one of the 26 — was held with

MNBC, Métis Nation B.C. Could the minister please describe the nature and scope of

that engagement agreement or process, consultation, with Métis Nation B.C.?

Hon. R. Singh: Ministry of Education and Child Care staff met with staff of Métis Nation B.C. on

March 29, 2023. It was specifically about Indigenous education councils. At that meeting,

the ministry committed to coming back to Métis Nation B.C. when a first draft of the

terms of reference was developed. That work is still underway.

The two other pieces of the legislation, the local education agreement and school

choice, do not apply to Métis Nation B.C., as they are not land and title holders.

M. Lee: Just to clarify the process with Métis Nation B.C.… Obviously, my comments previously

about the makeup of the over 290,000 Indigenous peoples living in British Columbia,

of which 41 percent are Métis…. Well, I think that's percentages. We have to check

the percentages, I think. I will restate those percentages. In any event, we know

that there are 24,000 registered members, with over 90,000 members with Métis Nation

B.C.

I would just ask…. The nature of this engagement suggests, as the minister indicated,

that the focus was on Indigenous education councils. So the terms of reference for

Indigenous education councils, as we turn to the clauses of the bill, eventually,

that address the mandate and the terms of reference…. Those terms of reference are

going to be forthcoming when? That's a question.

[3:45 p.m.]

Secondly, was there…? In terms of the process that was followed here…. Presumably,

there was notice of the subject matter of the meeting, meaning what the meeting was

about, prior to the meeting taking place. Presumably, for all the 211 notice letters

that went out….

It does raise a question as to what the topic was in these notice letters. In the

case of MNBC, what was the specific topic that was indicated as to the purpose of

the meeting that took place on March 29, 2023?

Hon. R. Singh: The ministry is planning to have terms of reference finalized in the spring of 2024,

before the '24-25 school year. There will be an ongoing co-development with FNESC

and further engagement with MNBC.

The invitation letter that was sent out, which we talked about, to Métis Nation B.C.

was about the discussion on action plan item 4.3, which pertains to the Indigenous

education council.

[3:50 p.m.]

The ministry also committed to meeting with the Métis Nation chartered communities

with Métis Nation B.C. to present the changes.

M. Lee: I appreciate that. Before I go further on the clarification, just to restate, I had

mentioned earlier the 24,000 registered members with Métis Nation B.C. Of course,

the number I was looking for, from memory, was 98,000 Indigenous peoples who identify

as Métis people in British Columbia, based on the last census, which represents about

a third of Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, the total number.

I want to just come back to the last part of the minister's response, which was the

commitment, let's say, from the minister and the ministry, or the offer, to Métis

Nation B.C. that there would be further opportunity for direct consultation with the

Chartered Communities for Métis Nation B.C. in this province.

So that I have this correct, in the way the ministry approached this level of consultation,

they notified Métis Nation B.C. of the subject matter of the meeting, which did take

place back in March of 2023, relating to item 4.3, which clearly relates to Indigenous

education councils.

There was an understanding that their terms of reference would be further consulted

on before they were implemented or put in place, as of the spring of 2024. Presumably,

the indication that there would be further consultation with Métis Nation Chartered

Communities in our province would be about the terms of reference.

I just want to confirm that that is the nature of the consultation and not about,

at this point, the overall architecture of Bill 40 — which, given the nature of the

subject-matter discussion back in March of 2023, really didn't give the opportunity,

as I understand it from Métis Nation B.C.'s perspective, for that level of discussion

back to their member communities. Will that member community discussion happen after

the bill is passed and before the terms of reference are finalized?

Hon. R. Singh: I just want to clarify that the consultation did happen with the Métis Nation B.C.,

specifically on

article 4.3 of the action plan, because that is the one that is applicable

to Métis Nation B.C.

I also want to reiterate that the other two pieces of the legislation do not apply

to Métis Nation B.C. When we go for the implementation, the terms of reference are

part of the implementation. We will be reaching out to Métis Nation B.C. and discussing

it further with them.

M. Lee: The minister's response demonstrates, though, that the ministry had the view that

it was sufficient to have one meeting with Métis Nation B.C. in respect of action

item 4.3, without any other detail provided prior to that meeting, other than the

general reference to the item 4.3. It didn't put Métis Nation B.C. in a position to

have further conversation or consultation with their member communities, the Chartered

Communities and the like.

[3:55 p.m.]

It was based on that one meeting and whatever feedback was provided — without notice,

really, of the details of what an Indigenous education council could look like or

the opportunity for Métis Nation B.C. to engage with its members or Chartered Communities.

The ministry moved forward with Bill 40. I don't know if Métis Nation B.C. communicated

this directly in writing, but my sense from them is that there's some sense that that

was inadequate. I'm sure that Métis Nation B.C., of course — I do not speak on behalf

of any nation here — will express their concerns directly to the minister as we go.

I just register that concern for the record.

Moving forward to what was presented at the First Nations leaders' gathering in the

last couple of days of last week, I wanted to turn to the presentation — the minister

is aware — that the assistant deputy minister, who's present here, provided, alongside

Deborah Jeffrey, the executive director of FNESC.

This was in the lead-up to walking through the DRIPA action plan items 1.6, 4.3 and

4.4 and the individual major components of Bill 40, the amendments to the School Act.

Prior to getting to the amendments, I want to take the same opportunity shared with

the First Nation leaders themselves, and with other members of government and colleagues

of mine in the official opposition caucus, who were present in the room.

I'll start with one measure. From recollection of the discussion, there are high student

absentee rates on reserve. When I look at that chart on page 5 of the deck circulated

to all members present at the FNLG meetings, it indicates, I guess, in June of 2023,

a 39 percent student absentee rate. That compares to, for non-Aboriginals, the term

that's used here, 16 percent. Obviously, it's a very concerning number of Indigenous

students…. Well, this is defined as on-reserve student absentee rate, just to use

the same terminology.

When we're talking about dealing with equity and access, I know that the tripartite

agreement does refer to budget and funding, as well as transportation needs.

A young woman who stood up in the session talked about her own challenges in getting

across her own reserve to get to class and how that shouldn't be a penalty to her

performance. I'm putting aside that point, but for the purpose of this discussion,

as a young Indigenous woman trying to get to class, she clearly has a challenge getting

across the reserve because, of course, the lack of transportation options across the

reserve.

When we're talking about equity and access to equity for even on-reserve Indigenous

students, can I ask the minister: with the scale of amendments that are brought here

— I'm focusing on this because there are measures here that were presented — does

any aspect of Bill 40 address the challenge of student absentee rates?

[4:00 p.m.]

[F. Donnelly in the chair.]

Hon. R. Singh: This bill is one step towards the alignment of laws and is not the only way we are

supporting Indigenous student success. However, I want to mention that all three areas

of this legislation will require boards and First Nations to work together in new

ways to incorporate equity. We know that the Indigenous students…. How they face barriers,

how they face gaps — that's what this legislation is trying to address to create that

equity.

In particular, I want to say the model LEA will contain pieces on transportation and

funding. During the First Nations leadership gathering, I had the opportunity to meet

with individual First Nations. The issue of transportation did come up there as well.

That's what we are focusing on —that there should be more direct consultation between

the boards of education and the First Nations.

M. Lee: I appreciate the note about the model LEA. I would suggest that we talk further about

the components of the model LEA and transportation and funding when we get there.

I appreciate the minister's response and, certainly, I recognized her presence and

engagement at the First Nations leadership gathering with many First Nation leaders

that I could see as well — of course, with her colleague the minister responsible

for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

I would just point out another slide of note. Given our discussion at the outset about….

Again, the slide uses the term here of "Aboriginal learners." So using the terminology

on the slide, Aboriginal learners that are on reserve versus off reserve….

[4:05 p.m.]

On reserve, in 2022-23, is 8,073; off reserve is 62,080. It does say that under the

Aboriginal category is 70,153. I know these slides were briefly presented during the

session, but just to take the opportunity to get an understanding on the record here,

I would ask the minister to describe what these numbers refer to when we're talking

about Aboriginal of 70,153 versus off reserve of 62,080.

Hon. R. Singh: The term "Aboriginal" is used because that has been FNESC's request in the "how are

we doing?" report. And the 70,153 number are all who self-identify as Indigenous,

and they attend public schools. And 8,073 are First Nations students on reserve attending

public schools, and 6,280 are the Indigenous not-on-reserve First Nations, Métis and

Inuit attending public schools.

The Chair: I'll just remind the member to focus on the amendment act. The minister has provided

information for you in the broader term, but keep the questions…. Or if you could

show the Chair how you're relating to the act in front of us. Thank you, Member.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned at the outset when I referred to this document, this is the context

that the ministry itself presented to the First Nations leadership gathering last

week and tabled and distributed broadly to participants at that meeting. I am walking

through what was referred to as item 1 on this presentation, which one of the ADMs

around the minister here in this committee chamber had presented on.

I am referring to the slides that were presented by the ministry jointly with Deborah

Jeffrey, executive director of the First Nations Education Steering Committee, FNESC,

to First Nation leaders. I think the relevancy of my points that I'm making about

number of learners is relevant because the ministry and FNESC have deemed it so.

So continuing on, Mr. Chair, I would go to the five-year completion rate slide, which

also indicates that on five-year completion for non-Aboriginal students, learners,

it's 91 percent as of 2021-2022. Seeing the various lines with the symbols attached

to them with my eyesight would suggest a 69 percent completion rate for Indigenous

peoples off reserve, 65 percent for Aboriginal peoples and 45 percent on reserve.

So a 45 percent completion rate for learners on reserve.

But before I went to that slide, I meant to say this. Again, with the minister's previous

response, it is 62,080 off-reserve Aboriginal learners or learners. The minister did

refer to those being representative of Métis peoples and Indigenous learners who are

off reserve, clearly, which would also represent and be part of the urban Indigenous

population of our province. So that 62,000 represents roughly — what? — 40 percent

of the total number of learners that we're talking about.

Again, I have indicated concerns around the lack of consultation, certainly with the

urban Indigenous coalitions representing learners off reserve as well as Métis Nation

B.C. And I can tell you that I continue to receive feedback even while we're in committee

about concerns about the lack of consultation with Métis Nation B.C. I believe that

I have registered that concern on the record.

With that, I'm just going to go now to the five-year completion rate. Again, when

we're talking about the five-year completion rate for Aboriginal learners, that has

increased from 60 to 65 percent since 2017. Off reserve, it has increased from 62

percent to 69 percent. This is for the five-year period beginning in 2017 and ending

in 2022. So over the five academic years since 2017, the completion rate has increased

off reserve and for Aboriginal.

But in terms of on reserve, it has actually decreased from 51 percent to 45 percent,

a 6 percent drop in the same period. While there has been increase off reserve and

for Aboriginal learners in the public school system, on reserve, again, has been a

decrease from 51 percent to 45 percent, a decrease of 6 percent over the last five

years.

Again, can I ask: in the School Act here and the amendments that are being proposed

after the length of time of the DRIPA action plan, which is 20 months ago now, what

particular elements of Bill 40 will be addressing the decreasing completion rate that

we've seen on reserve in the last five years?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: These are very important numbers. They highlight the importance of the changes proposed

in this legislation for learners who live on reserve.

These are systemic issues. These are systemic problems and must be addressed. These

are not student problems. This legislation speaks directly to the changes referenced

to support on-reserve learners.

This is why changes to the local education agreements and Indigenous education councils

will shift the power voice regarding First Nations. These numbers are their kids,

and we must do better.

That's why everything in this legislation is talking about that, how we can create

more equitable access for First Nation students living on reserve.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister's response.

I just wanted to give one example. I had another discussion with a councillor from

the Nisga'a Nation. This counsellor I spoke to also at the UBCM meetings. We furthered

our conversation about his concerns around education.

He has two young daughters who are now young adult daughters who have clearly gone

through the whole school system that is available to Indigenous or members of the

Nisga'a Nation on reserve. He expressed his observations, as a father, for his daughters

as to the challenges with the equity around education on Nisga'a lands.

This is, as I understand it, a school district that is enveloping all of the Nisga'a

Nation territory. There is certainly in place a school board and teachers, of course,

that have come forward, with a school that, as I understand it and if I heard him

correctly — say, 600 students. There is clearly the educational framework in place.

[4:20 p.m.]

I would ask…. An example like that, where there is a clear structure around involvement,

the concerns that I've heard from this councillor really relate to the level of teaching

resources, meaning the…. Let's just say the skills and experience of the teachers

that are coming forward to work in those schools as well as the understanding of the

administration of the school district in terms of the needs of the members of the

Nisga'a Nation….

This is an introductory question I wanted to raise. Given the nature of the minister's

response in terms of wanting to do better, of course, can the minister just respond

as to how this bill would help address the quality of the teachers that go up to,

in this case, the Nisga'a Nation, as well as the understanding of the needs of the

Nisga'a nation at the school district administration level?

Hon. R. Singh: The ministry has been working very closely with the Nisga'a school district team lead

through the superintendent of Indigenous education. Nisga'a is a public school district,

so all parts of this legislation relate to students on Nisga'a lands.

The teachers fall under the Teachers Act. We have a separate commitment under the

action plan to increase the number of Indigenous teachers and, through that process,

are looking at many options.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister's willingness to just give a direct answer relating to Nisga'a.

Obviously, I'm not intending to go through every nation here. I just used that as

one example. That was helpful.

[4:25 p.m.]

I'd like to turn to the last slide that was included in the context before making

some other last remaining points on clause 1.

In terms of the foundation skill assessment, of course, we know, as the member for

Surrey South certainly advocates for, the importance of foundation skills assessment.

In the context of Indigenous learning around literacy and numeracy at the grade 4

and grade 7 levels, there was a slide included in this context, a

section that I was

referring to relating to a foundation skills assessment for 2022-2023 — again, the

breakdown amongst the Aboriginal on reserve, off reserve, non-Aboriginal.

This slide is presented slightly differently from the other slides by way of context.

I just wanted to ask for a clarification from the minister as to…. If the minister

doesn't have it available here at her fingertips, with the team around her, I'm happy

just to have the minister confirm that she will provide it subsequently to us — both

the member for Surrey South and myself.

It is just the comparison to the same five-year period. All the other tables provide

a five-year comparison or, at least, a look back. I suppose the student absentee rates

only go back to 2020, as I look at it here. But certainly, whether it's a three-year

or a five-year look back, can the minister provide that breakdown around foundation

skills assessment? It's just so we can understand the trend and the concerns around

literacy amongst grade 4 and grade 7 students.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

Hon. R. Singh: We are happy to provide that. Staff needs to pull that information out, but we'll

be following up on this.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for agreeing so readily to provide that supplemental information,

which I expect will come after the bill review is completed, which is fine. I think

it's still helpful as the member for Surrey South and myself continue to focus on

this important area with the minister here.

I just want to again state for the record the concerns relating to the consultation

with Métis Nation B.C. If the minister, after I finish putting this on the record

again, wishes to respond, she can, obviously. If she doesn't wish to respond further

because she feels like she's already responded, I'm happy, of course, then to move

on to clause 2.

Just to say that my understanding, again, as we are speaking in this committee chamber….

I have members and leaders of Métis Nation B.C. who are providing comments about the

exchange that I'm having with the minister. I'm hearing this from my colleagues in

the official opposition, including the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. It's that,

again to state for the record, the concerns that I certainly see.

I agree with those that are being expressed by Métis Nation B.C., if not directly

to the minister, that the meeting notice that was provided, really…. As Métis Nation

B.C., the representatives, their staff or otherwise understood, it was actually to

discuss consultation, the consultation process around, presumably, putting two and

two together — the item relating in the action plan from what the minister said, item

4.3, which does say "co-development."

It doesn't say co-development with FNESC. It actually says: "Co-develop and implement

a framework for the involvement of Indigenous education councils in school district

financial planning and reporting."

[4:30 p.m.]

We of course have reviewed the context slides. We noted that of the 140,000 learners

that are tracked by the Ministry of Education, 62,000 of those members or learners

are off reserve and, the minister had indicated earlier, are comprised of Métis, urban

Indigenous and Inuit learners.

Obviously, the importance of engagement and co-development is important with Métis

Nation B.C. I have already made the case around urban Indigenous coalitions, but just

to focus one more time on Métis Nation B.C. As I understand it, they were given the

opportunity, of course, as the minister has said, to have an engagement meeting, but

the engagement meeting that Métis Nation B.C. thought they were having, because they

went to the meeting, apparently, was to talk about consultation process.

It's unclear to me, as I stand here, as to…. Well, consultation about what? Consultation

process that would have, as the minister has said: "Well, the terms of reference for

an Indigenous education council will come by spring of 2024." After the bill is passed

in this session, after this committee process is done, completed as well for third

reading, there will be further consultation with Métis Nation B.C. and charter communities,

as the minister has indicated.

That actually isn't consultation on the subject matter of Bill 40, though. And that,

I would suggest, is an indication that the consultation, at least with Métis Nation

B.C., not to mention urban Indigenous coalition bodies, is inadequate. It's not actually

consultation. It's not consultation on the subject matter of Bill 40.

I just wanted to state that for the third time on the record because I have been getting

further feedback every time I state it for the record. That's the reason why I'm supplementing

my earlier notes about the lack of consultation. And with that, I will just see if

the minister wants to respond. If she does not want to respond further, I can go on

to clause 2.

Hon. R. Singh: I just want to reiterate again that the staff met with Métis Nation B.C. specifically

on the piece of Indigenous education councils. We have committed to following up with

Métis Nation B.C. and their chartered communities, and we will keep that commitment.

M. Lee: I would just note out of professional courtesy that I appreciate the minister's response.

I would suggest that the minister, post this bill, continue to ensure that the relationship

with Métis Nation B.C. is strong, because, obviously, there's feedback still. There's

a disconnect. I understand the minister's response. I'm hearing this, but I can tell

you that members of Métis Nation B.C., their leadership team, cabinet ministers, leaders

involved with francophone education, for example, don't necessarily agree with that

response. Let's just put it that way.

I do think my only suggestion to the minister is to continue to monitor the nature

of the relationships, the depth of consultation, how that process is actually working

with Métis Nation B.C. and, obviously, consider how that will work in the future with

urban Indigenous coalition councils as well.

With that, I have no further questions on clause 1.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Lee: I will invite at this time the Leader of the Third Party to join me for clause 2,

and I'm sure we'll get that message to her. If she or her team are watching on screen,

they will know that they need to come to the Birch Room.

[4:35 p.m.]

On clause 2, when we look at the actual choice that is being provided here, this suggests,

of course, that eligible First Nations have a mechanism available to them. Let me

just pause there for a moment just to clarify that point. Under this clause 2, in

terms of the reference to "eligible First Nation person," can I ask the minister for

clarity: the use of that term is intended to do what?

Hon. R. Singh: An eligible First Nation person means a person who may enrol with a board under the

School Act; who is a member of a First Nation, treaty First Nation or Nisga'a; who

is ordinarily resident on reserve, on treaty lands or Nisga'a lands; and for whom

M. Lee: The minister in her response just referred to one element, but then she referred to

another element, which I see is picked up under the term "eligible First Nation person,"

to the person's educational programs and services.

I was going to ask next — the term "ordinarily resident." But let me just first ask

about the last component of what the minister referred to.

to the person's educational programs and services, can the minister just elaborate

upon that mechanism? That is going to an individual person; is that correct? Just

describe the mechanism for the benefit of our committee here.

[4:40 p.m.]

The funding flows from Canada to a First Nation to a B.C. public school district if

there is a local education agreement in place. Otherwise, funding flows to the province

to pay the district. The funding does not go to individual students.

M. Lee: That was the clarification I was just trying to receive. The minister confirmed that

the funding doesn't actually go directly to the student. It either goes to the district

or, in the case where there is a local education agreement, to the First Nation, which

then provides it to the district.

Just looking at that language…. I think the language, because of the wording "in relation

to," seems to work.

Moving on, then, to ordinarily resident. Could I ask what the term "ordinarily resident,"

in the context of this section, means?

I will note, of course…. That term is also used earlier in the definition itself.

If the minister could just put on the record what is intended there, meaning…. What

is the test to determine whether a person is ordinarily resident?

Hon. R. Singh: The term "ordinarily resident" is not defined in the School Act; however, it is a

long-standing concept referenced in ministry policy and is used elsewhere in the School

Act. "Ordinarily resident" means where you usually make your home.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister's response.

The minister said "where you usually make your home." To clarify, those words, which

the minister referred to, are in the ministry's policy that informs a person who is

ordinarily resident. What follows is "or boarded in the school district," so we're

talking about a person who is, in this case…. It's a doubling up, in one sense.

[4:45 p.m.]

Putting that aside for a moment, "eligible first nation person" means a person who

is ordinarily resident on a reserve, on treaty lands, on Nisga'a lands, on shíshálh

lands.

We're talking now about someone who usually makes that person their home and who usually

is there. That's their home, on those lands. That's putting a lot of weight on the

word "usually," I suppose.

Now we're talking about language, in the bill, which is amending the School Act, that's

putting weight on the term "ordinarily resident," meaning…. The way the ministry interprets

that term will be someone who's usually resident and makes that home. So "resident,"

I think, is equivalent to a home. "Ordinarily" then becomes usually.

Again, to add some further clarity…. The challenge around "ordinarily resident" or

"usually" is…. Commonly, there is some measure of time, for example, meaning the person

is resident of, in this case, the reserve or treaty lands for a period of time.

Given that the ministry, of course, has been addressing and dealing with this term,

it sounds like…. Are there other elements of this test besides "usually," meaning,

for example, the amount of time spent on these lands?

The Chair: I am going to ask members to minimize the side chat, please. It does interfere with

a person when they're asking a question.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: They need to comply with the three requirements: first, enrolled with a board; second,

ordinarily resident; and the Canada funding. An example would be where students would

need to be boarded outside their home community in order to access education — for

example, a student from Takla Lake that must move into Prince George for high school

— but their funding still lives in the community.

M. Lee: Just to clarify the minister's response, because the last component, of course, relates

back to the funding that we talked about. I heard the minister say…. I think that's

a useful example, of course, where in Takla Lake, if there's an Indigenous student

who doesn't have the kind of access to education that his family or he or she wants

to have, they go to Prince George and get the education. That's the choice part of

this.

Just to confirm, the way the minister described the funding relationship in the past,

though, meaning on the record here, would suggest that when the minister says that

the funding still is with the…. I believe she means either with the school district

for which that child is ordinarily resident or with the First Nation on whose territory

the child is ordinarily resident. That's where the funding resides, so to speak.

So just to clarify that when the minister adds those words here, the minister is comfortable

that those words, as a further qualification on sub (

d) of the definition, are clear.

Is that the minister's understanding?

Hon. R. Singh: Can the member please clarify the question?

The Chair: Member, you now have the floor.

M. Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I restated it to my colleague here, the Leader of

the Third Party, by just simply saying that what the minister is saying, in effect,

is that the funding contemplated in sub (

d) goes to, of course, the First Nation and

then on to the school district, if they have an LEA in place, or it goes and stays

with the district. In other words, it does not follow the Indigenous child or student.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: The funding flows from Canada to a First Nation to a B.C. public school district if

there is a local education agreement. Otherwise, funding flows to the province to

pay the district on behalf of the First Nation.

S. Furstenau: I'm just continuing to follow along the line of questions from the member of the official

opposition.

In terms of "eligible first nation person" in part (c), "who is ordinarily resident"

of all the places that are listed there, who determines that?

Hon. R. Singh: The First Nation determines that.

S. Furstenau: So each First Nation identified here can determine what "ordinarily resident" means

in a very different way. Would that be accurate?

Hon. R. Singh: There is a federal policy on funding for First Nations students and the need to meet

all three criteria: that is, enrolled with a board, ordinarily resident and funded

by Canada.

S. Furstenau: I see that, and that's laid out. But then the minister has indicated that to determine

what is defined as "ordinarily resident," that's up to each First Nation to determine

that.

So my question really is, then: is that definition truly left up to each First Nation?

In which case, it could be that one First Nation says: "This person's here six months

a year. They're ordinarily resident of our nation." Another nation might say: "This

person's here two months a year." Another nation might say ten months of the year.

[5:00 p.m.]

Another nation might say all months of the year. Are all of those

definitions, if

they are to be determined by each First Nation…? Is how every First Nation determines

that definition legitimate?

I'm genuinely just curious if there are parameters, time parameters, put onto this

or if it really is that each First Nation can wholly self-determine what that means.

Hon. R. Singh: The British Columbia tripartite education agreement defines students who are ordinarily

residents on reserve as follows.

The student usually lives at a civic address on reserve, is a child in joint custody

who lives on reserve most of the time or is staying on reserve and has no usual home

elsewhere. Students continue to be considered ordinarily resident on a reserve if

they return to live on reserve with their parents, guardians or maintainers during

the year, even if they live elsewhere while attending school or working at a summer

job.

In this context, reserves are deemed to include all land set aside by the federal

government for the use and occupancy of an Indian band along with all other Crown

lands which are recognized by Canada as the settlement lands of the Indian band of

which the student is a resident.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the clarification from the minister. However, it still begs the question

of….

[5:05 p.m.]

If a First Nation indicates that this child meets these criteria…. Is that just accepted,

then? Is there going to be questioning of that, or is the understanding in the legislation

that the First Nation gets to say that this child meets this criteria, and we move

forward from that place?

Hon. R. Singh: The First Nations Summit tells Canada the students they want to claim for funding.

These students must meet the federal policy. It is the First Nation and Canada that

decide if the student meets the definition and policy for students who live on reserve.

S. Furstenau: I'm not trying to be difficult, just really trying to get a clarification on this.

Was the response from the minister indicating that it is a matter to be settled between

the First Nation and the federal government?

Hon. R. Singh: Yes, because this is federal funding. The First Nations are getting federal funding

for the students.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. Lee: Just in terms of the model agreement that is referred to under clause 2, the model

local education agreement, could the minister just describe to us…? I appreciate that

it does say "specify by regulation," but there are certainly forms of local education

agreements. There was a form that was attached to the B.C. tripartite education agreement

on

schedule H. I understand, when I look at the FNESC website, that there are guiding

principles that are set out as well.

So with these inputs, what can we expect to see as being the model agreement? Will

the terms of these model agreements differ materially, let's say, from what we see

in the

schedule H attached to the tripartite agreement, as well as the guiding principles

for FNESC, and if so, why is that?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh:

Schedule H of BCTEA and the guiding principles from FNESC form the foundation for

the new model agreement. The new model agreement will include parent choice, safety,

shared accountability, board responsibilities and education resources. It will talk

about grad diplomas, student supports and funding, assessments, children and youth

in care, cultural awareness in hiring, transportation, reporting and more.

M. Lee: Just to pick up the earlier discussion…. The minister enumerated the number of items

that will be addressed in the model agreement. She did say that both the

schedule

H to the tripartite agreement and the guiding principles for FNESC, in relation to

local education agreements, would form the foundation of this model agreement — which,

I think, is a helpful confirmation for those.

Let me just stop there by asking the minister: in terms of the model agreement that

will be shaped, recognizing that these are the foundational elements, what further

work will be done in consultation with First Nations or other Indigenous organizations

or peoples in respect of the model agreement?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: We will be meeting with First Nations at FNESC's regional session, a separate engagement

with the treaty First Nations. We have been co-developing the new model agreement

for over five years with FNESC.

M. Lee: Earlier when we were discussing the challenge in respect of absentee rates for students

on reserve at the 39 percent level…. For example, we were having a small conversation

about the transportation and funding that would be addressed under these types of

model local education agreements.

The minister in her previous reply did actually put it in the list of items that would

be addressed. I just want to give her the opportunity to describe how further resources

would look in the context of a local education agreement for transportation.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: As a result of the B.C. tripartite agreement, the three parties addressed transportation,

and both Canada and the province made additional investments at that time. The improvements

include co-developed bus routes with school districts and First Nations, and we are

supporting additional transportation so students can participate in extracurricular

activities. There is a tripartite committee dedicated directly to transportation as

a priority area.

M. Lee: Just to clarify the minister's response, the minister took us back to the tripartite

education agreement and the committee that is set out here, but she also referred

earlier in her response to "at that time." So is there some time frame where the minister

expects that further resources will be determined by both the province of B.C. and

the federal government in respect of transportation in this area, for on-reserve transportation?

Hon. R. Singh: The school district and the First Nations put in their transportation request to the

tripartite committee that I referred to before. All those requests are assessed, and

decisions are made accordingly.

M. Lee: The clause 3 provisions actually address an item that the minister and I did speak

to previously and the minister certainly referred to on the act relating to teachers

but also made another comment, I believe, relating to school districts.

But here in this clause 3, under sub 86.1(2)(a)(ii), it does say: "The minister may

specify, by regulation, any of the following." This is a model local education agreement

treaty first nation and Nisga'a Nation student achievement…."

This actually relates back to the conversation or input, feedback, I received from

that Nisga'a councillor on more than one occasion, which relates to student achievement.

I know the minister did provide a specific answer relating to Nisga'a as well.

Just looking at the language here and looking at the discussion the minister and I

were having, as well, about some of the very helpful context slides around student

achievement or lack of achievement, performance around, for example, foundation skills

assessments on literacy and numeracy….

[5:25 p.m.]

I'd just like to ask the minister, in this context, now looking at the specific provision

in the context of a model agreement, in terms of how the minister would see the terms

and conditions of a model agreement, local education agreement, dealing with improving

student achievement for First Nation, treaty First Nation or Nisga'a Nation student

achievement as is referred to here in this clause…?

Hon. R. Singh: First Nation student achievement is a joint priority for the ministries of Education

and Childcare and FNESC. The model agreement is designed to improve outcomes. It will

cover resources, funding, accountability, among the list provided. Increased reporting

and accountability will directly influence student learning.

M. Lee: I appreciate the joint development of the model, but just to ask, because when we

talk about student achievement it does take assessment, and certainly the foundation

skills assessment tool is a useful mechanism to do that. In terms of the ongoing monitoring

of student achievement, under these model agreements, how will that be so-called operationalized?

How will that be done, in terms of the actual data monitoring? Is that something that

the Ministry of Education will continue to have responsibility for, or does FNESC

have a role in that as well, or First Nations themselves?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: At the provincial level, the framework for enhancing student learning will continue

to hold public boards of education accountable for the outcomes of all Indigenous

students. Tracking student achievement is definitely something the ministry will continue

to have an active role in, alongside FNESC and the local nation. For the accountability

and reporting, the data is important to inform the way forward.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister and the overall nature of it, I will say.

I will turn here now to sub (2)(a)(iii), which says: "…developing relationships between

a first nation, a treaty first nation or the Nisga'a Nation and a board."

I am still joined here by the Leader of the Third Party, as we get to clause 4 around

Indigenous education councils. Just before we go there, I have a few more remaining

questions on this clause.

This relationship aspect of a model agreement is, obviously, separate from what is

contemplated for the function of an Indigenous education council, which is there to

advise the board on certain matters.

Could I ask the minister: how is this mechanism, on the model local education agreement,

different, when we're talking about relationship, versus the framework around the

Indigenous education council, as it goes to advising the board on certain matters?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: The local education agreement is about the government-to-government relationship between

a board and a First Nation, which is paramount for a respectful relationship focused

on improving First Nations student outcomes. The local education agreement is a vehicle

to support this relationship, and the local education agreement is about the 8,000

First Nations students who are living on reserve.

The Indigenous education council will support all Indigenous students in the district.

M. Lee: I think we'll pick it up. There is a specific provision in the next clause that deals

with individuals, who may not be members with voting rights of an Indigenous education

council, being a trustee or a board employee. I just mention that. I'll come at it

in two different ways.

First of all, can I ask the minister, if she could describe for us…? There are a number

of Indigenous education enhancement agreements in place around the province.

[5:40 p.m.]

I understand, for example, in speaking with the leadership of the Ktunaxa First Nation,

for example, in the Kootenays — certainly, the member for Kootenay East has a very

good relationship with that nation — that there is one of these Indigenous education

enhancement agreements in place. How are those types of agreements different from

what is contemplated here in a local education agreement?

Hon. R. Singh: The local education agreements are the contracts for service. The Indigenous enhancement

agreements are a tool to support relationships. These agreements are voluntary, and

they can coexist with local education agreements if the First Nation wants to do so.

M. Lee: To be clear, it's entirely possible, if the nation elects to do so, as the minister

said, for the two types of agreements to coexist. But the minister did say that the

Indigenous education enhancement agreements, voluntary as they are, do address relationship.

There may be some overlap, then. Is that what I'm hearing? If the minister can clarify

that there may be overlap, to the extent that we're seeing words here in this description

that again…. Developing relationships is the subject matter of one of the possible

terms of a model agreement. Is there going to be overlap between the two types of

agreements?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: The overall principle is that it is First Nation–driven. If a First Nation wants to

have an LEA, they can. If they don't, that is up to them. LEAs and enhanced education

agreements have coexisted for many years. The focus is on student outcomes, in whatever

way that can be achieved.

M. Lee: I think the last question I have on clause 3 is just to have the minister provide

further comment about the possible terms around purchase of educational programs and

services, by a First Nation, treaty nation or Nisga'a, from a board.

Can the minister elaborate on this mechanism — on the educational programs and services,

the nature of these programs and services, presumably on reserve or in traditional

territory — in terms of the provision of these services?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: This

section covers the First Nation buying services from the public school board.

The programs and services are the educational programs required for the students to

graduate, and it means an educational program.

M. Lee: The minister's response leads to a further question. When we're talking about educational

programs required to graduate, we're effectively saying the curriculum. Is there anything

specific to the First Nation or Indigenous cultural learnings that is embedded in

these programs and services, or are these basically the B.C. curriculum–type of programs

and services that we're talking about?

Hon. R. Singh: This is the same program as for all other students, which includes First Peoples'

principles of learning and curriculum. It could also include language and culture

or other pieces of local First Nations context.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

[5:55 p.m.]

M. Lee: I do have two sets of questions before turning it over to the Leader of the Third

Party.

As a follow-on to the previous discussion we've had in a number of different ways,

the minister did refer, in our earlier discussion relating to clause 1, to the further

consultation that will occur with Métis Nation B.C. as well as urban Indigenous coalition

bodies, in respect of Indigenous education councils. Can the minister further describe

the nature of that consultation?

Presumably, that will include addressing subsections (1)(a)(iii), "integrating into

learning environments Indigenous world views and perspectives...," as well as (1)(d),

the need for "advising the board in relation to the distinct languages, cultures,

customs, traditions, practices or history…."

Well, that only refers to First Nations, treaty nations and Nisga'a. I guess the reason

for the question this way is that there are certain ways that this provision could

be read which would suggest further consultation with Indigenous education councils

on the roles that Métis Nation B.C., on behalf of Métis people, would play, as well

as the Urban Indigenous Coalition Council.

I don't think — perhaps the minister can confirm — that sub (

d) would apply. Given

the nature of sub (d), it refers to only First Nations, treaty nations and Nisga'a,

but sub (1)(a)(iii) does refer to "in particular." Presumably, that does not preclude

the input for Métis peoples and urban Indigenous peoples.

If the minister can just confirm those two aspects, and then, generally, just answer

the original question: what exactly is going to be consulted on, in relation to Indigenous

education councils for the Métis Nation B.C. and urban Indigenous coalitions?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: The legislation sets out the framework for every district to have an Indigenous education

council and identifies what will be required, for provincial consistency. The school

districts will need to consult with their local communities that will represent their

student population. We have already committed to consulting with Métis Nation B.C.

on the terms of reference, and we will be doing that.

M. Lee: Will there also be consultation with the urban Indigenous coalitions as well?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: Thank you for raising that with us. We have met directly with the rights holders and

are confident that we have met our consultation obligations. The boards will engage

with the Indigenous organizations during the implementation.

M. Lee: I don't have the transcript, of course, of our discussion here at committee in front

of me. It's possible that that answer is consistent with the minister's earlier response.

In any event, I know what the minister said now. I'm sure that those urban Indigenous

coalitions reviewing this will be communicating directly with the minister here in

the future, following this bill being passed. I will leave it there for further follow-up

in that manner.

I'm just going to go to my last question before turning it over to the Leader of the

Third Party and just suggest that, depending on the minister's response, I may not

have the opportunity to go further. We'll leave it to the Leader of the Third Party,

and hopefully we can bring this bill to a conclusion in the time we have left today.

Let me just say two things before I go there. One, thank you to the minister and her

team. She's the only minister, other than the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation, to not call for a bio break on a bill. She is now in good stead with

the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, at least in my books. Thank

you for all of your patience in that regard.

Secondly, I will say, in a similar manner, Madam Chair, that you and your predecessors

during this committee process will also see that I did not stray from the bill, even

though it's on the School Act, something that I am very concerned about in relation

to my role as the member for Vancouver-Langara.

As the minister knows, I've written a few letters relating to what is happening with

the Vancouver school board and school district capital planning, the need for all

the supports for schools and facilities. I won't get into that.

I hope that I will have more than 15 minutes during the estimates process — which

is what the member for Surrey South gave me last time — because there are many members

on this side of the aisle that have questions relating to schools in their districts.

I'm hoping the member for Surrey South is listening. Because of the work I've done

on this bill, I should get some credit, at least when it comes to Ministry of Education

estimates, so that I'd get more than 15 minutes. I will take that up internally, of

course, with my colleague.

Let's now go to….

Interjections.

M. Lee: At least I got it in Hansard , right? There we go.

Interjections.

M. Lee: Okay. Thank you. Oh, that's great. If only she would listen to all of you. I'm sure

she takes no guidance from you guys.

Let me just say this. I will just say, now, on the question on the clause….

Interjections.

M. Lee: I know. It's a gift horse in the mouth. Clause 4, sub 87.004(2) — I did raise this

tangentially; I mentioned this. This says: "The following individuals may not be members

with voting rights of an Indigenous education council: (

a) a trustee; (

b) a board

employee."

[6:10 p.m.]

The question arises as to why this restriction is in place. In trying to create stronger

relationships, of course you can have…. We've seen that the member for Langford–Juan

de Fuca chaired a board in that district. I know, in meeting with Chief Russell Chipps

of Beecher Bay Nation, for example, that he served on that board of education with

the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca.

I'm asking the question: does this not preclude bringing in closer relationships with

First Nations and First Nation leaders who may serve as trustees but who will be precluded

from serving, as a result of this clause, on the Indigenous education council as well

— which is not a committee of the board. It's a separate council, separate from the

board. This does preclude that relationship, potentially, as I'm giving an example

of. Why is that restriction there?

Hon. R. Singh: It is important that First Nations and other Indigenous representatives have a clear

voice at the IEC table and that they not be overwhelmed by district staff or executives.

There are some IECs where school district staff outnumber the First Nation and Indigenous

representatives at the table. At the invitation of the IEC members, school district

staff and trustees may still sit at the IEC table and provide their expertise or opinions

on matters, but they cannot be voting members.

A First Nation representative who is also an employee of the board or a school trustee

may be in conflict of interest where they appear to be aligned with the school district

position, or in a conflict with their employer where voting on matters is concerned.

The Chair: Leader of the Third Party.

S. Furstenau: Madam Chair, you say that with such gravitas.

The Chair: You have ten minutes, Member.

S. Furstenau: The Leader of the Third Party has a very few minutes left.

We're talking about the Indigenous education councils, and I just want to quickly

summarize what these councils are expected to do.

They're expected to advise the boards for equitable educational programs, services

to Indigenous students, improving Indigenous student achievement, integrating Indigenous

world views and perspectives, advising on grants provided under this act in relation

to Indigenous students, approving plans, spending and reporting and related grants,

advising the board in relation to distinct languages, cultures, customs, traditions,

practices or history of the First Nations, treaty First Nations or the Nisga'a, through

advice of Indigenous education council members.

That's a lot of work. Will the members of these councils be compensated for that work?

Hon. R. Singh: We can confirm that there will be some funding available. Details as to the amount

and the purposes are still being finalized, and we expect to be able to share these

with the districts after Budget 2024.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the minister's response, but it seems as if this might come as a bit

of an afterthought. It's not going to be until Budget 2024, and the level of compensation

hasn't been determined. Why wasn't that determined?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: We have been co-developing and talking about funding at the same time. There is a

commitment from the government to funding this, and those conversations are happening

S. Furstenau: Does the minister expect that the compensation would be commensurate with a board

member of a school board?

Hon. R. Singh: We are still finalizing the details of that.

S. Furstenau: I think this is an important consideration. I think that, for a long time, First Nations,

Indigenous people have been expected to provide knowledge, guidance, information and

all of these things without being appropriately compensated for that work. The work

that would be done on a similar scale by non-Indigenous people would typically be

compensated. I really hope that this work is going to be recognized, valued and properly

compensated.

I have another question around the work that the councils were doing, Can the minister

provide some guidance on how local protocol will be followed on reciprocity — which

is a fundamental element of many First Nations Indigenous cultures in B.C. — ensuring

that reciprocity is acknowledged, that knowledge holders are treated with respect

and that their knowledge and work are properly valued.

To the minister, what steps are being taken to ensure that local protocol will be

followed?

The Chair: We are at 6:18 p.m., so what we're going to be doing…. I've asked the minister if

she will move progress and then come back with a response at the next sitting.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:19 p.m.

Top

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

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

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

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

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada