Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 9, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 327

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Motions Without Notice

Permission for Indigenous leaders to address the House

Hon. R. Kahlon

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 44 — Amendments to Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Lee

A. Olsen

Address by Indigenous Leaders

R. Dennis

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 44 — Amendments to Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement (continued)

Motion 45 — Amendments to

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Lee

A. Olsen

Motion 46 — Amendments to Tla’amin Final Agreement

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Lee

A. Olsen

Address by Indigenous Leaders

D. Johnson

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 46 — Amendments to Tla’amin Final Agreement (continued)

Second Reading of Bills

Bill Pr401 — Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2023

M. Dykeman

Committee of the Whole House

Bill Pr401 — Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2023

M. Dykeman

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr401 — Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2023

Second Reading of Bills

Bill Pr402 — St. Mark’s College Amendment Act, 2023

M. Dykeman

Committee of the Whole House

Bill Pr402 — St. Mark’s College Amendment Act, 2023

M. Dykeman

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr402 — St. Mark’s College Amendment Act, 2023

Motions Without Notice

Extension of sitting hours

Hon. R. Kahlon

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023

Hon. K. Conroy

P. Milobar

M. Lee

Reporting of Bills

Bill 5 — Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills

Hon. S. Robinson

C. Oakes

TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2023

The House met at 1:41 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Motions Without Notice

PERMISSION FOR INDIGENOUS LEADERS

TO ADDRESS THE

HOUSE

Hon. R. Kahlon: By leave, I move:

[That, notwithstanding any provision of the Standing Orders or usual

practices of the House, Robert Dennis Sr. (Emchayiik) of the Huu-ay-aht

First Nations be permitted to address the House from the floor of the

House later today, and that Dillon Johnson

(toqʷanə

n) of Tla’amin Nation be

permitted to address the House virtually today.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 44 on the order paper, standing in the name of the Minister

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 44 — AMENDMENTS TO

MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS

FINAL AGREEMENT

Hon. M. Rankin: I move Motion 44 standing in my name on the order

paper.

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to 1.14.3 of

Chapter 1 of the

Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement, the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia consents to the amendments to the Maa-nulth First

Nations Final Agreement set out in the attached Maa-nulth First Nations

Final Agreement Amending Process Agreement (No. 2023-1).

MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS FINAL AGREEMENT AMENDING PROCESS

AGREEMENT (No. 2023-1)

THIS AMENDING PROCESS AGREEMENT 2023-1 (this “Amending Agreement”)

is dated for reference March 6, 2023

AMONG:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the

Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

(“Canada”)

AND

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as

represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation

(“British Columbia”)

AND

MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS, as represented by the First Nations of

the Maa-nulth Treaty Society

(“Maa-nulth First Nations”)

WHEREAS:

A. On April 1, 2011, the Maa-nulth First

Nations Final Agreement came into effect;

B. The Maa-nulth First Nations Final

Agreement provides for its amendment and specifies requirements for the

amendment of various of its provisions;

C. The Parties have previously agreed to

amendments to the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement;

D. The Parties agree to propose further

amendments to the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement set out in

Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending Agreement;

E. The Parties have determined that the

processes set out in 1.14.1, 1.14.2, 1.14.3, and 1.14.5 to 1.14.8 of

Chapter 1 – General Provisions apply to the proposed amendments

set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending Agreement;

NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree as follows:

PART I –

DEFINITIONS AND

INTERPRETATION

1. In this Amending Agreement:

“Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement” means the

Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement entered into among the Maa-nulth

First Nations, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and Her Majesty

the Queen in right of British Columbia, effective April 1, 2011, as

amended.

2. A reference to a

Chapter by number and

name is a reference to the

chapter of that number and name in the

Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement.

3. Words and expressions appearing in this

Amending Agreement that are not defined in this Amending Agreement but

are defined in the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement have the

meanings ascribed to them in the Maa-nulth First Nations Final

Agreement.

PART II – PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement are set out in

Schedule

5. The proposed amendments in French to the

Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement are set out in

Schedule

6. Pursuant to 1.14.8 of

Chapter 1 – General

Provisions of the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement, the proposed

amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2 will take effect on the date the

last Party required to consent to the amendment provides its

consent.

PART III – PROCEDURES

7. This Agreement may be executed by

electronic signature, which will be considered as an original signature

for all purposes and will have the same force and effect as an original

signature on paper. Without limitation, “electronic signature” will

include electronically scanned and transmitted versions (e.g., via pdf)

of an original signature.

8. This Agreement may be signed in identical

counterparts, each of which constitutes an original, and such

counterparts taken together will constitute one agreement. The

signatures of the Parties need not appear on the same counterpart, and

executed counterparts may be delivered in electronically scanned form by

electronic mail.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by

the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, signed this _____ day of

____________________________________.

___________________________

Authorized Signatory

___________________________

Printed Name

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as

represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation, signed this _____ day of

____________________________________.

____________________________

The Honourable Murray Rankin

Minister of Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation

FOR MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS, as represented by the First Nations

of the Maa-nulth Treaty Society, signed this _____ day of

____________________________________.

____________________________

Charlie Cootes

President

Maa-nulth Treaty Society

Schedule

The Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement is amended as

follows:

Chapter 19 – Taxation is amended to add the following

numbered provisions immediately after each of 19.5.1, 19.5.2, 19.5.3 and

19.5.4 respectively:

19.5.1.1 Despite 19.5.1 and subject to 19.5.3.1, as of the

day this provision comes into effect,

section 87 of the

Indian Act applies to a Maa-nulth-aht who is an

Indian.

19.5.2.1 Despite 19.5.1 and subject to 19.1.1a, 19.5.3.1,

19.5.3.2 and 19.5.4.1, as of the day this provision comes into effect,

section 87 of the Indian Act applies on Maa-nulth First

Nation Lands that were an Indian Reserve or Surrendered Lands on the day

before the Effective Date as if those lands were an Indian

Reserve.

19.5.3.1 19.5.1.1 and 19.5.2.1 only apply so long as

section

87 of the Indian Act itself remains in

force.

19.5.3.2 19.5.2.1 only applies to an Indian during a period

that

section 87 of the Indian Act applies to the

Indian.

19.5.4.1 A Maa-nulth First Nation may enter into a tax

agreement with Canada or British Columbia that limits the application of

19.5.2.1 to the extent specified in that tax agreement.

[Schedule 2 available for inspection at the Office of the

Clerk.]]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to move the first amending

process agreement to the Maa-nulth First Nations final agreement. Before

I start, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate each of the

five Maa-nulth First Nations on their ongoing efforts to support strong,

healthy and thriving communities through sustainable economies that

benefit their citizens with jobs and opportunities.

I’d like to recognize the leaders of the Maa-nulth First Nations,

if I may, at this time.

Chief Councillor Robert Dennis Sr. of the Huu-ay-aht First

Nations, who has joined us today.

President Charles McCarthy of the

Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ

Government.

Legislative Chief Benjamin Gillette of the

Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’/​Che:k’tles7et’h’ First Nations.

tyee ha’wilth, Anne Mack, of the Toquaht Nation.

Chief Councillor Charlie Cootes of the Uchucklesaht, who is also

president of the Maa-nulth Treaty Society.

Mark Stephens, who is the chief administrative officer of the

Maa-nulth Treaty Society.

Also, I’d like to recognize all hereditary and elected Chiefs,

legislators, executive members and Maa-nulth First Nations citizens who

may be observing our proceedings today.

No longer are modern treaties regarded as final. They are regarded

as agreements that embody the living relationship between the

governments of Canada, British Columbia and a First Nation.

The amendment today follows the same process as we have in the

past — for example, as we did when amendments to the

Nisg̱a’a final agreement were

passed by resolution in 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2019; as when an amending

agreement to the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement was passed by

resolution in 2017; and most recently, we’ve consented to a resolution

amending the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement in relation to tax

policy changes.

[1:45 p.m.]

The purpose of the amendment to the Maa-nulth First Nations final

agreement is to implement a tax policy change that the governments of

Canada and British Columbia have made in our respective treaty mandates,

one that has been identified as a substantial barrier to First Nations

concluding modern treaties.

We have heard that the requirement for First Nations individuals

to give up their tax exemption that they have enjoyed under

section 87

of the Indian Act is a significant disincentive to concluding modern

treaties. It’s a divisive issue within communities and among individuals

who have signed modern treaty arrangements, and it’s a material barrier

for First Nations citizens entering modern treaties.

The exemption will apply only to the portion of Maa-nulth First

Nations’ treaty lands that were former reserves or on other reserves in

Canada. This is effectively the pre-treaty status quo.

The new policy allows eligible treaty citizens to keep or to

regain their Indian Act tax exemption status in their treaties

indefinitely or until a treaty nation determines it’s appropriate to end

it or until it’s eliminated for all First Nation individuals. This

policy change applies to both existing and future treaties, and it

reinstates the tax exemption for all federal and all provincial taxes on

a prospective basis, as of the day that the amendment comes into

force.

Now, for the Maa-nulth First Nations, this means that Maa-nulth

will regain the

section 87 tax exemption for taxes that they became

subject to in 2019, following the expiry of the treaty tax exemption for

transaction taxes, such as sales taxes.

Each of the five Maa-nulth First Nations have already consented to

the treaty amendment. For the amendment to be ratified by the province,

the Legislative Assembly must consent to the amending process agreement.

Once British Columbia has consented, Canada will seek consent, and the

amendment will then take effect. On the date that the last of the

parties provides the consent, Maa-nulth First Nations citizens will

regain their tax exemption under

section 87 of the Indian

Act.

The work today is the result of a significant commitment by the

provincial and federal governments to honour and nurture our treaty

relations as well as to reach additional treaties in our province. The

Maa-nulth treaty is British Columbia’s first modern treaty on Vancouver

Island and the first multination treaty completed under the British

Columbia Treaty Commission process. The five Maa-nulth First Nations

demonstrate the power of modern treaties to build

government-to-government relationships as we work toward common

goals.

It is my great honour to rise in the House today, with the support

of the five Maa-nulth First Nations, and bring this motion to give

British Columbia’s consent.

M. Lee: I wish to join in support of Motion 44, as it’s tabled on the

floor of the Legislative Assembly, and certainly welcome the leadership

of the Maa-nulth five nations and the citizens that are perhaps dialling

in and participating through Hansard in viewing this.

The minister responsible has spoken to the nature of the proposed

amendment. Indeed, we had an opportunity to review the set of amendments

that are being proposed here under this motion back in the end of March

with the Tsawwassen Nation. We had, in that process, an opportunity to

have some discussion — the House Leader and myself, with the Minister of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation — of some of the points the

minister had just referred to.

[1:50 p.m.]

I will say that we recognize the importance of ensuring that

modern treaties, including the modern treaty with the Maa-nulth five

nations, continue to provide the best possible framework of relationship

with your nations and that when the federal government and this

provincial government made the decisions to change the approach in order

to facilitate, as I’m sure the Maa-nulth Nations would recognize, the

other modern treaties that have been underway from discussion to

formation over many years.

Like under the former government under Premier Gordon Campbell

brought in, in 2011, this modern treaty with the Maa-nulth five nations,

there was a lot of work involved over a long period of time.

We know the importance of ensuring that we forge a different

relationship with nations in our province and that this extension of the

section 87 tax exemption under the Indian Act has been seen to be a bit

of a hindrance to many citizens of nations as they look at approving and

voting for a modern treaty. The Maa-nulth Nations got through that

process, recognizing that there was going to be an eight- to 12-year

transition period.

In restoring this exemption under the Indian Act, there’s

recognition that we need to ensure that the relationship with the

Maa-nulth Nations remains strong, with the understanding, as we

reviewed, in response to my questions with the minister responsible,

that it is the view of the government that there is a living, modern

treaty approach. Even though the final agreements for modern treaties do

refer to periodic review terms, any party to a modern treaty can request

an amendment at any time.

Certainly, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

did note at the time of the review for Tsawwassen, at the end of March,

that Maa-nulth had already communicated some intention to bring forward

a request for a similar set of amendments. So here we are

today.

Also, the minister described, in response to my colleague the

member for Abbotsford West and myself, that the amount of tax that is

exempt under this arrangement is negligible and immaterial. But we know,

of course, that to the citizens of the Maa-nulth Nations, it’s

meaningful. It’s meaningful to have this exemption restored to them.

It’s meaningful to members of other nations that are in the process of

finalizing their modern treaty arrangements with this government and our

province and the federal government that that exemption not be

removed.

It is with that in mind that we recognize the importance of this

motion coming forward. We recognize the work, the leadership and the

progress that has been made for the five Maa-nulth Nations in areas

like, for example, care for their children, forestry management and land

use planning, work with local communities. We hope that with this motion

being approved in this House, in this chamber today, it will be an

indication of the further good work to be done together with the

Maa-nulth Nations.

A. Olsen: We’re doing some good work in the House here today. It’s a good

day to be here, and I’m happy to be standing and speaking on behalf of

the Third Party in the assembly today on Motion 44.

I’d like to acknowledge Chief Dennis and relatives from Huu-ay-aht

there, in the Maa-nulth treaty nations, here in the Legislature today.

We just welcome you into the assembly.

[1:55 p.m.]

I want to reiterate, as has been pointed out by the speaker for

the official opposition, that this is a process that the Legislative

Assembly undertook a month ago with another treaty nation and is a

process that I am very happy to support in the debate and then in

passing the Declaration Act. One of the most important aspects of that,

for Indigenous people in this province, is around the commitment that

this province and the country have made now, in passing the Declaration

Act, to the right to self determination.

The patriarchal colonial relationship that this provincial

government has had with First Nations has been historically

inappropriate, and it continues to be inappropriate. The relationships

between this government and Indigenous governments in the province

necessarily need to change.

This is an indication that change is underway and the work that

we’re doing here, the responsiveness, is something that, as someone who

grew up on an Indian reserve in this country, I’m very encouraged by. I

appreciate the opportunity to talk to this motion.

I also appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge, in here today,

this assembly working in unison. We have differences of opinion in here.

We all share varieties of differing opinions on things. I think it’s

important that when we do this work, and we have guests in our House, in

this chamber, those guests can recognize that the House can set those

differences aside to do good work together in a good way.

I think what that will do is continue to increase the confidence

that Indigenous leaders in our province have of this Legislative

Assembly, that when we commit to moving forward together on an issue,

they can be certain that we are moving forward together on an issue,

just as we do in our longhouses and we do in our sacred places. I just

wanted to acknowledge that.

I thank the Speaker for this opportunity and thank the government

for bringing forward this motion.

Mr. Speaker: I now invite Chief Councillor Robert Dennis Sr., Emchayiik, of the

Huu-ay-aht First Nations, speaking on behalf of the Maa-nulth

Nations.

Address by Indigenous Leaders

R. Dennis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, those of you that know me probably find it odd that I’d

be scripted today. I think it’s a day that we should be scripted, because we

have come together here.

I want to thank you, hon. Speaker and Minister Rankin, for this

opportunity to address the B.C. Legislative Assembly on this very important

amendment to the Maa-nulth First Nation Final Agreement.

Treaties, by definition, are agreements between nations on how we move

forward together, recognizing each of our respective roles, responsibilities

and benefits as equal treaty partners. Our treaty represents sacred promises

made by Canada and B.C. to the Huu-ay-aht First Nation,

Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’/Che:k’tles7et’h’ First Nations, Toquaht Nation, Uchucklesaht

Tribe and the

Yuułuʔiłʔath government.

Our treaty is not frozen in time. Our treaty must adapt as we change

and grow, and there will be times in the future, such as today, where we

need to come together to amend this most sacred agreement between

us.

This is an important day for the Maa-nulth First Nations. There can be

no question that colonizers have had a troubled history when it comes to

keeping their treaty promises. One of the first promises the colonizers made

to Indigenous people was that we never would have to pay the colonizers’

taxes. That promise was broken by Canada and B.C.’s take-it-or-leave-it

treaty negotiation taxation mandate.

Canada and B.C.’s tax policy change over the past years provides

modern Indigenous treaty partners with the ability to amend our treaties to

determine for ourselves when and how our members will be taxed.

This is a significant reversal of that broken promise, a significant

step forward in our treaty partnership. Indigenous peoples have been largely

excluded from the Canadian economy and the wealth it creates. Our people

remain far behind everyone else in this country on every socioeconomic

indicator. This change in tax policy empowers our Maa-nulth First Nation

governments to decide how and when our members will be taxed, giving us

better tools to improve the lives of our people.

We are beginning to heal, and this tax amendment helps us in our

healing process. While there’s still a lot of work to be done, the support

that this government has given to the new tax policy has been essential in

getting us to this point today.

[2:00 p.m.]

I encourage each member of the B.C. Legislature to unanimously support

this very important resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this important

issue.

Thank you, Minister Rankin, you and your government, for the

collaborative success on the taxation issue that has brought us together

here today.

ƛakoo ƛ̕eeko .

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much for addressing the House today. Thank

you.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 44 — AMENDMENTS TO

MAA-NULTH

FIRST NATIONS

FINAL AGREEMENT

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the adoption of Motion 44.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 45 on the order paper, standing in the name of

the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

MOTION 45 — AMENDMENTS TO

Nisg̱a’a FINAL

AGREEMENT

Hon. M. Rankin: I move Motion 45.

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to paragraph 38 of

Chapter 2 of the

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement, the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia consents to the amendments to

the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement set out

in the attached Nisg̱a’a Final

Agreement Amending Agreement (No. 5).

NISG̱A’A FINAL AGREEMENT

AMENDING AGREEMENT (No. 5)

AMONG:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the

Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

(“Canada”)

AND

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as

represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation

(“British Columbia”)

AND

Nisg̱a’a NATION, as

represented by the Nisg̱a’a

Lisims Government Executive

(“Nisg̱a’a

Nation”)

WHEREAS:

A. On May 11, 2000, the

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement came

into effect;

B. The

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement provides

for its amendment and specifies requirements for amendments of various

of its provisions;

C. The Parties have previously agreed to make

certain amendments to the Nisg̱a’a

Final Agreement;

D. The Parties now propose the further

amendments to the Nisg̱a’a Final

Agreement as set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending

Agreement;

E. The Parties have determined that the

processes set out in paragraphs 37, 38 and 40 of

Chapter 2 – General

Provisions apply to the proposed amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2

of this Amending Agreement;

NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree as follows:

PART I –

DEFINITIONS AND

INTERPRETATION

1. In this Amending Agreement:

“Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement” means

the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement among

the Nisg̱a’a Nation, His Majesty the

King in right of Canada and His Majesty the King in right of British

Columbia, as it took effect on May 11, 2000, as amended; and

2. A reference to a

Chapter by number or name

is a reference to the corresponding

chapter name or number in the

Nisg̱a’a Final

Agreement.

3. A reference to a number and paragraph of a

Chapter is a reference to the corresponding number and paragraph of the

chapter in the Nisg̱a’a Final

Agreement.

4. Words and expressions appearing in this

Amending Agreement that are not defined in this Amending Agreement but

are defined in the Nisg̱a’a Final

Agreement have the meanings ascribed to them in the

Nisg̱a’a Final

Agreement.

PART II – PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement are set

out in

Schedule 1.

6. The proposed amendments in French to the

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement are set

out in

Schedule 2.

7. Pursuant to paragraph 41 of

Chapter 2 –

General Provisions of the Nisg̱a’a

Final Agreement, the proposed amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2

will take effect on the date the last Party required to consent to the

amendment provides its consent.

PART III – PROCEDURES

8. This Amending Agreement may be executed by

electronic signature, which will be considered as an original signature

for all purposes and will have the same force and effect as an original

signature on paper. Without limitation, “electronic signature” will

include electronically scanned and transmitted versions (e.g., via pdf)

of an original signature.

9. This Amending Agreement may be signed in

identical counterparts, each of which constitutes an original, and such

counterparts taken together will constitute one agreement. The

signatures of the Parties need not appear on the same counterpart, and

executed counterparts may be delivered in electronically scanned form by

electronic mail.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by

the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, signed this _____ day of

____________________________________.

___________________________

Authorized Signatory

___________________________

Printed Name

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as

represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation, signed this _____ day of

____________________________________.

____________________________

The Honourable Murray Rankin

Minister of Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation

FOR Nisg̱a’a NATION, as

represented by the Nisg̱a’a

Lisims Government Executive, signed this _____ day of

____________________________________.

____________________________

Eva Clayton

President

Schedule 1

The Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement

is amended as follows:

1. Paragraph 18 of

Chapter 2 – General Provisions is amended

by replacing “and 6” with “through 6.4”.

2. The following paragraphs are added to

Chapter 16 – Taxation

immediately after paragraph 6 of that Chapter:

6.1 Despite paragraph 6 and subject to paragraph 6.3,

as of January 1, 2024,

section 87 of the Indian Act applies to

a Nisg̱a’a citizen who is an Indian

as defined in the Indian Act .

6.2 Despite paragraph 6 and subject to paragraphs 6.3

and 6.4, as of January 1, 2024,

section 87 of the Indian Act

applies on the following lands as if the lands were

reserves:

a. Nisg̱a’a Lands

described in subparagraph 2(

b) of the Lands Chapter;

and

b. Category A Lands described in subparagraph 46(

a) of

the Lands Chapter.

6.3 The application of

section 87 of the Indian

Act :

a. in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 is subject to

section 87

of the In­dian Act itself remaining in

force;

b. on lands identified in subparagraph 6.2(

a) is

subject to paragraph 1; and

c. on lands identified in subparagraphs 6.2(

a) and (

b) is subject to a law of Parliament, or a treaty, self-government

agreement or similar agreement given force of law by Parliament,

limiting the application of

section 87 of the

Indian Act to an Indian.

6.4 Nisg̱a’a Nation

may enter into an agreement with Canada or British Columbia that limits

the application of paragraph 6.2 to the extent specified in that

agreement.

[Schedule 2 available for inspection at the Office of the

Clerk.]]

I rise today to move the fifth amending agreement to the

Nisg̱a’a final agreement. Before

I start, I’d like to just take this opportunity to congratulate the

Nisg̱a’a on their ongoing efforts

to support a strong, healthy and thriving community through sustainable

economies that benefit their citizens with jobs and

opportunities.

I’m very sorry that the leader of the

Nisg̱a’a Nation, President Eva

Clayton, was not able to be with us today, but I salute her leadership

and that of those strong Nisg̱a’a

leaders in our past. I want to salute all Elders, chief councillors,

councillors, legislators, executive members and

Nisg̱a’a citizens who may be

observing our proceedings from home today.

This amendment follows the amendments to the Tsawwassen and now

the Maa-nulth final agreements in relation to tax policy changes that we

brought forward and consented to in this legislative session. The

purpose of the amendment to the

Nisg̱a’a final agreement is to

implement this tax policy change that we’ve talked of earlier. It’s a

policy change that the governments of both Canada and British Columbia

have made in our respective treaty mandates — one that has been

identified, as I noted earlier, as a substantial barrier to First

Nations seeking to conclude modern treaties.

Again, the new policy allows eligible treaty citizens to continue

to keep or regain their Indian Act tax exemption status in their

treaties indefinitely, until that treaty nation may determine that it’s

appropriate to end it or until it’s eliminated for all First Nations in

Canada.

The work today is the result of a significant commitment by the

provincial and federal governments to honour and nurture our treaty

relations. Now, the reinstated exemption will apply on the portion of

Nisg̱a’a lands that were former

reserves and in all other reserves in Canada. It also applies on

category A lands, which are former Indian reserves transferred under the

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement and held

by the Nisg̱a’a in fee simple. This

is, effectively, the pre-treaty status quo.

The Nisg̱a’a Nation has already

consented to the treaty amendment. But for the amendment to be ratified

by the province of British Columbia, this Legislative Assembly must

consent to the amending agreement. If British Columbia has consented,

Canada will seek consent, and the amending agreement will take effect.

In accordance with the amending agreement,

Nisg̱a’a citizens will regain

their tax exemption under

section 87 of the Indian Act, effective

January 1, 2024. That date of reinstatement was at the request of the

Nisg̱a’a Nation.

I’d like to recognize that the 23rd anniversary of the

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement is upon

us. It came into effect on May 11, 2000. To celebrate, we’re hanging the

Nisg̱a’a flag in the

Legislature’s Hall of Honour, as a symbol of our

government-to-government relationship on how to continue work together

on our shared vision for the future. Now, as British Columbia’s first

modern treaty, it’s a landmark in the relationship between B.C., Canada

and the Nisg̱a’a Nation.

[2:05 p.m.]

This treaty marked the end of their 113-year journey and the first

step in a new direction. It’s an outstanding example of modern treaty

relationships. The Nisg̱a’a final

agreement is in fact studied internationally as a model of respect,

trust and government-to-government cooperation. The

Nisg̱a’a Nation demonstrates the

power of modern treaties to build government-to-government relationships

as we work toward common goals.

It’s my great honour to rise in the House today, with the support

of the Nisg̱a’a Nation, and move this

motion to give British Columbia’s consent.

M. Lee: I rise on behalf of the official opposition to speak, also, in

support of this motion as we bring forward a very important amendment to

the Nisg̱a’a final agreement. This is

amending agreement No. 5, as Minister for Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation just outlined. We know, further to the history that the

minister spoke to, of the importance.

Today in this chamber we marked the occasion of the first

recognition, formally, for the Haida Nation. Of course, through the

history of the Haida and here in the history of the

Nisg̱a’a peoples, there were

landmark court decisions. In the

Nisg̱a’a case, the Calder case in

1973, by the Supreme Court of Canada, defined, in a meaningful way,

Aboriginal rights and titles to land.

That action was originally launched in 1968. Many, many years

later, through the treaty process, as the minister referred to, in 2000,

a treaty was established with the

Nisg̱a’a Nation. Now 23 years

later, we are looking at an important piece of that treaty.

I am struck by the words of Chief Robert Dennis of the Huu-ay-aht

Nation just now, in the previous motion. Certainly, when he said that

the meaning of this amendment for the Maa-nulth five nations — as I’m

sure is the case for Tsawwassen, as we dealt with in this chamber back

at the end of March, and the Nisg̱a’a

— is that it means that the nation determines how and when their

citizens will be taxed.

We know, in the backdrop of the work of the previous government,

prior to the formation of this government in 2017, that there was

significant work done around the fiscal relationship between nations and

the province. We know that work is ongoing, and we see, federally and

provincially, work around the fiscal framework, as well as the tax

relationship with the nations. This is one indicator of that work, as we

continue to want to support — in particular, among all the other

important reasons for a reconciliation — socioeconomic growth for

nations, to work in partnership with nations to support that.

It’s in that context that we see this amendment come forward for

the Nisg̱a’a and recognize the

importance of moving forward with this motion. Again to say, as we

reviewed with Tsawwassen final agreement amendment at the end of March,

the minister did reconfirm, as the minister has said in this chamber

today, that the province views those modern treaties as a living

document. This is actually what Chief Robert Dennis of the Huu-ay-aht

just spoke to.

Secondly, the amount of tax we’re talking about that’s exempt,

going forward, is negligible and immaterial, in the words of the

minister. Again, we recognize the importance to the

Nisg̱a’a citizens of continuing

to have the

section 87 Indian Act exemption, an exemption that has been

there, as Chief Dennis spoke to, as a broken promise but also as a

construct under the Indian Act for the last 150 years. It’s a construct

of the Indian Act that we want to break through.

[2:10 p.m.]

We know that there’s work, promises by the current federal

government about doing that work, but this province has a role in this

too — to look at the fiscal relationship and the tax structure with

nations in a more meaningful way, in a way that actually ensures that

nations can progress in their own economic development. I hope that with

the passing of this motion today, Motion 45, this will just be another

step in that process.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak to Motion 45,

amending the Nisg̱a’a final

agreement. As we are going through a process here now that has happened

a couple of times, I’m not going to venture into territory that has

already been covered.

I do respect the fact that we are dealing with each of these

motions individually. This is not a bulk effort. This is paying respect

to each and every agreement that this government makes. Going through

the process individually, I think, is important and pays respect to

that.

One area that maybe I will venture back…. It is important to

acknowledge to the Nisg̱a’a, when

they’re watching the proceedings of this, and to recognize the unanimity

of support in this House. I think it’s also important to acknowledge the

words of Chief Dennis, as he just spoke in here, talking about that

original commitment that was made by the representatives of the Crown in

those earliest days in the history of this country. Really, the issue

that we’re dealing with here around taxation goes all the way back to

those very first days.

I recognize that a couple of times now, on the record, has been,

as a result of this being, or at least the framing around it being…. The

amount of the tax being collected is negligible and immaterial. Actually

what is immaterial, from my perspective, is the amount of money that’s

being collected. It is going back to that original commitment that was

made around nations and the relationship that nations have with each

other.

I think, as we’ve been recognizing in this Legislative Assembly,

the relationship that this government has had with Indigenous nations

has been in long need of some repair. That’s what we’re doing here

today.

I wouldn’t say that what we’re doing here today is immaterial.

What should be immaterial is the amount of money that’s being collected

and, indeed, invested right back into communities in the beautiful

province that we represent.

With that, HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Members, the question is the adoption

of Motion 45 on the order paper.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 46 on the order paper, standing in the name of

the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

MOTION 46 — AMENDMENTS TO

TLA’AMIN FINAL

AGREEMENT

Hon. M. Rankin: I rise to move the third amending agreement of the Tla’amin final

agreement.

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to paragraph 5 (

b) of

Chapter 25 of

the Tla’amin Final Agreement, the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia consents to the amendments to the Tla’amin Final Agreement set

out in the attached Tla’amin Final Agreement Amending Agreement (No.

3).

TLA’AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT AMENDING AGREEMENT (No. 3)

AMONG:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the

Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

(“Canada”)

AND

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as

represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation

(“British Columbia”)

AND

TLA’AMIN NATION, as represented by the Hegus (Chief)

(“Tla’amin Nation”)

WHEREAS:

A. On April 5, 2016, the Tla’amin Final

Agreement came into effect;

B. The Tla’amin Final Agreement provides for

its amendment and specifies requirements for the amendment of various of

its provisions;

C. The Parties have previously agreed to

amendments to the Tla’amin Final Agreement;

D. The Parties agree to propose further

amendments to the Tla’amin Final Agreement set out in Schedules 1 and 2

of this Amending Agreement;

E. The Parties have determined that the

processes set out in paragraphs 3 and 5 of

Chapter 25 – Amendment apply

to the proposed amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending

Agreement;

NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree as follows:

PART I –

DEFINITIONS AND

INTERPRETATION

1. In this Amending Agreement:

“Tla’amin Final Agreement” means the Tla’amin Final Agreement among

the Tla’amin Nation, His Majesty the King in right of Canada and His

Majesty the King in right of British Columbia, as it took effect on

April 5, 2016 as amended.

2. A reference to a

Chapter by number and

name is a reference to the

chapter of that number and name in the

Tla’amin Final Agreement.

3. Words and expressions appearing in this

Amending Agreement that are not defined in this Amending Agreement but

are defined in the Tla’amin Final Agreement have the meanings ascribed

to them in the Tla’amin Final Agreement.

PART II – PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Tla’amin Final Agreement are set out in

Schedule 1.

5. The proposed amendments in French to the

Tla’amin Final Agreement are set out in

Schedule 2.

6. Pursuant to paragraph 7 of

Chapter 25 –

Amendment, the proposed amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2 will

take effect on the date the last Party required to consent to the

amendment provides its consent.

PART III – PROCEDURES

7. This Amending Agreement may be signed in

one or more counterparts. A signed counterpart may be delivered by one

Party to another Party by facsimile or e-mail transmission and a

facsimile or e-mail so transmitted will constitute an original document.

Signed counterparts held by a Party, taken together, will constitute one

and the same instrument.

8. This Amending Agreement may be executed by

electronic signature, which will be considered as an original signature

for all purposes and will have the same force and effect as an original

signature on paper. Without limitation, “electronic signature” will

include faxed versions of an original signature or electronically

scanned and transmitted versions (e.g., via pdf) of an original

signature.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by

the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, signed this _____ day of

________________, 2023.

___________________________

Authorized Signatory

___________________________

Printed name

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as

represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation, signed this _____ day of ________________,

____________________________

The Honourable Murray Rankin

Minister of Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation

FOR THE TLA’AMIN NATION, as represented by the Hegus (Chief),

signed this _____ day of _____________, 2023.

___________________________

Hegus John Hackett

Schedule 1

The Tla’amin Final Agreement is amended as follows:

1. Paragraph 30 of

Chapter 2 – General Provisions is deleted

and replaced with the following:

30. Subject to the Transition

Chapter and paragraphs 16

through 16.4 of the Taxation Chapter, the Indian Act does not

apply to the Tla’amin Nation, Tla’amin Institutions, Tla’amin Citizens,

Tla’amin Lands and Other Tla’amin Lands, except for the purpose of

determining whether an individual is an “Indian”.

2. The following paragraphs are added to

Chapter 21 – Taxation

immediately after paragraph 16 of that Chapter:

16.1 Despite paragraph 16 and subject to paragraph

16.3, as of the day this paragraph comes into effect,

section 87 of the

Indian Act applies to a Tla’amin Citizen who is an

Indian.

16.2 Despite paragraph 16 and subject to paragraphs

16.3 and 16.4, as of the day this paragraph comes into effect,

section

87 of the Indian Act applies on Tla’amin Lands that were Indian

Reserves or Surrendered Lands on the day before the Effective Date as if

the lands were Indian Reserves.

16.3 The application of

section 87 of the Indian

Act :

a. in paragraphs 16.1 and 16.2 is subject to

section

87 of the Indian Act itself remaining in force;

and

b. on lands identified in paragraph 16.2 is subject

to:

i. subparagraph 1.a; and

ii. a law of Parliament, or a treaty, self-government

agreement or similar agreement given force of law by Parliament,

limiting the application of

section 87 of the Indian Act to an

Indian.

16.4 The Tla’amin Nation may enter into an agreement

with Canada or British Columbia that limits the application of paragraph

16.2 to the extent specified in that agreement.

[Schedule 2 available for inspection at the Office of the

Clerk.]]

Before I start, I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate

the Tla’amin Nation on their ongoing efforts to build a strong community

in their part of the province.

I’d like to, first of all, recognize Hegus John Hackett of the

Tla’amin Nation and Councillor Dillon Johnson, who will address the

Legislature on behalf of the Tla’amin executive council in just a

moment.

I’d also like to recognize all the members of the Tla’amin

executive council, their legislators and citizens who may be observing

our proceedings from home today.

This amendment follows the amendments to the Tsawwassen, the

Maa-nulth and now the Nisg̱a’a final agreements in relation to tax policy

changes. We’ve done this through a process we’ve seen in the past and

very recent memory as well. The purpose of the amendments to the

Tla’amin final agreement is, again, to implement a tax policy change

that both the governments of Canada and British Columbia have made in

our respective treaty mandates.

This is a tax policy change that we hope will make it more tenable

for First Nations across the province to consider modern treaties. The

exemption will apply only on the portion of the Tla’amin lands that were

former Indian reserves and on all other reserves in Canada. Again, I say

that this is effectively the pre-treaty status quo.

[2:15 p.m.]

The new policy allows treaty citizens who are eligible to continue

to keep or regain their Indian Act tax exemption status in their

treaties indefinitely or until the treaty nation determines it’s

appropriate to end it or it’s eliminated for all First Nation

individuals.

For the Tla’amin Nation, whose citizens are still subject to the

treaty’s transitional tax exemption…. It has the effect of allowing

eligible Tla’amin citizens to maintain their

section 87 exemption

indefinitely.

Now, the Tla’amin Nation has already consented to the treaty

amendment. For the amendment to be ratified by the province of British

Columbia, this Legislative Assembly must consent to the amending

agreement. Once B.C. has done so, Canada will seek consent, and the

amendment will then take effect. On the date that the last of the three

parties provides that consent, eligible Tla’amin citizens will be able

to maintain their tax exemption under

section 87 into the future

indefinitely.

The work today is the result of a significant commitment by the

federal and provincial governments to honour and nurture our treaty

relations as well as to reach, we hope, new treaties. In 2016, the

Tla’amin Nation, through the Tla’amin final agreement, became the eighth

B.C. First Nation to become a self-governing treaty nation and the

seventh nation through the B.C. treaty process.

Nisg̱a’a preceded the BCTC

process.

The Tla’amin Nation demonstrates the power of modern treaties to

build government-to-government relationships as we work toward common

goals. It’s my honour to rise in the House today, with the support of

the Tla’amin Nation, and move this motion to give British Columbia’s

consent.

M. Lee: I rise on behalf of the official opposition to speak in support of

Motion 46 as an amendment to the Tla’amin final agreement (No. 3). It’s

the third amendment to that final agreement.

We know, as we’ve been speaking, in this chamber, through

successive sets of amendments to other modern treaty agreements for the

Tsawwassen, the Maa-nulth five nations, the

Nisg̱a’a and now the Tla’amin

Nation, as well, as presented, the importance of addressing what has

been something that’s meaningful to the citizens of the Tla’amin

Nation.

As we make and review these amendments in this chamber, it’s

important that we understand the context under which these amendments

are being proposed. It is with a view to encourage and facilitate, both

through the federal government and the current provincial government,

the furtherance of other modern treaty arrangements that are in the

final stages of agreement-making in the province of B.C.

We hope, through this amendment here today to the arrangement with

the Tla’amin First Nation, along with the other nations that we have

passed motions for in this chamber, to extend the

section 87 tax

exemption under the Indian Act. That will help provide a greater,

stronger path for other nations to complete their modern treaties with

will also lead to greater certainty as we continue to forge stronger

relationships on a treaty basis.

We recognize the amount of work, effort and leadership of the

executive council, the Legislatures and the other leaders of the

Tla’amin Nation — those who are to speak and share their thoughts with

our chamber and to follow the House Leader of the Third

Party.

I think, in the context of reviewing these amendments, the reason

to reflect upon the discussion we had at the end of March with the

amendment to the Tsawwassen Nation final agreement…. There are important

points to recognize. As members of this chamber, we have a role to

ensure that our constituents, the public of British Columbia, keep in

context what we’re dealing with here.

[2:20 p.m.]

Like the president of the Council of the Haida Nation spoke to us

in this chamber on behalf of the Haida Nation, the pathways forward are

ones of hope, not fear. It’s in that mind that, when we’re talking about

modern treaties in the view of this government as being a living

document, this is in that spirit. Why this amendment is being proposed

is to recognize that with all modern treaty nations in this province,

they’ve all asked for the same amendment. They’ve all asked for the same

treatment to ensure that they have the ability to determine their own

Columbia.

The words that the minister has used regarding the amount of tax

that’s being exempt under these arrangements as being negligible and

immaterial are his words. They’re important words to underline for those

who are concerned for the nature and the scope and the scale of this

exemption. It is what on this basis that this motion is being put

forward for approval.

As I’ve said on the other occasions with the other nations, I’m

hopeful that as we take this step with the Tla’amin First Nation, that

this will be a meaningful next step in terms of their modern treaty

relationship with the province of British Columbia and the government of

Canada and that will help further the steps forward as we continue to do

the important work around the fiscal relationship with their nation,

including their tax relationship as well.

A. Olsen: Again, I am pleased to be able to stand and speak in favour of

Motion 46 on behalf of the Third Party in amending the Tla’amin final

agreement.

There have been, I think, many wonderful soccer games between the

Tla’amin people and the W̱SÁNEĆ

people, and I think each of us would have our own stories about how

those games went historically. We’ll leave them off to the record for

now.

I want to just, I think, acknowledge the context that these

conversations are happening under the B.C. treaty process. I have had

many conversations with the minister about the B.C. treaty process. Some

of the conditions that were put in place by the federal and the

provincial government in order to be able to negotiate those put

Indigenous nations into very difficult situations, as was outlined by

Chief Dennis earlier on in this.

I think if we take a look at the last 30-plus years…. And the

treaties that we’re talking about today are only a few of the many

treaties that are still under negotiation. And, certainly, the nations

that we are working with in this motion and in previous motions were the

nations that made it across that final agreement finishing line, which

has been so problematic, along with many of the conditions that were put

on signing those agreements and that were held very strictly by the

federal and the provincial government.

Now we’re starting to see the language in these agreements shift

from being final agreements to an ongoing relationship. Nation to nation

is the most important thing — that we have the ability to continue these

conversations and these discussions and that the nations that we are

agreeing to self-determination have the ability to indeed self-determine

in the way that they see fit.

Again, it’s a good day to be in the Legislature, and I look

forward to supporting Motion 46.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

Mr. Speaker: I now invite legislative counsel Dillon Johnson of the Tla’amin

Nation to address the House virtually.

[2:25 p.m.]

Address by Indigenous Leaders

D. Johnson: ʔaʔječepʔot. hɛhɛw ʔimot qʷayigən kʷʊnanape.

toqʷanən ʔətᶿ nən. tawač kʷ ɬaʔamɩn.

čečehatanɛpeč.

[How are you all. I am happy to see you all. My name

is toqʷanən. I am from Tla’amin. I thank

you all.]

[Tla’amin text and translation provided by

toqʷanən.]

I want to thank all of the hon. members for inviting me to

speak.

I want to thank Minister Rankin for championing this work, and his

staff. I want to thank all of the Members of the Legislative Assembly, as

I’ve seen this issue has been receiving all-party support, and that is very

encouraging for us.

This issue, on

section 87, was probably — actually definitely the most

divisive issue throughout the whole treaty negotiations and ratification

process. This is a very historic and exciting moment for our people and our

Nation that we can move forward with removing this very divisive issue and a

matter that was within our treaty, and we have, now, the opportunity to

unite the community.

As it did, this policy had an effect of fragmenting our community.

Some people were not able to continue to be a part of the Tla’amin Nation,

faced with a really difficult economic choice. This removes that and will

unify our community, so hands raised to all of the Members of the

Legislative Assembly and all of the people that made it happen within the

government.

This is something we’ve fought for, for decades. It will make a

lasting positive impact, and this is a positive step forward in supporting

our tax policy and our self-determination. Of course there’s more important

work to be done. This is the tip of the iceberg, but it is a really

meaningful step forward. I want to acknowledge and thank the government for

this.

The last thing that I’ll say is this is a very meaningful

demonstration that modern treaties are living agreements. I know that’s been

shared already by hon. members, and I want to also echo those

remarks.

In closing, I want to say thanks again for this important piece of

work. It’s the last one of the bunch but not the least.

I very much want to end by saying čečehatanɛpeč

ʔimot . We thank you for your work.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much for addressing the House today.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 46 — AMENDMENTS TO

TLA’AMIN

FINAL AGREEMENT

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Members, the question is the adoption

of Motion 46 on the order paper.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call second reading on Bill Pr401, Vancouver Foundation

Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL P r 401 — VANCOUVER FOUNDATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

M. Dykeman: I move the Bill Pr401, intituled Vancouver Foundation Amendment

Act, 2023, be now read a second time.

The amendment that the Vancouver Foundation is seeking through

this private bill relates to their ability to distribute funds to

charities and non-profit organizations. Currently, the language in the

act considers a reserve amount calculated on financial data from 2008,

and this amendment will allow the foundation to base that calculation in

any given year on financial data from the immediately preceding fiscal

year. This change will better sustain the foundation’s ability to

support communities during periods of economic downturn.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Members, the question is second

reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

M. Dykeman: By leave, I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the

Whole for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2023, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL P r 401 — VANCOUVER FOUNDATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill Pr401; J. Tegart in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order on the Vancouver Foundation

Amendment Act, 2023.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

M. Dykeman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:31 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL P r 401 — VANCOUVER FOUNDATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill Pr401, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2023, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call the second reading on Bill No. Pr402.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL P r 402 — ST. MARK’S COLLEGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

M. Dykeman: I move that Bill No. Pr402, intituled St. Mark’s College Amendment

Act, 2023, be read a second time.

St. Mark’s College seeks to amend its act in preparation for a

merger with its affiliate, Corpus Christi College. The amendments would

authorize the college to grant associate degrees under the Degree

Authorization Act, modernize the corporate powers and governance of the

college and make other incidental changes to the act.

Following submissions presented to the Select Standing Committee

on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills, the bill was amended by the committee to strengthen the language

for greater clarity.

Motion approved.

M. Dykeman: By leave, I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr402, St. Mark’s College Amendment Act, 2023, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL P r 402 — ST. MARK’S COLLEGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill Pr402; J. Tegart in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill

Pr402, 2023.

Clauses 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

M. Dykeman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:35 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL P r 402 — ST. MARK’S COLLEGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill Pr402, St. Mark’s College Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Motions Without Notice

EXTENSION OF SITTING HOURS

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move a motion:

[That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 2 (1) and 3, the House sit

beyond the hour fixed for adjournment until any question necessary to

complete the consideration of Bill (No. 5) intituled Public Service

Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023 is put and

decided.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 5, Public Service Labour

Relations Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR

RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Courtenay-Comox.

R. Leonard: May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: This morning there was a second class from my community from Queneesh

School in the Montessori program. It was a real honour and privilege to have

them in the House to witness the events unfolding before them, especially

after I learned about what they’re talking about in schools, about rights

and freedoms.

I’d like the House to join me in acknowledging their

witnessing of that special moment.

The teacher is known as Ms. Catherine. Her name is Ms. Catherine

Munro. The other teacher is Ms. Thygesen. There were 24 grades 4 to 6

Montessori students in the House.

Please, would the House join me in acknowledging their great honour in

witnessing that moment.

Debate Continued

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order.

We’re dealing with Bill 5, Public Service Labour Relations

Amendment Act, 2023.

Hon. K. Conroy: To start, I want to introduce the staff that’s with me. I have

John Davison, the president and CEO of the Public Sector Employers

Council, Alyson Blackstock, the ADM, employee relations division, and

Korina Tsui, the executive director of labour relations.

On clause 1.

[2:40 p.m.]

P. Milobar: To start off, I’d like to thank the Government House Leader for

bringing forward that motion on Bill 5 just before we

started.

For the viewers at home, what that essentially means is that we

normally would end around 6:30 tonight, but the motion by the Government

House Leader has made it so that we’ll just continue to ask questions on

Bill 5 until the opposition feels satisfied, which means we could be

here until three in the morning or could be here until midnight or

whatever time in between now and then. I do appreciate that added time

to try to fully canvass Bill 5. Although it’s only a one-section bill,

essentially, there are some fairly serious questions that we have as

opposition to try to delve into.

Now, I can understand…. There’s been some speculation in the media

as to why it was the Finance Minister, instead of, say, the Labour

Minister or the Attorney General, that would have brought forward a bill

like this. I fully understand and recognize that the Public Service

Labour Relations Act is actually under the Minister of Finance, so that

does make sense.

However, I am wondering if the minister can shed some light for us

as to who exactly drafted this bill for the government. Was it the

lawyers that will actually be impacted by this? Is it the management of

excluded drafters? Was it external counsel? Who drafted the

legislation?

Hon. K. Conroy: The management of the office of the legislative counsel drafted

it, so none of the members who are impacted by the bill would have been

involved in drafting it.

P. Milobar: In terms of process, my understanding is that this bill came

forward as an action at the labour board by the lawyers that would be

impacted by this bill was starting to proceed. Was this bill drafted

before or after the lawyers started taking action with seeking a ruling

at the labour board?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The bill was drafted after the LRB process was started.

P. Milobar: Was there any discussion, then, within government, with the Labour

Minister, in terms of concerns around it potentially being viewed as

trying to circumvent what is supposed to be an independent labour board

ruling by bringing in a piece of legislation to essentially override

whatever outcome may result at the labour board?

Hon. K. Conroy: The matter was discussed at cabinet committees. Also, the matter

can still proceed at the LRB. This bill does nothing to stop it. We are

not holding the matter up at the LRB. Actually, the GLA requested that

the LRB be held in abeyance, not the government, but the government did

agree with this request. We were asked as recently as

yesterday.

P. Milobar: Well, that would be an interesting ruling by the LRB, then, if

this gets passed today or tomorrow, given that this act would come into

force on royal assent, which would somewhat nullify any Labour Relations

Board decision.

We’ll come back to that. It sounds an awful lot like Bill 26 that

we just passed — that the courts can still go ahead and do what they

want and come up with a ruling, but the government has already said it

doesn’t matter, that the building is going to happen. It seems to be

very similar. We’ll come back to that.

[2:50 p.m.]

It sounds an awful lot like Bill 26 that we just passed. The

courts can still go ahead and do what they want and come up with a

ruling, but the government has already said it doesn’t matter. The

building is going to happen. It seems to be very similar. We’ll come

back to that.

This is a piece of legislation that’s…. My understanding is it’s

50 years old. It was 1973 when the Barrett government of the day brought

this in.

With all of the other types of modernization of legislation across

government, across political stripes, as government looks at older

pieces of legislation and modernizes, why was the simpler route for

government not to simply amend the legislation in such a way that it

would enable the lawyers to be able to have their own bargaining unit

instead of forcing them into the PEA, which they’ve made very clear they

don’t want to be a part of? The PEA has said they’re totally fine if the

lawyers don’t join them as well.

Once government chooses to modernize a piece of legislation, it

seems that actually modernizing it instead of clinging to “it’s been

this way for 50 years” would be a better way to move forward. What is

the concern about having the lawyers be their own bargaining group of

their choosing?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I think that it’s important to recognize that in 1973, they were

actually foreshadowing how labour relations could evolve over the years.

There have really been no substantive changes to the bill since 1973, by

any stripe of government. I mean, there have been a number of different

governments since 1973, and there have been some changes to the bill,

but not substantive changes. I think it’s important to recognize

that.

The member posed: why? The BCGLA…. I’m going to just keep using

the acronym for the rest of the questioning. Their request poses a very

real risk of proliferation of bargaining units, and it actually

threatens the stability of the PSLRA that that act has provided over the

last 50 years, as I said, that no other government has brought in any

substantive changes to.

I think, as the Minister of Environment made quite clear…. When he

spoke to the bill yesterday on second reading, he said: “You can’t just

open the door to one employee group and expect that you will be able to

close it back again.” So that brings in two subconcerns.

One is those 30-odd groups that, like the BCGLA, are currently

excluded and may want to join the GLA — that’s an example — and all of

the other several hundred groups who currently are required to be in one

of the three groups of the bargaining.

The nurses, the Professional Employees Association or the BCGEU

feel that maybe they might have more power over their own terms and

conditions if they bargain for themselves, even though within each of

those three units, they have their own component so that they can

bargain their own individual and unique needs, which is important to

remember. They’re part of one of the three bargaining units, but they

also are a component unto themselves, where their own unique needs are

recognized.

There are other groups that would say: “Well, me too. If GLA gets

to have their own separate union aside from these three groups, then we

would like that too.” The fact of the matter is that there are over

25,000 employees who are currently slotted into the PSLRA structure, and

they don’t have that choice, either. But it was a choice that was made

by legislation in 1973 and, as I said, there have been no substantive

changes. They’re slotted into the bargaining unit that is in accordance

with the criteria that were established by the act in’73.

So introducing that employee choice in the equation is tantamount

to putting the entire model at risk — a model, as I’ve said, that every

government since 1973 has supported. Then, where does it stop? There are

literally hundreds of unique public service occupational groups, and

dozens upon dozens of them might like to have their own bargaining unit

as well, which would create labour instability. It would create a number

of issues.

The bottom line is we have to ensure that we, as a government —

any government has to — continue to ensure that the public services that

governments provide are continuing to be provided. It would be really

difficult if there was considerable labour unrest throughout

government.

I think it’s important to quote from the Higgins report. That was

what precipitated the work that was done before the bill was actually

introduced in 1973. The Higgins report says: “The proposed approach has

the great advantage of being flexible, since new occupational groups can

be created or existing ones consolidated by mutual agreement. This

flexibility also extends to the fact that subjects initially covered in

the master agreement can be moved to the individual component agreements

and vice versa.” Words that bear well now, as they did in

[3:00 p.m.]

P. Milobar: In fact, last Thursday what the Environment Minister said is:

“…opens the door to a massive proliferation of bargaining units in the

public service. This is not in the public interest….” That was last

Thursday.

Now, on Wednesday, when myself and the minister were enjoying our

time in budget estimates and I asked about the BCNU agreement and its

ratification — the BCNU is part of these three — I characterized it as

media reports saying that that was the last major agreement that was

left. The minister was quick to correct me and said: “Actually, only

about 90 percent of the agreements have been agreed to. We still have 61

outstanding as part of the 2022 bargaining mandate.”

Given that the government is already dealing with literally

hundreds of separate individual agreements within the 2022 bargaining

mandate, how is it that one agreement for the BCGLA creating their own

bargaining unit outside of the PEA would suddenly cripple and set a

precedent for this government on a scale unheard of and unseen, that we

would have seen over the last 50 years, according to the minister now

but also the Environment Minister on Thursday?

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, the member is confusing the broader public sector — for

instance, that which includes K to 12, post-secondary institutions, the

Community Social Services Employers Association — with the public

service, employees who work directly for government. They are two very

different things.

Within the public service, the concern is that the number of

bargaining units you would have within a single entity…. It’s a single

employer. So that was why the act was brought in, to bring in three

separate bargaining units for the public service, not for the public

sector. That is the difference.

[3:05 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I understand that. I think if you’re a parent and the teachers go

on strike, you really could give a whit whether or not it was with the

school districts, the trustees or the provincial government. You want

the teachers back to work. If you want any of those groups that are

outside of those three groups that suddenly go on strike…. Ultimately,

the bargaining mandate comes from the Minister of Finance and the

government of the day to make those negotiations happen. The me too

clauses and all the various agreements all trigger the same

way.

I get the internal governmental structure that the minister is

trying to refer to. But to the broader public, to people’s daily lives

and to the operation of government and the flow of governmental work

that people rely on, any job action by any bargaining unit is a problem

to their daily lives.

It seems that the government is so worried, with Bill 5, about

disrupting their own work that the case of one extra bargaining unit

creates a potential massive problem moving forward. But the hundreds of

others that impact British Columbians’ daily lives, as well, are a bit

of an afterthought or less of a worry.

The question I had on Wednesday was directly about the BCNU, which

is one of the three. The response back from the government was: “Well,

we’re not done bargaining. There are 61 agreement still outstanding to

be dealt with.” The minister can’t have it both ways either. It’s either

they’re all viewed as one as government, or the government was done

bargaining with their three main groups within the PSA, and the others

are all periphery. She should have been able to talk about the

bargaining mandate then, but she wasn’t able to, and I understand

why.

Why could one group, the BCGLA, be deemed to be such a risk for

this mass proliferation of bargaining units out there when the

government is literally dealing with hundreds of bargaining units and

shielding themselves from public disclosure of what agreements actually

mean to the taxpayer by saying that all these other agreements are still

outstanding that don’t actually fall within any of these three

groups?

I hope the minister can understand how it gets a little

convenient, I guess, for government to be able to try to use the

proliferation excuse while at the same time using that exact same

proliferation across other sectors of government services to defend why

they won’t answer questions. How can one group create massive problems

like this?

My understanding is that under labour law — and remember, the

BCGLA used card check under existing laws — a sub-bargaining group would

have to have their members agree that they want to switch and want to

actually have this and actually leave or be rated by a different union.

That doesn’t seem to be happening en masse. Now, granted, they can’t

under the current law. But we’re asking about why this law wasn’t

amended specifically to allow the BCGLA to essentially be its fourth

bargaining group within this act. That would not have created a

proliferation unless people suddenly wanted to leave the BCNU and join

the BCGLA.

Again, how is one group deemed to be a proliferation to the

overall operation of government?

[3:10 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify so that the member understands, the BCNU that are

within the health authorities, so part of the public sector, are the

ones that have ratified their agreement. The BCNU within the public

service — we haven’t even started bargaining with them yet. Just so that

the member understands the difference between the two sectors — public

service and the public sector — and the unions, as he keeps referring to

the nurses.

The member needs to understand there really is a legitimate

concern for the public service, as they are the only provider of the

services that people depend on and that the very member was talking

about. The more bargaining units we have, there are more opportunity for

work stoppages and labour unrest, again, putting those services that

people rely on at risk. The services that are provided by the public

service.

Again, there are a number of groups that have said that they

didn’t want to be part of those three groups. They wanted to be on their

own, and they’re waiting to see what happens here, and what would happen

is labour unrest in the province. It would be very difficult for any

government to be moving ahead if you have…. Like right now we’ve got,

within the public service, those three groups. They bargain collectively

— those three groups. Each individual group bargains. Then there are the

components within those groups that deal with the unique needs within

those three groups.

If you added the numbers who might like to have their own union,

you could be looking at considerably more, which would be very difficult

for the public service and very difficult for any government. I think

that’s why no government has ever done this before — has never gone to

starting to add individual unions into the public service, because the

three components work well. They work well for the public

service.

I think people take it for granted — the labour stability —

because they see labour unrest in other sectors, but they don’t realize

the labour stability that this act has brought to governments for years

— 50 years, as the member referenced, since 1973, when this act was

originally brought in by the NDP. I think that it’s

interesting.

Then also, the act was changed in the 1990s. The Dorsey Commission

was brought in to look at the actual number of health care providers in

the public sector, and they amended the health authorities from almost

900 bargaining units down to five, because they also recognized the

significance of having that many bargaining units and the labour unrest

that it causes. It was done in 1973, when the bill was brought in.

Substantial change was made in the 1990s. Other than that, there have

been just amendments to the bill to ensure that people can be recognized

within the public service.

[3:20 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I’ll likely come back to that in a little bit. I am going to turn

it over to my colleague from Vancouver-Langara.

I wanted to correct something that I had said earlier to the

minister. I’m willing to acknowledge when I may have misspoken.

Unfortunately, we didn’t get notice that the government had made an

amendment to the bill. The Clerks thankfully pointed out that it’s on

the order paper. When we get to clause 2, the commencement, I understand

it has been amended to not come in on date of royal assent, but it will

be by LGIC instead.

I just wanted to recognize, to the minister, that that has been

pointed out to us by the Clerks as well.

With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague.

M. Lee: Pleased to join this committee review here of Bill 5. I wanted to

say, as well, at the outset that given the nature of the bill being only

two clauses, there is a bit of interplay between clause 1 and clause 2,

as my colleague just referred to with the proposed amendment here as

well.

To come back to recognition of what the minister said in response

a few moments ago, that there’s an understanding by this government that

the application for certification by the BCGLA to the Labour Relations

Board can continue, can I ask what the government’s intention, then, is

for the effect of Bill 5 if the independent LRB reaches the decision to

certify the BCGLA?

Hon. K. Conroy: To clarify for the member, the matter is in abeyance at the Labour

Relations Board. No decision is pending, and we will make a decision

when the time is required.

[3:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: To confirm, is the minister indicating that the minister will

direct the Labour Relations Board in terms of its process? Is that what

I’m hearing from the minister?

Hon. K. Conroy: Absolutely not.

M. Lee: Whose decision is being made here? Can the minister please clarify

her statement?

Hon. K. Conroy: Maybe the member wasn’t in the House when we canvassed this

already. The GLA had put the matter before the labour board in abeyance.

They even brought it back and said that they were keeping it in abeyance

as late as yesterday. The labour board contacted us, and we said we were

fine with that. It is the choice of the GLA whether it stays in abeyance

or not. This was something we just canvassed half an hour ago, if that.

That is what I was referring to.

The matter is in abeyance. If it is not in abeyance anymore….

Right now no decision is pending, because the matter is in abeyance. If

a decision is made, we will make a decision at that time.

M. Lee: This is where my confusion was. “If a decision is made, we will

make a decision at that time.”

To unpack that, if a decision is made…. When the minister is

referring to “if a decision is made,” whose decision is that?

Hon. K. Conroy: The labour board’s.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yet the minister says that it’s in the hands of the BCGLA. The

BCGLA have put the matter in abeyance. Is that not correct?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

M. Lee: Is it not the decision of the BCGLA to take the matter out of

abeyance, to continue the process with the LRB? Is that not

correct?

Hon. K. Conroy: So just to explain the process, when the GLA put it in abeyance,

the labour board asked the government: as the employer, are they in

agreement with that? We said, “Yes, we are,” and so it

stands.

M. Lee: What will it take to take the matter out of abeyance?

Hon. K. Conroy: If the GLA asked to take it out of abeyance, we would agree with

that, and we’ve already told them that.

M. Lee: There is another path that the BCGLA have proposed, which I’ll get

into in a moment. But just for the sake of this particular point of

discussion, the minister is saying that if the BCGLA says, after today,

after Bill 5, that they wish to take the matter out of abeyance and

proceed down the path of the application for certification with the LRB,

the government will agree that that matter will be taken out of

abeyance.

So we’re back to six questions ago to this minister. In that case,

if the matter is taken out of abeyance and the application proceeds to

the independent LRB, what is the government’s position as to the effect

of Bill 5 on the continuance of that certification process at the

LRB?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The government, as the employer, doesn’t oppose the matter

proceeding before the Labour Board. We’re not opposed to the matter

moving forward. Anything more than that would be inappropriate to

discuss.

M. Lee: I’m just reflecting on the minister’s response.

Over two days, members of the opposition have spoken about Bill 5

and our opposition to it. The whole substance of Bill 5 would put

members of the BCGLA into the Public Service Labour Relations

Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

This is what my colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson

has just been speaking to the minister about. What I’m asking is…. The

government’s position, as to bringing forward this Bill 5, which

initially had been introduced in this House in early February or

thereabouts…. They pulled it from further stages of debate in this House

and have brought it back in the last week of the session. So clearly,

there’s something going on here. There’s something going on in terms of

the way this employer has dealt with its employees.

I appreciate the minister saying that the minister and the

government are not going to withdraw or withhold their consent to the

matter going forward at the Labour Relations Board. But I’m asking the

minister for confirmation of the government’s position as to the effect.

The whole application, of course, is for certification of the union to

represent the members of the BCGLA.

[3:35 p.m.]

If that certification application is approved by the Labour

Relations Board, that would go contrary to Bill 5. To the minister, does

she not agree with that?

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s not up to us — the employer, the government — to determine

what the Labour Relations Board will decide. We will address the outcome

of the case if and/or when the Labour Relations Board decision is

made.

M. Lee: The minister, in response to questions from the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson and the Minister of Environment in his second

reading speech, has demonstrated the government’s purpose for which Bill

5 has come forward. It’s very clear.

The minister may want to defer statements based on what result the

LRB may get to, but it won’t matter. The deed will be done under this

Bill 5, by virtue of this legislation. This is the reason why members of

the official opposition have been speaking repeatedly to this bill, in

opposition.

This government, with Bill 5, is attempting to pass legislation to

deprive a specific group of employees of the ability to go to the labour

board for recognition, while it is in process to do so.

[3:40 p.m.]

As the minister confirmed to the member for Kamloops–North

Thompson about 23 minutes ago, the drafting of Bill 5 was commenced

after notice of the application for certification to the Labour

Relations Board by the BCGLA. The government’s action in Bill 5

commenced in response to the steps taken by this group of employees —

exercising the rights of freedom of association, exercising their rights

under the card-check system that this government brought in by a 70

percent vote — to proceed with a certification application to the

LRB.

As we have said, this is just another example of this government,

just like under those community benefit agreements, dictating to

workers, employees, in this province, which unions they should belong

to. Can the minister confirm — because we did not hear any other member

of the cabinet speak to this bill, not the Minister of Labour, not the

Attorney General, about this oppression, this action by this government,

which is unprecedented in this country’s history, to quash the rights of

these employees to go forward to the Labour Relations Board of British

Columbia — that there has been advice provided to this government that

this action is not unconstitutional?

Hon. K. Conroy: I was just clarifying some things. I just think it’s important

that we put on the record how long this process has actually been an

issue before government.

It actually started in September 2013. The BCGLA formally wrote

the PSA and requested independent bargaining unit status for the first

time in 2013.

By September 2014, the Liberal government of the day had refused

BCGLA’s request for bargaining unit status. Instead of a formal

bargaining process, the PSA only offered the BCGLA a process that would

involve the PSA listening to what the BCGLA proposed, but there would be

no requirement for the parties to reach an agreement.

Absent an agreement, the government would implement new terms and

conditions of employment for government lawyers based on the PSA’s

recommendations. Government lawyers would have no right to strike. That

was in September 2014.

December 2014 to January 2015. The Supreme Court of Canada

releases two new decisions that collectively confirm that employees have

a constitutional right to belong to a union and unions have the right to

strike.

February 2015. The BCGLA writes the PSA to reject its offer of

limited bargaining rights on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and

asks the government to reconsider.

August 2015. The Liberal government of the day confirms that it

will provide collective bargaining rights to government lawyers but that

it is necessary to first consult with the various parties on the three

bargaining unit options. The three bargaining options were a standalone

BCGLA bargaining unit, inclusion in the licensed professionals, the PEA,

bargaining unit under the PSLRA and inclusion in a joint bargaining unit

with Crown counsel.

[3:45 p.m.]

In 2015-16, the PSA consults with the BCGLA, the PEA and Crown

Counsel Association on the three bargaining unit options for government

lawyers, and briefs the Liberal government on the decision.

July 2016. The Liberal government responds to the BCGLA, to

confirm that it was delaying its decision on the appropriate bargaining

unit for government lawyers because new legislation would be needed to

enact the new bargaining arrangement and since “we are in the final year

of the government’s mandate, we will not be able to secure the decision

necessary to pass the legislation prior to the end of the current

mandate.”

The government delayed the decision even though the next election

was still 8½ months away. As a result, the BCGLA waited over 3.5 years

for a response from the former Liberal government, without ever

receiving an answer as to what bargaining unit option was acceptable to

the government.

February 2018. The NDP government confirms that it is prepared to

extend full collective bargaining rights to government lawyers by

removing the current exclusion under the PSLRA, which would see the

lawyers being included in the licensed professional, the PEA, bargaining

unit. In recognition that the PEA bargaining unit was not the BCGLA’s

preferred bargaining unit option, the government indicated that it was

prepared to hold off moving forward with the necessary legislative

amendments to place government in the licensed professional bargaining

unit until the BCGLA indicates that it wishes the government to

proceed.

August 2019. The BCGLA filed a civil suit against government in

the Supreme Court of B.C. Their litigation alleges that their continued

status as an employee excluded from access to collective bargaining

under the PSLRA, together with the exclusion from the right to be

represented by their own bargaining unit, is a breach of their Charter

right to exercise their freedom of association to be involved in

collective bargaining. The suit was scheduled to be heard in February

2023. However, the BCGLA has asked for an adjournment pending their

pursuit of the same issue before the LRB.

November 2022. The BCGLA filed an application to the LRB to be

certified as a stand-alone bargaining unit under the Labour Relations

Code, the effect of which would circumvent the current bargaining unit

structure under the PSLRA, which was established 50 years ago. The

matter is still pending before the LRB.

The members need to know there was considerable consultation,

starting in late last year and this year, with the GLA over a number of

issues with Bill 5, with the PSLRA and the concerns as we have already

expressed, both myself and the Minister of Environment when he spoke to

second reading. We always act respectfully and in good faith towards the

government lawyers. We believe in the work they do.

We told the BCGLA in 2018, after extensive consultation, that we

were only prepared to grant them their rights under the PSLRA. We knew

it wasn’t their preferred option, so we said we wouldn’t impose it on

them but would do it with their consent. They sued us, which we

expected, and that is their right.

All was fine until the GLA then went to the LRB. At the LRB, they

are now arguing that one of the reasons why they needed their own unit

under the code was because we were denying them access to their

collective bargaining rights under the PSLRA. But if we had been willing

to grant government lawyers bargaining rights under the PSLRA for the

last five years…. Because we had been willing to do that.

So we are now faced with the situation that our inaction in 2018,

which was an attempt to avoid the unfortunate situation we all find

ourselves in now, was being used against us in a way that put the PSLRA

and the stability that it represents at greater risk.

Faced with these new circumstances, we made the difficult decision

to introduce Bill 5. It is not what we originally wanted to do, but it

was necessary to protect the PSLRA, to protect the act that protects

public services in this province, that protects the services that people

expect from people that work for the government. The actions that the

government has undertaken do not prevent the GLA from intervening in the

LRB case.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think, again, that the members need to remember that what is

being proposed is to be part of the three bargaining units that are part

of the Public Service Labour Relations Act that was brought here 50

years ago, that no government has ever changed significantly — and there

have been a number of different stripes of government since

What it also does is it recognizes the unique needs of an

organization like the GLA so that they bargain within the collective

bargaining unit of the PEA, but then they have their own unique needs

addressed.

It also gives them the right to strike if they so choose. They do

not have that right, right now. It also gives them the right for issues

around seniority. It gives them the ability to negotiate salary levels,

which they do not have, so to speak, now. It gives them improved dispute

resolution processes and protection from without-just-cause dismissals,

which is something that the GLA has brought up. These are all things

that this amendment is about. This is what this amendment is

about.

I just want the members to know that there’s been significant work

done on this since under the former government’s time. Back in 2013, I

think, was the first time. This has not just happened in these last few

months. This has not just happened since we formed government. This has

been ongoing for a number of years.

We recognize that we are at a standstill, so we’re moving ahead

with Bill 5 to ensure that the GLA has the bargaining rights that

they’re asking for, that they belong to a union and that they have all

of the rights, within that component, with their own unique needs

recognized, to do just as they have been asking.

M. Lee: I appreciate the length of the minister’s response. I think close

to 14 minutes. She covered a lot of ground there. There’s a lot to come

back to. There are some elements, certainly, in terms of recognition of

the former government prior to 2017, the work that was done for the

3½-year period the minister spoke to.

I will just mention and note that the minister conveyed to this

House that there were three options being considered. My understanding,

with the nature of the minister’s response, is that that could have

included separate legislation to recognize the BCGLA as a separate

bargaining unit, as we have with the Crown Counsel Act that was brought

in 20 years ago.

Second option, that they combine with Crown counsel — perhaps as

an amendment to the Crown Counsel Act, which is existing legislation —

as a stand-alone, something that the Member for Kamloops–North Thompson

referred to.

Option 3, they get rolled into the PEA under the Public Service

Labour Relations Act.

Clearly, negotiation, discussion are strained. This is complex

work by any government. The necessary dialogue that was taking place…. I

know members on this side of the House certainly believe in fixed-date

elections. Not those members. That means appropriate planning, whatever

that reference was. Maybe this government is introducing Bill 5 because

they know their time is limited here in this House, as government.

What’s their rush?

It’s the heavy hand of government that we’re speaking to. It has

been six years under this government that they’ve continued that path,

almost double the amount of time as the previous government, if we want

to start comparing timelines. But time is not the only factor here. It’s

the action that this government is taking. This wasn’t happening nine

years ago in terms of the labour relations certification

process.

We know, as the Member for Kamloops–North Thompson confirmed, that

this bill came to pass, came to be, came to existence after the BCGLA

started their process with the LRB.

[3:55 p.m.]

I heard the length of the process to get to this bill. But the

decision that this government is taking, the extraordinary,

unprecedented action that this government is taking to have control over

the guardians of the rule of law in our province — that is an issue

we’re going to get into in the committee stage here. We’re still dealing

with the labour aspect of this, the employer-employee relationship, the

rights of those employees for freedom of association, as the minister

acknowledged.

I did not hear, in the minister’s response, a direct response to

my concern as to where the Attorney General of this province is. It’s

her job to ensure that the administration of justice, the administration

of our legislation in this province, is constitutional and meets the

rule of law.

I did not hear the Attorney General speak to this bill. I would

have certainly liked to have heard her confirm that, in her view, this

bill — this unprecedented step by this government to intervene, to quash

the effect of any decision by the LRB — is constitutional.

The minister has acknowledged that there already are challenges

being raised about the constitutionality of the acts of this government.

We understand, of course — as has been communicated, I’m sure, to this

government — that Bill 5 will be challenged as well, just like so many

other legislative initiatives of this government and this

Premier.

To the minister, I’ll ask again: has the government confirmed with

the Attorney General, or whoever else is advising the Attorney General

in the absence of the 350 government lawyers whose job is to ensure that

every piece of legislation that hits the floor of this assembly is

constitutional…? Is the government getting that advice and having that

opinion provided to them that this bill is not

unconstitutional?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: To confirm, the government did receive legal advice on the

constitutionality of the bill. Also, I think it’s important — I don’t

know if the members are missing something — again, to remind the members

that this bill has been in existence for 50 years, since 1973. It is

unique to the public service.

I just want to clarify the application of the labour code and why

the labour code doesn’t apply under the PSLRA. It was written out in the

Higgins commission back in 1973. The labour code was known as the Labour

Relations Act at the time. It said:

“In examining these options, the commission considers neither the

Labour Relations Act nor the Civil Service Act to be appropriate

vehicles for the new regulation of labour relations in the provincial

public service….

“Under the Labour Relations Act, provincial public service employees

could engage in collective bargaining after the determination of

appropriate bargaining units and the certification of the bargaining

agents by the Labour Relations Board. To follow this course would,

however, ignore inherent differences in the nature of labour relations

in the public and private sectors….

“The commission finds it appropriate that collective bargaining be

introduced in the provincial public service through the enactment of new

legislation specifically devised for that purpose. This legislation

should establish procedures governing such matters as the certification

of bargaining agents, the settlement of disputes arising out of

negotiations, employer-employee rights and obligations and the

resolutions of grievances.”

This is how the PSLRA was born. I don’t think we can ignore that.

I think it’s important to recognize that.

[4:05 p.m.]

Again, when it comes to certification within the public service,

the code doesn’t apply. The member keeps referring to card checks and

the labour code, but it doesn’t apply. The Public Service Labour

Relations Act applies. It’s

an act that has been in existence since

1973. No government has looked and said: “Okay, we need to substantially

change this.”

This is the act. The code doesn’t apply. The card check doesn’t

apply. I’ll reiterate that for the member. I think he has raised it

about four or five times. It doesn’t apply. Within the legal framework,

it doesn’t apply. Just so the member has that understanding.

M. Lee: Again, there are lots of points that the minister is introducing

into this debate.

I wish that we had the opportunity for this in our second reading

debate. Like the member for Abbotsford West said during second reading,

it was like playing ping-pong with ourselves in terms of the

back-and-forth. We had no back-and-forth. We had no response from this

government about the nature of this bill.

Now we are in the committee stage. I’m glad we’re going to be

going all night on this thing. We have the opportunity to actually

review this bill with some responses from government. We had silence in

second reading. Now we’re hearing all of these different

considerations.

I have had some opportunity, let’s say, to review the legal

argument that was filed with the Labour Relations Board. I see that the

counsel for the Attorney General of British Columbia conceded that “the

current exclusion from the PSLRA of persons falling within subsection

(

b) of the definition of ‘employee,’ in

section 1 of the PSLRA, is an

infringement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

part 1 of

the Constitution Act. However, this concession is not the equivalent of

a legislative amendment.”

As I read further, in paragraph sub 1(

b) of the legal argument

filed on behalf of this government: “If the applicant’s members are

covered by the PSLRA, are they entitled to be certified under the Labour

Relations Code? This determination will involve an

interpretation of

both the PSLRA and the code.” I could read further, but I presume the

minister is very familiar with the filing on behalf of

government.

Can the minister tell this House the position of government and

its legal argument that has been filed with the LRB in terms of the

application of the code to this situation with the BCGLA?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The member has raised parts of that submission about how the

labour code does not apply to the situation, as I just said. It confirms

everything I just said in my previous answer. The labour code does not

apply.

M. Lee: I’m reading from the submission, of course, on behalf of

government — which, obviously, is the position of government. There are

a couple of things about that.

One is that, presumably, the BCGLA doesn’t agree with that

position. Why would they be making an application to the LRB for

certification if there were no application to their situation? Secondly,

if that’s the view of government, why did we have the discussion here at

the committee stage? Why at all would the government agree to not have

in abeyance the application?

Currently we’ve heard from the government that it’s in agreement

with the BCGLA that the application for certification is in abeyance. If

it’s government’s position that there is no application and there is no

jurisdiction, then why would the government agree to release the

application from abeyance?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The matter is actually before the labour board. As it’s an ongoing

legal matter, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any of that

any further.

M. Lee: In just reflecting again on the minister’s response, it arguably

would suggest that the minister has actually provided comment — meaning

that we’ve taken, through some reference to the submission, the

government’s position. Be that as it may, I’m just going to go to

another point that’s related to this.

We understand, from the BCGLA, that they had made a proposal in

this period. Let me just ask a two-part question. One is: why did

government introduce their bill in February and then pull it back and

not proceed? That’s the first question.

[4:20 p.m.]

The second question is: why did government not further agree to

the proposal by the BCGLA that a neutral expert involved with labour

relations…? As you can see, there is some complexity involved in the

discussion that needs to be reviewed by the LRB, certainly from the

government’s perspective. Why was that proposal not agreed to — to have

a neutral expert on labour relations, a neutral arbiter receive the

submissions by both government and the BCGLA to have some

recommendations as to what the appropriate bargaining structure would

be?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The bill wasn’t pulled, as the member keeps saying. It was put on

hold so there could be further discussions between the GLA and the PSA.

And both parties entered into those discussions in good faith. It was

our view, after a number of weeks of discussion, that we’ve exhausted

all options, and there were no other viable options that addressed both

parties’ needs, including our concerns with the proliferation of

additional bargaining units.

M. Lee: Well, I will resist the urge to get into semantics discussions

with the minister about “pull” versus “hold.”

Regardless, the result is that the bill did not proceed for

further debate until the last three days of this session, in the last

week of this session. It’s literally the last bill we’re dealing

with.

We know that the LRB process has been put in abeyance. We’ve had

the discussion around that. We will get to the proliferation concern of

this minister and the Minister of Environment, as the only two people

who have spoken on behalf of government about this bill.

But just coming back to the discussions that the minister

describes were occurring between, let’s say, early February until early

May, over the last three months, there was a meaningful proposal put

forward for a neutral expert on labour relations to provide

recommendations about what the most appropriate bargaining unit is under

the circumstances. Again, why did the government not agree to that

proposal?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: That’s the same question. I’ll give the same answer.

We gave the opportunity for further discussion between GLA and

PSA. Again, both parties entered into those discussions in good faith.

It was our view that we’d exhausted all options and that there were no

other viable options that addressed the concerns. Regardless of whether

you’re going to bring in an independent body or not, all options were

exhausted, including our concern with the proliferation of bargaining

units.

That’s the same answer to the same question that the member asked

previously.

P. Milobar: Maybe we’ll try this a different way. The minister is saying that

in February, the government’s

interpretation and idea of good-faith

negotiations was to table Bill 5 on February 9, I believe it was, and

actually be drafting it after the BCGLA had already gone and filed at

the LRB, after they had done their card check, where 70-plus percent of

their members had said that they would like to have their own bargaining

unit.

They go to the LRB to try to get a ruling. The government’s

response, then, is to draft Bill 5, present it to this chamber and then

say: “Fine, we’ll negotiate with you.” The problem is that Bill 5 makes

it very clear that there’s only one outcome to a negotiation that the

government is prepared to accept.

Here we are, the dying days of this session, and the minister says

that all options were exhausted that were acceptable to the government,

so we’re back to trying to pass Bill 5. Yes, the LRB is in abeyance

right now, but at some point, one would assume, the lawyers are going to

want to re-engage that application once Bill 5 passes.

The minister’s premise seems to be that good-faith negotiations

are…. As long as it lines up with an outcome that lines up with Bill 5,

everything has been done well, and let’s all get on with our lives. Now,

the government has made one small concession. They’ve changed the

commencement date from royal assent to commencement around an LRC

decision.

Can the minister, today, state in this chamber — because courts

and labour boards tend to look at transcripts to see what the intention

of government is — that the government will not be enacting Bill 5 until

such time as the LRB has made a definitive ruling on the BCGLA’s

application moving forward?

[4:35 p.m. - 4:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m thinking maybe the member didn’t hear my comments earlier

about, in my response…. The members keep raising card check. Once again,

card check does not apply to the public service. That’s law. That’s, I

don’t know, maybe liberalizing everyone’s bailiwick, but that is law. So

card checks do not apply.

Just to remind members, this discussion has been ongoing since

2013. This didn’t just happen. This has been an ongoing discussion since

2013. During the recent discussions, there were two options put on the

table. One was by us — by the government. One was rejected by the GLA,

and the other was rejected by the Crown counsel.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that brief answer that didn’t actually answer the

question. After 15 minutes of deliberations, I would have hoped we would

have actually had an answer.

I understand that card check isn’t legal, because they don’t fall

under…. They did it in

an act of good faith, if the minister wants to

talk about good faith negotiations, to try to demonstrate to the LRB,

following the provincial government’s newest legislation, what the

intent of their members was and the wishes of their members.

[4:45 p.m.]

But we’re talking about this government’s actions with this Bill

5. The minister confirmed, right at the very beginning of all of this,

that this legislation started to be drafted after the lawyers went to

the LRB to seek a ruling. Waving Bill 5 over the lawyers’ heads is

supposed to be negotiating in good faith. It then gets paused. The bill

gets paused, not withdrawn but paused — it was introduced on February 9

— to supposedly allow for good-faith negotiations to continue with the

lawyers. As close as we can see of any movement by this government

through all of those months with Bill 5 sitting on the table is that

commencement has changed from royal assent to LRC.

The question I asked is if the minister can commit today that this

bill would not be enacted by LRC until the LRB has completely done its

work and has made a ruling on the application by the BCGLA.

Hon. K. Conroy: What the member is referring to is in clause 2, and I’m happy to

move to clause 2 if they wish.

P. Milobar: Well, we’ll get to clause 2 as the day moves on.

It’s interesting that a straightforward question like that is now

being dodged by the minister, given that we’ve been back and forth

between clause 1 and clause 2 all day. For the people at home, it’s a

two-clause bill. This is not overly complicated. We’re not talking about

subsection 1-2/6[v]. We’re talking about a two-clause bill, and the two

are actually interconnected on the actions of the government. The fact

that there’s this level of evasion on a fairly straightforward question

twice in a row — thankfully, we didn’t take 15 minutes to tell me that

this is

section 2 that I asked the question of — is shocking to

me.

Has a drafting, then, of

section 1 been done if the LRB rules in

favour of the BCGLA and the

section 1 that we currently have in front of

us in Bill 5 is no longer relevant based on the ruling of the LRB? Or is

it the intention of this government, regardless of what the LRB ruling

is, to enact

section 1?

Hon. K. Conroy: That’s been asked and answered.

P. Milobar: Well, respectfully, no. No, it hasn’t been answered.

We’ve exhausted all our options. We’ve heard it’s in abeyance.

We’ve heard this was drafted after an LRB application had already been

filed. We have not heard if it’s the government’s intention to enact

clause 1 if the LRB has a ruling contrary to the wording of clause 1. If

the LRB comes out and says that the BCGLA can have their own bargaining

unit, that would be in complete contradiction of clause 1 in Bill 5. Is

it the government’s intention to follow the LRB ruling, or is its

intention to implement clause 1 regardless of what the LRB has

done?

I would say that there’s precedence for this question. Bill 26,

which we just dealt with, said just that in the case of Arbutus. It said

that the court case can continue through the courts but that regardless

of the outcome, regardless of what judges have to say, the building at

Arbutus will proceed. All actions taken will have been deemed to be done

to a level that the building can proceed, regardless of what a court of

law says about due process being handled.

This government has already done that once in this sitting. The

question around Bill 5 is: are they intending to do it a second time, or

are they intending to let the LRB be independent, come up with a

decision and then evaluate whether or not to proceed with an LRC,

whether or not to enact clause 1 of Bill 5?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Good thing I keep track of my answers. It has been asked and

answered. I said the matter is before the Labour Board. As it’s an

ongoing legal matter, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it

at this time.

P. Milobar: I’m not asking about the government’s submission to the Labour

Board. In fact, the minister also kept pointing out that it’s in

abeyance at the Labour Board right now. It’s not an active file at the

Labour Board.

The question is about the intention of this government as it

relates to clause 1 of Bill 5. Is the government’s intention, with

clause 1, to implement clause 1 regardless of what the LRB decision

winds up being?

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s been asked and answered.

P. Milobar: No, it hasn’t been answered. The answer from the minister has not

been what the government actions will be based on an LRB ruling. The

answer from the minister has been cryptic and trying to dodge the

question.

I’ll ask again. We have a two-clause bill. Clause 1 very much sets

out the rules that the BCGLA can organize and bargain on their behalf.

If the BCGLA is in front of the LRB with an application that right now

is suspended, waiting to be reengaged, the question to the

government….

The minister has indicated that it’s a PSA dealing with the LRB.

It’s not the minister directly. I’m asking about the minister and this

government’s intention with clause 1 in Bill 5. Is their intention to

enact and enforce clause 1 of Bill 5 regardless of what the decision by

the LRB for the BCGLA is, yes or no?

Hon. K. Conroy: What the member is referring to is, again, under clause 2. If the

member wants to go to clause 2 now, we can.

P. Milobar: I’m asking a direct question about clause 1, the provisions within

clause 1 and the government’s intention with those provisions in clause

1. But now the minister is telling me I should be better placed to ask

those questions on clause 2. Then, when we move on to clause 2, it’ll

be: “Well, you should have asked that in clause 1.”

It’s kind of like in estimates when each minister keeps saying you

should go talk to the other minister because no one actually wants to

answer, even though they have the same staff sitting behind them when

you ask the question from minister to minister.

There are very prescriptive actions in clause 1 in this bill. In

fact, they’re the only actions in this bill, other than commencement,

for the government to take with the government lawyers. Clause 1 has

huge ramifications, as it’s worded, for those government

lawyers.

[4:55 p.m.]

Now, it has huge ramifications for those government lawyers only

if the LRB agrees with clause 1. Those ramifications are very clear. The

LRB rules, and they rule, basically, in favour of the direction of the

government, and the lawyers have a decision to make. In fact, they

don’t, because they will by default be put into this PEA, at that point.

If the labour board says, in fact, the lawyers can have their own

bargaining unit of their choosing, clause 1 doesn’t allow for

that.

Can the minister point to where in clause 1 the BCGLA would be

allowed to form their own bargaining unit if the LRB rules that that is

what they are allowed to do?

Hon. K. Conroy: I have answered that, but I’ll say it again. I am not going to

speculate on any outcome from the LRB. We will address that if and when

the time comes.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

P. Milobar: This apparently seems to be the only

section that the minister is

willing to answer questions on, all of a sudden.

Thankfully, the Clerk’s office advised us, after we started debate

on Bill 5, that there was an amendment. I’m not sure, procedurally, if

the minister is supposed to be moving the amendment before we start

discussing the bill’s

section 2, but I’ll wait for….

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the amendment to clause 2 that is in the possession of

the Clerk be read now. I’ll read it.

[ CLAUSE 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the underlined text as shown:

Commencement

2 This Act comes into force by

regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the

date of Royal Assent .]

On the amendment.

P. Milobar: I’ll go back to the previous questions that referred to this

clause. I’m hoping we have fulsome answers.

The minister has said that the government has exhausted all

options and that’s why the bill is back in front of us for debate. That

is why the government is trying to pass this bill. That would seem to

indicate that the government is no longer willing to work with or have

discussions with the government lawyers.

They’ve exhausted all options, yet they say they are negotiating

in good faith on a piece of legislation that was drafted after an

application was already filed at the LRB, a piece of legislation to

essentially override and circumvent and, basically, ensure a certain

result, regardless of what the LRB has to say on this issue. That

application has been put in abeyance by the lawyers, hoping that they

could have good-faith negotiations with this government, yet the

minister has now indicated they’ve exhausted all options.

[5:00 p.m.]

I’ll ask again. Can the government commit today that this bill,

this act will not come into force by regulation of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council until after a decision has been rendered

by the LRB, once it comes out of its abeyance?

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m not prepared to make that commitment at this time, but that’s

not the purpose behind this amendment. The purpose behind the amendment

is to commence by OIC — out of respect to the fact that the PSA has

offered the GLA continued discussions, with the assistance of a

facilitator, if necessary — in the interests of finding a productive

path forward. Those discussions will not involve whether or not to

proceed with placing government lawyers in the licensed professional

bargaining unit or not. That has already been decided.

As witnessed by the debate that has been taking place in this

House over the last few days, this is a complicated issue, and not

everyone understands the impacts of Bill 5 and how it will work. This

will allow the parties the time to get on the same page and make sure

employees have a better understanding of how things will work before

proceeding.

With that, I’d like to take a ten-minute break.

The Chair: Committee will go into a recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:04 p.m. to 5:12 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order. We’re currently on

clause 2, the amendment.

P. Milobar: To sum up, we have a government who brought in….

This is the good-faith bargaining and freedom that labour has in

this province with this government. We have CBAs where even if you’re

unionized, unless you belong to one of the 19 hand-chosen unions by this

government, you can’t work on certain government projects.

You have Bill 26, which was just brought in a couple weeks ago

now, that says regardless of what the courts say about proper process

being followed for a public hearing, the courts no longer are relevant

in this one specific piece of property, and the Premier shall advance

his project that he’s excited about regardless of due

process.

We then have Bill 5, which was stood down after being introduced,

drafted after an application to LRB was already underway, brought in as

a bit of a hammer to the BCGLA. Gets stood down. Supposed good-faith

negotiations happen. All the while, Bill 5 hanging out there.

The minister says all options have been exhausted. Her last answer

made it very clear that regardless of what will or won’t happen at the

LRB…. The lawyers only have one option open to them, in the government’s

view. There’s only one acceptable way forward. They can talk, and they

can discuss some periphery issues, but the main issue of which

collective bargaining unit they belong to has been decided by