Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 25.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 25 — EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 25; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to introduce your staff?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I’m joined today by staff from the Education Ministry: Keith Godin, ADM of governance and legislation; Jennifer McCrea, assistant deputy minister of the learning division; and Dave Duerksen, executive director in our governance and legislation branch.

The Chair: Say a few words, if you like.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I’m just really happy to get into the debate on this important legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

J. Tegart: It is a pleasure to be here today to debate Bill 25 and to go into committee stage. I just wanted to start by saying that my intent today is to understand the development process of the bill, to understand the intent of the bill and also to get a sense of how the minister thinks the bill will work.

Under section 1, my first question is: can the minister walk through the process of consultation with First Nations, including when consultation started, which party initiated and how many First Nations were consulted with?

Hon. J. Whiteside: With respect to the process by which this bill was developed, this initiative really comes from discussions between the federal government and First Nations regarding First Nations assuming jurisdiction over their own education systems. There are, at the moment, 13 negotiating First Nations that are in that process with the federal government.

That spurred on discussions between the provincial government and the First Nations Education Steering Committee and, indeed, those negotiating First Nations with respect to how this would work, how the provincial government could support this initiative and — in the context of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act provincially — working directly with FNESC to co-develop the legislation, to present at the internal levels of discussion of that legislation and, of course, working at every step of the way with the nations that are currently involved in those discussions with the federal government.

[1:40 p.m.]

Indeed, all 204 nations have had the opportunity to weigh in. We’ve communicated with all of them with respect to the progress of this bill.

J. Tegart: Could the minister please share with us which First Nations, the names of the 13 First Nations that are currently involved in this process?

Hon. J. Whiteside: The 13 nations are the Ahousaht, ʔaq̓am, Canim Lake Band, Cowichan, Ditidaht First Nation, Heiltsuk Band, Kispiox, Líl̓wat, Lower Kootenay Indian Band, Seabird Island Band, Snuneymuxw First Nation, Tseshaht First Nation and Squamish Nation.

J. Tegart: Can the minister confirm that there is no leeway for the province to unilaterally intervene with assistance with teacher certification and regulation with a First Nation unless the First Nation initiates it?

Hon. J. Whiteside: That is correct. Section 1 of the bill notes: “If requested by the First Nations Education Authority, the province will assist the First Nations Education Authority with the First Nations Education Authority’s certification and regulation of teachers.”

J. Tegart: What is the process that First Nations would follow to request help from the government? Is it a phone call, a form they fill out? How do First Nations initiate a request?

Hon. J. Whiteside: The process will be that through the establishment of the FNEA, the First Nations Education Authority, there will be processes, procedures, policies set up between the province and the FNEA with respect to all of these various questions. Whether it’s a phone call or a letter, all of those issues will be co-developed with the FNEA when that group is established and when we’re through this process.

J. Tegart: If a First Nation wishes to participate or request assistance with certification and regulation of teachers, do they have to go through the First Nations Education Authority, or are they able to go directly to the province for that assistance?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: The structure will be that First Nations are required first to negotiate with Canada to establish their jurisdiction. That is the process that’s ongoing right now with the 13 initial nations, who are all working together and who have all agreed with the process and structure that’s being put in place to realize this level of operational support that the ministry will provide.

The first step is to negotiate jurisdiction. The second step is that they will then be part of the FNEA. They will have a seat on the First Nations Education Authority, which is a statutory body under federal legislation, and there will be a subsequent agreement between the province and the participating First Nations that spells out all of the administrative relationships. That is how we expect that things will move forward — all of the nations working together under that common structure that they have co-created.

J. Tegart: How many bands are members of the First Nations Education Authority? And did I understand you correctly to say that in order to be part of the FNEA, they must have an agreement with the federal government through jurisdiction?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: The First Nations Education Steering Committee board is comprised of representatives from 130 nations.

With respect to the FNEA, the FNEA will come into existence when three participating First Nations have signed agreements with Canada. They will then delegate…. They will then have two seats on the board, and as every negotiating nation becomes a participating First Nation and joins on to the FNEA, they will all be entitled to two seats on the FNEA board.

J. Tegart: Just for my own clarity, the minister has indicated that there are 13 bands that are currently in the queue to negotiate with Canada and 130 nations currently on the First Nations Education Committee. Are we aware of how many beyond the 13 are queued up in the next, say, six to 12 months?

Hon. J. Whiteside: It’s our information that there may be as many as 52 First Nations, at this point, interested, in addition to the 13.

J. Tegart: Thank you for that information.

As we move forward…. In my understanding, from the briefing that I received from staff, the service that is being provided by the province is at the request of the First Nations. We don’t really know yet, because it’s brand-new, how much time, what the cost will be, etc.

Taking a look at 13 plus 52, is it possible that you will be unable to provide that kind of assistance if we’re looking at 65 successful negotiations with the federal government? I guess what I’m asking is: do you have the capacity to provide what is seen as the support, through this bill, to the First Nations Education Authority?

The Chair: Thank you, Member, for the question. Try to keep it to “the government” or “the minister” and not “you.” Thank you very much.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: With respect to capacity, I note that the expectation is that somewhere between five and ten negotiating First Nations may reach the stage of being participating First Nations over the course of the next 12 months or so. We’d anticipate nations adding on to that over time.

In our review of the operational requirements around that, we’re quite confident that that’s very manageable in the foreseeable future. As the FNEA grows, they will grow in capacity, and there are provisions in the bill under section 24, cost recovery, so that the costs associated with the support eventually become on a cost recovery basis.

J. Tegart: To the minister: could you share with us how many First Nations schools there are in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Whiteside: There are 129 schools on reserve in the province and 17 schools on the 13 First Nations that are currently negotiating First Nations.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

J. Tegart: On clause 3, can the minister confirm that these definitions do indeed conform with the federal agreement?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: Yes. The short answer would be yes. Of course, we’ve done a thorough review of all of these definitions with the Attorney General’s office.

J. Tegart: Are these definitions acceptable to the First Nations Steering Committee?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Yes, indeed. They were co-developed. Yes.

J. Tegart: First Nations Education Authority certified teachers. Which institutions in B.C. or Canada can issue the teaching certificate?

Hon. J. Whiteside: The First Nations Education Authority is the authority to issue certificates. The FNEA will have their own standards, their own process for doing so. That all rests with the FNEA.

J. Tegart: Just for clarity, then, if it is an FNEA-certified teaching certificate, is that recognized in the public school system?

Hon. J. Whiteside: It’s a separate certificate. It’s a separate certificate in a separate education system.

J. Tegart: Is the minister saying that it is not transferrable between the two systems?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: That is correct. It is a system-restricted certificate, so that certificate certifies a teacher to teach in a school under the First Nations Education Authority. However, I think maybe perhaps to your point, right now, of the 250 or so teachers in First Nations schools, most hold B.C. teaching certificates.

A. Olsen: Is there transferability between First Nations schools? If a teacher is approved in one school, can they go to another First Nations school?

Hon. J. Whiteside: That would be a decision between nations with respect to transferability of a certificate from one nation to another nation. That would really be up to nations to decide on that issue.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the response. Thank you.

With respect to teachers that are specializing in, say, language, as one example that I can think of here, where they teach a language that there’s not really an applicable university degree to teach, is there a mechanism that would allow that kind of very specific expertise — I’m thinking about Indigenous culture, understanding of the land, etc. — that could then be transferred to the local school district so that that expertise can be brought in without, perhaps, the teacher’s degree? Just wondering about the transferability of specific skills that some of these teachers might have.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you for the question. It’s a very important issue that you raise around the deployment and the sharing of particular specialist knowledge, particularly with respect to language, which is so critical in all of this.

Again, though, nations themselves will determine how they certify and regulate. We certainly have in place right now a process in the public system, really through letters of permission, to capture the rich opportunities that present themselves, where we have Indigenous-language Elders, for example, who play an important role in schools. That system is in place currently in the public system.

With respect to First Nation certification in their own systems…. They will make decisions with respect to how those certificates may or may not transfer from one nation to another.

A. Olsen: I’m just thinking about how those educators may be treated with respect to union and wages and things like that.

Part of the reason why I’m interested in the designation being able to flow across…. If a local nation certifies a teacher and then they decide to…. They have the opportunity to maybe go and teach a couple of classes, as an example, in the local school district as well. Maybe it’s a part time here and part time there kind of situation. What I wouldn’t want is for that person to be seen as not equal, as a teacher, to one of their colleagues in the school district, in the public education system.

I’m just wondering if the ministry and the minister have thought about that transferability for wages and other benefits, etc.

Hon. J. Whiteside: What we’re looking at is a system-restricted certificate that will be of very high quality, in how we look at teacher certificates across what will now be multiple systems of education in British Columbia.

[2:15 p.m.]

The First Nations, in their own education system — the people who are employed by them in that education system and the employer, in that context — will make determinations about terms and conditions of work and wages and such. We are certainly, as is the premise of this bill, able to support and assist upon request with discussions around transferability of certificates.

J. Tegart: Just a couple of questions, for clarity. The First Nations Education Authority certificate — will it be recognized in the public school system? As explained by my colleague…. If a language teacher or a culture teacher came into the public school system with a certificate, how would that be recognized in the public school system?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Again, we’re dealing with a system-restricted certificate. The certificate itself would not be recognized in the public system, but certainly, the expertise, knowledge and experience that the individual would bring with them would be recognized, as it often is now, by boards who bring in Indigenous Elders and such, through letters of permission, to teach this particular content.

J. Tegart: Sort of clarifying, were there consultations done with the employers — which are school boards in the public system — who may see some transferability, or the B.C. Teachers Federation in regard to where this bill is going?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I think it’s important to note that what this bill really does is support the moving of First Nations from the provisions of the Indian Act to their own jurisdiction over education. It affects First Nations and their jurisdiction over developing their education systems.

[2:20 p.m.]

Certainly, our primary focus has been on working with First Nations and consulting with First Nations on what is primarily about developing First Nations education systems. As you know, there is wide regard for and interest and concern about reconciliation throughout the education system. So of course, all education partners have been brought along as we’ve been on this journey.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

On clause 5.

J. Tegart: In clause 5, the minister approves all appointments of the B.C. Teachers Council but not the First Nations Education Authority appointment. Can the minister explain why this exception was made?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Just again, then, with respect to the structure of this process, the First Nations Education Authority will become operational upon three negotiating First Nations becoming participating First Nations, appointing their two seats to the FNEA. The FNEA will grow in size over time, and they will determine who their representative is to the B.C. Teachers Council. It really is solely a question for them to determine who that individual is best placed…. It’s really their decision.

J. Tegart: I’m wondering if the minister could outline the makeup of the board, who is on the board and how this will add to the board.

Hon. J. Whiteside: Just to clarify, the board of the FNEA or the board of the Teachers Council?

Interjection.

Hon. J. Whiteside: The Teachers Council. Okay.

[2:25 p.m.]

The composition of the Teachers Council is currently set out in the Teachers Act. At the moment, there are three certificate holders, nominated by the B.C. Teachers Federation in accordance with regulations, who are appointed by the minister — five persons elected in zones in accordance with division 2 of this part and then seven persons appointed by the minister in accordance with the regulations, and an additional appointee by the minister.

The intention of this section of our bill is to add a seat at the First Nations Education Authority, which will be determined by then, and we are adding an additional commensurate seat that will be appointed by the B.C. Teachers Federation in order to maintain…. The entire structure of the Teachers Council is meant to stay the same. The balance of representation is meant to stay the same through this amendment.

J. Tegart: Based on what information the minister just shared, I want to make sure that I’m correct. The B.C. Teachers Council are all teachers? Or are there people on the council who are not teachers?

Hon. J. Whiteside: No, they are not necessarily all teachers. I think, as you may recall, there are a number of appointments made by the ministry amongst partner organizations in education. So there’s a B.C. School Trustees Association rep, a B.C. parent advisory council rep. There’s a representative from the deans’ group, from the First Nations Education Steering Committee, from the superintendents’ group. And the principals and vice-principals, of course, would be teachers. So that’s the composition.

J. Tegart: At this time, all other seats on the B.C. Teachers Council are approved by the minister except for the exception of the First Nations Education Authority. Is there a reason for that — that it would be different than all of the other seats?

[2:30 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: Currently there are five positions that are elected, and those elections are conducted by the B.C. Teachers Federation. Then there are the positions that are appointed by the minister. The intention, really, with respect to having the FNEA appoint their own representative, is in the spirit of reconciliation. It’s in the spirit of DRIPA. It is the First Nations who are best positioned to determine who their representative should be. It’s not for us to make that decision.

J. Tegart: On the changes to the B.C. Teachers Council, did the ministry consult with the BCTF?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Yes, indeed.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

J. Tegart: In (6.1), which oath is being referred to in this section? Is it designed by First Nations or government?

Hon. J. Whiteside: It’s the oath of office prescribed in the Teachers Act.

J. Tegart: Can the minister explain the rationale for retaining the power to appoint a person into the position of the First Nations Education Authority after 90 days?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Again, I think, just to go back to the point that all of this language has been co-developed and been agreed to by the First Nations, the intent of this language is to ensure that if there is a vacancy that’s not filled for 90 days, as with other partner organizations on the council, the minister is able to make an appointment so as to ensure that we can keep the business of the council moving forward.

[2:35 p.m.]

J. Tegart: I’m sure that some thought has been given to a process to fill the vacancy if we ever get to that place. Could the minister share with me what that process might be?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Subsection (10) states: “If, within 90 days after a termination under subsection (6.1), no appointment is made under subsection (9), the minister may appoint a person to fill the vacancy in accordance with the regulations.” Of course, the regulations to this bill will be developed in collaboration and cooperation with First Nations, as was the case with the entire bill.

J. Tegart: I’m sure I know the answer, but I’ll get it on the record. Will First Nations be consulted in that process of replacement?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Absolutely.

J. Tegart: The minister has stated that the minister will only act when asked by First Nations to do so. Why is that not the case in this section?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I’d just reiterate that the importance…. In the first instance, the FNEA makes the appointment. That is entirely up to the nations. And it is only after a period of time, a substantive period of time, if there has not been representation, that, sort of as a last resort, a minister could move to make an appointment consistent with regulations that will be co-developed.

I think that all the way through this process, there will be close coordination and collaboration and consultation with the FNEA.

[2:40 p.m.]

J. Tegart: Am I correct in assuming, as those discussions happen, that there is as much consistency as possible in processes at the B.C. Teachers Council? So the question is: is the minister able to replace other positions after 90 days, similar to what’s being contemplated here?

Hon. J. Whiteside: With respect to the appointment of other representatives on the Teachers Council, if a vacancy becomes available pursuant to the Teachers Act, we generally act on that right away. In this case, there’s a similar provision, but with a 90-day time frame attached to it as co-determined by the parties.

J. Tegart: I think it’s the last question in this section. Can the minister share the First Nations Education Steering Committee’s view of the minister retaining this authority to fill vacancies after 90 days?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Indeed. FNESC and all of the negotiating First Nations have been involved and co-determined the development of this language and are in agreement with that provision.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

J. Tegart: Can the minister provide the rationale for principal residence being part of the criteria to be an eligible candidate for the council?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: In this instance, that is what is currently in the Teachers Act. The change in this section was to replace “his or her” with “their,” in terms of cleaning up some gender-neutral language. There’s no change contemplated by that.

J. Tegart: Thank you for that. I will assume, then, that because the First Nations Education Authority actually appoints to the council, the criteria set out by the council for membership doesn’t pertain to that appointment. Is that true?

For clarity, it talks about the nomination process, about where people live, about those kinds of things. But those things would not apply to the appointment from the First Nations Education Authority is my understanding.

Hon. J. Whiteside: That’s correct.

Clauses 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

On clause 13.

J. Tegart: Can the minister provide the rationale for retaining the ability to publish certificate holders to the registry?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: This provision was constructed in this way at the request of the FNESC and the First Nations. This is an example of the way in which the intent of this bill is expressed. It is the capacity of the ministry and our system to provide this as an administrative service to the First Nations so they are not in a position where they all individually have to maintain their own individual registries. The registry will be centralized, and that has been at their request.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

J. Tegart: Could the minister explain the difference between First Nations Education Authority and community education authority?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I think if we likened the FNEAs to a Ministry of Education role provincially, then a community education board would be a local board of education in a nation or in a regional area.

J. Tegart: Just along that line, earlier you indicated that the First Nations Education Authority, each nation, may have a different certification. Did I understand that correctly?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: The FNEA will establish a certificate based on input from the participating First Nations. Any issues with respect to the criteria within that certificate or the transferability will be determined by the nations.

J. Tegart: Just further clarification. Do I understand that it will be one certificate that may change over time or as more nations join the FNEA? Is that what the minister is envisioning?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: With respect to, again, the request that the FNEA will make to the ministry to assist with certification and regulation processes, it’s whatever certificate they determine. They will determine what the certificate is, and then they will request it if they need assistance in the regulatory processes and such around that.

J. Tegart: I’m understanding that we’re not really clear yet whether it will be one certificate or a number of certificates. It depends on the FN education authority. Am I correct in that?

Hon. J. Whiteside: The FNEA will set the certificate based on the delegated…. They’ll have delegated authority from the participating First Nations. The participating First Nations will set criteria through with the FNEA.

Our understanding is that the intention is to have one certificate. But, again, this is enabling legislation that will enable us to support whatever regime the FNEA develops that suits the purposes that the participating First Nations need to serve.

J. Tegart: Thank you very much to the minister for that answer.

The FNEA and the community education authority was described as the FNEA being sort of like the ministry, and the community education authority would be like school boards. Is there a reporting structure or an accountability structure envisioned between the two groups?

Hon. J. Whiteside: That issue is really completely outside of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Education. It is a question of the jurisdiction that the FNEA has and that their community boards will have.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

J. Tegart: Under clause 15, does the ministry have the capacity to maintain the list?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: Yes, absolutely.

J. Tegart: Will there be one list for all certified teachers? Or will there be a separate list for First Nations Education Authority–certified teachers?

Hon. J. Whiteside: My expectation is that the teachers certified under the FNEA will be added to the provincial registry that’s collected, such that if one were to search for their name in the database, their name would come up with a note that they have an FNEA teaching certificate.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister.

What is the process for an employer to access the list at this time?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: I think the easiest way to just explain it is that using our current, existing infrastructure, we’re adding employers to the employers list, and we’re adding teachers to the teachers list. The teachers list, as I think you know, is on the website, publicly available.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

J. Tegart: Is the coordination agreement between the province and the First Nations Education Authority a public document?

Hon. J. Whiteside: As I think you know, the FNEA is not yet established. It will be upon conclusion of negotiations between the participating First Nations and the federal government. Once that step has been achieved, then there will be a coordination agreement, and the status of that agreement I would expect to be negotiated between the parties.

J. Tegart: I think the question was whether the document would be public, and where it would be available.

Hon. J. Whiteside: That document doesn’t yet exist. When it does, I expect that the parties will have a discussion and determine whether or not that document would be public.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister. I’m sure that there has been some thought given to considering the outline of the bill — what might be in the coordinating agreement.

Can the minister outline what the costs are to the province for providing assistance as per the expectations of this bill and the coordination agreement?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: I think the short answer would be that we’re anticipating, really, in the short term, about five to ten certificates, slowly growing over time, and that is on a base. We currently manage 78,000 registrants in the system, so it’s really a question of, sort of, economies of scale. It’s been negligible for the ministry to be taking on this aspect.

I’d note that just later on, in section 20, on page 28 of the bill, there is a provision for payments made by the FNEA under the coordination agreement to…. There is a provision for payments. There will be a structure set up, pursuant to the coordination agreement, for there to be some sort of…. It’s contemplated there would be some sort of a fee or moneys coming from the FNEA.

J. Tegart: As I read through the document and thought about how it might work…. I apologize for sounding like we’re in the weeds, but sometimes it’s the details that really are important to make things work smoothly.

When I looked at cost recovery, which was what was stated in the briefing received by myself, I thought about: what if it is such a success, which I certainly hope? What if all 200 First Nations sign on, and we look at some of the services that are committed to in this bill?

It’s cost of criminal record checks, cost of the keeping and publishing of lists, the verification of documentation, cost of investigation to determine whether an applicant meets the criteria to be issued an FNEA teaching certificate, the possible cost of investigation on behalf of the FNEA into the conduct or the competence of an FNEA-certified teacher, jurisdiction, legal liability, workers’ rights, cost of development and presentation of reports to FNEA.

I’m sure there are things that I didn’t pick up as I went through, because I don’t have that expertise. I guess my question is…. Those may not be very many costs when we’re talking three to five certifications a year, but our hope is that this is incredibly successful. I just don’t want us to get bogged down because we didn’t think about all the capacity and the cost issues.

I just wanted to put that on the record — that there are significant commitments here. I know that we expect that it will start slow, but it could very easily move forward much faster — and I hope it does — than all of us expected.

If you find yourself in that place, is there a plan for that? Sorry, if the minister finds herself in that place.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: I wanted to thank the member for her aspirational considerations, which I think we all share.

I mean, we know that First Nations are starting with a small group. It’s a very small group, initially. And we know that even if all nations where we have First Nations schools were to pursue agreements with the federal government, we’re still talking about 250 teachers. So for the foreseeable future, the scale is such that the impact is very negligible on a base of 78,000 teachers that we currently have on the registry.

Of course, over time, absolutely, we’ve contemplated the future growth that we all hope to see through this process. That’s why in the coordination agreement, the cost recovery potential through the fee structure is what we will certainly be having discussions about, with respect to setting up opportunities to renegotiate, should the success of this process take off and should there ever be an operational burden placed on the ministry. But that’s difficult to foresee in the near future.

J. Tegart: Under (f) of this clause, it indicates that the minister may assist the FNEA with the coordination of “notifications, determinations and written reasons for determinations provided under the Criminal Records Review Act in relation to criminal record checks and criminal record check verifications for applicants for an FNEA teaching certificate.”

Can the minister share with us who in the ministry does this now, and what is the process for the interpretation of information gathered during a criminal record check? I guess what I’m asking is: who would be accountable for that interpretation — either from the employer’s point of view or the employee’s perspective?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: In the current process, the registrar provides information through the criminal records review process to the director of certification, who then makes the appropriate determination about managing that information and the decisions that flow from that.

In this case, that information will go to the FNEA. The FNEA may well ask for the ministry’s assistance in interpreting that information, but at the end of the day, all of the decision-making pursuant to information that comes through the criminal records review process rests with the FNEA.

J. Tegart: I did have a number of process questions, but based on the minister’s previous answers that so much is in development in this bill, I think we’ll just bypass a number of them because there’s still lots of work to be done yet on how things will work back and forth between requests for assistance.

One of the areas where assistance could be asked for is in regards to investigation of teachers. Could the minister share with us what you envision that to be? I know within the public school system, that is a sometimes cumbersome process. What is the ministry’s expectation around a request for assistance in that area?

Hon. J. Whiteside: The provisions of section 80.2 really do outline what our expectations are. That is that if asked, if there is “a request for assistance under the coordination agreement, the minister may do the following: (a) assist with an investigation conducted by the First Nations Education Authority, or conduct an investigation on behalf of the First Nations Education Authority, to determine whether an applicant meets the criteria to be issued an FNEA teaching certificate; (b) assist with an investigation conducted by the First Nations Education Authority, or conduct an investigation on behalf of the First Nations Education Authority, into the conduct or competence of an FNEA…teacher; (c) report to the First Nations Education Authority on an investigation described in paragraph (a) or (b); (d) assist the First Nations Education Authority with the submission of, or submit on behalf of the First Nations Education Authority, criminal record check authorizations,” etc.

I think that’s what we would anticipate.

J. Tegart: Knowing what that process looks like in the public system, and knowing that this is a cost recovery process, have you thought about how you bill that?

[3:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: Again, given that the role of the Ministry of Education is to assist in activities undertaken by the FNEA…. That is the important driver here. Anything we may be requested to collect by way of information is really over to the FNEA to make the determination.

I just want to correct, in case I misspoke earlier. We’re not anticipating in the short term that this would be a cost recovery process. There are provisions in the subsequent section with respect to setting up a process for fees to go into the special fund under the coordination agreement that will help offset some of the costs, but again, it’s a very small number of certifications that we’re contemplating in the short term — and, again, in an assistive role to the FNEA.

J. Tegart: The minister just indicated — I guess I misunderstood that it was cost recovery — that there was a special fund under the coordination agreement. My understanding was the coordination agreement has not yet been negotiated, or that’s what I’ve heard throughout the questioning. Could she explain what the special funds are under the coordination agreement?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: Again, this is not creating something new or setting up a new account. Indeed, the coordination agreement is not yet negotiated. That will happen after the process of this bill.

The teachers special account which currently exists, which is where remittances go and teacher fees go through certification…. It’s contemplated that any fees attached to certification through this process would also go into that account. And those fees generally are used to offset expenses related to the certification and regulation process. Really, it’s the same process contemplated here.

J. Tegart: I just want to make sure that I’ve got that clear in my mind. As the teachers are certified and put onto the list, funds go into the special fund that is held by that organization. Will the First Nations Education Authority have access to those funds?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I know that we’re thinking of the two processes here. Teachers are certified. They pay a fee. They pay annual fees. All of those fees go into the teachers special account, which is currently mandated under the Teachers Act. That fund offsets activities of the ministry related to the certification and regulation process.

[3:40 p.m.]

The same is contemplated here for FNEA-certified teachers. The provision that I’ve referred to, at page 28 of the bill, anticipates the negotiation, in the coordination agreement, of a fee structure. Those fees would go into the special account, which would go, in part, towards offsetting the ministry’s activities related to whatever we undertake at the request of First Nations with respect to this process. So that’s on the fund piece.

The FNEA does not have access to that fund. That fund is to offset the activities of the ministry. The FNEA, with respect to their…. Their operations, really, are funded by the federal government.

Clauses 16 to 19 inclusive approved.

On clause 20.

J. Tegart: Can the minister confirm payments are only from the federal government as per the federal agreement?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Under jurisdiction, the funds for the operation of the FNEA come from the federal government.

J. Tegart: I’m not sure it’s a question, but I’m just going to restate. My understanding was this was a cost recovery process. The minister has stated: “Not necessarily.” Am I hearing that correctly? That’s my last question.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: Perhaps what I can offer by way of clarification for this is that section 20 contemplates that under the coordination agreement that we will negotiate, it’s anticipated that the FNEA will remit a portion of the fees that they collect for their teacher certification process to the minister to go into the teachers’ special account. The intent of that money is to offset the costs of providing assistance to the FNEA under the terms of the agreement.

I mean, I think that in the short term, as we’ve discussed, we anticipate, really, a very negligible impact of the actual operational impact, whether it’s a phone call or very minor, minor costs, given that we are operating on a scale in the ministry of over 78,000 registrants.

Operationally, there is really no impact to the operations of the ministry. If, indeed, as our mutual aspirations…. Should they grow and should we be dealing with a much larger scope of scale of teacher certification under these provisions, then we would be looking to go back under the coordination agreement to renegotiate some sort of increase in those funds. It’s not the intent to take on an onerous burden here in this regard.

J. Tegart: That ends my questions on clause 20, and I have no questions on clauses 21 to 25. I’m not sure, process-wise….

I’d just like to thank the minister and her staff for their openness and willingness to share this afternoon.

Clauses 20 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I want to thank the member for Fraser-Nicola for her interest, her deep consideration of issues attached to this bill and, indeed, all members of the House who asked questions.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:49 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:50 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 25, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Mark: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 26.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 26 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 26; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 3:51 p.m.

The Chair: The Committee of the Whole will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:51 p.m. to 4 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

On clause 1.

The Chair: Would the minister like to introduce her team? Say a word or two?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to introduce the following staff that I have with me today: Tara Faganello, the assistant deputy minister for the local government division; Kara Woodward, who is the executive director of the policy, research and legislation branch; and, behind me, Michelle Dann, who is executive director for the governance and structure branch.

I also wanted to let the House know, let the Chair know that I have a number of other staff who will be cycling in and out as we do different parts of this bill. I do want to just take the opportunity to introduce them now. They are Arielle Guetta, a senior planning analyst for the governance and structure branch; Miriam Starkl-Moser, manager for policy, research and legislation; Jennifer Hill, director in planning and land use management; and Eric Nicholls, also a director in planning and land use management.

D. Ashton: To the minister: nice to see you and your always incredibly competent staff, and those who aren’t here that I haven’t seen. I thank you for the opportunity today.

I’ll start right in to section 1. Would the minister give me the purpose of this legislation?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for Penticton. I’m sure this is going to be a good dialogue and discussion today.

Let me first start about clause 1. This is really around public notice, so I’ll address that. If the member meant, more broadly, other parts of the bill, then please state so and I can do that after. This deals with changes to local government public notice. As the member knows, there have been ongoing local government concerns about the current rules around the publishing of public notice in two consecutive weekly newspapers.

This is an issue that communities have brought to the attention of UBCM. In fact, since 2011, eight different resolutions have been brought forward to UBCM. The current rules do allow local governments to publish by alternative means when a newspaper publication isn’t possible, but local governments have been very clear in letting us know that they find “alternative means” as something that is unclear and difficult to meet. Additionally, the changing nature of the way we’re communicating in our communities means that different tools would be preferable to them.

These changes do reflect those generally changing circumstances that we’re seeing, the preferences and modes of communication of local governments, and the evolving circumstances. In some communities, for example, weekly publications don’t even exist anymore. That is the purpose of this clause.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Minister, for that.

What are the intended impacts of this bill?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Let me respond to this a bit more broadly, in terms of the entire bill. Much of this is responding to requests that have come directly from local governments and communities to us. The bill, broadly, proposes amendments that will modernize local government public-notice requirements by allowing community choice in addition to existing methods for providing public notice.

It supports the responsible conduct of elected officials by requiring local governments to give consideration to developing or updating codes of conduct; providing the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with specific authorities to dissolve the Jumbo Glacier mountain resort municipality; enabling the Islands Trust to meet its specialized mandate more effectively, by responding to specific requests of the Islands Trust, including enshrining their collaborative and cooperative processes and engagement with First Nations; and facilitating economic development for the city of Powell River by removing the historic regulatory restrictions on city-owned land in the mill-site area.

The bill also starts the process of improving the local government development approvals processes, which are often complex and lengthy. This can lead to unnecessary delays and fewer homes being built, as well as a pent-up demand for housing. Ultimately, those are generally the purposes of the legislation.

I’ll just close on the development approvals piece. This is around removing the default requirement for local governments to hold public hearings for zoning bylaws that are consistent with the official community plan and enabling local governments to delegate minor development variance permits to local government staff.

The Chair: For those watching from abroad, it’s nice to know that both the minister and the critic are former mayors of great cities in our province.

Member for Penticton.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope you won’t hold that against me in the future.

Minister, in your opinion, what is this bill going to do for the opportunity of housing supply in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Osborne: The question is around what these changes will do to speed up the delivery of new housing.

I want to set the context that, first of all, these proposed amendments around public hearing and the delegation of minor permits are a direct response to calls from UBCM and communities and other stakeholders who participated in the development approvals process review consultations that took place in 2018 and 2019. Stakeholders who participated in those consultations identified public hearings and delegation of authority as two priority areas of action that could have an impact on streamlining development approvals.

[4:10 p.m.]

The consultations indicated, too, that local governments are often holding public hearings for all zoning bylaws, regardless of whether public hearings are needed, so many decisions are coming to councils and boards for consideration that could appropriately be dealt with by staff. The initial feedback we’ve had from local governments is that this is a positive change. They have indicated a willingness to deploy these tools.

We know that there are hundreds of public hearings taking place across British Columbia. The removal of this step is one piece of speeding up the development approvals process. As has often been said, time is money. We know that this will bring down the cost of housing as well.

Not proceeding with these amendments at this time would really be a lost opportunity to make changes that are low-hanging fruit in terms of supporting local governments in streamlining their processes and the beginning of much more work underway to work with local governments in streamlining approvals.

D. Ashton: The minister mentioned a consultation process. Could she tell me how many consultations took place during the development of this particular bill?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: In the development approvals process review, 11 meetings were held throughout the province that provided stakeholders with the opportunity to reflect on the approaches, the challenges and opportunities before them. These stakeholders included organizations from the development community, including the UDI, the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, the Canadian Home Builders Association, 67 different local governments as well as a series of other stakeholders, like architects and engineers.

We also held targeted sessions specific to these amendments that are before us today, again, with local governments and the development community — UBCM.

D. Ashton: I think the minister said 67 local governments. With that, I’m assuming that that was done through UBCM.

Hon. J. Osborne: The engagement that was undertaken with local governments was done by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and in partnership with UBCM at each of the 11 regional meetings.

D. Ashton: In the area that I’m incredibly proud to represent, we have Indigenous bands beside our municipalities. My question is: was there any consultation done with areas similar to the area that I represent, where we border right on band lands and band development? I’m just curious if Indigenous consultation did take place during this process.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question, too, around Indigenous consultation during the DPRA process.

I want to first just set the context that this consultation process was concerning fee simple lands within local government boundaries and did not apply to treaty nations, for example, directly on their lands.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the point about communities that are side by each with First Nations and can confirm that the Vancouver Native Housing Society and the Aboriginal Housing Society of Prince George both participated in the development approvals process review.

As well, just to speak more broadly about the amendments themselves that we’re bringing forward today, notification was provided to treaty nations and engagement letters sent to the treaty nations and the Nisga’a and that no concerns were raised to date on that.

D. Ashton: I want to clarify. I meant Indigenous peoples’ land. That’s what I was talking about.

As we know, when development takes place, there can be that confluence from both sides onto existing structure. I know in Penticton where we treat wastewater and provide filtered water to Indigenous lands, an opportunity for development… I’m just wondering if more could be done through the ministry to ensure that there are notices that are provided through municipalities to the occupiers of the Indigenous lands because some of them are locatees, which is where they have tenure over the land, and some with the band.

Are there or will there be in the future or currently accommodation made where that notification can go out to those in the surrounding lands that do not include fee simple land but include lands held by the Indigenous people in certain areas of the province beside municipalities?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question, really around the relationship between local governments and First Nations on land use decisions and, specifically, with respect to housing.

I’ll start by noting that we understand housing needs do cross boundaries and note that the housing assessment needs reports that many, almost all, local governments are completing have often involved partnerships with First Nations or engagement with First Nations on those housing needs assessments.

We always encourage open discussions between local governments and First Nations on ways that they can support each other. For example, this might include infrastructure programs, and I’ll note that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs does have infrastructure programs that, in fact, encourage co-application between First Nations and a local government for a service such as water delivery, perhaps, or sewage delivery and treatment.

Finally, note that there are changes proposed in this act around public notice that actually enable a local government to choose methods by bylaw that would better reach First Nations neighbours or the First Nations in whose territories those local governments lie.

D. Ashton: I know the minister mentioned that UBCM was involved in the consultation process. May I ask: what were the main recommendations that came out of all of the recommendations? And were those recommendations assembled and put into the bill as we see it now?

[4:30 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The main recommendations of the development approvals process review really fell around four priority areas. They were: streamlining approvals, development finance, public hearings and input, and official community plans and zoning.

The changes that are presented in the amendments proposed today around public hearings and the delegation of authority on development variance permits are two of the low-hanging fruit, the two that we are moving forward today. Work is underway on the other recommendations.

D. Ashton: I just want to clarify that I may have said cities, and I meant municipalities — so encompassing all in my discussion, instead of just saying cities. I hope that the context is being taken for all municipalities and/or townships.

Madam Chair, I’m fine with section 1 and section 2. My next questions will be based around section 3.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

D. Ashton: Could the minister clarify what specifically qualifies as a public notice posting place?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: A public notice posting place is a place where a council or regional district board has chosen where public notices will be posted, such as a bulletin board, often near a municipal hall or a regional district office. It is identified in their procedure bylaw.

D. Ashton: Who would determine where it is practical to post a notice in accordance with subsection 94.1(1)? So who is the determining body for where a notice can or cannot be posted?

Hon. J. Osborne: Ultimately, it’s the local government that is responsible for determining where that public notice posting place is. As they know their communities best, they will determine where that place will be. The council, in the case of a municipality, or the board, in the case of a regional district, of course, is always ultimately responsible for the procedures bylaw in which the public notice posting place is described.

D. Ashton: Oversight. Who is there for oversight on these issues about posting?

Hon. J. Osborne: Once again, ultimately, it is the council or the board of a regional district that is responsible for oversight and, again, knowing their communities best, will describe where that public notice posting place will be, through their procedures bylaw, and maintain oversight over that.

D. Ashton: What are the requirements for publications as mentioned in subsection (2)? There’s the requirement for publication.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: May I ask for a little clarification on that? Is the member referring to the section that will be substituted in 94.2?

D. Ashton: In subsection (2), I’ve got that when a council adopts a bylaw, they must publish the notice in at least two different ways. This does not include the public notice posting places. So my question is on the publication in two different ways, if the minister could just clarify that.

Hon. J. Osborne: If I understand the question correctly, around two different means of providing notice, the intention of these amendments is that the local government will select those methods that work best for their community. But they must meet the principles of effective public notice, so I’ll just briefly describe those.

That is that they are accessible, reliable and suitable. Accessible: the notice is provided in a format that’s easy to access and has broad reach in the community. Reliable: the information is provided by sources that are dependable and trustworthy. And suitable: the notice format is appropriate for the information that’s being conveyed.

Again, each community will have the opportunity to determine which methods suit them best, and then they will prescribe that by their own new public notice bylaw.

D. Ashton: Can the minister give an example of subsection 94(3)? I have that it gives the minister authority when council is adopting bylaws in this section. So what is that authority?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The meaning of this is that subject to meeting the requirement to provide public notice in two ways that would be prescribed by bylaw, the council may provide additional types of forms of public notice, as they deem fit. So for example, instead of just meeting the minimum of two, they may determine that they also wish to publish notice in a third or a fourth format.

D. Ashton: If the council provides the additional opportunity of notice, how does the council determine that?

I heard the minister say “wish.” If they may wish. But are there other determining factors? Or is it just that they’re trying to get…? I’m not trying to put words in the minister’s mouth. Is it that the council just wishes to have a larger dissemination of information about the particular hearing?

Hon. J. Osborne: To confirm, yes, a council or a regional district board may choose to provide more forms of public notice in addition to the two that they’re required to. Why they choose to do that may be for reasons such as broader reach or reaching particular parts of their community.

Again, they know their communities best. So on a case-by-case basis, for a different particular type of public notice that’s being delivered, they may choose to use more than just the two minimum required methods.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister.

Threshold. I think you’ve answered that for me — the threshold to provide additional notice. But when would that decision be made to provide the additional notice, if a municipality/council or a board wishes to do so?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: If a local government is undertaking an event for which they need to provide public notice — for example, a local election — they must, of course, adhere to the public notice bylaw that they will develop.

The minimum two forms of public notice that would be required would be something they would determine through that bylaw. If, on a case-by-case basis, they determined that a third or fourth method was also needed, then, presumably, they would make that decision at the same time as they were giving notice for the first two, the minimum two required.

However, I do want to be clear that as local governments begin to adopt their public notice bylaws, we will be providing them with information, guidelines and best practices so that they can do this in a way, of course, again, that is how they wish to do it for their communities, knowing their communities best, but in a way, again, that meets those requirements of public notice, the principles of public notice that I spoke of earlier.

D. Ashton: The minister has said that it would be a bylaw independent to the municipalities or regional districts or townships.

Could the minister give me a reasonable equivalency to a newspaper, which is described in subsection 94.1(3)(c)? What are some reasonable alternatives to newspapers?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: In answering this question, I want to, first, be clear that the changes that are proposed in this legislation will not require local governments to move away from publishing public notices in newspapers. Instead, this gives local governments the flexible option to choose, if they determine that they need it, a better or more modernized approach that’s suitable for their community.

A community may choose additional or an alternative to newspapers, something such as a local government website or an online newspaper, a direct mailout or a public posting notice in a local government recreation centre, for example. Again, this is about providing the flexibility to local governments to make choices to modernize their public posting requirements should they choose that they need to.

In fact, in recently speaking to a mayor of a community that authored one of the resolutions that went to UBCM, the mayor was very clear that the flexibility was very much appreciated but that there was no intention at that time to move away from newspapers, because their community does have a weekly newspaper. But the ability to change that or to add to it was very much appreciated.

D. Ashton: I would like to thank the minister. Local newspapers in our communities have been through an awful lot in recent times, and governments do have the opportunity to support them in ways that have been traditional. I hope that does carry on.

One of the issues in one of the discussions that I’ve had in various municipalities was best efforts. It has been proposed that the opportunity to post on websites and social media platforms, etc…. Unfortunately, sometimes these have a tendency to go down, especially when you’re in some of the smaller, rural areas where we don’t have consistency in…. I’ll retract that word. Sometimes we don’t have the consistency of complete 24-hour service without some interruptions.

This is a proposal. If a site were to go down for a period of time during the notice period, would the ministry expect it to be extended for the period of time that the site was down? If the notification was posted, the site was down and came up in X amount of time, would that X amount of time be added to the posting? This is a question from a municipality.

Hon. J. Osborne: The legislation does not propose that kind of extension. In fact, that’s, in part, why at least two forms of public notice are required. Local governments, in developing a public notice bylaw, must adhere to those principles, once again, of accessibility, reliability and suitability so that in the case, as the member describes, of an Internet site, say, going down, there are other forms of notification that have taken place.

D. Ashton: To the minister: thank you for that. I appreciate it.

It was referred to, to me, as bookends. When a publication is put in the local paper, there’s a start date and a finish date. I think we’ve all had experiences where we have seen notifications in electronic means extended.

Is there any issue with a municipality going past those dates? Sometimes they’re not as quick to address websites or notification…. Are there any issues if a notification period extended past the required date that was posted?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: In providing public notice of an event, the local government will work backward from the date of the event. So if they wish to provide earlier notice than required, they certainly may do so, but they must meet the minimum starting point for public notification.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister for that.

Sometimes it goes past it. I would just draw the minister’s attention that some websites have information from a long time ago, so there is notification that is up there. Is there an encumbrance on municipalities and regional districts to ensure that those notices are withdrawn, or is it something that can float out there for a period of time without any issues from the ministry?

It’s not the responsibility and/or the fault of the municipality or the regional district. It’s just, unfortunately, that some of these sites are not continually updated and corrected, so this stuff floats around.

Hon. J. Osborne: I think I do understand what the member is getting at. I can say that there have been a number of times when I have gone to the public notice board in front of the grocery store in my hometown and been really disappointed to learn that I had just missed something, because the notice is still up.

In this case, on the publication of a notice online that the owner of the website perhaps fails to take down in time, unfortunately, that’s really just not addressed by the amendments proposed today.

D. Ashton: That’s fine for section 3. I have a few questions on section 4.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

D. Ashton: Impact on local governments for the alternative means of publication. Do the minister or the ministry have any indication of any impacts upon local government for the alternative means of publication?

Hon. J. Osborne: Once again, the proposed amendments provide the ability for a local government to choose to develop a public notice bylaw if they wish to, but there is no requirement for them to do so. So the impact could indeed be nothing.

D. Ashton: Could the minister enlighten myself and others as to how a bylaw to provide alternative means of publication would be adopted?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The public notice bylaw would be considered and adopted like any other bylaw, in an open meeting with three readings and adoption.

The changes that we expect local governments would be undertaking…. They require that before adopting a public notice bylaw, the council or the regional district board needs, once again, to give consideration to those principles of effective public notice. This ensures that the local government turns its mind to methods of giving notice that support community participation and accountable deci­sion-making.

This means those principles will ensure that the flexibility is given to local governments but that they’re meeting the test of what the public needs and what their community is most in need of. We will be providing guidance — best practices — to local governments that do choose to consider developing a public notice bylaw.

We do expect them to give careful consideration to their community’s needs and their ability to access the different preferred needs, and to consult, too, with interested stakeholders, which would include, hopefully, a local newspaper, if one exists there. That would be before enacting the public notice bylaw.

D. Ashton: A quick question. Could the minister and/or staff give a few examples of alternative form of notification?

Hon. J. Osborne: Different methods might include a local government website, an online newspaper, a direct mailout or a notice board at a local government recreation centre, for example.

D. Ashton: Section 94.2 (6) allows the minister to make some following regulations. I just would ask, what would be a case when a minister or ministry would get involved, as described in subsection (6)?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: As the member knows, this section, allowing the minister to make regulations, provides us with the ability to respond quickly to local governments.

As local governments choose to implement this ability and develop their own public notice bylaw, we will, of course, be monitoring it and engaging with local governments to understand how it’s going. However, this section provides a bit of a safety net so that should they be required in the future, the minister would have the ability to make regulations — for example, adding another principle, in addition to those of reliability, suitability and accessibility, which will be included in the regulation if this legislation passes.

D. Ashton: That would be a situation in which, also, a minister would select a notice of publication. If a situation like that arrived, would the minister step in to ensure that that public notice was being given appropriately?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. I think the member’s understanding is correct. Under 94.2(6)(b), for example, the minister could make a regulation that prescribes one of the means of publication be specified in the bylaw that a local government adopts. That could be an outcome.

D. Ashton: Does a local council or board have the opportunity to make recommendations to the minister as to what publications they would foresee would be the best for their community in the situation that we just discussed?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. Indeed, that could be the case. Local governments could make recommendations directly. Also, in our partnership with UBCM and the Local Government Leadership Academy, LGLA, which represent a number of — in fact, almost all — local governments in British Columbia…. We would gratefully receive advice from them as well.

D. Ashton: Is there any recourse for a council that would disagree with the minister or ministry upon an issue like that arising? Is there some form of appeal process?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: No. An appeal process isn’t contemplated.

Again, I want to emphasize the partnership and collaboration that we have with UBCM, with LGLA and also with the Local Government Management Association, LGMA, which represents a number of staff people that work for local governments. Again, that collaborative nature means that we want to work with, to enable local governments to be successful — of course, always listening to that and taking the advice that they provide to us. In fact, most, if not all, of the amendments that are proposed in this legislation today come directly from suggestions and feedback from local governments.

D. Ashton: I don’t have any more questions on section 4. The next in line for myself is the code of conduct. However, one of my peers does have questions on Jumbo Glacier. I’m not sure if appropriate staff are here at this point in time.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

D. Ashton: Before we’re into section 5, I’m just stating that I have somebody that would like to discuss some questions around Jumbo.

Interjection.

D. Ashton: Okay, so we’ll leave it to the end. I apologize.

Sorry. I was just trying to be accommodating.

So section 5. Was there any consultation done to develop this section underneath a code of conduct?

Hon. J. Osborne: The amendments proposed around responsible conduct come from extensive consultation that’s been undertaken between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the UBCM and the Local Government Management Association.

As the member may recall, back in 2016, a resolution came forward to UBCM around the issue of questionable conduct by local government elected officials. This really is what kick-started this consultation and discussion, resulting in the amendments that are proposed.

Through that work with UBCM, a working group was struck: the Working Group on Responsible Conduct. This was a very collaborative — is a very collaborative — staff-level partnership between the province, UBCM and the LGMA. Since the formation of that working group, they have been exploring various approaches to strengthening the local government responsible conduct framework through policy work, through consultations and the development of educational resources.

Today the amendments that are proposed are the beginning of what we feel will be an ongoing relationship with these organizations to strengthen local government responsible conduct and support local governments in the work that they do delivering services to the people in their communities.

D. Ashton: Is there any criteria or framework that can help councils develop their code of conduct, should they choose to adopt one?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Communities will be very well supported in developing, implementing or revising a code of conduct. The Working Group on Responsible Conduct identified and defined four foundational principles: integrity, accountability, respect, and leadership and collaboration. These are used as a resource to guide the conduct of both the individual elected officials and a collective council or a board.

Embedding these principles into the local government legal framework is going to signal to local governments the importance of responsible conduct and the good governance of their communities and demonstrate their accountability to the public. The Working Group on Responsible Conduct has issued a document: Forging the Path to Responsible Conduct. UBCM has developed a model code of conduct which was considered at a past convention.

Again, to wrap up, local governments will be well supported through this process. Of course, staff at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and staff at UBCM, LGMA and LGLA are all here to support local governments as they do this important work.

D. Ashton: Are there any aspects that must be included in the code of conduct that the ministry requires?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The proposed legislation contemplates prescribing certain matters and aspects and principles by regulation that local governments would have to consider when making their decision regarding codes of conduct and, further, certain requirements that, by regulation, local governments must comply with when making their decision about codes of conduct — for example, prescribing procedural standards and requirements that would ensure there is transparency and accountability for local governments when they’re engaging in the dialogue about a code of conduct but again, by regulation, defining those four foundational principles: integrity, accountability, respect, and leadership and collaboration.

D. Ashton: Is the ministry there to help councils develop their codes of conduct?

Hon. J. Osborne: To assist local governments in developing their codes of conduct, the UBCM has developed a model code of conduct for local governments to contemplate. Of course, the Working Group on Responsible Conduct has developed a very comprehensive guide that will assist councils, boards and their staffs in the conversation.

That really is the emphasis here. That dialogue — the discussion that local councils or regional district boards have in the consideration of a code of conduct and what it should contain — is a very, very key element of this process. A number of local governments have also taken the step of engaging consultants, who specialize in this kind of work, to help facilitate the conversations that they need to have in the development of that code of conduct.

D. Ashton: If a council neglects to consider a code of conduct, are there any sanctions or other issues brought down on the council and/or board from the ministry, regarding that, if they say no to a code of conduct?

Hon. J. Osborne: There are no sanctions, per se, if a local government chooses not to use or implement a code of conduct, but they would be required, under the proposed amendments, to reconsider that, prior to January 1 in the year of a local election. Of course, a local government must be responsible to the people who elected the elected officials in the first place, to the citizens of their community, to explain why they chose not to implement a code of conduct — or to review it, if they have one.

D. Ashton: My question was on how long the councils will have to wait, but the minister has brought up that it must be done before the next election cycle. I just want a confirmation on that.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: If passed, this legislation would require local governments to consider a code of conduct within six months of the 2022 general local elections. Then, if they chose not to implement one at that time, prior to January 1 of the year of the next general election — prior to January 1, 2026 — they would need to reconsider.

D. Ashton: Who does the council report to when they have either considered or reconsidered their decision?

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. J. Osborne: They are responsible to report to their electorate, and they need to do this in an open meeting so the electorate would have the opportunity, as recorded through the minutes of the council or the board, to understand the decision that a council or board made.

D. Ashton: How would the ministry know what transpired? How and when would the ministry know if or not that transpired?

Hon. J. Osborne: As an independent order of government, we will not be auditing each and every local government to understand at what meeting they had this discussion around their code of conduct. However, we are always monitoring local government activities, engaging with local governments, engaging with UBCM, LGMA, LGLA. We hear directly from local governments. We hear directly from neighbouring local governments. And we hear directly from citizens sometimes.

We will always be there to support local governments with the guidance that they need. And again, local governments will be able to rely on UBCM and LGMA, the work that has been done already by the Working Group on Responsible Conduct, to help support them.

D. Ashton: Just for curiosity’s sake, to the minister and the ministry staff, who would be some of the examples that the minister and staff would like to see in a code of conduct for municipalities and/or regional districts or elected bodies?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: In answering this question, I want to back up just a little bit and talk about responsible conduct — what it is and why it matters.

Broadly speaking, responsible conduct refers to how elected officials conduct themselves in their relationships with each other as elected colleagues, with their staff and with the public. This conduct is directly connected to how a community is governed. Responsible conduct is grounded in the way elected officials conduct themselves with honesty, with integrity and in a way that furthers their local government’s ability to provide good governance to their community.

If a local government is facing issues related to less-than-responsible conduct, it can affect the local government’s ability to provide good governance for that community. It’s for that reason that concerns have come forward through UBCM and the idea to contemplate a code of conduct has been undertaken in this legislation. A code of conduct is a written document that sets out the shared expectations that local elected officials have for conduct and behaviour.

A local government council or a board could adopt that code of conduct to establish those shared expectations for not only how the members should conduct themselves while carrying out their responsibilities but how they’re going to work as a collective decision-making body for their community. We expect that these changes would lead to local governments creating a standardized process requirement for elected officials to engage in that regular and meaningful dialogue about how they’re going to govern together, how they’re going to work together while carrying out the elected duties of their office.

That’s why the working group has come up with the guidance that they have, why the UBCM has come up with the model code of conduct. We feel strongly that this is a good tool for local governments, a good launching point for local governments to use, as they undertake these very, very important conversations.

D. Ashton: I heard the minister say “elected officials.” Is that the only entity that a code of conduct will apply to — specifically, this code of conduct that is being proposed?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, the member is correct. The code of conduct applies to elected officials. It doesn’t apply to staffs, but it does apply to the way that elected officials interact with their staffs. It will apply to, to be clear, not only all local governments but also the city of Vancouver park board and the Cultus Lake board — in addition to local governments.

D. Ashton: May I ask when the code of conduct will apply? For example, will it only be during a council meeting or a board meeting, etc.?

[5:40 p.m.]

The Chair: We’re going to take a three-minute break. We’re in recess. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 5:42 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The application of a code of conduct goes far beyond just an elected official’s behaviour at a meeting and, in fact, should apply to any aspect of their role as an elected official in carrying out their duties. This might include attendance at public meetings, open houses, media, social media — examples like that.

Again, this is about good governance and the behaviour, the integrity and respect with which elected officials not only treat each other, but the people that they serve and the staff that they work with.

D. Ashton: Could the minister describe the prescribed principles for codes of conduct in section 113.2 (2)(a) specifically?

Hon. J. Osborne: The principles that are contemplated to be prescribed by regulation would be, again, integrity, accountability, respect, and leadership and collaboration.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister.

Could the minister also explain what the prescribed requirements are in section 113.2 (2)(c)?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: As I described in the last question and answer, under the prescribed principles for codes of conduct, the principles being contemplated are, again: integrity, accountability, respect, leadership and collaboration.

These sections provide, again, a bit of a safety net, if you will, so that we can respond to the needs of local governments. It would provide perhaps further direction and guidance for local governments in the way they engage in the conversations respecting codes of conduct.

They may be required to consider certain matters, for example. It could be around the effectiveness of any of the existing policies or codes of conduct that they have currently in place. It might be around previous dialogue that they have had around codes of conduct or verbal discourse, how they behave and conduct themselves. It might be codes of conduct as they apply to their relationships with the public and staff.

As well, a regulation could prescribe certain notice or public consultation requirements, such as notifying the public of when the conversation will take place or establishing opportunities for public input into the conversation respecting codes of conduct.

D. Ashton: My thanks to the minister on that.

I have received some correspondence on this. I would like to paraphrase an individual that I have a huge amount of respect for, if I may. It says, and I’m paraphrasing and I’ll put some of my own words in: It’s a real sad state of affairs that a mandate of this stature needs to come down, which is a real complete departure in the many circles that us in this wonderful House of the people have grown up with. The decorum and the common decency of elected officials and public office is changing.

I really hope that the ministry is there to help those elected bodies that need a hand, that are going to stumble with this. Again, I really hope that the ministry is there to help those that are going to need this. I also hope that the ministry is there to address the issues that some of those elected bodies and some of the issues that they get involved in.

I think that in the future, it’s going to be unfortunate, but this may have to be more than just a suggestion and a proposal and that we are all going to be faced with codes of conduct in our elected official positions and that hopefully we can bring that decorum of decency back to those that, unfortunately, don’t practice it and give others a name.

Especially in today’s media, where a newspaper…. You never wanted your name to be on the front page of a newspaper but, oh my gosh, it can be on Twitter, and it can be on all these other things that I don’t even know about that my kids tell me about. I will leave that section with those words.

I am fine with sections 6, 7 and 8. My next questions will be around section 9.

Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

On clause 9.

Mr. Chair: If I could ask the members to please take their conversations outside. Thank you.

D. Ashton: First Nations issues. Were any consultations done in regard to this change under section 9, First Nations?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the opportunity to speak a bit about the Islands Trust and their relationship with First Nations and the importance of this proposed amendment for the Islands Trust.

The intent of the proposed legislative request is to create that mutually respectful and cooperative relationship at the government-to-government level, or rather, to recognize this, specifically with the First Nations who have the treaty and territorial rights and title within the Islands Trust area.

The Islands Trust has come forward specifically with this request for the amendment, and they’ve confirmed that they will always continue to learn from and work with the Indigenous people who live in the trust area.

I do want to emphasize that the change is not providing any additional powers or doesn’t place any additional responsibilities on the Islands Trust, but it will align the Islands Trust Act with their commitments to reconciliation. It will provide the formal recognition of Islands Trust’s current policies that are related to building relationships and working in cooperation with First Nations in the trust area in this legislation.

D. Ashton: May I ask how many consultations were done?

Hon. J. Osborne: This request is actually the direct result of engagement that has taken place between the Islands Trust and the respective First Nations in whose territory the trust lies. First Nations are aware of this. They’ve been engaged directly, again, with the Islands Trust.

The Islands Trust has come forward with this request for a change, a respectful change that will much better represent the relationship they have with First Nations and the cooperation that they continue to have and their commitment to reconciliation.

[6:00 p.m.]

D. Ashton: Is there a number of consultations or a period of time that the consultations were conducted in? Also, how were they conducted?

Hon. J. Osborne: Once again, this request really reflects the existing practices of the Islands Trust and is the result of the ongoing consultations and engagement that Islands Trust has with First Nations in whose territories they lie. I do not have specific details of the engagement sessions or conversations that have taken place, but should the member like some more details, then that would certainly be something I could endeavour to provide after today.

D. Ashton: Sure. Thanks to the minister for that.

May I ask, though, if the minister is apprised of it, what were some of the main recommendations that came out of the consultation period?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: In answering this question, I’ll just back up to say, and remind the House, that the purpose or the object of the Islands Trust under the Islands Trust Act is “to preserve and protect the trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of the residents of the trust area and of British Columbia generally.”

The object provision specifically identifies certain local authorities, other persons and organizations, and the province of British Columbia as bodies that the Islands Trust works with in cooperation to achieve its mandate. So this singular and specific request to update the Islands Trust Act is really about modernizing and fairly and effectively representing the relationship that Islands Trust has worked so hard at with First Nations in whose territory they lie.

That’s why specifically recognizing First Nations as an entity that the Islands Trust works with in cooperation to meet its objective is so important to the Islands Trust. I think that will answer the question.

D. Ashton: I’m fine with this section. I have a question on section 10.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

D. Ashton: How does amending subsection 8(2) change the section?

Hon. J. Osborne: This section really is around expanding the ability of the trust to provide financial support to third parties.

The act currently provides for the Islands Trust to support third-party initiatives if they relate to the history or conservation of the history and heritage of the trust area. But the current narrow definition in the Islands Trust Act prevents the trust from supporting activities that are undertaken by others to provide education about or preserve the environment of the trust area or the unique amenities of the trust area.

Because many communities in the trust area have community-led organizations that are seeking to conserve the environment of the trust area or, say, to educate visitors about the environment or unique features of their communities within the trust area, those organizations had approached the Islands Trust to seek funding for smaller projects to support that work. For example, creating interpretive signs on local trails or pamphlets to direct visitors to the unique features in the area. This amendment would enable the trust to do that — to provide these smaller grants typically in the order of $1,000 or less.

D. Ashton: The minister read my mind. Does the trust council determine what is considered a unique amenity?

Hon. J. Osborne: There is no definition of “unique amenity” in the Islands Trust Act, but the Islands Trust does interpret the phrase as relating to the unique natural features of the Gulf Islands and the unique character of Gulf Island communities. Examples of what unique amenities might be…. It might be a particular rock formation, or a waterway, or something like the rural or artistic character of a community.

D. Ashton: I’m fine until section 13. I have no more questions until section 13.

Clauses 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On clause 13.

[6:10 p.m.]

D. Ashton: How will repealing subsection 29(3.1) impact the legislation?

Hon. J. Osborne: This section refers to and addresses an administrative inefficiency, essentially, with respect to the planning and land use processes and operations within the trust. It removes the requirement that a specific type of bylaw, the development approval information bylaw, go back up to the full Islands Trust for approval each time and instead makes it consistent with other local governments across the province.

D. Ashton: Mr. Chair, I’m fine with section 13 down to section 20. My next questions will be on section 21.

Clauses 13 to 20 inclusive approved.

On clause 21.

D. Ashton: With the removal of subsections 220(4)(a) and (b), what happens if there is an emergency that requires a special meeting?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: This legislative amendment provides us the opportunity to modernize the notice requirements for a special regional district board meeting by removing the requirement to mail a notice to board members five days before a special meeting takes place.

The member’s question is around emergencies. What happens if there is an emergency? In this case, the amendment would allow members to be notified by email, for example, electronic means, which would be much better than taking five days in the mail to provide that notice.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister.

When would be a situation where a notice is waived by unanimous vote of all the directors, if the minister has an example of that?

Hon. J. Osborne: The member refers to an existing provision in the act by which unanimous vote would be required of all members in order to waive the public notice requirement for a special meeting. A situation that might occur — something urgent, something that requires very quick attention — is, for example, the declaration of a state of local emergency.

D. Ashton: Maybe a little idiosyncrasy in this, but if notice is waived by a unanimous vote of all the directors, does the meeting still need to proceed?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the interesting question.

Should the regional district call a special meeting and all members come together and unanimously consent to waive the requirement for public notice, the meeting is occurring. They would need to adhere to all of the regular procedures outlined in their procedures bylaw, such as recording who is present, what time the meeting started, taking minutes and that sort of thing.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the staff and to the minister for that.

I am fine until section 26. I have questions based on 26.

Clauses 21 to 25 inclusive approved.

On clause 26.

D. Ashton: Regarding public hearings, what impact will this change have?

Hon. J. Osborne: What impact will this change have? Specifically, this will repeal a local government’s authority to waive the requirement to hold a public hearing on a proposed zoning bylaw.

It would establish that the local government is not required to hold a public hearing on a proposed zoning bylaw if the official community plan is in effect for the area and it’s subject to the zoning bylaw and that bylaw is consistent with the official community plan. This means, effectively, that local governments would not need to take the extra step in their development approvals process of waiving a public hearing when the zoning amendment bylaw is consistent with the OCP.

This is one of the recommendations, again, that came forward from the development approvals process review and is one of the pieces of low-hanging fruit, a tool that we can give local governments to help streamline and improve the speed of their development approvals processes, with the intention of helping British Columbians get into homes faster.

Noting the hour, the committee on Bill 26 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.