Orders of the Day

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

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 44 — AMENDMENTS TO
MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS
FINAL AGREEMENT

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

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to 1.14.3 of Chapter 1 of the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia consents to the amendments to the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement set out in the attached Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement Amending Process Agreement (No. 2023-1).

MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS FINAL AGREEMENT AMENDING PROCESS AGREEMENT (No. 2023-1)

THIS AMENDING PROCESS AGREEMENT 2023-1 (this “Amending Agreement”) is dated for reference March 6, 2023

AMONG:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

(“Canada”)

AND

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

(“British Columbia”)

AND

MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS, as represented by the First Nations of the Maa-nulth Treaty Society

(“Maa-nulth First Nations”)

WHEREAS:

A. On April 1, 2011, the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement came into effect;

B. The Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement provides for its amendment and specifies requirements for the amendment of various of its provisions;

C. The Parties have previously agreed to amendments to the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement;

D. The Parties agree to propose further amendments to the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending Agreement;

E. The Parties have determined that the processes set out in 1.14.1, 1.14.2, 1.14.3, and 1.14.5 to 1.14.8 of Chapter 1 – General Provisions apply to the proposed amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending Agreement;

NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree as follows:

PART I – DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

1. In this Amending Agreement:

“Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement” means the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement entered into among the Maa-nulth First Nations, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia, effective April 1, 2011, as amended.

2. A reference to a Chapter by number and name is a reference to the chapter of that number and name in the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement.

3. Words and expressions appearing in this Amending Agreement that are not defined in this Amending Agreement but are defined in the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement have the meanings ascribed to them in the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement.

PART II – PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

4. The proposed amendments in English to the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement are set out in Schedule 1.

5. The proposed amendments in French to the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement are set out in Schedule 2.

6. Pursuant to 1.14.8 of Chapter 1 – General Provisions of the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement, the proposed amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2 will take effect on the date the last Party required to consent to the amendment provides its consent.

PART III – PROCEDURES

7. This Agreement may be executed by electronic signature, which will be considered as an original signature for all purposes and will have the same force and effect as an original signature on paper. Without limitation, “electronic signature” will include electronically scanned and transmitted versions (e.g., via pdf) of an original signature.

8. This Agreement may be signed in identical counterparts, each of which constitutes an original, and such counterparts taken together will constitute one agreement. The signatures of the Parties need not appear on the same counterpart, and executed counterparts may be delivered in electronically scanned form by electronic mail.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, signed this _____ day of ____________________________________.

___________________________

Authorized Signatory

___________________________

Printed Name

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, signed this _____ day of ____________________________________.

____________________________

The Honourable Murray Rankin
Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

FOR MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS, as represented by the First Nations of the Maa-nulth Treaty Society, signed this _____ day of ____________________________________.

____________________________

Charlie Cootes
President
Maa-nulth Treaty Society

Schedule 1

The Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement is amended as follows:

1. Chapter 19 – Taxation is amended to add the following numbered provisions immediately after each of 19.5.1, 19.5.2, 19.5.3 and 19.5.4 respectively:

19.5.1.1 Despite 19.5.1 and subject to 19.5.3.1, as of the day this provision comes into effect, section 87 of the Indian Act applies to a Maa-nulth-aht who is an Indian.

19.5.2.1 Despite 19.5.1 and subject to 19.1.1a, 19.5.3.1, 19.5.3.2 and 19.5.4.1, as of the day this provision comes into effect, section 87 of the Indian Act applies on Maa-nulth First Nation Lands that were an Indian Reserve or Surrendered Lands on the day before the Effective Date as if those lands were an Indian Reserve.

19.5.3.1 19.5.1.1 and 19.5.2.1 only apply so long as section 87 of the Indian Act itself remains in force.

19.5.3.2 19.5.2.1 only applies to an Indian during a period that section 87 of the Indian Act applies to the Indian.

19.5.4.1 A Maa-nulth First Nation may enter into a tax agreement with Canada or British Columbia that limits the application of 19.5.2.1 to the extent specified in that tax agreement.

[Schedule 2 available for inspection at the Office of the Clerk.]]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to move the first amending process agreement to the Maa-nulth First Nations final agreement. Before I start, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate each of the five Maa-nulth First Nations on their ongoing efforts to support strong, healthy and thriving communities through sustainable economies that benefit their citizens with jobs and opportunities.

I’d like to recognize the leaders of the Maa-nulth First Nations, if I may, at this time.

Chief Councillor Robert Dennis Sr. of the Huu-ay-aht First Nations, who has joined us today.

President Charles McCarthy of the Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government.

Legislative Chief Benjamin Gillette of the Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’/​Che:k’tles7et’h’ First Nations.

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

Chief Councillor Charlie Cootes of the Uchucklesaht, who is also president of the Maa-nulth Treaty Society.

Mark Stephens, who is the chief administrative officer of the Maa-nulth Treaty Society.

Also, I’d like to recognize all hereditary and elected Chiefs, legislators, executive members and Maa-nulth First Nations citizens who may be observing our proceedings today.

No longer are modern treaties regarded as final. They are regarded as agreements that embody the living relationship between the governments of Canada, British Columbia and a First Nation.

The amendment today follows the same process as we have in the past — for example, as we did when amendments to the Nisg̱a’a final agreement were passed by resolution in 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2019; as when an amending agreement to the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement was passed by resolution in 2017; and most recently, we’ve consented to a resolution amending the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement in relation to tax policy changes.

[1:45 p.m.]

The purpose of the amendment to the Maa-nulth First Nations final agreement is to implement a tax policy change that the governments of Canada and British Columbia have made in our respective treaty mandates, one that has been identified as a substantial barrier to First Nations concluding modern treaties.

We have heard that the requirement for First Nations individuals to give up their tax exemption that they have enjoyed under section 87 of the Indian Act is a significant disincentive to concluding modern treaties. It’s a divisive issue within communities and among individuals who have signed modern treaty arrangements, and it’s a material barrier for First Nations citizens entering modern treaties.

The exemption will apply only to the portion of Maa-nulth First Nations’ treaty lands that were former reserves or on other reserves in Canada. This is effectively the pre-treaty status quo.

The new policy allows eligible treaty citizens to keep or to regain their Indian Act tax exemption status in their treaties indefinitely or until a treaty nation determines it’s appropriate to end it or until it’s eliminated for all First Nation individuals. This policy change applies to both existing and future treaties, and it reinstates the tax exemption for all federal and all provincial taxes on a prospective basis, as of the day that the amendment comes into force.

Now, for the Maa-nulth First Nations, this means that Maa-nulth will regain the section 87 tax exemption for taxes that they became subject to in 2019, following the expiry of the treaty tax exemption for transaction taxes, such as sales taxes.

Each of the five Maa-nulth First Nations have already consented to the treaty amendment. For the amendment to be ratified by the province, the Legislative Assembly must consent to the amending process agreement. Once British Columbia has consented, Canada will seek consent, and the amendment will then take effect. On the date that the last of the parties provides the consent, Maa-nulth First Nations citizens will regain their tax exemption under section 87 of the Indian Act.

The work today is the result of a significant commitment by the provincial and federal governments to honour and nurture our treaty relations as well as to reach additional treaties in our province. The Maa-nulth treaty is British Columbia’s first modern treaty on Vancouver Island and the first multination treaty completed under the British Columbia Treaty Commission process. The five Maa-nulth First Nations demonstrate the power of modern treaties to build government-to-government relationships as we work toward common goals.

It is my great honour to rise in the House today, with the support of the five Maa-nulth First Nations, and bring this motion to give British Columbia’s consent.

M. Lee: I wish to join in support of Motion 44, as it’s tabled on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, and certainly welcome the leadership of the Maa-nulth five nations and the citizens that are perhaps dialling in and participating through Hansard in viewing this.

The minister responsible has spoken to the nature of the proposed amendment. Indeed, we had an opportunity to review the set of amendments that are being proposed here under this motion back in the end of March with the Tsawwassen Nation. We had, in that process, an opportunity to have some discussion — the House Leader and myself, with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation — of some of the points the minister had just referred to.

[1:50 p.m.]

I will say that we recognize the importance of ensuring that modern treaties, including the modern treaty with the Maa-nulth five nations, continue to provide the best possible framework of relationship with your nations and that when the federal government and this provincial government made the decisions to change the approach in order to facilitate, as I’m sure the Maa-nulth Nations would recognize, the other modern treaties that have been underway from discussion to formation over many years.

Like under the former government under Premier Gordon Campbell brought in, in 2011, this modern treaty with the Maa-nulth five nations, there was a lot of work involved over a long period of time.

We know the importance of ensuring that we forge a different relationship with nations in our province and that this extension of the section 87 tax exemption under the Indian Act has been seen to be a bit of a hindrance to many citizens of nations as they look at approving and voting for a modern treaty. The Maa-nulth Nations got through that process, recognizing that there was going to be an eight- to 12-year transition period.

In restoring this exemption under the Indian Act, there’s recognition that we need to ensure that the relationship with the Maa-nulth Nations remains strong, with the understanding, as we reviewed, in response to my questions with the minister responsible, that it is the view of the government that there is a living, modern treaty approach. Even though the final agreements for modern treaties do refer to periodic review terms, any party to a modern treaty can request an amendment at any time.

Certainly, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation did note at the time of the review for Tsawwassen, at the end of March, that Maa-nulth had already communicated some intention to bring forward a request for a similar set of amendments. So here we are today.

Also, the minister described, in response to my colleague the member for Abbotsford West and myself, that the amount of tax that is exempt under this arrangement is negligible and immaterial. But we know, of course, that to the citizens of the Maa-nulth Nations, it’s meaningful. It’s meaningful to have this exemption restored to them. It’s meaningful to members of other nations that are in the process of finalizing their modern treaty arrangements with this government and our province and the federal government that that exemption not be removed.

It is with that in mind that we recognize the importance of this motion coming forward. We recognize the work, the leadership and the progress that has been made for the five Maa-nulth Nations in areas like, for example, care for their children, forestry management and land use planning, work with local communities. We hope that with this motion being approved in this House, in this chamber today, it will be an indication of the further good work to be done together with the Maa-nulth Nations.

A. Olsen: We’re doing some good work in the House here today. It’s a good day to be here, and I’m happy to be standing and speaking on behalf of the Third Party in the assembly today on Motion 44.

I’d like to acknowledge Chief Dennis and relatives from Huu-ay-aht there, in the Maa-nulth treaty nations, here in the Legislature today. We just welcome you into the assembly.

[1:55 p.m.]

I want to reiterate, as has been pointed out by the speaker for the official opposition, that this is a process that the Legislative Assembly undertook a month ago with another treaty nation and is a process that I am very happy to support in the debate and then in passing the Declaration Act. One of the most important aspects of that, for Indigenous people in this province, is around the commitment that this province and the country have made now, in passing the Declaration Act, to the right to self determination.

The patriarchal colonial relationship that this provincial government has had with First Nations has been historically inappropriate, and it continues to be inappropriate. The relationships between this government and Indigenous governments in the province necessarily need to change.

This is an indication that change is underway and the work that we’re doing here, the responsiveness, is something that, as someone who grew up on an Indian reserve in this country, I’m very encouraged by. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to this motion.

I also appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge, in here today, this assembly working in unison. We have differences of opinion in here. We all share varieties of differing opinions on things. I think it’s important that when we do this work, and we have guests in our House, in this chamber, those guests can recognize that the House can set those differences aside to do good work together in a good way.

I think what that will do is continue to increase the confidence that Indigenous leaders in our province have of this Legislative Assembly, that when we commit to moving forward together on an issue, they can be certain that we are moving forward together on an issue, just as we do in our longhouses and we do in our sacred places. I just wanted to acknowledge that.

I thank the Speaker for this opportunity and thank the government for bringing forward this motion.

Mr. Speaker: I now invite Chief Councillor Robert Dennis Sr., Emchayiik, of the Huu-ay-aht First Nations, speaking on behalf of the Maa-nulth Nations.

Address by Indigenous Leaders

R. Dennis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, those of you that know me probably find it odd that I’d be scripted today. I think it’s a day that we should be scripted, because we have come together here.

I want to thank you, hon. Speaker and Minister Rankin, for this opportunity to address the B.C. Legislative Assembly on this very important amendment to the Maa-nulth First Nation Final Agreement.

Treaties, by definition, are agreements between nations on how we move forward together, recognizing each of our respective roles, responsibilities and benefits as equal treaty partners. Our treaty represents sacred promises made by Canada and B.C. to the Huu-ay-aht First Nation, Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’/Che:k’tles7et’h’ First Nations, Toquaht Nation, Uchucklesaht Tribe and the Yuułuʔiłʔath government.

Our treaty is not frozen in time. Our treaty must adapt as we change and grow, and there will be times in the future, such as today, where we need to come together to amend this most sacred agreement between us.

This is an important day for the Maa-nulth First Nations. There can be no question that colonizers have had a troubled history when it comes to keeping their treaty promises. One of the first promises the colonizers made to Indigenous people was that we never would have to pay the colonizers’ taxes. That promise was broken by Canada and B.C.’s take-it-or-leave-it treaty negotiation taxation mandate.

Canada and B.C.’s tax policy change over the past years provides modern Indigenous treaty partners with the ability to amend our treaties to determine for ourselves when and how our members will be taxed.

This is a significant reversal of that broken promise, a significant step forward in our treaty partnership. Indigenous peoples have been largely excluded from the Canadian economy and the wealth it creates. Our people remain far behind everyone else in this country on every socioeconomic indicator. This change in tax policy empowers our Maa-nulth First Nation governments to decide how and when our members will be taxed, giving us better tools to improve the lives of our people.

We are beginning to heal, and this tax amendment helps us in our healing process. While there’s still a lot of work to be done, the support that this government has given to the new tax policy has been essential in getting us to this point today.

[2:00 p.m.]

I encourage each member of the B.C. Legislature to unanimously support this very important resolution.

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

Thank you, Minister Rankin, you and your government, for the collaborative success on the taxation issue that has brought us together here today.

ƛakoo ƛ̕eeko.

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

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 44 — AMENDMENTS TO
MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS
FINAL AGREEMENT

(continued)

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

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 45 on the order paper, standing in the name of the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

MOTION 45 — AMENDMENTS TO
Nisg̱a’a FINAL AGREEMENT

Hon. M. Rankin: I move Motion 45.

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to paragraph 38 of Chapter 2 of the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia consents to the amendments to the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement set out in the attached Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement Amending Agreement (No. 5).

NISG̱A’A FINAL AGREEMENT AMENDING AGREEMENT (No. 5)

AMONG:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

(“Canada”)

AND

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

(“British Columbia”)

AND

Nisg̱a’a NATION, as represented by the Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government Executive

(“Nisg̱a’a Nation”)

WHEREAS:

A. On May 11, 2000, the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement came into effect;

B. The Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement provides for its amendment and specifies requirements for amendments of various of its provisions;

C. The Parties have previously agreed to make certain amendments to the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement;

D. The Parties now propose the further amendments to the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement as set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending Agreement;

E. The Parties have determined that the processes set out in paragraphs 37, 38 and 40 of Chapter 2 – General Provisions apply to the proposed amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending Agreement;

NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree as follows:

PART I – DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

1. In this Amending Agreement:

“Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement” means the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement among the Nisg̱a’a Nation, His Majesty the King in right of Canada and His Majesty the King in right of British Columbia, as it took effect on May 11, 2000, as amended; and

2. A reference to a Chapter by number or name is a reference to the corresponding chapter name or number in the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement.

3. A reference to a number and paragraph of a Chapter is a reference to the corresponding number and paragraph of the chapter in the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement.

4. Words and expressions appearing in this Amending Agreement that are not defined in this Amending Agreement but are defined in the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement have the meanings ascribed to them in the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement.

PART II – PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

5. The proposed amendments in English to the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement are set out in Schedule 1.

6. The proposed amendments in French to the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement are set out in Schedule 2.

7. Pursuant to paragraph 41 of Chapter 2 – General Provisions of the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement, the proposed amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2 will take effect on the date the last Party required to consent to the amendment provides its consent.

PART III – PROCEDURES

8. This Amending Agreement may be executed by electronic signature, which will be considered as an original signature for all purposes and will have the same force and effect as an original signature on paper. Without limitation, “electronic signature” will include electronically scanned and transmitted versions (e.g., via pdf) of an original signature.

9. This Amending Agreement may be signed in identical counterparts, each of which constitutes an original, and such counterparts taken together will constitute one agreement. The signatures of the Parties need not appear on the same counterpart, and executed counterparts may be delivered in electronically scanned form by electronic mail.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, signed this _____ day of ____________________________________.

___________________________

Authorized Signatory

___________________________

Printed Name

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, signed this _____ day of ____________________________________.

____________________________

The Honourable Murray Rankin
Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

FOR Nisg̱a’a NATION, as represented by the Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government Executive, signed this _____ day of ____________________________________.

____________________________

Eva Clayton
President

Schedule 1

The Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement is amended as follows:

1. Paragraph 18 of Chapter 2 – General Provisions is amended by replacing “and 6” with “through 6.4”.

2. The following paragraphs are added to Chapter 16 – Taxation immediately after paragraph 6 of that Chapter:

6.1 Despite paragraph 6 and subject to paragraph 6.3, as of January 1, 2024, section 87 of the Indian Act applies to a Nisg̱a’a citizen who is an Indian as defined in the Indian Act.

6.2 Despite paragraph 6 and subject to paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4, as of January 1, 2024, section 87 of the Indian Act applies on the following lands as if the lands were reserves:

a. Nisg̱a’a Lands described in subparagraph 2(b) of the Lands Chapter; and

b. Category A Lands described in subparagraph 46(a) of the Lands Chapter.

6.3 The application of section 87 of the Indian Act:

a. in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 is subject to section 87 of the In­dian Act itself remaining in force;

b. on lands identified in subparagraph 6.2(a) is subject to paragraph 1; and

c. on lands identified in subparagraphs 6.2(a) and (b) is subject to a law of Parliament, or a treaty, self-government agreement or similar agreement given force of law by Parliament, limiting the application of section 87 of the IndianAct to an Indian.

6.4 Nisg̱a’a Nation may enter into an agreement with Canada or British Columbia that limits the application of paragraph 6.2 to the extent specified in that agreement.

[Schedule 2 available for inspection at the Office of the Clerk.]]

I rise today to move the fifth amending agreement to the Nisg̱a’a final agreement. Before I start, I’d like to just take this opportunity to congratulate the Nisg̱a’a on their ongoing efforts to support a strong, healthy and thriving community through sustainable economies that benefit their citizens with jobs and opportunities.

I’m very sorry that the leader of the Nisg̱a’a Nation, President Eva Clayton, was not able to be with us today, but I salute her leadership and that of those strong Nisg̱a’a leaders in our past. I want to salute all Elders, chief councillors, councillors, legislators, executive members and Nisg̱a’a citizens who may be observing our proceedings from home today.

This amendment follows the amendments to the Tsawwassen and now the Maa-nulth final agreements in relation to tax policy changes that we brought forward and consented to in this legislative session. The purpose of the amendment to the Nisg̱a’a final agreement is to implement this tax policy change that we’ve talked of earlier. It’s a policy change that the governments of both Canada and British Columbia have made in our respective treaty mandates — one that has been identified, as I noted earlier, as a substantial barrier to First Nations seeking to conclude modern treaties.

Again, the new policy allows eligible treaty citizens to continue to keep or regain their Indian Act tax exemption status in their treaties indefinitely, until that treaty nation may determine that it’s appropriate to end it or until it’s eliminated for all First Nations in Canada.

The work today is the result of a significant commitment by the provincial and federal governments to honour and nurture our treaty relations. Now, the reinstated exemption will apply on the portion of Nisg̱a’a lands that were former reserves and in all other reserves in Canada. It also applies on category A lands, which are former Indian reserves transferred under the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement and held by the Nisg̱a’a in fee simple. This is, effectively, the pre-treaty status quo.

The Nisg̱a’a Nation has already consented to the treaty amendment. But for the amendment to be ratified by the province of British Columbia, this Legislative Assembly must consent to the amending agreement. If British Columbia has consented, Canada will seek consent, and the amending agreement will take effect. In accordance with the amending agreement, Nisg̱a’a citizens will regain their tax exemption under section 87 of the Indian Act, effective January 1, 2024. That date of reinstatement was at the request of the Nisg̱a’a Nation.

I’d like to recognize that the 23rd anniversary of the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement is upon us. It came into effect on May 11, 2000. To celebrate, we’re hanging the Nisg̱a’a flag in the Legislature’s Hall of Honour, as a symbol of our government-to-government relationship on how to continue work together on our shared vision for the future. Now, as British Columbia’s first modern treaty, it’s a landmark in the relationship between B.C., Canada and the Nisg̱a’a Nation.

[2:05 p.m.]

This treaty marked the end of their 113-year journey and the first step in a new direction. It’s an outstanding example of modern treaty relationships. The Nisg̱a’a final agreement is in fact studied internationally as a model of respect, trust and government-to-government cooperation. The Nisg̱a’a Nation demonstrates the power of modern treaties to build government-to-government relationships as we work toward common goals.

It’s my great honour to rise in the House today, with the support of the Nisg̱a’a Nation, and move this motion to give British Columbia’s consent.

M. Lee: I rise on behalf of the official opposition to speak, also, in support of this motion as we bring forward a very important amendment to the Nisg̱a’a final agreement. This is amending agreement No. 5, as Minister for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation just outlined. We know, further to the history that the minister spoke to, of the importance.

Today in this chamber we marked the occasion of the first recognition, formally, for the Haida Nation. Of course, through the history of the Haida and here in the history of the Nisg̱a’a peoples, there were landmark court decisions. In the Nisg̱a’a case, the Calder case in 1973, by the Supreme Court of Canada, defined, in a meaningful way, Aboriginal rights and titles to land.

That action was originally launched in 1968. Many, many years later, through the treaty process, as the minister referred to, in 2000, a treaty was established with the Nisg̱a’a Nation. Now 23 years later, we are looking at an important piece of that treaty.

I am struck by the words of Chief Robert Dennis of the Huu-ay-aht Nation just now, in the previous motion. Certainly, when he said that the meaning of this amendment for the Maa-nulth five nations — as I’m sure is the case for Tsawwassen, as we dealt with in this chamber back at the end of March, and the Nisg̱a’a — is that it means that the nation determines how and when their citizens will be taxed.

We know, in the backdrop of the work of the previous government, prior to the formation of this government in 2017, that there was significant work done around the fiscal relationship between nations and the province. We know that work is ongoing, and we see, federally and provincially, work around the fiscal framework, as well as the tax relationship with the nations. This is one indicator of that work, as we continue to want to support — in particular, among all the other important reasons for a reconciliation — socioeconomic growth for nations, to work in partnership with nations to support that.

It’s in that context that we see this amendment come forward for the Nisg̱a’a and recognize the importance of moving forward with this motion. Again to say, as we reviewed with Tsawwassen final agreement amendment at the end of March, the minister did reconfirm, as the minister has said in this chamber today, that the province views those modern treaties as a living document. This is actually what Chief Robert Dennis of the Huu-ay-aht just spoke to.

Secondly, the amount of tax we’re talking about that’s exempt, going forward, is negligible and immaterial, in the words of the minister. Again, we recognize the importance to the Nisg̱a’a citizens of continuing to have the section 87 Indian Act exemption, an exemption that has been there, as Chief Dennis spoke to, as a broken promise but also as a construct under the Indian Act for the last 150 years. It’s a construct of the Indian Act that we want to break through.

[2:10 p.m.]

We know that there’s work, promises by the current federal government about doing that work, but this province has a role in this too — to look at the fiscal relationship and the tax structure with nations in a more meaningful way, in a way that actually ensures that nations can progress in their own economic development. I hope that with the passing of this motion today, Motion 45, this will just be another step in that process.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak to Motion 45, amending the Nisg̱a’a final agreement. As we are going through a process here now that has happened a couple of times, I’m not going to venture into territory that has already been covered.

I do respect the fact that we are dealing with each of these motions individually. This is not a bulk effort. This is paying respect to each and every agreement that this government makes. Going through the process individually, I think, is important and pays respect to that.

One area that maybe I will venture back…. It is important to acknowledge to the Nisg̱a’a, when they’re watching the proceedings of this, and to recognize the unanimity of support in this House. I think it’s also important to acknowledge the words of Chief Dennis, as he just spoke in here, talking about that original commitment that was made by the representatives of the Crown in those earliest days in the history of this country. Really, the issue that we’re dealing with here around taxation goes all the way back to those very first days.

I recognize that a couple of times now, on the record, has been, as a result of this being, or at least the framing around it being…. The amount of the tax being collected is negligible and immaterial. Actually what is immaterial, from my perspective, is the amount of money that’s being collected. It is going back to that original commitment that was made around nations and the relationship that nations have with each other.

I think, as we’ve been recognizing in this Legislative Assembly, the relationship that this government has had with Indigenous nations has been in long need of some repair. That’s what we’re doing here today.

I wouldn’t say that what we’re doing here today is immaterial. What should be immaterial is the amount of money that’s being collected and, indeed, invested right back into communities in the beautiful province that we represent.

With that, HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Members, the question is the adoption of Motion 45 on the order paper.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 46 on the order paper, standing in the name of the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

MOTION 46 — AMENDMENTS TO
TLA’AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT

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

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to paragraph 5 (b) of Chapter 25 of the Tla’amin Final Agreement, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia consents to the amendments to the Tla’amin Final Agreement set out in the attached Tla’amin Final Agreement Amending Agreement (No. 3).

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

AMONG:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

(“Canada”)

AND

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

(“British Columbia”)

AND

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

(“Tla’amin Nation”)

WHEREAS:

A. On April 5, 2016, the Tla’amin Final Agreement came into effect;

B. The Tla’amin Final Agreement provides for its amendment and specifies requirements for the amendment of various of its provisions;

C. The Parties have previously agreed to amendments to the Tla’amin Final Agreement;

D. The Parties agree to propose further amendments to the Tla’amin Final Agreement set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending Agreement;

E. The Parties have determined that the processes set out in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Chapter 25 – Amendment apply to the proposed amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending Agreement;

NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree as follows:

PART I – DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

1. In this Amending Agreement:

“Tla’amin Final Agreement” means the Tla’amin Final Agreement among the Tla’amin Nation, His Majesty the King in right of Canada and His Majesty the King in right of British Columbia, as it took effect on April 5, 2016 as amended.

2. A reference to a Chapter by number and name is a reference to the chapter of that number and name in the Tla’amin Final Agreement.

3. Words and expressions appearing in this Amending Agreement that are not defined in this Amending Agreement but are defined in the Tla’amin Final Agreement have the meanings ascribed to them in the Tla’amin Final Agreement.

PART II – PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

4. The proposed amendments in English to the Tla’amin Final Agreement are set out in Schedule 1.

5. The proposed amendments in French to the Tla’amin Final Agreement are set out in Schedule 2.

6. Pursuant to paragraph 7 of Chapter 25 – Amendment, the proposed amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2 will take effect on the date the last Party required to consent to the amendment provides its consent.

PART III – PROCEDURES

7. This Amending Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts. A signed counterpart may be delivered by one Party to another Party by facsimile or e-mail transmission and a facsimile or e-mail so transmitted will constitute an original document. Signed counterparts held by a Party, taken together, will constitute one and the same instrument.

8. This Amending Agreement may be executed by electronic signature, which will be considered as an original signature for all purposes and will have the same force and effect as an original signature on paper. Without limitation, “electronic signature” will include faxed versions of an original signature or electronically scanned and transmitted versions (e.g., via pdf) of an original signature.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, signed this _____ day of ________________, 2023.

___________________________

Authorized Signatory

___________________________

Printed name

FOR HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, signed this _____ day of ________________, 2023.

____________________________

The Honourable Murray Rankin
Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

FOR THE TLA’AMIN NATION, as represented by the Hegus (Chief), signed this _____ day of _____________, 2023.

___________________________

Hegus John Hackett

Schedule 1

The Tla’amin Final Agreement is amended as follows:

1. Paragraph 30 of Chapter 2 – General Provisions is deleted and replaced with the following:

30. Subject to the Transition Chapter and paragraphs 16 through 16.4 of the Taxation Chapter, the Indian Act does not apply to the Tla’amin Nation, Tla’amin Institutions, Tla’amin Citizens, Tla’amin Lands and Other Tla’amin Lands, except for the purpose of determining whether an individual is an “Indian”.

2. The following paragraphs are added to Chapter 21 – Taxation immediately after paragraph 16 of that Chapter:

16.1 Despite paragraph 16 and subject to paragraph 16.3, as of the day this paragraph comes into effect, section 87 of the Indian Act applies to a Tla’amin Citizen who is an Indian.

16.2 Despite paragraph 16 and subject to paragraphs 16.3 and 16.4, as of the day this paragraph comes into effect, section 87 of the Indian Act applies on Tla’amin Lands that were Indian Reserves or Surrendered Lands on the day before the Effective Date as if the lands were Indian Reserves.

16.3 The application of section 87 of the Indian Act:

a. in paragraphs 16.1 and 16.2 is subject to section 87 of the Indian Act itself remaining in force; and

b. on lands identified in paragraph 16.2 is subject to:

i. subparagraph 1.a; and

ii. a law of Parliament, or a treaty, self-government agreement or similar agreement given force of law by Parliament, limiting the application of section 87 of the Indian Act to an Indian.

16.4 The Tla’amin Nation may enter into an agreement with Canada or British Columbia that limits the application of paragraph 16.2 to the extent specified in that agreement.

[Schedule 2 available for inspection at the Office of the Clerk.]]

Before I start, I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Tla’amin Nation on their ongoing efforts to build a strong community in their part of the province.

I’d like to, first of all, recognize Hegus John Hackett of the Tla’amin Nation and Councillor Dillon Johnson, who will address the Legislature on behalf of the Tla’amin executive council in just a moment.

I’d also like to recognize all the members of the Tla’amin executive council, their legislators and citizens who may be observing our proceedings from home today.

This amendment follows the amendments to the Tsawwassen, the Maa-nulth and now the Nisg̱a’a final agreements in relation to tax policy changes. We’ve done this through a process we’ve seen in the past and very recent memory as well. The purpose of the amendments to the Tla’amin final agreement is, again, to implement a tax policy change that both the governments of Canada and British Columbia have made in our respective treaty mandates.

This is a tax policy change that we hope will make it more tenable for First Nations across the province to consider modern treaties. The exemption will apply only on the portion of the Tla’amin lands that were former Indian reserves and on all other reserves in Canada. Again, I say that this is effectively the pre-treaty status quo.

[2:15 p.m.]

The new policy allows treaty citizens who are eligible to continue to keep or regain their Indian Act tax exemption status in their treaties indefinitely or until the treaty nation determines it’s appropriate to end it or it’s eliminated for all First Nation individuals.

For the Tla’amin Nation, whose citizens are still subject to the treaty’s transitional tax exemption…. It has the effect of allowing eligible Tla’amin citizens to maintain their section 87 exemption indefinitely.

Now, the Tla’amin Nation has already consented to the treaty amendment. For the amendment to be ratified by the province of British Columbia, this Legislative Assembly must consent to the amending agreement. Once B.C. has done so, Canada will seek consent, and the amendment will then take effect. On the date that the last of the three parties provides that consent, eligible Tla’amin citizens will be able to maintain their tax exemption under section 87 into the future indefinitely.

The work today is the result of a significant commitment by the federal and provincial governments to honour and nurture our treaty relations as well as to reach, we hope, new treaties. In 2016, the Tla’amin Nation, through the Tla’amin final agreement, became the eighth B.C. First Nation to become a self-governing treaty nation and the seventh nation through the B.C. treaty process. Nisg̱a’a preceded the BCTC process.

The Tla’amin Nation demonstrates the power of modern treaties to build government-to-government relationships as we work toward common goals. It’s my honour to rise in the House today, with the support of the Tla’amin Nation, and move this motion to give British Columbia’s consent.

M. Lee: I rise on behalf of the official opposition to speak in support of Motion 46 as an amendment to the Tla’amin final agreement (No. 3). It’s the third amendment to that final agreement.

We know, as we’ve been speaking, in this chamber, through successive sets of amendments to other modern treaty agreements for the Tsawwassen, the Maa-nulth five nations, the Nisg̱a’a and now the Tla’amin Nation, as well, as presented, the importance of addressing what has been something that’s meaningful to the citizens of the Tla’amin Nation.

As we make and review these amendments in this chamber, it’s important that we understand the context under which these amendments are being proposed. It is with a view to encourage and facilitate, both through the federal government and the current provincial government, the furtherance of other modern treaty arrangements that are in the final stages of agreement-making in the province of B.C.

We hope, through this amendment here today to the arrangement with the Tla’amin First Nation, along with the other nations that we have passed motions for in this chamber, to extend the section 87 tax exemption under the Indian Act. That will help provide a greater, stronger path for other nations to complete their modern treaties with the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. That will also lead to greater certainty as we continue to forge stronger relationships on a treaty basis.

We recognize the amount of work, effort and leadership of the executive council, the Legislatures and the other leaders of the Tla’amin Nation — those who are to speak and share their thoughts with our chamber and to follow the House Leader of the Third Party.

I think, in the context of reviewing these amendments, the reason to reflect upon the discussion we had at the end of March with the amendment to the Tsawwassen Nation final agreement…. There are important points to recognize. As members of this chamber, we have a role to ensure that our constituents, the public of British Columbia, keep in context what we’re dealing with here.

[2:20 p.m.]

Like the president of the Council of the Haida Nation spoke to us in this chamber on behalf of the Haida Nation, the pathways forward are ones of hope, not fear. It’s in that mind that, when we’re talking about modern treaties in the view of this government as being a living document, this is in that spirit. Why this amendment is being proposed is to recognize that with all modern treaty nations in this province, they’ve all asked for the same amendment. They’ve all asked for the same treatment to ensure that they have the ability to determine their own tax relationship with the government of Canada and British Columbia.

The words that the minister has used regarding the amount of tax that’s being exempt under these arrangements as being negligible and immaterial are his words. They’re important words to underline for those who are concerned for the nature and the scope and the scale of this exemption. It is what on this basis that this motion is being put forward for approval.

As I’ve said on the other occasions with the other nations, I’m hopeful that as we take this step with the Tla’amin First Nation, that this will be a meaningful next step in terms of their modern treaty relationship with the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada and that will help further the steps forward as we continue to do the important work around the fiscal relationship with their nation, including their tax relationship as well.

A. Olsen: Again, I am pleased to be able to stand and speak in favour of Motion 46 on behalf of the Third Party in amending the Tla’amin final agreement.

There have been, I think, many wonderful soccer games between the Tla’amin people and the W̱SÁNEĆ people, and I think each of us would have our own stories about how those games went historically. We’ll leave them off to the record for now.

I want to just, I think, acknowledge the context that these conversations are happening under the B.C. treaty process. I have had many conversations with the minister about the B.C. treaty process. Some of the conditions that were put in place by the federal and the provincial government in order to be able to negotiate those put Indigenous nations into very difficult situations, as was outlined by Chief Dennis earlier on in this.

I think if we take a look at the last 30-plus years…. And the treaties that we’re talking about today are only a few of the many treaties that are still under negotiation. And, certainly, the nations that we are working with in this motion and in previous motions were the nations that made it across that final agreement finishing line, which has been so problematic, along with many of the conditions that were put on signing those agreements and that were held very strictly by the federal and the provincial government.

Now we’re starting to see the language in these agreements shift from being final agreements to an ongoing relationship. Nation to nation is the most important thing — that we have the ability to continue these conversations and these discussions and that the nations that we are agreeing to self-determination have the ability to indeed self-determine in the way that they see fit.

Again, it’s a good day to be in the Legislature, and I look forward to supporting Motion 46.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Mr. Speaker: I now invite legislative counsel Dillon Johnson of the Tla’amin Nation to address the House virtually.

[2:25 p.m.]

Address by Indigenous Leaders

D. Johnson: ʔaʔječepʔot. hɛhɛw ʔimot qʷayigən kʷʊnanape.  toqʷanən ʔətᶿ nən. tawač kʷ ɬaʔamɩn. čečehatanɛpeč.

[How are you all. I am happy to see you all. My name is toqʷanən. I am from Tla’amin. I thank you all.]

[Tla’amin text and translation provided by toqʷanən.]

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

I want to thank Minister Rankin for championing this work, and his staff. I want to thank all of the Members of the Legislative Assembly, as I’ve seen this issue has been receiving all-party support, and that is very encouraging for us.

This issue, on section 87, was probably — actually definitely the most divisive issue throughout the whole treaty negotiations and ratification process. This is a very historic and exciting moment for our people and our Nation that we can move forward with removing this very divisive issue and a matter that was within our treaty, and we have, now, the opportunity to unite the community.

As it did, this policy had an effect of fragmenting our community. Some people were not able to continue to be a part of the Tla’amin Nation, faced with a really difficult economic choice. This removes that and will unify our community, so hands raised to all of the Members of the Legislative Assembly and all of the people that made it happen within the government.

This is something we’ve fought for, for decades. It will make a lasting positive impact, and this is a positive step forward in supporting our tax policy and our self-determination. Of course there’s more important work to be done. This is the tip of the iceberg, but it is a really meaningful step forward. I want to acknowledge and thank the government for this.

The last thing that I’ll say is this is a very meaningful demonstration that modern treaties are living agreements. I know that’s been shared already by hon. members, and I want to also echo those remarks.

In closing, I want to say thanks again for this important piece of work. It’s the last one of the bunch but not the least.

I very much want to end by saying čečehatanɛpeč ʔimot. We thank you for your work.

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

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 46 — AMENDMENTS TO
TLA’AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Members, the question is the adoption of Motion 46 on the order paper.

Motion approved.

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

Second Reading of Bills

BILL Pr401 — VANCOUVER FOUNDATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

M. Dykeman: I move the Bill Pr401, intituled Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2023, be now read a second time.

The amendment that the Vancouver Foundation is seeking through this private bill relates to their ability to distribute funds to charities and non-profit organizations. Currently, the language in the act considers a reserve amount calculated on financial data from 2008, and this amendment will allow the foundation to base that calculation in any given year on financial data from the immediately preceding fiscal year. This change will better sustain the foundation’s ability to support communities during periods of economic downturn.

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

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL Pr401 — VANCOUVER FOUNDATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

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

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order on the Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2023.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:31 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL Pr401 — VANCOUVER FOUNDATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill Pr401, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Second Reading of Bills

BILL Pr402 — ST. MARK’S COLLEGE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

M. Dykeman: I move that Bill No. Pr402, intituled St. Mark’s College Amendment Act, 2023, be read a second time.

St. Mark’s College seeks to amend its act in preparation for a merger with its affiliate, Corpus Christi College. The amendments would authorize the college to grant associate degrees under the Degree Authorization Act, modernize the corporate powers and governance of the college and make other incidental changes to the act.

Following submissions presented to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, the bill was amended by the committee to strengthen the language for greater clarity.

Motion approved.

M. Dykeman: By leave, I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr402, St. Mark’s College Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL Pr402 — ST. MARK’S COLLEGE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

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

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill Pr402, 2023.

Clauses 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:35 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL Pr402 — ST. MARK’S COLLEGE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill Pr402, St. Mark’s College Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Motions Without Notice

EXTENSION OF SITTING HOURS

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move a motion:

[That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 2 (1) and 3, the House sit beyond the hour fixed for adjournment until any question necessary to complete the consideration of Bill (No. 5) intituled Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023 is put and decided.]

Motion approved.

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

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR
RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Courtenay-Comox.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: This morning there was a second class from my community from Queneesh School in the Montessori program. It was a real honour and privilege to have them in the House to witness the events unfolding before them, especially after I learned about what they’re talking about in schools, about rights and freedoms.

I’d like the House to join me in acknowledging their witnessing of that special moment.

The teacher is known as Ms. Catherine. Her name is Ms. Catherine Munro. The other teacher is Ms. Thygesen. There were 24 grades 4 to 6 Montessori students in the House.

Please, would the House join me in acknowledging their great honour in witnessing that moment.

Debate Continued

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

We’re dealing with Bill 5, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023.

Hon. K. Conroy: To start, I want to introduce the staff that’s with me. I have John Davison, the president and CEO of the Public Sector Employers Council, Alyson Blackstock, the ADM, employee relations division, and Korina Tsui, the executive director of labour relations.

On clause 1.

[2:40 p.m.]

P. Milobar: To start off, I’d like to thank the Government House Leader for bringing forward that motion on Bill 5 just before we started.

For the viewers at home, what that essentially means is that we normally would end around 6:30 tonight, but the motion by the Government House Leader has made it so that we’ll just continue to ask questions on Bill 5 until the opposition feels satisfied, which means we could be here until three in the morning or could be here until midnight or whatever time in between now and then. I do appreciate that added time to try to fully canvass Bill 5. Although it’s only a one-section bill, essentially, there are some fairly serious questions that we have as opposition to try to delve into.

Now, I can understand…. There’s been some speculation in the media as to why it was the Finance Minister, instead of, say, the Labour Minister or the Attorney General, that would have brought forward a bill like this. I fully understand and recognize that the Public Service Labour Relations Act is actually under the Minister of Finance, so that does make sense.

However, I am wondering if the minister can shed some light for us as to who exactly drafted this bill for the government. Was it the lawyers that will actually be impacted by this? Is it the management of excluded drafters? Was it external counsel? Who drafted the legislation?

Hon. K. Conroy: The management of the office of the legislative counsel drafted it, so none of the members who are impacted by the bill would have been involved in drafting it.

P. Milobar: In terms of process, my understanding is that this bill came forward as an action at the labour board by the lawyers that would be impacted by this bill was starting to proceed. Was this bill drafted before or after the lawyers started taking action with seeking a ruling at the labour board?

[2:45 p.m.]

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

P. Milobar: Was there any discussion, then, within government, with the Labour Minister, in terms of concerns around it potentially being viewed as trying to circumvent what is supposed to be an independent labour board ruling by bringing in a piece of legislation to essentially override whatever outcome may result at the labour board?

Hon. K. Conroy: The matter was discussed at cabinet committees. Also, the matter can still proceed at the LRB. This bill does nothing to stop it. We are not holding the matter up at the LRB. Actually, the GLA requested that the LRB be held in abeyance, not the government, but the government did agree with this request. We were asked as recently as yesterday.

P. Milobar: Well, that would be an interesting ruling by the LRB, then, if this gets passed today or tomorrow, given that this act would come into force on royal assent, which would somewhat nullify any Labour Relations Board decision.

We’ll come back to that. It sounds an awful lot like Bill 26 that we just passed — that the courts can still go ahead and do what they want and come up with a ruling, but the government has already said it doesn’t matter, that the building is going to happen. It seems to be very similar. We’ll come back to that.

[2:50 p.m.]

It sounds an awful lot like Bill 26 that we just passed. The courts can still go ahead and do what they want and come up with a ruling, but the government has already said it doesn’t matter. The building is going to happen. It seems to be very similar. We’ll come back to that.

This is a piece of legislation that’s…. My understanding is it’s 50 years old. It was 1973 when the Barrett government of the day brought this in.

With all of the other types of modernization of legislation across government, across political stripes, as government looks at older pieces of legislation and modernizes, why was the simpler route for government not to simply amend the legislation in such a way that it would enable the lawyers to be able to have their own bargaining unit instead of forcing them into the PEA, which they’ve made very clear they don’t want to be a part of? The PEA has said they’re totally fine if the lawyers don’t join them as well.

Once government chooses to modernize a piece of legislation, it seems that actually modernizing it instead of clinging to “it’s been this way for 50 years” would be a better way to move forward. What is the concern about having the lawyers be their own bargaining group of their choosing?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I think that it’s important to recognize that in 1973, they were actually foreshadowing how labour relations could evolve over the years. There have really been no substantive changes to the bill since 1973, by any stripe of government. I mean, there have been a number of different governments since 1973, and there have been some changes to the bill, but not substantive changes. I think it’s important to recognize that.

The member posed: why? The BCGLA…. I’m going to just keep using the acronym for the rest of the questioning. Their request poses a very real risk of proliferation of bargaining units, and it actually threatens the stability of the PSLRA that that act has provided over the last 50 years, as I said, that no other government has brought in any substantive changes to.

I think, as the Minister of Environment made quite clear…. When he spoke to the bill yesterday on second reading, he said: “You can’t just open the door to one employee group and expect that you will be able to close it back again.” So that brings in two subconcerns.

One is those 30-odd groups that, like the BCGLA, are currently excluded and may want to join the GLA — that’s an example — and all of the other several hundred groups who currently are required to be in one of the three groups of the bargaining.

The nurses, the Professional Employees Association or the BCGEU feel that maybe they might have more power over their own terms and conditions if they bargain for themselves, even though within each of those three units, they have their own component so that they can bargain their own individual and unique needs, which is important to remember. They’re part of one of the three bargaining units, but they also are a component unto themselves, where their own unique needs are recognized.

There are other groups that would say: “Well, me too. If GLA gets to have their own separate union aside from these three groups, then we would like that too.” The fact of the matter is that there are over 25,000 employees who are currently slotted into the PSLRA structure, and they don’t have that choice, either. But it was a choice that was made by legislation in 1973 and, as I said, there have been no substantive changes. They’re slotted into the bargaining unit that is in accordance with the criteria that were established by the act in’73.

So introducing that employee choice in the equation is tantamount to putting the entire model at risk — a model, as I’ve said, that every government since 1973 has supported. Then, where does it stop? There are literally hundreds of unique public service occupational groups, and dozens upon dozens of them might like to have their own bargaining unit as well, which would create labour instability. It would create a number of issues.

The bottom line is we have to ensure that we, as a government — any government has to — continue to ensure that the public services that governments provide are continuing to be provided. It would be really difficult if there was considerable labour unrest throughout government.

I think it’s important to quote from the Higgins report. That was what precipitated the work that was done before the bill was actually introduced in 1973. The Higgins report says: “The proposed approach has the great advantage of being flexible, since new occupational groups can be created or existing ones consolidated by mutual agreement. This flexibility also extends to the fact that subjects initially covered in the master agreement can be moved to the individual component agreements and vice versa.” Words that bear well now, as they did in 1973.

[3:00 p.m.]

P. Milobar: In fact, last Thursday what the Environment Minister said is: “…opens the door to a massive proliferation of bargaining units in the public service. This is not in the public interest….” That was last Thursday.

Now, on Wednesday, when myself and the minister were enjoying our time in budget estimates and I asked about the BCNU agreement and its ratification — the BCNU is part of these three — I characterized it as media reports saying that that was the last major agreement that was left. The minister was quick to correct me and said: “Actually, only about 90 percent of the agreements have been agreed to. We still have 61 outstanding as part of the 2022 bargaining mandate.”

Given that the government is already dealing with literally hundreds of separate individual agreements within the 2022 bargaining mandate, how is it that one agreement for the BCGLA creating their own bargaining unit outside of the PEA would suddenly cripple and set a precedent for this government on a scale unheard of and unseen, that we would have seen over the last 50 years, according to the minister now but also the Environment Minister on Thursday?

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, the member is confusing the broader public sector — for instance, that which includes K to 12, post-secondary institutions, the Community Social Services Employers Association — with the public service, employees who work directly for government. They are two very different things.

Within the public service, the concern is that the number of bargaining units you would have within a single entity…. It’s a single employer. So that was why the act was brought in, to bring in three separate bargaining units for the public service, not for the public sector. That is the difference.

[3:05 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I understand that. I think if you’re a parent and the teachers go on strike, you really could give a whit whether or not it was with the school districts, the trustees or the provincial government. You want the teachers back to work. If you want any of those groups that are outside of those three groups that suddenly go on strike…. Ultimately, the bargaining mandate comes from the Minister of Finance and the government of the day to make those negotiations happen. The me too clauses and all the various agreements all trigger the same way.

I get the internal governmental structure that the minister is trying to refer to. But to the broader public, to people’s daily lives and to the operation of government and the flow of governmental work that people rely on, any job action by any bargaining unit is a problem to their daily lives.

It seems that the government is so worried, with Bill 5, about disrupting their own work that the case of one extra bargaining unit creates a potential massive problem moving forward. But the hundreds of others that impact British Columbians’ daily lives, as well, are a bit of an afterthought or less of a worry.

The question I had on Wednesday was directly about the BCNU, which is one of the three. The response back from the government was: “Well, we’re not done bargaining. There are 61 agreement still outstanding to be dealt with.” The minister can’t have it both ways either. It’s either they’re all viewed as one as government, or the government was done bargaining with their three main groups within the PSA, and the others are all periphery. She should have been able to talk about the bargaining mandate then, but she wasn’t able to, and I understand why.

Why could one group, the BCGLA, be deemed to be such a risk for this mass proliferation of bargaining units out there when the government is literally dealing with hundreds of bargaining units and shielding themselves from public disclosure of what agreements actually mean to the taxpayer by saying that all these other agreements are still outstanding that don’t actually fall within any of these three groups?

I hope the minister can understand how it gets a little convenient, I guess, for government to be able to try to use the proliferation excuse while at the same time using that exact same proliferation across other sectors of government services to defend why they won’t answer questions. How can one group create massive problems like this?

My understanding is that under labour law — and remember, the BCGLA used card check under existing laws — a sub-bargaining group would have to have their members agree that they want to switch and want to actually have this and actually leave or be rated by a different union. That doesn’t seem to be happening en masse. Now, granted, they can’t under the current law. But we’re asking about why this law wasn’t amended specifically to allow the BCGLA to essentially be its fourth bargaining group within this act. That would not have created a proliferation unless people suddenly wanted to leave the BCNU and join the BCGLA.

Again, how is one group deemed to be a proliferation to the overall operation of government?

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

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify so that the member understands, the BCNU that are within the health authorities, so part of the public sector, are the ones that have ratified their agreement. The BCNU within the public service — we haven’t even started bargaining with them yet. Just so that the member understands the difference between the two sectors — public service and the public sector — and the unions, as he keeps referring to the nurses.

The member needs to understand there really is a legitimate concern for the public service, as they are the only provider of the services that people depend on and that the very member was talking about. The more bargaining units we have, there are more opportunity for work stoppages and labour unrest, again, putting those services that people rely on at risk. The services that are provided by the public service.

Again, there are a number of groups that have said that they didn’t want to be part of those three groups. They wanted to be on their own, and they’re waiting to see what happens here, and what would happen is labour unrest in the province. It would be very difficult for any government to be moving ahead if you have…. Like right now we’ve got, within the public service, those three groups. They bargain collectively — those three groups. Each individual group bargains. Then there are the components within those groups that deal with the unique needs within those three groups.

If you added the numbers who might like to have their own union, you could be looking at considerably more, which would be very difficult for the public service and very difficult for any government. I think that’s why no government has ever done this before — has never gone to starting to add individual unions into the public service, because the three components work well. They work well for the public service.

I think people take it for granted — the labour stability — because they see labour unrest in other sectors, but they don’t realize the labour stability that this act has brought to governments for years — 50 years, as the member referenced, since 1973, when this act was originally brought in by the NDP. I think that it’s interesting.

Then also, the act was changed in the 1990s. The Dorsey Commission was brought in to look at the actual number of health care providers in the public sector, and they amended the health authorities from almost 900 bargaining units down to five, because they also recognized the significance of having that many bargaining units and the labour unrest that it causes. It was done in 1973, when the bill was brought in. Substantial change was made in the 1990s. Other than that, there have been just amendments to the bill to ensure that people can be recognized within the public service.

[3:20 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I’ll likely come back to that in a little bit. I am going to turn it over to my colleague from Vancouver-Langara.

I wanted to correct something that I had said earlier to the minister. I’m willing to acknowledge when I may have misspoken. Unfortunately, we didn’t get notice that the government had made an amendment to the bill. The Clerks thankfully pointed out that it’s on the order paper. When we get to clause 2, the commencement, I understand it has been amended to not come in on date of royal assent, but it will be by LGIC instead.

I just wanted to recognize, to the minister, that that has been pointed out to us by the Clerks as well.

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

M. Lee: Pleased to join this committee review here of Bill 5. I wanted to say, as well, at the outset that given the nature of the bill being only two clauses, there is a bit of interplay between clause 1 and clause 2, as my colleague just referred to with the proposed amendment here as well.

To come back to recognition of what the minister said in response a few moments ago, that there’s an understanding by this government that the application for certification by the BCGLA to the Labour Relations Board can continue, can I ask what the government’s intention, then, is for the effect of Bill 5 if the independent LRB reaches the decision to certify the BCGLA?

Hon. K. Conroy: To clarify for the member, the matter is in abeyance at the Labour Relations Board. No decision is pending, and we will make a decision when the time is required.

[3:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: To confirm, is the minister indicating that the minister will direct the Labour Relations Board in terms of its process? Is that what I’m hearing from the minister?

Hon. K. Conroy: Absolutely not.

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

Hon. K. Conroy: Maybe the member wasn’t in the House when we canvassed this already. The GLA had put the matter before the labour board in abeyance. They even brought it back and said that they were keeping it in abeyance as late as yesterday. The labour board contacted us, and we said we were fine with that. It is the choice of the GLA whether it stays in abeyance or not. This was something we just canvassed half an hour ago, if that. That is what I was referring to.

The matter is in abeyance. If it is not in abeyance anymore…. Right now no decision is pending, because the matter is in abeyance. If a decision is made, we will make a decision at that time.

M. Lee: This is where my confusion was. “If a decision is made, we will make a decision at that time.”

To unpack that, if a decision is made…. When the minister is referring to “if a decision is made,” whose decision is that?

Hon. K. Conroy: The labour board’s.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yet the minister says that it’s in the hands of the BCGLA. The BCGLA have put the matter in abeyance. Is that not correct?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

M. Lee: Is it not the decision of the BCGLA to take the matter out of abeyance, to continue the process with the LRB? Is that not correct?

Hon. K. Conroy: So just to explain the process, when the GLA put it in abeyance, the labour board asked the government: as the employer, are they in agreement with that? We said, “Yes, we are,” and so it stands.

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

Hon. K. Conroy: If the GLA asked to take it out of abeyance, we would agree with that, and we’ve already told them that.

M. Lee: There is another path that the BCGLA have proposed, which I’ll get into in a moment. But just for the sake of this particular point of discussion, the minister is saying that if the BCGLA says, after today, after Bill 5, that they wish to take the matter out of abeyance and proceed down the path of the application for certification with the LRB, the government will agree that that matter will be taken out of abeyance.

So we’re back to six questions ago to this minister. In that case, if the matter is taken out of abeyance and the application proceeds to the independent LRB, what is the government’s position as to the effect of Bill 5 on the continuance of that certification process at the LRB?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The government, as the employer, doesn’t oppose the matter proceeding before the Labour Board. We’re not opposed to the matter moving forward. Anything more than that would be inappropriate to discuss.

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

Over two days, members of the opposition have spoken about Bill 5 and our opposition to it. The whole substance of Bill 5 would put members of the BCGLA into the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

This is what my colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson has just been speaking to the minister about. What I’m asking is…. The government’s position, as to bringing forward this Bill 5, which initially had been introduced in this House in early February or thereabouts…. They pulled it from further stages of debate in this House and have brought it back in the last week of the session. So clearly, there’s something going on here. There’s something going on in terms of the way this employer has dealt with its employees.

I appreciate the minister saying that the minister and the government are not going to withdraw or withhold their consent to the matter going forward at the Labour Relations Board. But I’m asking the minister for confirmation of the government’s position as to the effect. The whole application, of course, is for certification of the union to represent the members of the BCGLA.

[3:35 p.m.]

If that certification application is approved by the Labour Relations Board, that would go contrary to Bill 5. To the minister, does she not agree with that?

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s not up to us — the employer, the government — to determine what the Labour Relations Board will decide. We will address the outcome of the case if and/or when the Labour Relations Board decision is made.

M. Lee: The minister, in response to questions from the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the Minister of Environment in his second reading speech, has demonstrated the government’s purpose for which Bill 5 has come forward. It’s very clear.

The minister may want to defer statements based on what result the LRB may get to, but it won’t matter. The deed will be done under this Bill 5, by virtue of this legislation. This is the reason why members of the official opposition have been speaking repeatedly to this bill, in opposition.

This government, with Bill 5, is attempting to pass legislation to deprive a specific group of employees of the ability to go to the labour board for recognition, while it is in process to do so.

[3:40 p.m.]

As the minister confirmed to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson about 23 minutes ago, the drafting of Bill 5 was commenced after notice of the application for certification to the Labour Relations Board by the BCGLA. The government’s action in Bill 5 commenced in response to the steps taken by this group of employees — exercising the rights of freedom of association, exercising their rights under the card-check system that this government brought in by a 70 percent vote — to proceed with a certification application to the LRB.

As we have said, this is just another example of this government, just like under those community benefit agreements, dictating to workers, employees, in this province, which unions they should belong to. Can the minister confirm — because we did not hear any other member of the cabinet speak to this bill, not the Minister of Labour, not the Attorney General, about this oppression, this action by this government, which is unprecedented in this country’s history, to quash the rights of these employees to go forward to the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia — that there has been advice provided to this government that this action is not unconstitutional?

Hon. K. Conroy: I was just clarifying some things. I just think it’s important that we put on the record how long this process has actually been an issue before government.

It actually started in September 2013. The BCGLA formally wrote the PSA and requested independent bargaining unit status for the first time in 2013.

By September 2014, the Liberal government of the day had refused BCGLA’s request for bargaining unit status. Instead of a formal bargaining process, the PSA only offered the BCGLA a process that would involve the PSA listening to what the BCGLA proposed, but there would be no requirement for the parties to reach an agreement.

Absent an agreement, the government would implement new terms and conditions of employment for government lawyers based on the PSA’s recommendations. Government lawyers would have no right to strike. That was in September 2014.

December 2014 to January 2015. The Supreme Court of Canada releases two new decisions that collectively confirm that employees have a constitutional right to belong to a union and unions have the right to strike.

February 2015. The BCGLA writes the PSA to reject its offer of limited bargaining rights on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and asks the government to reconsider.

August 2015. The Liberal government of the day confirms that it will provide collective bargaining rights to government lawyers but that it is necessary to first consult with the various parties on the three bargaining unit options. The three bargaining options were a standalone BCGLA bargaining unit, inclusion in the licensed professionals, the PEA, bargaining unit under the PSLRA and inclusion in a joint bargaining unit with Crown counsel.

[3:45 p.m.]

In 2015-16, the PSA consults with the BCGLA, the PEA and Crown Counsel Association on the three bargaining unit options for government lawyers, and briefs the Liberal government on the decision.

July 2016. The Liberal government responds to the BCGLA, to confirm that it was delaying its decision on the appropriate bargaining unit for government lawyers because new legislation would be needed to enact the new bargaining arrangement and since “we are in the final year of the government’s mandate, we will not be able to secure the decision necessary to pass the legislation prior to the end of the current mandate.”

The government delayed the decision even though the next election was still 8½ months away. As a result, the BCGLA waited over 3.5 years for a response from the former Liberal government, without ever receiving an answer as to what bargaining unit option was acceptable to the government.

February 2018. The NDP government confirms that it is prepared to extend full collective bargaining rights to government lawyers by removing the current exclusion under the PSLRA, which would see the lawyers being included in the licensed professional, the PEA, bargaining unit. In recognition that the PEA bargaining unit was not the BCGLA’s preferred bargaining unit option, the government indicated that it was prepared to hold off moving forward with the necessary legislative amendments to place government in the licensed professional bargaining unit until the BCGLA indicates that it wishes the government to proceed.

August 2019. The BCGLA filed a civil suit against government in the Supreme Court of B.C. Their litigation alleges that their continued status as an employee excluded from access to collective bargaining under the PSLRA, together with the exclusion from the right to be represented by their own bargaining unit, is a breach of their Charter right to exercise their freedom of association to be involved in collective bargaining. The suit was scheduled to be heard in February 2023. However, the BCGLA has asked for an adjournment pending their pursuit of the same issue before the LRB.

November 2022. The BCGLA filed an application to the LRB to be certified as a stand-alone bargaining unit under the Labour Relations Code, the effect of which would circumvent the current bargaining unit structure under the PSLRA, which was established 50 years ago. The matter is still pending before the LRB.

The members need to know there was considerable consultation, starting in late last year and this year, with the GLA over a number of issues with Bill 5, with the PSLRA and the concerns as we have already expressed, both myself and the Minister of Environment when he spoke to second reading. We always act respectfully and in good faith towards the government lawyers. We believe in the work they do.

We told the BCGLA in 2018, after extensive consultation, that we were only prepared to grant them their rights under the PSLRA. We knew it wasn’t their preferred option, so we said we wouldn’t impose it on them but would do it with their consent. They sued us, which we expected, and that is their right.

All was fine until the GLA then went to the LRB. At the LRB, they are now arguing that one of the reasons why they needed their own unit under the code was because we were denying them access to their collective bargaining rights under the PSLRA. But if we had been willing to grant government lawyers bargaining rights under the PSLRA for the last five years…. Because we had been willing to do that.

So we are now faced with the situation that our inaction in 2018, which was an attempt to avoid the unfortunate situation we all find ourselves in now, was being used against us in a way that put the PSLRA and the stability that it represents at greater risk.

Faced with these new circumstances, we made the difficult decision to introduce Bill 5. It is not what we originally wanted to do, but it was necessary to protect the PSLRA, to protect the act that protects public services in this province, that protects the services that people expect from people that work for the government. The actions that the government has undertaken do not prevent the GLA from intervening in the LRB case.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think, again, that the members need to remember that what is being proposed is to be part of the three bargaining units that are part of the Public Service Labour Relations Act that was brought here 50 years ago, that no government has ever changed significantly — and there have been a number of different stripes of government since 1973.

What it also does is it recognizes the unique needs of an organization like the GLA so that they bargain within the collective bargaining unit of the PEA, but then they have their own unique needs addressed.

It also gives them the right to strike if they so choose. They do not have that right, right now. It also gives them the right for issues around seniority. It gives them the ability to negotiate salary levels, which they do not have, so to speak, now. It gives them improved dispute resolution processes and protection from without-just-cause dismissals, which is something that the GLA has brought up. These are all things that this amendment is about. This is what this amendment is about.

I just want the members to know that there’s been significant work done on this since under the former government’s time. Back in 2013, I think, was the first time. This has not just happened in these last few months. This has not just happened since we formed government. This has been ongoing for a number of years.

We recognize that we are at a standstill, so we’re moving ahead with Bill 5 to ensure that the GLA has the bargaining rights that they’re asking for, that they belong to a union and that they have all of the rights, within that component, with their own unique needs recognized, to do just as they have been asking.

M. Lee: I appreciate the length of the minister’s response. I think close to 14 minutes. She covered a lot of ground there. There’s a lot to come back to. There are some elements, certainly, in terms of recognition of the former government prior to 2017, the work that was done for the 3½-year period the minister spoke to.

I will just mention and note that the minister conveyed to this House that there were three options being considered. My understanding, with the nature of the minister’s response, is that that could have included separate legislation to recognize the BCGLA as a separate bargaining unit, as we have with the Crown Counsel Act that was brought in 20 years ago.

Second option, that they combine with Crown counsel — perhaps as an amendment to the Crown Counsel Act, which is existing legislation — as a stand-alone, something that the Member for Kamloops–North Thompson referred to.

Option 3, they get rolled into the PEA under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Clearly, negotiation, discussion are strained. This is complex work by any government. The necessary dialogue that was taking place…. I know members on this side of the House certainly believe in fixed-date elections. Not those members. That means appropriate planning, whatever that reference was. Maybe this government is introducing Bill 5 because they know their time is limited here in this House, as government. What’s their rush?

It’s the heavy hand of government that we’re speaking to. It has been six years under this government that they’ve continued that path, almost double the amount of time as the previous government, if we want to start comparing timelines. But time is not the only factor here. It’s the action that this government is taking. This wasn’t happening nine years ago in terms of the labour relations certification process.

We know, as the Member for Kamloops–North Thompson confirmed, that this bill came to pass, came to be, came to existence after the BCGLA started their process with the LRB.

[3:55 p.m.]

I heard the length of the process to get to this bill. But the decision that this government is taking, the extraordinary, unprecedented action that this government is taking to have control over the guardians of the rule of law in our province — that is an issue we’re going to get into in the committee stage here. We’re still dealing with the labour aspect of this, the employer-employee relationship, the rights of those employees for freedom of association, as the minister acknowledged.

I did not hear, in the minister’s response, a direct response to my concern as to where the Attorney General of this province is. It’s her job to ensure that the administration of justice, the administration of our legislation in this province, is constitutional and meets the rule of law.

I did not hear the Attorney General speak to this bill. I would have certainly liked to have heard her confirm that, in her view, this bill — this unprecedented step by this government to intervene, to quash the effect of any decision by the LRB — is constitutional.

The minister has acknowledged that there already are challenges being raised about the constitutionality of the acts of this government. We understand, of course — as has been communicated, I’m sure, to this government — that Bill 5 will be challenged as well, just like so many other legislative initiatives of this government and this Premier.

To the minister, I’ll ask again: has the government confirmed with the Attorney General, or whoever else is advising the Attorney General in the absence of the 350 government lawyers whose job is to ensure that every piece of legislation that hits the floor of this assembly is constitutional…? Is the government getting that advice and having that opinion provided to them that this bill is not unconstitutional?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: To confirm, the government did receive legal advice on the constitutionality of the bill. Also, I think it’s important — I don’t know if the members are missing something — again, to remind the members that this bill has been in existence for 50 years, since 1973. It is unique to the public service.

I just want to clarify the application of the labour code and why the labour code doesn’t apply under the PSLRA. It was written out in the Higgins commission back in 1973. The labour code was known as the Labour Relations Act at the time. It said:

“In examining these options, the commission considers neither the Labour Relations Act nor the Civil Service Act to be appropriate vehicles for the new regulation of labour relations in the provincial public service….

“Under the Labour Relations Act, provincial public service employees could engage in collective bargaining after the determination of appropriate bargaining units and the certification of the bargaining agents by the Labour Relations Board. To follow this course would, however, ignore inherent differences in the nature of labour relations in the public and private sectors….

“The commission finds it appropriate that collective bargaining be introduced in the provincial public service through the enactment of new legislation specifically devised for that purpose. This legislation should establish procedures governing such matters as the certification of bargaining agents, the settlement of disputes arising out of negotiations, employer-employee rights and obligations and the resolutions of grievances.”

This is how the PSLRA was born. I don’t think we can ignore that. I think it’s important to recognize that.

[4:05 p.m.]

Again, when it comes to certification within the public service, the code doesn’t apply. The member keeps referring to card checks and the labour code, but it doesn’t apply. The Public Service Labour Relations Act applies. It’s an act that has been in existence since 1973. No government has looked and said: “Okay, we need to substantially change this.”

This is the act. The code doesn’t apply. The card check doesn’t apply. I’ll reiterate that for the member. I think he has raised it about four or five times. It doesn’t apply. Within the legal framework, it doesn’t apply. Just so the member has that understanding.

M. Lee: Again, there are lots of points that the minister is introducing into this debate.

I wish that we had the opportunity for this in our second reading debate. Like the member for Abbotsford West said during second reading, it was like playing ping-pong with ourselves in terms of the back-and-forth. We had no back-and-forth. We had no response from this government about the nature of this bill.

Now we are in the committee stage. I’m glad we’re going to be going all night on this thing. We have the opportunity to actually review this bill with some responses from government. We had silence in second reading. Now we’re hearing all of these different considerations.

I have had some opportunity, let’s say, to review the legal argument that was filed with the Labour Relations Board. I see that the counsel for the Attorney General of British Columbia conceded that “the current exclusion from the PSLRA of persons falling within subsection (b) of the definition of ‘employee,’ in section 1 of the PSLRA, is an infringement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part 1 of the Constitution Act. However, this concession is not the equivalent of a legislative amendment.”

As I read further, in paragraph sub 1(b) of the legal argument filed on behalf of this government: “If the applicant’s members are covered by the PSLRA, are they entitled to be certified under the Labour Relations Code? This determination will involve an interpretation of both the PSLRA and the code.” I could read further, but I presume the minister is very familiar with the filing on behalf of government.

Can the minister tell this House the position of government and its legal argument that has been filed with the LRB in terms of the application of the code to this situation with the BCGLA?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The member has raised parts of that submission about how the labour code does not apply to the situation, as I just said. It confirms everything I just said in my previous answer. The labour code does not apply.

M. Lee: I’m reading from the submission, of course, on behalf of government — which, obviously, is the position of government. There are a couple of things about that.

One is that, presumably, the BCGLA doesn’t agree with that position. Why would they be making an application to the LRB for certification if there were no application to their situation? Secondly, if that’s the view of government, why did we have the discussion here at the committee stage? Why at all would the government agree to not have in abeyance the application?

Currently we’ve heard from the government that it’s in agreement with the BCGLA that the application for certification is in abeyance. If it’s government’s position that there is no application and there is no jurisdiction, then why would the government agree to release the application from abeyance?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The matter is actually before the labour board. As it’s an ongoing legal matter, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any of that any further.

M. Lee: In just reflecting again on the minister’s response, it arguably would suggest that the minister has actually provided comment — meaning that we’ve taken, through some reference to the submission, the government’s position. Be that as it may, I’m just going to go to another point that’s related to this.

We understand, from the BCGLA, that they had made a proposal in this period. Let me just ask a two-part question. One is: why did government introduce their bill in February and then pull it back and not proceed? That’s the first question.

[4:20 p.m.]

The second question is: why did government not further agree to the proposal by the BCGLA that a neutral expert involved with labour relations…? As you can see, there is some complexity involved in the discussion that needs to be reviewed by the LRB, certainly from the government’s perspective. Why was that proposal not agreed to — to have a neutral expert on labour relations, a neutral arbiter receive the submissions by both government and the BCGLA to have some recommendations as to what the appropriate bargaining structure would be?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The bill wasn’t pulled, as the member keeps saying. It was put on hold so there could be further discussions between the GLA and the PSA. And both parties entered into those discussions in good faith. It was our view, after a number of weeks of discussion, that we’ve exhausted all options, and there were no other viable options that addressed both parties’ needs, including our concerns with the proliferation of additional bargaining units.

M. Lee: Well, I will resist the urge to get into semantics discussions with the minister about “pull” versus “hold.”

Regardless, the result is that the bill did not proceed for further debate until the last three days of this session, in the last week of this session. It’s literally the last bill we’re dealing with.

We know that the LRB process has been put in abeyance. We’ve had the discussion around that. We will get to the proliferation concern of this minister and the Minister of Environment, as the only two people who have spoken on behalf of government about this bill.

But just coming back to the discussions that the minister describes were occurring between, let’s say, early February until early May, over the last three months, there was a meaningful proposal put forward for a neutral expert on labour relations to provide recommendations about what the most appropriate bargaining unit is under the circumstances. Again, why did the government not agree to that proposal?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: That’s the same question. I’ll give the same answer.

We gave the opportunity for further discussion between GLA and PSA. Again, both parties entered into those discussions in good faith. It was our view that we’d exhausted all options and that there were no other viable options that addressed the concerns. Regardless of whether you’re going to bring in an independent body or not, all options were exhausted, including our concern with the proliferation of bargaining units.

That’s the same answer to the same question that the member asked previously.

P. Milobar: Maybe we’ll try this a different way. The minister is saying that in February, the government’s interpretation and idea of good-faith negotiations was to table Bill 5 on February 9, I believe it was, and actually be drafting it after the BCGLA had already gone and filed at the LRB, after they had done their card check, where 70-plus percent of their members had said that they would like to have their own bargaining unit.

They go to the LRB to try to get a ruling. The government’s response, then, is to draft Bill 5, present it to this chamber and then say: “Fine, we’ll negotiate with you.” The problem is that Bill 5 makes it very clear that there’s only one outcome to a negotiation that the government is prepared to accept.

Here we are, the dying days of this session, and the minister says that all options were exhausted that were acceptable to the government, so we’re back to trying to pass Bill 5. Yes, the LRB is in abeyance right now, but at some point, one would assume, the lawyers are going to want to re-engage that application once Bill 5 passes.

The minister’s premise seems to be that good-faith negotiations are…. As long as it lines up with an outcome that lines up with Bill 5, everything has been done well, and let’s all get on with our lives. Now, the government has made one small concession. They’ve changed the commencement date from royal assent to commencement around an LRC decision.

Can the minister, today, state in this chamber — because courts and labour boards tend to look at transcripts to see what the intention of government is — that the government will not be enacting Bill 5 until such time as the LRB has made a definitive ruling on the BCGLA’s application moving forward?

[4:35 p.m. - 4:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m thinking maybe the member didn’t hear my comments earlier about, in my response…. The members keep raising card check. Once again, card check does not apply to the public service. That’s law. That’s, I don’t know, maybe liberalizing everyone’s bailiwick, but that is law. So card checks do not apply.

Just to remind members, this discussion has been ongoing since 2013. This didn’t just happen. This has been an ongoing discussion since 2013. During the recent discussions, there were two options put on the table. One was by us — by the government. One was rejected by the GLA, and the other was rejected by the Crown counsel.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that brief answer that didn’t actually answer the question. After 15 minutes of deliberations, I would have hoped we would have actually had an answer.

I understand that card check isn’t legal, because they don’t fall under…. They did it in an act of good faith, if the minister wants to talk about good faith negotiations, to try to demonstrate to the LRB, following the provincial government’s newest legislation, what the intent of their members was and the wishes of their members.

[4:45 p.m.]

But we’re talking about this government’s actions with this Bill 5. The minister confirmed, right at the very beginning of all of this, that this legislation started to be drafted after the lawyers went to the LRB to seek a ruling. Waving Bill 5 over the lawyers’ heads is supposed to be negotiating in good faith. It then gets paused. The bill gets paused, not withdrawn but paused — it was introduced on February 9 — to supposedly allow for good-faith negotiations to continue with the lawyers. As close as we can see of any movement by this government through all of those months with Bill 5 sitting on the table is that commencement has changed from royal assent to LRC.

The question I asked is if the minister can commit today that this bill would not be enacted by LRC until the LRB has completely done its work and has made a ruling on the application by the BCGLA.

Hon. K. Conroy: What the member is referring to is in clause 2, and I’m happy to move to clause 2 if they wish.

P. Milobar: Well, we’ll get to clause 2 as the day moves on.

It’s interesting that a straightforward question like that is now being dodged by the minister, given that we’ve been back and forth between clause 1 and clause 2 all day. For the people at home, it’s a two-clause bill. This is not overly complicated. We’re not talking about subsection 1-2/6[v]. We’re talking about a two-clause bill, and the two are actually interconnected on the actions of the government. The fact that there’s this level of evasion on a fairly straightforward question twice in a row — thankfully, we didn’t take 15 minutes to tell me that this is section 2 that I asked the question of — is shocking to me.

Has a drafting, then, of section 1 been done if the LRB rules in favour of the BCGLA and the section 1 that we currently have in front of us in Bill 5 is no longer relevant based on the ruling of the LRB? Or is it the intention of this government, regardless of what the LRB ruling is, to enact section 1?

Hon. K. Conroy: That’s been asked and answered.

P. Milobar: Well, respectfully, no. No, it hasn’t been answered.

We’ve exhausted all our options. We’ve heard it’s in abeyance. We’ve heard this was drafted after an LRB application had already been filed. We have not heard if it’s the government’s intention to enact clause 1 if the LRB has a ruling contrary to the wording of clause 1. If the LRB comes out and says that the BCGLA can have their own bargaining unit, that would be in complete contradiction of clause 1 in Bill 5. Is it the government’s intention to follow the LRB ruling, or is its intention to implement clause 1 regardless of what the LRB has done?

I would say that there’s precedence for this question. Bill 26, which we just dealt with, said just that in the case of Arbutus. It said that the court case can continue through the courts but that regardless of the outcome, regardless of what judges have to say, the building at Arbutus will proceed. All actions taken will have been deemed to be done to a level that the building can proceed, regardless of what a court of law says about due process being handled.

This government has already done that once in this sitting. The question around Bill 5 is: are they intending to do it a second time, or are they intending to let the LRB be independent, come up with a decision and then evaluate whether or not to proceed with an LRC, whether or not to enact clause 1 of Bill 5?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Good thing I keep track of my answers. It has been asked and answered. I said the matter is before the Labour Board. As it’s an ongoing legal matter, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it at this time.

P. Milobar: I’m not asking about the government’s submission to the Labour Board. In fact, the minister also kept pointing out that it’s in abeyance at the Labour Board right now. It’s not an active file at the Labour Board.

The question is about the intention of this government as it relates to clause 1 of Bill 5. Is the government’s intention, with clause 1, to implement clause 1 regardless of what the LRB decision winds up being?

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s been asked and answered.

P. Milobar: No, it hasn’t been answered. The answer from the minister has not been what the government actions will be based on an LRB ruling. The answer from the minister has been cryptic and trying to dodge the question.

I’ll ask again. We have a two-clause bill. Clause 1 very much sets out the rules that the BCGLA can organize and bargain on their behalf. If the BCGLA is in front of the LRB with an application that right now is suspended, waiting to be reengaged, the question to the government….

The minister has indicated that it’s a PSA dealing with the LRB. It’s not the minister directly. I’m asking about the minister and this government’s intention with clause 1 in Bill 5. Is their intention to enact and enforce clause 1 of Bill 5 regardless of what the decision by the LRB for the BCGLA is, yes or no?

Hon. K. Conroy: What the member is referring to is, again, under clause 2. If the member wants to go to clause 2 now, we can.

P. Milobar: I’m asking a direct question about clause 1, the provisions within clause 1 and the government’s intention with those provisions in clause 1. But now the minister is telling me I should be better placed to ask those questions on clause 2. Then, when we move on to clause 2, it’ll be: “Well, you should have asked that in clause 1.”

It’s kind of like in estimates when each minister keeps saying you should go talk to the other minister because no one actually wants to answer, even though they have the same staff sitting behind them when you ask the question from minister to minister.

There are very prescriptive actions in clause 1 in this bill. In fact, they’re the only actions in this bill, other than commencement, for the government to take with the government lawyers. Clause 1 has huge ramifications, as it’s worded, for those government lawyers.

[4:55 p.m.]

Now, it has huge ramifications for those government lawyers only if the LRB agrees with clause 1. Those ramifications are very clear. The LRB rules, and they rule, basically, in favour of the direction of the government, and the lawyers have a decision to make. In fact, they don’t, because they will by default be put into this PEA, at that point. If the labour board says, in fact, the lawyers can have their own bargaining unit of their choosing, clause 1 doesn’t allow for that.

Can the minister point to where in clause 1 the BCGLA would be allowed to form their own bargaining unit if the LRB rules that that is what they are allowed to do?

Hon. K. Conroy: I have answered that, but I’ll say it again. I am not going to speculate on any outcome from the LRB. We will address that if and when the time comes.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

P. Milobar: This apparently seems to be the only section that the minister is willing to answer questions on, all of a sudden.

Thankfully, the Clerk’s office advised us, after we started debate on Bill 5, that there was an amendment. I’m not sure, procedurally, if the minister is supposed to be moving the amendment before we start discussing the bill’s section 2, but I’ll wait for….

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the amendment to clause 2 that is in the possession of the Clerk be read now. I’ll read it.

[CLAUSE 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Commencement

2 This Act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Councilon the date of Royal Assent.]

On the amendment.

P. Milobar: I’ll go back to the previous questions that referred to this clause. I’m hoping we have fulsome answers.

The minister has said that the government has exhausted all options and that’s why the bill is back in front of us for debate. That is why the government is trying to pass this bill. That would seem to indicate that the government is no longer willing to work with or have discussions with the government lawyers.

They’ve exhausted all options, yet they say they are negotiating in good faith on a piece of legislation that was drafted after an application was already filed at the LRB, a piece of legislation to essentially override and circumvent and, basically, ensure a certain result, regardless of what the LRB has to say on this issue. That application has been put in abeyance by the lawyers, hoping that they could have good-faith negotiations with this government, yet the minister has now indicated they’ve exhausted all options.

[5:00 p.m.]

I’ll ask again. Can the government commit today that this bill, this act will not come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council until after a decision has been rendered by the LRB, once it comes out of its abeyance?

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m not prepared to make that commitment at this time, but that’s not the purpose behind this amendment. The purpose behind the amendment is to commence by OIC — out of respect to the fact that the PSA has offered the GLA continued discussions, with the assistance of a facilitator, if necessary — in the interests of finding a productive path forward. Those discussions will not involve whether or not to proceed with placing government lawyers in the licensed professional bargaining unit or not. That has already been decided.

As witnessed by the debate that has been taking place in this House over the last few days, this is a complicated issue, and not everyone understands the impacts of Bill 5 and how it will work. This will allow the parties the time to get on the same page and make sure employees have a better understanding of how things will work before proceeding.

With that, I’d like to take a ten-minute break.

The Chair: Committee will go into a recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:04 p.m. to 5:12 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order. We’re currently on clause 2, the amendment.

P. Milobar: To sum up, we have a government who brought in….

This is the good-faith bargaining and freedom that labour has in this province with this government. We have CBAs where even if you’re unionized, unless you belong to one of the 19 hand-chosen unions by this government, you can’t work on certain government projects.

You have Bill 26, which was just brought in a couple weeks ago now, that says regardless of what the courts say about proper process being followed for a public hearing, the courts no longer are relevant in this one specific piece of property, and the Premier shall advance his project that he’s excited about regardless of due process.

We then have Bill 5, which was stood down after being introduced, drafted after an application to LRB was already underway, brought in as a bit of a hammer to the BCGLA. Gets stood down. Supposed good-faith negotiations happen. All the while, Bill 5 hanging out there.

The minister says all options have been exhausted. Her last answer made it very clear that regardless of what will or won’t happen at the LRB…. The lawyers only have one option open to them, in the government’s view. There’s only one acceptable way forward. They can talk, and they can discuss some periphery issues, but the main issue of which collective bargaining unit they belong to has been decided by government already, regardless of what future decisions might come down.

Yet when asked directly whether or not this government would enact Bill 5 with or without a ruling from the LRB, ahead of a ruling from the LRB, the minister is not prepared to answer that. But everything else within those answers says that’s exactly what this government is going to do.

[5:15 p.m.]

If the government can’t commit that they will hold off on enacting this until after an LRB ruling, what is the trigger point for the government to enact this, to commence this bill as an order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, government…. We’ve decided to make the amendment to commence by OIC out of respect for the fact that the PSA has offered the GLA continued discussions — and, as I said, with the assistance of a facilitator, if necessary, in the interest of finding a productive path forward.

Again, like I said, the discussions won’t involve whether or not to proceed with placing government lawyers in the licensed professionals bargaining unit or not. That has been decided. But we all know how complicated this is, and not everyone understands the impacts of Bill 5 and how it works. So this will allow the parties time to get on the same page and make sure the employees have a better understanding of things before proceeding.

I think it’s important to remind the members of what Bill 5 does do. It does give the Government Lawyers Association a number of things that they’re seeking. It gives them the option, it gives them the opportunity to collective bargaining, which they don’t have now. It gives them options like the right to strike, something that they don’t have right now. The ability to negotiate salary levels — again, they do not have that right now. An improved dispute resolution process and protection from without-cause dismissals. All things that the GLA has been asking for.

[5:20 p.m.]

All the things that they’ve asked — to belong to a union, to the bargaining rights…. All of that is contained here. It gives them those benefits but also while protecting the stability of public services in this province, protecting the stability of labour relations in this province, protecting the stability of labour relations in this province. There’s a much bigger picture here, as I’ve been saying and that the member seems to not want to talk about. But it is a bigger picture.

For that very reason…. That is why the bill has been around since 1973 with very, very few changes, very few amendments, because it does protect the public services that people rely on in this province. We have to also take that into consideration.

Amendment approved.

Clause 2 as amended approved.

The Chair: Shall the title pass?

Division has been called.

[5:25 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.]

Title approved on the following division:

YEAS — 51
Alexis	Anderson	Babchuk
Bailey	Bains	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chant
Chen	Chow	Conroy
Coulter	Cullen	Dean
D’Eith	Dix	Donnelly
Dykeman	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Kahlon	Kang
Leonard	Lore	Ma
Malcolmson	Mercier	Osborne
Paddon	Popham	Ralston
Rankin	Rice	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Russell
Sandhu	Sharma	Simons
Sims	A. Singh	Starchuk
Walker	Whiteside	Yao
NAYS — 28
Ashton	Banman	Bond
Clovechok	Davies	de Jong
Doerkson	Falcon	Furstenau
Halford	Kirkpatrick	Kyllo
Lee	Letnick	Merrifield
Milobar	Morris	Oakes
Olsen	Paton	Ross
Rustad	Shypitka	Stewart
Stone	Sturdy	Sturko
	Wat

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:34 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[5:35 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 5 — PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR
RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 5, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of Supply estimates for Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
AND FUTURE SKILLS

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 5:36 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will take a five-minute recess while people get to their assigned places.

The committee recessed from 5:36 p.m. to 5:46 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

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

We are doing the estimates for Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $2,769,979,000.

Hon. S. Robinson: I do want to make a few opening remarks. I do have staff that will be joining me here today.

I do want to say that Bobbi Plecas, my deputy minister, is making her way here. The rest of the staff will be joining us tomorrow. Nicola Lemmer, who is the assistant deputy minister; Joanna White, assistant deputy minister; Tony Loughran, who is the assistant deputy minister; and Jason Butler, an assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer will be joining me tomorrow. Bobbi will be here this evening. They will be rotating through, depending on the questions.

I have a few opening remarks that I’d like to make about what it means to be the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, to be part of important work that our government is undertaking to help British Columbians succeed and to reach their full potential as well as delivering a workforce that is ready for British Columbia today and into the future.

Our government’s priority is people. For my ministry, it’s people that are at the centre of everything that we do in the post-secondary system. It’s making sure that people can get the skills and the education they need to fully participate in the workforce. It also means that employers can find the workforce that they need not just to sustain their businesses but to grow, to innovate and to build out our economy as it continues to grow.

Since I’ve been minister, I’ve really had the pleasure of meeting so many students throughout the province and hearing from them about what’s important. I have to say that what’s been a real joy for me, particularly in talking with young people, is that they see hope and possibility in the future. They are so smart. These young people have access to a world that I certainly didn’t have access to and I’m sure Madam Chair didn’t have access to, given so much opportunity that they see before themselves.

Part of what I’ve been listening to and what I’ve been hearing from students are their concerns around affordability. That’s been something that I’ve heard regularly.

I see that my deputy minister, Bobbi, has arrived. Welcome to the party.

When I say that affordability has been a challenge, it’s because we see inflation and the inflationary impacts that are happening for students around, certainly, their cost of living. We also know that it’s not just here in British Columbia that we’re seeing these inflationary impacts. We’re seeing it all around the world, not just here in British Columbia.

Now, we’re also seeing a changing workforce. We’ve seen this through the B.C. labour market outlook. It’s telling us that there’ll be about one million jobs over the next decade. Nearly 80 percent will require some form of post-secondary education and skills training. But also, those challenges come with lots of opportunity.

[5:50 p.m.]

That’s why this budget introduces a StrongerBC future-ready action plan, where we’re investing $480 million over the next three years. This is the most significant investment in skills training and post-secondary education that we’ve seen in generations. The StrongerBC future-ready action plan is a bold, transformative plan to help people expand the skills and knowledge that they need to succeed in high-demand, good-paying jobs — the jobs of today as well as the jobs of the future.

Under this action plan, we’re making sure that costs aren’t a barrier, by expanding and improving programs that help British Columbians access post-secondary education and training. This includes $39 million towards the B.C. future skills grant, which will reduce financial barriers by providing learners with a grant of up to $3,500 for the cost of tuition for short-term skills training. That makes a difference for learners.

We’re improving affordability for former youth in care by expanding the provincial tuition waiver program, making it available to all former youth in care. As well, we’re providing additional resources to help cover additional costs that come with studying, and we’re building even more student housing. All of this together makes it more affordable for learners.

Now, the StrongerBC future-ready action plan will implement workforce priorities in the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples action plan, recognizing the integral role filled by Indigenous-led post-secondary institutes here in British Columbia.

The StrongerBC future-ready action plan will help fill workforce gaps in high-demand fields both now and into the future. Just as a couple of examples, we’re funding almost 1,400 new student spaces in early childhood education programs. We know that having professional providers for early learning means that their parents can rest easy while they contribute, as well, in the workforce.

We also have 3,000 more student spaces in tech-relevant programs over the next three years. We know that most jobs are tech jobs these days. Having had the opportunity just yesterday to be at TRIUMF, to see where these students are taking particle acceleration and radioactive isotopes, using their knowledge and their skills, is tremendous in what the future has to offer all of us, based on their education and their talent.

In addition to improvements being made under the StrongerBC future-ready action plan, we’re delivering other improvements to make life better for people here in British Columbia.

We’re working closely with the Ministry of Health to expand and strengthen B.C.’s health care system. This includes investing $150 million, over three years, in health and medical education under B.C.’s health human resources strategy. Also, I have to say, we’re doing advanced work to build western Canada’s first new medical school in 55 years, at Simon Fraser University. It’s going to deliver a new model of training physicians that are ready to work in communities right around the province.

We’re further improving access to education training by investing $151 million, over three years, to vastly improve student financial aid, doubling support for thousands of students, in the first significant increase in nearly 20 years.

We’re investing in more homes for students, so that they can worry less about their housing costs and instead focus on their studies. At the same time, this investment will help ease pressure, of course, on the local housing market. When you move students onto campus, into purpose-built housing, then they don’t need to look for affordable housing in community, and that eases the pressure in all of our communities.

In addition to training people, a critical part of filling job vacancies, now and in the future, is attracting and supporting newcomers to our province. Already we see record numbers of people who are choosing to move to British Columbia. Over the last two years, 250,000 people came to call our province home. To better support newcomers from outside Canada, my ministry is working to accelerate foreign credential recognition, because highly skilled, internationally trained professionals can’t be left to sit on the sidelines and be denied opportunities to apply their expertise.

This budget is built on investments to meet the needs of our society and our economy. For B.C.’s post-secondary education and skills-training sector, meeting these needs requires thoughtful collaboration among partners. The need for collaboration is consistent with what we’ve been hearing from employers, from Indigenous partners, from communities, unions, post-secondary institutions and tradespeople from right across the province. Collaboration is vital to achieving our collective goal of making post-secondary education and skills training more affordable, more accessible and more relevant for all British Columbians.

[5:55 p.m.]

Altogether, I think it’s important to acknowledge that no matter what our personal viewpoints might be, there’s something we can all agree on: the economy here in British Columbia is changing, and we need to be ready for it. That’s why we’re building a British Columbia and an economy where no one is left behind.

With that, before I turn it over to the Chair, I do want to recognize my colleague across the way, who has been a dedicated a critic. “Shadow minister,” I think, is how they’re described. She has been diligently paying attention to what we’ve been doing in my ministry, and I know that she will ask thoughtful questions. I know that in her heart, she’s very focused on the students and the people who want to be students in this province. I’m excited to hear what she has to ask, and I look forward to providing her with answers.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister for her opening comments, and to the staff.

Out of respect for students, I wanted to make sure that we expedited as many questions as possible. The students have worked extraordinarily hard across this province, as well as stakeholders. I’ve provided a list of the questions to the ministry to, hopefully, speed things up through this process, because it’s critically important on that.

I do want to start by opening and saying thank you very much to all the student associations across British Columbia, which have worked diligently to make sure that we have the best public post-secondary system and skilled-trades training possible.

The minister started with talking about the money that has been invested in post-secondary sector. I think that’s critically important. I’m going to focus on outcomes. I’m going to start with the outcomes and how students are feeling across British Columbia.

Obviously, we’ve heard that 80 percent of jobs will require some form of post-secondary education or skills training. The report that the ministry put forward has forecast job openings across 61 industries, 500 occupations and seven regions. I will not be able to cover all of those. I did have a commitment, from the ministry, that on items we do not get through today, we’ll have the opportunity to sit down, follow up and get those answers for the students and the stakeholders.

According to the Student Transitions Project prepared by Joanne Heslop in Transitions of B.C. High School Graduates into B.C. Public Post-Secondary Education, the immediate-entry transition rates of grade 12 graduates has been declining and is currently at 50.8 percent. In 2015-2016, the transition rate from K to 12 into post-secondary was 52.7 percent; in’16-17, it was 52.5 percent; in 2017-2018, 52 percent. You can tell that it’s slowly declining to where we are right now: 2020-21 is 50.8.

The report also went on to review the declining transition rates over the last decade and looked at whether the trend was widespread or concentrated within selected student populations. Here’s what it reveals. Amongst the most sizeable student groups, the rates that declined the most in transition from K to 12 into post-secondary: at minus 3.8 were Indigenous students; minus 4.6 percent, students with special needs; and minus 4 percent for non-resident students.

Does the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education work with the Ministry of Education to ensure that there is success of students from K to 12 to post-secondary? How does the government account for the decline that we are currently experiencing? Is there money in this budget to address the decline in K-to-12 immediate-entry transition?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. Before we get into it, I just want to confirm. When she said that she provided staff with questions, were those the verbal questions that…? Okay. I just want to make sure that we were talking about the same thing, so I understood. The member nodded that was accurate.

The member listed the declining transition rates. We have been tracking them as well. I have a couple of things we are doing and a couple of explanations. One of the things we have found, longer-term trends, is that when the economy is robust, you actually see fewer people going to post-secondary. When there are more jobs than there are people to fill them, then young people will go into the workforce and perhaps delay their post-secondary training. When the economy isn’t as robust, when there are fewer jobs, then school or post-secondary is more attractive during that time. We know that’s part of what we’re seeing as our economy continues to be quite strong.

Having said that, the Indigenous student rate that the member mentioned…. We noticed that too, that decline. We recognize that COVID had a much stronger impact on Indigenous students than on other students. It is for that reason we have number of items in future-ready that work directly with Indigenous institutions to make sure that we are focusing very much on Indigenous populations and making sure that young people, particularly, can access post-secondary education more readily.

The other thing I want to mention…. A couple of other things. We have a dual-credit program that we are strengthening. Nearly all of our public post-secondary institutions have partnerships with school districts to deliver dual-credit programs. I know that the member opposite knows what this is. But for anyone listening, or anyone in the chamber who is interested, it’s where high school students can complete college and university courses that count both towards their graduation from high school as well as give them credit for post-secondary.

The Ministry of Education and Child Care funds school districts for these courses. We work very closely with that ministry so that the school districts can use this funding for tuition and student supports. We have more than 3,000 students, or about 3 percent of grade 11-12 student population, that take about 11,000 dual-credit courses per year. Most of the dual-credits, I will share with the House, are in the trades. We do have $6.2 million as part of future-ready to support K to 12 in that so that we can encourage people, while they’re still in high school, to take programs like that.

In addition, we are offering through the Ministry of Education and Child Care…. They’ve got targeted funding to introduce new dual-credit programs focused on careers in early childhood education. That’s at 30 school districts to date. The initiative will benefit about 800 grade 11 and 12 students through to the end of 2025.

[6:05 p.m.]

Finally, we’ve really been focusing on, and you’ll see in future-ready, some significant resources for those where post-secondary education may not be a natural inclination for them. We’re making sure that any former youth in care, for example…. We are dedicating resources so that former youth in care can access post-secondary education for free. That comes with, I think, an additional $3,500.

Why don’t I just read it off the sheet into the record? We’re expanding programming to support people facing barriers to develop the basic skills need to become workforce ready. That’s about 5,200 people, and we expect 5,000 additional people to join B.C.’s workforce over the next five years. It’s $45 million for people with multibarriers.

I’ll take my seat, let her ask another question, and then I’ll get the information I was looking for.

C. Oakes: As a strong supporter of the dual-credit program, I do want to comment.

All the northern MLAs, of all parties, meet every year with our school board trustees. One of the things that they did here is…. It would be helpful if there was a policy put forward by government around the dual-credit process. It would help address some of the silos between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education. That was something that they asked me to bring forward.

Further in on the report around the student transition rates, it talks about the measures of academic GPA, a measure that is typically used as an indicator of university eligibility. The AGPA is the average of four courses: English 12 and the student’s best three of other academic grade 12 subjects. More than half the students who complete grade 12 do not complete the necessary set of courses or achieve insufficient grades in order to calculate an AGPA.

If nearly 80 percent of job openings are going to require some form of advanced education and/or skills training, and more than half the students who complete grade 12 do not complete the necessary set of courses or achieve insufficient grades in order to calculate an AGPA, what is the plan of government to address this?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question around what does it mean for those folks who perhaps, going to high school, doing their secondary and thinking about post-secondary wasn’t either on their mind, or it wasn’t where they performed to their best. How do we make sure that those folks have access to post-secondary education?

There’s a myriad of opportunities for those folks, whether it’s free adult basic education that we made free back in 2018, which is available to anyone who wants to upgrade or take a course over so that they can strengthen their skill set…. Colleges are open access. There’s open access to trades.

For former youth in care, again, we have additional resources to help them. There’s also micro-credentials. So really working at helping people identify opportunities where they could strengthen their knowledge, get exposure to a different skill set…. It might be somebody who, perhaps, is already in the workplace. Perhaps they didn’t thrive in the public system when they were going to school. Perhaps they didn’t even have a good experience at school, and that affected their performance. I think all of us know some of those people.

Creating opportunities for them to try, like in a micro-credential, where they’re just going for 12 weeks to get exposure, to find out if they have what it takes to do a mini-course that will give them some skills is certainly available to them. We’re supporting people to do that so that they could extra-skill, so they can continue to contribute to the economy, have a good job and be part of the workforce.

C. Oakes: The minister mentioned another element that was identified in the report — that often we don’t necessarily see those transitions because of immediate transition into the workforce. But the report also discussed, specifically, a significant decline that we’re seeing in the North. Of course, that’s obviously an area that I’m very passionate about, having grown up in the area. I bring that up because I am concerned about what I see.

What we’ve also seen in the North is a decline in the natural resource sector, the forest sector. I come from a forest-dependent community that has absolutely been significantly impacted, like so many of my colleagues. I know that a lot of the students who may have transitioned into, say, working in a mill or into those positions…. We need to be thinking about ways to ensure that we’re supporting them.

I raised these first introductory comments because I’m hoping that the minister is willing to recognize that we do need to break down silos. We need to look at education in general, right through the spectrum — whether it’s from early childhood, K to 12 to post-secondary — and understand what that means.

A critical part of how we do things differently moving forward is the funding review. The funding model review is critically important. The minister made opening comments about how we’ve seen a changing economy, and I’ve identified the trends that we’re seeing with students and specifically declining participation, sometimes, that we need to address.

The government embarked on a funding review of the post-secondary institutions several years ago and consulted with organizations, post-secondary institutions, student organizations. I can share, for example, that the B.C. Students Federation, right across the province, participated.

In one of the stakeholder meetings, I met with TRU. The B.C. Students Federation talked about how they have spent a considerable amount of time going out to communities, meetings with elected officials, and really looked at how we make the post-secondary sector better. How do we make sure that we are looking at how we are achieving student success? They were so passionate about the work that they had completed.

[6:15 p.m.]

What they asked me to bring forward in this set of estimates is…. They want to know, after all of the work that so many people have done….

The what-we-heard report was supposed to be out last fall. Why the delay in the what-we-heard report around the consultation around the funding model review? Why the delay? When is the government releasing the what-we-heard report? Perhaps even at a high level, what were some of the general themes, and how is government going to take action on those items?

Hon. S. Robinson: There were a couple of different things that the member talked about. I’d like to address them. I also am aware of the time, so I’ll try to be quick.

I just want to say that in terms of folks in the North that the member started with, there are a number of areas which future-ready really focuses on, and that’s new skills for new building products like mass timber. We have $3.3 million allocated over the next three years as part of future-ready, as well as transition training for forest sector workers — that’s $30.3 million — recognizing the impacts of a changing industry and helping people re-skill, extra-skill so that they can participate in the economy, take care of their families, do all the things that I know the member is concerned about.

I’m concerned, as well, about helping people transition so that they can continue to take care of their families. It’s very important to us. Helping people to train up is part of what is in this future-ready.

In terms of the funding review formula, I, too, have been meeting with student groups who have shared with me that they have participated, and I’m really grateful. I just want to read into the record that it was in March of last year that we announced a sector-wide review about: how do we fund operations of public post-secondary institutions? Don Wright was hired to do that engagement.

The focus was really on the operational block funding model for public institutions. Capital funding, trades funding, targeted funding and collective bargaining were out of scope. I think it’s important to recognize it was really about the block funding.

There were a number of…. The first phase was to engage with stakeholders. That was done last summer. Over 40 targeted engagement sessions, I understand, occurred. Each of the 25 post-secondary institutions were engaged as well, and there were about 50 written submissions from institutions and other stakeholders, including student bodies as well as labour and sector associations.

The process with Indigenous partners is in progress. That work continues. I think it’s really important to meet with those folks on that part of the process in terms of working together with Indigenous partners to understand their funding as well.

That report should be available within the next number of weeks as it’s coming through and working its way through our system and will be shared when that process is done. It’s coming. I guess that’s the short answer.

With that, I ask that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), 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 6:21 p.m.