Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 7, Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. After they complete, we call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Forests in the Douglas Fir Committee Room.

In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for Mental Health and Addictions. After they complete, we call Committee of Supply for Municipal Affairs in the Birch Committee Room.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
POVERTY REDUCTION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 1:38 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 7, Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.

Clauses 2 and 7 approved.

The Chair: Shall clause 8 pass?

Apologies from the Chair. We are apparently on clause 16.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

M. de Jong: Again, my colleague from Peace North is momentarily detained in another place in this place. So I’m going to pose a few introductory questions about clause 17.

[1:40 p.m.]

We’re talking here about the creation of pilot projects. My experience is that when government sets out to create a regulatory power of the sort contemplated in clause 17…. Whilst it may not have all of the details or all of the regulations in place for discussion at the time the bill is debated, it’s here, and the regulatory power is being created because the government has some notion of how it would like to utilize that power.

This is an opportunity for the minister, and I invite her to do so, to provide the committee with some indication of how this particular regulatory power might be applied and what types of pilot projects she and the government are contemplating.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’ll answer the member’s question quite briefly and then welcome any further diving in.

As you’re aware, right now there is no provision in our foundational legislation for SDPR to conduct pilot projects. One of the changes that we’re making in this legislation that we’ve spent quite a bit of time talking about over the last couple of days is the concept of a client needs assessment and an employability plan. Had SDPR had the legislative permission to conduct a pilot project, we may well have test-driven that concept ahead of the permanent legislative amendment. That’s one example.

As it is, we are now building it into legislation, and we’ll start to implement it this summer, slowly, in phases, but if we already had the ability to conduct pilot projects, that might be something where we were coming to this Legislature with a permanent regulatory change with already some operational experience.

I welcome further questions. We’ve certainly got more that we can put on the record.

M. de Jong: That’s helpful.

The minister has touched on an example that related to an individual. I think the regulatory power the government is seeking here contemplates pilot projects relating to persons or classes of persons, family units and classes of family units. Maybe we can be a little bit more specific about the type of person or persons, classes of persons, or family units and classes of family units that have given rise to the use of the language that the government and the minister have sought to include in this section.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The thinking that gave rise to this idea was our desire to improve outcomes for particular groups of people who have been traditionally left behind. That might be, for example, dependent youth who have lived in families who had been reliant on income assistance.

[1:45 p.m.]

What kinds of programs and pilot projects might we use to target youth as they age to become adults and have them break free of a pattern of being on income assistance?

Another example of places that we might be able to use pilot projects to test innovative ideas and improve outcomes for people that are in our income assistance system might be changing shelter supports to reduce homelessness, looking at different ways of treating income to encourage increased employment. Another example might be considering what happens when people leave income assistance, to support them in holding jobs permanently instead of cycling back on to income assistance.

M. de Jong: The first example the minister gave resonated with me, and I understood. She mentioned dependent youth. We won’t do it here, but there is a way to define or refine the definition of what we mean by dependent youth for the purpose of a subsequent pilot project.

The other two examples the minister gave, though, struck me as being far broader. She talked about changing shelter support, which is something governments can do and may fall within the minister’s ambit and the approval of the Finance Minister.

That’s less about a class of persons or a class of families. I’m trying to get a sense, in this brief exchange, for the moment, less about the kinds of policy changes that might be included in a pilot project that will get to that and focusing in on the persons or classes of persons that the ministry believes it will focus on.

The minister, to be fair, has given me one, and that is dependent youth. Are there others?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I would repeat that the intention is to focus on persons for whom we want different outcomes. An example might be persons at risk of homelessness or currently experiencing homelessness. They could be the focus of a pilot project delivered under this new legislative authority, which our ministry does not have right now.

M. de Jong: That also is helpful. So now what I’ve heard from the minister are two identifiable classes of persons: persons at risk of homelessness, and dependent youth. Are there any others?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I think that my very best example of a project that our ministry is actively thinking of right now is the one that I gave at the beginning. If we already had this legislative authority, then we would have already had a pilot project on the client needs assessment and the employability plan replacing the employment plan.

I don’t want to invest too deeply in some of the other scenarios, because these haven’t been built yet. Certainly, future pilot projects, the persons for whom the pilot was meant to test new and innovative ideas to have different outcomes for people, would certainly be data-driven, would certainly be evidence-based, based on our observations and our data about people that are in our system.

Further examples might be…. For example, the member’s government identified single parents as a class of income assistance recipients who needed some particular supports in order to have different outcomes. I think that will always continue to be a group of persons on income assistance that will maybe need some particular programming that we want to test.

Another might be, and this is certainly a preoccupation and a group that has inspired some of the changes that we’re making in this legislation, long-term recipients of income assistance who have not succeeded at employment. That might also be a class of persons for whom designing a pilot project to test new approaches is something that we would use, should this clause pass.

D. Davies: Thanks to my colleague from Abbotsford West.

I appreciate the minister’s response. Who will form proposals for these pilot projects?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: From time to time, my public service team has certainly put innovative ideas in front of me, and if we have the legislative authority, we’ve been able to make changes and adapt the way that our programs are delivered. I would imagine that, going forward, receiving, enabling regulation-making authority with respect to pilot projects…. Again, proposals will be brought to me through public service, but those would be filtered based on evidence. These would be data-driven.

[1:55 p.m.]

I would expect that public service would work with service providers like WorkBC, advocates that are in the movement that are proposing new ways to have better outcomes for people and that we would work together on program design. They would filter that through our public service, and we would establish pilot projects on that basis.

D. Davies: What are the criteria for them to be approved, and does the minister approve their commencement?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The amendment that is proposed to the legislation is to establish regulation-making authority, so the regulations would be approved by cabinet before being able to enact this section of the legislation.

D. Davies: Just a question regarding budgeting for these pilot projects. Is there going to be a consistent fee, a budget, that will be around these pilot projects, or is it kind of going to be ad hoc, as they happen?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: As with any other government operation, if a new offering or new enactment of this legislative change through regulation required a budget that could not be accommodated within the ministry’s existing budget, then that would be a matter for Treasury Board consideration.

D. Davies: Okay. Just maybe to clarify, there are no budget dollars for pilot projects, from what I understand, specifically in the budget, but if there is a project, it would have to go to Treasury Board. Is that kind of what I’m understanding?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I believe I said that if the activity could not be accommodated within the existing ministry budget, then the next part of the sentence would be the member’s question.

D. Davies: Great. I appreciate that. I missed that first part of your comment.

I guess, obviously, with these proposals…. They’re coming in from different groups around the province, and ones that fit criteria go across your desk, for your eyes. The proposals that are coming…. Are they going to be published and made available to the public, or is it just going to be within the ministry of these projects?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The legislation hasn’t passed, and we don’t yet have regulations in place. So the member’s questions, I think, are ahead of us still, but the most basic answer is that regulations, when they’re enacted, are public. Maybe I’ll just leave it there. If he wants to pursue, I’ve got some more ideas I can offer.

D. Davies: Yeah, for sure; I understand that. I guess maybe we’d look, at this stage, at a commitment from the minister in regard to pilot projects that do come forward. I would assume that the minister would be able to confirm today — I’ll maybe add another piece onto this question — that the projects coming forward are going to be made available to the public, and the results of these pilot projects are being made available to the public as well. I’m just wondering if the minister could confirm that.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I would say, in the general spirit of us being governed by freedom-of-information legislation and going through an estimates process where we talk about all the ways that the ministry budget is spent, that yes, there are mechanisms, but without knowing what any of the pilot projects would be, I think that what the member is asking me to do is premature.

D. Davies: I still find it interesting that we can’t get a commitment from the minister just to show some transparency on a pilot project and the results of the said pilot project. I think it’s in the best interest of us in this place, users, agencies, to have that transparency on these projects. I’m a little concerned around that.

It’s not a matter of the cart before the horse. I think we just need commitment that, at any opportunity when there is a pilot project, the pilot project should be made public — unless there’s some personal information or something; I understand those pieces — with the results, so that British Columbians have an idea of what is happening with, in many cases, the vulnerable people that these projects pertain to.

[2:05 p.m.]

Maybe I’ll ask the minister one last time, if she can go on the record today in regard to pilot projects and trying to get transparency around what projects are happening within the ministry and how those turn out, what are the results of said pilot project? Can she commit today that there will be a level of transparency on sharing that information with British Columbians?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I think, in a way, the member has answered his own question. These are, in many cases, the most vulnerable people, and there may be cases where there are matters of personal privacy. This means that I am not going to say — ahead of having the legislation and the regulation and ahead of having conducted any pilot projects — that we would do anything more than we already do through FOIPPA legislation, through the annual estimates process.

If we actually carry out a pilot project, and if we hadn’t already released the results of it, then the member could certainly canvass that with the minister at the time in estimates or through the other processes we have.

I will give one example. This is not a pilot project, but it might give the member an idea of the kinds of things we’re imagining. Right now we’re funding — we’re using federal dollars to do it, by the way — an employment program that the province administers, where we’ve partnered with the Canadian Mental Health Association at five addiction treatment centres to provide employment training and employment experience to people who are in addiction treatment.

We are learning from that — it’s going on right now — what kinds of outcomes people have that are different for them than just leaving a bed-based addiction treatment facility without having those employment supports and already having a job lined up for when they graduate. The numbers are small. We would be very careful about publicizing outcomes for people that are going through a very personal and intense experience of addiction treatment.

These are the kinds of areas that we are treading. We are governed by freedom-of-information legislation. We have a great deal of transparency. We send out a lot of press releases, and we make a lot of studies available. I think that the member and I would be able to work it out — if this legislation passes, if the regulations are put in place — once we start actually starting pilot projects.

D. Davies: This is the problem. We’ve seen a lot of regulation by the government. That’s the challenge. It pulls it out of this room here as legislators. I would say to the minister that if we want to find out, we can use FOIPPA to do it. As we’ve also seen, it does little good to have a blacked-out page when we’re trying to understand how a program is going — or for an organization, for that matter, that maybe wants to improve their own outcomes on such a program.

The example used by the minister is, I actually think, a great example of things that could be shared. Again, we’re not asking names, and we’re not asking locations, but very generally. One could see this as a success story, if it is a success story, finding out that information. You can generalize a lot of this stuff.

[2:10 p.m.]

I don’t think anybody is looking for personal details or information, but it’s important for people — British Columbians, these organizations, the social service organizations and us — to see that the ministry is actively trying different programs, sharing what these programs are and sharing the results — good, bad or indifferent.

I don’t know why we need to wait to hear: “Well, we don’t want to do that before the regulation comes out.” I think it’s very simple to have the minister state here before us today that: “Absolutely, wherever possible, we will absolutely share the results of the projects and what these projects are.”

I find it concerning that there’s this wall that’s being put up. “Well, no. We don’t want to do that. We don’t want to share, because some personal details might get out.” We know that there are mechanisms, that we can stop that from happening. Generalized, what the project is and the results, I think, are what we’re looking for.

I’ll see one more time if the minister can maybe elaborate a little bit more on why not.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I think I’ve answered this repeatedly. Yes, the principle is to share the results of the work that we do so that it builds better policy and so we engender better understanding across the province about some of the barriers people face and the ways that we can work together to fix them.

Am I willing to make the promise that the member is asking me to make? No, I’m not. But I think, through my repeated answers here, I’ve tried a number of times to express that our principle is information-sharing and that, given that the legislation hasn’t passed — there are no pilot projects — it’s hard to imagine all of the possible unintended consequences of that.

That’s my final word on this matter. I’m very happy to take it up with a member once we actually have pilot projects planned and really welcome the conversation and am willing to collaborate with him on that.

Clauses 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

On clause 20.

D. Davies: Clause 20, of course, we’re in the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act now. Could the minister tell this House what is the form that the minister has determined to be appropriate for the client needs assessment and the employability plan?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Same answer as yesterday for the part of the client needs assessment that applies to the earlier legislation. The form itself is under development. It won’t be templated. It will be something that can be tailored to the individual.

Just a reminder that for clients governed under the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, the client needs assessment and the employability plan are voluntary.

Clause 20 approved.

On clause 21.

D. Davies: Could the minister confirm whether dependent youth would need approval from a guardian to request a client needs assessment?

I do recognize the minister’s last comment. There will probably be a few questions that will overlap in this section, as in the previous act as well.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Yes, the member is correct. Same as the previous act, no parental consent is contemplated for youth asking for employment planning supports.

D. Davies: Is there any independent organization or body that will provide oversight to the minister’s decision-making on this issue?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Maybe just a bit more clarity from the member on this. In this case, as distinct from the previous legislation, the decision-making is all on the part of the client. Whether it’s a dependent youth or a person receiving PWD, they would make the decision whether they wanted to seek the extra employability supports of the client needs assessment and the employability plan. So the decision-making is intended to be theirs, this being a voluntary program.

But if the member wanted to clarify, I’m happy to pursue further.

D. Davies: I’m just reading it here again. I kind of read the words a little bit backwards there. I thought it was a decision that was being made within the ministry office.

I will move on to my next question, though. We thoroughly canvassed this in the last act. In fact, my colleague for Saanich North and the Islands brought forward an amendment to have the section in the previous act completely removed.

We do see it again here, or very similar here. It’s basically clauses 9(6) (a), (b), (c) and (d): “not open to review by a court on any ground or to appeal to the tribunal….”

I guess maybe just for the listening audience, does the minister want to make a quick comment on that and why that is in there? Is it seen as a bit of an overreach or not?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: For the benefit of the public — all the people that are watching on video, I’m sure — if they missed our debate on this yesterday and today, I’ll restate that the circumstance in which a commitment to seek employment was being…. That’s the employability plan in the old legislation, the existing legislation; an employment plan in what we propose, an employability plan.

The conditions that might lead to our ministry wanting to cancel that individual’s employment obligations would be their incapacity to do that. Say the person is hospitalized or some kind of calamity makes it not possible for them to carry out searching for or seeking or conducting work. Those are the kinds of circumstances. Again, this being a voluntary program, there are no consequences for the client if the employability or employment plan is cancelled, and that’s why this is not appealable through the courts or a tribunal.

I can’t imagine what the circumstance would be that this would be some kind of denial or a loss of ability or a loss in any way to the client. But if it were, we still have, internally, fairness processes, being able to accelerate a decision to a manager. There are other internal mechanisms that any client of SDPR can appeal and get their concerns heard and possibly adjudicated. It’s just that this is not to a tribunal or a court.

A. Olsen: I just wanted to…. Yesterday the minister outlined a variety of different services and supports that might be lined up in an employability plan and, I think, gave quite a detailed answer, with respect.

In response to the previous answer where the minister questions when this might be not to the benefit of the client, it may not be to the benefit of the client after going through a host of planning of services to support somebody getting into a position to be employable, which is what the work here is that is being attempted to accomplish. The minister then has the ability to just cancel or amend, and the client has no recourse.

Does the minister not agree that there is indeed a…? This puts the client into a…. I’m going to reframe the question. Is this not an instance where the client may be put into a situation where they’ve been led to believe that there’s a series of supports and perhaps services that could be available in order to expedite that process that could then be cancelled without any recourse?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I tried to outline this, this morning.

Our ministry would not cancel an employment plan if a client was succeeding. So the scenarios that we talked about, I guess, yesterday were things like during COVID, where we did cancel employment plans because there was no ability for the client to go out and get the training. Because of the state of emergency, that training was not being offered. So we cancelled the employment plans because it was impossible to carry them out.

That’s the only kind of scenario that we can imagine, in the case where a client is succeeding, where they are using, as the member says, the services and the training and the transportation vouchers and the child care and the things that are building them to be able to step into employment.

I’ll say again, in response to the member’s question, just a reminder that there is a reconsideration, appeals and administrative fairness branch which carries out, often, within SDPR, clients’ concerns and questions and requests for reconsideration. So that remains an active tool for anybody that wasn’t happy with a decision that was made without it having to be something that goes to court or to the actual tribunal.

The Chair: Peace River North.

D. Davies: Actually, sorry. It’s on the next clause.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

The Chair: Peace River North.

D. Davies: Thanks, Chair, and I did have questions on the previous clause, but they were almost…. Well, they were the same as the previous act. So I’m just going to move on here.

There are still…. Some of the questions will sound very similar to yesterday, because there are similar changes in both of these acts.

The question I do have around here, though, is on the requirements for requesting information, timelines that are specified by the minister in both sections 1.1 and 1.2, for determining eligibility and assessing compliance.

How will the ministry ensure that these requirements do not place undue burden on applicants and recipients, especially those that are already in a vulnerable position?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Same as we discussed yesterday. To make sure that the ministry gets the information from applicants for assistance so that we’re able to verify need, we have adapted our processes to make sure that people with disabilities, people with different abilities — that their particular needs are accommodated. Whether that is translation, whether that is accommodations, aids, assistance, people with extreme challenges, we have to meet people where they are.

[2:30 p.m.]

As I discussed yesterday, our community integration specialists are also helping enrol people in special ways, people who are unhoused or are at risk of homelessness. Our community integration specialists…. I think there are about 170 of them now across B.C. We just added seven more this week. They will go to where people are, help them complete PWD forms, help them get the physician letter of support, help them replace ID.

We want to connect people with supports. We have built a system around people with particular needs so that they’re not alienated. This legislation further removes some of those barriers.

D. Davies: Again, just for the listening audience, can the minister share what measures are in place to protect the privacy and security of information that will be collected during these processes?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

That is outlined in a separate clause in Bill 7.

Clause 22 approved.

The Chair: On clause 23, member for Peace River North.

On clause 23.

D. Davies: Yeah. Thanks, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

Can the minister explain why the clause imposes consequences on the family unit as a whole in the case of a recipient failing to meet specified obligations? I think we asked this question similarly, as well, yesterday.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Can I clarify with the member? Is he on clause 23?

D. Davies: Yes, clause 23.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The purpose of this section is…. The family unit will be reporting to the minister, in accordance with the regulation, in order to be eligible.

I think the member might be ahead of us, possibly.

D. Davies: Yeah. Thanks very much.

I’m good now to clause 33, for your information.

Clauses 23 to 33 inclusive approved.

On clause 34.

D. Davies: I’m just catching up here. Of course, now we are into a different act again. That was quick. The minister can thank me later. I didn’t ask all my questions that I had prepared from the same first act that we went through.

Could the minister provide an outline of the method for how and where posts will be done?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: That is outlined in clause 39.

D. Davies: You skipped ahead of me. I appreciate that.

Why is it the minister, not the ministry, who will objec­tively analyze the actions and the progress measures respecting Indigenous peoples?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: To be fully transparent, this work is largely done by ministry staff, for whom I am very grateful.

The 2018 Poverty Reduction Strategy Act assigned responsibility around accountability and reporting to the minister. That’s why this is phrased this way.

D. Davies: I’m just trying to find ahead…. I’m going to ask you anyways, and you can tell me if I need to go look somewhere else.

Exactly what time frame will these updates, which I previously asked about, be posted? Is it monthly, biannually, yearly?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Again, I’ll point the member to clause 39, where that is outlined. The reporting requirement remains the same as in the 2018 legislation: annual reports to the Legislature and an updating of the strategy every five years.

D. Davies: I’m sorry. You’re way too quick on these.

When will the first update be posted, before September of this year?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The last annual report was tabled in the Legislature this fall. We anticipate maintaining that reporting pattern. The new poverty reduction strategy will be tabled as close to March 31 as our legislative sitting calendar allows.

A. Olsen: I’m just wondering. Clause 34 requires the minister to consider actions and progress measures respecting the reduction and prevention of poverty that are recommended by Indigenous peoples.

Can the minister characterize what type of engagement and ongoing consultation will happen in order for there to be that information-sharing opportunity by Indigenous peoples in this province to the ministry?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I detailed the consultation process over the last year, the Indigenous stream consultation, in detail on day one of the committee review. The what-we-heard report for the Indigenous stream is available online. In the new strategy, which will be tabled in this place very soon, we collected all the actions that Indigenous leadership and bodies asked us to. The new strategy was developed and is being developed in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous partners, including right now. That work continues to this day.

Then I’ll say, maybe anticipating the member’s question or a future question, that even once the strategy is tabled and the text is set, the work doesn’t end with that. As we work, then, across government to implement the strategy and report on our progress, then that cooperation and consultation have to continue.

A. Olsen: I recognize that there has been some work to get the bill here today. There’s some work in order to get the poverty reduction strategy updated. We’ll see that in the coming weeks. I appreciate the minister for providing that on day one.

The question here, though, that I’m hoping to better understand is going forward, reviewing and updating the poverty reduction strategy in the future. There’s a new clause in here that requires the minister to consider the actions and progress measures respecting the reduction and prevention of poverty that are recommended by Indigenous peoples.

In order to receive recommendations, the minister would have to go through, I’m assuming, some level of engagement with them in order to be able to understand what it is that they’re advocating for. I guess what I’m hoping for is not a backward-looking response, but a forward-looking response.

For future updates and reviews, what process is the ministry going to undertake to gather the information and the recommendations of Indigenous peoples that, then, the future minister must be required to consider in the development and the review of the future poverty reduction strategies?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The work that is described in the new (3) section is the work that we’ve been doing for the last year. We didn’t wait for the legislation to be amended in order to do that broad engagement, consultation, cooperation with Indigenous people in order to build the strategy that’s coming out in a couple of weeks. We built all of that work into the new strategy.

We also made sure that our Declaration Act action plan commitments were enshrined in this legislation. This wording mirrors the commitments that were made in the DRIPA action plan commitments.

Maybe anticipating the member’s next question, the work that we did over the last year built where we are right now. The actions are enshrined. The commitments are enshrined in legislation. As we do the annual reports and updates on progress that we’ve made and actually implement the plan, we will surely learn more about new measures but also new ways to engage.

Those will in turn inform the next strategy, which will be tabled five years from now but will, for the year leading up, require that nation-to-nation commitment to work together on building a strategy like this that will make people’s lives better.

A. Olsen: Several times throughout this debate, the minister has referenced nation-to-nation and also Indigenous partners. Important language. However, I think it is important to also reflect that if the goal is nation-to-nation, that is one kind of consultation and engagement. If it’s Indigenous partners, it’s another kind of consultation and engagement.

A commitment to nation-to-nation would be a commitment to the ministry and the current and future ministers engaging with all 200-and-something nations or First Nations. I mean, it’s even unclear. Indigenous governing bodies, maybe, is probably better, because it’s even unclear the definition that the minister is using of “nations” and the definition that Indigenous First Nations people would use for “nations.”

This is the reason why, I think, that it’s important to be really clear on what the goals are of consultation. What is going to be informing this and future poverty reduction acts? Is it a commitment to nation-to-nation? If so, then I think that needs to be considered. If it’s just Indigenous partners, then that’s different, a different strategy altogether.

Perhaps, I’d like to hear the minister’s perspective on this. Clearly, there are vastly different types of consultation, depending on which language the minister is informing that consultation with.

[2:50 p.m.]

[Interruption.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Let me first get on the record that that phone alarm was not from any of the members of my team.

The Chair: I think I have an idea of who. I’ll take it up with them later.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I know the member will let me know if this isn’t the way that he thought that this might go. I might have misunderstood your question.

On this section, the focus of our consultation over the last year, to be able to be sure that we had Indigenous voices embedded within the legislation, to be sure that we were fulfilling our DRIPA commitments and to ensure that Indigenous voices and solutions to poverty were embedded in our poverty reduction strategy, not yet published….

We sent three rounds of letters to 204 First Nations, including eight modern treaty nations, inviting them to share input and co-develop policy and legislative amendments. Of them, we had contact with representatives from 57 First Nations, including modern treaty nations.

We held seven virtual information sessions with participation from six nations and four modern treaty nations. We also invited Métis Nation B.C. to share input and co-develop policy and legislative amendments. Then we also had technical discussions on legislation with Métis Nation B.C. policy staff, First Nations Leadership Council legal and technical team and any interested nations who said that they wanted to engage with us on holding the pen.

A. Olsen: At the front end of that consultation, was there any compensation for participating in that handshake or some type of honoraria for members of the community to participate in the consultation with the province?

M. Bernier: I seek leave to make an introduction while the minister is convening.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Bernier: Behind me in the Legislature today…. I think it’s really exciting when we have an opportunity to introduce students that come and visit us.

On behalf of the member for Delta South, who is unfortunately not in the chamber right now, because he’s back at a constituency event…. I’m really pleased, on his behalf, to welcome teacher Jennifer Kettlewell and 32 people, including 26 grade 5s and 6s, who are here from Pebble Hill Elementary, touring the precinct today, watching a bit of the debates going on, on one of the bills.

Will the precinct please make them welcome here today?

The Chair: Welcome to them and all of our visitors.

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The Declaration Act engagement fund, which is a $200 million B.C. government fund for engagement on the nations’ side, was accessible, and we paid honoraria to town hall participants through the Indigenous engagement stream.

A. Olsen: I guess it’s just…. I appreciate the extent to which there was consultation and engagement done leading up to this. I guess I’d just like to make a comment here before moving past this section, a comment that I’ve made a couple of times through this and also in Bill 5, around the level of poverty that exists in First Nations.

In fact, I think to the extent in which it will impact the overall poverty of our province, it’s disproportionately First Nations communities. If there are 200, there are likely very close to that that are facing extreme and crushing poverty, housing, lack of access to good jobs over the long term in their territories.

It is a common practice of government to send out letters, and three rounds of letters is more than many ministries will send out. Usually it’s a single notification. If it’s not caught, then it’s kind of assumed that the First Nation and the community don’t want to participate.

[2:55 p.m.]

I guess I’ll just leave it with this. I encourage the ministry, and I encourage the minister, currently and in the future, to find new ways of ensuring that Indigenous communities are able to participate, that they’re not viewed as volunteers in participating. There are often very few people in the community doing a lot of work.

It’s absolutely necessary for a provincial institution — with the number of people that are working in this particular ministry and across the public service in general, with access to all of the resources in the province, very reluctant to turn over any of those resources in an unfettered way…. Indeed, the poverty is the result of the government controlling all of the resources that are generated in this province.

The fact that Indigenous governing bodies are the only governing bodies in this province that don’t and cannot create their own sources of revenue through their own actions…. They entirely require Crown governments to find ways that are acceptable to those Crown governments, that may not have any connection to what would be acceptable in a First Nations community.

Indigenous governing bodies are left with what they are offered and only with what they’re offered. As we’re here today talking about a poverty reduction act and the aspects of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act, we have to be fully aware that it is the result of the actions within this chamber, currently and historically, and the actions within the similar chamber in the House of Commons in Ottawa that has created the poverty.

The W̱SÁNEĆ people tell a story of how we are a wealthy people and that we have one of the wealthiest territories in British Columbia, yet when you come to our communities, that’s not what you see. It is the result of the decisions of this room and the way we engage, the way we consult, but more importantly than that, the way we’ve distributed the resources that have been extracted from our territories.

The poverty reduction strategy…. It’s easy, really, if you are prepared to scrap the world view of this place, to reduce the poverty in First Nations. I’ve mentioned it to the Minister of Finance, to the Minister of Indigenous Relations, to the current Premier and former Attorney General.

It is for this government to provide opportunities for unfettered, uncontrolled resources to flow to First Nations, just simply because they’re a governing body, not because they’re partnered up with an LNG project or a forestry project but because they’re a governing body. Other governing bodies in this province are given tools to generate their own-source revenues.

In addition to that, First Nations could partner up with an LNG company or a forestry company, and that would be fine. That would be their decision, except that there is no way currently for First Nations to generate revenue. The poverty that we’re working, in this section, to reduce is poverty we have created, and it’s poverty that we are perpetuating by the way we are responding to the crisis that is impacting First Nations communities.

When put in that context, the engagement, while laudable and while far greater than what many other ministries would be prepared to do, is far less than what is needed, considering that we’ve created this problem.

It’s not maybe this ministry and not maybe the people sitting across the way from me. Social Development and Poverty Reduction didn’t create this, but Ministers of Finance, ministers responsible for natural resources and other ministries have created the conditions that exist in First Nations communities. We don’t want to look and directly take responsibility for that in this place. It’s very uncomfortable.

[3:00 p.m.]

Decisions that we’ve made about land, decisions about who gets access to the revenues that are generated from those resource extraction projects…. We’ve made decisions here that have created the crushing poverty that now the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction has to be responsible for, to find ways to mitigate and to change.

I would suggest that the solution is quite simple. It requires an entire world view change from this institution, but it’s one that I would encourage the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction to embrace and to try to convince the other members of the executive to see that every day that we’re not doing that is another day that we are perpetuating the outcomes that we’re seeing in First Nations communities.

It’s easy for us to blame the past, but we’re doing it in this institution on every day that we are not changing the fundamental formula. That is allowing First Nations communities to access revenues not because they’ve done anything for us; not because they’ve jumped through an elaborate set of hoops, which we’ve set up for them, and demonstrated incredible flexibility in Olympics-level gymnastics in order to achieve what we want them to achieve; but simply because they are.

That’s what we afford every Crown government that exists in this country. That’s what we afford every municipal government that exists in this country. But we do not afford that to Indigenous governing bodies in this country. So we wonder why the conditions are the way they are.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member. He makes a very articulate and clear-headed rationale for why we built into the legislation the requirement to obligate future Ministers of Social Development and Property Reduction to consider actions recommended by Indigenous people to reduce and prevent poverty.

I can’t let some of the comments go without saying that the gaming revenue decisions of our Finance Minister and previous Finance Ministers go very much in the direction that the member cites, but that’s for somebody else’s debate. I’ll also flag — for the hundreds of people that I’m sure are watching this debate — that on Thursday I did detail the broader Indigenous consultation strategy. What I named just now for the member was simply the legislative consultation and cooperation part, but there’s a much broader piece.

I won’t take up a lot more time on that, but I will say that in particular, we’ve had our staff go to where Indigenous leadership was, the Elders’ gatherings, the fairs, the conferences, so that there wasn’t an extra obligation. Certainly, relationships and conversations happened as a result of just showing up again and again. Also, we started on a foundation of the existing 600 recommendations that were outstanding — Indigenous-led recommendations from previous consultations, reports and resolutions to all levels of government.

Again, the Thursday record is the most complete on the work that was had. Our government is extremely grateful for the collective wisdom that was distilled into the strategy, which is pending and which we’ll all be able to see soon.

Clause 34 approved.

On clause 35.

D. Davies: Going into here, of course, I recognize the change from the existing act. I’m happy to see that seniors, over 65, have been added. I think that’s certainly important, something that I know I’ve noticed when I was touring food banks. One of the biggest demographics that we’ve seen now visiting food banks are seniors. It’s good to see that they have been included in this new part of the amendment to this act.

I’m looking at the 60 among all persons, 75 among persons under 18 years of age and then 50 percent among persons 65 years of age and older. I’m wondering what kind of analysis was done. How did you determine those numbers, as laid out in this new legislation?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I wanted to take the opportunity to introduce Robert Bruce, who’s executive director in the research branch of my ministry, to my right. He has replaced Leah Squance, now that we’ve moved into the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act.

How did we come up with the targets? First of all, we conducted extensive research on poverty. We acquired new poverty and income data sets. We researched to understand who is poor and why, conducted analyses of poverty trends, and projected economic and demographic trends. We analyzed who is low income but not poor. We identified what opportunities exist to make improvements.

Then we did looked at provincial and federal initiatives that will impact future poverty numbers. That included initiatives not fully implemented or whose impact is not fully realized — for example, CPP-plus, the OAS 75-plus, Childcare B.C., the federal dental benefit — and also initiatives announced but not implemented, like the Canada disability benefit and the new federal pharmacare program.

Finally, we looked at what other provinces — this is the jurisdictional scan — are doing for poverty reduction. We looked at their targets and their performance. That gave us a sense of what is reasonable and achievable.

D. Davies: Thanks to the minister for the response. Just in regard to achieving these goals and these numbers, I’m wondering if there is an earmarked specific budget component, either looking at how to achieve these on all of them or broken down by their three categories.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I think the member will recall, from the first poverty reduction strategy, that the commitment to reduce poverty is a cross-government responsibility. Measures like the B.C. child benefit, our investments in child care, our investments in affordable housing…. All of those allowed government to meet and exceed its 2019 poverty reduction targets.

We aimed to reduce overall poverty by 25 percent. In fact, by the 2021 data, we’ve reduced it by 45 percent. That’s because we continue to invest in people.

Budgets right now and in the next five years of the poverty reduction strategy will all be contributing to achieving these goals.

D. Davies: Great. Thanks for that.

I guess another thing, just following up on a similar line of questioning, is…. How does one measure the results of attaining or, potentially, moving towards attaining these goals?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We rely on Stats Canada data, which is released every spring. The data collection and analysis is rigorous, and it is consistent, which allows us to measure outcomes from year to year.

The member didn’t ask this, but the analysis of the data that StatsCan does, does result in a time delay, which is why, right now, we only have 2021 data. The data is released every spring, and we expect the next group of numbers to come within a month or so.

Clause 35 approved.

On clause 36.

D. Davies: I’m just so excited to get these questions out.

On clause 36. I understand the reasoning for adding the systemic issue. We have heard….

I’m just wondering if the minister, within the strategy, can give us some examples of where these potential systemic issues might be that she will be considering moving forward.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Two examples of what we heard in the consultation would be particularly from Indigenous people, and that is especially what the feedback was that we heard in the consultation. They asked that the legislation be trauma-informed and that it recognize the systemic causes of poverty, for example, and the ongoing impacts of colonialism.

Another example of a systemic problem that we heard about in the consultation was, as mentioned earlier, I think, with the member for Abbotsford West…. Young people who grow up in families that are on income assistance have a higher chance themselves of being on income assistance. That is a pattern that we would like our poverty reduction strategy to particularly focus on.

D. Davies: Kind of an open question, I guess. I’m not sure. In regards to considering the breadth and depth of poverty and these systemic issues…. Is there an ability to, I guess, measure this and the impact that it has on the strategy?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’m not sure I’m going to completely capture the intent of the member’s question.

StatsCan measures the depth of poverty for the average person, how far below the poverty line they are living. StatsCan also measures deep poverty, which is 75 percent of the poverty line. Those are all numbers that we track and that inform investments and actions of our government.

Clause 36 approved.

On clause 37.

D. Davies: The Premier has acknowledged here and during this week that there are issues with antisemitism in B.C. in the public service and in government.

[3:20 p.m.]

While many who belong to these ethnocultural communities, such as the Jewish community, may fall into these groups that are listed in this amended section, many do not. The question to the minister is: why was this community not included, and will the minister consider them when making regulation?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: As the member noted, members of a great variety of ethnocultural groups and populations are represented within this list, which is in section 5(3). And the list that is here was informed by the data and by the extensive public consultation that I’ve described.

D. Davies: Is that then, not to put words in the minister’s mouth, to confirm that there is no movement toward adding an ethnocultural community such as the Jewish community into this current list?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Neither the data nor the consultation would suggest that.

D. Davies: I find that a little surprising, understanding that poverty knows no limits, regardless of the…. Well, I mean, the list is comprehensive: children, youth, women and persons.

Well, actually, I’ll read off the new one; that’s the old one: “First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples; Black persons; persons of colour; persons whose gender identity or expression is not cisgender; persons living with disabilities; persons living in rural and remote communities; immigrants; refugees; 2SLGBTQIA+ persons; seniors; persons and families earning low incomes; persons receiving social assistance; persons with experiences of abuse or trauma; persons living with mental illness or addiction; any prescribed group.”

I read the list out there for a reason, for people that are watching. I think it’s perfectly acceptable that this should be looked at. I would hope that the minister would provide a favourable answer very specific to the question that I first asked. So I’ll ask it once more.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The groups listed here have been identified as being at particular risk of poverty. That said, the list is not closed. There’s nothing that prevents me as minister or a future minister from adopting measures that target a particular group that is at particular risk of poverty. Nothing prevents further actions beyond this list.

[3:25 p.m.]

I certainly welcome any data that the member has that would identify groups that are not on this list who are at particular risk of poverty because we certainly want to get this right.

D. Davies: I don’t have the capability of gathering that data you might add. But I think the question begs…. It is interesting. In the list that I just read, it’s quite comprehensive, includes almost every organization or group of persons that you could think of.

It sounds like the minister saying that, in this specific case, there’s no one within the Jewish community living at a poverty level. That’s not true. I know the minister isn’t saying that, but that’s kind of the implied piece, that there’s no evidence being portrayed that this group falls under that. Just recently, late last year, I visited one of the social organizations that’s in Vancouver that does outreach work within the Jewish community.

There are vulnerable people in every group. I think in this day and age and just looking at a comprehensive list and even the language that I mentioned, the ethnocultural groups…. Specifically, I talk about the Jewish community. I don’t think it’s much to ask to get a confirmation from the minister on this piece at this point.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’ll repeat, again, to the member’s question, that any of the groups — women, persons living with disabilities, seniors, people receiving social assistance, people with experiences of abuse and trauma — could include anybody in British Columbia that has had those experiences that have driven them deeper into poverty.

I’ll say again that this is an expansion of the 2018 legislation. It’s based on both the data of people’s experience with poverty and the consultation, where we heard from over 10,000 people about groups who have been particularly susceptible.

If the member has anything that he wants to show me that would suggest that there are groups left out of here, I really welcome that. Regardless, nothing in this legislation prevents any other group in British Columbia who is at particular risk of poverty from having measures and programs targeted towards them.

We want to work with everybody, and we welcome any collaboration or partnership or intervention that suggests that we need to do more in a targeted area with them in partnership on this. We absolutely welcome that.

D. Davies: I guess moving on, regarding these groups that I just listed, how will the results within each of these identified groups, groups of people and groups, be measured and reported out if we’re looking at each individual group that are within poverty?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question. The groups that are listed in this legislative change are the groups that the minister must consider when creating a new strategy. The members of this Legislature will see the outcome of that work in just about three weeks. Then the reporting will be through the annual reporting requirement that’s in legislation that brings a report to be tabled to this chamber every fall.

Clause 37 approved.

On clause 38.

D. Davies: Just in regards to clause 38, I’m just wondering if the minister could provide an example of a unique experience of poverty that would be considered.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: An example of an individual who has membership in more than one of the groups identified or named under subsection (3) could be an Indigenous Elder who is disabled.

Clauses 38 to 41 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I would like to make some closing remarks, briefly, before I make the motion. Can I invite my critic to speak first, or would you rather I go first?

D. Davies: Well, just actually to…. First of all, I did want to thank the minister and her staff. I know there’s been a lot of staff that have gone through this on this bill. It probably took a little longer than I think the minister expected to go through the bill. There were a number of questions that we did have to get to the bottom of — myself and colleagues who have each asked these questions.

[3:35 p.m.]

I think, obviously, our goal for everyone here…. The perfect goal is to eliminate poverty, to eliminate these barriers that are often put in front of vulnerable people.

I again just want to thank the minister, also, for her time and look forward to working with her again.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thanks to my critic and to the members of the Green Party, also, who participated constructively and with great attention to this debate.

I am grateful, also, to my public service team, two different teams — one that did the work on the income assistance and employment measures, and then the other that has been working very hard over this past year on the poverty reduction strategy. A reminder to members that you will see the poverty reduction strategy that flows from this legislation, as close to March 31 as we can, being required to be tabled in this chamber.

My greatest thanks are to the partners, the advocacy organizations, those not-for-profits that do navigation services, our community integration specialists that work with my ministry to help navigate supports, the front-line workers in Social Development and Poverty Reduction. They told me so much about what works for their clients and what doesn’t and what they have observed around institutional barriers that have stood in the way of people being able to access supports and being able to access employment.

People at our WorkBC centres and all kinds of not-for-profits that do employment service and training. All the federally funded programs that we get to administer in British Columbia that really change lives in so many ways of people that have faced multiple barriers. Finally, the 10,000-plus people that participated in such a big-hearted way over this last year.

We say this often, but it is a real thing — that the people that face the most barriers and have the most complex challenges sometimes, quite reasonably and understandably, face barriers to getting access to government processes. We don’t always hear their voices at the table.

I’m very grateful for the way that our consultations and the co-development of the work with Indigenous leaders and Indigenous governing bodies informed our work and everybody that participated and brought forward their best ideas, between this package and the poverty reduction strategy to come and then certainly the implementation of this legislation.

In many cases, we have removed from legislation and put into regulation the measures that advocates have been calling for and people who have been on income assistance or disability assistance have been calling for. We can now move to implement those regulatory changes when we have the ability and have the budget to do that. This is all work that is ahead of us. This doesn’t stop.

I’m grateful to the Chair and the members who have supported the debate.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:38 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
POVERTY REDUCTION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Bill 7, Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Heyman: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 5, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, and I ask for a five-minute recess while staff and the minister can come in.

The Speaker: The House will be in recess for a short recess.

The House recessed at 3:39 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

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

The committee met at 3:42 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 5, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2024.

On clause 1.

Hon. G. Lore: I just wanted to take the opportunity, as we get started, to introduce the team that’s here with me that has been leading this important and vital work in the ministry. With me today I have David Galbraith, Emily Horton, Aleksandra Stevanovic and Melanie Baker. Of course, many more folks are also involved in this work in the ministry, more than are here today, and I thank them for their work.

N. Letnick: I’d also like to thank the minister and staff for the briefing when the…. Actually, it was before the legislation was introduced. Thank you for that. Much appreciated.

I’d also like to introduce two people that aren’t with me here but have helped with the analysis of the bill. That’s long-time staff research member, Karen Bill, and Nina Andrascik.

With that, my first question to the minister is: was the Privacy Commissioner involved in reviewing this bill before today?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: The OIPC received a consultation draft of the legislation and had the opportunity to, and was invited to, provide feedback. We did not receive any additional feedback from them, indicating that there are no outstanding privacy concerns.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for that.

Would the minister provide the reasoning behind adding “Indigenous governing body” to the definition of “Indigenous child”?

Hon. G. Lore: We’re adding “Indigenous governing body” to the definition of “Indigenous child” so that nations that are not yet exercising jurisdiction are able, still, to identify their children and families. It’s so that we have the opportunities to work together — through information-sharing, for example, or joint care planning — with those nations.

N. Letnick: Could the minister give some more detailed examples of what is happening now, versus what will happen after this legislation passes, should it pass?

Hon. G. Lore: Thanks for the question. When we developed Bill 38, it created an opportunity for nations that are exercising jurisdiction and that are operating under Indigenous law to identify their children and families.

[3:50 p.m.]

Right now, in the case where jurisdiction is not being exercised and a child, a youth or their parents do not identify as Indigenous, they’re not captured under this definition, as it currently is. Short of jurisdiction, there are a number of ways that we work together with nations in support of children and youth, and that includes information-sharing; that includes joint collaborative work on care plans for children and youth.

In the case of a child, youth or their parents not identifying as Indigenous, we’re not able to do that work together with the nation. This addition opens up those additional opportunities for working together in support of Indigenous children and youth, and the addition is a direct response to a request by an IGB.

N. Letnick: So if I have it correct, a child and family who have not identified themselves as Indigenous will have their information provided to an Indigenous governing body, assuming the Indigenous governing body asks for that information. Do I have that understanding correct?

Hon. G. Lore: If a nation identifies a child or youth or family, it means our ministry can collaborate with the nation to provide child and family services. And again, this is a direct response to a request by an IGB looking to be able to collaborate to provide those services to their children and family.

[3:55 p.m.]

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister.

I don’t want to seem a little slow. It’s just I’m a little slow. This is obviously a very complicated matter, and we’re dealing with people’s private information, so I just want to make sure I understand this right.

The Indigenous governing body has come to the ministry and said: “We would like information on a particular child.” No. The Indigenous governing body is working with the ministry, and to give the power to the ministry to be able to share information, we need to pass this legislation. Again, the minister can clear this all up for me.

I want to make sure that the child is in agreement with their information being shared with the Indigenous governing body, or is the child not in agreement? Is the Indigenous governing body coming in and saying, “Hey, they’re a part of our nation” or “We are assuming responsibility for them, and we want to make sure that we have all the information, even if they don’t want to share that information,” or is it a collaborative effort between the ministry, the child and the body?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: To answer the member’s question, the identification of a child does not automatically mean the sharing of private information from the ministry. What it can look like in practical terms is identifying supports for the child and the family, conversations about what relatives might be available to support the family or, for example, what cultural opportunities there might be that could benefit the child, the youth and their family.

N. Letnick: Let’s take a specific example. The private health care information — would that be something that the government would share with an Indigenous governing body without the consent of the owner of that information?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: An IGB that’s exercising jurisdiction can compel private information that is necessary to make decisions about child protection. Our ministry as well as health authorities, for example, are public bodies. Again, IGBs who are exercising jurisdiction can compel that information when it is necessary for child protection.

In another clause in this legislation, we’re adding additional safeguards to that process. Those are changes we’re making to 79.2.

E. Ross: In looking at the bill as well as the description of the scope, I believe we’re talking about, basically, clause 1. That’s the paragraph dealing with the definition of “Indigenous child.” I believe where the question is going is if a child does not identify as a First Nations but some Indigenous governing body wants some type of jurisdiction over that child who doesn’t identify as a First Nations or Indigenous child.

It gets pretty murky after that, because we don’t see the safeguards that the minister is talking about. Even if there’s a chance that a child could have some lineage that traces back to Indigenous ancestry, you’ve got to be sure where that ancestry lies. There are a lot of First Nations that actually identify with a number of different First Nations and a lot of different cultures.

I guess my question is: what kinds of safeguards will the government be enacting to protect the child and not forcing that child to identify with a specific Indigenous governing body? There could be three or four. It seems to me there’s got to be a very robust process to investigate all possibilities of whether or not this child is Indigenous. If you get to that point, you’ve got to investigate which Indigenous governing bodies should be part of that conversation before that ultimate decision is made on where this child ends up — if you understand.

What I do know is, especially in northern First Nation communities, a lot of our people identify with their mom’s ancestry, who might be from one band, or the father, who might be from another band, or the grandfather or the great-grandfather. It’s not very defined in First Nations culture.

[4:10 p.m.]

I mean, there are some bands that actually identify with three or four bands at the same time. Some are probably equipped to deal with something like this, and some are not. This is very important, because at the end of the day, we want that child to understand whether or not they are Indigenous or even if they want to identify as Indigenous.

That decision can’t be made for them by anybody, not by this Legislature and certainly not by any Indigenous governing body, unless there is full disclosure to the child and to the caretakers. What are the safeguards we are talking about here, in terms of which Indigenous governing body will be responsible? What will be the process to determine that that is actually legitimate and that it is actually looking after the child’s interests?

Hon. G. Lore: A couple of things on the member’s question. First, if an IGB is exercising jurisdiction, they already have these powers. Our amendments here are not touching that. That’s Bill 38.

The addition of the opportunity for IGBs who are not exercising jurisdiction to identify a child, again, does not automatically enable the sharing of information or, by any stretch, the placement of a child. What it enables is a collaboration between ministry and an IGB on the best care or supports for a child and their family.

To the member’s question regarding safeguards, those are changes we’re making in clause 3.

E. Ross: It’s an important topic, and it’s one that should be discussed fully and actually communicated to First Nations, and not the representative organization; I’m talking about the 203, 204 bands that might be considering this.

Why I think it’s a real relevant point is because “Indigenous governing body,” the definition itself, can be used by government for its own ends. We have a classic example right now in terms of the Blueberry River land agreement, an Indigenous governing body where a court case had to be settled, and it was. The problem is, a lot of the rights for Halfway River and Doig River were taken away and actually transferred to Blueberry River, including a veto over permits.

In this, we’re not talking about resources here. We’re talking about a child’s life, who might identify as a First Nation, might not. Maybe they don’t even want to. Maybe they’ll be surprised. It’s not uncommon for people to wake up one day and discover they have some ancestry.

[4:15 p.m.]

I know that there are rules around the status of a First Nation in Canada and what that means — it’s under the Indian Act; it’s exhaustive — if you’ve gone through the process of losing your status through your mother or your grandmother.

I think it’s really important for all First Nations to understand that this is going to have to be a collaborative approach — not just with one Indigenous governing body, but it might include three or four — and it’s got to be accompanied with somebody that’s independent of all these organizations and that’s actually just looking out for the child. Regardless, it shouldn’t matter in any way whether this child is Indigenous or not. I think the question we’re talking about is the identification of a child. That opens up a whole lot of different questions.

I assume that this is going to come out in the regulations or policies, in terms of how the government is going to ensure that the identification of a child is, front and foremost, first with the child and the caretakers, and that everybody understands there may be one or more First Nations, as Indigenous governing bodies, that may or may not be included.

I guess, hon. Chair, that’s more of a statement than a question.

N. Letnick: Unless the minister wants to reply to the statement, I’ll just go on.

As the minister can see, there’s some uneasiness with this process. I think we’re getting to a better place, but it did set off some uneasiness as to who can provide information, what information and who is responsible.

I guess one question that would probably give ease to a lot of people is: ultimately through all this, does the accountability still lie with government? Is the minister still responsible for the well-being of that child? Passing information or not passing information, having the Indigenous governing body responsible for the child, assuming responsibility — at the end of the day, are the government and the minister still accountable for all that?

Hon. G. Lore: To be clear, nothing in the changes in this definition does anything to change who is responsible for a child or youth that has come into the ministry’s care.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. Nothing in here, but this is an amendment to an existing law — it actually was supported unanimously, I believe, in the House — which gives Indigenous groups the ability to take responsibility for their children.

Is there anything that we’ve passed, in this proposed bill, plus the one that’s the foundation of it, which absolves the minister of responsibility for the most precious resource in our province: our children, Indigenous or otherwise?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: Again, there’s nothing in the amendments or changes in this bill that is touching on the question that the member has raised.

Bill 38, which was passed in November of 2022, created pathways for IGBs, for nations, to exercise their inherent jurisdiction over their own children and families. When nations are exercising jurisdiction under Indigenous law, MCFD is not involved.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister.

Then I’ll just paraphrase what I heard: MCFD is not involved, and therefore, the government is not accountable for those children if anything should go wrong, or if things go right. It’s a private matter between the Indigenous body and those children. If I’m not right there, the minister can always correct me.

The Court of Appeal — a lot of this came because of the Court of Appeal decision — speaks to “the production of personal health information from public bodies without adequate procedural safeguards.” Did the Court of Appeal direct the ministry to define “personal health information” within the Child, Family and Community Service Act?

Hon. G. Lore: Yes, it did, and it went so far as to tell us how to define it.

N. Letnick: When the minister says it went so far as to tell them how, were there actual step-by-step instructions on how, or was there something else involved, some other steps, by which the minister chose the definition of “personal health information” that we now see in the amended act?

Hon. G. Lore: The decision defined what we needed to consider as personal health information for the purpose of these safeguards. We took that, and that is what we have used in these amendments.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister.

[4:25 p.m.]

Clause (b) defines “personal health information”. It means “information about an identifiable person that is in oral, physical or electronic form, or any other form” — I don’t know why you didn’t just say, “in any form” — “and is related to (a) the person’s mental or physical health, (b) the provision of health care to the person, or (c) the health history of the person’s family.”

Can the minister outline for the House the steps taken to choose that particular definition, please?

Hon. G. Lore: The definition is directly out of the court’s decision. The court’s decision told us what procedural safeguards were needed. We took that definition, and we’re adding the safeguards in relation to them.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. I understand that the court told the government what safeguards…. When the definition says that the information includes “oral, physical or electronic form, or any other form,” did the court actually say you had to include oral, for example?

Did the court actually say the information includes mental and physical health or the health history of a person’s family? Was the court that explicit? If not, how did the government come up with this definition?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: I just want to pull apart a couple of pieces of the member’s question.

When it comes to the description of how the information — physical, oral, all other means…. That’s consistent with other pieces of legislation. So that’s where and why our drafters have added that. The other components about physical, mental — that comes directly from the court’s decision.

N. Letnick: Maybe that explains why the ministry and the minister have taken a different definition of personal health information than is contained in all the other legislation that we have in the province. I found it kind of curious. The three times the definition of personal health information is contained in the Health Professions Act, the Personal Health Information Access and Protection and Privacy Act and the Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, they all define health information the same, but different than what’s in this legislation.

Even though I think the minister has answered the question, I’ll ask it anyway, and that way, we’ll get clarity. The other acts define personal health information as: “means recorded information about an identifiable individual that is related to the individual’s health or the provision of health services to the individual.”

The Court of Appeal, to rephrase what the minister said, directed the government to bring in the three parts of it — (a), (b) and (c) — which is different than what we have in other legislation. But the preamble, the first part of the definition, is identical to this other legislation. Did I get that correct?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: I want to share a couple things in response to the member. First, mental health information was an important factor in the court’s decision, so it’s important that it’s explicit in our definition. Second, our definition is broader. That means that the safeguards we’re adding in relation to that information apply explicitly to those pieces of information. Third, being more explicit about what is included is important to the work of our social workers as well as to our clients.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. On the process, just to be clear, is MCFD asking health authorities, for example, for that information and then passing it to the Indigenous governing bodies, or are the Indigenous governing bodies asking themselves, directly to health authorities?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: The member might be conflating two of the amendments that are in here that are actually distinct. I want to start by saying that section 96 in our legislation already exists. It gives the ministry the power to compel personal information that is reasonable and necessary in the case of child protection. What the amendment is doing is adding procedural safeguards around the compelling of personal health information.

Indigenous governing bodies that are exercising jurisdiction have their own power to compel necessary and reasonable personal information. We are adding safeguards to that power as well. That’s clause 3.

N. Letnick: If I’ve got this right, in the case here, MCFD will not be asking jurisdictions like health authorities for information that they would pass on to Indigenous governing bodies. It’s already covered in legislation. They already have the power to do that.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Hon. G. Lore: Section 96 is not used to compel information for any other body. Section 96 is used by MCFD to compel information that is necessary in order for MCFD to make decisions about child protection.

N. Letnick: Okay. So in that case, will the different definition that we’re dealing with right now mean that MCFD will get different information from those bodies?

Hon. G. Lore: The changes to the definition of “Indigenous child” are completely separate from the procedural safeguards that are being added to section 96 regarding the compelling of information necessary for child protection.

N. Letnick: I’m going to take the “I’m slow” answer again for that.

I understand they are different. Right now we have two different sets of definitions. One that’s being used in other acts consistently and this one, which is the hybrid of what is being used in other acts and what the Court of Appeal has told the government they need to bring in to act as safeguards for that information.

[4:45 p.m.]

Let’s use an example, then. Does anything here mean that the ministry can ask a physiotherapist, for example, for information that has something to do with the child’s personal mental or physical health, whereas before they could not?

Hon. G. Lore: Section 96 does not give our ministry the power to compel information from private bodies. It gives our ministry — and already has, unrelated to these amendments — the power to compel information from public bodies. That is an existing power under 96. What these amendments do is add procedural safeguards to that existing power.

N. Letnick: Does the existing legislation allow for the health history of a person’s family, for example, to be also shared?

Hon. G. Lore: We can compel information related to family members when it is necessary and reasonable for the protection of a child.

These amendments do not change in any way what information we can access. What they do is add safeguards to the process of accessing that information for the purposes of accountability.

N. Letnick: Those safeguards we’ll be talking about in later clauses. Okay.

There’s also a change in terminology from individual to person in this amendment. Why is that?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: Just checking with our drafting team to be sure. It is for internal consistency with the rest of the act.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for that.

In clause (c) and as we discussed just a moment ago, the health history of a person’s family…. That information can be transmitted where it’s in the best interest of the child to have that information provided. I understand that part.

Can the minister give an actual example? Fictitious, maybe; don’t put any names to it. But how this would actually be used, or when would it actually be used — for example, caretakers, guardians, blood relations. What’s a good example that we can get?

Hon. G. Lore: Again, just for clarity, section 96 allows us to compel information for us, not about MCFD’s ability to then share. It is about our ability to access important information that’s necessary for child protection.

A concrete example is if a child’s well-being, safety concerns have been raised. A child is living in the house with Mom and Grandpa. It’s possible, depending on the nature of the complaint or concern raised to us, that mental health and addiction of the grandparent or the parent may be relevant to our decision-making.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for that.

My last question on clause 1 is to do with the methods of oral, physical, electronic or other forms that can be applied here, in particular the oral. Is there a way, a procedure, by which oral testimony or oral information can be validated?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: The clause that we’re discussing is not about the type of information or changing the type of information or how we access it. It’s about adding those safeguards. So while this is not a clause that considers the verification of the information, it is a clause that is adding safeguards.

By being broad to include that oral information, those safeguards are thus being applied more broadly.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister.

If we’re looking at oral information, what safeguards are in place or being added to make sure that the oral information is correct?

Hon. G. Lore: Again, the changes here are not about the kind of information or how we access it or how it gets used. It’s about adding the safeguards for those whose information we’re accessing.

For example, we already have the power to compel verbal health information, as is necessary to make decisions about child protection. What this change is doing is creating the safeguards so that that person about whom we’ve compelled health information is, for example, notified after the fact. These are safeguards about the privacy of individuals rather than our use of that information, which are pre-existing powers.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

N. Letnick: The ayes weren’t as strong on clause 3 as the other two.

Clause (2.1), is this amendment only applicable to an Indigenous authority?

Hon. G. Lore: This clause is limited to Indigenous authorities where an Indigenous governing body is exercising jurisdiction.

N. Letnick: The answer makes sense.

Can the minister provide an example where a request of personal health information is reasonably required for the provision of child and family services under Indigenous law?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: Just like the changes to 96, this is about adding safeguards where power already existed. To the member’s question, the court directed us on what we needed to change to 96. It didn’t speak specifically to 79.2, but the same powers exist there for Indigenous authorities when they’re exercising jurisdiction. As a reflection of what the court asked us to do in terms of adding safeguards, when personal information is being accessed, we made those changes to that section as well.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister.

If I understand it correctly, then the ministry is not going to be involved when an Indigenous governing body is asking a public body for information. It’s not going to be the arbiter. It’s whether or not that information should or should not be transferred. That will be independent of the ministry.

Hon. G. Lore: In the case of the use of 79.2, that is when an Indigenous authority is exercising that jurisdiction. For example, if they need information, necessary and reasonable information, in the case to make decisions around child protection, they can use that clause to compel that information from, for example, a health authority. And the ministry is not involved there. That exists already. What these changes are doing is adding procedural safeguards when it comes to people’s privacy.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for that. I’m learning as we’re going along, which is great. I appreciate that.

This might be rhetorical, but I’ll ask it anyway. How is it working? Has the bill, the law that we passed in this House together not too long ago, is it working well? You know, you always hear anecdotal stories, but the minister maybe and their team have done some kind of evaluation. Are the children being protected? Are they in a better place today than they were before the legislation was passed?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: Bill 38 upholds the inherent right of nations to exercise jurisdiction over children and families. We know children and youth are best cared for by community and with connection to culture and family. There is one nation exercising jurisdiction, and we are working with a number of nations across the province on their pathway to jurisdiction.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. I gather from that that we don’t have enough information to evaluate whether or not it’s working. There’s only one First Nation that has actually taken advantage of the law.

I think that’s what I heard, but the minister can tell me what I heard when she answers the next question, which is: when the information is provided to the Indigenous governing bodies, what safeguards are going to be in place to make sure that the information itself is safe? Is there something in here or in the previous platform which will say that it has to be not up in the cloud or stored somewhere in Canada or B.C. or not on a piece of paper? What safeguards are in place for that information?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: I just reiterate that the scope of 79.2 is limited to those Indigenous authorities where nations are exercising jurisdiction. What these amendments do is add additional safeguards to the information that can be compelled in order to make decisions about child protection. The storage, for example, of that information would be determined under the laws of the nation exercising jurisdiction.

N. Letnick: Consistent with what we discussed about half an hour ago, it is the nation government that’s responsible for those children and accountable for success or failure, not the government of British Columbia, not the minister. That’s been handed over. Therefore, if the information goes awry, the minister should not expect a question from the opposition as to why that information has gone awry, because somebody else is responsible. That’s what I’m hearing from the minister.

That’s the previous piece of legislation. I won’t redebate it here. I appreciate that.

That is it for 3.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

N. Letnick: In clause 4, we have different subsections, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6. On 2.2, can the minister please provide an example of what information would be reasonably required? And does the health professional determine reasonableness, or does a social worker?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: Information that is compelled must be necessary and reasonable for the purpose of child protection. Social workers in our ministry and team leads are guided in this work through both policy and guidelines, including the confidentiality and information disclosure guidelines.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. In the case of a social worker…. I believe, up to now, social workers are not regulated professionals. I believe they’re unregulated professionals. Can the minister explain why an unregulated professional would have access to that information?

Hon. G. Lore: Thank you very much. Social workers in our ministry are delegated as directors for the purpose of child protection under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. To make decisions regarding child protection, they have the power to compel necessary and reasonable information.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that.

In 2.4, I’m not sure if I read this correctly, but notification of the person does not come into force until regulations are passed, but the rest of the section does come into force. Do I understand that correctly?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: Yes, the member is correct. The reason is so that we can co-develop a form for the after-the-fact notification.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for answering my next question before I got to ask it. That’s cool.

So we have a court deadline in April. Will regulations be enforced prior to that?

Hon. G. Lore: Yes. Section 96 is so critical to the work of the ministry, and we need to have that done by that date so section 96 can continue to be used with the addition of the procedural safeguards.

N. Letnick: Under (2.6), can the minister please provide an example of when notification would not be made as per section (2.4)?

Hon. G. Lore: If the safety of the child would be further compromised by that after-the-fact notification, that is when that would not occur.

N. Letnick: And that would be in the opinion of the social worker that is handling the case?

Hon. G. Lore: The answer to the question is yes, and if I can give the member an example. If, for example, there is a restraining order against a caregiver about whom information has been compelled to support the decision-making, then the after-the-fact notice would not be made.

N. Letnick: Section 96, proposed subclause (2.4) reads: “the director must promptly notify, in writing, the person the personal information is about.”

Given the new definition of “personal health information” under this act, does this include notifying the family members whose health information is being shared?

Hon. G. Lore: Just to reiterate that this is not about MCFD sharing the information, but accessing, compelling the information. Only the person about whom we have the information will be notified.

N. Letnick: Section 96, proposed subclause (2.5), covers who to notify if the child is under the age of 12. What if the child is over the age of 12?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: If we have accessed information about a child or youth over the age of 12, they are who we notify.

N. Letnick: I think I heard at the end they are notified. Correct? Okay. In that case, I’m done with clause 4.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

The Chair: Member for Kelowna–Lake Country.

N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Chair. I thought I’d pre-empt all the ayes.

Can the minister provide a timeline for providing a prescribed form for a notification about personal health information?

Hon. G. Lore: Before April 28.

N. Letnick: Does the minister believe these amendments fully satisfy the court’s need for “adequate procedural safeguards” as per the ruling?

Hon. G. Lore: Yes.

Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Lore: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:26 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Bill 5, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2024, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — ATHLII GWAII
LEGACY TRUST (WINDING UP) ACT

Hon. R. Singh: Now I move second reading of Bill 8.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Sorry. Member for Kelowna–Lake Country.

N. Letnick: Could I indulge the House for a five-minute recess, please?

Deputy Speaker: Yes, we will take a short recess as we move to Bill 8 and ensure all the appropriate people are here.

The House recessed from 5:28 p.m. to 5:37 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: I would like to call this House back to order. We are dealing with Bill 8 on the papers here, and I recognize the acting Government House Leader.

Hon. R. Singh: Today I stand in support of Bill 8. This bill gives the trustees of the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust the power to wind up said trust by transferring the trust property to Gwaii Trust Society.

By permitting this transfer, this legacy trust property can be used to fund a broader scope of initiatives on Haida Gwaii, including renewable energy, environmental restoration and economic development. This will also broaden the scope of eligible projects. This bill would also create more jobs on Haida Gwaii, which also benefits more than 5,000 residents of the area. I think that is really good.

My understanding is that this legislation is much needed to proceed with this transfer, as the deed of trust does not contain the appropriate amending powers to alter the purposes of the fund. Given the province’s involvement in the creation of the AGLT, the province has worked to determine an appropriate legislative solution with the support of the Gwaii Trust Society and the federal government, through the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.

This also follows up on the commitments made to the Gwaii Trust Society, Council of the Haida Nation and residents of Haida Gwaii by enabling the transfer of property and eventual dissolution of AGLT to facilitate access to this important funding source for this rural community.

The Gwaii Trust Society’s board of directors is comprised of residents of Haida Gwaii, and they are nominated by representatives of the communities of Haida Gwaii.

I want to say that we know how important this legislation will be for the residents of Haida Gwaii. It will not just support the community but also bring economic benefits to that community.

[5:40 p.m.]

I would like to say that this transfer of Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust property would greatly benefit the residents. I also want to acknowledge that this legislation has come as a result of the long-standing work between the province, the Gwaii Trust Society and the government of Canada. It’s a number of parties that were instrumental in getting this legislation ready, and it will go a long way in supporting the community and the community members.

G. Kyllo: We certainly are very supportive of initiatives that further economic reconciliation with First Nations, with specific reference to the debate on Bill 8.

Bill 8, the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust Act, transfers property to the Gwaii Trust Society. As the minister had mentioned, this was established in 1988. The Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust, as it is known, was endowed with $24 million in funding from both the federal and provincial governments. Funds for the trust were for the express purposes of increasing the sustainable forest management on Haida Gwaii and increasing community stability by enhancing the forest-related economy of Haida Gwaii.

Our sector has certainly been under significant pressure in the last number of years — everything from reductions in the allowable cut to some of the devastating impacts of wildfires that have ravaged our province, reducing available fibre for the last number of years. The trust now has just over $60 million in it, and these funds are to be transferred to the Gwaii Trust Society. The society plans to use the new funds to support environmental restoration, renewable energy and economic diversification projects.

The forest sector has long been the backbone of our province, boosting our economy and growing communities. Our caucus firmly backs the forest sector and will continue to support all efforts to ensure that the forest sector remains prosperous in British Columbia.

We are supportive of this bill and look forward to exploring it further during committee stage debate.

R. Russell: It is my pleasure to get to rise here today and speak in favour of this bill. This has been a long time coming for this community, for this group of people. It really is a pleasure to see in front of us today a very short bill that is accomplishing something that they have been waiting a long time for.

I had the opportunity to visit Haida Gwaii, to be there as a guest a couple of years ago. I met with the Gwaii Trust Society, with some of the leaders in the community that were responsible for overseeing this. We had a lot of conversation. I got a good sense of how challenging this process had been for them and how frustrated they were getting on a resolution to this. They were asking for exactly what we finally have in front of us today.

I am pleased to be able to stand here in support of this bill. One of the conversations that stuck with me when I was there was with a group of people that included an Elder. One of the things she said was that she was tired of economic development meaning, for their community, that things were taken away. Things were just constantly being taken away from their community. Obviously, the prime example of that in the context here is extractive industry — forestry, particularly.

The genesis, indeed, of this trust and of its parallel sibling trust is because of those impacts in the community, because of forestry impacts. That resonated with me — certainly her comment about how we navigate towards community development that works well for community and that is driven by community. That, of course, is at the heart of how trusts like this, community trusts, operate, and is certainly how the Gwaii Trust Society has been operating the parallel trust for some years.

[5:45 p.m.]

It’s so exciting to see this opportunity to give that ability back into the hands of the community so that they can lead and help make those decisions on behalf of their community. Because I am certain there’s some confusion in the House about what this really entails, I thought I would take a moment and read from the Gwaii Trust webpage. They have five questions and answers that I think are worth reading into the record.

The first one there is: what is the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust?

“The Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust is a perpetual fund managed by the Gwaii Trust Society, which is currently worth just over $59 million. AGLT was created in 2007 when the government of British Columbia, with federal sign-off, set up a charitable trust and transferred the South Moresby forest replacement account funds to this trust. The AGLT deed of trust outlines the purposes of the fund and how it is to be managed.”

I won’t go into the depths of the details there.

The next question is: why aren’t the funds currently being used for community granting?

“The provincial government set up the AGLT incorrectly, with a combination of charitable and non-charitable purposes, which means the trust is not valid. The Canada Revenue Agency, the CRA, determines what qualifies for charitable purposes, and the risk is that there could be significant taxes and penalties owing to the CRA if the fund is used.”

The next relevant question: why has it taken so long to get this resolved?

“For the past several years, GTS, the Gwaii Trust Society, has been negotiating with the original funding partners, through the AGLT Working Group, to transfer the funds to Gwaii Trust,” which is what we are accomplishing with this bill, if it is passed today.

“The working group consists of representatives from the B.C. government, Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship; Canada, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change and Natural Resources Canada; and Gwaii Trust. Each partner needs to satisfy themselves that there is a problem with AGLT as-is and that transferring it would be the right solution. Over the years, there have been numerous changes in external staff, ministers and lawyers, which means that this process has had to restart several times.”

When will funds be available for community granting?

“Provincial legislation must first be written and passed to dissolve or amend the charitable trust. The province has indicated it was likely that this legislation would be put forward in the fall 2023 session; however, we received notice at the end of January 2023 that the lead for the province has retired. This has pushed back timelines, and we don’t have updated timelines for legislation.”

I’m happy to be here today, in answer to that question.

I read those out because of the relevance there. Hopefully, you can hear, in those words, the frustration of a community that has been sitting with a fund of $60 million that they have been eager to disburse out to their community members for projects in community.

They have been unable to do that because they have been advised by the lawyers that the way the provincial government set up the trust in 2007 — without intention; I don’t mean this as a slight on the government at the time — they set it up in a way that they simply could not issue funds from that trust without being at risk of CRA charging them taxation dollars on those distributions.

They simply have been sitting there negotiating with lawyers and talking with the provincial government for years and years, trying to get resolution to this. So it is certainly exciting to get to a point where we have, in front of us, an opportunity to unlock the potential of those funds. That is exciting to me.

I will read another quote from an older webpage that is specifically around the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust. They talk about this. There were two funds set up originally, the second being the South Moresby forest repatriation account, which got flipped into the trust we’re speaking about today. They say:

“This second fund, initially $24 million, was expected to be spent down over a number of years; however, strong financial markets generating a steady stream of returns kept replenishing the balance beyond eligible projects, and in the spring of 2007, the Crown turned the fund over to the communities of Haida Gwaii to be managed under the same model as the Gwaii Trust Society.

“The Crown, so impressed with the functioning of the GTS, decreed that the trustees of the then-named Gwaii Forest Charitable Trust be represented by three trustees — one corporate trustee, which was to be the Gwaii Trust Society as a whole entity, and two individual members, which were to be the two executive members of the Gwaii Trust Society.”

[5:50 p.m.]

Again, I read that because I think it is important to recognize that this came to be because it was being so successful. It had been so successful in the community and so valuable that there was an effort to enshrine this in a more permanent way into the capacity and the hands of the community. Unfortunately, as sometimes happens, mistakes were made, and it has been inaccessible to that community for years.

The kinds of opportunities that this trust will have the capacity to unlock, parallel to what the Gwaii Trust Society currently does with their other trusts, are really around community economic diversification. You all have heard me speak many, many times in this place around how important that is for our rural communities, how important it is to have that community-driven decision-making. It helps them determine what they need most and be able to have the resources behind them to allocate funding to support those projects.

Certainly, as a province…. It has been part of my goal and part of our province’s goal to figure out…. How do we help not only enable that economic diversification in rural communities but be able to further focus on…? How do we help communities lead in that process of determining what they feel like they need?

We have, for example, over the last few years, had a number of projects funded through the community economic recovery infrastructure program, CERIP, or the rural economic diversification and infrastructure program. These are opportunities that the province has to be able to partner with community leaders, with non-profit organizations and with people on the ground in Haida Gwaii to be able to deliver some of that economic diversification. Those have been projects like the Misty Isles Economic Development Society being awarded just over $300,000 to support the Haida Gwaii e-commerce project.

We had conversations when I was there about how they are unlocking these opportunities to access other markets with their art and artisan projects and to be able to reach out to the community and to the world more broadly. Exciting stuff, certainly, for a lot of people in that community.

Part of that conversation that I was having, when I was there, was around…. How do we inspire the youth from that community to want to be there, whether that means that they have gone away and they have chosen to come back or whether that means that they have had the capacity and they’ve been given the support that they need to want to stay there initially?

Those are the kinds of things that I’m hearing, from the community, that they want to see enabled in that place. So this kind of work, to be able to invest, for example, in the access to those markets so people can share their artistic products, the art that is created on Haida Gwaii, with the world…. Those are important steps for that retention of youth and the vibrancy in community. I’m happy that we have been able to partner with various entities on Haida Gwaii to be able to deliver that.

Of course, part of that process, as well…. The reason I was on the island, at that point, was around the work that is taking place with Connected Coast on being able to deliver high-speed Internet to those communities that have been struggling to have that connection to the outside world.

The conversations taking place there, at that point — with Digital, with Microsoft, for example, and with a number of other partners — are fascinating. To be able to explore….

How do we do this in a good way? How do we look to the community for the leadership there? How do we follow their direction and be able to deliver the skills or the tools they need to be able to access what they want in the future, whether that is connectivity for maintaining relationships with people that have moved away, whether that is connectivity for access to health care, whether that is connectivity for access to e-commerce opportunities as described by the Misty Isles Economic Development Society?

We also had the chance there to meet in Masset and to look at their — at that point, starting to age, certainly — seaplane terminal. I was very happy to be able to announce, while we were in Masset, to the village of Masset $547,000 to support the Masset seaplane terminal and the boat launch upgrade.

[5:55 p.m.]

These are infrastructure projects. We recognize that. At the heart of them, again, is community economic diversification, revitalizing some of those economic opportunities and unlocking new potential opportunities that simply were not there before. Again, work that takes place in partnership with the local communities there, like I say, like the Misty Isles Economic Development Society, whomever it might be that has an idea, has a vision.

This bill in front of us today is going to help those communities unlock access to a bunch more opportunities to support what they want to do based on the creation of a trust that occurred decades and decades ago and for the last 15 years has been inaccessible because of some, I would say, legislative fumbling that took place in this place a long time ago. It has simply been an enormous uphill battle, certainly, in hearing from those trustees, of very lengthy legal conversations about how to get this unstuck.

This bill in front of us today, which fits on one page, is the work that they have been waiting for this long to be able to do. I’m certainly very, very happy to be able to stand in support of that.

We have a couple of other projects, again, on Haida Gwaii that the community has led. I have been pleased to be able to be part of helping support that. For example, last year the Old Massett Village Council was awarded just under $700,000 to support their iit’l gudaad, We Remember Haida Heritage Plaza.

Again, this is the sort of investment in community, certainly…. I am very proud to be part of a government that is able to help deliver this. It is all around providing a community space and providing a gathering opportunity in community. That is, I think, at the heart of…. When we talk about community economic development, we talk about building community. That’s the kind of investment that we need to be able to make, in partnership with community, and be able to help deliver that for them.

There’s another investment through REDIP that happened last year, as well, in terms of the Haida Enterprise Corp. They were funded $1 million to support the expansion of Haida tourism in G̲aw Tlagee.

These, again, are investments in the work that those communities want to do to diversify their economy and to make sure they’re in a good place going forward. I’m proud that we are able to help deliver that for them. Of course, a great deal of this came to be because of the Indigenous people being very clear about what they felt about how their forests ought to be managed in the mid-’80s.

A great number of the projects, certainly, that I hear enthusiasm about in community are around transition. How do we develop some of our cleaner economic opportunities in a place like Haida Gwaii? Historically, Haida Gwaii has had one of the largest diesel-powered generation demands in, I think, all of Canada. So figuring out…. How do they migrate away from those diesel generators providing power to something else?

I still remember when I was at the little motel that I was at, plugging in my phone to charge my phone and thinking how different it is. Frankly, I was hesitant. I knew, in that community where I was plugging my phone into the wall…. It was diesel generation that was providing the power to charge my phone.

In a world where we recognize the financial, the social and the environmental impacts of the emissions that come with something like that…. Enormous interest, certainly. All of those things are successes if we can figure out how to mitigate that and transition.

[6:00 p.m.]

I’m thrilled, in this case. I see that enthusiasm to diversify that economy as well, not only just in terms of revenue streams but in terms of lowering or reducing the impacts of their energy and where that comes from and the impacts of that energy delivery.

I wanted to end…. I’m certainly, again, thrilled to be able to get to a place here…. I don’t expect anybody in this House is going to object to this one, because it is very straightforward, and I think it is a win for everybody. I’m thrilled to be able to stand in support of this after….

Certainly, for me, it’s been a couple years of trying to advance this very short bill. I know, certainly, from my conversations on the ground in community there, in my conversations with the member for North Coast…. I know my two years of time spent trying to help move this piece forward is a drop in the bucket compared to how much work these people in community have been doing to try to get this unstuck. This, again, very short bill in front of us is what we need to get this unstuck. So I’m happy to stand in favour of that.

I like this quote at the end. This is in a book called Athlii Gwaii: Upholding Haida Law on Lyell Island. The endnote in the book is a quote from Kilsli Kaji-Sting, Miles Richardson Jr.

The quote is: “That line that the Haida Nation drew in Gwaii Haanas and stated that this area will be protected stands to this day. They didn’t move over it, and I give our people a heck of a lot of credit, but I also give credit to the Canadians and British Columbians and people around the world for understanding and listening and, above all, for bringing themselves to a point where there was a mutual respect.”

I love the sentiment in that, and I hope that that sentiment also carries us through the work that we do here as well — and that notion of mutual respect.

J. Rice: What a pleasure and what an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 8, the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust (Winding Up) Act.

I must say the bill is not exactly a big bill on paper. Literally, it’s a page long with four clauses — okay, two, if you want to count the cover page of this bill. However, it’s small in words, but it’s large in significance, and embarrassingly, it was long in taking to get to this point. Nonetheless, we’re here, and I’m really happy that we are finally winding this up.

To my constituents on Haida Gwaii: thanks for your patience. Okay, I know you ran out of patience, but here we are. Thankfully, we finally got it sorted.

I want to go back to what this means just a little bit. I had just turned ten years old in 1985 when a small group of Haida, including Haida Elders and youth, peacefully blockaded a logging road on Lyell Island, which is otherwise known as Athlii Gwaii.

I think many people will remember the blockade on Lyell Island, but I wanted to actually just relay the connection to what the Athlii Gwaii piece of legislation is that we’re discussing today.

Athlii Gwaii is not only a place. It’s actually a name of a movement of people coming together to basically raise global — national and international — attention to the forest practices of the day. It’s also relevant in an acknowledgment of the Haida title to all of Haida Gwaii. That’s how it started.

[6:05 p.m.]

It started in the ’70s, with the folks on Haida Gwaii really wanting the attention and the recognition that this is undisputed territory. In fact, the Haida title case is probably the strongest title case in all of Canada. There is no concern of overlap. All of Haida Gwaii are the traditional and unceded territories of the Haida Nation. After a decade of negotiations with Canada and B.C. in order to protect the archipelago, this was like a consolation to not getting their title recognized. It was: “Well, if we can protect the significant area of South Moresby, the archipelago of islands of South Moresby, this would be a start.”

Part of the goal of having title recognized was in order to protect the environment that sustained Haida people for thousands and thousands of years. Salmon streams were at risk. So by protecting this area, it was essentially a preservation of Haida life.

Haida Nation were beyond frustrated with the lack of progress and fed up, essentially, with the unrelenting logging practices in their homelands. Many will recall that the standoff on Lyell Island did draw national and international attention in regard to the land title dispute between colonial governments and First Nations governments, but also in regards to just the environmental and economic concerns.

In 1988 — how old am I there; still a kid — the South Moresby agreement was signed, which designated the area as a national park reserve. That national park reserve is now known as the Gwaii Haanas national park reserve and Haida Heritage Site.

Interjection.

J. Rice: The member opposite points out that I was 13 when this happened. I started paying attention to global events around that time.

A regional economic development initiative fund was created to compensate for the loss of logging revenue with the park’s creation. Matching contributions were made from the provincial and the federal government, I think. Please don’t quote me for certain, but I believe it was about $12 million each.

Over time, the fund had various iterations of different names and levels of government oversight. In 2007, the fund was handed over to all the residents of Haida Gwaii, all the residents, and put into a trust that is now called the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust.

However, the trust still maintains a narrow scope of what the funds in that trust can be used for. So while my colleague here member from the Kootenays…. I can’t remember his title name. I want to say Kootenay Boundary.

Interjection.

J. Rice: Similkameen, thank you. Kootenay Similkameen. He pointed out some of the legal quagmires — that this trust has plagued the people of Haida Gwaii for so many years. But part of the challenge was also just the narrow scope.

While forestry is still an important part of the economic fabric of Haida Gwaii, it’s not the only source of economic development. So this legislation allows the funds, which are now worth approximately $59 million, to be facilitated by a different trust, the Gwaii Trust Society.

This was another trust that was created at the same time, which provided community grants with a bigger range of uses that the funds could be used for. So it makes sense to bring the funds from the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust into the Gwaii Trust Society’s Gwaii Trust. What the funds will be used for are what the communities on Haida Gwaii have determined as the three tenets, which are restoration, renewables and revitalization.

[6:10 p.m.]

The goal with the restoration is to protect and restore the natural environment and the ecological integrity of Haida Gwaii’s land, air and waters. Examples of projects that they want to explore are stream and riparian restoration to support local fish hatcheries, island forest and forest habitat restoration, marine shoreline restoration, possibly a research centre, silviculture.

Then, as far as renewables are concerned, the goal is to support the transitioning of Haida Gwaii’s fossil fuel–dependent electrical grids to renewable energy sources, to support the productive and sustainable use of Haida Gwaii’s natural resources. Again, land, air and water — to sustain these natural resources in perpetuity. Examples of projects that they want to explore include renewable energy such as wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectric and tidal, improving energy efficiencies, local food production, recycling and waste.

I must note that it is really hard to recycle on Haida Gwaii. Here is an island, an isolated remote island, that pays the same recycling fees that we all do in the rest of British Columbia. However, there is no way of actually collecting a lot of those or getting the compensation back when you return them, like we would normally experience in other parts of British Columbia.

They also want to create things like a nursery to provide seedlings for reforestation and electrical vehicle charging. I must share with you that I found it so…. I don’t even want to…. I don’t want to say funny, because it’s not funny, but it is funny. I was noting the electrical-vehicle-charging station on the north end of Haida Gwaii, just past Masset towards Tow Hill. That is great for the tourists or the people who do own electrical vehicles on Haida Gwaii. However, that electrical-vehicle-charging station is powered by a diesel generator or diesel generators. So I just find it so ironic and, you know, funny, not funny.

It is really important to people on Haida Gwaii to walk the talk. They are a community that values environmental stewardship tremendously. It’s way up there in the value system, so these are the kinds of projects that they want to explore. And there’s job creation with these projects.

Lastly, the third tenet, which is restoration, is to protect and restore the natural environment and ecological integrity of Haida Gwaii’s land, air, and waters. Projects that they’re considering exploring are restoration and renewables but, of course, revitalization. Please bear with me as I talk about revitalization, which is the goal to support the increase of economic diversification, resilience, self-sustainability of the communities and residents of Haida Gwaii.

Projects that they’re interested in exploring are partnerships with colleges and institutes for local skills-training needs, local food distribution and storage, locally processed forest products, the Graham and Moresby Islands back road infrastructure project, tourism and trails, the Rennell Sound campground boat launch, upgrades to that, a barge container loading facility, inter-island ferry transportation, a steel recycling facility and boatbuilding. These are just some of the ideas that the communities on Haida Gwaii have come up with collectively.

This is local governments as well as the Haida Nation and Haida members, all working collaboratively together on a shared vision of the future for Haida Gwaii.

Now, as the member before me mentioned, there was quite the legal quagmire in trying to access these funds in the meaningful way that the residents of Haida Gwaii wanted and needed. I have to say that there are so many people to thank and acknowledge.

[6:15 p.m.]

First of all, I wanted to thank Doug Donaldson, the former Forests Minister, who actually made the commitment to finally transfer these funds from the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust into the Gwaii trust.

The commitment was that we would be acting on this very promptly. But as the member mentioned, we had a lot of changeover with staff, with lawyers, with people within the ministry. So the project just lost the momentum. That was a great frustration to my constituents, and rightfully so. They were so frustrated with me that I couldn’t get this across the finish line. Hence, I’m beyond ecstatic to be standing up here today and talking about this bill, because we’re finally bringing this into fruition.

I wanted to just acknowledge, too, that it was during the COVID-19 pandemic where the folks from the Gwaii Trust Society were really pushing on our government and pushing on me as their MLA to try and access these funds in a really speedy way because everyone was in dire economic straits. A lot of businesses suffered, and some of them had to close.

It was very frustrating for me to not be able to access the money that belongs to Haida Gwaii. I’ve heard the notion about this great grant that we’re giving to the Gwaii Trust Society or to Haida Gwaii. But in fact, this is their money. This is their money, and they haven’t been able to spend it in a meaningful way that most matters to people.

I am so delighted that we’ve been finally able to untangle the legal quagmire of this trust in order for the people of Haida Gwaii to use that money in a way that makes sense for local communities — not in a way that makes sense for our perspective, as the provincial government or the federal government — without the narrow confines or the restrictions that were once placed on that trust, narrowly focused on just forestry.

Then just so many people, ministers, people on the Gwaii Trust Society over the years…. I couldn’t remember or name them all. I know I would forget some.

I did want to acknowledge Doug Donaldson, our current Forests Minister and also the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, because he was an instrumental minister in getting this over the finish line. I offer much gratitude to him on getting us here today.

Of course, I’m just going to acknowledge three people on Haida Gwaii.

Percy Crosby is the current chair of the Gwaii Trust Society. When I spoke to him on the phone, he was practically in tears.

Some of the other people that really pushed on me hard but respectfully…. Maureen Bailey in Port Clements said: “I am excited beyond belief that we’re here discussing Bill 8.”

And of course, Carla Lutner was — I forgot her title — the executive director at the time, who really hammered home on the importance of accessing the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust funds. There are so many more people to acknowledge.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I want to conclude my remarks by saying thank you and háw’aa to all of the folks on Haida Gwaii who have patiently waited for us to get to this point of passing this small in words but large in meaning bill of four clauses.

I look forward to this finally passing and to let my constituents know that it becomes effective once royal assent is granted. That should not be too far away from now.

Again, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

[6:20 p.m.]

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Okay, the question is second reading of Bill 8, Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust (Winding Up) Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust (Winding Up) Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:21 p.m.