Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call second reading of Bill 13, Land Title and Property Law Act.

In Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

In Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — LAND TITLE AND PROPERTY
LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that Bill 13 be now read a second time.

I’m honoured to rise today to support this important step in our commitment to ensuring provincial laws are aligned with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and to assist us as we transition toward an approach of law-making that’s thoughtful, consistent and supports legal commitments to affirm Indigenous rights.

Since the late 1800s, partly because of the outdated colonial policies of previous governments and partly because of common law assumptions in the drafting of statutes, most First Nations governments in our province could not hold land in the name of their First Nations.

[2:45 p.m.]

First Nations in B.C. have long called to all levels of government to enable them to directly own land, rather than have to move through proxies like corporations, societies and trusts in order to show the land that they own in the land title office.

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, property and civil rights is the responsibility of a province, and also the establishment and management of the provincial government’s land title system is part of that constitutional jurisdiction.

I’m pleased to introduce this bill for second reading now.

It extends to all First Nations the ability to hold land in the name of First Nations, just as individuals and corporations can do and have been doing for generations in our province. The operative parts of this bill will amend the Property Law Act to make clear that First Nations may hold and dispose of land and will amend, in addition, the Land Title Act to address some of the administrative requirements of the land title office.

This bill and these amendments to the Land Title Act and the Property Law Act are small, but they are vitally important steps on the path to a British Columbia that owns up to its history and its colonial past, a British Columbia that continuously strives to fulfil its promise to be a safe, fair, just and prosperous society for everyone, without discrimination.

These amendments reflect our government’s commitment to reconciliation and our commitment to ensure that no one faces discriminatory barriers to land ownership, something that should have been done long ago.

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from other members on this important next step of eliminating discriminatory barriers that still exist for First Nations today.

M. Lee: I’m pleased to join and speak on second reading to Bill 13 as the shadow minister for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the B.C. United shadow minister for the Attorney General.

I had the opportunity in my previous role as the Attorney General critic back in 2019 to participate, as I’ve spoken about many times in this chamber, in the significant discussion and debate and review that we had on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act — Bill 41, as it was then known.

I certainly join with the current Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation as he tables this bill in the House, along with his colleague the Minister for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

My colleague the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, the shadow minister for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, is, I think, as we speak, back in estimates process. Yesterday he was there with the shadow minister of Emergency Management. Today he’s there in his role for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, so he is not able to be in this chamber. Nor was he able to be on the briefing for the bill that I received yesterday from the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation’s deputy minister and office.

I say that because we’ve had this running dialogue in this chamber. We know the important steps forward towards reconciliation with First Nations in our province, in Indigenous communities. This Bill 13 certainly is an important step towards that, as recognized by some of the leaders of First Nations in our province, which I’ll refer to later in my remarks and who were included in the news release by government as they announced this bill.

[2:50 p.m.]

I believe this news release came out yesterday, but we know, of course, that the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation had the honour to recognize the many guests in our gallery yesterday, when the minister introduced this bill on first reading. For many of those leaders, which included Regional Chief Terry Teegee and Chief Rudy of the Saulteau First Nations and others, this is another step that’s recognized by them. I certainly recognize this step.

As the minister referred to, it’s an important step. One of the concerns that I’ve had, not about this bill but just how we proceed with change in this Legislative Assembly, is the pace of that change. I appreciate in this instance that the work for this government…. This has been a long-standing concern and issue for First Nations not just in this province but across our country, for reasons that I can refer to in a moment, about the Indian Act.

I know, when I look at the what-we-heard report, which I know members of this official opposition will have the opportunity to discuss with the minister, depending on when that committee process is…. That’s the reason why I’m going to take the benefit of some time here to reflect into the record my thoughts on this bill and how it fits within the ongoing work towards reconciliation with First Nations.

I know and I will acknowledge that the province says, in it’s what-we-heard report on page 3, that the province had engaged with First Nations, modern treaty nations, the federal government, local governments and industry and business organizations about the feedback about its proposal relating to legislative amendments. That work started in earnest in December 2023.

In the context of the pace of change in this chamber, we’re seeing from December 2023 to April 2. That’s pretty good work. I know that in my briefing yesterday, we had representatives and lead members of the public service, certainly the deputy of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation; ADM with Water, Land and Resource Stewardship; and a senior legal counsel member with the Ministry of Attorney General. This is an example, of course, of the cross-ministry work that is necessary in order to put together a bill like this. I acknowledge the work of the public service that has gone into that work.

I know, also, that there has been some meaningful collaborative engagement. I use the word “meaningful” in a qualified way, because we haven’t had the opportunity to fully quiz or question or probe the depth and breadth of that consultation process. I know it’s outlined on page 4 of the what-we-heard report.

Later in this report, I know it’s identified, what I heard in the briefing yesterday. Among all of the nations that were contacted — the 240-plus First Nations, modern treaty nations and other First Nations organizations — there was meaningful engagement, and those are my words, with at least 44 First Nations. These are just examples of the level of engagement that has brought us here.

There were also efforts to engage with other bodies, other organizations in our province — business organizations, as is put here. I know that certainly, I saw at least one quote coming back from the B.C. Real Estate Association. I know — I understood verbally, at least — that there were other business associations that were contacted and had an opportunity to provide some comment that I’m sure was reflected, as well, in the what-we-heard report dated March 2024.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is an example of an important change, an important step. This government has brought forward other legislative initiatives, or it has signalled it is going to do so. I’ve certainly tried, in my shadow minister role, to follow, to engage, to understand the pace of change that this government is presenting. I think Bill 13 is an important example of those steps.

I want to put in context, though, as I do that, that when we’re in the official opposition, there are times where we are quite challenged in this chamber with the opportunity to review legislation that comes forward.

Certainly, as the House Leader for the Third Party appreciates and understands, both in his House Leader capacity and as a member of the Third Party, who has a strong interest for many levels and many reasons about the need for change in reconciliation for First Nations, including from his personal perspective, it puts us in an awkward position when we have leadership of First Nations who have entered into agreements and then we’re debating legislation related to that.

I’m referring, of course, to the modern treaty nations, the unfortunate example that we worked through when we had to do this in front of the Tsawwassen First Nation. It’s regrettable, and I expressed this at the time, that that occurred. I am cognizant, as we look at other legislation in this chamber…. We’ll have the opportunity, as I understand it, in the weeks to come, in terms of the significant draft agreement that has been circulated by the minister in relation to the Haida Nation.

I refer to those two instances because we’ve been, through the good work of this minister, since the adoption of UNDRIP and the DRIPA action plan, making some progress. I use the word “some” because I’m in opposition. It’s not for me to fully assess at all times, because I’m not privy, of course, to all of the moving parts, the 89 action items. Certainly, this Bill 13 speaks to at least one of the action items and other articles of UNDRIP, which I’d like to also consider here if I get the opportunity to do so.

What I’m getting to is that we also had significant legislation that came forward at the end of the last session, in May of 2023, less than a year ago, which provided recognition to the Council of the Haida Nation based on, as we spoke in committee stage with the minister, the constitution, the significant history of the Haida Nation and that recognition which was necessary to move forward in many different ways. We are seeing some of the outcomes of that work at that time.

This bill makes specific reference to the recognition of First Nations under clause 2, in reference to the Property Law Act, the specific amendment to section 44 of that Property Law Act. If I go specifically to 44(2)…. This, I would suggest, from my understanding, is a core element of Bill 13, that: “A First Nation has the power and capacity of a natural person to acquire and dispose of land in British Columbia.”

As I understand it, and in the time that I’ve had to review this bill, among many other bills that I have to review in my capacities and roles in this chamber…. Under the Indian Act, of course, there is not this wording. This is the reason why First Nations across our country have not had the ability to hold fee simple lands, property, directly in their names. This government is addressing part of that concern, specifically in terms of acquiring and disposing of land in British Columbia.

[3:00 p.m.]

I raise this because I would expect that all of us in this chamber understand the significant historical impediments to First Nations in our province and across our country under the Indian Act. We are not here in this chamber to debate the Indian Act federally and the needed changes to that legislative restrictive framework.

But in the sense of this Bill 13, Bill 13 attempts to lay out specific amendments to the Property Law Act and the related amendments to the Land Title Act to enable recognition of First Nations in British Columbia, which I’ll get into the definition of in a moment, to “have the power and capacity of a natural person” for the purpose of — those words aren’t in the bill, but that’s what it means — “to acquire and dispose of land in British Columbia.”

That is a specific purpose. It is on that basis that I understand the specific reason as to why this recognition is being done.

The minister, in his opening remarks on second reading here, certainly referred to what is under section 92 of our constitution, which is the property and civil rights, the division and responsibilities to jurisdictions between our federal government and our provincial government. This is the specific jurisdiction under which this bill is being presented.

I would think that it will be reasonable for members of the official opposition and other parties to have that discussion with the minister to confirm the analysis and the review that the government has done in terms of that jurisdictional position. I understand the position, but I do think it’s important that we at least have on the record, for the benefit of those who look at this change, those who want to understand the change beyond First Nations themselves.

We know that there are significant legal scholars who were involved with this, and I will say a brief shout-out to Jack Woodward, who was an adjunct professor at UVic law school when I went through law school. I certainly understand his efforts by reputation and his excellence. And of course, there’s Michael McDonald and others.

I do think it’s important that we understand the jurisdictional setting in which this bill is being presented. For the purpose of my second reading speech, I’m acknowledging that that is the government’s position, but it’s one that should be confirmed at the committee stage.

The other reference to this clause 2 of Bill 13 is to subsection 44(1). This reference gets into another item, which again, I want to distinguish in terms of what we’re doing in this House and what we’re being asked to review and support as the recognition of what is a First Nation.

There’s a three-part definition for the purpose of the Property Law Act that is being amended by Bill 13. Loosely summarized, it refers to a band as defined in the Indian Act of Canada, a successor to a band as defined in the Indian Act of Canada, and — grammatically there’s no “or,” but I’m sure that that’s just the legal drafting that we would see in equivalent definitions — any other body of Indians that, under an act of Canada, is established as a legal entity.

I certainly, and I think those of us who have a general understanding of the Indian Act of Canada, recognize, of course, what a band as defined under the Indian Act would be. This is part of the constraints, and this is part of the structure that Indigenous peoples have been living with for many, many decades and being constrained by. To the extent that we in this province are looking to address some of that constraint, we are still, though, in this bill, utilizing the framing of First Nation within the scope of the Indian Act.

[3:05 p.m.]

I will say for the benefit of the members, certainly in the official opposition, that I did have the opportunity to ask in my briefing about another term that we know of and that we continue to seek clarity from government as we go with the other steps towards reconciliation and legislation, and that is the term “Indigenous governing body.” Indigenous governing body is the term that is anchored, very prevalent in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

I will say that it is a term and understanding of government that we are also wanting to understand in the opposition when it comes to section 7 decision-making agreements.

We know that there has been a significant amount of consideration and concern outside of this House. We haven’t had the opportunity to review any proposed amendments of the Land Act. We know that one of the concerns that has been raised is around understanding with whom these decision-making agreements might be entered into when it talks about land tenure–related agreements.

As I mentioned when we dealt with the legislation to recognize the Haida Nation in May, I have a strong recollection of my discussion with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation about that term. What is the standard that we expect for an Indigenous governing body — when I say “we,” I mean the government of B.C. — and expect from a First Nation? What constitutes an Indigenous governing body? Is the Haida Nation itself setting that standard with its constitution and its level of governance? Is the Tāłtān Nation another example of that standard?

Of course, we acknowledge the continued work by the federal and provincial governments to support the ongoing work that’s necessary with, for example, the Wet’su­wet’en peoples and setting out their hereditary versus elected leadership.

I think the minister’s response is that it’s still a work in progress. Those were not his words, but I understand that it has been nation to nation, government to nation, government to government. It’s been an evaluation as we go. But in the case of this Bill 13, “Indigenous governing body” is not utilized as a term. It’s not imported into this bill, even though much of the work, much of the legislation we review in this House has the term Indigenous governing body.

It is a term that this government continues to use, and I would expect that it is consistent with the language, of course, that is set out under DRIPA. It certainly would be consistent with the 89 action items on the government’s action plan. So you would think that that is what continues.

This is another area that should be probed at the committee stage, to have a good understanding as to the nature and the use of this definition and how it applies. Obviously, it applies to all First Nations. Well, that’s a question, but presumably it applies to all First Nations in our province.

I would say a successor to a band as defined in the Indian Act could refer to…. For example, I mentioned the Tsawwassen Nation as a modern treaty Nation. I think they’re generally viewed as a successor. That probably is an example, and I think it’s important that we, as members of this House, walk through this bill to understand what are the examples of First Nations that fall in the various categories of this definition of First Nation under Bill 13.

Last, the one that I can think of, although I would invite the minister to, as he is considering the committee stage on this bill, is the shíshálh First Nation with its self-government act. It was just a very specific act relating to that nation. That may well be something that is referred to as “any other body of Indians,” with that very dated term under the Indian Act, that under an act of Canada is established as a legal entity.

This is going to be an area that we will want to understand in terms of how this bill would apply to different First Nations and their current, for lack of a better word, status with the government, whether it’s under a band status, a successor to a band status, in terms of a modern treaty Nation, or to a specific self-government agreement. These points are to be considered under this bill.

[3:10 p.m.]

I will say, just seeing where my time is, that I will be the designated speaker on this bill to the extent that I need to be.

Deputy Speaker: Of course, thank you. It would be appreciated if you could let the House know at the beginning of your remarks, but understood.

M. Lee: I wasn’t exactly sure when I started, but now that I’m here, at this stage, I feel like I can be the designated speaker. The House Leader left that in my good hands, so I’m making that determination. But apologies, Mr. Speaker, I could have said that I might be.

I would say that the importance of recognizing power and capacity of an actual person, as we certainly…. I know I will hear in a moment from my good friends and colleagues, who are lined up to speak to this bill, because they speak from personal and other experiences that…. Why do we live in a country that has not recognized this for so many decades and the history of our country and the way it was set up and all of that? I understand that concern.

What I’m addressing is: how do we work this forward? What does it mean? I think that when we’re extending power and capacity to a natural person, we’re extending language that’s typically extended to corporations, which is something I’m very familiar with from my background in business law.

I think that if we hold that thought, and we look at the front part of Bill 13 and clause 1, it relates to the amendments that are necessary for the Land Title Act. This is where we get into the specific considerations, which were also identified in the what-we-heard report.

I think it’s a good summary of the kinds of considerations, let’s say, of these types of…. When we’re talking about now dealing with the land title office, we’re talking about First Nations having to demonstrate the authorization so that the office itself can determine that the instrument that’s been executed, in relation to the parcel of land that we’re speaking about — that there’s conclusive evidence of that authorization and approval.

I do recognize that there are some nations that have had to utilize the corporate structure, or through societies or some other proxies, in order to hold property. Today, of course, we have a number of First Nations that do that. Certainly, we also know that for reasons of good governance, First Nations elected chiefs and councils have established economic development corporations — that is an example — or even real estate arms of those economic development corporations. These are a couple of examples of the kinds of structures that have been put in place.

Those structures are put in place not just to…. Well, because they can’t hold it directly; that’s one reason. The reason that’s being addressed by Bill 13 is to give the choice to First Nations, like the Saulteau First Nation, who, as I understand it, has put to government: “Why do we have to deal with this outdated framework? Why can we not hold the property that we are requiring through a treaty land settlement arrangement with other Treaty 8 Nations? Why can’t we hold it directly? Why do we have to go to the extent to set up a corporation to do that?”

We’re not looking to necessarily utilize the land at this time. I’m hearing this third-hand. I haven’t had the discussion, directly, on this particular point, but this is my understanding — to use it for economic development purposes.

There’s no need to shield the nation itself from liability exposure of some sort through a corporate entity, for example. We would prefer just to have it for traditional and cultural uses under the nation, directly.

[3:15 p.m.]

Bill 13 would enable a nation like that to make that choice, but it is a choice. It would be a choice under Bill 13, if this passes.

I recognize that but also recognize that other nations have also made the decision. I would think — again, the minister can comment on this during committee debate and review — that our general understanding would be that First Nations may also choose not to do this. They may choose to still set up the corporation to hold the property.

That might be done for a couple reasons, two which I’ve already hit on. One is liability protection. But also, another one would be good governance framework in the sense of separating the economic development activities of a nation from the elected chief and council — the political arm, let’s say, of representation of the First Nation itself.

On that point, those First Nations that have had to follow this — these administrative burdens and hurdles, as some would refer to them — and also have these structures in place by necessity, not necessarily because they want to but for reasons that I’ve outlined by way of example…. But they have had to do that.

In order to do that, you have to have a certain level of administrative, technical capacity to do so, whether it’s with a band manager, a chief administrative officer, external consultants, of course the chief and council members themselves who are doing many different roles and other related individual staff members of that nation. So there’s a certain build-up requirement of the capacity in order to manage these sorts of economic development arms, certainly, or real estate–holding entities, corporate entities.

So many nations, as we know, across the province don’t have that level of resource to fund the capacity — administrative, technical or otherwise — in order to establish and administer and hold real estate in this way. This choice under Bill 13 will enable some of these other First Nations, or even the nations that have these current structures, to have that choice.

But for those nations that don’t have necessarily all of the resources and capacity to do this, some might say, complex administrative arrangement, this would enable a First Nation who doesn’t have that resource and capacity at this time to utilize a property as an asset, of course — to utilize that to go seek financing or other opportunities for economic growth.

Certainly, as persons who continue to comment on where the B.C. United official opposition is on certain topics relating to reconciliation for First Nations…. No doubt that is exactly where we’ve been focused — the economic growth, the importance of that with First Nations in partnership across our province.

We have a leading example of that in our caucus. Our Leader of the Official Opposition has referred to him many, many times, the member for Skeena, and the work that he has done with the Haisla Nation and also the work he has done across our province and our country in terms of working with other First Nation leaderships to generate and promote that economic growth.

This is a common focus for our B.C. United caucus. Certainly, this Bill 13 can be one of the steps, as I see it, as well, towards enabling First Nations — to enable them not to be constrained by the Indian Act constraints that are there federally for the purpose of disposing and acquiring land in British Columbia.

[3:20 p.m.]

We know from the briefing that this does not change the additions-to-reserves process, which is a federal process. That is something, again, to be probed in committee. I know the members of our caucuses have asked that question, but I’m sure that there will be an opportunity to reconfirm that. We know that this refers to off-reserve lands as well, and this remains to be a choice.

I recognize, as we look at the nations, the types of nations that I’m talking about, that not dissimilar from other corporations and not-for-profit societies that have had their own challenges, or even Crown corporations — B.C. Housing…. There are lots of organizations in our province that have had governance challenges and have fallen short. My comment that I’m about to make is not specific, certainly, to First Nations. But it is something that is a live consideration when we look at the provisions under Bill 13 and the amendments to the Land Title Act.

I know that when I raised this on my briefing…. And I know, without hearing the response, what the position of government is, and I understand it, which is: it’s not for the government of B.C. to tell a nation how it should govern itself. I think, as a result, Bill 13…. And I think we should reconfirm that in committee and what that means. But I do think that what that puts the onus and responsibility on is the land title office itself.

It was commented to me that some of the considerations I have relating to due authorization and witnessing of these documents for land transfer purposes or land ownership purposes, as contemplated under these provisions of the Land Title Act, would be met or considered as part of your know-your-client guidelines and rules for lawyers and notaries — whoever is bearing witness to these instruments, these property land instruments. I understand that, having been a lawyer myself.

I think that somewhere through the combination of those notaries and lawyers and the land title office there are, of course, the administrative mechanisms through which First Nations will be working in order to set out and execute instruments relating to land. That process, then, that I’m speaking to, is spelled out or addressed in these provisions in clause 1 of Bill 13.

But as I mentioned, the kinds of thematic considerations that are set out on page 7 of the what-we-heard report — these are the kinds of considerations I certainly have in mind as well. For example, item 1 says: “Ensuring all persons dealing in good faith with the First Nation, as well as the registrar, can rely upon the instruments. These are forms under the Land Title Act for transfers and other interests like mortgages signed by a First Nation.”

The persons that we’re talking about are these other persons — notaries, lawyers, land title office, the people who are processing these documents — that can rely in good faith…. Well, when they’re dealing in good faith. I think those words mean, presumably, those persons are dealing themselves in good faith. There is no untoward objective there. But assuming they are doing the roles responsibly, they are dealing with the First Nation, and they can rely on those instruments.

This is the reason why the language in Bill 13 uses language around the fact that the instrument executed in compliance with provisions under 365.2 of the Land Title Act that’s being amended here under Bill 13 “constitutes conclusive evidence to the registrar that the requirements of the laws of the First Nation relating to the execution of the instrument and the transaction or dealing contemplated by it have been fulfilled.”

This means the registrar of the land title office can rely on the instrument itself on its face. This is not dissimilar, of course, to other instruments that are tabled by corporations or other entities, persons, as recognized under the laws of British Columbia, as First Nations would be under this bill to the registrar.

But I do think, though, given where we’re at and given the importance of working with First Nations to help support their capacity…. That certainly has been a focus for the Leader of the Official Opposition’s shared prosperity plan for British Columbia — one of those key elements.

[3:25 p.m.]

I know that the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship refers to that resource prosperity plan in reference to the Land Act amendments, but there is a second component to that, which is around capacity. We certainly do understand the importance of building and working with First Nations to build out their capacity. This is something that needs to be addressed in this bill, in terms of the understanding of the kind of capacity that First Nations would have.

Item 2 is ensuring individuals signing instruments are responsible if they attempt to carry out acts that are not properly authorized or are beyond the capacity of the First Nation in a manner similar to provisions that exist for individuals acting on behalf of corporations. I’m not sure, as I read this concern, how that’s addressed. That’s certainly something I would just pose in second reading as an open item to be addressed by the minister.

When I read through these provisions, I see the mechanics around the instruments and how they’re presented. I see limitations on liability and the deeming provisions. But I did not get the opportunity to get into this issue on my briefing. I question where this consideration is dealt with.

How does government ensure that the individual signing instruments are responsible if they carry out acts that are not properly authorized or beyond the capacity of the First Nation? So that’s the question. I know that the minister will have a good response to that.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

It may be something that I’m reading over when I quickly look at clause 1 of Bill 13. I know that there are provisions that talk about conclusive evidence, conclusively deemed. There are provisions that relate to that. I think that gives comfort to the registrar of the land titles office. But I think we’re here where government, or at least this consultation document, was addressing a consideration.

I know, as I said earlier, a few minutes ago, that my comment I’m about to make again, with some sensitivity, is not just about a First Nation. It’s about any organization that deals with assets and property — that you have to have a good governance structure in place, that you need to ensure individuals signing documents or instruments are responsible if they attempt to carry out acts that are not properly authorized or beyond the…. Well, these are the words in the document, but I’m more focused on: they’re carrying out acts that are not properly authorized.

I say this because I do understand there have been examples of non-Indigenous and Indigenous governing bodies that have had some challenges relating to this. As I say, this is a challenge for any organization, but it is something that we need to be live to as we work with and partner with First Nations in addressing this.

Again, I know the default is to say: “Well, it’s up to the nation. It’s not for government to tell the nation how it should govern itself.” I understand that. But I also think that as governments, and certainly for the official opposition, we look to work to support the capacity-building efforts of that nation. That includes governance, and that includes the ability and the opportunities to work through these new opportunities to own land and property directly in the name of the First Nation.

Item 3 is addressing how instruments would be executed by or on behalf of First Nations and how the land title office would consider instruments and related documents. These provisions would be substantially the same as those currently in place for companies and modern treaty First Nations. This, I would agree and understand, is clearly dealt with or dealt with under clause 1 of Bill 13.

Then lastly, at least on this page, was establishing limitations of liabilities for assurance funds, the LTSA and the minister, and that is dealt with, clearly, under subclause 1(5) under section 365.2 of the Land Title Act.

Of that list, the one in particular that I note that bears more discussion at committee stage is: as the government implements this bill — which I am supportive of, to be clear — it would be helpful for us to know at this juncture, at the committee stage, how we are ensuring individual signing instruments are responsible if they attempt to carry out acts that are not properly authorized or are beyond the capacity, however that is defined, of the First Nation.

[3:30 p.m.]

I wanted to come back to my earlier comments, though, on this bill. When I read through some of the comments of the First Nation leaders who were included in the announcement of Bill 13 by government, I understand those comments. I would say I do understand there’s been a continued focus by leaderships of First Nations in our province, in the words that Regional Chief Terry Teegee said: “We uphold the province of B.C. for its commitment to land registration and ownership reform in a step towards alignment with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.”

The alignment of laws with the declaration comes back to section 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act itself. We know that First Nation leaders in our province refer to this section in different ways — or continually refer to this section, sometimes, in different ways — which includes and speaks to that the government must take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the declaration.

I think it’s important for us, at committee stage, to again appreciate and understand when the government sets out direct reference as it does in this what-we-heard report. I’ve seen reference to specific articles of UNDRIP. That’s set out on page 5 of the DRIPA act. These articles, we know, reconfirmed in the lower court decision, in the Mineral Tenure Act decision by Justice Ross, that in response to the concerns of the ʔiiḥatisatḥ and Gitxaała First Nations, that UNDRIP is an illustrative tool.

I’ve heard that, certainly, from this minister in response to my concerns relating to unfair labour conditions for Indigenous peoples under the community benefits agreement regime. That was the minister’s response, that it’s illustrative that UNDRIP itself should not be parsed through individually as individual articles.

That response from the minister in question period some months ago, many months ago, is consistent with the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, Scott Fraser, in response to questions from my colleague the member for Abbotsford West and myself over committee review of that bill. So it’s no surprise that in that lower court decision, Justice Ross found the same thing. I think it’s important that we keep that in mind. It’s important to keep in mind exactly what UNDRIP is and what it is to this province.

We know that it is the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act that this government needs to continue to make more progress on. It’s the reason why I’ve heard, and I’ve certainly witnessed, the concerns of First Nation leadership in our province, including at the All Chiefs meeting back in November 2023, that we have a situation to date where only two agreements under section 7 of DRIPA have been entered into, with one nation, the Tāłtān — two agreements in 4½ years with one nation.

This is where we know that in the context of this Bill 13, when I see the statement by Grand Chief Stewart Phillip…. He repeats the obligation under section 3 of DRIPA: “The province has an obligation to take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.” That is a direct quote from the section. That is the key words of DRIPA.

[3:35 p.m.]

He goes on to say that the proposed amendments to the Property Law Act and the Land Title Act fall well short of fulfilling this requirement.

Now at the risk of not reading his full quote and others wanting to see the importance and the way it’s sitting within his overall quote, I will read the rest of the quote, but I want to come back to that statement: “However, we welcome the proposed and long called for amendments as they address an arbitrary, discriminatory and racist legislative barrier which has barred First Nations from directly holding and registering fee simple land in B.C.’s land title system.”

I think it’s clear in the second reading speeches today that both the minister and I understand that. I certainly appreciate the purpose and the intention of Bill 13, which is to address exactly what Grand Chief Stewart Phillip said. What I do not understand and what I would like more clarity from this government on, again in committee stage when the minister has an opportunity to respond…. When Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs says, “The proposed amendments to the Property Law Act and Land Title Act fall well short of fulfilling this requirement,” this is the alignment of laws with the declaration.

I am not party to these discussions. This goes back to the challenge of the official opposition. Well, I’m happy to talk about those challenges if a member of this chamber wants to invite me to talk about the challenges. I have talked about that earlier. But those challenges aren’t dissimilar from the challenges that we see from many British Columbians. Reconciliation is about bringing everybody along, and this has been the challenge.

We know that there is a significant requirement of the Haida decision under 2004, which…. We understand the recognition of title that was there by the courts in terms of the significance of the claim by the Haida. We will deal with that as we discuss the legislation that will come to this House, as I understand, in a few weeks. But the Haida decision of the Supreme Court of Canada also addressed some other considerations for government as it gave direction, not only in relating to the duty to consult and accommodate, but also in terms of taking into account the other interests.

It’s the role of government to ensure that that’s the case. This has been the fundamental requirement that we see missing from this government, which is ensuring that this government provides for a level of consultation and engagement with British Columbians. It failed to do so on that Land Act amendment slide deck that it presented in January. I’ve spoken about that on another bill yesterday, on Bill 12.

Who runs a consultation without telling anyone? Who puts out a slide deck and doesn’t tell anybody that we’re consulting with the public? We want to hear your opinions. It’s on the website. You’ve got to go find it, and someone did. Government hears some concerns, then they replace the slide deck with another version but doesn’t tell anyone.

This is the kind of lack of engagement and consultation that this government has done. This is the reason why it puts the official opposition in a very difficult position at times. At times. In the midst of all the bills that this government is presenting, including Bill 12…. I spent two hours dealing with that bill yesterday here. But the rapid nature in which bills are being brought…. It’s been time and time again with this government, without any consultation and engagement, in that case, with business associations all over this province.

But when we jam through bills with little discussion and understanding, it puts the official opposition in a place where we have to make the best comment we can under the circumstances, understanding what we understand, seeing what we see. It doesn’t enable the kind of discussion we should be having in this chamber.

[3:40 p.m.]

What we look at is, with Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, as to understanding. The leadership here…. I had the Haida Nation reach out to me, for the first time that I’ve been in my role as the shadow minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

I go out as much as I can to meet with First Nation leaders and to be an observer at the BCAFN meeting, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs meeting, the First Nation Leadership Council summit. As an observer, I listen. I hear as much as my schedule permits, but for the first time, I had a nation reach out to me, as a member of the official opposition, to explain the legislative initiative, the draft agreement that the minister announced a ten days ago, I think. The draft agreement now is available, as of last Thursday.

I have to read quotes from a government news release to hear and understand the concerns of First Nation leaders. I also have to hear quotes from statements that are made in response to statements that the Leader of the Official Opposition or other members of our caucus or I made. We are not in control of this government agenda, clearly. We have to react and respond to what is being moved in a case of lack of consultation and understanding.

I am pointing to this quote because, in a different way, I think we should pay attention to it. I’ve met with Grand Chief Stewart Phillip and his better half, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I know that they have very strong opinions as to where we are as a province and the progress or lack of progress that is being made. I think this quote demonstrates that there’s some concern. I mean, this bill is some progress, which is welcomed, in his words, but it falls well short.

I would like to understand how it falls well short. I don’t, having not been part of those conversations…. In what way does this not meet the expectations? Obviously, not to isolate one individual, but Grand Chief Stewart Phillip’s views are well known and well appreciated to many First Nation leaders in our province. Certainly, government included that quote. I think: good on government for including a quote that is also somewhat critical of the bill itself — balanced in criticism, let’s say.

I would say that, in contrast to that statement by Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, there is a statement here on the what-we-heard report. The way the government framed this is that the proposed legislative amendments are consistent with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. This is not a direct response, because the words are slightly different; I appreciate that. The government is making a general comment, which may not necessarily mean the same thing, but it’s in the ballpark.

I will say, to Grand Chief Stewart’s point, this is the set of wordings that we utilize to understand. I think it’s important, because there is so much weight that so many put on UNDRIP and DRIPA. I don’t mean just First Nation leaders themselves but Indigenous peoples that are looking to their leadership, to the government of British Columbia and to certain members of this House, to honour the commitments that were made under DRIPA itself. We need to continue to have the kind of clarity about what it is.

I continue to see dialogue and language use that suggests that UNDRIP and DRIPA are something that they’re not. In this case, this is not necessarily the example I would pick, but it’s sitting right here. It’s a vehicle to have the discussion and to put my points on the record, for the minister to respond to during committee, as to the requirements under section 3 of DRIPA itself: to use all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the declaration.

[3:45 p.m.]

We know, again, with that lower court decision in the Mineral Tenure Act review, in response to the ʔiiḥati­satḥ and Gitxaała First Nations, that Justice Ross also said that UNDRIP and DRIPA are forward-looking. This is the reason why, in that decision, the judge said the government has 18 months, working with the commissioner responsible, to redesign the process to address the concerns.

For some reason, government decided, in the face of the appeal by those two nations: “Well, even though the court said we had 18 months, we’re going to stop all mining activity through issuance of orders-in-council under the Environment and Land Use Act, ELUA.”

I understand that there have been 212 orders issued under that act. Not one of those orders has ever been retroactive, even to the extent where an application in process for a mineral permit that was brought to court still went through — in the face of an order. In the history of this province, there has never been a utilization of that instrument, by any government of our province, in the way this government utilized it.

This government is setting new steps, going beyond even our courts. When Justice Ross says UNDRIP is forward-looking, well, the obligation on this government is to present a bill, Bill 13, that needs to ensure that this law, the amendments to the Land Title and Property Law Amendment Act, are consistent with the declaration. That’s what government is saying.

That’s exactly the statement the government makes in its what-we-heard report. It is representing that this bill, the proposed legislative amendments — which may have been adjusted in response to the what-we-heard report, let’s assume, for the purpose of this second reading speech, and which can be confirmed — was really no substantive change from what was being consulted about to what ultimately we’re viewing under Bill 13 and that that is consistent with the declaration.

What is Grand Chief Stewart Phillip talking about, then? There’s a difference in view, clearly. With the amount of consideration and concern there, I raise this only because I certainly feel a certain obligation to ensure, when we adopted UNDRIP in our province, that we had the right mechanisms of understanding around it and that when we have misunderstandings — a lack of clarity by members of this government, as it refers to UNDRIP or DRIPA at times — it causes more confusion.

Courts are clear, at least from my understanding. In the Mineral Tenure Act, they were clear. It was very consistent with what we heard over five days of committee review. That meant something, I think, unless we’re wasting our time in this chamber.

It’s the reason why, with that committee review in mind, on the record in Hansard in October, November of 2019…. I think it’s really November of 2019. That’s what I understand. I don’t follow all of the detail, but I understand generally courts have looked at that Hansard transcript. They do have a general understanding of what the government intended at the time they adopted UNDRIP. It’s the same intention. It’s the same understanding that we all had, certainly the members of the official opposition.

I will say that the Leader of the Fourth Party was a member of our caucus at that time, and it is very regrettable to see their position, the call for the repeal of UNDRIP. That’s not something that our official opposition has called for, and we do not agree with it.

[3:50 p.m.]

We do need clarity. We need clarity and understanding as to how that issue is being utilized, how this government is implementing UNDRIP in our province, because it can continue to be a stumbling block. I don’t mean just for First Nations; I mean for British Columbians.

There is nothing in section 7 of the DRIPA act that requires government to enter into these agreements. Government has to agree. That was my understanding. That’s not what I heard from the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. His language purports to indicate that somehow they’re being driven to this.

I understand that First Nations want more section 7 agreements. I referred to that earlier. I understand why. But government needs to recognize the Indigenous governing body, and it needs to want to enter into the agreement, depending on what the statutory power decision is and depending on what context. That’s the reason why we’ve seen the Tāłtān enter into two agreements with government over Eskay Creekand Red Chris mines.

I know that the minister has indicated publicly even…. I’m sure there’s been more progress since November of 2023, but there are a number of section 7 agreements in process, meaning they’re making progress towards them, even in a regional context. I look forward to seeing those. But that’s what we do in opposition. We just see them after they’re done.

I hope…. To the member who asked for a description of challenges, I’m happy to talk about the challenges, because they’re on my mind a great deal. We all have those roles and responsibilities as Members of the Legislative Assembly, and I take mine very seriously. I know my colleagues understand that.

So as we look to get clarity coming forward, I raise this point. I think I’ve spoken to it enough, and as the minister himself and the team around him review what I’ve said here today, hopefully they’ll have an opportunity to come prepared to address that point. I’m sure it was noted already when the news release was put out, of course.

With that all being said, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 13. I am supportive of the direction and intention of this bill. I’ve raised a number of items that I believe ought to be considered at the committee stage for clarification. I do recognize, with bills of this nature, that it’s in the implementation and how it’s utilized. Some of that work, of course, will be worked through the land title office. I hope that the kind of framework that is being established here will address the kinds of concerns that were identified, as well, in the what-we-heard report on page 7.

With that, I appreciate the time. Thank you very much.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill 13, the Land Title and Property Law Amendment Act, 2024, and I appreciate the work that’s been done. I think, perhaps, some of the comments are going to reflect a matter of perspective, specifically when it comes to pace of change.

I think that when we look back to the history of this province 175-plus years ago, the fact that we are in 2024 now making a change that allows an Indigenous First Nation to hold land the way that they would like to hold land, whether they want to hold it within their nation or whether they want to hold it within a corporation, which they’ve been forced to do up until this point, we begin to see just the pace of change of this institution. It has taken a long time.

As I’ve been listening to the comments that have been made here, both by the minister and by the critic from the official opposition, I think it is important to recognize that one perspective of this bill is that it’s a small change. Indigenous First Nations, Indian People under the Indian Act, will now be able to hold land the way that they choose.

[3:55 p.m.]

It has big implications, both from how Indigenous governments hold land and also, I think, from a philosophical and a psychological perspective. I think that it is important for us to recognize that this is both a minor change, in terms of…. The bills that we have come before us have 60 pages, 70 pages, 80 pages. This is just a few pages, but the meaning behind it is important.

The reflection that Indigenous people are going to be able to choose to hold the land and, as it was pointed out, that they are going to have the power and capacity of a natural person — that’s what this government has chosen to define — is a big change in terms of the philosophical and the approach that Indigenous people might have.

I think that it is important to reflect on what’s happened here over the past number of weeks, maybe the last couple of months, around land. It does go right back to the heart of the central conflict that has always plagued this province: the land question. I talked about it in my Bill 44 debate last fall. I raise it again here.

The fact of the matter is that we have, in this province, been running in the opposite direction of the land question. It was a question that was asked by the first elected officials of this place, even before they were elected. It was the recognition that those who set up this province didn’t do the business the way they should have done.

Indeed, a lot of what the official opposition critic was talking about, when it comes to land and all of the details that he outlined very effectively, go back to how this province has been established, how it was set up, the fact that those original members of this government didn’t do the business as the Crown suggested the business should be done.

So we have spent the vast majority of our time in our relations with Indigenous people fighting in courts because this government here doesn’t want to give up the power and authority that it has asserted over the land. And it doesn’t necessarily want to just give up that power and authority to a body that, for the last 175 years, they have been making the claim shouldn’t have any of it or don’t deserve any of it.

It goes right back to the difference in view that many Indigenous people have about how land is held, the relationship to land, a fundamental difference of philosophical opinion about whether you own land as property or whether you belong to the land that you’re from. Certainly, that is a key issue and was a key issue at the heart of the Douglas treaties that were here: the different view about relationship to land.

This colonial government structure that was set up on top of the land base and the business that wasn’t done that the courts have said needed to be done have created that conflict that we’re beginning to work through here in this Legislature. It’s work that I’m very proud of, that I’ve been a part of going back to 2019, as a member who was able to proudly stand when we passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

I think that the reflection on Indigenous leaders standing up and saying, “It’s a step; we’re not done yet,” is also a reflection of the fact that we have many, many, many more steps to go in this journey of reconciliation that we have. The full realization of what the Declaration Act could mean — the right to self-determination, the ability for Indigenous people to self-determine — is something that I think that all British Columbians, everybody here should be excited about because, actually, the laws like the one that we’re discussing today, the changes that are much needed, are exactly the reason why we can have members stand up in this House and talk about the capacity of First Nations people.

[4:00 p.m.]

The laws that limited Indigenous people’s access to land ownership and owning land, the abilities to benefit from our own territorial lands, those restrictions that are in the Indian Act and that, indeed, are in the laws here in British Columbia, the ones that we’re changing with Bill 13, are exactly the reason why the conditions that we have in our communities are the way they are.

Is Bill 13 going to solve the problem, overcome the challenge, be the fuel we need to fix all the ills? No, it’s not.

While we celebrate these changes in Bill 13, it’s important to remind the minister and his colleagues in the cabinet, and all future members of our executive, that the distance that we have yet to travel, the mountain that we have to scale, is still great.

While we celebrate these small changes with big implications, we remind. We’re not there yet. We’re a long way from being where we need to be. I think that that is exactly the role that First Nations leaders need to play.

The debate that happens in this chamber is indicative of the reason why First Nations, Status Indians need to be in this chamber to be able to inform the debate from all of the various sides that we’re going to view the situation from. For too long in this chamber, it has been void of those experiences. The discussion in this chamber has largely been around what the interests of the Crown government are in this debate.

We are now starting to see the voices, even voices that may be in disagreement with each other. Indigenous voices that might be coming from the polar opposite sides of the spectrum are putting their thoughts on the record, informing the debate, talking about things that have never been talked about in this chamber, acknowledging the things that this chamber has done — everything that it could do to ignore and to paper over — and illuminating the entire debate and the entire discussion.

The capacity to own land or the lack of it, in the way that Indigenous communities wanted to own land, is a reflection of the overall capacity.

I get tired of listening about the capacities of First Nations. It’s normally done in the lack thereof. One of those lacks of capacities, up until about 2008, was for an Indian person living on an Indian reserve, with a certificate of possession, to be able to actually get a mortgage. A lot of people don’t know this in British Columbia. This was changed in 2008 for the first time. For the first time in our country, an Indian person on an Indian reserve was able to get a mortgage to build their own home.

I’ve heard a lot in my life about why it is this, or why it is that or how it ended up being that way. When we realize that actually, these seemingly innocuous little laws…. Well, First Nations people, Indian people, can’t get a mortgage to deal with their own houses. So how is it that they’re to get their house, then? Are they to achieve something that virtually nobody else in this country achieves, and that is to have 100 percent of the cost of their home ready for the moment that they’re ready to build their home? Nobody else has that requirement.

The fact of the matter is that when we look at the capacity, and we talk about the capacity, we talk about it through the lens of lacking the capacity.

[4:05 p.m.]

We should track that back to all of the laws and the rules that have been created in these institutions designed to limit the capacity of First Nations people in order to benefit the capacity of the people in this institution.

There have always been two sets of rules. There’s always been a set of rules for Indigenous people and a set of rules for everybody else. That’s true. So while this is not the full-scale breadth and scope of decolonization, it’s these acts that represent singular steps towards a fairer, more just society in which Indigenous people can self-realize and self-determine their future. That’s something that I’m proud to support in this initiative and proud to celebrate as we go forward.

I heard and I get it, because it’s challenging, the reference to the outdated term of “Indians,” just the word “Indian.” It needs to be just said that for as long as we have an Indian Act in Ottawa that’s defining Indian as a thing and an Indian reserve as a thing, there will be Indians and there will be Indian reserves. If we’re uncomfortable about that, then write your Member of Parliament.

That is something that we often apologize for, yet it actually is just a legal thing. There is a legal definition. I’ve got a certificate of Indian status. So if we’re uncomfortable by that, then write your Member of Parliament and get them to do the work of finally tearing down that racist piece of legislation.

I get why people feel uncomfortable saying the word, because there’s so much wrapped up in it, because there’s so much history. There’s so much of the discussion, the debate and the discomfort that we’re having here in this chamber about these issues wrapped up in it as well.

Part of the challenge is that until we decide to turn and face the land conflict question directly, head on…. I think, as was pointed out by the previous member who spoke, that it’s more than just consulting with First Nations people and Indigenous people. It’s consulting with…. These are truly not just benefits for First Nations people. Truly, the discussion benefits everybody who lives in this province if it’s done properly.

Until that happens, then we will continue to see the political advantage that’s taken, that’s always been taken, to point fingers and to divide and to separate. That is what becomes so uncomfortable for me. That is the reason why I respond with so much discomfort when I see the advantage being taken because it’s so easy, because it’s so deeply ingrained in the tropes in our society.

Even this: “How are we possibly going to trust those Indian people with land and money? Those are two things, because they’ve never developed land like we would.” Well, for many First Nations people, they don’t have the same kind of relationship to land that this institution has, and we’ve never stopped to understand that. We’ve never stopped to fully and deeply understand that different relationship.

We’ve just steamrolled right across the whole thing, and we’ve built all sorts of storylines and narratives that we tell ourselves about it to justify our activities, to justify our approaches and to just not stop and look back and understand why it is that there are those differences of opinion and those differences of approaches.

When I look at this change, I think that the consultation, the pace of change that’s been mentioned, the fact that we now start to see the Council of Haida Nation be recognized by this government….

[4:10 p.m.]

What I want to celebrate in this is that some of those old tropes, some of those old ways that government viewed Indigenous people in this province, are being taken down. They’re being dismantled. And this is an indication of that. Work that’s to come is an indication of how that’s being dismantled.

When we reflect back on eight, nine, ten weeks ago, when we were discussing the Land Act, I think that’s an indication to all of us in this chamber that we have a long way to go on how we do this work, on how we approach this work and how we honour the systems in this province that have not done a great job of telling the story of who we are in a truthful way.

We’ve told a certain story about who we are, but we’ve not told the whole story. And people can’t be to blame for that, if the entire story of the history of this province has not been laid out clearly — as clearly as it is for most Indigenous people who have lived on the Indian reserve side of the line, looking out at the world and wondering how it is that that is that way and this is this way.

Very few people have lived on the other side of the line and asked the same question. What they’ve done is fallen into the trap, saying: “There’s a capacity issue over there. Those people have a capacity issue.” Never asking the question why.

This is an example of one of those. Bill 13 is an example of one of those reasons why the capacities are different. The fact that my family couldn’t get a mortgage for their family home, like the people who live right across the road, is another reason why the capacity is different.

I want to just take a moment here to acknowledge that the project of reconciliation, the project of the Declaration Act, is a big one. It’s going to take time. It’s going to happen over multiple governments.

This gives me an opportunity to once again encourage the government, this government and future governments, to use the Aboriginal Affairs Committee so that what we can do is build these projects and have these discussions and honour the spirit of what my colleague from Vancouver-Langara was talking about, which is that we in opposition hear about these things when they’re done and they’re in front of us as an amendment act.

However, there is no harm. There is no harm. In fact, there is only benefit to Indigenous people, to people who live in British Columbia, everybody who lives here in this province, to British Columbians for these conversations and these introductions to these initiatives to be done at a much earlier stage.

Indeed, we look across the province and see parliaments that are established with the very same culture as established this one, using committees very effectively to inform the legislators as they go along, to hear the concerns of the legislators early in the process. To be able to invite First Nations leaders so we don’t have to sit in this House and speculate what they might be thinking…. They can come and speak to us, and we can ask questions, and we can encourage a dialogue and we can get to know each other.

There was much, much more of that in the past on these issues, embracing a much more open dialogue around this.

I really encourage the current government, even in the waning days of this parliament, and the future governments to take advantage of the committee structures that we have, to build positive momentum, to get in front of the conflicts and the challenges in an effective way.

[4:15 p.m.]

It might not be needed for Bill 13. It could be needed for future initiatives that we have coming in front of us. And we can find that, actually, what ends up happening is that the initiative that government has momentum being built around gets completely sidelined because of a failure of communication, a failure of consultation, even a simple miscommunication.

This is a way for us to recognize the fact that the committee structure is a way for us to understand that the project is meaningful and it is long. Indeed, it’s a project that we will walk together forever. And if we can figure out a way to effectively use those structures to invite different voices in to inform the legislators, not just Indigenous people, lawyers, as the member earlier was saying, the business community, property rights organizations…. The B.C. Real Estate Association was mentioned.

I think that this institution can learn a lot, and it can build a positive energy around this, rather than the very disruptive, very divisive, very awful-feeling energy that has been around these issues historically and that if you just scratch the surface, you can find again. I think that that’s the thing that I fear the most: that just scratching the surface can expose some pretty ugly feelings, some pretty ugly beliefs that need to be addressed. We need a positive and productive space to do it in.

I’m going to stop talking about the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. I know that it’s not what we’re here to talk about, but it is, I think, an important opportunity to highlight how we can build positive relations across the diverse political spectrum that is always going to be represented in this House, in order to positively move forward these initiatives and see them through to success.

With that, I appreciate this as part of the dismantling of a system here that was very, very favourable to this House and did not consider the conditions in other governing bodies with any seriousness whatsoever. I appreciate that now First Nations communities, once this bill passes, will have the opportunity to place their land however they choose to own it. It will be similar to anybody else who owns land. I think that that will be welcome.

Whether First Nations communities or Indigenous communities decide to take it or not, it’s an indication that this government and this institution are listening, are understanding that it’s meaningful for First Nations leaderships to have these changes happen and that, indeed, for us to come together around them and be supportive of it, I think, is really critical. That’s the reason why I think that the processes in here and the processes of government really matter.

With that, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

E. Ross: It’s an honour to speak to Bill 13, the Land Title and Property Law Amendment Act, 2024. It has got specifically to relate to First Nations entities acquiring private property title. But listening to the speeches here, and I’ve said this before, it’s like we’re discovering something brand new here in B.C., and it’s going to be earth-shattering, groundbreaking, life-changing for First Nations, when in reality, it’s not.

I really want people just to understand the context of a nuanced piece of legislation like Bill 13 and where it fits in this idea of reconciliation that has been talked about for seven years — since I’ve been here, at least.

[4:20 p.m.]

The problem with this conversation is that you’re acting like it started in 2017. It didn’t. True reconciliation started in 2004. And if members of this Legislative Assembly actually do your homework and read the Haida court case that came out in 2004 and look at the record of the federal government and the provincial government and First Nations that tried to breathe life into that decision and the results of it…. More importantly, the results.

We’re talking about such a technical, legal mechanism right now that only politicians will understand — lawyers, consultants. I can tell you right now that the average Aboriginal suffering under poverty or under addictions or from unemployment doesn’t care.

I’ve heard the comments saying we need more Aboriginals here, from the Indian Act, that understand the history of colonialism. It’s from the Indian Act. Somewhere around here I’ve got an Indian Act status card. It’s probably expired, which is a joke among some…. There it is.

Deputy Speaker: No props, Member.

E. Ross: That’s not a…. That’s a card.

Anyway, I’m a status Indian. I still live on reserve. My parents went to residential school, but everything I’ve said about reconciliation here and the Haida case and the success of my band has been ignored, like none of that ever happened.

Can you imagine a band like mine, one of the poorest in B.C. in 2004, and then started to engage with industry and government, becoming one of the most successful bands, if not the most wealthiest band in B.C., by engaging with LNG development and pipelines and forestry and mining and acquiring property?

Why does this facility not recognize that? Why do you think that you’ve just discovered gold for the first time? You haven’t discovered anything. If anything, you’ve taken us back with this political discussion about UNDRIP and the new definition of reconciliation. It was the courts that defined reconciliation. Politicians have twisted that around. What’s sad about that is that the people that suffered unemployment, 70 to 80 to 90 percent unemployment across Canada, living in poverty, are the ones that have to deal with it.

Come to my community. Look at the low unemployment level. Look at the low welfare list. Look at the fact that there’s no such thing as an alcoholic house party on our reserve anymore. Not because of government programs but because of a very progressive provincial government in 2004 and a very progressive First Nation that said, “We need a better future, and we’ve got to reconcile,” as per the court’s definition. Not the politician’s definition.

The definition of reconciliation meant that Crown title should be reconciled with Aboriginal title. There’s got to be a way to coexist, even if it’s just asserted title. That was accomplished, and it wasn’t just First Nations that benefited. The amount of money that came out of LNG Canada…. The pipeline, the facility and the soon-to-be tankers coming to Kitimat are going to contribute $28 billion to the B.C. coffers. People from all over B.C. and Canada came to be part of that project for employment and contracts.

The way I’m hearing Bill 13 right now is that it’s a cure for everything, and it’s a great step to deconstruct the colonialism here in B.C. and Canada. It’s not. I’m telling you right now: it’s not. That’s false.

Even if you do pass this bill, which you…. It will pass. It’s probably going to get unanimous consent. Everybody’s going to vote in favour of this bill. But to say that you’re going to get rid of a colonial construct? For a First Nation acquiring private land, with or without this bill, they’ll still have to abide by B.C. and federal laws and regulations and taxes and liabilities. So come on. Let’s be realistic here.

[4:25 p.m.]

There’s a lot of talk about the animosity coming out with Aboriginal issues. It wasn’t there in 2004 because of the definition of reconciliation. Because First Nations knew if they were supporting a project like LNG Canada or Chevron, who left town, everybody would benefit. And everybody understood it, because we had meetings. Not only was it just a non-native public, we went up and down the pipeline from Prince George to Kitimat, and we explained to the First Nations and non-First Nations exactly what we were up to.

It was my band that promoted LNG, and it was tough. We had opposition from environmental groups. We had opposition from the NDP. We had opposition from other First Nations, but we stuck to it. We got attacked relentlessly. We were called sellouts, apples. You don’t know what an apple means in Aboriginal lingo. It means red on the outside, white on the inside. But we stuck with it because we felt it was good for First Nations, their poverty and unemployment. It was good for B.C.

So we hear about the animosity. You don’t want the animosity on Aboriginal issues, then be transparent about it. Be accountable. Don’t make decisions in secret. And don’t redact all the information that comes out. Don’t black out information. Be upfront with the public in terms of what you want to do with Aboriginal issues. We’re adults. We can take it. We can understand it. If you’re doing it in the best interest of British Columbians and British Columbia as a province, everybody will come to understand and accept it — if you’re doing it in the best interests of everybody. But if you’re doing the opposite, you’re the one causing a division, you’re the one causing the animosity.

There was a question about whether or not this would resolve some of the land issues. The land question, as it was framed. The land question. Well, that’s part of reconciliation, and there are a lot of different issues regarding land that can’t be explained here in a half-hour speech. There’s no doubt Bill 13 is not going to resolve any of it. Because all you’re asking for is a mechanism for a First Nation to acquire private land. That’s it. That’s all you’re doing. It’s not going to do anything to solve the land question.

The land question was solved in many different arenas. You got the Tsilhqot’in court decision that should have been reconciled, with Crown title, but it wasn’t. You got the treaties — Nisg̱a’a, Tsawwassen — settled, and you got bands like mine that said, “Okay, we’re okay with the system that’s already in place. We’re okay with that.” It’s bringing the objectives of what my band wanted to achieve in the first place. Resolve poverty. Resolve unemployment. Why was that model thrown out? It brought so much success to so many First Nations and so many communities, native and non-native alike, and it made B.C. stronger. Why was that model thrown out in exchange for this chaos?

In my term as chief councillor, without this Bill 13, we acquired 17 pieces of property. Seventeen pieces. Some of this property was Crown land, and there are different definitions of Crown land. There’s Crown land that’s unoccupied, but there are also properties that are owned by the Crown that have a subheading of Crown land. It’s still private property, but it’s owned by the Crown.

The most valuable chunk of property in the town of Kitimat used to house the old hospital site. The B.C. government at the time worked out an agreement with my band to purchase the property. We did that without Bill 13 on a government-to-government relationship. After we acquired it, we said we are going to keep it as private land. We are going to pay taxes. We are going to abide by the laws and regulations of B.C. and Canada. We built a condominium in it, and we leased it out for ten years. We had second and third phases that never got off the ground.

[4:30 p.m.]

But we didn’t need this. In fact, I didn’t even know this was an issue until now. Bill 13. It never stopped us. If there are bands that have this problem, then one of the best things you can do is go ask a successful band. Tsawwassen, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, xʷməθkʷəy̓əm — they’re well versed in acquiring land, whether it be Crown land or private land. It didn’t stop them.

There’s been back and forth conversation about the capacity, or the lack of capacity, from First Nations, and somehow it’s being framed as a negative. Somehow we’ve got to address that.

Well, if there’s ever an example of a First Nations person lacking capacity, you’re looking at him right now. I didn’t even graduate high school. I didn’t have the capacity to do these types of agreements. But I did. How? I did my research. I did my reading. I carried around a digital dictionary to understand exactly what these words meant. I talked to lawyers, consultants. I talked to government people from Canada and B.C. There’s a way to address the capacity. If you don’t have it, get it.

But it’s not a bad thing to say you lack capacity. It can be overcome, especially if you have the right partnerships in the corporate and the political world and the government world. It can be overcome. In fact, if anything, there is so much we did in terms of land, not only in acquiring it, but maintaining and building new relationships with government to ensure that some of the biggest issues with land ownership could be addressed.

You think about this. We had a chunk of land that was going to house a $30 billion LNG project, reserve land. But we had high levels of responsibility that we weren’t ready for. We didn’t want it, and we had high levels of liability.

Bill 13 does not resolve liability. It does not resolve responsibility. The way we resolved it is we signed an agree­ment with B.C. and Canada to say: “B.C., we want you to come on to our land, and we want you to enforce federal and provincial regulations, so the project that gets built and operated for the lifespan of 60 years is done in a safe manner.”

It was called the First Nations commercial and industrial development agreement, the first of its kind in Canada, the most significant tripartite relationship in Canada. Nobody talks about that. Historical documents and partnerships. But somehow Bill 13 is going to supersede that.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Reconciliation. I do agree with one thing. Reconciliation is a work-in-progress. But we’ve come so far. You think about that. We’ve come so far. Fourteen years of my life was spent on reconciling with B.C. and Canada. In my own opinion, everybody benefited — everybody.

Now to come back and talk about how we’re going to start all over now…. We’re going to talk about, maybe, UNDRIP, for example, and how UNDRIP is going to deconstruct the colonialism. Well, we now know that UNDRIP — or DRIPA, for that matter — is only an interpretive aid. It’s not legally enforceable in B.C. The NDP government argued that in court, and they won.

Now, what do you do next? If you want to do something to deconstruct the colonialism that’s happening in B.C., which we’ve already had a good head start on since 2004, Bill 13 is not going to do it.

You could actually look not only at the historical actions of government, from the provincial and federal level over the last 100 years, but look at what you’ve done in the last year or so as well.

[4:35 p.m.]

Bring that to the floor of the Legislature. Doig River and Halfway River are taking the B.C. government to court right now. Forget about your DRIPA. Forget about your UNDRIP. Forget about reconciliation. Doig River First Nation and Halfway River are taking you to court because you took their treaty rights and gave them to Blueberry. It was intentional.

Bill 13 is not going to fix that. Bill 13 is only going to make it easier for a band council or a legal representative of a First Nation to acquire private property. It’s not going to fix the colonialist actions of this government that took rights and title away from two First Nations and gave them to another one.

Doig River, in their petition to the court, said that this NDP government deceived them, misrepresented information, omitted information and brought dishonour to the Crown. That is the biggest colonialist action I’ve seen take place in B.C. in the last 20 years. But that’s all going to be addressed by Bill 13, the Land Title and Property Law Amendment Act, 2024. I really urge people to ease up on the colonialism talk and the rhetoric, because it definitely does not match up to the actions of this government.

I’ve heard a lot about how we help or assist First Nations and how Bill 13 is going to assist them. Like I said, I didn’t even know this was an issue, even though I acquired 17 chunks of property. We actually benefited from the proceeds of acquiring those properties. I didn’t know this was an issue. But if it is going to help First Nations get to a better place, then yes, I agree with it fully, 100 percent.

But can you match that up with the experience of a band like mine, like Haisla, like Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, like xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, who support Woodfibre LNG? Can you match it up with that? If they’re just starting out, and they’re looking for an economic base — and this is what Bill 13 purports to do, to a certain respect — then match it up with good examples of other First Nations that succeeded.

I can tell you what. In Indian country — that was how it was called by one of the members in this Legislature, because it’s under the guise of the Indian Act — it’s not a simple solution, and the problems aren’t simple, either. You’ve got so many overlays. You have the Indian Act. You have the regulations of the Indian Act. You have provincial laws. But there’s a way to get through it.

Yes, I’m one of the ones that said that this is not a very big advancement in terms of reconciliation — Bill 13. A lot of people are not going to relate to this and understand exactly what it means unless you understand the Indian Act, unless you understand what band councils are up against.

When I was chief councillor, it was actually opposed. The idea of acquiring private land was opposed by my people. Why should we buy our own land back? It’s our land. That was a tough argument. At one point, I believed in it too.

The overriding factor for me was that people still weren’t getting out of poverty. They still weren’t determining their own lives by getting a job, so I had to throw away all those politics. I had to put them aside and just say: “For the betterment of the people, for the betterment of our future, for the betterment of our children, we’ve got to think of something different. We’ve got to do something different.”

It’s a huge risk to go against all the political rhetoric, but we’ve got to try something different. It took a long while to convince my council and my people to say: “I’ll take you down a better road, and I’ll kind of guarantee you a better future.”

[4:40 p.m.]

After a couple of years, they agreed. They gave me a shot, and now we’re not looking back. In fact, I’ve said it a number of times that if my kids and grandkids came to a point in their lives when they said they don’t understand what poverty is, they don’t understand what the Indian Act is, and they don’t understand what Aboriginal issues are, then I can say, proudly, that I did my job.

There’s no way future generations should be suffering the way my ancestors did and, to a certain extent, the way I did, unemployed through the ’80s and ’90s. Nobody should go through that. If that becomes a forgotten piece of history, great. That means everybody’s got a job. We’ve addressed poverty, and we’ve truly reconciled.

From 2004 to 2017, that is what happened in true reconciliation, as laid out by the courts.

I don’t know the mechanics of Bill 13 in terms of what the actual changes will be. I don’t know. From a band council perspective…. I was chief councillor for six years, and before that, I was a councillor for eight. I actually toured Osoyoos and looked at their private property, but I still didn’t understand it. But we did it.

The only two things I really, truly understood was that we had to address liability. I think for any landowner, especially if you get into business, you have to address liability. That’s why we hired the lawyers and consultants to figure this out for us. And in certain cases, we worked this out in the lease agreements to make sure that the leaseholder held the majority of the liability.

In terms of reserves, it’s Ottawa that holds the liability. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I know nobody is going to understand this, but my band actually opted into what’s called the land management code. That means the majority of responsibility falls on us as a band; 90 percent of the responsibility lies on us as a band, to manage reserve lands. But 10 percent of that still lies with the federal government, especially in terms of liability. And we agreed with that.

Bill 13 will not really address that. To my understanding, Bill 13 will make it easier for a band to purchase private land, but it won’t address liability and responsibility. So nothing is really going to change for the people on the ground. Maybe the band councils will understand, but I tell you what. This is not the full act. We’ll still have to see the final product after it’s passed unanimously here in the House.

If I’m a chief councillor and I’m looking at this bill, I’m going to try as much as I can to understand it. I’m going to pull out my dictionary. But then I’m going to turn it over to my lawyers. “What does this mean?” This is pretty complicated language. I mean, you’re really talking about….

I’ll give you an example, and I’ll just pick at random: “In addition to the limitations of liability established under sections 294.6 and 303 of this Act, none of the following are, under any circumstances, liable for compensation for loss, damage or deprivation occasioned by an ultra vires or unlawful act of a First Nation: (a) the assurance fund under Part 19.1 of this Act; (b) the assurance fund under Part 20 of this Act; (c) the Land Title and Survey Authority; (d) the minister.”

Yeah, okay. Got it. I think the representative from Vancouver-Langara and the representative from Abbotsford South will understand it. Maybe even the member from Kootenays.

An Hon. Member: That’s stretching it.

E. Ross: Think so? Okay.

The other thing I want to talk about is the idea of reconciliation, meaning both sides have got to come back together and find a way to coexist.

[4:45 p.m.]

We acquired 17 parcels of land during my tenure as chief and council. But we did it for different purposes. We had intentions of setting aside land for commercial purposes, industrial purposes, residential purposes and tourism purposes. It was a cross-section of what we envisioned for the next 50 to 100 years for our people. But each one of those agreements needed a different plan.

I’ll give you an example. The commercial and industrial land that we acquired — I already told you about the First Nations commercial and industrial development agreement we signed with Canada-B.C. so we could establish an economic base. But the other thing we did…. And this is how I view reconciliation. It’s give and take. You want to achieve something for the betterment of society? You’ve got to give up something. You’ve got to meet in the middle somehow. That’s what we did for LNG, forestry, mining.

In one case, what we found out pretty quickly when we acquired private land…. We wanted to lease it out. But the investment community would not invest unless they knew that the laws and regulations we put in place were consistent with B.C. and federal laws.

Now, we didn’t understand this. We didn’t understand why. But you know what? Business likes certainty. That’s what they like. So we had a big discussion about this at our council table, and then we actually agreed on a solution. We would use the B.C. Assessment Authority to basically put a price on the overall land that we owned. Then from that, we’d extract a fair lease payment.

I can go on and on about how complicated the native world is in terms of reconciliation. But it always flowed from one objective: life for First Nations has got to get better. What we tried in the past didn’t work. It’s got to be done in a way where there’s no animosity from any faction of the public. And it was accomplished.

I agree with one thing from a previous member — what they said. We’ve got a lot longer to go in terms of reconciliation. I agree.

You’ve already got a great foundation that was laid out in Kitimat for the LNG pipeline, for the LNG plant, for the forest and range agreements that were signed in 2006, with all the mining agreements, the environmental stewardship agreements; the communication protocol agreements and over 450 agreements signed by the B.C. government and First Nations of 2004 to 2017. That’s a great foundation. Instead of ignoring it, you can build on it.

Bill 13 has a small piece in that. I look forward to understanding more details about the mechanisms of Bill 13.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close the debate?

Hon. M. Rankin: I do.

I want to first of all say thank you to the three members opposite who have spoken on this bill. I appreciate what I believe is support from all of the speakers who participated today. I appreciate that. I look forward to the debate at committee stage.

Perhaps, if I may, I would just say a few comments about some of the points made by, initially, the member for Vancouver-Langara. He talked about the pace of change and seemed to be suggesting that the engagement process was inadequate, in his mind. I just want to say that when he referenced the what-we-heard report, he did not reference the fact that there were over 240 letters sent to First Nations, individuals, government, industry and business. There were six virtual consultation sessions held, and there was a web page created.

Over 100 participants in various consultation sessions weighed in on the bill. It’s been out there for several months now. I just want to indicate that I get buttonholed by lawyers and consultants, the kinds of people that the member for Skeena referenced just a moment ago, who see this as something that is long overdue.

[4:50 p.m.]

An example of it was given yesterday by Hugh Braker of the First Nations Summit, a gentleman from the cat Nation in Port Alberni. He made the point that just recently the Ahousaht Nation, a small nation off the coast of Vancouver Island, wanted to build a housing complex in the municipality of Port Alberni, quite some distance from their community.

They had to go through hoops and pay expenses that no corporation or individual would have had to pay. They wanted to register it in the name of their First Nation. They could not do so. They had to incur expenses and delays that none of them could understand. But that’s the law of British Columbia.

I think it needs to be said that it’s not going to change the world. It’s not, as the member for Skeena said, going to address the very serious social challenges he alluded to — alcoholism, unemployment, and the like — but what it is going to do is to get rid of some of the unnecessary burden that we’ve created for First Nations.

I say “we” advisedly because the federal government is responsible for the Indian Act. It is the federal government that continues, from 1876 to the present day, to wrap First Nations in endless bureaucracy and obstacles that none of the rest of us face. The bill is an inherently racist bill by definition. It deals with a racialized group in a particular way. It has to be addressed. I know that there are steps being taken to make the serious reforms that are necessary.

To the member for Vancouver-Langara, we are working within property and civil rights. We’re dealing with the land title office. We’re confident we can deal with land in British Columbia. Indeed, it was 1874 when the Land Act, the colonial act of the then colony — they had just joined Canada a few years back, in 1871 — was created, which explicitly said that an Indigenous person could not own land. That’s how far we’ve…. To some extent, that says it all about the history.

That, of course, was the law that created homesteading, the pre-emption that occurred when non-Indigenous people were encouraged to come and settle our province and take up land with a section here and a section there. First Nations started to do that, but then the government got wise to them and stopped that right away. That’s the history of the land question that the member for Saanich North and the Islands alluded to and that needs to be addressed.

No, this is not being oversold as something that will change everything, but it is something that will change some things, some things that we think will make the world a little bit better. I want to say to the member for Vancouver-Langara that he makes a very good point about Indigenous governing bodies and First Nations — a distinction, something that we can talk about in the committee stage.

I also want to emphasize something that I think he said, but if there’s any doubt about it, of course this bill continues to enable First Nations, like any other communities, to use trusts, to use development corporations, but now it gives them the choice, so that they don’t have to do that. Currently they have to do that. They have to hire lawyers and consultants, and incur expenses that no other entity, corporation or individual in B.C. would have to do.

That’s meaningful, and that would make a significant difference to some people, and it’s just unacceptable that they would have to continue to do that in any event. It’s not, in the words of the member for Skeena, a cure for everything, nor is it intended to be. It is a small but important step to right an historic wrong.

Mr. Speaker, with that brief summary, I would like to say, at this point, that I need to move second reading at this stage.

Deputy Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 13, Land Title and Property Law Amendment Act, 2024.

Motion approved.

[4:55 p.m.]

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

Bill 13, Land Title and Property Law Amendment Act, 2024, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Bailey: I would like to call continued second reading of Bill 12, please.

Deputy Speaker: That’s Bill 12, Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act.

BILL 12 — PUBLIC HEALTH
ACCOUNTABILITY AND COST
RECOVERY ACT

(continued)

J. Sturdy: I’m pleased to continue on with a couple more minutes of remarks with regard to Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act, an act which, on the surface, promises to safeguard the public and the public purse and to ensure, if there’s wrongdoing of corporations and entities with regard to public health, that they bear the cost of their actions.

While that’s laudable — as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, we’ve seen this in other circumstances, specifically around tobacco and opioids — this legislation is significantly more broad-reaching. That really does create concerns and questions, including: why? What is the urgency at this particular point? Who has been asking for this type of legislation? Why is it coming forward right now?

We can see that there are potential merits to it, and accountability is important, but the way this legislation is structured certainly creates some serious problems. Much of it is around its vagueness, its unclearness, its lack of details. It’s the process whereby this legislation will be brought into effect upon royal assent, despite the fact that it lacks in significant details.

Clearly, as we’ve seen through correspondence and advocacy from a wide range of industries and industry groups, it’s pretty clear that there hasn’t been the consultation that really is needed for this type of legislation. I mentioned earlier the letter of March 28, from a whole raft of different industries and business organizations, expressing concern. Unfortunately, we’ve seen little in the way of response from government, certainly little in the way of comment from members opposite, in response to the concerns that have been brought forward by the business community around the broad scope and the vagueness of this legislation.

As I mentioned briefly earlier, it really seems to me set up, in some respects, to be sorted out in the courts. I don’t think that’s a recommended approach at all. Certainly, it hasn’t been. This government has been advocating other avenues of resolution on other files. Yet this one is so vague as to really not be well understood, certainly not well understood by this side or myself.

While it was largely modelled on the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act and the Opioid Damages Recovery Act, there are critical ways in which this is unique, and I’ll go over a couple of these concerns. I think, principally, the issue is that there is no subject-matter limitation, so Bill 12 can apply, in principle anyway, to any product or service.

Some comments were generated by the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, who mentioned their concern that the legislation is so broad and vague, they say, that they worry grocers could be sued and held accountable for selling processed food, for selling red meat or for selling candy.

[5:00 p.m.]

A quote from Gary Sands, the senior vice-president of public policy and advocacy for the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, is: “What do they expect us, as grocers, to do? Are we supposed to install some sort of scanner that monitors sodium, cholesterol or calories? As people are going through, are we supposed to say: ‘Oh, you’re buying candies or red meat. Oh, that’s a concern.’” It seems extreme, it’s obviously extreme, but it’s not clear that this type of action would be off-limits by government.

Given the proclivity for virtue signalling of this government and the righteousness of this government, and to the desire to make faceless corporations pay, I’m not sure that it’s an unreasonable concern of this sector, amongst many others. Certainly, I think liquor and cannabis would be very much concerned about where this may lead.

But I’ll also remind this House that it’s not just the big, faceless businesses that would be subject to this legislation, but virtually every business in this province. They could be under some risk relative to this broad and ill-defined legislation.

The next area of concern is around the broadened scope of injury. The definition of disease, injury or illness that is suffered can form the basis for government claims and is broadly expressed to include both problematic product use, as well as the mere risk of disease or injury or illness — just the risk of it. What could problematic use include? Again, an extreme example, but skis and mountain bikes, cars, barbecues. I mean, who knows? It’s improbable, or it seems improbable, but certainly not impossible. Every­thing certainly appears to be on the table in this legislation as it is currently drafted.

Then we have to look at the broadened scope of recoverable costs in addition to the health care benefits, which is where the focus was on, or the health care costs associated with opioids or tobacco. In addition, there will be the cost of emergency services. The cost incurred by educational authorities such as schools may be claimed, so the education associated with encouraging people to consider how they use these products. In the same way that we’ve had an anti-smoking type of legislation or education, that type of thing also becomes a liability for these companies.

From there, we go on to the extended limitation period. Bill 12 is unique, relative to a precedent. It establishes a limitation of 15 years, which is quite different to the two-year limitation periods for both tobacco and opioids. Why is this limitation period so much broader — and retroactive, of course? Again, unique, and provides a significant level of uncertainty to business.

Then, of course, there’s the burden of proof. In Bill 12, there’s no requirement for the burden of proof around costs. Bill 12 establishes that a certificate from a cabinet minister regarding the nature and costs of health care benefits is conclusive proof — period. That’s it. It’s over. It’s not challengeable.

It departs from the ordinary rules of evidence, and the court will have essentially no place in determining those costs. They are so ordered to accept the certificate. That is the way it is, and they just have to accept the cost without question or without challenge. Again, a departure from the historical and creating a level of uncertainty that business must accept.

[5:05 p.m.]

From there, the overriding of prior adjudication or settlements. In an action under Bill 12, business or defendants can’t argue that government’s claim has been subject to prior adjudication or settlement. The government can…. Despite the fact that there may have been a settlement, despite the fact that there may have been an action and a settlement as a result of that action, that is no defence. You can be subject to sanction again. Again, this is a departure, and the question is legitimate as to why this type of sort of draconian approach is being considered.

As I mentioned, a large group of B.C. business and industry leaders has raised concerns that this bill will allow the government to take legal action against companies that make or promote or sell goods or services that cause or contribute to disease or illness or injury. The businesses that are affected…. Most businesses in the province don’t feel that they’ve been consulted, that their concerns have not been recognized. Rather, they have been dismissed. I think it’s important for government to pay attention to these concerns, as they represent the concerns of many, if not most, businesses in British Columbia.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, this legislation, I would say, is too broad. It’s too vague. It’s too ill-defined. And it’s too much of an overreach. Government should pause, do the consultation that they didn’t do to this point and try to get the legislation right so it doesn’t create unintended consequences and it doesn’t impede or erode confidence in this province. It doesn’t reduce investment in this province and reduce the number of jobs for the people of this province.

I certainly hope we don’t see that these consequences are the goal, but with the express concerns of many, if not most, businesses in British Columbia going unrecognized and unaddressed, it does make me wonder.

As the member for Skeena mentioned in his earlier comments on Bill 13, businesses like certainty, a comment to which I certainly agree, and this bill does not contribute to that objective.

T. Halford: I want to thank the members that spoke before me on this piece of legislation.

Bill 12. A lot of my comments are going to be very similar to my colleagues that have spoken before, but I think the member for Vancouver-Langara summarized quite adequately what the official opposition’s concerns are with this piece of legislation.

The Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act. I think I understand what the intent is. We’ve seen frameworks before in previous legislation that has attempted to capture some of this, whether that’s tobacco damages, the opioid damages, but I think — well, I know on this one — on Bill 12, that we are seeing a much broader approach to how this is implemented, to how it’s executed, how it’s carried out.

I think we are, with government, hearing some of the major concerns from industry, from business, specifically, on the broadness of Bill 12. I’ll get into that further as I go along in my remarks here. It’s a common theme we hear….

[5:10 p.m.]

We’ll just focus on business for a second and how it relates to Bill 12.

I think the majority of businesses…. They understand they’re not going to agree with everything that government does. Some they will; some they won’t. But astute business people, employers, just everyday people, what they ask for is certainty, right? Where are the goalposts? Where are the goalposts, and I’ll adapt my business that way.

I think part of the challenge on this one…. I’ll read some of the remarks from some of the stakeholders in a second. Some of the challenges here are the government is moving the goalposts in real time on business. It’s not even moving the goalposts. They’re not even sure what game they’re in.

When we talk about some of the…. When we go and we look at, I believe, section 9, we look at, specifically, the broadness that it takes in there. We look at some of the definitions that are in there, and it’s littered with ambiguity.

I think one of the main things is that businesses are saying: “We understand what you’re probably trying to attempt to do, but we’re not sure, because of a lack of consultation, how we adapt.”

For instance, in clause 9, it grants a minister unprecedented power to issue certificates, which can establish the cost of health care benefits. Primarily, this legislation is making cabinet the judge and the jury. I think that that is…. Well, we know that that is something that businesses are grappling with and struggling with, and that is due to a heavy lack of consultation.

We know that this bill targets individuals or corporations — really, any entity that touches on public health issues. It could be grocers. It could be restaurants. What I just said, in terms of clause 9, is that is so broad and potentially overreaching. We are looking at giving the power to encompass costs that could already be incurred.

We see in there quotes like “likely be provided.” What is the definition of that quote in this piece of legislation? When businesses are making cost decisions, where is the certainty on “likely be provided”? Who puts forward the definition of what is likely? What is the definition of likely? Furthermore, on what basis is that defined?

You know, business has it hard enough as it is right now. We all know that. But this potentially, we’re assuming, well-intended piece of legislation is giving more ambiguity and confusion.

The simple solution here is consultation. I think that that’s a theme that we’ve talked about in legislation quite frequently, at least over the last couple of years: lack of consultation.

We look at the expansion of definitions within the bill: “benefit recipient,” “product,” “promote.” Those are very, very broad terms. At the end of the day, we’re now saying cabinet is making the definition of what that means, what costs will be imposed onto business.

[5:15 p.m.]

You look at the length of the correspondence that’s gone to the Premier and the Attorney General, and you look at some of the things they mentioned in here:

“If enacted, the law appears to apply to any product, good, service or by-product product and/or service, which we understand can create liability for almost any business operating in or connected to B.C. Similarly, the bill appears to apply not only to a product or service that may cause or may contribute to disease, injury or illness but also to any product or service that contributes to even the risk of disease, injury or illness without clear criteria for determining these risks or costs.”

The two items I just mentioned that were signed in this piece of correspondence, and I’ll get to that in a second…. That is a significant red flag. When they’re saying there is legislation before the House that is so unclear, that is so potentially restrictive to their businesses…. They’re asking in good faith for the government to do the right thing.

Another one here: “Further, Bill 12 expands the type and scope for costs the government to ‘other expenditures by the government, made directly or through one or more agents, other intermediate bodies or educational authorities, for programs, services, benefits or similar matters associated with disease, injury or illness,’ creating significant risks to all sectors of the economy.”

Next one: “The use of a certificate from a minister of the federal or provincial government as proof of expenditures without conclusive proof of actual risk or harm is alarming and without precedent.”

Now, that is the most significant one.

I go back to my earlier comment that this is giving cabinet the ability to be the judge and the jury. So you can understand…. I think that maybe government is surprised by this piece of correspondence.

It’s signed by COFI, signed by the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, ABLE-BC, British Columbia Hotel Association, Rural Liquor Store Advisory Society, Retail Council of Canada, B.C. Craft Brewers….

Deputy Speaker: Just for the member’s knowledge, the letter has been read into the record, and I don’t want to get too repetitive. But of course, please continue.

T. Halford: So am I not allowed to read into the record a letter that…?

Deputy Speaker: I would just say that in order to protect the time of the House…. Of course, please refer to the letter, but we don’t need to read the whole letter back into the record.

T. Halford: So hold on. Let me just clarify that a second. This letter is specifically titled “Concerns on Scope of Bill 12.” So am I being told by the Speaker that I cannot refer to this letter or read from this letter into my allotted time?

Deputy Speaker: That’s not what I said. I said please feel free to refer, and if you want to touch on parts of the letter, absolutely. It’s just in order to ensure that the House has the time to deal with all legislation, we want to make sure that it doesn’t get overly repetitive.

T. Halford: Okay. Hold on a second here, Mr. Speaker. I want to clarify. I’ve got a clock here that says 19 minutes. Okay, well, apparently, I’m not…. I’m restricted in what I’m able to say.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, the rule on relevance and debate extends to the matter of repetition. Of course, the principle is clear, that repetition of the same letter, and it actually specifically refers to letters here…. It “ruled against the tedious reading of letters even when they were used in support of an argument, the asking of a question….” This refers to specifically the reading of letters.

Please feel free to continue. We just don’t need to read the whole letter, is what I’m saying.

T. Halford: With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I’m going challenge you on that.

Deputy Speaker: There is no challenge to the Chair, Member. You can’t challenge the Chair.

I’m just asking you to reference the letter but not read it word for word for the whole letter.

[5:20 p.m.]

T. Halford: Okay. That’s fine. I’ll put it on record that I’m being referred to not read in correspondence, into the record, that specifically says concerns of scope on Bill 12 that is signed by over a dozen significant organizations in B.C.

I can get if I go off on a tangent here and speak on other items that aren’t related to Bill 12. I am quoting from a piece of correspondence.

Deputy Speaker: If the member….

T. Halford: I’m totally confused by what you’re trying to suggest here.

Deputy Speaker: I would refer you to Standing Order 43.

If the member would like to read that after he has done his speech, he’s welcome to. Irrelevance in a speech would, of course, not be appropriate.

T. Halford: Okay. Just so I’m clear…. Maybe the Speaker can correct me. If the Speaker is saying that this letter is not relevant to Bill 12….

Is that what the Speaker is suggesting?

Deputy Speaker: Okay. I would refer the member to Standing Order 43 after this. Please continue.

I’ve asked the member to feel free to refer to the letter. He can read a small section from the letter, but he doesn’t need to read it word for word, including all the signatories again. That has happened many times in this House already. Thank you.

T. Halford: Okay. Well, let me go through this again. I just shaved off…. He’s talking about taking time. We just wasted five minutes going through this.

Signed by the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, ABLE-BC…. These organizations — whether they’re read in three times, five times or 83 times, I would imagine, is the choice of the person who’s got the allotted time to speak.

When we’re talking about things…. The last point that I was talking about is…. The use of a certificate from a minister of the federal or provincial government as proof of expenditures without conclusive proof of actual risk or harm is alarming and without precedent.

I know that this is somewhat, maybe, humorous for others, but I don’t think this is humorous to the people that signed this letter. It is so broad and reaching that nobody can actually define what’s in this piece of legislation.

Actually, I haven’t seen a letter like this, signed by so many groups, on a particular piece of legislation. I can probably understand why people are coming in here and referring to it. It’s actually pretty alarming.

I understand, when we’re talking about the opioid damages, the tobacco damages and things like that…. These are businesses that are saying: “We don’t have clarity.” These are businesses that are saying: “We don’t understand. Well, we think we may understand what government is trying to accomplish, but they’re putting us at significant risk without being specific or without clear definitions or clear accountability.” That is the thesis of this letter.

This letter is three pages. There are more pages of organizations that have signed it. When we look at some of the concerns that are…. There are more people that are concerned with this than have just signed this letter. I think it’s clear that people are asking for a second thought here and some clarity.

Businesses in British Columbia are under incredible strain right now. Further strain is just making sure that they have no idea where they stand when it comes to provincial legislation. That’s part of the challenge.

When you look at this…. When you look at clause 9 and say…. It grants a minister unprecedented power to issue certificates establishing the cost of health care benefits. What does that mean? Where does that power begin, and where does it end? Is it different in various sectors? Does it change in the forestry sector? Is it different in the restaurant sector? Is it different in the hotel sector?

[5:25 p.m.]

Again, in the letter signed by organizations that cover hundreds of thousands of British Columbian jobs, there are significant concerns. That’s outlined.

We see the challenge in the contrast…. If you are going to want accountability…. If you are asking some of the biggest employers in British Columbia to grant that accountability, then this government needs to be accountable to them as well.

On this, it’s significant clarity on what these definitions are. Like I said, when we talk about issues…. We say, well, it’s “likely.” “Benefit recipient.” “Promote.” “Likely be provided.” What does that mean?

We all benefit from having members of our individual caucuses that have, at one time, practised law, at least on our side, say that this is so broad and sweeping. No wonder government is faced with a letter representing hundreds of thousands of workers saying: “We don’t know what you mean.”

What we do know is that you’re giving cabinet the authority to be the judge and the jury. I think that is why there is such…. This isn’t the first time, right? We’ve had other pieces of legislation before the House that the government has had to pull because they didn’t do the proper work.

I don’t think that this is something that businesses like to sign off on. At the end of the day, what they’re asking for is specific clarity. That’s what they want. They want to know, like I said earlier, where the goalposts are.

Do you want me to adjourn now? So I’ll hold my spot and adjourn….

Deputy Speaker: The member asks to hold his spot and adjourn the debate.

T. Halford moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call the estimates of the Ministry of Health in the main chamber.

[5:30 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 5:32 p.m.

The Chair: Let’s call Committee of Supply, Section B, to order.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $32,710,062,000.

Hon. A. Dix: To members of the House, we’re obviously starting what will be a significant debate in the coming days, the estimates of the Ministry of Health. I’ll try and speak up. We’re in the main House this year, which is a good thing.

I wanted to just start by introducing…. Members of the House will know that we’ll have different staff supporting different areas. The member for Prince George–Valemount has suggested an order which assists us in that task. We want people, also, who are hard at work to be hard at work on other issues while supporting what we’re doing here.

I want to introduce, to my right, Steve Brown, the Deputy Minister of Health, the outstanding Deputy Minister of Health. To my left is Jonathan Dube, who’s the Associate Deputy Minister of Health, who’s in charge of all things financial. Behind me we have Rob Byers, assistant deputy minister; Ross Hayward, the assistant deputy minister, seniors services; Danielle Prpich, the executive director for long-term care and assisted living.

I’m not going to give a long speech at the beginning, which sometimes happens in estimates, because I think I’ll get a lot of chance to say and to respond. We’ll have an opportunity to exchange. I think, principally, these debates are the opportunity for opposition members, members of the House, to ask questions of the government. I would want to start by just acknowledging the exceptional work done everywhere in B.C. by health care workers, by health care professionals, their enormous commitment to their task in some very challenging circumstances.

That includes, of course, doctors and nurses and health sciences professionals and health care workers and ambulance paramedics, people who support them in various functions in the health care system. The people of B.C. have been and are and continue to be enormously and strongly supportive of public health care in our province. I want to start just by expressing my gratitude for people who do that work every day, in the face, of course, of some challenges.

[5:35 p.m.]

We’ve had the COVID-19 public health emergency, the overdose public health emergency. We’ve seen an increase on MSP of 560,000 people in three years. A very significant challenge is an aging population, and we know that we use health services significantly more as we grow older.

In the midst of that, we’ve seen, because of the cooperation in the sector…. I think it’s fair to describe this as unprecedented cooperation between the government and health authorities and doctors, and the government and nurses working together and health sciences professionals and health care workers and ambulance paramedics, in all of those sectors. I think we’ve made some significant changes which will stand the health care system well into the future. These are, in many cases, changes that were long awaited. I’m proud of those changes, not simply because they’re changes that the government provided but they’re changes that I think people have advocated for, for a long time, and that many people came together to work on.

With that, I look forward to the questions, where I think we’re going to start on seniors care. I look forward to the questions of the official opposition Health critic, the member for Prince George–Valemount.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for his comments, and also for the introductions to staff, many of whom I know and have worked with.

I always make sure that in my comments and questions we recognize that this isn’t about critiquing the public service. I know firsthand how extremely hard they work. But it is about a discussion of priorities. It is about how money is being spent, and that’s an important thing for British Columbians to have transparency.

The irony of estimates, for the last two times we’ve undertaken them, is that on the very same day last year we started estimates, and again today I think I called for the minister’s resignation. We’re being consistent in that pattern.

Having said that, we have a long-standing relationship, the minister and I, and we are professional enough to know that this venue is about asking questions.

We obviously see things very differently in some aspects of how the health system is operating, and it’s my job to speak up on behalf of British Columbians. We are going to start today, but in terms of…. We are going to have some conversation about seniors and long-term care, but before we do that, I just want to deal with one topic.

As the minister knows, there will be a variety of things that occur. We will have some MLAs come in specifically to ask questions that they’re passionate and concerned about. I always try to leave some space for that, although the hours are usually constricted, and we have to try to get through a lot of material. There will be some MLAs. I know there’s also allocation for additional parties to come. It will be a very thorough discussion of health issues.

Today I want to understand, from the minister and staff, what has happened with recovery contingency allocations. I want to start with pandemic recovery contingencies for the Ministry of Health. We know that at the end of the pandemic…. And the recovery allocations…. I want to better understand where that money is now.

We know that $875 million, and then an additional $85 million, was allocated under pandemic recovery contingencies for the Ministry of Health to have access to in the previous fiscal plan. I’m wondering if the minister can provide me with a breakdown of how much was allocated. How much was spent per program area?

[5:40 p.m. - 5:45 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: We were just having a debate about what the question was. I guess I should have asked the hon. member. It might be an easier way to go about it in the future.

The $875 million was access to contingencies last year, and $1.011 billion of that has moved into base this year, which is more. That’s the amount that’s moved into base.

I think the member may have specific questions about items in that. Clearly, the most important item in COVID contingencies was overtime and will continue to be overtime. What we’ll try and do, if the member wants to pursue some of the detail of that…. We can have that discussion. We can certainly have that discussion tomorrow. I’ll ask for some more detailed information, but essentially, those are the numbers. I think that’s our understanding of the question.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister, and I will look forward to additional detail.

My concern is this. There was funding provided for very specific reasons in Budget 2023. Some of the things that were to be included under utilizing that fund, for example, were ongoing COVID-19 and influenza vaccination programs, providing PPE for health care workers, transportation access. What I would like….

There are really two questions. Specifically, what did the money get used for? If there’s no access to contingencies in this budget year, how are these services and these other items being paid for?

The question is: is that, then, rolled in to this year’s budget? When we talk about a budget increase, actually the minister and the ministry will be covering additional services out of the budget allocation. So there’s either going to be a reduction somewhere, or the increase is less than has been projected because you are…. The ministry is actually covering a large list of additional services that were covered previously out of this contingency allocation.

I’m going to leave it at that and have the minister, perhaps, indicate that he understands the question that I’m asking, and if he is prepared to come back and specifically outline the funding, where it was allocated and how the transition is taking place to ensure that those services are covered in this year’s budget.

Hon. A. Dix: As noted in the answer to the question, we can go through what the items are, but last year, there was formal access to contingency of $875 million. That’s been rolled into the base, and it makes sense to do that.

[5:50 p.m.]

After a certain period of time, there are some expenditures that are clearly permanent expenditures, including some of the issues around vaccine distribution, but also the rural and remote collaborative, other staffing issues, PPE, and so on. That has been rolled into the base at $1.011 billion this year. The $875 million access to contingency has been replaced, in the base budget of the Ministry of Health, which is obviously useful for budgeting reasons, at $1.011 billion.

S. Bond: I’m assuming, then, that the minister will be able to come back and provide me with a breakdown of exactly how that is going to be allocated. As it was clear after the 2023 fiscal plan, I think, the ministry itself stated that as the pandemic contingencies were set to wind down, it was anticipated that the Ministry of Health would wind down or integrate any services into ministry operations. That’s exactly what I am interested in knowing: what the breakdown is for the previous year and for 2024.

Would the minister be able to provide that? I’ll have a chance to look at it, and then we could pick up some additional questions further along in estimates, if that’s appropriate.

Hon. A. Dix: I’ll do this report at the beginning of the next session. That will give us an opportunity to start it whole. Generally, we try and move through these things and then come back to them as information becomes available, so that there’s more opportunity for questions.

S. Bond: With that, I want to move into a discussion about some important issues related to seniors and long-term care. Obviously, I don’t think the minister and I disagree on the fact that one of our responsibilities is to care for the people who cared for us and built this province and our country. There’s a lot of work to do on that front.

I want to begin with the bilateral agreement that the ministry and the government signed. That bilateral agreement was titled Aging with Dignity funding agreement. It was a substantive amount of money, although, if you look at the budget…. I know the minister relishes reading out that very large number at the end of each of our sessions.

The investment was $733 million, over the next five years. There was a particular purpose, and that was to look at enhancing quality of life for British Columbians as they age — I don’t think any of us would disagree with that — with a focus on improving access to home and community care and raising the standard of long-term-care operations.

Out of the total investment, $295 million has been specifically allocated to support initiatives toward enhancing long-term-care operations. When the bilateral agreement was announced and basically unveiled, the minister expressed the importance of looking at improvements and expansion in long-term care. Despite the very explicit commitment and detailed stipulations that are in the bilateral agreement, there appears to be very little provision for the $295 million in the 2024 budget to improve long-term-care operations. In fact, the budget remains conspicuously silent on initiatives intended to build up and improve quality in long-term care.

What I’d like to begin with, when it comes to that bilateral agreement, is: where is the $295 million? Where are the specific initiatives related to improving long-term-care operations? Are they reflected in the 2024 budget, and if they’re not, why not?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: One of the things that we’ve tried to do in agreements with the federal government — it’s my view and, probably, the member’s as well — is that there needs to be less arguing and more doing. We were the first jurisdiction in Canada to sign a bilateral agreement. The member will know the focus of the first bilateral agreement was on nursing. It was on other things, but it was on nursing, and it has been a catalyst for the work we’re doing with the B.C. Nurses Union, with nurses in B.C., on nurse ratios.

With respect to the $733 million, the bilateral with the federal government was signed on February 12. So the member is quite correct to say that it was outside of the budget process, that it’s incremental to that budget process. I just want to take, maybe in this first question, the House through the details of that agreement. Essentially, a portion of the agreement, $328 million, was a continuation of an existing agreement on home and community care. It included some increases and investments in palliative end-of-life.

On top of that are the investments in long-term care. There’s a list of categories, and that’s incremental. Obviously, having negotiated the ability to address key issues, such as supporting long-term care at home, resources for licensing and quality improvement, and investments in the workforce, which everyone agrees is critical in long-term care — those are the different elements of spending that will be supported by the agreement.

Because we signed the agreement on February 12, it wouldn’t have been included in a budget that was tabled just after that, but these are opportunities to invest in the workforce, in quality improvement, in long-term care at home, and to work with the community around long-term care to ensure that we make these investments well, in addition to the very significant and massive investment that the government is making and has been making in long-term care.

S. Bond: Thank you for that. I appreciate the broad overview, but the minister was very specific in his remarks and approach to the money that was provided, especially the $295 million. It was very much focused on improving long-term-care operations. While it has missed the budget cycle and is not in the printed document, there are expec­tations that money will be utilized starting immediately, one would suggest.

The minister has referenced negotiations. Well, his comments were pretty straightforward. In light of the fact that that is incremental to the budget, what mechanism will the minister and ministry use to outline how, in particular, that $295 million is going to be allocated? What is the reporting mechanism to advocates for long-term-care improvements and to this House? How will we know, between now and the next budget year, how the money is going to be utilized, and specifically for what?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. A. Dix: Maybe I’ll take the member through some of the details, having talked about some of the broad strokes in my first answer.

I think, with respect to reporting and accountability, there are accountabilities in the agreement. I think the member would expect that I try not to be too shy about these things. As new issues and new investments are proposed and announced, everyone will be hearing about those as well. Let me just take the member through some of the descriptions, some of the activities and areas of support that we are putting in place.

[6:00 p.m.]

One is a key area of licensing oversight and infection prevention and control. This is, in this case, talking about support for the long-term-care sector in both identifying and supporting quality improvement priorities that we’ve seen. Examples include clinical quality leads, infection prevention and control, and quality assurance positions to enhance training and support for long-term-care staff to improve the quality and safety of long-term care.

This would include, and in an addition to that, the hiring of four additional licensing officers, which is really important to ensure the quality and support for residents, for staff and for long-term-care providers.

There will be supports for federal funds over two years to support the development and implementation of the interrail reporting system. That includes training and one-time costs associated with implementing the system.

These are important considerations. We can get into them in more detail should the member wish.

We’re also establishing — we’ll be using this; we’ll be talking about this soon — development of a long-term-care-at-home pilot project. This will allow us to support seniors who would prefer, even if they’re eligible for long-term care and in fact assessed for long-term care, to age in their own homes.

We’re looking at actively supporting aging in place, so this long-term-care-at-home service delivery model — again, if the member has more questions, I’d be happy to talk about that as well — is included as one of the issues we’re supporting, the pilot programs we’re supporting with the federal funding in 2024.

This will enable the immediate implementation of long-term care at home in two long-term-care homes, with an ongoing evaluation over the 12 months. One long-term-care home will enrol up to 75 seniors, and the virtual-monitoring program will offer up to four respite beds. A second long-term-care home will enrol up to a further 60 seniors.

The intent of the program and the funds will be expanded over four years to support 2,700 medically complex and frail seniors at home.

We need to continue to invest to support the long-term-care workforce. The House will know the success of the health career access program, which is an integrated learning program designed to increase the supply of health care assistants in B.C. I know that we’ll have an opportunity to discuss that in greater detail.

Starting in 2024, the ministry and the government will use $288 million, the federal funds, to build on the success of these initiatives, to support the stabilization and the recruitment, retention and professional development of a diverse, skilled and engaged workforce, which is, of course, critical in long-term care.

Those are some of the details of the agreement. I apologize for not going through those details in the first answer, but I wanted to give the overview first.

S. Bond: Thanks to the minister. What the minister read from is actually the agreement. It’s annex 4. So that is the general discussion about the allocation of the funds.

What British Columbians need to know, and what we would want to know, is exactly how that money will be allocated. From my perspective, when we’re talking about long-term care, one of the most significant issues is expanding it. We have an absolutely massive challenge all around British Columbia as we try to care for seniors in the most appropriate place possible.

Obviously, I am concerned about an agreement that has $295 million which is designated to improve long-term-care operations. I did hear a list of things that are obviously included in the annex to the agreement. Obviously, we may well have additional questions about that in terms of where it’s going.

I have a question in terms of discussion around the utilization of the money. Was there conversation or consultation with people involved in the long-term-care sector about how to best utilize that money, either during the signing of the agreement process or at least afterward when the agreement had been signed, money has been designated? Did the ministry, the government, actually talk to long-term-care providers about what and how the money might be used?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: I think this was always the case, but one of the things that developed over the pandemic, really from its first days, is the work of the Ministry of Health of our senior services division and their regular meetings with both the major long-term care organizations, the unions in question, and of course, with resident family councils, whose role has been expanded in the coming years. That’s been an issue that we’ve discussed, the member and I, in previous estimates.

I do agree with her that there is a need to invest in more long-term care and that the capital side of the budget, which we may discuss, will be, in our current capital plans, over $3 billion. That compares, of course, to the $17 million that was expensed in the ten years prior to my becoming Minister of Health. I forget what the exact calculation is. I think it’s about 175 to one. We believe in that investment.

It’s not just a direct capital investment by health authority–​owned and –operated, but an increased number of beds that are being provided in a number of health authorities and with our partners, such as Providence Living, in many communities, not the least of which is one of the ones that the hon. member represents. I agree with her that we have to dramatically build out long-term care.

This was an area that was neglected in the past, so we’re building for the current ten years and the ten years before I became Minister of Health in terms of health authority–​owned and –operated long-term care and supporting, especially, our non-profit sector, where there are a lot of aging long-term-care homes.

We do a consistent process of consultation with family councils, long-term-care providers and unions. With respect to the significant amount of the federal funds that are going towards the long-term-care workforce, that’s something that we will be engaging on with the agreement signed with long-term-care operators, with groups such as the hospital employees unions and family councils in the days and weeks to come.

S. Bond: During the course of the minister’s answer, he referenced $288 million and stabilizing the workforce. I’m wondering. The minister doesn’t have to do it at this moment. But the allocation that we’re interested in, for example, is how much is going to go to recruitment, retention and professional development, if there could be a look at that $288 million and what that looks like.

Can the minister just confirm for me that there is also funding in this agreement to deal with hospice and palliative care?

Hon. A. Dix: The funding that was in place in the existing agreement for palliative care…. I think I described the two parts of the agreement. It’s the incremental part, which is largely long-term care. The existing support that was provided in the existing agreement for home and community care includes continuing funding for palliative care. That number — I’ll find it here in the document — is in the fiscal year ’24-25 and onward. That’s four years at $13 million a year.

[6:10 p.m.]

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister.

So $13 million a year times four years. I’m assuming that part of the thinking there is to look at programs like the program the minister has had an opportunity to learn about in Prince George, which is hospice at home or home hospice care. Many people choose to spend the last days of their lives…. They would prefer to be at home.

The work that has been done by Donna Flood and the team at Prince George Hospice is exceptional. People are taking advantage of that opportunity. It is at no cost to them, yet there is no funding for a program of that sort. In fact, most recently the health authority has not agreed to participate in funding a hospice-at-home program. That makes zero sense to me. In fact, you think about quality of life, the ability for people to be cared for in their homes in compassionate ways.

I would simply point out…. We have an agreement that is going to total $52 million over the next four years. I would encourage the minister and the ministry to think about how that’s utilized for palliative and end-of-life care, including innovative programs like hospice at home. It’s very discouraging for people to think outside the box, to think about how they can make those late stages of peoples’ lives more comfortable, less painful. It seems like a winner to me, from all perspectives. There is funding in this agreement to deal with exactly those kinds of things.

Can the minister tell me if that program is being looked at not just in Prince George but in other parts of the province? Would it be eligible for funding out of this envelope?

Hon. A. Dix: The palliative care funding is $13 million a year for four years over the term of the agreement. That’s the continuation of existing funding. That money is already allocated to, for example, support hospice activities around the province.

Obviously, we spend much more than the amount the federal government provides on that and on health services. I mean, one of the challenges….

My new year’s resolution, one of them, was not to speak ill of the federal government in these matters. Just to say that the significant portion of the agreement around home and community care and around palliative care was a continuation. While the federal government likes to add things up, and maybe all governments do, over five or eight or nine years because the number is bigger…. That’s existing funding.

Let me just come back to the question I think the member had. The most recent time we toured together, with Donna Flood, the hospice in Prince George…. The work we’re doing around Hospital at Home has been extremely successful. We’ll have an opportunity, perhaps, to discuss the pilot program later in estimates. I was very impressed by what Donna Flood provided to us.

I wouldn’t expect the money in this agreement, which is an extension and already allocated…. If you were to allo­cate something different, you would be taking away something that exists now.

I would not draw the conclusion that we’re not suppor­tive of that program, which I think would be a very interesting pilot. A good place to start that program would be an organization that has such deep roots in the community and that has thought about it. I was very impressed, in our visit to Prince George, with that work and very impressed by Ms. Flood’s presentation last week, which the member and I both saw at the association luncheon and event.

I would not draw that conclusion at all.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister for his clarification around the ongoing funding.

Yes. I think governments do like to add up the dollars so that the press release sounds a little bit bigger when they’re announced. What I want to make sure we understand is the importance of this agreement and the specific allocations and how it will provide benefit.

I want to give the minister an example of how another jurisdiction has taken a very different approach to their funding. That’s why the federal government signs individual agreements. Jurisdictions have different ap­proaches. I thought this one was quite interesting.

[6:15 p.m.]

In fact, when you look at British Columbia and Alberta — a very different approach to allocating funding with the bilateral agreement. Alberta has been very transparent. It has laid out a plan for funding allocation. One of the things it very specifically did was commit to addressing cost pressures faced by operators in long-term care. Very specifically. British Columbia has not done that.

What happened in Alberta was…. The impact of high interest rates is very challenging for the sector. The government of Alberta agreed to subsidize not-for-profits and private operators with mortgage rates higher than 4 percent in 2023-2024. It is an interest backup program, and it will subsidize the contracted portion of mortgage interest rates above 4 percent for one year at simple interest for operators who are carrying a mortgage on January 1, 2024. So very specific ways to try to help mitigate the devastating costs that many of these operators are facing.

I’m wondering if the minister is prepared to comment on whether or not British Columbia would consider a portion of that funding to be utilized in a similar manner.

Hon. A. Dix: I’ll create some anticipation for that answer. I think there’s some movement that has to take place in the other House.

I’m briefly going to move that the House rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 9 in the Douglas Fir Room and continued debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Health in the main chamber.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

The committee met at 6:20 p.m.

The Chair: I’ll call the Committee of Supply, Section B, to order and recognize the minister.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $32,710,062,000 (continued).

Hon. A. Dix: With respect to the question, I think the member is talking about the bilateral and not the seniors in the agreement with the province of Alberta. This is to say that in our bilateral, we will have a chance, I know, to talk about it in some detail. Our focus was on nursing. You were going to disagree or say that it should be on something else. We thought it should be about nursing.

You’ve seen the impact of focusing that money on an area of real need in the province, I think, that makes that bilateral agreement. A sum of money, of course, is continuing funding, but the incremental money is quite effective. I think the numbers of investment in nursing are something that people in the province would support.

With respect to the long-term-care sector, we didn’t wait for the federal government, during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the government of Alberta did, to provide things like non-wage inflation funding. We ensured that the federal safe long-term-care funding went through, money for infection prevention and control. Importantly, wage levelling — which, in the most recent fiscal year, was $163 million — really allowed the for-profit and not-for-profit long-term-care sector, people who are outside of the HEABC agreement, to continue to recruit there. We also provided incremental overtime and agency staffing and other COVID cost pressures and other supports to the long-term-care sector.

I don’t think there’s any jurisdiction in the country that worked as closely with all of the long-term-care sector, including people that were outside of the public system in some of these areas, to provide supports. The Alberta initiative is an interesting initiative to support long-term care, and we’re certainly looking at ways, in particular, to support the not-for-profit sector, many of whom, care homes, are facing some real facilities challenges.

To give the member a sense of this, there are 90 licensed facilities owned by not-for-profit partners. A full 15 of those opened prior to 1980 and are more than 40 years old. We have discussed the state and the facility condition of health authority–owned long-term care facilities, but that’s another group of facilities that needs support.

I think what other provinces are doing with their bilateral funding is interesting. We put a real focus, in addition, to mental health and addiction and to the importance of data, which was a major federal government initiative and wish in the discussions. We put our major focusing and our bilateral in a nurse ratio proposal and support for nursing that is, I think, leading North America.

R. Parmar: My apologies to the member for Prince George–​Valemount and to the minister, for their riveting debate, but I want to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Parmar: As the member for Surrey-Panorama acknowledged, tonight is the second annual multi-faith Iftar dinner, and the member acknowledged individuals travelling over from the Lower Mainland.

I want to take a brief opportunity to acknowledge folks in the greater Victoria area that will be joining us here in the precinct this evening. MD Rokonozzama, Samia Pushpo, Husin Al Sultan, Khitmia Alassaf, Sultan Al Sultan, Ayman Al Sultan, Abdul Majeed Al Sultan, Amir Al Sultan, Nayef Al Assaf, Khalid Al Assaf, Frasat Chaudhary, Rukhshan Butt, Esam Malik and Monsur Ogungbade.

I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge their presence in the precinct this evening.

[6:25 p.m.]

Debate Continued

S. Bond: We’ll move off the bilateral agreement for now, but I know the minister will come back with some additional details.

I guess I just think it’s important for us to reflect on the fact that when we look at the aging demographic, we are looking at a quarter of British Columbians being 65 years and older by 2036. We have our work cut out for us here. The bilateral agreement was very clear about looking at long-term care, making sure that we are looking at stabilization there and also looking at how we deal with capacity and a variety of other things.

I appreciate the discussion. I need to move on, obviously, if we’re going to cover a large number of topics in the hours we’ve been given. I thank the minister, and I look forward to the follow-up information.

I’d like to move now to the long-term-care funding model, the RFP. Just to remind…. The minister doesn’t need reminding. I know. The ministry talked about and committed to, actually, reforming the funding model for the province’s long-term-care sector. The work is obviously very important if we’re going to have an efficient and sustainable system, especially with an aging demographic. We also know the fiscal pressures that long-term-care facility operators have experienced through COVID and continuing on.

The funding model work has been underway for a long time. I think that’s a fair assessment. Last year I asked the minister for an update. Last year the minister said work on the first phase of the funding model, the direct care funding envelope, would be completed by June 2023; the second phase, the operating expenditures, by spring of 2024; and the remaining work on the capital funding envelope would follow. We have passed June 2023, which would mean, hopefully, the first phase was done. The second phase should be just about complete, if not so.

Could the minister provide me with an update in terms of the progress that has been made and when he expects the entire bundle of work to be completed?

Hon. A. Dix: I appreciate the member’s focus on this issue, which is obviously a significant issue for everyone who lives in long-term care and works in long-term care, all the operators and, of course, our ministry.

Our desire, and our intended outcome of the model, is to be consistent, to be fair, to be equitable and to have a transparent approach to funding in the area. I think often, long-term-care operators are surprised, and I’m frustrated, by different approaches that aren’t perceived as consistent. We discussed this last year, and we made enormous, continuing, fundamental supports for the long-term-care sector during the COVID-19 pandemic. I described that work in answer to the previous question, so I won’t describe it again, except to say that I think it’s been nationally acknowledged.

I want to acknowledge the work of the Hospital Employees Union, of other health care unions, the B.C. Nurses Union and also the B.C. Care Providers, the Denominational Health Association and long-term-care providers in general, in the health authorities, who worked so closely together in that time.

Those very significant investments that took place…. The decision, for example, to move to a single-site model was supported by the decision to support wage levelling. This had, I think, a significant and positive effect. Without it, there would have been extraordinary disruption, especially of the for-profit long-term-care sector and, of course, unfair treatment of workers as well.

The intended outcome is that a request for proposal to support this detailed work was publicly posted on B.C. Bid and was awarded in December 2023 in a competitive process to PricewaterhouseCoopers, a world-class expert across many jurisdictions, including in this area. PricewaterhouseCoopers is supporting the project management of the advisory committee and subcommittees in funding methodology, policy and innovation and accountabilities, in addition to continuing to build out detailed project planning milestones and deliverables.

[6:30 p.m.]

PWC will develop an evidence-informed recommendation on the capital aspect — that’s rent, lease and mortgage to government — informed by policy and supported by subject matter experts. The funding model is being co-developed with key stakeholders — I think this is important because the stakes are very important for everyone involved — and subject matter experts.

Work on the development of the funding model is showing progress on the preliminary funding model per-diem calculator and confirming the project development approach. The long-term-care funding model is an envelope-based funding model with specific funding policy and accountabilities for specific categories of operating expen­ditures — for example, and importantly, direct care — to enable improved oversight and a closer alignment of the ministry’s policy objectives and funding with the service delivery expectations of the sector.

The LTC funding model is targeted to be delivered in three phases: phase 1, direct care funding envelope, to be completed by the end of Q2 2024-25; phase 2, remaining operating expenditure categories, to be completed by fall 2024, along with policy work related to the capital funding envelope; and phase 3, completion of the capital funding envelope, by spring 2025.

Of course, the direct care funding, which is phase 1, represents the largest portion of long-term-care homes funding. The LTC quality framework will inform policy work, including determining staff mix, staffing models, occupancy, accountabilities and integrating innovation.

What we’ve done. We’ve brought in world-leading experts who are involved in extensive consultation with the sector — including, of course, both care homes themselves, their industry associations, including the B.C. Care Providers and Denominational Health, and the Hospital Employees Union, the BCGEU, the BCNU and other interested parties.

S. Bond: Thank you very much for that very fulsome answer.

The key parts of that answer…. Last year when I asked the minister, the answer I got was that the direct care funding envelope would be completed by 2023, and now we’re talking about that being significantly delayed. In fact, the minister is now using dates for other parts of that funding formula review, by spring of 2025.

While that work is underway year after year, there continue to be challenges in the sector that are substantive. That is a significant delay from the timelines that were outlined last year. In fact, the minister has just outlined that B.C. Bid wasn’t even posted until December of 2023, when the direct care funding envelope was supposed to be completed by June of 2023. I think that extension of dates speaks for itself. Here we are again, delayed. We know that the whole process is now delayed.

Let’s talk about the actual funding model itself and what the goals of the funding model are. When this work is being done, I’m assuming that the components of the review include looking at what it costs to run a long-term-care home — for example, the actual and specific cost of what it takes to compensate workers, building operations and supplies, capital costs, inflation, all of the increasing pressures that come with inflation. Here’s a really important factor: increasing complexity of the people who live in long-term care. All of those create additional challenges when it comes to operating.

Can the minister at least assure us that despite the delays, which are significant, in terms of the actual funding model…? I can understand we want to get it right, but we also need to get it done. It was already delayed last year when I asked, and now we’re talking about 2025. As that work is being done, has the framework been created in a way that reflects the true costs of operating a long-term-care facility?

Hon. A. Dix: Especially on direct care, I’ll just say to the member that the work we’ve done with the sector over the last three years, I think everybody would have to acknowledge, is exceptional, compared to any jurisdiction in the country. It’s simply exceptional. It’s not just to the credit of the government; it’s to the credit of the HEU, the B.C. Care Providers, Denominational Health and everyone else.

[6:35 p.m.]

For example, we increased direct care hours — direct care is the most important thing — to achieve the 3.36 hours per resident-day. Members will know that that was the provincial standard set in 2008. When I became Minister of Health, it was 3.11, which is considerably below that. The average outside of health authority–owned and –operated was 3.04. It’s now across the sector at 3.54, which is a remarkable achievement. We set the target. We achieved it in ’21-22, in spite of the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We’ve implemented a refreshed long-term-care financial reporting tool. This helps us in implementation. We developed the long-term-care quality framework. Of course, our mandate commitments have included the development of an approach to single-site wage levelling — which is so important, as we described, and which we implemented during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic; improved accountability for private operators; and employing best practices related to data-informed programs.

I’d add that on inflation and other things, unlike other jurisdictions, we didn’t wait to support our sector. You can see that through the financial supports we provided throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Of course, we would wish that this process be completed sooner, but it’s important that it be done well because the stakes are high for everyone.

In the actions we’ve taken to support long-term-care operators, and most importantly to support residents, the difference between the average of 3.04 in the funding for public beds in private facilities — 3.04 against the current average, which is well over the 3.36 — is, for residents in long-term care, significant every single day. It responded to very specific recommendations of the seniors advocate. These were the changes that have been put in place, which I think are dramatic changes. They’ve been dramatic and successful because of the work done by our partners in the sector itself.

S. Bond: Well, thank you to the minister for the answer.

My questions are simply related to the timelines. It is my job to point out that they are much longer than was indicated last year. It’s not about the cumulative work that the government has done. That matters, but what matters is the timing and progress made on the funding model, at least in this set of questions.

I’m wondering if the minister can tell me whether the provincial quality and accountability framework — we’ve mentioned it previously — has been fully implemented. How has that been aligned with national standards?

Hon. A. Dix: As luck would have it, the quality framework policy directive was communicated to health authorities and to organizations such as B.C. Care Providers yesterday. I’ll be providing a copy to the hon. member for these estimates today.

That work is done. It does align with national standards in key areas, and the policy is effective as of now, as of April 1, 2024. I’ll be happy to share that across the way with the hon. member.

S. Bond: I appreciate the minister doing that. Thank you for that.

[6:40 p.m.]

I’m wondering. A couple of my questions have already been answered throughout the minister’s responses. I’m just going to try to pick out some pieces that I still would like some specific answers on.

When we look at the introduction and utilization of the new financial assessment tool that was put in place, could the minister describe how it has influenced either management or distribution of funds? There’s a new tool. It has been introduced and utilized. How has it actually influenced the management and distribution of funds in the sector?

Hon. A. Dix: You know, we try to keep things going here because I know you like to follow the debate, hon. Chair. You insist on a certain quality, which we’ll assess at the end of the estimates, maybe, when we vote.

There is about 88 percent compliance now, so there are still a few care homes to comply across the province. What it informs is the most important part of the funding formula review, which is direct care. What you see, and what we’re interested in seeing, is the variety of expenditures on different items and how they differ.

I think it’s important that we’re not looking for sort of a central point but trying to understand, if there are anomalies, what they are and why they exist. But it is an enormous and important raw material to developing a funding model that really makes sense and that is fair to everyone and understands what everyone is spending, what everyone needs to spend and the care they need to deliver.

What we see…. You see a lot of commonality, but you also see some…. We’re seeing some difference now, so we need to explore that to make sure we’re making the right decisions. The median, the mean, the average, whatever, may not be the right approach to assessing the costs of given categories of supports and direct care, but that’s the assistance that has been provided so far. I think it’s a useful process, and of course, we’re hoping to get to 100 percent compliance.

S. Bond: I want to go back for a moment to the request for proposal.

My question was going to be: who actually got the contract? But the minister explained that already, PricewaterhouseCoopers.

So I’m wondering if the minister could just articulate for me whether or not there is a terms of reference, a schedule of work, anything related specifically to the contract that was let, and also whether the minister can provide us with the cost of the contract.

Hon. A. Dix: The cost of the contract is up to $1.5 million over two years for the significant work being done.

Their role is really to focus on the modelling. We want the process, obviously, to be guided by the ministry but also by our partners in the sector as well. It’s not a case of them deciding and then it’s them providing us with the raw materials to work with the sector to come to the right decisions. That’s really the role that PricewaterhouseCoopers is playing.

[6:45 p.m.]

S. Bond: Could the minister describe what the reporting-out process is?

Hon. A. Dix: They report monthly to the ministry on each component of the project that has been assigned to them. So they report to us monthly.

S. Bond: Can the minister just remind…. I think he actually referenced this in earlier comments, but could he be explicit about how the work actually aligns with the long-term-care funding model advisory group? How does that relationship work?

Hon. A. Dix: PricewaterhouseCoopers is doing work on various categories of expenditure, especially in terms of the direct funding model and then works on that modelling and then shared with the working group.

Just so that everyone knows who’s involved in the working group, it includes, of course, the Ministry of Health, the Fraser Health Authority, Interior Health, Island Health, Vancouver Coastal Health, Northern Health, Denominational Health, B.C. Care Providers, Elim Christian Care Society, TGC seniors living, Fair Haven Homes Society, the Broadway Pentecostal Care Association and AgeCare health services.

That working group, which is involved in the process, represents a representative group of the sector of care home operators — public, private and not-for-profit.

S. Bond: The actual RFP says that the firm that was chosen will be “required to provide expert advice based on knowledge of the long-term-care sector on approaches to funding specific categories of expenditures informed by policy considerations.”

Can the minister outline for us who the experts are working with the contracted firm? Is there some sense of…? Has that requirement been met?

Hon. A. Dix: PricewaterhouseCoopers has a lot of expertise in this area, including doing modelling work such as this in other countries and other jurisdictions, which is helpful. Part of the reason they would have won the RFP, ultimately, is that expertise that they bring to the table.

We also have, as you can see in the working group, considerable expertise within the Ministry of Health, within the sector and within the health authorities, who all play a significant role on these issues. The reason they were chosen was because they’ve done work in this area. They have expertise in this issue of modelling, and that’s why they were selected. That’s why they won the RFP process in an open bidding process.

It’s that expertise that we’re counting on to provide the modelling on which this considerable working group of expertise will help us develop the model.

[6:50 p.m.]

S. Bond: The RFP also goes on to talk about not just the actual modelling but an implementation phase, that the consulting firm would be required to develop an implementation strategy and support the phased implementation of the funding model.

It’s already been made clear that the timelines are further away than we had hoped or anticipated. Can the minister tell us what the timeline for the implementation strategy would be in terms of completion of the strategy, who will be consulted and what the proposed timeline for a phased implementation would be?

Obviously, I’m sure the minister can understand that as we proceed with this, we do want to get it right, but now we’re talking about a phased implementation — so I’m assuming, meaning not everyone at once.

Could he please walk through the timeline for developing the strategy and then supporting the actual phased implementation?

Hon. A. Dix: I think what’s important about this process — the member, where they ask about consultation because of the stakes involved — is just how much that consultation is embedded in every phase of the process.

We have a working group, and I listed off the members. Just to describe the long-term-care operator representatives: will have a minimum of five years’ experience in the long-term-care sector, with a focus on finance, budgets and funding models; include a large-scale operator with several long-term-care homes; a smaller operator; a not-for-profit operator; a for-profit operator and an operator with a campus of care — you see that in the list that I provided; include an operator from a rural or remote region — that’s important; and represent different geographic regions of the province.

Often we do things, and we come to a decision, then we have a consultation process. This is a consultation process really embedded in the work we’re doing, right?

The purpose of the advisory group is to provide a confidential forum to discuss and inform a new funding model for long-term-care services, including improve oversight and alignment of funding with service delivery expectations; provide us with advice to achieve the key objectives, which I described; and discuss and share strategic approaches for the future delivery of long-term-care services.

It may be the case that it takes longer because we’ve embedded this level of engagement throughout the process, but I think it’s a worthwhile way to engage in a sector that’s organized in this way — the health authorities, the Ministry of Health and then the providers included in that process.

I think I laid out the time frame in answer to the previous question. I could repeat that, but I don’t think I need to.

S. Bond: Perhaps I can just wrap this section. Could the minister just remind me…? I wasn’t sure that included the implementation strategy completion date and the actual beginning of the phased implementation. Would he please be prepared to just give me those dates again?

Hon. A. Dix: I think part of implementation is that we intend to implement direct care hours, not waiting until the end of the process to start the process of implementation. The direct care funding envelope will be first. The delivery is in three phases. The direct care funding envelope, which is the most important, is to be completed by the end of Q2 ’24-25. Then the important, but less important, remaining operating expenditure category is to be completed by fall 2024, along with the policy work, and then the capital funding envelope by spring 2025.

[6:55 p.m.]

The purpose is…. Well, it’s later than we expected. It’s delayed in that sense. We’re proceeding in a direct way. So implementation will be happening and on direct funding hours will be happening, and the sector is involved in the development of the process. There won’t be sort of: “Well, we’re putting this out for consultation afterwards.” We are engaging people in the process, so that we’re ready to proceed.

In this case, they and the other partners in long-term care…. They’re our partners in this, in delivering the service, and they need to be involved in the development of the funding model. Obviously, the responsibility ultimately is the minister’s and ministry and all those things, but we want everyone very much involved in that process.

With that, I move that the House rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:56 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.