Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 15 — Infrastructure Projects Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, and we are on clause 2.

On clause 2 (continued).

Scott McInnis: Welcome, everybody, this afternoon. Thank you to the minister and staff for being here.

I just want to clarify…. I want to take a couple of minutes. You know, we closed off last night, and I just want to clarify a few questions that I brought up and some of the answers that I received to those questions, specifically around the consultation process in drafting Bill 15. I had asked about specifically how many individual nations had been reached out to and then what sort of feedback officially had been brought back to the ministry for that.

I just want to start with picking up where we left off last night with that piece. The minister had referenced, just for some clarification, that there were 29. I thought at the end of last night it said that 29, let’s call them, “invitations” were sent out to nations for response, when in fact my question was about how many pieces of feedback the ministry received in response to that invitation.

I just want to clarify that number 29. Was that, in fact, the number of responses from individual nations that the ministry did receive about clause 2 for Bill 15?

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I really appreciate the member raising this question again, because the numbers that we used yesterday were based on what we had at the time, which turned out to be incomplete. So we’ve assembled a more complete picture now that we can provide in response to the member’s questions.

In addition to the engagements and conversations that occurred with the First Nations Leadership Council staff, invitations were sent out to all 204 First Nations, modern treaty Nations and Métis Nation B.C. as well. We received responses from 36 First Nations, modern treaty Nations.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

That being said, we do have, as the minister indicated, 204 First Nations in British Columbia and responses from 36. I’m going to try and use my grade 7 math here. I think that’s roughly 15 percent or so. Maybe 17 percent of the nations in British Columbia responded.

Did the minister and the staff in the ministry reach out to the other nations that did not respond, just to coax them into providing a response and reminding them of the timely nature of the bill, specifically relating to subclause 2(h), referring to “exercise any other prescribed power”?

It’s really important, I think, that there’s follow-up made with those nations that didn’t have an opportunity to respond. My question is: was there follow-up for those individual nations that did not officially respond to the ministry?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The provincial government engages with First Nations rights and title holders on a large variety and a large number of engagements across government on all matters relating to legislation, regulation, policy development and so forth. It is not uncommon for First Nations to make their own choices about their interests, their needs and on various invitations based on their capacity and the real needs of their community.

That being said, we did provide, even to those nations that we did not receive responses from, links to information sessions so that they could choose to join even if they hadn’t previously responded. We’ve left the invitation for that engagement and those conversations open to this day.

[1:15 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

I just want to break down a little bit more what happened in consultation with specifically clause 2 within the bill, as we’re discussing here today. With clause 2, were nations provided the opportunity to consult and provide feedback as clause 2 was specifically being drafted, or was it more of a general invite for feedback based on perhaps big ideas that the government had around the bill?

My question is around specifics for…. Again, just putting it on the record that clause 2, in part 2 of this bill, is extremely important, as it lays the foundation for the entirety of the bill, setting out what the ministry can and can’t do related to infrastructure projects. Were nations that were invited to provide feedback actually given the language in clause 2, or was it more of a general ask of feedback of the big picture of the minister’s powers, specifically reading to clause 2?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’m requesting a 30-minute recess, please.

The Chair: Very well, Minister. This committee is in recess for the next 30 minutes, which takes us to 1:45.

This committee is now in recess. Thank you so much.

The committee recessed from 1:18 p.m. to 1:46 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, back to order. We are on clause 2.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes, concepts on all aspects of the bill were discussed during conversations.

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Minister, for that.

The minister, in response to the number of nations that were able to respond officially with feedback to the entire bill…. Again, I just want to steer back to clause 2 here, related to general powers and infrastructure projects.

The minister referenced potentially some capacity issues with specific nations in order to have the opportunity to respond, and I understand this. I brought this up in my estimates with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation about capacity with the mineral claims consultation framework and the lack thereof.

I just want to ask the minister if there were any efforts made to provide support in order to facilitate capacity for any nations that perhaps wanted to respond, but they may not have the tools at the time at their disposal to do so.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Our government has provided funding or made funding available to all nations, to respond to invitations to engage on things like legislation, through the Declaration Act engagement fund.

Scott McInnis: Is the funding for those capacity increases coming from the Ministry of Infrastructure?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It’s a whole-of-government fund.

Scott McInnis: Related to Bill 15, clause 2 here, I’d like to ask the minister specifically about that consultation process related to either the Leadership Council or to the 36 nations that officially responded to the ministry.

Was that consultation provided before, during and after the drafting of, specifically, clause 2? Or was it one of those three sections of the process of drafting this bill? I’m just looking for some clarity on what steps along the way nations were provided the opportunity to provide that feedback.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Before.

Scott McInnis: Just to clarify for the record, consultation was provided and engaged upon with the government and nations before the drafting but not during or thereafter.

I just would like some clarity from the minister, please, if possible. The minister referenced that specific nations were provided a link in order to provide their feedback to what now is, I guess, the pre-draft process of clause 2 specifically, related to the general powers that this ministry has.

Was the format of that process in the form of an online survey? If the minister could give us a little bit more information on the specifics of how the format of that consultation process took place with all of those nations, please.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The links that we’re referencing were to live virtual information sessions. In addition to those live virtual information sessions, individual meetings were also provided as requested.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Related to the feedback before the bill and, specifically, clause 2 were drafted, were any edits provided in writing to the ministry? Are we able to have some copies of those edits or amendments to clause 2 that were provided to the ministry?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We did not receive any edits.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

In the process before clause 2 within Bill 15 was drafted, was there a formal invitation on this call for written responses to be provided by those that were in attendance?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The information sessions and the meetings discussed all the concepts that would be in the legislation, and the legislative drafters created the legalese around it, in accordance with those concepts.

We did offer follow-up engagement and additional meetings, basically, at the First Nations’ request, respecting their needs and level of interest and their need to prioritize the concerns and, I guess, the work that their community had. That offer continues to be open.

We did hear from some First Nations, through various levels of drafting, and were able to meet with them at their request.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

For the record, a few moments ago the minister had responded, saying that there was an opportunity — she made that very clear, and I appreciate that — before the draft process, for this engagement. I’m referring specifically to clause 2 here, around the minister’s general powers.

Now that the bill is on the floor, could the minister confirm that there are additional opportunities, as she just referenced, for consultation and potential amendments to the bill?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes. During the development of the bill, prior to drafting, invitations were provided to all 204 First Nations. We received some responses and attendance at the information sessions. We offered, and provided, individual meetings to First Nations as they requested as well. Invitations to discuss and engage continue to be open.

The legislation, as it is drafted, is now before the House. This is the final legislation and, of course, is subject to potential amendments through the process of this debate.

[2:00 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Back to the information session, which was open to all 204 nations around British Columbia. Could the minister please share, on the record, some of the concerns that were raised, specifically around clause 2, or the bill as a whole, by the nations that attended that information session?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: As I noted yesterday, section 2 relates to, basically, the setting up of the ministry and the general functions of the ministry. We did not receive any concerns regarding the general function of the ministry, so nothing related to this section in particular.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that clarification specific to part 2, clause 2 here.

Out of the spirit of open and transparent consultation, there’s an information session that the ministry sets up online, invites all 204 nations to attend that information session. The opportunity to provide feedback is given in that information session.

How long were nations given to respond officially to the pre-draft process around that? During this information session, in order to officially provide feedback and a response to that information session, what was the extent of that time that was provided?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: One of the things I said earlier yesterday is that one of the downsides of this format is that when the opposition asks a very important question, I will turn around and consult on the question, and then I forget part of the question. So if I don’t answer the correct question, please know it is not intentional and I invite the member to ask the question again.

We held four information sessions. These were sessions that we had set up and provided invitations to, and they were in addition to the one-on-one meetings that we held when a nation requested it. Those information sessions occurred in early April, between April 4 and 10.

Scott McInnis: Thank you for your honesty, Minister.

I will ask the question again about following the information sessions. How long were nations given to provide that feedback before specific drafting took place? As we know now, the consultation took part only before the drafting, not during or afterwards. How long of a duration were they given to provide an official response?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Maybe to help illustrate kind of how the engagements went, invitations were sent out to all 204 First Nations. We received responses indicating interest in the legislation and participation at these information sessions or individual meetings. The information sessions presented all concepts of the bill, section 2 and otherwise, and there was a live conversation during the sessions, during which we received their feedback live.

There were conversations about the opportunities for regulatory development and the desire to work together and consult on regulations following legislation. Then following the information sessions, our teams followed up again with those who attended to basically check in. Is there anything else that you need from us? We’ve kept it open since.

Á’a:líya Warbus: In regard to the consultation, which we know is a requirement under the DRIPA Act, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which I’ll just read here for clarification…. “In consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples in B.C., the government must take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the declaration.”

There have been comments coming from all corners of Indigenous country, as we refer to it sometimes, and that would be within British Columbia for sure. The former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould did state: “You don’t make good laws by breaking the law. Bill 15 violates section 3 of DRIPA. You don’t have economic growth by setting the stage for conflict in the courts and on the ground. First Nations, industry and all British Columbians will be the victims of the government’s pursuit of this bad law.”

Another statement I’d like to read is from the vice-chair, UBCIC. Chief Don Tom of W̱JOȽEȽP, which is a community here on the island, said: “We want you to hear from us directly that the Chiefs and leadership on this call” — which just happened this morning — “are unanimously opposed to the bills. We are also in agreement that we will be taking action to ensure that they’re not passed, but if you do manage to force them through, despite our collective opposition, we will be exploring every avenue to kill them. You did not follow your own law and processes. You did not respect our rights, and that has resulted in legislation that is not redeemable in its present form.”

[2:15 p.m.]

When I look at part 2, which outlines the minister’s powers here in Bill 15, in particular section (1)(h), it reads: “Exercise any other prescribed power.” When I read that here in plain language, to me, that gives a wide lane for the minister and this government to, under their law as it’s written, exercise powers.

Now, I’d also like to state that the First Nations Leadership Council, which is comprised of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, have just, as of the conclusion of their meeting this morning with the government, put out a joint press release. Within this, and in regards to Bill 15, they state:

“Currently at committee stage, with only five days left in the legislative calendar, House Leader Mike Farnworth passed a motion on time allocation, meaning that a final vote will be held by 8 p.m. on May 28. First Nations, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, environmental organizations, as well as the B.C. Green Party and the B.C. Conservatives have all spoken out against the bills, both for their hasty and unilateral development and concerned with the sweeping powers the bills would provide the government.”

Last night we had the opportunity to start asking questions of the minister. In response, the minister did provide, in her comments, in her words, that decisions were made more quickly, but they did not impact the standard to which the decisions need to be met.

But to me, the standard is absolutely in violation of DRIPA, section 3, Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in British Columbia, under section 35 protected by the constitution federally. Many court cases that have tied up the time of our courts and the resources of this province were way beyond the pale for what we need. So it makes no sense to me at all why we would be taking this route yet again with Bill 15.

We are about to go into a confidence vote, might I add, on second reading for Bill 14, which they’ve also spoken up against, and that is all of the leadership council. They’ve said that, on behalf of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, Regional Chief Terry Teegee:

“I strongly condemn the B.C. government’s unilateral and regressive approach to Bill 14 and 15. Premier Eby has insisted on hastily making them law, refusing to work with First Nations to amend them and disregarding the necessity of obtaining consent prior to their passing. I cannot overstate the serious setback and harm these actions have on the years of work, the integrity of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the future of reconciliation. We advocate for principled actions that respect First Nations rights and contend that the current measures jeopardize our progress.”

I could read more from the news release and from the letter, but it’s much of the same from leaders all across British Columbia who all signed on. So they are against this. They’ve made that very clear, and that’s as recent as the consultation meeting held this morning.

The UBCIC also put out a statement on X that said: “Kill the bill.”

[2:20 p.m.]

So my question: without any language in regards to the binding requirement for consultation and cooperation at the project designation or approval stage, nor any related consent-based or decision-making process included here, which I don’t see, how can this possibly pass in this House? Will you retract this until it is amended and the proper consultation process and the wishes of all Indigenous leaders across British Columbia are respected?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act is an incredibly important piece of legislation, and it lays out the commitments of government around reconciliation to Indigenous Peoples and First Nations. In order to tie that piece of legislation to all other pieces of legislation without the need to duplicate the language of that legislation in every new piece of legislation, the Interpretation Act was passed.

The Interpretation Act ensures that all laws passed by government must be read and interpreted in a way that ensures alignment with section 35 of the Constitution Act and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. So that applies to this legislation as well as this section and any powers or actions taken by a minister enabled by the section.

Trevor Halford: Just in reference to what’s listed under the minister’s general powers, specifically, “exercise any other prescribed power,” and focusing on consultation for a second….

[2:25 p.m.]

I think it’s fair to say that we’ve got almost…. Chaos would be an understatement right now. We’re here to talk about Bill 15. We have Bill 14 going on just a few feet down the hall right now.

But what we are seeing today — what we saw yesterday, what we saw days before, weeks before — is leaders outside of this House calling on the government to do the right thing.

We heard from the minister last night, directly, that errors were made, mistakes. They believed, and the reason they didn’t do full consultation…. They thought that there was going to be low interest from First Nations.

What we see today is what I believe to be historic push-back from leaders outside this house. The First Nations Leadership Council has put forward a news release on Bills 14 and 15 that I think could set this province back decades.

Even in the minister’s own words…. She said that they’ve gotten this wrong. Errors were made. They thought that First Nations interest in this bill was going to be low. So they didn’t do the proper work.

Yet we are still here, in committee stage, and this government is choosing to bulldoze through.

I don’t know if the minister has had a chance to read the news release that’s been issued by First Nations Leadership Council. To say it’s damning would be an understatement. I’ve never seen anything like this.

Yet here we are. We’re going to push right through. We’re not pushing through. I don’t know if every member of the NDP caucus is going to push through with this minister and this Premier. But this is unprecedented. The lack of consultation that this minister has embarked on, on such an important piece of legislation that they deemed as a confidence vote…. Then they get this, and they’re still going to push through.

What the minister put on the record last night was beyond troubling. But I think it was beyond honest, and I’ll give the minister full credit for that. The fact that they said that they believed that interest from First Nations would be low, so they didn’t do the proper work on consultation…. That, to me, would be reason for us all to be walking out of here right now and giving this government a chance to come back when they can get this bill right. They’re not doing that.

The second thing she said was that errors were made. But they’re going to ignore those errors, and they’re going to push right through, even though every First Nations leader in this province is uniting to say: “Please stop.” They’re choosing not to listen. They’re choosing to put their heads down and push on.

My question to the minister — and it relates to the exercise of any prescribed power in part two — is a simple one. When you see news releases like we’ve just gotten, what is the rationale for this minister, this Premier, to push forward in the face of this opposition from the First Nations Leadership Council?

[2:30 p.m. - 2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to acknowledge that we did not follow the interim approach that our government had agreed on, and that was clearly the error that we had made.

B.C. had called upon us, British Columbians had called upon us, as their government to move more quickly on the critical infrastructure projects that they expected us to deliver. We set out to create the Ministry of Infrastructure, a ministry designed to do that work and to provide the ministry with tools that would enable for projects to move along more quickly. It was an expedited piece of legislation.

We set to work on a shortened consultation timeline. That did not meet the interim approach, absolutely. The member is correct about that. One of the members may have raised it and is correct about that.

We believed that it was possible to move this piece of legislation on the expedited timeline because the legislation simply created the Ministry of Infrastructure and provided tools that were largely procedural to how local and provincial governments reached a decision related to the construction of projects and permitting of projects without actually changing the standard to which those projects would have to be met in order to achieve a positive decision.

When we issued invitations to all 204 First Nations and received the responses back and engaged in those information sessions and that dialogue, what we heard from First Nations at the time we interpreted as reinforcing our belief that given that this is largely enabling legislation, the real consultation work would have to be and rightly be done during regulation.

Given the feedback that we are now receiving from First Nations leaderships, that was clearly an incorrect assumption or assessment. We clearly did not judge the situation correctly. We do remain committed to doing that work on the regulations. We have reinforced that commitment, in particular around the project streamlining tools.

I will note that none of the project streamlining tools are actually in section 2. In relation to section 2, the ministry is currently functioning already with these authorities and powers, except that they are currently being stitched together from other statutes through an order in council.

This section merely brings those elements of those other statutes that are currently stitched by order in council into legislation so that it is more clear and transparent as to what authorities the Ministry of Infrastructure has. These are all authorities that we are currently already operating under but accessed through other statutes.

Trevor Halford: I thank the minister for that answer. Here’s the problem. In the release, it says — and this is from the First Nations Leadership Council: “That interim approach is not optional. It is the provincial government’s own stated commitment to consult and cooperate with Indigenous people when developing laws that may affect their rights.”

[2:40 p.m.]

The minister said words last night, said words in the House today. What we’re going to hear is that these words that exist in Hansard…. I’m reading them back, but ultimately, they’re going to be read back in court at some point, when this province is going to get challenged on every single project. The minister has admitted again and again that they have failed in their duty of consultation.

Doing the consultation after this legislation has passed or, at a minimum, while we’re in committee on this legislation is not good-faith consultation. And the minister is hearing that. My words aren’t that important, but it’s the words that she’s hearing from others that are incredibly important right now.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why this government continues to put on the record their failures to get this right. They’re still saying: “It doesn’t matter. We’re going to press through, but we’ll talk to you after. We’ll do the consultation as we go.”

I gave the analogy of trying to fix an airplane mid-flight. Right now, both engines are on fire…

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: This committee will take a recess while we go to the vote in the main chamber.

Member, thank you for being so patient.

I will see everybody back here as soon as the vote is complete in the main chamber, please.

The committee recessed from 2:42 p.m. to 2:59 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, on clause 2.

[3:00 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: To get back to what we were talking about and the consultation. Just what I would really like to get down to is the minister has probably had a chance to review the release that was put out by the First Nations Leadership Council, so if I can get her response to that, that would be great.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Chair, we’re on section 2 of the legislation.

Interjection.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Trevor Halford: Section 2, when we’re talking about the exercise of any other prescribed powers under the minister’s general powers, I’ve been talking about the minister’s…. We’ve been having a conversation on lack of consultation.

Given the release that we’ve seen today and the angst and the chaos that has now caused, I would like to have the minister’s response on if they have developed a concrete plan that she can table today that mitigates some of the very serious concerns we are seeing in light of this government’s choice to have a lack of consultation when it comes to First Nations engagement.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Sorry. I had to take a moment, because the member referenced section 2(1)(h) and then had a question that I was trying to piece together and tie together to that section.

It may be beneficial to provide greater clarity on section 2(1)(h). Again, section 2 provides general powers for the establishment of the ministry, provides the general authorities under which I will operate as Minister of Infrastructure.

These are all powers that currently exist in other statutes that, upon the creation of the Ministry of Infrastructure, were stitched together by order in council. Order in council is a mechanism that cabinet has at its use, but it is not the equivalent of putting those powers clearly in statute.

Section 2 is about putting those powers clearly laid out in statute. They are powers that we are currently exercising as the Ministry of Infrastructure. Section 2(1)(h), which reads, “exercise any other prescribed power,” statutorily must be read in the context of the preceding list, “prescribed power” being a power or an authority that is assigned to the minister through regulation, which of course is authorized, as I noted earlier, through order in council.

That’s not the member’s specific question, but I’m having difficulty stitching the question together, so I hope the member can rephrase.

Trevor Halford: Sure. Happy to do that. This part right here, part 2, minister’s powers, whether it’s (1) through (h)…. I can keep going, go through the entire bill, but let’s talk about what the minister just referenced there.

We know about 2(h). I can guarantee you that in the news release that I’ve been citing for the last half an hour, as have my colleagues…. The minister has not consulted on any of this part or done properly.

[3:10 p.m.]

If we can talk about the consultation regarding 2, whether it’s (a) through (h)…. I guarantee you the majority of nations, if not all of them, that have signed on to this correspondence have said the minister has not consulted on any piece of this bill. But let’s talk about this one in particular.

My response to the minister on what was just said there, which I’m not…. We’ll leave it at that. But my response to that would be that I can pick any piece of this bill — any page, any clause, any number — because they haven’t been consulted. It doesn’t matter what page. I can pick. Page 19. I can go to page 13. I’m on page 3 right now.

I guarantee you nobody in that meeting this morning or that signed on to that release today is going to say the minister consulted them on…. The minister just talked about 2(h). Did the minister think that they did adequate consultation on the minister’s general powers for infrastructure projects based on the release that the minister has obviously seen over the last hour, yes or no?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: If I may, Chair, my understanding of the concerns that are being raised by First Nations are largely related to the additional tools provided in the legislation around streamlining or, as some have described it, fast-tracking decisions related to the construction of projects rather than the creation of the ministry itself.

That being said, I have answered this question. It’s been canvassed in this committee today quite fulsomely. I can offer no further additions on this section.

Trevor Halford: Okay. That’s fair. I just want clarification from the minister, if possible. So the minister is saying that the correspondence issued today by First Nations leadership has nothing to do with part 2 or saying that they were fully consulted on that part. They’re all good with that. It’s just regarding the streamlining of projects. Is that what the minister just said?

There’s no need to do consultation. They’ve already done consultation. I’m confused on what the minister is saying. The only concerns they have are related to the streamlining of these projects — is that what the minister just stated in the House?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: What I’m acknowledging is that concerns have been raised about other sections of the bill related to this section, which establishes the existence of the ministry and formalizes it in statute. I have answered questions related to consultation throughout the day. I believe I’ve answered it to the greatest extent that I’m able to.

Rob Botterell: I just want to briefly raise a question, and then I’ll, obviously, return the floor to my colleague. This letter that has been received is new information. We canvassed, in some detail, some of the issues related to clause 2 last night. But this is new information. It raises a question around Bill 15 as it relates to clause 2 and as it relates to the bill generally and as it relates to consultation.

The minister’s general powers have been stitched together, and it’s not unusual. In ministries across the government, we don’t typically see the establishment and powers of a particular ministry set out in separate legislation, but here we’ve stitched this together.

[3:15 p.m.]

Really, where we go from here, either on the operation of clause 2 or more generally through the act, is very much dependent on how we’re going to respond to a request from First Nations in British Columbia through their duly authorized organizations following a meeting about whether we’re going to accede to their request to stop this bill in its tracks and do the necessary consultation, whether it’s on clause 2 or other aspects of the bill.

For over 150 years, non-Indigenous people in this province and their government representatives have taken the approach of: “We know what’s best for First Nations. We know what their concerns are. We will make decisions about what’s important and what’s not.”

That is the whole purpose of the Declaration Act: to move beyond that, to move to an approach where we actually respect First Nations in this province, Indigenous People in this province, and respect their requests.

That’s what we’re doing. That’s what reconciliation is all about. It’s not assuming what’s important or not important to a nation or nations in B.C. It’s about respecting what they see as important, and they’ve communicated, all afresh, recently today, very clearly that they need real consultation and they want Bill 15 pulled so that that work can be done.

Yesterday, both in relation to clause 2 and the rest of the act, we heard several reasons why that wasn’t going to be possible. One of them was that: “Well, we can’t really do the work that’s related to figuring out the regulations and other elements of this bill until we have an act.” Well, I can think of lots of examples where ministries are established through stitched-together approaches and they do the work to consult and work with nations to figure out the next step.

Other issues and elements of this bill that require additional consultation we discussed yesterday, including clause 2 and the steps under that and the powers under that. It might take three or four months to actually do that type of work. And that may be optimistic, but the ministry exists. The ministry can do that work. The ministry doesn’t need this act passed to do that work.

There’s a whole another aspect to this, which is yesterday the minister…. It would definitely relate to the exercise of powers under clause 2, whether clause 2 exists or it’s the existing stitched-together regulations with or without Bill 15 in place: the whole issue of consent.

Yesterday the minister said: “You know, we won’t do anything without First Nations’ consent.” Well, I can tell you, as a retired lawyer that worked with First Nations across this province for 25 years, getting the consent for a particular project is not just: “Pick up the phone.” It’s a complex issue, because there are overlapping interests or shared interests amongst nations. So for any particular project that might fall under this act or fall through the exercise of these powers, there is a lot of work to do to figure out which nations you’re needing to have the consent of.

In my riding, 14 nations have Salt Spring Island within their territories. That’s what’s involved in getting consent. So this is not a straightforward process that we go through.

I’m just going to head into a question: what is the reason that the government cannot respect this clear request from nations in this province to pull this bill, do the work and then come back?

[3:20 p.m.]

How will the world end over the next four months if this bill is pulled back and the work is done through a ministry that exists, that has its stitched-together authorities, so that the next time we’re sitting going through a bill, whether it’s in this form or something similar that incorporates First Nations’ concerns….

I have a habit of going on at length, which is part of the problem of having been a lawyer. But as MLA, let me just summarize that very simply for the minister, which is: what is the reason that we can’t pull this bill, as has been respectfully requested by Indigenous people in nations across this province, and take four months to do the work? What is the earth-shattering reason that we can’t do that? I think that’s what First Nations would expect an answer to.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I listened intently to the member’s important comments and believe I understand the intent of the question.

In respecting the fact that we’re on section 2, I should provide greater clarity that section 2 establishes the ministry and the existing authorities. From what I understand of the feedback that we have received from First Nations — important feedback…. That feedback relates to streamlining or fast-tracking tools, which are not enabled in section 2. They are enabled in other sections of the bill.

The member referred to the ability to create regulations without this legislation having been passed. The authority to create regulations is not enabled. There is no authority to create regulations without an act that actually enables the creation of that regulation. Those authorities to create the types of regulation that refer to the tools that move projects along more quickly do not currently exist in other statutes. So section 2 does not enable the creation of those regulations.

Rob Botterell: Let me pause just briefly to thank the minister and her staff for all of the time and effort they’re spending to answer our questions. This is a very important piece of legislation. I don’t want anything in my comments and questioning to, in any way, reflect negatively on the fact that I very much appreciate the time that’s being spent on this bill and all of the work of the staff of the ministry.

I think the discussion is fairly clear, but I’ll just briefly touch on two clarifying points. The first point is that in my question, I wasn’t suggesting that the minister would be able to make regulations without regulation-making power. Obviously, there needs to be legislation to do that.

What I was alluding to very clearly, in response to the clear request from First Nations, was that the ministry is quite able to consult on what the content of potential regulations would be without having a piece of legislation in place. There are numerous examples of consultation processes, exposure bills, various different ways of soliciting and consulting on what would be in the content of legislation before bringing it in. So that, for me, is entirely possible, and it doesn’t prejudge what the process will be.

The second point is that, yes, the minister’s general powers are listed here and summarized. But there’s nothing to prevent the ministry from doing the work over the next four months.

[3:25 p.m.]

What I still don’t understand: is there a school, a hospital, a long-term-care home or a cancer centre that, over the next four months, without this legislation in place, will not get started in a manner that causes irreparable harm to the public of this province?

What is the justification for ignoring a clear request from nations across this province? It’s got to be a project that without it proceeding in the next four months is going to cause irreparable harm. That’s the only thing I can think of.

Once again: what is the specific reason to ignore the request of nations from across this province to pull this bill and do the work and then bring the bill in?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Again, because section 2 refers to the work of our ministry and the type of projects that the Ministry of Infrastructure delivers are schools, hospitals, long-term-care homes, cancer centres and other provincial buildings from which provincial services are delivered, in terms of the….

I recognize that we’re jumping different sections. The format of this debate gets a little bit awkward, sometimes, and I respect that members bring up important questions that don’t always fully fit within a section, although I’m trying to stick to the section.

In terms of the delivery of a project and the kinds of delays that the bill attempts to address, we often use an example — I’m happy to go into a little bit more detail — of a school, an elementary school. The development of an elementary school takes many years, or can take many years, at least more than one.

Very late in the development of this elementary school, the project team discovered that what they thought was just a ditch in the back of the property was not a ditch at all. It actually met the statutory definition of a stream. Because it met the statutory definition of a stream, it required a provincial permit that they had not anticipated requiring previously. If they had anticipated requiring that permit previously, they would have submitted that permit earlier, knowing that the timelines to have a permit seen, under many ministries, can take some time.

So it was later — at that time — that they discovered they required the provincial permit, in which case they put in for the provincial permit. That permit had to wait in line with the rest of the permits. And the entire project was delayed by two years.

What this means for a community, especially a fast-growing community…. When you have a community that is desperate for more elementary school spaces for students, because they’re building housing, and they’re welcoming many new people into the community, and those people and those families have children who are actively growing through crucial stages of development…. It means that a family that has a child who’s five years old, who are looking forward to sending the child to the elementary school when they’re seven — maybe they don’t get into that new elementary school until they’re nine or ten.

For that family to be able to send this child to school within their catchment area opens up all sorts of opportunities. It reduces travel, it reduces congestion on the roads, and it reduces greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the back and forth that parents have. Although those two years might not feel like the end of the world to those of us who are a little bit older, it means a lot to those families with those young children who are going through some of the fastest-developing stages of their lives.

So that is an example of the kind of issues that we have observed in our projects in the past that we would like to overcome. We can describe how some of these tools could have been used in that circumstance.

I will note very clearly that if it is a stream, it does need a permit. It does need to go through the environmental review. It needs to meet certain standards.

But the ability for government to say, “Look at this permit first and don’t let it languish in the pile because we’ve got people waiting on this, and it’s a taxpayer-funded project, and cost escalations are ultimately borne by that taxpayer” — that would have been a really helpful and impactful tool to have at that time.

[3:35 p.m.]

Now, there are many other projects — and I know my critic has experience in construction management — where certain parts of the construction process can only be done during certain times of the year, maybe.

For instance, pouring concrete would be part of a project that our ministry would have. You can only pour concrete during certain seasons of the year because the air has to be a certain temperature as well.

There are projects that have to go into water streams and rightly require permits to go into there because there are fish windows and so forth to hit. The ability to move a project up on the pile so that that project hits that fish window could mean the difference between an entire one-year delay on that project or not.

Fish windows can be weeks long. They rightly need permits. They rightly need to be done properly. The ability to help those projects along and hit those critical windows, even though the initial delay might have seemed like a couple of weeks, it actually could result in a cascading effect that delays a project for years.

General powers of infrastructure in section 2. Those are the types of projects that fall within my ministry. We do not currently have the tools for the kinds of scenarios that I have described. They are not enabled by section 2.

I think that members have so many important questions about these streamlining and fast-tracking tools. I really welcome these questions in the section that they are laid out in so that we can move through the bill.

I don’t enjoy referring their important questions and trying to jam them into a section that’s not actually relevant to the spirit of the question. But I do also have an obligation to respect the process of the Committee of the Whole. We are currently on section 2.

Rob Botterell: I appreciate the minister addressing the question in the context of section 2, and I realize that we may well return to this question in the context of other clauses.

However, the consultation, the lack of consultation, the errors in consultation and the gaps in consultation, if this legislation passes, including clause 2, will result in after-the-fact consultation on various aspects of this legislation and the regulations.

So my question to the minister. You’ve outlined scenarios where you need this legislation passed before consultation is complete. Can you provide a list of the projects that your ministry is aware of that fit the scenarios you’re describing in order for us to understand the urgency of proceeding with this legislation rather than proceeding with the legislation in, say, four months’ time? Do you have a list of the projects where a four-month delay will cause the very issues you’re describing and their location and the status of those projects?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I often try to follow members into the areas of their question, respecting that they’re asking important questions in good faith, but this question is not relevant to section 2.

[3:40 p.m.]

Amelia Boultbee: The member for Saanich North and the Islands is absolutely correct. I think it’s really important that we make it very clear that there are two really big problems that are happening right now, and it is with respect to clause 2.

One, the lack of consultation, which was an error, as the minister has already conceded.

The second problem is with the form and content of the bill itself. Taking a look, specifically, at clause 2(h) “exercise any other prescribed power.” Earlier, the minister, if I understood her correctly, was saying that the Interpretation Act actually operates to somehow save this bill, to infuse UNDRIP into it. However, the Interpretation Act only operates where there is ambiguity. The interpretation of provincial laws must not derogate from section 35 and UNDRIP.

The Interpretation Act is a guide to courts and tribunals when there is an ambiguity. It’s not ambiguous in this case. There are fatal flaws with the bill in terms of its aims of reconciliation, which is not contained in here, and the Interpretation Act does not operate to save it.

So those are the two problems. And I would reiterate what the member for Saanich North and the Islands said, which is that there’s absolutely no urgency that’s been demonstrated by this government, that this has to happen in the next four months.

My question to the minister is…. If I heard her correctly a few minutes ago, I heard her say that this bill creates the ministry. Can she please clarify what she meant by that or correct me if I heard wrong?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’ve actually answered this question several times already.

Scott McInnis: Before I summarize the questions that I’ve been canvassing with the minister previous to my colleagues getting up, just about the process that the ministry undertook with regards to consultation previous to the drafting of this bill, I just wanted to take a bit of a segue for a moment, if I may.

I know the minister and, I believe, the Premier have been busy meeting with school districts across the province to sell the idea of Bill 15 being something that is positive for the development and creation of new school infrastructure in many different respects.

I know after working in the school system for many years that there has been a movement over the last number of years to indigenize education from K to 12. There’s been some really good work and resources put in, especially to Indigenous education student support worker programs. I really truly believe that it’s been extremely helpful for helping students graduate out of grade 12. I’ve seen that with my own two eyes.

My question to the minister is this. Either previously, while meeting with various school districts to sell the idea of Bill 15 and to garner support for it, or for the meeting with, I believe, UBCM, which is happening tomorrow, did the minister or will the minister be communicating to these very important organizations throughout the province, echoing what was stated last night, that there was an error made and, frankly, they did not go through the proper consultation conduits that are required under their legislation and to communicate that they had interpreted that First Nation interest would be low in this consultation process?

I want to know, yes or no, if pieces of that conversation and those sentiments have been shared with school districts and will be shared with UBCM, specifically related to part 2 or any other part of this bill.

[3:45 p.m.]

I appreciate the minister has been very honest with us here today, debating part 2, about several shortcomings as far as the consultation process has been undertaken. Have those sentiments, similar to what was shared last night and repeated here this afternoon, been shared with school districts, and will they be shared with local government?

The Chair: Member, could you please help the Chair understand how this pertains directly to clause 2.

Scott McInnis: Yes, I’m happy to clarify that.

Clause 2, specifically, let’s say subsection (h): “exercise any prescribed power,” which the minister said there was no back-and-forth feedback given by nations. I just want to know what the minister had stated related to clause 2, insofar as the shortcomings in the consultation process, whether that’s been shared with school districts and local governments while they’re on the provincial tour.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We certainly did speak with school districts in the development of Bill 15, including all of the concepts outlined in the bill, including section 2. We engaged with a school district focus group, and we provided technical briefings to all superintendents and board chairs upon tabling of the legislation in this House.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that answer from the minister, but I was hoping for more specifics, you know, not as to the drafting of the legislation.

What I’m referring to…. I’m talking about these recent meetings that the ministry has had with school districts and is about to have with local government, if they will acknowledge, specifically related to clause 2 and the statements that were made last night, that there were errors made, and they believed that interest in consultation regarding this legislation from First Nations would be low.

Have those sentiments been shared recently on the tour with school districts after the legislation has been drafted, and will they be shared with UBCM in the upcoming couple of days?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: School districts and other partners have specific concerns and interests relating to the authorities of this bill. The conversations that we have with them will be specific to their concerns and interests. Certainly, we answer questions, and we answer questions truthfully to the greatest extent possible. But the focus of those engagements is around the potential impacts and their questions related to the bill.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister. I truly believe that the minister does seem like a very honest person. I trust that if those concerns are raised in the coming days, those questions will be answered forthrightly.

I just want to wrap up here on the line of questioning that I’ve had. My colleagues from Surrey–White Rock and Chilliwack–Cultus Lake both relayed some very important information about concerns that have been ongoing for several days now within the First Nations Leadership Council in relation to clause 2 in the bill and additional clauses which we could talk about another time.

It’s no wonder. When we see that 17.6 percent of the First Nations in this province were invited to a Zoom meeting to provide feedback before there was a draft of this legislation, and then now, we see that there is kind of an open-ended discussion happening…. We’re in committee stage here. I don’t see a lot of voices being heard, especially related to clause 2, which, again, sets the table for this bill. It’s extremely important, especially when we’re looking at subsection (h), relating to exercising any other prescribed powers. That’s pretty powerful language.

My question to the minister. There are obviously some shortfalls as far as who has actually participated in the consultation previously to the drafting of this bill, specifically in part 2. I think it’s really important, on the record, that we are made aware of, regarding the 36 nations who attended that Zoom meeting, who they were, in addition to, you know, the one-on-one meetings which were provided and given an opportunity following that. Who actually took them up on that?

I think that’s really important because I think, as we move forward here in some fashion, the ministry has an obligation to reach out to those who weren’t able to participate in the consultation before this was even written on the paper.

[3:55 p.m.]

My question in summary is: who were the nations that were involved in the initial Zoom call, and who did ask for feedback in the one-on-one sessions that were provided by the ministry?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I just want to correct for the record that 100 percent of nations were contacted and invited. The nations that chose to engage with us were as per the numbers that we’ve provided.

I was taking a bit of time with the team behind me about the release of the specific First Nations. We do not typically release which specific First Nations have chosen to, or chosen not to, engage with government. It is their right to choose to respond or to not respond based on the priorities of their community. At the end of the day, this legislation is our responsibility, not theirs.

Kiel Giddens: I think part of the issue is that they probably wouldn’t have noted the depth and breadth of the legislation as a whole. It might not have been that apparent to them. So obviously, that consultation is important.

These concerns weren’t just from First Nations, of course. Government is well aware that local governments have also raised serious concerns. Government knows well that the Union of B.C. Municipalities has raised these concerns publicly.

I’ll quote: “UBCM notes that the process leading to the drafting of the legislation has been rushed and did not include meaningful consultation with UBCM or member local governments. As has been proven in the past, a fast-tracked approach that skips over consultation is more likely to lead to unintended consequences.”

With that in mind, I go to the reason I bring it up in the context of clause 2. I recall that yesterday, when we were going through the definitions, I think the first question I had was actually on “infrastructure project” and that definition — and it’s a very broad definition.

[4:05 p.m.]

It’s defined as all types of projects. “The minister may do the following in relation to infrastructure projects.” Then again, we go back to: “exercise any other prescribed power.” We don’t know exactly what those powers are at this point.

Maybe to start off, just a few questions I would like to ask on behalf of the local governments who’ve raised their concerns: what consultation did happen with UBCM or local governments, if any? If there wasn’t much time for that, then why was it government’s decision not to engage with UBCM or local governments?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’ll repeat a segment of what I had said earlier in debate yesterday, which is that we have a constitutional obligation to protect the integrity and the privilege of the House, which includes the ability for members to be the first to view legislation. Legislation cannot be released or shared outside of the Legislature before it is tabled in the House.

It is an obligation that we have a duty to protect what is sometimes known as parliamentary privilege. But the term that is sometimes used if that is not protected is: “We don’t want to embarrass the House.” That’s the phrase that they use.

In order to engage on the development of legislation and protect parliamentary privilege, we use confidentiality agreements when consulting with stakeholders and partners.

[4:10 p.m.]

UBCM staff are covered under a memorandum of understanding, broadly, that provides for that confidentiality standard to be met. We wanted to engage more broadly with local governments. There was a clear discomfort in….

We wanted to engage more broadly with UBCM executive and move from there, but they communicated that there was discomfort with entering into a confidentiality agreement that would have given them access to the contents and concepts that were being developed as part of the legislation.

Kiel Giddens: I think maybe today we can get into a few questions on helping local governments understand so that they can engage further in some of these discussions.

Maybe a very simple question: does clause 2 enable the minister to have the authority to override municipal bylaws, development plans or zoning requirements?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: No.

The Chair: Members, we’ll take a five-minute break for the minister, and we’ll come back. We’ll return at 4:16. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 4:11 p.m. to 4:21 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Project Act, back to order.

On clause 2 (continued).

Kiel Giddens: We were just discussing clause 2 and trying to understand the powers enabled, and I asked about the ability to override municipal bylaws, development permits or zoning requirements. The minister, I believe, confirmed that wasn’t enabled under here.

But just trying to understand the depth of any other prescribed power. For local governments, I think, it’s not clear how that’s not enabled. So maybe that could be explained.

Also, if the minister would perhaps indulge: if it’s not enabled by clause 2, is there anywhere else in the act where these protections are actually made explicit so that local governments could understand that?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: As I had noted before, under section 2(1)(h), “exercise any other prescribed power,” statutorily, it must be read in context with the preceding list above. In the context of the list above, it wouldn’t enable, for instance, the minister to take on an authority related to something entirely different, outside of the context of the above.

I believe the tool that the member is interested in falls under division 3 of part 4 in the act.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just a follow-up to that. I’m just trying to understand that subsection (h) there, in particular: “…any other prescribed power.” What types of powers are anticipated to be prescribed in that case? Could that be described in more detail so that it’s more clear?

[4:25 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We were just taking a moment to come up with an example and making sure that it made sense in the context of the question.

Generally speaking, all of the authorities that are listed under this list are those authorities that we anticipate are what is required for the ministry to function. The (h) clause, “exercise any other prescribed power,” is a common drafting structure to try to capture any additional powers that might be in line with the rest of the list but not contemplated at the time of drafting.

An example of a potential use of a prescribed power, which is the example…. It’s hypothetical. An example that we came up with is perhaps if the federal government wanted to do a joint project, a student housing project, with the provincial government and, for whatever reason, it was determined that the current authorities don’t quite allow what is required to make that happen. A regulation could be developed to clarify that that is within the scope of powers in the context of (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g).

So it’s kind of a drafting convention or common drafting structure to have that at the end of a list like this.

Kiel Giddens: I think part of the issue that we still have is that, you know, in saying that it’s a common convention, there still is a concern that this could be used for other…. Especially in context of later parts of the bill, too, what’s outlined in clause 2 here could be used for the things that we had said.

We talked about the fact that we couldn’t overrule zoning, for example. But there are other tools that at government’s disposal for powers to do with infrastructure projects. I’ll think of other examples, maybe, in the case that that the minister described. So land expropriation powers, for example, or environmental exemptions or, even further, maybe eminent domain.

Are those things that could be granted under section (h) or under clause 2 as a whole?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: No.

[4:35 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I’m wondering if subsection (h) could allow for retroactive application of some of the powers included here, you know, validating past decisions or things like that or changing things retroactively, especially when it comes to things like the administration of land from one minister to another for acquiring land — things like that. Could that be possible under this clause?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: No, this cannot be used to retroactively do something under this legislation.

I will note, however, that we are currently functioning as a ministry through the OIC, which stitches together authorities. So these kinds of actions and powers are under use right now because we have been granted the authority as a ministry through OIC.

Kiel Giddens: I just want to quote another piece from UBCM: “Local governments may have questions and instances when a decision by the minister to overrule a local government process results in a direct financial impact on the local government. Specifically, will the local government be made whole by the province?”

One of the challenges that we’re seeing here is that local governments are concerned with the durability of their current decisions, whether that is in fact zoning or their own land-use decisions. So I’m wondering if the minister could respond to UBCM in that regard.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Section 2 has no impact on those elements.

Kiel Giddens: I think part of our concern is that, overall, as we’ve talked about the consultation challenges, we talked about local governments raising concerns on consultation as well. It still gives too much of an impression of blank-cheque authority.

We do think that, of course, revoking the bill in its entirety is where our preference as the opposition is, but we do need to find ways to limit the scope of this bill in ways.

With that, I’m going to move an amendment. I can bring that to the table. On clause 2, the amendment would be deleting the text as struck, so it would be deleting subsection (h) entirely: “exercise any other prescribed power.”

[CLAUSE 2, by deleting the text shown as struck:

2 (1)The minister may do the following in relation to infrastructure projects:

(a)establish policies relating to infrastructure projects;

(b)plan and manage infrastructure projects;

(c)make recommendations for the effective coordination and development of infrastructure projects;

(d)make recommendations regarding priorities for infrastructure projects;

(e)acquire land, on behalf of the government or on behalf of a prescribed person or entity, or a prescribed class of persons or entities, by purchase, lease or otherwise, for present or future infrastructure projects;

(f)dispose of land, or make land available, to any prescribed person or entity or prescribed class of persons or entities;

(g)transfer the administration of land to another minister of the government with the consent of that other minister;

(h)exercise any other prescribed power.

(2)With the consent of the minister, another minister of the government who has the administration of land may, for the purposes of this Act, transfer the administration of the land to the minister.]

On the amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. We’ll take a brief recess to review the amendment.

The committee recessed from 4:38 p.m. to 4:43 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, I call the Committee of Supply, Section A back to order.

We are currently considering an amendment on the table. The amendment is to clause 2, and the amendment is in order.

Member for Prince George–Mackenzie, would you like to speak to the amendment?

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to speak to this amendment.

I think, as we’ve heard from some — pretty challenging, and the word “damning” was actually used earlier — in relation to the lack of consultation, and the reaction from First Nations Leadership Council, we have very severe challenges with the scope and the arbitrary nature of the bill in its entirety.

In doing that, this amendment is seeking to limit some of the scope. It’s still way too arbitrary in nature to say that the minister’s powers can be “exercise any other prescribed power.”

[4:45 p.m.]

It’s too open-ended. We need to limit the scope of what the minister’s powers actually are in this case.

If the government was explicit in how it was intending to use all these powers, if it was to list them out, perhaps that would give more comfort to Indigenous communities, to local governments. But we don’t know exactly what they’re doing in this case.

UBCM has raised serious concerns that I’ve just raised in the course of the past 30 minutes or so. We have a lot of work to do on this bill overall. But in the case of this amendment, very simply, it is intended to limit that arbitrary nature.

I spent, already, on Bill 7, 40 hours in committee stage debate on that bill, talking about things that are arbitrary when it came to tariffs and how we respond to them. One of those pieces that I referred to in that case was in a part that was talking about procurement directives. It was the arbitrary nature of procurement directives.

When we’re looking at infrastructure projects, I think…. What other areas is the government planning when they’re using an arbitrary nature of any prescribed power? What things is government trying to do? What kind of procurement are they going to bring into infrastructure projects? Are they going to limit competition and open bidding and those processes?

Those are things that…. We’re trying to find ways to limit the scope of the minister’s powers, because it’s not clear, and we need to bring more clarity to British Columbians. In that, I’m asking members of the chamber to vote for this amendment to limit the scope of clause 2.

Amelia Boultbee: I’m speaking in support of this amendment.

The reason is very simple. Without the amendment, including clause (h), “exercise any other prescribed power”…. What that does is give the government the ability, as the minister has said, to go and flesh out further powers through regulation.

Regulations do not have the scrutiny of the House, a debate or a vote. They’re done unilaterally by the government.

Already contained in clause 2 are seven pretty sweeping powers that are clearly enumerated. It’s our position that all the powers the government could need are already contained in (a) through (g) — anything they could possibly need under this bill. The only reason to have such a wide power granted with no oversight in (h) is simply a lack of transparency. Taking the minister and the government at face value, that that’s not their intention, this should be an easy amendment to agree to.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’ve already explained that section (2)(1)(h), “exercise any other prescribed power,” is limited within the context of the preceding list under section 2(1). It is a common drafting structure. It exists in other statutes.

It means that (h), “exercise any other prescribed power,” can only be those powers in the context of establishing policies related to infrastructure projects; planning and managing infrastructure projects; making recommendations for the effective coordination and development of infrastructure projects; making recommendations regarding priorities for infrastructure projects; acquiring land, on behalf of the government or on behalf of a prescribed person or entity, or a prescribed class of persons or entities, by purchase, lease or otherwise, for present and future infrastructure projects; disposing of land, or making land available, to any prescribed person or entity or prescribed class of persons or entities; and transferring the administration of land to another minister of the government with the consent of that other minister.

So (h) is limited in that context.

All of the concerns and questions that have been raised by the member sponsoring this amendment have been answered and addressed. We have responded no to each one.

[4:50 p.m.]

The consequence of removing this sentence is that as a ministry, we would be unable to respond to and seize opportunities that arise — such as the example I provided earlier, where an opportunity might arise to jointly partner with the federal government on a project through a structure that perhaps they have designed and that, for whatever reason, maybe isn’t fully enabled by the other clauses.

It is our view that this amendment is not justified, and we will not be supporting it.

[4:55 p.m.]

The Chair: The question is the amendment to clause 2. Members, before I put the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A, or their duly appointed substitutes, are authorized to vote. The question is the amendment to clause 2.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6
Kooner	Dew	Boultbee
Mok	Williams	Valeriote
NAYS — 6
Toporowski	Kang	Lajeunesse
Choi	Routledge	Ma

[5:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. In accordance with recognized parliamentary customs, the Chair votes against the amendment, to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted at second reading.

Kiel Giddens: We’ll continue moving.

The Chair: Member, we’ll just take one second to get the staff back in. Thank you.

Kiel Giddens: Moving forward, post-amendment, let’s continue our discussion just to provide more clarity for local governments here.

Another question on behalf of local governments: how will municipalities or local governments be informed and consulted before the minister exercises powers that affect their jurisdiction under the minister’s general powers?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Section 2 is only about matters within provincial jurisdiction.

Kiel Giddens: Matters under provincial jurisdiction. I’m just trying to understand how…. Obviously, things like the Community Charter and Local Government Act are…. Local governments are a creation of acts of the province. I’m just trying to understand how that mechanically would work that it only applies….

How would government kind of reconcile the local government’s legal ability that this one wouldn’t impact any of their given powers under the Community Charter or Local Government Act?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Section 2 makes no changes to any matters related to the Local Government Act.

Kiel Giddens: Just in the case of a local government who perhaps disagrees with an infrastructure project that’s being carried out by the province, under clause 2, the powers there, what recourse would be available to local governments if they disagree with a ministerial decision? Would they have any appeals process or anything like that?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Section 2 makes no changes to that from the current process either. So whatever authorities and powers, duties afforded to local governments within the Local Government Act continue.

Kiel Giddens: Just in following up to that, UBCM had specified specifically financial risks that they were concerned with. They also talked about wondering whether the province would assume liability if decisions were taken on that they disagreed with. For example, if there were decisions that negatively impacted their increased demands on water and wastewater, policing, things like that, and they disagreed, what would be their recourse for that decision and what would be their financial recourse in that case?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: If I may, I believe the member is referring to a tool that is outlined under division 3 of part 4.

Kiel Giddens: We’ll get to that question, I guess, in that later piece of it. But what explicitly…? Where in the minister’s general powers does it preclude that from occurring? I just want to understand exactly how the clause works in practice in that case.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Section 2 is related to the minister’s power and the function of the ministry as it relates to provincial matters. So it does not relate to local government matters.

Clause 2 approved on division.

On clause 3.

Kiel Giddens: All right, moving along here to clause 3.

To start off before the end of the day here and we’ll probably carry it forward next week: can the minister confirm whether the powers in clause 3 enable the province to directly deliver infrastructure projects traditionally handled by local governments or other entities?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Welcome to section 3. Looking forward to it.

Section 3 does not grant the minister power to act as a general contractor for local governments. It does, however, grant the authority to act as a general contractor on behalf of school districts, post-secondary institutions, or health authorities.

Kiel Giddens: Following up to that question, what would be the policy rationale in that case, for the entities described, enabling the minister to act as the project proponent, funder, operator and decommissioner all in one clause?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I was wondering if the member might be able to rephrase his question. Is the question around the structure of the specific clause? Some clarity would be helpful.

Kiel Giddens: In looking at (a) through (d) under clause 3, the minister’s powers, it gives a pretty broad range for the minister’s ability to act as the project general contractor. The steps that I had named were all things the general contractor would actually be using. So what’s the policy rationale for including (a) through (d) in one clause like this?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Clause 3 effectively allows for the ministry to become directly involved in the life cycle of a construction project. As it stands right now, if a school district is struggling to deliver a construction project, the ministry doesn’t actually have the authority to step in and support them in that. They would have to fully deliver the project within their own entities.

Same with a post-secondary institution or a health authority, although I will say that the latter two, particularly health authorities, tend to have their own capital teams very adept at delivering construction projects.

But there have been cases where we have a school district that perhaps hasn’t delivered a project in many years, perhaps decades, and doesn’t have a capital team on staff. They have perhaps experienced recent growth in the population and have submitted their capital plan, which is a five-year capital plan, for the projects that they need over the next several years.

Government has seen fit, following extensive assessment across the province, to grant them funding for the delivery of a school. In some cases, that school district will have this funding and not quite have the experience, the expertise or the staff on hand to actually deliver the project. We have had this happen. We actually know of a school district right now whose superintendent is actually acting as the project manager for the school.

This authority would allow, in those such cases, for the ministry to actually come in and support them in delivering the school. When we’re talking about the delivery of a school or a project, we could also become involved on a partial basis as well. We’ve heard, from many such entities that I’ve listed previously, a lot of enthusiasm for the opportunities that that might provide.

[5:15 p.m.]

For instance, in terms of modular classrooms, we have a significant amount of funding for modular classrooms. Right now, each individual school district must carry out their own procurement process. It is not possible for them to coordinate a procurement process. It is not possible for government to take that on for them.

But with these authorities under section 3, government will be able to take advantage of the benefits that come from economies of scale and potentially put out a procurement for modular classrooms on behalf of multiple school districts, achieving a lower cost per project or lower cost per classroom than those individual school districts would be able to achieve with their own individual projects.

The same could be said about multiple parts that are similar across multiple projects or multiple entities. The ministry could actually coordinate, centrally, a mass procurement process. Those are the sorts of actions that we have heard from our delivery partners — school districts, post-secondary institutions and health authorities — that they would like government to become more involved in but that we do not currently have the authority to do.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:16 p.m.