Susie Chant

BC NDP

10/21/2025

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Members, I’m calling Committee of the Whole on Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, back to order, and we are on clause 4.

26 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

10/21/2025

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Good afternoon, Members. I am calling the Committee of the Whole on Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

21 words

Mable Elmore

BC NDP

10/21/2025

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Hon. Members, the motion for third reading of Bill 27, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, is carried, and the bill has been passed.

26 words

Mable Elmore

BC NDP

10/21/2025

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

The question is third reading of Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

15 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

10/21/2025

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Section A reports Bill 27 complete without amendment.

8 words

Mable Elmore

BC NDP

10/20/2025

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Okay, I call the House back to order here. Just a reminder, we are considering second reading of Bill 27. Seeing that we have no further speakers, I’ll put the question. The question is second reading of Bill 27, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

47 words

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Thanks to the minister on his statement and his remarks about working together. With the intent of this bill…. A lot of it is housekeeping. I think everyone on this side appreciates that. But there are a couple of points that I would like to raise through this process, because there’s still a lot of skepticism. There are still a lot of things that we need to be able to discuss, particularly when we get into committee and are able to specifically ask for some more definitions in some of the language that’s in this bill. Today I rise to address Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025. While this government frames this as an administrative housekeeping adjustment to improve governance and streamline processes, a closer examination reveals that this bill could carry significant negative consequences for the people of B.C. From our B.C. Conservative perspective, these consequences are profound. They can undermine transparency, they can weaken local autonomy, and they can expand government discretion and erode public trust in democratic institutions. The heart of the concern raises a fundamental question. Who holds the power in British Columbia? Is it the people, acting through their elected representatives at the local level, or is it the provincial bureaucracy in the cabinet operating with limited oversight? Again, that’s why some of us on this side are still skeptical of some of the mechanisms that are being requested in this bill. It’s because we’ve seen in the past that accountability and transparency aren’t the cornerstone of this government. When we look at clauses 4 and 6…. Parts of it deal with closed meetings. We’ve already talked at length today about the significance of closed meetings. I was a mayor. I was on the regional district board. I understand the need for confidentiality and the need for legal responsibilities in closed meetings. But it doesn’t mean that we need to expand closed meetings. Those closed meetings have a very vague definition of what the requirement of a closed meeting is. Today it’s very specific in what you can and can’t have in a closed meeting. As soon as we start talking about engaging with our Indigenous partners, all of a sudden now there seems to be this cloak of secrecy, because, as one member across the aisle said, it was all about protecting repatriation of a burial site and the location of such. That has nothing to do with what we’re talking about in here about closed meetings. Of course, we’re going to want to protect culturally specific locations for First Nations. Of course, we’re going to protect sensitive information, particularly when it comes to legal responsibilities. But just to have an open book on being able to have closed meetings…. We, I, totally disagree with being able to have a blank cheque when it comes to closed meetings. Let’s be clear. Discretion without definition is a dangerous power. Councils could intentionally or unintentionally invoke these exemptions to avoid public scrutiny, delaying or withholding information on issues that affect their constituents directly. In practical terms, this could mean that decisions on local development, infrastructure, land use or financial matters could be taken entirely behind closed doors. That is not what the charter is set up to do. That is not what the people in this chamber are set up to do. And it certainly isn’t what our municipalities are meant to do. Transparency is not optional. It’s a cornerstone of democracy. Citizens must have the right to observe, question and influence their local governments. When discretionists hold private meetings expanded without clear guidelines, public accountability is compromised. Closed meetings in this context become a tool of government secrecy rather than a protection for legitimate confidentiality. Conservatives believe that default must always be openness, with exceptions narrowly and clearly defined. Now, when we talked about the section about centralization of land and education, there was a comment made about expropriation and that it should be a last resort. I think everybody in this House understands the significance of expropriation and also of compensation and consultation throughout any of the processes that are going on in this province. Property owners in particular, as we’ve heard, also are facing uncertainty. The ability of authorities to expropriate land with limited local oversight raises questions about fairness and due process. Without clear protections and a robust consultation process, citizens may feel powerless, fostering resentment and diminishing trust in government institutions. There’s also an erosion of the democratic oversight because it limits the opportunities for the public’s participation in intergovernment decisions, particularly in discussions with Indigenous governments, the provincial administration and other agencies. While some degree of confidentiality is necessary in negotiations, of course, Bill 27’s broad language risks making secrecy the rule rather than the exception. Citizens should not be excluded from debates on matters that affect their schools, lands or their municipal services. We need to be able to have our citizens to observe, to question and to participate in all these decisions. Anything less diminishes our democracy. I know the minister was mentioning about 2017 and some of the acts that were coming into play. I would offer up that there have been some significant changes in the way we do business in this province since 2017. This government has signed more NDAs in the last eight years than any government previously. Just think about that for a second. We’ve signed more non-disclosure agreements in the last eight years than ever before. I would suggest the only reason for that is because there is a lack of consultation, accountability, and there is a lack of transparency. Another one that comes up is a failure to address our local community needs. Issues such as wildfire management, school funding, infrastructure development and Indigenous relationships require practical solutions, investment and collaboration. Adjusting the governance procedures or expanding secrecy does not solve these problems. B.C. Conservatives argue that legislation should focus on real-world improvements, supporting communities and citizens directly, rather than restructuring powers or restricting oversight. Yes, the B.C. Conservatives do support the spirit of this bill. However, we need to point out that all British Columbians deserve equal representation and an open and transparent government. Public engagement and open meetings are a cornerstone of our democracy. Having vague definitions on what constitutes a closed meeting is not the way for open and transparent government. It’s a mechanism to work in the shadows and not with the public’s best interests in mind. With that, I yield. I would like to call for a recess. Can I call for five minutes or two minutes?

1104 words

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

I appreciate the opportunity to stand here and address Bill 27. I think we’re getting close to maybe having enough understanding. It’s a fairly transparent bill in some respects here. It’s fairly simplistic. On its surface, this bill addresses particular concerns, especially around the land acquisition for schools, equity for francophone education authorities and tools for municipalities to work more effectively with Indigenous governments. These goals are legitimate and, in many respects, probably well overdue, like a lot of business in the House. But this House must carefully weigh not just what this bill enables but how it might be used or misused down the line. Let’s begin with what this bill has to offer. First, it does grant the Conseil scolaire francophone the same power that other schools’ boards already hold, namely the authority to expropriate land when needed. That’s just a fairness and equity position here that this bill is clarifying and rectifying. That is a matter of fairness. Parents choosing to educate their children in French and English shouldn’t have to be classified as second-class citizens because their schools are unable to get the land they need for expansion and for growth. It’s good to give them the tools that they need. Second, the bill clarifies the authority of school boards to acquire land, including for educational use, like staff and student housing. Given the population pressures in many districts, this is a practical step. It equips boards with more tools to secure space in a competitive real estate environment. Third, it recognizes Indigenous entities for the purpose of local negotiation, modernizing B.C.’s legal framework to reflect the reality of government-to-government relationships. It allows local councils to hold closed meetings in cases involving sensitive cultural or negotiated matters. That’s in line with reconciliation and with requests for both Indigenous and municipal governments. And I believe on this side of the House we do support, in principle, those facts. All these things seem sensible in principle. Let’s have a look more precisely at what this may look like. This bill also contains risk — I think that’s been outlined a little bit here in some of the speeches already this afternoon — in particular, in two areas, expanded expropriation powers for school boards and the erosion of transparency through broader use of closed-door meeting. I know when I was on council, you were allowed to close doors for three reasons: land, legal and labour. Now this government seems to be wanting to creep a few more things into that thing. That’s fine if that’s what they want to do, but just be prepared for what may be the ramifications should that happen. Because one thing a government needs and a politician needs is more trust from the people, which seems to be eroding over these last number of years. Let’s be clear. Expropriation is not just another procurement tool. It is a profound power that the state has, the state taking private property for public use. Under this bill, that power is going to be expanded. Yes, ministerial approval is required, but the bill does not define what qualifies as sufficient jurisdiction, what criteria must be met, what community consultation is required and what protection exists for landowners. That’s all left vague. The term “educational purpose” is also extremely broad. It includes not just schools but staff housing, board offices and outdoor spaces. That could open the door to land being taken not just for classrooms but, potentially, for less essential or ancillary uses. There’s a real risk here of mission creep, and we’ve seen a lot of that with governments and boards and organizations lately. Mission creep is expanding powers and overreach by any government or any organization, of course. School boards acquiring land under a broad mandate with limited oversight and later disposing of it are repurposing it, potentially outside the scope of education. I think as we move into committee, we’re going to want to make sure that we have very, very tight guardrails on some of this stuff, that we can be able to say: “Hey, you can only expropriate to be used for these particular purposes.” And I wouldn’t mind a whole list of things that are exempt from being allowed to be brought in for that. This bill makes it easier to take land but doesn’t ensure it will be used wisely, efficiently or transparently. And while the Expropriation Act applies in general, this bill makes it clear that ministerial approval under the School Act isn’t the same as approval under that act, creating confusion about the procedural protections that still apply. If used aggressively, this could damage community trust, as I mentioned before, and even delay school construction due to legal challenges or backlash from landowners. Another issue is closed-door municipal meetings. Let me turn briefly to the municipal side of the bill, clauses 4 and 6. The intention here is to enable local governments and Indigenous partners to negotiate confidentially. Confidentiality is going to be very, very important. That’s a fair goal, but the expansion of closed meetings should concern all of us who believe in open government. This government has been anything but open and transparent. It has a reputation of being one of the most secretive in Canada, not just B.C. Many, many city councils have been forced to sign NDAs to be able to even speak to any ministers within the government. Now it seems like they want to codify and bring these into legislative power. This bill allows council to meet in camera for a wide range of negotiations with Indigenous entities, defined broadly, and to exclude the public when discussing confidential or culturally sensitive information. Again, the issue isn’t intent. The concern is the breadth of discretion and the lack of clear limits. What qualifies as confidential? How often are these meetings closed? Who determines which Indigenous entities would qualify? These are all left to regulation or ministerial discretion. That opens the door to overuse, inconsistent applications and a gradual erosion of the transparency in municipal decision-making. Sure, we can stand here today and say, “No, no. It’s going to be very tight. There are going to be guardrails. There are going to be boundaries. There are going to be exempt lists and everything,” but we know — and I mentioned earlier, bracket creep — that these things change over time. People get comfortable, lax, lazy, and things can change rapidly here. I think it’s going to be very, very important that we have the necessary backstops in some of these things so the public can have the trust that they need to have with their local governments and with the provincial government. We’ve seen elsewhere what happens when closed meetings become the norm rather than the exception, and we see that quite a bit now throughout a lot of cities and municipalities. Public trust declines, decisions appear less legitimate, and communities disengage. The last thing we need now is for communities to be disengaging on important legislation that’s coming down on some of these things here. Now, don’t get me wrong. We’re going to move forward. We think for the most part that this bill is a pretty good piece of legislation, updating and modernizing some things. But we always have to be careful, because a lot of it is in the unintended consequences that happen. We find these things after we put this kind of legislation in place. What happens after that? I’m looking forward to going to committee and looking at that. They’re some of the safeguards that we need. We do not oppose the core objective of this bill, and we agree with that, but power must be matched by accountability. Some of the things that I will be looking for as we sit in committee are clear, published criteria for ministerial approval of expropriation. I think that’s really, really important to this process. We’re not just going to be throwing darts on the wall and: “Hey, let’s go for that piece of property. Repurpose it later.” It’s going to be really, really important for that. Transparent community consultation before land is taken. Use of expropriation only as a last resort, not as a default. Independent oversight of the expanded closed-meeting powers, perhaps through the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Maybe we get him in on this to see what we can do on that. Periodic review of how often closed meetings are used and whether they still serve the public interest. Just because we do something today doesn’t mean we need to use it a week from now. We’ve got to make sure that it’s always appropriate to be using those legislative authorities. And transparency in designated Indigenous entities with public criteria and process is going to be really important. These are not obstacles. I think we can get through them. We just need to work through it. But they are democratic guardrails. They protect the public from overreach and protect government from suspicion. This bill aims to address inequality, improve local governance and prepare our education system for future growth. This is commendable. We need that. But embedded within the legislation are tools that, if misapplied, could undermine property rights, reduce transparency and increase public cynicism. As opposition, our job is not just to build capacity but to preserve public trust, not just to empower government but to protect the governed and be accountable for them and help the public be accountable. Let us not allow efficiencies to eclipse democracy. Let us not pass laws that we cannot defend in five years or ten years, when their use exceeds their mandate. Let us do what this House is meant to do, strengthen laws and wisdom with caution and with integrity. I look forward to working with the government and the committee on these.

1643 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

10/20/2025

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

We will now call on our member for Fraser-Nicola for continued debate on Bill 27.

15 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

10/20/2025

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Member, could I ask you to direct your attention to Bill 27, please?

13 words

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

We are here today to discuss or review or scrutinize Bill 27, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025. I must say, I do agree on overall intent. I agree with my former trustee colleague across the way that overall the intent is good. However, there are a couple of issues I would like to discuss. When we must acknowledge that this legislation contains necessary technical clarifications and functional updates, we must also examine provisions that have the potential to impact the foundational principles of British Columbia, local accountability and transparency in governance. As a former teacher and as a former trustee, I believe it is prudent to ensure clarity and understanding before we just say that everything’s good. This legislation attempts to push through two concerning changes: first, a concentration of power that diminishes the jurisdiction of our local elected school boards; second, an expansion of municipal secrecy that compromises the public’s fundamental right to know. We must ensure that these amendments, which primarily address land authority and municipal confidentiality, do not inadvertently result in an unacceptable level of centralization and secrecy. Part 1, local autonomy and the question of centralized control, clauses 1, 2 and 3. Our commitment as Conservatives begins at the grassroots level, trusting local communities and elected officials to make decisions regarding local assets and education. This commitment is why part 1, the infrastructure amendments, requires scrutiny. We do support necessary updates. Clause 1 modernizes the rules on how school boards acquire, hold, expropriate and dispose of land or buildings. It clarifies that land may be acquired for modern educational purposes, including providing housing accommodation for students or employees or areas for outdoor activities. We see these adjustments as necessary for meeting modern educational requirements. Furthermore, we recognize the functional alignment achieved through clause 2. This provision aligns the power of the Francophone Education Authority, such as Conseil scolaire francophone, SD 93, with that of English-language boards, enabling them to acquire land to build more schools. Prior to this amendment, SD 93 did not have this specific authority. This change will enable more opportunities for parents whose children are educated in Canada’s second official language. The core issue is mandatory ministerial oversight over expropriation. While school boards already possess the authority to acquire and expropriate land, the core issue of concern in this section relates to the mechanism of control over this ultimate power. Expropriation is the state’s most drastic seizure measure, its ultimate power over citizens’ private assets. Under the new section 96 of the School Act, clause 1 adds a requirement stating that a board must not expropriate land without the prior approval of the minister. This exact requirement for mandatory ministerial oversight is mirrored for the Francophone Education Authority through clause 2. This provision raises profound questions about how local accountability will be maintained. One, centralization of decision-making. Local elected school trustees are directly accountable to the parents and taxpayers in their school district and understand the localized need for a new site far better than a minister based in Victoria, particularly when the Minister of Transportation and Transit is listed as the sponsor of this bill. Does placing the final decisive authority for a localized land use decision in a political office in Victoria risk concentrating authority away from the community, thereby undermining the principle of local accountability? Two, diminished local roles. If local trustees must seek permission from the provincial capital for their most contentious decisions, does this provision risk diminishing the status of elected local officials, reducing them to mere supplicants or petitioners, requesting permission from the provincial government? Three, obscuring accountability. Clause 3 formalizes the systemic shift by updating the Expropriation Act and formally designating the minister as the approving authority for the purpose of expropriation. While defining a clear approving authority aligns the process for both English and francophone bodies, does this not simultaneously confuse accountability, making the minister rather than the local board ultimately responsible for the controversial decision to seize private land? While we acknowledge the intention to align procedures, we must carefully consider if mandatory ministerial control over expropriation undermines the principle of local autonomy. We must resist the concentration of power and defend the jurisdiction of local elected boards. Part 2, transparency and municipal negotiations, specifically clauses 4, 5 and 6. If part 1 raises concerns about centralized authority, part 2, concerning housing and municipal affairs amendments, raises questions about the openness of local governance across British Columbia. Transparency and scrutiny are indispensable cornerstones of effective governance, ensuring citizens know how their tax dollars are spent. Clauses 4 and 5 amend the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter, respectively, to expand the list of circumstances where a municipal council meeting may or must be closed to the public — i.e., held in camera. Now, we have to understand the intent versus potential risk. The specific expansion relates to information concerning negotiations held between the municipality and a First Nation, between the municipality and a prescribed Indigenous entity. We recognize the stated intent here to grant equal title to First Nations as government for the purposes of negotiations, moving them away from being classified as a third party. We understand the importance of facilitating sensitive government-to-government dealings. However, this expansion creates a significant loophole for secrecy, and we must assess the potential consequences of this expansion on public oversight. One, risk of oversight void. When negotiations involve complex matters like major land deals, financial arrangements or shared-service agreements potentially spanning decades and involving substantial taxpayer dollars, allowing these transactions to be formulated entirely behind closed doors fundamentally compromises the public’s fundamental right to know to know. The public and us — we need assurance that this expansion will not create an accountability vacuum where public funds and infrastructure decisions lack maximum visibility. Two, regulatory expansion or the delegation of power. A further policy question arises from clause 6. This clause grants the Lieutenant Governor in Council the regulation-making power to prescribe additional Indigenous entities under the Vancouver Charter. This ability to designate supplementary Indigenous bodies via regulatory decree means the scope of this confidentiality clause could be indefinitely enlarged without further legislative debate. Does this delegation of power risk undue expansion of secrecy and circumvent necessary parliamentary discussion? Once designated, that organization will be recognized by the city of Vancouver as a recognized government for negotiation purposes when a meeting can be held in private. We insist that community administrations must function with utmost visibility. We must stand firm against provisions that introduce mandatory central controls over elected local officials and those that potentially expand secrecy where openness is paramount. So friends, colleagues and fellow defenders of Conservative principles, Bill 27 is a measure that requires careful assessment. It is dressed up as technical housekeeping, but its potential consequences involve centralization and secrecy. We support the necessary technical amendments that clarify the ability of school boards to acquire land for crucial purposes like providing housing for students or staff, but we must stand firm against the concerning elements. The ministerial mandate, clauses 1, 2 and 3. I feel that requirement is unacceptable, the minister’s prior approval before any local school board or francophone educational authority can expropriate land. We choose local autonomy over bureaucratic overreach. Two, the secrecy provision in clauses 4, 5 and 6. Again, we reject the expansion of closed-door municipal meetings, which creates an unacceptable oversight void and allows for the creep of power through regulation. We choose public transparency over governmental convenience. While we do support the overall intent of this bill, we call on this government to amend Bill 27 when in committee and withdraw or amend those clauses that erode transparency and centralize power so that this bill respects the democratic rights of all British Columbians.

1299 words

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

I appreciate my colleagues. I’m sorry. I did jump the queue here as I have another engagement in a few moments. I’m going to be very brief speaking to Bill 27 here this afternoon. I think most of my questions can be answered in the committee stage when we move through here. I have to say, after initially hearing the first reading, I had some concerns about this. I still have some questions, but it’s refreshing, again, to know that this was brought forward by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, because to be completely frank, when I hear “closed-door meetings” and the provincial government, I get a little nervous. I think we, the opposition, feel the same way, that transparency is extremely important here. I have a couple of questions that I’d like to address just around some of the wording in the legislation. I think, first of all, we have to be very cautious about disclosing some of this information that’s being discussed in these meetings. I think disclosing it or not has to be done in a fair and open way. I know the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs talked about open public voting that’s available on the public record. But if there’s sensitive information that’s shared, for example, with a local nation, I think there has to be a mechanism for how those discussions take place and sharing that with non-Indigenous British Columbians as well. Indigenous entity. I know it was brought up earlier. I think that’s something that we need to just look at a little bit more closely. I’m going to explain why here just very briefly. I’m used to hearing Indigenous governing body, and the language looks like it’s been changed here. So does that include the Métis, for example? Who represents the Métis at those closed-door meetings? Is it land-based nations only that get to participate with local governments? We have certain things happening in the province right now with U.S.-based tribes. The Sinixt, for example, being given Aboriginal rights by the Supreme Court of Canada, but they have no land claim that’s been granted by the Supreme Court here. Do they or don’t they get to sit down with, say, the Nelson municipal council? Same with the Lummi. Right now there are some things happening in the court, which I can’t discuss, around consultation. I think there are legitimate questions to be asked here if we’re going to go down this road, which UBCM appears that they are hoping to. There have to be some guardrails in here so that it’s done in the right way. With that, I’ll be asking those questions in more detail at committee.

447 words

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill 27, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. While the name suggests that it’s routine legislation, this bill is anything but routine. It contains thoughtful, forward-looking amendments that touch on two foundational pillars of our province: respectful governance with Indigenous communities, and the future of public education infrastructure. Let’s start with the amendments to the Community Charter, which represent significant and respectful evolution in how local governments engage with First Nations. These changes respond to direct requests from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the city of Vancouver, local governments and First Nations. The Union of B.C. Municipalities passed resolutions in 2017 and in 2023 calling for these changes. In March 2024, the city of Vancouver formally requested that the Vancouver Charter be amended to provide the ability to conduct government-to-government negotiations in camera with the nations that are within the city’s boundaries. Currently local governments can only close meetings for a very limited set of reasons, and that doesn’t include First Nations relations. It’s outdated. These changes allow First Nations governments the same provisions as other levels of government when engaging with local governments. There are not more provisions. There are not different provisions. They’re the same provisions. The proposed changes align with section 18.1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which states that a public body must not release information if it could reasonably be expected to harm the rights of Indigenous People. These changes will give local governments and First Nations the space they need to collaborate and build trust during negotiations. This is not a departure from transparency. It’s a recognition that reconciliation requires trust, and trust is built through respectful dialogue. When I was a school trustee — it’s a little bit different but still the same — I was on the board of education, and we made truth and reconciliation a strategic goal because we knew it would improve the learning outcomes not just of the Indigenous students in our school district but of all the students in our school district. In order to be able to follow through on that, it required deep relationship-building with the nations whose territory fell within the boundaries of the school district. That meant we had to do hard work to get past both the long-term and the near-term harms caused by the school district. It was hard work. It was not work that could be done in public. It was work that needed to be done in private. It was relationship-building work. That work resulted in a school called Qwam Qwum Stuwixwulh, which is a tripartite partnership between the school district, the nation and the federal government. The school is built by the federal government and run by the school district on nation land. It is the only one of its kind in British Columbia. That’s the type of good work and results that comes out of the ability to have these important discussions. For too long, Indigenous governments have had to navigate public forums that are not conducive to the conversations needed to build meaningful partnerships and deal with culturally sensitive and appropriate issues. No other level of government has had to endure that. They’ve had to do this separately. In my riding, there are a number of sacred sites that require cross-government work for protection and maintenance. Everybody knows that this area is a burial site, but what everybody doesn’t know is where on that site the remains have been repatriated — remains that got dug up because of culturally insensitive ways of building and developing in the past, that were allowed to be repatriated in a culturally appropriate and sensitive way. We know in our community that there are remains there. We know the area, but we don’t know the exact spot. That’s what we’re talking about here. The nations don’t want to publicly disclose these locations, but they’re also not looking to limit access. They just simply want to discuss these issues in a constructive and respectful manner that recognizes and protects the privacy and sacred nature of these areas. By creating space for private, culturally appropriate discussions, we are saying clearly that we respect protocol. We are committed to evolving practice in order to do better and to be better. I heard a great saying the other day. Change is required because the future is different than the past. That is what these amendments represent, change that reflects a better future that is different from the past. These amendments broaden the scope of mandatory closed meetings for intergovernmental negotiations, ensuring that sensitive discussions between governments — whether local, provincial or Indigenous — can occur in protected space. This is about creating conditions for collaboration and not secrecy. Importantly, while discussions may be private, decisions remain public, preserving the democratic accountability that British Columbians expect and deserve. This is reconciliation in action. It’s not symbolic. It’s structural. It’s about embedding respect into the very fabric of our governance systems. The province has also completed engagement with First Nations, treaty Nations and local governments across B.C., and the feedback from these engagements confirmed broad support for protecting confidential and culturally sensitive information so that local governments and First Nations can collaborate and build trust during negotiations. The proposed updates reflect the province’s commitment to reconciliation and to building government-to-government relationships. I’m just going to finish up by talking a little bit about the School Act amendments. We see another vital area of reform here, and this time it’s focused on education infrastructure. The bill clarifies the authority of boards of education and the francophone school district to acquire, hold and, when necessary, expropriate land for educational purposes. It’s quite simply a practical change. As has been said, it aligns the province with other provinces. In communities across British Columbia, we are seeing growing student populations, changing demographics and increased demand for modern learning environments. School boards need clear, consistent tools to plan for the future, and these amendments help provide that clarity. They also introduce an important safeguard. Ministerial approval is required for any acquisition or expropriation outside the board’s jurisdiction. This ensures that while boards are empowered to act, there is provincial oversight to maintain fairness, coordination and alignment with broader educational goals. Let me be clear that expropriation is not a tool to be used lightly, and that’s why provincial oversight remains in place. In rare cases, it may be necessary to ensure that students have access to safe, accessible and high-quality learning spaces. These amendments ensure that when decisions are made, they are made with transparency, accountability and purpose. Taken together, the changes in Bill 27 reflect a government that is responsive, responsible and respectful. We are strengthening relationships with Indigenous communities, supporting local governments and ensuring our education system has the tools it needs to grow with British Columbia. This bill touches on many of the core values of our province and reflects on our desire to ensure legislation reflects those values of respect for Indigenous rights, commitment to public education and a belief in good governance. I urge all members of the House to support this bill. It’s thoughtful. It’s principled. It’s necessary legislation that moves British Columbia forward and reflects the needs of our growing and changing province.

1221 words

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

I rise today to speak to Bill 27 and to the quiet but significant shift of power it represents, a bill that on the surface looks procedural, administrative, even harmless. But beneath its technical language, this bill reaches deep into two pillars of democracy: property rights and government transparency. I will speak very directly, when it comes to my region, that I have actually seen the effects of hidden transparency when it comes to the effects of caribou protection in my region and transparency being hidden with the current government and how that was done and the consultation that happened with my region. When it finally did come out to the public, it caused mass confusion and a lot of problems. I urge this government to encourage transparency in the biggest way forward, especially…. I fully endorse First Nations and their cultural practices. We have to learn about them. The best way to learn about them is to actually have them out in the open so that people know about them, not hide them behind closed doors. I think the truth is what people want to hear, and if it comes out at the last moment, after a decision has already being made…. In my region, that’s where I saw a lot of racism come out, and it wasn’t a nice thing to see. My first concern. Bill 27 repeals and rewrites section 96 of the School Act. It now gives school boards and francophone authorities the explicit power to acquire, hold and expropriate land not just for classrooms but for staff housing, student housing, board offices and outdoor facilities. That’s a sweeping definition of educational purposes. This means that a school board, with ministerial approval, could take private land, land that someone’s family has worked for generations, and call it educational. And the safeguard? A single minister’s signature. The bill even states that the ministerial approval for expropriation is not approval under the Expropriation Act, meaning it may bypass the very process that ensures notice, hearings and fairness for affected landowners. When the government rewrites laws to make it easier to take land, every British Columbian should pay attention, because this isn’t just about new classrooms. It’s about state power over private property power that can be used or abused, depending on who holds the pen. My second concern under this bill is that the minister becomes the gatekeeper of local land decision. A school board can’t expropriate without the minister’s approval, but the criteria for that approval is nowhere to be found — no public list, no clear process, no right of appeal. That means decisions affecting entire communities can be made in Victoria behind a desk with no obligation to explain the reasoning. That’s not oversight. That’s control. We’ve seen this pattern before, local decision-making eroded, provincial power expanded and transparency quietly replaced by ministerial discretion. Bill 27 also changes the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter, expanding the reasons that city councils can meet in secret. It introduces new clauses that allow and require closed meetings when the discussions involve Indigenous entities or information harmful to Indigenous interests under FOIPPA. Now, reconciliation is important. Protecting sensitive cultural information is important. But if we start closing doors more often than we open them, we lose one of the cornerstones of democracy — public accountability. Municipal councils already struggle with the balance between privacy and transparency. This bill tips that balance too far. It normalizes secrecy. It creates a culture where closed becomes the default, not the exception. What’s more, it gives the cabinet the power to decide who qualifies as an Indigenous entity — no clear definition, no published criteria, just regulation at the discretion of the cabinet. That’s a dangerous level of ambiguity, because when the government decides who counts as government, it’s already forgotten what democracy means. Put these two pieces together, new powers to expropriate land and new powers to close public meetings, and you start to see the architecture of quiet control. On their own, each change could be defended as administrative fine-tuning. Together they point to a steady trend: less transparency, less accountability and less respect for property rights. This government has made a habit of centralizing authority, of saying: “Trust us. We’ll decide what’s in the public interest.” But democracy doesn’t run on trust. It runs on transparency. When people lose the right to see what’s happening behind the doors of power, or worse, when they lose the right to keep their own land, it’s not progress. It’s regression. Bill 27 may not make headlines, but it should, because it quietly hands the government the tools to take land and to hide decisions. If this government truly values democracy, then it should be strengthening public safeguards, not removing them. It should be clarifying rights, not blurring them. It should be opening doors and not closing them. The people of British Columbia deserve better than backroom expropriations and closed-door councils. They deserve a government that operates in daylight.

836 words

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

I think most people in this House would be aware that I am an engineer, and as such, I am driven to find efficiencies in everything that I can. I do want to recognize the fantastic contribution of the folks that look after us in this House. Please don’t take any offence at me taking the efficiency of grabbing the podium from my colleague. No offence intended. We certainly appreciate your contributions, without question. The other reason that I’m happy to speak in support of Bill 27 is, again, my drive toward efficiency. Bill 27, of course, is the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2) of 2025. While this bill may appear technical in nature, it carries significance for how we build schools and how governments at every level relate to one another. It touches two critical pillars of governance, education and intergovernmental relations, and both deserve thorough scrutiny. As Conservatives, we support pragmatic legislation that removes barriers, increases fairness and respects accountability. Bill 27 achieves a part of that goal, if not a good portion of that goal, but as with many omnibus amendments, the details demand vigilance. The first portion of Bill 27 amends the School Act to align the powers of English-language and francophone school boards. For decades, school district 93 has operated without the same authority to purchase or expropriate land for the purpose of building new schools. This imbalance created real-world consequences. Those included overcrowded classrooms, delays in building approvals and missed opportunities to serve francophone families who value education in both of Canada’s official languages. The Conservative Party supports this correction. It recognizes linguistic equality and administrative consistency. It means all boards can now respond to growth and demographics without needless provincial bottlenecks. Yet with every new authority must come oversight. Expropriation is not a casual tool. It is the most coercive instrument government holds over private citizens. When we empower school boards to take land, we must ensure that property rights are respected, that fair compensation is transparent and that ministerial approvals, those of us that are held to account by the electorate, remain more than just a formality. We therefore call on the Minister of Education to publish clear public guidelines to be followed whenever expropriation is contemplated, guidelines that ensure landowners are treated with dignity and that boards justify each and every acquisition and do it in a public manner. Modernizing the School Act is wise, but modernization without transparency invites mistrust. We will support this portion of the bill while urging government to reinforce procedural fairness through policy, not merely through statute. Where we urge caution, in addition, is in the expanded authority to meet in camera. While my esteemed colleague did speak of some examples where that may be appropriate, holding closed-door discussions, I would caution, between municipalities and Indigenous governments can potentially lead to mistrust. Again, I respect and honour the comments that were made by my colleague. To say further, confidentiality can at times be necessary to foster trust and reach agreements in good faith, as has been stated. That being said, the Conservative Party of British Columbia maintains that transparency must remain the default, not the exception. Too often residents learn after the fact that decisions affecting land use, taxation or shared services were made privately with minimal disclosure. My concern is that this undermines the credibility of everyone at the table, or potentially does, municipal, provincial or Indigenous. We therefore encourage government to pair these amendments with a public reporting requirement, a short summary after each in-camera meeting outlining the purpose, the scope and any non-confidential outcomes. In my estimation, doing so would maintain public confidence without compromising sensitive negotiations. This bill demonstrates that effective governance is often about alignment, not reinvention. By updating the School Act and the municipal charters, Bill 27 brings clarity where confusion once existed. It ensures consistency across education systems and across levels of government. Yet we must guard against the temptation to treat technical amendments as simply routine. Each clause carries long-term implications for how power is used or can be used. We as legislators owe it to British Columbians to ensure that such power remains checked by oversight, accountability and, beyond all, public trust. The Conservative Party of British Columbia believes in principled decentralization, placing authority closer to those who are affected by it but within a framework of rigorous transparency. Bill 27 does indeed move in that direction, and we will support it while holding government to the standards that good governance demands. In closing, Bill 27 is not dramatic legislation, and that, in my estimation, is its strength. It addresses real gaps that have hindered education delivery and intergovernmental collaboration. We, on this side of the House, support the bill because it is technically sound, administratively rational and socially fair. Our support, as stated previously, however, comes with an exception, the exception being that these powers will be used judiciously, that citizens will be kept informed and that transparency will remain the cornerstone of public trust.

840 words

Hon. Bowinn Ma

BC NDP

10/20/2025

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

I am honoured to rise in the House in support of Bill 27 and the proposed amendments to the School Act and the Expropriation Act. As the Minister of Infrastructure, one of my key responsibilities is major capital project planning services and delivery for schools. It is a responsibility, as members of the House know, that affects our most precious resource: our children and their futures. These amendments support the delivery of capital planning for all 60 school districts in the province. The amendments will do two things. The first thing that it will do is formalize existing practices by requiring ministerial approval prior to a school district expropriating private property. Expropriation is considered a tool of last resort that school districts have used only three times in the last ten years. The second thing the amendments do is extend the authority to expropriate private property to the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique, known as the CSF. I could definitely benefit from additional French lessons, and I would’ve in high school as well. It was a long time ago. The CSF is B.C.’s only francophone school district and has a provincewide mandate to deliver schooling in French to francophone students. This amendment provides the CSF with the same powers of expropriation as all of the other 59 boards of education. The province takes its constitutional obligations under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms very seriously. These obligations require that the province fund and facilitate minority francophone education in many communities in British Columbia, and these amendments do just that. In addition, this portion of the amendments respond to the May 23, 2025, British Columbia Supreme Court decision directing the province to provide the CSF with expropriation power. The changes in Bill 27 align B.C.’s expropriation powers with many other Canadian provinces where ministerial approval is required before a school authority can expropriate land and where there is no distinction in expropriation powers between minority- and majority-language school boards. More broadly, these amendments will support our work to build the schools that families need in their communities. We are making historic investments in school capital so that all students can have the best educational experience possible. Since 2017 the province has invested over $6.6 billion in school capital, which has resulted in almost 46,500 new student spaces and over 39,000 additional seismically safe seats in B.C. schools. Of these new seats, over 20,000 are completed and 26,500 are currently underway. We will continue to work with all school boards to support education throughout British Columbia and expand access for families, because students deserve the opportunity to learn in the best environments possible. These amendments support our ongoing work to deliver for families, for communities and for future generations. There is, of course, more work ahead, and we’re committed to doing it in partnership with all school boards across B.C.

483 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

10/20/2025

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Thank you very much, Minister, for opening debate on Bill 27 this afternoon. Recognizing the Minister of Infrastructure.

18 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

10/20/2025

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Thank you, Members. We will call this House back to order. We will ask our minister to introduce Bill 27.

20 words