Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, November 22, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 135

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Donna Sitter

Hon. M. Farnworth

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Hoy Creek Housing Co-operative

F. Donnelly

Pathways Serious Mental Illness Society

K. Kirkpatrick

Elizabeth “Bunny” Shannon

R. Leonard

Overdose and addiction awareness and response

T. Halford

Community heroes and power of kindness

D. Routley

Ken Zeitner and affordable housing achievement award

N. Letnick

Oral Questions

Child care plan

S. Bond

Hon. K. Chen

K. Kirkpatrick

Status of Coastal GasLink pipeline project on Wet’suwet’en lands

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Rankin

Infrastructure repair projects and community benefits agreement

T. Stone

Hon. R. Fleming

Support for flooding evacuees

J. Tegart

Hon. M. Farnworth

Government response to severe weather and flooding in Abbotsford area

M. de Jong

Hon. M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Report on multiculturalism, 2020-21

Petitions

A. Olsen

Tabling Documents

Budget 2021, second quarterly report

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

A. Olsen

P. Milobar

B. Stewart

J. Tegart

F. Donnelly

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 29 —

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 30 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

M. Morris

M. Bernier

K. Greene

D. Davies

Hon. R. Kahlon

Hon. D. Eby

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Access to Services (COVID-19) Act (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Access to Services (COVID-19) Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Forest Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

C. Oakes

R. Russell

T. Shypitka

Hon. N. Cullen

L. Doerkson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

B. Banman

Hon. L. Beare

T. Stone

Bill 23 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

J. Rustad

A. Olsen

Hon. K. Conroy

S. Furstenau

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2021

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m really happy to be introducing two constituents of mine today,

Roger and Barbara Skillings.

[1:35 p.m.]

Roger is the son of well-known Waldo Skillings, who was a four-term

MLA and a member of the Bennett Social Credit caucus. Waldo served as

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce in 1968 but perhaps

is best known for getting into a scuffle with the NDP Whip in the

legislative corridor after they disagreed about the speaking order following

a throne speech.

Roger is a community leader in his own right. He was recently inducted

into the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame and is recognized for his work as CEO of

the B.C. Games for 11 years, from 1988 to 1999.

Barbara has also contributed much to our community over the years as a

teacher at both Willows and Sir James Douglas elementary schools. And I have

it on good authority that Barbara is also a formidable tennis opponent and

talented bridge player.

Please help me welcome Barbara and Roger.

T. Halford: I think the guest that I’m about to introduce today…. The last time he

was in the stands watching me was probably in a cold ice rink in either

White Rock or Cloverdale. I’d ask the House to please make welcome my

father, Robin Halford, and Amelia, Diana and Nezhna to the House.

Don’t worry, Hansard. I will get the proper spelling to you guys right

after question period.

I ask the House to please make them welcome.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure today to offer belated birthday greetings to

someone very well known in this chamber, someone who I think has always been

known as fierce and wears her heart on her sleeve.

Will the House please

wish the Leader of the Official Opposition a happy belated 29th

birthday.

T. Shypitka: I’m super stoked to introduce Jonah Gowans, who’s in the gallery with

us here today. Jonah is a native of Powell River, which should tweak the

interest of the Minister of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction.

He’s no stranger to the Legislature. He served for a couple of years

here as a legislative assistant for several MLAs on this side of the floor.

He has currently raised his status in life, and he’s now helping me and the

constituents of Kootenay East find a better way through government. His

transformation is not quite yet complete, however. He’s still rooting for

the BCHL Powell River Kings. I will complete that transition once he goes to

the Cranbrook Bucks.

Would the House please welcome Jonah Gowans.

Hon. G. Chow: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome members of the Canton

Chamber of Commerce Canada, who are visiting the Legislature. One question

came up when I greeted the members. They wanted to know: what is a minister

of state? I said: “A minister of state is a government official who may have

a lot to say but no money to spend.” So with that in mind, we had a very

good discussion on supply chain and shipping.

Would all members of the House help me welcome these members, led by

President Lam, as well as Chair Byron Chan.

Tributes

DONNA SITTER

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise today to honour a pillar of my ministry’s communications

shop — a trusted adviser, a mentor and a friend to countless current and

former staff — who is retiring this month. Donna Sitter’s name and

booming voice were familiar to those working here before any of us first

took a seat in this chamber. That’s because Donna was part of the press

gallery. In fact, she was amongst the pioneering woman working by desk,

phone and typewriter to report on the proceedings of this

chamber.

In her early days, Donna was a contemporary of the legendary

Marjorie Nichols, herself a groundbreaking woman in Canadian political

journalism, who at one time had been the youngest member of the Ottawa

press gallery. There are photos hanging in our own press gallery of

Donna alongside Keith Baldry, Gary Mason, Les Leyne, Vaughn Palmer and a

young intern with purple hair by the name of Justine Hunter.

Donna book-ended the Vander Zalm years that she spent here with

stints as a radio host and later host and producer of For the

Record , which was a local political affairs TV show. Speaking

of records, she has since become one of longest-serving communicators in

our justice sector, including the last 15 years as a manager handling

police services, and earlier a communications officer, on a broad array

of ministry files.

[1:40 p.m.]

I understand that Donna has earned the respect, trust and lifelong

friendship of many of the communicators, past and present, within the

B.C. RCMP and our various municipal and other policing

agencies.

Donna, congratulations on an incredibly distinguished career. You

will certainly be missed.

Will the House please join me in wishing Donna Sitter a long and

very happy retirement.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Dean: It’s my pleasure to introduce a bright grade 9 student today, who

attends school in Esquimalt-Metchosin. Her name is Peyton Yip. Peyton is the

winner of my inaugural contest, My Vision for B.C., that’s being held in

high schools across Esquimalt-Metchosin.

Students are encouraged to identify an issue and submit ideas on how

to address it. Peyton proposes the elimination of defensive architecture,

also known as anti-homeless architecture, and instead focus on compassionate

solutions for people experiencing homelessness.

Will all members of the

House please join me in making her welcome today.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce Laura Ferreira, a new staff member for the

B.C. Green caucus. Laura is patient, thoughtful, hard-working, and she’ll be

fulfilling the role of legislative coordinator.

If you’re a golfer, and you see her around the building, you may wish

to ask for tips. Laura was a varsity golfer at the University of Victoria

and volunteers her time to encourage more women to participate in the sport.

She is passionate about environmental advocacy and keen to participate in

the legislative process. Laura is a great fit for our team. We’re so happy

to have her.

Can the House please make her feel most welcome.

A. Olsen: Today, I am pleased to introduce Leslie Miller-Brooks and Nigel

Brooks. They are here in the legislative precinct today to hear a petition

that they have brought to me, and I will be tabling it after question

period.

Could the House please welcome Leslie Miller-Brooks and Nigel

Brooks.

B. Banman: You know, this may be a historic first. I don’t know whether a member

of this House has ever welcomed a Whip back or not, but I would like to

welcome the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke back into this House, well

on the mend. It is a pleasure to see him back.

Will this House please give a

round of applause to welcome back the member.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HOY CREEK HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE

F. Donnelly: I recently participated in a groundbreaking ceremony for the aging

Hoy Creek Housing Co-op in Coquitlam. I stood with longtime Hoy Creek

Co-op residents, Vince Montgomery and Bertha Hernandez, Hoy Creek

President Nathalie Barret and Vice-President Antoinette Swaby, who were

very happy to see this project finally moving ahead.

The six-storey, 132-unit apartment building will offer a mix of

studio, one-, two- and three-bedroom rental homes that will replace the

co-op’s 60 townhomes that were recently demolished. The building will

provide affordable homes for low- to middle-income individuals and

families, enabling them to continue living in Coquitlam.

The Community Land Trust Foundation of B.C. will operate the new

homes in partnership with Hoy Creek Housing Co-op. The CLT is receiving

$14 million from the province of British Columbia, and B.C. Housing will

provide funding to support annual maintenance and repairs. The city of

Coquitlam is also an important partner in making this affordable housing

project a reality.

I’d like to acknowledge the valuable role the Community Land Trust

plays in helping low- and moderate-income households enjoy stable,

quality, fair, at-value price. The CLT is a non-profit, social-purpose

real estate developer and asset steward, created by the Co-operative

Housing Federation of B.C.

[1:45 p.m.]

They partner with organizations committed to preserving expanding

community-based housing to support a wide range of affordable housing

projects throughout British Columbia.

The partnership formed by the Hoy Creek Housing Co-op, the

Community Land Trust, the city of Coquitlam and the province of British

Columbia has made a long-overdue project a welcome reality for current

and future citizens of Coquitlam.

PATHWAYS SERIOUS MENTAL

ILLNESS

SOCIETY

K. Kirkpatrick: Emma Chapman is the executive director of Pathways Serious Mental

Illness Society, and I’ve had the privilege of meeting with her and her

board members a couple times over the last few months to learn more

about the work that they do.

There are too many people in B.C. suffering from serious mental

health issues, and the families and loved ones of those people who

suffer from mental health issues also suffer. They need supports, and

they need peer groups to help them to know how best to work with and

support their family members.

Pathways was established in 1983 as the B.C. Schizophrenia

Society. They provide programs and services to families across British

Columbia with loved ones living with serious mental health

issues.

Pathways’ vision is “to be a vibrant, innovative centre of

support, education, awareness and advocacy for families and others

affected by serious mental illness.” Their three pillars are education,

support and advocacy, and these pillars work together to facilitate

learning, understanding and empathy while addressing the important

topics and discussions surrounding serious mental health.

Programs include a free-to-family eight-week education course

offered to family and friends of a loved one living with mental illness.

There are school presentations, or First Hand Stories, which is one of

the society’s most important programs, educating students about mental

illness in the hopes of decreasing stigma and developing compassion for

others.

I would like to say thank you to Pathways for the great work that

you do in my constituency, across the North Shore and across the

province of British Columbia in helping to alleviate the suffering

caused by serious mental illness.

ELIZABETH “BUNNY” SHANNON

R. Leonard: On November 1, a family, and indeed the whole community of

Courtenay-Comox and, in fact, the whole Comox Valley lost a force of

nature known to all as Bunny Shannon.

Elizabeth Shannon was raised in Hawaii but found a new home on

another island, as she and her husband, Clark Munro, for so many

decades, grew their family in the Comox Valley. Far from a hang-loose

kind of person, she dug in with energy and determination, woven together

with her big smile, exuding love and care, to help her community grow

stronger, more inclusive and sustainable.

I first met her in the 1990s as a school district 71 school

trustee. She went on to become chair before retiring after 19 years. Her

leadership inspired many to step up, as she always did. Her niece Claire

Hume wrote: “Bunny was endlessly dedicated to protecting and expanding

access to vibrant public education, healthy local food and a thriving

natural environment.”

The face of the Comox Valley Social Planning Society was Bunny,

nurturing community to think beyond our individual needs and desires, to

appreciate the challenges that many of our neighbours face, to inspire

us to action. That is what drove Bunny. Fearlessly and without

reservation, she sought out those who could make a difference to begin

those conversations on how to create housing for all, how to make life

more affordable, how to serve our most vulnerable.

She was a natural champion of food security and became president

of LUSH Valley, an apt acronym for Let Us Share the Harvest.

Bunny treated so many like family and loved her family deeply:

Clark, her daughters, Jesse and Rachel, and her granddaughter, Bailey,

who brought so much sunshine and joy in her life. Bunny loved and was

loved. She will be missed.

We sure could use a lot more Bunny Shannons in this

world.

OVERDOSE AND ADDICTION

AWARENESS AND

RESPONSE

T. Halford: I rise to recognize National Addictions Awareness Week. We pause

to remember the over 1,500 lives lost due to an overdose this year and

the thousands more who have died from an overdose in this

province.

[1:50 p.m.]

We also pledge to continue to fight against the stigma of

addiction, and we do that together. Each overdose victim is a brother, a

father, an aunt, a daughter, a person who needs a comprehensive mental

health and addictions system to help save their lives. Overcoming the

overdose crisis will take much more than a one-size-fits-all

ap­proach. It will take all of us, working together.

This year’s theme is “Driving change together,” and I couldn’t

agree more that we must all come together and push for change and

greater resources to support those living with addictions. Every family,

every community, is touched by addiction. On my daily walk to the

Legislature, I noticed a growing memorial, fresh-cut flowers, a teddy

bear and a simple note that said: “I miss you.” I would come to find out

that it was for a young person that had succumbed to an overdose on the

streets.

Every member of this House can agree that immediate action is

needed to expand access to recovery so people can get the help they need

when they need it.

I think we can all agree that in the days and months ahead, as we

see these numbers come in and we reflect on the lives lost, more can be

done in order to fight for British Columbians that are suffering from

addiction.

COMMUNITY HEROES

AND POWER OF

KINDNESS

D. Routley: The title of my statement is “Courage Comes from Love,” and I put

that forward after I’d read an

article about a

summary of people who had

won the Victoria Cross or medals of honour and how they were not

ruthless, they were not fearless, but quite the opposite. They were

community- and family-loving people, generally, and we are surrounded

now by many heroes. And I lost one in the last week.

Maureen Young, regional district of Nanaimo councillor, from the

area of Extension, is from a family of coal miners, people who had that

courage because of the people they loved who went down in the ground and

many times didn’t come back. She worked hard for her community, despite

her introverted nature. She overcame that because of her love for

community.

I’m reminded of the Leader of the Official Opposition, who, a

little over a year ago, lost her husband, Bill, of over 40 years, and

the courage she’s shown to carry on and represent the people that she

lives with. I’m reminded of the member for Saanich North and the Islands

and his contribution in sharing his story to help people who are

struggling in our province.

We’re in this together. We’re afraid, but we’re surrounded by

favour hope or kindness, and during these times we are reminded of the

basics.

As the Premier says, we must look for the better angels to show

themselves. And as another gentle, small hero of B.C. says, be

kind.

KEN ZEITNER AND AFFORDABLE

HOUSING ACHIEVEMENT

AWARD

N. Letnick: Congratulations to Ken Zeitner for being awarded the Denice

LeBlond Lifetime Achievement Award by the B.C. Non-Profit Housing

Association.

Established in 1999, the Denice LeBlond Lifetime Achievement Award

recognizes an individual whose dedication and vision have furthered the

cause of affordable housing in British Columbia.

Ken was one of those two founding staff members of the Society of

Hope in 1989. He has worked tirelessly for 32 years to establish the

vision and growth of the society. The Society of Hope is the largest

non-profit housing society in the Interior. It is dedicated to providing

quality affordable housing, and from its inception, it has grown to

manage 700 housing units in the Central Okanagan, with 200 more housing

units approved and on the drawing board.

Ken has been the go-to individual for B.C. housing and many

non-profit housing societies in the Interior, including NOW Canada,

Evangel, CMHA and Peachland seniors. He chaired the Kelowna Christian

schools school board, chaired his local church board, has been a

successful ECAP leader. And Ken has earned the non-profit industry’s

respect for his integrity and selfless dedication to the provision of

affordable housing.

Ken is unique, as he is the chief financial officer of the society

as well. He has employed his expertise in finance, administration and

good governance. These three skills are greatly needed and essential in

today’s non-profit sector. Ken is a shining example of how this

expertise can be employed to advance the non-profit sector, and this

award cannot be made to a more qualified recipient.

Congratulations to Ken.

[1:55 p.m.]

Oral Questions

CHILD CARE PLAN

S. Bond: Last week the Minister of State for Child Care completely failed

to acknowledge, much less justify, her cabinet’s disastrous decision to

impact private child care providers in British Columbia.

Sandra Christian of Creative Kids Learning Centers runs infant and

toddler programs, full-day child care camps and extended preschool

programs at eight locations in Surrey, Langley and Chilliwack. She says:

“The provincial government has taken a drastic leap of logic, arriving

at the conclusion that the only way is an enlarged government

bureaucracy and a diminished role for private operators like me. Small

businesses that survived the pandemic now find themselves threatened by

government policies that are slowly squeezing out the private child care

sector.”

Can the minister stand up, try again today and explain to Sandra

why she is threatening the viability of the small businesses that 1,000

parents rely on?

Hon. K. Chen: I thank the member opposite for the question. I always want to

emphasize the importance of all child care providers in this province,

whether they are non-profit, for-profit, Indigenous, local government or

school district–run child care. All child care providers contribute to

the child care sector and support the important services that families

count on.

Since the 2018 budget, our government has been putting child care

as the top priority for the first time in B.C.’s history. We’ve invested

significant funding to the very diverse sector, supporting all

providers. What the member opposite is saying is simply not

true.

Let me be clear. For-profit providers will continue to receive

operating grants, fee reductions, wage enhancements and also funding to

support and maintain their services. No child care is under threat. What

we’re doing, really, is to learn…. What we’ve learned from the past four

years is that families want child care that can become long-term

community assets.

We have so much strong interest from local governments, from

school districts, from Indigenous communities that want to partner with

us, and that is what we’re doing, while the other opposition voted

against our child care plan in our budget, every single step of the

way.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

S. Bond: It is absolutely impossible to reconcile what this minister just

said to the briefing note and the decision note that she signed off on.

What she said is simply not accurate, and she knows it.

The very candid decision note that this minister signed off on

lays out a much less positive picture. In fact, it states clearly — and

these are her ministry officials — that public sector child care space

growth slowed over the last three years, contrary….

The minister can shake her head all she wants. She may want to

open up her briefing binder and check out the decision note and look at

the paragraph that shows the graphs and the details. She might want to

do that.

Half the child care spaces in British Columbia are run by private

providers, largely women entrepreneurs with small independent

businesses. Sandra, in fact, was recognized with the 2021 Surrey Women

in Business Award. But instead of celebrating women entrepreneurs like

Sandra, apparently this minister wants to impact the very significant

child care facilities that Sandra operates.

Here’s what Sandra says: “I’m a woman in the workforce, a woman

entrepreneur and a mother of two. Creative Kids and early childhood

education are my life’s work. This is all I know. Having borne the

weight of child care for the past 25 years, we are scared that our

businesses will be taken over, shut down, dissolved and, even worse,

forgotten.”

[2:00 p.m.]

Can the minister stand up and explain to Sandra how she signed off

on a decision note that has potentially devastating impacts on small

business owners like Sandra and thousands of families across this

province who rely on child care spaces provided by private child care

operators?

Hon. K. Chen: Again, I want to recognize all the work of early childhood

educators, and also all providers. Whether they’re non-profit,

for-profit, Indigenous, local government, family provider or in-home

multi-age, we want to partner with them, and we have been partnering

with them. We will continue to support them through operating funds,

funding to maintain their spaces, fee reduction programs, early

childhood educator wage enhancement and dozens of new initiatives that

our government has funded since 2018.

I would like to say, for example, that our fee reduction program,

which currently has over 93 percent of providers joining our program,

including for-profit providers, is a huge success of how our child care

investment has benefited the sector. The fact that the opposition member

is waving this decision note…. That was actually shared in the

Canada-wide agreement in the summer, when the Premier and Prime Minister

Justin Trudeau were both saying publicly that we are going to prioritize

funding into public non-profit spaces. This is not a secret. This

decision was shared widely.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. K. Chen: If the member opposite was not watching the news at the time, we

are negotiating the first national child care plan, starting right here

in B.C. This decision has been publicly shared. It was shared in our

guidelines.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Chen: It’s on the website. Everything the member needs to do is to check

on our website and see the decision. We’re proud of the investment that

we’ve made, and we will continue to work with the diverse

sector.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for her enthu­siastic

response.

Interjections.

K. Kirkpatrick: Misguided enthusiasm. The minister can pretend otherwise, but the

FOI documents are crystal clear that this NDP government doesn’t support

private child care and is making them unviable.

Tammy Reaburn, of Wiggles and Giggles Group Daycare in Fort St.

John, read this decision note that has the minister’s signature on it.

This is what Tammy says. This is not my words. This is Tammy. “This is

extremely disappointing. We, like many others, have invested our

livelihood into supporting families with child care, and it’s clear the

NDP don’t care about that.”

Will the minister tell Tammy why she is threatening to shut down

the 89 child care spaces that families in Fort St. John rely

on?

Hon. K. Chen: Again, our government has been partnering with the very diverse

sector. We have increased funding significantly and are not cutting any

funding. This is a historical time in our province, that we are working

with the federal government on a national child care plan. We are

working with local governments, school districts, Indigenous communities

to look at how we can utilize current public existing spaces to create

good-quality child care that will become long-term community

assets.

We are continuing to partner with family providers through our

start-up funding that will continue to create many, many spaces with

small business people. We are continuing this work, while the other side

of the House continues to create confusion and fear that’s unnecessary

for this sector, which has been struggling for years under their watch,

when they were in government for 16 years, with a lack of

support.

Just to give the member an example. While they are criticizing and

talking about child care, which is a nice surprise, after their years of

neglect…. Even in the opposition critic’s riding alone, we’ve invested

close to $20 million into their community.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, the more accurate picture is that this NDP government

promised to deliver 22,000 child care spaces by year 3, but….

Interjections.

[2:05 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Promised to. But according to their own briefing note, only 3,401

are operational after three years, and 83.7 percent of those have been

opened by private providers.

I have repeatedly asked this minister about the NDP policies that

make private spaces unviable. This spring a Surrey child care provider

said: “As a result of this sudden change, we feel helpless and face

economic ruin as we watch our life’s savings disappear because our dream

to develop a child care centre, with over 100 new spaces, has now turned

into a nightmare.” This was in response to the fee reduction initiatives

that the minister said have been so successful.

The FOI documents make it clear that this nightmare for this

private child care provider is a deliberate NDP policy.

Why is this minister signing a decision note to demolish the

60,000 spaces that families in B.C. rely on?

Hon. K. Chen: It is just really interesting to hear the opposition throwing

numbers that are untrue and creating unnecessary fear in the child care

sector.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members will come to order now.

Hon. K. Chen: Let me correct the member’s numbers. This is the fastest space

creation B.C. has ever had. Since 2018, we have funded and supported the

creation of over 26,000 spaces. Among those spaces, over 6,000 of them

have become in operation, and most of them will be in operation in the

coming year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Chen: This is, again, more than double what they created in 16 years.

This is the fastest ever.

The member opposite loves to talk about gender equity. Let me tell

the member opposite what is supporting child care and gender equity.

When we are funding spaces, when we’re investing in child care and

investing in families…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, be quiet please.

Hon. K. Chen: …that’s supporting gender equity, supporting women across the

sector, when the other side of the House cut child care services, cut

parent fees and eliminated a lot of early childhood educators’ work for

many years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the questions, then also to the answers,

please. We only have 30 minutes.

STATUS OF COASTAL GASLINK PIPELINE

PROJECT ON

WET’SUWET’EN LANDS

A. Olsen: This B.C. NDP government knew of the fierce opposition to the

Coastal GasLink pipeline. The blockades caused by this pipeline have

shut down highways, ferries, railroads and this Legislature. It was no

surprise. The Premier’s chief of staff acknowledged it and told me

personally that this situation would be resolved.

Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan people are being violently arrested by

fully armed RCMP. Two journalists arrested last week sat in jail all

weekend. So much for the freedom of the press. Two members of this

House, from Stikine and Oak Bay–Gordon Head, were previously on the

provincial payroll, paid to sort this out. They failed. When they got

elected here, what was the reward for that failure? They became

ministers.

Our Minister of Public Safety has consistently hidden behind the

court injunctions and police enforcement. The court’s message was clear

this summer. Get them out from the middle of these political

conflicts.

My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General and Deputy Premier. His government knew the conflict was brewing

in the Wet’suwet’en when they approved LNG Canada. Their chief of staff

stated it would be taken care of.

When will his government take responsibility for the policy

decisions that have led us to this armed conflict on the Coastal GasLink

project?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’d like to thank the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

It’s true. This has been a very difficult conflict. It’s true, as well,

that there has been tension and division within the Wet’suwet’en

Nation.

[2:10 p.m.]

Our government is committed to sorting this out, in the words of

the member, through negotiations with the Federal government and the

Wet’suwet’en Nation. We’ve been struggling to do so in the face of

disunity. There has been — it’s no secret — conflict between the elected

and the hereditary system, but we continue to do this historic

work.

For the first time in history, we are trying to figure out, on the

land, what Aboriginal title means in negotiation. In other cases, the

courts have told us what it means — in the Tsilhqot’in case, in the

Delgamuukw case. We know that there is such a thing. But no court has

ever told us in that yintah , the territory of the Wet’suwet’en,

just what it means. So we are doing the hard work that that

requires.

I have met with Chief Woos, the hereditary Gitdumden clan leader,

on many occasions and spoken with him. We have retained Mr. Miles

Richardson, a highly respected Indigenous leader and former president of

the Council of the Haida Nation, to serve as an interlocutor to get the

conversations going so that we can get on with this work.

It will be done when unity can be achieved. It will be done when

the federal-provincial government and the Wet’suwet’en Nation come

together to do this historic work and complete the work that has been

started only in the last two or three years.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

A. Olsen: If this is sorting this out, then we are a long way away from the

reconciliation that this government has promised Indigenous nations.

Disunity? Conflict between hereditary and elected Chiefs? They have been

sowing the seeds of this disunity. We’ve been witnessing it all summer

here on southern Vancouver Island. Figuring out title? The Premier

stands up and talks about Indigenous title like it was figured

out.

It is completely unacceptable, the response from that minister. He

has spent long enough as a lawyer in this province, in this country, to

know far better than to stand up and say that. This government promised

a new relationship with Indigenous people, but instead they’re acting in

bad faith, intentionally deceiving British Columbians by exploiting

divisions in our communities, created by the Indian Act.…

Mr. Speaker: Member, withdraw that, please. Nobody is intentionally deceiving

anybody.

A. Olsen: All right. I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please keep your comments to yourself. Let the Chair do

his work.

The member will continue.

A. Olsen: This government has been exploiting divisions in our communities —

created by the Indian Act — and they know it. This government soaks in

the accolades of passing the declaration act but then is unwilling to

change the racist government structures that have created the conflict

that we face today. Instead of the much-assured reconciliation, what we

have from this B.C. NDP government are more of the same

divide-and-conquer tactics gift-wrapped in meaningless political

rhetoric and empty promises.

Some of the members might be feeling offended by these sharp and

direct comments. However, what they are feeling is nothing like what my

relatives felt in residential and day schools; languishing in the child

welfare system; and watching their unceded territory devastated by this

Crown government.

My question is to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation. These relationships are his responsibility, and he

suggested last week that it was months since he talked to the people up

there.

In the last month, what specific actions has this minister taken

to address the long-standing conflict over the Coastal Gaslink pipeline

in the Wet’suwet’en territory?

Hon. M. Rankin: I find the harsh rhetoric absolutely unhelpful in this important

historic work. To talk about bad faith, to suggest that we have done

nothing…. I have spoken with Chief Woos on several occasions. I have

talked to my federal counterpart. I have engaged Miles Richardson. I

have been in the territory to meet the elected and the hereditary

leaders in early September. I continue to work with a non-Indigenous

group of people in the community who are likewise committed to getting

on with this historic work.

[2:15 p.m.]

We have provided $7.22 million to get the unity work done, which

the Wet’suwet’en Nation itself acknowledges is critically required. We

have provided $1.23 million to create a seat of government for the

hereditary nation, the Wet’suwet’en Nation, at Lake Kathlyn School near

Smithers. To suggest that that we have been idle, it seems to me,

greatly deceives this House. I reject that this government is

responsible for sowing the seeds of disunity when everything we have

done is to try to achieve that unity.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, please withdraw that.

Withdraw that word that you used. “Deceiving” was the word you

used. Withdraw that.

Hon. M. Rankin: I apologize for that. But I also reject that there’s any bad faith

on the part of our government.

But I withdraw that word.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, Members. He withdrew.

INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR PROJECTS

AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS

AGREEMENT

T. Stone: In light of last week’s floods, there is a significant amount of

major repair work that needs to be done, a lot of which is underway on

our roads and highways around the province of British Columbia. This

work needs to be done quickly, and it needs to be done as

cost-effectively as possible for British Columbia’s

taxpayers.

My question to the Minister of Transportation is this. Can he

confirm whether or not the NDP will impose their discriminatory

union-only labour scheme on these major highway repair

projects?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question, because he’s quite

right. For every member of this House, the priority of this House in its

entirety should be the rebuilding of communities that sustained damage

in the worst flood we’ve ever had in over a century. The calls that we

are getting, the coordination we are doing as a government, from

contractors — union, non-union, what have you — to get to work

rebuilding British Columbia…. The enthusiasm and the support they have

is nothing short of inspirational and overwhelming.

What our job is to do, as government, is to procure things as

quickly as possible, get roads in working condition. That’s what we’ve

done for the past week. That’s what people have done around the clock in

horrible weather, under very difficult circumstances and conditions,

sacrificing themselves so that other British Columbians who are stranded

can get home. That’s what happened last week.

We will work quickly on a procurement model that works to restore

British Columbia’s supply lines. That’s what we’re doing. We have a

bilateral table with the federal government on exactly that. I’ve given

an update to the province just this morning about supply lines that may

come back into function and good order, including rail connection to the

rest of Canada. That is our number one priority: fixing roads that have

sustained heavy, heavy damage in the worst flood episode we have ever

had in 100 years.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–South Thompson, supplemental.

T. Stone: Certainly, the official opposition concurs. We all want to get

these highway projects repaired and open as quickly as possible —

safely, of course, and as cost-effectively as possible for taxpayers.

That is why I’ve asked a very simple and straightforward question. I’m

looking for a yes-or-no answer.

To the Minister of Transportation, will he commit here today that

community benefit agreements, or discriminatory union-only labour

requirements, will not be attached to a single one of the projects to

rebuild highways, roads and other damaged infrastructure in British

Columbia?

Hon. R. Fleming: If I were being charitable, I’d be saying: “You know, the time for

that question isn’t now.” At a time when — union, non-union, what have

you — every contractor in the province of British Columbia wants to help

rebuild this province, this member goes to…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. R. Fleming: …that divisive place? Really, Mr. Speaker? Really?

There will be billions of dollars to repair infrastructure in

British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

that. We will work with local governments. We will work with

contractors. We will work with workers organizations and the B.C. Road

Builders Association that represent every aspect of the industry. That’s

what we’re working on right now.

[2:20 p.m.]

SUPPORT FOR FLOODING EVACUEES

J. Tegart: At a time when people are literally watching their lives float

away, they need to know their government is on their side. They

shouldn’t have to worry about accommodation. They shouldn’t have to

worry about navigating a maze of rules so they can afford to feed their

families.

Many of the families impacted are not wealthy. They are renting a

hotel room at their own expense, and it is out of their

means.

Russel Willey was evacuated with his family, a week ago, out of

Merritt. Each day, for three days, his wife went to the evacuation

centre to get the reimbursement forms — unsuccessfully. When she went

back to the centre, she was informed…. “We would not receive

reimbursement for the previous four nights because we did not have our

forms. As we are paying for our room and my wife’s parents’ room, this

is quite a sum of money.”

First, no warning of the threat. Then no support to deal with the

aftermath. This falls completely at this government’s feet.

Can the minister commit today that people who have fallen between

the cracks will get the support they need, not just for the first three

days but for as long as it takes to bring them home?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I can fully understand the angst and the anxiety that people who

have been evacuated would have in this situation. I think all of us want

to do everything we can to make sure that they are fully

supported.

I can tell the member that there was an issue at the Kamloops

centre. It was not there at the Kelowna centre.

I can tell you that I was contacted by the mayor in Merritt. I

told her that I would look into it right away, which we did.

I can tell her that those individuals that she was talking about,

and others impacted, were, in fact, and have been contacted. Some may

still be contacted. I want to tell you that they have been

contacted.

I have already publicly announced that those costs will be

covered. Going forward, I also expect to have additional announcements

on the supports that they will be receiving in the weeks and, in some

cases, months ahead.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

SEVERE WEATHER AND FLOODING

IN ABBOTSFORD AREA

M. de Jong: Fires, heatwaves, now flooding. In each case, what we have heard

from the government is an attempt to excuse their slow response and lack

of warning on the basis that the events were unprecedented and couldn’t

be predicted. In the case of the Nooksack River, the same thing happened

only 20 years ago — ironically, when certain members of the government

were either members of the government at the time or senior advisers to

the government.

There have been a whole host of studies from the Auditor General,

from the Ministry of Environment just last year, the Fraser Basin

Council. Still the government seemed to be caught off guard by the

torrent of water that flowed north from the Nooksack River and, as a

result, failed to give the same warning to people on Sumas Prairie that

folks on the other side of the border received.

We’re told there’s another atmospheric river on the way, at a time

when the dikes are already weakened and compromised. What changes have

been made?

What assurance do the people in that part of British Columbia have

that there is a proper protocol in place, that there is proper liaison

in place with officials in Washington state so that the people and the

farmers on Sumas Prairie can be assured that if the same thing happens

again and the Nooksack turns north, they will receive the same warning

that people in the U.S. received and they didn’t get last

week?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for that question. There were a number of

points in there that I will try and address.

The issue of the Nooksack River is a joint regional issue, to be

sure. It is a complicated issue.

[2:25 p.m.]

The member mentions 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, they sat on

this side of the House. I’m not making that comment as an aspersive

remark but, rather, to illustrate that there is no simple solution in

terms of the Nooksack River. If there was, I expect that that would have

been in place by now. It is a very complex situation involving all kinds

of issues around drainage and where communities are located.

What I can tell the member is that when the Premier met recently

with Governor Inslee, there was a recognition that we need to find a way

to deal with some of these particular issues. I have mentioned this with

Minister Blair at the federal level as well, because I expect that we’re

going to have to have the involvement of the federal government, along

with the U.S. federal government as well, in dealing with some of these

cross-border challenges when it comes to climate.

Very quickly, in terms of the issue around the atmospheric river,

a term which I think is new to most of us in this House, the federal

government, when I spoke with Minister Blair, has indicated that work is

underway in Environment Canada in terms of putting in place a ranking

system, similar to what they have in the U.S., that will allow us, as a

government, at the provincial level and the local level, to have a

better understanding of the nature and the strength of these atmospheric

rivers which will allow us to be much better prepared in what needs to

be done.

I will give just a quick example. The one that was looked at prior

to the House, over the weekend, was the one coming over the North Coast.

They just said “atmospheric river” — I was briefed on it — and that we

were looking at potentially 200 to 300 millimetres of rain, a

significant amount. Over the weekend, that changed to where, today, it

is 50 to 70. I think that illustrates some of the variability that

occurs in the weather. But a ranking system will help significantly, and

I appreciate the question from the member.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to table the Report on Multiculturalism , government of

British Columbia, 2020-2021.

Petitions

A. Olsen: I rise to table a petition with 345 signatures from British

Columbians, collected by Leslie Miller-Brooks, asking this government to

bring forward a debate on a private member’s bill, first tabled by the

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head in 2016, called the Environmental Bill of

Rights, to better protect the health of the environment.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Robinson: I have the pleasure to rise to table government’s Second Quarterly

Report , ’21-22, as required by

section 10 of the Budget

Transparency and Account­ability Act.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 18, Human Rights Code

Act.

In

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Committee of the Whole,

Bill 22.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, can we have a little quiet, please? Thank you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I just wanted to alert the House that after Bill 22, we will be having

committee on Bill 23.

[2:30 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

Bill 18 seeks to enhance and clarify existing protections for

Indigenous people under the code. Currently, the B.C. human rights code

implicitly protects individuals based on the prohibitions against

discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin

and religion. These amendments will add a protected ground of

“Indigenous identity” to explicitly recognize this protection against

discrimination for Indigenous people.

In addition, Bill 18 will add a definition of “Indigenous,” which

was co-developed with Indigenous people and provides clarity that by

Indigenous, we mean the First Nations, Métis and Inuit people of

Canada.

Indigenous people in British Columbia are currently protected

under the existing grounds in the code — namely, race, colour, ancestry,

place of origin or religion. However, the proposed amendments make this

protection explicit by adding the specific phrase “Indigenous identity”

to the prohibited grounds of discrimination listed in the code. If these

amendments are approved, British Columbia will be the first jurisdiction

in Canada to include Indigenous identity as a protected

ground.

This comes to us from a series of recommendations, among which is

Ardith Walkem’s report for the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, which found

that Indigenous people, although subject to considerable racism in our

province, are underrepresented among complainants seeking remedies from

the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. It is our hope that these amendments

will change that and that people will feel more ready to come forward

with their concerns to the tribunal.

We believe this is one way to demonstrate our commitment to ending

systemic racism and discrimination against Indigenous people and that we

are committed to a society where all people, including and especially

Indigenous people, enjoy full and free participation in the economic,

social, political and cultural life of the province.

Therefore, we are proposing specific amendments to the code in

order to reflect the common law in the code. This will achieve the goal

of greater public awareness and help all British Columbians to know that

discrimination against Indigenous people is against the law.

I look forward to further discussion on these important

amendments.

M. de Jong: I think the first thing I would say in response to the remarks

from the Attorney General is that I am not anticipating this to be a

particularly contentious debate. My sense is that there is likely to be

widespread support for the amendments, one in particular very

substantive, in the legislation before us.

It is, though, perhaps, an opportunity to reflect briefly on the

continued evolution that this represents, a further step, I would say,

along the path in the long journey that is reconciliation, and a journey

that I hope the Attorney and the government — and, I think, members of

the House — would agree, for which there has been some considerable

progress made, although, as we will reflect upon it affecting, I hope,

passage of this amendment, recognition that there is much further to go

in that journey.

I think about the time that I have been in this assembly, for 28,

29 years. I think about the key moments that I have witnessed. I would

say that the negotiation of the first modern treaty in the 1990s, the

Nisg̱a’a treaty, represented a

seminal moment. It’s interesting, and sometimes difficult, for me to

think back on, insofar as — and I’ve said this before — some of the

concerns I had about the effect and the impact that first treaty would

have happily turned out to be wholly incorrect.

[2:35 p.m.]

I think I can say in a way that, certainly, the Nisg̱a’a and others

in the area would endorse, that far from driving people apart, as I

feared that agreement might do, it has been a very helpful instrument in

bringing people together and creating opportunity.

The progress that that represented, the achievement that that

represented, I think — I say with a measure of pride — continued through

various administrations.

We tend, I think, sometimes, to forget the days when the term “new

relationship” was used by Indigenous peoples, First Nations, the

provincial government, and the federal government to describe the

tremendous progress that was being made along that pathway to

reconciliation, and the evidence that we have of that. At the time, in

the early 2000s, the nearly 200 revenue-sharing agreements that were

negotiated — perhaps, by today’s standards, lacking, but in their own

way and at their own time, historic and precedent-setting, in terms of

genuine examples of sharing the proceeds of the resources and the land

base with Indigenous peoples and First Nations.

Similarly, resource-sharing agreements that were negotiated at the

time. Again, perhaps by today’s standards, it is easy to reflect on

those and point out the components that may have been lacking, but at

the time, they were justifiably celebrated as representing significant

progress along the pathway to reconciliation.

Then ultimately, in the aftermath of that first treaty in ’97,

’98, with the Nisg̱a’a, by the middle

part of the 2000s, comprehensive treaty agreements with, fully, six or

seven First Nations — Indigenous peoples in Canada, in British Columbia.

Again, representative, I think, of the progress and of the changed

attitudes and enthusiasm that marked that period of time, which I still

think of as the halcyon days of the formation of the new

relationship.

Those are significant instruments of agreement, some of them

representing hundreds of pages of legal text, and important legal text,

for there is obviously importance attached to the legal descriptives and

the language that is used. But that was also the time other steps along

the pathway to reconciliation occurred. I thought of this, this morning

as I walked into the building and came through the rotunda that is just

outside the door. Actually, one floor down.

For anyone that has been here for more than, I think, a decade,

they will remember that in those days, in the rotunda hung some murals,

which had been donated and painted onto the wall in, I believe, the

1930s, although I stand to be corrected. I believe it was the 1930s.

Murals that most of us passed by for years and years and thought nothing

about, except they were depictions of people and, in several instances,

depictions of Indigenous peoples that caused great offence.

At that time, as the conversations evolved and, in many cases,

became more candid and reached to a new level of, dare I say, intimacy

and candor, it became clear that those images and that imagery were

deemed offensive, and that an important step that the province could

take was to address that.

[2:40 p.m.]

With the cooperation of members of this chamber on both sides of

the House, those steps were taken. Step by step, brick by brick, in the

case of these murals, steps have been taken to try and realize progress

and move closer to that elusive goal of genuine

reconciliation.

The introduction and unanimous passage of legislation dealing with

the UN declaration a couple years ago represents, I think, another

important moment in the evolution of that relationship and pursuit of

reconciliation. It’s something that we’ll discuss here, I expect,

momentarily, when we deal with another piece of legislation and steps

that the government has chosen to take in the aftermath of the passage

of that legislation.

As I think most people in this chamber would agree, we still have

much further to go. I think the Attorney, in his remarks…. Well, maybe

he didn’t. But I think we should anticipate that when people, if they do

look at the bill before us, Bill 18, they may ask this basic question,

and that is: is it necessary? Is it necessary to specifically enunciate

the grounds against which the discrimination might occur and needs to be

prohibited? Indigenous identity….

The code, of course, prohibits discrimination in a wide range of

activities — publication; accommodation, service and facility; purchase

of property; tenancy; employment advertisements; wages; employment

itself; and within unions and other associations.

In those endeavours and activities and areas, it specifically

prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place

of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental

disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or

age. Some people might pose the question, given the expansiveness of

that list of descriptives: is it necessary to go further and specify

Indigenous identity? Isn’t that covered, they might ask, by one of these

other enunciated areas?

Well, maybe, and maybe in a strictly legal sense we can make that

argument. I’m sure there are able legal minds out there who would

capably do so or attempt to do so. But I believe, and I suspect the

Attorney believes, that there are sound reasons for supporting the

additions set out in

section 2 of the bill.

I might summarize that in the following. What are those reasons?

Broadly speaking, I would offer two reasons, two rationale. The first,

fairly simply, is this. As long as discrimination is being perpetrated

against an identifiable group of people and against individuals because

they are members of that identifiable group, then including protections

for those individuals in that group, specifically, are

justified.

We all wish it wasn’t necessary. But I think we all know that in

this case it is and that there are still, sadly, examples of

discrimination, both individually and institutional, that need to be

addressed and for which the inclusion and the passage of this amendment

will be relevant and helpful.

[2:45 p.m.]

We got a report earlier this year dealing with the delivery of

health care services, In Plain Sight . The aptly titled report

which described — it may have been last year; I said this year — racism

in the health care system and found that 84 percent of Indigenous people

who took

part in the investigation reported experiencing discrimination

in our health care system. More than one-third of the health care worker

respondents responded having witnessed discrimination inflicted upon

Indigenous patients or their families and friends.

I don’t know about the rest of the members, but it makes me

uncomfortable and sad to consider that in the year 2021 that is still

the reality confronting our citizens and our Indigenous citizens in this

country and in this province. Yet it remains a reality in that instance

and, in that case, I think singularly justifies the step being advanced

and proposed by the government in this legislation.

I would say there is perhaps one other reason, if the first is not

sufficient, and that is having regard for the history of our land, the

history of our country that we are coming to grips with as time passes.

Again this year we have borne witness to a graphic example of some of

the implications and long-standing repercussions of policies adopted

over a century ago but that are very much a fact of our national history

and are relevant and — dare I say? — complicate the process of

reconciliation because of the impact they’ve had and the emotions that

they understandably engender on the part of, particularly, those whose

families were so dramatically impacted.

Those two factors alone, I would suggest, are sufficient to

justify support for the measure being advanced by the government today.

There are, I am certain, others, and I am also certain that there are

others in this chamber who may, in a far more profound way than I can,

describe personal examples of why this represents a step in the right

direction. I will simply say that the opposition is supportive of the

initiative. It is not my purpose to needlessly prolong the debate or

take time from others who may wish to offer their explanations for the

position they adopt with respect to this legislation.

But as I say, I anticipate this to be a debate not characterized

by rancour in any way, shape or form. I anticipate that the House will

be supportive of the step being advanced by the Attorney General in this

legislation.

A. Olsen: I rise to take my place in the second reading debate on Bill

[2:50 p.m.]

As I’m taking a look at the two bills that we have in front of us

this afternoon, I have some gratitude for them. I think it’s difficult

for someone who grew up on an Indian reserve in this country, in this

province to articulate, I guess, what it means, but also the feeling

that you have when we’re in 2021 and we’re adding protections from

discrimination into our human rights code that have long been needed,

perhaps. Well, not perhaps — definitely.

I recognize that there are some protections already in the human

rights code. However, we’ve seen, increasingly, those who are doing the

investigative work on behalf of our province and doing that work

identifying this as a much-needed amendment. I think the latest might

have been Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, in the In Plain Sight

report. It’s also noted here that Ardith Walpetko We’dalx Walkem

recommended the same in Expanding Our Vision: Cultural Equity and

Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights to the government to make this

change.

You’re certainly not going to get any opposition from me or from

my colleague on this change. I think that it does reflect where we’re at

in two ways. One, it reflects the fact that we are making these

amendments and these changes in our law, and that should be something

that we celebrate. The other way that it is a reflection on our society

is that we stand here, 160-plus years down the road in this province,

and this is the time that we’re doing it.

I think some of the criticisms that I have and that I carry with

me of the work that’s done in this House is much more around how that

work is applied outside of this House. We can do a lot of the good work

in here, but it’s how we take the work that’s done in here and breathe

life into it and actually make the changes that are needed in this

province.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen the legislative changes…. The passing of

the Declaration Act, for example, was something that was celebrated, and

certainly the government appreciated the accolades of being the first

jurisdiction to enshrine the articles of the declaration on the rights

of Indigenous peoples into the Declaration Act here in British Columbia.

Certainly, the steps that were taken to ensure that there were some

accountability mechanisms in that legislation went over and above what

we saw our federal government do in Ottawa. That should be

acknowledged.

However, some of the critical work that is yet to be done now,

almost two years to the day after passing that act, is woefully slow in

rolling out. I note the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation has been mandated by the Premier to create a secretariat

to undertake the work of reconciliation in this province. I know there’s

been very, very little said on that, and Indigenous leaders and,

certainly, people in this House are very interested in knowing what the

timeline is for that piece of work that was supposed to be done by the

end of this year.

[2:55 p.m.]

I’m not going to belabour those points any longer. Just to say

that we can do good work in the chamber here, but it’s going to require

a government and independent offices to take the spirit of that work and

breathe life into them.

I know that there are a lot of Indigenous people in this province

right now that were feeling very hopeful that the work that was

celebrated in here, that the overwhelming back-patting that went on when

the Premier and the former Minister of Indigenous Relations walked in to

the Assembly of First Nations, willingly accepting the accolades of that

important work…. I know that a lot of Indigenous people right now are

feeling deflated because the promise of what was to come has been

incredibly slow in getting into the communities.

I think that it’s important that we’re making this change. I look

forward to supporting it through the committee stage to the final vote.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Kamloops–South Thompson. North

Thompson. North, but he’s south of the member. But he’s

north.

P. Milobar: Yes. I always have to say, after that gets said: the sunny side of

the riding.

It gives me pleasure to rise today to Bill 18, to speak about the

amendment to the human rights code. Certainly, I think it’s important to

recognize, as we heard the previous speaker say, that protections are in

place under the human rights code right now.

But when you’re talking about Indigenous peoples — who have,

rightfully so, felt discriminated against because of actions taken

against them for as long as B.C. has been around, frankly, and even

before — it’s easy to see why amendments like this are important. Not

just important to fulfil the language around UNDRIP that this chamber

unanimously supported, but making sure that those actions actually are

brought out in a tangible way.

When you’re part of a group of people who have felt that

discrimination directly for so long, it’s important that, when you go to

seek out help and recourse and guidance from government agencies and

government tribunals and things of that nature, you feel that you are

well represented when you’re looking through whether or not this is

where you should be taking your complaint or your issue to try to get

issues properly resolved.

When you can look into the Human Rights Act, if you are

Indigenous, and actually see, with this amendment, that yes, indeed,

Indigenous peoples will be taken seriously at the Human Rights Tribunal,

that the actions taken will be dealt with, and they will be on equal

footing as anyone else with issues around human rights complaints and

violations…. It’s very important that people in those underserved

communities and discriminated-against communities feel that they have

that representation and that ease of access to government-type

agencies.

Of course, we do have a very dark history as a province, as a

country, around Indigenous peoples. This is yet another step along the

long, long road to reconciliation. That is one fear we’ve heard time and

again around UNDRIP from Indigenous leaders, once it was passed

unanimously by this House: that government documents come and go,

government words have come and gone, but real action is what is needed.

So if there’s not the action to back up and start to implement some of

the direction within UNDRIP, it becomes very problematic and very

concerning for those Indigenous communities out there.

In the case of Kamloops, we have a very proud Indigenous history

of trying to advocate and make meaningful change, with all sorts of

governments within our Indigenous communities, back to Ottawa or British

Columbia — those promises being made, and then promises either not

actioned or broken completely. I think back to the signing of the

Laurier memorial in Kamloops in 1910, 1911, and then no actual action

taken on it. That is a sticking point for the Secwépemc Chiefs to this

day, and rightfully so, because it was seen as, just now, yet another

government promise with no actual tangible action behind the

promise.

[3:00 p.m.]

When we look at Bill 18, we see, although it’s a very short bill,

as we know — it’s only the one page; it’s only a couple of clauses —

it’s a very important step forward for this chamber to take a step to

actually show some tangible change being made as it relates to

UNDRIP.

We, frankly, have seen, on many other bills, a lack of

consultation with Indigenous nations moving forward, post UNDRIP

implementation. So there’s a lot of work still to be done by this

government to make sure that the guiding principles of UNDRIP are

actually actioned in practice, not just spoken as hollow words in this

chamber but actually followed through in a meaningful way.

We look forward to committee stage of this bill. We look forward

to getting further understanding and a depth of understanding around

what this change truly will mean for Indigenous peoples in our province

around the human rights code and to making sure that that broader

understanding is shared with the public, much as we saw with, I think,

the very well-thought-out, engaging, back-and-forth discussion — clause

by clause, in that case; obviously, with this bill, not as many clauses

— when UNDRIP was brought forward in the first place.

All too often, I think, in this chamber, the back-and-forth

questioning of a bill gets perceived as very political, and everything

is politicized. Not every bill is that way. Sometimes it’s just making

sure that the public has a broad understanding of what exactly is being

passed into legislation, what is moving forward, what the ramifications

of that mean and, most importantly, what the government intent and how

they are interpreting this change would mean.

Ultimately, moving forward, if there is any type of court action

or anything like that…. The courts often will go back to those debates

and listen to what the government’s answers were to questions to get a

better understanding of what the true intent and direction being set out

by the government with any piece of legislation is.

It’s really important for the opposition to be able to take that

time in committee stage and to fully canvass, regardless of length of

bill, to make sure those important steps are understood. Now, I

reference that because, unfortunately, we are now, with four days left

in the legislative calendar, dealing with a bill at second reading. It

is unfortunate that the legislation was not brought forward

earlier.

Frankly, we have been waiting for what the legislative docket

would look like from this government for quite some time. We will now

have seven bills at committee stage at one point this week, in our last

four days. We have four bills at second reading like this. That really

does start to compress the ability for the opposition and, by extension,

the public to get a full and broad and meaningful discussion and

understanding of each piece of legislation that has a significant impact

on a wide range of people.

This bill, obviously, is targeted directly to Indigenous

communities and understandably so. Those questions that need to be asked

and answered are nonetheless just as important and critical to get out

there. So we look forward to committee stage of this bill. We look

forward to hearing from other members, if they have thoughts on this

bill at this stage.

We hope, genuinely, that there is enough time, in this week, to

properly canvass all pieces of legislation, all four bills at second

reading and all seven bills that are, ultimately, going to wind up at

committee stage throughout the course of the next four days.

Unfortunately, looking at the depth of a lot of these bills, this

included — only two clauses but a very meaningful impact to people — I’m

not sure that there will be enough time to do justice to the democratic

process as it relates to dealing with legislation that’s been delayed

for so long, to come forward.

I look forward to the committee stage on this bill.

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure to rise in this House to speak about, albeit a

simple one-page bill, something that has huge ramifications in terms of

human rights in this province. It’s part of our duties as elected

officials to make certain we’re standing up on behalf of Indigenous

communities and are doing that.

I have to say that in my own community, I’ve watched many

generations of people within the Westbank First Nation, part of the

Syilx community and the traditional Okanagan bands, and how they have

made progression and have become not only self-governed, the very first

self-governed band in Canada; they’ve become entrepreneurial, and they

have grown into a community that is very much a part and becoming more

integrated and respected for their history and the past.

[3:05 p.m.]

I know that our country has a dark history when it comes to some

of the treatment towards Indigenous peoples. We only found out earlier

in this particular year, with the troubling discovery in the Tk’emlúps

residential school area as well as many others across the country…. But

I think the fact that we are moving ahead, not accepting of that but

trying to find a respectful way to make certain that we deal with the

injustices that may have been done and not necessarily…. We’re trying to

make certain that we move ahead and empower Indigenous

peoples.

I know that addressing that legacy involves a long journey of

righting historical wrongs and ensuring equality for all who call this

land their home. There are many — as we know, 203 First Nations just in

British Columbia, many without treaties. It is important that we…. We

owe our citizens an equal opportunity to a fair share of the wealth from

this country and the provinces. It’s why every government, regardless of

political stripe, has had that responsibility to uphold those

laws.

I know that in my time in government, we very much worked to

empower First Nations with community benefits agreements. I have to say

that we did hundreds and hundreds of agreements in my time as both the

minister and Member of the Legislative Assembly.

I guess one of the things, as we’ve moved along this continuum of

trying to figure out how we do better, the four host First Nations, in

2009…. In your riding, Mr. Speaker, I believe just down off Georgia

Street, we had the four host First Nations. It allowed the world to see

what we were about as Canadians, in the sense that we were more than

just trying to give them some sort of less important role. They were the

host First Nations. It was their territories, etc., that we celebrated

the Olympics on, and it was a big part of what happened with British

Columbia.

I guess, subsequent to that, the government brought in the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. We brought that

together. We universally supported that because of what it meant. It

meant that we really needed to put those rights and considerations in

front of decisions that we’re making every day here in this House, and

has that been considered? I know it’s not perfect. Today there are many

different things where consultation…. It’s very difficult to imagine:

what does that actually mean?

I think recently we had First Nations, or currently we have

amendments to a forests statutes act, and a limited amount of time for

those to be properly considered and consulted. Some things could take

many years to work out. I realize it’s not a perfect system, but it’s on

a continuum of trying to move forward.

This legislation before us today seeks to expand on this

legislation of UNDRIP, to further reconciliation by adding Indigenous

identity as a protected group in the B.C. human rights code, fulfilling

parts of the UNDRIP draft action plan. An obvious question in my mind

after just last week, on Monday, having the Métis from British Columbia

here in the Legislature and meeting with them…. I think it was

celebrating Louis Riel’s birthday.

I think it’s really important that we do consider: are we bringing

these other groups along that have a place in this space? I have to say

that I was encouraged today because I had a meeting with the Office of

the Human Rights Commissioner, Kasari Govender. That was a human rights

commissioner that was brought in with Bill 50, in November of 2018. I’m

encouraged that the commissioner has gone ahead and set up offices in

Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna, Prince George, Smithers.

[3:10 p.m.]

I think that one of the things that we heard in her presentation

to the Finance and Government Services Committee today was the breadth

of the approach that’s being taken on First Nations and Indigenous

issues around human rights — where they haven’t been given that

consideration and the attention that they perhaps should have or could

have. I do think it’s important that that is happening. It’s happening

as we speak. The wording in Bill 18 is very important about

that.

I have to say that we can make the legal argument that they’re

protected under the human rights legislation or human rights code that’s

been in place for a long time in British Columbia. But clearly, the

numbers speak to the fact that there do need to be changes in the way

the government and people see Indigenous people in British Columbia.

That’s one of the reasons why, I believe, the government has brought

forward Bill 18.

I think there’s discrimination that we’ve seen visibly, in terms

of reports such as In Plain Sight — where we found that a high

percentage of Indigenous people who took

part in the investigation

reported experiencing discrimination in the system. We’ve heard other

reports, in health care and other places, where it has been not

particularly productive, and it has become a bit of a game, I guess, if

you want to call it that.

Despite some of the steps I’ve mentioned, that we’ve moved forward

in the past few decades, I think our society is still free from

discrimination, as we’ve seen not only with Indigenous but other people

that have been accused, in this province, of being of a lesser group. It

doesn’t matter whether it’s a South Asian community, the Oriental

communities, etc. I think that we really have to look broader. It’s

important that we embrace the fact that we do have equity here in this

province.

I think one of the things that we know…. We’ve seen it in the

numbers, in the jobless numbers, in the fact that there are so many

organizations, both private and public, that are desperate for new

people. We are going to need more people that are coming from other

walks of life. We need First Nations to be able to fill those positions.

They’re particularly good at mining. I know that in Smithers, they have

a small mining school, which is dominated by local First

Nations.

At Okanagan College in the Okanagan, the population of First

Nations is around 15 percent. These are way more than the local

population. It’s the same at UBC Okanagan. The bottom line is that we

need to make it so that there is an invisibility to where people have

come from and where they fit in, etc. I think that that’s

important.

I know that as elected officials, we commit to building full and

equal opportunity and prosperity for everybody in British Columbia. I

just want to maybe close with a comment that the Human Rights

Commissioner mentioned in her reports today: “To the Indigenous peoples

of this place we call B.C.: today we turn our minds to you and your

ancestors. You have kept your unceded homelands strong. We are grateful

to live and work here.”

I think it goes without saying that it shows her office’s

commitment to trying to make these things right. I think, as this work

started decades ago and continues to this day, it’s work that we’re all

committed to, that we all support and that we all want to take action

towards. We have a long journey still to go, and we must continue that

journey in good faith together.

J. Tegart: It is a pleasure to get up today and speak to Bill 18. It is a

one-page bill but an incredibly important bill. Everyone in this House

made a commitment to UNDRIP and passed a bill, with great celebration

and great ceremony, in this House. Now it is our job to put those words

into action.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think there have been many occasions over the last year where

there have been questions as to whether our words are true, whether we

have the commitment to put them into action in this House. But as I look

at this one-page bill, I think it’s a tiny step on the journey towards

where we need to be to recognize First Nations, in a meaningful way, in

our province.

As a grandmother of First Nations children, I have great faith in

the future. I know that the First Nations people are a patient people.

They’ve waited a long time — a long time — to be in this place and to

have us recognize how important they are to our province. I want to

acknowledge that patience. We sometimes are slow learners, and just this

bill today — to recognize, in the Human Rights Act — is so incredibly

important as we go on this journey.

I served many, many years as a school board person. We worked very

hard to include First Nations culture and First Nations history in the

curriculum in schools. We built local education agreements. We did

everything in our power to put those words into action, in partnership

with our First Nations communities. Yet still today, we’re dealing with

bullying, racism, misunderstanding — trying very hard in partnerships,

still, to make schools a welcoming place for our First Nations kids, and

also to partner with First Nations who have chosen to take their

children and put together an education system that meets their

needs.

I can remember being very, very concerned that we didn’t see very

many First Nations teachers in our schools, and that First Nations

children needed to see First Nations teachers, to see that possibility

and to see that someone who lived where they lived was a teacher. As I

learned the history — the history of education in Canada, the history of

First Nations education — my understanding grew.

We have a lot of work to do around the history of residential

schools, and the sad discovery that was discovered in Kamloops this

summer. It has been said in this chamber that many people think it’s a

new discovery, but First Nations people will tell you that it’s not new

to them. They knew; they told; they shared. They were traumatized by it.

I think that there are times in history when we are so ready to

acknowledge and to change. I hope that we are at that time in history.

The UN declaration was a great start, but we have a lot of work to

do.

We not only have challenges within our education system; I think

we have challenges across government. As we continue to commit to right

First Nations and to reflect First Nations in our lawmaking, I think we

continue to strengthen the words that were spoken into actions. We have

children in care. I have over 30 First Nations bands in my riding, and

children in care is something we have talked about for all the time I’ve

served here. The understanding of the culture of First Nations

communities and how First Nations care for their children is so needed

as we set up systems.

[3:20 p.m.]

We need to work in partnership, and respectful partnership, on how

we reflect the culture in which those children grow up and are loved and

are supported. We have lots of work to do in that area.

I think there are a great many people in this province waiting for

our actions to reflect our words. We are great talkers. I think everyone

in the room will say that. But I can tell you I listen with great

interest to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, to the member

for Skeena, who have the lived experience. It is so important for all of

us to listen and internalize and understand how difficult it is

sometimes for people who live in different situations and different

cultures to be a part of who we are as a governing body.

I thank those members for being a voice that will never be quiet,

that will never be silenced. How important their representation is in

this chamber.

We have an obligation, as I said, under the UN declaration. I can

tell you I am committed, as a part of the opposition, to ensure we move

forward in a meaningful way, that we make the changes that reinforce and

build on a commitment that was made in this chamber. It was historic. I

was proud to be part of a government that was moving forward in such a

meaningful way. But again, thank goodness First Nations people are

patient. I expected a little bit quicker reaction, a little bit more

action, as we moved forward with the declaration.

I can tell you, as opposition, we are committed to ensuring that

government lives by the UN declaration, that government consults in a

meaningful way. I think we have all heard of experiences where it has

been words but no action. It has been fanfare but no action. It has been

celebrations but little action. It is our job as opposition to hold

government to account, and I make that commitment to First Nations

people in British Columbia.

We have the obligation to represent everybody. But the richness of

British Columbia is based on who lives here and how we acknowledge their

culture, what they bring to us as a province, and in particular for

First Nations people. I have been welcomed in so many communities and

been brought to tears so many times as we learned some of the stories

and as we participated in some of the celebrations and some of the

ceremonies. I have to say that it is with great pleasure that I watch

Elders today watch their young dance and celebrate and understand their

culture and the strength that that culture brings to them.

It is a pleasure today to see the beginnings of action in regards

to our UN declaration and in regards to human rights. As was said by, I

do believe, my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, it’s been a

long time coming. But we are here today. I am pleased to be a part of a

government that will support this. Thanks to the government for bringing

this bill forward.

[3:25 p.m.]

F. Donnelly: I, too, would like to stand in full support of Bill 18, the Human

Rights Code Amendment Act, 2021. The government recognizes that

Indigenous people face discrimination at disproportionately higher

levels. This is due to systemic racism, discrimination and

intergenerational trauma Indigenous peoples have experienced and

continue to experience. Yet in a recent report put out by the Human

Rights Tribunal, Indigenous complaints continue to be

underrepresented.

So Bill 18, while it is brief, is very important. It seeks to

enhance and clarify existing protections for Indigenous people under the

code. Currently under the B.C. rights code, implicitly, it protects

individuals based on prohibitions against discrimination on the grounds

of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and religion. These

amendments that the Attorney General has introduced will add a

protection or protected ground of Indigenous identity to explicitly

recognize this protection against the discrimination for Indigenous

people.

In addition, Bill 18 will add a definition of “Indigenous” which

was co-developed with Indigenous people and provides clarity. By

Indigenous, we mean the First Nations, Métis and Inuit people of Canada.

I just want to add my support to this important bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Attorney General to

move second reading of the debate.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank all members who spoke to the bill. I know that there was a

discussion that we would each put up a single speaker. Members felt

moved to speak, and I’m glad for that. I heard the member from Kamloops

suggest that maybe there wasn’t time to discuss this, but I disagree,

and I am glad that members found the time to prepare some thoughts and

to speak on this. This is an important thing.

The nice thing about it was that there’s lots of…. “I’d like

government to move faster; I think government needs to make sure that

this is real outside the House” — all things I think we can all agree

on. So universal support for this. There’s some degree of pride, I

think, we can all take that we’re the first province to directly include

Indigenous identity in our human rights code.

We won’t be the last. I agree strongly with the member for Saanich

North and the Islands — disturbing that it took this long but necessary

for us to do.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2021, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 29,

Interpretation Act.

BILL 29 —

INTERPRETATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

Two years ago this House unanimously passed the Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. In doing so, we reaffirmed our

government’s commitment to advancing reconciliation with Indigenous

peoples, and we committed to take all measures necessary to ensure that

the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the UN declaration on

the rights of Indigenous peoples.

The

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2021, represents an important

step forward on these commitments. This bill proposes two key

provisions: an affirmation of our constitutional obligations to

Indigenous peoples through a non-derogation clause that will apply

across the entire statute book and a requirement that provincial laws

and regulations be read so as to be consistent with the UN

declaration.

[3:30 p.m.]

The first provision responds to long-standing calls from

Indigenous peoples, including the First Nations Leadership Council and

the Alliance of B.C. Modern Treaty Nations, for a positively framed,

universal, non-derogation clause and fulfils a commitment made in the

draft action plan under the Declaration Act.

This clause underscores and reiterates our commitment to upholding

constitutional principles, and including it in the

Interpretation Act

will reduce the need for non-derogation clauses to be included in

individual statutes. While this clause doesn’t, and really shouldn’t,

change the province’s obligations under the constitution — we have to

follow the constitution — it does serve as an important reminder of the

rights of Indigenous peoples in our province.

Like the Declaration Act was two years ago, the second provision

in this act is novel in Canada. It takes another step forward on the

alignment of laws by making it explicit that the province’s preferred

approach to

interpretation of provincial acts and regulations requires

consistency with the UN declaration.

This clause must be understood in the context of the

Interpretation Act and its role in modern rules of statutory

interpretation. The purpose of the

Interpretation Act is to provide

direction and assistance for the

interpretation of laws where their

meaning is not clear. As such, the proposed UN declaration clause

advances the

interpretation of the laws of British Columbia in alignment

with the declaration, but does not itself incorporate the rights and

principles in the UN declaration into the laws of B.C. directly or give

it constitutional status.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

In other words, if a court considers a provincial law to be

inconsistent with the UN declaration, this amendment does not allow the

court to read in, read down or find that law to be of no force or

effect. This is consistent with the limits of the

Interpretation Act,

but also with the understanding that the substantive work of amending

existing laws in our province, or introducing new laws to be consistent

with the UN declaration, must be done in consultation and cooperation

with Indigenous peoples, in accordance with

section 3 of the Declaration

Act.

While the UN declaration clause does not provide authority to

rewrite legislation, it does provide direction on how to resolve

ambiguities in the law. The inclusion of this clause in the

Interpretation Act is an important signal, consistent with sections 1(4)

and 2(

a) of the Declaration Act, which requires consideration of the UN

declaration and directs those who interpret provincial acts and

regulations to

interpretations that are consistent with it. It does this

in a manner that is within the limits of the

Interpretation

Act.

I’m pleased that we are taking this important step of aligning the

Interpretation Act with the UN declaration as part of our commitment to

the alignment of laws under

section 3 of the Declaration Act.

M. de Jong: Another, I think, significant contribution to the statutory body

of law, largely for reasons laid out by the Attorney. I was pleased to

hear that he spent a little bit of time in his remarks pointing out some

of the things that the amendment to the

Interpretation Act will

accomplish and, also, some of the things that it will not accomplish,

because I think accuracy is important on a matter like this, which

carries with it both a symbolic significance, which isn’t to be

dismissed or diminished, and a substantive significance as

well.

The symbolic significance bears consideration in the piece of

legislation that is the blueprint for the

Interpretation Act, which is

the blueprint for the manner in which legislation is to be interpreted —

hence the name,

Interpretation Act. Very early in that act, there will

be reference to the UN declaration.

When we get to committee, I’m going to ask the Attorney to spend a

few moments to make clear the reference to the act — that, is the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act — because my

understanding is that that is significant because we are referencing the

schedule in that act, which is itself the declaration.

[3:35 p.m.]

Some people might be a little bit confused about the reference to

the act as opposed to the declaration itself, but the declaration, of

course, exists as a

schedule to that earlier piece of

legislation.

On the substantive side, and this does get fairly technical in

terms of statutory drafting, my impression — I think the Attorney

touched on this, but we’ll clarify it a little bit more when we get to

the committee stage — is that whilst this becomes a lens through which

all legislation needs to be examined and analyzed, considered and

interpreted, laws and regulations that are clearly inconsistent or that

remain inconsistent with the UN declaration do remain in effect,

pursuant to

section 2 of the

Interpretation Act. That is the provision

dealing with contrary intentions.

I think the Attorney was careful to make a point that this is not

a constitutional instrument that can be used to strike down laws that

are presently on the books and would appear, on their face, to be

inconsistent with the UN declaration.

In those cases, the onus will shift to the government or will be

there for the government to take the necessary steps to prepare and

table, in the case of primary legislation, amendments in this chamber

for consideration and passage; or in the case of regulations that are,

on the face, clearly inconsistent with the declaration, they will need

to effect the changes to those regulations — which, by definition, can

happen by order-in-council.

There is much work to be done, and I don’t think the government or

the Attorney General would dispute that. This tool for statutory

interpretation, whilst helpful for reasons I’ve just alluded to, also

highlights the need for that work to proceed quickly to avoid the kind

of uncertainty that may plague statutory decision-makers and those to

whom the decisions of statutory decision-makers apply.

But having chosen to introduce it in the Legislature, having

chosen to unanimously endorse the adoption of the declaration in the way

that it did a couple of years ago and the provisions of that

legislation, it is a step that I think, again, will enjoy broad support

within the chamber.

Again, for the Attorney’s benefit, in the committee stage, we may

want to refer back somewhat to some of the discussion that took place

around the passage of the earlier legislation, the Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

I think it is fair to observe that while that was a lengthy

debate, it was also a thoughtful one, and some of the scenarios and some

of the circumstances to which this changed legislative framework will

apply…. It may be worthwhile to consider, following passage of this

bill, how those provisions will work together to impact the application

and

interpretation of statute in British Columbia.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will listen carefully to any other

members that seek to participate in the debate.

[3:40 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity to stand and take my place in second

reading debate on Bill 29, the

Interpretation Amendment Act. This goes

back, for me, to when we were debating Bill 4. It’s an indication how

long this year has felt, but I think that that was in the spring of this

year.

Bill 4 was a firearms act, and there were aspects of that bill

that I raised as problematic, largely due to the fact that my father,

Carl Olsen, spent a decade of his life defending his treaty-protected

rights, of the Douglas treaty, from a Wildlife Act–related arrest that

happened. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court of

Canada.

Now, the instance in this case…. It was a new piece of

legislation, and I recognize that one of the remedies of what we faced

back in the spring is being solved here, so I appreciate that. In the

conversation that I had with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General, who…. At the committee stage of that debate, we had a long

exchange — it might have been an hour, an hour and a half — on this

point.

The point I was making was that it was my hope that, after going

all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, we weren’t going to be

creating another law in this that would potentially threaten the rights

that my father had successfully defended and, frankly, have yet to be

fully realized on behalf of the hunters of the Douglas treaty First

Nations communities.

The Wildlife Act is proving to be difficult enough. We have

another W̱SÁNEĆ hunter, a member, a

relative of ours, who is yet again in front of the courts, picked up on

a similar hunting charge, even though his rights are protected by the

exact same treaty that allowed him to hunt and fish as

formerly.

The exchange between the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General and myself was really around an opportunity for me to get a much

deeper understanding as to how the new clause in that Bill 4 was going

to potentially impact the hunting rights of Douglas treaty First Nations

people. At that time, the minister suggested that we would be seeing an

amendment to the

Interpretation Act, so today I stand with gratitude

that here we are with that amendment. It didn’t take years. It took just

a few months.

I can understand that the implications of this change need to be

looked at. It’s a necessary change. We made a commitment to align all

the laws and statutes in this province with the Declaration Act, the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. This is an

important step in that direction.

I think, you know, when you take a look at some of the acts that

we have…. You take the Mines Act, for example. That is a very, very old

piece of legislation, and there is no doubt that that legislation is not

going to be…. The full amendments that might need to be done to that act

are not addressed through here, but certainly, there will be aspects of

it that might be.

Having this laid out, and this amendment, will certainly be

helpful in that work that we have committed to: ensuring that all of the

laws of this Legislature — all the laws that are on the books and that

will be on the books — align with the commitments that we made under the

Declaration Act and our commitments in

section 35 of the Constitution

Act nationally.

With that, I’ll take my seat and just thank the government for

doing this important work. I look forward to the committee stage and

eventually standing with the government in support of this

legislation.

HÍSW̱ḴE .

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister wishes to close the

debate.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the members for their thoughtful comments.

With that, I move second reading.

[3:45 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Always judicious with his words, the Attorney.

Members, we already have the question, I believe. The question is

second reading of Bill 29.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 29,

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2021, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 30, Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act.

A. Olsen: If I may ask for a two- to five-minute recess so that my colleague

can come in. We need to switch Houses. She’ll be speaking to this

bill.

Deputy Speaker: She needs to be here to listen to the minister introducing

it?

A. Olsen: Presumably. Two minutes?

Deputy Speaker: All right. We’ll take a two-minute recess.

The House recessed from 3:46 p.m. to 3:48 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

BILL 30 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Deputy Speaker: Attorney, if you’d like to introduce second reading,

please.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

Hon. Speaker, as you know, British Columbians continue to

persevere in their ongoing efforts against COVID-19 and to keep our

communities as safe as possible, but the fact is that the pandemic is

still not over. There’s a continued need for certain orders and

regulations that were made earlier in the pandemic and that are still

playing a valuable role for British Columbians in reducing the COVID-19

risk.

These orders and regulations do a range of specific things, such

as allowing for remote witnessing of the signing of key legal documents,

allowing the courts to specify that certain court proceedings can be

conducted remotely and supporting provincial health officer orders that

impose conditions on the number of long-term-care facilities staff are

permitted to work at, in order to help reduce COVID-19 transmission

between facilities.

[3:50 p.m.]

To ensure critically important orders and regulations can continue

for the upcoming year, the bill would amend the COVID-19 Related

Measures Act to change the sunset or automatic repeal date for that act

to December 31, 2022. The bill would also amend the COVID-19 Related

Measures Act to add authority to repeal the act by regulation at a date

earlier than December 31, 2022.

With these amendments, government is seeking to continue keeping

British Columbians safe in the upcoming year while also committing that

government will repeal the act in the event there is no further need for

the COVID-19 Related Measures Act before its scheduled sunset date. I

know I’m not alone in hoping the pandemic will abate and that the act

will not be needed for all of 2022, but it is difficult to deny that the

act is needed now and for the immediately foreseeable future.

The amendments in this bill also make changes to the Judicial

Compensation Act, the JCA. The amendments are procedural in nature, and

the changes will streamline the judicial compensation process, leading

to a timelier and more efficient process for setting and implementing

changes to compensation for the Provincial Court judges and judicial

justices.

The independence of the judiciary from government and private

actors is a fundamental principle of the Canadian constitution. The

judiciary must both be and be seen to be independent. Government

emphasizes its respect for and its commitment to the principle of

judicial independence both in its substance and its spirit.

The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that judicial

remuneration must not become the subject of negotiation between the

judiciary and government. To that end, in British Columbia, judicial

salaries, benefits and allowances are established every three years

through a process that incorporates an independent judicial compensation

commission. Government and the judiciary make submissions to the

commission. The commission, in turn, has a statutory mandate to make

recommendations to the Legislative Assembly regarding compensation

matters after considering the statutory factors set out in the

JCA.

The constitutionally required Judicial Compensation Commission,

JCC, is a five-person independent body that is currently appointed every

three years to make recommendations concerning the remuneration,

allowances and benefits of Provincial Court judges and judicial justices

for the following three years. This bill proposes to change the JCC

cycle from every three to every four years, leading to greater

efficiency and conserving the resources of both the judiciary and

government, who are required to participate in each

commission.

As a result of the changes, future commissions will be appointed

every four years and will make recommendations for compensation of

Provincial Court judges and judicial justices for each year of the

extended four-year cycle. In preparing their reports, future commissions

will continue to consider the factors set out in the JCA, including the

fiscal position of the government over the extended four-year

period.

The bill also proposes a simplified process for government’s

response to the commission’s recommendations. At present, the only

option to respond to JCC recommendations is through the Legislative

Assembly, even where government accepts the recommendations in full.

That comprehensive process enables the Legislative Assembly to debate

whether to accept JCC recommendations or to reject and substitute

different compensations.

The proposed amendments will allow the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to accept JCC recommendations on behalf

of the government, through an order-in-council, where all of the JCC’s

recommendations are accepted by government. This will simplify and

improve the timeliness of accepting and implementing JCC recommendations

in those particular circumstances. If, however, government does not

accept all of the recommendations through an order-in-council within a

set timeline, the JCC report and recommendations will be considered

through the existing process of the Legislative Assembly.

Finally, the amendments will defer the appointment and reporting

of the next commission for a brief period. Currently the JCA requires

that the next commission be appointed on or before March 1, 2022. This

bill defers the appointment and the statutory timelines for the

commission’s functions for six months, to allow the parties to consider

the recent B.C. Court of Appeal decision respecting the 2016 JCC and

allow for next steps in the legal process, which will inform and guide

the party’s approach to the next JCC.

M. de Jong: With respect to Bill 30, broadly speaking, two areas of relevance.

One is the extension of the COVID-19 Related Measures Act. I’m going to

say this because I think there may be a few other members of the

assembly who will touch upon this as it relates to their particular

circumstances closer to home.

[3:55 p.m.]

I don’t think the Attorney and government should anticipate huge

pushback with the notion that COVID is still a reality on the landscape

and that there are measures for which it is justified to ensure that the

statutory authority is extended so that they can continue to

exist.

Insofar as the government is seeking that authority to extend

beyond the original sunset timeline that would end this calendar year, I

think the Attorney, both at second reading and in the committee stage,

should anticipate some observations and questions about some of those

orders that derive their authority from the COVID-19 Related Measures

Act, which the government now purports to extend, and where some of

those orders are seen to be causing more difficulties than offering

solutions. I think you’ll hear from some of my colleagues on that point.

You’ll hear on that point both in second reading and likely at the

committee stage.

I’ll turn my attention now to the second group of amendments,

which relate to the Judicial Compensation Act, and I’ll say this to the

Attorney. The decision to shift to a four-year cycle, as opposed to a

three-year cycle, I and the opposition are supportive of. I think the

Attorney will recognize that this has turned out to be a fairly

lucrative area for litigation over the years, as it relates to

recommendations and the response from governments of all political

stripe, and the enthusiasm with which those responses have been

litigated.

I don’t know this for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if at

least one, and possibly two, past recommendations are still wheeling

their way through the courts at this point, at various appellate levels.

So three to four years — not sure that will eliminate the litigation. It

will make it just a little bit less frequent along the way. There is a

transition measure associated with that that, again, would seem to be

logical and be necessary to effect that transition.

The only thing I take issue with…. I don’t want to leave the

impression that I think that the pillars of democracy are about to fall

because of it. But the Attorney said something that I thought was

important. He, not surprisingly, commented on the importance of the

independence of the judiciary and the separation between the three

branches of government — executive, legislative and judicial. I know the

judiciary frequently doesn’t like being considered a branch of

government. Of course, they are, but a very independent one, and focused

on the

interpretation of laws and statutes. They have a unique role in

that regard.

I get the very limited basis upon which the executive council,

under these amendments, would be entitled to facilitate implementation

of compensation recommendations. It is restricted, under these

amendments, to circumstances in which the executive council accepts, in

totality, the recommendations from the independent

commission.

I also understand that in circumstances in the past, where the

report is laid before this chamber…. Somewhat to my surprise, with the

help of the Attorney General’s staff, we determined that in 2007, I

think, a report came before the assembly, and the government of the day,

of which I was a member, accepted the recommendations, did nothing, and

the recommendations were implemented.

I think my point is that it was still

an act of the legislative

branch of government. In that case, the act was to do nothing, but it

was still

an act of the legislative branch. There are perhaps three

people. — or maybe, as it turns out, only one person — in the world that

might find that important, but in circumstances where now it would be an

order-in-council, it seems to me that that tradition is

changing.

[4:00 p.m.]

It would be the executive branch of government that is now setting

the compensation, albeit on the strength of a recommendation it removed

from an entirely independent panel, but it would be

an act of the

executive branch. I expect the Attorney has considered that and is

comfortable that that is not an egregious overlay of the two or three

branches of government. ‘

I find it curious because I’m not sure, at the end of the day,

that it accomplishes very much or is necessary in a case where the

recommendations have been accepted, and the matter is laid before the

assembly. Nothing happens, except that after a period of — whatever it

was — two weeks of inaction, they are deemed to take effect, but they

are deemed to take effect because of a decision of the legislative

branch of government.

This would represent a change, in that regard — not the most

heinous act of government I can consider or describe but perhaps a

moderately significant one — that changes the dynamic just a little

bit.

Those are my comments with respect to second reading on the bill,

for the Attorney’s consideration and government’s

consideration.

S. Furstenau: Happy to stand up today to speak to Bill 30, Attorney General

Statutes Amendment Act.

I’m going to start in reverse order and follow on the comments of

the member for Abbotsford West, which seems to be becoming a habit for

me in this chamber. He was trying to count how many people might be

concerned — he can add me to the list; two — about this notion of the

executive branch versus legislative branch and who is effectively

receiving the recommendations from the JCC for judicial

compensation.

I want to add to what he was just talking about, seeing as it

might be a bit inside baseball, but I think the piece that he didn’t

mention that I’d like to add is transparency for the public, which is

that when something happens in here, the public has much easier access

to understanding what happened. If a report is tabled in here, if

recommendations are tabled in here, those become part of a public record

that is easily accessible for the public.

Whereas the executive branch,

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, is a much less clear access for the

public.

I think that is an important part of, maybe, what the member from

Abbotsford West might be considering as part of his noting of this. But

for me, it is that piece of transparency and the role that the

Legislature plays in our democracy writ large, which is…. We’re here, on

the record debating, tabling reports, receiving, hearing

information.

That’s very different from what happens in the executive branch,

which is behind closed doors. We see the results of those. We can find

out about those decisions later on, but they’re not being debated in the

public realm.

I think, and we have said this once or twice before, that

transparency really is the backbone of a healthy democracy. So it may

seem like not a significant shift, but when it’s added to a group of

other changes that move more and more of the work and the business out

of this chamber and into the hands of the executive, then I think we

should be concerned. I will go back to the beginning of the bill, and

then I’ll come back to this at the end in my comments here.

The bill makes changes to two pieces of legislation. I want to

speak now to the first piece, which is related to the COVID-19 Related

Measures Act.

[4:05 p.m.]

When this act was first introduced in June of 2020, we had only

been experiencing a global pandemic for a couple of months at that time.

I don’t think we could have imagined what lay ahead. I don’t think we

really wanted to imagine. However, I was imagining.

At the time, I rose and spoke to the act. What I said that day is

in Hansard , on the record, but I think it bears repeating,

given where we are at this moment.

I said that the Minister of Public Safety has talked about how the

Emergency Program Act is being rewritten and said that the COVID-19

Related Measures Act is not an indication of where the Emergency Program

Act will end up, and “I think it’s important to step back…to talk about

the rewriting of the Emergency Program Act.”

The Minister of Public

Safety has pointed out that the Emergency Program Act is an old act

based on the War Measures Act, “because we are in a time in history

where we are actually going to see increasing numbers of emergencies,

not just earthquakes…which we have no control over. But…increasing

numbers of emergencies because of our actions as humans on this

planet.”

This is what I said on June 24, 2020. Again:

“We’ve seen historic fire seasons in British Columbia, several in

the last number of years. We are seeing flooding events that are

unprecedented. We know that these disasters are very much related to

climate change and the impacts of climate change.

“Right now we are in the midst of a global pandemic, COVID-19, which

is yet another zoonotic disease that has emerged in our global

community, along with SARS and MERS and Ebola, all of which are zoonotic

diseases — diseases which have transferred from animals to humans. The

epidemiologists have been, for many years, identifying that we’ve indeed

created the conditions that make these diseases more

prevalent….

“So of course we need to be looking at our Emergency Program Act

here in British Columbia, and we have to constantly be asking ourselves:

how do we balance our capacity to deal with emergencies with our

absolute commitment to ensuring that our institutions and democracy are

in no way eroded in the course of these emergencies and our responses to

them?”

That’s the end of my quote from June of 2020.

I don’t have a crystal ball, but I am paying attention, and I

think that that is what we all need to be doing. It is a little

surprising to read that, but in the moment we’re in, with the floods and

potentially yet another weather event on our doorstep, and we are still

seeing the impacts of COVID now. I do agree that it’s necessary that we

extend the deadline for an expiry on the COVID-19 Related Measures Act.

We are in overlapping emergencies, and they are interconnected. It’s

something to say — that this government has even itself indicated that

it’s been too busy reacting to emergencies to actually table the new

Emergency Program Act that we need.

In relation to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, I think that

what we have to recognize is we keep extending these statutes and these

abilities to respond to these emergencies in an ongoing way, but it is

going to be more and more essential that we are moving out of a reactive

and into a proactive role.

The piece — again, I’ve spoken to this — about the amendments to

extend the cycle within the Judicial Compensation Commissions and make

recommendations on how justices and judges should be remunerated. It’s

not a huge change. But the thing, again, that does concern me is that

the reports of the Judicial Compensation Commissions will no longer have

to be tabled in the Legislature.

As I said earlier in my comments, once tabled here, they are

publicly accessible. They are seen by the public and recognized…. There

is a process for the democratically elected assembly to have in this, as

opposed to the executive branch of government having the ability to move

forward with this without bringing that into the Legislature.

I look forward to the committee stage of this, although we are

doing a lot of bills right now. We’ll see how that goes. My colleague

and I are bouncing from House to House at the moment.

[4:10 p.m.]

But overall, I think that this bill brings to mind and should

bring to all of our minds the need to continue to prioritize

transparency as well as proactive work on our legislative agenda here so

that we can, ideally, get out of the reactive mode that we have found

ourselves in many times in this province in the last year and a

half.

M. Morris: British Columbia is going through difficult times and has gone

through difficult times now for a couple of years with COVID, and now

we’re faced with other challenges. But looking at the northern region,

the Northern Health area in my riding and extending north, the impact

that not only the devastation that we’ve seen in the last few days in

the Lower Mainland particularly, but the impacts that it’s had on the

supply chains affecting businesses throughout Prince George and

through­out the province is hitting businesses very hard that are

already hurting.

What we’ve been faced with in the North is the circuit breaker

grants…. All the aids that businesses were receiving up until recent

months in the province here are not forthcoming any more, and this is

affecting businesses significantly. I’m speaking more to the COVID-19

portion of this particular bill.

Northern Health has just extended, indefinitely, some fairly

prominent restrictions on activities throughout Northern Health. It’s

affected the businesses right across the North to a significant degree,

more so than probably in other areas of the province. But it’s also

affected a number of other things across the North here. My office has

received quite a few inquiries, quite a few complaints, from

constituents — I know they’re echoed throughout northern British

Columbia — from businesses, from organizations like the performing

arts.

We have Theatre NorthWest in Prince George that put