Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2024) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 13, 2024

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 436

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

Personal Statements

Message of appreciation

S. Robinson

Introductions by Members

Statements

Message of appreciation

Hon. D. Eby

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M222 — Early Learning and Child Care Amendment Act, 2024

K. Chen

Bill 27 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 5) Amendment Act, 2024

Hon. R. Kahlon

Bill 26 — Name Amendment Act (No. 2), 2024

Hon. A. Dix

Bill M223 — Wildfire (Carter’s Law) Amendment Act, 2024

L. Doerkson

Bill M224 — Emergency and Disaster Management Amendment Act, 2024

T. Stone

Bill M225 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2024

A. Olsen

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Museums Week and cultural spaces and sites

B. D’Eith

National Police Week and contributions of officers

M. Morris

Support for victims and survivors of crime

K. Paddon

Lytton residents and fire recovery process

J. Tegart

Role of Parliament Buildings and work of staff

D. Routley

Penelope Chandler

T. Stone

Oral Questions

Health worker vaccination policy and rehiring of staff

K. Falcon

Hon. D. Eby

Hon. A. Dix

COVID-19 public health restrictions and prosecution of religious groups

M. de Jong

Hon. N. Sharma

Fracking and fossil fuel infrastructure

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Conditions in forest industry and government action on issues

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Eby

M. Bernier

C. Oakes

Hon. A. Mercier

P. Milobar

Petitions

Hon. K. Conroy

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Legal Professions Act (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. N. Sharma

S. Furstenau

P. Milobar

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 25 — Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024 (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. M. Rankin

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

E. Sturko

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

T. Halford

A. Walker

MONDAY, MAY 13, 2024

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. H. Bains: I notice up in the gallery one very old-time friend, who has been a

community activist, Mr. Harkirat Singh. He does a lot of government

interpretation.

Please join with me and give him a warm welcome.

Hon. P. Alexis: This afternoon my son and his girlfriend, Alexi and Victoria, have

arrived. Not to be undone by his older sister, he decided to come too,

because she came last week.

I just want to say how much I appreciate my kids and, in particular,

my son, who waits every Thursday night for me to arrive, just around ten

o’clock, back home. He brings my luggage and my briefcase in and makes sure

everything is settled before he goes to bed and gets up for work early in

the morning.

I want to say I’m very grateful for all of that support. It is,

indeed, the little things that matter in life.

L. Doerkson: It’s indeed a pleasure to introduce the Vigh family here this

afternoon, who you’ve just had the pleasure of meeting, Mr. Speaker. James,

Amber, Cadence and Daxton are visiting the precinct today. They are visiting

from 100 Mile House.

This family has done incredible work in honour of their son, raising

tens of thousands of dollars in the good name of air quality. Tomorrow they

will be introducing those air quality monitors, with the help of the B.C.

Lung Foundation, in 100 Mile House.

Would the House please welcome the four of these incredible people

here today.

[1:35 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: I actually have two different introductions today, so I’ll try and be

as brief as possible.

Joining us in the gallery is our candidate for Kelowna–​Lake

Country–Coldstream, Pavneet Singh and his family.

Pavneet came to Canada in 2003, but he immediately started to achieve

the Canadian dream through hard work and tenacity. He worked as a dishwasher

and a pizza delivery driver to start, but now owns 17 franchises. Whether

during pandemics or fires, the community of Kelowna has definitely come to

learn that we can count on Pav and all of his generosity.

He is joined today by his dad and mom, Pritpal Bhatia and Harshan

Bhatia; his amazing wife, Guneet Bhatia; and his kids — his daughter, Sejal

Bhatia, and his son, Ashbir Bhatia.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them today.

It is also my honour to introduce two of the most remarkable

individuals who play a crucial role in serving the community of Kelowna: my

constituency assistants Jody Cleland and Sonia Sandhu, who are here today

visiting from Kelowna.

Jody brings a wealth of experience and dedication to our team, with a

strong background in community outreach and public service. Her commitment

to assisting our constituents and addressing their concerns is truly

commendable, in addition to managing our office with excellence. Her ability

to connect with people and her unwavering support for our community make her

an invaluable asset to our office.

Sonia has also shown exceptional organizational skills and a growing

understanding of the legislative process. Sonia has taken on our events

coordination and community impact, in addition to helping Jody with all of

the casework. Her enthusiasm and passion for making a positive impact in our

community are nothing less than inspiring.

Together Jody and Sonia are the dream team of

Kelowna-Mission.

Please join me in welcoming and acknowledging Jody Cleland and Sonia

Sandhu in the House today.

I. Paton: Today I have the honour of welcoming a very well-known Tsawwassen

resident, a Rotarian named Murray Pratt. He’s here with his friend Jennifer

Zakaib. They are here today on their e-bikes.

Murray actually owns his own bicycle shop in Tsaw­wassen. He

rents and sells e-bikes. They caught the eight o’clock ferry this morning

from Tsawwassen and rode their e-bikes all the way here, which is a little

bit cheating when you just have to hit that button and away you

go.

Welcome two Tsawwassen residents today.

T. Wat: In the gallery today, I’m pleased to introduce a passionate young man,

Rich Gao. He is a professional educator, provides support for K-to-12

children and also families with disabilities.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Rich Gao.

Personal Statements

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION

S. Robinson: On Thursday, I made my farewell speech here in the chamber. Of

course, when you list out the names of people, it’s inevitable that you

forget one, and I forgot a critic. Probably I forgot about it because

when this person was my critic, it felt like we were having a

conversation with a good friend.

I do want to extend my gratitude to the member for Penticton, who

was a critic, but in our conversations, it always felt, when he was

challenging me on what government was doing, whether it was estimates or

in question period, like a conversation with a good friend.

Please join me in thanking the member for Penticton for all the

work that he has done.

Introductions by Members

S. Chandra Herbert: I want to join with the member for Delta South in welcoming his

constituents who rode here on their e-bikes. I don’t know if they passed me

or if I passed them, but I also like to ride my e-bike back and forth from

the West End. If he thinks it’s cheating, I’d like to challenge him to get

on that e-bike and give it a try himself. It’s actually a lot of fun, and

you don’t have to reserve to get on the ferry.

Take note, Members, you too can get back and forth from the Lower

Mainland on an e-bike and B.C. Ferries.

Hon. M. Rankin: Today I have the pleasure of welcoming Peter Lantin to the gallery.

Peter formerly served as the president of the Council of the Haida Nation

from 2011 to 2018, and he currently serves on the board of directors of the

Prince Rupert Port Authority.

[1:40 p.m.]

He’s here to attend the clause-by-clause debate on the Haida Nation

Recognition Amendment Act. I look forward to chatting with him later

today.

I’d ask all members to please make him welcome.

Hon. N. Cullen: I have the great pleasure of introducing someone well known to this

place — admired, respected and revered, I hear, as well. The former member

for Stikine, the former Minister of Forests, Doug Donaldson, is joining us

here today. Long did his voice echo in these chambers and set out some

incredible policy, and, I’d say, on a personal note, incredible

representation of the northwest in relationships that matter deeply to this

day and for years to come.

Would the House please join me in making our colleague feel

welcome.

G. Kyllo: I’m a very proud pops. I’ve got 12 grandkids, and I’m proud of each

and every one of them.

One of my granddaughters, Siddhalee Kyllo Martselos, competed in

Kelowna at a gymnastics competition at the KF Aerospace flight centre,

attended by gymnastics teams from all across the province. I’m so incredibly

proud of little 9-year-old Siddhalee, who had a first in vault, a first on

beam. She had a second-place finish on floor and a third on uneven bars and

came in first overall of all the competitors there.

She competes out of Momentum Gymnastics club out of Salmon Arm. It’s

amazing for a small community, with the dedication of three different

coaches — Elise Seaman, Ludmilla McClellan and Shawnee Venables.

Other teammates had a very strong showing as well. Siddhalee was

joined by Alyssa Huckle, Evelyn Opland, Nora Phillips, Carrington Kosh and

Vienna Vines. They came in second overall, so very proud of Momentum

Gymnastics, a small team from a small community, placing second overall of

all teams across the province that participated. A very proud day for

me.

Most importantly, these little kids are training 12 hours a week, and

I think that’s the important piece. These kids are dedicated, and it doesn’t

matter what they’re going to pursue in their lives. I know they’ll be

incredibly successful.

Hon. D. Eby: Two items of business in today’s introductions.

We were joined this morning by the governor of Gyeonggi province,

Governor Kim from Korea, a very good friend of British Columbia. He first

visited British Columbia 34 years ago. He said he did a tour around the

outside of the building. He was excited to get inside the building

today.

Two things about Gyeonggi. One is they just opened a Tim Hortons

there, and he was very excited to have a Timbit and a double-double and to

share that with us. The second is political insider information. His party

was very successful in provincial elections. He’s getting a lot of pressure

to run to be the president of Korea in the next federal elections. Didn’t

tip his hand, but we wish him the best of luck with his political

career.

We are very glad to have a friend like Governor Kim working in Korea,

and close partnerships with major corporations interested in British

Columbia like POS­CO, like Samsung, like KOGAS, and very grateful for

that partnership.

Will the House please join me in expressing our appreciation to

him.

Statements

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION

Hon. D. Eby: The second item of business.

It’s an unusual thing to introduce a colleague in the House, but

as we wind our way down towards the end of the session, many members

will not be returning, and today is a special day for the member for

Burnaby-Lougheed. She is a relentless advocate for child

care.

You’ll remember, hon. Speaker, that she was the first

parliamentary secretary working on this now ministerial role in our

cabinet, establishing that social program. She’s going to introduce a

private member’s bill today to cement that reputation and reflect on her

work.

I want to thank her for her advocacy. I want to thank her for her

partnership on the podcast The Dash insider B.C. poli hit. I

use the term “hit” advisedly, but I thank her for her partnership on

that and all the work she’s done in the House over the years.

Will the House please join me in expressing our appreciation to

the member for Burnaby-Lougheed.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: We call them the A-team. That’s the team that works in the

constituency office in Saanich North and the Islands, in a beautiful little

town just north of here called Sidney. I encourage everybody, this summer,

to spend as much time in Sidney….

[1:45 p.m.]

But they’re here today, so let’s say hi to the A-team.

We’ve got Patricia Pearson, Jerram Gawley, Laura Parker and Deb

Bowman, who are here with us from our office in Sidney. So if you’re trying

to get to the constituency office in Sidney, we’re sorry, but the team is

down here. We had lunch today at the Commons.

I also want to raise my hands to all the members of the A-team

previously, and we’ve had a few members that have come through the office,

starting with Aldous Sperl and Ryan Clayton.

JoJo Beattie, who now works downstairs in our communications

office.

Devin DeLarge, Kate O’Connor, Jake Rees and William Kelly, who some of

you will know from, as many of them have been part of, the internship

program.

I want to raise my hands in gratitude for all the important work that

my constituency team does, all of our constituency teams do on behalf of our

communities.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M222 — EARLY LEARNING AND

CHILD CARE AMENDMENT

ACT, 2024

K. Chen presented a bill intituled Early Learning and Child Care

Amendment Act, 2024.

K. Chen: Today I move a bill intituled Early Learning and Child Care

Amendment Act, 2024, of which notice has been given in my name on the

order paper, to introduce and read the first time now.

Access to child care and early learning is a right and a necessity

for building a more equitable community, just like public education.

When I recently heard that a mom could finally have the means to leave a

difficult relationship for the best interests of her and her child

because of $10-a-day child care, it emphasized the need for us to keep

building a system that can transform our community and people’s

lives.

The bill I’m introducing today highlights much of the work our

government has done and will do for child care. I’m honoured to have

worked with many MLA colleagues, including the Premier, Minister of

State for Child Care, former Premier Horgan, former Finance Minister

Carol James, and many advocates, early childhood education professionals

and families in our shared vision for child care. Together, we pioneered

the first $10-a-day initiatives in Canada, delivering much-deserved

relief for families today with significant socioeconomic returns for

generations to come.

Every dollar we invest in child care has at least a $2 to $3

return. This bill will enshrine many of the public commitments we’ve

made to date, including but not limited to $10-a-day access for all; a

wage grid, pension and benefits for early childhood educator

professionals; access to school-age care for all; continuous space

creation for under five; Indigenous-led, distinction-based and

culturally safe child care; needs-based services for children with

diverse abilities and socioeconomic backgrounds where they belong;

public reporting; and enhanced role of the Provincial Child Care Council

to ensure accountability of government to continue this work.

I strongly believe our government will continue to build an early

care and learning system that will support families today and make our

community more equitable for future generations.

I also want to thank everyone, including public service

professionals who have worked on the ChildCareBC plan since 2017 and the

legislative counsels who have helped me with the drafting of this

bill.

The bill has been transmitted electronically to the Office of the

Clerk.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

K. Chen: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M222, Early Learning and Child Care Amendment Act, 2024,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 27 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING

(N o . 5)

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. R. Kahlon presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating

(No. 5) Amendment Act, 2024.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the amendment to the Municipalities

Enabling and Validating Act that delivers on our government’s commitment

to support the health and safety of low-income residents living in

single-room-occupancy buildings in Vancouver’s Downtown

Eastside.

We know that too many people in the Downtown Eastside are

struggling to find and keep affordable places to live. The city of

Vancouver and advocates in the Downtown Eastside are telling us that

some of our most vulnerable citizens are being exploited by some bad

actors. Those landlords are using pressure tactics to force tenants to

leave their SROs by offering them more money to leave, by intimidating

them or by illegally evicting them.

Today’s amendments are introduced to the Municipalities Enabling

and Validating Act. The city of Vancouver has asked us to make these

changes to the act that will validate the city of Vancouver’s vacancy

control bylaws. If these amendments are passed, rent increases will be

limited at the Vancouver’s SROs as set out in the city’s bylaws for

select buildings on the Downtown Eastside.

[1:50 p.m.]

The province remains committed to phasing out SROs and replacing

them with dignified housing. While we work on this long term, we cannot

risk losing this affordable housing stock.

The Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 5) Amendment

Act, 2024, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

BILL 26 — NAME

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2024

Hon. A. Dix presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Name Amendment Act (No. 2),

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the Name Amendment Act (No. 2), 2024 be introduced and

read a first time.

This bill will prevent convicted criminals and individuals who

have committed offences causing serious harm to others from evading

accountability and avoiding the negative consequences of their actions

by legally changing their names. This will be achieved through

amendments to the Name Act, which establishes procedures and eligibility

requirements for legal name changes. Legal name changes are made through

a process administered by the Vital Statistics Agency, which is part of

the Ministry of Health.

Currently anyone can seek to have their name legally changed under

the Name Act, including people who have committed offences that cause

serious harm to others. Allowing these individuals to hide their

identity through a name change is extremely troubling to victims and

their families and can result in safety concerns for members of the

public.

The bill will amend the Name Act so that a person who has been

convicted of a prescribed offence, declared to be a dangerous or

long-term offender, or found not criminally responsible for a prescribed

offence due to a mental disorder will be prohibited from making a legal

name change.

For the purpose of this name change prohibition, the offences will

be identified by regulation. They will include Criminal Code of Canada

offences that are dangerous and cause significant harm to others and

offences that target children.

The name change prohibition will apply to adult offenders, those

18 and older, as well as to young offenders who have not reached the age

of 18 but are convicted of prescribed offences and sentenced as

adults.

To support the new prohibition on legal name changes for

offenders, this bill will amend the Name Act so that the Vital

Statistics Agency is able to request, receive and review the results of

criminal record checks for applicants who seek to change their

names.

I ask all members of the House to support this legislation and

move first reading.

The Speaker: Members, you’ve heard the question. It’s the first reading of the

bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that Bill 26 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 26, Name Amendment Act (No. 2), 2024, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M223 — WILDFIRE (CARTER’S LAW)

AMENDMENT ACT,

L. Doerkson presented a bill intituled Bill M223, Wildfire (Carter’s

Law) Amendment Act, 2024.

L. Doerkson: I move that a bill intituled the Wildfire (Carter’s Law) Amendment

Act, 2024, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper,

be introduced and read a first time now.

The air we breathe should not be a silent killer. This bill is

inspired by a heart-wrenching story from my community, a vivid reminder

of the vulnerability of our loved ones to environmental hazards.

Nine-year-old Carter Vigh, a bright and energetic child from 100 Mile

tragically lost his life to an asthma attack exacerbated by the thick

wildfire smoke blanketing our community.

As a province, we must contemplate the health effects of wildfire

smoke on vulnerable populations and actively take into consideration the

impacts of smoke while we’re fighting wildfires.

Carter’s Law will encourage a new approach to managing the risks

associated with wildfire smoke, particularly focusing on those with

respiratory issues and our senior citizens. It mandates the province to

develop a more robust protocol for smoke management and response

strategies during wildfire season to mitigate the health risks

associated with poor air quality. By instituting these measures, we can

prevent future tragedies like Carter’s.

This bill represents proactive steps towards safeguarding the

health of our province’s residents by ensuring that the decision to

allow wildfires to burn takes into account the profound impact on air

and quality and public health.

[1:55 p.m.]

This is a necessary stride toward a future where no family has to

endure the loss of a loved one like young Carter. As I already

mentioned, Carter’s family is present today in the chamber. Their

strength and advocacy have been instrumental in bringing this

forward.

It’s our duty to ensure that their loss is a catalyst for change

that will protect the lives of countless others.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

L. Doerkson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M223, Wildfire (Carter’s Law) Amendment Act, 2024, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M224 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER

MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT

ACT, 2024

T. Stone presented a bill intituled Emergency and Disaster Management

Amendment Act, 2024.

T. Stone: I move that a bill intituled the Emergency and Disaster Management

Amendment Act, 2024, be introduced and read a first time now.

I wish to clarify that notice of the bill was given in my name on

the order paper for a bill intituled emergency program amendment act,

2024. However, since the Emergency Program Act was replaced with the

Emergency and Disaster Management Act, the title of this bill today has

been updated to reflect the correct name of the statute in

force.

As we enter another wildfire season, following last summer’s

deadliest in our province’s history, we must acknowledge the reality

that these occurrences are becoming more frequent and increasingly

devastating. This increase of extreme climate events is leading to

increased costs for disaster victims and the inability to access

insurance in high-risk areas.

The disaster financial assistance, DFA, program was designed to

assist those who find themselves unable to secure insurance coverage.

However, despite the escalating need driven by climate change, the

program’s structure has not been updated in over five decades, rendering

it insufficient for today’s challenges. We face an urgent need to

modernize the DFA program to anticipate and mitigate these evolving

challenges, bridging existing deficiencies and ensuring the program

doesn’t contribute to the vicious cycle of rising insurance costs and

diminishing availability.

This bill calls on government to take measures that will address

emerging issues and better protect homeowners and business people,

including streamlining and simplifying the DFA claim process; setting

and defining an affordability metric for the DFA’s reasonably and

readily available insurance criteria; expanding the scope of DFA to

address issues pertaining to micro-pockets of the province where no

insurance coverage is available for a given disaster event; extending

the application deadline, which is now set at 90 days from the date DFA

was authorized; extending the appeal process to address applications

rejected due to missing information; and developing a government grant

program for homeowners in high-risk areas to help offset the high cost

of insurance and incentivize individuals to purchase it.

As I reintroduce this bill, I urge the government to reevaluate

the regulations and close existing gaps in DFA eligibility in high-risk

areas. With thousands of British Columbians on edge this past weekend in

the northeast of our province, unfortunately another wildfire season is

already upon us.

The need for immediate action is critical.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

T. Stone: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M224, Emergency and Disaster Management Amendment Act, 2024,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M225 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

AND PROTECTION OF

PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

A. Olsen presented a bill intituled Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2024

A. Olsen: I move that a bill intituled Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Amendment Act, of which notice has been given in my name on

the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

In 2021, the government amended the act to allow public bodies to

charge an application fee for making a freedom-of-information request. I

was a member of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and I heard from many

organizations and individuals who opposed the introduction of an

application fee.

The special committee recognized that the access to information is

vital for promoting trust in public bodies. The committee heard that

secrecy of information can undermine democracy, lead to extremism and

that conspiracy theories and extremist ideologies can arise when

citizens do not have access to information held by

government.

Freedom of information is critical to a healthy democracy, which

is why I am reintroducing this bill for a second time. The act before us

today aims to improve access to information. It would remove the

application fee for freedom-of-information requests. Experts, including

our former Information and Privacy Commissioner, have been clear that

charging for access to information of government to the public’s

information is not in the public interest and that journalists,

researchers and community groups are most strongly affected.

[2:00 p.m.]

Right now there is a waning public confidence in democracy, and in

a time of growing fear and misinformation, a time when people are more

likely to believe in conspiracy theories and less likely to trust their

government, this assembly needs to be held to a higher

standard.

The truth needs to be readily accessible and available.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

A. Olsen: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M225, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment

Act, 2024, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MUSEUMS WEEK

AND CULTURAL SPACES AND

SITES

B. D’Eith: I rise in the House today in recognition of B.C. Museums Week

being proclaimed May 13 to 19, 2024.

Did you know that there are more than 450 museums, heritage and

cultural centres around British Columbia? In fact, you can find a museum

in every single community and municipality in our province.

Big or small, B.C. museums are powered by incredible people who

are champions of B.C.’s heritage and legacy. They’re doing an incredible

job showcasing British Columbia’s stories, as well as preserving and

protecting B.C.’s artifacts, artwork, historical sites, cultural centres

and other treasured pieces of our history.

In B.C., we are so fortunate to have top-notch cultural

attractions, including Craigdarroch Castle in Victoria, Britannia Mine

Museum in Squamish and Barkerville Historic Town and Park in the Cariboo

region. The B.C. Museums Association is a strong advocate in promoting

these organizations and so many others throughout the province, helping

to drive local tourism and increase public awareness of the province’s

diverse cultural history.

We know these places are important contributors to the cultural,

economic and social prosperity of B.C. It’s why the province has

supported the creation of cultural spaces, including the Chinese

Canadian Museum and the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver.

Additionally, we’ve begun public consultations to understand people’s

vision for Canadians of South Asian Heritages museum and a provincial

Filipino cultural centre.

As well and very importantly, this government is committed to true

and lasting reconciliation and has provided further funding for various

Indigenous cultural centres so that Indigenous peoples can preserve and

share their languages, art and culture. This is indeed something to

celebrate.

In honour of B.C. Museums Week, I encourage all members and the

public to spend some time visiting local museums, galleries, heritage

sites and other cultural destinations.

Let’s all recognize B.C. Museums Week.

NATIONAL POLICE WEEK AND

CONTRIBUTIONS OF

OFFICERS

M. Morris: This week is National Police Week, recognizing the dedicated and

professional work of all police agencies across B.C. and Canada,

recognizing that regardless of which police agency officers are a part

of, the laws of Canada and our provinces are professionally enforced,

and recognizing that all police agencies are united in their approach to

fairness in applying our laws, guided by the Constitution of

Canada.

British Columbia is well served by nearly 10,000 police officers:

2,500 are officers of 11 independent municipal police departments such

as Vancouver and Victoria; 4,000 are RCMP officers working in municipal

detachments like Burnaby, Richmond and Surrey; 1,800 RCMP officers are

working in provincial specialized units like major crimes and the

combined special enforcement units addressing gang violence; 1,000 RCMP

officers are working in federal criminal law and protective policing;

and 770 provincial RCMP officers work in our smaller, rural

communities.

All police agencies in B.C. share information, including the use

of a single police records information management platform. All officers

enforce the same laws, follow the same investigative processes and

receive similar ongoing training and development.

Our police enforce the laws that we in this House legislate and

that our Members of Parliament have legislated and bylaws brought about

by our local governments. Our police enforce laws that are constantly

refined and interpreted by the provincial courts, supreme courts,

federal courts and, ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada.

Our police adjust investigative techniques, update standard

operating procedures and stay current with science and technology in

serving all citizens. Our police receive feedback and recommendations

from administrative tribunals, coroner’s inquests and inquiries, and

they receive feedback and recommendations from academia and

international law enforcement agencies. Our police services across our

province put their lives on the line every day to keep our community

safe. They have the support of this Legislature. They have the support

of our communities.

[2:05 p.m.]

Thank you to the 10,000 dedicated officers and the thousands of

professionals who provide the everyday technical and logistics support

for B.C. police.

SUPPORT FOR

VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS OF

CRIME

K. Paddon: This week marks Victims and Survivors of Crime Week.

The goal of this week is to raise awareness about the issues

facing victims of crime, and the services, assistance and laws in place

to help victims and their families. The theme is the power of

collaboration — an important one, because we know it takes all of us to

be dedicated to prevention and to support the victims and survivors of

crime.

In December, we announced Safe and Supported: B.C.’s Gender-Based

Violence Action Plan. This plan, and its actions, were informed through

the power of collaboration, and I extend my continuing gratitude to the

voices and stories that echo throughout the pages and the

work.

This year British Columbia is dedicating over $50 million in

programs and services for victims and survivors, with several important

developments to expand supports and options, including new programs to

support survivors of sexual assault with counselling and practical

assistance now offered in 70 locations, five sexual assault centres to

provide wraparound services to survivors, amendments to the Crime Victim

Assistance Act to better support victims in their recovery from the

impacts of violent crime.

In B.C., over 450 programs are funded to provide supports to

victims and survivors, including a provincial information and support

line, victim services, intimate partner violence units, outreach

services to communities — including immigrants and newcomers — and

counselling for people who experience violence. There are also programs

working to break the cycles of violence by providing support to children

and youth who witness violence in their families.

The impact of crime on a victim, a survivor, their family, their

community are not always easily seen. It often takes extraordinary

bravery for victims and survivors of crime, and their families, to come

forward and talk about the trauma they’ve experienced, and we know that

not everyone feels safe enough to do so.

This week we honour the strength and the resilience of survivors

and sincerely thank the many dedicated service providers working to

support victims, prevent crime and protect those who are most vulnerable

in our communities.

LYTTON RESIDENTS AND

FIRE RECOVERY

PROCESS

J. Tegart: Today I want to give this House an update on the village of

Lytton. We are just shy of three years from the day a fire swept through

the village and area, burning the community to the ground and killing

two residents.

I have stood in this House many times to talk about the

challenges, the lack of support, the continued uncertainty, but today I

want to tell a different story. I want to talk about the people of

Lytton. To say they were traumatized is an understatement.

We can’t possibly know how it feels to lose your home, your

neighbourhood and your whole community, to be dispersed north, south,

east, west, not knowing where your family members were. But they worked

hard to stay in touch over the first few weeks, months and now years.

They organized community gatherings, inviting residents and families to

come home, to talk, to share, to think about the future.

Many in Lytton have lived there for generations. They love their

community, and it shines through in all that they do. Anniversary

gatherings were organized and open to all who wanted to come. Protests

were held to tell government and the outside world that rebuilding was

taking too long: “Please don’t forget us.” Still they waited and waited.

Babies were born, elders passed, and still they waited — 1,048 days and

counting.

I drove through Lytton yesterday, seeing the first new houses

starting to be built. Despite government delays and bureaucratic

nightmares, the people of Lytton shine through.

There are no victory laps to be taken in this room around the

story of Lytton. Lytton rises because of its people.

[2:10 p.m.]

ROLE OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

AND WORK OF

STAFF

D. Routley: For my last two-minute statement in the House, I’d like to talk

about this beautiful building. I love this beautiful building, and one

of the favourite things about my job is touring students through it.

Being only an hour and a half away, I get a lot of classroom visits.

When I do, I’m able to talk to them about the value of democracy, what

it means to all of us, and their role in it.

Then I tell them about the richest British Columbian, Jimmy

Pattison, and all the companies he controls, all the things in their

lives that are affected by him. I follow up by asking them a question:

how many votes do you think he gets? Only a handful in 19 years have

said one; usually it’s 5,000, 50,000.

I’m able to tell them at that moment that when a person in British

Columbia expresses their vote, they have exactly the same power as Jimmy

Pattison — their mom, their teachers, them when they grow up. I beg them

not to ever fail to exercise their vote.

I look at the building, and I talk to them about how beautiful it

is. I tell them it’s not to uplift the powerful people like the person I

talked about. It’s to uplift them, their communities, their families, to

uplift the public interest of our province, to put it in the highest

place, that we all need to recognize that that’s who we

serve.

I tell them how I believe it’s the people working here who make it

that way, whether it’s the staff in the chamber here who fill our

glasses and take care of us, the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, the staff in

the dining room but particularly the custodial staff.

Being a former school custodian…. Look around at this beautiful

place, how polished and lovely it is. You know that at home, you turn

your back and your place is dusty. You know that as soon as a kid runs

through it, it’s a mess. But somehow this place is always beautiful, and

it’s because of those people. I want to thank them from the bottom of my

heart.

One of them, in fact, when their jobs were made public again, had

the Legislature tattooed onto his arm.

I know they care. I know they are here for the same reasons that

all of you are, and that is to uplift the people of British Columbia and

our public interest.

I thank them all for doing that.

M. Dykeman: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

M. Dykeman: Joining us in the gallery right now are the first or maybe the second

of three classes joining us from Langley Christian elementary school. Their

teacher, Emily Wessner, is bringing them through today. They are, I believe,

all grade 5 students who are going to be coming and touring the Legislature

and stopping in on question period.

I was wondering if the House could join me in making them feel very

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PENELOPE CHANDLER

T. Stone: I rise to celebrate an exceptional individual who has graced the

offices of the free enterprise coalitions here in British Columbia’s

Legislature for many years, from Social Credit through B.C. Liberal to

B.C. United today.

Her wisdom, care and compassion have become a fixture of this

place. She is smart, generous, engaging, and she is going to be really

annoyed with me. Of course, I’m talking about the one and the only

Penelope Chandler, otherwise known as Pen or simply as Miss

Miss P. has touched the lives of many in this place, with her

determined stride in these hallways, always with a warm smile and always

looking to do some kind of act of kindness for anyone who she feels is

in need.

I first worked with Penelope in this place in 1991, when I was a

wide-eyed university student who had landed a caucus research job down

in the basement of this building. That was 33 years ago. Who knew that

26 years later, the kid in the basement would one day become the

Minister of Transportation, again working with Miss P.? Fast forward

five more years. That would bring us to today that she would be here

supporting me as the Opposition House Leader.

I really do love working with her. Most days, at some point, she

looks at me in the eyes with her characteristic grin and says, with

great fervor: “ Deo volente ; God willing.” She sends me in to do

my work.

Her expertise in parliamentary procedure is un­matched, with

her steady hand having supported successive House Leaders through many a

legislative storm.

[2:15 p.m.]

Her journey from world-class ballerina to the hallowed halls of

this Legislature is a testament to her remarkable spirit and her

tenacity. From the United Kingdom to the Canary Islands to the Saanich

Peninsula, Miss P. has left a trail of admiration in her wake,

enchanting everyone that she’s crossed paths with.

But it’s not just her worldly adventures that make her so beloved.

It’s her laugh, her charm and her irrepressible spirit, beloved by

members of all political parties and all of the staff in this place. Her

infectious charm and genuine kindness have won over hearts across the

Legislature.

Miss P. sends inspirational comments or witty poems to our caucus

every single day. With that in mind and with some great trepidation, I

shall end with this:

In the halls of power, where chaos reigns

supreme,

there’s a beacon of light, a delightful

dream.

Penelope, our rock, our guiding star,

with wit so sharp,

she certainly can spar.

In ballet shoes or parliamentary

prose,

she dazzles us all wherever she goes.

So here’s to Miss

P., our shining gem,

in the wild world of B.C. politics and, indeed,

in life,

we’re lucky to call her our friend.

Thank you, Miss P. [Applause.]

The Speaker: And the Speaker loves her too.

Oral Questions

HEALTH WORKER VACCINATION POLICY

AND REHIRING OF

STAFF

K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago this Premier promised results that

people can see, feel, touch and experience in their lives. Yet 18 months

later, the crisis in B.C.’s health care system has never been

worse.

One in five British Columbians without a family doctor, the worst

cancer care wait times in the entire country and life-threatening delays

from constant emergency room closures due to a staffing

crisis.

Yet this ideologically driven NDP government stands alone in North

America in enforcing a vaccine mandate that prevents thousands of

terminated health care workers from returning to work, not only

depriving health care professionals of their livelihoods but hurting

patients due to the shortage of these critically important

workers.

My question to the Premier: why does this Premier continue to

enforce an ideologically driven policy, the only one in North America,

that is hurting both health care professionals and harming

patients?

Hon. D. Eby: This is indeed a moment, isn’t it? The Leader of the Opposition

has a chance to stand with vulnerable patients in hospital, has a chance

to stand up for their health and safety and, instead, is committed to

following the leader of the Conservative Party down an increasingly

out-of-touch rabbit hole.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: Right now Quebec is still dealing with a measles outbreak. That is

not resolved. Members of this House should know that measles kills

children, especially vulnerable children. The Leader of the Opposition

chooses this moment to stand in the House and say: “You know what? We

should have people that are not vaccinated entering our hospitals,

tending to people in long-term care homes, vulnerable

seniors.”

To choose this moment…. Why this moment? It’s all about politics.

It’s all about standing with the political advisers and the whoever.

He’s not standing with the patients. He chose this moment to chase the

Conservative Party instead of standing up for vulnerable British

Columbians.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I say we will stand with patients.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. D. Eby: We will stand with sick children. We will make sure that people

are safe in our hospitals from transmissible and preventable

diseases.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: We will stand with the science, and they can stand with the

Conservatives.

[2:20 p.m.]

The Speaker: Official opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: I would sure love to see the science that’s backing up the

decision of this government. Apparently, they are the only ones in North

America that have this science.

Two years ago we called for an end to this vaccine mandate that

was driven by this ideologically driven Premier and Health Minister.

This government stubbornly refuses to listen, at a time when patients

cannot get the care and attention they need right across this province

because of the shortage of health care workers, thousands of whom are

sidelined because of this Premier.

The fact of the matter is that the impact is dire. We’ve got

skilled health care professionals being sidelined, and lives are

literally being lost as a result of these hospital closures. Recent days

have seen emergency room closures in Kitimat, Fort St. John, Chetwynd,

Oliver and McBride, and Mackenzie is now on diversion even as we stand

here today. Yet this Premier and this NDP government continue to

sideline thousands of nurses and health care professionals, an approach

that is not being taken anywhere else in North America.

If they have some evidence that we’re unaware of on this side of

the House, what is that evidence, and when will the Premier bring

forward that evidence and stop this ideological decision to continue to

sideline those desperately needed health care workers that we need in

our system today?

Hon. A. Dix: When the province of British Columbia instituted its vaccine

requirement in health care settings, it was and is the result of a

provincial health order that was put forward by our outstanding

provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry. At that time, of course, a

loud voice in support of it was the Leader of the Opposition.

He calls it ideological. Yes, hon. Speaker, it’s true. It’s true.

We were one of the few jurisdictions around that implemented such a

measure. It’s one of the reasons, one of the many reasons, why British

Columbia led in every aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about ideological in this

House. He hasn’t attacked Dr. Henry here. The only place I’ve seen him

attack Dr. Henry was on Rebel media. He went on Rebel media to attack

the professionalism of Dr. Bonnie Henry.

Well, British Columbians know that Dr. Bonnie Henry is an

outstanding scientist and an outstanding health leader and certainly has

a stronger knowledge of evidence than the Leader of the

Opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESTRICTIONS

AND PROSECUTION OF

RELIGIOUS GROUPS

M. de Jong: I’ll maybe leave it for others to try and reconcile that answer

with the government’s decision to send patients to Washington state for

cancer treatment, where an entirely different set of rules

exist.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Opposition member, he is your own member asking a

question.

M. de Jong: Unfortunately, fired health care workers aren’t the only people

feeling stigmatized by this government.

Three and a half years ago, I wrote to the then Attorney General,

now Premier. I wrote to explain how I was being contacted by faith-based

groups across British Columbia, who were confused and frustrated that at

a time when public health orders were being changed to allow people to

attend things like Pilates and yoga classes, absolutely no accommodation

was being made for people who wanted to safely gather and exercise their

constitutional right to worship.

[2:25 p.m.]

Last week I learned that far from working to put those difficult

days behind us, the government is actually doubling down, doubling down

on prosecuting churches that tried their best to find a balance between

keeping people safe and meeting their spiritual needs.

My question to the Premier is this. How is it in the public

interest to continue spending huge amounts of public money to prosecute,

to persecute, churches and churchgoers whose only sin was to try and

administer to the spiritual needs of their communities?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll take that question on notice. Of course, I can’t talk about

things that are before the court right now.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

M. de Jong: Mindful of the fact it was about 30 years ago that I asked my

first question in this chamber of then Premier Harcourt, I was hoping to

entice this Premier into a final exchange with me in this

forum.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

M. de Jong: We use the word “reconciliation” a lot around this place, and for

good reason. Isn’t it time that the government tried to reconcile with

the law-abiding and, yes, by definition, God-fearing folks who drew on

their faith during a very difficult time and couldn’t understand why

they could go to a Pilates class but couldn’t go to church?

Those proceedings have now been going on for three years, over

three years, and the government, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, has

spent a fortune on multiple applications, sometimes appearing in court

with five lawyers.

Next month there will be a hearing to determine whether all of

this constitutes an abuse of process by the government. These

proceedings are costing the churches a small fortune, and it’s costing

the government money and resources that should be focused on prolific

offenders who are being arrested and then turned loose to

reoffend.

My question, again to the Premier. How does he justify the huge

expense involved in targeting these peaceful, law-abiding churches and

churchgoers while dangerous, prolific offenders are released to

repeatedly reoffend?

Hon. N. Sharma: That was the same question, in effect, as before, and I already

took that question on notice.

FRACKING AND FOSSIL

FUEL

INFRASTRUCTURE

S. Furstenau: Fracking, which is how methane gas used in LNG facilities is

extracted in B.C., uses huge amounts of water, between five million and

100 million litres per frack. Fracking is linked to higher rates of

cancer, asthma, low birth rates and other serious health concerns. It

causes earthquakes. It leads to sour gas leaks and loss of agricultural

land. It results in methane leaks flaring, venting. The list goes

on.

Because of the risk fracking poses to human health, the

environment and the climate, five Canadian provinces, five U.S. states

and several countries have either banned or paused fracking. California

is expected to ban fracking this year.

B.C. is one of the few jurisdictions that is hell-bent on

expanding methane gas and growing the fossil fuel industry, while

climate disasters wreak havoc on our communities and

ecosystems.

My question is to the Premier. Will his government stop issuing

permits for more fracking wells and develop plans to phase out methane

gas extraction in B.C.?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member claims that we’re hell-bent on expanding methane

emissions in British Columbia, yet we’re the only jurisdiction in Canada

to announce in detail exactly what a cap on emissions from the oil and

gas sector will look like. We have ambitious but achievable methane

reduction targets, and we’re in fact ahead of the

schedule for methane

reduction that we set for ourselves a few years ago.

[2:30 p.m.]

We will continue to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas

sector by 75 percent by 2030.

We have a rich and vibrant system of both permitting and

regulation of the oil and gas industry as well as of methane emissions

and other emissions, and we’ll continue on that course.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Under this government, we are the only jurisdiction in Canada

that’s gone from zero to six climate bombs in the form of potential LNG

facilities — from zero to six under this government. Methane

gas.

Before being sworn in, the Premier stated: “We cannot continue to

expand fossil fuel infrastructure and hit our climate goals.” On that,

he wasn’t wrong. This government pretends that they are climate leaders,

yet B.C. has missed every climate target it ever set for itself to

date.

Building six LNG projects and increasing fracked gas production to

supply these projects will make it impossible to meet our goals, and it

will make us into global laggards when it comes to climate action. The

only reason we have a fracked gas industry in B.C. is because this NDP

government decided to give it a $5½ billion start-up gift in the form of

subsidies and tax breaks. And now we’re extracting more and more methane

gas, which is 80 times worse than CO 2 for climate

impacts.

My question is to the Premier. Will he stand up and stand by his

comment that we cannot continue to expand fossil fuel infrastructure and

promise to British Columbians that he will stop issuing more permits for

fracking in this province?

Hon. G. Heyman: It saddens me that the member focuses on our climate efforts by

talking about a single industry instead of recognizing the breadth of

the program that we worked on together, the Green Party and the B.C.

NDP, called CleanBC.

It’s in transportation. It’s in industrial emission reductions.

It’s in home heating and cooling. And we are systematically putting in

place the building blocks to meet our targets in 2030.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. G. Heyman: We are leading in Canada. We are leading in North America. What we

introduced, with respect to both clean energy and existing energy after

the selection of the new Premier, was the new energy action framework,

which has a clean energy and major projects office.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: We’re attracting significant investments in battery through E-One

Moli. We are seeking to attract hydrogen proponents. We are building out

our electricity infrastructure. We are implementing the first oil and

gas emissions cap in Canada, and we are on track to meet our

commitments.

CONDITIONS IN FOREST INDUSTRY

AND GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

ISSUES

J. Rustad: Last week we heard devastating news from Canfor in terms of the

decision to close yet more mills in British Columbia as well as to

suspend the rebuild in Houston. It was only a few months ago that the

Forests Minister was touting, in this chamber, about the investment in

the Houston forest mill. Yet here we are — it’s being

suspended.

Why is it being suspended? As Canfor said very clearly, it’s

because of government policy. We have millions of cubic metres of wood

that is not being made available that this government refuses to issue

permits on. We’ve got wood that has been killed by wildfires that needs

to be harvested, that needs to be processed, that needs to be

rehabilitated that this government is refusing to issue permits

on.

Why is it that this government has got such a vendetta against the

forest industry? The forest industry supports jobs right across this

province. It supports families. It supports people that are out

volunteering for baseball teams and hockey teams. It supports people

that are investing back in the communities. And it is being gutted,

community after community.

Why is this government refusing to understand that its policies

are driving a crisis in this forest industry, and when will it change

course to support communities and jobs across this province?

Hon. D. Eby: I do sincerely thank the member for the question. This is an

important issue. The decision by Canfor is devastating news for

communities in our province.

[2:35 p.m.]

The forest industry is facing huge challenges right now. It’s not

just in British Columbia, despite the member’s suggestion. The American

Loggers Council recorded 10,000 job losses across almost 50 mills, by

their tally, and a lot of this due to the low price of timber right

across North America. It’s down more than 50 percent. Just in the last

eight weeks, the price for southern yellow pine dropped 25 percent,

impacting the U.S. operation and many B.C. forestry companies as

well.

This is cold comfort, though, for the families in the Prince

George region, for the families in the Houston region that were really

counting on those investments. We worked closely with Canfor to make

sure they had access to fibre for that new mill investment, and we’ll

continue working with the forestry industry, but it is definitely in

transition.

Between the beetle kill and the forest fires, it is a major time

of change in the forest industry. We’ll support the workers. We’ve got a

minister of state working exclusively on fibre supply, identifying those

opportunities to get burned wood to market, to get marginal timber to

pulp mills, scrap to pulp mills, and to support getting more jobs per

tree than we do have in the province.

The Speaker: Leader of the Fourth Party, supplemental.

J. Rustad: Well, I’ve lost track. It’s 17 or 19 different processing

facilities in this province that have closed under the NDP. But here’s

an interesting fact. When the NDP came to power, lumber prices were $375

spot prices. Today they’re $485.

What’s changed? I can tell you what’s changed. The cost of doing

business in this province has skyrocketed, and we are, by far, the

highest cost jurisdiction in North America. We used to be competitive in

this industry. We used to be proud of this industry. We used to be proud

of the people that worked in this industry, instead of dismissing it and

saying: “Oh, it was just a problem from somewhere else.”

The forest industry has been the backbone of this province for

decades. The forest industry supports families. The forest industry

supports surgeries and investments in health care and school. It

supports communities right across this province, and it supports

families across the province.

The industry came to government and asked for reductions in the

cost structure so that they could be able to carry on operating. They

knew this day was coming. What did government do? They added on costs.

They added on bureaucracy.

The Premier just said that they’re doing everything they can to

get permits out. Well, I can tell you, in my area, that six million

cubic metres through B.C. Timber Sales hasn’t been hitting the market

for the last three years.

In Merritt, it has been over two years, with only three permits

being issued and wood that is now falling down and rotting and is not

being processed. It is not being reprocessed.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

J. Rustad: When will this government understand that it is their measures, it

is their uncertainty that is driving the problem in this forest

industry, and when will they start taking steps to actually correct

courts and make sure that we have a healthy forest industry in this

province?

Hon. D. Eby: For the members’ reference, because he’s clearly not familiar,

we’ve doubled funding to the Forest Enhancement Society to get fibre to

mills. We’ve got 51 projects across the province supporting 2,500 jobs

around adding value to B.C. wood. We’ve got fibre recovery zones right

across the province, fibre that was previously burned when the member

sat around the cabinet table.

I can’t let the member get away from his history. He sat around

the cabinet table when tens of thousands of jobs were shed in the

industry.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: He joined up with a party, the B.C. Liberal Party, where 30,000

jobs were lost during their time at the helm, completely mismanaged the

forest industry…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: …saved only by the clearcutting of the beetle kill wood for a few

more years. Even the member for Prince George–Mackenzie stands up in

this House just a few weeks ago and says that things have to change in

the forest industry. Those days are gone, and they died under the B.C.

Liberal government.

The forest industry has a strong future in our province. It has a

strong future of value-added manufacturing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t take anything away from the huge challenges that are faced

by the families that are impacted by the Canfor decisions, but we’ve

been working since day one informing government to support forestry

workers, to support the industry in these really challenging times, and

we’re going to keep doing that.

M. Bernier: That answer is cold comfort to the hundreds of families and

communities that are now devastated because of the broken forestry

policies of this government, and they deserve better.

[2:40 p.m.]

When we look at what has happened here recently, it should be no

surprise that the minister and the Premier need to look in the mirror.

Canfor executives explicitly blamed this Premier and his failed policies

for mill closures and for the actual harvest that has plummeted by 42

percent on that annual allowable cut.

The warning signals were there. The companies have met with this

government. They’ve met with the ministers. They’ve told them that this

was going to happen, and they ignored them. This government is

completely responsible for what’s happening in the forestry sector — the

decimation of these forestry-dependent communities. It’s massive

uncertainty, endless regulatory delays, higher costs, all consequences

of this NDP Premier and this government. This could have been

avoided.

When will this Premier admit that his disastrous forestry policies

are responsible, now, for these thousands of jobs that have been lost

and our rural communities that are being impacted and devastated once

again?

Hon. D. Eby: There is no question. The impact of forest policy and forest

decisions made over a long period of time are impacting forest families

and rural families in our province. We’ve got families being evacuated

from the northeast as a result of historic-level, remarkable forest

activity due to drought, and families in the Prince George area impacted

by the decisions of Canfor.

The member, though…. A couple of important notes. In this time of

evacuation, of forest industry reckoning, the first question from the

BCUP is about allowing unvaccinated health workers into our hospitals.

That’s their priority. Now, I don’t understand how that could be, given

the news today, but that is the priority of this party. Members of his

own party…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: …recognize that this is a time of reckoning. He is actually a

member from Prince George who stood in this place and said: “This is a

time when we need to do forestry differently, because bad decisions have

been made in the past.” He is absolutely right.

We’re continuing to do that work. We will support the families in

Prince George that have been impacted by this incredibly difficult

decision by Canfor. We’ve got a team of people working to ensure that we

can do all we can to get the fibre supply that’s available to those

companies that are providing jobs in our province to support

families.

We absolutely have more to do. But I will not take critique from a

party that watched 30,000 jobs walk out the door of this

province.

C. Oakes: Let’s put the record straight. We spent this morning talking about

the impacts on our forest communities. I think it’s important to set the

record straight. We’ve been standing up for workers and families and

rural communities that have been hollowed out by this government’s

decision and lack of action.

Last year, communities were devastated by the wildfires. Look at

how Alberta responded. Alberta was able to get permits out the door

three weeks after those fires.

Now let’s look at what happened in my community. In my community,

we were still waiting this spring for the same permits to access those

wildfire stands. And guess what. Four hundred people in my community

went with­out a paycheque.

To the Premier: when are you going to start standing up for

workers and start making sure that our workers have access to bringing

home good paycheques?

And you know what? Here’s something. The Premier could stand up

today and adopt the B.C. United’s plan to make sure that we are

enforcing strict timelines for public land decisions, securing a future

for workers and families in rural B.C. Will the Premier do that

today?

Hon. A. Mercier: It’s a bit rich to be lectured about standing up for workers from

a party led by someone whose main commentary on supports for laid-off

forestry workers when he was in government was “boo hoo.” The decisions

that have happened this past week from Canfor….

[2:45 p.m.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. A. Mercier: The problems and issues with access to fibre due to unprecedented

wildfire conditions and, yes, difficult markets….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Mercier: We are next to the largest housing market on the planet. Interest

rates go up. American housing stocks go down. Prices crash. It is

difficult across the board.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let’s hear the answer, please.

Hon. A. Mercier: Mr. Speaker, we are doing….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a second.

The minister will continue.

Hon. A. Mercier: We are doing the work. I was up in Quesnel recently, just like I

was out in Adams Lake, touring active wildfire salvage to go into the

Interfor sawmill in Adams Lake and looking at barriers and process

issues in place. We’re set on resolving those, which is why we changed

the Interior Appraisal Manual to incent and expedite wildfire salvage to

help those operations continue. There are 30 B.C. Timber Sales licences

being developed right now in response to the 2023 fires, and we are

going to continue to do that work.

P. Milobar: Well, that right there explains exactly why this NDP government is

completely out of touch with what’s going on in the forest industry

right now.

In fact, on Friday, I was at a luncheon with the same member that

was just up. He was speaking at the ILA. Didn’t even reference, didn’t

talk about the closure going on up in Canfor. No, that wasn’t even

referenced with the ILA.

In fact, what was referenced was a new $5 million fund so that

people can go out and buy specialized equipment to take out saplings.

Now, that’s an important part of fire control, absolutely. But that’s

not what the loggers in the audience were looking for. They were looking

for a government to actually recognize that they have created the

highest-cost, most bureaucratic forestry jurisdiction in North

America.

They heard nothing for relief and help coming their way. In fact,

the only time that minister heard any applause on anything he said about

forestry was just now, because there was no applause for his

announcements in Kamloops.

When will this government recognize that under their watch,

forestry has become the highest cost in North America? Canfor was very

clear. The Premier could try to skate away from it. Canfor was very

clear. This had nothing to do with fibre supply. It had nothing to do

with cost. It had to do with the cost structure of operating, not what

they can sell the product for. In fact, they said pulp is profitable

right now, if they didn’t have this government in office.

When will this government recognize the burden they have placed,

the gutting of the communities, the 400 people that the member just

talked about, the 700 up in Prince George…? The list goes on and on and

on. When will real action be taken by this government to free up and

modernize our forestry industry so the mills stop closing under their

watch?

Hon. A. Mercier: The decision by Canfor to curtail Polar, to curtail the line on

Northwood, to suspend their investment in Houston is absolutely

devastating for workers and for their families.

Had the member been around at the beginning of that meeting and

been in the conversations that I was in, he would have been in a

conversation with 40 loggers talking about the impacts of the Canfor

decision and talking about those challenges.

We are focused right now on making sure that those workers have

support and that we are getting fibre into operations. Just like in

Kamloops, Kruger pulp, which is capable of taking 1.3 million cubic

metres of wildfire salvage, something that other pulp facilities are

struggling with and that they have pioneered the way on…. We are making

sure that they have access to that wildfire salvage by expediting those

permits so that workers and their families….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. A. Mercier: So that workers and their families know they have the stability,

that they can go to work every day and go home every night and that they

have that family-supporting job.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Hon. K. Conroy: I have a petition from 450 members of the community asking government

to save Cai Creek, one of the last standing interior watersheds in the

province.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the chamber, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 21, Legal

Professions Act.

[2:50 p.m.]

In Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 25,

Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act.

In Birch Committee Room, I call Committee Supply for the Ministry of

Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — LEGAL PROFESSIONS

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:53 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 21,

Legal Professions Act.

On clause 1 (continued) .

M. de Jong: The discussion has and will continue. I thought, as we move,

maybe, with some greater particularity around some of the

definitions

contained in clause 1 of the bill, that a good way to characterize that

or to preface that exchange would be…. I have heard the Attorney

General’s response to a number of the questions about the approach that

was taken, the process that was followed.

I think the Attorney will agree, though, that what is being

proposed here is a significant realignment, and I use that as a neutral

term, insofar as the regulation of legal professions is concerned. What

is it particularly about the model that has been in existence…? By that

I mean the Law Society, the benchers.

In the Attorney’s own words, what is it particularly about that

model that the Attorney General and government feel is problematic and

has prompted this significant, dare I say dramatic, shift?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ve spoken at length about the process that led up to today. I’m

going to narrow it down specifically, because I think the member was

asking about the governance structure in particular. I can go through

all the reasons that led up to the many changes that are in this bill,

but in particular, I think, the CBA did a governance review in 2014, and

then I mentioned the Cayton report that the Law Society issued in

In Cayton, the core recommendations included proposals for the

reduction of elected benchers, an increase in proportion of publicly

appointed benchers and reform of the electoral college model in a manner

that would facilitate not only geographic diversity but also an optimal

level of skill sets on the regulator’s board.

That was one of the things that pointed to changes in the board

structure. I know that the CBABC submissions to our intentions paper

mentioned that a small, more agile board composition was needed to be

consistent with effective and modern regulatory operations and that it

should comprise a mix of appointed and elected members.

That was in the CBABC submission, the one that I just quoted. In

the Law Society’s submission, when it came to the intentions paper, it

was the view of the Law Society there that the self-regulation of legal

professions requires that a majority of the board that governs lawyers

be themselves lawyers and that the majority of lawyer directors be

elected.

There was a lot of input that we received, particularly on the

governance model and, of course, the notaries and the paralegals. Once

you move to a single-regulator model — it was generally accepted by all

professions that we would move to a single-regulator model — then the

governance had to reflect the composition of all the legal professionals

that would be represented in that self-regulator.

M. de Jong: There’s lots in that answer. I’ll try to break it down a little

bit.

The Attorney has referred to aspects of a report that spoke to the

representative nature of the present regulatory body, the benchers —

and, I think, was intending to convey that the present regulator is not

as representative of either the profession or the society; I’m not

certain which.

The question is…. I suppose one could imply from what we have

before us that the government and the Attorney General accept that as

fact, but I think that on a shift as significant as this, it is

worthwhile to ask directly whether the Attorney General agrees with

that.

Does the Attorney General and the government today believe that

the existing regulator, the benchers, are not sufficiently

representative of either the profession or the society?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Of course, diversity and representation on the board are

important, especially when moving to a single-regulator model. Now we

need to make sure that legal professions that are under the

single-regulator model are also represented in the new structure. That

would be a shift from the current one.

I think that we have to acknowledge that the Law Society and the

benchers have made strides in terms of representation. Certainly, when I

look at the benchers today, it’s not the same group of benchers that I

remember when I was a young lawyer and first starting out. I acknowledge

those strides in terms of representation.

We think that the bill strikes a balance between maintaining

diversity, giving new tools to ensure representation, and making sure we

can continue to move forward on that.

[3:05 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I’m glad to get up and have a moment to speak to the

bill.

Noting the comments just now of the Attorney General about

striking a balance, trying to create this diversity and representation….

I know the debate has been proceeding for a few days now. There have

been a lot of concerns brought forward by the legal professions, by the

judiciary, by people who are concerned about the pace at which this

legislation is moving forward and the lack of engagement, at this point,

and the lack of evidence that the engagement that has happened has been

taken into account.

I just want to point to one particular aspect of this that members

of the legal community have been considering at length and for a long

time — the way in which we need to modernize our legal system, how we

can get there, how to improve access to the legal system, particularly

when it comes to people who currently can’t afford that access. I know

this is part of what’s in this bill, but it’s unfortunate to see a lack

of really concrete ways for improving the funding that would go to

access to judicial services for people who can’t currently afford

it.

In 2019, the Law Society commissioned the futures task force to

consider these questions. For example, there is currently no

consideration of how to prepare legal services and the legal profession

to be resilient in the face of catastrophic events such as what we’re

seeing in the northeast of this province right now or another pandemic

or a natural disaster. This was one of the recommendations of the

futures report. The futures task force was clear-eyed about the

challenges facing the profession and that there be more done to ensure

that all people have access to justice.

It’s disappointing that this government has moved forward with

this legislation, which has raised a lot of red flags. It hasn’t created

a sense that the engagement has been meaningful. There is a growing

number of voices who are concerned about the implications of the changes

proposed in this legislation. We get a bill, four weeks before the end

of the final session of this electoral period, which isn’t particularly

aligned with earlier indications of what the legislation would bring in

and has raised these flags.

My question to the Attorney General. Why was this path, which was

not aligned with the futures task force report, taken? How does the

Attorney General propose to move forward with the goals set out in the

futures task force report?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m going to start in response to access to justice.

We’ve done a lot of work, as a ministry, using all the tools that

we can to improve access to justice in the province, and that includes

increased funding to legal aid. I’ve had a chance during this debate to

speak pretty specifically about the government’s efforts on many fronts

to increase access to justice.

[3:10 p.m.]

This bill gives the regulator the tools to expand legal

professionals in this province so we can have registered paralegals and

notaries providing legal services in scopes of practice across this

province that will be less expensive than lawyers.

I want to say also — just to correct, I think — a little bit about

who’s in favour and who’s not. I often hear that lawyers are against it.

I have a long list of lawyers that are part of this and that are very

supportive of the work that’s in this bill, including past presidents of

the Law Society; including lawyers that are academics and are part of

the faculty of law; lawyers like Jamie MacLaren, who is executive

director of Access Pro Bono, which specifically provides low-cost legal

services to people.

This is one of the tools that we have, as a government, to expand

not only options but also access to justice in the province.

I want to say, also, that the futures report that the member

mentions was taken into account, along with many others. In fact, in the

CBA submission that they gave us on this, they noted that: “On the

matter of regulation of lawyers, notaries and paralegals as an issue,

this has been discussed at least over the past three

decades.”

The submission goes on to list all of the reports that have talked

about the future of legal services, how you can expand legal aid service

delivery, submissions the Law Society provided, including the futures

report, all the way back to 2012, when the then Attorney General wrote a

letter to the Law Society and the notary society talking about an

amalgamation under a single regulator. So this project has been decades

in the making and has included many, many submissions and discussions,

including from key components of the Law Society and the CBA, which

talked about a new model of self-regulation.

We think we’ve landed on a way that takes into account everybody’s

perspectives — the notaries, the B.C. para­legals, the Law

Society’s submissions — and balances them in the public interest. My job

as Attorney General is to represent and bring forward the public

interest when making decisions, and we’ve balanced that in this

bill.

S. Furstenau: I have one specific example around access to justice that I’d be

interested in the Attorney General to contemplate. I’ve raised this

before, I think with the previous Attorney General specifically. It’s an

example of what I think is a pretty significant imbalance in terms of

access to justice.

For families who are dealing with Ministry of Children and

Families cases, often those families do not have the funds to pay for

their own legal representation, so they use legal aid. Often the legal

aid lawyers have many, many cases that they are managing, so they allot

a very limited amount of time to each family. These are examples from

families we have helped with in our constituency office.

On one side, you have a family — often Indigenous, often in

poverty — trying to make the case that is probably the most distressing

experience of their lives, the case to be able to keep their own

children out of a system that is failing to protect children from the

outcomes we see from MCFD. That’s one side. On the other side, we have

government lawyers representing MCFD, who are on salary, who are earning

significantly more than the lawyers who are representing the

families.

So right in the structure of how these cases come before the

courts, there is a deep imbalance in terms of the access to justice for

the families who are trying desperately to be able to continue to keep

their children in their homes.

[3:15 p.m.]

One proposal that our office brought forward and put up for

discussion was to have government lawyers on both sides of this equation

so that then there’s a balance, and the families get the same level of

representation, the same funding going into representing them, as the

MCFD staff get on their side.

There’s an access-to-justice imbalance that currently exists. The

outcomes from this are deeply significant for the parents and families

that are facing these conditions, that kind of ingrained imbalance that

people face when they are facing off with government lawyers and forcing

themselves to rely on legal aid in cases of MCFD files.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for the question. It’s something I

think about a lot, in terms of access to justice and power imbalances in

our system.

I have a few answers for her, but I’ll start with the tools of the

bill. What we know is that if you can have different licensing regimes

for different levels of legal professionals — if you expand that out —

you can actually use resources differently.

What I mean by that is that if a paralegal is able to do some part

of the work under some scope of practice, however that’s determined,

that’s related to that scope of practice, then that’s a way for you to

use your legal services or your budget in a more effective way. There’s

an aspect of diversifying legal professionals as a province that does

get at cost and access to justice for people. That’s one of the

tools.

Another, I think, very interesting tool in this that the

self-regulator will have to grapple with as this expands…. When you

think about situating a regulator, which this bill does, with the

independence of legal professionals, the public interest and access to

justice, that’s something it’s measured by. It’s a tool in this bill to

have the self-regulator measure itself against how it’s promoting access

to justice with the tools that it has.

Part of that is a new tool, which is specialized licensing, or

licensing that could be very specific to a certain thing. You could

theoretically think of a specially licensed legal professional that is

to do with MCFD cases or can play a role that’s specialized in certain

cases. You could see that developing as an access-to-justice

thing.

There are a few other ways that I think we’re tackling this issue.

One is with Indigenous justice centres. That is a funded program where

there are lawyers that are staffed there to focus directly on providing

free legal services for people that are dealing with various issues,

including MCFD and child protection issues. Those are Indigenous lawyers

that are there to provide those services.

Another is the influx of $29 million that is going to the family

law legal aid system that we announced recently through a settlement.

That’s particularly for people that need family law legal aid. We

estimate that 4,500 more people will get access to a lawyer through

that.

M. de Jong: I want to come back to this matter that we were discussing a

moment ago, before our colleague, the leader of the Green Party posed a

few questions.

Before I do, though, I wonder if I could put this question to the

Attorney General. Depending on the answer, I may be critical, but I am

merely, at this stage, seeking information that might help to guide the

conversation and discussion going forward.

We are on

section one of a 300-section bill. The Attorney would

say: “Well, you in the opposition decide what

section we’re on.” I’ve

watched the exchange. I think, to her credit, she has endeavoured to

answer the questions honestly and fulsomely. It has been a good

conversation.

That said, we are on

section one of a 300-section bill. Today, a

few moments ago, the government introduced two more bills that, it’s my

understanding, the government is going to seek to have passed, which is

going to necessitate breaking into this discussion and debating those

bills in this chamber. There are 2½ days of session left.

Can the Attorney confirm at this stage, given what has just taken

place: is it her and the government’s intention to have this bill voted

upon through third reading in this session?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll just say that I’m frustrated by the pace at which this is

going. I find myself repeating answers I’ve given. We have been at

clause 1 for seven hours in the debate so far in the committee stage,

and I am very eager to get to a clause-by-clause analysis of this bill,

because a lot of my answers are better answered through looking at the

different sections, as I think I mentioned last week when we were at

this debate.

It’s my hope that we can get through everything in a way that we

can explain to the public and to get the opposition to have a chance, to

answer questions. I’m hopeful we’ll move on to

section by

section.

M. de Jong: Believe me, I am certain that there are times when the Attorney is

frustrated, and she can be assured that there are times when members of

the opposition are frustrated. We are at that stage, however, where….

There are always a finite number of hours in a legislative session,

particularly when we have a calendar, as I think we still do.

Managing that time, which the opposition does have a role to play

in, requires that we know with some certainty what the government’s and

the Attorney’s intentions are. For better or for worse, we are on

section 1 of a 300-page bill.

I asked the question politely a moment ago. I always try to be

polite. I guess the more direct question is: notwithstanding where we

are in this discussion, come Thursday, is it the government’s and the

Attorney’s intention to impose closure on this debate?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m hoping to make progress. I’m making myself available to do

that, certainly past clause 1, in the hours that we’ve been debating.

I’ll be speaking to the House Leader regularly about allocating time for

that.

M. de Jong: I think the Attorney came perilously close to answering my

question when, at the conclusion of her answer, she said she would be

speaking to the House Leader about allocating time — her words. I hear

“time allocation” when I hear the phrase “allocating time.”

Look, I hope the Attorney realizes that this is relevant for an

opposition, any opposition, in determining how to conduct itself going

forward. If there is to be time allocation, the sooner the opposition is

informed of that, if there is to be the guillotine, if there is to be

closure, the sooner the government informs the House and the committee

of that, the better for everyone. I don’t think anything is achieved by

the Attorney saying: “Well, we’ll see how it goes.”

Something as important as this, a rewrite of a regulatory scheme

that has been in place for over a century and a half, I think — I hope

we all agree — deserves scrutiny. If there’s a guillotine in the future

in the next two days — a relevant question throughout, but made even

more relevant by the government’s decision, in the last three days of

the session, to introduce more legislation that it says it wants to pass

— how the opposition allocates our time is influenced by that and by the

knowledge of what the government’s intentions are with respect to this

bill.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I know that the member opposite was House Leader at that point and

understands how these things work. It’s not up to me as minister. But I

do have to say that I really hope that we can get through, certainly,

more than clause 1 in seven hours of this bill. In order to assist in

the debate, I know that my team has provided the opposition with a

concordance

summary.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

That is a

summary that outlines, exactly, specifically where the

differences are between the current Legal Professions Act and the bill

before us, so we could start to focus on the content and the sections

and move through this in a way that helps to answer questions but also

focuses in on the changes that are being made.

M. de Jong: Yes, need I be reminded of those 12 glorious years as a Government

House Leader. It’s at times a thankless job, and I think the Attorney

appreciates what I’m saying.

Look, I’m not trying to be troublesome or trick anyone here. Is

the Attorney….? Again, triggered by the introduction of more legislation

that we certainly weren’t anticipating, is she likely to be in a

position today to advise the committee whether the government intends to

invoke some form of time allocation or closure on the discussion around

the provisions of Bill 21?

Hon. N. Sharma: My intention is to explain this bill and to answer the

opposition’s questions to the sections of the bill. It’s why I’m

here.

I’m sure that our House Leader will be communicating with the

opposition’s House Leader, as I know they do regularly, on how things

will be scheduled in this House. I’ll make myself available as many

hours as I can.

M. de Jong: Well, I’ll put one more remark on the record. Appropriately, the

Attorney General is the person who speaks for the government with

respect to this bill. Whilst the Government House Leader has other

responsibilities relating to the management of House business, the

Government House Leader isn’t available to answer these questions in

these proceedings. The Attorney is, and I thought the question was a

fair one. I’ll ask it one more time.

Is the Attorney prepared today to consult with her House Leader

and come back to the committee later today to explain and to state

authoritatively whether or not the government intends to impose closure

or time allocation on these proceedings? It will influence the nature of

the proceedings. That’s why I asked the question.

Hon. N. Sharma: Again, I would like to focus on the sections of this bill and the

discussion that we can have about the content of the bill before us. I

will endeavour to make myself available for the time that it

takes.

M. de Jong: Well, look, I’ll move on and ask a question. But I will make this

observation, because the Attorney reminded me of the time I spent as

House Leader, and I think the record will show that there were times

when governments that I was a part of imposed closure. In every

instance, it was made clear weeks in advance whether there was any

prospect of a bill being subject to that procedural

manoeuvre.

[3:35 p.m.]

The Attorney can avoid the question and say: “I don’t want to talk

about it. It’s not relevant.” It’s such a crucial and important piece of

legislation, dealing with the regulation of our legal professions, that

I would have thought that she would be sensitive to any allegations of

procedural shenanigans or manipulation. The refusal to answer a

straight-up question about whether or not there’s going to be closure

come Thursday strikes me as just that: an attempt to be secretive and

manipulative. If that’s the approach, I guess that’s the

approach.

Before our colleague from the Green Party asked some questions,

the Attorney, in response to a question of mine, made this statement. I

think it’s accurate. I won’t read it as a quote. When I asked her about

the general notion of representation amongst the benchers and the Law

Society, she said that she wanted to acknowledge that strides have been

made by the Law Society to create a more representative body. So that’s

helpful.

Where have they fallen short?

Hon. N. Sharma: Of course, I take the Chair’s guidance, but some of these answers

that I’ve been answering over the last few days are better answered when

we get to the clause, because the clauses that deal with governance will

help me explain how it shows up in the bill.

I will say that the Law Society has acknowledged that there have

been gains in recent years with respect to the number of Indigenous

benchers and with respect to gender diversity. The Law Society has

acknowledged the following groups as being underrepresented among

elective directors: racialized lawyers, LGBTQ2+ lawyers, lawyers with

disabilities and young lawyers and solicitors.

M. de Jong: I understand the Attorney has said there will be an opportunity

for her to expand upon some of those particular issues. But let me ask

now in a general way.

She has pointed to commentary by others, by the Law Society

itself. What I hear from the Attorney is, in part: “These changes are

being made to address shortcomings in representation on the Law Society,

on the benchers, and this is our legislative attempt to address that.

And I, as Attorney General and the government, accept entirely those

arguments around the lack of appropriate

represen­tation.”

Have I got that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: Chair, I believe I’ve answered this, and if it could be tied to

something specific in clause 1, that would be helpful for me in

answering.

I will say that we’ve talked at length over the last, I think,

maybe more than seven hours of debate on the purposes and the goals and

the intent and what reports we relied on to make the changes.

The Chair: Thank you, Attorney.

Yes. We’ve covered some of this already, so certainly it is

helpful if members can review what we’ve already covered so we’re

not asking repetitive questions. The Chair would appreciate

that.

[3:40 p.m.]

M. de Jong: In clause 1, there are two terms. One is “discipline committee,”

and the second is “discipline hearing.” They appear one after the other.

They are defined terms and, of course, they emerge and present later in

the legislation.

Let me ask in a general way, as part of our conversation around

clause 1: what, if any, concerns does the Attorney have with the

existing disciplinary procedure within the Law Society of

B.C.?

Hon. N. Sharma: The Law Society has set up a tribunal of more independence, just

in practice. What this bill does is enshrine that more in legislation in

terms of the operation of it. I’m happy to speak to it when we get to

sections 89 and 90.

M. de Jong: From that answer, am I able to take that the Attorney has

absolutely no concerns with respect to the existing disciplinary

proceedings within the Law Society?

Hon. N. Sharma: The sections, once we get to 89 and 90, will really help me go

through each of the ways that discipline and the discipline hearing and

committee process will be undertaken in this act.

I didn’t hear any questions about the specific

definitions that

are listed here, but I will say that a lot of the changes that we will

get to in sections 89 and 90 were taken from feedback at the Law Society

about different tools they wanted or needed with respect to the

discipline of lawyers and other legal professionals.

M. de Jong: Not to harp on this, but the Attorney’s reluctance to answer my

procedural question means we are left uncertain as to whether we will

ever get to

section 90. That’s part of the problem, you see. I

appreciate that the Attorney says, “Well, we’ll get to it,” but we don’t

know that.

Having said that, my specific question was less about the change

that is encompassed by this legislative package than it was about better

understanding whether there are concerns, or any concerns, on the part

of the Attorney about the present disciplinary process within the Law

Society.

For example, were there aspects of that disciplinary process that

the Attorney and the government were unhappy with that they’re looking

to address with this legislation?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: You know what? I think that there’s always…. The point of

introducing a bill and modernizing legal professionals is to work on the

changes that will help make processes better, with feedback from our

partners, and that’s certainly what we did in the discipline

process.

I mentioned already that one of the key things was to enshrine

work the Law Society was already doing on independence and an

independent disciplinary tribunal, which puts it in there. There are

better tools I hope we will get to when we get to the section. I’m happy

to talk through, when it comes to those repeated disciplinary actions by

the same individual lawyer and better tools for that, and just to make

sure that that whole system operates with the independence and no

conflict of interest necessary, which I can get through in a

clause-by-clause when we get there.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney. Helpful.

For the purpose of the conversation around the definition and the

need for change, though, what I’m seeking to better understand from the

Attorney is to what extent, if at all, she and the government felt there

was a systemic issue.

Maybe I can ask the question a bit differently. I was part of a

government that eliminated self-regulation for teachers. And candidly,

one of the reasons was a real concern around whether or not disciplinary

procedures were either in place to the degree that they should have been

or being followed to the degree that they should have been.

Have there been…? Are there concerns relating to the existing and

present disciplinary process for legal professionals? I’m asking now

about lawyers. A similar question is applicable for notaries.

Hon. N. Sharma: The member asked if there were serious concerns that I have, and

my answer to that would be no. We maintain self-regulation in this

matter. When we get to the sections on discipline, we can talk about how

the structures that we put in place would ensure there was no conflict

of interest and that there was an independence that was associated with

the disciplinary process, along with tools to better ensure, especially

with frequent repeated infractions — better tools for the new regulatory

body.

M. de Jong: The Attorney and the government apparently have decided that that

disciplinary process needs to be enshrined, to a greater extent,

legislatively than has been the case in the past. Why is

that?

The Chair: I believe that is clause 89 the member is referring to. We are

on clause 1, but of course if the Attorney wants to address that…. I

just believe that’s the way the bill rolls out.

Hon. N. Sharma: The sections that appear later in the bill talk about enshrining a

tribunal, which is an independent disciplinary body. I’m happy to go

through that once we get to that section, but really, like everything,

it’s about looking at what exists and making it better, which is part of

what’s in this bill.

[3:50 p.m.]

M. de Jong: So two terms.

I don’t actually have the existing…. I may have it, but I don’t

have it open, so I’ll ask the question. Legal Professions Act — do those

definitions appear in the same way in the existing Legal Profession

Act?

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s just a matter of drafting difference. Those two terms —

disciplinary committee, disciplinary hearing — are not defined in the

current Legal Profession Act but are defined in this bill. So can’t

compare.

M. de Jong: I understand what the Attorney is saying. But the question, of

course, is: what has provoked the decision to include and enshrine the

definitions statutorily? Presumably, the Attorney and the government

were convinced or satisfied that that was necessary, that there was a

problem that arose because of the absence of the statutory definition

earlier. I’m just probing what that problem was or is.

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m told that the way…. Really, there’s no problem that’s trying

to be solved by defining these two terms directly in terms of a

definition. It’s really just that the current LPA is under modern

drafting requirements or guidelines. Under those modern drafting

guidelines, these are clarifying terms — discipline committee,

discipline hearing — that help to clarify the use of them in the

bill.

M. de Jong: This might be a theme that we come back to. I take it these were

terms left to, in the case of lawyers, the Law Society to define in the

Law Society rules. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: Just note that the two

definitions that the member is talking

about are pretty benign in their content. It just is a referential

definition that defines, basically, what’s under

section 8 or

section

90. I’m told by the drafters that this is just modern drafting practice.

Whereas these terms were used before, in the current Legal Profession

Act, the modern drafting guidelines now would require that there just be

a definition that’s referential and largely benign, but just for

clarity.

M. de Jong: One of the points that the Attorney has made repeatedly during the

course of the exchange over the last couple of days is the importance of

protecting the public interest. I don’t think anyone in the committee

has argued that objective and the importance of that

objective.

[3:55 p.m.]

What I’m trying to do in focusing on the

definitions included here

is to ascertain whether or not, in a general way, the Attorney and the

government believed that there were and are deficiencies in the existing

disciplinary processes that require addressing in this

legislation.

Hon. N. Sharma: Chair, I believe that was asked and answered — that specific

question.

M. de Jong: Forgive me if…. I don’t question what the Attorney said. I must

have missed the answer. Could she re-enlighten me?

Hon. N. Sharma: The member asked me pretty directly if I had any serious concerns

about the process. I answered no, and then I went on to talk about

what’s enshrined in

section 89, which I hope to get to, about

independence, better tools for repeat violations and things like

that.

M. de Jong: A couple of more general questions. I can advise the Attorney and

the committee that, just before four o’clock, my colleague from Kamloops

will have some questions while I duck out, momentarily, for some other

responsibilities and duties.

The Attorney had an exchange with the official opposition critic,

from Vancouver-Langara, that touched on the role of the Attorney General

within our existing legal professions regulatory structure and how, if

at all, it will change under the regime proposed in Bill 21. Can I

pursue that, for just a moment, by asking the Attorney to summarize in

her own words what she sees as the role of the Attorney General, any

Attorney General, vis-à-vis the public?

Hon. N. Sharma: Chair, I take your guidance on how this applies to any of the

definitions in

section 1. I have answered this question quite directly

from a previous member about the role of the Attorney General and how I

see this addressing the public interest.

The Chair: Yes. I think this question was asked by the member for

Vancouver-Langara more than a few times in a couple of ways. But if

we could draw it back to clause 1, I’d appreciate it.

M. de Jong: Can the Attorney differentiate for me how that responsibility

vis-à-vis the public differs or is complementary to the

responsibility/authority she has with respect to legal

practitioners?

Hon. N. Sharma: Chair, I seek your guidance again. I don’t think the Attorney

General Act is before the Legislature here for debate that sets out my

roles.

[4:00 p.m.]

I talked about how I feel like this…. I’m certain that this bill

is in the public interest and that we balanced the interests of legal

professionals throughout the province.

The Chair: Of course, we would hope that all questions are relevant to

Bill 21.

We are on clause 1, and so questions relevant to clause 1 and

the bill are relevant, of course, ideally under the clauses that are

appropriate. So we’re here on clause 1.

P. Milobar: I’ll just be following up from my colleague there for a little

while.

I can understand government’s frustration, sometimes, on the

questions from opposition. But I can assure the Chair and the minister

that this comes after lots of discussion with people in the legal

professions, in terms of their concerns around the bill; trying to guess

what clause we may land on, or not, and end on; and trying to figure

out…. At a minimum, some clarity around

definitions is

important.

Again, we heard the same frustration on Bill 25 at the end of last

week, with the minister saying how many hours they’ve been on a bill.

These are important pieces of legislation that are going to have impact

for a long time. It’s important that not just the legal profession but

the people that access legal professions understand what exactly is

happening, in this case, in Bill 21.

Although it may be frustrating to a minister, last I checked we’re

here till Thursday. If the government wants this bill passed, it will

pass. If they want it to be with closure, it will be with closure. The

minister and the Chairs may get frustrated, but this is actually the

work that we’re here to do.

It’s the one time opposition can decide what they feel is of

importance within a bill and just try to highlight it. It may not line

up with the government’s view of what they feel is important within a

bill, but it certainly shouldn’t be diminished, in my opinion, by the

government, by any means, in terms of opposition trying to actually do

their bill.

All that said, the minister will probably be thrilled to find out

that what I’m about to say next is that I really don’t have questions

until clause 3. We can move forward to clause 3, if the Chair is

willing.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

P. Milobar: As we rocket along to clause 317 or what­ever it is of this

bill, clause 3 says: “The following professions are designated as legal

professions for the purposes of this Act: (

a) the profession of lawyer;

(

b) the profession of notary public; (

c) the profession of regulated

paralegal; (

d) a profession designated by regulation.”

Would the minister outline for the House and, more importantly,

for the broader public what other legal professions are being considered

to be designated by regulation?

Hon. N. Sharma: I thank the member for the question on clause 3.

It’s one of the benefits that we see, strongly, of this bill,

which is to give the government and the regulator new flexibility when

it comes to conceiving of legal professions. I don’t have examples right

now, except for one that I think may emerge in the future.

[4:05 p.m.]

That would be legal tech, there being this influence of technology

on the legal profession, like many other professions, and an

understanding of how you can conceive of, in the future, the need for a

legal tech professional that has a scope of practice or a regulated role

in legal professionals within the province.

What this does…. It doesn’t set it out, but it gives, under this

section, the flexibility of that in the future without having to go

through legislative changes or amendments to do that. It would be up to

the regulator as it rolls out in a conversation with government about

how that would be. It wouldn’t impact the board structure — that would

require legislative change — but it would give the tools to provide

that.

P. Milobar: Well, in fact, it doesn’t appear that it would give the regulator

the authority to do that. It would give cabinet — the minister, by way

of order-in-council — the ability to do that. Is that

correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s important to remember the starting point of this. Right now,

if there’s a new legal profession that’s created in the province, it’s

by legislation. You think about the Notaries Act. That’s how it was done

before. That is actually, I would argue, a slower mechanism to be able

to change and to expand or to include new legal professionals in the

province. It’s taken a long time for any of those changes to be

made.

Rather than requiring the legislators to come and draft a piece of

legislation like the Notaries Act that says, “Here’s a new legal

profession in the province, and here’s their scope of practice,” it’s

done by regulation. It’s set out in the sections that we’re getting to

where the government must consult with the regulator. How we see this

showing up in practice is the regulator bringing a proposal or something

through their work to government and working with government.

There’s a requirement to consult, have it be more integrated or, I

guess, set out a collaborative process to have a regulation to add a

legal professional.

P. Milobar: Thank you. That didn’t actually answer the question, though. The

question was…. The minister says this gives the regulator more

flexibility, but in actual fact, this gives cabinet, gives

order-in-council, the executive branch of government, more flexibility

in the ability to pick and choose when they want to add a legal

profession by way of definition of what is a legal

profession.

Is that not the case?

Hon. N. Sharma: Well, just to start with…. The regulator right now, or the

self-regulator, in the province doesn’t have any role in setting out a

new legal profession. Government could come and establish, like with the

Notaries Act, through legislation a legal profession in the

province.

What this does is actually create a role between the

self-regulator under the Legal Professions Act and government to work

together with government through making the regulation.

P. Milobar: Again, I get that it gives government the ability to talk to the

regulator and work with the regulator. But they don’t have to. It

strikes me that 3(

d) is giving the executive branch of government the

authority to designate a legal profession by regulation, which, in

effect, is giving cabinet the ability to determine who can practice law,

regardless of qualification, regardless of what the board determines is

in the public interest.

Is that not correct, that cabinet has the ultimate say as it

relates to 3(d)?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma:

Section 4 sets out the process that requires government to

consult, which, again, is new from the current one, in which government

could just create a piece of legislation with the scope of practice. It

also gives a role of the regulator to add to the scope of practice

that’s set up by the new legal profession through their rules, the new

legal professional that may arise, and also through the self-regulator

to set up the competency criteria for that new legal

profession.

The Chair: On clause 3, Member.

P. Milobar: I’m trying to be on clause 3. The minister has pushed back and

been frustrated about the length of time of trying to get through this

bill. I’ve asked a very straightforward question on 3(

d) three times

now, 15 minutes, going on 20 minutes, and the minister refuses to answer

it.

It’s simply: does 3(

d) not give…? I get the regulator. We’ll get

to that in 4. But 3(

d) creates the structure that gives the power of the

executive branch of government, the cabinet, the authority to designate

a legal profession by regulation, which, in effect, gives cabinet the

ability to determine who can practice law, regardless of qualification

and regardless of what the board determines in the public

interest.

I get that we’ll have questions in clause 4, but 3(

d) is about a

profession designated by regulation. Unless someone else can set a

regulation for government other than cabinet that I’m not aware of…. The

minister could shed light on that. But I don’t understand why the

government just won’t give a straightforward answer that, indeed, a

regulation can only be set by cabinet, as it’s worded in

3(d).

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll answer in a smaller number of words, because I believe I have

answered.

Yes, it gives the government the power through regulation, which

now would be legislation. It switches that to regulation, which we think

is more flexible.

P. Milobar: Regulation is definitely more flexible. Does regulation get the

same public scrutiny before it becomes law and is enacted as an

order-in-council, as a piece of legislative change, which would result

in this type of back-and-forth and discussion in the broader community

and a timeline and being able to actually consult with others before it

gets enacted?

Hon. N. Sharma:

Section 4 of the bill, which I think we’re going to come to next,

sets out the constraints on the exercise of that ability to enact a

regulation, and that sets out the process that the government needs to

be guided by, including consultation with the self-regulator before

making that regulation.

P. Milobar: I thank the Attorney for that again.

Again, I’m not in 4 though. We’ve been asked to try to stick to

the clauses. That’s what I’m trying to stick to. The Attorney’s answer

on 3(

d) was that it gives more flexibility by allowing cabinet the

ability to use regulation instead of legislation to designate who a new

subclass would be as a designated legal profession.

[4:15 p.m.]

Right now it’s only lawyers and notaries public and the profession

of a regulated paralegal. So 3(

d) will give the government more

flexibility and be easier to enact.

Does 3(

d) not make it so that on a Friday afternoon, by

order-in-council, regardless of what consultation has or hasn’t happened

or what people may or may not want to see happen, if cabinet wants to

see something happen, a new designated legal profession can be created

with a signature on an OIC, versus the process we’re going under right

now? That would be a legislative change to actually now insert something

as significant as designating what would be considered as a new legal

profession within British Columbia.

Hon. N. Sharma: I know the member is saying that I’m not, but I am actually trying

to answer the question under 3. But I can’t do that without reference to

section 4, because

section 3 sets out what’s designated a legal

profession, including, to what the member asked, a profession designated

by regulation.

Section 4 is tied to that section, which sets out the

constraints that government has to exercise when enacting that

regulation. They actually work together.

As I’m attempting to answer the member’s question, I need to refer

to clause 4 to do that, because it sets out the requirement to consult

and the steps that must be taken in the decision-making of that

regulation. That’s transparent because it’s listed in the bill

itself.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

P. Milobar: Well, I’ll ask again, 4(1): “For the purposes of

section 3 (d),

the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the

Attorney General, make regulations designating a profession as a legal

profession.”

Again, the minister said this gives more flexibility. I’m asking a

basic procedural question, more so for the understanding of the public

that are watching, on the difference between cabinet having the ability

to sign an order-in-council and release it on a Friday afternoon, maybe

even without a press release, that we now have a new designation of who

qualifies as a legal profession in B.C….

I get it’s more flexible for the government, but I’m trying to

understand the reasoning why that is more critical than having it go

through a legislative change like we are doing right now.

Why did the government feel…? If it’s taken this long to change

this act in the first place and it’s already been met with so much

resistance and the minister can’t say what a new legal profession would

even be, except for possibly maybe in the future a legal tech, why did

the government feel it necessary to give themselves the ability to sign

an order-in-council to insert something as significant as a new

profession that would be designated as a legal profession, versus

needing to go through a legislative change and provide that level of

scrutiny and understanding as to the significance and need for that

change to happen?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m going to take a step back and explain how the government and

regulatory bodies, including under the current LPA, work.

[4:20 p.m.]

Although government could pass legislation, in order to practise

in that…. Setting out a scope of practice in order to practise, the

self-regulator would need to set up scope-of-practice competencies for

that to happen.

What you have is a situation where…. Under the single regulator,

you have this process of a potential of new licensing and new categories

of licensing and the government needing to work with the self-regulator

in order to do that. Both have to work together. Not only could

government, yes, by regulation, pass a regulation that sets out that

scope of practice; the single regulator would have to set up the

competencies and the skills in order for that profession to practise.

Both have to work together.

I think what the issue has been in the past is this lack of

flexibility in our ability to adapt as legal professions.

Now, I think and I hear from lawyers that there is a huge

potential for changes in business models and practices in this province,

if you can think of an ability — and it goes in the bill about different

business models that are possible — for there to be an expansion of

legal professions and the self-regulator and the government working

together to do that.

Yes, a regulation is more flexible. It’s done in a different way,

as the member pointed out, as legislation.

Section 4 sets out what the

Attorney General,