Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2024) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, May 8, 2024

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 432

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M219 — Defibrillator Public Access Act, 2024

S. Bond

Bill M220 — Control of Foreign Funding and Electoral Influence Act

T. Stone

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Reconciliation process and Legislature action plan

J. Phillip

Sue Kenny and work with Community Futures Peace Liard

M. Bernier

Mental Health Week

H. Sandhu

Jean Ip Foundation and Larry Liu

T. Wat

Mother’s Day and support for mothers

B. Banman

Heart Failure Awareness Week

T. Shypitka

Oral Questions

Government response to antisemitism and comments by MLA for Richmond-Queensborough

K. Falcon

Hon. D. Eby

Drug decriminalization program and addiction treatment policies

K. Falcon

Hon. D. Eby

Drug decriminalization program and substance use policies

S. Bond

Hon. D. Eby

Mental health services for youth

S. Furstenau

Hon. J. Whiteside

Drug decriminalization program and safe supply initiative

B. Banman

Hon. J. Whiteside

Hon. D. Eby

Coverage of community safety and homelessness costs in Cranbrook

T. Shypitka

Hon. R. Kahlon

Cost of living and homelessness issues and government priorities

T. Halford

Hon. R. Kahlon

Tabling Documents

Legislative Assembly Management Committee, Legislative Assembly reconciliation

action plan, 2024–2028

List of protests at schools in British Columbia in the 2023-24 school

year

Petitions

T. Shypitka

Tabling Documents

Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2023

WorkSafeBC, 2023 annual report and 2024–2026 service plan

Reports from Committees

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders

and Private Bills Committee, report on revision of the Civil

Forfeiture Act, May 2024

H. Yao

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills Committee, report on Bill Pr401, Vancouver Foundation Act,

May 2024

H. Yao

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

J. Rustad

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Legal Professions Act (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. N. Sharma

M. de Jong

Personal Statements

Clarification of comments made in the House

Hon. R. Kahlon

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Anti-Racism Act (continued)

S. Robinson

Hon. R. Kahlon

T. Wat

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (continued)

T. Halford

Hon. M. Rankin

E. Ross

M. de Jong

D. Davies

M. Lee

A. Olsen

A. Walker

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2024

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: M. Dykeman.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

The Speaker: Members, to start the introductions, I will make the first

introduction.

It’s my honour to introduce many First Nation leaders who joined us

earlier today to release the Legislative Assembly’s first reconciliation

action plan. They are:

Taylor Baker and Howard Grant from my Indigenous reconciliation

advisory committee.

Cheryl Casimer, Hugh Braker, Robert Phillips, Grand Chief Stewart

Phillip, Chief Don Tom, Regional Chief Terry Teegee, Leah George-Wilson and

Ray Harris from the First Nation Leadership Council.

Grand Chief Ed John, Chief John Jack from the Huu-ay-aht First

Nation.

Chief Laura Cassidy and executive councillor Valerie Cross from the

Tsawwassen First Nation.

Councillor Lori Wilson from Tla’amin Nation.

Chief Edward Thomas and Chief Jerome Thomas from Esquimalt

Nation.

I would also like to recognize Tanya Corbet and Taylor Grant, who have

provided invaluable assistance in our outreach to First Nations.

I will be pleased to table the reconciliation action plan following

the question period.

Would members please make all our guests feel very welcome.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve got two groups of folks here today in the chamber.

First, I want to thank the amazing folks from the Ministry of Housing

for all the work that they’ve been doing on a lot of legislation that we

brought in over the last year. They’ve been doing heavy lifting to make it a

reality. I want to recognize Caitlin Dean, Erica Greenup, Celine Coventer,

Laura Peach and Michelle Mah.

Also we’ve got in the House today folks from B.C. Housing that are

visiting. I see them in the back there. I want to recognize Henry

Glazebrook, Darren Harbord, Sophia Gray, Tim Chamberlin, Alex McGowan, Laura

McLeod, Shrief Fadl, Toni Boot, Emma Talbott, Derek Brown, Olivia Swinton

and Taylor Sayson.

I want to thank them for all the work they do to support some of the

more vulnerable people in our community. We appreciate your work.

Can the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. A. Dix: Over the next couple of days, ambulance paramedics and ambulance

dispatchers from all over British Columbia will be visiting us in the

Legislature. They’re here in the gallery now. I want to acknowledge their

extraordinary contribution every day in what have been extraordinary times

and their courage, their dedication, their generosity.

I also want to thank them personally for the work they’ve done in

transforming the ambulance service the historic 18th contract signed with

CUPE Local 873, the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C., and all the transformation

that has taken place. This is genuine leadership from working people that

has transformed the service that’s now in its 50th year.

I am honoured to have ambulance paramedics and ambulance dispatchers

with us in the Legislature. I’d like to welcome president Jason Jackson,

Chelsey Sharp, Shane Sander, Pete Smith, Sara Green, Corey Froese, Dustin

Jackson, Ted Harrison, Brinton Deluca, Scott Sywake, Jeff Killbreath, Shane

Potter, Warren Leeder, Grant Farquhar, Stu Myers, Nicki Ropp, Craig Parnell,

David Hollingsworth, Ian Tait, Dave Leary, Camille McCluskey, Jake

Berthelot, Heather Rose, Keith Taylor, Guy Hicken and Candis

Vissor.

Could everyone in the House make these extraordinary British

Columbians welcome.

S. Bond: The official opposition wants to join with the Minister of Health in

welcoming and thanking ambulance paramedics who are in the precinct today.

But not just them — the men and women that are out on the front lines as we

speak answering calls, running toward dangerous situations.

[1:40 p.m.]

We were so inspired by the meeting we had with them today, where they

shared how difficult it is when they feel like they can’t meet all the

demands. We want them to know how grateful we are for everything they do in

our communities, for literally putting themselves in the line of danger and

taking care of those who are most vulnerable.

Thank you for being here today. Thank you for the work you do. We join

with the minister in welcoming you here to the Legislature today.

R. Merrifield: I actually have two sets of guests today in the House.

Joining us in the gallery are four representatives from Take a Hike

youth mental health foundation, Gordon Matchett, Deb Abma-Sluggett, Larissa

Hayes and Zoe Lauckner.

The Take a Hike youth mental health foundation is a non-profit that

partners with public school districts to empower vulnerable youth to succeed

in a full-time mental health and emotional well-being program in an

alternate education setting. They’re really making a difference in the youth

and families across B.C. We welcome them to the House today and to a meeting

later on this afternoon with our caucus.

Also joining us in the gallery today are three very special guests who

are here for National Heart Failure Awareness Week, Jennifer Monaghan, Mary

Stambullic and Rebecca Ponting.

Jennifer Monaghan is a constituent of Kelowna–Lake Country and a

friend of mine. While here, Jennifer is visiting her son, who’s working on

his degree this summer at the University of Victoria. She’s been living with

the effects of her stroke and the discovery of her heart disease for 12

years now, which has progressed to heart failure. But she’s a strong and

fierce advocate for women’s heart and brain health, and an active volunteer

for various groups, including the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Jennifer, Mary and Rebecca

today.

Hon. P. Alexis: It’s my pleasure to introduce my daughter and her partner, who are

visiting the precinct today. I don’t think I’ve ever had a family member

visit, so it’s very exciting. I don’t think my daughter’s been in the House

since she was the age of those children that are also with us

today.

Please welcome them.

Please be good. And Tiggy, I do more than just bake

cookies.

A. Walker: I had the privilege this afternoon to have lunch with some incredible

young kids and their mother, Amanda Epp — Sawyer, Finn and Macy. They are

being home-schooled right now, and part of their program is to learn about

provincial government. They taught me a little bit about the federal

government, and I appreciate that. Organizing this special outing was Sonya

Sangster, the constituency assistant for Delta South, an incredibly bright

person and a lifelong friend of Amanda.

I see another constituent of mine, Chief Councillor John Jack,

Sayaač̓atḥ.

Thank you for joining us today.

Will the House make all of these important people welcome.

Hon. B. Bailey: I, too, would like to welcome our guests here from Take a Hike

Foundation. This is such an incredible organization. I’d like to welcome

Gordon and Deb and Larissa and Zoe.

This is an organization that empowers at-risk youth through

nature-based therapy. I can tell you, I personally know a young woman who’s

been through this program, who attributes it to nothing less than saving her

life. They’re doing fantastic work. I had the great honour of calling them

earlier this week to let them know that they were recipients of a civil

forfeiture grant.

It’s wonderful to have them in the House. Please make them most, most

welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman: Blessed Sacrament School is a school in Vancouver-Fairview, very close

to Vancouver General Hospital. It is grades K to 7 with over 200 students,

and it’s a French immersion elementary school.

Joining us in the gallery are 35 grade 4s along with some of their

adult accompanists and teacher Mr. Lukas Fitz. Two things: I hope everyone

here will be on their best behaviour during question period and will also

join me in saying to the students bienvenu .

D. Routley: I have two introductions.

[1:45 p.m.]

First, I’d like to introduce members from component 7 of the B.C.

General Employees Union. They are from the education, scientific, technical

and administrative sectors. I thank them for the work that they do on behalf

of workers and the skills that those workers bring to our province. They are

elected reps from all over the province.

Joining us are Trina Whitsitt, Andrea McDonald, Caelen Cook, Kelly

LaBrie, Brad McVittie, Tanya Boyd, Seth Downs; assigned staff Larney de las

Rias; and my dear friend Joanna Lord, who is a real hero to me from the

constituency I represent and has shone as an example of selfless devotion to

others throughout the time that I’ve known her.

Thank you, Joanna.

I’d like to also take the opportunity to introduce a real hero of

mine, Ray Harris, in maybe the last introduction I make as an MLA. Ray

served on the Wild Salmon Advisory Council that I chaired. Ray is a leader

from Stz’uminus First Nation, in the territory I’m honoured to represent. He

is a beacon of strength to all of the people in the mid-Island, but

particularly the people of the Stz’uminus First Nation. I look forward,

every time I see him, to the teasing that he gives me, because it makes me

feel comfortable and we are friends.

Thank you, Ray. Welcome to the House.

A. Singh: Today in the House, we have some really good friends of mine and some

incredible people.

Cancer has touched pretty much everybody in this House. Today we have,

in the House, the members of the GurGian Foundation. The GurGian Foundation

was founded by Inderjit Singh Bains, who is sitting in the gallery, after

the death of his 18-year-old son, Gurkanwaljit Singh Bains, who died of

cancer of the lymph nodes.

Joined with him is the president of the foundation, Professor Virdi,

who was inspired by Terry Fox. Professor Virdi had cancer. He had it again.

He fought it twice. Professor Virdi is fighting cancer again right

now.

In 2022, Professor Virdi took on Terry Fox’s challenge. He realized

that Terry Fox had not been able to take the water from the east coast and

bring it to the west. Professor Virdi did that. He walked across several

cities in Canada and did that to raise awareness about cancer. He raised

$51,000 during that walk.

They continued on from there. They took inspiration. They were joined

by Jatinder Minhas, who is also in the House. To date, they’ve raised over

$1 million for B.C. Cancer Foundation, all for the chemotherapy chairs that

they have for Surrey Memorial Hospital.

I’d like the House to welcome them here today.

One more. It’s also my best friend and partner in parenthood to Leni,

Katrina Molson’s, birthday today.

I wanted to wish her a happy birthday and thank her for always being a

beacon of moral and ethical values.

J. Sims: I have two sets of introductions.

First of all, the Guru Nanak food bank is established in Surrey. Since

2021, they have served over 17,000 people. Jatinder Minhas, who is one of

the founding members, is here today. This food bank provides culturally

appropriate food to many citizens in the Lower Mainland.

In addition, I’m going to continue the introductions that my friend

started for the GurGian Foundation. As he said, the president, Avtar Singh

Virdi, is here, who is struggling with cancer and is on that very difficult

journey. Our best wishes are with him.

His wife, Ranjeet Kaur Virdi, is here, as well as other members of the

family and other members of the Gur­Gian Foundation. We have got

GunKarim, S. Verdi, Manmeet Kaur, Mohlalik Singh, Harvinder Alak, Jitginder

Minhas, Inderjit Singh Bains, Amand Gretsch and Jaswinder Sagu.

Please help me welcome them to this beautiful people’s

House.

[1:50 p.m.]

H. Sandhu: I, too, am thrilled to welcome very special guests in the gallery,

another group of members from the component 7 of BCGEU employee union. They

represent education, scientific, technical and administrative

sectors.

Their elected reps, from the union, are joining us in the gallery,

starting with the introduction of my own cousin, my sister, Prabhdeep

Chahal, who I’m very proud of; and our great friends Darryl Wong, Kim

Daniel, Marcel Beerkens, Kevin McKenzie, Chris Seib, Marsha Dufresne. They

are here to watch question period. I’m always very grateful for the work

they do to represent these amazing employees.

Would the House please join me to make them feel very

welcome.

The Speaker: Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

N. Simons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to echo your warm welcome to the

Indigenous leadership here and, in particular, to Lori Wilson from the

Tla’amin Nation.

In addition, I’d like to welcome a couple of filmmakers who are

currently working on a project documenting the work of someone we all know,

Dana Larsen, his work on drug policy. I’d like to welcome Alisher

Balfanbayev and Max Joelson.

Will the House please make them welcome.

R. Parmar: I’ve got a couple of constituents in the House from Langford–Juan de

Fuca. I haven’t had the opportunity to meet them before. I knocked on their

door, and they reached out to my community office and said they wanted to

come and watch question period.

Will the House please welcome John and Lola Bruzas to the House here

today.

I understand that the last time John was here, Rita Johnston was the

Premier. So it has been a little while since he has been here.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome.

G. Begg: A group of students from Western Washington University are spending

the day with the parliamentary education office to learn how this

Legislative Assembly works. They are here with their professor, Dr. Butch

Kamena, who brings a group of students up here each year.

Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Yao: I would like to wish a happy birthday to two of my volunteers, Abby

Chung and Leelu Li, from Team Meliora. I also want to take the opportunity

to congratulate Rishika Selvakumar for winning the 2024 B.C. Achievement

Community Award.

I want to ask the House to join me in celebrating all the special

days.

A. Olsen: As I am certain has already been done…. We’ve raised our hands in

gratitude and in welcome of the First Nations leaders from across the

province here onto the legislative precincts today to begin a process, I

think, that is critical for this Legislative Assembly, which we, as the

multi-partisan House, do on behalf of all British Columbians to ensure that

the path of reconciliation starts in a good way.

I want to acknowledge all of our relatives that are here in the House

today. I’m not going to start naming people. Then you forget folks, and

that’s a problem.

I just want to raise my hands to you, Mr. Speaker, and to our Clerk,

Kate Ryan-Lloyd, and to all of the staff in this place who have, over the

last year, been committed to ensuring that the path of reconciliation starts

in a good way right here on this precinct and to ensuring that this building

is, indeed, welcoming to all and that we reconcile the long history that

this building has in, I will say, Crown-Indigenous relations or, depending

on what perspective you are from, Indigenous-Crown relations.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM , Mr.

Speaker.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM to the

Clerk.

G. Kyllo: I want to thank the press gallery for hosting lawn bowling yesterday

afternoon. That was a fantastic event. There are many benefits to lawn

bowling, including connecting with former constituents. A close friend of

very good friends of mine, Tom, is here.

Sorry, Tom. I don’t know your last name. We did have lunch

today.

Tom is formerly from Scotland and the United States but a proud

Canadian, now living here on Vancouver Island.

The House, hopefully, can give Tom a big round of applause.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M219 — DEFIBRILLATOR

PUBLIC ACCESS ACT,

S. Bond presented a bill intituled Defibrillator Public Access Act,

S. Bond: I move that a bill intituled Defibrillator Public Access Act, of

which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced

and now read for a first time.

[1:55 p.m.]

One out-of-hospital cardiac arrest happens in Canada every nine

minutes, and in 2021, almost 8,300 British Columbians experienced a

sudden and unexpected cardiac arrest. This can happen to anyone,

anywhere, at any time, without warning.

First responders recognize out-of-hospital cardiac arrest as among

the most urgent and time-sensitive emergencies they handle. Tragically,

the survival rate for these incidents is dismally low, with only one in

ten people surviving an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Time is of the essence in these situations. Every minute that

passes without intervention reduces the chance of survival by 7 to 10

percent. However, the use of CPR and automated external defibrillators,

or AEDs, can double the likelihood of survival.

That is why today I am introducing this bill for the fourth time.

If passed, the act would standardize policy around AEDs across the

province, requiring AEDs to be available and visibly located in public

spaces such as libraries, airports and recreation centres. These AEDs

would also be required to be registered, inspected and maintained so

that, in an emergency, a 911 dispatcher could direct bystanders to the

nearest AED.

While some elements of the bill are in place in regions across the

province, the application is inconsistent. Adopting this legislation

would close the significant gaps in coverage and keep British Columbians

safe no matter where they live. This is a simple, commonsense public

policy that could literally save lives.

Building on existing efforts to improve AED access, we must

continue to push for a comprehensive, provincewide network of

accessible, registered and well-maintained AEDs. Readily accessible AEDs

could literally mean the difference between life and death in sudden

cardiac arrest.

It is time to take these critical steps to remove the barriers to

AED access and improve survival rates.

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

Motion approved.

S. Bond: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading after the next sitting after today.

Bill M219, Defibrillator Public Access 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 M220 — CONTROL OF FOREIGN

FUNDING AND ELECTORAL

INFLUENCE ACT

T. Stone presented a bill intituled Control of Foreign Funding and

Electoral Influence Act.

T. Stone: I move that the bill intituled the Control of Foreign Funding and

Electoral Influence Act, of which notice has been given in my name on

the order paper, be introduced and read for the first time

now.

Recent events have highlighted the urgent threat that foreign

influence poses to the integrity of elections, universities, democratic

institutions and processes. British Columbia and Canada are not immune

to the growing cases of foreign interference happening around the world.

Such unchecked interference undermines public trust and confidence in

our democratic systems, potentially leading to societal division and

heightened social tensions.

It’s critical that we take action to ensure the political

landscape of British Columbia remains under the control of its

residents. Therefore, to protect our democracy, we must update and

strengthen our Election Act laws to effectively combat foreign influence

in B.C. politics.

For years, existing gaps in our election laws have been

overlooked. The bill I am introducing today aims to modernize and

strengthen our laws to better counteract foreign influences in our

political and educational systems.

It includes measures to prevent foreign interference, such as

banning foreign-funded individuals and organizations from disseminating

false or misleading information related to elections. It also bans

contributions from foreign nationals, governments or political entities

for election-related activities and forbids any collaboration with or

acceptance of funds from foreign sources intended to influence our

electoral outcomes.

Transparency is a fundamental element of a healthy democracy.

British Columbians are increasingly concerned about the risks of foreign

interference and expect immediate action to address these risks in our

electoral and educational systems.

[2:00 p.m.]

Conducting a fair and transparent review of these issues is

crucial to maintaining public trust and upholding the values that are

fundamental to our democratic society. It is time for us to work

together to ensure that political power remains securely in the hands of

British Columbians and that we are properly equipped to protect our

democracy against foreign interference.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M220, Control of Foreign Funding and Electoral Influence Act,

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)

RECONCILIATION PROCESS

AND LEGISLATURE ACTION

PLAN

J. Phillip: Good afternoon. I’m totally honoured to make these statements

regarding our reconciliation action plan in the presence of such

wonderful and powerful First Nations leaders.

The favourite, of course, is Grand Chief Stewart

Phillip.

We all know the history of our First Nations peoples in this

province. It wasn’t a great beginning, but I can tell you, from the very

beginning, we welcomed everyone to our shores. The history of our

oppression and marginalization needs to get fixed. This reconciliation

plan is part of that process.

I recall that my grandfather, Chief Dan George, made some remarks

at the Canada Day, and he lamented the loss of our lands, our resources

and the ability to govern ourselves. But there was a message of hope.

His hope was that young people would pick up the tools of a white man’s

success and, like the thunderbird of old, rise up out of the sea and

become the greatest segment and strongest segment of our

society.

That’s what this reconciliation plan represents. This is the

beginning of us coming together and developing a deeper and stronger

relationship for all of British Columbians.

way̓ limləmt . Thank

you very much.

SUE KENNY AND WORK WITH

COMMUNITY FUTURES PEACE

LIARD

M. Bernier: After 23 years of exceptional dedication and service, Sue Kenny,

someone known to many of us in this House, has announced that she is

retiring from her role as general manager for Community Futures Peace

Liard.

Sue joined Community Futures in 2001. Over those years, she has

played a pivotal role in this organization for our region, helping

advance economic development and growth. Throughout her tenure, Sue has

demonstrated unwavering commitment, professionalism and a genuine

passion for supporting local businesses and entrepreneurs in the Peace

region.

Under her leadership, Community Futures has achieved numerous

milestones and implemented various initiatives throughout our region

that have positively impacted the economic landscape of our communities.

Her strategic vision, combined with her tireless efforts, has helped

countless individuals realize their entrepreneurial dreams and has

contributed to the overall prosperity of the Peace region.

As Sue said herself: “It never has felt like a job because I

believed in what Community Futures does for all of our communities. It

gave me the opportunity to work with like-minded people who were

passionate about making things better.”

I always had the pleasure to work with Sue, as well, when she put

her name forward, when I was mayor of Dawson Creek, stepped up and

became a city councillor in Dawson. I had a great opportunity, as I

said, working with her, to see that dedication that she had for our

region, and I’m proud to call Sue a friend.

As she transitions into retirement, I know that she will be an

active person in other roles, helping people, helping our communities,

but more importantly, she will be spending well-deserved time with her

family.

Please join me in celebrating Sue Kenny’s achievements and wishing

her a fulfilling and joyful retirement.

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

H. Sandhu: Today I rise in this House to shine the spotlight on Mental Health

Week. This week and every week we are challenged to lead with

compassion.

[2:05 p.m.]

Let us reflect on the profound impact care and kindness have on

those facing mental health challenges. Those struggling with mental

health are not just statistics, but they are our loved ones. It is our

duty to create a safe space where they can seek help without fear of

judgment that respects their dignity and acknowledges that we are all

more than our struggles.

The theme for Mental Health Week is “Compassion connects.” I urge

each and every one of us to embrace this theme wholeheartedly, to reach

out with empathy and care. Together, with our collective efforts, we can

support people who are struggling.

I am happy that we are working to improve mental health services

with funds allocated to community counselling agencies. Over 250,000

free or low-cost counselling sessions have been delivered, providing

vital supports to individuals in need.

Additionally, funds have been earmarked to expand mental health

services for young people, including the establishment of Foundry in

Vernon, a beacon of hope for youth, as we can see in many

others.

And in Vernon we are going to get a new 44-bed psych­iatric

unit at Vernon Jubilee Hospital, which will provide much-needed

resources for the individuals requiring intensive mental health

care.

I extend my gratitude to our partners like Canadian Mental Health

Association’s Vernon team for their tireless efforts in raising funds,

awareness and doing mental health initiatives.

Please join us in the Ride Don’t Hide campaign, where we raised

$50,000 last year, and this year we have the goal of raising $80,000.

Together we can make a difference.

Everyone facing mental health challenges, I want to let you know

that you’re not alone. We’re there to support you in any way we

can.

JEAN IP FOUNDATION AND LARRY LIU

T. Wat: I rise to express my heartfelt gratitude to the Jean Ip Foundation

and its chairman, Larry Liu, for their incredible work in supporting our

community of Richmond North Centre.

Larry is a retired RCMP who has served in the force for 35 years

and is the first RCMP of Chinese descent. Through their scholarship

program, the Jean Ip Foundation has provided financial assistance to

countless individuals pursuing post-secondary education in Canada. This

generosity has opened doors to new opportunities and empowering students

to achieve their dreams and make a positive impact in our

society.

But that’s not all. The Jean Ip Foundation also distributes rice

to seniors in our community. This selfless act of kindness has brought

joy and relief to many. I have personally witnessed the smiles, the

tears and the gratitude of those seniors when they receive a jar of rice

from Richmond community leaders such as Clara Chow and Penny Choi and

many volunteers in my riding. We are all grateful for their compassion

during the ongoing cost-of-living crisis that is impacting too many

British Columbians.

The Jean Ip Foundation dedication to giving back is a testament to

the legacy of its founder, Jean Ip, a Canadian entrepreneur who believed

in the power of philanthropy. Under Larry Liu’s leadership, the

foundation continues to thrive, making a meaningful difference in the

lives of many.

So to the Jean Ip Foundation and president Larry Liu, I offer my

most sincere thanks for your tireless efforts and generosity. Your

contribution has made a significant impact in our community, and we are

all better off because of your kindness and your support.

MOTHER’S DAY

AND SUPPORT FOR

MOTHERS

B. Banman: Moms are the embodiment of love, strength and sacrifice. From the

moment of conception through the journey of pregnancy and childbirth and

throughout the myriad of challenges and triumphs that follow, mothers

serve as the nurturing force that sustains life and shapes our

future.

The women in my life tell me that motherhood is a journey marked

by sleepless nights, selfless acts of care and boundless moments of

tenderness and joy. It is a journey that demands resilience, patience

and unwavering dedication. It challenges women to confront their own

limitations, to find strength in vulnerability and to cultivate the

virtues of patience, compassion and unconditional love.

[2:10 p.m.]

The impacts of mothers extend far beyond the confines of the home,

shaping the fabric of society through their nurturing influence. Mothers

are our primary educators, instilling values of kindness, empathy and

integrity in the hearts of their children. They are the caregivers,

tending to the needs of their families with unwavering devotion and

selflessness. They are our pillars of strength, providing support and

guidance through life’s trials and tribulations.

As we celebrate mothers, it is important to recognize the unique

challenges they face. From single mothers struggling to make ends meet

to working moms balancing career aspirations with familiar

responsibilities to stay-at-home mothers dedicating themselves fully to

the upbringing of their children, each mother deserves respect,

admiration and support.

With Mother’s Day fast approaching, let us express our gratitude

to the mothers in our lives for their tireless efforts, boundless love

and unwavering sacrifice. Let us honour their contributions to our

families, our communities and our world, and commit to creating a

society where every mother is valued, empowered and celebrated for the

invaluable role she plays in shaping the future.

This Mother’s Day let your mom know you love her.

HEART FAILURE AWARENESS WEEK

T. Shypitka: This week from May 5 to 11, we mark Heart Failure Awareness

Week.

Heart failure, a critical cardiovascular condition, currently

affects over 800,000 Canadians, with an estimated 100,000 more diagnoses

expected this year. This chronic condition impairs the heart’s ability

to pump blood effectively, leading to debilitating symptoms such as

swelling, fatigue, persistent cough and shortness of breath. Tragically,

heart failure not only complicates other health issues but can also be

life-threatening.

Despite the severity of the condition, unfortunately, there is no

cure yet. Access to necessary treatments remains out of reach for many

British Columbians, including in my riding of Kootenay East. Several

risk factors of heart failure include age, lifestyle choices, gender and

genetic history, and increased prevalence in women, individuals over 60

and those with a family history of the condition.

I urge everyone to take care of their health and get tested if

they experience any symptoms to ensure they get the proper, potentially

life-saving treatment. To those battling heart failure and the families

who have suffered loss due to this condition, know that we stand with

you. We are committed to ensuring that the health care system in British

Columbia can provide you with the necessary support from diagnosis to

treatment.

During Heart Failure Awareness Week, I also want to acknowledge

the tireless efforts of health care professionals and community groups

who provide support and care to those affected. Their dedication brings

hope and makes a significant difference in the lives of many

patients.

Everyone in this House can agree it is essential we strengthen the

health care system for all British Columbians, including those

experiencing heart failure.

An extra thanks today going out to Jennifer, Mary and Rebecca for

their advocacy, who are in the gallery here today.

Thank you very much, folks.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ANTISEMITISM

AND COMMENTS BY

MLA FOR RICHMOND-QUEENSBOROUGH

K. Falcon: This week the Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment made

comments that were “belittling and demeaning to a community of people

that is already under profound pressure.”

Now, if those words sound familiar, they should, because they are

the very same words that the Premier used to justify the firing of his

Minister of Advanced Education, despite her multiple sincere

apologies.

Worse, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment made those

comments on the same day that the Jewish community, including Holocaust

survivors, were in the Hall of Honour, only steps away from this

chamber, commemorating Yom HaShoah. Yet the Premier routinely excuses

other NDP MLAs for their antisemitic comments that cause harm and

increase division, demonstrating a chilling double standard.

My question to the Premier: will the Premier continue to apply his

double standard, or will he do the right thing, finally, and fire his

parliamentary secretary?

Hon. D. Eby: Every one of us in this House has an obligation and a

responsibility to conduct ourselves in a way that promotes the full

participation of every member of British Columbia’s society.

[2:15 p.m.]

That’s an expectation I have of every member of my caucus. I hope

it’s an expectation that every leader in this House has of their members

of caucus.

When it comes to antisemitism, when it comes to the Jewish

community, a community that is very much feeling fear and concern about

a rise in antisemitism, I’ve risen in this place on multiple occasions,

and I’m happy to do it again to confirm that our government and every

member of this caucus is committed to stand with the Jewish community in

British Columbia and that we will provide the resources necessary to

ensure that they’re safe, as we did with additional security funding,

and to go after those who attack them with hate, as we did with guidance

for Crown counsel.

We’ll do what’s necessary. As is my expectation, the member stood

in this place and made his apology, as he should have done. So we

will…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …continue to do this work.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND ADDICTION TREATMENT

POLICIES

K. Falcon: Well, what we need in this chamber is more than the Premier’s

words. It’s his actions that show a double standard against Jewish

people. That is actually a failure of leadership.

Now to another failure. As I’ve repeatedly warned, the Premier’s

sole focus on publicly supplying addictive drugs and legalizing meth,

heroin, fentanyl and crack does not end well. The NDP continue to fuel

addiction when what we urgently need is a dramatic shift to treatment

and recovery.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

K. Falcon: It is our duty to provide care to those suffering from severe,

untreated mental health and addiction issues, involuntarily if

necessary, to ensure that they receive the proper care they need and

deserve.

My question to the Premier: when will the Premier completely scrap

his failed, reckless decriminalization experiment, adopt B.C. United’s

Better Is Possible plan and deliver the urgent, compassionate,

involuntary care that is often so desperately needed to help

people?

Hon. D. Eby: We heard the horrific news from B.C.’s coroner of the number of

deaths last month: 190 deaths. The death and destruction of the toxic

drug crisis is appalling and a profound concern to every member in this

place and every British Columbian. There are few of us who don’t know

somebody who has died as a result of the toxic drug crisis.

We have two key goals. One is to keep people alive, get them into

treatment and get them the support that they need. We’re opening those

beds. We opened 200 new treatment beds this past year alone. We’re going

to keep doing that work. We’re also taking some inspiration from

Alberta’s virtual clinic for methadone and Suboxone availability and

deploying that in our province as well.

We also need to have safe communities. The federal government has

confirmed the amendment to our exemption certificate to make sure that

police have the tools they need to ensure that our communities are safe

— business doorways, downtowns, bus stops, and so on.

It’s a very challenging and serious issue. We take it that way. I

welcomed the times when all members of this House worked together on an

all-party committee to chart a path forward, because in our opinion,

it’s not a partisan issue.

We’re struggling, with other provinces across Canada, to find the

best path forward, and we’re going to continue to do that

work.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.

K. Falcon: Well, I can assure the member that every member of this

Legislature and certainly the public shares the profound concern that

the Premier expresses for those tragic deaths that are unfortunately

happening. The difference is that we look at the worsening results and

say to ourselves: “Doing more of the same thing will not get you

different results.” The NDP’s focus has been to normalize the use of

dangerous drugs like meth and heroin and recklessly flood communities

with publicly supplied addictive drugs.

Now, in stark contrast, our Better Is Possible plan we announced a

year and a half ago focuses on treatment and recovery. We will make

treatment free, because no one should ever have to mortgage their home

or sell their car to access the care they or a loved one

needs.

My question to the Premier again: will the Premier end his failed

decriminalization experiment and adopt B.C. United’s Better Is Possible

plan that provides for free treatment, not just free drugs?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Member.

What British Columbians expect is that we do every­thing

possible to support people getting into treatment and to keep their

communities safe. What the member suggests is the complete opposite of

what we’ve done.

[2:20 p.m.]

We’ve listened to British Columbians. We’ve listened to police. We

introduced legislation and passed it in this House to address issues

that were taking place in community. We put $1 billion in the budget.

We’ve opened 200 new treatment beds. We’re going to continue to open

additional treatment beds. We went to the federal government when we got

tied up in court with our provincial law so that we could have the tools

in place for police to be able to address issues in our

community.

Also, I want to just remind the member of his own words eight

months ago. He continues to try to backtrack from his record, the record

of the Leader of the Conservative Party and the House Leader of the

Conservative Party, when every member of this House supported and voted

for the all-party committee report that charted this path forward. He

said….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: It was accepted unanimously.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Members.

Hon. D. Eby: The members insist there wasn’t a vote. It was accepted

unanimously.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, wait for your turn to ask.

Members, let’s be respectful, okay?

The Premier will continue.

Hon. D. Eby: The member himself…. This was just eight months ago on the

Today in B.C. podcast: “Some of the chiefs of police were

supportive of decriminalization. What they were supportive of is not

charging people for small amounts of drugs. And I agree with

that.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Wait for your turn, please.

Hon. D. Eby: That’s the leader of the BCUP party, who stood here and said that

it was just our party, that it was done without his party’s support.

That’s simply not correct.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I can tell their discomfort with their actual record, but that is

the truth.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND SUBSTANCE USE

POLICIES

S. Bond: I’m not sure where the Premier was, but we’ve tried twice over the

last number of weeks to actually call a vote in this Legislature, and

his members blocked a vote. If he is so concerned about the vote, he

should call it this afternoon. Then we’ll see.

We should be clear about the record. In 2020, this government made

a promise to British Columbians. Do you know what they said?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

S. Bond: “We will fast-track decriminalization.” That’s exactly what this

government promised to do.

For 15 months, this Premier has wilfully ignored chaos on our

streets, in coffee shops and, unbelievably, even in hospitals,

stubbornly endorsing open public drug use despite community

outrage.

In response to B.C. United’s call to ban public drug use, the

minister dismissively said: “I think it would be very difficult to

enforce. Municipalities have the tools they need. They need to work with

their local medical health officer.” That’s what this government’s

reaction was to banning the use of illicit drugs in the

public.

When will the Premier finally do the right thing? Will he

acknowledge the harms that he has caused and end this disastrous

decriminalization experiment completely?

Hon. D. Eby: I do understand that the BCUP have changed their position, as have

the members of the Conservative Party. I understand they’ve changed

their position, because the member who just asked me that question was a

member of the all-party committee that provided that recommendation to

the Legislative Assembly. They did that based on the

recommendations….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Wait for your next question.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member. Member, wait for the next question, please.

The Premier will continue.

Hon. D. Eby: They did that based on the testimony of countless families and

individuals, talking about how difficult it was, and how much they

wished their loved ones had come forward and provided them with the

information they needed to support them. “I’m struggling with drugs. I’m

struggling with addiction.” But they felt deep shame.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Member.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s one of the reasons why the member for Surrey South just March

3, 2023, on the CBC: “The NDP will try to tell you that we are

backtracking on decrim, which is not the case. We are not backtracking

on decrim. Does that mean that our party doesn’t support decrim or harm

reduction? Absolutely not. We do. With our whole hearts, we want to save

people.”

I think that’s the case for every member of this House, but I

think they should just be clear that they’ve changed their position.

That’s okay.

[2:25 p.m.]

We’ve worked hard, too, to respond to the reality on the ground,

implementing a provincial law to address some of the public use issues

we’ve seen and asking the federal government for support…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Members, wait for your turn. Wait for your turn,

Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …and asking the federal government to amend our

certificate.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, the Premier has a responsibility to stick to the facts in

the Legislature. Let me outline them for him.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, shhh.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Let’s not have cross-talk, please. Shhh.

The member for Prince George–Valemount has the floor.

S. Bond: In 2020, this government made a promise to British Columbians that

they would fast-track decriminalization. The exemption was granted by

the federal government before the Health Committee had even begun to do

the majority of its work.

That’s the fact. The Premier knows it. To suggest that there has

been a vote on decriminalization in this House is misleading at best. He

knows that.

We accept reports by the dozen in this Legislature. What the

committee told the Premier was this: there was work to be done,

guardrails to be put in place. There was a list of requirements. This

government failed to meet every single requirement laid down by the

federal government. So nice try to the Premier. That is revisionist

history, and he knows it.

British Columbians are suffering the consequences of his conscious

decision to fast-track decriminalization without guardrails in place.

Let’s be clear. This is happening because of this Premier’s deliberate

policy choices.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

S. Bond: When will he get up and admit the truth and, in the best case,

call a vote this afternoon on decriminalization? We’d be happy to

participate.

Hon. D. Eby: This is completely beside the point. British Columbians are

dying.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, shhh.

Members. Members, wait for your turn.

The Premier will continue.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m willing to go down this path but under protest. The issue is

keeping British Columbians alive, ensuring that they get the treatment

they need and that our communities are safe.

Here’s the quote from the member for Surrey South, March 3, 2023:

“I don’t want to come across as not in favour, because….”

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member. Member from North Thompson.

Hon. D. Eby: This is the designated shadow minister for drug-related issues

from the BCUP: “I don’t want to come across as not in

favour….”

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. D. Eby: “I don’t want to come across as not in favour, because through the

Select Standing Committee on Health, we have supported. The NDP will try

to tell you that we are backtracking on decrim, which is not the

case.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: “We’re not backtracking on decrim.”

Talking about the select standing committee, talking about the

issue that was litigated in the election…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, let’s not interrupt, please.

Hon. D. Eby: …where Alexa Loo, the Richmond city councillor, ran as a BCUP —

B.C. Liberal, B.C. Conservative, whatever they want to call themselves —

candidate: “We aren’t looking to fill prisons with people using drugs,

but we are trying to have it not happen in the public eye. I think it’s

a pretty good balance.”

The issue is: how do we deal with these toxic drugs in our

community?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. D. Eby: That’s the issue that I care about, that British Columbians care

about and that every member of our government cares about. We’re going

to take the steps necessary to address it.

The Speaker: Members, it’s not very nice to interject and interrupt others.

Wait for your question. Wait for your answer.

Both sides, please. Let’s continue to be respectful to each

other.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR YOUTH

S. Furstenau: The 2023 youth development instrument provincial report revealed

that the kids are not all right. In the report, 38 percent of

respondents had depression, 39 percent generalized anxiety and 36

percent reported not seeking professional mental health care in the last

six months despite needing it.

[2:30 p.m.]

One in four teens reports feeling lonely. Thoughts of suicide are

prevalent, with 18 percent having seriously considered it, and 5 percent

report attempting.

This government is extremely reactive, still failing to respond to

this crisis. MCFD is responsible for child and youth mental health care

in this province, yet underinvestment and lack of staff supports have

not met the needs.

On the south Island, the average wait time for the first service

with child and youth mental health is 80 days. There is only one

emergency youth mental health unit in the south Island. Much more work

is needed for kids in B.C. to be all right.

The Speaker: Question.

S. Furstenau: My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Does she think it’s acceptable that youth on southern Vancouver Island

face an 80-day wait for mental health services?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for raising what is, I know, to every member of

this House a very, very serious and important issue, and that is how we

provide access to care and supports that children and youth need in our

province.

I can say that that is something that has been a key priority for

our government. That is why we have invested significantly in upstream

supports, such as expanding the Foundry network, which provides

low-barrier, free, completely accessible mental health and physical

health supports for youth aged 12 to 25.

We have 16 Foundry centres open and nine in the works; we’ll have

35 across the province when the expansion is done. Foundry is providing

a really clear and easy path to access for kids.

I hear the member’s concern about how we really pull our systems

together to make sure that kids can get the support that they need.

We’ve introduced integrated child and youth mental health teams that

pull together schools, our child and youth mental health system and our

health care system to provide access through there as well.

I very much agree that it is an area that is a top priority and

that we are continuing to work with partners on a significant expansion

to provide those services.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: If an 80-day wait is an example of what happens when something is

a key priority of this government, we’re in some trouble.

Each year the Ministry of Children and Family Development spends

$160,000 per child in care, yet funding to programs that help children,

like Take a Hike Foundation, receive less from this government than the

cost of one child in care.

Take a Hike provided 1,442 hours of individual clinical

counselling and 387 hours of group counselling for youth last year. One

year. It’s delivering the services this government says we need, but it

gets no consistent funding out of this government’s $89 billion budget.

They have to apply for gaming grants.

The Speaker: Question, please.

S. Furstenau: My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

How is it that Take a Hike, a program with proven success meeting the

needs of youth at risk, does not receive stable funding from this

government?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I want to share, again, our collective gratitude for organizations

like Take a Hike, who provide really critical services. They work

through Education, and they work through our child and youth mental

health system. We are working with a number of partners across this

space. We work with Dan’s Legacy and a number of child- and

youth-focused organizations.

I appreciate that it is so important that when children and

families reach out, they get the help that they need. That’s why we have

stood up services such as integrated child and youth teams, which

provide faster access. We are certainly working to get wait times down.

They’re certainly lower than they were when we came into office in

We have been working to build a system where there was not a

coordinated system of child and youth mental health, and we’re going to

continue to do that work.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND SAFE SUPPLY

INITIATIVE

B. Banman: The crisis of addiction in B.C. has reached a tipping point.

People are done with the status quo of drugs, crime and chaos. Our

province is at a crossroads.

[2:35 p.m.]

We can choose to go down the B.C. NDP path of extremist policy

trials, ideological experimentation and more pro–drug use policy, or we

in this chamber can make things right and save the lives of people who

are suffering from addiction through commonsense Conservative policies:

prevention, treatment and healing.

But in order to fix the problem, we must first admit the mistake.

Much has been said in this chamber about the failed decriminalization

experiment. Let’s be clear: this NDP-Liberal experiment failed, and

people paid with their lives.

My question is to the Premier, and I hope he stands and answers

the question. Will he commit to apologizing to the victims of his

radical NDP decriminalization experiment and commit to ending the

so-called safe supply of hard drugs that is killing children in British

Columbia?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question.

Of course, it’s not lost, I know, on any member of this House that

we just received the report from the coroner that speaks to 192 British

Columbians lost. I can tell you that I certainly speak to a lot of

families, a lot of people in my own community, as I know all members do,

and a lot of people who have lost loved ones in my capacity as minister.

What they’re asking us to do is to build the system that provides the

help and the care and the support that their loved ones needed. They

don’t want to see more people dying from toxic drugs.

That’s why we are doing the work that we do to try every single

thing that we possibly can, including whatever innovations that our

public health or health care system advises us is going to be a

potential help in dealing with a public health emergency that is the

toxic drug crisis. That is not just something we’re dealing with in

British Columbia but next door in Alberta and right across the country,

right across the continent.

That includes just how we talk to children and youth, an extensive

campaign to reach out and make sure that we’re communicating the message

to youth that there are places where they could reach out to help and to

talk to them about the dangers of the illicit drug supply right

now.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

B. Banman: It’s no secret that the Conservative Party has been critical of

the B.C. NDP’s radical pro-drug policies. Today I am asking this NDP

Premier to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, Premier Horgan,

by admitting to his failure, apologizing for his reckless approach and

moving away from the radical ideology and experimentation.

British Columbians are yearning, pleading for a commonsense

Conservative government that will save the lives of addicts, keep

communities safe and be straight up with people.

I ask again: will the NDP Premier commit to ending the so-called

safe supply of hard drugs in British Columbia and put that money towards

prevention, recovery and treatment?

Hon. D. Eby: The commitment that we’re happy to make to British Columbians is

two parts. One is that we do everything we can to get people with

addictions the treatment they need, get them the support they need to

rebuild their lives, keep them alive to do that and provide addictions

doctors with the support and tools they need to achieve those

goals.

The other

part is to ensure that our communities are safe for

everybody.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: The member says that British Columbians are crying out for his

common sense. Well, let me give you just a little illustration of his

common sense. Today his leader tweeted out that he thinks the government

should be raiding ICBC surpluses and taking them into general revenue

gaps.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: But we actually made that illegal.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Member, you’ve asked a question. Please wait now.

Hon. D. Eby: That is exactly what he said. He said we shouldn’t give the money

back to drivers. When British Columbians need support with costs more

than ever, he said that we shouldn’t be giving that rebate back to

drivers. We should take the money into general revenue. That was his

tweet.

I told the member that I would table in this House a list of more

than ten schools where there had been protests that terrified teachers

and students. There was a reason why we introduced the bill, which he

opposed, to block protests around schools. I’ve got 18 schools that I’ll

table after this.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Members.

Hon. D. Eby: The member stood in this place, his leader stood in this place,

and introduced a bill that took an example of a crank at the side of a

kid’s track and field meet who walked onto the field and challenged a

girl who was doing shot put saying she wasn’t a girl, in front of her

parents — probably the most awful day of that girl’s life.

[2:40 p.m.]

And instead of responding and saying, “That’s awful,” standing in

this place and introducing a bill that would say: “Not a crank at the

side of the track and field meet but the government will storm onto the

kid’s track and field meet and say: ‘That’s not a girl.’” That’s his

common sense. That’s nonsense.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Thank you, Members.

COVERAGE OF COMMUNITY SAFETY AND

HOMELESSNESS COSTS IN

CRANBROOK

T. Shypitka: Eighteen months ago the Premier promised “results that people can

see, feel, touch and experience in their lives.” Well, in Cranbrook, the

results are devastating. What Cranbrook has experienced is record

homelessness, crime and chaos caused by the Premier’s failed

decriminalization and catch-and-release policies.

As a direct consequence of these provincial NDP policy failures,

Cranbrook has incurred over $350,000 in staffing, security and cleanup

costs and has now sent the Premier the bill.

Will the Premier take responsibility and cover the $350,000 spent

by the city of Cranbrook due to his policy failures, yes or

no?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No doubt, homelessness is a challenging situation that is being

faced by communities not only in British Columbia, not only across the

country but around North America. We don’t have enough housing for the

people in our communities. That’s why we’ve taken the steps that we have

to ensure that we can increase housing supply, not only to support the

private sector to build more housing but also to expand the non-market

housing space.

The member knows…. I’m sure he was there when the ribbons were cut

on the new affordable housing that was opened in Cranbrook.

They haven’t seen housing for a long time, Member, but we were the

ones who delivered the affordable housing in that community.

We’re going to continue to work with Cranbrook. We’re going to

continue to work with communities throughout the province to ensure that

we can build the affordable housing that people need.

For too long, governments have stayed out of building housing. For

too long, governments have said: “You know what? People will just figure

it out themselves.” We’re taking a different approach. We’ll work with

all communities to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our

community have access to housing.

COST OF LIVING AND HOMELESSNESS

ISSUES AND GOVERNMENT

PRIORITIES

T. Halford: Eighteen months ago the Premier promised “results that people can

see, feel, touch and experience in their lives.” Results are in. Grocery

costs have increased by 30 percent. Food bank lines are up 60 percent

under this Premier and under this NDP government. Despite record-setting

deficits, homelessness has never been higher in the history of this

province than it is today under this Premier and under this government.

In Surrey, homelessness is up a staggering 76 percent under the

NDP.

To the Premier, how can he defend his record-setting, inflationary

deficits when homelessness is worse than it has ever been?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No doubt, there are challenges when it comes to lack of housing

not only in British Columbia but across North America. A member can open

a newspaper from any jurisdiction and see that there are challenges. We

have more people than housing available. I appreciate that we need to do

more housing and have more housing opportunities.

Just a few months ago I opened 100 new affordable rental homes in

Surrey, in January. In February, we were back opening another 100. A few

weeks after that, we were opening another 50. There is more coming this

year. We are building affordable housing in Surrey like no government

before us.

For two decades, we had governments say: “We don’t want to be in

the business of affordable housing.” The leader of the BCU party says:

“I was a developer; trust me. Trust me. I will make sure that there will

be housing.”

No one believes that he’ll build affordable housing…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: … because their record shows that that was something that they

were never committed to when they were on this side of the

House.

[2:45 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Members, pursuant to the motion adopted by the Legislative Assembly

Management Committee, it is my honour to table the Legislative Assembly

reconcil­iation action plan. This plan sets out commitments that will

guide the institution’s reconciliation planning and actions for the next

four years.

If members will indulge me for a moment, I would like to thank the

representatives from the First Nations Leadership Council, the Songhees and

Esquimalt Nations and my Indigenous Reconciliation Advisory Committee, who

helped shape this plan and joined us for its release earlier today, along

with many other First Nations special guests.

Hon. D. Eby: I seek leave to table a document.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Eby: This is a list of schools in British Columbia targeted by protests in

the ’23-24 school year, including Lakes District Secondary School, which on

September 20, 2023, had protesters banging on school windows and yelling at

students and staff; Princess Margaret Secondary, where protesters with a PA

system shouted things like “Leave our kids alone” and “No rainbow flags;”

November 17 at Harry Sayers Elementary in Abbotsford, a protest targeted a

specific teacher, saying: “Say no to sex change surgeries in B.C. public

schools;” Strawberry Hill Elementary School in Surrey….

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m sorry members don’t want to hear this.

Strawberry Hill Elementary School in Surrey, March 14, 2024, chanting

teachers’ names and “Girls cannot be boys; boys cannot be girls.”

Thank you to all members for the opportunity to be able to table this

important list.

Petitions

T. Shypitka: I rise to present a petition regarding saving the 1077 steam

locomotive at Fort Steele.

This petition, signed by 3,861 signatories, is to garner support to

save the iconic 1077 steam locomotive. The 1077 is 101 years old and has

operated at Fort Steele Heritage Town in my riding of Kootenay East since

the 1990s. Unfortunately, rail operations were suspended on April 9 of this

year.

The special locomotive draws visitors from all over the world, who

also enter Fort Steele to enjoy the wonderful heritage activities and

livestock. This attraction bolsters the local economy.

If the 1077 does not run this season, there will be a negative

economic impact. Moreover, without annual maintenance, there is a real

possibility the locomotive will never run again.

Tabling Documents

Hon. N. Sharma: I have the honour to present the 2023 annual report of the Forest

Appeals Commission.

Hon. H. Bains: I have the honour to table the WorkSafeBC 2023 annual

report.

P. Milobar: I may be too new in opposition. Could I have clarification? Are we

voting to receive these reports, or are these reports just being presented

to the House?

The Premier keeps insisting…. When we got the Health Committee report,

we voted on it. I’m not hearing any votes.

The Speaker: Members, just to clarify, these reports are statutorily presented

reports, so there is no need for a vote to be taken on them.

Hon. G. Heyman: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Heyman: Earlier we met a group of grade 4s from Blessed Sacrament School in my

riding of Vancouver-Fairview. We are now joined by a group of grade 5

students and their teacher, Mr. Marc Tremblay.

As mentioned, it’s a French immersion school in a historically

francophone district in my riding of Vancouver-Fairview. It is also next to

Vancouver’s only francophone church.

Will the House please make these students very, very

welcome.

[2:50 p.m.]

Reports from Committees

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL

CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS

AND

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

H. Yao: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills regarding the committee’s consideration of a

revision of the Civil Forfeiture Act, pursuant to the Statute Revision

Act.

I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

The member will continue.

H. Yao: I have the honour to present a second report from the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills on Bill Pr401 intituled Vancouver Foundation

Act.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

H. Yao: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

H. Yao: In moving the adoption of the report, I’d like to make a few brief

remarks.

The Vancouver Foundation was first established as a corporation by

the Vancouver Foundation Act in 1950. The foundation works with

individuals, charities and businesses to establish endowment funds. The

income from those endowments is distributed to charities across

B.C.

The act has been amended a number of times over the years, and now

the Vancouver Foundation would like to replace the existing act with a

new act that continues the corporation, grants its legal capacity and

provides for changes related to its administration, including the

governance structure of the board of directors as well as other

incidental changes.

Bill Pr401 intituled the Vancouver Foundation Act, which seeks to

give effect to these changes, was introduced and read for the first time

on May 1, 2024. It then stood referred to the Select Standing Committee

on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.

On May 6, 2024, the committee met and considered the proposed

private bill and asked questions of representatives of the Vancouver

Foundation. The committee agreed to recommend to this House that the

bill proceed as presented.

Motion approved.

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

J. Rustad: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege with regards

to the Premier’s misleading comments today in question period.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. We’ll take it under advisement.

Anybody else?

Orders of the Day

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

Professions Act.

In Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 23,

Anti-Racism Act.

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

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

[2:55 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — LEGAL PROFESSIONS

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:02 p.m.

The Chair: Thank you. Okay, Members. Here with Bill 21, committee stage,

Legal Professions Act. We were last on clause 1.

On clause 1 (continued) .

M. Lee: I just want to resume the committee process on Bill 21, Legal

Professions Act. The Attorney General in her response to my last

question when we adjourned yesterday…. I didn’t have any further

opportunity to respond to the points that she made. I just want to take

this opportunity now.

The Attorney General expressed that she had yet to hear “the

member opposite” — that would be me — comment once on the important

improvement for British Colum­bians in this province to support

that initiative.

That is this Attorney General stating that the whole purpose and

goal of this bill is to — I think there’s a missing word here, but I’ll

just put it in — improve access to justice for British Columbians.

Either that or she’s suggesting there is no access to justice for

British Columbians now.

Let’s assume for the moment that the whole focus, the whole

purpose and goal of this bill is access to justice for British

Columbians. Her concern is that I have not expressed any point on that.

I would just refer the Attorney General back to my two-hour designated

speech in this chamber on Bill 21. Within the first five paragraphs, I

talk about recognizing at the outset, specifically to the notaries that

operate in our province, that we are the only province other than Quebec

that has a special, separate act for notaries.

This bill is taking the step, as notaries were recognized, to

bring about a single regulator to advance the expansion of scope of

practice for notaries — also licensed paralegals as well. I make

reference to the fact that I’ll talk about that later in the speech. I

go on in the speech in second reading, in the midpoint of the speech, to

talk about U.N. basic principle 24.

[3:05 p.m.]

That states that lawyers shall be entitled to form and join

self-governing professional associations to represent their interests,

promote their continuing education and training and protect their

professional integrity. The executive body of the professional

associations shall be elected by its members and shall exercise its

functions without external interference.

Of course, we will have a robust, significant discussion about the

core issue relating to the elimination of self-regulation for lawyers in

our province and shifting the balance in terms of not having the

majority of lawyers be elected to the governing body that regulates the

legal profession in this province.

Specifically, I focus on the words “their interests,” as referred

to in UN basic principle 24. I said that I know, in recognizing the

Attorney General’s statement, even on first reading or second reading,

that the reason why this government is bringing forward this legislation

is it’s speaking to the public in a retail sense, but it’s recognizing

that what the Attorney General is referring to is not just those who

can’t afford and need access to legal aid. There are others, of course,

in society that need greater access to legal services.

I recognized at that point, the organizations like Access Pro

Bono, which was established by the Law Society of British Columbia, the

organization that this government is eliminating by virtue of this

bill…. The Law Society of British Columbia, for example, has been very

focused on different initiatives, including with this government in

2018, in the area of family licensed paralegals, in the area of family

law — a process that has, for some reasons, to do with the Law Society

as well.

Still, the desire to move forward with this government to

implement the changes that were contemplated in 2018 under this

government, under this Premier, who was the former Attorney General when

those initiatives were brought forward…. I was, at the time, the shadow

minister Attorney General as well back then.

I said that Access Pro Bono is a good example of the kind of

organization that is needed to support access to justice for many

British Columbians, particularly those that can’t afford legal services.

For those individuals who want to get access to free legal information,

I then talked about my history at UVic law school as a law student, here

in Victoria, participating in SLIC, as it was then called, the student

legal information clinic.

We know, of course, at UBC law, it’s the LSLAP program, including

in Chinatown, Vancouver, where you don’t have just law students

providing legal information. You have them do it under supervision by

practitioners in law who are giving of their time.

I talked about Access Per Bono as being a real furtherance of the

efforts of members of the bar, the 14,000 lawyers that this government

wants to regulate with their oversight, providing their time and their

expertise on a pro bono basis to give access to British Columbians for

legal advice and legal guidance to deal with areas of common issues that

they need help with. That’s whether it’s a landlord, with their spouse,

with their business, with a dispute with a neighbour and other very

concerning disputes that I know that British Columbians need legal input

and advice and guidance on.

These are a few examples of my second reading speech. I know that

the Attorney General may have been busy with other bills. There have

been many bills hit the House that she is responsible for. Bill 22 is

the school safety act, which I also had the opportunity to review with

her in committee. Bill 23 is the anti-racism legislation this government

has worked on to follow the anti-racism data legislation. This minister

is responsible for it, but because of the scheduling of the House, this

minister and this Attorney General can’t even answer the questions that

we have about that bill, because she’s been pulled into this chamber to

deal with this bill at the same time.

It’s the same reason why I can’t be there. It’s the same reason

why I can’t even be in the estimates process for the minister that I’m

responsible to be the critic of, the Minister of Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation.

[3:10 p.m.]

Having said all that, I certainly wanted…. For the benefit of the

Attorney General, when she says that I’ve not made one statement

recognizing the importance of access to justice, that’s clearly

incorrect.

I will point out the rest of this. In the end of the second

reading speech, I talked about, quite frankly, the point that’s also hit

upon in the what-we-heard report. What is the number one concern about

getting access to legal services? It’s cost. We know, as I said in my

second reading speech, that this has been a challenge for successive

governments — this one, the former one under Premier John Horgan, the

former one under Premier Christy Clark, the former one under Premier

Gordon Campbell, for example. Successive governments have had that

challenge — to ensure that we have appropriate access to justice,

through legal aid, in supporting and making sure we have the necessary

resources.

I spoke on second reading about the fact that it was the NDP, of

course, and the NDP government — Moe Sihota; Glen Clark, when he was

Premier; the current Minister of Health, when he was chief of staff to

Premier Glen Clark — that brought this forward.

At the time, Moe Sihota said: “As much as that measure may be seen

to be tough by members of my profession” — meaning the legal profession

— “in fairness we are also saying that we want to redirect government

resources towards legal aid. The new tax on legal fees will go a long

way to make sure that the working poor in this province, who have

traditionally had difficulty getting access to lawyers” — that is, the

affluent areas of society — “will now have a comprehensive legal aid

system that will assist them in protecting their rights.”

I will reserve my comments for later in this committee to review

about the choice of words “working poor” and “affluent members of

society.” This is the NDP language use of dividing classes of society,

and that continues under this current government. This is the

perspective that is brought to this chamber, the disrespect for those

who practise law, which is undermining and is here in this legal

professions bill.

control, even how they see the legal profession, that dates back to 1992

when they imposed a PST that has collected now…. To date, it has been

estimated it has collected, in the whole history of this province, $6

billion. That’s $6 billion. Last year alone, it was $286 million. The

last number of years it has been $200 million annually.

So if this Attorney General wants to ask questions to me about

access to justice, I’m happy to engage. I said it on the record in

second reading. I pointed out that it was a former NDP government

creation back in 1992. As I said, I will acknowledge that successive

governments have had this challenge. These funds that were dedicated….

The PST on legal services that was imposed back in 1992 has never been

solely directed towards legal aid.

When we talk about improving access to justice, the single move

that this government could be doing is increasing the resources to legal

aid in our province. This is something that I certainly had the

discussion with the Premier about when he was Attorney General. And the

Attorney General was under some degree of pressure, let’s say, from

those who work in the legal aid sector, who met with the Premier when he

was Attorney General, and the Attorney General did increase some level

of resource towards legal aid when he was Attorney General.

As I point out, my understanding is that, really, when you look

back at those years, in 2019, 2020, those supports really, when you look

back at it in the course of the pandemic, were basically cost-of-living

adjustments that have been provided to the legal aid sector.

The government may say this is the whole and sole purpose, but it

doesn’t demonstrate that. They created that PST. They still do not

ensure, when they’ve had the opportunity the last seven years, when the

Premier as the Attorney General had the opportunity to increase the

resources in a more significant, meaningful way, to redirect those funds

as they should be, because that’s what lawyers have borne for these many

years…. If we wanted to really talk about improving access to justice

and legal services, that’s what this government should be focused

on.

[3:15 p.m.]

I also said in my statement on April 25, on behalf of the B.C.

United official opposition caucus, that we recognize the importance of

expanding the scope of practice for notaries and licensed paralegals. We

recognize the importance of the Indigenous justice council that is

contemplated under this bill. But we are very concerned and don’t see

the reason why any of those modernizations need the elimination of

self-regulation of the legal profession by eliminating the majority of

lawyers on their regulatory board, combined as it is, as a single

regulator not being directly elected by 14,000 lawyers in this

province.

I invite the Attorney General to at least acknowledge that I’ve

made those statements in this House on this bill, in the public as well,

in public statements. I’m happy, as I just did, to summarize my comments

on this at this juncture. I know that access to justice and access to

legal services is an important element of this bill. We will have the

opportunity to review that.

Certainly, the Attorney General can respond to that if she wishes,

but I will ask a question, just so that we can continue with the

committee process. But that is by no means suggesting that she, if

invited, as I do, can at least acknowledge that I’ve made those

statements in second reading and in the public.

I know that the Attorney General had listed the number of

associations that had been engaged with, and I had asked the question:

which of these organizations were put under an NDA other than the Law

Society? Although, as I’m looking at this list, I don’t think I see the

Law Society of British Columbia referred to here anyways. Oh, there it

is.

Other than the Law Society of British Columbia and CBA of B.C.,

which I generally understand were under an NDA, are any of these other

associations that she listed, including the Law Society of Saskatchewan;

Law Society of Manitoba; South Asian Bar Association; Lawyers Rights

Watch; Canadian Defence Lawyers; Society of Notaries Public, perhaps

that one, I don’t know; the B.C. Paralegal Association, perhaps that

one, I don’t know; Community Legal Assistance Association; Access Pro

Bono itself; the Courthouse Libraries; Access to Justice Centre at UVic;

Capilano University; Ms. Lisa Trabucco; or Mr. Jordan Furlong; or the

College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants…?

Were any of these organizations, or any other organizations that

were openly engaged with in this process that I’m still going to get at

with the Attorney General, under a non-disclosure agreement in the

context of Bill 21?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I just want to start by acknowledging that, yes, I did not hear

the member’s second reading speech. I hear…. I thank him for quoting

that, the times that he did speak about access to justice and his role

in that as a UVic student. I hear that he recognizes that as important.

I also heard from him that he sees it as an important element of this

bill, so I will start by acknowledging that.

I wanted to speak a little bit about access to justice, because I

think both the member and I share, also, the idea that expanding access

to justice is a very important issue within the legal profession and for

British Columbians. Our approach as a government has been to steadily

invest in the increase of legal aid services over the province, and also

in free legal services throughout the province. We’ve done that in a few

ways.

I’ll just start by saying that in 2002, we saw devastating cuts to

the legal aid services in British Columbia: a 40 percent cut across the

board in legal aid services; a 60 percent cut to family law; the

complete elimination of the poverty law services in the province; a cut

to the number of staff from 460 to 155, and in the number of offices

from 42 to just seven, in terms of legal aid services in the

province.

Since 2017, there has been an increase for funding for legal aid

by over $34 million. Just recently I announced, through a settlement

with Single Mothers’ Alliance, an investment of $29 million into family

law legal aid, an expansion of family law legal aid services that will

result in 4,500 more people receiving access to legal services in this

province.

We are investing in opening up Indigenous justice centres that are

staffed by lawyers to specifically serve Indigenous people in the

justice system. Through expansion of family access centres and justice

access centres, we’re providing legal information and resources to

people. We’re investing in other clinics across the province for legal

resources for people. Since 2017, we’ve been steadily investing in

access to legal services in this province, and we continue to do that

work.

The reason that this bill is an important aspect of that is

because of, as the member mentioned, the notaries and the paralegals and

the ability of not only expanded scope but to have a new category of

registered paralegals in this province that could provide, through their

scope of practice, legal services to British Columbians across this

province. We’ve seen this happen in jurisdictions across North America

and the world, and we’ve seen it as a tool to help provide access to

services to people.

Six out of ten people in the province — this is from the Law

Society study — do not go to a lawyer even if they have a legal problem,

with cost, as the member mentioned, being one of the prohibitive

factors. This is a tool, one of the many tools we’re using, to open up

access to justice in this province.

I’ll say of the list that the member…. I explained last time when

we were at this, I think yesterday, about how NDAs are used. They’re

used to protect confidentiality, like draft bills, but also because in

certain stages of a consultation, it’s super important to get a real

look, have experts and people that are closely tied to that issue take a

look at a draft bill so we can receive input.

We wanted to receive input from those parties in a way that

protected the confidentiality of the process but allowed us to work on

the bill and understand perspectives on the actual draft language that

was being proposed. So although it’s not everybody in the organizations

that were under an NDA for those discussions, but key players, it

wouldn’t be for the whole time — that this was from our intention paper

to the introduction of the bill — that that was the case.

Of the people the member mentioned, I’m informed the CBA, the Law

Society, the Notaries Public, the B.C. Paralegals, Lisa Trabucco and

Jordan Furlong…. Again, it’s specifically important in the context of a

draft bill that we have the opportunity to get people’s feedback on the

language of the bill.

M. Lee: I appreciate the Attorney General’s acknowledgment. Obviously, we

could have a significant back and forth about funding of legal aid in

our province and the history of that and where we’re at.

[3:25 p.m.]

I would just certainly note that, as the Attorney General may be

aware, in my previous debates with the Premier as the former Attorney

General, we had some good level of discussion to recognize the

importance of increasing funding towards legal aid.

That’s something, certainly, that I was supportive of and saying,

as the former critic for the Attorney General. Certainly, in the context

of this bill, as I’ve already stated before, I recognize the continued

importance of ensuring that there are greater resources put towards

legal aid in the province. I’m questioning where we are with this, and

all the focus. That’s the reason why I raise that, of course.

Just as a little footnote, another organization that I just

personally would like to give a brief mention. When we talk about the

Courthouse Libraries association, we know that in our courthouses,

including in Vancouver and downtown, there has been an organization that

organizes visits for, originally, school children — field trips to the

law courts. We still have justice week to recognize the importance of

understanding, in a public education point of view, the appreciation for

our courts. We have school children and school groups come through our

Legislative Assembly and precinct here as well, including

today.

There is an organization that has gone further beyond the original

mandate, which is called the Justice Education Society. I used to be on

the board of that organization, and it’s an organization that also has

resources, online or otherwise; components, including in family law and

immigration; and other aspects where general members of the public can,

as a resource, go seek some resources there. They also do work in other

countries, in terms of the importance of rule of law and democratic

societies.

Coming back to the Attorney General’s response, though, thank you

to the Attorney General for clarifying. As we say that…. Certainly I do

appreciate, again, the NDAs for organizations like, or specifically, the

Law Society, CBA Vancouver, the notaries, B.C. Paralegal Association,

Ms. Trabucco and Mr. Furlong.

The other organizations, though, that the Attorney General had

indicated had provided feedback…. What were these organizations

providing feedback on, if they weren’t under an NDA, with a version, a

draft, of the bill? What were they actually provided with in order to

provide feedback? What were they actually giving feedback on to

government in respect of Bill 21?

[3:30 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I mentioned a little bit, but maybe I’ll start again at the

beginning. We mentioned the Cayton report. We’ll take it to the time

period before the intentions paper. Our team, before the intentions

paper, sat down with the Law Society, the notaries and the B.C.

paralegals — and this was a multi-day process between March and June —

to come up with the policy intentions related to the single-regular

project.

In the intentions paper, and I have it before me now, it’s very

detailed in the sense where it breaks down, in multiple categories,

things like the importance of independence; reconciliation; single

statute, single regulator; the modern governance framework, flexible

licensing frameworks; a caution against over-regulation; and a future

review in terms of an enhanced focus on public interest and what the

ministry’s intentions are.

As we go through the content of the bill, we will see a direct

through line between these very detailed policy intentions that were

developed in collaboration with the Law Society, the notaries and B.C.

paralegals with the content of the bill. With that intentions paper, and

the details that were developed through the policy intention that was

released publicly, we received…. I think I outlined the numbers of

public feedback that we received once we released the intentions

paper.

The CBA, in October 2022, hosted a series of virtual and in-person

round tables for lawyers, CBA members and non-members to provide their

view on the proposed reforms out of the intentions paper and had that

series of engagements that formed the submission that was provided to

us. This was a report of governance through the Law Society of British

Columbia to discuss the intentions paper and the report, and they

provided us feedback related to those engagements. I see here that there

was a series of them at that time. Then after that, we summarized what

we heard from the detailed policy intention that we provided with the

what-we-heard report.

[3:35 p.m.]

This outlined a demographic of who provided us input, including

dividing it between the general public and the different professions:

how lawyers have reacted, how notaries have reacted, how paralegals have

reacted, and how non-profit providers have reacted in the various

categories. We set out pretty clearly what we heard in terms of the

project of a single regulator, self-regulation, the independence of the

bar and different aspects of what we heard from that

consultation.

Later on, as I mentioned, I released a public document that

outlined the development all the way from the first part of the

intentions paper that was developed in collaboration with those bodies

out to what we were working on in the draft bill, to provide details of

exactly what would be contained in the bill.

That was the whole process in terms of engagement. Along that way,

we have met and my team have met multiple times with various

organizations and experts, as I outlined the last time.

M. Lee: I appreciate the Attorney General running through that. We had

some discussion last time, when we started on clause 1 of this

bill.

I think it’s important that we understand the breadth and scope of

the level of consultation on this bill, given that, of course, both the

Law Society and the CBA, B.C. branch, representing lawyers across our

province, have expressed quite a bit of concern relating to the lack of

consultation, the need for greater consultation now that the bill has

been introduced, the 317 clauses. I’m trying to understand the way the

government has approached getting to this place with Bill 21 in its

current form.

I know that what the Attorney General is referring to. I’d ask her

to…. Because I’m not sure I’ve heard her refer to this document, but she

has described the document. I certainly have a copy of the document, as

does the general public. I presume it’s out there in the public

realm.

It’s the Legal Professions Regulatory Modernization: Ministry

of Attorney General Public Update dated March 2024. This was,

of course, released only a few months ago, and it predated the actual

tabling of the bill. This bill was tabled, I believe, in the middle of

April, in that second week of April.

This report, I need to…. Perhaps the Attorney General can clarify.

When was this report…? Given that there’s no specific date in March that

was stated on the cover of the report — I don’t see any other date — can

the Attorney General confirm what date in March this update was

circulated?

Secondly, what I understand the Attorney General to be saying is

that when she makes reference, when I look back at our discussion

yesterday, to the period of time, as the Attorney General just ran

through, since the intentions paper, there was the what-we-heard report.

Then this reference that I was trying to get at when the Attorney

General answered with the longer list of associations, when she said:

“And the open consultations received input from anyone who wanted to but

the professions.”

I think that suggests that there were open consultations — those

are the words the Attorney General used — and that they included other

organizations and individuals outside of the organizations like the Law

Society or CBABC that were under NDAs. So I think that that’s a

consistent response.

To reconfirm that again, any of the so-called open consultations,

including, as the Attorney General referred to…. When she goes to

stakeholder events, is out doing the duties of the Attorney General in

the public, and she addresses questions — presumably questions like,

“Can you give us an update on where you’re at with the legal professions

regulatory modernization, as you communicated in your intentions paper

back in September 2022?” — I presume her answers then would go on to

talk about: “Well, I put out the what-we-heard report, and we’re moving

forward with this bill to introduce it in this upcoming session, and I’m

going to put out a report to give you an update in March of 2024. Then

I’m going to table the bill.”

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m just trying to clarify. In characterizing it in that manner….

If the Attorney General could just clarify, again, the nature and scope

of these so-called open consultations. Presumably, as the Attorney

General indicated, I think, generally, here and also yesterday, they

relate back to the intentions paper, as updated by the what-we-heard

report, and anything between the March 2024 public update and the

tabling of the bill in the middle of April.

We have three principal documents other than the bill itself. For

all the other individuals and associations in this province that were

engaged, in some manner, with the Attorney General and the Ministry of

Attorney General…. We have three documents that would have been

available to them that they were commenting on. Is that

correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’d like to seek leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Sharma: With great pleasure, I’d like to welcome Templeton Secondary here.

They’re up here in the House, and we have teacher Maria Darwoon and probably

other people who are here supporting them.

I hope that they are having a great day today. They’re from my riding

in East Van. I think there are 29 people, and they’re grade 10s.

Welcome to the House.

[3:45 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. N. Sharma: All of the documents that I mentioned — between the public

intentions paper, the what-we heard document and my public update — were

made public and available to everybody in British Columbia through our

normal practices.

After the intentions paper, we released, through our usual

government processes, a consultation open to the public. This was for

people out there to give feedback to us, anybody who wanted, on the

intentions paper that was detailed on the policy intentions related to

the legal professions regulatory update.

As is mentioned — this was in the spring and summer of 2022 — we

heard from 222 lawyers, 218 paralegals, 71 notaries and 211 members of

the public who completed the survey. In addition, 96 individuals and

organizations provided the written submissions by emails, including

current regulators, professional associations, non-profit legal

providers, legal scholars, as well as numerous individual lawyers,

notaries and paralegals.

M. Lee: To ask again, what was the date of the legal professions

regulatory modernization, Ministry of Attorney General, public update,

March? What date in 2024?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Sorry. That took a bit of time. We wanted to verify the exact time

and date that it went live.

It was March 18 and nine in the morning that the public document

was live. That was in response to organizations like the CBA. They were

saying that we should give a public update, which lawyers and other

professionals could look at, that showed where we were in our policy

decisions related to the bill.

M. Lee: Thank you to the Clerk for confirming that Bill 21 was introduced,

on first reading, on April 10 of this year.

On its face, 23 days later, between the update, which is ten pages

long, the government introduced their entire bill, which is 317 clauses.

I don’t know how many pages that is — there are no page numbers on my

version — but many pages.

I do know, as the Attorney General indicates…. Certainly, I became

the critic again, for the Attorney General, in early February. I don’t

have that date in my head either, exactly when that was, but it was in

early February. That is my recollection.

Even as the MLA for Vancouver-Langara, as someone who was the

former critic for Justice and Attorney General…. I’ve had a running

dialogue, let’s say, with members of the legal profession about this

direction that the government was heading in. I certainly heard from

members of the bar about the lack of understanding and clarity as to

where the government was, even after the what-we-heard report and the

intentions paper, back in September 2022. Both the Law Society, for

example, and the CBA had put out their responses to that intentions

paper, formally.

Other than the what-we-heard report, there was no further word

about where the government was on its project to put forward the

modernization of the legal professions. There were, effectively, 23 days

between the time of this update on March 18, 2024, and the time that the

bill was introduced on April 10.

I wanted to clarify, though, with the Attorney General about the

survey. The mechanism for public engagement…. The Attorney General has,

again, talked about what’s set out on pages 2 and 3 of the what-we-heard

report in terms of the numbers.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’ve stated, of course, that 222 lawyers responding to a survey of

16 questions, out of 14,000 lawyers, doesn’t seem to be a lot of

engagement, particularly when the kinds of questions that were being

asked in the survey are pretty basic questions that may not even be

related, necessarily, directly, to the construct, the details, the

architecture of the Legal Professions Act.

We have seen, in the questions…. I would say that of the 16

questions that were given…. Some of them relate to where you live, what

your age is, whether you’re an Indigenous person, what you identify as,

which, I dare say, continues to focus on certain types of people, or the

general “prefer not to answer.” Whether you’re a woman, a man, a

gender-diverse person or, again, prefer not to answer, your level of

education, your income…. I just listed seven questions out of

Let’s start with this question, question 9. “Do you have any

feedback on the intentions paper?” A 1,600 character limit. “If you wish

to provide additional feedback, please email your comments or submission

to pld@gov.bc.ca.”

I presume, and I’d ask the Attorney General to confirm, that in

response to the…. Well, I’d ask…. On page 3, it refers to: “In addition

to the open-ended survey comments….” I think question 8, arguably, is

open-ended.

Let’s just ask the question. Of the 16 questions…. What were the

open-ended survey comments? What is that referring to?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by saying that although the online survey and the

intentions paper were a portion of how we captured the public’s input,

there were other ways that we did that.

Certainly, when we do public consultation in government…. The best

way to do it is to get the word out in many different ways, whether it

was direct meetings with my team, with different parties, or whether it

was me attending meetings and speaking directly about their intentions

and asking questions from the members of that organization, which I

certainly did quite a bit.

[4:00 p.m.]

Just in terms of the specific question related to the survey….

There were two streams in the survey.

One stream was for the general public. Access to justice and

access to legal services is such a key component of the work that we’re

doing with this piece of legislation that we really wanted to understand

and have an ability for the public to give us feedback related to their

needs and their understanding of how a legal professions regulation can

serve them in a better way when it comes to access to

justice.

If it was a person that was not a legal professional — a notary,

paralegal or lawyer — there was a different public stream of questions

that we asked them. If they identified as a legal professional then, of

course, they had very specific things we wanted to get from them, so

there was a different stream related to that. Also, the ability for

legal professionals to give us written submissions, in detail, in

response to the intentions paper, if that’s what they chose to do. I

think I mentioned before that we received 96 written submissions,

detailed ones, from a range of experts and organizations in the legal

professions field.

That’s how we approached the taking of information and, as I

mentioned already, the different times we engaged both the legal

professionals and the public, all the way from the development of the

intentions paper, which heavily involved the key associations, up to the

public document, which was released before. Then, on top of that, the

draft consultation bills were provided to very key people, to take a

look at the draft bill and give us their feedback directly.

M. Lee: I appreciate that the Attorney General had ended, again, on the

copies of the bills that were provided to certain organizations under

non-disclosure agreements. We have touched on that. We will come back to

that discussion.

I’m just trying to have an understanding here on clause 1 about

the other levels of consultation that have occurred. The primary vehicle

to express, as far as I can see, what is occurring within the intentions

paper is the what-we-heard report.

When I look at page 2 of the report, it talks about the public

engagement that took place from September 14 to November 18, 2022.

During that engagement period, the intentions paper and a public survey

were posted on the website. Legal professionals and the general public

were invited to provide feedback by completing the survey or by sending

a written submission by email to the ministry. The survey consisted of

16 questions. A copy of the survey instrument is included in appendix A

of the what-we-heard report.

This is what I’ve been referring to. The Attorney General in her

response, just now, referred to the fact that there was a second form of

survey for legal professionals. I don’t see that attached to the

what-we-heard report. The what-we-heard report presumably…. This is

another level of questions as to what is summarized in the document

itself.

Where is the form of the survey that was provided to legal

professionals? Can the Attorney General please table that form of legal

survey? I’d like to understand what questions were being asked to legal

professionals in writing.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m happy to clarify what I said previously a little bit more, to

explain the way the survey happened online.

There were certain questions that were related to the general

public, as I mentioned, and ones that were specific to lawyers. If in

question 1, you identified as a lawyer, notary public or paralegal, or

professor or other, a specialized or a professional in that area, then

you were taken to question 9. The “use of legal services” questions that

were noted from question 2 to question 8 were not asked of those

individuals because those were mostly about access to justice or use of

legal services.

We provided not only…. I think this is sometimes considered a

really good way of getting feedback because it’s not just specifically

asking targeted questions. What we asked of legal professionals is: “Do

you have any feedback on the intentions paper?” It was a 1,600-character

limit, as the member mentioned, but oftentimes…. We also put in there,

“If you have any additional feedback, email your comments to the

following email address,” so we could make sure that if people had

something that was beyond the 1,600-character limit, they were able to

provide it by email.

Those were the differences between whether you identified as a

legal professional or a member of the public in terms of the

survey.

M. Lee: That is a helpful clarification because I thought I heard in the

previous response from the Attorney General that there were two forms of

survey. I clearly see that there’s only one form of survey, of course,

attached to the what-we-heard report, and I do see that in question 1,

as the Attorney General says, if you are a lawyer, you would skip to

question 9.

Effectively, I see that in this 16-question survey, once you skip

to question 9 and provide your feedback on the intentions paper, for the

remaining questions, there are three other questions that you’re asked.

The other questions on the survey, questions 10, 11, 12, 16 and 13 say:

“Public respondents only.”

Just to confirm there, because I think this is an important level

of clarity, so I’m not grabbing the wrong end of the stick, as they

say…. I presume, and I just want to confirm, that in these questions 10,

11, 12, 13, and 16…. That meant that legal professionals would not need

to be filling that part out. That leaves, the only other questions to be

filled out by these legal professionals, questions 14 and 15, which

relate to “Are you an Indigenous person?” and “What region of the

province do you live in?”

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: The way that the survey was, I guess, channelling people to

answers was after…. If you identified as a legal professional, you would

answer question 9 and then question 15: “In what region do you live?”

And there was a list of regions across B.C., so we had a regional

breakdown of who was answering.

M. Lee: When we look at something that the Attorney General has said, that

the 776 completed surveys included 539 surveys submitted by legal

professionals and 211 by public respondents, how many of those 211

public respondents completed question 9 and provided feedback on the

intentions paper?

Hon. N. Sharma: This is in the what-we-heard report. If you go to table 1.2, it

breaks down the survey question for No. 9. It says, for the general

public, 114 answered that particular question.

M. Lee: I appreciate the reference to table 1.2.

Of the 539 surveys completed by legal professionals, there were

approximately 223 provided by lawyers, paralegals and notaries, and

seven more responses provided by legal academics, instructors and

researchers. When we’re talking about legal professionals, a small

question — I’ll move on to another one — just as a quick point: does

legal professionals include legal academics, instructors or researchers?

That’s small question No. 1.

For the rest of the question, though, we are seeing that of the

general public, of the 211 public respondents, 114 of the 211 filled out

question 9. Then there are 18 others. Maybe they’re general public;

maybe they’re legal professionals. It’s hard to tell. They’re just

“other.” Basically, if it’s 230, or something like that, out of 539,

less than half of the legal professionals that completed the survey

actually provided feedback on the intentions paper.

[4:15 p.m.]

As we talk about the number of completed survey, I guess we’re

talking 222, 440, 511, so 539, likely, when you include the legal

academics. Out of the 539, less than half submitted comments on the

intentions paper. Now, we’re talking about the entire universe of 14,000

lawyers, plus the number of notaries and paralegals in this

province.

Perhaps I could ask the Attorney General to confirm — so we

understand the universe, so to speak, because I just used that word:

what is the Attorney General’s current understanding as to the number of

notaries that are in this province of British Columbia and the number of

paralegals in this province? It’s so that we understand how many legal

professionals this bill applies to and how many could have been

consulted regarding this fundamental change.

Recognizing that only 230 of them or so actually pro­vided

feedback on the intentions paper, which is less than half of the legal

professionals that actually completed the survey…. Perhaps I could just

stop there and ask the Attorney General just to confirm some of those

numbers.

Hon. N. Sharma: There are 410 practising notaries in the province of British

Columbia. For paralegals, it’s a harder number to pin down, because

they’re not a regulated profession, but the B.C. Paralegal Association

has about 900-plus members.

It’s important to note that when the intentions paper was

released, the CBA and the Law Society — that would have been all

licensed lawyers, 14,000 or something, and the CBA membership of

approximately 7,800 — would, all of them, have received the intentions

paper, or notification of where to find it.

Then the CBA, in that process, as I mentioned before, after the

intentions paper, had sessions to engage with their member lawyers. They

would be the ones to know how many people showed up at those

engagements. Maybe we could ask them, if the member wants that

information. Then the CBA, from those engagements, gave us a written

submission on what resulted from their engagements.

[4:20 p.m.]

Yes, the public survey was one aspect of engagement with lawyers,

but the distribution of the intentions paper from the Law Society, who

are all licensed lawyers; the CBA, to their membership; and then the

engagement on the intentions paper, which formed their written

summations, was also a part of it.

M. Lee: The reference to the process of the CBA and the response to the

intentions paper…. There is a response from the CBA, British Columbia

branch, dated November 18, 2022. That certainly follows the September

2022 intentions paper date. Again, the ministry, for whatever reason,

does not put exact dates on their cover pages, but some date in

September 2022. The turnaround was within at least six weeks by the CBA

to provide their immediate comment back.

At that time, the CBA had the number of 16,000 lawyers, 400

notaries, and…. I’m just reading it here: “The number of paralegals to

be regulated is unknown but is expected to be fewer than 500.” Somewhere

between 500 and 900-plus is the understanding.

Certainly, the level of response from CBA that I read back in the

2022-23 period was a robust response, and that is something that we may

have the opportunity to discuss here because it is part, as the Attorney

General indicates…. The Attorney General sees that as part of the

consultation process.

There, the CBA took the opportunity, as the Attorney General

indicated, to go consult to the extent that they were able to and then

provide in their report the results of the series of virtual and

in-person round tables for lawyers that the CBABC conducted. It

indicates that that was in October of 2022. There would be, you would

think, significant weight put on this response, and we will look at

that.

The what-we-heard report, as we discussed, was issued in May of

2023, six months after the CBA B.C. branch turned around their process

to give initial feedback to what was the intentions paper, to the extent

that there is any detail in this paper, which is longer than the update

in March of 2024.

The original intentions paper in September 2022…. It was

certainly…. Maybe it’s in bigger font. Maybe that’s the issue. Yeah,

it’s in bigger font. So one can compare the numbers of words, but the

point being that they are similar documents, but there certainly was a

pretty robust response from the Canadian Bar Association and the Law

Society of British Columbia to the intentions paper.

Coming back, though, to this survey, such as it is, we know that

of the survey, the so-called question 9 on the survey, which is an

open-ended question, to just provide any feedback on the intentions

paper by lawyers…. We know that 116 lawyers out of the 222 completed the

survey. I will say that means that the 106 lawyers that chose not to

provide an answer to question 9 basically completed the survey by

indicating whether they were Indigenous and where they live. Is that

correct?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s very difficult to speculate in terms of why somebody might

choose or choose not to fill out all the answers in a public survey. It

could be that they opted for a written submission instead, as was

optional to them, or it could be that they decided that their level of

interest in commenting on the project was not high, and they didn’t want

to, after reading the intentions paper. It’s hard to know the answer to

that question.

M. Lee: The importance of focusing on the what-we-heard report is because

the government and the Attorney General point to it as the vehicle

through which there has been some engagement process. This is, again, on

the premise of the intentions paper, in the face of detailed responses

by both the CBA and the Law Society, and then continuing down this road

to provide an update only 23 days before they table Bill 21 in this

House, on April 10.

So it’s important to understand, even though amongst the 14,000 or

16,000 lawyers in this province, there were 116 that actually completed

the survey, and then there are 96 written submissions…. Of the 96

written submissions, can the Attorney General please provide the

breakdown as to who…?

I know that there’s general wording. The submissions were provided

by individual legal professionals, public respondents, as well as

organizations. Of those categories of respondents, let’s say, how many

were actually provided…? Of the 96 written submissions, how many were

provided by individual legal professionals, to use the term that’s used

on page 3 of the what-we-heard report?

Hon. N. Sharma: To answer that question, I’ll refer the member to table 1.3 of the

what-we-heard report, where it talks about the number and type of

written submissions sent by email by respondent type. Under there, you

can see that there are 28 lawyers that provided written

submissions.

M. Lee: As I work through the three tables — tables 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 —

it’s clear that of the 222 lawyers that provided surveys, 116 of them

responded to question 9.

[4:30 p.m.]

That leaves 106 that did not respond to question 9. Of the 106

that did not respond to survey question 9, only 28 out of the 106

responded, which leaves — what is that? — 78 respondents who were

lawyers who did not answer question 9 by sending in an email to provide

feedback or didn’t use their 1,600-character limit to provide feedback

on question 9 and didn’t send a written submission directly by

email.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

These 78 lawyers completed the survey by opening the survey,

telling the government whether they’re an Indigenous person or “other”

or “prefer not to answer” and what region of the province they lived in.

We’re talking 78 out of 222 lawyers out of a universe of 14,000 to

16,000 lawyers. So we’re now down to, of the 222 lawyers, basically, 116

plus 28, 144 lawyers out of…. We’re talking less than 1 percent. Is that

right? Is that math right — 14,000, 1,400, 140 lawyers out of 14,000

lawyers? Less than 1 percent.

Well, let me ask you this other question then. Recognizing that

the Law Society, of course, is governed under an elected body, 25

elected directly by the membership of the bar, out of 32…. But there are

regions represented. I’m just trying to understand here the limited

scope of this survey instrument.

Of course, the only piece of information, other than whether the

person is Indigenous or not, meaning whether the legal profession of the

lawyer is Indigenous or not, which I recognize is an important

consideration to focus on, given the nature of Bill 21 and the

Indigenous Council and the work of the First Nations Justice Council,

all of that…. So I do recognize that that is an important area to focus

on.

In terms of regions on question 15, can the Attorney General share

what the breakdown is of the 222 lawyers, regionally, amongst the ten

regions or…? Well, this is interesting as well. Can the Attorney General

provide the breakdown of the eight regions that are named in question 15

and how many of the respondents were outside B.C.? I’m not even sure why

we’re surveying lawyers outside of B.C., but perhaps the Attorney

General can answer that question. How many were “prefer not to

answer”?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: To the member’s question about the breakdown of lawyers by region,

we’