Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, November 21, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 250

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

Statements

Response to incident in Prince Rupert

J. Rice

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Transgender Day of Remembrance

K. Paddon

R. Merrifield

Mosaic of languages in B.C.

R. Singh

Affordable air travel and Abbotsford International Airport

B. Banman

Transgender Day of Remembrance event at Weird Church in

Cumberland

R. Leonard

Addiction awareness and action on issues

T. Halford

Oral Questions

Action on community safety and role of Premier

K. Falcon

Hon. D. Eby

E. Sturko

Government policies on fossil fuel industry

S. Furstenau

Hon. D. Eby

Action on community safety and role of Premier

T. Stone

Hon. D. Eby

S. Bond

Motions Without Notice

Extension of legislative sitting hours

Hon. M. Farnworth

T. Stone

A. Olsen

M. de Jong

Proceedings in Committee of the Whole,

Section C

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 38 — Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act (continued)

K. Paddon

E. Ross

A. Olsen

E. Sturko

S. Furstenau

M. Morris

Reporting of Bills

Bill 40 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 40 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 38 — Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. M. Dean

Bill 37 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. B. Ralston

T. Shypitka

S. Furstenau

M. Bernier

J. Rustad

E. Ross

L. Doerkson

D. Davies

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 36 — Health Professions and Occupations Act (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

M. Lee

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 40 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022

B. Stewart

Hon. R. Fleming

Bill 41 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

A. Olsen

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2022

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Dean: Hon. Speaker, today I was grateful to have a meeting with AutismBC.

Here today joining us are Julia Boyle, the executive director, and Kaye

Banez, the president of the board. Would everybody please make them very

welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I have a number of visitors here today and some from my constituency,

which is always exciting.

Fraser Sutherland is here, a constituent of mine. She has a BA in

years with the JET program. She’s now returned home and will be attending

UBC again this fall in the master’s program, getting a degree in library

studies.

Also with her is her sister Claire Sutherland. She received a BA in

history from UBC this past May, and this summer she was a dispatcher for the

B.C. Wildfire Service and did an amazing job. She’s also thinking about

going to law school next year.

With them is Amanda Lockwood. She’s a resident of Washington and is

fluent in Japanese, and she’s actually looking forward to having tea at the

Empress this afternoon.

With them is someone who is extremely well known to many of the MLAs

in the chamber for her excellent work assisting their constituency offices

across the province. Edena Brown is here. She is the mom of Fraser and

Claire but also a friend of mine and a colleague for the past 17 years, we

were figuring it out. She’s been my CA, my EA and is now an MA and is doing

an amazing job right across the province helping people.

Please join me in welcoming all four of these amazing young

women.

R. Singh: The Dhahan Prize is the world signature prize for Punjabi literature.

This prize aims to promote the growth of Punjabi language globally by

awarding writers working in two Punjabi scripts, Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi.

They had their ninth annual awards event on November 17 in

Surrey.

I’m very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that at your invitation, the Dhahan

Prize team is here in the Legislature.

We are joined today by Barj Dhahan, the founder of the Dhahan Prize;

the co-founders, Manjit and Ajit Thandi and Kuljinder and Gurtek Shoker; and

Harinder Dhahan, who is their submission coordinator; Sadhu Binning, chair

of the advisory team; my father, Raghbir Singh Sirijana, who is a member of

the advisory team and was previously the chair; Joyce Grace, the comms

person; Gurinder Mann, from UBC; Balbir Madhopuri, who is the 2021 Dhahan

Prize finalist from Delhi, India; and Arvinder Kaur Dhaliwal, who is the

2022 finalist from Punjab, India.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

B. Anderson: I’m absolutely delighted to rise in the House and introduce team

Nelson-Creston. I have Anna Bundschuh and Sarah Wasilenkoff, who are my

constituency assistants, and as you can tell, they are very kind and funny

and wonderful people.

We have Tracy Porteous, and we also have Corrine Bundschuh, who is

Anna’s sister. The Bundschuh sisters are the ones that, along with their

brother, created the magic that is Shambhala today, including all of the

harm reduction pieces, sexual assault.

Sarah is absolutely incredible, coming from victim services. I think

most people in this House know Tracy, but I know that there’s someone else

that wants to introduce you today.

So thank you so much for coming here and joining us on this very

special, historic day with our new Premier.

K. Kirkpatrick: I, too, would just like to acknowledge Julia Boyle and Kaye Banez, who

are here today from AutismBC. Over the last year, I feel you are my friends.

You have done so much to advocate and work for families across British

Columbia. On behalf of the B.C. Liberal caucus, in the time you’ve spent

with us, I’d like to thank you.

I would ask the House to acknowledge and thank my friends for being

here in the House today.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you know, earlier today I tabled two

historic pieces of legislation. It takes a strong and dedicated team to pull

this off. Here with us today are some members of the team at the Ministry of

the Attorney General and Housing, who I’d like to acknowledge and thank:

Teri Collins, Bonnie Ruscheinski, Cimarron Corpe, Doug Page, Aman Gill,

Candice Gartner, Alyssa Teekah, Rebecca Veilleux, Al-Nashir Charania and

Yashar Ghajar.

[1:40 p.m.]

I’d like to thank them for their dedication to the Housing file, in

general, and, specifically, on the Housing Supply Act and the Building and

Strata Statutes Amendment Act. I know that there were a number of late

nights and weekends that were spent to bring this work, and their hard work

has paid off.

As well, I’d like to extend a sincere thank-you to the rest of the

staff team at the Ministry of Attorney General and Housing who also worked

hard but were unable to join us today.

B. Bailey: I, too, would like to acknowledge Tracy Porteous, who is here in these

chambers with us today.

You should have heard the scramble over here, us arm wrestling over

who got to speak to Tracy. She’s been so influential for so many of us. Not

only is Tracy the past ED of EVA B.C.; she also ran the Victoria Sexual

Assault Centre. She’s a recipient of the Order of B.C., and she recently got

an honorary doctorate of law.

There aren’t enough accolades out there really, though, for you,

Tracy, in my view.

I just want to share a very quick personal story. Many years ago — I

hate to admit how many — I was a junior social worker who was straight out

of school and hired at what was then the Victoria Women’s Sexual Assault

Centre. My boss was going away for a couple of weeks. She tapped me on the

shoulder and asked me if I would be acting executive director. I was in my

early 20s. I had never thought of myself as a leader in that way. Tracy told

me I was a leader, and Tracy has been a leader every day since.

I can thank you very directly for my role here in this House. Thank

you, Tracy.

Hon. K. Chen: I’m so happy to introduce two constituents of mine from

Burnaby-Lougheed: Kimberly Armstrong and her six-year-old daughter, a grade

1 student from Stoney Creek. Abigail is here learning about the work we do.

She was really excited to hear that our Premier also has kids her age. She’s

joining us here today, learning about parliamentary procedures, and she had

a lot of great questions for me this morning.

I actually met Abigail in 2019, when she and her mom and her family

joined my Christmas open house. It was a memorable event. My son, who was

running around with her, ended the night by knocking off his two front teeth

and learning the song “All I Want for Christmas is My Two Front Teeth.” I’m

so honoured that I’ve always stayed in touch with the family.

In 2020, Abigail and her sister were able to get child care spaces

because of our child care investment and expansion in Burnaby. Her mom was

able to return to work as a psychologist because of the child care

spaces.

I am very grateful that her mom, Kimberly, has always kept in touch

with me and shared how passionate and caring and creative Abigail is. She

recently fundraised for B.C. Cancer by doing a craft sale — a six-year-old

doing this. I cannot imagine what she will achieve in many more years to

come as a future leader for our province.

I ask the House to please make them feel very welcome.

Welcome, Abigail and Kimberly.

M. Lee: I’d like to welcome today to the House Emma Conlon, who is a second

year law student at UVic law, my former alma mater and the alma mater of the

former faculty member the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation. Emma is doing a joint degree in Canadian common law and

Indigenous legal orders. She’s in second year. She’s here today to hear the

continued debate on Bill 38.

I’d like to invite Emma to continue to watch the many other debates

that are going to be happening in this House today in a fairly compressed

manner: Bill 36, Health Professions and Occupations Act; Bill 37, Energy

Statutes Amend­ment Act; Bill 39, Judicial Review Procedure

Amend­ment Act. These important bills, amongst others, have many

Indigenous legal components to them, as we continue to look at how we align

our laws here in this province with UNDRIP and DRIPA.

Will all members of this House please make Emma feel most

welcome.

A. Mercier: I’d just like to recognize some constituents from Langley joining us

in the precinct today: my friends River Peatman, Aidan Fowler and Navid

Aliakbar as well as my CA, Jennifer Loftus, and her soon-to-be Mr. Loftus

there, Tyler Birdsell.

We’ve gone around and had some great conversations today with a lot of

folks in the chamber. I’ve got to say that I think the thing that made the

biggest mark on them was a little bit of time with the Premier in the west

annex on the finer points of ownership with minivans.

Could everyone make them feel welcome, please.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: I’m really excited today to introduce Byron Loucks, who is the

president of the Victoria Griz­zlies Junior A hockey club, and also

Sean Chewka, who is the director of marketing and sales.

Of course, the Grizzlies’ home ice is in Colwood, in

Esquimalt-Metchosin. They have very generously offered a gift to our former

Premier, the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca. They are providing him with

two lifetime season tickets and, also, this wonderful jersey with his name

on it.

N. Letnick: There are going to be many questions in this place. The most important

question ever asked in this province — actually, the province next door —

was 42 years ago, when I asked my wife if she would marry me. She said

yes.

Today she’s here to witness a great exchange of questions and, of

course, her favourite MLA — her MLA, the MLA for Kelowna-Mission.

Would the House please make her feel very welcome.

R. Leonard: At this time last year, I congratulated my friends Nina Usherwood and

Roz Humphreys on their milestone anniversary. However, I was incorrect on

how many years they celebrated. I’d like to correct that today and ask the

House to join me in wishing them a happy anniversary on their ten years plus

one together.

M. Dykeman: I would just like to take a moment to ac­know­ledge my CA,

Carly Hogan, who on Friday received her bachelor of commerce in

entrepreneurial management and the President’s Scholar Award from Royal

Roads University.

I was wondering if the House could please join me in congratulating

her on this incredible achievement.

S. Chant: I would like to introduce some friends of mine that have come from my

constituency, Diane and Doug Jones.

I’ve known Diane for multiples of years. We worked in the same office

together. We did different roles, and we commiserated and solved all sorts

of problems as a pair. You can imagine how that went. She’s another nurse,

just to make sure that everybody understands all that.

She’s here with her husband, Doug, who was in the technical sector for

many years. They are here with their friends Laura and Ian Hutton, who also

had kids going to school at our high school. So all our kids went to school

together, etc.

They’re all here from North Vancouver–Seymour. They’re here to enjoy

the House and, also, to wander with me around the Parliament Buildings and

enjoy that as well.

G. Lore: I did lose the arm wrestle to introduce a friend and mentor, Tracy

Porteous.

I wanted to rise, also, to introduce to the House Molly Henry, who is

here. Molly serves a number of folks in our caucus and cabinet, including my

predecessor, in the role of Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity as

well as the Minister of Finance — a huge advocate, an incredible person and

friend.

I’m really glad to have her here today to watch question

period.

Statements

RESPONSE TO

INCIDENT IN PRINCE

RUPERT

J. Rice: Today I rise on a solemn note. There was a tragic incident outside

the Ocean Centre Mall in my community, where my constituency office is

located as well as many government offices like MCFD and our health

unit, among others.

I just want to say to my constituents that I’m really sorry. I am

grieving with them, and I wish I could be home right now.

I wish I could be with you during this really tragic time. From

here, from Victoria, you’re in my hearts. I look forward to seeing you

as soon as I get home. I will embrace everyone.

My condolences to the families that are affected. You’re in my

thoughts.

[1:50 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Just in response to some of the debate this morning, I would

like to make a point of order and clarification on a voting record

and reserve the right to come back and clarify that once I have the

official documents in my hands.

Mr. Speaker: So noted.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

K. Paddon: Each year November 20 is set aside as Transgender Day of

Remembrance. This is to recognize those who have been killed due to

ignorance and hatred, targeted because they were transgender, non-binary

or two-spirit. This year this day was observed in the aftermath of yet

another horrific attack on the LGBTQ community that left five dead and

25 injured at Club Q in Colorado Springs.

November 20 is a day when we honour the memory of thousands of

transgender people who have been murdered, hurt, marginalized because of

transphobia and violence against them and a day when we affirm our

commitment to end the harm against people who are our co-workers,

neighbours, friends and family members.

The reality is that transgender people continue to face stigma and

discrimination, which puts people at risk for much higher rates of

violence, poverty, mental health issues and other complex challenges. We

know this is even more difficult for people of colour and Indigenous

people.

Although much has been done to better support people in B.C.’s

transgender community, we know we still have a long way to go, and we

are committed to a better society that is safe and inclusive for all. It

is every person’s right to be who they are without fear of stigma,

because a more inclusive society leads to a higher quality of life for

everyone.

As you know, I have the honour of representing Chilliwack-Kent. In

Chilliwack, we are also doing the work towards a safe and inclusive

community to make sure our trans friends and neighbors have access to

supports and services when they need them. We have the Chilliwack Gender

Support Network, the Chilliwack Gender Care Clinic and the Chilliwack

youth health center, who offer critical and accessible supports in our

community.

Chilliwack is also home to the first openly trans person elected

in our province, the first openly trans man in Canada, Teri Westerby,

representation and visibility that will undoubtedly have an impact on

the culture and fabric not only of Chilliwack but of our

province.

I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in recognizing this

important day of observance and the work to come.

R. Merrifield: I, too, want to echo my colleague’s comments and celebrate,

because yesterday, November 20, we marked the Transgender Day of

Remembrance.

Yes, it’s a time to honour and remember members of the

transgender, two-spirit and non-binary community that we have lost to

transphobic violence. The violent incident on the weekend was a graphic

and horrific reminder.

Celebration of this day is also an opportunity to build awareness

of the disproportionate adversity faced by transgender people and the

prevalence of transphobia in society today. On behalf of the official

opposition, we are proud to be allies of the transgender community and

honour the legacies of those we’ve lost to transphobic violence. I

invite you to attend a vigil near you or take the time to build

understanding and awareness of the challenges faced by the transgender

people and how you can support them.

Any sort of violence, transphobia and hatred is intolerable.

According to Statistics Canada, sexual minority people in Canada are

three times more likely than heterosexual Canadians to experience sexual

assault or violence. Transgender people are more prone to violent

attacks, suicide, substance abuse and other dangers due to transphobia

and anti-transgender stigma. This information is heartbreaking but

reflects the reality many transgender people live through

daily.

We need to be more supportive of the transgender community in B.C.

There’s lots of work to do. On Transgender Day of Remembrance, we

reaffirm our commitment to building a British Columbia that is inclusive

of all and free of hatred, violence and transphobia.

We mourn with the friends, families and loved ones of all the

transgender people who are taken away from us too soon.

MOSAIC OF LANGUAGES IN B.C.

R. Singh: Last week I had the privilege of attending the ceremony for the

Dhahan Prize for Punjabi Literature, which, since 2014, has been

celebrating the literary contributions to Punjabi literature and

language.

[1:55 p.m.]

The prize and the people behind it — Barj Dhahan, his extended

family and many others — intend to preserve the Punjabi language as well

as motivate writers to tell stories and grow its reach beyond the

borders of its native India and Pakistan and the diaspora.

Besides the warmth I felt during an evening of celebration of a

language with which I grew up, I came to realize the beauty of our

province that has, with the generosity of the First Peoples, become

richer in languages from all over the globe. I say richer, because our

province has been home to a plethora of First Nation languages, even

before the first settlers set foot on these shores.

It was heartening to see one such language, Musqueam, be

highlighted at the Premier’s swearing-in ceremony last week. Language is

a breathing, living organism, and it is one of the strongest threads

that weaves through cultures and evokes in us a sense of belonging and a

sense of unity. It gives us more than just the sounds of its letters and

words. It gives us the stories of its people.

Sitting at the prize ceremony and the swearing in last week, I

smiled at the thought of the beautiful mosaic of languages we have

living in our province.

I rise to acknowledge this mosaic, and I hope my friends here in

the House will do too.

Huy ch q’u siem, Mr. Speaker. Dhanwaad. Thank

you.

AFFORDABLE AIR TRAVEL AND

ABBOTSFORD INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

B. Banman: I invite members and guests to close their eyes and

imagine.

Imagine being able to travel across the continent and beyond with

affordable airfares. Imagine an airport with little to no delays and a

perfectly smooth experience from the moment you enter the terminal to

when you land at your destination. Imagine an airport that isn’t just a

critical economic generator in our province, but also one that makes

flying more affordable, accessible and convenient for all British

Columbians.

Well, open your eyes. There is no need to imagine when this is the

reality of the Abbotsford International Airport. It’s one of the largest

airports in British Columbia, and home to one of the largest raspberries

as well, over 300 acres. It’s situated in my riding of Abbotsford South.

It’s also home to Canada’s national air show, the Abbotsford

International Airshow.

YXX contributes significantly to our economy, enabling more than

2,000 high-paying jobs and serving as home to some of Canada’s biggest

aviation companies that specialize in training, manufacturing and

engineering in the aviation industry.

This includes organizations such as Chinook Helicopters, one of

the best helicopter training in the world. It’s known with the Conair

Group, which specializes in creating critical area firefighting

equipment, and Cascade Aerospace, known for its aerospace and defense

engineering work. Most importantly, the Abbotsford International Airport

is lowering barriers to air travel for British Columbians and giving

them more opportunities to explore our beautiful country in the world.

It’s allowing more families to travel multiple times a year, thanks to

the low airfares and fees at Abbotsford Airport.

In fact, you can take a flight to Calgary or Edmonton for less

than what it costs to take a cab from the Swartz Bay ferry terminal here

to the Legislature. These affordable fares are needed now more than ever

following isolating impacts of the pandemic and soaring

inflation.

I want to thank and congratulate the management, the staff and all

direct and indirect employees, volunteers and businesses that make the

complex operation at this airport possible.

I want to invite you all to come out to Abbotsford and try it so

that the next time before you click, search out YXX.

TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

EVENT AT WEIRD CHURCH IN

CUMBERLAND

R. Leonard: Yesterday was the Day of Remembrance for transgender people who

have lost their lives due to the hatred, anger and violence of others. I

attended a solemn event at the Weird Church in Cumberland, a place where

United Church minister Ingrid Brown nurtures as a safe space that

welcomes all on their spiritual journey.

In response to an attack on a young person in the area, the church

offered their space for the Day of Remembrance that was organized by

Queersource Society, a local resource centre for 2SLGBTQ+ people in the

Comox Valley.

[2:00 p.m.]

Waking to the news of the killings in Colorado compounded the

grief and anger and the resolve to not be erased. Underreported, because

deaths are reported by deadnames and gender, well over 300 trans people

across the globe are gone this past year — shot, beaten, stabbed,

stoned, suicide. Three of them were in Canada: Alex Bastien, ten years

old; Damien Fraser; Ezra Amos.

Speaker after speaker shared their experiences and messages. They

flew around me like haunting barbs, pricking at my

conscience.

Leanne Lawson spoke of years of drug and alcohol abuse and

homelessness as she tried to bury who she was. Today she’s an exotic

dancer, and with great courage, she has taken her space in a traditional

cisgender bar.

Nina Usherwood reinforced how having courage is living despite the

fear. Her message was: “Vote. Don’t let lawmakers and policy-setters

perpetuate the hate.”

Ray spoke of safe travel and warned of using gender X on one’s

passport.

We can be allies, but we can do more to end the

vio­lence.

Jesse, a youth worker, shared a poignant closing: “Give us roses

while we are alive. Cherish and honour us while we walk this

earth.”

ADDICTION AWARENESS

AND ACTION ON

ISSUES

T. Halford: This week is National Addictions Awareness Week, and it is a time

for us to pause and remember the lives lost due to the tragic drug

overdose this year and the thousands more who have died in British

Columbia as a result.

We also pledge to continue to fight the stigma of addiction

together. Addiction is something that touches every member of this

House, every family in British Columbia, every community. Each person is

a brother, father, aunt, daughter, co-worker — a person who needs a

system of care, a person who needs support and to know that when they

need help, help is there.

This year’s theme is a “Community of caring.” A city, a sports

team, a neighbourhood, a school, an organization, a group of friends —

communities come in all shapes and sizes and, no matter what community

we are involved in, we can all support one another to collaborate and to

ensure change.

The last few months I was honoured with my colleagues on both

sides of the House to listen to so many British Columbians making

meaningful impacts in communities across the province and helping people

that are suffering from addictions. The work that we did on the Health

Committee is a measure. As we completed the report Closing Gaps,

Reducing Barriers , it is clear that we have so much more to do

when it comes to the issues of addiction.

With that, I say let’s get to work, all hands on deck, to ensure

that we are doing everything possible to support everybody that needs it

when they need it.

R. Merrifield: In my point of order…. It was brought up this morning by the

member for Victoria–Beacon Hill that I had voted against Bill 14,

which is the Early Childhood Educators Act. That was

incorrect.

For a note of clarification and, as well, for a change, I

actually voted for it. It was unanimous with my entire caucus. There

was no division and no amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Duly noted.

Oral Questions

ACTION ON COMMUNITY SAFETY

AND ROLE OF

PREMIER

K. Falcon: I’d like to start by, first of all, welcoming the new Premier to

his new role and recognizing and understanding the significant

responsibilities that come along with that role.

Now, having said that, the Premier has also been and had

responsibilities as the Attorney General for the past five years. In

that role, he was the architect of a failed catch-and-release policy

that was responsible for an explosion of violent repeat offenders being

immediately released back into communities.

For the better part of a year, mayors, communities and this

opposition have been calling for specific actions, only to have the

Premier first deny that there was even a problem and then spending

months ignoring these very calls for some action.

[2:05 p.m.]

Under pressure, he announced in the spring that he would hire two

consultants to spend 4½ months to figure out how he should do his own

job. Then, when he realized that the issued report was, in fact, a

damning indictment of the job he had done as Attorney General, he

quietly released it on the Saturday of a long weekend.

But during that time and those delays, for no other reason than a

cynical political reason to delay having to make a decision until he

became Premier, over 900 British Columbians became victims of violent

random attacks in Vancouver alone, yet today the arsonist wants us to

believe that he should be trusted to put out the fire that he started

and he has stoked.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

K. Falcon: My question to the new Premier is: why on earth should anyone

trust that after all this time, he has finally decided that, in fact,

his government can do something to protect victims of random violent

attacks?

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, did I hear correctly? You are comparing

the Premier with an arsonist. Were you comparing the Premier with an

arsonist?

K. Falcon: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask you to withdraw that.

K. Falcon: I withdraw.

Hon. D. Eby: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the welcome here

today. I want to thank several members of the opposition, actually, who

welcomed me into this new role, and all my colleagues for their support

and British Columbians who have reached out to offer support. It’s a

massive responsibility, and I feel the weight to deliver for British

Columbians in this job.

The member raises a critical issue. I’ve been across the province

on the leadership campaign, talking to British Columbians, and one of

their key priorities is public safety. That’s why, when the urban mayors

came to us and said they were seeing this issue in their communities, I

asked them to provide us with details. When they did, I immediately

asked for — the member’s right — assistance from experts in this area, a

former chief of police and an expert in mental health and addiction, who

provided us with a roadmap that the government has immediately been

acting on.

As recently as Sunday, I stood in front of chiefs of police,

non-profit service providers, Indigenous leadership, municipal leaders,

implementing that plan to make our communities safer. The only way we’ll

get our hands around this is by working together, and I don’t believe

there’s a member in this place that doesn’t believe that this is a huge

priority, especially with shocking news coming out of Prince Rupert

today.

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

K. Falcon: Well, results, not rhetoric, are what matter to the public of

British Columbia, and this Premier’s track record does not give anyone

any reason for confidence.

The fact of the matter is that last year in December, he met with

the mayors, said to the mayors, “show me the evidence,” didn’t believe

that this was a real issue. Then in April, when the mayors wrote to him

and provided very specific evidence of just how his catch-and-release

program was creating chaos in the communities, he still did nothing.

Since then, since that time in April, more than 900 British Columbians

have been attacked by violent random strangers in Vancouver

alone.

That includes, by the way, a young man in Yaletown, 29 years old,

stabbed to death; a woman slashed in the neck with a machete; again,

this weekend, another young mother with a child in a stroller who had

her child spat upon; and just yesterday, families having brunch at Cafe

Deux Soleils on Commercial Drive were robbed at gunpoint by two armed

individuals. Yet for over five years, we’ve had this Premier, the former

Attorney General, the chief law operating officer for the province of

British Columbia look the other way, doing nothing while victims have

been assaulted each and every day.

My question to the Premier is: how on earth can the public have

any faith that this soft-on-crime Premier will ever put the rights of

innocent victims ahead of a violent criminal’s right to reoffend, when

his entire career, inside and out of politics, has been about putting

the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of our communities to feel

safe?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, again, to the member for the question on this issue

that matters to so many British Columbians. When we hear, in our

communities or on the news, about a violent attack or about prolific

offenders, it strikes at the core of feeling safe in our own

communities, for our families.

I know that people are concerned, too, about the safety of people

that are living outside on the sidewalk, struggling with mental health

and addiction, as much as they feel unease coming out of the pandemic

and feeling that their downtowns are not the same as before. That’s why

this government, under my leadership, is putting a priority on public

safety, as I have in my role as Attorney General.

The member can try to rewrite history. But I’ll read him a short

quote from the then-mayor….

Interjections.

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

Please continue.

Hon. D. Eby: A quote from the mayor of Prince George: “The B.C. Urban Mayors

Caucus brought forward concerns. As you know, the provincial government

has acted very quickly on it. They have two very, very qualified

individuals that are going to be doing a review of the prolific

offenders throughout our province and come back with recommendations,

the next 120 days.” We’ve acted on those recommendations. In fact, the

authors of that report have said that this is in keeping with what

they’ve recommended — all of us working together to address this

issue.

This is not an issue that’s going to be solved overnight. We see

it down the west coast United States and in major centres across Canada.

It was the core discussion when the Premiers got together from across

Canada — the justice ministers — to talk about issues. The changes in

the federal bail laws that led to this situation across Canada were the

top topic of conversation, and the key call to the federal government

was for us all to work together. It’s a really serious issue.

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

K. Falcon: Frankly, that mayor is no longer the mayor. The mayor that this

NDP Premier was campaigning for in Vancouver is also no longer the mayor

of Vancouver, because residents were fed up with the lack of results.

The problem is that we’ve spent weeks and months…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

K. Falcon: …listening to this Premier and this NDP government make excuses as

to why they couldn’t possibly do anything about people being violently

attacked in their own communities.

Opposition, mayors and communities have been calling for action

for the better part of a year, yet as the Attorney General for over five

years, this Premier was actually the architect who provided over the

violent crime explosion that was taking place under his

catch-and-release program.

Now, over six months ago — again, as I say, under pressure — he

announced a creative solution that was supposed to deal with this.

Nothing changed. Since then, more than 900 British Columbians have been

attacked by violent, random assaults in the Vancouver area

alone.

This inaction continued during the tainted leadership race he just

went through, where he didn’t even respond to a single one of the

recommendations of his own report that he commissioned for this problem.

Instead, government continued to put off making any changes while

cynically waiting for this Premier to take his seat so that he could

then pretend that he was actually going to solve these problems. In the

meantime, hundreds of British Columbians have been victims as a result

of those delays.

My question to the Premier is this: why would anyone trust this

soft-on-crime Premier when he’s delayed action and played politics at

the expense of something as important as public safety?

Hon. D. Eby: This government has been taking action on the issue of concern of

British Columbians about public safety. I’m sitting beside the Minister

for Public Safety, who presided over the establishment of a new

provincial witness program that resulted in 419 charges laid, including

134 murder charges and 77 firearm-related charges and convictions of 32

accused, with a cumulative 276 years in prison just from that one

change.

[2:15 p.m.]

Now, I accept the Leader of the Opposition’s core point. We need

to do more. Of course we need to do more. But I don’t accept that I

don’t have the support across the board from mayors, police, community

leaders and Indigenous leaders.

In fact, the new mayor of Vancouver, Ken Sim, from yesterday:

“Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in addressing the

ongoing challenges in Vancouver related to public safety. I applaud the

Premier…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: …and the provincial government for their bold leadership and

partnership in making these critical investments and policy changes. I

look forward to continuing to work together to improve public safety

outcomes and ensure the most vulnerable members of our community have

access to the support and care they need.”

I can’t wait to work with him and mayors across the province to

address this issue.

E. Sturko: I’ve witnessed the suffering of victims of violence, and nothing

has left a deeper imprint on me, as a former police officer, than that

trauma. But for the Premier, it was his time as a militant activist with

Pivot Legal, fighting against police, that was his most formative.

During his time with Pivot Legal, the Premier was well known for

protecting drug traffickers. I have quotes too.

From Curtis Robinson, who was a beat cop at the time with the

Vancouver police department, this is what he said last week: “One of the

things that the Premier brought in was providing a multilanguage

laminated card to the majority of drug traffickers, particularly Central

Americans, that said: ‘You don’t have to talk to the

police.’”

Why should anyone believe that this soft-on-crime Premier will

ever put the rights of innocent victims…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

E. Sturko: …ahead of a criminal’s right to reoffend, given his radical past

and terrible track record over the past five years?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m incredibly proud of the work that I did as a human rights

lawyer in the Downtown Eastside for many years. I provided services to

people in the Downtown Eastside that needed that support. I’m sorry

about the characterization that the member puts on it, but that’s

important work. I have an important job as Premier, which is to respond

to the concerns of British Columbians around public safety, and I’m

committed to do that.

I have the support of police leadership from across the

province.

This is Deputy Commissioner Dwayne McDonald, the commanding

officer of the B.C. RCMP Surrey, who notes, just like the member did,

that police see it firsthand. They’re the social service of last resort

in communities. He said: “We are thankful that the province has actioned

a multi-agency approach that will bring the right people together to

address the issues and ultimately strengthen our collective responses.”

I’m excited to work with police, with municipal leaders, with

communities, to address this pressing issue.

The member brings important experience as a law enforcement

officer to this place.

I welcome her, by the way; she’s a new member here. I haven’t had

the chance to welcome her to the House, and I hope to hear more

questions and suggestions.

The member has important feedback, as do all members of this

House, about how we address this important issue.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey South, supplemental.

E. Sturko: Thank you, Premier Eby, for the warm welcome. I do appreciate

that.

I also have to say, and agree with you, that advocacy for people

who are vulnerable is important, but keeping people safe as the Attorney

General for British Columbia was also an important job — one which, I

would argue, was not done properly, because there were, on average, six

people in the city of Vancouver alone who were victims of random violent

attacks in this province.

People are fed up with the Premier’s long-standing coddling of

criminals and his putting criminal rights over the rights of the public

to feel safe. They’re well aware of his long anti-police

history.

He supported and enabled anarchists protesting the 2010 Olympics.

He opposed police as a militant activist with Pivot Legal Society, and

police officers who were there at the time said he even distributed

laminated cards to assist drug dealers on the Downtown Eastside, showing

them how to frustrate police investigations.

Under his watch, it has become standard practice that violent

prolific offenders are arrested and then often released before the

police can even finish the paperwork As former sergeant and 24-year VPD

veteran Curtis Robinson said: “The Premier was one of those voices that

stood in the way of active and effective enforcement. He drove a wedge

between effective policing and those who were active in

crime.”

[2:20 p.m.]

Given his long track record of standing in the way of law

enforcement, why would anyone trust the soft-on-crime Premier to deliver

anything other than the terrible results we’ve seen over the past five

years?

Hon. D. Eby: The issue of crime in our communities, whether it’s random

stranger attacks, prolific property crime, is an issue that is front of

mind for British Columbians, and it’s a priority for our

government.

The announcement on Sunday…. I know the member saw it. I know she

saw the police officers lined up…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …with me and with key ministers for Public Safety, Mental Health

and Addictions, and Housing. This is a complex issue. We’re talking

about all these different challenges.

Doug LePard, the former chief of police who we re­tained to

do the expert report: “I was extremely impressed. It was more than we

expected to happen so soon. All of it is…highly consistent with our

recommendations or discussions. So of course, we’re very pleased

government is taking such a definitive and substantial action on these

very complex issues.”

I worked with Doug when he was at the VPD and I was at Pivot. The

member’s cartoonish version of my work is not what happened.

This is….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. D. Eby: Working together is the core of how we respond to these issues.

Addressing mental health and addiction issues in a comprehensive way is

what’s going to help us get ahead of this crisis, and I’m excited to get

to work on that.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON

FOSSIL FUEL

INDUSTRY

S. Furstenau: On behalf of our caucus, we welcome and congratulate the

Premier.

I have a question for the Premier. Will he commit to no new or

expanded fossil fuel projects in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the welcome. I look

forward to working with her and her colleague in this place.

Like the member, the government has a very serious concern about

climate change and B.C. maintaining our position of leadership on the

issue of climate change. That’s why we have the CleanBC plan.

The Minister of Environment has just returned from a global

conference addressing these important issues, making sure that we are up

to date and able to respond and that our economy is one that helps

respond to the critical issues of climate change, prevent climate change

and ensure strong and secure jobs for all British Columbians.

On the specific issue of emissions from oil and gas, we have very

clear legislated targets for 2030 and 2050. Any proposed project needs

to fit within those targets.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Just to be clear, the question wasn’t on emissions. The question

was on new or expanded fossil fuel projects.

I think it’s very important that British Columbians learn, from

this Premier, his vision on climate and climate action, particularly

when it comes to expanding fossil fuel projects. The conference from

which the Environment Minister just returned, headed by the UN

Secretary-General, has made it abundantly clear, for years now, that

there is no room for expansion of fossil fuels in any country —

certainly not in B.C., where we’re nowhere near on track to meeting our

emission targets in any way.

The Premier was recently quoted in the Globe and Mail . He

stated: “We cannot continue to subsidize fossil fuels and expect clean

energy to manifest somehow. We cannot continue to expand fossil fuel

infrastructure and hit our climate goals.”

I agree with the Premier wholeheartedly on these statements.

Here’s his opportunity to make it very clear in this House and on the

record.

Will the Premier commit to British Columbians that there will be

no new or expanded fossil fuel projects in this province?

Hon. D. Eby: I and all of my colleagues are committed to the CleanBC plan and

committed to hitting our 2030 and 2050 targets around emissions. We’ve

been clear about that since forming government, and that remains our

commitment to the Third Party and to all British Columbians.

ACTION ON COMMUNITY SAFETY

AND ROLE OF

PREMIER

T. Stone: One of the most fundamental jobs of govern­ment is to keep

people safe. But every single day in Vancouver alone, four people are

subject to random and violent assaults.

[2:25 p.m.]

On the weekend, prolific offender Glen Asselin attacked a mother

and her 13-month-old child, deliberately spitting on the child in the

stroller. Now, this is a criminal who is well known to police for

previous assault and weapon charges. This morning he was up on

bail.

Also, this past weekend we learned of Mohammed Adada, a dangerous

prolific offender with a long criminal record, including five different

assault convictions in just the past 18 months. He was arrested for

assault with a weapon but was released, and promptly violated his bail

conditions. The Vancouver police have issued a warning that he is very

dangerous and a threat to public safety.

If the Premier had acted even just six months ago, then perhaps

criminals like Glen Asselin and Mohammed Adada would not have had the

opportunity to be out on bail and assault more innocent

people.

The question to the Premier is this. How does the Premier look

into the eyes of the hundreds and hundreds of victims of violent and

random attacks and explain to them why, for the past five years, he has

put the rights of prolific offenders to reoffend ahead of the rights of

innocent British Columbians to be safe in their communities?

Hon. D. Eby: You know, I imagine a mom and her young kid going down the street

and facing this kind of attack the member described…. It’s incredibly

disturbing to all British Columbians — and not just all British

Columbians, all Canadians. This very issue of people being involved in

attacks and being released on bail, under new federal rules, was the

core topic of discussion at the federal-provincial-territorial meeting

of all the provinces and territories across Canada.

Now, this quote will be interesting, I think, for the member, to

help him understand the complex nature of this federal challenge. It’s

the Manitoba Justice Minister, Kelvin Goertzen, talking about federal

bail provisions at that Halifax meeting. “The Manitoba government came

with a clear message that too many violent offenders are being granted

bail only to then victimize someone else while on bail. I was pleased

that all provinces agreed that there need to be changes to federal bail

provisions in order to protect our communities.”

I’ve talked to Prime Minister Trudeau about this. I’ve talked to

the federal Public Safety Minister about this. I’ve talked with our

regional cabinet representative about this. We will continue to advocate

at the federal level to get those rules changed.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, what’s required is less talk and more action. British

Columbians want results. They don’t want any more announcements. They

want this government to get on with helping make them feel safer in

their communities. This Attorney General has had five years to do

exactly that.

Here’s what British Columbians know. They know about the Premier’s

long history of anti-police actions before he entered politics. They

know that through deliberate policy choices, for five years as Attorney

General, the Premier became the architect of catch and release, and that

he then refused to acknowledge that the resulting massive increase in

random assaults was even real.

They know that the Premier then said he couldn’t act and that he

then sat on solutions for months, for his own political purposes, while

people continued to be randomly attacked — 900 people in Vancouver alone

since the mayors wrote to the Attorney General last April.

At any point in the past five years — heck, the last year — he

could have taken action, but he didn’t. He didn’t make victims the

priority. Why? Because repeat offenders have always been his priority.

He knowingly sat there as Attorney General for five years, and did

nothing. Playing politics with the safety of British Columbians is

disgraceful.

The question to the Premier is this. Why did the Premier not act

months ago? Why did he not act months ago to keep British Columbians

safe from repeat criminals like Glen Asselin and Mohammed Adada, and why

should anyone trust this soft-on-crime Premier to actually deliver

policies that are the complete opposite of everything that he has

believed in and fought for his entire adult life?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s hard to know where to begin with the member’s question, but

what I can say is that one of the first things….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: One of the first things I did as Attorney General, when I was

briefed on the fact that our casinos were being used as a laundromat for

international criminal proceeds of crime….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Premier will continue.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: When I was briefed that our casinos were being used as a

laundromat for the proceeds of crime for international criminal

organizations, I took action. I know that the members on that side knew

about that issue.

Taking the role of Premier is a serious business, and protecting

British Columbians is a serious business for me. That is why the first

announcement, on a Sunday, I laid out a comprehensive plan with the

support of police, non-profit service providers, Indigenous

leadership….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Thank you, Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Please continue.

Hon. D. Eby: There are two tracks. There’s enforcement, and there’s

intervention. Simply because we understand mental health and addiction

issues doesn’t mean we put up with violent attacks in our

communities.

That’s why there are two tracks intervening to help people break

the cycle, but also support for police, inte­grated teams of

police, prosecutors and probation wor­kers to address offenders in

our communities. This is critically important.

S. Bond: The former Attorney General stands up in the House today as the

new Premier, and he talks….

Interjections.

S. Bond: He talks about how disturbing the attacks are. They were

disturbing. They were disturbing when he was sitting in his chair as the

Attorney General. What did he do about that, despite ideas, suggestions

and complaints from across the province? Absolutely nothing. British

Columbians paid the price. It is on his shoul­ders — the fact that

people continued to be attacked while he sat in that chair and sat on,

apparently, the ideas he came up with on Sunday.

Day after day under this Attorney General’s watch, criminals were

caught and released.

Justin Collins, released with the agreement of provincial

prosecutors, having 400 police files.

Mohammed Majidpour, a criminal with 30 convictions and charged

with hitting a young woman over the head with a steel pole in a racist

assault, but released only two hours later to reoffend.

Kenneth Solowan, released despite a brutal machete attack, only to

immediately breach his conditions.

Tyler Newton, released, again, with the agreement of prosecutors,

despite being a convicted killer with 51 convictions and facing assault

and weapons charges.

The Premier sat two chairs over while every single one of these

events occurred, and he did nothing. The fact of the matter is he

ignored the solutions that were offered while criminals reoffended and

viciously attacked British Columbians.

How does this Premier expect anyone in British Columbia to believe

a word he says when he sat there for six years and allowed chaos to

reign on the streets of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. This is a very serious

matter for people across the province, and not just across our province,

across Canada.

I know the member knows this. The federal government changed the

bail rules. There were major Supreme Court of Canada decisions about

them that made it harder to hold violent offenders. This was the main

topic of ministers responsible for justice coming together at the

federal, provincial and territorial meeting, pushing the federal

government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. We have heard the opposition already, please.

Hon. D. Eby: …pushing the federal government to make those changes.

In my first conversation with Prime Minister Trudeau, I raised

this issue with him and with the Public Safety Minister. I raised this

issue with him. I will continue to advo­cate on that. And that

does not mean that the province doesn’t have a critical role to play

here.

We have new violent offender teams in place — peer-assisted teams

to help support police, so they don’t have to respond to every call of a

person in crisis. A new model of addictions care under work at St.

Paul’s. Important work.

[2:35 p.m.]

I’m so proud of my colleagues who have been doing this work and

delivering for British Columbians, but we know there’s so much more to

do.

I’ll just say, on a somewhat lighter note at the end of question

period, that I understand it is the member’s birthday. I want to wish

her a happy birthday.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

EXTENSION OF LEGISLATIVE

SITTING

HOURS

Hon. M. Farnworth: The motion I’m about to move has been shared with the opposition

parties.

By leave, I move:

[That, notwithstanding Standing Order 2 (1), the adjournment time of

the sittings of the House commencing at 1.30 p.m. on Monday, November

21, 2022, Tuesday, November 22, 2022, and Wednesday, November 23, 2022,

be modified to

a. 9 p.m. on Monday, November 21, 2022, and Tuesday,

Novem­ber 22, 2022, and

b. 10 p.m. on Wednesday, November 23,

And further, that this modified time of adjournment extend to the

application of Standing Order 3 and to the

interpretation of the

ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House in the Sessional Order

adopted by the House on March 7, 2022, enabling certain proceedings of

the House to be undertaken in three sections.]

Leave granted.

T. Stone: I just wanted to offer some comments on this motion.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

T. Stone: Perfect. Thank you.

On behalf of the official opposition, I just wanted to take a

minute or two to provide some feedback to the Government House Leader,

some of which he has already heard. But for the benefit, I think, of

everybody, it needs to be said in this place.

This particular motion, which adds hours to the final session

week, a couple of hours tonight and tomorrow, three on Wednesday, and

that also provides for opening up a third room…. I believe it will be

the Birch Room.

While this is welcome in terms of adding additional capacity to

the very important work that is required to be done with the legislation

in front of us, I want to be very, very clear that having this chamber,

the Douglas Fir Room, the Birch Room and these additional hours is still

not going to allow for adequate and thorough and thoughtful debate of

the entire legislative package that’s in front of this House, nor is it

going to allow for, I think, the thoughtful debate that’s required on

two net-new bills that were introduced just this morning, which is

almost unprecedented, as far as I understand — with four days left in a

session, that two substantive bills would be introduced on a net-new

basis.

As a reminder for the House. with four days left, there are a

number of bills that still require second reading, not the least of

which is the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services

Amendment Act, Bill 38 — a very important bill that I know a number of

members of this House still wish to speak to.

There is Bill 37, which is the Energy Statutes Amendment Act.

There is Bill 39, Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act. There remains

a tremendous amount of committee work that is required to be completed,

not the least of which is Bill 36, the Health Professions and

Occupations Act. I believe that committee is, perhaps, at

section 60 or

65 of a 600-section bill.

There is Bill 41, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2),

and Bill 42, which involves the provincial sales tax. That is also in

committee. Bill 40, passenger transportation.

The point I’m trying to make is that prior to even introducing two

additional bills this morning, there is no conceivable way that what is

in front of this House in second reading, that requires second reading

and requires completion in committee — that there is adequate time to do

this thoughtfully and thoroughly.

What does this mean? This means that, at some point in the next

coming couple of days, this House should expect that the Government

House Leader will rise in this place, and he will move another motion,

which is becoming common with this government, to impose time allocation

or closure, which will restrict the continued debate on this critical

legislation which is in front of us, that will prevent all of the

necessary questions from being asked. That is not, we believe, how this

place is supposed to operate.

[2:40 p.m.]

I acknowledged, back on November 3, when I made remarks on behalf

of the official opposition, when this government brought forward a

motion to rip out of the parliamentary calendar four sitting days last

week in order to, purportedly, accommodate the incoming Premier’s

swearing-in ceremony, which was on the Friday…. They cancelled the

Monday through Thursday, all of that time there that could have, and

should have, been used for debate in these chambers. They ripped that

time out.

I said at the time that whether this is just sloppiness on the

government’s part, whether it’s some incompetence, whether it’s a

disregard for this place, the government of British Columbia does not

dictate to this chamber, down to the hour, as a matter of practice, how

much time should be spent on any particular bill. It has the standing

orders to be able to do that at the end of the day, but that is a heavy

hammer that this government is increasingly using.

I will add one further point. This motion here today: again, while

it does add some additional capacity — and while, I think I’ve been

clear, it will not enable us to thoroughly and thoughtfully debate all

of the remaining legislation — it does not take into account the two new

bills that were introduced this morning.

I would like to point out that this comes on the heels…. There’s

the erosion of the parliamentary calendar, as we’ve seen, through

cancelling last week; the erosion of the set hours that everyone in this

place agrees to at the front end of a session; the erosion of fixed

election dates, which we saw; the calling of a pandemic election — on

and on it goes. The erosion of accountability measures and mechanisms

that were put in place through the 2000s to ensure maximum

accountability and to ensure thoughtful and thorough debate of

legislation brought forward by the government of the day — all of this

is being compromised.

We will support these additional hours that are provided for in

this motion. We will do so because we’re here to do our jobs and to

work. I’ve also said to the Government House Leader that we would be

more than happy to stay and be here on Friday. We would be more than

happy to be here next week and the week after and the week after, if

necessary, to ensure that all of the critical legislation which is on

the order paper, including the two net new bills introduced this

morning, receive the appropriate scrutiny that British Columbians are

expecting all of us to be doing here while we are in session.

A. Olsen: Just a few comments on behalf of the Third Party. I want to, first

of all, acknowledge the fact that we did stand — I think it was on

November 3 — to talk about the previous motion, which removed four days

of debate on the legislation that we’re resuming today.

I want to acknowledge the fact that we are now having a discussion

today about extending some time for us to debate the legislation that’s

in front of us. I think it should be acknowledged that the result of the

comments that were made is a recognition that there is an incredible

amount of work on the legislation that the government has asked this

House to consider, including two new pieces of legislation, as has been

previously pointed out.

I still do think that we get to a situation at the end of this

week where government is going to have to bring a motion for time

allocation. We continue to be, as the Third Party, troubled by a

practice that does not allow the opposition, on behalf of the people of

British Columbia….

We’re here. We’re paid to be here to scrutinize this legislation.

It’s an important part of the process, as the new Premier and as the

government know well. Without repeating myself — I spoke at length to

the previous motion — I want to say that we also will be here for as

long as necessary in order to debate these bills.

[2:45 p.m.]

If that means having to disrupt life or meetings that have been

planned in our constituencies in order to do it, recognizing that next

week there are some planned events that I think a lot of the members

here will be at, I do want to also extend to the government that it is a

better choice to ask us to come back here and do that work than it is to

invoke closure or time allocation.

That is, of course, recognizing that there is a great deal of time

that is spent on both sides of this House during committee stage of the

debate. I think that there is an opportunity for all the members — both

those who are asking questions and those who are answering questions,

the ministers — to maybe tighten up a little bit and ensure that we can

use the time that we have in front of us this week as efficiently and as

best as we possibly can on behalf of British Columbians.

That said, we’ve got a ton of work.

With that, I’m going to take my seat. But I just want to let the

government know that we are prepared to be here for as long as necessary

in order to do the work that British Columbians have asked us to

do.

HISW̱ḴE SIÁM.

M. de Jong: I feel compelled to make just a few comments. The Opposition House

Leader and the representative from the House Leader for the Third Party

have, I think, appropriately and accurately spoken to the short-term

challenges that the House faces when we take into account the

legislative agenda that remains before us. I also think that it is worth

just taking a moment to pause and reflect on the longer-term

consequences of what really does amount to the final and definitive

dismantling of the procedural safeguards that were developed over a

period of time to guard against the manipulation of

governments.

And by the way, I don’t say this…. Well, I suppose I do, in part.

When I talk about the manipulation by governments, that is Premiers’

offices. It’s ironic that there are two members in this chamber who

recall the days when the House sat regularly to all hours of the night.

Members had no idea when the House would adjourn. Members had no idea

when it would be recalled. One member did: the Premier. And Premiers of

different political stripes used that power very effectively to

manipulate and try to secure a political advantage.

At a certain point, the members of this chamber determined

collectively that that wasn’t a really effective way to conduct business

— to be here at 10:30 at night, with members, at a minimum, mentally

tired and sometimes worse, was not the best way to conduct business —

and established a set of rules.

Now, the point — and everyone in this House is going to say, “But

we’ve already just heard” — is that people are prepared. They are here.

They take their duty seriously. They want to work for as long and hard

as it as it takes. But the decision was made to bring some regularity to

ensure that legislation received proper scrutiny, responsible scrutiny.

That’s not to say that these things didn’t need to be changed from time

to time. And they were, but they were changed after consultation between

the parties, usually via the House Leaders.

We live with some of those changes. The notion of a question

period on a Tuesday or Thursday morning would have been thought a

heresy. It’s now a regular feature of this House. But it doesn’t change

at the whim of government or a Premier’s office, yet that is what we are

now confronted by.

There is a difference between flexibility and manipulation.

Flexibility is necessary when we are confronted by circumstances beyond

our control. We just had a pandemic. No one in this House challenged the

need or the appropriateness of the government making some changes to the

procedures and the sitting schedules of this House. Natural disasters

would fall into that category.

[2:50 p.m.]

It becomes manipulation when it is the result of decisions that

lay squarely within the control of government, and everything we are

doing today relates to decisions that rested squarely within the control

of government.

The door is now being reopened. We’re going back to night

sittings. The parliamentary calendar has been changed, because the party

that happens to be in power presently has decided that was more

convenient. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because there are people in this

chamber that will be here longer than I will be here in the future. I

believe we will regret this, because once done, it will be done again.

There will always be a reason for a Premier’s office to decide that one

more bill, one more piece of legislation can be squeezed into the

agenda.

To believe the Attorney General, who tabled the bills this

morning, they are important pieces of legislation. We don’t have four

days. We’ll have three days, and to responsibly debate those bills

involves speaking to others, but on an issue that the government and the

new Premier says is of fundamental importance, this assembly will devote

two days.

The motion is going to pass. The House is going to return and

sanction nighttime sittings. It’ll be nine o’clock. It’ll be ten

o’clock. Maybe it’ll be 11 o’clock. Maybe it’ll be two o’clock in the

morning. I take it that it is convenient for the government to do that,

but it, to my mind, represents a step backwards. To my mind, it

represents a form of manipulation, because it is being done for the

wrong reasons. It is being done to score political advantage, and I

think that’s wrong.

Motion approved.

PROCEEDINGS IN COMMITTEE

OF THE WHOLE,

SECTION

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That, further to the Sessional Order adopted by the House on March

7, 2022 enabling certain proceedings of the House to be undertaken in

three sections,

a.

Section C be authorized to consider bills at

committee stage after second reading thereof, and for all purposes be

deemed to be a Committee of the Whole House, and that the Standing

Orders relating to the consideration of bills in a Committee of the

Whole House be applicable to such proceedings,

b.

Section C be authorized to examine any public bill

appearing on the Orders of the Day at committee stage, which may be

considered in the order determined by the Government House Leader in

accordance with Standing Order 27 (2), and

c. the membership of

Section C include the Minister in

charge of the bill under consideration.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate, Bill 38,

Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment

Act.

In

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

Whole, Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 40,

Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2).

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[2:55 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — INDIGENOUS SELF-GOVERNMENT

IN CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

K. Paddon: I’m happy to continue speaking to Bill 38, the Indigenous

Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act, and I just

have a few more comments that I think are important that I’d like to

share on behalf of what I’m hearing in my community as well as what I’ve

had the privilege of learning over the course of my career.

Just to catch it back up, to bring it back to where we were,

Indigenous children involved in the provincial care system need to be

able to stay connected to their families, to their communities, to their

culture, but under the current laws, that just isn’t a reality. Despite

the best efforts of many, many professionals, many people who care very

deeply about the system and who endeavour every day to serve the

children that are in their care, the system itself is, in fact, rooted

in racism.

The child welfare system, which is rooted in colonial laws, has

been focused on the removal of children and has, traumatically, resulted

in a disproportionate number of Indigenous children and youth in care.

For myself, as a parent, I can’t imagine a topic, an area of life, that

would trigger in me more passionate response than around my children,

and I know that I’m not alone in that. My family around me, chosen or

biological, would feel that same passion. They are equally committed to

my children.

I have had the benefit — and we know this from research, and we

know this from feedback — of a benefit, by virtue of how I look and the

community to which I have been assigned, that just has not been there

for Indigenous families. I think it is critical to recognize that this

is a truth, and it’s a truth that’s been shared repeatedly with

us.

Like I mentioned before, this is despite work and research and

best efforts and a true heartfelt commitment by people who work within

and around the system. These changes are long overdue, and I’m very,

very excited that there are some First Nations who are already on the

path. There are four First Nations who have been in conversation and are

prepared to assume this jurisdiction. One of those communities is

Sts’ailes First Nation, and they are in Chilliwack-Kent.

I can’t tell you how excited I am to see people coming home, to

see the benefit of the culture and the focus of taking care of these

children, not only the children but the families, and an approach that

is truly aware not only of the current situation but of situations past

and that can begin to rebuild these systems that, for immeasurable time,

were supporting families, were supporting children and were

working.

These communities took care of families, of children, just like we

know it takes an entire community, just like we know it takes an entire

village. To come in with colonial ideas and attitudes and say: “This

doesn’t meet a standard….” Children and families were supported in these

First Nations for time immemorial, on the land.

I cannot express how happy I am that this bill addresses some of

that. For me, as a parent and as a community member in Chilliwack-Kent,

as someone who has seen, sometimes, the need for protection of children

— it’s a devastating and sad thing — but also the reunification of

families…. To know that this focuses all of that attention and provides

a path forward for that jurisdiction to be reclaimed where it should be

— my words can’t describe that.

[3:00 p.m.]

I would like to, for the purposes of this, just share the words of

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They

said:

“The colonial era of the province controlling child welfare must

come to an end, and this legislation cannot be passed soon enough. This

legislation holds the promise of finally affirming the inherent rights

of First Nations to ensure our children are with their families,

communities and people. It brings me incredible joy to think about this

change in my lifetime and for my grandchildren and

great-grandchildren.

“As Indigenous peoples, we have the right to exercise

self-determination over our children, and we are glad this is finally

being recognized through law.”

I’m going to end my remarks there, because I don’t think I can say

it any better. I could speak so long about the good that can come from

this work. I’m just so grateful.

I appreciate the time today. I look forward to hearing support

from across the chamber.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Saanich North and…. Oh, okay.

Member for Skeena.

E. Ross: Thank you to the House Leader for sitting down and allowing me to

speak.

Interjection.

E. Ross: You’re not an Elder, are you?

A. Olsen: No, you are my elder.

E. Ross: We’re speaking here on Bill 38, the Indigenous Self-Government in

Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

This is, like all Indigenous issues, something that not only did I

try and address as a chief councillor as well as an elected councillor.

I actually grew up with it. I live on reserve, in Kitamaat Village.

That’s where I was born and raised. I still live there today.

When I say live with it, I mean people in your family are

experiencing what we’re talking about here, meaning children in care.

What we’re talking about here is children going into government

care.

I’ve heard all the lofty speeches talking about self-determination

and self-governance in terms of Bill 38, but nobody has really talked

about the reality of what happens on the ground in these First Nations

communities.

A little bit of information here. When we’re talking about First

Nations communities, we’re not just talking about First Nations villages

like what I live in. We’re talking about new communities in the Downtown

Eastside of Vancouver. We’re talking about new communities in urban

settings — in Terrace, in Prince George, all across British Columbia —

what we refer to as off-reserve First Nations people.

Anything that’s got to do with First Nations people, especially

vulnerable First Nations people, has always been one of the most

stressful topics I’ve ever come across. When we’re talking about

self-governance and self-determination…. I’ve always tried to make it a

point to make this House understand that’s exactly what we’ve been

trying to do for the last 20 years but not specifically in these kinds

of bills. A lot of progressive First Nations took a different

route.

Yes,

section 35 of the constitution was there. Yes, the case law

was there. But the whole push to engage in economic development, as

outlined by the courts of B.C. and Canada, was really the pathway for

many First Nations to address their own issues on their own terms,

including what we’re talking about here, Bill 38, the Indigenous

Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

That’s why it was so disappointing to read the Hansard

and to understand that a lot of members in this House that are now

sitting on that side of the House opposed LNG without even understanding

where LNG came from in the first place. The idea of exporting LNG to

Asia did not come from the B.C. Liberals. It came from my band, the

Haisla. It took seven painful years to convince the government of the

day that this was the right thing to do not just for us but for the

province, for the region, for the country. Now we’re starting to see the

results of that.

[3:05 p.m.]

Self-determination without bills like this is a reality for bands

like my own. Self-determination for bands like the Kitselas is becoming

a reality because of their push to be involved in forestry. That

includes old-growth logging. That includes mining. The turnaround that

LNG development has done for many First Nations has now given them the

ability to do what we’re talking about here, in terms of Bill 38,

without the need for Bill 38.

Economic development, under

section 35 of the constitution, has

done more for First Nations than any other government program in the

history of Canada or B.C. If you don’t believe me, come visit my

community. Come see everything that we’re doing in terms of programs

that do not need government funding.

The only thing missing out of this was the capacity and the

revenue to do it on their own terms. That was all that was missing. Now

it’s there. Mind you, I will argue that the capacity is not there in

terms of taking over the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family

Service Amendment Act.

By the way, I did promote this initiative when I was the chief

councillor at Haisla. I did bring this idea to my band council. I had

read the stories, just like everybody else.

My community wanted an answer for a First Nations person that fell

out of a hotel window down on the Lower Mainland. The question back then

was whether or not the provincial government was failing Aboriginal

people.

I did not agree, yes or no, but I did say: “We have an opportunity

to be the solution. We have the revenue. We can build the

infrastructure. We have the expertise.” The question became: do we have

the capacity? It became obvious. No, we don’t. Do we have the appetite

for liability and responsibility? The answer became: no, we

don’t.

This is a huge issue. To gloss over it and say how

every­thing is going to be rosy for the future — everybody is

going to love the culture and language — is false, and it’s dangerous.

If you live through this experience of seeing children in care and

seeing your own cousins, your nephews, your nieces and your uncles going

into government care, you will know that this is not the place to talk

politics. If there was ever a time to talk reality, now is the

time.

This is a serious issue. What troubles me the most about the

speeches, let alone the bill, is that we’re talking about culture and

language. Such a high priority. Such a noble cause. Everything is going

to be great. I could care less about culture and language unless you

talk about safety.

I can tell you right now. For the people that I’ve seen go into

government care or seen their children go into government care…. The

last things they talked about were culture and language. It’s not a

priority for me. For everybody I’ve talked to, whether it be family

members or friends, nobody has ever said: “I really wish I’d get to

learn my culture and language while I’m in government care, even though

I’ve been passed around to five or six different foster families.”

Nobody has ever brought that up.

The safety of the child should be the priority. This should be the

discussion we’re talking about here. Any child…. It doesn’t matter if

you’re Aboriginal or not, the safety of the child….

When you’re talking about keeping a child close to their culture,

close to their language, you’re really talking about keeping that child

in their community. Who is going to guarantee the safety of that child

when that child was probably apprehended, in the first place, because of

abuse, maybe neglect, maybe sexual abuse or all the above? This is the

ugly reality of poverty in First Nation communities. I know it’s not a

great topic, but it happens. It happens today.

Some First Nations, I agree, have covered this off. I do agree.

But they’ve done it very painfully, very slowly and understanding that

responsibility and liability come with the idea of taking over

jurisdiction of children in care.

[3:10 p.m.]

The Splatsin First Nation, for example, is a great model. If we

could use that as a framework for how to get this done in First Nations

communities, great. They’ve already learned the lessons, whether you’re

talking about the people that are living inside the community, how to

deal with them; or their band members living off reserve in urban

communities. They’ve figured it out. More often than not, there’s still

more to work out, but hopefully, the First Nations that actually

participate in this understand a couple of things.

You’re going to need a lesson in liability and responsibility.

There’s a reason why the Splatsin First Nation takes out insurance on

their programs, because that liability doesn’t go away just because

you’ve taken jurisdiction. It does not go away. In fact, it hits closer

to home, because now it’s your chief and council inside your community

that are dealing with it and not the provincial government or not the

federal government, whatever the case may be. That is what I’m talking

about when I’m talking about capacity: the capacity to understand the

liability and responsibility that comes with a topic this close to my

heart.

I’ll just read some of the stories in terms of what happens to

children in care. We’ve already talked about abuses, but it’s no secret

that the children in care suffer from death and suicides. It’s no

different from First Nations children.

The one advantage my band had, through the development of LNG

exports, was that we did have revenues. We did have that financial

capability to fully fund this. A lot of First Nations don’t have this

advantage. The question becomes: how much funding gets forwarded to

these First Nations from government, whether it be the federal

government or the provincial government?

That is one of the things we’re going to talk about here today,

especially if we make it to the committee stage. The provincial

government aims to develop a fiscal framework in partnership with First

Nation communities and in consultation with key Indigenous organizations

on how to actually implement Bill 38. We also have to understand that

this will be optional.

There will be questions. The same questions I had ten years ago

are the same questions I’ll have today, especially in committee stage.

Like the jurisdiction. Ultimately, when you talk about jurisdiction,

you’re talking about authority. But in my experience, when government

develops programs, there’s always a level of authority that the

government retains. That could be over a seven-year period, or it could

be forever.

Let’s take the land management code, for example. The land

management code was implemented by the federal government a number of

years ago. It actually gave a lot of responsibility and liability to

First Nations bands to manage their own reserve lands, but the First

Nation had to develop a comprehensive land management plan that included

liability and responsibility. It gave them, probably, 95 percent

jurisdiction over those reserve lands. That 5 percent that they didn’t

have was actually retained by the federal government for liability

purposes, because ultimately, the First Nation question was still under

the Indian Act.

In this question here, when we’re talking about Bill 38, we’re

talking about First Nations children on reserve, and we’re also talking

about children off reserve. In either case, both those demographics are

still under the Indian Act, if they have a status card. So in terms of

the liability responsibility, where is the jurisdiction going to

lie?

[3:15 p.m.]

Where is it going to lie if the worst-case scenario happens? If

there is a death of a child, if there is neglect, if there is abuse,

where does that liability lie? Does it lie with the First Nation in

question? If that’s the case, it’s got to be made clear, because the

First Nation better get a lot of insurance.

If that’s not the case, and the federal government backstops the

First Nations jurisdiction over children in care, when does the federal

government step in? Or in this case, if the proxy is the provincial

government, when does the provincial government step in and take

responsibility in the case of a death? These are all issues that a lot

of First Nations have already covered. This is not new. At the summit

that gets held annually in Vancouver, they bring this topic up, but

nobody talks about the details.

When we’re talking about the funding, this is going to take a lot

of funding for even half the bands in B.C. to implement. If there are

204 bands in B.C. and only 100 participate in this program, that means

an incredible amount of money is needed to operate this program. Never

mind the training; never mind the amount of legal fees in setting up the

structures and the roles and responsibilities. This is going to mean a

lot of money.

One of the questions I’ll have is: is there a goal of reducing

duplication? The way I see it, now there’ll be three levels of

government overseeing the jurisdiction of children in care with Bill 38.

They’ll be the federal government, which has the overall responsibility

to First Nations people in Canada, status First Nations; there’ll be the

provincial government, which will be actually developing the fiscal

framework for First Nations; and then there’ll be the First Nations

themselves. That’s a lot of bureaucracy. Trying to figure out who’s

responsible in which situation is going to be a nightmare, unless you

talk about the safety of the child.

I’m sure that there are a lot of plans out there already in terms

of how language programs get funded, how cultural programs get funded,

but not yet have I heard one conversation about the safety of the child

in question. In my experience, especially in the conversations I have

with my people, as well as with my council, “safety” came up at the top

of all our conversations. Language and culture were maybe fourth or

fifth. Why? It’s because when you’re having a conversation about safety,

you’re also talking about the well-being of a child.

Over the years, when I’ve come across these types of files, it was

obvious to me that there was too much political, feel-good language in

these types of discussions. In a perfect world, yes, we do want our

children surrounded by our culture and language — and, possibly, even

our family. But realistically, you can’t have that if the child isn’t

safe. I’ve had arguments already where a white, non-Aboriginal

grandparent was not allowed to look after their Aboriginal child just

because of the race of the grandparent, yet safety was key.

Why? It’s because politicians truly believed that the priorities

were culture, language, community. But if that environment is not safe,

none of that matters. You get short-term political goals and political

wins, but that child becomes part of the system forever, and not just in

terms of care. That child goes on to other bad decisions, made by

themselves and others, and prison is on the roadmap for every First

Nation. That is what we’re trying to change.

[3:20 p.m.]

For the first time in history, we got progress. It all came from a

simple saying of my late uncle Heber Maitland, who was chief councillor

of our band. He simply said: “We want a share and a say, and we want the

ability to address our own issues on our own terms.”

This legislation will help. It will, if the First Nation takes up

that option. But that is only one component of how to resolve the

violence of poverty that many First Nations experience all across

Canada, not just in B.C.

I really wouldn’t care, myself, if that First Nation child in

question was with a non-native family in another community if I knew,

100 percent, that that child was safe. If that child was safe and their

well-being was taken care of, even better. If that child was being loved

and succeeding in school, even better.

That’s not saying that the community can’t evolve and that the

family can’t evolve. But for a community to provide a safe environment,

that community has to evolve themselves. The family has to evolve.

You’ve got to prove, especially to me, although I’m not in charge….

You’ve got to prove to me that that community, that house and that

environment are safe, above all. There’s too much riding on it. There

are so many personal decisions that come into play in terms of

that.

Many First Nations talk about calling it “Stop the cycle.” But

what a lot of people don’t understand is…. If you’re depending on

government to stop that cycle, you’re, sadly, out of luck. It’s not

going to work. Government can forward money. They can develop programs.

But it’s really a personal decision to stop the cycle, in terms of not

continuing whatever it was that happened to you. Don’t pass that down on

to the next generation.

In terms of the bill we’re talking about here, in terms of the

jurisdiction…. I do know that this flows from a government decision. I

do know that. There are questions that I do have in terms of the

lingering responsibilities and liabilities of the Crown, whether we’re

talking about the provincial Crown or the federal Crown. We’re also

talking about where the government retains its responsibility to First

Nations people across Canada. How does that play out? A lot of First

Nations would call this strings attached or paternalistic types of

programs.

I know the devil will be in the detail in terms of, maybe, some

type of template agreement that we’ll possibly see. This is why I’m

suggesting…. The Splatsin First Nation has got a great template. They’re

the first to admit that it’s not perfect, but they’ve already worked out

the major kinks. They’ve already agreed…. For the most part, everything

that’s happening outside the reserve depends on partnerships with

third-party organizations to look after all their band members all

across British Columbia.

My point is that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel here. There’s

a working model in northeastern B.C. that we can use and take lessons

from. They’ve got a great website. They did a workshop, and they invited

leaders from all across B.C. to participate in asking the really tough

questions. What I like about that video is that they didn’t shy away

from the questions. They actually, with open arms, appreciated the

partnerships and working relationships with different organizations,

including the RCMP.

[3:25 p.m.]

I know that to work with the RCMP today is not viewed as positive,

but many First Nations across B.C., including my own, actually wanted

more RCMP presence. You’d go to a public meeting, and they’d ask: “Why

are the RCMP not in our communities more often, especially on

weekends?”

In many First Nations communities, this is actually a positive

relationship with the RCMP people in how to make it better. So listening

to the negative remarks on the RCMP across B.C., and even in this

Legislature — that’s not the experience we had. In fact, in our

community, the RCMP actually opened up an office and participated in our

community events, working with children, going to the schools, coming to

our feasts, coming to all the functions that actually made us a

community. That made them part of our community and actually opened up

that trust. But at the end of the day, law and order…. That’s what our

people wanted: law and order.

There are a lot of different moving parts to this bill, and it’s

brought me back to a time when I was trying to fix everything in my

community. Unfortunately, I couldn’t fix everything. I just didn’t have

enough time, and there was no political will to actually address some of

the things I wanted to do in terms of Indigenous self-government,

especially when we’re talking about it now in terms of Bill 38. Mind

you, I did not have the Splatsin example. I didn’t have that.

As we move into committee stage, and I’m hoping we move into

committee stage, these are questions that I’ll have in terms of

liability, capacity, finances and the lingering responsibility of

government as well. I’ll also be looking for more conversation in terms

of the provisions that actually speak to the safety of the child first.

It’s not about language and culture, not about community. The safety of

the child. I doubt any member of this Legislature would disagree with me

on that.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to speak at second reading to Bill

38, Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment

Act.

This has been a challenging speech for me to prepare for. There

are many swirling emotions: anger, sadness and hope. I’ve had an extra

week for this to percolate. I wrote 25 pages. Then I rewrote it into a

much briefer 40 pages before settling on this 35 pages that I have with

me here today.

I’d like to start by just saying that some of the things that I’m

going to say here may be challenging for somebody here. I just want to

acknowledge that it may activate some people just because of the history

of where we have come from. Likely we’re going to go over the 30

minutes, so I note that I’m the designated speaker for our

caucus.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

A. Olsen: This speech is about the child welfare system in British Columbia,

specifically the Indigenous child welfare system. It’s a heinous story

of our past and our present. I discuss genocide; human experimentation;

psychological, physical, sexual and emotional abuse. I take some time to

highlight where we have come from and where we are. My hope is that in

telling this hideous truth, it doesn’t also be our future.

This bill comes with a lot of promise of a new era of

reconciliation. Indigenous people and communities are finally allowed to

self-determine, control their own child welfare policy, programs and

services.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

This bill was tabled on October 26, 2022, halfway through this

fall sitting. There were 17 scheduled sitting days left in the 2022

parliamentary calendar. On November 3, 2022, a Government House Leader

motion cancelled four sitting days, November 14 to 17, to reduce the

time for this debate. Second reading speeches had not yet been

completed. Committee stage debate had yet to begin.

[3:30 p.m.]

We are adjourning on Thursday, when the government needs this bill

to be completed for royal assent. I sincerely hope that at the end of

this week, this bill is not part of any time allocation motion. Further

reducing debate on this bill is unacceptable. After all the celebration

that has been done on this bill, this work that we do in this House

must, on behalf of all the kids that we’re going to talk about, be

thorough.

Duncan Campbell Scott joined the Department of In­dian

Affairs in 1879. He served as deputy superintendent from 1913 to 1932.

In 1920, he was quoted as saying: “I want to get rid of the Indian

problem. I do not think, as a matter of fact, that the country ought to

continuously protect a class of people who are able to stand alone…Our

objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada

that has not been absorbed into the body politic, there is no Indian

question and there is no Indian department.”

This philosophy is at the core of his Indigenous policy. Scott has

been called an extreme assimilationist, but in plain language, the

policy amounted to genocide. They admitted as much. He admitted as much.

They wanted to eliminate Indigenous cultures and Nations. Indigenous

people had too many legal rights and genuine claims to the land and

resources that our early parliamentarians wanted to control.

The plan was to deliberately undermine and erode language and

culture. At the same time, they outlawed our sacred rituals, ceremonies

and governance structures. They collected Indigenous people on to Indian

reserves, governed by the Indian Act — a racist law that still exists

today. Desperate underfunding created chronic intergenerational poverty.

Indigenous people endured relentless wave after wave after wave of

attacks on our ways of life.

Hundreds of Crown- and government-sanctioned, church-run day,

industrial and residential schools were opened. They, along with Indian

hospitals, unleashed an unspeakable hell across our country. The

government attacked families, deliberately breaking the bond between

parent and child. Indian agents and the RCMP rounded up children and

sent them to faraway residential institutions. Indigenous children were

separated from their siblings. They were punished for communicating with

their brothers, sisters and cousins.

When the parents learned what their children were suffering at the

hands of day school masters, they were threat­ened that the

government officials would scoop their kids and send them away to the

residential version if they said anything. If the children shared the

horrors of the residential schools with their parents and the parents

spoke up, then they were threatened that their children would not be

allowed to come home.

Generations of Indigenous children were taught not to trust, but

worse, they were taught to hate their parents for not intervening in the

experimentation, physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse.

For decades, we have heard about the child welfare system here in

British Columbia — the tentacles of Scott’s philosophy reaching into

today. We have heard about the Sixties Scoop, government agents taking

Indigenous children by the thousands and sending them far away from

their home territories to be adopted, fostered and raised by

non-Indigenous people.

The impact of these policies has been heartbreaking. As much as we

would prefer to believe that we are here today, cleaning up the mess

from the past, let us not forget that this bill, removing the

patriarchal, genocidal, extreme assimilationist child welfare philosophy

and replacing it with a self-determined, Indigenous-led child welfare

program, is the work that we are doing today.

[3:35 p.m.]

Pamela Palmater, chair in Indigenous governance at Toronto

Metropolitan University, is quoted in The Final Report of the

National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and

Girls , saying:

“So why is it so important to understand the history of genocide in

Canada? Because it’s not history. Today’s racist government laws,

policies and actions have proven to be just as deadly for Indigenous

peoples as the genocidal acts of the past. What used to be the theft of

Indigenous children into residential schools is now the theft of

children into provincial foster care. What used to be the scalping

bounties are now starlight tours — deaths in police custody.

“Racism for Indigenous people in Canada is not just about enduring

stereotypical insults and name-calling, being turned away for employment

or being vilified in the media by government officials. Racism is

killing our people.”

The government attacks were comprehensive. The focus was on

Indigenous women and children. The national inquiry heard, distilled and

articulated the facts of life for Indigenous women in Canada. The

statistics in the report, the numbers we hear regularly in the media,

paint a picture of the grim reality. They are the facts.

Indigenous women and girls are more likely to go missing, more

likely to be murdered, more likely to end up incarcerated, more likely

to experience sexual assaults and stranger violence, more likely to end

up in the sex trade. On and on and on it goes.

These Crown institutions have been waging war on Indigenous people

for centuries. While we tell stories about who we are — nice,

compassionate and apologetic Canadians — the reality is that our

government has been planning and executing an attempted annihilation

through systematic and institutional policy, targeting Indigenous women

and children. The statistics are really just an accounting, an

evaluation of the effectiveness of the stated Crown programs and

policies.

Indigenous women were segregated from their communities through

discriminatory gender laws. Their children were removed from them at

birth, often because of no fault of their own but because of poverty,

because the government had targeted their mothers, grandmothers and

aunties. Indigenous children were abducted from their families and

communities. They were adopted, fostered or sent to a group home to

languish, isolated, in a hostile world.

The legislation that we have before us is changing that British

Columbia child welfare system, that philosophy. The minister, former

ministers, the deputy minister and her predecessors are all characters

in this horror show.

We talk about the Sixties Scoop like it was an early

chapter in a

storybook, but the reality for Indigenous women, mothers and their

babies is that the ruthless attacks have never stopped. The scooping

continues to this day.

No matter how this government wants to draft the narrative of an

improving storyline, even before we pass this legislation and the new

regulations are in place, and the responsibility for the child welfare

system has been transferred from a minister sitting in this chamber to

an Indigenous leader in communities around the province, the members

here remain complicit actors in this script, ensuring that the

commitments marked by the celebrations indeed come true.

Indigenous leaders have been calling for these changes for

decades. They have been told that it cannot be done. They have been told

that Indigenous people cannot be trusted to raise our own children. Only

the state is equipped to know what is best for our families. Even as we

pause on September 30 to recognize the National Day for Truth and

Reconciliation, Orange Shirt Day, remembering all the children that were

sent away from their mothers and fathers to residential school, all the

children who did not come home from school…. We have framed it as in our

history.

Note. The child welfare systems that exist today are connected

directly to all those reprehensible events in history.

[3:40 p.m.]

Note. The underlying motivation for maintaining those systems

until very recently — like just a few short months ago, when this

minister began engaging Indigenous leaders on the drafting of this bill

— has been the same racist and discriminatory beliefs and philosophy

seeded by the deputy superintendent, Scott, and the Canadian identity

more than 100 years ago.

Through all the laws, policies and programs implemented by our

government that were designed to destroy Indigenous people to gain

control over the lands and re­sources, our families survived.

There are many of our rela­tives who are casualties of this war:

tens of thousands who died, were disabled and disconnected; cultures,

languages and knowledge-keepers reduced to a fraction of what they once

were.

I stand here today because of the resilience of my grandmother and

great aunties and aunties, the matriarchs whose babies were torn from

their clutches and sent away to have their Indigeneity purged from their

memories and their identity, those powerful women who encouraged me to

stand and speak truthfully to honour the spirit of the survival that

lives in their hearts.

While it is easy for members to stand in this chamber and

celebrate the turning of another page, the beginning of another chapter,

this moment is a long time in coming for leaders in Indigenous

communities. Our relatives have out endured and outlasted round after

round of punishment and attacks.

It is difficult to believe that it’s actually true. Has the Crown

really grown weary and weakened? Are they finally ready to submit? The

tabling of this bill has been celebrated as historic. However, very

little more has actually been accomplished today. This is not the end

but rather the beginning, and there is much more than the machinery of

genocide to dismantle.

How do we start a new

chapter in a good way? How do we honour all

of our relatives who did not survive the tortuous decades of government

policy? I’ve always been taught that atonement begins with an apology.

After the decades of the repugnant actions of this provincial Crown

government, we are changing the laws with celebration but no

apology.

In his ministerial statement at the tabling of this bill, the

former Premier, the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca, said the

following:

“Recognizing the inherent rights of Indigenous people to care for

their own children seems to me to be the easiest thing we could possibly

do, but it has taken us a great deal of time to get here. It is another

step along the way, and we need to do more. I want to say, on behalf of

the government of today, that we will acknowledge and atone for the

wrongs in the child welfare system and will engage with Indigenous

peoples to come up with the appropriate language to ensure that we

recognize and atone for the sins of the past, not those who are here

today but those who are here before us.”

From the member’s perspective, acknowledging the in­herent —

note the word “inherent” — rights of Indigenous people to care for their

own children is easy. In fact, it was the easiest thing he could do, or

so he says. A Pre­mier will eventually atone. But only once, the

Premier’s office has worked with the Indigenous people to come up with

the language of atonement.

What makes all this so difficult to believe is that this bill

represents an historic collaboration between the Crowns and Indigenous

governing bodies. It feels like there was plenty of time to draft the

language of atonement. From the outside, it appears what was missing was

the priority, the political will to atone.

[3:45 p.m.]

From the former Premier’s performance, atonement appears to be

what is challenging. In fact, it was so challenging that he actually

didn’t get it accomplished before he left the big office, which was

actually a long and drawn-out process with plenty of time, which is

further evidence to the fact that it was political will that was

lacking.

Further, I wonder what the former Premier meant when he said:

“Atone for the sins of the past, not of those who are here today but of

those who were here before us.” It is wrong to land the responsibility

of this child welfare system that exists today, that we’re changing with

this bill, that actually hasn’t been changed yet, entirely onto the

shoulders of our predecessors. They are the reason it exists, but it’s

not entirely their responsibility for it not being changed yet. That’s

on this House, the members here today.

Why didn’t the Premier just apologize? According to him, this day

has taken “a great deal of time to get here.” What is another day or two

to draft a meaningful apology? I cannot believe there wouldn’t be

willing drafters of that apology at the Leadership Council or even in

our government’s own Declaration Act secretariat. Before we can reset

this system that has failed Indigenous people so entirely, recognition,

acknowledgment and a full apology is proper.

Clearly, it was on the mind of the Leadership Council. Kúkpi7 Judy

Wilson said in her remarks on the floor of this chamber on that historic

day: “We encourage the B.C. government to apologize in full, in a

meaningful way, as the legislation, while a major shift in the right

direction, must come with a sincere apology and create a climate of

respect that is necessary for reconciliation.”

As much gratitude as I had for the former Premier in my response

to his ministerial statement, the former Premier, his government, his

political party all missed an opportunity to deliver that full,

meaningful and sincere apology.

I’m sure there were a lot of excuses outlined as to why an apology

was not possible. However, I must emphasize that the lack of an apology

to individuals, families and nations was a choice, and it speaks for

itself. The fact that the former Premier mentioned it shows that the

government knew it was a priority for leaders of Indigenous communities.

But it seems the priority of this government was to make Indigenous

people wait. Now that they knew an apology was meaningful, we’re just

going to have to wait for it.

When we gathered with leaders of some Indigenous nations in the

Hall of Honour on Wednesday, October 26, 2022, what were we doing? Were

we memorializing the hundreds and thousands of Indigenous children and

families whose lives were broken by the British Columbia child welfare

system? Were we commemorating those who suffered decades of abuse,

neglect, poverty and incarceration, the inevitable result of being torn

from their family and placed in a system that cares more about economics

than well-being?

Were we celebrating the success of Indigenous leaders who have

finally wrestled the Ministry of Children and Family Development into a

submission hold, taking the child welfare systems out of the desperate

clutches of this Crown government? What were we doing? Acknowledging the

work that was done or the work that is yet to come? On that historic

day, I was confused.

[3:50 p.m.]

Does this institution, built on rock and stone, have such a

fragile temperament that it needs an interim reward, a little gold star

for a good job — ÍY SĆÁ , as we say in SENĆOŦEN — for finally

creating a pathway for Indigenous families to govern their own child

welfare?

In the teachings that have been shared with me, celebration is

reserved for work that is done. The event in the Hall of Honour was

before any amendments had been tabled, before any laws enacted, before

any regulations considered and written, before any agreements signed and

before any lives had been improved.

A few minutes after the event in the Hall of Honour, the former

Premier and his Minister of Children and Families invited those Elders,

leaders and youth into this chamber. We opened with prayer. We suspended

regular business and invited the leaders to stand and speak to the

members of this assembly, all before the minister had tabled the

amendments, all before most Indigenous Elders, leaders and youth, before

the public and before the survivors of our cruel child welfare system

had a chance to lay eyes on the amendments.

That awkward event brought clarity: just how deeply entrenched the

colonial mindset is in this province. This institution, this government

needs encouragement and recognition for intending to do good

work.

For a century, the so-called child welfare system has been a key

weapon to control Indigenous children, families and communities. It is a

deeply embedded part of the Canadian identity, the identity of this

Crown government, fomenting falsehoods like Indigenous mothers are bad

parents and Indigenous fathers are absent.

The Hall of Honour event was designed to make the members of this

assembly feel successful. And Indigenous people? Well, we were meant to

feel something else: grateful. We are supposed to hold this B.C. NDP

government up in gratitude for finally creating a pathway for our

mothers and fathers, for Indigenous leaders and communities to take

control of our own children’s welfare.

That is how twisted and backward this institution can be. It comes

down to being able to tell a story — a story of success before much

success has been achieved — and gratitude, heaping glory upon this

government for good intentions, even when so little has yet to be

accomplished.

The minister and her staff might frame my comments as being

unfair. Work has been done. Some nations, some leaders were invited

behind the curtain to meet the wizard, but only after signing a

non-disclosure agreement. Is that what the event in the hall, the event

in this chamber…? Is that what we were memorializing and commemorating?

Is that what we were celebrating?

Were we celebrating the Minister of Children and Family

Development, her senior officials, the Premier, the cabinet, the

Treasury Board finally sitting at the table with Indigenous leaders with

a willingness to discuss a pathway for the government to finally

relinquish control over the welfare of Indigenous children? Celebration

comes after ÍY SĆÁ , the good work, is done, not

before.

I’m here at second reading in this legislative process. No laws

have changed. No regulations have changed. What we have before us is a

potential pathway. Pardon me for my skepticism. As I started this

speech, it’s been a long, long road. But in the spirit of

reconciliation, I will embrace the optimism expressed by the Elders and

leaders in the Hall of Honour and on the floor of this

assembly.

[3:55 p.m.]

I have not been on the front-line struggle for decades of my

working career, and to all those people who have fought this government,

who fought for decades to achieve this moment that we’re here today

talking about, I mean no disrespect. I raise my hands in gratitude to

you, not to the provincial government or a political party. I raise my

hands in gratitude to all of our leaders who have been working for this

moment.

My job is to scrutinize this government, this bill, the work, the

intention, the promises — and actions and outcomes. That’s why I’ve

lingered so long here. I want to celebrate the destruction of this

gruesome child welfare system that has devastated our families, our

languages, our cultures and our laws. However, I will not be dragged

into a government communications exercise, writing fiction. When it

comes to the lives of our children, our families, our communities and

our nations, I’m only into telling the story just exactly as it

is.

This is where the story written by Anna McKenzie emerges. Anna was

here on that historic day, invited to sit in the gallery and witness the

celebration, the tabling of this bill, the praise and the

gratitude.

A few days after the historic celebration in the Hall of Honour

and in this chamber, I was forwarded a tweet from McKenzie, showing the

image of a letter she received from the provincial government. Anna is a

mother from Opaskwayak Cree Nation, and she is also a storyteller. She

and her colleague Brielle Morgan are investigative journalists at

IndigiNews . In 2020 and 2021, they investigated and

published extensively on birth alerts. I’d recommend you visit

IndigiNews online and read their work. It’s good

work.

In her January 12, 2021 article, McKenzie writes the following:

“When a social worker feels an expectant parent may put their newborn at

risk, they can issue a ‘birth alert’ or a ‘hospital alert,’ flagging the

expectant parent to hospital staff, without their consent, and directing

them to notify social workers as soon as the baby is born.”

For Indigenous women, birth alerts are a terrifying reality. To

provide some context, I’m going to quote from an interview with

McKenzie, Morgan and their colleague Tessa Vikander, that was published

on Indiegraf. McKenzie says: “I felt a lot of fear delivering my first

child because of the threat of birth alerts and the overrepresentation

of Indigenous families involved in the child welfare system. I wanted to

draw attention to and question the issue to protect Indigenous families

from losing their babies.”

Morgan is quoted as saying: “In B.C., birth alerts have resulted

in child apprehension ‘approximately 28 percent of the time,’ according

to an MCFD record from 2019. These alerts disproportionately impact

Indigenous children and families in Canada; 58 percent of parents

im­pacted by birth alerts in B.C. in 2018 were Indigenous,

according to the B.C. government’s data.”

Vikander is quoted as saying:

“There are many Indigenous families who may have been subjected to

birth alerts without even knowing it, so it was important to get the

issue back on people’s radar. Furthermore, what we learned from the FOI

documents was new and hadn’t been reported before.

“We saw that it was significant, and we were right, as evidenced by

the proposed class action lawsuit that was later filed on behalf of

parents — a direct result of the reporting. The impact of a birth alert,

when it leads to a baby being taken away from its parents in hospital,

can haunt a family for the rest of their lives.”

On November 2, 2022, McKenzie and her colleagues at

IndigiNews received a letter from a lawyer named John Tuck.

It was the second letter they’d received from Mr. Tuck. He represents

the province of British Columbia.

[4:00 p.m.]

The second letter was essentially the same as the first letter

he’d sent to them on January 8, 2021. He was notifying

IndigiNews that some of the information they received from

the province through a freedom-of-information request was deemed to be

protected by solicitor-client privilege. He told them they needed to

return the entire package of information immediately.

McKenzie and Morgan decided that the information they received was

in the public interest. Then they published their story using the

information in question. The information in question outlines that on

May 6, 2019, the Ministry of Children and Family Development was

informed by the Attorney General that hospital alerts were “illegal and

unconstitutional” and posed a potential “litigation risk” for the

province. Again, May 6, 2019. The timeline is important here. It wasn’t

until four months later, September 16, 2019, that the former Minister of

Children and Family Development announced that she was banning hospital

alerts.

The national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women

and girls found that “birth alerts are racist and discriminatory and are

a gross violation of the rights of the child, the mother and the

community.” When the minister announced the end of birth alerts, she

stated that it was the result of the hard work of Indigenous advocates

and the findings of the national inquiry that prompted the

action.

There was no mention of the legal advice provided by the Attorney

General — the same advice, covered by solicitor-client privilege, that

Mr. Tuck has been tasked with recovering. The public aren’t supposed to

know the embarrassing bits — that the former Minister of Children and

Family Development, who is now the Minister of Forests, might not have

been solely motivated by the reports and the good advocacy of Indigenous

people but rather out of fear of the legal and financial exposure this

system creates for the provincial government.

After all, this is the same ministry whose operatives were

breaking privacy laws. This is the same minister who sat on the

information for four months before announcing the good news that the

ministry’s social workers were no longer going to break the law when

they abduct these children from their mothers.

The second letter sent by Mr. Tuck was interesting for a variety

of reasons. The timing, actually, couldn’t be worse. Just as the

provincial government had celebrated that historic moment announcing a

new pathway for Indigenous nations to once again be allowed the

responsibility of their own child welfare, a letter from a government

lawyer — desperately tasked with collecting the robes that were shed in

error for an emperor walking naked on a path