Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 41, the Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act. In this chamber, I call government Motion 31.

[2:25 p.m.]

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 31 — REFERRAL OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO BILL 45 TO
COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE

Hon. C. James: I move:

[Be it resolved that the Message and the Amendments accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of the House having in charge Bill (No. 45) intituled Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018.]

Speaking to the motion, the amendment that is enclosed in the motion creates a requirement for the Minister of Finance to conduct an annual consultation with the mayors in the affected areas to review the speculation and vacancy tax.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The amendment directs that revenues that are raised by the speculation and vacancy tax will be spent on affordable housing projects in the region that the revenues are raised in. And it also sets the tax rate for Canadian citizens and permanent residents who reside outside British Columbia and who are not members of a satellite family at 0.5 percent. This, obviously, is a part of the affordability measures that we are taking.

A. Weaver: Just a few words, briefly, on this motion. I’m pleased, obviously, to rise and take my place in the debate on this. The motion to move the amendments to the speculation and vacancy tax act.

For procedural reasons, government had to table these amendments. You’ll see some amendments I put in on the order paper as well. But the amendments that government is tabling reflect the agreement that we were able to reach with government on this tax a few weeks ago. I’m pleased to be supporting moving them to committee today. These amendments do three things — the three things as promised. Again, on the order paper, you will see three amendments that I put in that are virtually identical. But for procedural reasons, government is introducing these amendments.

The first is that mayors from affected municipalities will be consulted annually by the Minister of Finance on how the tax is affecting their communities, with metrics that are being developed. Over the past number of months, I’ve consistently raised the need for local governments to have a more significant role in determining what happens in their communities. The annual review of the tax with mayors will give communities a clear channel to making the case, based on evidence, for how the tax should apply to their communities and whether they should be excluded.

The minister will also be required to report the results of the annual review to cabinet to make a decision on whether the tax should continue to be applied in each of the specified areas. While I would have preferred for local governments to have the ability to opt out automatically, this is a compromise position that I feel I can support and my colleagues can support as well.

The second amendment requires that revenue raised by the tax will be used for housing initiatives within the region it came from. This is also important — that local communities directly benefit from the tax raised so that it is not viewed as a tax grab by government that rolls the moneys into provincial coffers to be lost thereafter. There needs to be a clear impact on the communities because the justification for the speculation tax is, of course, that there’s an externality, a social cost, that we’re asking people in British Columbia and elsewhere to internalize through the application of the speculation and vacancy tax.

[2:30 p.m.]

The third amendment equalizes rates for Canadians and British Columbians. It brings the rate for Canadians down from 1 percent to half a percent. Now, this is a very big change. Back in the spring when this tax first came out, it was 2 percent for other Canadians. Here, after many, many months of working with government to come to razor-focus this tax to exactly its intended purposes, it’s very reassuring to see the rate has come down to 0.5 percent.

I believe fundamentally that from a fairness perspective, we should not be penalizing Canadians by making them pay higher rates just because they happen to live in another province. We are one country. I feel that as one country, we need to treat our citizens equally across that country.

In addition to these amendments, government has made a number of small changes in the legislation that go a long way to limiting the unfair impacts of this tax on Canadian homeowners who aren’t speculators.

Since it was first introduced in the budget, I’ve been hearing scores of cases that I’ve been bringing to government over the past eight months from people who are not speculators and who should not be facing the tax, as well as other examples where the speculation tax shouldn’t apply.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

A. Weaver: My understanding, hon. Speaker, is that on a motion, I am able to deliver a full 30 minutes.

Deputy Speaker: Member, this is purely a procedural motion. This allows the amendments to be placed before the House for debate. Not at this time.

A. Weaver: Is this not a debatable motion, hon. Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: Not at this time. This is a motion to refer.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

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

The Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018, amends the human rights code to re-establish the Human Rights Commission for British Columbia. This task is part of government’s agenda to build a better British Columbia for everyone, which includes fostering a society in which everyone is treated with respect and dignity, regardless of where they came from, who they are, who they love, their ability, and to ensure that rights and opportunities are provided without discrimination.

One of the obvious issues that came forward once we were tasked with this work was how to establish a modern human rights commission for British Columbia. We didn’t simply want to re-establish the old model. Instead, we wanted to make sure that the model introduced for British Columbia was built from the ground up, addressing modern concerns and structured for success.

In order for us to understand what those concerns truly were and to hear what British Columbians wanted to see in a human rights commission, we needed to ask British Columbians, particularly the affected groups. To that end, the Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Multiculturalism, Ravi Kahlon, led an intensive eight-week public engagement last fall which provided us with a range of diverse perspectives to help shape a new human rights commission and, more broadly, a new era of human rights protections in British Columbia.

After the conclusion of the public engagement, Parliamentary Secretary Kahlon presented me with his report, providing 25 recommendations for the purpose and functions of a new human rights commission, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and the Human Rights Clinic and suggested priority issues for the new human rights commissioner.

Following the receipt of this report, we collaborated with other jurisdictions and with human rights experts, involving the sharing of best practices, learning from challenges faced by the previous B.C. Human Rights Commission and aligning them with the recommendations in the report. This has been at the centre of developing this new proposed legislation.

Since 2002, B.C. has been without a human rights commission. The turbulent history of human rights commissions in B.C. speaks to the negative impact of partisanship on services that are basic to civil society.

Throughout the public engagement, we found that the need to create a stable, independent human rights commission was a common theme amongst stakeholders. That is why the bill creates a human rights commissioner who will be an independent officer of the Legislature. This model is meant to ensure the longevity of the commissioner and to ensure that the commissioner is able to proactively promote, advocate for, protect and advance respect for human rights in B.C.

The commissioner will have a key function of educating British Columbians on the full range of human rights to prevent and eliminate discriminatory practices, including systemic discrimination.

[2:35 p.m.]

The commissioner will promote and strengthen the human rights culture in British Columbia in order to foster social change in a positive way to respect all people in our province and will have the power to develop educational policies and guidelines to promote human rights.

It is envisioned that by giving the commissioner the appropriate tools to promote as well as protect human rights, that discriminatory practices, policies and programs will be reduced and eventually — we all hope, I’m sure — eliminated.

The commissioner will have the power to initiate inquiries into human rights issues and issues of systemic discrimination, in order to hold governments, institutions and the private sector to account. At the conclusion of an inquiry, the commissioner may make a report with recommendations in order to reduce, prevent and eliminate issues of discrimination.

These inquiry powers will come into force at a future date, once the commissioner’s mandate is underway. This will allow the commissioner to focus the commissioner’s early mandate on engaging with British Columbians to hear about what systemic discrimination issues and patterns are most critically in need of attention and to allow the commissioner to develop education and training programs, policies and guidelines to begin to address, reduce and eliminate these widespread patterns of discrimination in our society.

Educating the public — in particular, employers, service providers, members of disadvantaged groups as well as those who are advantaged — about their human rights and obligations can foster a culture of respect. It can be a useful preventative tool in reducing the likelihood of human rights violations.

This bill does not change the mandate of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. B.C. will continue to have a direct-access tribunal. That is, the tribunal will continue to directly accept discrimination complaints and continue its screening practices to determine if complaints should be formally accepted for filing.

This means the commissioner will not have a gatekeeper role. It’s a key change from B.C.’s previous human rights commission model, which acted in a gatekeeper role to investigate and screen human rights complaints before they could be resolved by the tribunal. Retaining the direct-access tribunal model will avoid what was often criticized as a lengthy investigative process at the former commission.

For the human rights commissioner to be effective, the commissioner must have the public’s trust. Trust can be earned by understanding the lived experiences of people facing human rights issues. That is why the amendments establish a human rights advisory council: to represent the province’s diverse regions and populations, to provide the commissioner with a sounding board for its ideas and to highlight public interest concerns.

The amendments will also extend the time limit for filing complaints at the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal from six months to one year, while maintaining the tribunal’s discretion to accept late-filed complaints in certain circumstances. This is in direct response to hearing from British Columbians that our tribunal time limits were out of step with other Canadian jurisdictions and that having a very short six-month period to file a discrimination complaint compounded their feelings of being marginalized.

Enthusiastic stakeholders urged us to be bold with our new human rights commission, building from the ground up to face modern challenges and deliver new services in new ways. With this bill, there is certainly a new chapter being opened in the history of human rights in B.C. The Human Rights Commission will work to challenge us all and to end widespread structures and systems of discrimination that may be facing people in our province.

An independent commissioner reporting to the Legislative Assembly will allow for open and candid human rights promotion, discussion and protection in British Columbia.

M. Lee: I rise today to speak to Bill 50, the human rights code amendment.

First, let me start out by saying that I know that all of us in this House recognize, no matter which side of the House we sit on, that we all believe and share in the importance of protecting human rights and that it is an important role that we play to ensure that that is the case in this province. Of course, it’s important to continue and ensure that we have places of dialogue to increase the understanding to promote equality and to prevent discrimination.

I certainly am mindful of the diversity that we have in our province. I’ve talked before about the history of my family. In the mid-1980s, as a university student, when I first got involved in the community in Chinatown, I served as a member of a local community organization under the human rights committee for the Chinese Benevolent Association. For some time in the mid-1986 period, I spent time working on issues around head tax redress — one example of what is racial discrimination through the history of our country and our province.

[2:40 p.m.]

More recently the leader of our opposition has spoken in so many different ways about the importance of the equality of women in the workplace and in leadership roles, including in our government. It’s for the importance of these issues that we continue to work to eliminate discrimination in our province — in our workplaces, in our schools, in our communities — and it’s the reason why I support this bill, with the establishment of a new Human Rights Commission.

As we speak about Bill 50 and the establishment of this new commission, I think it’s important to reflect on the history of human rights legislation in our province. The first piece of human rights legislation in British Columbia was introduced in 1953, which actually was the year my father came to this country from Hong Kong. It was an act to ensure fair remuneration to female employees, an act designed to fight wage discrimination against women. This act was designed to investigate and adjudicate claims.

This is an example of where the history of human rights had started. Yet I know that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale has talked about the issues that continue to arise in terms of wage discrimination amongst women. It’s still an issue that is very critical to address in our workplaces and in our companies, in the corporate environment.

There were various revisions and changes and additions to human rights law in British Columbia over the next 15 years. In 1969, the government of the day passed a more complete Human Rights Act. This act continued the existing wage discrimination provisions and detailed other types of prohibited employment discrimination. A director was appointed under the act, who had the power to investigate claims and to try to effect a settlement. Failing that, the case went to the Human Rights Commission, an organization that followed an investigative model set out in 1953.

In 1973 in this province, a new and enhanced human rights code was enacted by the Dave Barrett government — under first-past-the-post. It contained a list of response mechanisms to complaints.

[The bells were rung.]

I dare say, in memory of the Hon. Dave Barrett, the bells ring.

Let me just say that that new enhanced human rights code enacted by the Dave Barrett government contained a list of response mechanisms to complaints. Most significantly, the 1973 code established the original Human Rights Commission, which was aimed at promoting the act and the provisions that it contained.

The next major revision of human rights legislation occurred in 1984. This revised act continued to prohibit other forms of discrimination but was designed to narrow the legislation and restrict enforcement powers. As well, the onus for the complaint was transferred from the commission to the complainant.

In 1984, the government also created a five-person Human Rights Council. Following the investigation of a complaint, the council could submit a report to the minister, although this power was never exercised. Instead, when a decision was made to refer a complaint, it was done so by a council member.

A further overhaul of human rights legislation in this province was made in 1992, when the remedial powers of the council were expanded to allow it to deal with allegations of systemic discrimination. The revised act also allowed the council to set up special programs, including employment equity programs.

Further amendments to the human rights legislation occurred in this province four years later, in 1996. Those changes were based on a report done in 1993 by UBC law professor Bill Black. They resulted in the government passing another set of amendments to the human rights code and the administrative system that supported it. That was, of course, on the provincial scene in this province.

Most importantly during this period, we had the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which came into force in 1982 — and with it, section 15 of the Charter, the equality provisions, which came into force in 1985. The Charter and the judicial decisions interpreting it have had a significant impact on the development of our understanding of human rights, including in this province.

[2:45 p.m.]

With that as a backdrop, I wish to speak to the previous changes that were made by the government in 2002. That previous government looked at the then existing commission, which had wait times in the years, and determined that it wasn’t doing its job properly.

That commission was ineffective and contained redundant and competing bodies. As many have said, instead of working to solve problems, the previous commission often made things worse due to delays in finding resolutions, which all too frequently led to long-drawn-out litigation that forced respondents to pay expensive legal bills and wait for years for resolution, while complainants were equally frustrated in their desire and wish to get on with their lives.

At the time, the previous government insisted on putting in place a system that brought, as the Attorney General just spoke to, direct access to the tribunal. That is a system of direct access that is being maintained under this Bill 50.

Following that change back in 2003, there was an incredible increase in the cases heard at the tribunal, with the removal of the commission. In 2003, with this direct access — the first year after the previous government had made that change — the tribunal heard more than four times as many cases. The following year, it tripled again.

The number of cases increased almost exponentially and wait times decreased from years to months. This change to a direct-access tribunal was made to have a system that could be efficient, effective and restore confidence in human rights protections in our province.

We are pleased that under Bill 50 this government is maintaining that direct-access role of the tribunal that the previous government established back in 2003. In fact, as the Attorney General mentioned, as a result of the consultation process the member for Delta North conducted, in his report he lauded this direct-access model. “The general consensus I heard during the consultation process is that British Columbians want to keep the current ‘direct-access’ tribunal model. Many said that it would be a mistake to turn back the clock by creating a commission with a ‘gatekeeper’ function to investigate particular complaints that should be resolved speedily by the tribunal. Wait times for access to early resolutions and adjudications were reduced from years to months in British Columbia through the implementation of the direct-access tribunal.”

Well, I must say that a workable system for bringing complaints forward for resolution is certainly an important condition and requirement for a successful human rights system, but it is not the only foundation. Under the current human rights code, a focus on education and information about human rights being provided to the public is a responsibility there for the Attorney General and the human rights tribunal.

Under the current human rights code, the Attorney General is responsible under section 5. “The minister,” being the Attorney General, “is responsible for developing and conducting a program of public education and information designed to promote an understanding of this code.” Furthermore, under section 6 of that human rights code, the Attorney General “may conduct or encourage research into matters relevant to this code and carry out consultations relevant to this code.”

In Bill 50, the responsibilities will be shifted from the Attorney General to the commissioner with a new commission. When the move was made to move away from the commission model….

Interjection.

M. Lee: I would like to hold my place and adjourn the debate.

M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I apologize to my colleague for the interruption of his remarks.

I would call committee on Bill 46, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act in the Douglas Fir Room, known as Committee A. In this chamber, I will call continued second reading debate on Bill 50, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act.

Deputy Speaker: One moment, Member.

The Minister of Transportation seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate that. As we speak, there is a school group coming in from the Campbell River Christian School. I’ve just been talking to them down in the rotunda, and they’re very excited about coming here. They are with their teacher, Cheryl Hocking, and a number of parents are with them. There are 19 grade 5 students.

So far, their best experience of their trip to Victoria has been, variously, a visit to the B.C. museum, the hot chocolate that some had and the car ride down. I’m hoping that as they sit down and listen to the debate about the amendment to the B.C. human rights code that we’re having at the moment, they will be completely engaged in the political system, they’ll see that we observe the decorum of the Legislature, and they will learn good things and enjoy the rest of their visit.

With that, I hope that the House will make all these students from the Campbell River Christian School very welcome.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

M. Lee: I will just bring greetings, as well, from myself as the MLA for Vancouver-Langara and the Attorney General critic. What I’m about to do is continue my comments, for the benefit of our guests in the gallery, on this bill.

I was talking about the shift of responsibilities under Bill 50 for the purpose of public education, information, conducting research and consultation — that those responsibilities are being shifted under this Bill 50 to the commissioner. I will note that when the move was made back in 2003 to a more focused direct-access tribunal model and away from a commission model, many not-for-profit and civil organizations were doing excellent work in our province to advance human rights. They continue that work today.

In fact, as many in this House recognize and acknowledge, both the Attorney General and the Leader of the Opposition, at one point in time in the history, have led one of those key organizations. That is the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

As I said earlier, the protection of human rights is one of the primary duties of any democratic government. It’s what all of us in this House clearly recognize and support. British Columbia has been a leader when it comes to access to justice resources and alternative resources to do that, as well as building out digital access to the justice system. We need to continue to support and ensure that work, including by the Human Rights Clinic.

I, myself, was previously on the board of the Justice Education Society, which is an example of an organization, one of these not-for-profit organizations, that wants to promote a better understanding of our judicial system through public education — certainly, tours and schoolhouse visits by schools to our court system and, like members of our gallery today, here to this Legislative Assembly.

The key here is that we need to ensure that what has been enhanced are the kinds of resources to promote greater access to our justice system. Certainly, as we look forward to further discussion on other matters with the government, we’ll want to continue to ensure that in protecting and standing for human rights in the province of British Columbia, we continue to ensure that there are good supports for access to justice in our province.

[2:55 p.m.]

I must also say that under the previous government…. In section 37 of the human rights code, there is the responsibility and ability of the tribunal to continue to “take steps…to ameliorate the effects of the discriminatory practice” and to order the adoption or implementation of “an employment equity program or other special program to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups” if there’s been evidence that has been lodged at the tribunal hearing that there is a person, which could be a corporate or other organization, “engaged in a pattern or practice that contravenes this Code.”

That section of the code continues and is not being amended by this bill. That’s just another avenue through which systemic discrimination in our province has been addressed by our Human Rights Tribunal over the last many years.

Having said that, I just want to comment that when we get to the Bill 50 stage, there will be a number of areas that we would like to seek clarity on. One will be looking at the broad degree of latitude provided to the commission, specifically the inquiry powers of the commissioner, himself or herself. Currently, in this country, in Canada, Ontario is the only province where a human rights commissioner has been given that sort of power. Not even under the federal government Human Rights Commission is that power provided.

As we look at Bill 50, we’ll want to have that discussion about the nature of that power and the purpose. We’ll also want to have further discussion about the ability of the commissioner, as proposed under Bill 50, to intervene in certain proceedings, as well as the determination, which, again, has been there, under the tribunal’s authority, for special programs. As I mentioned earlier, many of these special programs are designed to ameliorate the conditions of any disadvantage to individuals or groups from a systemic point of view. We’ll also want to look at the composition of the advisory council and look at how that will be determined by the commissioner.

I’m sure, as every British Columbian would recognize, that…. We have a role to ensure that our human rights are protected in this province and preserved. As we look at the initiatives of the previous government, which continue to build on human rights legislation in the history of this province…. This province has been a leader in respect of ensuring and promoting human rights, and Bill 50 will be another initiative to further ourselves as a province down that road.

I look forward to supporting this bill on second reading and in the committee stage to follow.

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the second reading debate on Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018. This bill re-establishes the British Columbia Human Rights Commission after it was disbanded by the B.C. Liberals in 2002.

This is yet another example of what happens when we have pendulum swings in government. When we move from one ideology to another, we find….

Deputy Speaker: Member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I’m going to ask your indulgence. Would you be so kind as to adjourn the debate so the committee can report out and then return to debate?

A. Weaver: Well, of course. I would love to move adjournment of this debate. Of course, I do reserve my right to continue the debate in just a few moments.

Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that very much.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — ADVANCED EDUCATION
STATUTE REPEAL ACT

Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I call Bill 46, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, (No. 2), 2018, in Committee A; in this chamber, continued second reading on the B.C. Human Rights Code Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in this second reading debate on Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act. As I’ve mentioned, this bill re-establishes the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, after it was disbanded by the B.C. Liberals in 2002. It does this by amending the human rights code to establish an independent Human Rights Commission office.

As I mentioned, this is another example of pendulum swings that have plagued our first-past-the-post system here in the province of British Columbia. When governments come in, we see broad policy sweeps, very costly at times — as, for example, the labour code and others — where policies come in and are taken back as governments switch with the different ideologies.

I’m looking forward to these kinds of changes, more draconian pendulum swings, no longer really taking place here in British Columbia with a successful referendum on proportional representation. One of the things we know is that with policies like this, you don’t establish something, then tear it down and then re-establish it and tear it down. That tends to get mitigated, and we wouldn’t have to be debating this today were we to have a government that was required to listen to broader elements of our society than, perhaps, was required in 2002, when there were but two NDP MLAs sitting in opposition and every other MLA was a member of the B.C. Liberal Party, despite just getting slightly over 50 percent of the vote.

The new office is going to be similar to other independent offices like, for example, the Representative for Children and Youth. Obviously, I’m delighted that this is being introduced into this House. Both the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens campaigned on bringing back a human rights commission to actually look at human rights issues proactively instead of just reactively, as is done now.

This bill is finally bringing B.C. in line with other jurisdictions in the country. We are the only province that has not had a human rights commission these past 16 years. It’s yet another noteworthy aspect of British Columbia that we are not so proud of: not having a human rights commission for the last 16 years. The new bill and the new provisions in the bill that will be enacted will not take us back to the pre-2002 model but will instead set up a similar model to what exists presently in Ontario. In that respect, it’s less of a pendulum swing than we might otherwise have expected.

The bill follows the 25 recommendations that were outlined in the report brought forward by the Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Multiculturalism. This report was based on eight weeks of public consultation on this subject. Of course, as well, the UN Paris principles had been used as a guide for drafting of this bill.

This bill is needed for a number of reasons. It’s needed to fight systemic injustices across our province, to protect against patterns of discrimination proactively and to be able to champion education campaigns on human rights and inequality across the province, particularly in areas where there are systemic issues. It’s important to allow the commissioner the power to create guidelines in education programs for other institutions in our province to use as well. This bill is, therefore, putting back the Human Rights Tribunal into the rightful place as the arbitrator of specific complaints regarding human rights contraventions.

There are many things in British Columbia affecting British Columbians that that need an office like this with a mandate like this to look into. The number one issue referred to the current Human Rights Tribunal is disability non-accommodation. I would anticipate that this is an area that the new commissioner will work on proactively, as well, to explore systemic issues of disability and non-accommodation.

To give a bit of history on this, we’ve gone back and forth in B.C., as I mentioned, on having a human rights commissioner and commission. We had one, for example, that the Socred government eliminated in 1983. Then we didn’t have one, and then the B.C. NDP government of the 1990s brought it back in, and the B.C. Liberals, in 2002, brought it out.

[3:05 p.m.]

Now it’s coming back in again — a beautiful example of the pendulum swing that has mired B.C. politics for such a long time, where we’ve had dynasties of domination by a single party which, after many years, forgets to actually remind itself that it is there to represent the people and not its vested interests or its donors. Hopefully, this is the last time that the pendulum will swing and it will settle in the middle, along the lines of what every other province in our country has — a human rights commission that not only reacts to human rights issues that are brought to it but is proactive in terms of dealing with systemic issues of human rights contraventions in our province.

We like to think that there are none, but we all know cases where there are. In 2002 — giving some more history here — the human rights commission was eliminated, for political reasons, I would argue. It was forced to cut its budget, to cut its staff. To add insult to injury, the commissioner and the acting chief commissioner were fired in the morning before legislation to get rid of the commission was introduced — fired in the morning before the legislation was introduced to eliminate the commission.

It was somewhat spiteful, if you ask me, and not a type of signal, really, that we should be sending the province of British Columbia. This decision was widely condemned by human rights groups across the province. One of the only MLAs that raised the voices of the human rights groups that were affronted by the B.C. Liberals’ removing this commission was Jenny Kwan, one of but two NDP MLAs serving in the B.C. Legislature in 2002.

She said that by abolishing the commission, B.C. would fail to meet the criteria of the Paris principles, which require that human rights agencies have independence guaranteed by statute or constitution, autonomy from government, diverse membership, a broad mandate based on universal human rights standards, adequate powers of investigation and sufficient resources.”

Government shut down the previous human rights commission to save $3.1 million, but at what cost? At what cost to broader society did this saving of $3.1 million lead? Perhaps the government knew that further cuts were coming when it did it. It was consistent with the government of the day, in essence, disadvantaging those who were already disadvantaged and not raising rates — disability rates, welfare rates, housing assistance rates — for a decade. It was consistent with the kind of mean-spirited approach to government that prevailed at that time.

B.C. has not had a body that could look at systemic patterns of discrimination and recommend changes for almost two decades. That, of course, is all changing now with this legislation. The systemic discrimination facing Indigenous communities, women, people of colour, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities is real, severe and completely unacceptable. The uphill battle faced by British Columbians who are at the intersection of more than one of these communities is even steeper.

Government had a hand in creating these discriminatory systems, so we need to dismantle them and rebuild a more fair and just province. This is what Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, takes us on a journey and pathway towards creating. I and my colleagues in the B.C. Green caucus are very supportive of this legislation and are delighted with the changes proposed — long overdue, long called for. I thank government for introducing them, and we’re proud to stand in support at second reading.

S. Cadieux: I am honoured to take my place in the debate today on Bill 50. Just before I get started on my own remarks related directly to the human rights tribunal, I will just reference some of the remarks made by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, preceding me, in his comments, which focused much less on the need or purpose of this act or support for it and much more on partisan attacks of things that happened long before I ever came to sit in this place.

[3:10 p.m.]

I wonder if the member would feel the same way or, frankly, if members of his future party will feel the same way when they are brought to remember the things that he has said in this House, when they are forced to look back in time to a time when the leader of their party sold out their principles in pursuit of proportional representation.

The reality is that things happen over time for all sorts of reasons that may or may not be clearly articulated in this House through partisan debate and that the history books will choose to remember in one way or in another. But the reality is that today I’m very proud to be here as a member of this Legislature, elected by the people of my constituency, and here to speak in support of Bill 50.

I personally have never felt discriminated against in a way so egregious that would require me to seek out the services of a human rights commission, and I feel very fortunate for that. We see regularly on the news, and I think more regularly on the news, examples of human rights violations from other countries around the world that none of us can stomach, can understand. Thankfully, for the most part, we can say those things don’t happen here.

I’m proud to be a member of this party. I’m proud that on the weekend, our leader made very specific mention, in his first remarks as leader to our convention and our members, of his personal — and therefore, frankly, now our party’s — comments on the rights and equality for women; on the rights of women in the workplace; on the rights of women everywhere to feel safe, not just in their workplace but in our society; on the rights for everyone in British Columbia, all citizens, to have a right to opportunity.

I think that generally, as Canadians, we have come to know the protection of human rights as a part of our identity as Canadians. Sometimes, though, even here situations arise that need to be brought to light where those rights are not being understood or respected. Sometimes intervention is, unfortunately, required.

I appreciate that this bill speaks to the importance of the education of the public on both sides of the human rights equation. The rights themselves matter, and our understanding of those as citizens but also as employers, service providers, legislators, but also the understanding of how those are interpreted and what constitutes a violation, what constitutes a need to raise awareness or to raise an issue for resolution. That education is important, and the role of this commission in that education of the public is important. I’m pleased to see that it’s recognized.

Many years ago now, a close friend of mine finished her university education and applied for a job as a teacher, a pretty noble profession. She was very well trained and very competent, but she was denied a job. She was denied a job not because she was unqualified or incapable or even that she didn’t interview well. She was denied because she used a wheelchair.

[3:15 p.m.]

She was going to need to be available, as a teacher on call, to go to any school, any classroom. Unfortunately, because of a lack of access, that wouldn’t be possible. It wouldn’t be because she wasn’t willing; it would be because she was physically prevented from attending. Unfortunately, at that time, the employer didn’t understand their duty, didn’t understand that it was her right to teach and that an impediment to her work environment wasn’t her problem.

She took that case forward to the Human Rights Commission or Tribunal — I’m honestly not sure at which point in time this was exactly — and she won. Since that time, she has been teaching a kindergarten class in Vancouver, and she is beloved. She shouldn’t have had to raise that issue, but the reality was that she did.

As I had mentioned, I personally haven’t ever felt a need to raise an issue as far as a tribunal or a commission. But I certainly, as a user of a mobility device, have found many occasions where people, where businesses, where the built environment have excluded me. It’s not right, and we keep fighting for change in that regard.

It is my belief that most of the time, it’s a lack of understanding that is the cause of that, and quite often it doesn’t take much more than a good old-fashioned conversation to move things ahead. But sometimes it does, and that’s the purpose, I think, of this commission. That’s why I’m in support of the bill. Thank you very much for my time today.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to stand up in here and speak in support of this legislation that reinstitutes the Human Rights Commission.

First, before I get going, I do want to acknowledge and thank my colleague the Attorney General and also the member for Delta North, who did an incredible job of going out and listening to British Columbians in every corner of the province. They heard from advocates, heard from individuals who absolutely wanted to see the Human Rights Commission reinstated. I also want to thank my other colleague from Surrey for her words of support for this piece of legislation.

I can still remember today, as if it was yesterday, when in 2002 the Human Rights Commission was disbanded. I can remember many things from that year and the year before that, but I can remember how impacted people were that something as fundamental to rights and democracy as a human rights commissioner — that that position could just disappear. People just were shell-shocked, I would say, and often speechless.

We know there were lots of other things happening at that time, like teachers having their collective agreements rolled back, students losing their learning conditions — the protections they had — and students with special needs losing the protection they had for supports. That was something else that was going on, as well as other contracts being ripped, so to speak.

This particular action, to take away the Human Rights Commission at the very time that the government was carrying out such distasteful and damaging pieces of legislation that were impacting so many people, whether it was in the health care sector or education…. We’ve got to remember that all of this impacts every British Columbian, that at that very time when the Human Rights Commission, the office, was needed, it was disbanded. So I’m really, really glad to see that it’s come back.

[3:20 p.m.]

I’m also pleased that it’s come back in a slightly new iteration. The tribunal is still going to stay around. It’s still going to listen to individual complaints. Nothing is changing with that. But the new commissioner will not be screening or investigating individual human rights complaints; instead, they will be promoting and protecting human rights with a focus on education about human rights.

Being a teacher and, Madame Speaker, as you’re a teacher as well, we know — I’m sure everybody in this House does — the value of education if we’re going to bring about systemic change. When we talk about democracy and the rights of individuals in our very diverse community and the right to protect those, we have a lot of education to do about that in our schools, in our communities, in our workplaces and, I would say, all over British Columbia.

The model we’re using here is going to be very similar to the Ontario model. As I said earlier, I am so delighted that as a society…. Our government has recognized that governments play a critical role in education, specifically in teaching people about their rights, about human rights, to ensure that we prevent discrimination from happening and to address instances of systemic abuse not addressed by individuals alone.

When I think of the isms that exist and the kind of persecutions that our LGBTQ community has faced, the levels of racism that different communities have faced over the last number of years…. We always think: “Well, this is now 2018. Surely we’ve finished with issues like racism. Surely we’ve finished with issues like sexism.” But as we know, isms don’t just go away, and they have a way of resurfacing.

In light of what we’re seeing to the south of us, the fear of politics in other parts of the country as well, I am so delighted that in British Columbia, we are taking a progressive step. That progressive step is to reinstate the human rights commission and to focus on education, on raising awareness.

Racism and other isms are not going to go away simply because we stop talking about them. Pedagogy of oppression has been around for a long time. I often think that I would like to see it as part of the core curriculum. Through education and in relation to the work that’s going to be done by the new human rights commissioner, we can begin to address some of these isms.

When I visit schools in my riding, they tell me about the kinds of challenges they face. They tell me the name-calling that goes on. It doesn’t mean that this is happening all over. I would say that we’ve made a lot of progress. But at the same time, we still have a lot more work to do in our multicultural and diverse communities to teach each other about different cultures, about different practices, and also to talk about issues as a human right.

In the 21st century — as we’re in 2018 — people from diverse communities don’t just want to be tolerated. Today, it is about celebration. It is about acceptance. That’s what the human rights commission will get a chance to focus on when we do education throughout. We’re not talking about, “Oh yeah, let’s just put up with this group” or: “Let’s just deny that group their rights, and they won’t complain.” It is about each and every one of us in British Columbia taking responsibility to make sure that human rights are protected.

[3:25 p.m.]

Somebody told me a long time ago that when somebody raises a hand against you or gets abusive towards you, it’s very easy to raise your arms to defend yourself. But to me, a sign of a truly progressive society is where we — as individuals, as citizens, as a government — raise our hands together to make sure everybody’s human rights are protected. And that is what we can get to when we have a human rights commission whose focus is on education.

There will still be the tribunal to deal with individual cases and complaints. But what we’re dealing with in our communities and across society are systemic issues. If we’re going to address those systemic issues, that is going to require education.

As I said earlier, I was so pleased to see that my colleague across the way from Surrey South also supports the reinstitution, the reinstatement of the human rights commission. I’m hoping that every member on the other side of the House will be supporting this and will have realized that when it was taken away in 2002, it damaged our social fabric. It made some people feel less.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It took away an avenue of education that needs to occur and will occur, once we have the new commission in place.

Now, I’m not saying that just because we have a human rights commission, all the isms are going to disappear overnight, whether it’s racism, sexism, persecution because of gender or sexual orientation. No, that is not what’s going to happen overnight.

What’s going to happen is we’re going to have a focused education to make sure that we address those systemic issues, that we celebrate our diversity and we celebrate our differences and those things we share in common, because sometimes it’s those differences that make us unique.

We want to make sure that every single child — whether they’re born here, whether they’ve come from another country, whether they are culturally from a diverse community, whether they are ethnically different from the mainstream — feels that, in British Columbia, they are home, they are included, and they know that their rights are going to be addressed by the commission.

Once again, I want to finish off by thanking and congratulating our Attorney General and my colleague from Delta North for having the courage and commitment to bring this forward at this time. They didn’t say: “Well, let’s just leave it. We’ll do it later.”

They did it. They did the groundwork. I’m so proud to be part of a government that recognizes that human rights are concerns for each and every one of us.

R. Kahlon: It’s my privilege and honour to stand and speak in favour of this piece of legislation. I wanted to do a couple thank-yous before I open up my remarks.

I would like to, obviously, thank the Premier and the Attorney General for not only prioritizing this and making sure the work started getting on right in the beginning, but also, I want to acknowledge them and thank them for giving me the privilege and the honour of consulting with British Columbians on what it is that they feel is needed in the human rights commission, as well as giving me the opportunity to hear from so many people.

As a new MLA, it was a phenomenal experience to be sent out to communities that you don’t represent and hear from people who, quite frankly, aren’t heard from very often. Many people were shocked to see me show up. So I want to thank them for that opportunity.

I want to thank the member for Surrey South for her remarks. I have got a great deal of respect for her, and I know she meant every word she said. And you know, hearing the story of her friend who had to go to the tribunal — it’s a difficult process to go to. Nobody wants to go to a tribunal. The idea of a tribunal, when you feel your rights have been infringed on, is a scary thing. I’m glad her friend got justice.

The reason why we need a commission is that we don’t want other people to go through that. So the power of a commission is to address systematic discrimination so that it’s not just the individual that gets remedied. It’s how we can better ourselves as a society. But I want to thank her for sharing her story.

[3:30 p.m.]

I want to thank the member for Surrey-Panorama. Obviously, she’s been a longtime advocate for human rights. She spoke quite passionately about that, and I want to thank her.

And I want to thank you, hon. Speaker. I know you’ve been fighting the fight for many years, and this is a file that’s close to your heart. I want to thank you for your years of service to the community, for never wavering on this important topic of human rights and for having it front and centre in your mind in every decision you make. So I want to thank you for all your work, hon. Speaker.

I think it’s important to start from the beginning. I note there were some comments about the commission being gone. We can talk about the politics of that. People have already done that, so I won’t go there. But I do want to touch on something important, which is something that I heard from people, especially from the First Nations education council. They reminded me that the very last thing that the Human Rights Commission was working on in 2001, before they were disbanded, was…. They were going to do a report on educational outcomes and systematic racism within our education system.

When the government came in at the time, someone from the government side said to them: “We’re going to start winding your work down, and we don’t want you to do that.” The commission said: “We’re independent. We’re going to do this.” The conversation got heated. They came back and said: “How much are you going to spend on it?” The budget, I think, was $180,000. They got their budget cut by $180,000.

That was the first step. The second step was to get rid of the commission. So it wasn’t just a clean cut overnight. It was sending a strong message that this important social audit of our society was no longer required. I want to make sure that is on the record because it’s an important piece of history for us to recognize — that that is what happened when this commission was disbanded.

I want to talk briefly about what I heard through this process. It was a moving process. We had various engagements. I think the part that I enjoyed the most from it was the very beginning, when we had a discussion about: how is it that we’re going to talk to people? How is it that we’re going to listen to people? The most fascinating piece for me, as a new MLA, was the conversation about First Nations and Indigenous communities. How is it that we’re going to engage them on this topic?

Through my little bit of learning, I wanted to take a different approach. It was a little unorthodox, but we gathered a group of leaders and folks together who were passionate about this topic. We went to them and said: “How would you like this commission to look?” We didn’t take any ideas to them. We didn’t take any frames of what it should look like. We just said: “Listen. We want to bring back the commission. What is it that you would like to do?”

It was a different way of having that conversation, which really blew my mind. One of the first things that jumped out at me…. This woman said to me: “I’m really grateful that you’re having these conversations. I’m really grateful that you come to this with an empty cup and that you’ve come to us with an open book on how we’re going to get at this.” She said: “Are you talking about human rights in your context, or are you talking to us about human rights in our Indigenous and First Nations context?”

She went on to talk about how in communities they had human rights — those rights were passed through, through stories and through oral traditions — and how, over time, over colonization, that history was taken away, and those laws were taken away. She spoke about how important it was for them to capture their oral history, keep those lessons in place and then re-enact those laws.

I was so grateful near the end of this process. I think it was two months after I had concluded that we announced $50 million towards the revitalization of language, to capture language so that we can keep those important stories and history and so that we can put together some of these laws in these communities. Or the community can do that.

We also saw the opening of the first Indigenous law program at UVic — again, with all this work, quite timely. I was quite grateful to see that.

One of the elders in my third meeting, the second one he was attending, said: “This process…. I’m grateful that you’ve come. You’ve come to listen.” He gave me great advice. He said his uncle had told him many, many years ago simple advice. He said: “Listen, learn and then lead, in that order.” That was his advice to me in this process. He said, “When you put this report together and you give it to the Attorney,” as he said it: “Make sure that you follow that advice. Listen, learn and then lead.”

[3:35 p.m.]

I’m grateful that we took that advice. His words are very early on in the report. For those members or those people watching who haven’t had a chance to read the report, I really recommend they do. The voices of people are directly in there. We didn’t filter people’s comments. The comments, sometimes, are hard to hear, but we didn’t filter them. We let them have their voice, and we made sure that the report was about their voice.

One of the stories…. There are so many that jump out at me, but there were two stories that jump out at me in particular. I got a letter in the mail from a young woman who is a student. I’m not going to say which community, but she’s a student.

She talked about how she was in grade 9 and how she felt when a rainbow crosswalk had come to her community and talked about how she hadn’t come out to her parents yet and how difficult of a process that was. Seeing this rainbow crosswalk in her community and what that symbolized to her — it didn’t mean everything was going to be okay, but it was a symbol of hope.

She sent me this nice letter, written out. I have it in my office still. It’s quite moving. She spoke about human rights and what it meant. Here’s someone who’s in grade 9 who knows more about human rights and the fight for human rights and why it matters than most adults.

It stuck with me, because it gives you hope for the future that this next generation…. We think that they’re not engaged. We think they don’t care about politics. That’s not true, and I saw that through this process.

I saw university students sending me full graph sheets that they used when they went to their professor and said: “We heard this commission was happening. We want to be part of it. So how can we do that?” The professor from Capilano University came together and had a whole class facilitation about human rights and what it is that they would like to see in the Human Rights Commission. Those things jumped out at me.

I had this lawyer. She’s in a wheelchair. She spoke to me about how she’d been fighting for human rights her whole life — obviously, lived challenges throughout her entire life — and felt, obviously, privileged, because she was a lawyer. She knew that her condition was better than many others.

She broke down in tears when she said that the year before I had met her, she was representing a client and couldn’t get into the courtroom to see her client. So it was a reminder for her that there’s discrimination within our legal system, within our society, within the way our social infrastructure is built. Her words really stuck with me. If she is watching, I wanted to say: “I heard you, and your words are in the report.”

I want to briefly touch on some of the recommendations that I made to the Attorney General. Again, I’m grateful that the Attorney General took almost essentially word for word from my report into this legislation. I want to, again, say to him that I’m quite grateful for him to do that, for giving me the opportunity to go out and hear from people, putting those words on paper, and then him actually taking that and enacting it.

I remember one of the people asking me: “Is this going to be one of these reports that collects dust in government?” I looked her in the face, and I said, “I don’t think so,” because this is the way that government sometimes works. She said: “Well, that was with a lot of confidence.” We had a good chuckle about it. I said: “No, no. I’m pretty confident that what we recommend is going to go through.” Then they unloaded their ideas.

Some of those things that they shared with me were around access to justice. We heard from a lot of new immigrant groups, groups that provide supports to new immigrants especially. They shared stories about how, especially, new immigrants were most vulnerable to human rights violations and the fear they to go to this tribunal to be heard. Tribunal means many things in different countries to different people. So this fear of going to this tribunal often made them not want to go forward.

What I also heard from them was that even when they wanted to get them legal aid, even when they wanted to get them supports, it was difficult to do so, because they couldn’t provide it in-house. They had a respect and a comfort level built with this person.

[3:40 p.m.]

When they went to pass them on to someone else, they found that those people would never go to those appointments, because they didn’t trust. They were afraid. A lot of these folks were afraid of police because of where they’ve come from. So for them to go to another entity to get those supports was quite the scary thing. They basically said: “We have so many of these cases, but we can’t take them anywhere, because when we take them, we lose them.”

We heard the same thing in the friendship centres. A lot of different groups that have friendship centres came and said: “We have so many people that have complaints, but when we take them outside of the friendship centre to get them support, they don’t show up.” I think we are fortunate because the people that we have with the Human Rights Clinic do a fantastic job. Man, were they passionate about advancing human rights. If they’re watching, I want to say thank you. Thank you for the work you do.

They also acknowledge they have challenges. They’re based in Vancouver, and they have a lot of people coming from Metro Vancouver to access their services. They’re pretty close to capacity. Once you leave Metro Vancouver, the numbers start dropping off. Once you go into the Interior, into Prince George and Kelowna, the numbers drastically drop off. So that was something I heard, especially when I was travelling in Prince George and Kelowna. I heard from folks saying….

I remember this gentleman saying: “When you’re just trying to survive, human rights and fighting for your rights is the furthest from your mind.” They talked about poverty. They talked about deep poverty. They talked about their challenges to get justice. Again, I heard you. That’s also in the report as comments from what people heard. It wasn’t part of my mandate, but I put it in there anyways as feedback for us in government.

Four important recommendations I made. Obviously, the most important part of this report, and the biggest piece for me, is that this commission is going to be independent. We heard that from Indigenous communities and First Nations leaders. They were quite clear. This has got to be completely independent of government. In order for us to feel comfortable to get…. We know that this body will address our issues. It needs to be completely independent of government.

People were tired of this back and forth. The NDP came in, and they brought it in. The Socreds got rid of it. Then the NDP comes back in. They bring the commission back. B.C. Liberals came in. They got rid of it. They were tired of this. You know, 16 years of not having that service there was too long. So what was critical is having an independent body so that it would be less politics. It would be toned down. It would still be a social audit of society, still have a critical voice but not be at the pulling of strings of government officials.

Again, I think that’s something for all of us in this House to be proud of. We are leading the way. We’re leading the way in Canada. We’re leading the way in North America on this critical topic.

Three other pieces of information that I want to raise. These were just recommendations. I knew I wouldn’t be in a position to tell the commissioner what to do. But what we tried to do was we tried to lay out three key issues that I heard over and over again for the commission to address.

First was around First Nations. In order for the new commission to be fully functional and to fulfil its mandate, they’re going to spend time to build the relationships and establish relationships with Indigenous and First Nations communities throughout the province. That was my first recommendation.

The second was around gender and IDs. I know the Minister of Health has just made some moves. Now there is ability for an X on health records. But they also raise concerns. Then I heard concerns around the concept of an X on a passport and what that means for someone who travels to another country. When they travel to another country and they see an X on their passport, how vulnerable that might make them feel. Again, that’s something I recommended for the commission.

Then the last one was a Canadian experience. Too many new immigrants are coming to this country as doctors, engineers and lawyers and are not able to fulfil their dreams of coming to Canada and living a prosperous life because all their education — all that stuff that we were inviting them to bring to our country to add to our strength of our country — they were not able to use it. Too often, they would go to the doors, apply for a place at the table, and they would hear: “Well, I’m sorry. You don’t have Canadian experience.”

[3:45 p.m.]

This idea of Canadian experience became a roadblock for too many people. It’s a story you hear over and over again. Again, I don’t have the solution. But I did recommend that the new commissioner consider looking at this and consider potential solutions for us.

The last piece I’ll touch on — I know that others might want to speak to this — is something important that I heard from the business community around why they felt this was important as well. We talk about education and how critical education is to the public. But we heard, too often, from small business and medium-sized businesses: “We want to do the right thing. We want to address human rights concerns.” But it’s hard for a small business to afford legal opinions and getting together all the proper protocols to address these things.

I heard clearly from them, as well, that they want a place at the table with this new Human Rights Commission, and they want to see tools and educational opportunities. They want to see partnerships between businesses, non-profits and government to build these tools so that they become available for the business community, as well, so they don’t have to re-create them, and it becomes accessible and easy for them to make their work environments more inclusive and safe.

I wasn’t on the speaking order, but I felt passionately to speak to this. I’ll just end with a big thank-you to the Attorney General, a big thank-you to the Premier. It was a special day for this province, for us to have this commission back.

It’s going to be truly independent. It will be leading North America. It’ll lead in education. My hope is that they will be tough, not only on us and on the non-profit community, but also on the private sector to make sure that this province continues to be the best place to live and raise a family. With that, I’ll take my seat, and I’m proud to support this legislation.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[3:50 p.m. - 3:55 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 46 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH
COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2018

Bill 46, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 50, and in Committee A, I call committee stage on Bill 48, the temporary foreign workers legislation.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, I just want to welcome a couple of guests into the Legislature today before we reconvene.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: I’d like to introduce my constituency assistants, who are skipping out from their convention meetings and who have come to the House today. Rob Hill and Michelle Morton are my constituency assistants for the upper and lower Sunshine Coast respectively.

I want to also add that Rob and his wife, Delyth, have welcomed their third child, Nia, to join Holden and Theo — a lovely family — and returned to Powell River.

I would like the House to please make them both welcome.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

Hon. J. Darcy: I’m very honoured to stand in my place and speak to this bill regarding the reinstating of the human rights commission. I want to begin by acknowledging my colleague the Attorney General and my colleague from Delta North, who is Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, for their leadership in bringing this forward.

I’ve been sitting here in the House for the last hour and a half on House duty, listening to other people who have risen to speak on this issue before me. Listening to members on both sides of the House led me to rise to my feet and take my place in this discussion. This is a day in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia that I think brings out the best in all of us. It shows some of those issues that today we stand together and speak with one voice on.

It has been very moving sitting here listening to members on the government side of the House but also listening to the member for Surrey South and the member for Vancouver-Langara speaking about their own personal experiences and about their own family experiences. I think what this debate does is really unite us in our humanity that we want a better province, we want a better country, and we want a better world, where the human rights of all citizens are recognized and are respected.

[4:00 p.m.]

I think what is so important about the human rights commission being reinstated is its focus on systemic discrimination and on education. We do have mechanisms, sometimes imperfect, for dealing with individual acts of discrimination. But it is so important, and we must never forget how prevalent in our society, despite our best efforts, issues of systemic discrimination and racism continue to be.

We can reflect back on the day that we made an an­nounce­ment in the Hall of Honour about the reinstatement of the human rights commission, and the speakers who were gathered there. One of those speakers talked about the shootings in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, the most violent act of anti-Semitism in American history. It reminds us that anti-Semitism is alive and well in our society, not just south of the border, but on this side of the border as well.

I remember very well a year ago January in New Westminster, a welcoming community that embraces diversity and has welcomed people from all around the world. I woke up on a Sunday morning to find out that the night before, on a United Church in my community, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim posters, pro-Nazi posters had been posted — on a local church. I’m very, very proud that our community rallied together. Within four days, in the name of New West United, we gathered on the steps of city hall, and we spoke with one voice to say: “No, not in my backyard. We stand united. We stand together to celebrate diversity. We stand together in unity, in democracy and in welcoming people to our community.”

That was when we were dealing with the worst aftermath of the refugee crisis in Syria. Just a few days after that, we had a shooting in a mosque in Quebec City, where several worshippers were shot dead. Why? It’s because of their faith, for the same reason that people were shot in a synagogue in Pittsburgh.

My colleague the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville just shared with me that in her community this past weekend, there were Nazi symbols that appeared outside schools.

In this House, we are speaking today as one, and I think that’s very important. We haven’t always spoken as one on this issue. I wish that there were more people who actually could observe what was happening today in this House because this is, I believe, one of our finer moments as a Legislature, as we support the reintroduction of a human rights commission, focusing on education and on systemic discrimination in the province of British Columbia.

We know that systemic discrimination affects so many groups in our society. We know that Indigenous people still face systemic discrimination in our legal system, as was referred to already. We know that they experience it in housing. We know that they also experience it often in our health care system and in our mental health system. I’ve heard those stories — individual stories, over and over again — about stereotyping of Indigenous people and the treatment that means they sometimes receive.

We have a long way to go in order to ensure that all of our programs and services are culturally safe and culturally appropriate. But having a human rights commission reinforces the need for us to take up that challenge in every single aspect of the work of our government and in every single aspect of life in civil society.

We know, and I’ve certainly heard these stories over and over again in my work and my engagement and consultation around the issue of mental health and substance use…. We have one in five British Columbians who is living with mental health issues today. One in four British Columbians will deal with a substance use issue in their lifetime.

We know that people living with mental health and addictions experience discrimination in the workplace. They experience discrimination in housing. They experience discrimination in many aspects of their lives because they are people struggling with a disability. They are people struggling with a chronic health condition, that being a mental illness or an addiction.

[4:05 p.m.]

We have a lot of work to do in so many domains. I also heard, in the engagement that our ministry did in developing a mental health and addiction strategy…. We met with members of the LGBTQ community, and they spoke to us with great passion and with great anger and frustration, frankly, about the discrimination that they still experience throughout our society, including in our health care system. That was most pronounced for members of the trans community.

We can feel proud of the progress that we’ve made as a province and as a Legislature in being more representative — and as a society. But we also know there is a tremendous, tremendous amount of work to do. This human rights commission is a very, very important step forward, because it will be addressing systemic discrimination and addressing education of the public.

We want to ensure that wherever people live in our prov­ince and wherever they work and whatever it is they do, they feel that it is a safe community and a safe province. As I listen to the debate and as I heard other people share their family’s stories, I am reminded of what brought my family to this country in the 1950s.

My father was a Jew, a Russian Jew who lived in France for 25 years, fought in the French Army. He managed to keep his Jewishness a secret while he was a prisoner of war but subsequently lost several family members in the Holocaust. He brought his young family to this country in order that they would be safe. He was worried there might be another war, another outbreak of anti-Semitism in Europe.

He brought our young family to Canada, and he kept his Jewishness a secret, including from his own family, until a few years before he died, when he began, with his faulty memory at that time, to share his history with us.

We want to ensure that our country is safe in every respect for people who have lived here for generations and who practise many different faiths or for people who come here from many different countries and who may speak different languages and who come from many different backgrounds.

Today, with the introduction of this bill, and when we pass this bill — and it appears that it will be unanimous in this Legislature — it will be us saying together and speaking with one voice as the Legislative Assembly, saying: “We celebrate diversity, but we do more than celebrate diversity. We will do everything in our power to eradicate discrimination in all of its forms throughout British Columbia, in all walks of life, in every place, in every community.”

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the Attorney General; the member for Delta North, who led the consultation on this process; of course, the Premier; yourself, hon. Speaker; and the Minister of Labour as well, who, I know, for many years, as a private member when we were in opposition, worked very hard to keep the idea, the dream, the necessity of a human rights commission alive in public discourse in this Legislature.

Through moving private member’s legislation, through speaking out, through organizing meetings, through advocating internally amongst the opposition, we would continue to put forward the idea and dream and necessity for a human rights commission, as the New Democratic Party, given that the whole concept of it was demolished back in 2002 under the former B.C. Liberal government.

Sixteen years is a long time, and I know a number of people have grown up without even knowing what a human rights commission was or could do. They’d say to me — in going to my local high school and speaking to young people: “What are we doing about racism? What are we doing about sexism, homophobia?” The list would go on.

“Why don’t you as a government take this seriously?” they would say to me. “Why don’t we see further action?” I would always talk about the fight and struggle that some of us were pushing within our caucus and our now government to address these issues.

[4:10 p.m.]

They would take hope that something could be done — that a government could, at some day forward, take these issues more seriously and bring in a human rights commission, bring in a body to educate, to advocate, to point out systemic issues that need addressing. They would take hope that that could happen. Well, it’s so great to be here today to see this happening.

My constituency of Vancouver–West End has certainly been one of the hotbeds, the capitals — whatever you want to call it — leading voices, leading communities in the fight for human rights. Of course, the LGBT civil rights movement largely found a centre and a home there, on Davie Street, with some of the early pride parades and unity parades and activism happening in my community.

So it was appropriate that when our government decided to publicly launch that we were going to do this, that we did it in my community. I just want to say how much it meant to members of my neighbourhood that we did it in Deva Plaza.

Jim Deva, as many will remember, was a strong, strong voice for human rights, for equality, not just for gay men but for LGBT people writ large — two-spirit people, queer people, non-binary people, transgender people. He worked very hard to bring a broader voice against censorship and for human rights and for schools that looked out for people.

Jim would always remind us, and I know many have said this: “You can change laws.” I know he was here in this House when I was sworn in as a member. He would say: “You know, you can change laws.” That’s certainly what we’re doing today.

In order to change the greater society so that people don’t have to rely on laws to protect them when they are targets of hate and discrimination, when they don’t have to rely on going to a commission or a tribunal to try and see their rights protected…. They don’t have to do that if we change the culture. You can’t do that without education.

We can pass all the laws in the world. You know, it’s illegal to discriminate against gay people. I know you know that, hon. Speaker, but in my office, we’ve had people come and say hateful things, discriminatory things, violent things.

So many people who identify as maybe not in the mainstream or have people who target them as not being normal, as being an other, can’t get that protection unless we educate, unless we build a larger herd immunity, in a sense, as we do when we are vaccinating people, giving flu shots and so on. In a sense, education is a great flu shot against hatred and bigotry.

We know that if you let it hide under the darkness of light, if you don’t talk about hatred and bigotry and discrimination, it grows like mushrooms. It spreads, and it spreads, and it spreads. A human rights commission can shine a light so that we can spot those issues before they become bigger. So I’m really happy that we’re doing this.

I also just want to acknowledge somebody, a predecessor of mine. For a while, I was the member for Vancouver–Burrard. An early member who spoke about the need for human rights changes was Rosemary Brown, a New Democrat MLA from the 1970s onwards who represented Vancouver–Burrard. She used to talk about how B.C.’s Human Rights Act was so full of holes that you could drive a truck through it.

You were told you had human rights, but you had no ability to actually enact them, to stop discrimination, to stop from being fired from a job because of what you looked like or who you believed in — the very basis of human rights.

So our party continued. We expanded coverage. We did it again in the ’90s. But each time through, governments would swing in a totally different direction and say: “We don’t want a human rights law. You don’t need it. Everybody can stand up for themselves.”

Well, that only works if you’re the big. We know that it would be like an elephant telling all the ants, “Well, we all have equal rights,” as the elephant stepped on all of the ants. “Well, you’ve got the same right as me, Mr. Ant, to step on an elephant.” Of course, that doesn’t work. The elephant can crush the ant. The ant has no hope with the elephant.

Although, you know, there are stories about elephants’ fear of mice. Maybe we need more mouse power. We certainly have it in this chamber. I digress. For those who don’t know, there are mice in this chamber on occasion.

I’ll just wrap up by saying we know there is more to do in the fight for human rights. We know that we need to be doing more work on a number of grounds that aren’t currently covered in our human rights code.

[4:15 p.m.]

One that I certainly discovered in the work we were doing — I’ve mentioned this before — around the rental task force is discrimination that renters face in stratas. I’m speaking specifically about families and age. In B.C., if you’re a landlord, you can discriminate about who you sell a place to based on their age or their family status, but you can’t if you’re a landlord.

So we get into the funny circumstance of where a landlord is able to rent out their home, and they find that they can’t rent it out to people based on their age or family status because of rules within the strata. But they also can’t discriminate against families and people based on their age, under the human rights code. So we’ve got a bit of a balance problem where stratas are trying to enforce their laws under the Strata Act and a family might be trying to enforce their rights under the human rights code.

There are issues like that — little gaps, things that have developed over years — that I think, if the human rights commission can help us address in a more timely way than this House has acted on other human rights challenges….

I think of gender identity and expression. When I first brought legislation in this House to amend the legislation to add gender identity expression to the human rights code, we would have been amongst one of the first provinces in Canada to do that.

But because it took so long, because the other government — the other party that is now in the opposition — didn’t want to support those human rights changes, we became amongst one of the last provinces to actually change that legislation to better protect transgender and gender diverse peoples.

Hopefully, with a human rights commission, we’ll be able to be more proactive in our needs to update legislation, update policies to better reflect our acceptance and the equality of all British Columbians and all people who reside here in this great place we call home.

I’m proud to support this. I want to say thank you to everyone who worked so hard on this. The hard work is just beginning in some other ways, and I’m so excited that it’s finally begun to better improve human rights for everybody in this great province.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General to close the debate.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to all the members for their thoughtful comments. It’s a pleasure to hear members across the aisle supporting this very important initiative for our province. It has been a long time coming.

I know, hon. Speaker, that you, yourself, were very involved in this fight for the re-establishment of the human rights commission. I wanted to thank you for all of your work, of course, of bringing the human rights commission back after 16 years and your long record of fighting for the human rights of many disadvantaged and vulnerable people in our province. This bill is certainly a tribute to your work. Thank you for that.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading debate on Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act.

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ACT

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be now read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to speak about Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act. This bill supports our government’s goals of prioritizing the health and safety of British Columbians, protecting our rich ecosystems and coastlines, advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and, of course, supporting responsible economic development.

This bill reflects extensive engagement with practitioners, with Indigenous peoples, with the public, with environment groups and with industry. We’ve received extensive feedback from all of these groups.

[4:20 p.m.]

As a result of that feedback, we created a discussion paper of following engagements, an initial set of engagements with 73 Indigenous nations; seven industry and business associations, including 63 representatives; 44 environmental assessment practitioners; and 33 environmental non-government organizations.

The new Environmental Assessment Act is designed to achieve three clear outcomes. The first one is to enhance public confidence and transparency and ensure that meaningful participation is available to all in environmental assessments. The second one is to advance reconciliation with Indigenous nations, including supporting the implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples in this act.

Finally, we want to ensure that we’re protecting the environment and the ecosystems of British Columbia for the current generation, for future generations, for British Colum­bia’s rich heritage and for our role in the planet’s biodiversity, while offering clear pathways to approval of sustainable projects.

Let me address the issue of enhancing public confidence. We want to ensure that public confidence throughout the entire environmental assessment process is enhanced. People need to know, throughout this process, what the criteria are that will be applied to environmental assessments and how they’re going to be addressed in the environmental assessment process. Who is providing information, and how is it vetted? How is it peer-reviewed? What are the opportunities for public participation? What are the factors that the assessment office must address in making a decision for a recommendation and that ministers must address?

We want to ensure that the public, local communities and stakeholders can participate meaningfully, and I will detail how we’re going to do that in a moment or two. We want to ensure that local communities, the public and stakeholders can have their interests and concerns fully understood and that they can see how their involvement has impacted the assessment that’s being undertaken and how the concerns that they’ve raised were actually addressed in the process.

Let me give some examples of features of this act that will enhance public confidence. The first one is an early engagement stage. It’s a formal opportunity, contained in the legislation, for the public, at the very outset of the environmental assessment process, to identify interests of communities, interests of members of the public, issues and concerns.

Why this is so important is that identifying these interests, issues and concerns, as well as those raised by Indigenous nations, can inform project design, locations and alternatives and study requirements. This can help shape the approach to both public engagement going forward in the assessment process, as well as — and I’ll get to this again in a few moments — the activities of the project proponent as they design a project that can be assessed in a timely manner and at a more cost-effective use of their resources.

The process itself is clearly laid out in legislation. It includes a purpose statement for the environmental assessment office that focuses on a process that’s thorough, timely, transparent and impartial in terms of ensuring that the technical information that goes into deciding what the risks are, the impacts, the effects and how they can be mitigated or addressed, is seen to be independent. Key elements include clear timelines and public comment periods, while maintaining flexibility where needed and appropriate.

The legislation very, very specifically outlines the matters that must be considered in each environmental assessment — must be considered. This resulted from over 75 hours of meetings with an environmental assessment advisory committee that was convened.

[4:25 p.m.]

Sorry, I’ve discovered that I actually skipped a page, so I’ll come back to it.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Heyman: That’s true.

The process allows for a variety of types of engagement beyond the traditional comment periods, including more opportunities for dialogue that are supported by plain-language materials that can be easily understood by the public, especially laypeople.

We’ve added two additional public comment periods, for a total of four, one at the beginning and one at the end of the process. We also establish a community advisory committee as a default, unless it is clear that there is simply insufficient community interest to participate in the project.

The act will also require that ministers must publish reasons for their decisions. So the ministers will receive a report based on all the factors that must be considered. These will be addressed in the report of the environmental assessment office and the recommendation contained therein, and the ministers must, in their decision, address how they dealt with those matters that were considered and the results of the consideration.

That applies to both the decision to issue or not issue an environmental assessment certificate as well as a number of other decision points that are contained in the act. The act stipulates that environmental assessment certificates include legally binding conditions that will be enforced. But they will also — and this is new — be evaluated for their effectiveness through audits and reporting. The act also requires that the act itself be reviewed five years from coming into force.

I mentioned that there was considerable consultation and input opportunities for a range of interest groups and Indigenous nations to put their input into the process. That included 75 hours of meetings with an environmental assessment advisory committee that was established to provide balance and expert input into the proposed changes from industry, from practitioners, from labour, from environmental organizations and from Indigenous representatives, as well as industry.

The proposed changes to the act were then outlined in a discussion paper which was put out for public comment. We received over 2,500 comments from British Columbians and a further 60 formal submissions from Indigenous nations, non-government organizations, health authorities, local governments, industry and others.

A result of this feedback was a “What We Heard” document, which was published following public comments. Eventually, after the public comments, we published an intentions paper that summarized what our intent for the new act was, and we made it public last month.

We continued consultation. We continued fine-tuning the act we have before you. That is why support for this bill was voiced by Indigenous leadership, by environmental organizations and by industry.

Let me address now the very important feature of this act, reconciliation and the implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Consistent with this government’s overall commitments, the new act proposes to advance reconciliation and support implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples in the context of the environmental assessment process.

This act represents one of the first opportunities to consider and implement the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples in provincial legislation. We have done so while striking the appropriate balance. The act, in setting out the purpose of the environmental assessment office, identifies support for reconciliation by collaborating with Indigenous nations in relation to reviewable projects, consistent with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

[4:30 p.m.]

The process is a consent-based process. The proposed act includes specific provisions that are designed to promote a consent-based process.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

First, the act requires that the environmental assessment office seek to achieve consensus with Indigenous nations that identify their intention to participate in the process throughout the environmental assessment process. These nations are referred to as “participating Indigenous nations” in the act.

Examples include the decision following the early engagement phase on whether to proceed with an assessment, exempt the project from assessment or terminate the assessment; the issuing of a process order that sets out how the assessment will be conducted; the development of the assessment report and any draft conditions; the recommendation to ministers on the decision whether to issue an environmental assessment certificate.

Second, where consensus is not achieved, the act provides for dispute resolution facilitators to assist in reaching resolution. The details of this voluntary, non-binding and time-limited dispute resolution process will be set out in regulation after further engagement with Indigenous nations, industry and other stakeholders.

Third, at two stages in the process, ministers are required to consider the consent or lack of consent of participating Indigenous nations. The first of these two stages is following the early engagement phase of the process, where the minister considers whether to accept, exempt or terminate a proposed project. The second of these two stages is at the conclusion of the assessment process when ministers are deciding whether to issue a provincial environmental assessment certificate.

Fourth, where there is no alignment between the views of any of our participating Indigenous nation and the environmental assessment office’s recommendation whether or not to issue an environmental assessment certificate, ministers must offer to meet in an attempt to achieve consensus on the minister’s decisions.

Fifth, in what is anticipated to be a rare scenario where consensus is not achieved on whether or not to issue an environmental assessment certificate, the act requires ministers to provide reasons why a decision was made contrary to the consent or lack of consent expressed by an Indigenous nation.

In doing so, the act makes it clear that ministers may decide to issue or withhold an environmental assessment certificate in the absence of consent from a participating Indigenous nation. While our goal is a process that will avoid that scenario, the legislation needs to and does explicitly consider this possibility.

Other examples of how the act supports reconciliation. Advancing reconciliations by allowing the minister to enter into government-to-government agreements with Indigenous nations for the purposes of conducting any aspect of an environmental assessment. The act also will require Indigenous knowledge to be applied, along with western science, to decision-making in environmental assessments, where provided. The act will further enable Indigenous nations to self-identify their participation in an environmental assessment process while providing checks to ensure that participation is justified. The act will also ensure that participating Indigenous nations will have adequate funding to participate in the environmental assessment process.

It’s also important to note that while protecting the environment, the act will provide clear pathways to successful consideration of good projects, of all projects. The new act ensures that the process will be robust, comprehensive and credible. It will ensure that the new process will assess a full range of adverse and positive effects of a project; that it will do so in a transparent, predictable and timely way; and that it will support responsible and sustainable development.

[4:35 p.m.]

Major development projects are a key and important part of B.C.’s economy. They are an important source of jobs for British Columbians throughout this province. I believe this new act will bring more predictability and certainty to the environmental assessment process. It will allow good, sustainable projects to get built efficiently, approved efficiently and built on schedule.

This predictability will signal to investors that British Columbia continues to be an attractive place to invest and do business. It will increase the durability of decisions by reducing litigation. It will reduce the overall time the assessment process takes.

It will reduce the uncertainty and consequent expenditure by project proponents by the early engagement phase and ensuring that what needs to be addressed in a project design is identified early, before a lot of money is spent, before suspensions of the process are asked for and granted, and then proponents have to go back and redesign a process almost from stage one.

Included in the purpose of promoting sustainability by protecting the environment and fostering a sound economy and the well-being of British Columbians is in the act. It’s in the act as a purpose to both protect the environment and ensure that the overall well-being of British Columbia’s communities and their economic well-being is clearly recognized.

We enhanced the independence of the process by ensuring that experts and peer review of assessment information will be conducted by a technical advisory committee appointed by the chief environmental assessment officer as a result of public engagement and Indigenous engagement. We will modernize compliance and enforcement tools available to the environmental assessment office and hope to involve Indigenous nations in this important aspect of ensuring environmental protection on their own territories.

We will monitor the effectiveness of the review of environmental assessment certificates to ensure that the mitigations that were laid out in the conditions are actually effective over time. If they are not, we will have the ability to revise and amend those conditions so they will be. We will assess the potential effect on the province being able to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act and address that factor in both the report and the decision of ministers.

There are a number of other new elements that must be assessed in a project. These include the disproportionate effects on human populations, including populations identified by gender.

Let me give an example of that. Many Indigenous nations, as well as women, have identified the impacts of work camps that are predominantly male in isolated or small localities and how that can have an impact on their security and well-being. This is now something that we have been considering in environmental assessment, and we will be writing it into the act.

We will consider effects on biophysical factors that support ecosystem function. We look at the effects on current and future generations, and we look at potential changes to the project that may be caused by the environment or changes in the environment.

Let me close by talking about the importance of clear pathways to success. We want to continue to promote the concept of one project and one assessment between the provincial government, the federal government and, where appropriate, Indigenous nations — but the retention of decision-making power by each level of government.

We are not giving away our responsibility to make decisions, but we are ensuring that we streamline the process. We will allow the result of other environmental assessment processes that meet the parameters laid out in our act to apply, to not put an undue burden on time or the resources of proponents or participating communities and Indigenous nations.

We define maximum timelines throughout the entire assessment so that assessments are completed in a reasonable and predictable time frame. I’ve mentioned the new early engagement phase that will be led by the environmental assessment office to identify interests, issues and concerns so the proponent is aware very early on and can build their project design, siting or alternative approaches to the project accordingly.

[4:40 p.m.]

We’ve added an early readiness gate decision following the early engagement phase to determine whether a project should proceed into the full environmental assessment, whether it could be exempted if there is little impact or controversy that has been identified and proceed directly to permitting or in some very specific circumstances, whether a project should be terminated before an assessment because of the factors that have been identified.

We want to reduce uncertainty by requiring the environmental assessment office to seek consensus with Indigenous nations at numerous points throughout the process. We believe that by this consent-based process that involves both the environmental assessment office and the proponent, we will build lasting and durable project certainty, as well as partnerships with Indigenous nations.

To summarize, the new act will enhance our province’s commitment to protect our environment, to protect our economy, to protect our culture and to protect the health and safety of British Columbians and society to ensure all British Columbians will be able to enjoy sustainable and sound economic development and the prosperity that comes with that, that the Indigenous nations can participate while their rights, culture, traditions and laws are respected and that this can take place for generations to come.

This bill is the result of well over a year of work, of consultation and of discussion. The broad support of the bill achieved from Indigenous nations, from environmental advocates and from industry is a testament to that.

I am proud to introduce this bill, and I look forward to the debate.

P. Milobar: First, I would like to congratulate the minister for bringing in this bill, bringing in a 48-page bill, with enough time for us to properly debate in this House both at second reading and have proper and full conversation and questioning at committee stage moving forward to make sure that everyone understands all the clauses and all the ins and outs of this bill.

Frankly, it’s refreshing to see a minister do that, because just yesterday we witnessed with Bill 53…. The Attorney General, with the “Save your own skin” bill, Bill 53, decided to invoke closure and stifle that type of conversation and robust discussion that we’re actually sent here by 87 ridings and voters across this province to try to do.

It shows you that within the government ranks, some ministers can bring bills forward properly — I would note both bills were about 48-pages long — and actually have proper wholesome and fulsome debate and be willing to defend their bill — defend it and have the scrutiny any bill that any government brings forward, regardless of political stripe, should be willing to endure.

Unfortunately, we didn’t see that with Bill 53. So it gives me great pleasure that Bill 51 is at least going to see proper scrutiny, unlike the Attorney General. Thankfully, I guess, the Attorney General wasn’t bringing this bill in or we may have saw closure happen tonight. This bill could have been introduced, and we’d have closure on Bill 51 in the next two hours, unlike Bill 53 yesterday, the self-preservation act on recall.

So on Bill 51, I fully appreciate the attempts at trying to reach out to communities and the attempts to try to consult with various areas. Reading the bill, I can understand why those groups, at first blush, would think the big bill is okay. The bill has essentially put more framework around what has been happening in practice in the province of B.C. for several years now.

In terms of various sections here, I’ll walk through what I mean by that. I do look forward to the committee stage because I think, on principle, the concept of trying to have a process that people can understand and people can have confidence in — both the public as well as industry and First Nations — is important. It’s important for all sorts of projects. It’s important for our provincial economy.

Certainly, our side of the House can agree that that concept is something that we need to make sure is looked at from time to time, is reviewed from time to time and is brought forward and advanced.

[4:45 p.m.]

The problem with this bill — and I referenced other previous bills by this government — is this bill is very similar to some other bills, where it’s promising the world, but when you really dig into the language in it, it’s not going to deliver.

Unfortunately, I think there’s a whole lot of disappointment moving forward for the community. We heard the minister talk about 2,500 pieces of correspondence that came back in, and that’s not a bad number. I would question the minister if he looked into what the comments provided to the EAO office under other projects would have been when he asked for public input on these types of projects. I know that a mine just outside of Kamloops surely had way more than 2,500 comments provided to the Ministry of Environment on that specific project.

To think that those 2,500 people were the only people that might have an opinion on whether this is a good process or not…. What will happen is that they will pay attention when something is happening near their community. To try to advertise this bill as the cure-all for environmental assessment permits is just simply not going to happen, because frankly, the timelines in this bill are no different than what we currently have.

It’s, again, a sleight of hand movement by this government. We’ve seen it with the tax bills. We’ve seen it with the speculation tax that doesn’t do anything to cure speculation. We’ve seen it with the school tax that has nothing to do with schools. We’ve seen it with a litany of their taxes, where they’re very adept at putting a catchy name on it, but it actually doesn’t deliver what the name would suggest. Of course, people, at first blush, think that it’s a wonderful idea because the ideal in the name is a good idea. The action in the bill — like in Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act — is going to fall very short.

We heard the minister speak at length. He kept saying that this is a consent-based process. Instantly, he used every word but consent after that, because he kept referring to consensus. This is a consensus-based process. The minister touched on it, and rightfully so. There’s the preservation that the minister can ultimately make a decision to approve a project, whether a First Nation has given consent or not. So this is about consensus.

Now the minister, in definition pages, I can appreciate…. In the briefing, the staff were very thorough. They always do a very good job — the public service — of explaining that the reason consensus does not have a definition is that it’s a commonly used interpretation. But I will guarantee that when you go out to the broader community, everyone will have a different understanding of how they interpret the word “consensus.” The government has not included a definition for consensus of what they would like to see.

That becomes a problem because they also…. Although they have some definitions around what they consider participating First Nations, there’s still a lot of non-clarity as to how far that will reach. There’s still a lot of non-clarity around how communities will be engaged through this process. To suggest that this is a higher level because it references UNDRIP is simply not accurate. The clause that the minister talked about, where the minister would have to offer a meeting to a party that didn’t like the decision, gives them a three-day response window.

Most of these resource projects — let’s face it — are going to be in rural and remote areas. It gives rural and remote communities — that have limited high-speed Internet, as we’ve discussed in this House several times; limited cell service, as we have discussed in this House several times — three days, or the minister moves on. While any interactions I’ve ever had with First Nations…. I don’t think that three days is going to cut the test when it comes to them feeling as if they have had time to consider whether or not to request a meeting with the minister to get further information or not.

All of these timelines are arbitrary. All of these timelines are wonderful to say, but you cannot say in one breath that you are seeking consensus but the clock is ticking. How many times have we heard in this House, especially when the members opposite were in opposition, that things are being rushed?

[4:50 p.m.]

“You didn’t consult. You didn’t take your time. You didn’t do things properly.” Yet they hold up this piece of legislation as if it’s going to expedite the process. This is the underlying problem I have with this bill — the marketing program that the government has around this bill. They are setting false expectations to communities, to First Nations, to industry that somehow, this is going to expedite.

When you look at the flow chart of the proposed process that was provided to me, of course the timeline will look like it’s quicker than the old timeline, because they have moved the start of when they start to count the days in what they consider their process. The EA readiness decision and the early engagement piece, both of which could take considerable time — years, in fact — don’t count under this government’s mathematics. NDP math at its finest, yet again.

Somehow the company which is trying to develop a resource project…. Those couple of years are irrelevant because they’ve got this shiny, new faster process to go through once they deal with those first few years. It’s quite disingenuous to try to say to industry: “Don’t worry. This will speed things up for you.” It simply will not.

The ideal of trying to get consensus, the ideal of trying to work with the communities, the ideal of trying to communicate with all people that feel they may be impacted by this, I think, is one that we can all agree with. But to suggest that these timelines are firm and that when they say you have 80 days, 80 days means 80 days, is simply not the case.

We will delve into that at the committee stage to try to find out why the minister’s staff would say it’s not a firm timeline, but to hear the minister’s speech, it is. I’m guessing there was some staff involved in creating the speech, so that’ll be an interesting conversation to have.

The lengthening of the timelines that we see in this bill over the current system does not provide further certainty to a community. As I say, I lived it. I lived it through a community that went through a mine application for the better part of nine years.

People get nervous around projects. The flow of information, the way information will be collected and disseminated out in this process, is not significantly different than what we currently have, so to expect that you think there will be a different outcome just simply isn’t the case.

I believe I actually referenced this to the minister during estimates. There was a large chunk of time there, so I can’t remember everything word for word. But I pointed out that processes are all great, but if somebody is opposed to something, if they feel that process is not going to deliver them the outcome they want, they start to challenge the process.

They start to challenge what it is — the legislation, the application process — that a project’s going under. They will put their hands up and immediately say: “We need more time. We need to have more input. We need more information. We don’t trust who has created the information.” Those are all understandable — why a community or a group or an organization who does not want to see a project move forward would feel that way.

This document won’t change any of that. To hear the minister speak, though, this is the cure-all. This is the cure-all because under this new act, instead of an environmental assessment officer adjudicating and looking at all the information and making recommendations to the minister, you know what we have now? What we have now….

This should put everyone’s minds at ease, because it’s a radical new change. It’s a radical new direction in this piece of this legislation. I can understand why it took 48 pages to make sure it got referenced properly and worked out and all the legalese. Now instead of an environmental assessment officer, we have a chief environmental assessment officer. Instead of an EAO, we have a CEAO.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’m sure that will bring great relief to any communities, activists, First Nations or anyone who is looking to move a project forward — that they now have a CEAO instead of an EAO. That should really bring clarity to the process. That should speed things along. That’s going to make everyone have much more faith in the process on a project they may not actually want to see moved forward in the first place.

There are all sorts of issues like that in this bill that, as we move through committee stage, we will want to get further clarification for.

Now, I do know that as we consult, as we work, as we strive for consensus with First Nations…. I know that other speakers may touch on this as well, so I’ll just be brief on it. I do know that, generally speaking, First Nations do not appreciate it when you tell them that you’re considering them a stakeholder — and understandably — because they want to be treated like another form of government, another level of government. They want government-to-government discussions, not stakeholder discussions. Yet this bill very clearly seems to demonstrate that they are being considered as stakeholders by the government. That’s hardly embracing UNDRIP.

The increased costs that will come with this plan will be a result of the increased timelines that this plan will create. This act is creating unrealistic expectations from the narrative of the minister and the government. That is probably the biggest fundamental problem I have with this.

As I say, lots of these actions have been happening within industry for years now. In fact, one could almost look…. One would almost think that the minister took a step-by-step analysis of what happened with LNG in the north and decided to call it Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act. It’s all been done already. So to call this revolutionary and new is going to create problems when the actual rubber hits the road.

As usual, with this bill, it’s enabling legislation that has none of the regulation that’s going to come with it anywhere near. A lot of that regulation is what will actually truly delay things. When you look at Bill 51 by itself, given that most of this is already taking place, especially on very large-scale projects…. Most corporations have realized this is a way forward in terms of working productively with First Nations to provide good, stable employment opportunities, training opportunities, sharing of resource royalties and other initiatives.

They’ve been doing that already. Corporations, arguably, are ahead of government on this. But when you look at Bill 51 and stack it in there with Bill 49, which is the new professional reliance model, and you layer those two together, you start to see the real underlying direction that this government is headed down.

We just voted against — and the government approved — their 19th new tax in a year and a half, so they’re a little ahead of one a month. That’s a pretty good clip right now to keep bringing in new taxes. Hopefully, they don’t last too long in government, or we could have — what? — 48…? No, 54, because they gave themselves an extra six months. That’s right. So 54 months. We could have 54 new taxes if they run out the full term here at this pace.

When you layer in all those taxes, all of what’s happening — employer health tax and everything else — and you think of the payrolls involved on these large-scale resource development projects, and then you layer in Bill 49, which is the professional reliance, and the nightmare bureaucracy that that is going to create — I believe we’ll be in committee stage on that bill in the next day or the following week, when we come back from break — it’s going to create problems.

We haven’t even touched on the new climate plan, which was supposed to be introduced this fall. I’m not sure when. We have — what? — seven days left in the legislative calendar. So maybe I spoke too soon about bringing bills in with appropriate times to debate, because maybe we’re going to see closure brought in when we ever see the climate plan, just like we saw with the self-serving Bill 53, the “Protect your own skin” recall act, yesterday.

[5:00 p.m.]

That is really, at its core, the biggest problem. When you look at the layering of taxation, when you look at the layering of regulation and ultimate power and authority that some of these acts are going to be granting to politically chosen superintendents — can’t say EAO; CEAO — it gets very worrisome.

Then you have wonder what is going to be in the climate plan. The climate plan actually gets referenced in Bill 51. A climate plan we haven’t even seen yet gets referenced in Bill 51 as a hurdle for industry to have to meet.

We’re not sure if this an end run for government to try…. If LNG needs any slight amendments, to be able to suddenly say: “Well, we supported it, but guess what. Now we don’t.” We don’t know what this means for LNG moving forward on train 3 and 4 — this new Environmental Assessment Act. We don’t know.

This bill could essentially close the door on any new development, when you look at the way the wording is around greenhouse gas emissions and the new climate plan that no one has seen yet. It’s the layering. It’s the underhandedness of layering these bills, where they do actually all interconnect when it comes to a major resource project but are all being looked at independently.

All these outside groups are going: “Well, you know, that bill — we can live with it.” But I can guarantee you that the conversations I have with people in industry and with projects are much different than what the government has. What the government has with those groups is groups that are very worried about a very punitive response from government if they dare speak against them. I can understand why, when they’re used to seeing the famous memo about making sure that you never dissent with government or else retribution will happen.

I can understand why, when they see a government whose Attorney General sees no problem with invoking closure mid-session on a bill that he’s worried about recalling himself. So he feels no problem demanding that we invoke closure on a bill to just get it out of the way because he needs to make sure he’s protecting himself. So you wonder how industry might have a slightly different take on these bills moving forward than what, perhaps, they’re sharing with the government.

There is a lot of governmental work that happens with the engineers and with the foresters. There’s a lot of governmental work tied in with the Environmental Assessment Act by those same types of professionals. Do you think they want…? Especially when you talk about potential rosters, where the government will now be approving who gets to be on a roster to even practise.

Of course they’re not going to scream and yell about the Environmental Assessment Act. They need to make sure they get on the government roster. It’s almost like a community benefit, but instead of the handpicked unions, they’re handpicking which professionals get to work in our province now. That is the problem.

The really scary part is that I think the bulk of the members of the government, based on comments earlier, just a minute ago, doesn’t actually understand the magnitude of some of these changes, when they’re comparing them to lawyers. We’re not seeing the government try to take over the legal profession.

We’re not saying there should not be an overarching professional association guiding people’s professional conduct. We’re not saying there should not be the BCMA. We’re not saying there shouldn’t be a legal situation. We’re saying there shouldn’t be a government-handpicked political appointee that gets to override all of that and make up whatever rules they want and then handpick who gets to be on a roster to be deemed adequate by said handpicked political appointee, and then they could work on projects under the Environmental Assessment Act.

[5:05 p.m.]

It is a reach in the extreme, and Bill 51 is not accomplishing anything the minister is trying to advertise it is going to do. Bill 51 is going to create more confusion out there as people start to try to move through a process and realize it’s actually going to take longer.

Bill 51 is enabling legislation, but the regulations that will really be the meat of this bill are not expected for another year. Another whole year where people are going to be in limbo and wondering which rules they’re supposed to be operating under — people that are opposed to projects, demanding to know why they can’t be under Bill 51. Well, because there’s no regulation to go with Bill 51 at this point.

Again, what’s the rush? Why not work on the regulation if you can’t really do much with this bill until the regulations are in place? That’s going to be a year from now. Why not bring this forward next fall?

We know the government’s committed to fall sessions in their CASA agreement with the Greens. Of course, they seem to be changing the parameters of the CASA agreement on a regular basis, so maybe they’re not confident there’s going to be a fall sitting next year. Kind of like when they changed the rules on the proportional representation referendum and just turned their back on it and didn’t really think much of it.

Why not? They can do whatever they want. They’ve got a hefty one-seat majority in the House, based on a handwritten deal they showed to the Lieutenant-Governor, to be allowed to govern. That’s a pretty strong mandate, if I’ve ever seen, to run roughshod over the democratic process in British Columbia, to run roughshod over the ability to properly debate a bill that they chose to introduce.

They chose to introduce the bill, Bill 53, the self-serving protect-your-own-butt recall initiative act. They chose to bring that bill forward, and the Attorney General demanded closure on that bill. Because they have such a strong mandate from the people on that side of the House, they feel they can run roughshod over the democratic process in this province. It’s shameful.

So here we have Bill 51 that, when you layer it with Bill 49, when you layer it…. I’m not sure what we’re going to call the bill for the climate action plan, because no one is really sure when we’re going to see it, with seven days to go in this legislative calendar. When you layer all those together with all the other tax measures, with how punitive this government has tried to be with anyone that dares try to create opportunity in this province, how punitive they’ve been with any company that dares make a profit….

How we’re supposed to have faith that this bill is going to accelerate projects and bring things forward in a positive and productive way to allow the economy to continue to grow, especially in rural B.C., is interesting to me. We heard the minister talk about consensus and then talk about how…. But the minister’s hands aren’t tied. They can still make a decision even if consensus isn’t there. But he really wanted to make sure and drive home the point that that would be a very rare occasion.

Well, if it’s going to be a very rare occasion, the minister, by his own words, is essentially saying if a group can’t get to consensus on this, chances are we’re going to say no to a project. Why is that a problem? Because they cannot define consensus. They can’t define whether it’s First Nations communities as well as a local municipality as well as a regional district. All need to have consensus?

They can’t decide to define if it’s the elected chief and council that will represent the nation or if it’s a different process. They do reference that it’s up to a First Nation to choose their representation. But I think we’ve seen, even with the Kinder Morgan project, there is dissenting opinion within First Nations on who’s speaking on whose behalf, even within a nation.

[5:10 p.m.]

There is so much ambiguity in this bill right now that it really does make one question how the minister can stand in this House and insist that this bill is going to accelerate projects and figure out a way forward to help remote communities create the jobs and their opportunities that they deserve to have. You’re not going to get some high-tech hub that’s 600 kilometres in any direction to the nearest town. It’s not going to happen.

These are the communities that are impacted when a government staunchly wants to figure out how to put up every roadblock they can for a project so that those communities are left out. The environmental groups from all over the world that keep trying to push their agenda in British Columbia aren’t really that worried about that remote community.

This bill does nothing to accelerate things. The concept of it is understandable and supportable. I very much look forward to the questions during committee stage. At 48 pages and with all of the back-and-forth sections in this, I hazard to guess we’re going to have a great many questions.

I thank you for the time today on Bill 51, and I look forward to hearing other people’s comments.

E. Ross: This bill, Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act, took me back to the days when I stopped focusing on Indian Act programming, on trying to solve it by trying to solve Indian Act–related issues or even trying to deal with treaty negotiations under the B.C. treaty process, mainly because these processes did nothing to provide a future for my band and, more importantly, provided no future for my band members.

This is a hugely personal topic for me, when we’re talking about rights and title and environmental assessment acts. Even 15 years ago…. Even today I’m still reading the news about Aboriginals in prison, Aboriginal children in care, unemployed Aboriginals and Aboriginals on welfare. I know these people. They’re my friends. They’re family. They’re acquaintances from all across Canada.

In terms of this bill, in terms of rights and title, the only type of reconciliation I see as a priority to talk about is economic reconciliation, and I never hear that being brought up in any of these discussions. This is the cure for Aboriginals who want out of these dismal situations. Sad to say, there is no word in this bill that talks about economic reconciliation. There’s no talk about self-sustainability or independence, when, really, that’s the biggest issue facing Canada today. It has been labelled as Canada’s shame.

There’s an opportunity to fix it using existing case law and fixing it by inserting it into the environmental assessment bill. UNDRIP was inserted — an undefined document that was actually developed in New York. That was inserted. Why not insert economic reconciliation, as laid out in the case law established by the courts of Canada and B.C.?

When I started in council in 2003, I opposed everything in terms of economic development. I wanted to shut it all down, for a number of reasons. Probably my biggest reason was because my neighbouring town had all the wealth and, at one time, per capita, were the highest wage-earners in Canada. Yet seven miles down the road, my First Nation had nothing. The town of Kitimat had an aluminum smelter, a pulp and paper mill, a methanol plant and port development, while my band had to live hand to mouth under funding agreements signed with Ottawa.

In this respect, I’m glad that there’s more definition, even though it’s kind of vague, about Aboriginal rights and title case law in this new bill.

I had no vision of taking revenge on the city of Kitimat. I didn’t want any of the wealth developed by the smelter, the pulp and paper mill. I didn’t want any of that. The case law said you could only look forward, from day one, in terms of 2004 case law, the Haida court case on the duty to consult and accommodate.

Around that same time, when I was looking to oppose all economic development, I was also believing, at that time, the rhetoric that was passed around by opposition — that government, non-natives and corporations were evil and were to blame for everyone’s lot in life. But after agreeing to at least listen to the benefits of engaging with industry and government, especially in light of the court case on the duty to consult and accommodate, I slowly began to realize that I had been lied to by people and organizations that could care less about my people, let alone my community.

[5:15 p.m.]

Most of them were environmental activist organizations who still, today, use Aboriginals for their own agendas, which is to shut down Canada. They have no concern for Aboriginal issues, whether it be poverty or suicide. It’s a despicable stance to take.

I also began to realize that government can’t fix the issues that First Nations face today in Canada. It would take billions and billions of dollar just to get it up to standards and then it would take billions more just to maintain those standards. It’s much better if you put the First Nations in a position where they can engage in the economy and become independent and be in a position to address their own issues on their own terms with their own revenue base, which they don’t have today.

I ignored all the manipulators. I ignored all the environmental activists and their organizations that used our people for their own agenda. I tried to find information and facts so I could (1) learn for myself about the reality of what happens in the outside world and (2) see if there’s a solution to what our people were going through.

In trying to understand the complex world of section 35 of the constitution and related case law, I came across the B.C. Environmental Assessment Act. I’m probably only one of two people in my entire community that had read that Environmental Assessment Act 15 years ago.

I read it, along with getting supporting information from the B.C. environmental assessment office, and engaged with those staff people from the B.C. environmental assessment office. I found that they were struggling to find a way to incorporate rights and title, as well, into the act. It was just one paragraph at the time.

It doesn’t help that, still, very few people understand Aboriginal rights and title case law, including people in this House and including other Aboriginal leaders. The only ones that can make sense of it are lawyers, and even that becomes interpretive — except for, of course, my colleague from Vancouver.

I’ll give this to the NDP government. At least, in forming this new bill, the NDP government decided to continue to follow existing case law as a priority. UNDRIP, the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people, is a political document that’s undefined. You can’t legislate it. But the case law you can. That’s what this bill does, for the most part.

For the most part, when I was looking through this bill, the template was set already, over 14 or 15 years of the LNG industry establishing a base in B.C. Everything I’ve seen in this bill, in terms of the measures, I experienced over the last 14 years. A lot of it was successful. Some of it failed. Dispute resolution, mediation, the protection of the bill to take legal action, even strength of claim and trying to figure out how to define it — it’s all in this bill. But it’s actually what I experienced at the working level in Kitamaat Village over the last 14 years.

Now, it’s not clear what this bill talks about in terms of early engagement. It’s different from what I experienced. From what I experienced with the LNG industry — even before they made an application, even before they made mention to B.C. — they came to our office. That is early engagement.

Once they understood our issues and once we had a protocol, then they went and applied for the environmental certificate, a section 10. From then on, they kept coming back and getting our interest before any single permit was applied for. It was easier for them. I don’t see that wording in this bill. I see a technical, complicated bunch of clauses that talk about early engagement. That is not early engagement, based on what made LNG successful in Kitimat.

But the strength of claim that’s actually driving this document, mainly, is something that governments can’t deviate from, whether it be Canada or B.C., regardless of what you say about UNDRIP. You can’t deviate from it, or else you’re actually ignoring your duty as government.

In fact, the language in this document is so similar to the existing case law. It’s just different wording. It’s all it is. The government has to “seek consensus.” That’s case law.

[5:20 p.m.]

I know you think it’s UNDRIP, but it’s actually case law — Aboriginal rights and title case law. But the authority of the decision remains with the minister. That is case law. The case law says that First Nations don’t have a veto. Consultation must be a two-way street, and the government still has to make a decision. That is in Aboriginal rights and title case law.

The consent provision. Now, there’s been tremendous argument and debate on what consent means, in light of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people, and nobody’s actually solved it yet. I understand how the government tried to insert consent to alleviate some of the political concern, but really, the government, in this clause here, actually protected the Aboriginal rights and title case law and protected the power of the minister to make a decision.

Consent in this bill is only applicable if the government agrees that the First Nation can have consent, and it can only be for specific areas. The First Nation can have consent if the government allows them to have consent in specific areas. That’s not quite consent. That’s somebody else giving you permission to have consent, as long as I agree to it as government. That is not quite consent.

The First Nation leaders who are read up on rights and title will see through this. The strength-of-claim language, even though it’s not referred to as strength-of-claim, will continue to be a problem under this act. It’s a tough, sensitive issue. First Nations and government have been trying to deal with it for the last 30 years, ever since they brought in the B.C. treaty process.

This document is not going to solve it, no matter how much collaboration, no matter how much early engagement, dispute resolution, because there are a lot of outstanding issues between First Nations that go back 100 and 150 years. There are a lot of grievances amongst these First Nations on who the rightful title holders of certain territories are.

Today the price is high when you’re talking about boundaries, when you’re talking about a specific project, especially if it’s in the billions of dollars. Every First Nation is essentially broke, especially up in northern B.C. — not in southern B.C. On the ports, in the urban areas, there are certain First Nations that are entirely rich and don’t need this type of assistance in a bill.

The words in this document are not going to solve the overlap issue. Where it’s going to come from is First Nation leaders sitting down together and developing a partnership on their own. That’s where it’s going to come from. It’s going to be a reconciliation between First Nations. The mediation is not going to help. Believe me. I was a mediator in trying to resolve some overlap issues, and I couldn’t get anywhere, because the issues are too complicated.

The strength-of-claim language here is actually defined, whereas the previous act didn’t have that definition. But in terms of the strength-of-claim question in this bill, all it says is that if the strength of claim is not strong enough for the government to consider consultation or accommodation for a First Nation, then government will notify that First Nation that their evidence is weak. That’s it. It doesn’t say anything else.

Under existing case law, the strength of claim is actually linked to the amount of consultation and accommodation a First Nation receives when you’re dealing with rights and title. This document mentions it but doesn’t talk about the amount of consultation and accommodation owed to a First Nation. It doesn’t talk about that. That’s going to be a problem.

I do wonder what the answer will be when a First Nation is excluded from an environmental assessment in dealing with Aboriginal rights and title but will be allowed to participate in a regional assessment. Of course, they have the ability to go to court, under this document, under this section 51. Anybody has that ability. It’s not new.

[5:25 p.m.]

Without prejudice, nothing “abrogates or derogates.” Yeah, that’s true, too, in all of the negotiations that you have with First Nations. It’s not new. Anybody knows that First Nations that don’t develop a good, strong strength of claim or don’t have the level of consultation or accommodation levels they want, have the right to go to court. It happens all the time, even if they don’t have title. Even if they don’t have rights in there, they still go to court. Some of them win. Some of them lose. It’s not new.

Even if you didn’t have this language in the bill, they would still have that ability. In fact, all the First Nations in the B.C. treaty process have the ability to go to court while they’re in the B.C. treaty process. B.C. and Canada’s response to that is: “If you go to court to litigate, then we will suspend negotiations under the B.C. treaty process.” It’s already there.

Maybe 30 years ago or 50 years ago, First Nations didn’t have access to lawyers and, therefore, couldn’t go to court. Today, that’s different. Every First Nation leader knows they have the ability to go to court, regardless of any bills. That goes for all Canadians. You can’t limit anybody in Canada from going to court. Whether or not the court will accept you or make a decision for you, that’s a different question.

In the minister’s opening comments, he talked about government-to-government discussion and negotiations — already exist. Traditional knowledge will be incorporated into this bill. That already exists. It’s there in case law. Most of this stuff you didn’t have to put in, because the case law already speaks definitively to it in terms of what’s allowed.

The impact on genders. That was an interesting clause. I agree with that. I always have. I went to these conferences. I went to these reports and understood what was really happening in these types of projects, especially when we’re talking about young, vulnerable, native women being exposed to work camps.

Let me tell you something. That impact on gender happens today, with or without economic development. It’s happening in my community. In fact, it’s even worse when Aboriginal women are on welfare and they’ve got no other choice but to enter the sex traffic. It’s already there. It’s already in urban Vancouver, and there are no major projects happening in Vancouver. I’m not sure it belongs in an environmental assessment act. Maybe it belongs in a different bill. But to think that this is only going to happen with major project development is wrong. It’s sending the wrong message. The problem exists today.

There’s another omission of what’s really happening here, especially when we talk about the timelines. Time­lines are irrelevant, regardless of the old act or this act. There are just too many provisions that allow for suspension or even blockades, opposition. This bill could have been made stronger in terms of what happens when somebody outright breaks the law in terms of a project going ahead, the consultation, the accommodation and the processes that are listed out in this project.

What happens when somebody breaks a law — not just once, but over an extended period of time — especially when a project could help global warming, like LNG, or could help First Nations from Prince George get out of poverty? What happens when a small group of people break the law? Under a lawful bill like Bill 51, I think that’s worth mentioning, especially if you’re going to talk about all the other stuff that really has nothing to do with environmental assessments.

I heard this government say a number of times that there will be more clarity, and there will be a new way of doing business, but this act just reconfirms the uncertainty that is present today. That’s all it did. It just codified the uncertainty that we face. It doesn’t offer solutions.

[5:30 p.m.]

The timeline will be broken unless the government is willing to tell a First Nation: “Sorry, you missed a deadline. We’ve got to keep going, because it says so in our bill.” I want to be around when the government tells that to a First Nation. I’d like to be there. I hope there’s a press release or a media availability, because I’ve seen it before. It doesn’t end nicely, because rights and title says you can’t impose time limits. You can’t do it, especially when you’re talking about capacity.

For clarity’s sake — like what I’ve heard this government say — and to speed up the timelines, which this bill is not going to do…. I’m sure many people in B.C., including First Nations, corporations, even administrators of the B.C. government themselves would appreciate language that states the obvious intent of this act, which is to continue using existing case law to guide government decision-making.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

In terms of shared decision-making, we did extensive work on that. Our band lobbied heavily to have shared decision-making at the minister’s level. This is not what this bill is talking about. The minister’s decision is the minister’s decision alone.

I do understand now, given my education over the last ten years in terms of looking at government issues, why it can’t be achieved, to have true shared decision-making at the minister’s level. There’s a lot of responsibility. There’s a lot of liability. The minister of the Crown actually owes a duty to all British Columbians, not just certain groups. So I’m not quite sure the shared decision-making clause actually is what First Nations think it’s supposed to be. It hasn’t really defined that.

If you’re collaborating…. That leads up to a decision. Yes, that’s admirable, but that is not shared decision-making, espe­cially if the minister protects his decision-making powers. That’s what this act does. It protects ministers’ decision-making powers, and rightly so.

In terms of this act following case law, in terms of rights and title, you’ve already mentioned that this act will follow section 35 the constitution. Why can’t you mention that it’s going to follow existing case law that’s actually pursuant to section 35 of the constitution? The answer I received from the B.C. staff was: “Well, that goes without saying, so there’s no need to mention it.” That can’t be further from the truth.

I haven’t met…. Very few people in this place understand the nature of rights and title. Case law — very few people understand it. It’s a vague concept. It’s almost an abstract concept. I don’t understand it myself, because I’ve been trying to deal with it for 14 years. I don’t understand it fully. It can be interpreted so many different ways, and that creates a lot of uncertainty. This bill prolongs that uncertainty. It confirms it. There’s nothing here that actually contravenes case law or even makes the rights and title consultation accommodation any quicker or any clearer. There’s nothing in this bill that does that, that hasn’t been tried before. It’s still in practice today without this bill.

I’m not saying if you include the one phrase describing rights and title case law…. I’m not saying that if you include it, people will understand it. But at least for the leaders, who understand the basics of rights and title case law in relation to section 35 of the constitution, they’ll have a point of reference to go on. They won’t be misled. They won’t continue to think that the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples is the new law of the land, because it’s not.

This bill confirms that rights and title case law will still lead the discussions. It will still lead the decision-making of the Crown — in this case, the minister. That type of clarity would be refreshing.

[5:35 p.m.]

It wouldn’t just be refreshing to have this clarity just for First Nations. It would also help, immensely, the front-line workers of the B.C. government, who will have to answer and deal with the First Nations, who will be demanding clear and concise responses on why the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples isn’t being fully implemented. This would help those staff people that are going to have to deal with the abuse, that are going to have to deal with the anger.

This act could also use more clarity, especially around definitions — the definition of “consensus,” for example, in the context of this bill. I’m sure a number of us have already looked up the word “consensus” in the dictionary. The simplest definition I could find was: “An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.”

Well, I’m glad this NDP government wasn’t in government for the last 14 years while I was trying to get LNG across the finish line, because the FID that we just recently heard about a couple months ago never would have happened, only because of the double standard of the word “consensus.”

Where did we get this word — consensus? Again, from UNDRIP. The double standard I’m talking about only applies to First Nations along a project that has a linear route. That’s the only place it has meaning. But when you look at other jurisdictions or other entities…. Many mayors didn’t agree with the speculation tax. Many homeowners in Point Grey didn’t agree with the school tax. Many employers don’t agree with the employer health tax. But there’s no consensus. There’s no consensus, but for some reason the NDP government still pushed it through.

But in the case of a linear project for First Nations — maybe 30 in total, maybe 40 in total — there has to be consensus. That’s such a double standard. Why are First Nations being held to a higher standard? It’s not case law. It’s not the law. The case law is clear. The Crown can still make a decision, even with lack of agreement.

So if the majority of First Nations want a project that will lift their people out of poverty, and this government feels that only a minority of them oppose the project, their rights will be upheld, but they will say nothing about the majority of the First Nations who support economic development. This is unfair, especially when a lot of leaders are trying to bring their people out of poverty. They’re trying to get them jobs. They’re trying to raise their own revenues so they can provide their own programing suited to what their needs are.

If anything, this bill is going to extend the timelines for environmental assessments for the majority of First Nation groups that are looking for a way out, because they see the opportunity, the economic reconciliation, but the minority will have the power to stop projects all across B.C.

In a sense, I knew that the LNG project development that my band had undertaken — and is currently writing the handbook on consultation and accommodation — was actually going to help develop B.C. It was going to shape B.C.’s future. We did it. We did it in partnership with the B.C. Liberal government, and we did in partnership with LNG Canada, Chevron, AltaGas. It was a partnership, and it didn’t require a bill. But I see that everything we did that was successful was incorporated into this bill.

If the honour of the Crown is upheld in terms of looking out for the future of B.C. and lives with the case law as determined by the courts of B.C. and Canada, this bill will work. Unfortunately, there are clauses that will defeat it in this same bill.

Reading this act was like reading a checklist of what we had done in Kitimat.

[5:40 p.m.]

If we don’t keep going down this road of getting LNG projects approved, we’re not going to address global warming. We’re not going to get China to reduce its 34 percent load of emissions into our atmosphere, versus Canada’s 1.5 percent. We need a cleaner bill with more clarity to get more LNG projects built. We don’t need more obstacles like more taxes. Carbon tax — the United States doesn’t have one. We don’t need a climate action plan that’s going to limit emissions but continue to allow Asia or the United States to increase theirs. We don’t need this stuff.

Canada is a leader in environmental protection. We’re the leader in reducing emissions. We need a bill that can get the LNG projects built. We need a bill that can get other projects built quickly and that can lift all of us up, First Nations and non–First Nations alike. The revenues that we get from these projects can turn around and help with our highways and our hospitals.

We don’t need obstacles. We don’t need this bureaucratic language that talks a mean game but is really designed to shut down the economic fabric of B.C. and Canada. We don’t need that.

We’ve got a lot to be proud of in Canada. It was built by people that wanted a better life for their citizens. This bill should actually promote that, build on that and build a stronger future for tomorrow and for tomorrow’s children. Not a bill that is designed to shut down or slow down the economy of B.C.

R. Glumac: I’d like to tell you a little story, a story about a little lake in the heart of our province called Fish Lake. It’s called Fish Lake because it’s full of fish.

If you were to stand on the shores of this lake, you might be awestruck by the beauty of this lake. It might make you feel proud to be a British Columbian and of how beautiful our province is.

If you were a biologist, you might find that the ecosystem around this lake is an incredible ecosystem, full of fish and fish habitat, full of grizzly bears, full of moose. You might be bringing your staff and students up there to study this land.

If you were an executive in a mining company, you might think that this lake would be a great tailings pond. The only way to really determine whether that would be an appropriate use for this lake is through a robust environmental assessment process that could determine whether that use would be appropriate or not.

Back in 2010, the federal environmental assessment agency issued a report about this lake. In that report, they concluded that the particular mining project that wanted to use this lake as a tailings pond would result in significant adverse environmental effects on the fish and fish resources for traditional purposes by First Nations, on cultural heritage and on certain potential or established Aboriginal rights and title. The panel also concluded that the project would result in adverse cumulative effects on grizzly bears and moose in the region and on fish and fish habitat.

The conclusion of this environmental assessment agency report is notable because it differed from how the provincial environmental assessment concluded. Provincially, the environmental assessment office recognized that there was going to be a loss of Fish Lake but concluded that the compensation — a new lake to be created by the mining company somewhere else — would be adequate compensation. Thereby, the provincial environmental assessment certificate was granted. Luckily, the federal environmental certificate was not granted.

The public certainly does not gain any confidence in the province’s weak environmental assessment process after this conflicting decision. This is just one example of where the trust of the public was shaken, with many feeling that our process under the previous government did not adequately protect the environment, was not transparent and did not take First Nations and other input into account adequately.

[5:45 p.m.]

All this is now going to be addressed. It’s going to be changing after we pass this legislation. This legislation will enhance public confidence in our environmental assessment process, and this new environmental assessment process will be more transparent and allow for more meaningful public participation.

One of the ways it’s going to do this is through early engagement. Right from the beginning of this process, the public, not the proponent, can identify the issues and concerns in order to inform the entire process going forward. Following this early engagement, there will be an opportunity to either proceed or, if it’s deemed that it’s not appropriate to proceed, then to terminate the assessment early so that the company doesn’t have to go through a long process only to find out, in the end, that they won’t be granted the certificate.

There will be multiple opportunities for engagement, including opportunities for dialogue, like meaningful dialogue, not just speaking at a microphone or sending in a letter. There will also be opportunities, through a community advisory committee, to gather the advice of the local community. If an environmental assessment certificate is issued, there will also be legally binding conditions that are enforced and evaluated through ongoing audits.

This legislation will also advance reconciliation and implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. The act requires that the environmental assessment office seek to achieve consensus with Indigenous nations that are affected by a project. The act also ensures that participating Indigenous nations have adequate funding to participate in the environmental assessment process.

Through this participation, if consensus is not achieved between Indigenous nations, facilitators will be used for dispute resolution to assist in achieving resolution. If there’s a disagreement between the views of affected Indigenous nations and the environmental assessment office recommendation of whether or not to issue an environmental certificate, the appropriate ministers are required to meet and try to achieve consensus again. If after all of this consensus is still not achieved, the minister will be required to provide reasons for why such a decision was made, thereby proving the transparency of the entire process.

This legislation will also improve environmental protection, which should be a key goal of the environmental assessment office. The act will bring more independence to the environmental assessment process through greater oversight of experts. We recently passed legislation which establishes the office of a superintendent of professional governance. That’s going to be something where there is going to be a lot more oversight over the professionals involved in the environmental assessment process and more independence from the proponent.

There will be more compliance and enforcement tools through this process and greater monitoring of mitigation efforts to see if things are actually working. Greenhouse gas emissions will be assessed to see how the project fits into our targets as a province. The effects of future generations will also be considered through this process.

It’s critical that the public trust our environmental assessment process. We recognize that protecting the environment should go hand in hand with economic growth.

The B.C. Auditor General recently wrote a report. They singled out a lack of effective provincial oversight as a cause for a degradation of water quality in the Elk Valley, particularly due to high concentrations of selenium from coal mining. This is happening because of a lack of a comprehensive environmental assessment process.

The process that we have is very much proponent-driven. The proponent defines the scope of the project in the current process. The proponent conducts the assessment in the current process. The proponent participates in the government review of the process. What we’re moving to now is a process that has more independence. It has more transparency. It has more opportunity for the public to be meaningfully engaged in this process.

[5:50 p.m.]

The previous process had two public comment periods. The feedback from people engaged in this process was that it felt like public input was just like ticking a box. That’s not going to be the way it is anymore. This legislation will help regain the trust of the public in our environmental assessment process that was lost under the previous government.

In the previous government, environmental concerns were not a priority. In the previous government, the interests of the public were not a priority. The interests of First Nations rights were not a priority. But these are priorities for this government, and that’s why I’m proud to support this legislation.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased to rise today and speak to the Environmental Assessment Act. This legislation offers us an opportunity to enhance sustainability in all senses of the word — environmental, economic, social and cultural.

As we move forward in an era of reconciliation, it is essential that we recognize, both in our words and in our actions, the principles of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. In an era of climate change, it is also essential that we consider the far-reaching impacts of resource management practices and that we manage our ecosystems holistically.

It is for these reasons that the legislation before us today is critically important. For too long in British Columbia we have failed to adequately assess the environmental impacts of our actions with numerous consequences. We have seen firsthand how logging can endanger a watershed or how project approvals have failed to acknowledge the associated greenhouse gas emissions. We have also witnessed the disproportionate impacts of these consequences on Indigenous peoples.

As the federal court of appeal ruled just a few months ago, the federal government failed to adequately consult First Nations impacted by the Trans Mountain pipeline project. This decision has signalled to all of us that we can and must do better.

British Columbia was one of the first provinces to establish environmental assessment legislation in the 1990s. Although this legislation has been adjusted over the years, many voices have said it was insufficient. Several years ago the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria reported that B.C.’s environmental assessment process “suffers from a clear lack of public confidence.”

In 2011, the Auditor General published a report on the post-certification stage of government’s environmental assessment process. The report found that “the environmental assessment office is not evaluating the effectiveness of environmental assessment mitigation measures to ensure that projects are achieving the desired outcomes.” It also found that the environmental assessment office was “not making appropriate monitoring, compliance and outcome information available to the public to ensure accountability.”

In 2017, we committed to revitalizing this legislation. It was a key shared policy initiative outlined in the confidence and supply agreement between our caucus and government. Another key initiative in CASA is a renewed commitment to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. This spring we updated our targets for dramatic cuts to carbon pollution as stated in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act.

The commitment is a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2007 levels by 2030, and I would like to emphasize that this is not a target that we can afford to miss. As highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released a few weeks ago, without urgent action on this file, the consequences will be life-threatening.

For that reason, I am pleased to see that this legislation is consistent with the commitments made earlier this year, as it requires that every environmental assessment considers a project’s greenhouse gas emissions and its direct impacts on our targets. It also requires assessments to reflect identified government policies which could be used to incorporate application of climate strategies.

I do, however, have some reservations. This legislation does not appear to require an assessment to consider the life cycle and lifespan emissions of a project, which is vital. It doesn’t matter if a project or facility is the “cleanest” if it has already blown through our carbon budget upstream. While greenhouse gas emissions must be considered, the ministers can still approve projects that will impair B.C.’s ability to meet its legislated emission reduction targets.

[5:55 p.m.]

I appreciate that the minister needs to be able to use their discretion when evaluating the complex matrix of costs and benefits that every project exists within. The legislation, as presented, is asking us to trust the government to make the right decision. So far, governments have not done enough to inspire trust that those decisions will favour reducing the flow of greenhouse gas emissions over reducing the flow of money, despite the threats we face. It is challenging to leave such an important decision to trust.

In the span of just a few centuries, earth has made a transition from a past, when climate affected the evolution of human societies, to the present, in which humans are affecting the evolution of the climate system. Today we are at a pivotal moment in human history. Our generation will be responsible for deciding what paths the future climate will take.

We know that global warming will lead to an increasing likelihood of summer droughts. This, in turn, will lead to more and more extensive wildfires. We know that precipitation extremes will increase and that flooding events will be on the rise. At the rate we are going, we are looking at between 20 percent and 50 percent of the world’s species, almost certainly including the iconic Fraser River sockeye, becoming committed to extinction in this century. Global warming is a threat to our economic well-being. It is a threat to our human well-being. If the environment in which we live is unwell, we, too, will be unwell.

The current state of B.C.’s climate is not “the new normal,” as many were saying this summer from under the cloud of smoke. “Normal” implies a plateau and consistency. We are not on a plateau. We are on a steep trend towards increasingly extreme events. I’m sad to say this is just the beginning, and what is occurring worldwide pales in comparison to what we have in store.

The world’s leading climate scientists warned we only have a dozen years to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius, beyond which, even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. So it is hard to trust that we’ll be okay in the face of such dire warnings, when our legislation allows climate targets to be compromised as long as the minister considers them first.

I know that one environmental assessment act can’t save the world single-handedly, no matter how strong it is, but it needs to be sharp, and it needs to do its part. We need to ensure it is structured in a way that will support bold climate action in the years ahead. I’d also like to note that as a policy-taker, not a policy-maker, the environmental assessment office will work to ensure proponents follow other climate laws and regulations. Our caucus has been working with government over the last year to improve those policies as well. I’m hopeful they will further strengthen this new environmental assessment process and vice versa.

I’ve also been working a lot on land use and land management issues this year. Many, if not most of them, come down to the need to be able to evaluate the big picture of what is happening in B.C. Like the age-old tragedy of the commons, in a shared-resource system, if individual users act independently according to their own self-interest, their collective action will deplete or spoil the resource and have a negative impact on the common good of all users. If one of us chops down a tree or dumps wastewater into a river, it may not be a big deal. But if we all do it, we’re in trouble.

As our population grows and development creeps across our province, it is government’s responsibility to keep a keen eye on the big picture. Government needs to be able to draw the line when an area has reached its limit. Too many ecosystems and wildlife populations in B.C. are being systematically managed to the brink of collapse. Clearly, government needs a better way to evaluate the cumulative impacts of multiple projects or developments. It is not good enough for each actor to mitigate their own impact. To avoid a death by a thousand cuts, we need to be able to look at the whole picture and make decisions accordingly. With that in mind, I am keenly interested in the regional assessment potential in this legislation.

[6:00 p.m.]

We need an environmental assessment system that includes higher-level assessment and planning that address big-picture regional and strategic issues up front, such as how to effectively manage cumulative impacts in a region in order to establish management requirements that apply to project assessments and provincial decisions. I appreciate this is a very complex goal, but it is one worth working towards. The legislation in front of us does not fill in the details about how regional assessments can be incorporated, but it does include language that will enable that work to be done over the next year.

Other positive aspects of Bill 51 include mandatory consideration in project assessment of consistency with relevant land use plans, including Indigenous land use plans. B.C. will be enabled to enter into agreements with other jurisdictions, including Indigenous nations, regarding conducting or implementing regional and strategic assessments and provisions that are included to allow Indigenous nations to request a cooperation agreement or regional or strategic assessment.

Another promising development: in the new EA process, the minister will have the power to order a project assessment to be paused, pending the outcome of a regional or strategic assessment or other investigation or inquiry. That said, I am concerned there is no language in this bill that would serve as triggers for when regional or strategic assessment should occur.

I’m also concerned that I do not see any mechanisms in this bill that would allow the public to request regional or strategic assessments. I think that would be a valuable addition, as often it is the local community who has the best understanding of everything going on in their area and the cumulative impact that may be having. Much like the climate test, the outcomes of a regional or a strategic assessment would not be binding in a project environmental assessment.

Overall, I think the ability to conduct comprehensive regional assessments is a really promising addition. We’re part of the way there, but the work done in regulations will make or break it. An act is nothing without adequate supporting regulations. We don’t have to look far to find an example.

B.C.’s Water Sustainability Act is a great piece of legislation, but its empty regulations prevent it from fulfilling its promise and purpose — to improve and protect water management in our province. The Polis water project at the University of Victoria has highlighted the useful tools offered by the Water Sustainability Act, but many of them have yet to be realized. There remains a great deal of uncertainty around how the core water planning features will be utilized, and communities are falling through the cracks.

For instance, and to provide some examples that were also impacted by professional reliance failures, in Peachland, residents have seen boil-water advisories increase as impacts from industry have accumulated in their watershed. In the Hullcar valley, groundwater monitoring was insufficient in detecting water quality concerns before it became a crisis. In the small community of Ymir, residents are concerned about logging in their small, already-stressed watershed. They are worried that forestry management decisions are not taking into account impacts on other ecosystem factors.

If the tools in the Water Sustainability Act had been adequately implemented for the benefit of communities in the two years since the legislation passed, these impacted British Columbians would have more tools, resources and clarity in how they can go about protecting their local watersheds.

Regulations are important. They indicate how legislation will manifest on the ground, and they give stakeholders the tools they need. The Environmental Assessment Act before us today leaves many components up to regulations. For that reason, I urge government to proceed thoughtfully and expediently with the necessary regulations.

One of the key aspects of this new legislation is increased capacity for public engagement, though I think it could be taken further. The communities I just mentioned — Peachland, Hullcar, Ymir — all organized to call attention to their struggles with water management. This is an experience I know well.

When the Shawnigan watershed was threatened by contaminated soil, our community got involved. We wrote over 300 letters to the statutory decision–maker. We sent hundreds more to MLAs, ministers and the former Premier. We collected over 15,000 signatures and presented them in the Legislature. We gathered 1,600 people on the lawn, calling attention to the issue at hand.

Over the past two decades, in the face of deteriorating environmental protections and unravelling compliance and enforcement measures, British Columbians have mobilized. Letter-writing campaigns and protests began the shift that led to the legislation before us today. People have a right to know about the projects that will impact them, and they have a right to give us, the project proponents, their feedback.

[6:05 p.m.]

I’m happy to note that under the new legislation, the public will be engaged earlier in the assessment process. There will also be more public engagement periods at different steps along the way. This improved engagement and transparency goes a long way towards rebuilding the trust that has been lost in B.C.

Trust is a net positive for professionals, public, government and industry alike. If we know that the decision-making process has the best interest and key values of British Columbians at heart, our industries will be more competitive and our province healthier as a whole. I will be canvassing all of these sections in greater detail in committee stage to ensure they will fully accomplish our shared goal of restoring and earning public trust.

I’m also pleased to note the recognition of First Nations as key decision–makers in our province. This legislation explicitly ties in the principles of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. It is the first legislation in British Columbia to do so.

This act states that one of the foundational purposes of the environmental assessment office is to support reconciliation by recognizing the inherent jurisdiction of Indigenous nations and their right to participate in decision-making. The new environmental assessment enables Indigenous-led assessments and studies. It requires that the environmental assessment office seek consensus throughout the process.

This is significant. For a very long time, Indigenous peoples in B.C. have been denied jurisdiction over their lands, their resources and even their children. This is still ongoing.

We live in an era where Indigenous peoples continue to face systemic barriers. Many Indigenous communities — the number has grown as of today — continue to lack access to clean water. The number of Indigenous children in care is at crisis levels. And as the Federal Court of Appeal recently emphasized, the consideration of Indigenous rights and perspectives in resource decisions has so far been inadequate at best.

The legislation on the table today demonstrates a commitment to doing better. It is a commitment that we absolutely must see through. To quote Grand Chief Stewart Phillip: “Recognizing Indigenous governments, laws, jurisdictions and decision-making is an essential part of reconciliation, and the legislation today is a small step in the right direction.”

I’m encouraged by the legislation before us today. For too long, mismanagement has compromised public trust, Indigenous rights and environmental health. For too long, projects have been approved with inadequate consideration for the long-lasting impacts they will have for ecosystems and the people and animals who depend on them.

Today we have an opportunity to change how we make decisions going forward. We have an opportunity to include the public in a transparent process and to adequately and meaningfully collaborate with Indigenous people. There remains much work to be done to realize true reconciliation, just as there are items that will need to be addressed in order for this legislation to adequately protect the environmental health of our province.

Today, however, we see British Columbia shifting in the direction of an accountable and an equitable environmental assessment process. Moving forward, I am hopeful that British Columbians can begin to trust that the decisions made in our province do indeed protect the economic, social and ecological values that they hold dear.

D. Barnett: I rise today to speak to Bill 51, the environmental act, on behalf of the constituents of the great riding of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. My riding consists of over 44,000 kilometres of land from Hagensborg in the West Chilcotin to 76 Mile in the South Cariboo. There are ten First Nations communities.

In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada granted declaration of Aboriginal title to more than 1,700 square kilometres of land in the West Chilcotin. The court also established what title means, including the right to benefits associated with the land and the right to use it, enjoy it and profit from it.

[6:10 p.m.]

However, the court declared that title is not absolute, meaning economic development can still proceed as long as one of two conditions are met: economic development on land where title is established has the consent of the First Nation; failing that, the government must make the case that development is pressing and substantial and meet its fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal group.

In other words, the decision places a greater burden on governments to justify economic development on Aboriginal land. The court also made it clear that provincial law still applies to land over which Aboriginal title has been declared, subject to constitutional laws.

The judgment was welcomed by all in the Cariboo-Chilcotin — opportunity for First Nations, for economic development on their title lands. It has, however, created much uncertainty.

The previous government put together, in the Deni accord with the Tsilhqot’in, to work together on issues important to First Nations moving forward. Access to private lands and long-term lease agreements for ranchers, tourism operators, guide-outfitters, trappers and residents need to be settled as soon as possible so all have certainty, and First Nations, the government and the citizens are striving to move this forward.

In the Cariboo-Chilcotin, a land use plan was announced by the B.C. government in 1994. The land use plan stated: “Access to timber for forest industry; certainty for mining, ranching and tourism industries; conservation and recreation objectives for natural values; economic and social stability; increased opportunities for growth in investment throughout the region.”

In the region, there are two major municipalities, Williams Lake and 100 Mile, with over 25 unincorporated communities and small pockets of development throughout the region.

Resource extraction has been the economic engine of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Pine beetle in the 1990s, not mitigated by government of the day, started in Tweedsmuir and Christmas parks, class A parks in the region. Forest fires over the past few years — in particular, 2004, 2010, 2017 and 2018 — have taken a greater toll on our forest resource.

There are opportunities throughout the region. Mining in this rich area of minerals will hopefully become a reality, putting First Nation communities out of poverty and keeping communities who need new development in work.

The parts of this bill that concern me are time frames, more bureaucracy, no regulations, no local input, one committee after another, outside interests. The government has in the last couple of months put taxation on business and industry — health care tax, carbon tax, speculation tax, a professional reliance bill.

This bill, the way it is written, only adds to costs for anyone looking to invest in British Columbia. Outside lobbyists, activists, have stopped more economic development in B.C., and this bill gives them a free map to stop everything.

The member from Port Moody spoke earlier this evening about Fish Lake in the Chilcotin. I live in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. I have been throughout my whole beautiful riding. I have been to Fish Lake, and I have not seen a fish. I have been there when there has been….

Interjection.

D. Barnett: There are two Fish Lakes in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. One gets great fish, and one has no fish.

I also get very frustrated when I see economic opportunities…. I see communities, First Nations. I have, for the last 30 years, worked very closely with many of my First Nations communities on many projects. I have been out with them in places that most people don’t know exist.

It amazes me that somebody that lives on a hill in Port Moody knows more about rural British Columbia resource extraction partnerships and what is going on than the people that live there.

Interjection.

[6:15 p.m.]

D. Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman across the way here….

Deputy Speaker: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin has the floor.

D. Barnett: Thank you.

We do not have a monopoly on ideas, but we know our environment. We know where we live, and we care about our environment. The frustration for those of us that live in rural British Columbia is when all of the money from outside — the States, foreign money — which those across the way talk about continuously, come in to lobby to stop economic development. We have seen it all too often, believe you me, in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

When the project that the speaker from Port Moody was talking about…. A woman in the Chilcotin got an environmental award and a big cheque from an American environmental organization for helping to lobby to stop an economic project. This bill opens the door to more of that, in my opinion.

It scares me to think that British Columbia will continue to be lobbied against any type of resource extraction development, as safe as it is. There are more rules, there are more regulations, and there are more time frames that have stopped projects in rural British Columbia by outside lobbyists. I would hope that….

When we get to the committee stage, I am sure that we will have many, many questions to ask the minister about this particular bill. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity, and I will pass the floor to the next speaker.

S. Gibson: It’s a pleasure to rise in this House on behalf of my constituents of the beautiful Abbotsford-Mission riding, about an hour east of Vancouver in a bucolic agricultural area.

I think, in particular, I want to address the general themes that I have discerned as I’ve had the opportunity to review the act, and maybe take a step back for a moment and just talk about the vitality of our province, why we as MLAs are really here to boost the economic viability of our province.

We’re prosperous here. People are coming to our province. They aspire to live here. For those of us who have lived in other provinces…. I had the privilege, I think you might say, of living in Ottawa for some time, going to university, and suddenly realizing the magnificence of our province in contrast to Ottawa, which has cold winters, much like Peace River North and Peace River South. But they’re good communities as well.

Interjection.

S. Gibson: My colleague is affirming that.

It’s a privilege to be here and represent the interests of my constituents. We’re doing so much in this province. We have seen so much development. Yet in the last few months, as this government matures, we suddenly realize that this side of the House uniquely is empowered to stand up for the economic development of our province. Unfortunately, the government has lost sight of that, not realizing that if you don’t have a vital economy, you don’t have the resources to support all of the social services which are being embraced and advanced by the government.

In the case of the Environmental Assessment Act, I worry that the interests of the environment, as important as they are, are really making it impossible to develop in our province.

I want to acknowledge the good words of the hon. member for Skeena. As an Aboriginal chief, he has the right, I believe, to speak with authority about these issues. I was particularly impressed as I reflected on the remarks he made some moments ago here in this Legislature.

[6:20 p.m.]

I’m always impressed with his comments regarding how to get First Nations people out of poverty. We know that our First Nations friends struggle a little more than some other folks in our society. It’s all about economic viability.

We’ve heard the member for Skeena here a number of times emotionally calling out to government: “Please don’t throw roadblocks in economic development.” LNG is coming. Site C is progressing well. Hundreds of thousands of our First Nations friends are going to benefit. But his analysis leads me to believe that he has some veracity in the remarks he makes regarding the challenges of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The question that I always ask myself as I see government getting into many acts around this House and presenting them here is: what does it do for the financial viability and health of our province? In most cases, the answer is: nothing.

You’re trying to equalize the financial load. I get that — the kind of Robin Hood philosophy which has some allure, I suppose, for our government. But in the case of the Environmental Assessment Act, Bill 51, I don’t see any acknowledgement of that. I don’t see any acknowledgement of the necessity to make a vibrant economy, especially in our northern communities.

We are, on this side of the House, in many ways, the rural conscience of the province.

Isn’t that right, hon. Member.

The rural conscience of our province. Over on that side of the House, it’s dominated by the urban presence. Nothing wrong with that, but this government needs to pay attention.

When you hear the member from Chilcotin speaking, government, pay attention. When you hear the message from our members from the Peace River country, pay attention. Kamloops. They speak with authority. They speak from the heart.

Looking at this legislation, we begin to worry. Is this government really sensitive to the issues of the rural area? And ironically, this legislation applies to the rural area. It applies. It has deep application.

Now, one of the exciting things that I believe with economic development is that it spreads far and wide. In my community, there are people who live in the Abbotsford-Mission riding who commute to rural areas to work in the mines and the logging camps. I’ve got an individual in my area that actually commutes to Fort McMurray. He commutes up to Fort Mac all the time. That’s quite a commute. The reason is the economic viability.

One of the things that we know — it was actually chilling when I first heard about this — is the amount of money streaming into our province from the U.S.A. to discourage economic development. When I first heard about it, I was a little suspicious. I thought: “Well, this is a bit of a conspiracy theory.” It is not; it’s true. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of dollars coming into our province to discourage economic development. Shocking. Does this act acknowledge that? I don’t think so.

When we were government, we really worked at trying to work with our First Nations friends. That’s why the number one goal of our government was to build prosperity throughout the province, especially in those areas that were hard hit. We’ve had the fires. We’ve had the pine beetle and others. It’s a tragedy in many parts of our rural areas. Some of our communities are actually going down in population.

The particular emphasis on the Environmental Assessment Act is working with our Aboriginal people. I think, as I mentioned earlier, our MLA for Skeena is truly an ambassador for that community, truly an ambassador for economic vitality.

[6:25 p.m.]

We’ve worked on many final agreements. In fact, our minister at the time, who’s now the member for Nechako Lakes. They worked with our minister at the time and signed more than 500 economic and reconciliation agreements. Fantastic news. How’s the government working with that? I haven’t heard. This side of the House was committed to that.

Pursuing LNG. We received a very ambivalent message from this government. One person would say: “Yeah, we kind of like LNG.” And then another MLA was quoted as saying: “We don’t want LNG.” It was a very strange kind of message. It was almost bipolar, in a way. We didn’t quite know what was going on.

Well, now the Premier has apparently embraced LNG. Way to go. It’s exciting to see that. Unfortunately, there was quite a bit of ambivalence over there. It’s always kind of sad to see that. But once in a while, the choir will get together and sing together in harmony. That’s kind of nice to hear over here. It’s exciting to see this government becoming progressive.

Site C is moving ahead. This government…. Boy, we didn’t know what was going on there. Site C was a bit sketchy there for a while. Of course, it’s clean energy. Finally, they adopted it, so we’re encouraged.

This government is moving fairly…. It’s a bit wobbly, and I think the public understands that. But I think they do cut this government quite a bit of slack, because they’re fairly new at it, and we get that.

The Environmental Assessment Act, by all accounts, is going to slow down the process of getting economic development done — a lot more red tape, a lot more layers. This new individual, the commissioner, has more powers, by all accounts. We’re worried over here that this is going to stifle development and really not be in the best interest of our citizens.

I think that it parallels, if I may, some of the discussion that’s going on regarding proportional representation. We’ve just seen closure with the recall. There are a lot of things going on with this government that are troubling for the public. As we go into committee with this and find out much more about this through asking questions of real scrutiny, I believe that the track record that this government has demonstrated is going to be revealed, very much so, in this legislation.

Now, we don’t really know much more than the legislation, the bill. But we’re going to have to wait and see with all the regulations that are a part of it. That’s where — I hate to use that cliché — the proof is in the pudding. I don’t want to use that one again, but I did. That’s when we’re going to find out what’s really in here, right?

I’m troubled by this. I think that the government is throwing more roadblocks in front of quality development, employment opportunities in our rural areas. I’m looking forward to hearing more of the remarks from our opposition members here, who continue to be troubled by the implications of Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act. Thank you for allowing me to speak to it on behalf of my constituents of the Abbotsford-Mission riding.

R. Leonard: I’m excited to be here tonight to express my support for Bill 51. I’ve worked for many decades as an environmental contractor, specifically working with local groups that had concerns around the environment, and always with the intent to make things better.

I can say that over those decades, the expression that I heard over and over again both federally and provincially was “death by a thousand cuts.” Little changes that weren’t enough to rile up the people, but as they accumulated, there was a big impact.

[6:30 p.m.]

Today I’m very pleased to see that we are going to roll that back and reintroduce stronger legislation that will inspire the confidence of the public. If we don’t have the confidence of the public, we go back to the era of polarization. This legislation takes us beyond that once again.

I just want to talk, too, about the idea that this is going to slow down development approvals. There was a coal development that was proposed in what used to be the riding that’s now Mid Island–Pacific Rim. It wasn’t just the proponent who had to spend years in the process. It was also the community that was struggling to make sure that their concerns were heard and that action was taken — the concerns about runoff from the coal mine impacting the shellfish growers in Baynes Sound, the impact to water for small communities in the area. The result was hundreds of conditions on the approval, and that project never happened.

This bill remedies that by talking about early involvement, providing supports to people who have an interest and parties that have an interest and giving some direction to proponents so that they know what they have to deal with. And when all parties are involved, then you will move things along, or else they’ll stop because it really isn’t feasible, and people will not waste their time or resources. I think that’s one of the gems of this bill — that it serves all parties.

I also want to make mention of the fact that this is operating in tandem with other pieces of legislation that are really going to inspire more confidence — when we’re talking about professional reliance and having a system where people can have confidence in the technical aspects of it, and as solutions are brought forward as projects are developed, that there is that opportunity for confidence to grow.

The fact that there’s going to be support from the environmental assessment for that public participation is huge. It’s huge, as people who, on the ground, have real concerns — to be able to have somewhere to turn and not empty their bank accounts to try and fight big industry. We don’t need to fight big industry. We need to work together. This is the great opportunity that we do have for all parties to move together and create opportunities with our natural resources but also to deal not only with the specifics around environmental concerns, but to look at the whole issue of sustainability, to go beyond the micro and look at the macro. I think that that’s another really valuable part of this bill.

I want to make one comment about the First Nations — to legislate the opportunity that we have committed to in terms of reconciliation and implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. It is more than a statement. It is a path forward. Wherever there are opportunities for us to end conflict and build bridges rather than walls, I think that we are moving in the right direction.

That’s all I wanted to say. I just wanted to acknowledge all the work that communities have done over the last few decades that I’ve been around, working on environmental causes, and wish everybody well, because I’m sure that there will be strong support for this legislation.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to my compadre from Abbotsford-Mission for his great little speech there. I appreciate it.

It gives me great pride to speak to Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act, on behalf of the southeast corner of our province, the gateway from the U.S.A., the gateway from Alberta and the home of the hard-working and fun-loving people of Kootenay East.

British Columbia is a rich and prosperous province. Like the people of Kootenay East, all of us in British Columbia are some of the most talented and hard-working in the world.

[6:35 p.m.]

They go to work every day to build better futures for their families, for their communities and for their province. So many of those hard-working British Columbians, whether they are working on our coastal forests, our northern gas fields or in downtown Vancouver offices, are working to make the most from our bounty of natural resources and their responsible development.

We are resource-rich, like I said, in this great province, and it is important that we move forward to develop natural resources for the benefit of B.C. families and that we do it in a way that protects the environment and in a way that ensures increased Indigenous involvement and shared decision-making.

As I said, I’m from Kootenay East. In my riding, we have five of the six top mines in the province — all metallurgical coal. I’ll get to that in a second. It’s a very industrious area that I live in, but it’s also a very recreational part of the world that we live in. We have some of the best recreation, 365 days a year, everything from hiking to swimming, fishing and hunting — all those kinds of beautiful things that we enjoy. The industry brings us there, but it’s our outdoor recreation that keeps us there.

We’ve found a balance in our region. We’ve found a balance, in Kootenay East, on how to incorporate mining and forestry. The railway is a big part of our area as well. We’ve been able to incorporate that in a good balance between the environment and the economy. We believe this because it’s the right thing to do. We believe this because we have the prosperous First Nations and prosperous British Columbians. We believe in opportunity for all of B.C. because we know that opportunity leads to prosperity, and prosperity builds better lives for people, their families and their communities.

When we were on that other side of the House, we delivered on that vision year after year, in partnerships with First Nations. To get together, we completed final agreements with several First Nations. We put our goals of shared prosperity into action with more than 500 economic and reconciliation agreements with First Nations. We recognized the opportunities that could be shared by all people of B.C., and we were relentless in pursuing LNG as an opportunity for First Nations, the north and our province to own the future and to build better lives.

We’re glad that side of the House has come to recognize our accomplishments. We’re happy, in fact, that they have adopted so many of those accomplishments that we on this side all started, like Site C and LNG. Hopefully, this will continue with partnerships and prosperity that will bring us pipelining oil from wellhead to tidewater. This will bring prosperity for all. Partnerships and conduct of business are self-evolving. Whether it is government-to-government rela­tions or partnerships with stakeholders and industry, they all evolve in real time. Partnerships don’t happen because you are told to do so; they happen because of a mutual understanding and shared benefits.

This is important, because I’ll go to the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, who earlier stood on his podium there and read from his speech that there was a lack of environmental assessment in my region on the elevated selenium levels. I imagine he was talking about the Elk River or the Fording River; I’m not sure. I’m not sure if he even understands where that part of the world is.

I’m not even sure if he understands the difference between metallurgical coal and thermal coal or if he understands some of the disruptive technologies that Teck Coal brings to our region. I don’t know. I’m not sure if he understands what smart shovel technology is or what sensor mining is all about. I’m not sure if he understands any of that. He just threw a catchphrase out there that’s supposed to alarm people.

These are some of the companies that are very responsible corporate citizens. They bring a lot of stuff to the game, to the table. I’m just going to try to…. I’ll read a couple of them off here for you — things like sensored blast monitoring, 3D laser mapping, virtual reality. These are all disruptive technologies that we’re bringing forward. It comes on the back of the technology sector. The technology sector is one of the fastest-growing sectors in the province. It comes off the back of good natural resource companies such as Teck Coal.

[6:40 p.m.]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

T. Shypitka: The Green leader here is applauding the resource sector over there. Obviously, he must be applauding. He supported Site C. He supported LNG. He’s supporting all of these great industries that we’re bringing forward. And it comes from the technology sector.

The technology sector is feeding off of Teck Coal and places like that. So when you speak to irresponsibility, I certainly hope you’re not pointing it where I think that you’re pointing it. And yes, they are putting money towards water treatment — reducing selenium issues. So $900 million, in fact, going towards it.

Not only that, but once these problems are rectified, once you have responsible corporate citizens that actually weigh in and do the responsible thing, like companies like Teck Coal do, that goes throughout the world. Other jurisdictions around the world pick up on this technology. We make this world a better place. And this is all because of self-evolving, this all-self-evolving system that we do.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Just had to break away from that because I thought that it needed to be addressed. I’m pretty sensitive to this. These companies do a lot for the environment, and to allude to the fact that they are not is really disturbing to me. It’s insulting, as a matter of fact.

It is important to this House to clean up some of our legislation from time to time and move them forward so that it is more reflective of the current landscape — cultural, social, demographical, economical. We need to do some housekeeping with our acts, with the acts that we have. I’m not opposed to redefining a few things here and there, but aspects of the Environmental Assessment Act that we’re looking at right now are troubling.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Well, rather than bringing clarity, for one, it looks like this bill is heading the opposite direction. It appears to add new burdens, new red tape, more process and new uncertainty that chokes out opportunity and hurts working families.

Once again, we have the government promising one thing and delivering the opposite. We are see a recurring trend here. They promise more democracy through proportional representation, but in reality, they deliver a process that makes political parties the key decision-makers in the elections and not the voters.

Members that sit in this House that come off party lists are indebted to the party that appointed them and not to the constituents they serve. I may not represent 100 percent of the political persuasion in my riding, but my door is certainly open to 100 percent of the constituents in the riding. I don’t ask for a voting card, and I accommodate 100 percent as well. If you don’t like me, you get rid of me. I think that’s the most transparent thing. And members on the other side may want that, but it’s not up to them. It’s up to my constituents. My constituents will do that. If I come off a party list, I won’t be responsible to them. I’ll be responsible to the party that gave me that list.

We have also seen this inconsistency through ramming through Bill 53, on changing the rules on recall. They claim that it’s improving democracy, but instead they limited citizens’ rights to launch recalls. Limit the dollar amount you can use for a recall when there has never been a successful recall ever since the NDP brought the recall almost 25 years ago. Limit the applications issued in a recall so that, essentially, someone could block a genuine application from a….

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

T. Shypitka: This stunt was performed just days before recall….

Mr. Speaker: Sorry, Member. It’s not clear which bill you’re speaking to here.

T. Shypitka: I’m speaking to the inconsistencies of this government and of this bill that’s coming forward to us. It speaks to that — Bill 51.

So here we are, with the NDP claiming this bill will deliver a clear and timely path for decisions. This bill lives up to the NDP track record of aiming to do the exact opposite of what they’re claiming.

First and foremost, this so-called clear path leaves much of the process yet to be determined by regulation. So that clear path is yet to be mapped. And worse, it stands in the way of creating good family-paying jobs, and the backers of projects struggle to find the certainty they need about the assessment process.

It is becoming a pattern in this government. Power is being swept into the minister’s office, creating more job-killing uncertainty.

In my short time as the opposition critic for Energy and Mines, I have done a lot of listening to the industry that I represent. I’ve also laid out the opportunities that we have here in British Columbia. There is no secret. What I have heard from the industry that has built our economy…. These industries built our economies.

[6:45 p.m.]

When I walk down the hallowed halls of the Legislature here…. We all see them every day. We see the four pillars of our economy, the foundation of our economy: farming, fishing, agriculture and, of course, mining. And through listening to some of these industry folk, I have established — and I think that the members over here have established — the seven Cs. I call them the seven Cs of bringing good industry to the table, and those seven Cs are consistency, clarity, certainty, consultation, competitiveness and, of course, cash. You always need the money. We always need some funding, some money. That’s six. I’ll get to the seventh one later.

The minister and the chief environmental assessment officer will be handed sweeping new powers to conduct reviews, audits, impose massive fines and introduce amendments to awarded environmental assessment permits.

Let me be clear again. We support increased Indigenous involvement and shared decision-making. This is paramount. We’ve done this, and we’d like to see it go forward, but we have to move forward to have this done. We’ve done some of the heavy lifting already, so we’d like to see some more of this for sure.

There are even more problems in this legislation — risk delaying decisions, lengthening timelines and putting responsible resource developments and all of the family- and community-supporting economic benefits at risk. This speaks to clarity. I mentioned the six Cs. Clarity is being addressed with that one.

The legislation fails to specify timelines to finish Indigenous dispute resolutions and the time required to seek consensus and reach consent. There are no limits tied to the many avenues provided for the minister or the chief environmental assessment officer to extend timelines. That involves consultation, part of the six Cs.

The environmental assessment readiness decision process and the application development and review process are undefined in terms of timelines. That speaks to certainty.

Finally, there are no specific time requirements for proponents to develop their initial project decisions. This is consistency.

Taken as a whole, we see lots of extra time being needed with this process and next to nothing done to streamline the process for getting responsible resource projects built. It appears that this government is yet again aiming to throw up roadblocks to responsible resource development. It is the hard-working families of this province and the communities of rural B.C. that are going to suffer for the government’s ideological war on resources.

I spoke to the six Cs. I talked to certainty and clarity and consistency and consultation, cash. There’s no cash in this bill, but that’ll be addressed at another time. All of these Cs that I’ve mentioned — consultation, consistency, clarity, certainty, cash — lead to one other thing. That’s the seventh C, and that’s confidence. With these processes, with this bill that’s in front of us right now…. It undermines confidence. Because all the other Cs that I’ve talked about aren’t being addressed and are actually being stalled.

Then, actually, after reading the 48 pages of this bill — it’s lengthy — it brings up a couple more C words, and those are confusion and consensus. So we’ll need to rid confusion over the definition of consensus, which is not in this bill at all. Consensus is a pretty broad word, and it’s not being addressed here at all.

This bill, in my opinion, is going to hurt families in every part of the province, which is why we’ll fight to fix this in the committee stage.

Noting the hour, I adjourn debate….

Interjections.

T. Shypitka: I reserve my right to speak.

Mr. Speaker: Member, if I heard you correctly, you’re reserving the right to speak later and adjourning debate.

T. Shypitka: Yes.

T. Shypitka moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 48 — TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER
PROTECTION ACT

Bill 48, Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.