Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 17.

[2:35 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Deputy Speaker: All right. Members, I’d like us to get this House back into business. If you have conversations you need to have with others, please move out into the distant hallways to have those conversations. The minister is here and ready to start the debate of second reading.

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

Amendments….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Sorry, Minister.

Members, if you could please…. I’m going to stand now, and maybe you’ll acknowledge me then.

[The Deputy Speaker rose.]

Deputy Speaker: If you could please take your conversations outside, I would appreciate it. When you’re in the hallways, please be quiet. Thank you.

Minister, apologies.

[The Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In case anyone didn’t hear me, I move that this bill be read a second time now.

Amendments are being proposed to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. First, this bill proposes amendments to rename two class A parks to include Indigenous place names. Acknowledging the Indigenous place names allows British Columbians to connect with the history and cultures of our province and supports ongoing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples throughout B.C., as well as the implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Article 13 of UNDRIP specifically refers to Indigenous place names.

Chilliwack Lake Park will be renamed to Sxótsaqel/Chilliwack Lake Park. The proposed name includes the Halq’eméylem place name, which means sacred lake. This area is the ancestral homeland of the Ts’elxwéyeqw Nation.

Newcastle Island Marine Park will be renamed Say­sutshun (Newcastle Island Marine) Park. Saysutshun is the Snuneymuxw First Nations name for the island. The island is a significant and sacred place for the Snuneymuxw people.

Secondly, the bill continues our routine practice of add­ing to B.C.’s protected areas network, modifying protected area boundaries, improving protected area boundary descriptions and, of course, correcting some administrative errors.

These amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act establish a new 143-hectare class A park called Hwsalu-utsum near the Koksilah River on southern Vancouver Island. This area, known locally by some as Eagle Heights, was purchased by the province with the support of partners including the Cowichan Tribes, the Cowichan Valley regional district, the Cowichan Valley Naturalists Society, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Habitat Conservation Trust Fund and Cowichan Community Land Trust.

This new park protects a rare pocket grassland, a remnant old-growth Douglas fir forest and important limestone karst features. The biodiverse property is culturally significant to local Indigenous peoples, and the Cowichan Tribes have provided us with the name of this new park. Hwsalu-utsum is their place name for the broader ridge of which the new park is a part. This is the first new class A park in British Columbia since 2016, when Chun T’oh Whudujut ancient forest park was established near Prince George, and it’s the first on Vancouver Island in over 20 years since Hesquiat Lake Park was established in Clayoquot Sound.

The amendments also add to nine class A parks and one conservancy. In detail, these are that Beatton Park in the Peace region will have an addition of 22 hectares of land that the ministry purchased in March 2007. This addition protects important wetland and lakeshore habitat at Girl Guide Bay on the shore of Charlie Lake. Eleven hectares of lake foreshore will also be added to this park.

Echo Lake Park near Lumby will have 65 hectares of lake foreshore added. This lake foreshore addition, in combination with the Beatton Park addition, increased the protection of adjacent lake values.

[2:40 p.m.]

Chasm Park near Clinton will have 101 hectares of land added that the ministry acquired in July 2019 through a donation under the federal ecological gifts program. The addition secures two inholdings that were completely encompassed within the park boundaries.

Bonaparte Park near Kamloops will have an addition of 1,708 hectares of Crown land. This addition implements a recommendation of the Kamloops land and resource management plan to protect an area around Elbow Lake. The Elbow Lake area includes unroaded areas, remote recreation and tourism opportunities and lakes that provide a variety of fishing experiences.

Mount Robson Park will have one hectare added as a result of the transfer of the visitor centre parking lot to B.C. Parks from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. This will allow B.C. Parks to administer and manage this popular parking lot area, which is intrinsically and essentially part of the park.

Granby Park in the Kootenay-Okanagan-Boundary area will have 147 hectares of Crown land added as mitigation for past timber harvesting that occurred in the park due to an administrative mapping error.

Dragon Mountain Park near Quesnel will have 0.3 hectares added. This land was excluded at the time of park establishment because it was subject to a commercial land use permit. The commercial tenure has now expired and been cancelled, so the area, which is used as a parking lot and meeting place for park visitors, can now be added to the park.

Lucy Islands Conservancy will have three hectares of land and 129 hectares of marine foreshore added. This adds two islets and surrounding marine waters that were left out in error at the time the conservancy was first established. This conservancy protects globally significant breeding and nesting habitat for sea birds, important Coast Tsimshian cultural values and diverse local recreational opportunities.

Skaha Bluffs Park will have 65 hectares of land from a 2019 private land donation added to the park. This donation contains habitat for species at risk, including bighorn sheep and western rattlesnake, along with cliff terrain that supports peregrine falcon and endangered bats. The parcel also contains numerous rock-climbing routes and popular trails.

Garibaldi Park will have 5.6 hectares of private land that the ministry purchased in 2019 added. The property is currently an undeveloped inholding that is entirely surrounded by the park. The addition of the area to the park will provide the ministry the flexibility to address parking and road safety issues at this popular park access point.

The amendments also modify the boundaries of five parks and cancel one protected area. One hectare will be deleted from Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park to allow for an access corridor for private land that was erroneously included in the park. One hectare will be deleted from Goat Range Park to remove a small portion of the right-of-way for Highway 31 that was erroneously in­cluded in the park when it was established.

Enabling amendments will allow 42 hectares to be deleted from the Peace River Corridor Park and established as a protected area under the Environment and Land Use Act in order to enable the ministry to authorize a water line and associated infrastructure for the South Peace Hutterian Brethren colony. This amendment re­solves issues associated with access to a safe and adequate supply of water for the colony. The colony has in turn also proposed to transfer 62 hectares of private land to the ministry, which will be added to the park.

Three hectares will be deleted from Moberly Lake Park to resolve a past administrative error to enable ongoing legal access for owners of adjacent private lands whose access roads existed prior to park establishment.

Amendments to the boundary of Elk Falls Park and the cancellation of Elk Falls Protected Area will complete the implementation of a land exchange agreement between B.C. Hydro and B.C. Parks that is related to the John Hart generating station replacement project. Overall, three hectares of land will be added to the protected area system as a result of these changes.

[2:45 p.m.]

The amendments also include several administrative corrections and improvements to legal descriptions. This continues ongoing work of the ministry of moving from so-called metes and bounds and lot and parcel descriptions to mapped boundaries that are called official plans. Official plans are more accurate, more understandable and more practical for field surveying than the written metes and bounds descriptions.

The administrative amendments in this bill are as follows. Three parks — Echo Lake, Lakelse Lake and Moberly Lake — will have their existing boundary descriptions replaced with official plans. Ellison Park will have a new boundary description as the result of a minor administrative update to a survey plan reference.

Over 14 percent of our province is contained within our provincial protected area system, and these amendments continue our government’s and our ministry’s commitment to improving this system. This includes not only looking for opportunities to add ecologically significant lands but also improving recreational opportunities and experiences within our diverse parks system.

We all know, and we have seen, the increasing demand for access to B.C. Parks by British Columbians during the pandemic. This means that many new British Columbians, as well as many British Columbians who hadn’t gone to parks for quite some time, are discovering or rediscovering the benefits of being in nature and the beauty of our park system. We know and expect that this demand will continue, and we will continue to work hard to meet that demand.

Finally, our ministry is also working closely with Indigenous peoples to find meaningful ways to recognize their culture and connection to these protected lands and to share this rich history with all British Columbians. The proposed new park names are an important, although not the only, part of this commitment.

In closing, I look forward to the debate. More importantly, I welcome the opportunity to add to our magnificent park system.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to Bill 17, the bill to deal with the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

Certainly, this is a process and a procedure that has spanned governments. I think everyone in this House and everyone in British Columbia can appreciate the need to make sure we have modern and effective mapping, which a lot of these clauses in this bill are doing to update to make sure that our parks are properly represented.

More broadly, I think the general population is very supportive of making sure we do have properly located and accessible and a well-located park system. Certainly, you think back to the previous government — and we heard it earlier, when Steve Thomson was recognized here — the Great Bear Rainforest and other parks like that.

We have very large parks. Sometimes it can take quite some time, and then you have parks like we see in this bill at 143 hectares, which maybe aren’t as large in actual mass but still very important nonetheless and can still take many, many years to move forward with and get everything put into place to make sure it becomes a park protected and enjoyed for generations to come.

Certainly, no great issue with this bill in terms of what we see in it, even the renaming of parks to recognize Indigenous history in the area. It’s something, again, that spans governments and something that has been supported, I believe, by both sides of this House, regardless of who happens to be in government.

That said, this bill is now being introduced under a different backdrop than we’ve seen previously, and that is with this House’s unanimous consideration and support of UNDRIP and now referred to as DRIPA. There will certainly be a lot of questions as we enter into committee stage on this bill around that impact, because this is 100 percent dealing with things to do with addition and subtraction of Crown lands.

At a fundamental core under UNDRIP, making sure that consultations are properly engaged with, making sure accommodations are properly made and making sure the right area of Indigenous communities have been consulted with is a big part of that bill. One would assume and one would hope that this bill would have followed that process to the letter, because as we’ve asked bill after bill after bill that has been introduced in this chamber post-UNDRIP and post-DRIPA adoption, we’ve seen very few bills where there’s actually been consultation by the government as they bring forward bills.

[2:50 p.m.]

That seems to fly in the face of what we all agreed we would strive to do as a collective government entity. Those are the questions that I will certainly have as we get into committee stage on this bill. They’re serious questions. I know the minister will do his best, in conjunction with staff, to answer those questions and see them for what they are.

They’re not to be combative questions but to make sure that the public and, indeed, Indigenous communities fully understand what to expect from this government, especially on things revolving around how the government intends to move boundaries around Crown land holdings, the impacts that it would have on the use of those areas, or the lack of use of those areas, especially as it relates to traditional practices and the ability to access for traditional practices, and those types of questions.

I do look forward to the committee stage of this bill, as we move forward. I look forward to hearing any other comments from other people willing to speak to this bill before we get to that stage. As I say, it’s one, I think, that year over year we always see come forward. But this is the first year where we will have seen this bill come forward with that backdrop of UNDRIP.

That certainly does change the tone and tenor, I think, of this bill and, most importantly, the questions that we, as an opposition, have a duty to make sure that we address and get asked and answered for the public and for Indigenous communities across this province.

S. Furstenau: I’m happy to speak to this legislation, Bill 17.

Protected areas absolutely are a useful mechanism for safeguarding the ecological and cultural values of ecosystems in our province. In particular, of course, today the establishment of the Hwsalu-utsum Park, an area of spiritual and cultural importance to the Quw’utsun’ people, is something to be celebrated. This area is home to important ecosystems, vulnerable species, including certain grasses used in spiritual practices by the Quw’utsun’ people.

There are also other parks where the Indigenous place names are being adopted — Sxótsaqel Park, also known as Chilliwack Lake Park, and Saysutshun Park, also known as Newcastle. Acknowledging and using Indigenous place names really is an act of respect and is an indication of where we need to be going further and further in this province. I’m pleased to see this part just being taken by this government. This legislation adds 2,258 hectares of land and foreshore to provincial parks, and one conservancy.

That’s a good thing. But I stress that in light of where we are as a province globally, what we’re looking at with the climate emergency and the impacts we’re seeing in very real time, this feels like a bare minimum from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

We are seeing a loss of biodiversity and a loss of forests in both wildfires and ongoing logging practices in this province. We are seeing the impacts that climate change is having in the real lives of people in this province, particularly — as has been discussed a lot in this House in the last few days — the heat dome which cost the lives of hundreds and hundreds of people.

For the first piece of legislation tabled during this legislative sitting, it feels incommensurate with the enormity of the challenge and the seriousness of the climate emergency. I would have hoped to see a response from this minister and this government that matches that urgency, that recognizes that we can’t continue with status quo in how lands are managed in this province and how we look at the very serious implications of the biodiversity collapse. We’ve now had a year of this government with its full mandate that it had wanted so badly to implement its vision, yet what we see is a doubling down on the status quo, tinkering around the edges.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is not to diminish the importance of these parks, these protected areas and these name changes. But I think that British Columbians would very much like to know that what they are experiencing…. I would point to the gathering of youth just a week ago on yet another school strike for Friday expressing — certainly, what I heard when I was in Cowichan — a sense that their voices aren’t being heard and their futures aren’t being considered.

There’s so much that could be done. We could be leaning into Indigenous-led conservation in protected areas. We could be putting biodiversity, ecosystem health, at the centre of decision-making. We could be looking at the extraordinary leadership that’s happening in cities around the world that are reorienting and rearranging themselves to be resilient to climate change.

I hope in the coming days and weeks that we will see some indication from this government that the urgency of the situation we’re facing globally, but here in British Columbia, is going to be met with the kinds of legislative and policy changes that we need to see.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Being elected in Snuneymuxw First Nation’s territory, I’m honoured to take my place in the House and speak to Bill 17 and its many additions, in many parts of the province, to British Columbia’s beautiful park system. This is something that is recognized across the country — the beauty from beach to glacier, from coast to mountaintop — how fortunate we are and how much the physical landscape defines the people and the place in which we are fortunate to serve.

That today this legislation adds 2,258 hectares of land to British Columbia’s protected park system is an accomplishment and a credit to the many volunteers and people in every corner of the province that have fundraised, have advocated, the many public servants that have worked to bring this park system together. That the minister today is taking another step forward to add to it is something that I am encouraged and proud to be part of.

On Vancouver Island, this legislation establishes a new provincial park, one of 143 hectares. The last time a provincial park was established on Vancouver Island was Hesquiat Lake Park in Clayoquot Sound in 2001. So 20 years later our second new park establishment in the beautiful Cowichan Valley — very encouraged to see that. Altogether now over 14 million hectares, or 14.5 percent of the land mass of British Columbia, is protected as park.

What I particularly want to focus on, though, given this Legislature’s commitment to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and one of its calls to action around the world, is to rename place names with their original Indigenous names. I’m very encouraged that right in the place that I am honoured to serve, in keeping with the commitment made by the province of British Columbia one year ago, what we have known as Newcastle Island provincial park is in this legislation now being returned to its original Snuneymuxw place name, which is Saysutshun.

I’m going to read a quote from Snuneymuxw Chief Mike Wyse. A year ago, at the time of the reconciliation agreement between the province of B.C. and Snuney­muxw, he said:

“These agreements…mark a major step forward in a journey that goes back to the important promises and understandings that formed the basis of our treaty relationship with the Crown when Sir James Douglas entered into a treaty with our people in 1854. Today we are working with British Columbia in a relationship based on recognition and respect for our treaty of 1854 and a renewed government-to-government relationship.

“This is an improved relationship that opens the door to meaningful cooperation and collaboration based on the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, including steps for land reconciliation in relation to the return of our traditional territory.

[3:00 p.m.]

“Our shared commitment to stewardship and protection of the lands and waters of British Columbia and protection of endangered species and habitat is an essential element of our values to protect our land and resources for this and future generations. Like we have always done, Snuneymuxw people welcome new relationships, support prosperity and business development in the mid-Island area and will work with all of our partners to bring new opportunities.

“This step today was made possible by the leadership of our people for many generations and will serve to support our children and grandchildren to know our identity, nation and lands are recognized and supported by all.”

This land transfer agreement one year ago included a package of more than 3,000 hectares of Crown land, now being returned to Snuneymuxw on Mount Benson and Mount McKay. There are elk habitat and deer populations there.

This is not part of park creation, but it’s a sample of some of the commitments that were made by the province and agreed with by Snuneymuxw on that agreement signed September 20, the year of 2020. I want to recognize my friend, at the time Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, Scott Fraser, who pushed very hard, along with the Premier, to make sure that that agreement was brought to its completion.

There was also a commitment at that time on the part of the government of British Columbia to rename Newcastle Island Saysutshun, so here we are today, following through on that commitment.

I’m very honoured to hold now in my hands the words of a Snuneymuxw young man, Eliot White-Hill, who wrote this history of Saysutshun. To have this on the record in the Legislature I think speaks to the values of the place and why it’s so important for us to call this beautiful island in the harbour of Nanaimo by its real name.

Eliot White-Hill says, in his preamble:

“In our tradition, before any work is done, we recognize where the knowledge comes from, where our roots lie. I want to acknowledge our Elders and their efforts to preserve Coast Salish oral tradition and history. The stories that I refer to come from them, both living and gone, who have taken it upon themselves to do the work that is imperative to continuing our traditional ways of life, preserving what we have so that it can be handed down to future generations.”

These Elders are Albert Wesley; Xalanamut, also known as Mary Rice; Tsa’tass’aya, also known as Jenny Wyse; Kwulasulwut, the late Dr. Ellen White; Xulsimalt, also known as Gary Manson; C’tasi:a, also known as Geraldine Manson.

Eliot says: “Huy ch q’u siem.” He describes Saysutshun as:

“A sacred place that is highly significant to us as Snuneymuxw people. When we think of it, we think of a place of healing, a place of preparation, a place of transformation. We think of home. It is a place of safety. It has borne a wealth of legends and teachings in our oral tradition, ranging from creation stories to familial lore, some still existing within living memory. It is a place where Xeel’s, the transformer, walked and left his mark. It is a place where we can connect with our ancestors.

“The name ‘Saysutshun’ refers specifically to the island’s use as a place of preparation, how our ancestors used it to train, bathe and prepare themselves physically, mentally and spiritually. They ran the trails on the island and bathed in the water.

“Bathing is a sacred act for us. There is a strict process, and it can only be done in certain locations. Those places carry great spiritual significance. It cleanses us, our bodies, our minds and our spirits. It is a way for us to tap into the natural energies of the world. It is an act of prayer. We beg the water and the air and the ground beneath our feet to help us, to help those who stand and walk with us and those who are important to us elsewhere in the world.

“A person would be required to bathe daily for extended periods of time before ceremonial events or going on a hunt or other such undertakings. To prepare oneself properly as such is crucial to the success of the work being done, and Saysutshun is one of the unique places where that can be achieved.

“There are many stories from the days when Xeel’s walked the land and spread teachings, helping those who needed help, changing things into the way they are today. One story tells of a sea monster at Thlap’qwum which looked like a giant skate fish. It lived in the channel between Saysutshun and where Stewart Avenue is today.

[3:05 p.m.]

“In a case of forbidden romance, a young couple lived across the channel from each other but were not allowed to be together. One day the young man finally decided to swim across the channel to be with his loved one, but the water began to bubble and churn as though it was boiling, and the monster surfaced, swallowing him whole. Through the collective work of the community, they managed to spear the monster using a trap of clams to free the person, who was unharmed.

“In one version, this is the origin story for the species of clams and our clam beds in the area. In another version, Xeel’s pulls the monster out of the water and throws it through the air, out into the Salish Sea. Another example talks about Hamatsa Rock, which is past Kanaka Bay. This rock was once a person. Xeel’s turned many people into stone, people who misbehaved. It is closely connected to a similar rock on Tle:ltxw,” which we call Gabriola Island, “called Xuw’t’luqs, who was also turned into stone.”

I will just finish with Eliot’s final words:

“Whether you are a new visitor to our territory or an old, we hope that you will come to experience Saysutshun. Walk the paths of our ancestors with us.”

That is the end of Eliot’s words.

I’ll say that if you are coming into the ferry from Horseshoe Bay into Nanaimo, you will pass Saysutshun. If you are going to the Dinghy Dock Pub on Protection Island in the little harbour water taxi, you will see Saysutshun on your left. If you take the little foot passenger ferry, which is now run by Snuneymuxw First Nation, from Swy-a-Lana Lagoon Park, also known as Maffeo Sutton Park, directly to Saysutshun, they have a fantastic service and traditional dances and food, because they’ve been working in cooperation with B.C. Parks for some time.

If you take that ferry, you will go right to Saysutshun. If you’re taking the ferry to Gabriola Island, you will see Saysutshun on your left. It’s a real gem in the heart of our harbour. Many people sea kayak around it.

I hope now, with this action of returning it to its original name, in keeping with our province’s commitments to the Snuneymuxw First Nation, that the visitors who Snuneymuxw have so generously welcomed to our region around Nanaimo will have a new connection with and appreciation for both the original peoples of the land and some of those origin stories that now make Saysutshun the proper and restored name of this beautiful gem in our B.C. park system.

With thanks to the minister and thanks to the Speaker for the indulgence, that concludes my comments.

E. Ross: It’s a pleasure to get up to talk to Bill 17, Protected Areas of B.C. Amendment Act, 2021. It is quite timely, because, really, what we’re talking about is land. That’s what we’re talking about.

In terms of land, especially in light of the United Na­tions declaration on the rights of Indigenous people that was just passed in this Legislature a couple of years ago, this means everything to B.C., because when you are talking about resource development prior to UNDRIP being legislated in this House, consultation was fully defined, but it was only in relation to activities of the Crown that affected rights or title of First Nations people in B.C. That’s no longer the case.

Now, anything — whether it’s connected to the land or not, whether it’s connected to the rights or not — has a duty of consultation owed to First Nations people because of the new legislation, Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So the old rules on just sticking to rights and entitlement infringements don’t exist anymore.

But the issues of the First Nations haven’t changed. The recognition that we’ve been talking about in this chamber for the last year or so now — that’s all it is. It’s recognition. And I think that I’ve talked about this before. First Nations have had enough of recognition.

[3:10 p.m.]

First Nations’ issues were first recognized by the constitution in 1982. It didn’t change anything. We have been in treaty negotiations for the last 40 years. It hasn’t changed anything. We’ve talked and complained about the Indian Act for the last 50 years. Nothing has changed, because all we do is recognize.

We don’t talk about the realities of First Nations in Canada, let alone B.C., the real issues that affect people — issues like poverty, like suicide, issues of children going into government care, of Aboriginal males and females going into prison. Per capita, it’s the highest population in prisons in Canada. We don’t talk about that. All we talk about is recognizing them. Yet there are many leaders across B.C. proactively trying to change it — and quite successfully, I might add. At the end of the day — if you had read your case law that was determined in the courts of B.C. and Canada — First Nations are not frozen in time.

These are great stories, talking about how we rename places around B.C. or how we observe the culture or customs of First Nations that, by the way, have changed dramatically over the last hundred years, but this does nothing for the quality of life for that person that doesn’t know there’s an alternative to prison.

Now, when we’re talking about the First Nations recognition across B.C., you’re quite right. There are many that are still connected closely to their culture and to the land — many, especially in remote communities. But there are many First Nations in B.C. that have been disconnected from that and now are starting to try and figure out a way not only how to survive in the 21st century but how to thrive, how to stay out of prison, how to stay away from the violence and poverty. They get completely ignored by this government.

Not once have I ever heard a minister or a member from that side of the House get up and talk about how economic development in terms of LNG or forestry or mining has succeeded in uplifting a generation of people — not once.

The largest investment in Canadian history, the LNG Canada project — $40 billion, quite historic — should have been a nation builder, should have been a province builder. Nobody talks about how not only did they uplift an entire generation of Aboriginals out of poverty from all over B.C., mind you, but also uplifted a region that had been economically depressed since the ‘80s. Everybody benefited.

Not one mention of that, and not one mention of the Chevron project, the $30 billion project that packed up and left. That was going to bring more progress to First Nations people and non–First Nations people across B.C. Not one mention of the Cedar project, Cedar LNG by Haisla, a First Nations project, the first one of its kind, that’s a spinoff of the LNG Canada project that would benefit B.C. No mention.

That’s the true progress of First Nations, because an entire generation of people are not going to understand the issues behind the Indian Act, behind rights and title, behind treaty negotiation. That is perfect. That is what we should be striving for. Those are the issues of our day. If the next generation is not complaining about that because they are building their lives, we have accomplished something for one of the most disadvantaged populations in Canada.

There’s a phrase that has been developed in the courts of Canada and B.C. that I think everybody should understand when you’re talking about Aboriginal people in this chamber. First Nations people are not frozen in time. I hear the talk in here that talks about natives almost like we’re still stuck in 100 years ago or 200 years ago. That does nothing for a First Nations person that’s living down on Hastings Street on the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver or on the streets of Prince George.

[3:15 p.m.]

If you want to talk reconciliation with First Nations peo­ple, you have to include economic reconciliation. There’s a component of rights and title that speaks directly to the economics of rights and title. That is why there are a number of First Nations people that are engaging in the resource activities around them.

In terms of this bill, when we’re talking about land…. And I take this government back to their own bill that they actually passed in this House. “In consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, the government must take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration.”

We asked questions in debate about this when we we’re actually debating this bill before it got passed, and we talked about the consultation of 203 bands in B.C. It was made clear to us that this government intended to consult with 203 bands in B.C. in terms of aligning the laws of B.C. with First Nations interests.

To date, this government has not consulted with one band on any piece of legislation either proposed or existing. Instead, this government has actually gone to advo­cacy groups like the leadership council. That’s not consultation. The leadership council does not hold rights and title on behalf of First Nations people. They’re not even a governing body.

I just heard in the speech before me that they were so proud of government-to-government negotiations. The leadership council is not a government body. When you’re talking about government of First Nations, it’s up to that First Nation community to decide for themselves who represents them to be their government, to be their spokesperson.

Deputy Speaker: If I might, Member, just to draw you back to Bill 17, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, just to make sure you can show the rele­vance of your remarks.

E. Ross: Thank you, Speaker. I will show the relevance. I’m getting to that. Thank you for that correction.

We talk about how this government talks about the consultation with First Nations to bills, especially to Bill 17, yet we find out there was no consultation. There will be no consultation. What this bill is talking about is the dispossession of lands. That’s what this bill is talking about.

Now, there are a number of First Nations communities that have had parks or protected areas in their territories that we determined without their consent or consultation, long before 2004. According to the UNDRIP bill, the government is going to correct that by making sure that all laws of B.C. are in alignment with First Nations interests.

There are a number of protected areas and parks in my territory. I’d be curious to see how much consultation, meaningful consultation, was done with the Haisla Nation. There must be a record. There must be a binder. First Nations people, by the way, have gone beyond the idea of protecting land. They’ve gone to look at the land, to look at all the components of what that value can bring to the First Nations people in general. There’s an economic component to rights and title that this government refuses to acknowledge.

I’m sure if you went to talk to the Haisla leadership of my community — who are elected chief and council, by the way — they would have some interest in determining which lands would be expanded upon and which ones could be amended. I’ll give you an example. There was a protected area in my territory that had an incredible opportunity to be developed into an independent power project, run of the river. But because it was within the boundaries of a protected area, we couldn’t change it. We couldn’t actually pursue that goal. We couldn’t get it changed.

Here’s a chance for this government not only to fix the mistakes they’ve made in terms of not consulting with First Nations on their own UNDRIP bill, in terms of consultation, but you could fix some of the interests of the First Nations people in relation to existing parks where they had no say in the first place — some within the heart of the First Nations territories, some of these parks that they actually use for hunting and fishing and ceremonial purposes.

[3:20 p.m.]

There was mention of the relationship and the consultation of this bill, Bill 17, in relation to First Nations people. Really, you’re talking about the leadership council. You’re not talking about communities. But you’re not even talking about the leadership themselves.

In fact, in picking who you’re negotiating with, it seems clear to me it’s either Hereditary Chiefs of selected bands that this government is willing to negotiate with — in terms of Bill 17, for example — or the leadership council. No respect given to elected Chiefs and councils — only if it serves your purpose. Undermining elected Chiefs and councils is destabilizing First Nations communities. This goes back to the consultation that this government is failing to do under Bill 17. Does that work?

Interjection.

E. Ross: Why would I save it for committee?

Hon. G. Heyman: So I could answer your questions.

E. Ross: There are no questions here. I haven’t asked one question of the minister.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: If I might ask, can we just let the speaker have his space. Thank you.

E. Ross: Well, if he wants to ask questions, I’m more than willing to answer questions from the Minister of Environment. This is your bill.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker, Member.

E. Ross: Through the Speaker.

Sorry about that, Speaker.

This is brought up repeatedly, not only in terms of Bill 17. Every single bill that has come to this House has not had the consultation with First Nations leaders as promised by the government’s own bill, Bill 41. Yet you’re talking about something so central right now to First Nations people — land.

I haven’t even heard the term “overlap” brought up in this discussion. When you’re talking about parks and protected areas and First Nations communities, you’re talking about overlap that hasn’t been resolved. If the consultation was done before this bill was brought to this House, I would love to see the section on overlap and how this government has resolved that. If the binder exists on this consultation that was done, will this House get a chance to look at it?

These are age-old issues, not only in terms of parks but also every decision made by the Crown on First Nations lands, especially since 2004. That’s not a question; that’s a request.

I don’t understand the discomfort that this conversation is actually creating for that side of the House, for this NDP government. I don’t understand the discomfort. Why the complaints? This is the bill, Bill 41, United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. This is the bill that was implemented by this government. These are your promises.

Deputy Speaker: Please, no use of props, Member. Thank you.

E. Ross: Thank you, Speaker. Is “your” okay too? I said “your.” Is that okay?

Deputy Speaker: If you’re speaking to me, you can use “you.” But if you’re speaking about government, the appropriate reference is either to the minister or the government as opposed to “you, you and you.” Thank you.

E. Ross: Okay. Thanks for that.

This is the NDP government’s bill, Bill 41. I’m just pointing out the facts in terms of what this government promised. That’s all I’m doing. I’m trying to get beyond the recognition. I’m trying to get beyond the politics of this. I’m trying to get into the issues of First Nations people in general. It’s a complicated question. I understand that.

We were on a good path. We had a good set of rules in terms of the case law that was established by the courts in B.C. and Canada. Everybody understood their role. The Crown, the First Nations and the third parties understood their roles. That’s all gone. Now we don’t know what the rules are. The only rule I see as being broken is the commitment to consult Indigenous governing bodies. Number one, that’s the only rule I see being broken here, by the government that actually brought in Bill 41 in the first place.

[3:25 p.m.]

When we’re talking about the land question, in terms of Bill 17, times have changed so much. Yes, First Nations are actually looking to be included in land decisions, not only for economic development, not only for the recreational purposes — which are actually pretty amazing in today’s day and age — but they’re also looking for opportunities to remediate past impacts.

If there are any more impacts to save parklands, they want to be a part of it. If you want to build a new trail, they want to be a part of it. If you want to put in a new bridge, they want to be part of it. This does relate to what British Columbians are not thinking about, by the way, because when we’re talking about land, the next question will be: is it private land? If we don’t fix this right now, that’s where the conversation will go next.

I think I’ll leave the rest for third reading. Thank you for your corrections and your guidance. I’ll leave my comments there.

F. Donnelly: I’m pleased to speak today in support of Bill 17, amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act.

It will create a new class A provincial park in the Cowichan Valley on southern Vancouver Island to honour the Indigenous history of a local ecosystem and assist in the preservation of threatened species. In addition, the bill renames two provincial parks to include Indigenous place names, adds 2,200 hectares of land to nine existing parks and one conservancy, continuing B.C.’s proud record of supporting one of the largest park systems in North America.

This bill advances our government’s environmental goals by establishing new parks in protected areas as well as adding land to existing parks, conservancies and ecological reserves. It also aids in the conservation of threatened species such as Roosevelt elk, western screech owl and northern goshawk.

Renaming parks to include Indigenous place names is an important step forward in our ongoing reconciliation efforts with Indigenous peoples across B.C. It also encourages all of us to connect with the rich history and culture of our province.

I congratulate our government for this farsighted leg­islation and also for the recent announcement that B.C. Parks will invest $21.5 million of funding over the next three years to expand and enhance opportunities for outdoor recreation, including new campsites, trails and upgrades to facilities.

During the past four years, more than 1,500 campsites have been added to B.C.’s provincial parks and recreation sites in high-demand areas. Of those sites, 500 were in the Lower Mainland, including Cultus Lake, Golden Ears, Chilliwack Lake, Stawamus Chief and Garibaldi.

New campsite developments incorporate accessible design standards where possible so people living with disabilities can enjoy outdoor activities with fewer barriers. As you know, I am the Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Aquaculture. There are many amazing watersheds and river basins in this province.

Protected areas play an important role not only for people but for salmon. Salmon need cold, abundant flows of water, and cold water comes from protected areas, whether it’s forested headwaters or tree-covered riparian areas or critical grasslands, wetlands and estuaries. The more these important features of a watershed are protected, the better chance salmon have of surviving.

[3:30 p.m.]

One of the greatest salmon watersheds on the planet is the Fraser watershed. The Fraser River is the longest river in British Columbia. With its headwaters high in the Rocky Mountains, it flows 1,376 kilometres and spills into the Salish Sea or Strait of Georgia by Vancouver and Richmond or Musqueam territory.

The Fraser watershed can be broken into six distinct subregions. Many of these regions already have protected areas and parks, and with this legislation, a number more have protected areas that will be added or names of areas that will be changed. For instance, in the Lower Fraser region, which stretches from Hope to Vancouver, this bill adds the name Sxótsaqel to Chilliwack Lake Park, which means “sacred lake.”

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

There are seven main river tributaries, or riversheds, within the Lower Fraser providing critical habitat for all species of wild Pacific salmon. This is a highly urbanized region of the Fraser watershed, but it’s also home to some of the best agricultural land in the province and to much of B.C.’s industrial and economic activity.

There is currently a push to add more protection to this region of the Fraser — the Heart of the Fraser — a stretch of river between Mission and Hope that has some of the most valuable salmon and sturgeon habitat in the world, but it’s under constant threat from industrial activity and urban development. This area is an excellent candidate for protection. Hopefully in the near future, the Heart of the Fraser will be protected and will give salmon and sturgeon a fighting chance for survival in this important region of the Fraser.

The Fraser estuary is another critically important area in need of protection. While much important restoration work is being done by organizations like the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance, B.C. Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, BCIT, Watershed Watch Salmon Society and the Rivershed Society of B.C., more needs to be done to protect this critical zone of the watershed. The estuary is rich with life, but it is also under constant threat from urban and industrial projects that impact critical habitat and the quality of water in the river.

One important function that was lost in 2013 and needs to be reinstated is the Fraser River estuary management program, or FREMP 2.0, as it’s being called. Metro Vancouver regional district, many Lower Fraser municipalities and a number of Lower Fraser River First Nations are calling for better planning and coordination of urban development activities and projects in the Fraser estuary. FREMP 2.0, along with Bill 17, would be welcome legislation to reduce impacts to important Fraser estuary habitat and to improve coordination and planning. It would also assist industrial projects by knowing where to and not to plan and build in this sensitive area of the river.

There are five other regions within the Fraser watershed in addition to the Lower Fraser. Moving up the river, the next region is the Fraser Canyon, which is home to the world-famous Hells Gate and the Stein Valley world heritage site. It includes some of the narrowest sections along the Fraser River, where the tremendous force of water flows deep and races through canyon walls.

This area is dramatic in both weather and scenery and has seen multiple landslides over the years, with devastating impacts on wild salmon. Historically the Hells Gate Slide and recently the Big Bar Slide have caused concern for passage of wild salmon.

Of course, this region is home to Lytton, which experienced a devastating wildfire this past summer. I know all members in this House join me in wanting to see those impacted families return to their homes and their community as soon as possible.

Bill 17 improves Chasm Park, which is situated in Lillooet district. I look to the future for greater protection to areas like the Stein and the Nahatlatch watersheds, important salmon and wildlife areas within the Fraser Canyon.

[3:35 p.m.]

Bill 17 also addresses Dragon Mountain Park, an im­portant park within the Cariboo district and the Cariboo-Chilcotin subregion of the Fraser watershed. Again looking to the future, the Tŝilhqot’in Tribal Park is an important area for protection and restoration, which considers wild Fraser River salmon and other important wildlife values.

Moving to another region of the Fraser watershed, the Thompson-Shuswap region contains critical salmon habitat, including the world-famous Adams River sockeye run. This incredibly important area is in need of protection if we are to ensure the survival of wild salmon. Bill 17 adds 1,008 hectares to Bonaparte Park, another very important protected area in this region and in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the fifth region in the Fraser watershed is the Nechako region, which includes one of the longest and largest tributaries of the Fraser River and is home to a genetically distinct population of ancient and endangered white sturgeon. They are the largest, long-lived freshwater species in North America.

I’d like to give a shout-out to one of the hardest-working volunteers I know, Wayne Salewski. Wayne is the chair of the Nechako Environment and Water Stewardship Society and a member of the Nechako white sturgeon community working group. He, like so many volunteers in the Nechako region, loves the area and wants to see it protected. Wayne is working hard to ensure that there is enough water in the river for salmon and sturgeon. He also wants to ensure that the watershed is protected, whether it’s the riparian area or other important areas of the watershed.

The final subregion of the Fraser watershed is the Fraser headwaters. Bill 17 makes an important amendment to Mount Robson Provincial Park. The Fraser headwaters, which includes 13 river tributaries, or riversheds, starts as a trickle, high on Mount Robson and winds its way through the Robson Valley or Rocky Mountain Trench. It has many intact watersheds and ancient old-growth forests, important habitat for grizzly bears and wild Pacific salmon.

Two important watersheds in the headwaters region, the Goat and the Raush, are in critical need of protection. I know these watersheds very well, as I have hiked many summers in the Goat watershed, and I’ve actually swum the length of the lower half of the Raush River, back in 1999. These two watersheds, along with the Walker watershed, are great candidates for protection and would go a long way to advance overall protection of wild salmon and bull trout populations in British Columbia.

B.C. has 629 class A provincial parks dedicated for preservation of their natural environment and for public use and enjoyment. Two of these class A parks are partially located in my constituency of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, so I’m well aware of the increased importance of the recreational and conservation values that these and other parks bring to British Columbians and the important role they can play in Indigenous reconciliation and co-management.

For those who are not familiar with it, Pinecone Burke Provincial Park extends from the southwest corner of Garibaldi Provincial Park, west of Pitt Lake and Pitt River, to include Burke Mountain in the city of Coquitlam. Although it was created in 1995, most of this park is still undeveloped wilderness, with very rough trails. There is canoe access to Widgeon Slough and, from there, hiking trails that lead to Widgeon Lake on a network of old logging roads, hiking and mountain-biking trails on Burke Mountain. The highest mountain in the park is Pinecone Peak at 2,027 metres. The park is huge: 38,000 hectares, nearly 100 times the size of Vancouver’s Stanley Park.

[3:40 p.m.]

Like Stanley Park, it is close to a number of current and planned major population centres, and it has been predicted that in 20 or 30 years it will be a jewel of green in the midst of a sea of development. Pinecone Burke protects the western shore of Pitt Lake, the largest freshwater tidal lake in North America, while Widgeon Slough is the largest freshwater marsh in southwestern British Columbia.

The city of Coquitlam has described Pinecone Burke as “having huge, huge potential for the city.” Demand for outdoor recreation is high, especially since the pandemic lockdown last year. It was identified in 2014 as a potential tourism draw for nature lovers and even international visitors.

Its unique location close to new neighbourhoods and the city centre has inspired the city to look at developing a tourism-based vision for the park. Its alpine lakes, remnant ice fields and old-growth forest could enable longer term opportunities, such as guided tours and package multiday expeditions. These are being looked at by the city as a way to support Coquitlam businesses and to enhance the quality of life for its citizens.

A management plan is finally being formulated for Pinecone Burke. It will need additional operational funds to ensure the increased demands for day use, camping and recreational activities are developed in a timely manner.

B.C. Parks and the Katzie First Nation recently signed a memorandum of understanding to collaborate on the plan. The park includes part of the traditional territory of the nation and borders on the Katzie Indian reserve. The First Nations’ members use the park extensively for its plant, fish and wildlife resources.

Backcountry advocates stress it’s more important now than ever for people to get outside safely while maintaining a safe social distance from one another. Pinecone Burke Park is a great place to do just that, and it’s filled with lush, forested trails and alpine terrain.

Outdoor enthusiasts are looking forward to the creation of a management plan in the near future, and they are hoping Pinecone Burke’s share of the $5 million recently announced for parks infrastructure will go toward projects that will allow residents to enjoy the spectacular views on properly marked and developed trails.

At the end of August, I, along with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the MLAs for North Vancouver–Seymour and Port Moody–Coquitlam and the Lieutenant-Governor were honored to take a boat trip around Indian Arm. This trip was hosted by the Elders Council for Parks in B.C. and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. Indian Arm provincial park was also established in 1995 and has been renamed Say Nuth Khaw Yum Provincial Park in recognition of the Tsleil-Waututh people who have inhabited this area since time immemorial.

The park contains a number of significant archeological sites. A portion of this park is also contained in my constituency of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. The park is over 6,000 hectares of mountainous terrain surrounding Indian Arm, an 18-kilometre-long fjord that extends north from Burrard Inlet. The park’s close proximity to the greater Vancouver metropolitan area makes it a popular destination for recreation, including hiking, camping, kayaking and scuba diving. The southwestern corner of the park features a well-developed trail system, most of which is rated as moderately difficult.

During the boat trip, we were given a copy of the Say Nuth Khaw Yum/Indian Arm Provincial Park management plan, which was signed in 2010. Unfortunately, a lack of commitment by the previous government to implement the plan has resulted in the park not achieving its potential as a showcase for co-management and reconciliation as set out by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, DRIPA.

[3:45 p.m.]

At the end of the trip, we were all asked to share something about the trip. I spoke about the potential of the Tsleil-Waututh’s vision of a longhouse in the Say Nuth Khaw Yum Provincial Park. Tsleil-Waututh Coun. Carleen Thomas spoke after me, and she said the hair on the back of her neck stood up when I spoke about the vision of having that longhouse built in her territory. She spoke with emotion about her grandfather’s vision of that longhouse in that park, in that territory.

The planned park outlines many opportunities to adopt a strong, nature-based strategy that can contribute to promoting solutions for issues such as climate change and the general well-being of park visitors. Increased operational funding could also result in more representation of Indigenous culture in the park, increased visitor education and engagement, and support for local Indigenous tourism ventures.

The United Nations has estimated that nature-based sol­utions could deliver more than one-third of the emissions reduction targets needed globally by 2030 to address climate change. Many believe that no matter how aggressively we pursue technological and behavioural methods of reducing carbon use, we cannot successfully address climate change without relying on nature-based solutions.

Only recently has science been able to identify and quantify the importance of our parks and ecosystems to our very survival and well-being. This is why I’m proud to support this legislation and other initiatives by our government to invest in healthy and sustainable parks. Parks bring families and communities together, improve overall health and well-being, provide new cultural experiences and protect species and ecosystems found nowhere else in the world.

Xatśūll First Nation Elder and former Chief Bev Sellars once told me: “Heal the land, and you’ll heal the people.” Those are wise words. I know Ms. Sellars not only wants to heal the land, but she wants to see salmon return to her territory in much larger numbers. She wants her people to be part of that healing. We not only have an opportunity but a duty to work with Ms. Sellars to connect, protect and restore the rivers and watersheds, not only in her territory, but indeed, all of British Columbia.

Bill 17 is a good bill, a needed bill, which will take us one step closer towards a restoration economy which can heal the land and its people.

I’d like to finish on a personal note about Indigenous place names and the importance of Indigenous place names. The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions mentioned how important Indigenous place names are to her and the people in her community.

I also recognize how important Indigenous names are. In 1997, I was given an Indigenous name, Iyim Yewyews — which means strong swimmer in the animal world, or orca. The Squamish Nation bestowed me with this honour. The Elders gave me that name, and I was welcomed to the Squamish family.

I wear that name proudly and with honour. I know personally how important and significant it is to have an Indigenous name. I’m glad to see Bill 17 embrace the importance of Indigenous names and Indigenous culture in its act.

K. Paddon: I am going to try to follow my friend.

Parks bring families closer together. I have the pleasure in Chilliwack-Kent of living just steps away from one of our B.C. parks, and it’s a very, very big privilege to live so close to a protected area.

We know that it improves our health. It improves our mental health. They can provide new cultural experiences. They protect species, ecosystems — these things that are found nowhere else in the world. We have visitors that come, when times are safe, to experience these things in these parks that we protect.

[3:50 p.m.]

I am happy to rise to speak in favour of this bill, especially because these amendments will establish a new class A park in the Cowichan Valley, as was just mentioned.

It will rename two provincial parks. One of them is in Chilliwack-Kent, and I’ll talk at length about that, I believe. It will add over 2,200 hectares of land to nine of our existing parks and one conservancy. It will modify the boundaries of five parks. This bill will provide three parks with official plans, which are mapped boundaries that are more accurate and understandable and practical than written descriptions.

We are expanding our parks and our protected areas and systems by establishing a new provincial park on southern Vancouver Island, the first in over 20 years, and one of my friends has already discussed this in a beautiful way. I’ll be rewatching later for pronunciation. This new park will protect a vital ecosystem important to the Cowichan Tribes, and aid in the conservation of threatened species such as Roosevelt elk, western screech owl and northern goshawk.

Through these changes, we are expanding our parks system and recognizing the cultural and historical significance of these places through a renaming process. Renaming these parks is important. We hear that it’s important directly from the people who are providing these names. We are hearing this is important through consultation, and when I speak with the chiefs in my area — the councils in my area — I hear that it’s important. It’s a good step. It is not the final solution. Acknowledging Indigenous place names allows park visitors to connect with the history and culture of our province, and it allows us to learn.

One of the benefits that I have…. I live and serve on traditional Stó:lō territory. I have the privilege of meeting with several different bands — several different tribes, several different groups — which are all connected under that Stó:lō tradition. What I get to learn is unending, and I haven’t even scratched the surface. I am very lucky that there are multiple Chiefs who are willing to share with me, and who are willing to teach me and give me pieces of information that will help inform my work and my perspective, and the lens I use to do my work and to serve.

This supports the ongoing reconciliation, because it allows other people to see and recognize and hear the names and the language. To the Stó:lō people, and definitely where I serve in Chilliwack-Kent, the language is Halq’eméylem, which is very important, because so are the names. The new name for Chilliwack Lake Park is Sxótsaqel. This is not a name that most people have heard. When people ask: “What is this? What does this mean?” They hear that what it means is “sacred lake.” They hear that this is the Halq’eméylem language.

They hear this Halq’eméylem language and the Stó:lō people and the traditions in Chilliwack-Kent and Chilliwack as well as the surrounding areas, talk about important places — important places to visit, important places to see, important places to understand about the ancestors and about the people who have been turned to stone, and the stories that are there.

There are available resources from Stó:lō people. There is a resource centre where people can take tours. They can explore the rivers, they can explore the lakes, and they can see these important places and hopefully learn more with these important names — with the names that have been used, hopefully, before they were changed to Chilliwack Lake Park.

We’ve seen how important parks are to our physical and mental health as we’ve moved through COVID. I know, as I mentioned, living close to a provincial park, that it was accessed often and by many in order to get out. These are our kids. But these are also…. This is everyone. Everyone around. My friend did mention that Cultus Lake Park, also in Chilliwack-Kent, has an accessible campground, really allowing everybody to be able to access.

Protecting and expanding parks is important to the people who live there locally so that they can continue accessing…. It’s important to the small businesses, the tourist-related businesses and the services around.

[3:55 p.m.]

It’s important to the economy, because we know that we live in a place that people want to come to, that they want to experience. We also know that we have to protect those areas.

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park, for some context, in case you haven’t visited yet — open invitation — is a pristine escape from the city. It’s characterized by a valley-bottom lake surrounded by old-growth forest and bountiful subalpine and alpine ridges.

The clear and sparkling Chilliwack Lake, which there are several pictures of, where you can see the bottom, is ideal for motorboating, canoeing, kayaking, swimming or fishing. There is a wide, sandy beach, and it has stunning views on all sides as the fir forest rises into mountain peaks and icefields that surround. The park is great for families to explore and play, and there are 40 kilometres of trails that provide opportunities for hiking, bird and wildlife viewing and nature appreciation.

I’m going to say that it’s always farther than it seems, whether you’re on the road driving up or whether you’re on a trail and you think you’re almost back at the car. It’s always farther, but it is so beautiful. The park also has a playground and 146 front-country campsites. Those seeking a wilderness camping experience can access the back-country camps located at Greendrop Lake, Lindeman Lake, Flora Lake and Radium Lake.

Renaming this park, as I mentioned, is an important step forward in our ongoing reconciliation efforts with Indigenous people in Chilliwack-Kent and across British Columbia. The renaming of this park to Sxótsaqel is only one example. If you leave the lake and follow the river, we’re building an elementary and middle school. The name of that elementary and middle school is going to be Stitó:s Lá:lém totí:lt. This is a house of learning, and Coast Salish, Stó:lō people, the Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe — this is all a coming together, bringing the language and bringing the names of these places that are important.

The renaming of parks to include Indigenous names will also, as my friends have mentioned, aid in the implementation of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, specifically article 13. The name changing from Chilliwack Lake Park to Sxótsaqel…. I’m going to keep saying it so that people get used to hearing it, so that people use it.

The new name, as I mentioned, reflects the Halq’em­éylem place, which has meant “sacred lake,” and this is the ancestral homeland of the Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe. It’s not spelt that way, but it sounds like Ts’elxwéyeqw. The lake is an important water body in the cultural landscape of the Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe, and that’s an understatement, because the water, in general, we know is important culturally.

For context, and in case anyone’s interest is now piqued to coming and visiting the new Sxótsaqel/Chilliwack Lake Park. It’s located about 150 kilometres east of Vancouver, in the upper Chilliwack River Valley. As I mentioned, it’s a beautiful, beautiful setting. Some of my friends also mentioned partners that help us take care of these protected areas. But I would be remiss if I didn’t mention two groups specifically that are the Chilliwack-Kent and Chilliwack area.

The first that I’d like to mention is the Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup Society. I’ve mentioned them in this House before, but recently, on B.C. Rivers Day, on September 26, they organized a cleanup, and this is the area that they were in. If you don’t know, Chilliwack Lake is connected to the systems of the rivers, and the Chilliwack/Vedder River, depending on what point you’re at, is attached to that, is part of that.

They organized a COVID-safe event. There were over 60 volunteers there, and they even offered prizes for the volunteers, provided by PickEco Refills and Mount Waddington’s Outdoors. This was an excellent local event, a grassroots initiative to take care of the waters that we love so much, the areas that are protected and that we need to sustain so much.

The second group is Kindness Chain Chilliwack. I’ve mentioned them, as well, in the House. When people do good work, they tend to do it repeatedly. On August 1, they organized a cleanup of Lindeman Lake, which is part of that park.

[4:00 p.m.]

What happened was that all the volunteers — the pictures showed about two dozen, I believe — were led through a hike by Courtney and Mike from Vedder Mountain Adventure Co. They hiked up and enjoyed the beautiful scenery, and as they hiked down, they cleaned up. So really a fantastic initiative there by Kindness Chain Chilliwack as well.

I don’t have many more comments, because my friends have been so thorough. I am very excited about Sxótsaqel — everyone got that? — and I’m excited that the Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe was part of protecting this space, renaming this space and taking back the name of this space with the Halq’eméylem language.

If you go onto the Stó:lō webpage and take a look at what leads their work, they have this at the top of their page. I think it’s very obvious in the work that’s done across the region individually, by different tribes or nations, as well as collectively. It says: “This is our land. We have to look after everything that belongs to us.” It was explained to me that they take that as core. That’s central. That’s the teaching. That’s important, so honouring that and understanding that. Right now a change in language, a change in word, a change in name is what’s being offered. It’s what’s happening.

There’s more work to do, and I am so grateful that I have so many who can teach me so much in Chilliwack-Kent on how we move forward. In the meantime, these beautiful and important waters and areas are protected, and their name reflects the importance that they hold for the people who have had that as an important cultural space for so much longer than we’ve been here.

I just wanted to be able to say Sxótsaqel one more time so that you’ll all remember it. When you come to Chilliwack-Kent, I’m happy to introduce you around and show you. It’s a long drive. Bring very comfortable boots. Like I said, the hike is longer than it looks, but the waters are worth it.

S. Chant: I rise today to speak on the traditional lands of the Songhees and Esquimalt, the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people. I also acknowledge that my riding is on the traditional and unceded territory of the Coast Salish, specifically that of the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

In my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, I’m so very fortunate to have two provincial parks covering the whole gambit of our terrain — the trails and ski slopes of Mount Seymour to the kayak, canoe, paddleboard and boating access of Say Nuth Khaw Yum, a co-managed park between the Tsleil-Waututh and B.C. Parks.

I had the good fortune recently to be able to go up Seymour with a group of our elder parksmen, to go up to one of the heritage cottages up there. And they’re actually heritage cabins. There is nothing cottage-y about them. It was built 100 years ago and has been maintained and is part of the history of our local area. It is also part of the work that we’re doing with our Tsleil-Waututh group in terms of where we live and how we live.

The park of Say Nuth Khaw Yum is on the traditional lands of the Tsleil-Waututh, and it holds an epoch of history. My colleague referenced it in an earlier discussion, because we had the opportunity to go by boat and to go and look at this park in conjunction with our Tsleil-Waututh partners. It has former villages and harvest areas for the bounties of the Salish Sea, as well as the forests for the hunting and gathering.

[4:05 p.m.]

Over the past decade, since Say Nuth Khaw Yum was established in its current form, the Tsleil-Waututh have been working diligently towards improving the water quality and supporting the first shellfish harvest of many, many years and the return of salmon to a local river. Their efforts in recovering and rehabilitating the local inlet have been effective and profound.

I have had the opportunity to visit provincial parks throughout B.C. Like many others, I treasure these natural jewels that we are so lucky to have in our home province; lucky also that the legislatures before us had the foresight to understand the importance of these protected and managed areas.

We have 644 — no, wait a minute, 645 — provincial parks, 156 conservancies, 84 protected areas and 148 ecological preserves. Additionally, four of our provincial parks are designated UNESCO World Heritage Sites, with 24 designated as UNESCO Biospheres. These are critical parts that need to be managed and cared for, and that’s what we are doing. They are all part of the marvelous collection of natural landscapes that have been preserved and protected over the past century.

From Adams Lake through the Babine, the Carmanah and all the way through an alphabet of places, historical events and wildlife, through to Winter Cove, we have access to nature via trails, camping, fishing, hiking, skiing, horseback riding, snowshoeing and many other recreational options that are world renowned.

While visiting Germany several years ago — it actually seems like a lifetime ago — I spoke with a local fellow in one of the towns we visited. When he heard I was from B.C., he asked me if I was familiar with Cypress Provincial Park, which, fortunately, is just close to me, and I’m very familiar with. Then he waxed poetic about the holiday that he had taken with his family, staying in one of the historic cabins up there — snowshoeing, cross-country and downhill skiing, all day if they wanted to, then tobogganing as another option to explore.

I’ve camped in Skagit, Marble Canyon, Coquihalla, Johnstone Creek, Alice Lake, Purden Lake, Princess Louisa Marine Park, Porteau Cove, Garibaldi, Sasquatch and walked and hiked in so many of our provincial parks. It makes me proud to be part of a government that take the parks for the immense and supportive resource that they are.

During COVID, the parks have also served as a retreat, a refuge and a respite from the fear and uncertainty that people have been experiencing. In and around Metro Vancouver, the usage of parks has gone up exponentially — all of our parks. You go in, and there are people enjoying the trails, walking, running, taking their dogs. Again, we also see the provincial campgrounds fully booked through the summer as people begin to do limited travels within the borders of British Columbia. In these parks, you can be outdoors, maintain social distance, have time and solitude if you want it.

I fully support the work that is outlined in Bill 17 as a part of the overall process of ensuring that our parks not only survive and thrive but continue to be part of the strong heart and lungs of British Columbia.

R. Russell: I’m pleased to stand and rise in this House today to speak in favour of this bill. I was thrilled in the introduction to hear the Minister of Environment, which I did not know, reference the fact that in my riding, particularly, this is in place to protect snakes and bats and falcons and bighorns, which sounds just inherently awesome. So I’m proud to stand in support.

[4:10 p.m.]

I think we’ve heard a lot already in terms of parks and the role that they play in preservation of wildlife, particularly, and the protection of ecological values. I think that’s rather oversimplified, and I like a comment from the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain where he used the words connect, protect and restore. I think even though we might use those words and assume or interpret that that is intended to refer to ecological protection, connection and restoration, it equally well applies to social and economic connection, protection and restoration as well.

I’d like to use this time in part to kind of challenge the narrative that we hear that I don’t believe is accurate in terms of pitting economy versus ecology. Part of what an action like this does today, I think, is really a great deal for our values around wildlife and natural systems. But also, much more important, potentially, especially in rural B.C., are those same values around social systems, individuals and economic systems.

As an example, as Hansard does not record, as I understand, the prayers in the morning, I will re-read into the record the prayer we heard this morning from the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions — “The Peace of Wild Things,” by Wendell Berry.

When despair for the world grows in me
and I wake in the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children’s lives may be,
I go and I lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
waiting with their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world and am free.

I like that, and I read that to reiterate the mental health impacts of what are our parks and what they do for us as individuals. I think that there has been a lot of documentation of that.

I will take this opportunity to also quote from a paper from my past life that I wrote with a number of colleagues:

“Ecosystems contribute to human well-being in various ways. Ecosystems provide the necessary resources of food, water, shelter and energy. Also, they regulate the conditions (e.g., temperature and water quality) in which people live, work and play and, most fundamentally, underpin the basic processes (e.g., primary production) and cycles (e.g., carbon cycle, water cycle) to support life. These types of ecosystem services — provisioning, regulating and supporting — have received the majority of research attention.

“Ecosystems, however, also contribute culturally and psychologically determined benefits to people that are crucial to human well-being. These cultural-ecosystem services, as they are called, represent intangible dimensions of the link between people and ecosystems that are psychological, philosophical, social and spiritual and are at the very core of human preferences and values.”

This is a collection of work that I did with colleagues that I’m very proud of. One of the conclusions that we came to upon reviewing an enormous amount of literature and empirical studies was summarized by this sentence: “The balance of evidence indicates conclusively that knowing and experiencing nature makes us generally happier, healthier people.” I think that’s important to keep in mind when we’re talking about a bill such as this, that is an expansion to our park system, again, to recognize that this goes well beyond preservation of land.

I will read three of the summary points from this: “On the whole, though not always, nature makes people happier and healthier via our non-tangible connections to ecosystems. The positive effects of nature on physiological health and mental health have been unequivocally documented, and the strong positive effects of nature and identity and spirituality are robustly demonstrated for Indigenous groups, but poorly documented for other cultures.”

Indicating that we know these connections very well, based on the bulk of the literature.

To bring this into a more British Columbian frame, I use a document that was shared with me recently from the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C. Although it is focused on trails and benefits of trails, it’s a document called the 17 Trail Benefits for British Columbians.

[4:15 p.m.]

I read through the list of these benefits:

“(1) Trails reduce health risks.”

“(2) The health benefits of trails lessen health care spending.”

“(3) Trails improve mental health.”

“(4) Trails encourage physical activity.”

Number 9. I’ll come back to the others:

“(9) Trails help grow rural communities.”

“(10) Trails engage citizens in their communities.”

“(11) Trails can benefit diverse groups.”

“(12) Trails help build healthy and happy communities.”

“(13) Trails provide opportunities for Indigenous stewardship and cultural preservation.”

“(14) Trails may assist in advancing actions towards reconciliation.”

“(15) Trails help reduce traffic, emissions and accidents.”

“(16) Trails inspire environmental stewardship.”

“(17) Trails may benefit the environment.”

I call your attention to those things again to demonstrate the suite of benefits that we get from outdoor recreation. Many of those things…. Although this is targeted at trails, our park system is part of what supports those networks, and I think in most cases that trails and parks could be interchangeably used in those titles.

I’m going to take the opportunity to read a little more specifically around the economic pieces, which are the numbers that I didn’t read in the first pass:

“(5) Trails create jobs. The construction, maintenance and use of trails all generate economic opportunities. Trails generate income from investments in their construction and maintenance. In 2010-11, the operation of Rec Sites and Trails B.C. generated the equivalent of 300 full-time jobs, and when considering user spending, this number jumps to 2,700 full-time jobs.

“(6) Trail tourists and local trail users generate revenue. Trail users may spend on transport, food, lodging, equipment or guides. It is estimated that recreationists participating in non-motorized activities in B.C. spent a total of $3.6 billion in 2012. Spending in 2009-10 was estimated to be $10 to $55 per single trip per person, not including equipment costs.

“(7) Trails increase tourism and economic opportunities in rural communities. Some rural communities are struggling from a decline in the B.C. resource sector. Trails can create opportunities for their economies. Local users and tourists visiting trails make purchases in nearby communities, which in turn supports local business, creates jobs and ultimately boosts local economies.

“(8) Trails can be a pillar for COVID-19 economic recovery. The pandemic has highlighted how vital trails are. While many facilities and businesses were closed, evidence suggests that trails around the province experienced an increase in usage. B.C. was already experiencing increases in outdoor recreation participation before the pandemic, and now the pandemic has further boosted participation. Given the economic, community and health benefits, trails will be an integral tool for COVID-19 economic recovery.”

Again, I take the time to read this verbatim because it highlights the value well beyond the ecological value of our trails and park systems and how important this is for our economic and social systems as well.

For my constituency, in particular, there are two expansions to parks. One is the Skaha Bluffs and one is the Granby. Both of these I could recite a number of examples that iterate these same benefits for economic, social and ecological benefits. I don’t need to do that.

I will use an example though. I had the privilege to deliver on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. DeCock, in my community in Osoyoos, a 65th wedding anniversary certificate, which is pretty remarkable. I applaud them for making it their 65 years. Cornelius told me when I was talking to them that he had just come back from this very Granby part of the world on an outing with a number of friends.

These are the kinds of experiences that I think are really important and valuable in our communities, and I am happy to support a bill such as this that is expanding on the potential for those kinds of opportunities. For the sake of our ecosystems, for the sake of our social integrity and vitality and the sake of our rural economies, I am proud to speak in favour of this bill.

[4:20 p.m.]

D. Routley: I appreciate this opportunity to speak in favour of Bill 17.

It’s a real pleasure, of course, to speak to any bill that so genuinely reflects the values of the people of British Columbia, the preservation of the special places of this province and the advancement of reconciliation at the same time. These are goals that form the north star of our government. We are committed to them in everything that we do. This is a clear example of that.

I very much appreciate this opportunity to speak to the general sense that we are protecting the jewels of our province, the history of our province, recognizing and acknowledging the challenges of that history, and going about the important symbolic steps of recognizing the First Nations place names of these parks that have been changed.

There are land additions to ten parks, which is an obvious commitment to ecology, but as the previous speaker pointed out, an obvious commitment, also, to the tourism economy of this province and the benefits that people experience in their lives, being able to engage in the wild natural habitat of British Columbia.

I’d like now to speak specifically about two parks that are mentioned in the bill. They are a part of the constituency which I’m honoured to represent — Nanaimo–North Cowichan — but it isn’t the first time that the Environment Minister has come and helped us with parks in our constituency.

I’m reminded that the first example is one that I have tired many of the members’ patience by referring to so many times over so many years, trying to get investment into the Morden Colliery Historic Provincial Park to preserve that park.

It was another commitment on parks when the minister came to our community and made that investment of $1.4 million to protect the park that reminds us of the resource industry history of Vancouver Island. It definitely has a huge impact on reconciliation, as the lands were part of the Dunsmuir land grant and part of the coal mining history of colonial Vancouver Island, but also reminds us of some of the biggest labour disasters of that day, in the mining disasters of the Nanaimo area.

The minister is back in the area, helping us preserve more of our beautiful region. Our government is doing that by designating the first provincial park named on Vancouver Island in over 20 years, the last one being Hesquiat Lake Park in 2001.

Eagle Heights is an amazing place. I’ve grown up with Eagle Heights as a presence in my life. In the Cowichan Valley, you’re surrounded by landmarks like Mount Prevost and Eagle Heights. When you look up at those places, you’re reminded not only of the natural history but, again, of that industrial history. In the 1970s, when I was in grade school, a huge part of Eagle Heights was clearcut.

It has been a source of…. It’s been a difficult thing to look at over many years because of the choices that were made at that time. Fortunately, it has reforested, mostly naturally, with conifer species such as coastal Douglas fir. In this park area, there are stands of old-growth coastal Douglas fir. Coastal Douglas fir is the most threatened of the coastal forest zones. It’s mostly urban, mostly interlaced with roads and very, very important to the water table and water quality of Vancouver Island — as well as every other natural aspect of Vancouver Island but particularly those.

[4:25 p.m.]

Also included in Eagle Heights are several rare plants species. There is presence of the western screech owl, as has been mentioned, and northern goshawk as well as Roosevelt elk. In fact, I was riding my cyclocross bike in the area only three weeks ago, and I came over a crest to this most amazing sight of elk antlers spaced approximately six, at least — perhaps eight — feet apart and then the emergence of that elk from the bush in front of me on the trail.

A massive beast, on little Vancouver Island, and a species…. Yes, like the fish story, my antler story grows. But I can only reach this far. It’s limited, and it is, in fact, a diminution of what I saw — this amazing species of animal so close to the community and right in front of me.

It’s so important to our community in so many ways that this land is being protected.

I should also recognize the excellent contributions that have been made by the community. The area was purchased in 2018 by the province for $7.5 million with the considerable help of local agencies, including Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, which invested $400,000, and a contribution of $225,000 from Cowichan Community Land Trust. It’s an example of our government partnering with communities to recognize the priorities and values that are reflected from those communities and reflecting them back with investment and commitment to making life better for British Columbians.

The other park I’d like to talk about is the renaming of a park, the renaming of Newcastle Island Park to Saysutshun. As the member for Nanaimo so eloquently pointed out, this, translated in Hul’q’umi’num’, is “the place for training and preparing one’s body and mind” — quite literally, training for running. The island is interlaced with trails, and Snuneymuxw Nation athletes have been training there for centuries.

That area also reflects some of the unfortunate colonial history we all share, in that it was…. At the time of first contact, there were two villages, at least, on Saysutshun Island. That island was taken and essentially turned into part of the coal-mining network of the Nanaimo area. In fact, the city itself is still laced with tunnels, and sometimes land collapses because of that. After its service as a coal mine, it was used to extract sandstone for a long time.

Before that, its historical use, as was pointed out by the member for Nanaimo, was as a place of healing, a place of preparation. It has several historical sites. Shell middens, bark-stripped cedar trees are quite prevalent, especially around the Giovando lookout area. There was a thriving herring fishery based on the island, carried out by the Snuneymuxw people. They also collected important medicinal herbs on the island.

Over time, the coal mining and sandstone mining had its effect. Eventually, that activity stopped, and the Canadian Pacific Railway bought the island. They established, essentially, a resort there. There were dances, a dance hall, camping and cottages. In fact, there still is oceanside camping and some facilities — Saysutshun store run by Snuneymuxw First Nation.

It’s really important that this history is being recognized, reconciled and honoured and that we make these investments together, that we make them in these names and that we recognize and acknowledge our own past in so doing — and in so doing, also move not only to recognize and acknowledge and honour our past but prepare for a much better future together.

[4:30 p.m.]

If we continue with these kinds of partnerships, these kinds of commitments to each other, then we will, in fact, build the kind of British Columbia that is the aspirational goal of the people I represent.

I feel very confident in saying that. British Columbia has a spectacular history, one checkered with mistakes, but one highlighted by the commitment and accomplishment of amazing peoples who came before us, who live amongst us. It’s our role, I believe, to recognize them all, to honour them and to invest in a more healthy and abundant future for them in the lands that we live in. That’s what this bill does, and that’s what this government is attempting to do every day.

It is with appreciation from the people that I represent in Nanaimo–North Cowichan that we give thanks for this investment in our community. I am very, very proud to be standing here, able to support this legislation.

I believe that’s the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: It may go on longer, if you wish. Thank you, Member.

Surrey-Fleetwood, you have the floor.

J. Brar: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’m also really pleased to join the member who just finished speaking to support the bill, the amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, introduced in this House by our government.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

This bill is to protect our parks. A park is a beautiful place where you can go connect with yourself and, of course, connect with nature. It is a beautiful place you can find in your community. Parks bring families and communities together, improve overall health and well-being, provide new cultural experiences and protect species and ecosystems found nowhere else in the world.

I just want to tell you a story. I know you’ve heard a lot of stories about B.C. I know that there are other members who come from the same place where I came from. But I just want to tell you that there was not a single park in my village. I grew up playing on vacant lots and on farmland. That’s not the story of my village. That’s the story of almost every village we have in Punjab — almost 12,000 villages.

Sometimes we don’t really look at the real value of the parks we have, particularly in the province of B.C. We have beautiful, beautiful parks around us. There are so many that you can probably spend your entire life to go and visit them. So we should really enjoy those parks.

In my community of Surrey, I have, close to my house, a park known as Bear Creek Park. Also, in my constituency, we have a park we call Fleetwood Park. Whenever I go there, I see communities and people from all walks of life. The South Asian community is probably celebrating a birthday of their child. Then you go forward, and you see a Filipino community doing a barbecue. Then move on, and you see a Chinese community doing community events, and so on.

You see a lot of children, young children, playing with each other in the park. Seniors are playing cards and other games in the park as well. So it looks, when you go to the park, like this is a reflection. This is kind of a global village. This is a true reflection of the global community, where you see people from almost every walk of life. That’s what makes this country, makes this province, a great place for all of us.

[4:35 p.m.]

We live in the best place on earth, as we always say. That’s why I’m very pleased to support this bill moving forward. Under this bill, we’re expanding our parks and protected areas system by establishing a new provincial park on southern Vancouver Island. The new park will protect a vital ecosystem important to the Cowichan Tribes.

In addition to that, as said by the member who spoke before me, renaming a park is a very important step forward in our ongoing reconciliation efforts with Indigenous people across our province. The renaming of the parks to include Indigenous place-names also allows people in B.C. to connect with the rich history and culture of our province.

A name brings a lot of things to it. Once the name comes, a lot of history and the past comes with it. I think it’s very important for us to rename these parks to recognize the history of this province. Therefore, this new park will help us protect our ecosystem, and it is also an important step forward in our ongoing reconciliation efforts with Indigenous people across British Columbia.

The proposed amendments are regularly required to add lands to a park or ecological reserves, to modify or correct the boundaries of these areas — for a variety of reasons — and to improve boundary descriptions. One of the questions that people ask is: what is the overall impact of these changes?

Through these changes, we are expanding our parks system and recognizing the cultural and historical significance of these places through the renaming process. This amendment will establish a new class A park — 143 hectares — in the Cowichan Valley, rename two provincial parks to include Indigenous place-names, add 2,258 hectares of land to nine existing parks, modify the boundaries of five parks and provide three parks with official plans — i.e., very clear kinds of boundaries that are more accurate, understandable and practical than written descriptions.

Also, the question is: why is land being added to these parks? Again, we continually look for ways to expand our parks and protected areas. That’s what we’re doing under this act as well. These land and foreshore additions were selected for various reasons, such as increased protection of sensitive cultural values, ecosystem and wildlife habitat, more opportunities for outdoor recreation, and management purposes.

One other question that people ask: how much of B.C. is in protected area status? This is a very good question, and many people ask that. In B.C., I am proud to say, over 14 million hectares, or approximately 14.4 percent of the provincial land base, is now dedicated to provincial protected area status. I’d say that’s a very good thing.

I would like to say I fully support this bill. This is a good bill for the people of British Columbia. This is a good bill — to have more parks and beautiful life in this province.

J. Sims: It is my pleasure today to stand up and speak in support of the legislation and the amendments that are here before us. There are many things we get to do when we are elected to serve the people of British Columbia. I think this is absolutely one of my favourite moments, because what we are doing is preserving and expanding parkland for future generations. I think that is delightful.

[4:40 p.m.]

As many of you know — you might gather that from my accent, though many people find it hard to believe — I came here from England in 1975. I came for a very short time, thinking that the government of the day would be gone and I could go back to England after a year or two, but that didn’t happen. I fell in love with Canada.

When we came to see B.C. from Quebec, we were only actually coming to B.C. for a visit as tourists, but once we got here, we liked it so much that my husband said — he was a teacher too: “You know, why don’t we stay for a year? That way we will get to travel in this area a lot more.” Well, that was in 1977, and here we are today.

One of the reasons is that we did fall in love with the geography of this province; with the geography of this country. Having decided that…. We were visiting some friends in Nanaimo, and we made that home. We looked at all of the beautiful parks that were near us. One of the very first houses we stayed at in Nanaimo was in Departure Bay. It overlooked Newcastle Island.

Newcastle Island Park is one of the favourites for my kids — who were born here in Canada — and, of course, then my grandkids and now my great-granddaughter as well. It’s a place we often went on day trips, and at times, we even stayed the night or a few nights there, three or four nights. It was a place where you could go and get oysters. It was a place where you could go and get clams. It definitely was a wonderful place to kayak to.

So today when I saw that one of the things we were doing was renaming Newcastle Island Marine Park, it made me overjoyed. As I said, there are some moments here when our emotions get moved. Mine did, because this park means a lot to me. And it means a lot — that our government, in recognition and doing the work in truth and reconciliation and moving forward — that we are taking these steps.

I know for some people, it’s going to be: “It’s such a tiny, little step.” It is, but sometimes these little steps we take mean a huge amount to a lot of people. I cannot stress how important that is.

I know that there will be some who will say: “Well, it’s hard to say that.” But you know what? We’re going to practise. Not all of you, but I am. Saysutshun. It’s easy to say once it gets along.

Those people who come from the English-speaking world, we often think that words from other languages are hard to say. Yet we expect everyone else to find our English language to be easy to reproduce. It’s difficult for everyone when they try different languages.

Here, this recognition and changing the name for Newcastle Island Marine Park is a big thing for us as a government and a big thing for me personally. I know now that when I go back to visit Nanaimo — now that we are allowed a few visits to visit family — and I spend time with my daughter and my grandkids, as I sit on the balcony, on the patio, I will be overlooking Newcastle Island Marine Park, which will now be Saysutshun. I will keep saying that and saying: “Yeah, we did this.”

I know that there are many First Nations students in Nanaimo whom I have taught over the years who will be delighted that we have taken these steps. These steps mean a lot, and I just wanted to bring that personal element into it, because it means so much to all of us.

When we look at this legislation, we are creating a new park. The first one in a long, long time. That is good news. That is good news because that is land that will be preserved for generations to come. It’s where my children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and their great-grandchildren will be able to go and play.

[4:45 p.m.]

During COVID, one thing we realized is that we needed to reconnect with nature. We know, when we were bound in our homes, how much we looked forward to those walks outside, and if we could walk out in parks and their natural settings, then we felt replenished. I know that I have enjoyed the parks in the Surrey area during my walks, because those walks would get me regrounded and would get me a break from Zoom and all the other stuff we did online and by phone.

To see these parks…. I mean, when you look at it, they are basically all over this province. Plus there are so many — nine parks, I believe, and a conservancy — that we are actually adding land to. We’re growing our parks. That is a good thing.

We often talk about mental health and everything we need to be doing. I can tell you, when I was growing up in…. Well, Leamington Spa was quite beautiful, actually. It had lots of parks in those days. But when I went to university in Manchester, going down to some of those downtown Manchester areas, it was hard to find any green area, though that has now been so-called regentrified and has parks now in it too.

I think that when we do this kind of work…. I do want to thank our minister for his foresight, not only in opening this park, a new park, but growing some of our existing parks and also in changing a name. That is far more meaningful than just changing a name.

I’m hoping all of us will practise saying these First Nations names. For me, it’s going to be hard to get rid of the word “Newcastle,” but I’m going to work on it very, very hard, because this is the right thing to do.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Environment to close the debate.

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to thank the members of the House from all parties for their comments on Bill 17, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2021 — not just the comments on the bill itself but the expressions by many people of the appreciation of the importance of parks, the importance of our respectful relations and consultations with rights and title holders and First Nations and the recognition of the growing interest in and need for the health benefits that parks give us mentally and physically.

I particularly appreciated the remarks of my colleague the MLA for Surrey-Panorama. She told the story of many newcomers to British Columbia discovering the beauty of our province because of the beauty of our parks, the beauty of our nature, and choosing to stay here.

As I’ve said, the bill contains amendments that allow our government to continue moving forward with the ongoing reconciliation efforts with Indigenous peoples by renaming two parks to include their place names. That’s an important step in implementing the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, but of course, as the member for Skeena and others have pointed out, it is a step. It’s a measure. It’s not the only one.

From our ministry and B.C. Parks staff, we have a continuing process of consultation with Indigenous nations, the rights and title holders, and many productive discussions with respect to improving cultural interpretation in the parks and engaging the nations as part of that — signage and, ultimately, management.

The bill, of course, also establishes a brand-new, 143-​acre park called Hwsalu-utsum. This ecologically diverse property is culturally significant, as we’ve pointed out, to the local Indigenous peoples, and the Cowichan Tribes have provided the name for the new park to us and to all British Columbians.

[4:50 p.m.]

We add lands to nine existing parks and one conser­vancy. We improve boundary descriptions for three parks. We continue to correct administrative errors and enable boundary modifications to allow for critical water infrastructure and to implement a land exchange agreement between B.C. Parks and B.C. Hydro.

With that, I look forward to detailed questions from members opposite in committee stage, and importantly, I look forward to continuing to improve B.C.’s parks and protected area system for all British Columbians, particularly in this time when time and fresh air are so important to all of us.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 17, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amend­ment Act, 2021, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you very much.

I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 14.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATORS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 14; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 4:51 p.m.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I will suggest that we go to a two- or three-minute recess while we let staff and everybody get ready to take their place to move into the committee stage. We’ll be in recess for a couple of minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:51 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 1.

The Chair: We’re here with Bill 14, the Early Childhood Educators Act, for the committee stage.

Did the Minister of State for Child Care want to give an opening statement on this?

Hon. K. Chen: I’m just going to simply introduce the very important team that’s here supporting this committee work. That is, of course, our ADM, Kevena Hall, from the child care division; the director for the ECE registry, Darla Faulkner; and the director of legislation and litigation, Penny Lloyd.

Thank you so much for supporting our work today.

K. Kirkpatrick: If I might indulge, prior to one, just some general questions with respect to the overall bill.

Thank you very much. Nice to see you back here again today.

I would like to thank the minister of state and the wonderful staff you’ve got at MCFD for all the great work you do on this important file. I’m fully supportive of anything that is going to increase the quality and availability of child care in British Columbia.

We have a critical shortage of ECE workers. It continues to get worse. Child care centres are reducing hours and even closing for lack of staff. So I do look forward to learning from you here how this legislation can address those issues.

Does the minister believe that the government has met its obligations under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act with respect to this bill?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes. We believe that this draft piece of legislation supports the province’s commitment under section 3 of the Declaration Act. It also is consistent with the following articles of UNDRIP, including articles 5, 14, 20, 21(2) and 22.

As I mentioned yesterday, we also have a letter commitment to working with the First Nations Leadership Council. Also, through the regulation process, we’ll be working hand in hand with Indigenous communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Minister.

What other groups were consulted, and what was the makeup of those groups — for example, child care providers, ECE workers, geographic representation, those working in for-profit and non-profit? If I could have details on that.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: We have done extensive consultations with the child care sector, of course, starting from our Provincial Child Care Council, which we discussed quite a bit yesterday. I forgot earlier to thank the critic’s time and effort on this.

We’ve also consulted with private training institutions, public post-secondary institutions, recognized out-​of-province ECE programs, continuing education programs and, of course, the Early Childhood Educators of B.C., which is an organization we work very closely with to get their feedback and share their thoughts along this journey.

Since 2018, we have always been engaging with our wide range of stakeholders, including different types of child care providers that work in very diverse sectors. As we all know, this sector is very diverse.

This bill is really connected to a lot of work that we are doing through the education and training programs. So we also made sure that post-secondary institutions are fully kept in the loop about the process and the introduction of the bill and made sure that they have opportunities to provide feedback too.

K. Kirkpatrick: Could you let me know, Minister, how many post-secondary educational institutions were consulted and whether those are private career colleges or public universities?

Hon. K. Chen: The total is 32. That includes ten private training institutions, 17 public post-secondary institutions, two recognized out-of-province ECE programs and three continuing education programs.

E. Ross: Back to the same line of questions that we did on every bill that’s been presented to this House in accordance with Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It’s been quite the journey trying to get an answer out of this government in terms of whether or not they’re following this bill.

In terms of this bill that we’re talking about today, mostly what I’ve heard is that this government has not consulted with any of the 203 bands that were initially set out in the UNDRIP bill. The minister keeps mentioning the leadership council in terms of the consultation. I’ve already pointed out that the leadership council is not a governing body. They don’t represent communities, and they don’t represent Aboriginal rights and title.

Does this government believe, as per Bill 41, that the leadership council is an Indigenous governing body and is owed a duty to consult and accommodate — as opposed to First Nations communities?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I do appreciate the member’s question on this. We definitely have to continue with the journey of reconciliation and fulfil our commitment.

We sent letters to the 203 nations, the treaty First Nations and the Nisg̱a’a, in the summer of 2020, also again this year, to ensure that they have the opportunity to provide feedback. We have continued to engage, of course, as I mentioned yesterday, through the First Nations Leadership Council, the Métis Nation of B.C. and the B.C. Aboriginal Child Care Society, which has years of advo­cacy and has done a lot of work when it comes to culturally inclusive, Indigenous-led child care.

Really, since 2018, as soon as we started this work in 2017, as well, we’ve always engaged with First Nations communities. We have actually funded spaces, on and off reserve, that are culturally inclusive and that are Indigenous-led.

We’ve learned a lot along this journey. I totally agree that we have so much more work to do when it comes to Indigenous-led child care and continuing to ensure that child care is culturally inclusive and that we follow the lead and the expertise of Indigenous communities to provide those crucial services to children and families. We’re committed to that. We’ll continue to do that work, through our engagement and our learning, through the process to draft the regulations.

E. Ross: According to the UNDRIP bill that this government actually brought to this House and is currently trying to implement, the definition of “Indigenous governing body” means “an entity that is authorized to act on behalf of Indigenous peoples that hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

The question is more specific now: does this government believe that groups like the leadership council fit within that definition of the UNDRIP bill, Bill 41, of 2019?

Hon. K. Chen: No, we don’t believe that FNLC is an Indigenous governing body, but we do want to consult and continue to work with all the Indigenous partners and the rights holders along this journey to build more culturally inclusive, Indigenous-led child care.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. That question is important.

Really, I’ve heard this government mention many times before the word “consultation.” That’s a real serious word when you’re talking about Aboriginal rights and title, let alone some of the provisions under Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. By the way, I don’t know what that means. I have no idea what the term “consultation” means under Bill 41 of 2019, especially when we’re talking about consultation in terms of the definition, in the document itself, of “Indigenous governing body.”

[5:10 p.m.]

My other question would be…. In terms of the notices that were sent out to 203 bands in B.C., who are the rightful title holders, by the way…. The title holders, in itself, are actually the community. It’s a communal right, so it’s really important that the consultation is meaningful. Consultation, under rights and title case law, is not just simply sending out notice. There’s more to it than that, and the courts have already laid this out in terms of duty of the Crown and the honour of the Crown, more importantly.

In that respect, was there any other consultation other than just notice being sent out? Was there any follow-up? Were there any phone calls? Were there emails? Was there any substantive conversation back and forth between the Crown and the First Nation that actually signifies true consultation?

Hon. K. Chen: Again, thank you to the member for the question.

We agree that consultation goes beyond just notification letters, and it is important that the engagement is meaningful. So we did send letters to the treaty First Nations and Nisg̱a’a last summer, summer 2020, and then we again invited them to…. We welcome feedback, and we follow up.

Throughout this journey of doing the work for Childcare B.C., I’ve personally learned a lot from Indigenous communities about how to work together to provide Indigenous-led culturally inclusive child care. We will continue to do that, and we’re committed to continue to collaborate together on policies, on co-drafting intention papers and also on our regulations.

A lot of the work that we have done since 2017 and 2018 is to learn how we can we work together, and the bill that we discussed yesterday — on the Early Learning and Child Care Act and also on this — is a part of the process and part of the start of this journey to make sure that we can work in partnership with Indigenous communities to create culturally inclusive child care that’s Indigenous-led.

E. Ross: There must be documentation of what the Crown has learned, then, in respect of this limited scope of consultation. Has the government compiled what they have learned through this consultation, specifically in reference to the definition under the UNDRIP document that this government approved? It’s actually a checklist of items that the government has actually committed to understanding in respect of passing legislation in this House.

[5:15 p.m.]

For example: “For the purposes of implementing this Act, the government must consider the diversity of the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, particularly the distinct languages, cultures, customs, practices, rights, legal traditions, institutions, governance structures, relationships to territories and knowledge systems of the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia.”

In respect of the consultation of this act regarding child care, has the government documented, as per their own commitments under UNDRIP, the checklist of items that the government has committed to understanding that will actually serve as a basis to actually pass the legislation in accordance with UNDRIP?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes, we have learned how to improve the consultation process through, for example, our signed letter of commitment that really outlines how our ministry will improve the legislative development process to be more collaborative and working in partnership with Indigenous partners.

A letter of commitment is a good example of that, and we have documented all of the process.

E. Ross: That’s actually pretty impressive. For 203 bands in B.C. and to document the differences between these 203 bands in B.C. To document their distinct languages, cultures, customs, practices, rights, legal traditions, institutions, governance structures, relationship to territories and knowledge systems of Indigenous peoples in respect of child care is quite impressive.

Will this House see the results or actually some of the substantial information in relation to the 203 bands in relation to this bill?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: The Ministry of Children and Family Development is committed to support and uphold the Indigenous inherent in human rights and to implement and meet the objectives of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. For example, the letter of commitment confirms the principles, process, roles and responsibility that the ministry will implement in the coming months to work hand in hand with Indigenous government.

Yes, Indigenous rights holders, all 203 First Nations, will see a difference in terms of how the process is, how we draft legislation and regulations.

E. Ross: I think that was a yes. We will see the information in terms of this bill regarding child care. We will see information regarding the diversity of Indigenous people in B.C., particularly the distinct languages and cultures, blah, blah, blah. It’s already been read in a couple times, so I’ll leave it at that.

There’s a big word missing here, and it’s missing in all of the legislation that has been brought to this House. That’s “accommodation.” That’s the second word that comes after consultation, if you’re looking at case law. That’s why consultation, in a legal context, is such an important word when you talk about Indigenous issues.

In light of the extensive consultation done with 203 bands in B.C. regarding child care, what accommodation has been proposed by the Crown or talked about with each band in B.C.? What has the conversation coming back to the Crown regarding accommodation been like? Do we have any examples of what the accommodation measures look like between the two parties?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: On this particular bill, I would say that the letter of commitment is a good example of how we are working hand in hand together with First Nations communities. Then through the past few years, since we started our Childcare B.C. plan, we have learned so much.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to have learned from First Nations communities about how to build culturally inclusive early learning and Indigenous-led child care. We funded spaces on and off reserve that are totally culturally inclusive and led by Indigenous communities. We want to continue to learn through our regulation process. We’re going to continue to collaborate and co-develop the regulations.

We are committed to continue this journey to have transformative legislations and also future amendments that will commit to the spirit of our commitment to the rights of Indigenous peoples. So I appreciate this opportunity, and as I said, we are continuing to learn and make sure that we can continue to improve and transform our legislative process.

E. Ross: The question was accommodation. What the minister just mentioned was more along the lines of consultation.

By the way, I asked this question when we were actually debating the UNDRIP bill in the first place. The last thing I heard from this House, from the government, was this would all be on the framework of section 35 of the Constitution of Canada and the pursuant case law.

Now I know it doesn’t say that in the bill itself, Bill 41, but there are references to section 35 of the constitution — some of the same words. We’re talking about consultation here. So if it is built on the framework of section 35 of the constitution and the case law, there are hundreds of case laws and judgments that actually defined rights and title to what we see today.

The real question was…. Maybe my question wasn’t clear. Does the government have any written evidence of any accommodation pursuant to any consultation issues that might have come up with their individual consultations with 203 bands in B.C.?

[5:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. K. Chen: We will be exploring accommodation measures through our drafting of regulations. That would be, of course, hand in hand, in partnership, with Indigenous leaders and communities. It’s important to note that this legislation will come in force through regulation, so there is a lot of work that will be done.

The critical part of this work will be done through regulation, and we’ll be working with Indigenous communities. I’ll give an example. When we are prescribing professional…. You know, giving certifications. We’ll be looking into culturally inclusive competencies and safeties and humanities that will be Indigenous-led. We’ll have those opportunities to be able to engage and ensure that it’s committed to our spirit of reconciliation.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

K. Kirkpatrick: Designation of registrar. What qualifications will this registrar be required to have?

Hon. K. Chen: The only legal requirement is that the registrar is appointed under the Public Service Act. How­ever, the registrar is a highly technical position, so qualifications for the position would be developed in consultation with the Public Service Agency and based on the nature of the duties performed.

A hiring process must comply with the Public Service Act, which requires a merit-based process for each applicant’s education, skills, knowledge and experience. Hiring decisions are subject to review by the deputy minister and the Merit Commissioner.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for that answer. Because the ability…. Within this legislation, there is the ability to enter a school, seize records, interview….

[5:35 p.m.]

It means that this role, I believe, is a quasi-judicial role. Is there an expectation, then, that this person will have some kind of legal training or legal background?

Hon. K. Chen: Thanks to the member for the question. Yes, they will normally have a background in education and in early childhood education. They have to have a working knowledge of administrative law and natural justice, an ability to interpret and apply policy legislation as well and, preferably, experience in the ECE field, including the post-secondary regulatory environment, on compliance and on enforcement.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for that answer. How much of the registrar’s time do you anticipate will be committed to the oversight of ECE professionals, and how much of the time would be committed to the regulatory oversight of post-secondary institutions?

Hon. K. Chen: I believe the question may be a little beyond the scope of this legislation. In current practice and also as we predict for the future, because it is quite demand-driven — it’s based on intake and caseload — we will be looking at how the registrar would be equitably able to respond to stakeholders and applicants and be dealing with the intake and the demand.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Who will the registrar report to? A second piece: would that be directly to the minister? Then will the registrar be moving to the Ministry of Education?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Currently the equivalent of the position is actually Darla here, our director for the ECE registry. Currently this position sits under MCFD, and the position directly reports to the executive director of the branch. Should that change down the road, if our child care program moves to the Ministry of Education, then of course that will move with the whole child care program.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. How many staff is it anticipated that this registrar will be responsible for overseeing if it is the same as current structure or if there’ll be an increase in structure?

Hon. K. Chen: Currently, for the member’s information, we have about 57 staff. Of course, as part of this leg­islation coming into force, if it passes, we will be increasing staff resources to be able to support the increased authorities.

Clauses 2 and 3 approved.

On clause 4.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister confirm specifically what information will be publicly available about ECE registrants?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Hon. Chair, I really appreciate the member’s question. I know she has raised this in her response to the bill. I want to inform the members that the public registry will contain information identifying early childhood educators and early childhood educator assistants, the status of their registration, as well as approved post-secondary early childhood education programs and the status of their approval.

Publishing information about the registrants ensures that parents and employees have the information they need to make decisions that are important about the people who will be looking after their children. Also, the people who are considering a career in this field — a very important field that looks after our young children — will be able to determine if a post-secondary program that they’re considering provides the required education and training to qualify them for registration as an ECE.

This is really similar to how a person could look up other regulated professions, as we’ve looked at other professions to make sure that we follow a similar process in releasing information, such as B.C. teachers, for example. They have a public registry that includes the teacher’s first and last name, the type of certificate they hold, information about whether the certificate is valid, expired, suspended, cancelled, as well as an expiry date. We also looked at B.C.-registered social workers. That has the public registry, including information such as their registration number, first and last name, status of certificate, initial date of registration and expiry date.

Because we are going to bring in this legislation through regulations, we will definitely be considerate and looking into how we ensure privacy and safety. Of course, that information we’re publishing is protecting the privacy of the applicants.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for that answer.

I understand this is a difficult…. Protecting privacy and, at the same time, being able to protect the consumer and protect parents are important. A majority of individuals working as ECE workers are women — many, immigrant women. I have had a concern expressed personally to me — some concern about information being published. I do understand fully that if you’re an LPN….

I mean, those registries do exist. Will this registry identify the employer for the ECE worker?

Hon. K. Chen: To assure the member opposite, the answer is no. The public registry will be respectful of the registrant’s privacy to the extent that you will not include identifiable information, such as the contact information, telephone number or address, the community in which they’re living or their place of employment.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just a clarifying question on this, and I believe that you said this.

Is there an ability…. Should someone be in a position where they would be made vulnerable by this information being publicly available, will there be a mechanism whereby that person could still attain their ECE certification without actually having that information publicly available?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I really appreciate the member’s question. We will — through the work, through the regulation — be looking into how the registrar can provide exemptions and discretion based on the unique situations that the member mentioned.

K. Kirkpatrick: What will the cost be for an applicant to register, and what will be the ongoing costs for their registration?

Hon. K. Chen: There’s no cost.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is there a current cost under the process for an ECE worker to get their licence?

Hon. K. Chen: No, not through the registry.

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, that’s a great answer. Thank you.

What will the different classifications of ECE licences be?

Hon. K. Chen: It will stay the same. We currently have the early childhood educators, early childhood educator assistant, the infant-toddler and the special needs.

K. Kirkpatrick: Has the process for approval of international credentials been determined, and what does that look like?

Hon. K. Chen: The details will be established through regulations. We are committed to make sure that there is going to be engagement and consultations, including individuals who have the experience of obtaining a degree outside of the province, and also with post-secondary institutions and our regular child care stakeholders that have experience in this field and expertise in this field. The intent of doing this legislation — part of it is really to remove the barriers of this process.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. As well as international credentials for ECE, can the minister confirm if they’re also looking at other kinds of credentials being accepted? For example, a teacher who has been a grade 1 teacher for a number of years — is there a pathway for someone like that to be able to become an ECE worker without taking a full ECE approved program?

Hon. K. Chen: I want to first clarify that this should be falling under clause 4. The registration is under clause 5, but I’m happy to provide an answer. We will be, through the regulation process, looking into the equivalent of education and similar experiences into consideration as well.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

[5:55 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Now that we are in clause 5, I will ask about education again. Has a competency framework been developed or is available within the sector now that can be used as the basis for determination of international credentials or the other experience that I referenced in the previous question?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes, the framework is the child care sector occupational competencies.

K. Kirkpatrick: This may have just answered my question, but if I can ask the minister: how are the education and training requirements in section 5(1)(b) determined?

Hon. K. Chen: It is through the same occupational competency.

K. Kirkpatrick: What format will the application process take under 5(1)(c)?

Hon. K. Chen: I hope I’m getting the member’s question correct, but we will provide examples of how that could apply. For example, currently, if an individual’s registration was cancelled as a result of administrative action, they may not be able to reapply for registration for a period of, for example, two years after the date the cancellation takes effect. The details will be further developed through the regulations as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: I apologize to the minister. I gave the wrong number to that one, although I do very much ap­preciate that answer, and it is helpful.

The format of the application process, which is why it was hard to understand me, is actually 5(2)(a), which is “the form and manner required by the registrar.” Let me forget the numbers for a moment and just ask a very simple question to the minister.

What will the format be of somebody filling in the application form? How do they go through that process, and how complex is it?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: The legislation will allow some flexibility and allow the registrar to create application forms, for example — currently it is online — based on the registration requirements outlined in the act and regulations. This will streamline the application process, and the form will request a submission of relevant required information, which will make it easier for the applicant to understand the process and requirements.

Again, we know that a child care plan and our investment will change over time and the sector will continue to develop with different needs or demands. This legislation will allow the flexibility to allow the registrar to modify it over time.

K. Kirkpatrick: The reason I’d asked that question is as a previous regulator myself, the concerns and complaints we got frequently were the complexity of the forms and how you apply and all of that. So I just want to make sure that it’s considered as it’s being developed.

Is there an age requirement for an ECE to be qualified?

Hon. K. Chen: First of all, I really appreciate the member’s feedback. We definitely welcome all the feedback and will do our best to continue to improve our process and make the application process better.

The answer to the question is no.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

K. Kirkpatrick: Under 6(a), when a change is made to the registrant’s name or contact information, they have a duty to notify the registrar within 30 days. Can I clarify what it means by “contact information” change? Is this their personal address? What information is it?

Hon. K. Chen: It will be personal contact information, but that will not be, again, publicly published.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is there a reason…? The question is: is there a reason that a registrant would need to provide their home address change within 30 days, rather than that just be something that’s included on an annual basis?

I can understand if an employer changes. But with a person’s personal home address, it seems like that’s quite an administrative task for someone to be able, once they change their mailing addresses and do all those things, to notify the registry as well.

Hon. K. Chen: There are many situations that we would want to have updated information from the registrant — for example, if they currently have an application in process. Or there could be a complaint or a concern that arises about this particular early childhood educator or program. We understand that this is also quite a standard requirement and practice for other professional occupations.

K. Kirkpatrick: What are the reporting requirements or obligations that employers would have with respect to changes to the status of employees — if they quit, if they’re fired, if they know that that person has moved?

Hon. K. Chen: This act does not cover the employer’s part. There is no duty to report on the employer’s part.

Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On clause 10.

[6:05 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: The majority, if not all, of the programs listed in schedule D, column 1 of the licensing regulation, which is referenced at the end of the act, are already regulated and reviewed for quality under the Ministry of Advanced Education. That can be any of the Degree Quality Assessment Board, Private Training Act. They could also, in addition, have the educational quality, EQA, designation.

Is there a current issue with the quality of the programs that are currently approved for ECE workers that is trying to be addressed?

Hon. K. Chen: Currently the director of the child care registry already has this authority, since 1997. To clarify, the ECE registry’s role is to determine whether the curriculum offered by a post-secondary institution covers the competencies required for the ECEs to become registered.

K. Kirkpatrick: When reading the legislation, it would appear that there is much more in there than simply approving the curriculum and the content. There is the authority to enter, seizing records and a whole number of other things that I believe are very similar, if not identical, to some of the other authorities.

At this point — if I’ve done this in the inappropriate order, I do apologize — I would like to introduce a proposed amendment to this bill, if I can do that at this time. I have got them here, available.

The Chair: I assume it’s on clause 10?

K. Kirkpatrick: Yes, it is on clause 10.

The Chair: You can introduce the amendment, and we’ll take a short recess while it’s being distributed to all the interested parties.

We’ll take a short recess while the amendment is being distributed.

The committee recessed from 6:08 p.m. to 6:17 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I move an amendment to clause 10(1):

[CLAUSE 10, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

10 On application by an institution in accordance with this section, the registrar will approve a program offered by the institution at a particular location or through distance education, or both, if the registrar is satisfied that

(a) the program enables an applicant for registration to meet a competency, if any, prescribed for the applicable class of registrant, the institution has received approval for the program from the Minister responsible for Advanced Education, and

(b) the institution, in relation to each approved program offered by the institution, is in compliance with the Act and the regulations or will comply with the Act and the regulations within a time established by the registrar, and the institution has submitted the approval to the Registrar.

(c) any other requirements established by regulation in relation to the institution or program are met.]

On the amendment.

K. Kirkpatrick: When I was reading the bill when it was first given to us in our last sitting, it struck me that there are many, many similarities, and some things are identical in terms of process with respect to what training institutions and universities go through already at this point in order to be able to have a program approved.

I know that the PTA agency does an extraordinary job, with subject-matter experts reviewing all of the ECE programs. Not only are those schools required to be registered themselves, but programs at the program level have to be reviewed, and they also have to be approved under the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Also, on a degree basis, there are programs such as at Capilano University, which has a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education. That has already gone through a very detailed process with the Degree Quality Assessment Board, where subject-matter experts would be fully reviewing everything you’ve referenced in terms of curriculum, pedagogy and the modes of education. It’s a very, very intense, detailed process.

[6:20 p.m.]

Where I really see the overlap in this are the compliance authority that the registrar would have; the investigative authority; the ability to, without warrant, go into an institution and be able to demand records, copy records, interview. The text is not verbatim, but actually, between the PTA, the Private Training Act and the proposed wording here in this act, you can almost mirror up, from one clause to another clause, between those two acts. There’s a lot of redundancy there.

I really believe we have to have quality education. Absolutely, it’s very important. I certainly understand the intent of this legislation being the assurance that we’ve got high-quality education for our ECE workers. I fully support that, but I believe that it is already being done by a group of experts who are very good at what they do.

If there were a way for this act to consider a program as approved under this act…. If they are approved, through these other mechanisms, under the Ministry of Advanced Education…. A number of these schools are already offering the ECE programs. They have the EQA designation, which is actually a voluntary designation and shows an even higher commitment to education.

That’s the reason that I’m putting this amendment forward. I would love to see the registrar have more of an ability to deal directly with those programs that enhance the registrants and the ECE workers and be able to rely on the great work that the Ministry of Advanced Education does already, with respect to very deep dives in terms of looking at the quality of education in these programs.

The Chair: To the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, our very capable Table Officers have recognized that we stopped reading the amendment after (a) and didn’t put in the record the rest of your amendment.

At this point, if you would like to please reference your amendment, you can stand and reference your amendment.

Continue reading after “Advanced Education,” where it goes “and,” and then describe in (b) what you’re removing and what you’re keeping and in (c) as well, please.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Chair. I had inserted, under (a), “the institution has received approval for the program from the Minister responsible for Advanced Education, and” (b) “the institution has submitted the approval to the Registrar.” That is the balance of the amendment.

The Chair: And you are removing the rest of the…?

K. Kirkpatrick: We are removing the rest of (a), (b) and (c) as they currently exist.

The Chair: All right. I think that’s clear for the minister.

Would the minister like to respond at this point?

Hon. K. Chen: Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate the member sharing her thoughts and feedback on this clause, but I will speak against the amendment.

Just to clarify, the reason why I’m speaking against the amendment is because currently the private training institutions branch does compliance for the private post-secondary system as a whole, which includes over 300 private post-secondary institutions. Among the 300, only ten of them have ECE training. That means that the PTIB standards are quite general, by necessity, as they need to apply to a very broad range of programming.

Therefore, they actually currently rely heavily on the advice and expertise of the professional and occupational regulatory bodies such as the ECE registry for some of the specific programming — again, because they have over 300 institutions and only ten are ECE. They do work very closely with the ECE registry.

Just to elaborate on that a bit more, currently the majority of ECE programs offered through public post-secondary institutions are certificate and diploma programs. Program approval rests primarily with the ECE registry. While public institutions are required to post new certificate and diploma programs with AEST, Advanced Education, for a public and peer comment period, Advanced Education actually does not formally approve them.

[6:25 p.m.]

Also, in situations where a public institution wishes to offer a degree program — of which there is currently only one ECE program in B.C. — the registry would work with the Degree Quality Assessment Board to confirm that the curriculum covers the competencies for registration. While many ECE education programs are offered at public post-secondary institutions where there are strong internal quality oversight processes in place through the Advanced Education Ministry, many programs are also offered at private post-secondary.

The registry, again, as I mentioned, does work very closely with Advanced Education’s private training institutions branch, which holds the legislative authority to regulate private post-secondary institutions.

To close, historically an ECE registry has been able to support this work and work very closely with Advanced Education during this process, and this legislation has been extensively consulted and reviewed by Advanced Education and along with all their partners to ensure that the work that the ECE registry does is complementary and not duplicative.

Of course, throughout this process we’ll continue to ensure that’s the case and that this legislation will actually support that.

The Chair: Just to bring the viewing public up to speed. We are currently doing the committee stage of Bill 14, the Early Childhood Educators Act. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano has proposed an amendment to clause 10, and anybody here can now speak to that, including those that have already spoken to it.

Does anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Seeing none, I will call the vote on the amendment to clause 10.

Amendment negatived on division.

The Chair: Shall clause 10 pass? So ordered.

Shall clause 11 pass? So ordered.

K. Kirkpatrick: Hon. Chair, in what we were just doing, I got a moment behind there because I was still trying to get on top of this. I would like to go back to clause 10 to continue questions on clause 10, as it is in the proposed act.

The Chair: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano would like to go back to clause 10. It requires unanimous consent of the House.

Leave granted.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I appreciate you accommodating my newness at this.

To the minister: you had said that the Ministry of Advanced Education was consulted on the development of this section. What I believe I heard you say in your response was that currently the ministry already relies upon the Degree Quality Assessment Board with respect to looking at…. I believe that Capilano University is the only one, currently, with a bachelor of ECE. But for further applications with respect to post-secondary degree programs, you would rely on DQAB to be able to undertake that assessment?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes. I want to confirm that we would work with the Degree Quality Assessment Board to confirm that the curriculum covers the competency for registration. Again, there is only one ECE degree program.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Was StudentAid B.C. consulted, and would they refuse to provide a student loan for an ECE program that is not approved under this act but would be approved under PTA or by the Minister of Advanced Education?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Students who are eligible for student aid programs can definitely apply for the loan, currently.

K. Kirkpatrick: I just want to clarify. I didn’t explain, I think, appropriately what I was asking. I’ll give a scenario.

There are these two registries. So you’ve got…. I’m just going to deal with the private training ones right now, because they are the majority of what we’re dealing with at this point. If there is a program that applies under the PTA and it is reviewed and it is deemed to be a quality program that can be registered, it qualifies to be registered, and it’s registered under PTA. It applies then under this act to be registered and, for some reason, because you have an independent authority from PTA, it’s determined that it doesn’t qualify under the new act.

I’m not sure which regulator would take the position that StudentAid B.C…. I’m using StudentAid B.C. as a specific example of how this could get confused. They would have a concern providing a student loan to a student, even though the school is registered under PTA as it should be, if that program wouldn’t be accepted by the ECE regulator. Has there been a conversation with StudentAid B.C. to confirm that there would be no issues with having that duplication of registration if it’s not registered with you, but it is registered with PTA?

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: First of all, I do want to clarify that the member is referring to the PTIB, the private training institution branch, and then also to clarify that they currently have about ten institutions, whereas there are actually more public post-secondary institutions that have ECE programs. Just the two quick clarifications there.

To answer the question, we never really had this problem before, especially with the current process. We’re not expecting the problem. And also to clarify that PTIB approved the institutions, whereas the ECE registry approved the programs that are under the institutions. We’ve done extensive consultation with Advanced Education on this. That is being reviewed, and there were no concerns that were raised by Advanced Education, especially when it comes to the student aid issues.

K. Kirkpatrick: PTIB, using the Private Training Act, has approvals on a per-program basis. They do take a look at with subject matter experts. They do a deep dive in terms of the actual quality of the individual programs as opposed to just the institution.

I understand there are more than ten, but I’m going to take the minister’s word at that because she has, I’m sure, been looking at that closely. They do have subject matter experts, and there’s a lot of time invested in a program by program review, so again, the concern is the duplication.

I worry that…. We can step away from the StudentAid B.C. example. But can you give me a circumstance, an example, of where, under the Private Training Act, an ECE program is approved? PTIB has got approved and they’re on their website as approved, so the public can look and say: “Here’s an ECE program. It’s approved under the Ministry of Advanced Education.”

What scenario would you not approve that same program?

Hon. K. Chen: I could raise an example. That scenario may happen when the curriculum of the institution does not meet the competency required that’s under the reg­istry. So that could be one example.

I can understand where the member’s concerns are coming from. Of course, about streamlining the process, I can provide an example of how PTIB and MCFD have been working together to ensure that there are no duplications during the registration process. For example, effective September 1, 2021, this year, the PTIB registrar has the discretion to waive the subject matter expert report. MCFD and PTIB are working together in the coming months, as well, to review the process to minimize any duplication of processes.

Also, for the member’s information, curriculum is not generally reviewed by PTIB during inspections. This responsibility would normally fall under the ECE registry.

[6:40 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Was there consultation done with the ten institutions or other institutions which currently offer ECE programs approved under the Ministry of Advanced Education?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes, we have consulted with the ten private training institutions, the 17 public post-secondary institutions, the two recognized out-of-province ECE programs and three continuing education programs, along with, of course, all of our other stakeholders, Early Childhood Educators of B.C. and other child care providers, stakeholders and the Provincial Child Care Council.

When it comes to the institutions that the member is focused on, we have sent, in the summer, correspondence to all the 32 institutions recognized that offer early childhood educator programs to inform them of Bill 14’s introduction and to specifically draw their attention to the section in the new statute that will stress an existing policy regarding recognition and oversight of post-secondary ECE programs.

Institutions were informed that this includes the ability for the ECE registry to suspend, cancel, place conditions on the approval of programs should issues with the programs arise. No concerns were raised at the time regarding the content of the correspondence or the bill. Institutions are also advised, of course, that we will be continuing to engage with them throughout the regulation process.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. If an institution…. The example that the minister just gave earlier was the example of where one might be registered under PTIB and not be able to be registered under this act. That program may not meet the current ECE competencies. But if that was the case, it would also not qualify to be registered under the PTIB. They would be using those same guidelines. So again, there is just a redundancy there that concerns me.

An example. When you were talking to the ECE schools that are providing the education, did they express concern about a duplication of their requirements for reporting — both having to report to PTIB and to report under this act?

Hon. K. Chen: The answer is no. Then we have not received a response when we reached out to them, of course, and also drawing their attention to specific parts that we’re discussing for this bill. In the communications, we’ve also reassured them that there will be opportunities to continue to consult with them and work with them during the process of the drafting of the regulations.

[6:45 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Is there consideration that the application information that they provide and the reporting that they provide to PTIB could be the same that they provide to the registrar under this act?

Hon. K. Chen: Between the ECE registry and PTIB, we will continue to work together to make sure that there is no duplication of the process. It is important to note that the two organizations have different mandates and different purposes, but they do work very closely together to ensure that there is no duplication. So we’ll continue, especially taking the members’ feedback, through the drafting of the regulation process.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you again to the minister. I appreciate that there are different objectives for the ECE registry and for PTIB and for DQAB. But that’s actually one of the concerns that I’m drawing to your attention.

The registry for ECE — its mandate is the regulation of the sector, but they’re starting to regulate education. Whereas PTIB and DQAB, their mandate is the regulation of quality education. I still can’t quite grasp why there is a duplication in reviews, and it wouldn’t be straightforward that whatever reviews are done by subject-matter experts under PTIB or DQAB, as more programs apply, would simply be accepted by the registrar for ECE.

Hon. K. Chen: I want to say that this type of process is really not unusual at all. When we look at other similar occupations, such as the model for teachers, the B.C. Teachers Council reviews and approves teacher education programs at B.C. post-secondary institutions to ensure that they will produce graduates that meet the standards of educators in B.C.

It is also important to clarify that we are creating this standalone statute to focus on early childhood education, but a lot of it is also carried-over work. So we’ve been doing this since 1997. We are definitely expanding the scope of the work that we do. But the reason why we are trying to connect early childhood educator certification and also looking at the competencies of the institutions is also really based on the feedback that we’ve been getting from the sector, from providers and from parents about how we need to enhance the quality of child care.

[6:50 p.m.]

All those factors are really connected. One of the main purposes for this legislation is to pull that together — to focus and ensure that children can receive the high-quality, reliable, safe early learning experiences that they deserve.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister again, for that answer. What is the minimum acceptable program length under the act for an ECE program to qualify?

Hon. K. Chen: Currently we go by hours, so the required hours to do the basic ECE programming, including practicum, are 902. For the special needs program, including practicum, it’s 450, the same as infant-toddler. That’s 450.

If the educator wants to come by and do all the programs together, that would be 1,802 hours. That would be the equivalent of a diploma program.

K. Kirkpatrick: Hon. Chair, from a process perspective, is it I that may say “noting the hour,” or does that…?

The Chair: We’ll give you a hint when the time is up.

K. Kirkpatrick: Okay. I just want to make sure I’m doing this appropriately.

The Chair: Yes, on clause 10.

K. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Thank you.

In the case where there is a discrepancy, again, between approval under PTIB and not having approval, or having a registration the registrar is able to cancel or amend or put conditions on program approval under the new act…. If there is a registrant, somebody who has done that particular ECE program, and they come and are applying for registration….

They took that program in good faith. It was registered with the registrar for ECE, but it is not now. They’ve completed the program. They’ve come, and for some reason, the ECE regulator has determined that it no longer meets the quality objective or whatever the concern is.

What position will that person be in, and will there be a way for them to be able to actually register? They took that program in good faith with PTIB confirmation and with ECE confirmation.

Hon. K. Chen: If the program at the time was approved, then they would continue to be eligible.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[6:55 p.m.]

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:56 p.m.