Orders of the Day

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

In Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 36.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — INDIGENOUS SELF-GOVERNMENT
IN CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Nice to see you in the chair.

Before we broke, I was speaking about the colonial system of child welfare and the purposeful destruction of Indigenous families in our history. This brings us to this bill today before us, which is a very important piece of trying to right those wrongs as best as we can. Let’s consider how we got here and why we’re talking about this legislation today.

Residential schools operated in Canada for more than 160 years, with tens of thousands of children passing through their doors. These residential schools, this policy removed tens of thousands of Indigenous children from their homes over several generations, aiming for assimilation.

Many of these schools were rife, we know, with child abuse and neglect. The legacy of residential schools and the harm, including the intergenerational trauma caused to Indigenous families by these colonial practices, is immeasurable. It continued as provincial child welfare authorities continued to apprehend numbers of Indigenous children in the 1960s and ’70s, known as the Sixties Scoop.

[1:05 p.m.]

Social workers placed some of these children in residential schools, while many others were actually adopted into non-Indigenous homes, where they were apart from their extended family, they were apart from their culture, their traditions, their communities and customs. Colonialization imposed foreign and other harmful policies on Indigenous families.

On January 6, 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued its decision regarding a complaint filed in February 2007 by the First Nations Child and Family Caring centre and the Assembly of First Nations, which alleged that the Indian and Northern Affairs provision of child services and their implementation of Jordan’s principle was flawed, inequitable and discriminatory under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I’ll explain Jordan’s principle for those who are not familiar with it. Jordan’s principle is named in memory of Jordan Rivers Anderson. He was a young boy from Norway House Cree Nation in Manitoba. Jordan was born in 1999 with multiple disabilities and stayed in hospital from his birth.

When he was two years old, doctors said he could move to a special home to support him for his medical needs. But there was confusion about jurisdiction and fighting about jurisdiction in terms of who would pay for this home-based care. Unfortunately, that meant that poor Jordan stayed in that hospital for his entire life, until he passed away at the age of five.

Jordan’s principle, named in his honour, says that no First Nations child would ever experience or should ever experience inequitable access to government-funded services again. It makes sure, and commits this government, that all First Nations children living in Canada can access the products, services and supports that they need, and they can do that when they need them. This kind of funding can help with a wide range of health, social and educational needs, including the unique needs that First Nations, two-spirit and LGBTQ children and youth have as well, and those with disabilities have.

The Human Rights Tribunal found that the First Nations child and family services program continued to deny many First Nations children and families living on reserve, and this resulted in very adverse impacts for them. It was based on very flawed assumptions about First Nations communities that didn’t actually reflect the actual needs of those communities.

The tribunal also found that the program’s two main funding mechanisms actually were incentivizing the removal of children from their families. They found that INAC’s narrow interpretation of Jordan’s principle needed to be resolved.

This past January the federal government announced a $40 billion agreement with the Assembly of First Nations to settle two class action lawsuits. This agreement did set aside $20 billion for individual compensation, which is unfortunately back in front of the tribunal now. But there are $20 billion that this federal government has committed to long-term reform of the child welfare system.

As part of Bill C-92, An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families, the government is working and has given direction to provinces to build their own legislation, in consultation with First Nations communities, that will help to move that self-determination, move that self-governance of the child welfare system back to First Nations communities, as it should be.

I want to make sure, as I’m watching the time, that I address some of the things I think are truly key here. First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples in Canada have traditional systems of culture, law and knowledge that have provided effective protection of their own children for thousands of years. Despite their diversity, Indigenous peoples continue to share a high value for children and an emphasis on the caring and teaching responsibilities of extended family and community.

Self-determination means Indigenous nations and communities are at the forefront of the development of child welfare laws, policies, research and practice for their communities. It also means that Indigenous peoples have the final decision-making authority over those decisions impacting their children. This is rooted in the understanding that Indigenous peoples are in the best position to make decisions that impact Indigenous children, youth, families and communities.

If I may pause for a moment to ensure that I speak about those things that I think are….

[1:10 p.m.]

I would like to highlight some of the work of the Representative for Children and Youth. In particular, I’d like to draw on the report entitled Skye’s Legacy. I’m going to read some of the report to try and put a face to those children who are most impacted by our current approach to Indigenous child welfare.

“The children found in Kamloops were separated from their parents, siblings, extended families, territories and cultures as a result of the residential school system that ripped them from their homes and incarcerated them in abusive and dangerous facilities.

“Skye, the Teetlit Gwich’in Band girl who is the subject of this investigative report by the Representative for Children and Youth… wasn’t born until 2000, a few years after the last Canadian residential school closed its doors. But she, too, was removed from her mother, sister, extended family and culture as she became part of what many have described as the modern-day residential school — our child welfare system.

“What has become evident to the representative in the wake of the widespread shock expressed over the Kamloops discovery is that, despite significant undertakings — most notably, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls — there remains a segment of the Canadian population still” — shockingly — “unaware of the extent of the damage that is being done and continues to be inflicted, through colonialism….

“The intergenerational damage of colonialism on Skye’s family was profound. Her mother was removed from her own family before her first birthday — adopted into a non-Indigenous home during the infamous period known as the Sixties Scoop. As a child, Skye’s mother experienced extreme abuse at the hands of people known to her and, as a result, suffered severe and life-long mental health and substance use challenges.

“Skye herself was removed from her mother’s care at age five. RCY’s investigation shows that once this occurred, MCFD focused almost solely on finding Skye an adoptive home, rather than on ways to support the potential return to her mother’s care or even a way for Skye to continue a relationship with her mother.

“That focus resulted in three failed adoption plans for Skye before she was 12. These took a heavy emotional toll and resulted in the severing of any continuing relationship between Skye and her sister. Potential placements for Skye with extended family were not fully explored, and a nurturing placement with an Indigenous foster family was inexplicably severed, as was a relationship with a trusted counsellor.

“During her nearly 12 years in care, Skye was moved 15 times…in eight different foster homes” — this poor young girl — “attended eight schools and had 18 different social workers. She wasn’t provided with opportunities to connect with her Dene culture in any meaningful way, and she never got the chance to visit her home territory of Fort McPherson, Northwest Territories, despite clearly expressing her desire to do both.

“The cumulative result was that Skye wasn’t able to realize the sense of belonging that all humans need and seek. The focus on legal belonging, adoption, came at the expense of…other elements of belonging for Skye, including connection to family, culture, community and physical place, and resulted in her searching for identity and meaningful connections throughout her short life, which ended with her tragic overdose death on her 17th birthday in August 2017.”

Madam Speaker, this is a very hard report to read by the representative. I must express my appreciation for the work of the representative and the people in her office, because the investigative reports that they do, the work that they do with children and families, must be very, very difficult. I am afraid that Skye’s story is representative of many, many stories of many, many Indigenous children who have been taken into care.

When we look at Bill 38 before us today, we know that it must align with the federal principles and also respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action for child welfare, 1 to 5. That means monitoring and assess­ing neglect investigations.

[1:15 p.m.]

It means providing adequate resources to enable Aboriginal communities and child welfare organizations to keep Aboriginal families together, where it is safe to do so, and to keep children in culturally appropriate environments, regardless of where they reside.

It needs to ensure that social workers and others who conduct child welfare investigations are properly educated and trained about the history and the impacts of residential schools.

It needs to ensure that social workers and others who conduct child welfare investigations are properly educated and trained about the potential for Aboriginal communities and families to provide more appropriate solutions to family healing versus requiring that all child welfare decision-makers consider the impact…. And require all decision-makers to consider the impact of residential schools.

This is a very important piece of legislation. As I said earlier, we are concerned that although there has been consultation with a number of Indigenous groups and Indigenous governing bodies in British Columbia, it hasn’t been all of them. The feedback that we’re hearing, the calls that we’re getting, is really saying that even where consultation occurred, they did not see the actual legislation until that legislation was presented here in the House.

As we all know, sometimes, with the best of intentions, when we put things down on paper, there may be unintended consequences. Legislation needs drafting over and over and over to get it right, and when we are talking about something that impacts our children, something as important as our families, something that is so key to reconciliation, where we have made this commitment to reconciliation, it cannot be rushed, and it cannot be done without the full consideration and consultation with all of those who will be impacted by this.

This is not legislation where the light switch is going to flick and suddenly all First Nations communities will have jurisdiction over their children. This is something that MCFD will have to work long and hard at for many years. It may be decades before all of these agreements can be reached and we can see that true reconciliation and true self-determination with child welfare is a reality.

We are in complete support of meaningful legislation and mechanisms to return the care of Indigenous children to their own families and culture. We must also remember that our action has to go beyond just these amendments, and we must address those social inequities that remain that Indigenous peoples face as a result of the systemic injustices to both the past and present.

We need to make sure that we do this the right way. We need to make sure that we walk along with those families, walk along with those children, and we ensure that they have what they need to be successful as communities.

I thank the House for giving me the opportunity. I thank all of those staff and ministry members, who I know have worked long and hard on this. We need to work harder, and we need to make sure this is the right piece of legislation that is going to truly meet our obligation of reconciliation.

Hon. N. Simons: It’s a real pleasure to be able to speak to this piece of legislation which, everyone will acknowledge, has been a long time in coming. The history of our Indigenous child welfare system in British Columbia has been one that has been identified as being most emblematic of our colonial history and of all the most negative impacts of colonization.

I just think it’s important to pay tribute to some of the early fighters against the system that resulted in so many young children being removed not just from their immediate family but from their communities. Those people set the stage for this ongoing but challenging fight to reassert authority over child welfare.

[1:20 p.m.]

The reassertion of the authority over child welfare is something that Indigenous people have been trying to do since the arrival of settlers and the imposition of colonial laws on communities here.

I think about not just the residential school system, which was fundamentally at the core of the genocidal attempt to, essentially, ruin the cultures of communities that were here already. The residential school system and the criminal justice system and all the systems that were geared to oppressing Indigenous people all had their own unique impacts on societies that were here already.

I think about the resistance of families, when they hid their children from the residential schools. I think of the resistance of families, when they saw outsiders coming to tell them how to live their lives and what to do. And I can only imagine the courage it took to be as strong as they were, fighting against the immoral and strong efforts of the settling culture here.

Their resistance and their resilience, which is sometimes a word we overuse, cannot be overstated. It was because of that resistance and resilience that the communities survived to thrive again and to pay tribute to those who fought individually as community members — seeing their neighbours and their families being harmed — and organized against a very powerful government to gather the strength of the common voices of Indigenous people here in British Columbia and across Canada to fight against policies that were so detrimental to their communities.

I think about the Indian Homemakers Association — Grand Chief Dr. Rose Charlie of the Chehalis in the Stó:lō Nation — and the moccasin walks that were geared to raise money in order to organize Indigenous people to fight, essentially, against the oppression that was so strong in the child welfare system and so strong in the criminal justice system. These were women whose circumstances were not…. They were not wealthy. They had to raise every bit of funding themselves in order to arrange for the first leadership gathering of First Nations chiefs in the late ’60s.

Rose Charlie was instrumental in bringing those chiefs together, and much of her life was devoted to finding and garnering the strength of Indigenous communities to fight against the child welfare system. That fight led to others — led to the strengthening of their children to continue that fight, continue that resistance against the system that was so destructive.

Looking back at that kind of leadership, we can say we’re not here because we’ve made a decision today. We’re here because of the powerful voices of the past that continue to resonate and to show us why the work we’re doing today is so important.

You can’t have autonomy unless you have authority over how your children are treated, how your children are raised and how your children can prosper. And the child welfare system was simply an element of that colonial system that wreaked havoc and destruction.

[1:25 p.m.]

Not starting with the Indian Homemakers Association…. That was a movement that came from community, that came from aunties and grannies, for the most part, women in communities who were raising children in the midst of ongoing residential schools, ongoing overcriminalization of communities, ongoing policies that resulted in poverty, ongoing policies that resulted in exclusion. The racism inherent in the structures of the system resulted in a child welfare system that didn’t protect children, didn’t protect communities, didn’t protect families.

The work that was done by those voices who were struggling to be heard for generations…. I hope people see this legislation as a good and important acknowledgment that their fight was the right fight, and while the impacts of past policies continue to impact us now, this is a very important place to continue the next part of the battle.

In the ’90s, when I was a child protection social worker and I worked with different communities, it became clear to me that the system wasn’t really doing very much to help. Social workers themselves were working in a system that was troublesome. Social workers saw poverty, and they saw more poverty in Indigenous communities. They saw the impacts of past colonial practices disproportionately resulting in worse health outcomes, worse educational outcomes, worse employment outcomes.

The system kept going in the same way. You see a problem. The solution is to protect the child by taking them out of a bad situation, never really allowing the opportunity for eliminating the root causes. Why do we have this poverty? Why do we have these kinds of outcomes?

Residential schools are so clearly part of that, the interruption of what were usually family stories and historical stories and cultural stories, the interruption of language learning. All the things that disconnected people from one another resulted in the outcomes that we’d seen for so long.

In the ’90s, certain tragedies, child welfare tragedies, got the attention of the public finally, individual stories like the story of Matthew Vaudreuil. What happened there? We said: “We need to do something about this.” Justice Gove was tasked with the challenge to try to figure out how to make important changes to the child welfare system so that tragedies could be avoided.

When you’re talking about child protection, you’re talking about challenging situations. Sometimes children need to be protected. What Justice Gove found was that we needed a system that was more culturally appropriate, that was delivered by people who understood the community better, that understood the causes and the potential solutions to the challenges that were real.

The government of the day started a program to restore authority for child welfare to Indigenous communities. Progress was being made. There was — what was it called? — the Aboriginal social worker training program. The Aboriginal operation standards were being developed by Indigenous people with the support of government to say: “Okay, we need to do child welfare differently, especially when it comes to child welfare in Indigenous communities.”

[1:30 p.m.]

It was at that time that I started working in an Indigenous community as a director of health and social services. My responsibility included child protection, also known as family support, family preservation. The systems were being developed to ensure that children could be protected within their culture, within their community. Unfortunately, there were changes made that stopped that process or that progress from happening, and we’ve lost time. We have lost time. We needed to do this so long ago, and we’ve still lost time.

I would say that it’s fundamentally important to know that the history of Indigenous child welfare isn’t something that has been the same since settlers arrived. Child welfare became an issue when the settlers got here and started imposing their perspective. They created poverty, and they created situations where people were suffering more. I think it’s important to know that in the early 2000s, the child welfare system underwent some massive changes, which resulted in the stopping of the progress that was being made towards the reassertion of Indigenous authority over their own children.

Budget cuts, the elimination of the child and youth advocate, the elimination of the Mental Health Advocate, the elimination of the children’s commissioner. As I mentioned, the budget cut almost 12 percent in one fell swoop in the early 2000s. Those resulted in actual, on-the-ground, negative consequences. It just saddens me that we lost a decade when there had been clear, forward progress in this area. We have to remember that budget decisions have an impact on individual little children. We need to consider that when we make changes to budgets that are so significant, such as those that were made in the early 2000s.

They were referred to by Justice Hughes, who was the next judge to do a review of the child welfare system. He said that there was an “unimaginable degree of change” within the system, which resulted in more chaos in the child welfare system. And Justice Hughes was appointed to look into the child welfare system because of another tragedy, another tragedy that I was more personally associated with.

I was hired by the previous government to conduct an independent review of the death of a child who had died on Vancouver Island. I was asked to look into the circumstances surrounding that child’s death. The report I wrote was delayed, and when it was finally released it was fairly heavily redacted, but it led to Justice Hughes being appointed to look at a system that had seen the elimination of all oversight, the elimination of 12 percent of its budget and a regionalized approach that changed the system from 11 regions to five, all in a very tight time frame that resulted in some chaos.

Changes being made to the system to save money were misaligned entirely, resulting in bad communication between offices. At no time do I ever call into question the wishes of any social worker or the heart of any social worker who is attempting to ensure a child is safe, but when the system doesn’t support good social worker practice, we need to look at the system. Justice Hughes did look at the system and said that we need oversight of the child welfare system.

[1:35 p.m.]

In the mid-2000s, work that was done in this House, with the opposition facing a government that had been in power when these positions were eliminated — when these budgets were cut, when these systems were interrupted, when the progress was diverted — resulted in government deciding to create the position of a Representative for Children and Youth.

It wasn’t a child advocate. It wasn’t a children’s commission that just simply reviewed the deaths of children. It was an office that would be able to look at the systems, look at certain trends, look at the challenges, find solutions and bring people together. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond was the first representative. Bernard Richard was the second representative. Jennifer Charlesworth is the third.

Throughout that period of time, we’ve been talking about the importance of giving back or allowing Indigenous communities to reassert the authority that Indigenous communities should have over how their children are nurtured, protected and raised.

There’s a long history. What I’m saying is that there’s a long history of the child welfare system in this province. Ultimately, what we’re looking at, still, is that we need to make sure children are safe. Children need to be safe. When a child is not safe in a certain, particular situation, sometimes they can’t stay in that situation, but it’s what happens now, what happens when that is a determination now, that is going to change.

It’s going to be more likely that a family member will be supported to look after a relative’s child. It’ll be more likely that the community will be involved in ensuring that that child is protected. No longer will it be the outside community coming in and saying: “This is what we think you need to do. This is what you should do.” It will be the community coming together and saying: “This is how we resolve the issues.”

I just want to acknowledge the Indigenous child protection social workers who have been trying to do this work in a system that really provided limitations to their abilities. I remember practising “child welfare on reserve,” thinking: “Now the province is telling me that I can’t have this child stay at their auntie’s house and provide some financial assistance to the auntie to look after the child, unless I can prove that the child is in danger.”

I would rather — and every social worker I know would rather — address an issue before there is danger. You can see a situation that isn’t good, and you know that it would be better if a relative looked after the child or children for a few days, until a particular situation passed. But the structure didn’t allow for that to happen. Sometimes social workers just said: “Well, auntie is going to look after the child. We’re going to have to figure out how to ensure that there’s money for food and money for clothes.”

Social workers had to do a lot of creative work to keep families together. There are so many social workers — Indigenous social workers and their supporter-ally social workers, across the province — who fought very hard to keep families together, fought very hard against an external system that wanted you to go to court, wanted you to go into all these structural minefields, instead of just having the community come together.

[1:40 p.m.]

So many social workers that I had the honour to work with — whose own families were impacted by the child welfare system, whose relatives were impacted by the child welfare system — still knew that for the time being, we need to ensure that children are safe. But we have to be thinking about how to strengthen our communities and ensure they remain strong. The work that’s been done by Cindy Blackstock and by the child caring society, the work through the Human Rights Tribunal, is essential.

The fact that the federal government has finally recognized that they were underfunding child welfare, child protection, family support services on reserve…. There were so many meetings saying: “Well, why don’t they give us some money for prevention? Why don’t they give us some money so we can keep our families strong? They only give us money when we take children away.”

You had to be creative to keep families together and still get federal funding. You had to be creative. I acknowledge that many child-serving agencies on reserve were creative. They did a lot to preserve the strength that did exist in those communities. They did a lot to force the changes that we see happening now to happen.

It always takes longer than we imagine it has to. It takes longer than we would hope. But when the change comes, it’s good to acknowledge that it is the right and important change.

Indigenous child welfare is one of the main reasons why I entered into politics — when I reviewed the death of a child and tied that death indirectly and directly to a system that had failed, a system that had been busted up, a system that was based on a bad moral foundation in the first place.

When we can see the rightful authority over child welfare going to where it belongs officially, with support, with our system getting out of the way…. My sincere hope is that the communities that benefit from this change soon will see improvements in all aspects of the community’s life, without the fear of external agents coming in and disrupting the community.

Poverty, obviously, is a fundamental underpinning for child welfare issues wherever they are. I’ve worked on reserve. I’ve worked in non-Indigenous communities as well. Oftentimes we just have to ensure that we continue to focus on reducing poverty, ensuring people have access to educational opportunities, to work opportunities, to training opportunities, to adequate sporting and cultural events.

We do have a role in ensuring that our communities are safe. As government, we need to be focused on reducing poverty, focusing on opportunities, breaking down barriers, implementing the calls to action, implementing expectations that people have of the United Nations declaration. These are all important steps. These are all important steps to protect those communities from the negative ongoing impacts of colonization.

It’s a good day. It’s a good day that we have this legislation in front of us. It’s not a victory lap kind of day, because we recognize the harms already done, the intergenerational harms already done.

I think of children and grandchildren of residential school survivors. There were some pretty strong fights.

You should be proud of your parents and aunties and uncles.

It’s a good day.

M. Lee: Madam Speaker, I will say that I am the designated speaker for the official opposition here this afternoon.

[1:45 p.m.]

Let me just thank the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction for sharing his personal commitment and journey in this very fundamental area of welfare for Indigenous children and youth here in the province of B.C. I certainly want to also recognize the comments, of course, and the work of the Minister of Children and Family Development as well as the critic, my colleague the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano.

I think, as the House just heard from the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and others, that the history, which is not just the B.C. history — it’s the history of our country — the way that, since the time of contact, Indigenous families and children have been treated, the systems that have been built up over time and the damage, the intergenerational trauma that has caused, that we are still paying for today, in so many ways….

The minister just talked about…. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano spoke to, at the end of her comments, the need to not just address this in terms of the welfare of Indigenous children but all of the other inequities in our society, which include access to housing, clean drinking water, health care and education, the kind of work that we need to do here in this chamber with First Nations and Indigenous nations across our province.

I’ve had the opportunity, through the course of this week, to be involved, with the member for Prince George–Valemount, our Health critic, on another bill — Bill 36, the health professional colleges act — in response to what the Minister of Health provided — an opportunity for me to talk, at the outset of that committee stage debate, with him about the nature of the consultation involved for that 600 page bill. It’s a piece of work. Another piece of work that’s taken place over many, many years — over three years — even before UNDRIP was unanimously adopted in this House.

This Bill 38, for reasons that have been highlighted by others — and I will walk through some of that, as well, myself — is built upon much of that work both by the federal government in response to UN declarations and UN conventions, the TRC calls to action, the CHRT rulings and court challenges and, of course, in our province, the work that was done that dates back some years. The level of consultation matters.

There are many aspects of this bill. One of the fundamental aspects here, of course, is the need, as the DRIPA action plan calls for, item 4.17, to: “In collaboration with B.C. First Nations and Métis peoples and Inuit, continue implementing changes to substantially reduce the number of Indigenous children and youth in care through increased prevention and family support services at all stages of contact with the child welfare system.”

[1:50 p.m.]

This bill comes as part of that continued work of this government that we saw in 2019, with other amendments, for example, to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. It also, in terms of what the framing of this bill does, creates that jurisdictional space between federal, provincial and Indigenous laws. Indeed, we see, of course, in recognition of the space that was created in Bill C-92, federally, follow-on space that needs to be created here provincially under the Adoption Act and the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

It’s that constitutional space that we’re all trying to work through that will provide the space for Indigenous governing bodies, First Nations, Indigenous nations to take care of their own children, to protect them, to ensure that they’re kept safe.

Looking at that, when you look at the federal, provincial and Indigenous legal frameworks, there’s a lot of work to be done. This bill is the next step forward in that work, but this bill needs to be done in a manner that is co-developed in partnership with First Nations and Indigenous nations.

That’s the reason why, when I talk about the opportunity to review…. And this is my approach here — to certainly highlight for Minister of Children and Family Development the areas of this bill that my colleague as the critic for her ministry, and myself and other members…. I’m sure the member for Skeena, for example, will join us in this effort at committee stage to pursue various aspects of this bill. At the outset of that committee stage, I certainly would like the opportunity to review with the minister the scope, the depth, the breadth, the involvements, the process, the nature of the consultation process.

Consultation, of course, in the context of what we’ve been doing over the last number of years, particularly in view of UNDRIP and the DRIPA act, has been commitments, as well, to co-develop frameworks. Indeed, I already cited one of the specific DRIPA action plan items. Another one which is related, which I’ll speak to as well, is 4.16. It uses the term “co-develop.” “Co-develop a B.C.-specific fiscal framework in partnership with First Nations, Métis and Inuit, and in consultation with key Indigenous organizations, to support and move forward with jurisdiction over child and family services.”

I just draw the House’s attention, remind the House that in both of these action items it uses the words “collaboration” and “co-develop.” That is more than notification. It’s more than non-disclosure agreements. It’s more than saying to Four Host First Nations, as we saw with the 2030 Olympic bid — this is government saying — “Give us your feasibility study,” and government making the decision without further discussion, any questions about that study, any opportunity to look for solutions — no discussion.

We have seen, this week and last week, a whole range of approaches by this government to consultation, to collaboration, to co-development and, indeed, to reconciliation.

[1:55 p.m.]

If I go back to the Bill 36 discussion, as an example of the approach that government is using to work with First Nations and Indigenous nations in this province, what I heard from that minister…. And I hope to hear from this minister specific references to, for example, UNDRIP, the articles that are attached to the DRIPA act — the ability and the opportunity to review with the minister, and for that minister to identify, the specific components of Bill 36 against those articles.

What we heard about were open houses regionally, a tracking of issues, responses to those issues, PowerPoint overviews of the legislation and, indeed, sharing copies of specific sections of the legislation. And no non-disclosure agreements. The Minister of Health was able to confirm with me that none of these nations had to enter any non-disclosure agreements to review and comment on what is a very complex bill.

As we speak in the Douglas Fir Room, our colleague the member for Prince George–Valemount continues, on what is day 3 now, on committee stage of a very complex bill. I hope that, as members, we will continue to have the opportunity to participate in that committee stage.

I’m missing that right now, in order to speak to this bill, because we have a second House speaking to another bill. I was able to spend two hours with that member so far reviewing the Indigenous-related components of that bill that impact the recommendations coming out of the In Plain Sight report, DRIPA as well as UNDRIP itself, of course.

The ways in which, as it’s from the guiding principles, and the work that’s needed to be done with health professional colleges to deal with anti-discrimination measures and how they govern themselves and how they govern their health care professionals…. That’s important work.

Here what we heard, in contrast…. I would certainly join my colleagues in recognition of the honoured guests in this chamber last Wednesday. We certainly heard about the friendship and the mentorship by the current Minister of Children and Family Development with Elder Shirley Alphonse, for example. A lot of respect to her for the work and for her voice and for her guidance.

We heard the good words of Chief Judy Wilson and Chief Jerry Jack, who I’ve had multiple conversations with over the course of the last period of time, and, of course, the wise words of Coun. Hugh Braker, who, again, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano quoted here. We also heard from representatives of four other First Nations that day. It was in another ceremony, in the Hall of Honour, that preceded first reading of Bill 38 in this chamber.

I must say that I was particularly struck…. As the minister responsible for this bill said, it was an honour to see other Indigenous nation leaders there, coming from different parts of the province to be part of this occasion, wanting to understand this legislation, not knowing the true details of this legislation. I think that’s telling a little. They travelled a fair distance to be here that day, yet I was under the impression, in my conversations with them, informal as they were, that they really didn’t know the details.

[2:00 p.m.]

Imagine my surprise, Madam Speaker, when one of those representative First Nation speakers, the ones that this government invited to speak on this occasion, one of those leaders representing the Splatsin Nation…. The Splatsin Nation is one of the four nations that are involved in working out arrangements under this current legislation, meaning as amended in 2019, in view of Bill C-92 federally, and also these amendments that we are discussing today and, hopefully, into the days that come.

I was struck by Councillor Theresa William of the Splatsin Nation. She went up and made her comments. I will circle back about my conversation with her after, but I will say that the current Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, in thanking Councillor William for her comments, said: “And thank you for the constructive criticism.”

Of course, when I had the conversation with Councillor William and with others from that nation — and their legal counsel, who was present as well — I asked for some clarification. I’d heard what she said, but I wanted to know more. She said she was being nice. What she said during the ceremony was that she didn’t believe….

She was of the view that her nation wasn’t properly consulted, that they did not have the full opportunity to be consulted on this bill, that she didn’t really know the full details of this bill that was being presented — the bill that she was just invited to speak about at this special ceremony.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The reason for that, as she explained, was that her nation had not entered into a non-disclosure agreement. As a result, because there was no non-disclosure agreement entered into, they were not provided copies of the proposed legislation in advance of the tabling of that Bill 38 in this assembly that day.

This is an example where we are looking at the Splatsin Nation, which…. When we talk about caring for Indigenous children, they made efforts to do that in a formal, structural way with bylaws that they passed dating back to 1980, as a nation. They have built up a system of care over decades. And yet when it comes to this legislation — the legislation, as I said earlier, that manages through the jurisdictional overlaps federally, provincially and with Indigenous laws for self governing nations — this nation, their input was not even received.

I know, as we’ve talked about on this side of the House, with the official opposition, members will utilize whatever time we have to check in with nations whose territories our constituencies share. I’ve had some opportunity to do that, including with some nations in other parts of this province. But these conversations are only indicators of the gaps in the consultation process.

Again, I point out the differences. Bill 36 — not subject to non-disclosure agreements. Bill 38 — subject to non-disclosure agreements. As a result, as the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and other members in our caucus have heard from other nations that express concerns…. They express concern about their level of input, their level of opportunity to review this legislation, the fact that their voice, their input, was not truly invited or received.

[2:05 p.m.]

To complete the picture of what we’ve seen in the last two weeks when it comes to this government’s approach, I go back to what happened the day after this special ceremony that was on the floor of this Legislative Assembly.

What happened there was — we all heard an announcement from the Minister of Tourism — that this government was not prepared to support this historic, first-of-its kind 2030 Olympic bid, put forward by four host First Nations in our province — the Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Líl̓wat Nations — that they had been working on for well over a year and that the current Premier had met with at the outset and invited them to continue their work and that the current Premier had a check-in with midstream.

Again, no flags raised and, in fact, feedback…. This is the process of reconciliation and consultation. Co-development feedback was given to these four First Nation leads to make some accommodations to involve other Interior First Nations, to involve Sun Peaks. Those accommodations were made by these First Nations to their 2030 Olympic bid.

What happened last Monday, ten days ago, was a meeting…. Well, just prior to that, as I understand, is there was a request from this government to share the conceptual study and feasibility study that that leadership group had put together. That was provided to government. No discussion, no questions, no follow-up, no issues raised. Silence. That is not co-development. That is not collaboration.

So when we talk about the approach to this Bill 38 — and I give the example of Bill 36 and what happened last week in terms of the 2030 Olympic bid — it causes me to really question what we’re doing here with First Nation leaders and Indigenous nation leaders in this province. It’s that relationship of trust and collaboration. Partnership is what we need to be building.

How damaging was it for this government, for that Minister of Tourism, without any further discussion in receipt of that study, to turn around and say, on a Zoom call, to these nation leaders: “Cabinet has made a decision”? Nation leaders were, presumably, remarkably shocked by that, given the lack of consultation, lack of co-development, lack of collaboration.

First Nation leaders say: “Well, can you give us a couple of days? Can we have…? Can we get people around the table?” What does that mean? Federal partners, city of Vancouver partners, Whistler, Kamloops and the nations. “Can we get everyone around the table and look for solutions?”

Solutions don’t come. Silence. Of course, we hear the announcement on the Thursday, the day after this historic ceremony to introduce this Bill 38 on the floor of this House.

To add insult to injury, of course — as members were debating, yesterday, Bill 42 — when I talk to First Nation leaders in the aftermath of this, they just shake their heads. This is the reason why Chief Wayne Sparrow of the Musqueam had said: “That action that the government took last week, that decision in the lead-up to the incoming Premier taking his chair, walked back reconciliation a number of steps.”

[2:10 p.m.]

When I talk about what’s behind this bill and the framing of this bill, I respect the fundamental need for this further step forward. But I’m very concerned about the approach this government is using. I’ll say that when I attended the First Nations leaders summit about two weeks ago, when one of the executive members of the summit spoke to wrap up the session on the First Nations Summit political executive, she said that the concern that the First Nations Leadership Council has, generally speaking, is that we continue to see a lot of forward movement, which is important, like this Bill 38.

I know that there are members, including Cheryl Casimer, for example, and Kúkpi7 Judy Wilson, who’ve done significant work on this, among other areas: the important reframing of how Indigenous children are taken care of by nations — to create that space.

But the comment that came in was really saying to this government, as I hope they’ve heard directly as well, that there needs to be a greater sense of priorities as to what we’re working on together. There need to be greater resources provided to nations in order to get through this collaboration, cooperation, reconciliation process, and these processes need to be streamlined.

It does cause me great concern when I hear from other nation leaders about their comments about this bill, that we are operating here. We are clearly here, as opposition members, not to speak on behalf of Indigenous nations. But that’s the point. The point is that what I am seeing and hearing is that there are gaps in the process here. It causes me to question the commitment of this government to ensure that that voice and that partnership are there.

I hear some of that from the Minister of Health on that other bill, Bill 36. And I must say, as I said to that minister, I found his responses more fulsome, more comprehensive than I’ve heard from pretty much any other minister in this government. I hope at committee stage, from this Minister of Child and Family Development, we’ll hear, in a very fulsome way, the scope and scale of that level of consultation and collaboration and involvement. Certainly, I would urge all members of this House to reach out to their local First Nations to have those conversations.

I would say that I’ve also heard from some of the delegated agencies that their voice hasn’t been heard either, that they were not consulted. We have agencies in this province that represent and are involved in supporting Indigenous children and youth — for over 30 years, in regions of our province — that have not been consulted, whose expertise has not been accessed.

I know that the minister must be receiving letters from these organizations as well. I would hope, if we don’t receive copies of those letters directly, that we are provided with copies of those letters, because we need to see that input too in order to go through, at the committee stage, the complexity of this bill.

Let me just say that in this Bill 38, it will be helpful, after we get through those initial parts of the process, for the minister to walk through with ourselves, at committee stage, how Indigenous nations will be utilizing this framework when it comes to the protection of their children, both on and off reserve lands — and the mix of responsibilities that a nation would take on.

[2:15 p.m.]

Now, I appreciate, of course, that we are talking about creating space, jurisdictional space. That would include the jurisdictional space for the director. I do know that as we look at some of the sections of this bill, which I will highlight in my comments here in the time I have remaining as the designated speaker, when we talk about looking at the authority of the director under this act, the director still has some jurisdiction. It’s that overlapping jurisdiction that is a concern to nations, as we’ve heard. What is that pathway forward, in other words?

I think to understand that it will be important for the minister to walk us through how this framework, Bill 38, fits within Bill C-92 federally. We do know, of course, that when that federal legislation came into place in 2020, it did set the table, so to speak, for this next step for provinces to do. As has been said, and qualified by what I said at the outset of my speech here, this is an important step in the ongoing work of advancing reconciliation and affirming Indigenous people’s right to self-government and self-determination.

We all recognize that for far too long, Indigenous children have been overrepresented in the child welfare system — Indigenous peoples comprising 10 percent of the general population yet representing 68 percent of children in care. We know, as we go through statistics, that these are indicators of the challenge. They demonstrate the unjust disproportionality of those challenges faced by Indigenous families and the systematic disparities that they face.

As we saw in the ministry’s own most recent service plan, an Indigenous child is nearly 18 times more likely to be removed from their parents than a non-Indigenous child. We see the system that’s been built up generationally here — the intergenerational trauma that goes so deep into Indigenous communities and causes so many unfortunate outcomes for the children, youth, parents and grandparents of those Indigenous communities.

We know that in Canada, as was mentioned by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, 52.2 percent of children in foster care are Indigenous, but they account for only 7.7 percent of the population of children in our country. This means that 14,970 out of the 28,665 foster children in private homes under the age of 15 are Indigenous. These numbers are even more significant in British Columbia.

I will say — in response, in part, to the Minister for Social Development and Poverty Reduction — that when we look at the unfortunate history in our nation, which I do think we have to keep in mind…. It strikes me, in hearing him speak about that, that we also need to keep in mind that when you look at some of the other federal statistics, as put out by Indigenous Services Canada’s First Nations child and family services program….

They put out a table looking at the number of First Nations children in care, the average maintenance costs per child, total expenditures for maintenance and total expenditures for First Nations child and family services, federally, going from 1998 to 2020.

[2:20 p.m.]

I will only say that when you stand back and look at the number of children in care, which, in 2019 to 2020, was 9,330…. According to this table, the average maintenance costs per child, $56,094.11; the total maintenance costs, $523 million; the total actual First Nations child and family services expenditures, $1.470 billion.

I know that there’s a lot of emotion and personal tragedy that we can share in this House. But by God, what have we built here? Why has it come to this — this system that is sucking up all of these dollars, for government, in this arrangement, to be in place?

Now, I certainly recognize the work of the Representative for Children and Youth. There have been successive individuals who have served in that capacity. Earlier this year, the comment that came in the report from that representative said that the funding for child welfare services for Indigenous kids in B.C. is deeply flawed and that there is an urgent need to overhaul practices to make data accessible and transparent. She called the current practice fiscal discrimination and said in the report that the province is committed to reconciliation and has to change immediately.

Well, again, what we’re not seeing in this bill, which, again…. At the committee stage, I would expect we’ll have the opportunity to discuss at length with the minister an understanding of how this government is co-developing that specific fiscal framework in consultation and in partnership with nations and Indigenous organizations in our province. That parallel action in the DRIPA action plan is just as important as the legislative jurisdictional framework that we’re talking about in this Bill 38. This certainly is what is identified by the Representative for Children and Youth.

My reference to those amounts federally is only an indicator of the level of funding for child welfare for Indigenous children that we are all putting towards this, that those funds clearly need to be accessed and resourced in a different way to ensure that we build out the right capacity with First Nations on their lands. It’s been commented, even federally, during the discussion of the Bill C-92 debate, about the hazard of putting in a jurisdictional framework without the necessary resources.

Of course, I will just say that when we look at the broader objectives of reconciliation with the First Nations, we need to think broadly. We can’t think just narrowly. It is very important to fundamentally address child welfare for Indigenous children and families. No doubt. But it is also just as important to ensure that we’re working with First Nations, Indigenous nations to build a stronger economic path.

[2:25 p.m.]

It was a total failed opportunity by this government to make the decision they did last week to kill that 2030 Olympic bid, not just because of the cultural, the sporting, the tourism and all of the other benefits. But this is an example of what a true partnership with First Nations ought to be.

As we look at the history…. I do think it’s worth just reflecting on the history. I know other members who have done that in their ways as well. When we look at the Indian Act, introduced in 1876, it continues to be a framework to separate children from families.

It’s been cited and noted that section 6.1, for example — when a First Nations woman who left her reserve and married a non-status or non-treaty status man, that woman automatically revokes her and their children’s treaty status so that they are no longer deemed to be a member of their First Nation community, no longer allowed access to their community’s inherent treaty rights.

We know, with all of the discoveries and confirmations at residential schools, including in Tk’emlúps, that even with the last residential school closing in 1996, the separation of children from their families, culturally and emotionally and physically, has caused so much trauma intergenerationally for Indigenous communities. In fact, in 1959, there was a section 88 introduced, which provided the legislative capacity for provinces to take over areas that were not covered by treaty, which included child welfare for Indigenous communities.

This particular section is very much underpinning much of the response, the reframing under Bill C-92 and this Bill 38, which is a recognition that the provinces, as much as they may have taken over legislative capability, are now creating that space for Indigenous nations, recognizing their right to self-government, to be able to move forward to care again for their children and youth. This change in 1959 opened up the possibility for provinces to become more directly involved in the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Crown, which resulted in the Sixties Scoop.

I recently had the opportunity to reconnect with a high school classmate of mine at a reunion of sorts. He wasn’t a fellow that I knew very well in high school, because he came in for the last two years of our high school, and we were a fairly big class. He said to me that after he graduated — it was 20 years later — he discovered the full truth of his heritage, that his mother was part of that Sixties Scoop and that he is Métis. He went into foster care, but he did reconnect with his birth mother and learn more about his heritage.

Today, he works for a delegated agency, helping to support Indigenous children and youth. He is an example, of course — and there are so many others — of what happened with that Sixties Scoop and the power to apprehend children and separate them from their families.

We know that in 1959, as has been identified, the proportion of Indigenous youth and children in the child welfare system was 1 percent, but this increased at an exponential rate, until by the end of the 1960s, Aboriginal or Indigenous youth and children made up 30 to 40 percent of the system and that the total estimated number of youth taken from their families had ballooned to nearly 20,000.

[2:30 p.m.]

Cindy Blackstock, who’s the executive director with the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, once cited that between 1989 and 2012, First Nations, Métis and Inuit youth had “spent more than 66 million nights” in the child welfare system, which is equivalent to 187,000 years.

I know that there are so many ways to describe what has occurred here over many decades — again, the personal and financial tragedies, the trauma that has been inflicted on Indigenous communities. I do think that it’s important that we keep in mind, as a result, that what we are doing, of course, is looking at a bill that takes the next step. We are talking about how you unwind a system that took more than 100 years to be built up, a system which has been used to disenfranchise Indigenous peoples in Canada.

The question is: how do we work with Indigenous nations to ensure that there are the right supports for children in their best interests? That term is another important term, as defined under the current act and as being amended here, to include what the best interests of Indigenous children means. That is a particularly important provision to get into at committee stage, and I will make some more comments in the balance of time that I have.

We know that B.C.’s Representative for Children and Youth has been urging the government to focus on belonging for Indigenous children and to ensure that we can better help children in government care to realize the valuable connections to family. Again, this is in part to deal with that separation through the history of the current child welfare system in our province and in this country.

We know, as we’ve talked about here, that it is this government’s intention with this legislation — and this will be confirmed at committee stage — to substantially reduce the number of Indigenous children and youth in the child welfare system. It is doing that by enabling Indigenous nations and this provincial government to work collaboratively in a multi-jurisdictional model so that Indigenous communities will have the choice which model they choose to implement.

That is part of the challenge here as we go forward. It’s part of the challenge and the complexity that the member from West Vancouver–Capilano spoke about as well — to be very mindful about the existing restrictions under the current act, the overlapping jurisdictions that still exist, how we create that space for Indigenous nations to go forward and what that transition looks like, recognizing, as I have said, that it’s just as important to understand and appreciate what that fiscal model is going to look like between nations and this government.

Through all of that, fundamentally, we all recognize that it is the safety and well-being of children that must be paramount in all of the considerations. We need to ensure, through the review of Bill 38, that children are at the centre of all of this — their care and their safety.

We know that, with First Nations and Indigenous nations, care for their children is fundamental. That is one of the most sacred things to them, as it is to all of us. We share that common understanding, and what we’re talking about is reworking this current system with the constraints that have been put on Indigenous nations and those children.

[2:35 p.m.]

I would say here that I’d like to take the opportunity to talk about the lead-up to where we’re getting to on this bill. Some of that has been noted. We know that in June of 2017, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, in their calls to action, called for the federal, provincial and Indigenous governments to work together with respect to the welfare of Indigenous children and called for the enactment of federal legislation that establishes national standards for the welfare of Indigenous children.

Indeed, the first five actions set out important actions to be taken. Seven years later we’re still at it, and I know that as much as we focus on UNDRIP, both federally and provincially here in this province, it’s just as important to be focused on those Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action.

I would just like to read into the record, because it is fundamental, what those calls to action call for: “We call upon the federal, provincial, territorial and Aboriginal governments to commit to reducing the number of Aboriginal children in care by (i) monitoring and assessing neglect investigations; (ii) providing adequate resources to enable Aboriginal communities and child welfare organizations to keep Aboriginal families together where it is safe to do so, and to keep children in culturally appropriate environments, regardless of where they reside.”

As we get into the balance of my comments here and in committee stage, it’s important that we reflect on these words: “…where it is safe to do so, and to keep children in culturally appropriate environments.” That is what the minister for Social Development and Poverty Reduction had referred to, but also “regardless of where they reside,” whether it’s on treaty lands or non-treaty lands.

I do think there’s an important distinction that is made within the operation of this bill, as to how this bill, either through the statute itself or through the regulations that will follow, will operate: “(iii) Ensuring that social workers and others who conduct child welfare investigations are properly educated and trained about the history and impacts of residential schools; (iv) Ensuring that social workers and others who conduct child welfare investigations are properly educated and trained about the potential for Aboriginal communities and families to provide more appropriate solutions to family healing.” That’s the awareness and understanding of culturally appropriate care.

And: “(v) Requiring that all child welfare decision-makers consider the impact of residential school experience on children and their caregivers.”

The second action is: “We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, to prepare and publish annual reports on the number of Aboriginal children — First Nations, Inuit and Métis — who are in care, compared with non-Aboriginal children, as well as the reasons for apprehension, the total spending on preventive and care services by child welfare agencies and the effectiveness of various interventions.”

I think, here again, this particular action is an important one to reflect on as we consider the implementation, the structuring of the framework under Bill 38 — that we have the data.

We know that, in this bill, there are provisions for information-sharing. That information-sharing will be helpful to Indigenous nations in order to assess their decisions, how they will decide what is the best care for their children, how they will decide how to intervene, whether to utilize services that they’ve built up, supports within their communities, or whether to continue to work jointly or otherwise with the existing resources in our child welfare system.

These will be important decisions for nations to be able to make themselves for the care of their children. But it will be important, of course, to recognize, again, the spending, where the resources are going, how the resources are being expended, the accountability for that, the recognition of that and how effective those interventions are.

The third action is: “We call upon all levels of government to fully implement Jordan’s principle.” I will speak to Jordan’s principle more at length here — just to note it, fundamentally, as we reflect on what Jordan’s principle says and the reason for it.

[2:40 p.m.]

We recognize that no Indigenous child should be found as Jordan was, in that place where he wasn’t getting the care he needed because there was jurisdictional misdirection, let’s say — conflict, responsibility not being taken. We can’t have that happen. We can’t have an Indigenous child or any child not getting the care they need because of some jurisdictional conflict.

No. 4:

“We call upon the federal government to enact Aboriginal child welfare legislation that establishes national standards for Aboriginal child apprehension and custody cases and includes principles that (i) affirm the right of Aboriginal governments to establish and maintain their own child welfare agencies; (ii) require all child welfare agencies and courts to take the residential school legacy into account in their decision-making; (iii) establish, as an important priority, a requirement that placements of Aboriginal children into temporary and permanent care be culturally appropriate.”

No. 5:

“We call upon the federal, provincial, territorial and Aboriginal governments to develop culturally appropriate parenting programs for Aboriginal families.”

As we just walked through each of those calls to action, I think it’s important that we keep those calls to action in mind. I tried to highlight a few elements of that. I’m sure we will have the opportunity, with the minister, to talk through — apart from something I’ll come to in a moment, again, the DRIPA action plan — the specific items that are relevant to this bill but also the nature and the elements of those calls to action and how that is being framed into and addressed by Bill 38.

We recognize that…. I mentioned earlier about the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Unfortunately, in the history of our country, Indigenous nations and communities leaders, we’ve found, of course, have to go challenge. And they have…. I was reminded, when I was at one of the gatherings for First Nation leaders, when a leader cited, again, the time when Indigenous peoples and nations didn’t have the right to have legal representation. But it’s been those years that they’ve been able to advocate for their own rights.

On January 26, 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal had issue with its decision relating to a complaint that was originally filed in February of 2007 by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society. The Assembly of First Nations alleged that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs’ provision of First Nations child and family services and their implementation of Jordan’s principle was flawed, inequitable and discriminatory under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I cited some of the figures a moment ago in my comments about what that looked like in terms of the nature of the services that the federal government provides. I will now just talk for a moment, because I do think it’s important that we understand that third call to action, which calls on all levels of government to fully implement Jordan’s principle. That call to action came in 2015. In January of 2016, we have this decision, which again refers back to the fact that the government of Canada had failed.

Jordan’s principle is named, of course — for many members who know this already — in memory of Jordan River Anderson who, as a young boy with the Norway House Cree Nation in Manitoba…. He was born in 1999 with multiple disabilities and stayed in the hospital from birth. When he was two years old, the doctors said that he could move to a special home for his medical needs.

But here’s the challenge, Mr. Speaker. The federal and provincial governments could not agree on who should pay for his home-based care. That jurisdictional conflict — Jordan, unfortunately, fell in the gap. He stayed in the hospital until he passed away at the age of five.

Jordan’s principle is the promise that no Indigenous child would experience inequitable access to government-funded services again and be caught between jurisdictions. This has come to stand for ensuring that there are no gaps in government services and no permitting jurisdictional disputes to become a barrier to the provision of needed services and supports for children.

[2:45 p.m.]

I would say that it also stands for recognizing that there is some standard of care to ensure substantive equality.

I think the background around Jordan’s principle is something we need to keep in mind as we look through Bill 38. There are multiple jurisdictional provisions, both in terms of paramountcy…. We’ve seen that between the federal government and provincial laws and Indigenous laws. Certainly, Bill C-92 has a clear provision, which I’ll comment on in a moment further. Bill 38 contemplates similar paramountcy for Indigenous laws over provincial laws, as defined in the bill itself.

We know that Jordan’s principle is there to ensure that First Nations or Indigenous children living in Canada can access the kinds of supports and services they need when they need them and that the funding can help with a range of health, social and educational needs, including the unique needs that Indigenous peoples, two-spirit and LGBTQ2S+ children and youth and those with disabilities have.

We know that what the CHRT, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, found was…. The program’s two main funding mechanisms had incentivized removing First Nations children from their families, and the federal government’s narrow interpretation and implementation of Jordan’s principle resulted in service gaps, delays or denials of service. That had an overall adverse effect on Indigenous children and families on reserve.

Well, of course, more recently, when we look at the federal jurisdiction…. I think it’s important, again, that we situate what we’re doing here in British Columbia within the understanding of the federal framework.

In January of this year, as I think most members here would know, the federal government had reached a $40 billion agreement with the First Nations to settle the two class action lawsuits. That agreement set aside $20 billion for individual compensation and $20 billion for long-term reform of the on-reserve child welfare system. Again, I would emphasize it’s the on-reserve child welfare system that those funds are being put to.

We’ve seen, as I’ve talked about, the reference to Bill C-92, the act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. When the federal government committed the $20 billion over five years for long-term reform, it was to ensure and deal with that level of discrimination that was identified by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, that it be addressed. It’s in that context, in the context of the federal Bill C-92, that this Bill 38 comes forward.

Last week the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the agreement, which I mentioned, between government and the Assembly of First Nations did not meet the requirements of its initial ruling. Therefore, the payout and the restitution to those Indigenous children and families, the first set of $20 billion, are now held up.

We know, when we stand back and look at the federal government’s existing framework currently, that it does affirm the right to self-determination of Indigenous peoples, including the inherent right of self-government. This is language, of course, that is there in the federal act, Bill C-92. It includes jurisdiction in relation to child and family services.

[2:50 p.m.]

Under this federal framework, it is there to respect the diversity of all Indigenous peoples, including the diversity of their laws, rights, treaties, histories, cultures, languages, customs and traditions. It is there to take into account the unique circumstances and needs of Indigenous Elders, parents, youth, children, persons with disabilities, women, men, gender-diverse persons and two-spirit peoples.

It is there to address the needs of Indigenous children and to help ensure that there are no gaps in services that are there in relation to them, whether they reside on reserve or not. It is also to eliminate the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in child and family service systems and to work in cooperation and partnership with Indigenous peoples to support the dignity and well-being of Indigenous children and youth and their families and communities.

This federal framework is also established to achieve reconciliation with First Nations and Inuit and Métis through renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Inuit-Crown relationships based on the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership and to engage with Indigenous peoples and provincial governments to support a comprehensive reform of child and family services that are provided in relation to Indigenous children.

Finally, the ongoing funding for child and family services is predictable, stable, sustainable, needs-based and consistent with the principles of substantive equality in order to secure long-term positive outcomes for Indigenous children, families and communities.

That last item, in particular, has been a running theme through my comments here today. It is a recognition that apart from the legislative and jurisdictional framework that we’re looking at in Bill 38, the federal and provincial funding resources are there to work with Indigenous nations.

I will say…. This part, I think, the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction left out of his speech and his remarks on this bill. Let me put it back in, in terms of recognition that the work that we’re talking about, particularly…. I appreciate, again, as I said earlier, that this has been a century in the making, regrettably, and that we’re at a point of trying to unwind and make the appropriate next-step changes.

That work didn’t just start under this government. For example, when we look back at what was the First Nations leadership attending the B.C. Cabinet and First Nations Leaders Gathering in September of 2015 with Premier Clark…. The Tripartite First Nations Children and Families Working Group was formed in the fall of 2016. That particular two-day session was an important session, in September 2015, to make forward progress, to have the level of discussion.

Again, as I said earlier, we are on this path of having collaboration, co-development. That process occurs at those types of gatherings and summit meetings where you have First Nation leadership present, not just key Indigenous governing bodies. I’m just looking back at the language. It’s not even “governing.” It’s “key Indigenous organizations.” That language is there in the DRIPA action plan.

We need to recognize, of course, that the government’s commitment to reconciliation is with the rights and title holders themselves, the 204 First Nations in this province. That is the commitment and obligation under DRIPA.

That work, back in September 2015, led by Premier Clark, resulted in this working group with First Nations forming in 2016, with representatives from the Ministries of Children and Family Development, Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and Attorney General; the federal government; and the First Nations Leadership Council, which, as we know, is comprised of representatives from the First Nations Summit, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

Let me just say here that regardless of who is leading this government, whichever party it is…. We do recognize, of course, the length of work that it’s taken to get to this stage. That work — done by the leadership within the ministries that I named, in particular — which has led to this bill, is well respected. But we know that to unwind the system that’s been built up over a century is not easy. It is complex. All the more reason to ensure that there’s the appropriate level of consultation with First Nations and Indigenous nations in this province.

[2:55 p.m.]

This working group work was also followed by the final report of the special adviser on Indigenous children in care to that government, under Premier Clark. That was Grand Chief Ed John’s Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification: From Root Causes to Root Solutions. It was a report that was presented in November of 2016 to the then Minister of Children and Family Development, Stephanie Cadieux, as well as Premier Christy Clark.

We know that following all of this, in early 2017, under the previous government, at least before the May 2017 election, the Indigenous engagement branch and the partnership and Indigenous engagement division began to engage in exploratory discussions with Indigenous communities wishing to exercise jurisdiction over child welfare. This is, again, a time period, under the previous government, where they were working towards this same goal that’s being addressed under Bill 38.

We’ve seen, by this current government, that there have been, as I mentioned earlier, recent amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care, so to recognize those amendments that came into force in 2019 to support Indigenous children to remain at home or in their community through measures, including promoting the involvement of Indigenous communities in child welfare matters prior to removal; enabling greater information-sharing between a director under the CFCSA — that’s the act that we’re talking about amendments to, apart from the Adoption Act — and Indigenous communities; expanding the requirements to notify Indigenous communities of proceedings involving children from those communities; recognizing the shared responsibilities between and with Indigenous communities and Indigenous families that they have for the upbringing and well-being of their children; and lastly, affirming the importance of Indigenous children learning about and practising their traditions, customs, languages and belonging to their Indigenous communities.

Around this time, of course, we know — this is 2019 — that the new federal act came into place. I’ve talked about that here in terms of First Nations being freely able to determine if they wish to have jurisdiction for children and families and, if they do wish to do that, the rules and the policies that would apply to their children and families in Canada. It would not be any longer governed under provincial legislation or rules exclusively, which is basically a recognition of Indigenous laws and practices under a fully developed system for children and families to emerge and develop in that space over time.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I know, as we look at the work that Indigenous nations have done here with the Child, Family and Community Service Act, as it was amended in 2019, and now under the proposed amendments in Bill 38, the federal act, Bill C-92, and DRIPA, that there’s a directional move to support Indigenous nations and to increase their involvement, decision-making authority and jurisdiction in relation to child and family services.

Under the federal mechanism, for example, by way of comparison to what’s here in Bill 38, Indigenous communities are able to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services by one of two processes: adopting, firstly, as one alternative, a new law by providing notice to the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada, ISC, and the province or territory in which that Indigenous nation is located; or as an alternative, by sending a request to the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada and the government of each province or territory in which that Indigenous community — it says community here, but nation — wishes to exercise jurisdiction to enter into a tripartite coordination agreement in relation to child and family services.

[3:00 p.m.]

Certainly, we’ve seen that through the course of time, there have been a number of coordination agreements entered into. I’m looking for that reference here…. I think the number that I remember is about 124 of those coordination agreements. Here we go, right here.

In British Columbia, there is a history of delegation agreements of a sort. The province of B.C. actually entered into its first delegation agreement — that is, to delegate some responsibilities to Indigenous nations for child protection and family support — in 1985. Today there are actually 117 First Nations in B.C. that are represented by 24 Indigenous child and family service agencies that administer all or part of this Child, Family and Community Services Act and manage their own child and family services.

It’s already some of these arrangements that are in place, that we’ve seen over the course of time, that I would expect, of course…. This is something we’ll be talking to the minister about at committee stage, which is a recognition of some of those existing arrangements and how to ensure that with these amendments that are being proposed to both the Adoption Act and the Child, Family and Community Service Act, they are able to facilitate and support greater responsibility being taken on.

As we look at what that looks like coming forward, we know, through the technical briefing the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and myself received from the ministry, that effectively, the amendments that are being proposed under Bill 38 are to remove many of the impediments under the provincial statutes, the two in question, to Indigenous communities to exercise jurisdiction in an increased manner over child and family services.

I would like to just turn back to the federal act for a moment, because it does set an important reference that we will again talk about at committee stage in this Bill 38, which is the paramountcy of laws. The federal act, Bill C-92, does set paramountcy of Indigenous laws over provincial statutes like the two statutes that are being amended in this bill.

I understand that there has been a challenge by the Quebec government to the Quebec Court of Appeal. By and large, the Quebec Court of Appeal supported the constitutionality of Bill C-92, including the general thrust of that act, which we’ve been talking about, which is the importance of the inherent right of self-government for Indigenous nations. But there are two specific provisions, one of which the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled is not enforceable, the first one being the paramountcy provision. I understand that appeal is being further heard at the Supreme Court of Canada in December.

I’ve certainly had the opportunity to review the factum of the province of British Columbia, of the Attorney General of B.C., the current one, that’s been submitted in relation as an intervener in that proceeding. Certainly, at committee stage, we will want to understand, from the minister, the impact of that Supreme Court of Canada proceeding on this bill — specifically, on section 4.2 of Bill 38.

[3:05 p.m.]

I think as we look at this…. I mentioned earlier, talking about the specific actions in the DRIPA action plan…. We will again walk through with the minister, at committee stage, the progress of the minister and her ministry that they have been making in order to meet the specific action items that we’ve talked about — 4.16, the co-development of “a B.C.-specific fiscal framework in partnership with First Nations, Métis and Inuit to support moving forward with jurisdiction over child and family services.”

On that particular item, I think it will be important to hear from the minister about the status of the progress that’s being made on the development of a fiscal framework. I’ve talked a number of times here in my comments, in the time that I’ve had, about the importance of that fiscal framework.

I do think that it will be important to understand how the federal dollars will flow — that is the second set of $20 billion, assuming the CHRT decision and settlement gets addressed — and how that will be allocated over the next five years for long-term reform of First Nations child and family services.

What will that look like in terms of creating resource back to the province of B.C. to address that same reform of the system that we’re talking about here under Bill 38? And really looking at: how are we going to be working with First Nations to ensure that there are adequate resources to support the level of training and education and capacity-building that First Nations will need to have, as they go forward, to support children on their territories and off their territories as well, in other parts of this province?

As we’ve seen even with the TRC calls to action, there is a recognition that regardless of where an Indigenous child resides, we need to look at providing that level of support and care around that child’s safety and welfare.

We’ve looked at, certainly, action 4.18 under the DRIPA action plan, which is the co-development and implementing measures to support improved education outcomes for current and former First Nations children and youth in care. This particular item includes data collection to inform policy planning and service delivery.

This item is one that I do think is going to be important as we talk about children in care and, certainly, again, the greater understanding that it’s not just about safety. It’s also about that person and their family’s welfare, which is economic. It’s health. It is educational. I think that there are many different measures that we need to be working on to ensure that as we talk about a child’s safety, we’re looking at all elements surrounding that.

Certainly under 4.17, of course, the whole thrust of Bill 38 is to reduce the number of Indigenous children and youth in care through increased prevention and family support services at all stages of contact with the child welfare system. I would say that if….

I’ll just comment on it now, at the risk of not picking it up later. I meant to say this at the outset, when I was talking about the variation in approach, by this government, to consultation.

Here’s another example. I don’t have the bill number in my head, but I certainly got the briefing yesterday along with the critic, my good friend the member for Abbotsford West, the Attorney General critic, on the Judicial Review Procedure Act. There is an amendment that the current minister of justice, the Attorney General of this province, introduced.

Why is that important? Well, I remember sitting in the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation’s office when the member for Skeena, the member for Nechako Lakes — the former colleague that we have — myself and the critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation at the time, the member for Penticton, were receiving a briefing from the ministry about DRIPA, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

[3:10 p.m.]

We know that in section 7 of that act, there are provisions for decision-making agreements, of course. We’ve seen this more recently by this government with the Tahltan First Nation in terms of the Eskay Creek mine expansion process.

The amendment to the Judicial Review Procedure Act brings in — when we contemplate the consent of the Indigenous governing body before the exercise of a statutory power of decision, for example, under section 7 of DRIPA — that that will be subject to the Judicial Review Procedure Act. Why does that matter? Well, I know that this government had said at the time that when we’re talking about the exercise jointly, in terms of joint decision–making or with consent of an Indigenous nation — when we’re sharing or providing that decision-making opportunity, under these agreements — under section 7 of DRIPA, it needs to be done in an accountable manner.

Three years after DRIPA was approved unanimously in this House and adopted, this government is bringing forward this level of accountability measure. This is the reason why it’s important that First Nations and Indigenous nations in our province understand. I’ve talked to First Nation leaders since then, even in the last couple of months, and they have all sorts of considerations around the usage of section 7, these decision-making agreements.

I hope, as we talk about that bill, that the right level of consultation has been done with First Nations in our province, because it matters to how a First Nation can exercise the ability to seek a decision-making agreement with this government, to have consent before there’s an exercise of a statutory power of decision.

Why does that matter in the context of this bill? It’s because, of course, those same sections are referred to in this bill. There are areas of jurisdiction where section 6, which is a statutory power of decision agreement, as well as section 7 can be utilized in these decision-making agreements, in terms of the jurisdiction over care for children and youth and families by First Nations.

I think it’s going to be important to understand and contemplate how section 7 and section 6 agreements will be utilized in this bill, what the intention of this government is, what the ability and the opportunity for First Nations and Indigenous nations that utilize those provisions are, what types of arrangements are contemplated here, and what type of expectations there are on these Indigenous nations and that make them subject to judicial review.

What are the indicators of accountability this government is expecting from First Nations? I think that level of clarity is very important. This is the reason why we need to take the time to go through this bill in a careful way. Just as First Nations have a lot of expectation around this bill and what it means to get greater responsibility, there are certainly some strings — some strings of accountability.

We’re seeing this where we’re having multiple bills come through this House and where I really wish I were with the member for Prince George–Valemount to continue to look at components of Bill 36, as I mentioned. But I can’t be in two places at once. This is the challenge with what this government is doing. There are forcing legislation through this House in a manner which fundamentally is changing the relationship that we have with First Nations in this province. We need to take the time. I’m very concerned that we don’t have that time.

I’m also concerned that the level of consultation and co-development is not there. I’m very hopeful, in my comments that I’ve been making for the last hour and a half, that the minister will come prepared to share with us the level of detail that the Minister of Health did, if she needs an example. I’m not saying that it was fully satisfactory. I’m just saying that it’s the best I’ve heard from this government since DRIPA was adopted.

[3:15 p.m.]

I know, in talking to many members, and I’m not suggesting that this minister will fall into that challenge, that as I talk to other ministers in bill debates, as many of my colleagues have done in estimates, there is a lack of understanding of what the DRIPA action plan is intended to do and what UNDRIP is, as the member for Skeena has challenged this government repeatedly on, in terms of what true consultation means. We know that Bill 38 is intended to be administered and interpreted in accordance with the Indigenous communities’ inherent right of self-government with respect to child and family services.

It is there to enable Indigenous governing bodies, as defined under DRIPA…. There’s a discussion to be had there, as well, as to how that definition is working for this government, how they are working with Indigenous governing bodies, and what it means to this government to enable those Indigenous governing bodies to assume jurisdiction over child welfare services provided to an Indigenous child in accordance with Indigenous laws, to strengthen collaboration and enable consent-based deci­sion-making with Indigenous communities on adoption placements for Indigenous children.

Those consent-based decision-making arrangements, even as they relate to adoption under the Adoption Act, which is being amended under Bill 38, again take me back to this question about judicial review: what are the standards, the accountability and the expectations of this government? The last thing we want, of course, is for First Nations to be back in court or to be challenged for their consent-making opportunities.

The government’s response may well be that that will be clearly set out in those decision-making agreements, but I do think, as we were looking at the framework that’s establishing this, that First Nations and Indigenous nations in our province have a clear understanding as to what that is.

Further, this bill is there to ensure that both treaty nations and non-treaty nations have opportunities to exercise jurisdiction in these areas of child welfare and protection. As we look at the bill and the language in the various provisions of this bill, there’s a clear distinction, of course, between treaty nations, modern treaty nations and those that are non-treaty. I think in the non-treaty area, we do have a whole mix of jurisdictional overlaps, including with the director under the act and the new contemplation, of course, of the Indigenous child welfare director.

I’ll just skip to that to say that this bill, certainly, is there to establish a new Indigenous child welfare director position, as contemplated here, to provide guidance and advice. I think that that is another topic to talk about: the role, the power, the duties and the responsibilities of that new Indigenous child welfare director, and the fact that it’s just guidance and advice. Guidance and advice are important, but in terms of true authority, alongside of the director, that is to be considered and discussed.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill also enables information-sharing between the province and Indigenous governing bodies, in an effort to help Indigenous governing bodies plan for how they want to exercise their jurisdiction. That is something, I think, that’s fundamentally important to this bill and the nature of that information access. I think that, as we get to committee stage, we’ll be looking at the parameters around how information-sharing is to be monitored and what oversight there would be.

Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, this bill will enable joint and consent-based agreements to be made in accordance with DRIPA for relevant powers under the Adoption Act and the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

I just want to take the time that I have left here to highlight a few additional items in this bill that we’ll be looking at, at committee stage, with the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, as the critic, certainly, I’m sure. The member for Skeena will have the opportunity to fully dive into, as he usually does, certain provisions. I’m sure that there are things that he would like to further in my comments at the committee stage. I’m sure that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano will welcome his involvement and participation, as we do with other members in our team.

[3:20 p.m.]

I wanted to come back to the reference to best interests of the child here. We know that, for example, in clause 3 of the bill, which references the Adoption Act, and the similar clause that amends the Child, Family and Community Service Act, that we look at…. Well, let me just take it in the first case, I think, is probably more appropriate. The best interests of the child. There are, certainly, under the Adoption Act, currently, references to the best interests of the child.

The number one relevant factor that must be considered in determining a child’s best interests is the child’s safety, apart from physical and emotional needs; importance of continuity; and child care and so on. It does refer, currently, to cultural, racial, linguistic and religious heritage, the child’s views and all of that. What this bill does is add a new provision which sets out, if the child is an Indigenous child, in addition to those relevant factors — some of which I just mentioned — these other factors must be considered to determine what’s in the child’s best interests.

That includes cultural continuity, the development of the child’s Indigenous cultural identity, the preservation of the child’s connections to the child’s Indigenous community, and being connected to family and plans for a child’s care. Those elements are important, certainly. I know that I would expect that we’ll hear from the minister, certainly, in the area of consultations such as they’ve had, that this section has had the benefit of Indigenous organizations — their leads’ — input and others.

My question that we will want to talk about is: what is the order of priority here in terms of looking at all these factors? Certainly, for an Indigenous child, of course, the new factors will be of priority. What I’m referring to is the child’s safety. I think ultimately, of course, everyone — including leaders of Indigenous nations, parents, grandparents, elders, aunties and uncles — will want to focus on a child’s safety. When we look at the interplay, let’s say, of Indigenous laws and provincial laws under this act — again, recognizing Jordan’s principle — we don’t want anybody, any child, to be caught within a jurisdictional conflict, including under this bill.

I think that those factors are going to be important to keep in mind as we go through some examples of how they will work with each other. I’m just looking off of two lists here. I think that the paramountcy provisions, which are covered in clause…. If we jump forward, for example, to the Child, Family and Community Service Act amendments under clause 19, we have the whole section that deals with Indigenous laws — the self-government principles.

I think this will be an important, fundamental provision to walk through in detail, because just as we’re saying to nations that they are going to have greater ability under their self government rights to have greater responsibility for the care of their children, again, we’ll be mindful as to how this works with the current provisions of the act, where there is a taking on of responsibility vis-à-vis the director and what agreements need to be in place for that to occur.

I think it could be read a different way, but I do think we need to ensure that the minister and this government have the same understanding of the wording in this bill.

We certainly understand the intention, but I think the drafting and the provisions, the way they’re set out, it’s going to need to be quite clear that we’re not creating more potential conflict, which is not the intention at all here. I think, certainly, as I mentioned earlier, section 4.2 in clause 19 will be looked at in terms of the paramountcy provision, which clearly says that Indigenous child and family services under Indigenous laws would prevail, to the extent there is any conflict or inconsistency between this act and Indigenous law.

[3:25 p.m.]

I think Indigenous law, of course, is something that we want to have a good discussion of. It’s defined clearly. Well, at least it has a definition in the bill. I think that we’ll want to walk through that, including, because of that whole Judicial Review Procedure Act bill, that lens. I think it’s going to be important, as I say, as we have the opportunity in committee stage, to have a fuller understanding of how that will work.

I think that in terms of looking at the timelines around this bill, when we look at regulations, it will be important to consider what that looks like. We know that in this bill, we have examples of language relating to reasonable efforts. Reasonable efforts is always a discussion to be had in terms of the intention behind those words and qualifiers. We know that when we look at these agreements and arrangements under clause 12 of the bill, we can consider that whole interaction between decision-making and statutory power agreements.

I’ll touch on, for the moment, the liability factors here. Obviously, apart from judicial challenges we are hearing under that new bill, we do have — under the Adoption Act, for example — in this bill, immunity from legal proceedings. I think that as we talk about jurisdiction and responsibility here, it will be very important for Indigenous nations to understand the extent of their immunity from legal proceedings under this bill.

I do know that we see some language, certainly, that’s shifting here between what’s been set out, for example, in section 79 of the Adoption Act currently, as it stands, which talks about protection from liability, “No person is personally liable for anything done or omitted in good faith in the exercise or performance” of a duty conferred under this act, to immunity from legal proceedings, including a carve-out relating to the fact that this liability protection, which is similar to what’s currently settled in the act, “does not absolve the government or an Indigenous governing body from vicarious liability arising out of anything done or omitted by a person referred to” in this subsection.

That whole understanding of the exclusion for vicarious liability will be something, again, very important for all of us to understand, including First Nations and Indigenous nations as we look at this bill coming forward.

As we talk about the director for Indigenous child welfare, this new role, we’ll want to understand the duties and responsibilities and why it is just guidance and advice, why there’s not a greater level of authority for that director and the role that that director can play vis-à-vis and compared with the provincial director of child welfare, as well.

I also would expect that we will have a good discussion around dispute resolution. There are provisions here in this bill that address dispute resolution. I would say that on the surface, without a greater understanding of what’s behind what’s contemplated by this provision and how it might trigger other requirements, the language is fairly general and broad and arguably not strong.

I think we’ll want to understand, when we’re talking about the possibilities of dispute resolution, that we’re looking at something that is going to have some rigour and is going to be meaningful to Indigenous nations as they might have to encounter or address disputes that they might need to address with that.

[3:30 p.m.]

We’ve talked generally in terms of the extent. This is something that we’re going to need to look at, which is the whole framing of the bill itself: provincial legislation versus Indigenous laws — the overlap, how it becomes untangled, and how we provide space for Indigenous nations to exercise their rights of self-government. The importance, as I mentioned, of the information-sharing is so they can make decisions to determine the right level of care and the approach to care for an Indigenous child who may currently be under care in the system.

We recognize, of course, that nations in our province have different resources available currently and that the fiscal framework will be important as to how we move all nations forward but that currently every nation has a different level of resources available to them. We want to, certainly, work with nations to create that sort of economic opportunity and economic development to move forward so that we can create more resources and that nations can be less dependent on the state-run situation, as we talk about here, in child welfare as well.

For those nations that are going to be looking at how they move forward more into this new system, they’re going to want to address that level of responsibility. Perhaps, in some cases, they may choose to put more resources into prevention, which is the early identification of children in a situation that might need some intervention or some further understanding.

For those children that are already in the system, under care, whether it’s in a foster situation or in an institutional context, the level of information-sharing with that nation will enable them to at least monitor, follow up and, perhaps, provide additional support to support that child in that environment. Whether it’s cultural, whether it’s spiritual, whether it’s other points of contact, it will be important. As we look at the resorting of resources and jurisdiction, these things go hand in hand.

I’m just giving a brief example of how that might work for some nations. I do expect that, hopefully, as we go into the next week, as I mentioned earlier, members will get that additional feedback from their local First Nations about how this bill will work for them as they look at taking on more responsibility.

The provisions of this act, as well, are recognizing that when we look at what constitutes reasonable steps to confirm whether a child is an Indigenous child and to obtain information about and confirm whether there is an Indigenous authority or applicable Indigenous law, these reasonable steps need to be taken. Those confirmations need to be received. Again, we’ll need to understand the process for that and the expectation of this government to meet those requirements.

We’ve talked about the notion that the director, under these acts, is certainly subject to federal laws and the Charter. There’s a question about the interaction of Indigenous laws, UNDRIP, DRIPA, section 35 of the Constitution Act — those requirements and those legislative frameworks, vis-à-vis the director — as to how the director is to operate. I do think that there are questions around the bill, from that perspective, as we look at how that comes forward.

As we look at examples, there are provisions here that are proposed to be amended — for example, clause 21. This is something that the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction did hit on in a different way. When we look at section 13 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, as I will right now, briefly, we’ve had, certainly, a provision that a child needs protection in certain instances.

[3:35 p.m.]

There is a proposed addition to this that would change that. When protection is needed, certainly, is where a child has been or is likely to be physically harmed, sexually abused, physically harmed because of neglect, emotionally harmed. There are, certainly, all of those elements to ensure safety of the child, including abandonment by parents, a child being absent — circumstances which might endanger the child’s safety or well-being.

These provisions in section 21 would add some clarifications to this — the arms in which child protection would occur and circumstances — and makes it clear that the child does not need protection solely on the basis of social-economic conditions, including poverty, the lack of adequate housing or infrastructure, the state of health of a parent of the child. Obviously, as I addressed and others have addressed in the second reading on this bill, we do understand the need to address poverty, housing, lack of infrastructure, health — that this is part of the picture. But a child’s safety also is connected to those items.

I think we’ll want to understand, from the government and the minister…. The government talks all the time about their poverty reduction plan and what that means. Here we have a situation where they’re actually removing poverty as an item from the act. I don’t know that that’s their intention in the message that they’re saying to First Nations — that poverty is not a priority for this government.

I do think we’ll want to understand the nature of that specific carve-out or exclusion — recognizing, as we all do, that First Nations and Indigenous nations have many challenges, including what’s referred to in this new section. I think that messaging to nations is important to clarify the government’s intention here.

We talked a bit about dispute resolution in terms of what that is going to look like. If we look at clause 24, we have wording here that, as I mentioned, is looking at disputes under Indigenous law. As to how it applies when we’re talking about conflict of laws, we can have, of course, parents who belong to different nations. So whose Indigenous law might apply?

That is not necessarily embedded in this provision, but I do think these are examples of how we need clarity when we talk about Indigenous law and how that will operate. That’s going to be important, again, for Indigenous nations to understand, at committee stage.

When we look at the questions around recognition in clause 28, there’s recognition here of the Provincial Court and the interaction of recognition by Indigenous law. The jurisdiction of the Provincial Court will be important to understand here, in how that works into this bill as well. As we look at Indigenous law itself, I think it’ll be important for the minister to share with us, at committee stage, her understanding of Indigenous law, how it is to be framed and understood. Through case law, certainly, it is well recognized. I think we’ll want to know, of course, in the context of this bill, how that will operate.

[3:40 p.m.]

Again, whether it’s with disputes between nations about children in a marriage, in a family situation, in an extended family situation or through adoption — where an aunt, an uncle or a grandparent is taking care of a child or taking responsibility for the care of an Indigenous child — we’ll want to look at that interaction.

I will say that, hopefully, in the time that I have spent on this bill, speaking to it here today…. I thank the opportunity to be able to lay out my perspective on this bill. I think that it is certainly one that is fundamentally important to Indigenous nations and peoples in this province for so many reasons, which we’ve talked about through the course of this bill debate to date, including the historical reasons and the current reasons.

I do know that we need to get this bill right and that we cannot further complicate the situation. Again, that is not the intention of this government. I’m pretty sure of that. But I do think that when you don’t take the time, when nations feel like they’re being rushed into something…. I do feel, in my discussions with First Nation leaders, that there are elements of that. There are elements….

We know that government is on a timetable. They have a new incoming Premier. That special ceremony that we were all part of last Wednesday was important, and those voices and the respect that we had for those leaders we all share.

Again, as I said at the beginning of my comments, one of those leaders said that she did not feel her nation was properly consulted and that this has been rushed. This is a nation that this government put and identified to be part of that ceremony in the Hall of Honour. I think that raises lots of concerns here as to how other nations might feel about this bill. I think it’s going to be very important, at committee stage and the rest of the speakers to this bill….

I know members of the Third Party have also heard from various First Nations about their concerns about this bill. They’ll have that opportunity to share in detail, on the record, what those concerns are.

With the number of nations in this province, no one person can have the full opportunity to have that level of conversation and discussion. I certainly haven’t yet. But I do know, as we look at the importance of reconciliation in this province, that it is a relationship. When you break that trust and you break that relationship, as this government has done with the 2030 bid decision, that does take us steps back.

When you look at, through that lens, this bill…. You look at the complexity that’s coming at First Nations and Indigenous nations in this province, what they have to understand and appreciate in terms of the mechanisms that this government is putting in front of them. It’s an important step, but it’s a step that we need to take time to go through, to understand, to get the clarity so that we can get closer to meeting the expectations that have been raised under DRIPA.

Operating on a lack of clarity is not helpful. That’s the reason why, when we commonly refer to UNDRIP…. I hear this in members’ speeches. What does it mean? What does it mean to First Nations? How are we actually aligning the laws of our province, by all measures necessary, as required under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act? How is this government actually doing that?

I heard some of that in Bill 36, the health professions act. I hope to hear at least that much on this bill. I hope to hear from the minister at committee stage — her opportunity to take fulsome answers. I’ve taken the time. I’ve been provided the time, by our opposition caucus, to lay out the list of concerns that I have with this bill, and I would expect that the minister will come fully armed and equipped to address these concerns, along with the critic, my colleague the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

[3:45 p.m.]

I do think, with the time that we have, which is getting quite limited in this House, that it’s a real challenge to ourselves, as MLAs, to do our job, to ensure that this government…. And have this point of opportunity so that we can review these complex pieces of legislation, like Bill 38, in detail.

I hope that we will have that opportunity as we go forward — that we will hear from nations that, hopefully, we reach out to or that, hopefully, may become aware more of this bill in front of this Legislative Assembly — and that we will have and see that written communication or other communication so that we can continue to question the government on elements of this bill coming forward.

K. Paddon: That was an impressive two hours. Thank you. I’m learning how to fill two hours, how to time it, how to pace it. I appreciate that. Also, two hours gives me a lot to respond to. So I also appreciate that.

I am very happy to rise today in support of this bill. A lot of my remarks are very personal, very personal to my community, to the community that I get to serve. A lot of the stories are from my community as well.

I’m going to spend some time…. I mean, we’ve canvassed how important this bill is for the children and families of the First Nations that we all, ultimately, serve on the territories of. I do want to touch on that.

A place where I’m going to start, though, is actually in response to the critic. Some of the comments I found to be interesting and don’t want to leave them unanswered. So we’ll clear them before I focus on where I believe the energy should be focused, which is on the children, on the families, on the First Nations who contributed to this and who poured so much for so many years into getting us not only here but further and to where we’ll be years from now, which is something I’m looking forward to seeing.

I do understand, from some thrivers and survivors, about some stories that describe the impact of some of the work being done here and describe the importance of the work being done here because of the impact of history. On September 30, I was really happy to attend an event hosted by Stó:lō leadership, as well as residential school thrivers, at the Coqualeetza Residential School memorial house post across the street from Chilliwack-Kent, in Chilliwack. It’s the same. The lines are very close.

A lot of what I heard there, from the thrivers and survivors — and different people identified themselves in different ways — was a lot of information, through storytelling, that gave me a really great perspective. In looking at this legislation, in listening to people speaking at the event when the bill was brought to the House, in listening to people speak here on the floor, it reminded me of some of those stories.

One of the things that really sticks out that I heard and that I’m going to carry with me in a lot of the work…. I think it’s just a very simple and touching framing of the importance of reconciliation, of acknowledging the past, of where we’re going to go from here, of where First Nations need us to focus.

One of the thrivers talked about not hugging. One of the children of a survivor described hugging and the importance and a bit of a lack of just that physical expression between a parent and a child. They didn’t explain it so much as a lack but as a sign of what had been taken or lost — that that connection was just not present because of the horrific interruption and the way that got passed down through generations.

[3:50 p.m.]

The child of one of the survivors said: “I hug my children.” It was very moving. After you had heard the stories and had heard from people, it was very moving. You understood what happens when you lose that connection to each other, to your family, to your culture, to your community, to the people who you consider are your people. That is what keeps cycling in my head.

I know on the day when we were in the Hall of Honour, Willie Nelson…. Sorry. Not Willie Nelson. He doesn’t come. Willie Charlie is a chief negotiator for Sts’ailes, which is one of the First Nations that are ready to take jurisdiction here, and I am so excited. I remember we looked at each other, and the only words I had were, “It’s a good day,” and he said, “It’s a good day,” and then he went and said things that were very eloquent to everybody else. That’s all I could think of. It’s a good day.

I understand that it’s important to speak about the bill, and I want to talk about the children — but first, at the risk of maybe being a little bit spicy but in a very respectful way, being a little bit challenging to some of the comments that were made.

I’m disappointed in how much time was spent not speaking about this bill by the previous speaker. In my opinion, there is so much to canvass with regard to this bill that to speak of another bill, which is also being canvassed currently, right now, including by the previous speaker, I found disrespectful, in my opinion.

Instead of taking the time to talk about the kids and the families and the history and the work yet to be done and the historic step that this represents and the work towards reconciliation and the work of all of the people who have been fighting for this for so long — I’m not talking about the people in this House — we heard about the Olympics. We heard about reconciliation. It’s just blown out of the water, not a quote, because it was just a no.

It was such a diversion from the focus from the kids, and when we’re talking about not funding or having money for one purpose somehow undoing the work that’s moving forward for children and families…. Conflating the money in one area and another bill with the important work of moving this forward with this bill, especially after a 12 percent cut in funding that delayed where we are right now…. Think of where we could be. When the critic said, “To add insult to injury,” all I could think was, “Yes,” because that’s exactly what just happened.

I know that the previous speaker mentioned the member for Skeena will be asking questions and canvassing, and he mentioned specific areas where that would be happening. I’m interested to see that because that same member in this House in speaking of the bill that the previous speaker was referring to, which is not this bill, was questioning whether there was even the presence of systemic racism. So I wonder how that will be canvassed in this bill, and I hope it will be done with respect.

I thank you for the time to touch on those pieces. I am going to move on to share about the importance of this bill for my community and the people I hear and the voices I hear in my community and what they’ve told me.

However, I’m going to reserve my place and move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Motions Without Notice

SCHEDULE FOR HOUSE ADJOURNMENT

Hon. M. Farnworth: By agreement with the Opposition House Leaders, I move:

[That, notwithstanding Standing Order 2 (2), when the House next adjourns, it stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday, November 21, 2022.]

[3:55 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

As I said, I have informed the Opposition House Leaders. We have agreed to a speaker each to wrap up that time, and then we will proceed with the regular business after that.

Even though I fully anticipate their remarks and that we may not see eye to eye on the motion, I do appreciate the desire to be able to do as much business as is required and as is appropriate at this particular time. The reason I move this motion is we are in a unique circumstance in this province, and that is we are having a change in terms of the Premier of British Columbia.

That requires a certain amount of not just preparation but realignments that may well take place and that the new Premier, currently the Premier-elect, requires that time to be able to make what changes they may envision — whether it is the executive council, for example, and the individuals who occupy those positions — as well as the opportunity to make changes in terms of the public service that may be required to move forward on the agenda that the new Premier-elect, when they’re sworn in, feels is necessary to move on their agenda.

That being said, I understand the opposition will raise points of concern. That is exactly fine. What I want to do is to also make it clear that as House Leader for the government, I am aware of those concerns. That’s why we have taken steps to deal with some of the challenges. For example, opening up the second chamber earlier allowed for debate to take place not just in this House here but also in the second chamber. That adds additional debating time, which the opposition has indicated that they would like to be able to deal with particular pieces of legislation.

There has been that willingness and that cooperation from our side as well. I’ve also indicated that given the nature of some of the bills, if need be, the third chamber is also available to add additional debate. For example, if, on the Monday that we’re back, the third chamber is open for debate for committee stage, that’s the equivalent of adding a full week of debating time. So there is that opportunity for members to be able to debate the bills that they would like to do.

I would also point out that since being elected, we have stuck rigorously to our commitment to hold fall sessions. I would make that point that I think that that has been rather unique for governments, certainly in the last 20 years, to have that parliamentary calendar, to have in place a fall session and to stick to that.

We have had…. This is, normally, or in this particular year…. It does vary a little bit from year to year, based on the dates on the calendar, the first Monday in October, when we come back. Normally, this would be six weeks. This year it will be five weeks. But as I have said, there is the additional time that is being added by additional chambers being opened up. In previous governments, there were often no fall sessions, despite the calendar calling for a fall session.

We are endeavouring to do two things. One is to ensure that the new Premier-designate has the time that is required to be able to put in place the individuals that they want to see not just in terms of the executive council but also in terms of, as I have said, any changes that they may make in the public service to be able to advance their agenda.

[4:00 p.m.]

I know that there may well be some points that the opposition may well raise. Just in anticipation of those points, I would like to note that the last time there was a new Premier due to a leadership race, it was Christy Clark. It took 93 days until she was in the Legislature, answering questions as Premier. It will be 31 days for the Premier-designate. So I understand the desire for the opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, Hon. Speaker. As I said, I fully understand the opposition, and I fully understand the points that they want to make.

I raise that because, at that time, there could have been a fall session, but there was not a fall session. We are having a fall session. It will be shortened, as I said, by four days. But at the same time, there is the opportunity to add literally the equivalent amount of time. As I’ve said, I’m more than willing to do just that with the opening of the third chamber.

We are going to be able to get the business done that needs to be done. We are going to be able to have a new Premier that will be able to answer questions in this House on that week that we are back. At the same time, we are able to ensure that it may not be a full six-week fall session, but it is certainly a five-week fall session, which is a lot more than we have seen in the past.

What I can tell you is that, as I’ve said again, I’ve heard the concerns of the opposition and made the offer around. We can look at that third chamber.

I’d also remind them that when it comes to things such as the House sittings and the willingness to try and assist members as much as possible, since we have become government, I have made it a commitment to put out, for example, the calendar well ahead of any spring session, often by the end of a fall session or as close….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I hear a comment from my colleague across the way.

I suppose we could return to the old days, Member, when you didn’t tell the opposition when we would be sitting until literally two weeks before the beginning of the spring session.

We’ve done away with that. We ensure that all members know when we will be sitting in the spring.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You brought the calendar in, but you didn’t follow it very often, hon. Member. In fact, the fall sessions were scheduled. In fact, I’d be hard-pressed to remember actually when you did have a full fall session, hon. Member. I’d also be hard-pressed to remember when you would let the opposition know when the spring session was going to begin, hon. Member.

I await the comments of my colleague the Opposition House Leader and the Opposition House Leader from the Green Party.

Suffice it to say this motion is here to ensure that we can have good functioning in terms of the opportunity for the Premier-designate, when he gets sworn in, to be able to be in here with everything in place, to be accountable to the members of the opposition, as is how our system operates.

I look forward to hearing the comments and the response opposite. I know…. I fully expect that we will no doubt have a vote on this particular motion. With that, I take my place.

T. Stone: I will take my place now and offer some comments on behalf of the official opposition in regards to this motion that the Government House Leader has brought forward today.

[4:05 p.m.]

I think it’s important to start out by saying this. The issue that is contained within this motion, as put forward by the Government House Leader, is not actually simply about government unilaterally striking four days from the parliamentary calendar and the impact that that represents at some high level. In practical terms, removing four days from the parliamentary calendar is four question periods. These are critical moments when government is held accountable by the opposition, one of the few opportunities that opposition really has.

I know the Government House Leader, who has probably spent more time on both sides of this chamber, understands very, very well the tools that are at the opposition’s disposal to discharge its responsibilities to hold the government accountable. Four question periods are removed as part of this motion.

It’s 24 two-minute statements where MLAs on all sides of this Legislature are able to highlight important local issues and constituents. That’s gone. It’s one Monday morn­ing motion, where MLAs can affirm their support on the issues of the day. That’s gone. It’s four private members’ statements, where government and opposition debate what matters to British Columbians. That’s gone, and it’s about 35 hours of time to debate and collaborate on bills. That’s gone.

These are all vital tools of a democratic Legislature. If this government motion is indeed adopted today, an entire roster of very important bills, legislation that this government has brought forward…. These bills will not receive the scrutiny that they should receive.

Take, for example, Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act, a bill with 645 clauses. We are in committee stage on this bill, but there is a heck of a long ways still to go with it. The bill is a complete redesign of the Health Professions Act, and I want to highlight, as part of the debate that’s taken place in Bill 36, why it’s so important that the time opposition has to engage in that debate with government is so critical.

Clauses 8, 9 and 11 of Bill 36 were actually stood down. They were stood down by the Health Minister during debate. Why? Because some very, very focused and thoughtful and respectful questions were asked by opposition members, most notably the opposition Health critic. And to the credit of the Health Minister, the Health Minister agreed that the way the bill was structured in the context of these clauses didn’t meet the policy objectives that government actually had.

Clause 8 relates to sexual misconduct and sexual abuse. Clause 9 relates to discrimination and what types of conduct from the B.C. human rights code are discrimination for the purposes of people covered by the act. Clause 11 relates to misconduct and actions that would warrant complaints, investigations or actions to be taken against health practitioners involved. So serious matters that the opposition was able to identify and engage in a thoughtful discussion with the Health Minister….

The opposition said, in this instance, that we would be prepared to move forward with an amendment — a thoughtful, reasoned amendment to address the concerns that we were raising — or we’d be happy to support amendments from the government. As I said, the Health Minister went away, after standing down these sections, and came back and advised the opposition that the government would bring forward an amendment. That amendment, which we have now seen, does encapsulate the spirit and the intent of the improvements that the opposition brought forward.

So we worked with the government to improve that bill, to actually strengthen that bill, to actually make that a better piece of legislation for British Columbians. That only happens when we have the time to actually thoughtfully canvass, section by section, a bill in committee stage.

[4:10 p.m.]

Let’s take another bill that hasn’t yet gone through committee stage. That’s Bill 40, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. This bill makes long-awaited changes to the Passenger Transportation Act that authorize government to utilize the fees they’ve been collecting since 2019. There are a whole bunch of accessibility-related components to this which are really important.

It was actually the opposition — and, in this case, the Transportation critic and a researcher in our department — that noticed a drafting error in this piece of legislation, which, had the minister not been advised of and not, therefore, then tabled an amendment to, specifically, clause 16 of this Bill 40, would have left this act with two conflicting provisions on penalties relating to licences. Again, because of the opportunity to thoughtfully and thoroughly examine and scrutinize this piece of legislation, as the opposition, we were able to help the government strengthen and improve this bill.

Bill 38, the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Act, was introduced in an atmosphere of, I think, a unanimous sense of commitment to reconciliation. It’s a bill that relates to jurisdiction over child welfare services provided to an Indigenous child. It’s a significant component of the obligations that the province has under the DRIPA legislation in British Columbia.

This bill has 60 clauses. Each one of them needs to be thoughtfully and thoroughly canvassed. We are currently in second reading on this bill. There’s a lot of work still to do with it.

Bill 41, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, changes a number of provisions. It’s an important piece of legislation. It’s not in committee stage yet.

Bill 42, the PST amendment act, would implement a permanent tool to help local governments recover costs associated with putting on major sporting events. This, again, is a bill that’s not in committee stage yet. There’s a whole bunch of considerations that the opposition has identified and that the opposition wants to thoroughly canvass with government. There are many important impacts or potential impacts and implications of this bill that must be debated.

There’s Bill 37, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, which modernizes the Oil and Gas Commission in a number of ways. Seventy-seven clauses require scrutiny.

There’s Bill 39, the Judicial Review Procedure Act. It provides clarity around consent-based agreements with First Nations.

The point I’m trying to make here, in listing off some of the legislation that is still before the House, is that there’s a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done. There’s a tremendous amount of scrutiny that needs to take place. There are a lot of sections of a lot of bills that the government needs to be accountable on and that the government needs to stand and answer focused questions on.

Even with the second chamber, as the Government House Leader mentioned, which is now in use, the Douglas Fir Room, and, potentially, a third chamber being opened…. It sounds like it’s not potentially. When we come back, it sounds like the Government House Leader will bring forward a motion to open the Birch Room. There is simply not enough time to properly prosecute these bills, even with these additional chambers.

What does this mean? Well, it means, in all likelihood, we’re going to find ourselves at the end of the last session week. On that Thursday, the government is going to have to invoke time allocation and ram these bills through and, effectively, take away the primary responsibility of the opposition in this democratic institution, and that is to hold government accountable.

Now, sadly, this is a pattern that has become all too prevalent with this government. The use of time allocation…. Using it in an egregious and heavy-handed manner is exactly what the NDP did in the last spring session. They did this when they imposed time allocation on a number of major bills, forestry legislation and a freedom-of-information bill that actually gutted FOI provisions and imposed fees on accessing data.

[4:15 p.m.]

On Thursday, November 25, 2021, I was actually in the Douglas Fir Room, personally, speaking to section 46 of Bill 22. That was the FOI amendment act. I was asking questions about why the NDP’s high-risk venture capital scheme, InBC, was not going to be subject to FOI. We were not done canvassing that section or a number of other sections.

At exactly 4:30 on that day, before my question could be answered, the Chair interrupted and said: “We are at 4:30 now…. Pursuant to the time allocation motion adopted by the House on Tuesday, November 23, the committee will now proceed to a finalized clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 22. So in accordance with the time allocation motion, I will now put the question on all remaining clauses of the bill.”

I never did get an answer to my question at that moment. No further questions were allowed to be asked. The debate was over.

There were actually four bills that closure was imposed upon last spring, including two bills containing massive policy changes in forestry, bills that were introduced with only days for consideration by the opposition, consideration to even understand the implications of what was being proposed in these policy changes, let alone to be expected to engage in thoughtful second reading debate and go through a clause-by-clause analysis in the committee stage of the bill. Nevertheless, debate was cut off in midstream, and the bills were passed. End of story.

Now we hear that we are next going to find ourselves in the same place on Monday, November 14. The government may be moving ahead with opening a third chamber, as I mentioned, the Birch Room. Let there be no mistake about the challenges that we see in the government doing this.

First, this would actually…. Opening up a third House would actually involve the removal of the democratic rights — or, at least, a significant erosion of the democratic rights — of the Third Party in this House. I’m sure that the House Leader for the Third Party will speak to this. The Third Party has two members. How the heck are two members in the Third Party able to be in three places at the same time? What right does the government have to put whatever it wants in those three chambers, without any consideration for the two members of the Third Party?

They might deem that those three provisions, those three different legislative items, are all of significance. They all require canvassing. They would like to ask questions, but they can’t be in three places at the same time. There are only two of them. That is wrong.

Secondly, opening up a third House for bills — second reading, in particular — and doing this using the Birch Room — or any other room, for that matter — to the best of our understanding, hasn’t been done. If it has been done, it hasn’t been done in a very long time, certainly not in recent memory. The third chamber, the Birch Room, is usually used…. It has most commonly been used for budget estimates. It’s been used in the spring sessions, when the budget estimates take place.

That being said, this reality, in and of itself, is not necessarily a reason for not doing it. I mean, things do change in this place. Things do evolve in this place, albeit often much more slowly than some of us would like and depending on one’s perspective and where you sit in this chamber.

Let’s also make no mistake about it. This precedent would not be necessary…. It wouldn’t be happening if the government wasn’t, at best, disorganized with their legislative agenda. It certainly would not be happening as part of an effort to improve this place or to reform this place or to add another layer of good planning and professionalism to this place.

It would be happening either solely because the government is sloppy, poorly prepared or even incompetent in how it manages its legislative agendas during session or because the government is putting its political interests 100 percent ahead of the democratic processes in this Legislature, ahead of being held accountable, ahead of ensuring adequate time, a reasonable amount of time, for the opposition to do its job, on behalf of British Columbians, to hold the government accountable.

[4:20 p.m.]

By cancelling an entire week of the fall legislative session, the incoming Premier and this government are circumventing democracy and stripping away accountability and transparency. It’s actually interesting that this is one of the first things that the new Premier will have done as he embarks on his new role.

I wish that I could say and my colleagues could say that we’re shocked, but we’re not. This is part of a clear pattern from this government, whether it comes to parliamentary procedures that they can use to their advantage or doing away with other procedures when it’s inconvenient for them or calling a snap election in the middle of a pandemic.

What is disconcerting is that this government seems to be dismantling layer after layer after layer of parliamentary reforms that were focused on reforming this place so that it works better and so that business here is conducted in as professional a manner as possible. I’m talking about a range of reforms, which were brought in during the 2000s by our former government, that were intended to take political manipulation out of this place.

Gone is the predictability of a parliamentary calendar that’s now subject to the whims of the government. Gone are fixed parliamentary hours, which are now subject to the whims of the government. Gone is the commitment to fixed election dates, which are now subject to the political calculations of the Premier.

We had a pandemic election. That was a violation of the fixed election date. Let’s hope that the incoming Premier respects the fixed election legislation and doesn’t follow the course of the former Premier.

Gone is the proper advance notice of legislation in time for the opposition to properly scrutinize and ask those tough questions.

There has been a slow but steady erosion of the norms related to the accountability practices of this place after only five years of an NDP government that has been systematically dismantling them.

When we were in government, during the spring session, regardless of who our Government House Leader was, we made a point of introducing all of the government’s legislation by the midpoint of that session. That was done so that the opposition had the time to determine how to best use its time.

If there was a landmark forestry bill or a major change to self-governance legislation or an environmental bill, the legislation would be tabled with an adequate amount of time for the opposition to properly scrutinize the legislation but to also properly manage its time and where the opposition wanted to put its resources. Time allocation was always a last resort.

When we were in government, we typically used fall sessions…. It’s inaccurate to suggest that there were more years without fall sessions than there were. It is also true that we did not have a fall session every single year. That is true. But we used the fall sessions to finish debating legislation predominantly that was left over from the spring.

Rarely did we use the fall sessions to introduce massive signature overhauls to policy in British Columbia. Occasionally, a new piece of legislation would be introduced, but that would only be done after giving the opposition a reasonable amount of notice so that the opposition could properly prepare to debate. The intent was always to move through all stages of a bill, not to impose time allocation.

We even added a couple of summer sessions that I’m aware of. These were additive to the session time that we had in the spring and the fall. I recall that one of those summer sessions was triggered by the need to bring LNG legislation here in front of the House.

[4:25 p.m.]

Times have changed. While British Columbians are trying to cope with multiple crises and they need more support than ever from government, we find ourselves in a situation where the NDP is reducing debate time, presumably, in part, again, because of disorganization on their part, but I think also, in part, to cater to the whims of their new boss, the incoming Premier. It’s wrong.

Where is the Premier, the incoming Premier? Again, the Premier’s chair was empty today, most notably during question period. Let’s be clear.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

T. Stone: The outgoing….

Mr. Speaker: Member. I’m sure the member knows that we are not here to identify who was here and who was not.

T. Stone: I appreciate the reminder, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s be clear. The outgoing Premier tendered his resignation over a week ago. Now, his resignation is effective upon the swearing in of a new Premier, and normally, as one Premier is on the way out, the next Premier is usually sworn in soon thereafter.

To put a finer point on this, the current Premier went and met with the Lieutenant-Governor, tendered his resignation. She accepted that, again, contingent on the new Premier then visiting her. The Lieutenant-Governor said: “Will you be willing to form a government?” The incoming Premier said: “Yes, I will.”

But instead of being sworn in soon thereafter, the incoming Premier decided that this would take place about three weeks later, against the backdrop of major, pressing issues confronting British Columbians — a collapsing health care system, people not feeling safe in their communities due to random, violent, prolific offender attacks, massive affordability challenges. The new Premier decided not to be sworn in until November 18 — again, fully three weeks after the outgoing Premier had tendered his resignation.

So November 18 is the big day. It’s a Friday. That’s the big day that the incoming Premier has chosen to be sworn in — the Friday of the entire week of session that this government has decided to shut down. He’s being sworn in on the 18th. Government is shutting down the Legislature from Monday the 14th to Thursday the 17th. What bearing on the legislative business in this House does a Premier that’s being sworn in on the Friday have for the four days prior to that Friday?

As unacceptable, even egregious, as we may feel it is for the new Premier to wait until November 18 to be sworn in as Premier, we fail to understand what the rational explanation is for shutting this place down for the four days preceding his swearing in.

The new Premier would not have to drag himself into this chamber and sit in the Premier’s chair and answer questions for question period. The incoming Premier, even though he is a member of this Legislature, would not be expected to show up in committee debate, sit in the Douglas Fir Room or the Birch Room. This new Premier would not be expected to show up for Monday morning statements or to give a two-minute statement. There are 86 other members of this place.

It’s hard not to look at this through a cynical lens. It’s hard not to look at this as anything other than a government that increasingly, bit by bit, is chipping away at the accountability mechanisms in this place. British Columbians want more accountability from government, not less. They expect us to be here and do our jobs.

To that point, I want to be crystal-clear that our caucus is ready and willing to sit for an additional week of time or, frankly, for as long as it takes to ensure that there is appropriate scrutiny on this very important legislation that is before the House, not to mention….

I don’t have any advance notice of this at this point, but with four days left in the parliamentary calendar, I think it would be unbelievable if we show up on that Monday of the final week of session, if there’s no additional time added at the end of it, if any net new legislation is introduced on top of what’s already needing to be canvassed.

[4:30 p.m.]

Again, I’ll end my comments on this note. We urge the government to reconsider this motion. We urge the government to not cancel these four days of session. We urge the government to step back and stop this continuous degrading of the accountability measures of this place. We urge the government to recommit itself to understanding that good government depends on an opposition being able to do its job. The Government House Leader should get this since he spent considerable time on this side of the House, as he has on that side.

British Columbians expect this government to respect fixed election dates, respect the need for a predictable parliamentary calendar and, importantly, respect the need for there to be accountability in government, including as related to its legislative agenda — proper notice of legislation, adequate time to debate legislation, scrutiny on said legislation at every stage in a bill’s life here in the Legislature.

Regrettably, this is not what’s happening today with this motion and with this government. We therefore urge the Government House Leader to reconsider and not proceed with this motion.

A. Olsen: I rise to speak to this motion that we scrub four days from the current legislative calendar and not be here for the third week of November.

I appreciate the comments that were brought forward by my colleague, the House Leader of the official opposition. I think much of what the House Leader highlighted are things that certainly we, in our caucus, have talked about as well. Certainly there are items that I’ve raised regularly over the last few sessions, particularly this parliament, as we see the current government, the B.C. NDP government, using time allocation and closure to limit the proper process and procedures of this House, as was quite rightly recognized.

The reality here is that this government and the legislation and the laws that are created in this House are made better by the work done by the opposition. That’s if this House is functioning properly. But when we see legislation being brought in at a late date, the exhaustive list that was mentioned of substantive legislation that’s unlikely to be able to get the appropriate levels of scrutiny, the reality that opening three houses is not in any way similar to having the ability for members of this place to actually hold government accountable through mechanisms like question period….

What the government is offering by saying, “We’re going to continue to open more and more houses,” is not a solution. Not only does the opening of a third House make it difficult for a two-member caucus…. That’s true. I and my colleague have significant concerns about that being floated as a legitimate way to work around this problem that the current government has created for itself.

It’s not just about the Third Party. It’s about the fact that opening a third House puts a substantive amount of pressure on all the members of this place, who should be able to be paying attention to all of the bills that are being debated. That should be our primary concern here — that as these bills go through the process, all 87 members are paying attention so that when we come in on a division to vote, we might have some sort of semblance of understanding of what actually is going on.

I recognize that the House is busy and that there are some times in which we have to lean on our colleagues to be able to inform us about where we’re at in a debate or what the amendment was or what clauses this is on, etc. There is an expectation that we should be able to work together like that.

[4:35 p.m.]

However, I think that there’s a more important expectation that the public has and that each of our constituents should have with each of their members of this House: that they’re able to actually pay attention and follow along with all the legislation that’s being debated in here.

By opening a second and a third House for debate of legislation, the government is ensuring that that’s not possible — not possible for the members in this House; not possible for our staff to be able to properly support us; not possible for the public to be able to continue to pay attention to all the important legislation, if they choose to make that a priority for them; and not possible for the media, who should, quite rightly, also be following along and scrutinizing the debate, the work of the members of the opposition but also the work of the ministers in their responses to the questions that come when the bills are being debated.

These are not small matters. These are processes and protocols that have evolved in this House over generations. Yes, government has the ability to be able to make these changes by moving a motion like we see here today and using their majority to be able to push these through, to pretend like the words from the Official Opposition House Leader and myself didn’t happen, an uncomfortable 45 minutes, and to then just get the work done that needs to be done to sidestep good public process.

Why not just get rid of the processes and the protocols of this place? Why not just remove the accountability and transparency mechanisms that the members of the official opposition, the members of the Third Party, the independent members of this House have? If this government is going to continue to demonstrate that they don’t have any respect for those democratic principles, if they’re going to continue to show disrespect for those processes and those protocols that have developed and evolved over time because of their usefulness to a well-functioning democratic institution, they should just get rid of them. They’re not necessary.

All we have to do is move a motion, use the majority, push it through. Two weeks off instead of one week off. Come back to a House of utter chaos. Members running around all over the place, wondering where we are, at what debate, when. Bells, potentially, ringing consistently. Meanwhile, a bill that is being debated clause by clause on the amendments to child welfare will be jammed into a corner room somewhere in this Legislature. Major amendments to the health professions, another room off in the corner.

The reality is that we are seeing this government use closure and time allocations on massive pieces of legislation. As the Opposition House Leader mentioned, many clauses of those bills never had the scrutiny that is required in order to be able to ensure that those clauses withstood the test — the test that we have to put them through on this side of the House, the test that British Columbians expect a well-functioning democratic institution is putting those legislative clauses through.

The description that was given mid-sentence, mid-question, waiting for an answer — close debate. Just because we can, just because we, for some reason, weren’t able to manage this House appropriately, and all the legislation.

It goes back, actually, to the spring session. If I had this thought earlier, I’d have gone through and counted the number of acts in this session that we’ve opened up more than once. I remember a time in this place when it was managed. You have your amendments. We’re not opening acts up more than once, unless absolutely necessary. Where is the requirement for ministers?

[4:40 p.m.]

We’re now debating, I think, our second Workers Compensation Act bill, our second transportation amending bill. Just opening the bill up, shutting it down. Opening it up and closing it. It’s just chaos. It’s a chaotic legislative agenda that doesn’t serve this institution. It doesn’t serve the civil service that is supporting this government. It doesn’t serve the opposition to be able to follow. Every time it opens and closes, I’m assuming that a bunch of regulations need to be created. Where are all of those pieces of legislation that we have opened and closed in their regulatory making process?

It’s sloppy, and it’s unacceptable — an unacceptable management of this House. There is no need for us to take the third week of November and shut down this Legislature and this Legislative Assembly. We’ve been operating in this place with the governing party in a leadership race.

We functioned well for the first three or four weeks of this session, under the current scenario. Now we have two Premiers — one going and one coming — and we could continue to function well. There was no need. The justification that was provided by the Government House Leader, fabricating a reason to do this, was not needed. Premiers realign their cabinets….

Mr. Speaker: Member, we are not going to use the word “fabricating.”

A. Olsen: I’m sorry. I will withdraw the use of the word “fabrication.”

Interjection.

A. Olsen: Manufacturing. I’ve got a thesaurus down at the end. That’s fantastic. Thank you. Count on the member for Abbotsford West to show up with his thesaurus this afternoon. Thank you so much for that and bringing some levity to this discussion.

What I was trying to suggest was that the Government House Leader came with a set of reasons for why we should accept this motion and not just wholly reject it, and those were that we’re having a change in Premier. Well, that wasn’t a surprise. That leadership race has been going on for months.

The new Premier might need to realign cabinet and executive council. That happens. There’s no requirement, actually, for the new incoming Premier, the Premier-designate, to do that in the third week of November. We have two more weeks. Not a surprise. All of that work could have been done at the end of this process.

What has been created here is an unnecessary burden on the democratic process, because what we have seen on an ongoing basis here is that the current government acts like this House serves them. They manipulate the amount of time that we have to debate legislation, as has been pointed out; the amount of opportunities that we have to scrutinize, to provide good advice and to provide good, positive amendments to be debated, some of which have been, as pointed out, accepted. Improving the bills has removed that….

The reality is that there is no need for us to get to November 18 to swear in this new Premier. That was a choice that was made, and the legislation that’s on the table….

I think about this. We celebrated, last Wednesday, the most progressive changes to child welfare in this province. We brought Indigenous Elders, leaders and youth onto the floor of the chamber. That’s a unique activity. Now, in my community, you don’t celebrate things until they’re done, but we did that, in advance, before the legislation was passed. Before the regulations came into force, we celebrated success.

[4:45 p.m.]

We could very well be getting to a situation next week where the Indigenous leaders and Elders that we invited onto this floor of the Legislature to celebrate something, a piece of work that this government was doing, could see that that bill that they were celebrating did not get put through the process that we agree, in this Legislative Assembly, is the appropriate one because the government chose closure, time allocation. It’s completely and totally inappropriate. It’s an erosion of this assembly. It’s an erosion of this democracy.

We should not accept this. The members of this House should not accept the ongoing erosion of these institutions, the use of these tools to limit the debate, to limit the ability of the opposition to hold government accountable, to limit the ability of the opposition to ask questions of our Premier. There was a lot made in that leadership race. There are good questions to be asked. There are answers to be given, but we’re not going to be given that opportunity to be able to do that.

Four days’ worth of questions and then a number of months, and then we’ll be back in the spring. We should have the opportunity, when this House is open, to be able to hold government accountable. That’s being taken away from us.

I went through a list of the people that are impacted by this decision. Yes, our caucus is going to be impacted. We’ll do our best. We do our best to make do with the situation that we have. There are a number of groups, a number of organizations that were planning to be here, during that week that this motion is impacting, that now have to completely change their calendars and their schedules because government has decided that they’re not going to meet that week.

Now, maybe some of the members will stick around and be able to join in those meetings that were scheduled, but the reality is that we’ve got a number of groups that were intending to be here — booking hotels, booking travel. It’s not just that we’re being an inconvenience to the members of this House — we do our work. We’re being an inconvenience to the public. To me, I just find that completely…. Especially when it’s unnecessary.

As was pointed out, the Premier-designate is being sworn in on the 18th of November, on Friday. We could still be here. In fact, I think we’re planning to still be here, to continue to be in the Legislative Assembly. I think we’re probably going to see a lot of members still here. This is where we were supposed to be.

When this idea was brought to me, I had an immediate negative response to it for all of these reasons. I had this sense that something like this was coming. I hadn’t quite figured out why it was that the government chose the route that they did with the swearing in of the new Premier — so many days.

When Christy Clark was sworn in, and it took 93 days…. I seem to remember Ms. Clark was not a member of this Legislative Assembly, so she couldn’t be here. To use that as a reason why she wasn’t here is a bit of a stretch. They had to call a by-election, then that by-election had to happen, and then she had to be sworn in as a member. So there was no way for her to be here.

The Premier-designate has been here for five years. He’s a highly effective member of the current cabinet. He sat just a couple of seats down, every day, from the Premier’s seat — not that far — and as the Attorney General, an incredibly high-ranking member of our government.

[4:50 p.m.]

To suggest that these are two synonymous situations and that they’re the same thing, I think does a disservice to reality. It’s important that the distinction be drawn out clearly here, so as to not confuse the public, because it’s not the same situation. We’re talking about an Attorney General who has worked with their colleagues for the last two years, since the 2020 election, and has a pretty good understanding of what each of the members in this place bring to the chamber and should be able to navigate a week, a couple of weeks.

It’s not like…. In fact, even in the leadership race, I think the Premier-designate said: “Just going to continue on with the previous Premier’s agenda.” So there were suggestions that, at least in the short term, not much is going to change.

I’m going to, I think, reiterate the comments that were made by the Opposition House Leader in asking the government to reconsider this motion. It’s unnecessary. It’s actually an affront to our democracy in many ways, as has been highlighted. I don’t think that this House should accept this motion in any way. I think that we should be here.

We need to…. Unless, of course, there’s a motion to suggest that Friday, November 18, become a statutory holiday, which is and would be a reason why we wouldn’t be in this House…. It’s the reason why we’re not going to be here next week, because when there is a statutory holiday, members remain in their communities to be able to participate in whatever that statutory day is. Next week we have, of course, as we are wearing the poppies, Remembrance Day. Members will be in their constituencies to take part in those activities.

But the following…. Unless we’re creating a new statutory holiday for the new Premier-designate, there is no reason for us to not be here that week, doing the work on these multiple pieces of legislation that are in front of us — substantive, as has been pointed out.

No debate yet on an energy bill that has, I think, substantial impacts on energy in this province. No debate, very limited…. Today is the first day of debate on substantive progressive amendments to the child welfare act that I think we should be committed to get through to the very end, to honour the celebratory tone and the invitation that we had to stand up people, to ask them to open and bless the work in a good way.

I think we need to make sure that, at the very least, if we’re going to use time allocation, we absolutely do not use time allocation on that bill. That would be, I think, an offence to the people that we asked to do that work in a good way.

I’ll just end with this. I just ask that this government reconsider, invite us back to the House when we’re supposed to be here as per the calendar. Let’s get to work on the legislation that is in front of us.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Mr. Speaker: I put the motion to the House. It reads: “That notwithstanding Standing Order 2 (2), when the House next adjourns, it stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday, November 21, 2022.”

[4:55 p.m. - 5:05 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

Mr. Speaker: Members, I’m advised that the Administrator is in the precinct. Please remain seated, and we will advise the members as soon as he’s available.

[5:10 p.m.]

His Honour the Administrator requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took his seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2022

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022

Municipal Affairs Statutes (Property Taxation) Amendment Act, 2022

Mortgage Services Act

Cannabis Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2022

B.C. Pavilion Corporation Act

Gaming Control Act

Food Delivery Service Fee Act

Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2022

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2022

In His Majesty’s name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these acts.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[5:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, I just want to clarify that the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill voted and indicated by raising her paper. She was voting in favour of the motion. I just want to make sure that it is recorded.

Thank you, Member.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), 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 November 21 at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:16 p.m.