Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call second reading for Bill 23, Anti-Racism Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 25, Haida Nation Recognition Amend­ment Act.

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

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — ANTI-RACISM ACT

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: We’re here with Bill 23, Anti-Racism Act.

T. Wat: Just to give some context to my continuing debate on this second reading of Bill 23…. As the MLA for Richmond North Centre and B.C. United shadow minister for multiculturalism, anti-racism initiatives, Arts and Culture, I rise in this House to continue discussing Bill 23, the 2024 Anti-Racism Act, a bill that is presented as aiming to address systemic racism across British Columbia, especially within Indigenous and racialized communities.

I speak to Bill 23 not only as a representative of my constituents and the people of British Columbia but also as an immigrant who has called this beautiful province home for close to 35 years. As a Chinese Canadian, I understand firsthand the deep-rooted nature of racism in our society. It is a reality that I and many others like me have faced throughout our lives, but it is a reality that I refuse to accept.

It is with deep concern and a heavy heart that I address Bill 23, presented by this NDP government. It is somewhat disappointing that this NDP government has tabled what they called a plan to make a plan — which, frankly, pro­vides little comfort to my community, other racialized communities, the Jewish community, the Islamic community, the Indigenous community and those British Columbians currently facing racism every day.

The B.C. United caucus has long and tirelessly advocated for a provincewide multilingual anti-racism hotline, a vital and safe platform for victims to report hate incidents and seek support. Despite a 2021 NDP promise to establish this anti-racism reporting hotline, unfortunately, it remains non-operational up till now.

The failure to deliver on a crucial commitment is simply unacceptable and is once again indicative of this NDP government’s lack of accountability. We must do better. The racialized community, the Islamic community, the Jewish community and the Indigenous community deserve better. Better is always, always possible.

[2:50 p.m.]

As an immigrant who has embraced British Columbia as my home, I’m deeply disappointed and disturbed by this NDP government’s lack of transparency, lack of responsiveness to public needs and lack of commitment to democratic principles. The people of this province deserve better — a government that listens, acts decisively and upholds the values of equality and justice for all. Regarding this bill, Bill 23, we have reservations. We need clarity and accountability in how this legislation will be implemented.

Now we’d like to spend some time talking about the key aspects of this bill.

The requirement for the government to develop a strategic approach for the provincial anti-racism action plan is commendable, but I do have deep reservations on the date of June 1, 2026. We need to ensure that this plan is implemented in a timely and speedy manner, not only well structured but also transparent and inclusive of the communities it aims to support. The plan must include clear targets, measurable indicators and regular progress updates to ensure it meets its objectives effectively.

The formation of a provincial committee on anti-racism, comprising experts and representatives from racialized communities, is a positive step. However, it is crucial that this committee operates with the highest standards of accountability and transparency. The code of conduct and conflict-of-interest guidelines must be strengthened to maintain integrity and public trust.

The bill outlines specific duties and actions to combat systemic racism against Indigenous peoples. These measures must be not just performative but translate into real, tangible improvements in their lives. Consultations and cooperation with Indigenous communities must be genuine and ongoing, rather than tokenistic or ad hoc.

While the bill proposes broad measures to address systemic racism, the actual application of these measures requires close monitoring. Training programs, recruitment strategies and community engagement efforts must be robust and continuously evaluated for their effectiveness.

Perhaps the most critical aspect of this legislation is its compliance and review mechanisms. The annual reports from public bodies and the minister, alongside an independent review every five years, are vital to ensure that the bill does not become another forgotten document but a living, effective tool in combatting racism.

The establishment of a grants program to support community initiatives is a promising addition. However, the criteria for grant allocation must be clear, fair and designed to truly empower those at the grassroots level.

As we move to the committee stage, B.C. United commits to a thorough examination of every single clause of Bill 23. We urge this NDP government to engage openly with all stakeholders and to be flexible in adapting the bill to meet the urgent needs of our communities much better.

[2:55 p.m.]

Currently, what we have before us is a plan to make a plan. As I have said time and time again, British Columbia deserves more, deserves stronger and immediate action and deserves results.

In conclusion, while we acknowledge the necessity of addressing systemic racism, Bill 23 falls far short of the urgent and timely action required to combat this pervasive issue. The B.C. United caucus remains steadfast in our commitment to advocating for real, meaningful change that ensures the safety and dignity of all British Columbians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this legislation. Let us move forward with a clear focus on creating a more just, equitable, inclusive and prosperous society for every single one, irrespective of your religion, your ethnicity, of where you come from, for every British Columbian.

S. Robinson: I’m pleased to take my place in the debate on Bill 23, the Anti-Racism Act. I’m also very pleased to be physically present in the House in order to participate in the debate. You see, Mr. Speaker, initially it was supposed to be debated at second reading last Tuesday, the first day of Passover, when typically the first couple of days of the holiday are non-work days for Jews as we celebrate our holiday.

But this bill…. It’s about anti-racism, and this bill that greatly affects the Jewish community, last Tuesday, it was put on the agenda for debate. The only way, on that day, that I was able to consider participating, while celebrating my holiday, was by Zoom. On my holiday, I sat in front of my computer in my home so that I could participate, because government put it on the agenda for that day. That, in and of itself, is an interesting commentary on how public bodies make decisions and the systemic racism that exists therein.

As it turns out, of course, second reading was pushed back, but the damage was done. It serves to remind us that the words of this bill don’t seem to quite match the actions of this government.

To be clear, I greatly value the intent of this legislation: holding public bodies to account in order to address systemic racism by collecting the data and requiring them to develop an action plan to address inequities that might exist. This is meaningful work, and it’s meaningful legislation. It’s about making us and our systems work better for people, especially people of colour, Indigenous people and marginalized and minority groups — groups of people perhaps who have experienced systemic racism, oftentimes for generations.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge all the folks who have come together to do this work over the past six or seven years. This has been quite an undertaking that brought community leaders from numerous ethnocultural and racial communities together to identify how to proceed with this considerable undertaking. It was not easy work. I want to thank all the community leaders who have contributed to the thinking and the framework of this legislation.

I’ve been paying particular attention to how and for whom this legislation is to be used, and I do have some concerns, some of which I’ll raise at committee stage. But here at second reading, it’s appropriate for me to speak to this legislation with broader strokes, more at the conceptual level.

I notice that the framing for understanding and identifying who is impacted by racism and how this legislation will be implemented is oriented towards racialized communities. In other words, people of colour, or people who don’t look white. I see throughout the document that the focus is almost exclusively on racialized communities.

I see this echoed in the comments of the Attorney General about how she thinks of this legislation. I quote from the CBC article. This is what she says: “The politicians who have come before her in the Legislature, who passed laws designed to hurt people because of the colour of their skin….”

[3:00 p.m.]

She then goes on to say: “The power that was wielded in that place, that was directed towards racialized people in this province, you just can’t even imagine the generations of pain and trauma and impact that that’s had.”

I agree with her. I have to say, as a non-racialized person who is part of a minority group and is now regularly attacked for being a Jew, I can vouch for the impact, the pain and the trauma that hate can have not just on one person but on an entire community.

Non-racialized communities, like communities of faith, also get impacted by government policies. I think of the Doukhobors, for example. The Doukhobors were just here and received an apology on behalf of all of government.

Muslim communities aren’t made up of exclusively racialized people. Neither are Jewish communities. We come in all colours. Yet we experience hate and experience government policies that can exclude, cause pain and trauma.

When I moved to British Columbia from Montreal in 1978, I was in junior high school. I know that Mr. Speaker wasn’t yet born. I’d gone to public school my entire life back in Montreal. I never experienced discrimination or exclusion as a result of government policy while I was living there. But here in B.C., I was shocked that the Lord’s Prayer was said every morning over the public address system while I was going to school in Richmond.

I didn’t know the words. It wasn’t my prayer. In order to accommodate, and I use air quotes, my “unique Jewish needs” and the needs of a Sikh classmate who was in my class at the time…. We were instructed to stand out in the hallway for the two to three minutes of the Lord’s Prayer so that we wouldn’t have to listen to it. However, it didn’t help that the public address system was also out in the hallway.

Singling us out as somehow different wasn’t seen as creating a problem. I can vouch for those of us who were singled out as different that it was very painful.

Now, this was a school board policy or a school policy. I don’t know which. I can certainly say that it excluded and traumatized children.

I think we need clarity about who this legislation is for. The government says in the bill that it will work with racialized communities on a go-forward basis. I happen to think that that’s a problem. How are communities that experience discrimination who are non-racialized participating in this process? Are they considered groups to be addressed?

Another problem that government has around this legislation is the fact that the organized Jewish community has very serious reservations about working with the current Parliamentary Secretary for Anti-Racism Initiatives. She has a long history of perceived antisemitic comments. The government’s response to those concerns has been to single out the Jewish community to work directly with the Attorney General while all the other communities work with the parliamentary secretary.

It sort of reminds me of my junior high days when I was sent out to the hallway while the Lord’s Prayer was being recited. This is not inclusion. It’s actually racism and discrimination.

I started my comments by highlighting the fact that this government saw fit to debate a bill on racism on a Jewish holiday, when the only openly identified practising Jew in this chamber would not be available to participate in second reading debate given her holiday.

Ignorance of the holiday, perhaps? Not likely. In fact, on Monday of last week, before sundown and the beginning of the holiday of Passover, the government put out Passover greetings to B.C.’s Jewish community, which is nearly 40,000 members strong here in British Columbia. In it, the government notes that the Jewish community has been experiencing a troubling time.

This is what the Premier had to say to the Jewish community on Monday night:

“This year, Passover comes at a painful time for many Jewish people. Just over six months ago, Hamas terrorists invaded Israeli communities and attacked innocent civilians in what was the deadliest act of violence against Jewish people since the Holocaust.

“Since the October 7 attack, we have seen a deeply troubling rise in antisemitism here in B.C. Our government condemns all forms of hate and is taking action to make sure our province is safe and welcoming for people of all faiths and backgrounds. This work includes” — and this is the list that the Premier listed — “making Holocaust education mandatory for all high school students, establishing an anti-hate community support fund, launching a racist incident helpline and supporting organizations that are doing anti-racism work.”

[3:05 p.m.]

It goes on to say:

“In these difficult times, we must stand together against all forms of hate to ensure B.C. remains a place where everyone can celebrate their culture and practise their religion with pride and without fear.

“I wish a peaceful Passover to all who are marking the occasion.”

I’m sure that the Speaker and everyone else who is listening to this can see some of the contradictions in those greetings and then what my experience was.

I do appreciate that the Premier and government acknowledged the pain the Jewish community is experiencing at this very fraught time. I appreciate the acknowledgment that the recent rise in antisemitism is very troubling. It’s troubling indeed.

In fact, last Monday, as I was preparing for a Passover Seder, a formal dinner — I was somewhere between making gefilte fish and setting up a formal dinner table for 19 people that were coming to my home — I decided I should check my work emails. As I scrolled through, I came across a particularly disturbing email from a constituent who had received a photo of antisemitic graffiti in the bus stop by Coquitlam city hall. The graffiti read “kill Jews,” accompanied by a swastika.

This is the third time in two months that this kind of antisemitism in my community has been brought to my attention. In the 30 years that I have made Coquitlam my home, I have never seen anything like what we are seeing today. Now the city of Coquitlam is spending upward of $5,000 a month cleaning up hateful antisemitic graffiti that continues to reappear on a weekly basis.

Last week I had a brief conversation with my local RCMP about this hateful antisemitic graffiti that keeps appearing in my community. And not just in my community. I know it is across all communities.

I was told by this RCMP officer that they would be happy to arrest these perpetrators. They know who they are, these perpetrators who spread hate intended to intimidate and terrorize Jews. However, the RCMP member said to me that the Crown isn’t interested in pressing charges. “The graffiti just washes off and doesn’t cause damage.”

Well, I can vouch for the damage it causes. Perhaps the bench or the wall or the bus stop can be hosed down. The pain that comes with seeing those markings can be just washed away. But the damage to one’s spirit is significant. As long as our public bodies don’t recognize and take hate in all its forms seriously, we are failing to keep our communities safe.

The Premier, in his note on Passover, provides a list of the ways his government is “taking action.” This is the same list that he has been using for five months to demonstrate government’s actions to fight the rise in antisemitism.

Yes, the funds for additional security are welcome. But what other community has to have extra police officers at community events in this moment, right here, right now? What other community has to hire security to escort speakers to venues right here, right now? What other community has to advise their children not to wear their school uniforms or their Jewish star in order to hide their Jewish identity because it is not safe right here, right now? What other community has to train community volunteers to help with security issues right here, right now?

What about the other actions that the Premier notes in his Passover message to the Jewish community? Well, the Premier, the House Leader and the Attorney General continually point to Holocaust education as part of their response to the dramatic rise in antisemitism. Well, that work was well underway years before the increase in Jew hatred started. So it’s not a direct response to the increase in hatred since October 7. Furthermore, how the heck will mandatory Holocaust education that won’t be mandatory until 2025 help those being terrorized today, right here, right now?

And supporting organizations that do anti-racism work — also part of the list? Well, government has always supported organizations in anti-racism work. This isn’t a new response to the increase in Jew hatred.

And that anti-racism hotline that the Premier refers to somehow as a response to the rise in antisemitism? Well, that was announced and promised back in April 2021, but it’s still not operational. That, too, is not at all in response to or effective in addressing the rise in racism here in the province, right here, right now.

[3:10 p.m.]

I just wish that the Premier would stop gaslighting the Jewish community here in British Columbia right here and right now. The only thing on the table from this government to address the rise in Jew hatred is a bit of money for security, hoping to keep the community quiet with dribs and drabs of money, so that they can take responsibility for keeping our community safe. That’s it: “Sit to.” There is no other action being taken to protect a community under siege. There is no plan.

In fact, the Attorney General said, in her words, as she introduced second reading…. I listened very closely. She said: “The establishment of the requirement for government to develop and publish an anti-racism action plan is for June 1, 2026.” That’s what this legislation is about. “This action plan will be developed in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples and through engagement with racialized communities. The action plan will include actions to address the harms caused by systemic racism specific to Indigenous people, Islamophobia and antisemitism.”

There are no real actions for government, at this point, to act on the dramatic rise in antisemitism today, right here and right now. I just wish the Premier would own up to it. Even this bill has no plan. It’s a bill that requires public bodies to develop a plan. Government isn’t even acting on what it wants other public bodies to act on. I have to tell you, this is literally crazy-making. It’s gaslighting and it’s crazy-making.

This week I read Rob Shaw’s article contrasting the leadership between the current Premier and the former Premier, John Horgan. It’s an interesting analysis. I encourage people to read it. It’s analysis about ownership and responsibility for decisions made.

Under Premier Horgan’s leadership, I was tasked, as a member of caucus and as a member of cabinet, as an openly identified Jew, who is well-connected to the Jewish community, to help government understand the needs of the community, to translate when needed, and to help facilitate a relationship with the community. In other words, I was tasked to be the Jew in the crew, bringing all that I am, bringing my relationships, my understanding, my history, my culture, to make sure the government is doing right by the community.

In fact, John Horgan used to say, when he would meet with the Jewish community, when he would meet with Holocaust survivors or he would go to synagogue on Kristallnacht…. He would always check in with me afterwards. Did I do okay? Was I a mensch? Mensch means “a good person with a good soul.” He wanted to do right by the community. It was important to him, as a human being and as a leader.

Under the current regime, the message to me has been: “Don’t be too Jewish.” That creates a problem for us. I was told I needed to leave a job I love because I was too Jewish. What’s more, as I think about it, and I think about the pain it’s caused, not just to me, but to my entire community…. They feel betrayed, let down, discouraged by the legislation that we have before us. How can you trust the government to do right by you when they don’t hear your cries for help?

I had said earlier in my remarks that I listened quite closely to what the Attorney General had to say. In her opening remarks, she said that this legislation is important because they are: “Confirming investment in programs and services to heal communities affected by racism.” It’s good. I think that is government’s job. Government’s job is to help heal. It’s to help bring communities together. It’s to help communities get over the hard parts.

I proposed to do just as the Attorney suggested in her remarks. I proposed to the Premier and to this government, before I left caucus, a program and an idea to heal two communities affected by racism.

[3:15 p.m.]

What was I told by the Premier’s office? I was told it’s too political. The political cost of doing that work in this moment, right here, right now, was too threatening to a re-election. That’s how I heard it. Doesn’t matter if communities are hurting. Doesn’t matter if they are feeling isolated, if they are feeling afraid. Now is not the time because we have an election in six months.

When the Government House Leader chooses to attack the member for Vancouver-Langara when he asks what government is doing to address the rise in antisemitism, and instead of answering the question, the Government House Leader chooses to attack and bring up the quick-win scandal, I say that this government is no different.

To date, the actions of the current government, this New Democrat government…. When dealing with antisemitism, whether it’s on campuses across our province or in our streets, the only thing — the only thing — the Premier has done is to wring his hands and say that he condemns these acts, condemns what people are saying. But he hasn’t actually done anything.

He hasn’t gone to visit synagogues, Jewish day schools. He hasn’t gone out to talk to Jewish community groups. Oh, I know he met with a rabbi. I know that finally, he and the Attorney General met with the special envoy on antisemitism. She started her job in November. The Attorney General got the file in November as well. But only in April did they met with her, only because people were saying: “You need to meet with them.”

When the Premier does speak, when he does speak out, he acts as if there’s nothing he and government can or should do. I was listening very carefully to his words. He regularly leaves the actions to university presidents or to the AMS leadership. He sort of pretends like he doesn’t have a role or that government doesn’t have a role in stemming a tide of hate, vitriol and violence directed toward a minority group.

There are six million British Columbians in this province. There are 40,000 Jews in this province. They are a minority group. We are left out of this legislation because it only talks about working with racialized people throughout the document. Jews are not racialized people. Now, most Jews are people of colour — most Jews in the world. There are almost 16 million Jews in the world. Most of them are darker-skinned. But here in British Columbia, that’s not the case, necessarily.

I think there are some serious problems with the legislation as it’s written. So I look forward to the committee stage of this bill.

I have many questions about how this bill will be implemented in many systems, like our public service, where I hear stories of employees of this public service being told that their Jewish star that they wear is offensive and should be removed. At a land acknowledgment, on lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people’s land, they also include a land acknowledgment that has to do with someplace far in the Middle East. That’s in our public service.

I’m interested in how this bill will be implemented in our public school system, where teachers in the Coquitlam school district — and, I know, other school districts as well — accuse Jews of apartheid, genocide and ethnic cleansing. You heard right. It was on the website in Coquitlam school district. I’ve received a letter from my school district teachers saying just that.

I’m keenly interested in how this legislation will be implemented, as well, in public post-secondary institutions, where, as we speak, mobs of students and faculty are using fear and intimidation that harm Jewish students, Jewish faculty and Jewish staff. Mr. Speaker, don’t for a second think that it’s just Jewish people that are affected by this. It affects everybody.

I’m also interested if government has any plan to ensure that government members will be taking antisemitism training.

[3:20 p.m.]

It’s really important that government understand the insidiousness of this hatred that appears and reappears and reappears at regular intervals throughout history. It’s a hatred that just won’t go away.

I wanted to take the Premier and the government at their word when they wished me and my family, Jewish British Columbians, a peaceful Passover. But if that was their intent, I would have thought they would truly recognize my holiday by perhaps waiting until I was back in the House before putting this bill on the agenda for the first day of Passover.

Given that there wasn’t even a consideration, I can only conclude that their greetings were simply performative, just like all the other things they talk about when dealing with the Jewish community and antisemitism. Simply performative.

Perhaps government ought to start with their own action plan before the legislation is even passed. That would be a good start. From my perspective, and I think I have the credibility to speak on behalf of the 40,000 Jewish British Columbians, the Premier and his caucus have “a lot of deep work to do.”

E. Ross: I don’t think I’ve ever talked about racism in any of my roles as a political leader in the last 20 years. And here I am talking about it in the B.C. Legislature in terms of the Anti-Racism Act that’s on the floor of the B.C. Legislature right now.

I understand that the act actually speaks to a lot of the racism in terms of minorities in Canada and B.C., but puts a focus on First Nations, which is good. But it’s hard to believe we’re having this conversation today. We’re proud to talk about Canada as a melting pot of culture and races and religions, but you can’t ignore what’s happening in our society today. It’s in our social media feeds and newspapers. It’s in the television reports, and it’s antisemitism.

It took me a while to get off the reserve in Kitimaat Village and to get a deep appreciation of what racism really meant in Canadian society. I don’t like to talk about my interest in global conflicts like war because you can’t be a fan of war.

If you look at the incidents and the politics that led up to war and how it affected regular people during these conflicts and then afterwards, you can’t help but think about the human condition. Antisemitism is one of the oldest forms of racism and discrimination that is still with us today. I find that very hard to believe. It’s ingrained, not just in Canada which we’re seeing right now on the streets, but all over the world.

Regardless of the conflict that’s happening in different parts of the world, us as Canadians have got to do better. We can’t allow history to repeat itself in Canada: a first world country who believes in equality, the Charter of Rights and the freedom to pursue your life without intimidation, racism or discrimination.

The most researched war I’ve looked into was World War II, and the seeds of that were planted during World War I. The leader that created World War II needed a scapegoat to get them over the top. And that scapegoat he chose? Jews.

[3:25 p.m.]

If you look back at how that all came to be, it was horrible, the propaganda he put out in regards to what a Jewish person was. He made horrible caricatures of Jewish people and branded them as a subspecies of human. That was pretty despicable. We can look back on that today and criticize and know for a fact that that was wrong.

But Canada is not innocent in that respect either. During those days, antisemitism was alive and well in Canada. Of course, there was a lot of discrimination and racism against many minorities, but it was really, really extreme in terms of what was happening with the Jewish people in Canada.

There was an anti-Jewish speech in the House of Commons that urged Canada to keep its gates shut to Jewish immigrants who were trying to flee from Germany during World War II. The House of Commons. Henry Ford agreed with some of this German sentiment toward Jews. In 1910, in Quebec, some of the audience attacked Jewish storekeepers and damaged their businesses. Four years later, the courts awarded the Jewish business owners minimal costs, but the onslaught continued. This is in Canada.

The worst of it was in 1933. One of the worst eruptions of ethnic and antisemitic violence in Canadian history occurred in Toronto with the Christie Pits riot. The riot was sparked by displays of swastikas to provoke the Jewish community. In Canada.

For Canadian Jews in the 1920s and 1930s, quotas and restrictions were a way of life. Many industries did not hire Jews. Educational institutions such as universities and professional schools discriminated against them. Jewish doctors could not get hospital appointments. There were no Jewish judges or Jewish lawyers.

I identify with this, because this is how Canada treated First Nations. First Nations didn’t have the vote. We weren’t allowed to hire lawyers. I understand. It was blatant for all minorities.

But if there is ever an example of a racism act or practice that we should all aspire to get rid of, it has got to be antisemitism. Just based on their religion, based on their race, based on whatever it is, we shouldn’t be allowing this. Canadians should understand their history. They should understand the history of the Holocaust. Nobody should be allowed to be put through this horrible experience.

Restrictive covenants on properties often prevented them from being sold to Jews. This clause, I identify with, because my dad used to joke about this. My dad went to residential school. He always joked about the idea that some bars in B.C. had a sign: “No dogs or Indians allowed.” Why he laughed is because they put dogs first.

Minorities are very resilient, very tough. They’re used to this type of behaviour. But that doesn’t make it right.

[3:30 p.m.]

Many clubs, resorts and beaches were barred to Jews. Signs warned: “No Jews or dogs allowed.” Is it any surprise that Canada had by far the worst record of any western or immigration country in providing sanctuary to the Jews of Europe in the 1930s and the 1940s?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Antisemitism goes back thousands of years, and I seriously doubt we’re going to eradicate it here today with the Anti-Racism Act that we’re talking about here today. But we’ve got to talk about the issues regarding what is happening to our Jewish brothers and sisters at their places of worship: graffiti, threats, obstruction.

I don’t need training on antisemitism or the Holocaust. I don’t need a program on racism. I seriously doubt any minority in B.C. needs any training to talk about the past in terms of how bad racism is — not just in Canada and the United States but all across the world. We don’t need that. Maybe the new generation does, but they’ve got that information at their fingertips, literally. Google is just a touch away with your phone.

Genocide is an extreme form of racism. It’s a global term. It’s a global issue. We haven’t been able to resolve that globally, but the worst example of that has been antisemitism. It’s one of the toughest topics that I think I’ll ever talk about in this Legislature, but we’ve got to talk about it. I don’t really care where you come from around the world. I don’t care, because we’re all Canadians. We should protect all Canadians, no matter where they came from.

To hear the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville talk about her plea to the Premier, talking about how to address antisemitism…. The reply was that the Premier said it’s too close to the election. That’s politics. That’s the kind of politics that was alive and well leading up to World War II. Probably the worst thing about it — for lack of a better term — was that the public didn’t speak up.

Leaders allowed the German leader to annex different countries, and they didn’t speak up. I get it. Europe didn’t want to go to war. Great. I get it. They were tired of war. They wanted to rebuild after World War I. I get it. But to single out a certain group of people and condemn them to death is really unspeakable.

I really hope that today’s generation understands the extent of what happened to a certain group of people. I certainly do. I can’t for a minute think what it must have been like, even though people have told me, to watch your family get murdered in front of you or taken away, stuck in a train, never to be seen again — I can’t imagine that — knowing full well they’re going to their death.

The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville begged the NDP government and the NDP Premier to do something. Now she’s begging 87 MLAs in this Legislature to do something, to speak up. She’s baring her soul to us, because, in my opinion, she feels isolated and alone — apart from the member for Vancouver-Langara, who’s trying to support her as much as he can. Another minority is trying to support an MLA that has Jewish ancestry and is Jewish.

[3:35 p.m.]

Canada is a great country if we live up to the principles it was founded on — equality. We’re not perfect, but we should basically be building towards that idea that we will one day live in a place free of discrimination and racism. It’s going to take a lot of work, and it’s going to take a lot of conversations just as hard and difficult as this one we’re having right now.

To see the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville pleading for this Legislature to understand where she’s coming from and not really get an adequate response is heartbreaking. She said it herself. Her colleagues in the NDP government broke her heart. I totally understand why. Any minority should understand why she felt heartbroken, because she thought people in this Legislature would stand by her no matter what.

Anybody can stand beside you through the good times; that’s easy. But when stuff really gets bad, you like to count your friends who are standing with you by your side. And she’s got nobody, apart from the member for Vancouver-Langara, who travelled with the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville to Israel, where they had to run away to the bomb shelters every time there was a warning. I’ve been invited to Israel this past week, and schedule-wise it just won’t work.

There was a two-minute statement made by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. This is her statement.

“The Jewish community around the world is celebrating Passover this week. It’s an eight-day holiday remembering and celebrating the Israelites’ release from slavery in Egypt in the 13th century BCE. It is the founding story, or the origin story, for the Jewish people.

“It’s a holiday that celebrates freedom — freedom from slavery, freedom from oppression. More importantly, it’s a holiday that acknowledges that none of us are free unless all of us are free.

“Every year we gather for Passover Seders, or orderly meals, where we eat special foods and read from the Haggadah” — excuse me if I’m not pronouncing all these words right — “the telling of the story of our exodus from Egypt.

“This year was a very hard year to celebrate this holiday, with over 130 Israeli hostages being held by Hamas — Israeli civilians who are sons, daughters, grandparents and even two babies.

“At our Seder, we acknowledge that the people in Gaza are also not yet free — free to live in peace and free from the oppressive Hamas regime, a terrorist organization committed to the annihilation of Israel and of the Jews. During our Seder, we also acknowledged others who are not yet free: the people of Ukraine, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran and so many other regimes that are hurting people.

“During my visit to Israel last week, as I sat with others visiting from British Columbia, we waited. We waited and waited for the hundreds of drones fired by the Iranian regime toward civilians in Israel. Listening for the siren….”

I apologize, but I didn’t bring the last half of that statement. But I’m sure it’s pretty clear what she’s talking about. I can’t even put into words what a Jewish person must be feeling out in the streets or in the campuses. People they normally would have talked to are shunning them.

I had felt isolated and alone in my previous job, but it wasn’t because of racism. It was about small-town politics, and we ended up in court. And it was the worst time of my life, because friends and family who I thought would stand with me no matter what, were agreeing to the things that were being said about me — that I was taking bribes, that I was corrupt.

[3:40 p.m.]

It took a court date to prove that we were innocent, and the people that accused us of all this stuff were found guilty of libel. But in that two-year period, the isolation and feeling alone just weighed heavily, not only on me but on the rest of the council. We had ten councillors and one Chief, and it weighed heavily on us every single day.

I played basketball with my basketball team from my village, and half the team that I was playing basketball with on the court wouldn’t talk to me or wouldn’t look at me. So I know what it’s like to think that the people beside you have your back no matter what.

It’s going to be hard. I understand how hard it is to have somebody’s back at the worst of times. I’ve always walked away from the idea that it’s not worth politics for me. If I’ve got to make a stand, and I don’t get elected, at least I can say I stood up for my principles, and I stood up for those people that needed support.

I don’t mind not getting elected just because I stood up for a principle. Right now I think the principle is symbolic — that we stand up beside the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville on behalf of the Jewish people and say: “Yes. We don’t agree with this.” We don’t agree with places of worship being littered with graffiti. We don’t agree with Jewish people being intimidated.

We’re actually going through a bill right now — the idea of the bubble zone bill that actually restricts protests from schools. Yet we’re not really talking about places of worship, not only with the Jewish community but the amount of Christian churches that have been burnt in Canada and in B.C. Why don’t we talk about it? Because we’re going to lose votes. It’s too close to an election.

I agree that what happened at residential schools was horrible, but two wrongs don’t make a right. In fact, a lot of the people that said that churches shouldn’t be burned were residential school survivors asking for a stop to this violence. We still haven’t seen the results of any investigations into these church burnings. We’ve got videos, but we’ve seen nothing.

It’s all fine and dandy for us to promote a racism act, but if we don’t back it up with action, it’s really just an empty political promise to do better. The Anti-Racism Act is an agreement to come up with an agreement by 2026. Regardless of if we vote on it or not, if it passes or not, we’re not going to see any results for another couple of years. We’re not going to see that final document.

This should represent what minorities have got to think about in Canada. Because who’s next? The people of India, the ancestors of people sitting in this audience, experienced racism when they came to Canada.

Who’s next? We’ve already talked about, in the last couple of years, people who come from China that experience racism in the streets. We haven’t provided any real action to address that. We commemorate it, but we don’t track down these people that are committing these racist acts.

[3:45 p.m.]

On Thursday, April 25, 2024, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville asked a question of the B.C. government. Her question was:

“On Monday, the Premier extended a Passover greeting, noting the dramatic rise in antisemitism. Yet his touted response is Holocaust education, antiracism funding and a racist incident hotline are all long-standing initiatives that have been years in the making.

“We have a community under attack, and the only thing that government can muster is financial help to hire additional security. These measures do not address the immediate and escalating threats facing the Jewish community today. And I know that the Premier and the Attorney General spoke yesterday with a special envoy for Holocaust remembrance and antisemitism — just yesterday.”

The question was: I want to know when the Premier will finally take the rise of antisemitism seriously, put a real, actual act plan together that specifically targets and combats antisemitism in our schools, in our post-secondary institutions and in the public service. The Premier didn’t answer. It was actually the House Leader for the NDP government. The answer was: “The member knows that we take racism very seriously. I’ve shared with the member, in the multiple times the member has raised questions around this, the list of things we’ve done.” Then they went on to provide all the money and funding that they contributed to the issue. They didn’t really answer the member’s question.

Right after that, the member for Vancouver-Langara asked a question to support the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, because he went to Israel as well. He asked:

“When the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville stands up in this House, as she did to remark upon the Passover statement yesterday in two-minute statements, you need to hear her. All members of this House need to hear her. She has taken the step to step off and resign from the cabinet. She has taken the step to resign from the government caucus, and she’s now on this side of the House asking some very important questions on behalf of not just the Jewish community but for all communities concerned about civil society.

“When we have any person in this province who has to live in fear from being targeted on our streets, in our communities, on university colleges and campuses for who they are…. And all we hear from this government, from this Premier and this Attorney General, who doesn’t have the common decency to stand up in this House to address the serious questions that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has been asking…. It has been over six months.”

There’s a bit of chatter going on now, so he’s got to take a break.

“The fact that the Premier and Attorney General have now reached out to the special envoy to deal with antisemitism in Canada…. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has been speaking with that special envoy on a weekly basis since November, and that member had been leading the charge to address antisemitism on university and college campuses with other Ministers of Education across Canada.”

We have a community under attack, and all the government can muster is financial help to hire additional security from that attack. The Premier’s dismissive approach to evidence of antisemitism with his government and caucus, as called on…. And he’s told to ask his question.

I don’t know what more can be said. We can’t just keep on going like the way we’re going and just use political answers for this. We can’t condone this, not only just as Canadians but in deep acknowledgment of the history, not just with the Jewish people but in terms of genocide and racism around the world. I, for one, do not want to see history repeat itself.

Where is this going to lead? If we don’t address this, if we don’t target it directly, where does this lead? I don’t wish this on any race. I don’t wish this on people from France, Germany, Africa, China, and I definitely don’t want it on First Nations.

[3:50 p.m.]

If there’s ever an example of how MLAs should stand up and condemn antisemitism, it’s now. We’re at a critical stage. If we don’t, we’re just repeating history. Our silence on this is deafening.

I didn’t know what I was going to speak about in terms of the Anti-Racism Act, but every time I open up my phone, it’s there in terms of what’s happening to the Jewish community. It was there, just like it was there when they were talking about the racism against Chinese people in Vancouver. It was there. Mainly, the racism towards Chinese people was because of the home-buying scandal. Chinese people were complaining that they were being accosted and threatened.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

R. Parmar: Good afternoon to everyone. It truly is a privilege, any opportunity I get, to be able to stand in this House, but particularly to be able to speak to this very important piece of legislation, the Anti-Racism Act.

I want to thank my colleague and friend the Attorney General and the entire team for all of their work over the course of a number of years to be able to bring forward this historic piece of legislation.

I haven’t spent much time in this House. I always, when I walk into this building, am really thankful for the opportunity that the people of my community have given me, not only to walk into this House and to be able to sit in this spot at my desk, but also the ability to be able to represent them each and every day in this House. That’s something I remind myself each and every day.

It truly is a privilege to be able to be the MLA for an incredible constituency, an incredibly diverse constituency, and a growing constituency. It’s something that I remind myself that I can’t ever take for granted.

I was thinking about the day in which the Attorney introduced this piece of legislation. I remember getting emotional sitting in this House, looking up into the gallery and seeing so many people that I’ve had the opportunity of knowing for a number of years who have been fighting racism in their various sectors, in their employment, in their communities, in schools, you name it. People that I’ve known over the course of, it seems like, a lifetime.

But also so many other people that I hold in the highest of regards, who I look up to as mentors, who have done so much, who have been pioneers in our respective communities in the work that they’ve been doing to break barriers and to ensure that our communities can be inclusive.

For me, the Anti-Racism Act, in particular…. As I thought about walking into this House, I thought about the fact that for a number of years previously, there was a time when a person like me, who looked like me, a person of colour, couldn’t walk into the Legislature, couldn’t be an MLA. I thought of Moe Sihota, who is the former MLA for much of the area that I now have the opportunity and privilege to represent, and the barriers that he had to face as the first South Asian MLA in Canada, let alone British Columbia.

I often think about the times, even as a staffer here, prior to being an MLA, reminding myself and my colleagues how much of a privilege it is to be able to be in this place, because there was a time when our ancestors and our friends and family couldn’t walk into this Legislature.

We often talk about this being the people’s House, and for a time this wasn’t the people’s House. I want to talk a bit about the Anti-Racism Act in that relation.

[3:55 p.m.]

As I thought about the Anti-Racism Act, as I saw the people in the gallery and as the Attorney read out during her first reading speech, it really reminded me the power that we all have as legislators. We all come in here during question period and have fierce debates, but the power that we have as individual MLAs to vote.

Again, I haven’t been here very long, but on that day, a day that I will never forget, I truly understood the value and the role that I have as an MLA and the power that I have to say aye and push forward on behalf of my constituents my vote in favour of first reading for the Anti-Racism Act.

I was chatting with the member for Richmond-Queensborough about racism in relation to me in particular, because I know that much of the legislation and much of the debate and discussion is based off of what British Columbians have shared with the Attorney General, with the Parliamentary Secretary for Anti-Racism efforts, and all legislators, all MLAs, over the course of this work. It’s so important that we all reflect on our own personal stories and the stories that have been shared.

I often think about the struggles that my parents, and my grandmother in particular, faced when they immigrated here. Often when they faced actions of racism, there was a desire just to brush it off and just to fit in.

I often think about the challenges that even I faced growing up in Langford, a community predominantly Caucasian at the time — it wasn’t the diverse community it is today — being the only, it felt like, brown boy in elementary school and how there were selected comments that were made. It was my intention and my goal back in elementary school and middle school and even much of high school to just fit in and not to celebrate my culture, my beliefs, my traditions.

I often think about the kara that I wear and how my grandmother gave that to me, and how in elementary school and middle school, out of fear of people seeing it, I would just hide it underneath my clothes. Everyone has a story as it relates to racism, and it’s so important that through this work and through subsequent debate and discussion, and after this legislation has passed, we continue to hear those stories.

I had just, as we return to the Legislature this week, spent the last week visiting many post-secondary campuses and talking to, in particular, international students who have faced considerable racism over the course of the last number of years, but in particular right now with what we are seeing from the federal government in terms of them cracking down on immigration and how they are feeling it in their communities.

A lot of the emotion that I am feeling today is also the emotion that I am feeling from the conversations that I had with people in Kelowna. In particular, I want to acknowledge someone who I’ve gotten the chance to know in my new role as the Parliamentary Secretary for International Credentials, Mohini Singh, a councillor from Kelowna, who is just doing incredible work and being such a strong voice and advocate for international students, especially those that have been intimidated and those who have unfortunately been attacked.

I’m not going to speak for very long, but I want to touch on the importance of the Anti-Racism Act as it relates to the work that the Attorney General has done. Firstly, in order for this legislation to be developed, we really needed to open our doors and our minds and our hearts to British Columbians. I want to acknowledge so many people who took time out of their busy schedules to be able to ensure that they could participate in this engagement opportunity.

I think of the Bangladesh community cultural society in the south Island here and the work that they did by receiving a grant and holding a number of sessions to be able to collect feedback that led to the introduction of this legislation. I know the Bangladesh community cultural society is just one of hundreds of societies across British Columbia that received grants and held their own community engagement sessions to be able to ensure that legislators and those who are developing this legislation had the best data possible to be able to ensure that what we were bringing forward was our best intentions.

[4:00 p.m.]

Developing and introducing this anti-racism legislation is so important because it was also developed and co-developed with Indigenous peoples through the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

I think it’s important to know that this legislation alone won’t end racism. It requires all of us in this House to stand up against hate, to stand up against the extremes in politics, to the Trump-style politics that we’re seeing in our communities, and to stand up for people from all walks of life.

I feel in my core that the work that our government is doing by introducing this very important piece of legislation, holding ourselves accountable as a government, holding our government bodies accountable is a really important step in that direction of making sure that we are striving towards ending racism. That is going to be a lifelong journey for this province, for this country and for this world.

I want to acknowledge, as I mentioned earlier, the people that have done incredible work on this legislation. When I think of that day when the Attorney introduced first reading, I remember looking up and seeing Sukhi Sandhu, someone who I hold in very high regard, who has been a champion for anti-racism efforts, I would argue, probably for most of his life, certainly in sport. He has been an international leader and someone that governments have called upon to be able to ask for advice.

I remember seeing my friend Amir Bajehkian, who I first met in this chamber, to talk about the importance of our roles as young people getting involved in politics when we participated in Model Parliament. But to see his voice reflected in the voice of Iranians that he represented through consultations in this bill was so important, as well as Daljit Gill-Badesha and so many other people.

This legislation, again, is only possible because of the hard work of so many British Columbians from all walks of life who had the opportunity to be able to participate in the engagement, and it’s what has led to the introduction of this bill.

I will just end, Madam Speaker, by saying that it brings me great pride to be able to stand in second reading and share with you and the members of this House that I proudly support this legislation. The introduction of this bill reminded me, once again, how important my voice is as an MLA on behalf of my constituents. I hope that I can remember that day and carry that day for the rest of my life. I recommit myself to the work that I need to do, and all MLAs should do, to fight racism in our community.

I’m looking forward to the continued debate and discussion during second reading and committee stage and, hopefully, coming to a point very soon when this legislation is passed and we can, again, work towards a more safe, inclusive world, where everyone can feel who they are.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the Anti-Racism Act.

E. Sturko: I, too, rise to discuss Bill 23, the 2024 Anti-Racism Act, a bill that is presented as aiming to address systemic racism across British Columbia, especially within Indigenous and racialized communities. We know, as we’ve discussed many times in this House, that instances of racism and acts of hatred based on prejudice are increasing in British Columbia.

Many people know that I’m a former police officer, and I worked across Canada but also in Surrey. It was my last posting. And now I’m very proud to represent South Surrey here in the B.C. Legislature.

During my time as a police officer, I witnessed many hate-motivated crimes, some of the most disturbing and egregious hate-motivated crimes against racialized people, LGBT, hate against women. I think to some of those incidents where I saw people who were victims of assault. They had had their turbans knocked off. People with their little girls having their hijabs pulled off. Assaults. Swastikas painted on synagogues. It was really disturbing.

[4:05 p.m.]

I am happy to see efforts being made, of course, to address racism and hate in our province. One of the things I’m concerned about with this bill, is that it doesn’t have any deterrence. It has grants, which I think are a good idea, to help collect information and to come up with ideas to identify systemic racism. But when we see the news, or when I was a police officer, or even now I’m a private citizen and a Member of the Legislative Assembly, we see overt acts of hate. We know what they are. We see the assaults. What we need is a deterrence to these behaviours.

The Attorney General had introduced a directive to Crown counsel, I believe it was in the fall, to recognize the Criminal Code does have provisions for hate-motivated crime and for hate crimes. But it wasn’t a directive to state that it should always be considered in the public interest that we will prosecute these types of occurrences.

I think it was the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville that talked about a recent incident of a swastika being painted on a synagogue, and then it coming back without a charge approval because they said: “Well, you know, it didn’t hurt anyone because the spray paint could be washed off.”

I want to bring the House back to another study that was done by this government. It is related in that it was a study to talk about chronic repeat offending. It was the government’s LePard-Butler report on chronic repeat offending. I’ve brought it up as an example before. What it found was that, in many instances, where there was no consequence, there was an emboldening of behaviour.

We need to have working groups, of course. We need to identify racism that is both done by the person and by systems, based on historical prejudices. But when they are identified, especially when we’re talking about criminal acts that are motivated by hate, it needs to be considered in British Columbia within the public interest for us to seek prosecutions by the B.C. prosecution service, to go after people to prosecute them, to try these cases in Provincial Court, to ensure that we are creating a deterrence for people who would do this behaviour.

We see it a lot. Actually, there are many things right now that we’re dealing with in British Columbia where the lack of consequences, the lack of actual deterrence, the lack of ability to follow through with things in our court system create a situation where people simply misbehave because they know they can get away with it. There’s no reason that they’re being given not to do so.

You know, we cannot rely, unfortunately, on the goodness of people’s hearts just to stop doing it because we’re telling them it’s the wrong thing to do. People, unfortunately, sometimes do need a consequence. They do need a deterrence to help curb disturbing and problematic behaviour.

Whether it’s antisemitism, including allegations in the Premier’s office and in his government, Islamophobia, anti-Asian hate or the disproportionate barriers that racialized and Indigenous communities face, there are serious concerns that have to be addressed head-on.

It is heartening to know that there will be grant money, going forward, for groups, as the member across the way spoke of, in the Bangladeshi community and in other communities, to help do the important work of identifying systemic barriers for people’s participation in communities, to identify biases that prevent people from being able to achieve equity within our province and to have access equally to services that they are entitled to.

But it’s really hard to solve a problem that you haven’t identified, and to identify a problem, you have to investigate it.

I can think back to many times when this Premier and this government were asked specifically why they wouldn’t investigate racism and acts of antisemitism within their own government.

[4:10 p.m.]

They failed, at every opportunity to go and investigate within the government, the public service and, indeed, within the Premier’s own caucus allegations of antisemitism.

I find it disturbing and somewhat performative to then come forward with legislation, in Bill 23, the 2024 Anti-Racism Act, looking to root out racism and to solve this problem in B.C. without first looking within. I guess you’ll have to excuse, maybe, the skepticism that I feel, and the genuine concern, when we have a government that’s so obviously and so blatantly unwilling to look at itself, to look itself in the mirror, at its own actions of antisemitism.

B.C. United does recognize, though, the importance of addressing racism and advancing a B.C. where everyone is treated equally and fairly without prejudice. Of course, we can get behind the establishment of a comprehensive provincial anti-racism action plan and the formation of a provincial committee on racism and a guide to implement these efforts. But it’s simply not enough.

We need a directive that will instruct our prosecution services that when there are hate-motivated crimes, they are considered in the public interest. Again, I just want to…. I think I’m making it clear, but I really want to emphasize that it’s deterrence that will actually help us turn the corner on some of these disturbing behaviours that we have seen in our province.

The NDP has introduced what they call a plan to make a plan, which, frankly, provides little solace to people who are facing, right now, racism daily. In times of a 700 percent rise in anti-Asian sentiment and similar increases in other forms of racial hostility, it’s clear that immediate actionable steps are required, not a prolonged phase of planning that delays meaningful change.

We can’t afford to be stuck in analysis paralysis. We do need to have grants. We do need to have programs for people to come and identify where the barriers are. But there are things that we actually can see quite obviously happening now.

I mentioned it earlier: incidents where people have had turbans knocked off, hijabs grabbed, swastikas painted. These are things happening now. We don’t need a committee to tell us that there is a problem with racism. We need action and to make sure that people who commit these acts are held accountable for what they’ve done.

The B.C. United caucus has long advocated for a provincewide, multilingual anti-racism hotline, providing a safe platform for victims to report hate incidents and to seek support. But despite a 2021 NDP promise to establish this anti-racism reporting hotline, it remains non-operational. We have to do better. And what will happen if people call the hotline and report incidents of racism? What is the plan for the consequence? What is going to be the deterrence to these types of activities?

Regarding this bill, I do have some reservations. I do believe that there is need for clarity and accountability of how this legislation is going to be implemented.

Some of the key aspects of this bill include a provincial anti-racism action plan and the requirement for government to develop a strategic approach by June 1, 2026. Here we are in May now of 2024, and they are going to develop their strategic approach more than two years from now. Two years from now on a problem that we know exists today. A problem where people are suffering as a result of a rise in hate crimes, hate-motivated incidents and assaults, hate propaganda.

That’s happening today, not two years from now. I hope not two years from now. It’s hard to imagine that we’re going to make a lot of progress when it’s going to take two years to even develop a strategic approach.

[4:15 p.m.]

We need to ensure this plan is not only well structured but also transparent and inclusive of the communities that it supports to aim. The plan must include clear targets, measurable indicators and regular progress updates to ensure it meets its needs objectively.

Provincial committee on anti-racism. The formation of a committee comprising of experts and representatives from racialized communities. It’s a positive step, but it’s crucial that this committee operates with the highest standards of accountability and transparency. Code of conduct and conflict of interest guides must be stringent to maintain integrity and public trust.

Specific measures for Indigenous people. They’re outlined in this bill with specific duties and actions to combat systemic racism against Indigenous peoples. This is important, but these measures must not be just performative. They have to translate into real, tangible improvements in people’s lives. Consultations and cooperation with Indigenous communities must be genuine and ongoing, rather than tokenistic or ad hoc.

This bill will propose broad measures to address systemic racism, but the actual application of these measures requires close monitoring, training programs, recruitment strategies, and community engagement efforts must be robust and continuously evaluated for their effectiveness.

Compliance and accountability. Perhaps the most critical aspects of this legislation are its compliance and review mechanisms. The annual reports from public bodies and the minister, alongside independent review every five years, are vital to ensure that this bill doesn’t become another forgotten document, but a living, effective tool combatting racism.

Grant programs and the establishment of grants to support community initiatives are promising additions, but the criteria for grant allocation must be clear, fair and designed to truly empower those at the grassroots level.

As we move to the committee stage, B.C. United caucus remains committed to a thorough examination of every clause of Bill 23. We urge the government to engage openly with stakeholders. We urge them to be flexible in adapting the bill to meet the urgent needs of our communities better. Currently what we have before us is, of course, as I said, a plan to make a plan. British Columbia deserves more, deserves results, deserves action.

We need to ensure that we’re not just identifying things that we can see today and re-identifying problems. We have seen, on the news, assaults motivated by hate against Asian communities. We have seen attacks. We have seen all kinds of things in the news. It’s absolutely disturbing. As we’re going through and making this effort to make sure that community groups have the opportunity to talk about their experiences, right now, in British Columbia…. That is important.

But what really is missing here, in B.C. right now, is the political will to direct action, to hold people accountable when they commit hate-motivated crimes. Regardless of the scope of seriousness of an assault, or the site or the size of graffiti, given the scale of the rise of hate-motivated incidents in British Columbia, it should be considered in this province’s public interest to prosecute and to hold those accountable, to have their day in court, to explain themselves before all British Columbians why they would engage in such hurtful behaviour.

It’s only through deterrence and holding people accountable for bad behaviour that we’ll turn the corner on this. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this legislation. Let’s move forward collectively with a clear focus on creating a more just and equitable society for everyone here in British Columbia.

[4:20 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers to the bill, the question is second reading of Bill 23, the Anti-Racism Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Bailey: I move the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23, Anti-Racism Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for con­sideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Bailey: Hon. Chair, we will call the next bill, second reading of Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act.

May I request a ten-minute recess?

Deputy Speaker: We will be in recess for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: All right, Members. Let’s call this committee back to session. We are here with second reading.

BILL 21 — LEGAL PROFESSIONS ACT

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

I think most members of this House are aware that hiring a lawyer is unaffordable for most people in British Columbia. While legal aid helps our lowest-income citizens, we must also think about our missing middle: the middle classes who make up the vast majority of British Columbians.

In addition, we have known for a long time that Indigenous people are disproportionately negatively impacted by the justice system. Indigenous people and other disadvantaged groups face barriers accessing legal services, as well as barriers to become a legal professional.

Also, in 2021, the Law Society commissioned an independent governance expert, Harry Cayton, to provide a review of its governance structure. Mr. Cayton found that the legal framework within which the Law Society operates is not fit for a modern regulatory body and that it hampers the Law Society’s ventures in fulfilling their responsibilities.

This bill is to change the status quo. Many other jurisdictions across North America have moved to modernize legal regulation through creative solutions designed to increase access to justice and improve affordability. Ontario, for example, began regulated licensed paralegals over 15 years ago.

[4:35 p.m.]

This bill plays a vital role by putting British Columbia where it should be, as a leader in the broader movement for more equitable and affordable access to justice. The bill introduces legislation that will create a new legal regulator, empowered to increase access to legal services for all British Columbians. The new regulator will also further the goals of reconciliation and the Declaration Act by giving a strong voice to Indigenous peoples within the new regulator.

The new regulator, called the Legal Professions British Columbia, will replace and amalgamate the Law Society and the Society of Notaries Public. This single regulator will have a clear mandate to regulate the professions in the public’s interest, not in the best interest of the profession it regulates.

To ensure improved access to justice, the new regulator will be required to consider several important guiding principles in the course of its duties, including facilitating access to legal services, advancing reconciliation and removing barriers to the practice of law for those who are currently underrepresented in the practice of law. The regulator will oversee lawyers, notaries and new categories of legal service providers — regulated paralegals.

In addition, the new regulator will have the ability to grant licences on an individual basis to those who are qualified to provide particular legal services. In the future, the new regulator will be empowered to propose new categories of legal professionals, to meet the rapidly changing needs of our society.

The government’s intention is to make it easier and more affordable for the public to access legal services. The new regulator will have every tool available to change the way legal services are available to the public, in accordance with public need. The increased options for a career as a legal professional will also increase equitable participation in legal professions by members of all British Columbia’s diverse communities.

Regulated paralegals will have the ability to provide specific legal services directly to the public without the supervision of a lawyer. A working group is being established to determine what services regulated paralegals will be able to provide. With an increasing number of regulated paralegals in coming years, affordable access to legal services will improve.

Lawyers, as independent members of the bar, have always played an important role in upholding our liberal democracy. It is of vital importance that lawyers continue to be able to provide legal service, legal advice and representation to their clients without fear of interference by the state that could undermine their duty of commitment to their clients’ causes. This is an essential principle of our democracy and a pillar of our constitution.

This bill has been carefully crafted to ensure that none of the legislative modernizations impact in any way on the independence of lawyers in their ability to fearlessly represent their clients.

How a professional regulator is governed is, of course, an important issue. Lawyers and notaries both have a long history of self-regulation. The new regulator will continue the self-regulating tradition, with a board consisting of a strong majority of both elected and appointed legal professionals. Out of 17 directors on the board, only three will be appointed by government. A majority of nine lawyer directors is required by the legislation, along with three notaries and two regulated paralegals.

In addition to being self-regulating in its governance, the new regulator will be independent from government operationally. A CEO is responsible for the administration of the regulator, pursuant to statutory powers and duties. The bill contains no provisions that give government influence over the operations of the new regulator.

In addition, the bill introduces an independent statutory tribunal, which is designed to be independent from both the government and the new regulator. The potential for conflicts of interest identified in the Cayton report has been eliminated. Clear lines are drawn between the regulator and the tribunal, ensuring that licensees faced with discipline or incompetence allegations receive a fair and impartial hearing. In accordance with the principle of self-regulation, a majority of the tribunal members will be legal professionals. Hearings will be before one’s peers.

It is with great pride that I say that this bill introduces an Indigenous council as part of the governance structure of the new regulator, one of the very first of its kind in a B.C. statute. Our ministry has worked very hard with our Indigenous partners in a spirit of collaboration and reconciliation to ensure that Indigenous peoples have a strong voice in how legal professions service the public in our province, including, very importantly, Indigenous peoples.

[4:40 p.m.]

The new regulator will be positioned to adapt to the rapidly changing world, a streamlined, modern regulator empowered with the tools needed to work towards ensuring that multiple options for quality legal services are available to the majority of the public who currently have little or no help for their legal problems. The bill gives flexibility to both government and the regulator to add to the scope of practice of regulated paralegals and notaries without the need for statutory change.

Finally, this bill also introduces immediate changes to the Legal Profession Act and the Notaries Act to allow the Law Society to begin issuing individualized licences and to expand notary scope of practice in order to improve access to legal services, pending the establishment of the new regulator.

With that, hon. Speaker, I want to thank you and all members of this House, and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the continued debate today on second reading of the bill.

M. Lee: I rise to speak on behalf of the B.C. United official opposition as the designated speaker for Bill 21.

I just had to leave the committee discussion on Bill 25, and I would say that there are a number of important pieces of legislation that we’ve seen come in the last remaining weeks that we have in this Legislative Assembly, the ten days that we have left.

I wasn’t able to speak to Bill 23, the anti-racism bill, as the Attorney General critic when the Attorney General, of course, has introduced that bill. Of course, as the Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation critic, I’m not able to continue, at least for the next two hours, on a very important bill relating to title recognition for the Haida Nation. But I do appreciate this opportunity to speak to the bill.

I heard from the Attorney General, and there seems to be a large disconnect between the recognition of how independence of the legal profession and self-regulation of the legal profession is to continue. This is the primary concern of the B.C. United official opposition as to Bill 21.

It does fit the pattern of what we’ve seen from this government, which is significant government overreach. It’s a dangerous pattern. It risks the politicization of another professional body. This body is important, like the others.

As I’ve said publicly, lawyers and our court system are there to protect fairness and justice in our province. I know our Premier, when he was Attorney General, seemed to be quite challenged with that, even though, like this Attorney General, they are charged to be the chief legal officer of our province, to provide the understanding and appreciation to the Premier at the time — Premier John Horgan; now this Premier, who has been the former Attorney General of the province.

I spent about 2½ years, in my capacity as the Attorney General critic, debating with the Premier when he was Attorney General about the inherent conflict he had as the Attorney General and the minister responsible for ICBC, changing the rules of court and evidence in ways that were constitutionally challenged and that, ultimately, the Attorney General and this province were defeated on.

We know that as we stand here on Bill 21, this government has been put on notice by the Law Society, the Canadian Bar Association, the Trial Lawyers Association and even the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the organization that the Premier was formerly involved with, about the challenges to this bill in terms of undermining the independence of the legal profession and the concerns that that would have when we’re talking about the legal profession from whom lawyers are selected to serve on the bench, to serve in our courts, to protect the rule of law.

[4:45 p.m.]

Even here on second reading, hearing the current Attorney General speak on behalf of the government about how this bill addresses independence and self-regulation for lawyers, we clearly have a disagreement about that. It’s not just the Leader of the Official Opposition or myself as the Attorney General critic, but it is the associations of lawyers, the 14,000 lawyers in our province, who have been speaking to government about the importance of this bill and how it does undermine the independence of lawyers and our legal profession by eliminating self-regulation.

I’ll speak more to that in a moment, but just at the outset of my remarks, I want to say to the notaries that operate in our province, we are the only other province other than Quebec that has a special, separate act for notaries. This bill is taking the step, as notaries will recognize, to bring about a single regulator to advance the expansion of scope of practice for notaries, also licensed paralegals as well.

I’ll talk about that in a moment or later, but I do want to address the notaries, because I do know that some of you have commented on my posts or my statements. You’ve contacted members of our opposition caucus.

To be very clear, even as acknowledged in the statement that I put out last Thursday on behalf of the B.C. United official opposition, we recognize the importance of expanded scope of practice for paralegals, licensed registered paralegals, notaries, and even the importance of the work that’s been done with the First Nations Justice Council. I will hopefully understand that work by committee stage on this bill, schedule permitting.

That’s important work, and there are important elements to this bill. Our concern, though, is certainly not in opposition to those elements of this bill. Even the legal associations that we’re speaking to, certainly in terms of expanded scope of practice for paralegals as well as notaries, they understand the importance of that as well.

This has been something that’s been discussed for many, many years. I do remember the discussions that I’ve had with notaries and the bodies that represent notaries from the time I was first Attorney General critic, between 2017 and 2020. I’ve had more current discussions with the leadership of bodies that represent notaries in our province as this Bill 21 was tabled by this government.

I hope that notaries, as they understand our concerns, as I will spell out again in second reading here, hopefully will understand our concerns about the legal profession and our court system and the rule of law in our province.

Certainly, the bill itself has many detailed provisions — 317 clauses. I look forward to committee stage to review those clauses in detail with the Attorney General.

We know that when it came to the last example by this government to regulate the Health Professions and Occupations Act, Bill 36, that the member for Prince George–​Valemount, the shadow minister of Health, did not have the opportunity to complete the review of that bill, that we only got a third through that bill. I joined her for many of the Indigenous relations and reconciliation components of the bill in terms of Indigenous peoples, the systemic racism that needed to be addressed by virtue of that bill.

[4:50 p.m.]

I recognize that, hopefully, as we get through this bill, there will be an opportunity to review the full 317 clauses of this bill.

I would say again to the current Attorney General, with respect, that I certainly would like to understand the role that she’s playing in the crafting of this bill, even as she explains her view, on behalf of government, as to how this bill addresses independence and self-regulation. Her statements seem to run quite counter not just to what the lawyers and their legal associations are saying on their behalf but decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, principles that have been put out by the United Nations.

The Attorney General, in her comments just now, referred to the modernization of the legal profession, which is the subject matter of this bill, the work that has been done — including in Ontario, which we do recognize did go to a single regulator — in respect of lawyers and licensed paralegals. But that didn’t take away self-regulation by lawyers. It didn’t eliminate the ability of lawyers to vote for the majority of the members on the regulatory board that governs them.

There’s no need, in terms of many of the measures in respect of expanded scope of practice for paralegals and notaries and, even, to put in place an Indigenous council, to take away self-regulation through ensuring that lawyers can continue to elect the majority of members on the regulatory board. In fact, it’s been said, certainly in Canada if not the Commonwealth…. This will actually be the first move by any Commonwealth government or provincial government in Canada, certainly, to do this — to take away self-regulation, the ability of lawyers to elect a majority on the board that represents them.

At the outset of this bill debate on second reading, it’s important that we understand what this government has brought forward with less than two and a half weeks left in this legislative session, while we are debating another very important bill, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act. This is the reason why the official opposition for the B.C. United have called for another pause on this bill too.

We called for a pause on the Haida one not because of the Haida but because of the template that the Premier says it will be for First Nations. It’s a fundamental change. It’s a new form of title agreement or arrangement. Not a treaty, not a land claim agreement.

Here this is a fundamental change that we’ve not seen anywhere else in Canada or in the Commonwealth. I have seen a lot from this Premier, when he was the Attorney General and even as the Premier, in terms of the number of times where this Premier and former Attorney General has been challenged by the courts and the number of times that the government has been on the losing end of constitutional challenges. This government continues to insist, under what has been termed as and what I refer to as the Premier being the most activist Attorney General this province has ever seen….

Bill 21 now, with the Premier being the Premier, is just that final piece. It may well be his final piece beyond Bill 25, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act.

[4:55 p.m.]

Why is this important? Because it continues this fundamental centralization of regulation of professionals in our province. We saw that with engineers in 2018, dealing with professional reliance.

I know, as someone who practised law for 20 years working with mining companies, the importance of 43-101 reports to determine the economics as well as the mineral deposits reserve and resources for a mining project and that engineers play a very important role in that determination. We’ve seen an overarching body, a superintendent, being put on top of the existing regulatory process that engineers had.

We’ve seen the self-regulation, in 2022, as I mentioned earlier, of the six government-appointed colleges for the health care professions and the elimination of elected positions that had existed under the former system and that had insured professional independence from government control.

Mr. Speaker, as you well will remember, that Bill 36 that passed, the Health Professions and Occupations Act, was highly controversial at the time it was passed. We certainly opposed that legislation. It didn’t have the proper debate, and now we see the results of that with the crisis with our health care system.

We know, as well, that just a number of weeks ago the government and this Premier took a step back on Bill 12, the health care cost recovery act. That is a piece of legislation that continued former NDP governments of this province, first around cigarettes, which was determined not to be constitutional…. Another NDP government brought back legislation, which was not deemed not to be unconstitutional. Then we had the regulation of opioids, which the Premier did bring when he was Attorney General.

Bill 12 was a piece of legislation which was broad and wide-sweeping, ill-defined. Certainly, I had the opportunity to speak at length on that bill. But it’s an example that there is fundamental change going on of a nature that is challenging so much of what is necessary in a free and democratic society in our province.

Then we’re talking about business associations, all 24 plus, coming together to call on this government to say, “Look, we’re very concerned about the expanse, the broad nature of the products and services, the lack of causation tests” — the risks associated that this government was bringing forward to put on businesses for their products and services to recover health costs. It was poorly defined. This government understood that. Finally, they heard.

But like in Bill 21 — actually, more than just in Bill 21…. At least in this case, in Bill 21 — and we certainly will have that discussion at committee — there were some representatives of some legal associations, as I understand it. Not that I would fully understand this, because they’re under non-disclosure agreements, but I’ve been told by them that they’re under a non-disclosure agreement.

After the bill was introduced, there’s been further ability to have these discussions, which is the reason why organizations representing lawyers in this province have come out to make the statements they’ve made, very publicly.

Of course, what needs to be recognized is the lack of consultation, lack of engagement — that there hasn’t been broad consultation and engagement about what is a fundamental change to our legal system in our province.

[5:00 p.m.]

That certainly was the case in Bill 12. There weren’t even NDAs, as far as I know, on that one. There was not any indication of where this government was coming from, in terms of the broad, sweeping nature of that bill.

There is a pattern here. There is a pattern under this government that has continued to want to centralize government control, government overreach. If you isolate on engineers, health professionals and now lawyers under this bill….

The reason why this is a concern — recognizing that those bills have already passed, but we’re dealing with this one now — when we talk about this being the last bastion, who else but lawyers? Including, in the Haida decision in 2004, who was acting on behalf of the Haida Nation to take on the government of the day around forestry tenures? Who was doing that? When you look at the importance of the legal profession and lawyers who take on government for whatever grievance, dispute they might have….

Certainly, we saw it with the Kits Coalition — just off Broadway at West 8th and Arbutus — when they brought forth concerns about the city of Vancouver’s lack of public process and accountability and transparency around that B.C. Housing project, which is still in some dispute. This government brought forward legislation to quash that, in the face of their challenge through the courts.

This government, time and time again, has demonstrated a failure to respect the rule of law in our province and the system that we have to hold governments, of any stripe, accountable.

When we talk about the concern on Bill 21, it is a bill that will weaken the independence of lawyers, certainly, and enable government to have more control over the legal system. In doing so, it eliminates what is another very important check and balance against any government. I would have thought that the Attorney General of our province, as the chief legal officer for our province, would understand that.

I think it’s important to understand — beyond what she has said to me in response to my questions — her appreciation about the importance of lawyers, to preserve their independence, during Attorney General estimates. This was at a time when Bill 21 had not yet been introduced. I had my five hours, the time that I was allotted, in early March. I think it was March 2 or 3. We had that discussion on the record. She said that she understood the importance of independence. I read out one of the important quotes that go right to that.

I would say, at the outset, the 1982 decision…. The year that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force, Justice Estey, of the Supreme Court of Canada, articulated the essential importance of an independent bar. Justice Estey said:

“The independence of the bar from the state, in all its pervasive manifestations, is one of the hallmarks of a free society. Consequently, regulation of these members of the law profession by the state must, so far as by human ingenuity it can be so designed, be free from state interference, in the political sense, with the delivery of services to the individual citizens in the state, particularly in the fields of public and criminal law.

“The public interest in a free society knows no area more sensitive than the independence, impartiality and availability to the general public of the members of the bar and, through those members, legal advice and services generally.”

[5:05 p.m.]

This is the statement that I read out to the Attorney General during Attorney General estimates, and the Attorney General acknowledged and agreed with that statement. I gather, in hearing the Attorney General speak on second reading, that although she understands the quote and understands the importance of it as articulated, the gap is in how the independence of the bar is preserved, or fails to be preserved, under Bill 21.

The Attorney General, as the chief legal officer of this province, recognizes that that is a duty and responsibility to conduct herself and her ministry in a way that understands the importance of the rule of law — to advise the executive council and the Premier, within cabinet confidentiality, of legislation as it comes through this House. When we’re talking about eliminating self-regulation, undermining the independence of lawyers, going against what the Supreme Court of Canada said was fundamental to a free and democratic society, somehow, there’s a gap.

Somehow, there is a broadening of view that’s undermining this very important guidance provided by the Supreme Court of Canada, which has been applied in subsequent court decisions since the year 1982, when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into place in our country.

It’s very clear, including in the view of the Law Society, that Bill 21, in its current form, as tabled by the Attorney General, fails to meet the standard that I just read out. Certainly, this failure “has broad public…implications well beyond the legal profession and beyond regulatory governance structures.” That is a statement made by the Law Society in their April 9, 2024, release.

When we talk about the composition of the board, we know that under clause 8 of this bill, only five of the 17-member board will be elected by and from among lawyers. That is something that needs to be clearly understood, by government and by those who are concerned about the position of the official opposition, on what they hear from the Law Society and other associations of lawyers in our province: that that is a clear change.

Today, in the current composition of the board of the Law Society, which is the regulatory board of lawyers in this province, there is a 32-member board; 25 members of this board are elected directly by lawyers in this province. That’s 25 out of 32. That is a majority. Five out of 17 is not a majority.

This is, fundamentally, the point. Either government is being not transparent in the way it’s presenting this bill, in a way that is not accurate…. The main point here is that self-regulation needs to have a majority of freely elected lawyers on its regulatory board.

[5:10 p.m.]

The Attorney General, in her remarks, again, has said: “Well, look. Out of 17 members on this regulatory board, nine are lawyers.” Five are elected directly by lawyers. Four are appointed. They’re not elected — not by lawyers, at least.

These four lawyers are appointed by the board itself. That’s under section 8(e): “5 directors appointed, after a merit-based process, by a majority of the other directors holding office, of whom 4 must be lawyers, one must be a notary public who is not also a lawyer, and at least one must be an Indigenous person.” One of the five individuals could be an Indigenous lawyer or could be an Indigenous person who is a notary public.

But the point is that those other five directors, four of whom must be lawyers, are not elected directly by and from and among lawyers. That, fundamentally, is the concern. In order to have self-regulation, even if the Attorney General says self-regulation somehow is preserved, there is a significant disagreement about that.

The opportunity the Law Society has when they run elections of benchers to serve on the Law Society board, former colleagues of mine at the law firm I practised with…. There is a diversity of representation across the province, regionally, so we’re talking, first, of geographic representation of 14,000 lawyers across this province.

We know, of course, that in this chamber we are a body of 87 members directly elected to represent the constituents in the electoral districts that we are elected to represent. But we also know from this chamber the vast diversity of viewpoints and needs of our constituencies and how a representative elected body that represents the broad diversity of geography and communities in our province has a lot of strength to it when we bring across our different points of view.

That is what the Law Society does. It has regional elected lawyers on a geographic basis. They run elections. I’ve certainly received my ballot in the old days for the Vancouver district to vote for nominees to represent a Vancouver-based lawyer like myself on the Law Society board. This is fundamentally an important aspect of ensuring that we continue to have an independent legal system.

I will say that I believe many of us, if not all of us, would have received, as well, from this organization called the Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, their brief. This is a 16-page briefing paper dated April 17, 2024. They echo the concerns relating to the abolishment of the Law Society as a self-governing professional membership association of all lawyers who elect their governance body. They run through and acknowledge that the concern is that only five members of the 17-member regulatory board, to be called Legal Professions B.C., will be directly elected by lawyers themselves.

[5:15 p.m.]

We know the concern is that what Bill 21 does, as they’ve cited, is remove from the profession of lawyers in B.C. their right to association for the purpose of self-governance and self-regulation, and that the lawyers’ right to freedom of association would be limited to joining voluntary bar associations that have no governance or regulatory authority.

With only five elected representatives on the 17-member board, lawyers will be unable to protect the public’s rights to representation by lawyers or the right of lawyers to fully discharge professional duties free from regulatory or other interference by the state or other external actors. This is on paragraph 21 on page 7 of their briefing paper.

It does raise another example that we’ve seen under this government. When we’re talking about lawyers’ right to freedom of association, to have the ability to join an association for the purpose of self-governance and self-regulation…. That is what this organization, Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, is underlining: that that is an important right. That’s an important right in our country: the freedom of association.

We know, of course, under this government and under this Attorney General and this Premier, that when it came to the government’s own lawyers, when they wanted the right to have freedom of association to form a union, the government said: “No, you have to belong to this other union.” This government quashed the right of the government’s own lawyers to have some degree of choice, the choice to have freedom of association.

This is part of the pattern. The pattern continues. The pattern started in 2017, at least in an elected capacity. I know that we’ve talked quite a bit about the Premier’s past with the Pivot Legal Society and his work to write the book on how to sue the police.

I’m as focused, though, I would say, on his elected role as the Attorney General of our province, as the Premier of our province and the fact that there is a clear pattern. Now that we’re in the dying days of this legislative session for this government, with less than ten days to go. We have 9½ days to go, or nine days and an hour and ten minutes or something like that. This is the life of this Legislature.

We are seeing what is the culmination of the challenge to our free and democratic society by taking away the last bastion to protect citizens of our province, to hold our government accountable, beyond what any official opposition does in this province, in this chamber.

Certainly we saw that from my time as the Attorney General critic when the Premier, as the Attorney General, trampled all over the rights of injured British Columbians. I know that the Premier and this government have a response to that, but it’s more than just about rates. It’s about rights and about protecting the rights of injured British Columbians. We know that when this government and this Premier as Attorney General took away those rights, that was just another example. So it’s a shrinking ability to challenge any government of this land, particularly this government. There is a pattern.

[5:20 p.m.]

When the Law Society writes a letter to the Attorney General on April 26, they spell out that we, the benchers of the Law Society, “are certain that the development of Bill 21 has failed to meet reasonable expectations that the public and legal professions be significantly involved in commenting and advising on the substance of the bill.”

“We are also certain that the passage of Bill 21” — if it passes, those are my words — “will disrupt and diminish the effectiveness of legal regulation in this province. We are likewise certain that Bill 21 fails to protect the public’s interest in having access to independent legal professions governed by an independent regulator which is not constrained by unnecessary government direction and intrusion.”

Here again we have, from the current regulatory body of lawyers, the elected members of the current Law Society, including the president, Jeevyn Dhaliwal, KC, all signing this letter, expressing their concern and asking this government to pause on this process and to consult more broadly, as the CBA has called upon them. That is an important consideration.

The Canadian Bar Association has also issued their statement. They’ve been part of other joint statements, but this is one statement, on April 10. They’re concerned about the lack of transparency around Bill 21 in terms of what this government has brought forward.

The fact that the Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia has been advocating for government transparency since the idea of a single regulator was first introduced in 2022…. As I understand it, there has been limited engagement and consultation. The CBA of British Columbia is undertaking, now that the bill is out in the open…. As indicated in their letter directly to the Attorney General on April 19, they’ve spelled out that they have now organized, as of April 19, which is — what? — just over ten or 12 days ago, 12 upcoming engagement sessions, the first of which followed the release of the details outlined in Bill 21.

With over 130 pages of legislation in the bill, including 317 clauses, as indicated, the CBA of British Columbia is asking for all lawyers to understand and have the opportunity to understand and consider the legislation while they’re providing the services they’re required to provide to their clients and support the administration of justice.

Again, another voice, another representative body of lawyers in our province is requesting this government not to proceed to pass the legislation until it receives responses about the details of the legislation from the affected parties, including the members of the Canadian Bar Association.

In writing letters, they’ve chosen to use bold face as opposed to uppercase, all caps. But they’ve certainly highlighted to the Attorney General, if she or her team have any challenges understanding the key points of what is only a one-page letter…. It very clearly sets out that, given the significance of the extensive changes, there needs to be time. There needs to be a broader consultation. The affected parties need to be engaged with.

I would say that this is…. For a bill of this nature, which is so wide-sweeping in impact not just to lawyers but to British Columbians that rely on lawyers to advocate for them…. Government should pause this bill in the way that we’ve called upon them as well.

[5:25 p.m.]

To be clear, the Leader of the Official Opposition and myself, as the Attorney General critic on behalf of the B.C. United official opposition, do call on this government, as I put in my statement as well, issued last week, to pause this bill. The concerns around the independence and taking away self-regulation are just too fundamentally important for this bill to proceed in its current form. The lack of consultation that the CBA has highlighted in their previous release, increases the risk…. I would say here…. This is a point that the Attorney General addressed.

Again, we do need to understand how marginalized communities, communities that have historically faced inequity — Indigenous and racialized lawyers, ethnocultural community–based lawyers, as well as LGBTQ2S+ members of society who have been historically facing inequity in the legal profession…. We need to have their voices heard.

In the absence of that level of consultation, the broader level of consultation, lifting the NDAs that this government has acted upon in a very secretive, non-transparent way with every single bill that they’ve brought forward in this House…. On this bill, certainly, the Attorney General has a responsibility as the chief legal officer to ensure that that broader consultation occurs.

The Attorney General has a different role, a higher duty and standard of responsibility to this province in the role that she plays. I would urge the Attorney General and her ministry team to reflect on that as we continue to debate Bill 21 on second reading.

Coming back, though, to the importance of or the concern around regulatory or other interference by state or external actors, as it was termed by Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, or the point the Law Society of British Columbia made in their letter of April 26 about the independent regulator not being constrained by unnecessary government direction and intrusion….

Of course, when we’re talking about lawyers acting on behalf of citizens of British Columbia, whether it’s a group of citizens that are challenging decisions made by the government of B.C. that affect their rights — their property rights; their rights to their community, to keep safe in their community; the location of certain government facilities in their community, concerns around that…. When we’re talking about the concerns around motor vehicle accidents, complex injuries, the expansion of the minor injury definition, even though the Premier had promised and had committed to brain injury– and complex injury–type bodies that he would not expand the definition….

These are the areas where we need to ensure that lawyers have the ability, and free of government interference, to properly assert the rights and represent the rights of British Columbians in the court system. When we’re talking about a body of 17 directors, only five of whom are elected directly by lawyers, we have the vulnerability, let’s say, in the system that’s being created here on the way the board will work.

We know that in the decision-making that they would have, we’ve talked about the decrease in regional representation. But in terms of the way the board will actually operate itself, even for something as simple as quorum requirements on this board, you could have a board that operates without ensuring even participation by those elected directors. We will get into those issues.

[5:30 p.m.]

Section 17(3) of Bill 21 states that a quorum on the board is only 12 directors, which means that the board could get a quorum, out of 17 directors, if there are none of the five elected lawyers present. That means the board can continue to operate and function without even those five elected directors — not to mention, of course, as I’ve been saying, they don’t even represent a majority of the 17-member board.

I would say, as well, when we talk about lawyers and the reliance that the Attorney General is placing on nine out of 17 lawyers, when you look at the four directors to be appointed who are lawyers to fill out the remaining five directorships on the 17-member board…. If you look at clause 28(2)(b), the board itself — which, again, does not consist of a majority of elected lawyers, elected from lawyers themselves — can make rules establishing the process for the “screening of candidates in the election of directors.”

So again, this board, which does not have a majority of elected lawyers, will establish the process for screening candidates in the election of directors. They’re controlling who can be appointed to this board in terms of, presumably…. I mean, we will get into this in debate on committee stage. What is this process of screening?

This process of screening is designed by a board that has at least specified three directors appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. We have three members directly appointed by government who will have an influence on the way that this screening process is designed. That’s the concern. This is just another example to go beyond the fundamental concern that there are only five out of 17 members of the board that will be elected by lawyers themselves.

I would also point out, as another example that we would pursue at committee stage, clause 211 of Bill 21, which provides, under general regulation-making authority by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, that there’s further ability for government to make different regulations for different persons but also for different classes. Certainly, before that, in 211(3)(c), to establish and define classes of persons for the purpose of this act….

The question is: will that particular section of the bill, 211, give the government the ability to create as many new categories of legal professionals as they want by simple order-in-council, without any public debate? This is just another example of what this government is giving itself power to do in the area of legal professions.

I will say that we know that when we’re talking about the importance of access to justice — certainly, the Premier is a lawyer, and the Attorney General is a lawyer, as is myself — that, hopefully, at some level, there’s an understanding of the importance of the fundamentals of what I’ve been addressing in my second reading speech to date.

[5:35 p.m.]

But what we are seeing, what Bill 21 represents, is certainly fewer elected members, a minority. We’re seeing more political control. We’re seeing government-appointed insiders onto the board, the regulatory board. We’re seeing the kind of interference that the Lawyers Rights Watch of Canada had warned against. That’s the reason why they’re concerned about this bill. And that in the absence…. Let me say this before I say that in the absence.

When the Attorney General is talking about the modernization of the legal profession and legal systems in our province, as is stated here, the first and foremost focus of any government must be, certainly…. I would have thought, having given so much support to adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act 4½ years ago in this chamber and the good work that continues, which is necessary, by First Nations, with any government through the election cycles, that we will see — in terms of implementing what is set out in UNDRIP, in the ways that have been confirmed by the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation — that when this government recognizes UNDRIP, certainly what it recognizes is basic international human rights law and standards.

I didn’t have the opportunity, of course, to refer to another international standard in the Bill 23 debate, but I hope to, schedule-permitting, join other colleagues — the member for Richmond North Centre as the shadow minister for anti-racism, multiculturalism, for the B.C. United official opposition caucus. We need to ensure that we are recognizing the fight against antisemitism.

Here is another international standard that needs to be addressed. That is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition. But that is a different bill, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Yes, I was just going to say let’s stick to Bill 21.

M. Lee: I hope I will have the opportunity to speak to that. This is the only opportunity I had to make mention of that, even though I missed that opportunity because I was in the Haida, Bill 25.

I think that what we will see, though, in this bill, and in the words of the Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, which is a body here in Canada that reviews and works with many bodies, internationally, to ensure that the UN basic principles, as interpreted by experts, including the special procedures on the UN Human Rights Council… In the experience….

Paragraph 25 of their brief: “Authoritarian governments hamper effective opposition to repressive measures by creating laws that violate the independence of judges and lawyers. Laws that create non-independent regulatory bodies, together with the rules made by those bodies, are often misused to facilitate unwarranted vilification, discipline, suspensions, disbarments or judicial harassment of lawyers or the legal profession.”

I would invite all members of this chamber to review this briefing paper at paragraph 25 on page 7. That’s a very important point that this Lawyers Rights Watch Canada body is making. It goes to the heart of why it’s important to maintain an independent regulatory body for lawyers so that they aren’t under the kind of ideological interference, the threat and fear of political retribution that we’ve pointed out in our statement. This is the reason why the independence of lawyers through a self-regulatory body is fundamental.

[5:40 p.m.]

Again, the pattern. We know we live in a free and democratic state in Canada and this province, but the pattern of the authoritarian type of legislation that’s coming forward, which is fundamentally changing the rule of law in our province, is very, very concerning.

Bill 21 is the last example that this Premier is bringing forward. It’s the last threat to the rule of law, to the checks and balances in our province.

I will refer to the international standards that Lawyers Rights Watch Canada is pointing out. The preamble of the UN basic principles confirms: “Professional associations of lawyers have a vital role to play in upholding professional standards and ethics, protecting their members from persecution and improper restrictions and infringements, providing legal services to all in need of them and cooperating with governmental and other institutions in furthering the ends of justice and public interest.”

I’m going to come back to the term “public interest.” That has a particular lack of definition and application through the course of Bill 21. I will just circle that to remind myself to do that.

I think, in terms of UN basic principle 24…. It also stipulates: “Lawyers shall be entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests, promote their continuing education and training, and protect their professional integrity. The executive body of the professional associations shall be elected by its members and shall exercise its functions without external interference.”

These are cited from the UN basic principles. This is the international body of law and standards that you would think the province of British Columbia, this Premier, this Attorney General, would want to adhere to.

As I say, this government has demonstrated the recognition of other international standards — basic human rights standards, the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Why wouldn’t this government understand and recognize the importance of this basic standard as expressed under UN basic principle 24?

We know that the interests that are referred to as “their interests” in UN basic principle 24 refer to…. Even in the introductory words of the Attorney General, which are, I understand, retail in nature…. They’re meant to explain to the public why this government is bringing forward this legislation. It speaks to what the Attorney General referred to as not just those who can’t afford and need access to legal aid, meaning they can’t afford legal services so they need to go to organizations like Access Pro Bono, which was established by the Law Society of British Columbia in the 2000 period.

It’s a good example of the kind of organization that is needed to support access to justice for many British Columbians, those in particular that can’t afford legal services and that need to get the kind of free legal information that I provided, even as a law student at UVic law school, back in the day here in Victoria.

When you have student legal information clinics, SLIC, as it was called…. That’s my recollection at UVic. I certainly was participating, like so many law students. When you have LSLAP at UBC law school, including in Chinatown in Vancouver…. You have not just law students but, in this case, law students who are under supervision by practitioners of the law. Lawyers are giving of their time.

[5:45 p.m.]

Access Pro Bono has been a real furtherance of the efforts of members of the bar to provide their time, their expertise, on a pro bono basis, to help give access to legal advice to British Columbians. The legal guidance that they need to deal with some of the common issues that they might be dealing with, whether it’s with a landlord, with their spouse, with their business, with a dispute, with a neighbour and, obviously, other very concerning disputes that we need legal advice and guidance on.

The Attorney General made it sound, again, even in her choice of words, on second reading, having heard them…. There’s a certain indication that somehow lawyers need to be questioned in a way that suggests that they don’t have professional obligations. They do. Lawyers have a code of ethics, professional conduct rules and regulations. Lawyers are true officers of the court, of our legal system.

I know, continually, the pattern of verbiage, language use, positioning legislation that this government, particularly this Premier, has brought forward from when we saw his time as the Attorney General to now. Clearly, his fingerprints are all over Bill 21. It’s quite clear. They were all over Bill 12 in the broad expanse of the health care cost recovery act.

The significance of the fundamental nature of change that our Legislative Assembly…. We have not seen, in my seven years in this chamber, other than UNDRIP, other than the proportional representation referendum….

He was the Attorney General at the time. We know, in terms of his office and how that referendum was conducted…. There are serious questions about that. I was expressing concern about how the details would be worked out later, after people voted. There were just so many ways that that referendum was flawed, by the way this government brought it forward under the Attorney General’s responsibility and leadership.

Back to Bill 21. This is the challenge. When we see the lack of recognition for the importance and the recognition that the legal professionals themselves are professionals…. They have ethics and responsibilities that are in many ways necessary to not be interfered with and questioned and threatened by ideological viewpoints of any government, whatever political stripe is in power at the time. There should not be that level of interference that this bill, this regulatory structure on lawyers, exposes and creates.

When I’m referring to the use of the term “their interests” in UN basic principle 24, parts of which I read out…. “Their interests,” again, refers to the professional interest of lawyers to ensure the fundamental purpose of the legal profession is upheld. To uphold “adequate protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms to which all persons are entitled, be they economic, social and cultural, or civil and political, requires that all persons have effective access to legal services provided by an independent legal profession.”

I am taking the opportunity to continue, at length, to share with the Legislative Assembly why it is so important to maintain the independence of lawyers through a self-regulated regulatory body and why Bill 21 is so wrong in that particular area.

[5:50 p.m.]

These quotes that I’ve read out into the record, relating to the UN basic principle 24, are important as a reference point for the international standards that are important for a free and democratic society, not an authoritarian state where government controls all. Again, this is what we saw, the pattern that this government has done, as the Leader of the Official Opposition has talked about at length, including in the public, about the control that government has exerted over our engineering profession, our health care profession, and now is being attempted to be done under Bill 21.

I would say that as we look at the importance of access to legal services, I will note…. I appreciate that successive governments have not made this change, but I do think it’s important to understand that the legal profession, when we’re talking about access to justice, access to legal services….

I will say that the Attorney General did note the missing…. She didn’t say “missing middle,” I don’t believe, because we think about that in the housing context, certainly in Vancouver and other places in our province. But she used a concept which is very similar to that, which is individuals that probably can afford some legal services but need more options.

Certainly the official opposition, the B.C. United, recognize the importance of the greater use of paralegals. This is something that the Law Society had recognized as well, and they’re certainly prepared, as I understand it, to move forward with what was dealt with in 2018 — I dealt with that legislation as well — to put in place a broader scope of practice for licensed paralegals in the area of family law.

That is an example. And I do remember, in a constructive way, the work that government is doing in the area of family law, with some of the pilot projects to expand access to legal services in the family law area, including here in Victoria. So I think in that vein, the Law Society, in terms of their task forces and other bodies that had looked at that very closely, were supportive of that initiative and are prepared still, today, to move forward with that. That’s an example.

I certainly have heard, you know, of us elected, you communicate your position and your concerns about certain pieces of legislation, and you get all sorts of comments coming back at you. Again, I recognize, as I’ve said throughout, there are some who see the legal profession as some sort of monopoly amongst lawyers. I’m sure that they’ve had their own experiences. I hope that those who are listening would understand the importance of why lawyers have to regulate themselves, free of government interference and threat.

The recognition of notaries in terms of their scope of practice…. I know as a young lawyer or even as a law student, when I had to deal with certain documents that needed to be notarized that, of course, you go to a notary. Even for my family, to access the purchase of a home or a sale of a home, they do the same. In many ethno-cultural communities as well, there is a great use of the notary profession.

In South Vancouver, in the areas that I represent in Vancouver-Langara, in Richmond, across the Lower Mainland, I know many notaries that serve the public well. And certainly, under this bill, that is what is, hopefully, going to move forward with that.

Again, the Law Society and these other bodies of lawyers that I’m speaking about, as I understand it, are generally supportive of that.

[5:55 p.m.]

There are questions, of course, in this bill. There are questions to be asked about, for example, what I understand in terms of indemnity. The Law Society has an indemnity fund to backstop any claims against members of the legal profession. That’s important. There are times where mistakes and misconduct occur. The Law Society has rigorous investigation, adjudication, and disciplinary bodies. Colleagues of mine have served on those bodies in the past.

I would say that the Attorney General mentioned the independent tribunal that will be established under this Bill 21. My recollection on review of the bill is that — and I think this is partly informed by the briefing I had from the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, or at least the ministry staff — the establishment of the tribunal, including the chair of the tribunal, will be recommended or determined by the regulatory board.

Again it comes back to…. Even the independent tri­bunal, which is so-called independent, is established and the chair of the tribunal is established and appointed or designated by this board, the 17-member board, five of whom were directly elected by lawyers.

This does come back to, first, the concerns around the regulatory board itself; second, around the screening process for appointments to this board; the third, in respect of expanding for other bodies to be designated as legal professionals, whatever that would look like. The tribunal itself, in terms of its establishment, being under this regulatory board, for which lawyers are not directly elected in a majority…. This is the kind of government interference and overreach that lawyers will be facing.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I will say that the concern around independence of lawyers isn’t just about lawyers themselves. I’ve certainly had colleagues who have been appointed to the bench in our province, lawyers who would come over to UVic law school — I have fond memories — and coach the moot team as we competed against UBC. They would come over from Vancouver and coach us.

These individuals are now appointed to the court. They are just a demonstration of the kind of roles that lawyers play in helping to educate young law students and others in our legal profession.

Of course, Madam Speaker — welcome to the chair — judges, members of the judiciary, are appointed from the ranks of lawyers, lawyers that have demonstrated their understanding of the law, practise in a variety of areas, bring that expertise and life experience and reputation to the bench. But they come from the ranks of the legal profession, the lawyers themselves.

The consideration about the effect and impact on the independence of our legal system is not just about lawyers. It’s about the people who are appointed to serve in their very important roles, which is truly to be recognized as independent. We know that in other authoritarian states and countries in the world where there’s any indication of government interference with the judiciary in terms of decisions….

We have had challenges at times with elected officials who call up judges sitting on a case and attempt to influence them on their decision. We know — people in the public realm should know this; certainly, the media recognize this — that that undermines the independence of our judiciary, that that is prohibited, that it is something that a cabinet minister or a member should resign over.

[6:00 p.m.]

In other authoritarian states, we see a mix, a mix where courts have been questioned about the influence on those courts. This is not what we want to see in British Columbia. This is not what we want to see in Canada. This is not what I would expect to see under any government in this province.

When we’re talking about eliminating self-regulation through eliminating the ability of lawyers to elect a majority of the regulatory board directly from lawyers themselves…. That actually feeds up to the judiciary. That level of government interference over the regulation of lawyers in terms of all the licensing, the regulatory powers, the independent reviews, the authority to practice, the disciplinary proceedings…. All of these provisions that deal with lawyers themselves are now under government control.

Ultimately, when you’re under government control, the judges will feel that pressure too. These are judges that will be selected, appointed, from the ranks of lawyers that are living in a system that is controlled by government — that is not independent and that is not free of government interference, government political policies, ideological viewpoints or ideological frameworks of how they see the world.

Again, I remind this chamber that we have a Premier who’s been the most activist Attorney General this province has ever seen. Now, as Premier, he is bringing across legislation that will totally undermine the independence of the only body that is left to challenge government — the only body in society other than the members of the official opposition that can stand up to government to bring forward British Columbians’ disputes and concerns and grievances with government.

Of course, when that’s brought forward in our courts, our justices have to be absolutely 100 percent free of any government interference. If they are not, we do not live in a free and democratic society.

This is what is at stake in Bill 21. This has to be very clear. This is the reason why we have called for a pause on Bill 21. We have said that this needs to go out for broader consultation, as the Law Society of British Columbia and the Canadian Bar Association has called upon through its membership. The Attorney General has heard this time and time again. Obviously, I do have a bit of passion in this area.

I will say that at a recent CBA conference, we had the Attorney General, as I understand, attend this conference. I believe it was just two weeks ago. Chief Justice Hinkson said: “An independent judiciary is dependent on an independent bar.” Just to repeat: “An independent judiciary is dependent on an independent bar.”

Of course, for those of you who need a little translation, “bar” is what we commonly refer to as…. When you’re called to the bar, you become a lawyer. I recently put something out on social media where I was outside the law courts, the Great Hall in downtown Vancouver. This is where many, if not all, lawyers…. There are different call ceremonies in different locations around the province, but certainly, many of the Vancouver lawyers have all gone through the Great Hall.

I did that 27 years ago. I remember that day very fondly with my young family and my colleagues. That is what being called to the bar means. It means signing the Law Society roll, taking on the obligations. It means meeting with a bencher to go over your professional responsibilities and obligations. I met with Richard Peck, who is a very well-known, foremost practitioner in criminal law.

[6:05 p.m.]

I never had a criminal law practice or background, although I did do very well in criminal law, for sure — my criminal law course. But other than that, I didn’t go and pursue a career in criminal law.

I will say that when Chief Justice Hinkson, who is a chief justice in our province, underlines the point, I think this government needs to hear that point. There’s a reason why he’s making that point. There’s a reason why in the context of discussion around the regulation of lawyers, the importance of our judicial system, our justice system, that fundamentally, in plain language and plain words, Chief Justice Hinkson is indicating to this government that we need to have an independent bar, that we need independent lawyers who have the opportunity for self-regulation, as is the case in the Law Society.

I will say that I know that I’ve heard also from Indigenous lawyers, friends of mine, who have been working for many years to ensure that the Law Society continues to modernize and address the importance that Indigenous people, Indigenous lawyers, legal practitioners play in our justice system. I acknowledge that work. I acknowledge that it hasn’t been easy, certainly from their perspective.

As I understand it, of the 32 current benchers of the Law Society, five are Indigenous. That’s my understanding. Certainly, I know it’s been an effort to ensure that there is representation, not just of Indigenous peoples and, of course, racialized and ethnocultural peoples in our province. I think the Law Society composition…. My understanding is that it’s done better in that regard too. But of course, we can always do better, and I think the Law Society would acknowledge that.

When they had put in their mandatory Indigenous education program as well, I heard from lawyers at the bar who have gone through that course. Even those who practise in Aboriginal law or resource law found that course to be very beneficial. That’s just a small example of course.

I do know, and I would hope this government recognizes through their significant discussions with the Law Society over the last seven years, that the Law Society has made significant efforts to continue to modernize and strengthen itself as a regulatory body, and that it is seen as a leading regulatory body in the country. Not to mention for a few things that I’ve just mentioned.

I know that there was certainly a willingness to consider the recommendations of the Cayton report, to give the time and space to do so, but this government didn’t really do that. Government announced that they were going to go in a different direction, this direction.

The reason why that review under the Cayton report was necessary was because the Law Society itself wanted to address and assess how it could do better, how it could modernize. But this government didn’t give them the opportunity, even for its benchers and the Law Society itself to consider the recommendations of what was addressed in that report.

We’re talking in, as I understand it, the month of December, over what is traditionally, at least, for some British Columbians, a holiday period. This government acted very swiftly, once that Cayton report came down, with their own plan.

The Notaries Association, as I understand it, also had a different proposal to ensure that they could expand their scope of practice under their current legislation. It didn’t evolve new legislation. They had another proposal. It didn’t have to go this way.

This government had a plan. There is an agenda here that we’ve seen over the last seven years. It’s an agenda that under this Premier has undermined the rule of law in our province. I’ve seen it time and time again. I’ve voiced my concerns in this House time and time again.

[6:10 p.m.]

Even on the legislation dealing with ICBC, I’ve made numerous speeches in this chamber setting out my concerns about how we could have an Attorney General, this Premier, be responsible for ICBC — the chief litigant in our province, the entity that has the most litigation against itself — change the rules of court to favour itself. A clear conflict of interest.

I have grave concerns in terms of how our Premier has been conducting his perspective on the rule of law in our province. This Bill 21 only demonstrates his last piece of his agenda in the dying days of this Legislative Assembly, in the nine days that we have left. I think I would urge this government again, as I have this Premier….

On the Land Act amendments, when they put their engagement document on a website, engage.gov.bc.ca and didn’t tell anybody — no consultation, no engagement…. There’s been no real, true consultation on this bill. There have been some discussions with representatives and leaders of the legal profession under NDAs, with no ability to share the details other than….

I will acknowledge that there was a paper distributed and that the CBA did respond to that paper in terms of the various ways in which the legal profession could be modernized in our province. There was a what-we-heard report.

What has landed here, just like Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act, is very different from what has been presented in the past. That was the challenge; it was very different. This is fundamentally different too. As much as the Attorney General, along the way, has indicated: “Don’t worry; I understand the importance of independence….” Even in the last hour and a half in this chamber, literally hearing the Attorney General talk about independence and how independence is protecting us in the bill, I don’t see it.

I look forward to the opportunity to have that direct conversation with the Attorney General about how myself, the Leader of Official Opposition, the Law Society, the Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia, the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association — which, as I said before, the Premier had a role in, of course — all don’t see it. They don’t see how the independence of the lawyers is protected under this bill. It’s not there. It doesn’t fly. It doesn’t work.

I would say that certainly, as I said with Bill 25, we have a situation here where, given the fundamental change under this bill and the effect that it’s going to have on our independent justice system, as I’ve explained in my remarks here, this Premier doesn’t have a mandate to do this.

How does a Premier who is not elected, who is appointed through a flawed leadership process by his party, come forward and think he has the mandate to fundamentally change our legal system in our province under an Attorney General who is supposed to be the chief legal officer, following the example of the Premier when he was Attorney General? There’s a pattern here for sure, and it all goes back to the Premier.

We know that if you’re going to fundamentally change how our legal profession is governed, which will have an effect on our courts, you need a mandate to do that. At a minimum, you need to do a broader consultation, which is what the Law Society and the Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia have been asking for repeatedly.

We know as well that those organizations have put this government on notice that they will challenge the constitutionality of this Bill 21. I have stood up in this chamber on many other occasions on legislation to convey that, as many members of the official opposition have said, for other organizations.

[6:15 p.m.]

In some cases, this government brings forward legislation to shut down a legal challenge, like for the Kits Coalition in Vancouver — concerns around that B.C. Housing project at 8th and Arbutus. They did that.

They will bring forward legislation to shut down their own government lawyers’ rights for freedom of association to form and join a union of their choice. They brought legislation forward to shut that down. Now they’re bringing forward this legislation, under this Premier’s watch and, I would say, again under his agenda. This fundamental piece of legislation, just like Bill 25, needs more consultation, understanding and clarity. In this case, though….

By the way, I think it’s pretty clear, for the reasons I’ve talked about here in my second reading speech, that I look forward to that discussion. I would say that the challenge, of course, in dealing with two fundamental bills like Bill 21 and Bill 25 in the last nine days of the session is that we’re dealing with them at the same time, literally. I am missing the committee process right now to speak to this bill. I will join that committee process in 25 minutes or so when I’m done here.

I will say that when we have a government that purports to want to…. I recognize that we all want to ensure that British Columbians who need access to justice get that access to justice. And I know that what I’m about to say will…. As I said, when I mentioned this before, we recognize that successive governments have continued what the NDP had previously started in 1992.

In 1992, the government of the day had said:

“I am pleased to say that in this budget the government, in taking a look at some of the more affluent areas of society” — I think he’s referring to lawyers — “has made a conscious decision to place a levy on the billings of lawyers. As a member of that honourable profession, I am pleased to say that it is a welcome move. The government is saying that there will be a levy on lawyers’ billings because lawyers have the ability to contribute to the taxation system.

“As much as that measure may be seen to be tough by members of my profession, in fairness, we are also saying that we want to redirect government resources towards legal aid. The new tax on legal fees will go a long way to making sure that the working poor in this province, who have traditionally had difficulty getting access to lawyers” — that is, the affluent areas of society — “will now have a comprehensive legal aid system that will assist them in protecting their legal rights.”

I think there has been mention that, as Moe Sihota, the former minister of the day, had said back on April 3, 1992, in this chamber, there’s reference. Of course, we know the current Health Minister was the chief of staff to former Premier Glen Clark when he was the Finance Minister, when this was brought forward. So we’re talking about three individuals. The Minister of Health would certainly recognize, as the chief of staff to former Finance Minister and Premier Glen Clark, that that was an effort.

Now, as I say, successive governments have not changed this. And I’m only saying this as a point of reference — that there was a significant PST charge placed on legal services. Since 1992, it’s been estimated…. That never, of course, went to legal aid. There was never the creation of what would be a leading legal aid system in the province. I know, through successive governments, that there has been a challenge with that, even when the Premier was Attorney General.

The Premier attempted to rectify that. But as I understand it, the additions to legal aid supports that were provided in, let’s say, 2019-2020…. Really, when you look at it, through the course of the pandemic and now, they’re basically cost-of-living adjustments. They’re not actually fundamentally pushing forward more resources towards legal aid. And again, I would recognize that successive governments have had that challenge.

[6:20 p.m.]

Today it’s been estimated that the amount of money that’s been collected under this PST on legal services is now $6 billion. Last year alone it was $286 million. For the last number of years, it’s been $200 million annually.

I’m only saying that if this government was truly focused on increasing access to justice…. Again, I appreciate that successive governments have had some challenges in this area, that we can always do more. I’ve certainly spoken about that. And as the former Attorney General critic and now current one as well, I’ve certainly addressed this in ways to support the greater dedication of resources towards legal services and legal aid, because we do have a missing middle. The missing middle is not just amongst British Columbians in getting access to legal aid or legal services, but it’s also amongst lawyers.

We’ve had this come about in 1992. We have a criminal bar, criminal lawyers that are quite senior, and some who might be junior, who are coming into the bar. But many have gone out of this practice of law. Because there aren’t the kind of supports and resources available to support their practice — which is very important, as you know, to represent defendants, plaintiffs in many ways, including in the rise in the challenges around public safety, particularly in the last seven years.

So this thing is all connected, of course. I’m just speaking to the fact that the criminal defence bar, even, or the prosecution side…. There are challenges there. We have had a government, under the NDP in 1992, that created this charge and didn’t dedicate the resources.

In the language that the Attorney General used, she didn’t say affluent members of society or areas of society, and she didn’t actually say working poor. But she said words similar to that, I think. Well, probably not the affluent part. But the point being that I’ve seen time and time again, under this Premier’s leadership, a villainization of faceless corporations, of the top 1 percent or whatever that language is. You know, the so-called class warfare and division among society.

That’s just an example of the reason why lawyers need to be independent from government. Lawyers need to be free from government interference. Lawyers cannot be regulated under government control.

That is the reason why, when we talk about politics, we talk about discourse and we talk about words that I’ve used in this chamber that have been pushed back on me, when I talk about the silly season, when I talk about noise, I’m referring to the debate in the chamber. I’m referring to elected representatives, political candidates, leaders of other parties.

We are all engaging in the political discourse. But lawyers and our judges need to be free from that. That is something that I know and that I see this government not understanding. We will continue to pursue that in the bill debate to come.

I would know that…. I mentioned the very important term “public interest” in this Bill 21. We know that the Law Society of British Columbia, at present, has as one of its statutory duties under Section 3(a) of the current Legal Professions Act, not the one that is coming forward here: “to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice by, ‘preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons.’”

So we know that in Bill 21, we are talking about a regulatory board that no longer has the same focus around public interest. This is another area that I want to explore with the Attorney General.

[6:25 p.m.]

We know that what is hard-wired into the regulatory body — the majority of whom, in the composition of the regulatory board are elected by lawyers themselves — has as its fundamental purpose and one of its statutory duties, to preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of all persons. To do so, clearly, as I have been asserting in my remarks here on the second reading on Bill 21, it needs to do so through an independent legal regulatory body, one that is free of government interference.

As we say, I know and I hear from members of the legal profession, lawyers themselves, that they are taking a serious look about whether they will continue their practice.

You know, we have lawyers who are practicing in other regions, like the Kootenays or the Interior or the North, lawyers that are just trying to get by based on the state of the economy in these areas. Some of these are not strictly rural communities. Some of them are vibrant towns and cities and regional districts, certainly. But in terms of some of the rural districts, when we need to have and promote access to justice, that we have lawyers who are going to leave our province because they don’t want to be under the government’s thumb, that ought to be a concern.

This is the reason why. You would think you would have a broader consultation to the affected parties, as what the Canadian Bar Association has been calling upon. I know that as we look, going forward, at this bill, that we’ll want to have this government give us a fair and clear understanding as to how they have measured the impact of this bill, this change on the legal profession. Have they truly been through and assessed what will be the impact of Bill 21 on the legal profession?

Now, I have mentioned that the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has written a letter and communicated their view directly to the Attorney General. I just want to cite and speak to a number of points that they made in their March 26, 2024 letter to Bill 21.

I would say that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association has taken a similar view. I expressed it a little more strongly, but they did say that the intentions paper, which was entitled “Legal Professions Modernization,” which was published by the Ministry of Attorney General in September 2022…. They say it appears to suggest that the government is aware of the need for an independent, self-regulating legal profession.

They go on to say: “We are concerned that the province may not have fully grappled with the extent to which the independence of the bar is critical and fundamental and is a critical and fundamental aspect of a free and democratic society.”

I certainly utilize similar concerns as the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. Where I think the association was giving a bit of latitude to the Attorney General are the words around “may not have fully grappled.” I think we need to understand that. Have they fully grappled? Have they grappled with it, or are they just missing it completely?

Is there something else going on here? Is it that the Premier specifically understands exactly what this government is doing? It’s not a matter of grappling. There is an agenda here to undermine the legal profession and lawyers and the rule of law in our province, to not have that independence free from government interference. That’s the agenda. It’s not a matter of grappling.

You’ve heard me on that point. I would say that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association has said that they have concerns that a single legal regulatory model will fail to preserve this important distinction for lawyers. They go on to acknowledge the other associations that have expressed this concern.

They quote the same quote that I made, that I’ve quoted, that the Law Society has quoted, that I’ve quoted to the Attorney General, that we will again have a discussion on at committee stage.

They go on to quote that Supreme Court of Canada decision, Justice Estey, in 1982. They also quote principles 24 and 25. And 24 was quoted by Lawyers Rights Watch of Canada, and 25 says…. I’ll just say this, because I do think the B.C. Civil Liberties Association certainly would want to have a voice on this in this chamber.

[6:30 p.m.]

When they cite principle 25 of the United Nations basic principles on the role of lawyers, they cite: “Professional associations of lawyers shall cooperate with governments to ensure that everyone has effective and equal access to legal services and that lawyers are able, without improper interference, to counsel and assist their clients in accordance with the law and recognized professional standards and ethics.”

I would say that the area of cooperation is addressed by the seven members of the current Law Society board, out of 22, that are appointed by government. But the point that I was making earlier is that 25 members of the Law Society board are directly elected. I would expect, and I will ask the Attorney General to confirm, that that level of cooperation is perhaps contemplated with the current composition of the Law Society.

But the emphasis ought to be placed on lawyers needing to provide effective and equal access to legal services without improper interference — I say improper interference by government; I don’t think the B.C. Civil Liberties Association disagrees with that statement — and that they need to counsel and assist their clients in accordance with the law. Not government. The law. The rule of law.

I know that some members of government across the way, when I made the comment previously about the Premier being unelected — appointed — and not having a mandate…. We understand the way our democratic system works. We’re not talking just about electoral law of how governments take shape and what the Lieutenant-Governor does and all of those things in our parliamentary process and system and traditions and protocols and conventions. What we’re talking about is the rule of law, the rule of law that is administered by the court of law.

Even as we see…. We’ll see this in Bill 25, when this government puts in a clause that says…. I don’t have it with me. It’s in the other chamber. But the honour of the Crown. Here, we have a government saying: “We’re determining what the honour of the Crown is.” That’s not what governments do. It’s for the courts to determine whether a government of the day is acting to meet their obligations, the honour of the Crown, the fiduciary duties.

There is a blurring of the lines here, clearly, and a lack of recognition about lawyers having their own professional standards and ethics, which is what this UN principal 25 speaks to.

I would say that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association is, then, making a comment relating to comments that I’ve raised in estimates with the Attorney General, and I know her response. I remember it well. We may have this conversation again.

But these are not my words. These are the words of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and also the Canadian Bar Association. I know they’ve both written and expressed comments directly to the Attorney General about the fact that both the Premier and the Attorney General publicly criticized the conduct of defence counsel in advancing arguments on behalf of his client, in that case, and the proposed reform to the system to prevent this happening in the future.

It said here in their letter that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association is concerned that the province, which cannot regulate in the area of criminal law, will attempt to use the regulation of lawyers to limit the ability of defence counsel to advance arguments on their client’s behalf or to act in accordance with their client’s instructions.

This is just another recent example of the kind of government interference and influence when the Premier or the Attorney General of any government speaks in that manner. I emphasize the words “Premier” and “Attorney General” in any government. There’s a distinction to be drawn here. When the Premier speaks of our province and when the Attorney General speaks of our province, that’s the current government of the day.

If that government is controlling the regulation of lawyers in our province under Bill 21, it flows down to that body, the body where there are only five elected lawyers out of this board of 17. I’ve laid out here the reasons about how government can control this board and therefore control the legal profession.

[6:35 p.m.]

Therefore when a Premier and an Attorney General of the province make comments like this to criticize the conduct of a defence counsel…. Now, we may or may not agree with the conduct of that defence counsel, but that defence counsel has every right to mount that defence. That is the independence of lawyers.

Certainly, of course, it’s the independence of courts to make decisions and judgment on any proceeding. Certainly, that level of government control and influence is the concern that we’re seeing. It’s the reason why associations are lined up to take this government to court, to challenge Bill 21 as being unconstitutional.

If you look back to the quote I read out at the beginning of my remarks, it is a clear violation of that. It’s a clear violation of what was stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in what has been known to be the leading statement on the importance of the independence of the bar.

This is the reason why, repeatedly, in the face of what the Attorney General has read in writing, heard directly, even as I understand it, in a pretty vigorous and strong statement made by the president of the Law Society….

I know that even in the initial statement, Law Society president Jeevyn Dhaliwal, KC, had said, apart from reiterating the commitment, steadfast in nature, to protect the independence of the legal profession and the regulator, which they see as linked inextricably: “The example that we set here in Canada is particularly crucial in the context of increasing threats to the legal profession around the world. Independence is essential to the proper functioning of the administration of justice, and we cannot, and must not, permit its erosion.” This is what we’re facing under Bill 21: the erosion of the independent and proper functioning of the administration of justice.

We know that there’s a very famous court decision, back in the day, certainly in terms of public administrative law. All the law students from the mid-’90s, including myself, studied the Roncarelli-Duplessis decision, in respect to what happened when Duplessis, in that case, controlled the regulation of the legal profession in Quebec, meaning if Duplessis had controlled the regulation of the legal profession in Quebec as tightly as he controlled liquor licensing….

These are the lessons that we should be learning. We should learn from what that decision meant in terms of the interference and the control that Duplessis exerted over liquor licensing in Quebec, and the challenges, which are known for that overstep, that government overreach and the misconduct by provincial elected officials, senior government employees and others.

This is the concern when you don’t have that defined line to preserve the independence of lawyers and the judiciary. This is the kind of misconduct and malfeasance that we’re looking at, in our public bodies, in terms of the kind of chilling effect that they would have on even persons who are seeking to take legal action against the government body.

Who would step forward to represent an individual? Who wants to take that on when they’re under the thumb, the regulatory body that government controls? Who would step forward to represent a British Columbian who wants to sue the government, to make that claim?

I can tell you right now that even as we talk about bills in this House…. I was just talking to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation about this. We were talking about the fact that the minister responded to my question by pulling out one of the legal bulletins. I said: “Well, I don’t think we’re going to do this bill debate at committee stage by pulling out different duelling legal bulletins.”

[6:40 p.m.]

I can tell you that any lawyer or legal practitioner in our province that chooses to step and have a different view from our current government…. Do they have fear? Should they be concerned? Is their viewpoint being dismissed?

Well, clearly, but will they, in the future, be undermined in their ability to have their perspective, to actually challenge — even in the public discourse on public policy — and to put out an alternative view from that of the government’s lawyers or others who support the government’s viewpoint, of any government of the day? When we have an independent voice that challenges in the public realm, a different perspective, what are we going to see?

I will close on this point. I have cited in the past, an the end of my second reading speech on Bill 25, that currently one of the individuals who is leading the implementation of DRIPA in this province is not only marrying up, so to speak, an opinion on reconciliation — deconstructing, reconstructing society, in a joint article — with a special adviser in the Premier’s office, but this other individual also was involved with former Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould federally, relating to the justice directives.

There is definitely, for First Nations people, a recognition of the way that we need to proceed, but also a real dampening on the use of litigation in the courts. This is a continuation of that. Certainly we’ve seen that under this Premier, the former Attorney General, on the litigation directives. This is the kind of constraint that we’re seeing on our legal system in this province. Bill 21 is just another example of that.

B. D’Eith: I rise today in support of Bill 22, Legal Professions Act. I did want to make a….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member. We’re on Bill 21.

B. D’Eith: I apologize. Bill 21, Legal Professions Act. I can’t read my own notes.

Anyway, I just wanted to respond to a few things that the critic for the Attorney General and the MLA for Vancouver-Langara said in regard to Bill 21.

I feel very fortunate to have been appointed as King’s Counsel, as a lawyer. I’m also very proud to share that designation with a number of MLAs and ministers in the House. We actually, in our government caucus, have seven lawyers, five of whom are also King’s Counsel and are part of the government caucus.

I did want to just mention that we have a number of lawyers in our government caucus. They have had a number of different types of practice, whether that’s human rights, criminal law, entertainment law or as a prosecutor. There are a number of different roles that they’ve had as lawyers, and they feel very deeply, as I know we all do, that the rule of law and the independence of lawyers and of the judiciary is extremely important.

Where I differ from the critic and the member: Bill 21 is bringing about a modernization of the Legal Professions Act, which has been needed for decades. Also, we have a unique situation of having notaries in British Columbia — one of only two provinces, I believe, that have notaries that are separate from lawyers but are practising similar types of practice — and, of course, paralegals.

When I started as a lawyer, 34 years ago, a long time ago, we had paralegals back then. Even at that time, in the first few years of my practice, paralegals were talking about the fact that they weren’t regulated and that they didn’t have any rights. That has gone on for decades. There has been talk and talk and talk.

Finally, we’re getting to the point of this modernization, where the people that are involved with providing legal services — lawyers, paralegals, notaries — will have a consistency of rules and regulations, with one regulatory board. This is not only efficient; it’s modern, and it’s important.

[6:45 p.m.]

I did want to respond to one thing that the member from the opposition brought up: this idea of government interference with the administration of justice. It’s very difficult to hear that coming from the opposition, because there are a few things in my life that actually prompted me to run as an MLA.

One of them was, in fact, the interference of the government in the administration of justice. One of those was that PST was put on legal fees to pay for legal aid. That was brought in, in the ’90s. One of the first things that happened in the early 2000s, 2002 to 2005, is that the B.C. Liberals, now B.C. United, gutted legal aid.

Now, if you want to talk about access to justice, you want to talk about the administration of justice, that was not just an absolutely terrible thing that happened to individuals but, if you think about the people in our society that are accessing legal aid, absolutely unbelievable. In fact, I had a friend who worked for legal aid. Her job was firing 500 legal aid lawyers. That’s 500 legal aid lawyers. There was a 40 percent cut to legal aid, and 85 percent of the legal aid offices were closed back then.

If we want to talk about the United Nations and about declarations and access to justice, that single thing, amongst many other things — not funding the courts, all the things — that the former B.C. Liberals, United now, did to basically interfere with the administration of justice, in my opinion, was one of them. Now the member gets up and starts talking about the administration of justice. I find that really rich, because that’s one of the reasons I ran in the first place.

Now we’ve got a situation where we are funding legal aid, where we are funding the judicial services in the courts. We are making sure that people get access to what the United Nations has said is a human right. We are committed to that. I know our Attorney General is, and I know all the lawyers in our caucus are.

The other thing I take exception to is the interpretation. I appreciate the member opposite is a lawyer and is trying to make a legal argument here, but the fact is that as this well-consulted modernization was brought in, section 8 actually deals with the regulation. It’s really important to note that within that, basically, lawyers will actually be the majority. There are 17 members on that board; nine will be lawyers. It’s important to know that five are elected by lawyers and then, two notaries are elected and two paralegals, so nine are elected.

This is where the member leaves out a very important thing. The other lawyers are appointed by the board. They’re not appointed by the government. The nine lawyers are all otherwise elected or appointed by the board, and they have the majority of the board. By having the majority, they control the regulatory body. Only three — only three — of the members will be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor. That is important.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Another important thing, if we want to talk about government interference and all this: the Attorney General will no longer sit on that board. If you want to talk about independence, that actually creates more independence, in my humble opinion. So I disagree fundamentally with that. I believe that the regulation will not only enhance our legal profession; it will bring some certainty to the profession and consolidate notaries and paralegals.

I support Bill 21, and I hope everyone will as well.

M. Morris: I’ve been listening to the discussion on Bill 21. I thought I would add my two bits’ worth in.

I spent 32 years in law enforcement, starting well over 50 years ago now. I have a lot of friends that are still criminal trial lawyers. I have been involved in the process now for decades — a lot of wisdom.

[6:50 p.m.]

I’ve spoken to a few judges as well, and they have the concerns that my colleague was speaking about in his opening remarks here not too long ago. It is based on the rule of law, and it is based on the independence of the legal system in British Columbia and the judiciary and all of the components that fit within that.

There are stringent rules that are followed, which have been developed over decades of jurisprudence that were tested in court and passed on to the legal professions in the way that they execute their responsibilities to ensure that there is that independence and to ensure that the public have confidence in the systems that we have.

I do have several things to say on this. When the Speaker feels it’s time, just give me the nod in the direction here.

It was based on that. As a constable or as a corporal or as a supervisor in the RCMP presenting evidence in court — and I have presented evidence in court hundreds of times, perhaps into the thousands; I don’t know — and in other tribunals and in other forms of the legal profession in Canada here, it gave me great confidence to do my investigations, to present evidence under the rules that have been established by the courts, by that independence, in the way that I conducted the work to ensure that I had technically elegant investigations to present to the courts.

If we didn’t do that, the courts were the first ones that would take us to task. We would blow hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars of public taxpayer money on the investigations where we had made that mistake. That mistake would be clarified for us through the courts or through the lawyers.

As a police manager, I sat down often with the administrative court judges, with Provincial Court judges, Supreme Court judges, just to talk about the level of evidence and the expertise that was being exhibited by investigators across the area within my jurisdiction of responsibility and to hear back from them any concerns that they had. Government wasn’t involved in it. It was the judiciary themselves.

One of the other issues that has been brought to my attention, and I’ll get into it probably the next time I speak here, is the independence of the judiciary themselves. As my friend spoke earlier, the judiciary is…. You have to be a lawyer. You have to be a practising lawyer within British Columbia in order to be qualified as a Provincial Court judge. You have to be a practising lawyer to be appointed as a Supreme Court judge with the federal jurisdiction for the B.C. Supreme Court. You have to exhibit that level of experience and understanding of all facets of law and how it works. All the policies, all the derivatives of that in order to fully comprehend and understand it and make those independent decisions that increase the confidence of the public in the legal system that we have.

There has been a tendency by this government, and I’ve witnessed it pretty much since this government took over about seven years ago, to interfere with a lot of that process.

The latest example that I’ll use is Bill 17, the amendment to the Police Act, where the police boards now will be looking after the operations. It says right in the act that they look after the operations. Legislation now passes to say that they are looking after the administration, the governance and the operations of the police departments under the direction of the chief. But that still opens the door to political manipulation of the police boards. The police boards are appointed by government. So that’s one indication.

The other example that’s taking place as we speak, and will be taking place all of the rest of this week, is the Surrey police transition fiasco that we see, where laws were made after the fact. Surrey applied to the court to assist them in their transition decision, and a week or two later there was legislation presented in this House that would stop that or try and stop that. Of course that will be part of the subjects that this particular case is looking at.

That is interference with the process. It’s government interference. “If you don’t do what I say, I’m going to bring in a law that’s going to stop you. I’m going to appoint a board that’s going to stop you and control you.”

[6:55 p.m.]

That’s where this Bill 21 is heading. There’s a lot of concern from the Law Society. There’s a lot of concern from the criminal law trial folks that I’ve spoken to. There’s a lot of concern with some of the independent judicial bodies that we have in the province here.

I would be really curious to hear the legal members, the lawyers within the government caucus, stand up and make comment on this particular bill, because I think that it’s appropriate. I know there’s more than the previous speaker, who is a lawyer. I know there are other lawyers within caucus, criminal lawyers. There are a number of disciplines that are represented by these lawyers here.

I would be curious to see what they have to say about this particular bill on the public record, before we get to the committee stage, and perhaps what kinds of comments that they’ve got back from their fellow legal comrades throughout the province here, with the Trial Lawyers Association or with the bar or any of the other associations that we have here. There’s a lot to be said on this particular bill.

In addition to the issues around judicial indepen­dence, the issues that this bill is bringing forward, I find it quite phenomenal that a bill of this size — there’s, what, 300 hundred clauses in this bill; it’s quite complex; it’s going to take a lot of time to go through — wasn’t produced right at the very beginning of this particular legislative session, to give us the amount of time that we do need to scrutinize this bill, to make sure that we look at every single part of this bill that is causing concern to the people that speak to us.

I now know there was a limited amount of public consultation that went out on this, very limited, with respect to the type of bill that we have before the House, the complexities of the bill that we have before the House. But it should have been a little bit more in depth, and it should have been a little bit broader.

This is going to try and jam it into a corner, typical that I’ve seen with this government in previous sessions as well, where complex bills are put before the House, and we are not given enough time, on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, to review it and make sure that every piece of this act is brought up so that the public can comment on it to us or to government or to whoever might be involved in it before we actually get to the voting stage on the committee stage.

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to speak again and move adjournment of the debate.

M. Morris moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.