Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: 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 Ministry of Finance.

The Speaker: Members, pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, I will recognize members to deliver their farewell address to the House.

The first member will be the member for Burnaby-Lougheed.

Personal Statements

FAREWELL ADDRESSES
BY RETIRING MLAs

K. Chen: Thank you so much, hon. Speaker. As I’m saying this, I believe that one day I will miss saying, “Thank you, hon. Speaker,” as I remember the privilege of having served in this important institution as a representative for my community in Burnaby-Lougheed, with the trust of my constituents, family, friends and supporters since 2017. Time flies. I was only 33 at the time.

I also want to recognize my privilege in living and settling on the beautiful, unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples as a newcomer, a former international student who came here on my own when I was 17.

This has been like a dream. If you told me, the 17-year-old Taiwanese girl who packed two suitcases, crying my eyes out as I was saying goodbye to my mom on a typical west coast day — which was raining and actually right here in Burnaby, near Burnaby Mountain — that “Hey, one day, you’re going to be the MLA for this beautiful community where you stand,” I would tell you: “You’re dreaming.” But that dream has come true.

Throughout all the years, I have been thinking: “How? How do I have the privilege to have become the represen­tative for our community?” I know the main reasons. It is thanks to many, many people, including my constituents and supporters, who have given me their trust. Trust is critical. Trust can empower and transform people in our lives.

[1:05 p.m.]

I want to begin by thanking my biggest supporters in life, my parents, who trusted me to come here on my own, learn English, start a new life, with all their love and support, along with all my family members — my late grandmother, my brother, my uncle, everyone who I’ve missed so much over the years but have known that they have always been right here with me in my heart.

I want to thank, of course, my favourite little man in this universe, my son, Yoann, for trusting his mommy. I remember that when he was little, he would see me on TV or in photos with other kids when I visited child care centres. Many times before I left home for work, he would ask, “Mommy, are you going to play with other kids?” and I would tell him how much I love him and how special he is to me.

I will also never forget the day I picked him up from school after I left my cabinet position, and he said: “Sorry you’re not a minister, but I’m happy that we can stay home after school.” I can never thank him enough for being so patient and supportive with my work over the years.

I also want to thank my partner, Dale, who has been such a light in my life, especially during the many ups and downs of the past year and half, for always trusting me and my abilities to create a new journey ahead. As someone who has worked pretty much my whole entire career in politics, this transition can feel scary. But the trust that I have from my partner, family and friends has really given me the confidence to move forward.

To all my friends and everyone who has supported me during both my life and political journeys: sorry, it’s hard to name you all, but you know who you are. I often say that I didn’t come to Canada with family, but I have so many chosen families.

Of course, I need to thank my constituency advisers. Many have worked with me for years, including Derek Sahota, Jessica Wei, Lynn Hardy, Gurveen Dhaliwal and Paul Dayson.

Thank you for always putting up with my very creative, bold ideas, projects and mischiefs. Thank you for always trusting me. I know we’ll be friends for life.

Gosh, I also miss our former child care team members so much. I’m so happy that I can’t even say the name of the first amazing person I worked with from child care because she’s now the Attorney General for B.C., who I cannot thank enough for building the start of the ChildCareBC plan with me.

And of course, all the outstanding former team members: Cherie Wilson, Jasleen Arora, James Infante, Chantille Viaud, Lindsay Banh, Sarena Talbot, Patrick Meehan, Mia Hill, Thuy Pham, Ellora Sundhu and Gurjeevan Sidhu.

Thank you all for all your hard work in building a new child care system together, knowing that access to child care and early learning is a right and a necessity for building a more equitable, sustainable society, both socially and economically, just like public education.

By the way, our child care team has welcomed five babies in just a few years, and even our former office mate, my dear friend and sister the Minister for Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, now has her beautiful baby, Azalea.

I also want to thank many of the incredible public service professionals I’ve worked with, along with many working in the B.C. Legislature in various capacities and positions for your critical support for the work we do.

I also need to give a shout-out to child care advocates like Sharon Gregson, Lynell Anderson, Rita Chudnovsky, Emily Gawlick, Deb Bryant, Charlene Gray, Sandra Menzer and many, many more who I have so much respect for, for their tireless advocacy and work for child care.

Thank you.

Looking back on my journey, I also need to give my big, big thanks to my former campaign team, volunteers and all the supporters for getting me elected, including my campaign managers and co-managers Laarni de los Reyes, Amber Keane and Jasleen Arora.

I love you, and I appreciate you so much. I know many of us will stay friends, sisters and brothers for life.

To my constituency association executives, who are all strong activists and advocates for issues that matter to our community, I am so glad to have had the opportunity to learn from all of you over the years, including on challenging issues like addressing the risks of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which still threatens the safety of thousands of our residents in our community. While I’m no longer your MLA, please know that I will always be a neighbour to advocate for our community together.

I also want to thank the trust of all the local non-profits, community members, labour unions, local businesses, and friends from diverse communities like the Taiwanese-Chinese, Chinese-language communities that have always given me so much support as I had the honour to have served as the first Taiwanese-born Canadian appointed to be in the B.C. cabinet.

Also the South Asian and Punjabi communities, who have always treated me like family like Uncle Mike Sandhu and the very hon. Speaker of the Legislature, who sees me as a rebellious daughter; along with the Korean, Filipino, Afghan, Ethiopian, Turkish, Indonesian, Latin American and Japanese communities and many more.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for your trust that has transformed my life.

[1:10 p.m.]

As I reflect on our collective journey to this Legislature, a place so rich in history and progress and also with many challenges, mistakes and much more work ahead to ensure our province is a more equitable place for all, I remember a single mom I met at the doorsteps who said that she would love to vote for me, but she worked as a hairstylist in Richmond, where she had to commute from her neighbourhood in Burnaby, with limited transit options.

Other than her financial stress, one of her children has extra support needs, so she has to be constantly balancing work and caregiving responsibilities. Many of us can easily find the time to drive to the polls and vote. Voting was a difficult task for her.

While I have the privilege to run for office, knock on doors and fundraise, many people are simply just trying to survive day to day and would not have the oppor­tunity to run for office, advocate for themselves or fully realize their potential due to poverty, generational trauma, health, mental health and many other reasons. They all deserve our support and attention, but their voices are often not at the table.

I believe the best policies are made by people with lived experiences, but I also see how the B.C. Legislature still, unfortunately, remains such a privileged place to be. So while we continue to work on achieving better rep­resen­tation, I hope we can at least start by acknowledging our own privileges and the responsibilities we carry to represent everyone from our community. Remember, we are only temporary stakeholders.

Reflecting on my 18 years of work in politics, I have had many tough times as a younger woman of colour, once a foreign worker facing discriminations and bias. While I’ve always been really grateful and recognizing my privilege in doing this work, I realized that for years I was trying so hard to fit in and to be included in an existing framework that is so influenced under the colonial, patriarchal system. I hope that one day we can truly create a space that is more caring, trauma-informed and equitable for people with diverse abilities and socioeconomic backgrounds.

After thanking all the people who have given me their trust, I also want to give my trust to my colleagues, especially Premier Eby as our leader, of course, and everyone from all sides of the House, who are genuine and principled.

I hope you can always put people first and make the best decisions possible to lift everyone up, such as making $10-a-day child care a reality, taking concrete actions against gender-based violence, always standing up for human rights and investing in core services like housing, health, mental health, climate action and public education. Remember, the only time we have to do this work is now.

As I give my thanks to everyone and say my goodbyes, I hope that we can keep working hard and always, always take actions now to create a more equitable society where everyone can utilize their full potential and dare to dream.

Thank you so much, hon. Speaker. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Thank you, Member, and stay close.

R. Leonard: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: Very shortly, a classroom of grade 6s and 7s is going to enter the gallery from Queneesh Elementary. It’s just up the hill from where I live. Wes Mann and Sarah Harrison are the teachers, along with five chaperones, for 35 students.

I hope that the House will please make them feel very welcome.

The Speaker: The next member will be the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

Debate Continued

K. Kirkpatrick: Wow, I feel like I just got here.

The first year of my term was clouded by a pandemic. That meant I actually ran for election from my basement. I didn’t meet many of my fellow caucus members and MLAs from across the House until well after I was elected. When we first got to the Legislature here, I think there were allowed to be eight of us at a time on this side of the House. I felt I really didn’t start to kind of understand what this place was really about for a year or two after election.

It was a very difficult decision for me to decide not to run again, because this really has been one of the greatest honours of my life.

The writing was on the wall, though, when I was a child, that I would be wading into politics. Some of you have heard this story before, but when I was a kid in Edmonton growing up, there was this television show called Popcorn Playhouse, and I don’t know why, but I still remember the name of the host. It was Eric Neville.

[1:15 p.m.]

Kids would have their birthday parties, and they would end up going on Popcorn Playhouse. I was always a keener with my hand up when Eric Neville would say: “Well, children, which one of you would like to tell me what you want to do when you grow up?” So I, of course, said very, very confidently that I wanted to be the president of Canada. When I got home, my dad said we probably shouldn’t watch any more American television.

That was my introduction into the fact that I really did have a desire to be involved in politics. It’s been an absolute honour to serve as the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano. I absolutely love my community, and I know that I’m very privileged and blessed to live there.

This role as MLA has given me opportunities to meet people I would not have otherwise had a chance to meet and to experience things, like walking along the top of the Site C dam, visiting movie studios and production houses across B.C., touring child development centres, meeting with families and learning what it’s like to be a parent with a child with autism and learning about all the therapies required for that and supports, being able to see inside a big giant ship at Seaspan to see how ships are made. It’s like one of those TV shows you watch when you’re a kid about all the big toys. So these are things I never would have been able to do without this role.

Now, I must express my thanks to so many people, and I only have ten minutes, so I apologize up front if I miss anyone.

First, to my daughter, Kaelan, who has gone without a mom around for those everyday things that a teenager needs.

To my sister, Nancy, who has taken on the lion’s share of helping our mom and taking her to doctor’s appointments and all of those things that we do.

And to Andrew Wilkinson, who believed that I could contribute to this House. He asked me to run for the B.C. Liberals in my community. I met with him to complain about something when I was working in my last job, and at the end of the conversation, he said: “Where do you live? Is that Ralph Sultan’s riding?” I think I got a phone call from the executive director before I actually even got back to my house to see if this might be something I would like to consider.

I do thank him very much for having that confidence in me.

I want to thank the people in my riding association who volunteer their time and their support to me and who share the values that I have of a just, fair and safe British Columbia for everyone.

I feel like I’m giving my Academy Award speech. You never know. That might be my next career.

Interjection.

K. Kirkpatrick: There’s the hook.

Wendy King supports me tirelessly in my work here in Victoria.

And I really must highlight the contributions of a very special person, my constituency assistant, who hates to be mentioned, Tracy Dobell. Now, I have a reputation in my community as being really responsive, but my secret is that I have a most capable and caring assistant in Tracy, who takes each constituent’s issues very, very seriously. She returns every phone call, every email. Well, not every email. You know those ones that we don’t respond to, that went to everyone. And she goes that extra mile to really make sure that she finds what those people need.

What Tracy does reflects on me, and she makes me look good. I know she thinks about that with every call she makes and every tweet that she sends. I am honoured to work with her.

There are so many people here in the building — Ryan Mitton, Karen Bill, Siyun Zeng, Stephanie Marshall-White, Andrew Reeve, Sean Roberts, Derek Cummings — who have really supported me in media and just in understanding the issues that I’m dealing with as a critic on some really interesting and important files.

Now, I joined my caucus thinking I knew a whole bunch of stuff. I knew a lot, and I’d be able to tell them a bunch of things. But I quickly learned that there was a lot more here that I didn’t know than I did know. My caucus members have welcomed me. They have supported me to be a good MLA. They listened to my perspective on things, and we all learned a lot from each other. They’re tired of me talking about electric vehicles though.

We are a small but mighty bunch, and in many ways, they have become the family that I have here. Spending time with them has always been a highlight and will be a highlight of my life that I’ll remember. I have told them all they can’t get rid of me that quickly. I’m committed to supporting them to become government in any way I can — this is completely non-partisan, of course — because I think it’s the best thing for British Columbians.

Before being elected, I didn’t know what stumpage rates were, and still don’t ask me to explain them now. I didn’t understand the challenges in more rural communities that we just don’t even think about in the Lower Mainland.

[1:20 p.m.]

I didn’t understand what estimates were, and it’s embarrassing to say I didn’t even understand how legislation was passed and how laws came in. I mean, I thought I did. We’re Canadians. We learn this stuff in school, but until I was actually here, I didn’t really understand the process. And I found that there are people out there watching Hansard, elderly people that I went to speak to at a seniors home that said: “Oh, we saw you on Hansard.” I thought, my God, how did they know about this? I thought it was a big secret.

Now, I taught leadership at UBC for several years, and I just have to say this. I can say that the Leader of the Official Opposition…. I wish I could say his name, but his initials are K.F. I see he’s really a true leader. He listens to the thoughts and opinions of his caucus on really key issues, and he looks at issues from many angles. We have lots of conversations, and we don’t always agree on things, but we come to that place in the centre where we really find consensus or the best consensus that we can find.

I think that that kind of leadership and those kinds of conversations really make for a good leader, but they also make for good policy, and they make for good colleagues. And they really make sure that we’re representing a broad part of British Columbians or a broad group of British Columbians. We don’t lead from one side or the other. We really do have to lead from the centre, because that’s how we best represent all British Columbians.

I think he must have learned to clone himself because he is in every community, at every event, on every radio station. Sometimes I think it’s all at the same time. I’ve never seen anybody work harder.

I just want to say to Kevin how much I appreciate the confidence and trust that he put in me, in my participation in question period, in the files that he’s given me and the conversations that we had.

Okay, so that was all the good stuff. This is going to be good stuff too. I just want to say to my colleagues across the way that what I’m going to say is not partisan. It really just is general observations in terms of how this place works, whoever is on the other side of the House.

There have been some things that I’ve seen in the House, online and in our democracy that make me kind of sad. People don’t watch the news anymore. They often can’t distinguish between well-researched and fact-checked information over simple opinions and misleading headlines. The depth of the familiarity with important issues by the general public is really found through sound bites.

Issues that impact people are nuanced. They have many sides. When they’re getting their information on social media and they’re just reading a tweet, that’s not how we make informed decisions in terms of what’s important and the people that we support. Social media tends to even provide a narrower range of information to people because they’re only getting the information on the things that they’re already thinking are right, and it just reinforces that.

You know, we can connect it to, maybe, 2016, maybe something that happened in the United States, but I do think that good social discourse has been replaced to a large part with people saying unproductive things and personal attacks and misogynist attacks. These aren’t things that help us become a better society or develop better policies for people.

My view of a good democratic society, in 40 seconds, is we should be like a credit union where we have our members that we look out for. On one side, we have really strong fiscal policy and make sure the books are balanced. But the reason we do that is so we can invest heavily on the other side, in world-class health care, in good social services and all of those things that British Columbians need.

I’m going to have to just skip a whole bunch of stuff that I wrote here, but that always happens, even when I’m doing my two-minute statements.

I would like to thank you all. I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the House. I appreciate the Minister of Housing and some kind words he said to me yesterday, and back at you. I do appreciate our conversations.

Thank you to everyone. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Being in this House has been one of the most important times in my life, and I’m a better person for it. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Thank you, Member.

The next member is going to be the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. Should we call him Inspector Mac­kenzie?

M. Morris: Pardon me?

The Speaker: You will always be our inspector.

[1:25 p.m.]

M. Morris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pretty deaf.

This opportunity presented itself, and I had to reflect and look back about how I got here, how I was given the keys to the granite castle, as I lovingly refer to it to my family, to walk down these hallowed halls and speak in this great chamber. It was quite a humbling experience when I got here.

When I was asked, politics wasn’t on my bucket list of things to do. I was asked, and I started to chuckle. It was my predecessor Pat Bell who asked me, As I was about to say no, he held his hand up, and he said: “Just think about it. Don’t give us your answer right away. Think about it.” I did think about it. Obviously, I said yes, because here I am.

I’ve had the confidence of the people of Prince George–​Mackenzie to put me back in this place for three terms. It is humbling, in itself, every time I think about that. I’ve had the great support of my riding association and various presidents — actually, a couple of presidents only over this term — that have supported me during the campaigns and everything else. It, again, is quite something when you look behind you, and you see this army of people that are helping you out.

I have to offer a lot of thanks and recognition for my constituency assistants that I’ve had in Prince George and Mackenzie.

Charlotte Groot has the benefit of, I believe, seven or eight terms as a CA, not only for myself and my predecessor Pat Bell but an MLA before that as well. A wealth of experience. I relied on her guidance heavily, along with her partner in arms, Judy Jackson, who has worked for me for a couple of years now.

Judy is 85 years young in Prince George and is still a driving force to be reckoned with up there. I also had the benefit of her counsel on a regular basis as well.

Charlotte is the one that told me. She said: “By the way, Mike, when you’re walking downtown or you’re walking anywhere in Prince George–Mackenzie…. If somebody comes up and says thank you, just say, ‘You’re welcome.’ We’ve obviously helped them.” And they do. They went out of their way, just like the previous speaker was saying, to ensure that the constituents of Prince George–Mackenzie were well served.

Brenda Federink is another one of my CAs. I appreciate our Friday debriefs, when I get back into Prince George after sitting in this House for the week. I sit down with Brenda, and we go over all the issues that have taken place and get caught up on all these things and our phone calls.

The work that you have provided for my constituency office for the last number of years has been absolutely without criticism. I can say that your loyal and dedicated work was a benefit to everybody.

Jesse Wright, my CA from Mackenzie, is a force to be reckoned with in Mackenzie, a young fellow. I’m sure that he’s going to be running for municipal politics there in the next coming election. He will be a force to be reckoned with in the future.

I also want to look at my family for being there to support me. Part of my decision-making process was talking to my family before I said yes.

My wife, Chris, and I have many, many years under our belts together, with our two sons and their partners and our seven grandchildren. Without their support collectively and without my wife’s support particularly…. We had a dozen moves while I was in the RCMP to many, many small communities throughout B.C. and in Alberta. My sons endured six different schools over the years as well.

They support me wholeheartedly. I’ve made the commitment that I will be spending the rest of my time getting caught up on all my granddaddying that I have ignored the last 11½ years while I’ve been down here.

The other area that I want to recognize now is my ministerial family that I had when I was the Minister of Public Safety. As previous ministers know, when you get into that office, it’s 7-24-365. It’s relentless, probably one of the most relentless jobs that I’ve ever endured, and I had my family.

I had Rachael and Kim in the office making sure that I was where I was supposed to be at the right time. I had an executive assistant, Marissa, who, along with my chief of staff, Manjit, referred to me as their work dad. They were two young ladies, bright young ladies, confident people that helped me out so much.

[1:30 p.m.]

It captured my heart when they called me their work dad. It still does to this day. I couldn’t have made it through those trying times without them.

Then to Luella Barnetson, my legislative executive coordinator that I’ve had now for a number of years in the Legislature here, who is a true friend and a dedicated worker, loyal and confident. She will work 24 hours a day, if she has to, to do the work that we all demand of her and the other staff that we have in the building here. She has become a true friend, committed to excellence, and a confidant as well. She knows so much about how this place operates, and I couldn’t have gotten along without her.

To my colleagues, who have endured my passion for biodiversity and forestry and those kinds of things. The ability for them and for me to sit down and…. I was born without a political lens, I think. To sit and listen to some of my colleagues, the political experience they have, completely changed my way of thinking. Once they start talking, I’d listen to that, and I’d say, “Okay, I understand what happens” — or their strategic projection of politically what would happen if a certain tack was taken.

I can’t thank you enough for all that help you provided me over the last 11½ years — those who are here today and who have since gone on to other endeavours.

I also want to, in the last three minutes or so that I have left here, talk about my passion for the outdoors and bio­diversity.

British Columbia is about 95 million hectares in size, with a variety of landscapes. But the people in British Columbia live on half of 1 percent of the land mass of British Columbia: our urban centres, our towns and our communities. If we add in the agricultural sector, the farms and whatnot, it’s just under two million hectares of our 95 million hectares that people inhabit and people go out every day and see what’s happening on the ground.

I’m concerned over who is looking after the other 98 percent of the land mass of British Columbia. Who is concerned about the 50 percent loss of our wildlife populations across the province as a result of the loss of habitat? Who is concerned about the degradation of the hydrological integrity of our watersheds that has led to massive flooding and damage and the drying out of our watersheds, and the fires and the issues we have there? That’s where my concern is, and that’s why I’ve been so passionate about this in the House, in caucus, and with everybody I know.

If people don’t want to talk about it and I’m walking towards them, when I see them cast their eyes down and they keep walking, I know: “Okay, I guess I’d better not mention that today.” Because I do. Once my engine revs up on biodiversity and the ecology of our province, look out, because you’re in for a pretty significant narrative for as long as you’re sitting there. So if the person leaves, then they don’t hear me after they get about 100 yards away. But I’m still passionate over that.

It’s something I think, collectively, this House needs to take quite seriously. British Columbia has been very good to everybody over the years — very, very good to everybody. Billions of dollars in income as a result of our resource development, but we have forgotten that crucial element of biodiversity.

We have forgotten about the things that make a complete forest, that need to be part of our considerations when we look at resource development in the future. It’ll take some hard thinking, and it’ll take a paradigm shift away from the way we have been thinking about bio­diversity and forestry and resource development in the province moving forward here.

We’ve got 700,000 kilometres of resource roads in the province. We have access to every area in the province that there are pressures on. So we need to look at that to make sure that we leave something for our future generations of politicians, future generations of British Columbians. It will take more than a century for us to re-establish a lot of the biodiversity that we have lost and to get back some of our wildlife populations that we have lost.

[1:35 p.m.]

We have extirpated many species of raptors and animals in the province. We’ll have to go above and beyond. That is the legacy that future generations of politicians in the next government are going to have to be looking at.

I appreciate the time. Thank you very much, everybody. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Thank you, Member.

The next member will be the member for Kelowna West.

B. Stewart: Well, it’s difficult coming to that decision when you finally decide that you want to stop something you love doing. That’s what it was when I reached out and talked to Kevin Falcon about the fact that I wasn’t going to be seeking re-election this year. It’s ten more days, and it will be 15 years since I first got elected. It’s surprising how quickly time passes.

Back in the ’60s, my dad decided to run as an alderman in Kelowna. In those days, the only shopping centre was the Capri shopping centre, owned by the Capozzis. He had me going out and putting leaflets underneath the wipers of all the cars on the parking lot. But I should have known, because one of his best friends, actually was his best friend, was William Richards Bennett, who was a Premier of this province.

Of course, growing up, we did a lot of things as family in the Okanagan. It was really a very emotional time when I was encouraged by the late Premier to actually seek the nomination and run in Kelowna West, as it’s called today. It was a different name and riding at the time.

Anyways, it’s been a great experience, getting elected, being privileged to be asked to serve in cabinet by Gordon Campbell, as well as Christy Clark. I have to say that it was really an honour to go to the places, work with the staff, whether it happened to be Citizens’ Services, where we had a lot of responsibilities that are unseen by people…. We had the public affairs bureau, as it was named at that time, Multiculturalism. I had the good fortune of being Municipal Affairs Minister. It wasn’t called that at the time.

Interjection.

B. Stewart: Fairy dust ministry, that’s right.

Anyways, it was one of those things where I think…. And Agriculture, which was one…. You’d think you know about agriculture, because I grew up in a farming family. The bottom line is I didn’t realize the diversity that Agriculture came with. I was thrust immediately into the fact that all the ground crops in the Lower Mainland were rotting because of monsoon-like rains. Then we had drought up in the Peace River. The people that you meet and the diversity. Dairy farmers, who are here today talking about the challenges they face.

I had an incredible opportunity to be asked to go and serve in the offices in Beijing. We had 13 offices over there. At first, when you’re talking about selling something…. That’s been primarily my whole life: selling tree fruits and grapes and things like that, then wine. The fact is that I had a chance to go around the world doing that. But I’ll tell you what. It was quite a different experience arriving in a country that I knew very little about.

Every week I was on the road, visiting people that we work with, companies that I only imagined I would end up dealing with, like Ballard Power. We signed one of their biggest deals ever in China, with buses. Things that were a big agricultural deal, seafood…. It’s just amazing the opportunities that we have and the impact that we make around the world as British Columbia.

There were my colleagues that supported me. I know that one of my visits back here to find out what their priorities were in their ministry happened to be the then Finance Minister, and he talked about the panda bond. We had done a successful one with the dim sum bond. The Canadian Embassy absolutely said: “This is never going to happen.”

So I kept going back and meeting with the People’s Bank of China, and needless to say, about 3½ years later, we were successful. We did the very first offshore bond by a government, and we’re subnational. They held the Koreans back so that British Columbia could be first. It was unbelievably oversubscribed. It was a huge deal. It’s the type of thing, when you’re there on the ground, that you can really make a difference in.

[1:40 p.m.]

I have to say that there were a lot of positive things. The Olympics. We were talking about FIFA. I can remember after the Olympics and all the success we had. It was a huge success. And we took that into China, where we were positioned and courted as being the country, or the province, to follow in giving advice on how they could deal with the 2022 Olympics. I know our relationship soured a little bit with China since then, but I’ll tell you what. Needless to say, you’ve got to understand that it’s just a different political climate.

I have to say that as a member of this House, on committees and as minister, travelling around the province has been one of these great experiences.

My colleague before me mentioned being on the Site C dam. I can think of so many other things and dealing with things like forest policy and herbicides and all sorts of things that you can only imagine. Anyways, it’s a real pleasure to have served in this House and served with so many people.

I have to talk a little bit about the constituents, because as the member for Prince George–Mackenzie was talking about how you forget about the fact that when you’re not there five days a week, there are other people doing that job. And they’ve been nothing short of exceptional.

I have to say that one of the things we did in the last parliament is that I had a particular girl that had a disease, cystic fibrosis. Many of you know what that is. Anyways, there happened to be an approach made to me because I happened to represent Kinsmen on the cystic fibrosis national board many years ago.

We were approached about getting a drug called Trikafta. It wasn’t approved in Canada. This young lady was about 30 years old. She was on a wait-list for a lung transplant, and I was able to get the government’s support. Vertex, which is the manufacturer of Trikafta…. We were able to get that drug to that young girl. Her life changed. She’s now married, she has a child, and she works. It’s unbelievable. It’s one of those things that makes you really feel that you could do something.

So thank you, Adrian. [Applause.]

Well, you can tell that I probably will miss this place a little bit. I want to thank the people that have been on my team all these years and helped me get elected — friends like John Byland, Colin Cruickshank, Brad Bennett, Peter Wannop. They still are there with me all the way along.

My CAs, I mentioned. They do all this work. Cheryl Doll has worked with me, and she ended up working for Christy when I stepped aside to let Christy run in 2013. I have to say that they keep me in check. They make certain that I try and say the right things. Sorry, I’m suffering from a cold and being emotional about this.

I want to thank everybody. I want to thank all the members. I have a great relationship with most people in the House, and I want to thank them.

People up there in Hansard that have been with us on the road in unbelievable conditions, planes landing in Merritt, Campbell River, all the tiniest towns — Revel­stoke, where we landed last year. They’re great communities of British Columbia.

I just really appreciate being appreciated for the work that we’ve done and the fact that I’ve had a little hand in doing that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Members, on behalf of all the members, the staff who work in different departments in this building, our constituency offices, different caucuses, I want to say thank you for your service. It’s an amazing journey that we have had together, and we all love you. You’re going to be missed.

[1:45 p.m.]

But don’t move far away. Stay close to us. We need your services to British Columbians. We really admire each and every one of you for the work that you have done for British Columbia.

Thank you so much. [Applause.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call second reading for Bill 21, Legal Professions Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — LEGAL PROFESSIONS ACT

(continued)

N. Letnick: I will continue with my second reading speech on Bill 21 in just a moment, as the Chair assumes his seat and as the members find their way to wherever they’re going.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Members pour into the chamber to listen to the speech.

N. Letnick: No, it’s the other way around, as the members leave. There we go.

Before lunch I did just briefly…. As you can see, I still have a lot of time left. But for those who are following me, I have an appointment at two o’clock, so be ready at two o’clock.

I did talk about Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act, of 2024 and that the bill seeks to end the self-regulation of lawyers. We as the official opposition, B.C. United, acknowledge the need for modernizing legal services and improving access to justice. However, we are deeply concerned that this bill compromises the independence of our legal system, a fundamental principle that must be preserved to maintain public trust in the rule of law.

At this point, I’d just like to talk a little bit about the background of the bill. The process to review the Legal Profession Act and Notaries Act began in 2022 with an intentions paper. Following the release of the intentions paper, an engagement was held, and from what’s been provided by government, 776 people or organizations or both completed the survey or sent in submissions. Now, I’m going to talk about the 776 in a moment, so allow me to come back to that a little later.

The Law Society stated in a letter which they’ve submitted to the public, sent to the Attorney General, yes, that they believe the independence of lawyers will be compromised. Again, I will come back to that, as well, by reading that letter into the record. I think I will be the first one to read it in the record, so I shouldn’t get any direction from anybody else on that.

The Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, is also very concerned that lawyers do not have a majority on the general composition of the to-be-established board and is conducting consultation with its members that should end at the end of April. They started consultations on April 19.

I also note part 13, fees. No part implies any savings for the public re legal fees. This is one thing the Attor­ney General promised in the news release but not in her first reading.

The bill replaces the Legal Profession Act. It’s not just an amendment; it’s a replacement. It also replaces the Notaries Act. It establishes a new regulator for legal professions, which are the professions of lawyer, notary public, regulated paralegal and any profession designated by regulation. The bill creates a new licensing and discipline system and a scheme that establishes the legal professions tribunal.

The bill requires the regulator “to exercise its powers in the public interest and with a view to the following: the facilitation of access to legal services; reconciliation with Indigenous peoples; the removal of barriers to the practice of law faced by underrepresented groups; and the regulation of legal professions in a manner that is transparent, timely and proportionate to the risk of harm posed by their practice.”

The bill also establishes the Indigenous council, “whose role is to advise the regulator on matters relating to the implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples in the context of the regulation of the practice of law and to exercise certain approval powers under the act.”

[1:50 p.m.]

The bill includes amendments to the Legal Profession Act and Notaries Act, to come into force on royal assent.

Amendments to the Legal Profession Act “allow the Law Society to exempt a person from the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law if satisfied that the provision of legal services by the person will facil­itate access to legal services without posing a significant risk to the public.”

Amendments to the Notaries Act “allow notaries public to draft wills that provide for the assets of the deceased to vest when the beneficiary reaches the age of 25.”

I previously mentioned the public consultation or public engagement process. The process received exactly 776 participants. Now, that’s not 776 lawyers, as was previously mentioned. That is 776 total. The breakdown is 222 lawyers, 218 paralegals, 71 notaries, 211 general public, ten from legal academic instructor or researcher, 44 other, making 776. From my understanding, there are somewhere between 13,000 and 14,000 lawyers in British Columbia. So this is 222 of, at a minimum, 13,000. It’s just a drop in the bucket for one public consultation.

Now, juxtapose that against the public consultation that the Minister of Health, the Leader of the Third Party and myself led, with staff of course, on the Health Professions Act changes — thousands of submissions. We went out to the public with an intentions paper. They provided us their input. We then went out again with a document showing where we thought we should go in recommending to government and asked them again for their input. A lot of that was based on their input the first time. So we went through two iterations of this with way more people than what the 222 divided by 13,000 would be as far as percentage goes.

I don’t understand why the Attorney General believes that canvassing such an important issue with just 222 lawyers out of 13,000 or 14,000 lawyers is adequate public consultation. I would suggest that instead of putting the bill out for government adoption in two weeks before we rise, they actually just let it stay on the order paper, let the public and the lawyers and the paralegals and notaries and the legal academic instructors and researchers all comment on what the actual legislation looks like. And then in the next session, whenever that is and whoever is in government at that point, they can take the input provided by all these people and provide a comprehensive review to this legislation and, hopefully, get it right at that point.

As I said before, all three — the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch; the Law Society; and Lawyers Rights Watch Canada — have expressed concerns about the erosion of lawyer independence under this new structure. It is crucial that any regulatory body remains free from political influence to uphold the integrity of our legal system.

The Law Society itself — an interesting letter, which I will read into the record. It was dated April 26, 2024, addressed to the Attorney General, and it says:

“As you will be aware, the Law Society of B.C. is deeply concerned that Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act, will have detrimental effects on the ability of legal professionals to properly represent the public.

“The Law Society has a statutory mandate to protect the public interest in the administration of justice by preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons, and the benchers have an obligation to act on that mandate.

“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 will disrupt and diminish the effectiveness of legal regulation in this province. And 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.

[1:55 p.m.]

“We urge you and your government to reconsider proceeding with the passage of Bill 21 and to take the time to consult more widely with the public, the legal professions and the Indigenous peoples of British Columbia to ensure that a revised bill creates a legal regulator that will ‘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 be individual citizens in the state.’

“Should Bill 21 be passed and receive royal assent, without significant amendment, we believe that our mandate to protect the rights and freedoms of all persons will require the Law Society to initiate litigation to challenge the constitutionality of the act. That outcome is, by no means, the one we consider most conducive to the public interest. The better option is to take the necessary time to get this right.

“We again urge you to exercise the leadership necessary to make certain that the future foundations of legal regulation in this province are the right ones.”

The Law Society urges government to halt Bill 21 and consult stakeholders. That is the letter from the Law Society dated April 26, asking the Attorney General to pause on Bill 21, go back out to the public, ask for more input so they can “get it right.”

I believe it’s vital that these changes not compromise professional standards and the quality of legal representation available to the public. As we heard from the Law Society letter, and other people, the conflict here is that they believe, as we do, that there may indeed be some of that occurring.

As the bill moves to committee stage, obviously our critic and critics will be ready to ask the government questions on this bill, specifically to each clause by clause, that are important to all to make sure that we get clarity on what’s happening. The caucus will rigorously examine each clause to ensure that the legislation aligns with what the best interests of British Columbians are and maintains the independence and high status of our legal professionals.

We would implement a regulatory framework that protects the autonomy of legal professionals from undue government influence. This should be done while ensuring that expanding roles with the legal profession do not dilute professional standards.

Unlike the government’s refusal to do so, we continue to push for a comprehensive, inclusive consultation process that involves the stakeholders. Again, I throw out the example of going back to the public with the intention and then finding more feedback so that we can all get it right.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would just say thank you for the opportunity to speak to the bill. As I understand it, based on what the House Leader has said, this is the last second reading. Therefore, after 15 years in this place, this is the last time I will get up and speak to a bill at second reading.

Thank you for the honour.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

Hon. L. Beare: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Beare: They were introduced earlier today, but they are now finally in the precinct here.

We have Queneesh Elementary School, with their teacher Wes Mann. The MLA for Courtenay-Comox wished them well and was looking forward to their visit. We have 35 grades 6 and 7 students.

Would the House please help me make them feel very welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing the member for Kelowna West on Bill 21.

Debate Continued

B. Stewart: I rise on a different topic. I’m here to speak about Bill 21 today. I just want to talk about the Legal Profession Act. It certainly does appear, from not having read the bill from end to end, but the amount of clauses…. It’s over 300 clauses.

I think when you see these bills come in, it’s always advisable for governments to make certain they introduce these bills at the earliest opportunity so that the critics and the people that are charged with having to make certain that these bills…. Before they become the law, they need to make certain that they are properly prosecuted from the standpoint about what certain things mean about these things.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

It brings me back to…. I think about professional acts that have changed in the time that I’ve been in this House. I think about one of the first problems that I was dealing with was, as Minister of Agriculture, with the veterinarians. They had a professional act, and they had two very different groups that were not very happy with the act that was there.

[2:00 p.m.]

They were really in charge of it. I know that we worked on it, trying to get them to come to a point where they could see things eye to eye and make certain that the differences in opinion were resolved by the people in the profession rather than government imposing them.

It has been many years, and I know that the CA profession was one of the ones that we were lobbied early on in my days as a young MLA — it did happen on a national basis — on what they wanted to do. We used to have CGAs and different other kinds of accounting titles, and it was very confusing. You know, what was it?

Of course, today they have one title, and they work as one group — I think that more standardization has been something very helpful — but they arrived at how they were going to do that. I have to commend…. I know in our family there were a number of CAs. My cousin and my late uncle were both CAs. The work that they had to do to get a degree and then article and stuff like that…. It is a very demanding profession.

It’s no less different when you’re a lawyer. I had worked with a number of lawyers over the years in a lot of different capacities, but I always remember the articling students. They’d already been to school, and they had all of these years of work where they were expected to learn the trade from people that had been in the trade themselves.

I do think there’s one thing we have to make certain we do. When we’re talking about taking groups, the notaries and the legal profession, we need to make certain that these things are going to work.

Now, we’re not combining like the CAs and the other accounting professions, but there are some mergers going on behind the scenes. I’m respectful of the board that is being set up to run with some lawyers, some notaries, some First Nation representatives. On the surface, it ap­pears balanced.

I guess the question I have to ask is: how many times in the past have we had problems where the people that police lawyers, their own Law Society, have been not able to contain or deal with things effectively?

As a matter of fact, they are probably one of the toughest organizations that I can recollect and that’s out there dealing with their own members if they do something — an indiscretion or if there’s a question. I don’t like to think that that goes on, but it does happen: misuse of funds that are in trust or being held or whatever, and things like that.

The benefits that I did see in this are, I think, for the notaries. As the minister mentioned in her opening remarks, this is trying to place and put more affordability for legal work in the hands of some people, such as notaries, that may charge less and have different schooling to become a notary. They still have the requirement to maintain their level of expertise in order to maintain their licence as a notary public. I think that in that case, it was a positive step in the right direction.

In the legal profession, its history certainly goes way beyond even the establishment of the province of British Columbia, coming over from England in the days when the law professions were there. There has been a lot of development of these things over the years, and I think it’s really important that we do get this right.

In a lot of cases, there are questions. Here we are; we’re about eight days from the end of session, and we’ve got this act that has only really come to second reading, without the opportunity to have the full session. Being able to make certain that the prosecution is done is something that we need. It is intended to be properly and thoughtfully worked on.

I guess one of the things that I think of, when we look at the kinds of issues or whatever, is that we want to make certain that this is done right. A few years ago, I know there was professional reliance on professional engineers. We had some in our caucus. We took that right, so that they couldn’t be either trusted or we couldn’t rely on them, away from them. I know that there was some noise about that.

[2:05 p.m.]

I do look at some of the other things, and I think about the reliance…. Even the lawyers were forced into, I would say, a union that was not of their choice. They had to come into that. There was a negotiation, and I honestly know that they were quite opposed to being forced into that, working within the buildings here, and being told that this was the way that things were going to be done, because the government wanted it to be done that way.

I think, probably, sometimes that doesn’t always work, having government have the heavy hand over top of professions. As we see, where we get too far into things, etc., we actually aren’t delivering better services. Sometimes, we are better off to back away and stay away from things, such as health professions, for instance.

Look at the health professions, in Bill 36, which we had in the last session. I mean, it was hundreds of clauses as well, but it really needed to be properly understood. We took all of those professional bodies, and we made it simpler, maybe, to understand from an outside point of view. But we were, essentially, putting those groups together, and in some cases, where they are not necessarily functional.

I don’t have any doubt that government is trying to make things function better, because with a more simple approach, we are going to end up making certain that doctors or people that are specialists are not in separate camps. They have to work together.

I am not certain that there was adequate consultation to bring people along to a point where they could resolve this and come up with some solutions that, at least, could be considered. I think what we see in Bill 21 is a situation where we have overreached, and we’re making people have to conform to something they are not necessarily looking or expecting to do without better consultation.

I think about some of the things that have been said. Lawyers and the court system are there to protect fairness and justice in our province. I know that our Premier, when he was Attorney General, seemed to be quite challenged with that, even though, like this Attorney General, he was charged to be the chief legal officer of the province.

I think that both of them would know that, having been Attorneys General in this province. They only have to walk down the hallway and come in the outside door, and on the glass of a building that’s over 125 years old, it’s essentially labelled right on the window: “Attorney General.”

It’s important because that’s one of the foundational things that this province was founded on. I know that when the province’s seal is turned over to the Attorney General, it is something that is a huge responsibility, and it needs to be taken seriously.

The legal profession, as I said earlier, didn’t just come in overnight. It’s not something new. It has been around for centuries, the British system we’ve adopted — albeit we’ve had our own opportunity, in Canada as well as in British Columbia, to alter those things and make changes that help make it more practical, modern and things like that.

This bill doesn’t do that. What it does: it reaches in, and it, essentially, is a gut-changing series of changes and, especially, the oversight. As lawyers, I’m sure that they fear the oversight of the Law Society, and I think that they respect it. I know that the head of the Law Society was here. I had a brief chat with him recently, when he was here in the buildings.

I think their concern is that they’re losing the ability to control and regulate themselves, and they’re giving it to people — I mentioned the makeup of the new board that would oversee all the legal professions in British Columbia — who don’t have the same training. There’s certainly no requirement that some of the people that are in here have legal training. They come from those different areas.

The idea that there are government appointments, some by the Lieutenant-Governor…. I still think that there is room in this particular bill for much better consultation. I think that that’s what the Law Society is looking towards.

[2:10 p.m.]

As I mentioned, the Attorney General is 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, and now is the Premier, who has been the former Attorney General of the province.

I know that this shouldn’t come as any surprise to lawyers, because I think that they have…. I find most lawyers believe in their credentials as being something that’s tantamount to the title that they’re given — the fact that they might be a King’s Counsel, formerly a Queen’s Counsel. The fact is that they take their responsibility seriously.

I can’t help but think about how even small things where lawyers have acted…. And I had the unique opportunity in a particular case…. We were working with a lawyer out of Kelowna at the courts down on Robson Square and the days we spent in there on a particular case, which was about a company that was in receivership. We made a case, but it was appealed in the coming days.

I just remember the actions of the people that were in dispute who hadn’t paid their bills, hadn’t paid the other shareholders. We were there to try to rectify and make certain that everybody was kept whole, to make certain that the business that was in question was not put into disrepute because of the fact that we felt that we could salvage it by using some of our resources. And it was overturned and turned back to these people. The two people that I’m referring to happened to both be lawyers. They were very, I’d say, predacious.

Needless to say, we got taught a lesson that I should have known from the days when I used to be in the finance business, where it was that the debtor always has the ability to make certain that if they can come up with a way to reconcile and pay their bills or whatever, they’re deemed to have preference over everybody else. That goes back to people that we used to make consumer loans or mortgages to. And if they found a way to make their payments or whatever, the courts would side with them.

In this particular case, it was very complicated, and it wasn’t easy. Even after spending days in court in Vancouver on this particular case, and having the lawyers that we had working for us, I can honestly say I was a bit surprised by the outcome, because it was turned over, and the costs which were denied…. And I think about the fact that…. I guess we could have appealed that, but at the end of the day, it’s one of those things where you start to learn about the whole business, the whole thesis of what lawyers go through to make certain that they’re making their case to the courts and the reason why this was an important aspect of it.

I do appreciate what’s being attempted here, but I think that this is overreaching, heavy-handed, and it is something that I don’t think is supported by the profession here in British Columbia. Anyways, with that, I think that I’ll turn back to….

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to speak to Bill 21. I appreciate what the government has tried to do here. However, I think that this bill should be tabled and should be properly prosecuted at the next sitting of this Legislature.

S. Bond: I’m delighted to take my place in the chamber to have a conversation about the….

I just realized. I was at lunch, and I have a button on, which is not allowed in this chamber. So it is now off, Madam Speaker.

I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to stand up and speak to Bill 21. I want to begin by first of all recognizing that Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act…. What exactly is it, and why is there significant concern about not necessarily all of the content of the bill? It has a great deal to do with timing. It has a great deal to do with consultation. It has an awful lot to do with….

[2:15 p.m.]

We have been on a journey to deal with improvements and changes in terms of the legal system. We absolutely agree there needs to be modernization of legal services and improving access to justice. I can’t imagine there’s a person in this House who doesn’t agree with that. But our concerns are about the how, and we find ourselves in this chamber repeatedly discussing the how. Often the word that is used to characterize the way this government deals with legislation would be “overreach.”

Those are the concerns we have. We believe that this is exactly the kind of bill that needs to take the time necessary to go out, to consult, to deal with the issues related to the bill and to try to get it right.

Why does that matter? Well, what this bill does is…. It amalgamates the Law Society of British Columbia and the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia into a new corporation. It is called Legal Professions British Columbia or LPBC. It also, though, creates a licensing and regulation structure for paralegals. It has been described by many as, perhaps, one of the most consequential developments in legal regulation in more than 100 years.

The point of all of the comments, or many of them, that we are making today…. We’ve been trying to figure this out and look at how we modernize legal services and look at improved access to justice.

What on earth is the rush? We find ourselves here again at virtually the same place we have been with other bills of this magnitude. I can speak to that very personally. What springs to mind for me is the Health Professions and Occupations Act, fondly known as Bill 36 in this Legislature.

In November of 2022, third reading of that bill was literally cut off by this government. As a matter of fact, I think I was in mid-sentence when the mics were turned off. The decision to, basically, use what is considered…. It’s a gruesome way to illustrate it. It’s called the guillotine. Basically, the bill was cut off. The vote was forced, and the government, which has a significant majority, rammed through the bill.

Now, why does that matter? Why has it caused subsequent distress across British Columbia? There’s no other way to describe it. I am positive that every member on that side of the House and this one has heard from members who are governed under that bill, the health professions in British Columbia. They have had a pretty significant reaction to that.

Why is that concerning to me? I have been a legislator in this place for a long time, but I remember that bill. I can’t remember the exact number of clauses, but I know this. It was one of the largest bills that I have ever debated. There were over 600 clauses in that bill. The content was substantive. It is substantive. It changes things dramatically in British Columbia.

We managed, after eight days on our feet, to get through just over 200 of those clauses. A bill was rammed through this Legislature after only roughly one-third of the content was debated by people who were elected across the prov­ince to do just that, to actually come to this Legislature and have the kind of debate that says: “This bill is not perfect. We probably need to have some conversation about some of these critical issues.”

Well, let’s talk about the Legal Professions Act of 2024, Bill 21. There are 317 provisions in this bill. I don’t know who counted the words but almost 45,000 words. And they’re not just words. They will actually create consequential and significant changes to legal regulation, as has been noted by some, in more than 100 years. We need to ask ourselves: “What on earth is the rush?”

[2:20 p.m.]

Let’s put it in the context of where we are in terms of this parliament’s life. As of the end of today, we have eight working days left in this Legislature. We know that after that, it is completely possible that the Premier will make a choice about when we hold an election in British Columbia. That’s the scenario.

We have a substantive piece of legislation in front of us. And it’s not just substantive. It is facing strong opposition. One would think that the reasonable thing to do would be to take a pause, allow there to be adequate and appropriate consultation and, at some point in the future, whichever government takes their seat on that side of the chamber, then bring the bill back and have a conversation about that, with a meaningful and thoughtful dialogue. But that is not what is happening here.

When we look at some of the challenges, the biggest challenge…. Certainly, as a former Attorney General, I can tell you this: anything that compromises the independence of our legal system is simply inappropriate. We must preserve and maintain the public trust and the rule of law. That’s not a partisan statement; that’s not an MLA statement. That is a critical, fundamental principle.

My point today is that this bill doesn’t stand by itself. It continues a very troubling pattern. We look at the overreach that this bill also makes. If you look at other bills…. I’ve already mentioned Bill 36.

We continue to hear from health care professionals across the province about their concerns. Guess what they were concerned about. It’s the same kinds of things. Governance. How are members chosen to actually represent and sit on a board? Discipline. All of those kinds of things are extremely important.

With Bill 36, we even asked the government, similarly to what we’ve done here, to say: “Bring the bill back. Take a pause. Perhaps even assign it to the Health Committee so that there can be ongoing consultation and dialogue.” We asked to have a debate in this Legislature subsequent to the ramming through of the bill. None of those things were permitted by this government. It was: “We’re going to blaze through more than 600 provisions in that bill.”

Even if people elected to do their job in this place, which is to try to make laws that are actually effective and work properly…. We know what’s going to happen with this. We have heard, very clearly, that there will be a reaction, should this bill…. I probably should, more accurately, say…. When this bill is rammed through the Legislature, there will undoubtedly be legal action.

What I fail to understand…. We have stood up time and time again. We’re not even saying that there aren’t elements that are important and that are essential, as we look at modernization. What we’re saying is: what on earth is the rush?

When you have people standing up and saying there is a concern about the independence of the legal system because of this bill introduced and many comments made by the Attorney General…. One would suggest that we may want to take a moment and think about the implications of what that means.

When we look at the other bills where we’ve seen a similar pattern…. We look at professional fields like engineering. We had Bill 36. We had Bill 49. What has happened? The professions that were regulated under bills in this Legislature by this government have already experienced the consequences of increased government control. What does that do? That is the inherent concern with this bill. It erodes the checks and balances that are necessary in a free society.

We look at some of the concerns that have been ex­pressed, and we look at advocacy groups who have expressed concerns. If you think about this, the proposed board composition…. Again, an issue in Bill 21. It was certainly an issue, and continues to be, in Bill 36.

[2:25 p.m.]

The proposed board composition under Bill 21 includes a significant number of government-appointed members. Think about that. That could actually lead to government influence or interference in legal regulation. If that isn’t the case, why is the government so worried about taking some time to have a meaningful discussion about that and clar­ify that that is not what this bill is designed to do? If it inadvertently does, there should be a willingness to fix it.

If you look at the allocation of seats, it is very complicated. That’s one of the reasons why people are deeply concerned about this.

When you look at what, for example, the Law Society of B.C. has to say…. They used the words “deeply concerned.” When we think about this, their mandate…. That isn’t a mandate created out of thin air. It is their statutory mandate, the Law Society, to protect the public interest in the administration of justice by preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons.

The legislation has caused deep concern. It, in many peoples’ minds, fails to protect the public’s interest in having access to independent legal professions, governed by an independent regulator, that are not constrained by unnecessary government direction and intrusion. Those are substantive concerns. They are not: “Well, let’s just rush this through. We want to get onto the campaign trail.” We’re talking about fundamental and foundational principles when it comes to a free society and the checks and balances that need to be in place.

What the bill attempts to do is expand access to legal services by introducing regulated paralegals. The bill brings the potential to add other new categories of legal professionals. It is absolutely essential that these changes do not compromise the professional standards and quality of legal representation available to the public.

One of the repeated concerns when we look back, whether it is Bill 36, other bills that have come through this House…. We hear about it regularly. The consultation process leading up to this bill’s introduction, certainly, is being characterized as inadequate. It had 776 responses. I think that absolutely legitimizes questions about the depth and breadth of stakeholder engagement, especially when we think that this piece of legislation has been characterized by some as sweeping.

One would think, if we were going to look at sweeping reform and how it might impact, basically, one of the core pillars of democracy…. We might want to take the time to make sure we get it right.

I’m going to reiterate. I can hardly wait for the comments that are going to be shared. “We don’t support it. We don’t….”

What we don’t support is rushing through a bill of this magnitude when there have been significant concerns articulated by people in British Columbia. Yes, those in­volved in the profession and others. That’s what we don’t support. We think it is completely reasonable to say: “Let’s take a pause. Let’s have a conversation. Let’s go back out into the field. Let’s talk to people.”

We know what is going to happen. There will be further follow-up, and it will likely take place in the courts of British Columbia.

When a legal professional represents clients, and we know this is true, their interests often diverge from those of government. We know that to be the case.

There must be trust that the legal regulator is indepen­dent of government influence. That is the quintessential issue with this bill. If there is an erosion of the principle that the legal regulator is independent of government influence, that is a threat to a free and democratic society.

[2:30 p.m.]

In fact, one of the things I would love to know is: what has been done in terms of looking at this from an influential perspective, whether that is nationally or internationally? Those are really critical questions that I think British Columbians and the government need to know and government should be actually responding to. If you think about many of the clients and cases that are dealt with, government is often involved, in terms of being on the receiving end of those cases. So we know how critical it is that we take the time to get it right.

One of the other significant challenges is…. There have been repeated promises of reduced legal fees and increased affordability. There is absolutely no clear indication within this bill that these outcomes would be realized. So that discrepancy that exists between what the government is saying and what the bill is saying actually needs to be addressed to ensure transparency and accountability.

In looking at some of the work that’s been done and some of the commentary that’s been made about Bill 21, even people who express substantive support for Bill 21 say things like this: “Bill 21 is not perfect.” Well, if it’s not doing what it is supposed to be doing, if there is enormous concern about it, what on earth is stopping the government from saying: “We will take the time to ensure that the 317 provisions, 45,000 words, get the scrutiny that they deserve”?

It’s not a nice-to-have in the Legislature of British Columbia. When a bill of this magnitude is tabled, it is the responsibility of people who, at this point, serve in the opposition parties to hold the government to account. That is very hard to do when there are eight days left in this session before we head out on the campaign trail, undoubtedly. And we know what’s going to happen. If the debate isn’t complete and we don’t get through 317 provisions, we know what’ll happen. The guillotine will come down.

I’ve had the experience, as I shared earlier. In mid-sentence, the debate was ended. The vote was held and, as one would expect, the majority moved Bill 36 and created law. This is that significant. This is not only about the legal profession. We are creating laws in this place, yet apparently, adequate scrutiny doesn’t seem to be high on the list of government priorities.

We have a truncated session — fewer days, fewer hours, gigantic bill. “Let’s just get ’er done.” Well, we disagree with that, and we’ve laid out a very reasonable request. Take a pause. Go talk to British Columbians. Go talk to the Law Society. Go and talk to the people, the Society of Notaries Public. Go and talk to the people whose lives and professions will be impacted by this bill.

When you think about it, British Columbia’s leading legal professions do not support this bill. And that is being generous. They actually strongly oppose it. In fact, I think if members opposite were to look it up or do some homework, I believe the Law Society has promised there will be a court challenge. So here we sit, creating a law we already know is likely to face a legal challenge. How responsible is that in this place? In my estimation, not very responsible.

Again, it is not about the fact that we don’t need to look at modernization and increased access to justice. Of course we do. I’ve had the unbelievable honour of serving as the Attorney General of British Columbia, and I know that’s an important consideration. But let me tell you, you have the Law Society, the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch and the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C. saying: “Hold on just a minute. We’d like to have more time to discuss this.” Yet here we are, stubborn refusal by the government. “Let’s just get it done.”

We also need to think about the fact that…. Again, I think there should be a recognition and appreciation of the organizations’ concerns.

[2:35 p.m.]

The independence of lawyers from state interference is essential. So we have to look at: does the new governance model safeguard the independence of lawyers or not? There is no clear answer.

The bill also, as I said earlier, talks about increasing the range of authorized and affordable options for legal assistance. No one is arguing that that may not be necessary, but there is nowhere in the bill that directly tells us that that would actually be a result of passing this bill.

What we want to ensure in this Legislature is that, first of all, there is substantive time to deal with these issues in committee stage. But make no mistake about it. As the person who debated Bill 36 for eight straight days and got a third of the way through more than 600 provisions, I can assure you that this bill that we are talking about today, Bill 21, is actually complex and is going to require substantive debate and discussion and exploration at the committee stages. We simply do not have that time.

To me, in the face of the opposition that this bill has received, recognizing that all of the parties involved know and want to make sure there is a look at how we reform the legal professions and also look at how we create more access to justice…. Pretty important principles. But why on earth the rush?

We want to make sure that we have the opportunity to look at the clauses, rigorously examine them. We need to decide whether this legislation aligns with the best interests of British Columbians and, most importantly, maintains the independence and high standards of our legal professions. That is fundamental to a free society and to democracy. We also need to ensure that expanding roles within the legal profession doesn’t dilute those professional standards.

We continue to push for meaningful, thoughtful, comprehensive consultation. Most importantly, it needs to be inclusive. It has to include all of the stakeholders, including those who have voiced their significant concerns about moving forward with this bill.

I think the thing that is most disappointing is that it is not the intention of the opposition to suggest that there does not need to be change at all. I will be very disappointed if that is how it is characterized. That is not what a single one of my colleagues has said in this House.

What we do care about is…. When you come to the Legislative chamber of British Columbia and create laws, you want to make sure you give it the best chance that it has to be effective, to make sure that it is not an overreach. Yet bill after bill, reform after reform, it’s simply: “We’ve got the majority. Let’s just get this done.” And that is not acceptable in this place.

People who have expressed support for Bill 21 have said it’s not perfect. They have also said that their support is by no means unqualified. In other words, I’m not sure we’ve seen many people that have said: “This is the best thing. It’s perfect. Let’s make it work.”

There are significant discussions, especially when we think of the scale of what is happening here, and we also need to think about the impact that this bill has on both members of the public and the legal professions who serve them. So we actually need to take the time necessary to try to get this bill right.

The Law Society of British Columbia says that the legislation tabled “fails to protect the public’s interest in having access to independent legal professions governed by an independent regulator that is not constrained by unnecessary government direction and intrusion.”

[2:40 p.m.]

“As legal professionals represent clients whose interests often diverge from those of government, there must be trust that the legal regulator is independent of government influence.”

I would love to see who would stand up in this chamber and disagree with that. Yet those are the kinds of fundamental questions that are being asked about this bill.

When we think about where we sit today, yes, this is an attempt to modernize governance of legal professionals. We recognize that. What we want to ensure, as I have said previously, is that it aligns with both public expectations and the interests of the legal profession. There is work to be done on this bill. Again, it is simply the pattern of this government that they refuse, when confronted with significant concern, and simply say: “We’re going to get it done anyway. We have eight days left. Let’s do this. Let’s get the debate done. Let’s get through committee.”

Well, that is simply not good enough. We agree modernization is absolutely something all of us as legislators would like to see, but it cannot and it must not come at the expense of the very foundational principles that govern our legal system. We are more than willing to look at amendments that preserve the independence of our legal professions. We absolutely want to enhance access to justice for all British Columbians. But stubbornly refusing to take a pause, which I believe is an incredibly reasonable request…. It’s simply not going to happen. We want our court system to be there, and it must protect fairness and justice in our province.

When you look at this bill, it has the possibility of making changes that will cause significant concern. We need to do the right thing, to give members of the official opposition and other opposition members the chance to actually fundamentally review this bill, look at it clause by clause.

We know that when you look at Bill 36…. I have lived experience. It was extremely controversial at the time that it was passed. We opposed that legislation. It did not have the proper debate, and now we actually see the results of what happened because the guillotine was brought down. Debate was shut down in this place to ram through the bill.

We’re asking for a reasonable pause, an opportunity to be inclusive in consultation, to be thoughtful, to be willing to listen to the criticism and to answer the hard questions that when you’re creating law in British Columbia, that should be the minimum expectation of the government of British Columbia.

L. Doerkson: I’m a little surprised nobody else has chosen to stand up and speak to this bill today. It is an important bill, of course, and I’ll double down on a couple of comments the member for Prince George–​Vale­mount has introduced here today. I think we’ve heard it from other members as well, and I heard earlier the other Prince George, Prince George–Mackenzie. I always enjoy him referring to “popping the hood open” on this legislation.

I’m going to talk about a few things that might be new to the conversation. I want to talk a little bit about a letter that was written to me by a lawyer in Cariboo-Chilcotin. Of course, as always, I am thrilled to be here representing Cariboo-Chilcotin and for the opportunity to speak here today.

[2:45 p.m.]

The member for Prince George–Valemount made it very clear it’s not an opposition to not modernize or not reflect on what this Bill 21 intends to do. I mean, without question, there’s a need to contemplate changes in this act.

But the member that spoke prior to me made it clear that there have been challenges with bills in this House. While I’m a relatively new legislator in this precinct, the challenge has been with respect to Bill 36. Frankly, we saw a different sort of situation develop with Bill 31, which did have nine days of committee. We did have an opportunity to speak to that bill and debate that bill.

We still had issues with respect to search and rescue teams in the province. Even when a bill had the opportunity to really be debated in a fulsome way, we still had some challenges with search and rescue teams that really were dealt a blow because of that legislation. Now, in this case, we might not have the same ability to have that opportunity to speak to it and hear other versions and the vision of the government with respect to their support for this bill.

I think that, again, to just reiterate the point, there’s not a pushback to not modernize the bill or the legislation. The point is that we want to slow down and reflect and make sure that everybody is consulted on this. I can tell you that there’s much frustration in the legal community, and those are certainly not people that I would look forward to debating with in a courtroom.

I think that there’s an opportunity just to slow down. I think, too, it’s indicative of what’s happening in this Legislature right now. We have very serious bills before the House. We have estimates ongoing. I think we’ve got Finance estimates today and all kinds of things. There should be an opportunity to just take pause on this.

The member for Vancouver-Langara mentioned in his own comments that it’s important we understand exactly the point. This has been brought before this House when we have other things like Haida Nation before us and all those kinds of conversations that are going on. Again, we’re not saying stop. We’re saying just slow down and let’s understand this a little bit better.

We are of course talking about Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act, and I want to talk a little bit about what the bill does. It will establish a single regulator responsible for the oversight of lawyers, notaries public and, of course, a new category for professionals called regulated paralegals, and possible new categories of professionals in the future.

Certainly, the new regulator, called Legal Professions British Columbia, will have a clear mandate to regulate the professions in the public interest and will be required to consider important guiding principles.

Again, through this process…. I know that this is a challenge. I am not suggesting that it’s a simple process. But this process did start back in 2022. So here we are. We’ve had, really, only 776 surveys that have been completed and submissions made. I can tell you, as I will in a moment, certainly from Cariboo-Chilcotin, that there’s incredible concern and a real cause to just slow down.

I should note that this, like other bills that we’ve seen — like Bill 31, like Bill 36 — that, frankly, were not debated in a proper way…. All of the questions were certainly not answered or even asked, for instance, on Bill 36. But we have seen it on Bill 23, Bill 28 and other bills as well. Now, of course, that those are in place, we do see the frustration that some of that legislation has created. Some of that could have been averted, I think.

[2:50 p.m.]

The Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, is very concerned, very concerned lawyers. They do not have a majority and a general composition of the board to be established…. They are concerned about this from the front to the back. I don’t know that that conversation has happened in a fulsome way either. I think, in general terms, that’s really the concern today.

As I said, the bill will seek to end self-regulation of lawyers, a cornerstone of legal independence, by introducing a new governance structure that will dilute the voice of legal professions through increased government involvement. I think that probably, frankly, is the frustration that many are feeling. We’ll talk a little bit about that in a moment.

That does feel very much like overreach to me. We’re going to take a board that would really be built and made of many people in the industry and all of a sudden inject three members of government. It seems a bit overreaching to me. That government overreach, we feel, comes from our past Attorney General, now the Premier of the province. This has been ongoing since 2022.

I’ve spoken about bills like Bill 36, and frankly, that was very frustrating for so many people in our province. It was certainly frustrating for me. I wanted to debate that bill. I wanted an opportunity to have a fulsome conversation and ask questions, and I do know that the shadow minister in that role was shut down under closure. I don’t recall right offhand, but it seems to me that she might have got through two-thirds of the clauses.

Of course, this is a hefty bill as well. It’s not like we’re talking about a one-pager or a two-pager. Of course, this time we have more than 300 to talk about, which will certainly generate the odd question in this place, for sure.

I think that there will be many questions around what the motive is. I haven’t heard anybody explain why to this point. Maybe we will this afternoon, but to this point, I haven’t heard anybody explain why we want to have government involved in this role or at this capacity.

When it comes to the industry on its own, I think there are many ways that this industry operates now, with all of us, that we don’t think about on a day-to-day basis. I guess I question an industry that has been pretty intensely monitored to begin with. The fact is they certainly regulate themselves and offer an incredible amount of integrity, to the point that I’ve certainly had my attendance records and those types of things signed by a notary of my own community.

When my father passed, certainly, I reached out to lawyers and notaries to help me traverse what is a very complicated time in a person’s life. They, of course, helped with the estate, the will, the conveyancing of all the land and those types of things to my mother — not that there was a bunch of land, but there was certainly one piece that was complicated.

So I’ve had much to do just in the daily occurrence of things that you would need to refer to this industry on. Frankly, I question why we find a need to, as government, put ourselves into this role. I think, obviously, the industry does too.

I want to share a letter that came to me by way of a barrister and solicitor in my riding. I know that the Attorney General, of course, has received this letter as well. I’ll just sort of highlight a few things that this gentleman has wanted to convey to the government.

[2:55 p.m.]

He wanted to express his “profound disappointment in this government’s attempts to circumvent the fundamental distinction between the legislative and judicial branches of government in tabling legislation that has the potential to seriously undermine this fundamental aspect of our democracy.” That is Kenneth D. Smith in 100 Mile House.

I’m going to quote a couple of other things from this letter, as well, but frankly, I have heard from other lawyers in this profession that are very concerned about the overreach of government and the fact that they may consid­er…. We’ve seen this in other professions. But they may end up considering other options, whether that be another province or whether it be something else. They’re very concerned about what is happening in this Legislature right now with respect to Bill 21.

I’ll quote Kenneth Smith again:

“Similarly, this legislation tabled by the NDP in this province erodes public confidence in the administration of justice separate and apart from the political interference.

“The Law Society of B.C. until recently has governed the affairs of lawyers and is responsible for the protection of the public. It is administered by lawyers so that it can be free of influence from outside of the legal system from parties that may have their own interests in mind other than the proper administration of justice.

“The legislation would allow for inputs from outside actors to put pressure on members of the legal profession to achieve other ends and is accordingly very concerning.”

That’s coming from a lawyer who is concerned that there might be pressure from outside of this industry that might create something else. I see a member, at least one member, shaking his head, but those are not my words. That is somebody that is very concerned about this situation. He refers to it: “It’s alarming, and it’s not fit for a free, democratic society to have this type of legislation.”

I’ll leave Mr. Smith’s letter there with respect to Bill 21, but it’s not just Mr. Smith that is concerned. All three — the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch; the Law Society and the Lawyers Rights Watch Canada — have all expressed concerns about the erosion of the lawyer independence under this new structure. It’s crucial that any regulatory board remains free from political influence to uphold the integrity of our legal system.

While the bill aims to expand access to legal services by introducing regulated paralegals and potentially other new categories of legal professionals, it’s vital that these changes do not compromise professional standards and the quality of legal representation available to the public.

Again, I have to go back to the consultation portion of this, because it really is the most important part. When I referred earlier to Bill 31…. The conversation that hap­pened after Bill 31 was passed here with search and rescue teams in the province was frustrating. In fact, I think the minister has admitted that it was frustrating on both sides. I don’t think I’m speaking out of turn there.

The point is that there was an opportunity to have consultation during that time. We had an opportunity to debate the bill. We had an opportunity to ask nine full days of questions on that bill. The concern that I have here is that we may not have that same opportunity. The member for Prince George–Valemount pointed out the fact that there are only eight days left. Other committee rooms are busy with estimates. Ultimately, we need an opportunity to slow the pace on this advancing piece of legislation and hear from more than 776 people.

Again, the industry is already regulated and has an incredibly high standard of professionalism, and so many of us, I think, have had the opportunity to use this profession in many ways that we often forget. I think that they’re quite close to us in many ways.

[3:00 p.m.]

Further, I want to recognize the proactive steps that have been taken by notaries in the province, of course, to elevate their own professional standards. Notaries have made significant strides to ensure that those practising in the expanded scope have the necessary knowledge and ex­pertise, and this commitment to maintaining high standards in their profession deserves commendation.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

While B.C. United appreciates the government’s intention to integrate such standards into Bill 21, it is imperative to note that the notaries themselves had proposed an alternative path. They have suggested amendments to the Notaries Act that would have allowed them to voluntarily adopt these higher standards without the need for broad legislative overhaul. This approach would have preserved the notary profession’s autonomy while still achieving the government’s goal of elevating professional standards across legal services. As we know, the government has chosen not to take that path.

Certainly, as the bill does move through to committee stage, I think many of us will have, obviously, a need to ask many questions. I certainly know that law professionals from Cariboo-Chilcotin have reached out with a number of questions, and we’ll certainly be posing those if time permits. Again, that is a bit of a concern, of course, because there are only eight days left in the legislative calendar.

I also just want to go back to the way the board will be made up. I think right now, you know, we’re looking at a board that has 17 directors, if I’m not mistaken: five lawyers, two notaries. There are also, of course, folks that are sitting on that board on a merit-based process by a majority of 12 directors, of which four must be lawyers, one notary and one must be Indigenous.

I don’t know where the legislation…. I don’t know how Indigenous people have been contemplated in this bill, and I think that’s one thing that will be very interesting to find out as we go forward. I do know that there needs to be an opportunity, for certain, to consult our First Nations in the province on every bill. I don’t know where we have been with respect to that.

I want to close just by…. I talked a little bit about it earlier with respect to the profession itself and how it has helped me. I would suggest that this profession is a bigger part of our lives than we think. We often will take the professionals a little bit for granted because we don’t stop to think, “Hey, we just need to have this notarized,” or, “We have to have this done.”

I think this industry has had an incredibly high standard, which is where I started here today, just to explain that I don’t know that we need to have government sitting on a board that has upheld the standards that they have in this industry.

Anyhow, I do know that they’ve been an incredible help to me on so many fronts, and I hope that we’ll take the time in this place to slow down, just to understand it a lot better than I think many of us understand it right now. I hope that we will go through the full consultation process that members from certainly this side of the House are encouraging.

I hope that the Attorney General, along with others, will just take a pause for a minute and make sure that everybody understands. It is a very serious bill, I think, probably…. Well, everything that comes before this House is pretty serious. I think, in this case, the legal profession is owed a moment or two to better understand it from their perspective. The residents of British Columbia are owed a bit more of an opportunity to take the time to be consulted as well. Certainly, we have to include our First Nations in that conversation, or the First Nations that are here in British Columbia.

[3:05 p.m.]

With that, I’ll take my place and allow somebody else to have an opportunity to speak to this.

G. Kyllo: I’m surprised. I thought for certain that government would be putting up some of their members to speak to Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act.

Before I get into the main gist of my conversation, I think it’s important for folks who might be listening at home to think a little bit about democracy. There are always lots of partisan snipes that may happen around the province and even in this House, but truly the democracy that we have here in Canada and here in British Columbia, I think, is some of the best in the world.

As a very proud Canadian, a proud British Columbian and even more importantly, I think, a proud member of the Shuswap community, it’s important that we all pay tribute and respect to the work that’s done in this House. It’s important that government take the necessary time to inform British Columbians about the legislation that they’re bringing forward, new bills and laws that are going impact the lives of British Columbians and, as has been shared by many of my colleagues, the importance of the distinction between the legislative branch of government and the judiciary.

There are many, I’m sure, that have lots to say about the legal profession, but I do know when the chips are down and you’re looking for somebody to stand up for your rights — maybe you’ve been mistreated by a government or an employer — you need to have a separate branch, the judiciary branch, in order to hear your case and to make a legal argument to try and provide justice.

On so many fronts…. It’s not just Bill 21, but on so many different pieces of legislation, we have a government that is increasingly becoming arrogant. They’re truncating, shortening, the legislative session, which reduces the amount of time for adequate debate.

They’re not following the long-standing traditions of this House by ensuring that legislation is introduced no later than the midpoint of the legislative calendar to pro­vide the opposition with a good understanding of what pieces of legislation the government is bringing forward, to provide proper time for consultation, for legal interpretation, in order to present a valid argument to government, an inquiry to truly understand what is government’s full intention.

So when government puts forward a piece of legislation, it is not just the words in that legislation that matter. It is the debate in this chamber, the discussions that are undertaken around second reading debate, but more importantly in committee stage, when the opposition members have an opportunity to raise questions, ask questions of government to fully understand what the true intentions are of the legislation.

That back-and-forth dialogue, that level of inquiry, helps to strengthen the court’s, the judiciary’s, interpretation of what was government’s true intention. But when we see legislation that is delayed in being introduced, and we have a reduced amount of time in order to go through that very important committee stage debate, government gets a bit of a free pass.

It’s not just the opposition that is upset. It should be all British Columbians, who are getting a raw deal. When they elect their governments and an opposition is formed, it’s important for the opposition to have adequate time in order to fully understand what government’s intentions are, to do other broad consultation, to have confidence that government has truly undertaken that consultation that is very necessary to ensure that piece of legislation or new bill is not just introduced at great surprise to those it may be impacting.

What has changed in the last 6½ years? There has been lots of discussion, both in this chamber and in the media, about how, on just about every societal measure, life has gotten worse for British Columbians in the last 6½ years.

[3:10 p.m.]

As we look specifically to Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act, why are we having so many challenges? Why are we having so many different groups around the province raising significant concerns with this particular government?

Well, there is a lawyer from Ontario that moved to British Columbia, and he happens to sit in the Premier’s office right now, who wrote a book, when he was working with the Pivot Legal Society, on how to sue the RCMP.

We have seen sweeping changes brought forward with legislation where government is taking control of the professions act for health care workers, nurses, doctors. We have also seen it with engineers, qualified environmental professionals. Professional reliance is being overridden, largely, by government — government that has an intention of knowing best and not liking, in any way, shape or form, being challenged.

As was mentioned by my colleague the member for Prince George–Valemount, Bill 36 makes significant, sweeping changes to the Health Professions Act. Nurses were upset. Doctors were upset. The government is taking a know-all approach, where they are now in control, largely, of the appointees to the colleges that actually determine, in large part, the code of practice for our health care professionals. Well, only health care professionals should be making those decisions to determine what is truly in the best interest of the health and welfare of British Columbians, not unlike that with Bill 21 with the judiciary branch.

Lawyers are independent, and it’s important that they have that independence, that they have that opportunity to self-regulate. But when government chooses to move forward with a piece of legislation, dumping it onto the agenda at the tail end of a very shortened legislative calendar, with limited time for debate, I think British Columbians should be very concerned.

Government is providing, through this piece of legislation — certainly, my understanding — the ability to control the appointments and the determination of the legal professions. We are slowly moving away from a democracy and more towards a dictatorship under this government. It’s largely moving forward to end the self-regulation of lawyers, and that’s offensive.

There has been limited, if any, broad consultation. And for those groups that there has been consultation with, this government has chosen to require non-disclosure agreements. What would be the advantage of that? You only have to look to the government to find out it’s a way of silencing any potential opposition. They open up the discussion, bring them in for conversations, get them all to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

It’s not about that two-way open conversation to really try, for government’s sake…. It should be to fully understand, maybe, what the lawyers would be looking for and the notaries might be looking for, for the legal professions in general. They use it as a tool to silence any opposition.

We’ve had limited opportunity for those that this bill is most largely going to impact to actually provide their concerns. So it is opposition’s responsibility, and largely falls to us, to raise some of the unintended consequences of a piece of legislation it would be very difficult to unwind.

We see this over and over again with this government. It’s not limited to Bill 21. We have seen this before. We’ve talked about this. The Health Professions Act. Even if we look to some of the other initiatives undertaken by this government…. ICBC might be another one.

[3:15 p.m.]

This government is almost Machiavellian with the way they approach some of these pieces of legislation. No-fault has removed and diminished the rights of British Columbians that are injured in motor vehicle accidents to seek justice and fair compensation. That is a limitation, a reduction of the democratic rights of British Columbians, and the manner in which government undertook that charade was truly offensive.

As we look to the notaries…. The notaries is one area that this bill covers. It’s government’s intention…. They certainly touted a lot about maybe expanding the opportunity for notaries to undertake different practices. There’s no quarrel with that from this side of the House. The notaries actually presented an informative paper to government with some suggestions on how the regulations could be changed to provide a better opportunity for them to expand their scope of practice.

My grandmother Jean Drine was a notary public in Fort St. John. I think she was one of the first notaries public north of Prince George when she started practising.

Yet government has not undertaken that broad consul­tation with the notaries or had a look at alternative methods or means by which they could expand the scope of practice for notaries. They’ve charged forward with these sweeping changes that are before us.

The legal profession in B.C. — over 14,000 lawyers. The consultation, again, is grossly inadequate. My colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin had referenced First Nations. We have seen time and time again with new pieces of legislation, new bills that are brought before this House….

One of the standard questions, one of the first questions that is asked in just about every committee stage debate is to ask the government member or the minister to provide, on the record, a clear indication of the amount of consultation that was undertaken prior to the tabling of the legislation, specifically First Nations consultation. For the most part, that consultation is grossly inadequate and, in many cases, has not happened at all. Government talks about First Nations consultation and the need to move towards reconciliation, but in practice, it doesn’t happen.

I happen to be the critic for Labour. In consecutive pieces of labour legislation, when asking the Minister of Labour to reflect on the consultation that has been undertaken with First Nations on changes to the labour code that will have a direct impact on the way the labour laws are enacted in British Columbia — zero consultation. So it’s a government that says one thing but does quite the opposite.

As many of my colleagues have suggested, that is one of the biggest concerns that we have. Government is racing this ahead, dropping forward very important pieces of legislation, 317 different clauses.

The government has likely been working on this piece of legislation with a huge staff of lawyers for months and months. Yet somehow this government feels that it’s warranted or, in any way, shape or form, acceptable to drop a piece of legislation, a very complicated piece of legislation with 317 clauses, in the last three weeks of session and somehow expect that the opposition members, with a very limited staff, having no lawyers at their disposal, are somehow able to interpret, understand the piece of legislation and put forward thoughtful comments to ensure that government is being forthright and that there are no unintended consequences.

[3:20 p.m.]

That’s not fair and open democracy when the government that has the majority decides to use their might and limit the opportunity for meaningful debate and understanding of pieces of legislation. It’s absolutely offensive.

So 317 clauses, 34,000 words. Here we are with just two weeks left in the legislative calendar, and we see this.

We’ve seen this with the government’s attempt to move forward with Land Act amendments: no broad and open consultation. Put a little notification on some obscure portion of the government’s website. Open it up for consultation.

Thank goodness British Columbians stood up and were outraged. That’s not the way governments are supposed to act and respond. Many individuals were concerned. What are the intentions? Why is this happening now? Who is asking for this?

In my riding of Shuswap, our office was absolutely rid­dled with calls from folks that were incredibly concerned, everything from ranchers that were concerned about the impact on grazing tenures to folks looking for what opportunity might exist for water lot tenure applications. In rural British Columbia, there are a lot of folks that have a significant connection to the land base. Logging tenures as well. Yet what did we see? Zero consultation.

I thought it might be worthwhile to have a town hall on the Friday of the Family Day long weekend. I thought maybe we would have 30 to 40 people show up on a Friday of a long weekend. So 350 concerned citizens showed up on the Friday of a long weekend absolutely outraged that this government is so arrogant in their manner of bringing forward legislation that would have such significant im­pacts with no consultation.

Thankfully, government walked that back. They ac­know­ledged the fact that they did it wrong. They tried to move forward in a sneaky, underhanded manner, and they were caught. British Columbians were outraged, and government walked it back.

But government has not learned their lesson. They continue the same pattern. A lack of consultation. Slip in very important, complicated legislation at the tail end of the legislative calendar, with limited time for debate and when there is limited time to go through all of the questions and inquiry that are required in order to better understand legislation being brought forward by this government. This government will use their hammer and their majority to shut down that very important conversation.

Similarly, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act…. Again, another very important piece of legislation.

Deputy Speaker: If I might, the time to talk about another act is during that act. We’re here to talk about Bill 21.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I certainly appreciate your advice on that.

As we look to the Legal Professions Act…. It is not just this act in itself. I think it is the pattern of this government, an arrogant government that certainly seems to have the audacity just to continue to hammer legislation through without that opportunity, or an adequate opportunity, for meaningful debate.

What we are asking for is a pause, for government to stand down this piece of legislation, to provide that opportunity for British Columbians to fully understand the depth and breadth of these potential changes, to provide an opportunity for lawyers to be unmuzzled by these non-disclosure agreements and allowed to provide their full views and interpretations on how we’ve got to this point.

[3:25 p.m.]

I am going to share a quote. This quote was provided by Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, which is the body in Canada that reviews and works with many bodies internationally to ensure that UN basic principles, as interpreted by experts, are not overwritten by government.

In paragraph 25 of their brief, they quote: “Authoritarian governments hamper effective opposition to repressive measures by creating laws that violate the independence of judges and lawyers.”

I’ll say that again: “Authoritarian governments hamper effective opposition to repressive measures by creating laws that violate the independence of judges and lawyers.” Well, that’s exactly what this bill does: repressive measures that will reduce and violate the independence, certainly, of the legal profession in British Columbia.

The quote goes on to say: “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.”

We are not following other jurisdictions around the globe, throughout the Commonwealth, or even here in Canada. This government is going it alone. They’re limiting the ability of the judiciary to self-regulate their profession, and British Columbians and Canadians should be incredibly concerned. This is a move far too far.

Now, as I referenced, some of the intentions of government through this piece of legislation…. They talk about reducing legal fees. They talk about increasing affordability, yet there’s no clear direction in any of this legislation that actually moves to achieve that. We do have an affordability crisis, but it is not the legal profession, largely, that is the challenge.

Government brings forward legislation with the communication side, believing, “Oh, this is going to make things less expensive for British Columbians.” Yet when you read the detail of the legislation, there’s nothing there that actually requires that to even happen.

To the contrary, as I shared earlier, the notaries actually are quite happy to look at expanding their scope of practice, but it does not have to be in the heavy-handed way of this piece of legislation. That is what should be, again, incredibly concerning — a very heavy-handed approach.

There’s a reference that my colleague from Vancouver-Langara had referenced in his remarks. It refers back to the 1982 decision with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice Estey, at the Supreme Court of Canada, was able to articulate the essential importance of an independent bar, of an independent judiciary. I’ll read back a quote. This is from 1982, on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, from Justice Estey:

“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.

[3:30 p.m.]

“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.”

Well, it’s interesting. Our current Premier, a former Attorney General, seems to know better than Justice Estey, who gave specific reference for our Charter rights and freedoms. There is no bounds for the moves and measures of this heavy-handed government. It’s unfortunate that maybe this piece of legislation has not received as much attention in the media as it is likely deserving.

This is a very slippery slope. Once this legislation, assuming it goes forward…. This government certainly has the votes. They’ll likely hammer it through, even if there is inadequate time for proper debate. They’ll invoke closure. They’ll hammer it through, because this arrogant government seems to know best.

It will only be then…. It will be too late. This govern­ment is slowly and methodically taking over not just the judiciary — Health Professions Act, engineering professions. The government-knows-best approach is putting British Columbians, I certainly believe, in harm’s way.

With that, I will take my seat. I certainly will not be supporting Bill 21.

Hon. B. Ralston: I rise to address Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act.

We have heard from members of the opposition a rather apocalyptic view of this piece of legislation, which is really far from the substance of the bill when it is examined carefully and cautiously.

First of all, the bill is passed in a context where many, many members of the public no longer have access to justice, in the sense that they cannot afford to hire a lawyer. The courts are flooded with self-represented litigation. I believe there are even rules guiding judges on how to deal with the many, many self-represented litigants. The price of legal fees, for many people, is really out of reach.

What this bill attempts to do is to create a regulatory scheme that offers the regulation of licensed professionals who are not lawyers but who will be licensed and scrutinized and regulated and able to provide certain legal services. Ontario has licensed people with those skills for at least 15 years. The goal is to have lawyers, notaries public and licensed paralegals in one regulatory framework.

I practised as a lawyer for many years. The idea, on a plain reading of this bill, that it will somehow interfere with the independence of a lawyer to represent his or her or their client is simply false. It’s simply false.

This bill will guarantee that lawyers continue to provide legal advice and representation to their clients without fear of interference from the state that could undermine their commitment to their clients’ causes. This entire bill is consistent in its adherence to that important principle. In no way does the bill impede the independence of lawyers in their ability to fearlessly represent their clients. So the suggestion….

[3:35 p.m.]

The last speaker was speaking about…. He repeatedly mentioned the judiciary. This is a bill which regulates lawyers, notaries and paralegals. It’s not a bill that regulates judges. I think that’s probably a slip of the tongue on his part.

It is true that the Supreme Court of Canada, and there are many passages that have been cited, has recognized it’s a principle of fundamental justice that the state cannot impose duties on lawyers that undermine their commitment to their client’s causes. In other words, there should be no barrier between the lawyer and his, her or their client in the path that they choose to represent and the means and the tactics that they may adopt to represent their client. Certainly, that’s a principle that’s set out in a case called the Attorney General of Canada and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada.

This legislation does not propose any changes that would interfere with the ability of a lawyer to provide committed legal representation to their clients or interfere in any way with solicitor-client relationships. No­where in the statute are duties imposed upon lawyers that undermine their ability to provide independent legal services. The manner in which lawyers may represent clients has been left entirely to the new regulator under their rule-making powers and other statutory powers. It is not set out in the legislation or left open in any way to government interference.

The argument that’s advanced on the other side, at a very high level, without ever pointing to any specific passage in the proposed statute, is simply erroneous. One wonders…. Well, one can suspect what the motives might be, but they are not consistent with the legislation that’s before this House.

In fact, in section 6(1)(c) of the proposed legislation, the regulator has the following duty: to ensure the independence of licensees. By licensees, they mean those who are licensed by the act: lawyers, notaries and licensed paralegals. It’s a specific obligation imposed upon the regulator to ensure the independence of those licensees.

The suggestion is…. Yes, there is change. The member for Prince George–Valemount wisely said that her party does not oppose change. They recognize that there is a need for reform in how the legal world is governed. There’s not an opposition in principle to change, which is, I think, prudent and wise and exactly what’s taking place here.

The model that’s created is a model of self-regulation for licensees. The bill maintains a lawyer majority on the regulator’s board, and 14 of the 17 directors will be licensees.

The three government-appointed directors…. There’s an objection. Somehow this is viewed as some dark attempt to control the body that’s being set up. In fact, there are already…. The member for Prince George–Valemount, when she was Attorney General, doubtlessly appointed members of the public, lay members, to the governing board of the Law Society. That’s a principle that has been going on for many years.

In fact, the number of those appointed members by the government will be a smaller percentage of the board than it is at present. In addition, the Attorney General, who has sat on the board, will no longer have a position in the regulator’s governance. The Attorney General will no longer be a member of the board. That is set out in the act.

The idea that somehow there’s a pressure…. I think some flamboyant language was used about a dictatorship. This is just irresponsible language.

[3:40 p.m.]

I have been a member of the Legislature for a while. I appreciate rhetorical exuberance and a little bit of rhetorical overstatement, but simply when one looks at the statute that’s before the Legislature, it’s not accurate.

Operationally, under the new act, the government will have no influence whatsoever on the regulator’s operations, including who will be the CEO, who will be on committees, who will be hired as staff of the regulator or who will investigate licensees for discipline and competence issues. The tribunal chair and the members are appointed by the board, not government. And self-regulation, as set out in the statute, means the profession itself sets the eligibility standards and decides who meets them, sets the standard of competency and conduct, and disciplines professionals who fail to meet them.

These are all matters which will continue to be determined by the regulator under this bill — not by the government. By the regulator. The rules made by the new regulator will not be subject to any form of government review or approval.

What it means in practice, again referring to the obli­gation of the new regulator’s core mandate to ensure the independence of the legal professions it regulates…. What this means in practice is the board and the CEO must ensure the independence of its licensees in the provision of legal services in order to meet the regulator’s mandate, including, for example, making rules.

The suggestion is made that somehow this model suggests greater, and I put it in parentheses, government control. It’s simply not factual. It is not true that this bill gives the government more control over lawyers. I think one might say, in a jesting aside, that lawyers are notoriously ungovernable, but I’ll leave that aside. Certainly hard-headed independence is a strong attribute of most, if not all, lawyers, and a skepticism about government institutions, a healthy one.

I understand the ethos in which these concerns are raised by the Canadian Bar Association and by the Law Society, but only three of the 17 board members — that’s 18 percent — are appointed by the government, which is a slightly lower percentage than the number of members currently appointed to the Law Society, of which there are six. Nine directors are elected by licensees. Five are appointed by the board, of which lawyers have a majority and the licensees altogether have a supermajority.

Moreover, the government does not direct the government appointees. They act independently from government and are given a defined term of service. Like all directors, government appointee directors are required to take an oath of office that will include a commitment to act in the public interest. As I have already said, the Attorney General is removed from the governance structure entirely.

The suggestion made, and this seems to be the theme or the leitmotif of those members opposite in their speaking points, that somehow this represents greater government control is false. It is false, and no amount of wishful thinking or rhetorical exuberance on behalf of the other side will make it so.

The opportunity here is to create a new regulator that will better serve the public interest, and indeed the regulator is tasked to act in the public interest. The advantages of doing that, I think, are clear.

We are at a time when there is…. Many, many people have difficulty obtaining legal services at a price they can afford. As I said earlier, whether it is within the courts, in family law, whether it is in the Civil Resolution Tribunal, although it is geared more towards ordinary people with­out legal representation, but certainly any manner that goes to the Supreme Court of British Columbia…. The flood of people who are representing themselves because they don’t have any other choice in important matters is really challenging.

[3:45 p.m.]

The profession knows that. I think the profession has taken some steps through encouraging what they call pro bono work, in other words donating legal services to those who require it and are not able to pay. Certainly, there’s a long tradition in the bar of doing that, but that in itself is a small part of the solution, not the major part of any solution.

This is an effort to reshape and rethink how legal services are governed in this province. It follows what has taken place in many other jurisdictions where there is self-regulation in a different style, whether it’s in Australia…. The Legal Services Act in Britain was a slightly different approach but was a change. Rather than a self-regulated profession, there are independent oversight agencies that govern and overlook what takes place in the legal profession in Britain. That is not the model that’s proposed here. Self-regulation will continue in the manner that it has, with the modifications brought forward by this legislation.

The Law Society has written a letter to the Attorney General, simply saying — it’s a very short letter — that they are not happy with the process that’s come forward, and they are concerned that this bill fails to protect the public’s interest. But there are no details given in the letter. What they do say is that if the bill passes, they will sue the government.

I think the letter seems to be largely written to convey their intention to sue the government. Probably not a surprising response from a group of lawyers that, given an obstacle, they will go forward and sue. I don’t say that entirely in jest, but that is really what they’ve said. Actually very little specific detail about the legislation and why they object to it.

Similarly, the Canadian Bar Association, which is a professional association — not the regulatory association, more a commercial organization to which membership is voluntary — did participate in the consultation process with the intentions paper, which began in September 2022.

There was a public update in March 2024. They participated in that process all along. They’ve now begun participating in a new engagement process. They are of the view that…. Again, the objections are not specific, and there are, notwithstanding the number of members they have and the capacity they have, no specific objections put forward, other than the consultation process and their general view that it’s not good legislation.

I think we will hear at the committee stage where people object to the methods that have been chosen. But the majority of those who are running it will be lawyers. Other professions will be part of the governance structure.

There will be a statutory provision for appointment of an Indigenous person. That’s a commitment that we have all made here under the Reconciliation Act, that our public institutions reflect the presence and the participation of Indigenous people in all the processes of government. That, again, is consistent. I don’t really think I would expect much objection, if any, from members of the opposition. And certainly, the Law Society and the Canadian Bar Association did not raise that as a specific objection.

[3:50 p.m.]

I could go on a bit longer, but I think I have made the points that I want to make. I would urge members in the chamber to support this bill.

P. Milobar: I am not a lawyer. I know the Minister of Forests is. I certainly will likely not have the same passion and zeal in my speech as he just had in his, given that this bill directly impacts a lot of his years of experience in the private sector.

There is a lot of serious concern around Bill 21 out there, and it comes from the better part of the 14,000 lawyers that are in this province. It’s interesting that the lawyers that are part of the government caucus have full-throated endorsement of Bill 21, but the vast majority of the 14,000 lawyers in the province don’t. One would expect that government members support a government piece of legislation. That’s really not a big surprise. I think it’s important we take those comments with a bit of a grain of salt as we move forward with this.

The reason I think there’s a lot of concern on Bill 21 is, as we’ve seen time and again with bills in this place, changes, as we’ve heard, to engineers and professions in and around that by this government, changes to the health professions by this government…. I think what we’re seeing is the legal profession actually being able to see how those changes have played out and to realize those changes are coming for them with Bill 21. They don’t like what they see.

Over time, we are hearing from more and more professions that were impacted by those previous bills. A lot of their commentary when those bills were first introduced was: “Well, we don’t think it will be too bad for us. We’re sure we can work with this. It probably won’t affect us that greatly.”

Fast forward to a few years later, when regulations have finally been enacted…. And I would note that this bill, the vast majority of the 317 clauses, I believe it has, take effect by order-in-council. There’s a whole whack of regulatory work that actually has to happen, that is actually the nuts and bolts of how this bill will work in the real world, that has lawyers very concerned, based on that track record of all those other professions being impacted.

It is important that we have a very clear and free, not just judiciary…. And I agree with the minister who is speaking. This isn’t about the judiciary, this bill. But it’s important for the public that you not only have a free judiciary, but you have access to a legal profession that is as independent from government as possible.

Why that’s important is…. All you have to do is look at the sheer number of times that this Premier, when he was the Attorney General, wound up in court and lost. The Crown lost, time and time again.

The only times they didn’t lose were, as we saw in Vancouver, when you had a group of area residents paying and engaging with legal counsel around a rezoning process within the city of Vancouver. This government chose to introduce a piece of legislation that put the government’s thumb on the scales of justice and said: “It doesn’t matter if you go to court and win. This new law says what the government wants to have happen on that piece of land is going to happen on that piece of land. So go ahead and go to court, but it doesn’t matter.”

That is the fundamental worry out there in terms of government having more and more control over the legal profession. The public needs to feel that they have the freedom.

Now, I’m not saying what the judgment in the case in Vancouver should have been, but the residents had the right to go to court until this government literally passed a piece of legislation that was specific to one piece of property to change the law and said: “No, in fact, on this one particular piece of property, you do not have the right to go to court. And if you do decide to proceed to go to court, the government is saying it’s irrelevant what the court says for a decision. This law overrides that as well.”

[3:55 p.m.]

When you have a 317-clause bill that is all left to regulation moving forward, it’s understandable why there are concerns.

I think the minister was accurate in saying he doesn’t think the people in this chamber would oppose or disagree with having more Indigenous representation on a board. Absolutely. It’s a good idea. All the lawyers I’ve met with that have concerns around this bill think that’s a good idea as well. We need 317 clauses to actually do that, 317 clauses to ensure Indigenous representation on a board? Is that really what the government is saying, with everything left to regulation after the fact?

The legal profession in B.C. — this is getting mixed in with notaries, and I think it’s important that I take a moment to talk about notaries. Notaries want and need more powers and more ability and more scope of work and more oversight that they’re asking for. But again, that doesn’t require 317 clauses intermixing them with the lawyers. We can deal with that. We can make that happen. But I think it’s important for people at home to understand the scope of the two organizations we’re talking about.

Back in the very early days of British Columbia, there were around 14 lawyers. They got together, and they formed what we have now. There were around 14 notaries public as well. Today 14,000 lawyers, 400 notaries public. Now, there’s a belief out there that notaries public are less expensive than a lawyer. Some are, but some aren’t. And that’s for the consumer to do their research, to phone and ask for prices on things like getting documents witnessed and other things that a notary can do or a lawyer can do. And that’s as it should be. The designation does not automatically result in a price point. That is what I’m saying.

These 317 clauses are not going to suddenly, magically make everyone in B.C. able to afford a lawyer or a notary. There, unfortunately, will still be those that won’t be able to afford it — or at least, the lawyer they would like to have. So I think we have to use that as a bit of a basis of understanding and then question why this Premier/former Attorney General has literally spent his seven years in government trying to pull every profession imaginable under the thumb of government.

We’re at the situation now where if you’re an engineer or you’re a health professional and you’re captured under Bill 36 or captured under the professional reliance bill previous sessions had, if you take issue with the government and want to go hire a lawyer under Bill 21, once it’s passed, to sue the government or sue your own governing body, you’re hiring someone that’s now going to be governed by the province in a way like never before.

It was bad enough when the Attorney General, now Premier, made the sweeping changes to ICBC and what that meant to the legal professions and people’s rights to access legal remedies in this province while he was the Attorney General. Those have been challenged in court. They were constitutionally challenged, and ultimately, the Attorney General and the province were defeated on those.

It almost feels like a payback bill. It feels like this Premier, this government, is mad that the lawyers outside of government keep beating government in court.

[4:00 p.m.]

Now, I know, as I stand here and I debate…. I talk about the challenges facing lawyers. I think most lawyers would admit to this as well. They’re not cast as sympathetic characters in our society. Neither are politicians. So it always makes for a bit of a….

I know. I know. The Minister of Labour is shocked by that statement. What can I say? It’s true.

We’re trying to advance a concept around a bill that impacts 14,000 lawyers in our province who, on most days, people, let’s face it, don’t provide the greatest level of sympathy towards. Until they need a lawyer. Until you need that lawyer. Until you need that lawyer to help you with a home sale. Until you need that lawyer to help you with child custody battles and issues of separation with your spouse. Until you need that lawyer for a wide range of things that happen in peoples’ lives on a daily basis.

Again, I think that’s why it’s important we frame our conversation and our thought process around why Bill 21 should issue concern for people. You want to feel like you have that independence from government when you’re accessing your lawyer.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Now, again, notaries provide great work in this prov­ince. I’ve met with them several times. I agree with where they want to head as a profession.

We probably have some of the highest, if not the highest, training requirements for notaries already in British Columbia in terms of the level of education they need to have and their skill sets and the services they provide. Expanding on that and providing them a bit more of the governance oversight they would like to see, as their own entity, I think is a good move. But trying to wrap 400 in with 14,000 that are actually quite different in the scope of what they do presents a wide range of challenges.

It’s interesting too. When you think of the five geographic regions often cited in this province…. You have the North, you have the Kootenays, you have Vancouver Island, you have the Lower Mainland, and you have the Thompson-Okanagan. There are your five.

We’ve just gone through a whole process about rep by pop on all of our boundaries being changed to try to reasonably balance out the representation based on population. It will result in 93 ridings, six more ridings than we currently have, redrawn maps, electoral maps all over the province. We’re seeing the same thing play out federally.

The government’s solution is to change that representation now where the population of legal profession members is diluted. Not if you live in the North. I’d hazard a guess there are fewer lawyers in the North than there are in Metro Vancouver. In all likelihood, when you see five board members….

Most boards in B.C., if you hear five board members, start to regionalize them. You’re going to have one member for the North, which is totally understandable, representing a very small number of lawyers. As you work your way south, the Kootenays would likely be next, with a rep, with a small number of lawyers attached to that rep. In the Thompson-Okanagan, you’re going to start getting a fairly significant population of legal, one member. The Island gets a little bit bigger. And then Metro Vancouver, Surrey and Burnaby and all of those legal firms, one representative.

[4:05 p.m.]

If it’s not laid out that way, then you have massive geographic areas of the province that have no representation. So it’s kind of a no-win situation either way you slice it, when it comes to just breaking that up. Ensure making people within the legal profession have representatives that they can easily access and express their opinions through and have a voice at a table with some semblance of balance to it. There is no guarantee, when the government starts appointing people, where they’re coming from, geographically speaking. There’s no guarantee where they’re coming from ideologically.

You’re telling the lawyers: “You go ahead and pick the few people you want. If they can resonate with enough members, you can appoint them. But as government, we are going to tell you who the others are, based on what we like of their thinking.” That’s a problem when it comes to something that should be as independent as the legal profession.

So those are, at the core, I think, my concerns around this. Certainly, when I have talked to local lawyers in the Kamloops area…. There have been a few. I’ve been getting emails for months ahead of time about this, wanting to know when it would come forward, expressing their concerns about the overall concept of it.

It’s not all sunshine and roses, as the government members and the government members that are also lawyers would make it out to be, outside of the walls of this chamber. That’s something that I think we always have to keep in mind. There is a lot bigger province out there than what is in here. It’s our job to represent those voices and to question and to seek answers for those people that are going to be impacted by bills such as this.

Again, when we go back to looking at the history of this government, and you can only judge a government based on what their past actions are, their past actions have been, as we’ve heard, government knows best. “Government knows best, and if you disagree with us, we’ll take you to court.” When you win in court under this Premier — when he was Attorney General, I’m hard-pressed to think of a court case he actually won as Attorney General — they will then just change the law.

I know it sounds far-fetched to those listening at home, but that’s exactly what has happened. Once a precedent like that starts to get set, it’s not too much of a leap when you see what is happening unfold in real time with professions like engineering, like the health sciences, with similar legislation all left to regulation after the fact — 317 clauses. Just about every single clause is left to regulation and enactment by order-in-council.

I can appreciate that the Minister of Forests thinking and feeling like he has a feel for the intention of this bill. But with all due respect, by the time the regulation is all in place, there’s going to be a new government in place, one way or the other. There’s an election in October. There will be a whole different slate of ministers responsible for a wide range of everything, including the Attorney General.

That’s the thing. These pieces of legislation live on from government to government, from cabinet minister to cabinet minister. So as Minister of Forests, who is not responsible for enacting the regulations and developing them…. I can understand, as a lawyer and as a government MLA, that he would speak very favourably of this bill. I get that. But to think that lawyers don’t have a legitimate concern in the rest of B.C., when they have watched how other legislation has been enacted, when they have been actually hired by some of those professions to push back against government regulation and laws that have been enacted, impacting their professions….

[4:10 p.m.]

To think that those lawyers might not have concerns that the government is doing the same thing to them, well, it’s surprising the government can’t understand that. But it really does speak to an overall pattern by this government. If you’re in housing, despite us having a housing crisis, if you build housing and make a profit, you’re vilified by this government, and we must have all government-built, government-operated housing. I don’t know how you build project No. 2, if you’re a private developer, if you don’t make a profit on project No. 1. According to this government, that’s evil, and it all has to be brought back into government, all of it.

If you’re a professional engineer and you have your own code of conduct and professional standards you follow and your own governing body, this government says: “No, no. We’re government. We know best. We’re going to pull you back in, and we’re going to control those standards.”

If you’re a health professional, same thing. And now with Bill 21, it’s happening with this, with the legal profession. This government also did that with ICBC. “No, no. Government knows best.” Government will care for you for the rest of your life at the standard government tells you that you need to be cared for if you get injured in an accident, with this government’s changes to ICBC. And, oh, by the way, you’re not actually allowed to hire a lawyer to seek other compensation.

That’s what this government has enacted over the last seven years, all under the watch of this Premier, either in the Premier’s office or as the Attorney General. It’s a very solid track record. Now, I know the Premier is a lawyer. He obviously is not a fan of the profession itself, because it’s a constant attack on the legal profession within this chamber — constantly.

I look forward to committee stage on Bill 21. I know we have an Attorney General critic who is a lawyer himself, so it will be, I’m sure, rife with legal back-and-forth. I know the Attorney General is a lawyer, a very accomplished lawyer in her own right, so it will be an interesting back-and-forth committee stage debate, but a very important committee stage debate, to try to get to the meat of what is actually trying to be solved or not. If it’s simply, as the Forests Minister said, a case of trying to have Indigenous representation guaranteed on the board, well, let’s see that clause and not have to deal with the other 317 clauses that are in this bill.

There are one-off issues that might need to be ad­dressed. If it’s about the notaries needing more scope and wanting to have a bit more oversight, let’s deal with that. But you don’t need 317 clauses, and you don’t need to drag the 14,000 lawyers into that conversation.

You need to listen to the notaries, and you need to address their concerns and their issues and make them operate the way they would like to operate without the government dictating to them how they will operate. They want changes. Of course they’re going to be more favourable to anything that’s going to get them closer to what they need, but we can get them to what they need without Bill 21.

With that, I thank the Chair for this time. I look forward to other colleagues’ debate around the chamber, and I certainly look forward to committee stage on Bill 21 as we move forward.

T. Shypitka: I’m happy to talk to Bill 21, Legal Professions Act.

Before I do, I just would like to give a quick high-five to some of the lawyers in Kootenay East that have really made an impact on the constituents there, the first one being Ken Steidl. I knew Ken Steidl for a long time. Unfortunately, he passed away six years ago, on July 12, 2018 — super strong fighter, real strong advocate for the legal profession and a good friend of mine. He has been sorely missed.

[4:15 p.m.]

Gerry Kambeitz; Don Paolini; John Zimmer; Marco Maryniak; Glenn Purdy; Gord Leffler; Wes Rogers; somebody everybody else knows in this chamber, Bill Bennett; and Gerry Kent.

Gerry Kent was a special lawyer to me. He was also a good curler. He skipped the team that I was on when we represented British Columbia in the 1991 Brier, where we ended up finishing third. It was a tough one. It was a tough pill to swallow back then. The winner that year got to go to the Olympics in Albertville, France.

Anyway, the reason why I mention these lawyers is because Bill 21 represents the legal profession, but it also represents the people they represent. So it’s good people, like the people I just mentioned, representing good people. I think that’s the thing that really strikes me the most. The NDP introduced Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act, into the Legislature. Lawyers and legal organizations across B.C. and across Canada, in fact, are very concerned about Bill 21 and have come out in droves to oppose it.

The Legal Professions Act, more commonly referred to as the single-legal-regulator reform, is a new piece of legislation from the B.C. government to create a single, centralized regulator to oversee all legal professions in the province, including lawyers, paralegals and notaries. We have seen this overreach several times with Bill 36, the Health Professions Act, and Bill 49, the Professional Governance Act. This closes the triad of government control in B.C. At the passing of this bill, it will be mission accomplished by this socialist Premier.

The issue most lawyers have with the B.C. government plan to overhaul regulation of the legal system isn’t with creating a single regulatory entity. The concern is more about what this government is trying to do in addition to this. Many lawyers are deeply concerned about three broader patterns of alarming behaviour exhibited by this government.

The first one, the unjustifiable concentration of more power over the legal system, out of the hands of lawyers and into the hands of cabinet and the Attorney General, and implications for the integrity of their professional independence from government.

Second, the lack of transparency around the development of Bill 21, an essential but non-existent public en­gagement program, and a consultation process limited to a small, select set of stakeholders under non-disclosure agreements, who arrived at major changes to the regulation of the legal profession. I think it was 300 out of 14,000 lawyers we heard here today.

Also, the third point, the lack of any substantive and funded measures to improve access to justice.

In the current system, lawyers are a self-regulating profession. They’re regulated by the Law Society, which comprises 32 benchers, 25 of whom are lawyers freely elected by other lawyers, and up to six non-lawyers who are ap­pointed by government. This majority, 25 of 32 — in fact, it’s a supermajority — of freely elected lawyers is what makes the legal profession a self-regulated profession. This self-regulation allows lawyers to have independence from government, and it’s an important aspect of a properly functioning democracy.

Why is the independence of the bar important? Well, government is powerful — really powerful, as we’ve seen. They have billions of dollars, tens of thousands of employees and the ability to create laws that are enforced by law enforcement.

History has shown that government will sometimes use these things to bully or oppress a group of people. They will sometimes overreach and make laws that are unconstitutional, or act unfairly. When they do, they are often kept in check by a strong and independent bar whose role it is to push back on government and protect individual rights. This is how things operate in a properly functioning democracy. A weakening of the independence of the bar should be of concern to everyone.

Bill 21 ends lawyers’ self-regulation. Under Bill 21, there are no benchers and no true Law Society. The bill creates a new regulatory board, which will have 17 directors. Only five of the 17 directors will be elected lawyers, meaning that lawyers lose self-regulation.

[4:20 p.m.]

Now, this is where things get tricky and complicated. The total board looks like this. There is a first group of five elected lawyers, two elected paralegals, two elected notaries, and three government appointees. This is a group of 12, where lawyers are the minority, five out of 12. This group will then appoint four more lawyers to round out the total group of 17.

Yes, there will be nine lawyers in total, but the other four lawyers are appointed by a group where paralegals, notaries and government appointees form the majority. So 11 of the 17 directors will be non-lawyers, government appointees and non-elected lawyers appointed by a group where lawyers are the minority.

This majority of 11 will make up all the rules about the legal profession that are under the control of the Law Society today: rules about who can become a lawyer, what lawyers can say, punishment for lawyers, even disbarment. The new board may also make rules under subsection 28(2)(b): “establishing a process for the screening of candidates in the election of directors.”

Even the few elected seats that remain will be subject to a screening process within the reach of government influence. This is a profound weakening and threat to the independence of the bar. Increasing the government appointees is out of step with other jurisdictions.

In comparison, in Ontario’s single-legal-regulator model, the board has 40 elected lawyers, 20 of which are selected from the greater Toronto region and 20 from the rest of Ontario; eight government appointees and five paralegal representatives. Bill 21 is an enormous departure from the norms governing legal regulation in liberal democratic societies.

Changes in the Ontario regulator were driven by lawyers. The Law Society tried to make changes independently last year and were rejected by government.

There are concerns that regional representation will diminish. I’ll get into that. There are currently 25 elected lawyers — benchers, they’re called — across nine regions represented on the board of the Law Society of B.C.

Bill 21 would leave only five elected lawyers on the board, so the regions will have to be changed, merged or be represented only by an appointed bencher who is not accountable to the members of the bar in the region.

The specifics of the regional restructuring are also left up to the rules determined by the new board. It is a certainty, however, that there will be fewer regions represented by fewer elected lawyers, further concentrating power in Victoria and Vancouver, at the expense of the rest of B.C. We’ve seen this time and time again, where rural British Columbia fails to be represented, whether it’s health care, transportation, emergency response or now the legal profession. It’s a continuation of eliminating the current concerns of rural British Columbia.

The few legal stakeholders that the government did consult with prior to tabling this legislation, including the Law Society, were required to sign non-disclosure agreements before taking part in any conversation. This stifled the ability of these legal organizations to discuss with other legal organizations, the media or the public any concerns they had about the proposed bill. Many legal organizations, such as the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C., were not asked to take part in any such consultation, nor was the public.

This was not the mandate that this government ran on in the last election. This is the concept of a Premier who was not elected but rather appointed when the prior Premier had to step down. The B.C. government, in a March 24 public update posted on a government webpage during spring break with no accompanying news release, provided few details for plans that were only partly shared in public prior to the bill’s introduction.

Sound familiar? This was the same case of the sweeping changes of the amendments to the Land Act that first came out.

[4:25 p.m.]

I remember speaking to many stakeholders when the word was leaked and the news release was found amongst a bunch of other Engage B.C. notifications. I phoned all stakeholders: Mining Association of B.C.; Association for Mineral Exploration; Stone, Sand and Gravel Association. None of them had been consulted, and we found out what happened there. Government did finally pull that back, and we’re hoping we’ll get the same with this bill.

The NDAs are expired, and the Law Society and Canadian Bar Association, B.C., who are no longer bound by their NDAs, are mad. They confirm that the consultations were not consultations. None of their suggestions were implemented, and the meetings were effectively an opportunity for the government to tell them what they would be doing, like it or not. The Law Society released a letter calling for an immediate pause to this bill, which is important.

The speed that this bill is proceeding is astounding. The bill was tabled April 10, is already in second reading here today, and we’ve only got less than ten days left here in the Legislature. As my other colleagues have noted, what is the rush? So 316 or 317 clauses, 45,000 words or whatever it is, zero consultation, and we’re going to ram it through here in the last week or two of the session.

That the Attorney General hasn’t engaged with stakeholders and communities in any manner commensurate with the gravity of this bill is indicative of the B.C. government’s dismissive view of the importance those elections hold for lawyer independence in our province. The disinterest in public consultation on this file is reminiscent of another piece of legislation from this government.

I just mentioned that was the Land Act amendments. The concern is that the proposed legal reform shows a repeating pattern of government overreach.

On the Land Act amendments saga earlier this year, Vaughn Palmer wrote in the Vancouver Sun: “The New Democrats issued the call directly to stakeholders and insiders earlier this month. They made a low-key posting on the government website at engage.gov.bc.ca, but they neglected to advise the broader public of the opportunity, by either news release or any other announcement.” Palmer might as well copy and paste his work on that article to describe the B.C. government’s approach to public consultations for the single-legal-regulator reform.

For a bill ostensibly justified by a focus on the public interest, the government behind the bill doesn’t seem to be very interested in what the public has to say about it or whether they even know it’s happening. Tellingly, they weren’t included in the ministry’s what-we-heard report.

The power that the Law Society of B.C. has, and that the new single legal regulator will have, to regulate, discipline, and disbar lawyers is too great to be left in the hands of B.C. government–controlled or –influenced employees who could abuse that power to further political or ideological interests.

Both the Attorney General and the Premier have come under fire already for doing exactly that when the Attorney General criticized a judge’s decision on social media and in a television interview, suggesting that he wasn’t properly trained, and the Premier backed her up. The B.C. Attorney General criticized the court’s decision and the actors in the justice system, suggesting the judge lacks proper training.

In response, in the fall of 2023, the Law Society of B.C. issued a statement saying: “In a recent media interview, B.C.’s Attorney General made comments suggesting judicial training may not be sufficient, following the sentencing of a B.C. man. The Law Society of B.C. is concerned that the Attorney General’s implied criticism of the judge’s decision interferes with the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law and may undermine public confidence in the judicial system and the courts.”

The Law Society statement also addressed the Premier directly, bluntly stating: “In recent months, government officials, including the Premier, have made comments on justice system matters that tread on interference with the administration of justice, by politicizing justice issues.” For a regulator as esteemed and reserved as the Law Society of B.C., the statement is a fierce shot across the B.C. government’s bow.

[4:30 p.m.]

The Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia branch, also weighed in, writing in an open letter to the B.C. Attorney General that it felt “deep concern about comments made and reported on Global News on November 23, 2023, regarding sentencing on a criminal matter from October 2023…. These comments, made with the weight of your office, risk undermining the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system…. We are concerned that commenting on a specific case in this matter harms the administration of justice in this province.’”

Given any government’s potential to politicize the courts and the judiciary, B.C.’s legal community is on the edge about Bill 21 and how it further concentrates power over legal professions in the hands of politicians. The Attorney General has included extreme provisions in Bill 21 that confer significant control and discretion to the minister over the application of regulations affecting the legal professions.

Section 4 outlines the addition of a power to create en­tirely new categories of legal professionals through government regulation, meaning that on the mere recommendation of the Attorney General, an entirely new legal profession beyond the existing grouping of lawyers, paralegals and notaries can be created by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council at any time, essentially by diktat.

The act includes other particularly troubling sections, as well, which continue a pattern of centralization and politicization. The single-legal-regulator reform also fits another behavioural pattern from the B.C. government, that of dangerous government overreach and reckless politicization of professional regulation.

In 2022, the B.C. government centralized health care professions self-regulation into six government-appointed colleges and eliminated the elected positions that had existed under the old system and had ensured professional independence from government control. The legislation underpinning that reform, the Health Professions and Occupations Act, was highly controversial at the time it was passed and remains so today.

Now, the B.C. government is proposing to centralize regulators of lawyers, paralegals and notaries. The decision of whether to disbar a lawyer will be made by not only unelected lawyers but by government-appointed directors and members of other professions.

The Legal Professions Act will increase the proportion and influence of government appointments and dramatically reduce the number and authority of elected lawyer members by removing their existing absolute majority on the Law Society of B.C. board — more government-appointed insiders, few elected members, more political control. This sort of government overreach into the regulation of the legal profession, with so little in the way of public consultation or transparency, giving inordinate power to government appointees, is extremely dangerous.

Remember, too, that B.C. judges are selected from the bar, meaning lawyers become judges. Bill 21, Legal Professions Act, enables the politicization of the regulation and disciplining of lawyers. Over time, that means the government can exert enormous influence over the types of lawyers and judges we have in B.C. and the decisions courts make. Independent courts can only exist with an independent bar. If lawyers are politically regulated, over time the courts will become more political as well, simply stated.

The B.C. government has rationalized Bill 21 by arguing that it will improve access to justice by lowering costs for British Columbians in need of legal assistance. Access to justice needs to be improved in B.C., yet Bill 21 does nothing to improve access to justice. In fact, it distracts from the B.C. government’s continued diversion of funding intended for legal aid, to instead support general government revenues and spending.

[4:35 p.m.]

B.C. is unique among all provinces in that it charges a 7 percent sales tax on legal services, which makes these services more expensive than they would otherwise be. When the PST charge on legal services was introduced in 1992 under this NDP government, the government promised that the revenues generated by the tax would be used to fund the legal aid budget, thereby improving access to justice for those in need. This was by design and stemmed from the recommendations of the AG report of that same year.

In February of this year, the CBABC noted in a February 2, 2024, statement that “the amount of PST paid by British Columbians on their legal fees is estimated to be $230 million each year, with approximately $130 million allocated to Legal Aid B.C.” This means, of course, that the government has underfunded legal aid by around $100 million every year and has no plan to fix that fundamental problem.

Bill 21 does nothing meaningful to address or reform the structural issue of underfunded legal aid services. It also contains no measures to alleviate concerns about rising insurance costs for some legal professions if their scopes of practice are broadened.

It is likely this bill is a cynical distraction from the fact that this government is continuing to divert funding intended for legal aid services into general revenue instead. Rather than taking responsibility for the failure of the B.C. government to properly fund legal aid, the B.C. Attorney General is apparently attempting to distract and divide British Columbians through Bill 21 by instead blaming lawyers and other legal professions for the high cost of legal services.

I think there is very little in the bill that will meaningfully impact access to justice. I personally think the best way to improve access to justice is for the government to stop underfunding great organizations like Access Pro Bono that help British Columbians access justice. I do, however, think this government will continue to use access to justice as a smokescreen to bring in legislation that will weaken a legal profession that has long been a thorn in its side.

In conclusion, drafted behind closed doors with only a handful of stakeholders under non-disclosure agreements, the Legal Professions Act, 2024, ends lawyers’ independence and institutes greater government control over the legal professions and legal system in B.C.

Disappointingly, Bill 21 does not even tangibly address the persistent failure of the B.C. government to end the diversion of $100 million in annual tax revenue that is meant to fund legal aid for British Columbians.

Access to justice needs to be properly funded, and Bill 21 does nothing to address that. The goals that the government says it is trying to achieve with Bill 21 — improving access to justice, modernizing the legal regulatory framework, increasing the Indigenous voice and the regulatory process…. All can be done without impacting the self-regulation independence of lawyers, which is a foundational cornerstone of free democracy.

When we heard the Minister of Forests speak a little bit earlier, he spent more time talking about how this new bill doesn’t change the current legislation and spent very little time addressing what actually it does to make it better. You may believe this government is working and would not use a weakened bar for ulterior purposes. However, even if true, what about the next government or the government after that?

What if a government comes along and starts doing things you don’t like, but now we have a legal regulatory framework that has compromised the ability of the bar to hold this future government in check? Bill 21 is dangerous and is a step too far.

The final little seven points I’ll just conclude with. Bill 21 ends self-regulation for lawyers. Bill 21 ends lawyers’ independence from government in B.C. Bill 21 is dangerous.

Lawyers and legal organizations across B.C. and Canada are opposed to this disturbing piece of legislation. British Columbians are asking for members of the Legislature to vote against Bill 21.

There’s actually even a hashtag out there right now. British Columbians want us to stop Bill 21, so you can just go to the hashtag, #StopBill21, and weigh your voice in.

[4:40 p.m.]

Finally, will the Attorney General please listen to lawyers, legal organizations and British Columbians and withdraw Bill 21?

For those reasons, I will not be in favour of this bill.

I will take my place.

D. Davies: I’m happy to rise this afternoon on the Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act, 2024.

We’ve heard from all of our colleagues about how it proposes significant changes to the regulation of legal professionals here in British Columbia. I don’t know how many times — I would probably say every time that I’ve spoke in this House on bills or whatever — the words “overreach,” “control,” or “lack of consultation,” “out of touch” come up. These are themes that we continually hear about government legislation.

This Bill 21 is no different. It seeks, in essence — I’ll explain a little bit, and it’s been touched on by my colleagues — basically, the ending of self-regulation by lawyers in the province of British Columbia. We’ve heard a couple members of the government caucus talk about it and say that is not true. But when we look at 14,000 some-odd lawyers in British Columbia, the Canadian Bar Association B.C. Branch, the Law Society, the Lawyers Rights Watch Canada…. Organizations that represent lawyers in British Columbia have all come out strongly stating that they are opposed to this legislation — or that at least it needs to be paused and slowed down to give time to digest it.

In fact, I had a conversation today with the Law Society. One of the things…. We’ve heard this over and over again, and we’ve seen this over and over again. We’re down to what? We’re done today, so we’ve got four days next week and four days the week after. So we have eight legislative days. Remove Monday mornings because we don’t do bill business there. You take out the question periods and all the other introductions and all those pieces, and that’s not a lot of time for legislators, for us, to go through Bill 21, especially when, of course, we have other large pieces of legislation that are also going through this House.

One is the Haida piece of legislation. Here we are, eight days left, and we’re in second reading with lots to convey and lots to talk about. Committee stage on, I believe it is, 317 clauses is actually just another repeat of Bill 36 that we’re going to be seeing. The Law Society and others, and lawyers…. In fact, I’ve even communicated with lawyers in the city of Fort St. John that have reached out to me that are really concerned about this overreach by government, about the unintended, or maybe intended, consequences that this piece of legislation could and likely will have on lawyers.

When I was talking to…. Again, I spoke to a member at the Law Society today. Just going through it today, I realized: “Oh, gosh, how is that going to work? What are the impacts of this going to have?” Lawyers are going through this information right now and trying to look at how the impacts of this legislation are going to have down the road. And they were only just given this information as well.

[4:45 p.m.]

So we saw this, as I mentioned, with Bill 36. We also saw this, maybe not as much, with Bill 49, the professional alliance bill. But certainly, Bill 36, which was an enormous bill, was brought in toward the end of session, just like this one — with the government knowing full well there’s not going to be time to debate it and the government knowing full well they will bring closure. It doesn’t matter what part of the bill we get to in committee stage. That will be that.

A big concern of this bill is obviously how much of it is left up to regulation. One of the pieces…. I’ll just read it here: “This legislation gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the authority to create regulations to determine scopes of practice, designate new categories of legal professionals and to generally make regulations. This marks a departure from the current Legal Profession Act, which makes no provision for the use of government regulation.”

Government, and I go to the overreach, has deliberately overstepped, or is planning to overstep, their control, bringing all the power in and around the Premier’s office. In a time…. A profession such as lawyers is one of the few groups, other than the opposition, that can stand up and call out government. But as a legal entity or a legal group, they can actually hold government to account and say: “That’s wrong.”

We’ve seen this. We’ve seen it lots. The Premier now, of course, the former Attorney General at the time…. I’ve got a list of court cases lost that the Premier…. Some of them are quite important and relevant to the province.

Let’s just look at August 29, 2017. We’ll start there. That’s early on in the days of this government’s tenure. Justice David Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal commented on B.C.’s application for intervener status on the TMX legal challenge. “British Columbia does not appear to understand the basic ground rules of the complex proceeding it is seeking to enter.” I wonder what that cost taxpayers of British Columbia to fight.

The list goes on: February 22, 2019, another fight with Alberta; July 19, 2019, another fight with Alberta. These are all losses, by the way. These are all losses where this government has taken, whether it’s another province or other entities within this province…. The list goes on and on.

The Premier, the Attorney General at the time, lost a key court challenge to limit the expert witnesses in auto insurance cases, which, according to the judge, “infringes on the court’s core jurisdiction to control its process, because it restricts a core function of the court to decide a case fairly upon the evidence adduced by the parties.” The Attorney General said that the policy, though, would save ICBC $400 million a year.

Well, then, of course, down the road, we just see: “If I can’t get my own way, I’m just going to change how ICBC does business.” We saw that legislation come out. Children and families. The Representative for Children and Youth…. Anyways, the list goes on and on. I could read the list into the record, but I’m not going to.

[4:50 p.m.]

But this is the relevance and the importance of lawyers being able to hold government to account, to say to government, “That’s wrong,” and then, in a courtroom, to actually prove that it is wrong. When….

Interjection.

D. Davies: Oh, you can’t compare that. That’s apples and oranges — apples and oranges. I’d love to see the member stand up. Have you spoken on this yet?

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair.

D. Davies: Through the Chair, Madam Speaker.

I mean, if the members want to speak and yell, they have an opportunity to stand up after I’m done, and they can have 30 minutes to talk.

Let’s go back to Bill 36 and how that played out. I know the member for Prince George–Valemount spent an enormous amount of time on that bill. As we mentioned, the government brought closure, the guillotine. They just said: “You’re done. Too bad, so sad.” Now we’re starting to see the challenges and the implications of that.

By the way, it was a bill that, I think, most of the opposition opposed. I’m not sure of the other parties, but the B.C. United caucus completely opposed that bill. Because it was a bill of such magnitude that was being pushed through in just the last couple of weeks at the end of a session, it was not enough time to actually look at the impacts that it might have down the road, the unintended consequences.

Again, I wonder if they were intended, because we are seeing the challenges of Bill 36 coming into effect and how it’s impacting our health care system right now. It is a bad piece of legislation that this government passed, that this government rammed through this House, and this piece of legislation, Bill 21, I suspect will be treated in the exact same instance.

We have to ask why the government wants to pull out that independence from lawyers in the province of British Columbia. Are they worried? Or do they not like being held accountable, or wearing egg on their face at every court case that they tend to lose?

This new governance structure that’s being proposed here will dilute the legal professions through increased government involvement. There’s no other jurisdiction, I don’t think, that has done this in Canada — or across the Commonwealth, for that matter — and that, you know, somewhat replicates this place. Who is asking for this?

You know, I wasn’t here, but I was listening on the TV to the Minister of Forests when he was speaking, and my colleague from the Kootenays made a really good point. The Minister of Forests didn’t really talk about how good this is and how it’s going to benefit everything across the province but kind of pulled out little bits and pieces. Oh, we’re exaggerating over here, and making things up. Those were the Minister of Forests’ comments — not to proudly stand up and talk about it: “This is fantastic for XYZ.” I mean, there might have been a couple of little pieces in that.

Let’s look at that, though. That’s what this place really is. This is a place to introduce and debate bills. We’re not disagreeing that there need to be improvements on things. That is why we have these debates. That is why it is important to allow fulsome debate. Again, we’re not going to have that on this bill because the government will bring in closure on it.

The government has not consulted widely enough. I mean, again, if you consider it, there are 15,000 or 14,000 — I’ve heard a couple of different numbers; I’m not exactly sure how many lawyers there are — you know, 14-some-thousand lawyers. And you get this little, quiet, almost secretive consultation process that came out, and they heard a little bit back.

[4:55 p.m.]

By the way, this is all in the last month. This has all hap­pened, actually, in the last few weeks, and they get 700 responses back. Is that fulsome consultation on something so fundamental? I don’t think it is. Actually, it isn’t.

We are deeply concerned about Bill 21 and how it will compromise the legal system that we…. I’m sure many of us, even myself…. When I do speak to my lawyer about whatever I’m working on, I have great trust in my relationship and that confidence with my lawyer. But this creates a huge ripple. A fundamental principle is to preserve public trust in our lawyers. This bill does not do that.

As this bill does move into committee stage, which is a critical part of the debate, in the next stages of this, the B.C. United caucus obviously will be rigorously examining each and every clause that is in this bill, all 700 and whatever they are, 700 and some. We are already reaching out. We’ve been in contact. I know that the Attorney General has received a letter from the Law Society stating their absolute disagreeance in this.

Interestingly enough, the minister was talking about…. A lot of this is to improve legal aid. But at the end of the day…. And I’m just going to read. There’s a ton of articles written that are out opposing this piece of legislation.

This one is the Business in Vancouver article. And it’s interesting. One of the reasons of bringing forward Bill 21 is to improve the legal aid society. Well, I’m going to read a piece out of this news story. I want to make sure I start at the right spot.

“Significant amounts of revenue generated by the tax….”

In B.C., we’re one of the only jurisdictions that actually charges PST on lawyers. Other jurisdictions don’t. Well, Alberta doesn’t have it.

There’s a significant amount of revenue generated by the tax on legal services that has been diverted into the general provincial government revenues spending. In February of this year, the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, noted that the amount of PST paid by British Columbians on their legal fees is estimated to be roughly $230 million a year. Approximately, though, $130 million a year is allocated by the government to Legal Aid B.C.

So the government, in essence, is really underfunding legal aid by $100 million a year, with the PST supposedly supposed to go to supporting legal aid. So the problem isn’t necessarily the legislation creating issues for legal aid. The problem is that this government is underfunding legal aid.

I know that my colleague for Kamloops–North Thompson…. He had mentioned another one is to have Indigenous voices at the table. We don’t disagree with that. I’m sure that the Law Society doesn’t disagree with that.

[5:00 p.m.]

But 370 — can someone give me that number? I’m trying to make it up here. What is the number, 370-some clauses? I thought I had it written down, but I don’t. Anyway, over 300 clauses in this bill.

Interjection.

D. Davies: Thank you. So 317. I’m going to write that down. Now I have it.

So 317 clauses required to give an Indigenous voice and to improve legal aid. And one heck of a lot of ability for cabinet to make decisions through orders-in-council.

This is not the way legislation should be made and proposed in this province, but we have seen it over and over again. We’ve seen a government that wants to bring in that control, wants to have that control, whether it’s changing how health professions are regulated, whether it’s changing how our professional services engineers are regulated.

Now, this is just carrying on with that theme. There’s no one else left, by the way. These are the last ones to check off. Well, there are others. Maybe they’re coming down the road. It’s now lawyers.

The big challenge with lawyers is that they’re the ones that can really hold our governments to account through legal challenges and such. Changing the structure to giving….

Technically, the lawyers used to, at one time, have a 32-​member board. Twenty-five of those members were elected directly by lawyers out of the province of British Columbia. So there’s a real voice of elected lawyers that have a strong majority to manage the legal workings of this province and their board and the accountability within the lawyers themselves.

Now we are seeing, for the most part…. Well, they don’t have a majority anymore of elected lawyers. Most of it is appointed by the government now. Tell me you don’t see a problem with that.

I’m really surprised. There are members, lawyers, sitting in the government caucus. I’m shocked that they don’t see worry where you have government now appointing the majority of people on a board that looks after the regulatory world within lawyers. It’s shocking to see that.

Like I say, there will be a lot of questions. I know our critic for the Attorney General has a number of questions that he will be asking, as well as others from within our caucus. Again, we have all had…. I’m sure the government caucus, as well, has had lawyers from around the province email them, reach out to them and show their concern.

These are questions that we will be bringing forward. It is our role as the official opposition to hold government to account and to make sure that we are protecting the self-regulation that lawyers have in the province of British Columbia. That is now at risk.

I go back to my opening points of overreach and control and a lack of consultation. That is really the theme of this bill. It is a theme of this bill that absolutely could, potentially, upset the legal system as we know it in the province. It puts in jeopardy the independence of lawyers and gives the government an iron fist in controlling much of what is being said and much of what is being done in the province of B.C.

[5:05 p.m.]

With that being said, I just hope we do see this government push a big pause on this bill. Pause it. Let’s bring it back when we can actually look into it deeper, have more time to go into it, have the ample time the government should be having to consult properly, make sure all the pieces that are in the 317 clauses…. What are the unintended consequences that maybe should be diverted or maybe not done or amended? We don’t have time to do that here today.

We don’t have time to do that, nor do the different societies that the lawyers, whether it’s the Canadian Bar Association or the Law Society…. There’s not enough time to go through this big piece of legislation that is now bumping up here in the last eight days left of this legislative session.

With that, I will take my seat.

T. Halford: It’s delightful to get up on this Thursday and speak to Bill 21.

I will point out that when I came in here a little while ago, the gallery was packed. It was bustling up there. And now we have one loyal individual who has come to my attention. His name is Antoine. Antoine is visiting us from Quebec.

Antoine, I hope that I give you the best speech of my career here. I will try my best so you can go back home and tell people you saw the heroics of the MLA for Surrey–White Rock on Bill 21.

Interjection.

T. Halford: And you better stay for this whole time, because this will be riveting stuff. But it is important. I want to actually take the time to say if you’re dedicating your time here to this, I appreciate it.

I know I’ve had the experience — and I will relate this to Bill 21, I promise — to be inside the legislature in Quebec City, and it’s absolutely beautiful. I’m partial to where we are right now, but welcome here and thanks for taking the time to spend on a Thursday afternoon with us.

I’m not going to say it, probably, more eloquently or longer than my colleague and friend the shadow minister for Attorney General and MLA for Vancouver-Langara. I honestly don’t have the background to speak on that. He’s been in the legal profession for a couple of decades. But I will say that the concerns that he has raised in this House and has brought to us and brought to the government, I think, are valid. I think that they speak to an overall pattern that we’ve seen here over the last little bit.

When we talk about Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act, 2024, which significantly changes the regulation of legal professionals in British Columbia…. We’ve talked about other pieces of legislation. This has been an area where the government has put forward heavy — when we talked, we referenced Bill 36 — pieces of legislation. I think, in this bill, there are 317 clauses. As my colleague said, after today, we are down to eight days left of potential debate. I think that there are a number of concerns that are outlined in this piece of legislation.

I think that we, as Canadians, take a lot of pride in our judicial system. It’s not perfect, but we do realize the importance of independence. We realize the importance of collaboration, consultation and the ability to have input. We’ve seen when that has failed and the ramifications that has had. We’ve had to pull Bill 12 for lack of consultation.

[5:10 p.m.]

We’ve heard, and I continue to hear, about the frustrations regarding the lack of consultation with Bill 36, the Health Professionals Act. And here we are again with Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act.

In this bill, it seeks to end the self-regulation of lawyers. I think we’re hearing from law societies and at least the Canadian Bar Association — well, the B.C. branch — and Lawyers Rights Watch Canada how self-regulation is a cornerstone of their legal independence. What this bill is proposing to do…. I realize the intentions of it may be good and done in good faith — I believe that — but it’s introducing a governance structure that can water down the voice of legal professionals through increased government involvement. That has become a common theme that we’ve seen in here. We know that we need to modernize almost every institution.

We have seen that in Bill 21, we’re talking about the compromising of our legal system. It’s a fundamental principle to maintain our public trust in our rule of law, and I think that what we’re hearing from different officials is that it is an overreach, right? We’re hearing from many officials that it’s coming into a system that is built on trust, is built on the ability of independence and is done in a way where they are wanting to maintain their independence. I think that that’s vitally important.

We’ve heard from the Canadian Bar Association, from the B.C. branch, from the Law Society and Lawyers Rights Watch Canada. All of them have said that it’s an erosion of lawyers’ independence, under this new structure, and it is crucial that any regulatory board remains free from political influence to uphold the integrity of our legal system. I think that that’s a core belief that many in this House, whether they’re government or they’re opposition, would believe, that we need our legal system to be independent, especially from political involvement.

We talk about the consultation process. I think that over the years, at least since I’ve been here, since 2020…. The word “consultation” is so important when we’re talking about pieces of legislation. Whether it’s Bill 12…. We heard in unison that that consultation was a spectacular failure. We heard that in Bill 36, and now we’re hearing that in Bill 21. We’re hearing that in terms of….

I think we are looking at 14,000 lawyers potentially affected by this. In the consultation process, 776 responses were collected. When you’re talking about the fact that under 8 percent, less than that, were consulted on a bill that affects our entire judicial system, I think that that’s a significant red flag. I think that that’s a problem that we all have to address in this House. I know that my colleagues did as well. We’ll continue to do that.

[5:15 p.m.]

I suspect that there will be more government MLAs that will speak to this and defend this bill, to some point. But we need to make sure that we are doing things in a way that is strengthening our system and not undermining it.

When we look at the fact that you have 317 clauses in this bill and you look at the lack of consultation and you look at the lack of engagement…. When you’re looking at modernizing something as important as our legal system, you want to set up a piece of legislation like this for success. The best way to do that is through ample consultation in trying to bring people along, right? Not just the lawyers but also the notaries. My colleague from Vancouver-Langara specifically touched on that.

When we look at it in a way where we’ve seen previous legislation, where that lack of consultation has been a problem, I think the government has done the right thing. I think Bill 12 is an example of that, where they said: “Hold on, we didn’t get this right.” Like I’ve said before, there’s never the wrong time to do the right thing. I think this is an opportunity to follow suit on that.

Let’s talk about the composition of the board. I think it’s clause 8 of this bill. Just five of the 17 board members will be elected by and from lawyers. That needs to be understood by government and those who are concerned, and that’s our position. When we hear from the Law Society and other associations, that is a dramatic change.

Today’s current composition of the board of the Law Society, which is the regulatory board of lawyers, is 32 board members. Twenty-five members of this board are elected directly by lawyers in this province. That’s 25 out of 32. Five out of 17, by my math, is not a majority. I think that that was the crux of what the member for Vancouver-Langara was talking about in his speech, about not having the ability to allow for further independence on that.

We talked about Lawyers Rights Watch Canada.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

With that, I reserve my place, and I move adjournment of the debate.

T. Halford 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.

R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday, May 6 at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:18 p.m.