Orders of the Day

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

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 14, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Finance, followed by the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

[2:40 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — LEGAL PROFESSIONS ACT

(continued)

T. Halford: Madam Speaker, I again continue my remarks on Bill 21. I know that a few of my colleagues will be speaking after me.

It was interesting. Over the weekend, we all attend events in our communities. I had a number of people come up to me, on both Saturday and Sunday, at different events, on this specific piece of legislation: the concern that they had, and the impact that it would have on them and their legal professions. They have been watching, and they’ve been following what’s been going on in this House. To say that they are concerned would be an understatement.

We have seen in this House what happens when proper consultation is not done. We have seen in this House what happens when the government, all through good intentions, fails to actually execute — and the impacts that can have. We’ve seen that on Bill 12, and we’ve seen it on other pieces of legislation that the government has rammed through with closure. An example of that is, obviously, Bill 36, the health professions act.

Today, when we’re talking about Bill 21 and the changes that are going to occur with that, I think people are right to be concerned. We look at some of the issues in here. One of them is, out of the 14,000 lawyers in our province…. We talk about the consultation that has been brought forward by this government and the lack of consultation that has been brought forward. We’re looking at a bill with 317 clauses. We’ve got about eight days remaining in this session.

[Interruption.]

We’ve got some theme music. That’ll cost you.

Like I’ve said before in this House, and I’ll say it again: it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing. When we talked about the health professions act, Bill 36, we opposed that legislation. Obviously, it was controversial. Now we’re seeing the results in our health care system and the crisis that we have. We’ve seen the government walk back on Bill 12. It’s almost a pattern with this government, with a failure for consultation.

One of the things that I heard from a number of constituents was around clause 8. In clause 8, it states that only five of the 17-member board will be elected by and from among lawyers — something that needs to be clearly understood by government and those concerned about the position. We have laid forward — in what we hear from the Law Society and other associations in our province — a clear mandate for change.

Today, the current composition for the board of the Law Society is a regulatory board of lawyers in this province. It’s a 32-member board; 25 members of this board are elected directly by lawyers in this province. It’s 25 out of 32; that is a majority. I think one of the things my colleague, the member for Vancouver-Langara, laid out is that with the changes, five out of 17 is not a majority.

We’ve seen groups mobilize here. Whether it’s the Lawyers Rights Watch, the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, or the Law Society, they have all expressed concerns in what they’re calling the erosion of independence under this proposed new structure.

[2:45 p.m.]

We have said from day one, led by the Leader of the Official Opposition and supported by the member for Vancouver-Langara, that it is imperative that any regula­tory board remain free from political influence, to uphold the integrity of our legal system. I think that’s something that we can all strive for but that this legislation obviously fails to achieve.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

R. Merrifield: My colleague from Vancouver-Langara, started his speech with a really powerful quote that I’m going to use. The quote was actually from 1982, the year that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. It was a quote by Justice Estey of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In articulating the essential importance of an indepen­dent bar, Justice Estey said:

“The independence of the bar from the state in all its pervasive manifestations is one of the hallmarks of a free society. Consequently, regulation of these members of the law profession by the state must, so far as by human ingenuity it can be so designed, be free from state interference, in the political sense, with the delivery of services to the individual citizens in the state, particularly in the fields of public and criminal law. The public interest in a free society knows no area more sensitive than the independence, impartiality and availability to the general public of the members of the bar and, through those members, legal advice and services generally.”

As we deliberate on Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act of 2024, we are presented with a proposal that could fundamentally alter the landscape of legal regulation in British Columbia and that, in doing so, will potentially shatter the independence of the bar from the state. The warning that I just read, from Justice Estey, becomes not just hypothetical but a reality.

This bill, while aimed at “modernizing” our legal system, presents profound changes that necessitate a thorough examination not only for the immediate impact but for the long-term implications on our democratic processes and, then, the public’s trust in our legal system.

This bill represents a vast overreach and the possibility of politicization of another professional body. We’ve seen this before, whether it was with the engineers or the physicians. This bill is going to result in less independence. It will actually reduce the number of elected members of the board from 80 percent to a paltry 30 percent.

Bill 21 proposes the cessation of self-regulation for lawyers, replacing this model with a governance structure featuring increased governmental oversight. This shift raises significant concerns about the potential erosion of the independent legal system, an element vital to the integrity of our judicial system.

Don’t just ask us. The Law Society, the Canadian Bar Association, Trial Lawyers Association and even the B.C. Civil Liberties Association are all challenging this bill over the undermining of the independence of the legal profession that it represents.

It’s not just about lawyers. It’s also about the judges that they become and that they all protect the rule of law from government. The foundation of a fair judicial system is its independence and the independence of its legal professionals, free from government oversight.

[2:50 p.m.]

Bill 21’s structure threatens this independence by potentially subjecting legal decisions to political influence. This not only undermines the profession but could also erode the public’s trust in the impartiality and the fairness of our legal system.

The proposed changes in Bill 21 could have profound implications for democracy in British Columbia. A legal system that appears to be under the control of the government can lead to a perceived, if even not actual, decline in the rule of law. When legal professionals are seen as extensions of the political system rather than as independent advocates, public confidence in the entire democratic process can diminish.

This erosion of trust is particularly concerning in a society that relies on its citizens’ belief in fairness and justice as administered by an impartial legal system. Public trust in our legislative processes is essential for the functioning of a healthy democracy.

I love democracy. I am an elected official because I believe so much in democracy and in all voices that are in this House protecting the democracy and the democratic rights and freedoms that each resident of British Columbia maintains. But bills like Bill 21 significantly alter the regulation of a profession fundamental to the enforcement of these very democratic rights. It also erodes the whole sense of justice, and thus it has to be approached with rigorous public consultation and transparency.

This bill did not receive that. There was limited engagement in the consultation process for Bill 21, with only 776 responses, which really indicates a lack of sufficient public discourse. Without broad-based support and understanding from the public, there’s a risk that this legislation is going to be viewed as governmental overreach, damaging trust not only in this law but in the legislative processes as a whole, and also in a democratic government.

With the three associations that I mentioned earlier, that is 14,000 voices against this bill, with only 776 that have been spoken to. Bill 21 alters the regulatory framework of a profession integral to the administration of justice and could significantly affect the public’s trust in our legislative processes and in government. This is particularly concerning given the potential consequences these changes hold for the rule of law and the impartiality of legal judgments.

Our system of checks and balances is designed to ensure that no single branch of government gains too much power. The independence of the judiciary is critical in maintaining this balance. Our legislative arm is the last stop for bills that are being challenged. For example, when the former Attorney General, now Premier, was also the minister responsible for ICBC, he wanted to change the rules of court and evidence in ways that were constitutionally challenged and that, ultimately, the Attorney General and this province were defeated on.

If the government was actually in charge of that body, that would be a very different situation. By increasing governmental control over the legal profession, that’s exactly what Bill 21 does. It risks upsetting the balance, concentrating power in a way that could diminish other essential democratic safeguards. This shift towards more centralized control could set a dangerous precedent, potentially inviting further governmental overreach into other areas.

What does that actually mean? Do we need a system where a justice system will actually hold government in check? Well, yes. It’s a foundational principle in our democratic governance, designed to prevent government from accumulating excessive power.

[2:55 p.m.]

This system ensures that the legislative branch of our government can regulate laws while the judicial branch of government can regulate and make sure that there is a check and balance on each other. It prevents abuse of power and protects individual rights and freedoms. It operates under the premise that when power is distributed and mechanisms for oversight and control are established, the integrity and effectiveness of governments are en­hanced.

This modernization that this bill purports is actually going to do the opposite. Has it ever been done anywhere before? Are we following best practices? No. Ontario did change the oversight of paralegals and notaries, but it left self-governance in place for the legislative institution. So this will actually be the first move by any Commonwealth government or provincial government in Canada to do this, to take away the self-regulation, the ability of lawyers to elect a majority on the board that represents them.

An independent legal profession serves as that crucial check within our government system. Lawyers and the organizations that regulate them must operate independently from government influence to effectively advocate for their clients, uphold the rule of law and challenge governmental actions when necessary.

This independence ensures that legal professions can protect individual rights against potential government overreach and uphold democratic principles without facing political retribution or repercussions. Bill 21 proposes to replace this self-regulation of lawyers with a regulatory framework significantly influenced by government appointments. This shift not only threatens the independence of the legal profession but risks the integrity of the entire system.

I’ve spoken at length about the potential for government overreach, but increasing government-appointed positions within a regulatory board from having 80 percent that were elected by the lawyers themselves to only 30 percent introduces a potential for bias and manipulation in legal governance. It actually has that 12 of the 17 on the board will be government-appointed. This influence can lead to a regulatory environment where decisions and regulations favour current government policies or suppress dissenting legal actions, thereby aligning the legal profession more closely with the legislative or government branch, rather than acting as an independent body.

But lawyers become judges, and they are the primary pool from which judges are selected. If the independence of lawyers is compromised, so too the independence of our judges. A legal profession influenced by government interests could lead to a judiciary less capable of acting as an impartial adjudicator in cases involving government actions, weakening one of the most critical checks on the legislative power of government.

With increased government control over the regulation of lawyers, there might be an implicit pressure to avoid antagonizing the province, potentially deterring lawyers from taking on cases that involve challenging government actions or defending clients against provincial interests. This situation could lead to a chilling effect where important checks on government power, such as litigation and judicial review, are underutilized.

The perceived loss of independence within the legal profession could also erode public trust in the fairness and impartiality of legal proceedings. Public confidence in the legal system is paramount to maintaining the legitimacy of the judiciary and the effectiveness of the rule of law. Without trust, the social contract between the government and its citizens weakens, leading to a less stable and a less just society.

The changes proposed by Bill 21 threaten to fundamentally alter the landscape of legal regulation in a way that could undermine the entire system of balance within British Columbia’s government. By diminishing the independence of the legal profession, the bill risks creating a system where legal and judicial processes could become tools of the government, rather than mechanisms of accountability and justice.

[3:00 p.m.]

For these reasons, it’s imperative that any reforms to the legal profession preserve the independence and self-regulation of lawyers to ensure that the legal system remains a robust check against governmental overreach.

The imposition of government-appointed members on the board overseeing legal professions could lead to decisions that prioritize political considerations over legal ones. This could stifle dissenting legal opinions that are essential for robust legal debates and the development of law. Furthermore, the autonomy and moral authority of legal professions to challenge unjust laws or government actions could be compromised, undermining their role as one of the checks on government power.

This is powerful right now. We’ve just seen Bill 12 walked back out of this House because the legal profession gave opinions contrary to this NDP government’s beliefs. And they were so loud and so convincing and so cross-sectorial that the business community also rose up and was heard. What happens if each of those lawyers was subjected to a government-appointed board? Could there be retribution? Could they be disciplined for their speaking out against government? If the possibility exists within Bill 21, then this bill has gone too far and should be stopped in its tracks right now.

If legal professionals in any way, by this bill, are perceived to be beholden to the government, the impartiality of legal proceedings and the fairness of trials could come under scrutiny. This perception could deter individuals from seeking legal recourse, believing that the system is rigged against them unless they have government favour. Moreover, the potential for governmental interference in legal education and licensing could lead to a homogenization of legal thought, curtailing innovation or critical thinking within the profession.

As legislators, our duty is not only to pass laws, but to uphold the principles of justice and democracy that form the bedrock of our society. In considering Bill 21, it’s our responsibility to ensure that any changes to our legal system enhance those principles rather than weaken them. So if you could answer my question about Bill 21 with a “Well, maybe, but,” already we have weakened those legal system checks.

It’s crucial that we proceed with caution, ensuring that any reformation of the legal profession preserves its independence and continues to uphold the highest standards of justice and integrity. Where could this be an issue? Well, as I just mentioned, bills that come through this House…. Oftentimes lawyers will rise up and give legal opinions on what the bills mean, where the bills have gone too far.

It could also be a group of citizens challenging decisions made by the government that affect their rights; their property rights; the rights to their community, to keep safe in their community; the location of government facilities in their community. How about motor vehicle accidents? Complex injuries? These are just a few. These are areas where we need to ensure that lawyers have the ability, and are free of government interference, to properly assert the rights and represent the rights of British Columbians in the court system.

Imagine the government introduces a new public health law that mandates the closure of numerous public health clinics in rural and underserved areas, citing budget cuts and resource reallocation to more populous regions. Well, this decision sparks significant public outcry, particularly from affected communities, who argue that the closures will severely limit their access to essential health care services, potentially endangering lives.

[3:05 p.m.]

Let’s say a coalition of health care advocacy groups and affected residents decide to challenge this new law. They argue that the closures violate their right to equitable access to health care as guaranteed by provincial health standards and potentially national human rights provisions. This group then seeks legal representation to file a lawsuit aimed at reversing the law’s implementation.

Well, what happens if we no longer have an independent legal profession? For the coalition to effectively challenge the government’s decision, it’s going to require skilled legal representation that operates independently from government influence. If the legal profession’s regulatory body is dominated by government appointees, lawyers might be deterred from representing cases that challenge government decisions, fearing professional repercussions or conflicts of interest.

For a judicial review to occur, the lawsuit reaches the court where judges, drawn from the ranks of those same independent lawyers, must assess whether the clinic closures unlawfully infringe on citizens’ rights to health care. The independence of these judges is crucial. They have to be free to interpret and apply the law based on legal principles and evidence, not governmental pressure or policy agendas.

The court’s ability to check the power of the executive by potentially declaring such health legislation unlawful is a critical aspect of maintaining democratic governance and rule of law. The judicial review acts as a safeguard against arbitrary decisions that could negatively impact public health and individual rights.

But this is just hypothetical. I could have used 20 different cases. If the independence of the legal profession is vital to ensure that all laws undergo rigorous and impartial judicial scrutiny, what happens when this is no longer the case?

It’s not like we haven’t seen governmental overreach in the last few years. Where has it already been seen? Well, we’ve got the Kits Coalition just off Broadway at West 8th and Arbutus. They brought forth concerns about the city of Vancouver’s lack of public process and accountability and transparency around B.C. Housing’s project. What did this government do? Brought forward legislation to quash their challenge.

How about the Surrey police? Just bring a law in that makes it mandatory. Or the union representation of government lawyers? Don’t want them to have a choice? Let’s bring in a law that will mandate who they go with.

This NDP government loves to override those with legitimate concerns about an abuse of the powers that they have, already showing a clear disregard of the rule of law.

As we delve into the details and implications of Bill 21, I really want to focus on one of the positive aspects. One of the standout features of this bill is in its initiative to broaden the scope of practice for paralegals and notaries. This expansion is a progressive step towards making legal assistance more available and accessible, particularly in underserved communities and for individuals who may find traditional legal services prohibitively expensive.

Paralegals and notaries play a crucial role in the legal system, offering a range of services that include everything from drafting documents to providing legal advice on matters that do not necessarily require a lawyer’s intervention. By expanding their scope of practice, Bill 21 facilitates a more inclusive legal environment where more citizens can receive timely and affordable legal support. And this is especially significant in rural and remote areas where the scarcity of legal professions can impede access to justice.

Expanding the roles of paralegals and notaries can also help alleviate the heavy caseloads on courts and lawyers, thus speeding up legal processes and reducing legal costs. This change not only benefits the public but also enhances the efficiency of the legal system as a whole.

There are positive aspects of Bill 21. I believe that all citizens deserve access to legal services, and enhancing the roles of paralegals and notaries is a commendable strategy to achieve this goal. However, it is deeply unfortunate that these positive changes are overshadowed by the broader implications of Bill 21 that threaten to undermine the very fabric of our democratic society.

[3:10 p.m.]

The bill’s approach to restructuring the governance of the legal profession, particularly the increase in government-appointed positions within the regulatory board, poses a serious threat to the independence of the legal profession and to our democratic system. So while a positive change for the notaries and the paralegals, it is overshadowed by the possible threat to our democratic system.

We have seen this story before. We know how it ends up. We saw it with the engineers after we took away the actual empowerment of their seal. They are not submitting environmental assessments anymore. They’re frustrated. They’re disempowered, and they’re having their applications rejected for different reasons every time: goalposts are changing, different bureaucrats that are far less educated and less responsible for the decisions than what their own engineer’s seal represents. So the engineers are frustrated and are choosing not to do work anymore, with these constantly changing goalposts. And, in fact, many of them are leaving the province.

Well, then there are the doctors under Bill 36. Just for an example, the definition of informed consent used to be based on global, universal standards, but now it is subject to a board of politically appointed persons.

And now the lawyers, the last stop of holding a government to account. Because if the doctors wanted to, they could challenge Bill 36. How would they be represented? By lawyers. Who would make the decision? A judge selected from the pool of lawyers.

Challenging the lawyers’ self-regulation is really the last stop. I’ve talked about associations, but what about the homeowner? What about a patient? They would have to go to a lawyer to represent them, but that lawyer could now be concerned with retribution or a political agenda. This is a huge overreach by government. It is unnecessary. Where does it end? How does this story play out?

Well, for a government that has been taken to court so many times over the last seven years and lost…. I have lost count. And it would seem that they are simply trying to remove the obstacle that they have before them: the legal profession that holds them accountable.

While the aims of modernizing the legal system and increasing access to legal services are laudable, they must not be pursued at the expense of our foundational principles of our legal and democratic systems. I urge this assembly to consider the long-term implications of Bill 21 carefully.

Let us work together to find a solution that maintains the independence of our legal professionals, preserves public trust and upholds the delicate balance of powers that are so vital in democracy. Let’s move forward with a thoughtful and measured approach, ensuring that our actions today foster a just and democratic society for tomorrow. Because this is possibly the last stop: a gross overreach and a stacking of the deck, for this NDP government, by taking the last independent agency of the government’s system of accountability under its power.

E. Ross: On behalf of Skeena, my riding, it’s an honour to speak to Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act.

And it is quite the act. It is 317 sections on 135 pages. More importantly, I think it’s important for the public to understand what we’re really talking about here in terms of the principles that I’ve heard my colleagues talk about, especially the member for Vancouver-Langara and, just recently now, Kelowna-Mission.

[3:15 p.m.]

Because it might seem like we’re just talking about the appointment of a board or 317 sections that it’s going to take a lawyer to understand. But I think what we’re really talking about here is, like so many colleagues have talked about, democracy and governance and, basically, what that means under the context of a free society.

A lot of what I talk about in here is based on my own experience. It’s no secret that my band is a success story, in terms of how LNG brought our people, and many First Nations, from Prince George to Kitimat, out of poverty — even a few down channel.

But that was just a small part of the story in terms of what we were trying to do to fix our future, to build our future in a sustainable way — and “sustainable” meaning not one-time initiatives, not one-time agreements, not one-time payments. It had to be…. Like the saying back then was, we had to make decisions for the seventh generation down the road.

Well, to do that, you’ve got to look at governance. And the two things I noticed that my band, the Haisla Nation Council, didn’t have, that the provincial government had and the federal government had, was they had continuity, and they had corporate memory, and that was built under the structure. As much as I tried to duplicate that structure, I probably got halfway, but it was enough for the council and our people to understand there had to be a separation of sorts, a separation of politics and business, a separation from politics and our administration.

For that…. That was under our Indian Act model. The revised model that we created that ran parallel to the Indian Act model took our council away from all that, took them away from the day-to-day activities that our administration was going through and took us away from the business decisions that were being made in relation to LNG or forestry or mining. That was a big part of our success.

To be clear, when we’re talking about Bill 21, it’s in the same manner we were talking about Bill 36, the health bill. This is government overreach. And I am opposed to government overreach based on what I researched in terms of trying to make a sustainable government for my own band council, but also based on what the Indian Act offered First Nations for the last 100 years. If there was ever an extreme example of overreach, it is the Indian Act.

So every time I see a bill come up that proposes that government take control of a certain profession — like the health profession under Bill 36 or now Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act — I have to question it in terms of governance, democracy and a free society.

There’s a reason why the existing bar associations were independent from government. Now government is proposing to get rid of that independence. And that’s dangerous. I understand what government is trying to do in terms of these bills, but you can’t hide the fact that there are 87 politicians in this place, with political ideologies, including the parties that they represent.

I always thought that government, as well as the legal framework, had to be objective. It couldn’t be subjective. That’s what the danger is here when we’re talking about Bill 21 — in second reading, mind you. I know that our member for Vancouver-Langara is going to get into deeper detail on third reading, clause by clause, word by word. But in general, the public’s got to know this is government, again, overreaching and including a level of politics in an area where politics shouldn’t really be included.

[3:20 p.m.]

In terms of the Indian Act…. I’m not saying this is how it’s going to work for Bill 21, but the Indian Act still exists. Fortunately, all those clauses and limitations aren’t relevant in today’s day and age. It’s because the politicians in my band council chose to ignore it.

At the same time, for LNG’s sake, the previous governments for both provincial and federal chose to ignore the Indian Act. Instead, they focused on reconciliation in terms of the Haida court case of 2004. And 2004 was when reconciliation really started in B.C.

There was so much success in B.C. from that, in terms of peace in the forest, the forest and range agreement, the mining agreements that First Nations signed with B.C. government and, of course, the LNG initiative, which was quite extensive.

If there was ever a time that politics aligned, it was with the B.C. Liberals, who were government at the time, and our Haisla Nation Council, as well as other First Nations councils. We also understood there were rules that had to be followed. We accepted it. We accepted the fact that we had to actually participate in an environmental assessment, not only for LNG but also for mining projects.

The problem was the environmental assessment back then was complicated, very complicated, for a band council that didn’t have the capacity and who were just starting to understand the basics of Aboriginal rights and title case law, let alone trying to understand the permitting issues that fall underneath or run parallel to environmental assessment. So we had to hire capacity.

We hired environmental consultants, business consultants, but probably the core of our team was our lawyers — our Aboriginal rights and title lawyer, especially — just to get our foot in the door and just to understand what the Haida court case meant, what Delgamuukw meant, what section 35 of the constitution meant in the context of government policies. It was extremely difficult.

When we got to a point where we understood that we were on the same playing field as the provincial government and the federal government, that we had an understanding of where the case law was supposed to go and what our overall objective was, we understood we needed a corporate lawyer to understand the business agreements that we were getting into.

We kept the governments apprised of our issues, of our shortcomings. It took a long time to build up not only the trust but build up the agreements where we could build something going forward in partnership with the governments, provincially and federally.

The biggest issue we had back then was trust. We did not trust the provincial government. We did not trust the federal government. We spent a lot of money — that we didn’t have, by the way — on lawyers, not only to understand what we were doing in terms of negotiating, but also to let the government know that we had the capacity to understand what was in front of us.

This was brand-new for us, getting into major projects and understanding there were different aspects of the legal profession that we needed. Back in those days, prior to the Haida court case, the lawyers we had were HR lawyers and Indian Act lawyers. That’s what they specialized in. But the business community, especially LNG, spoke a different language, completely, in terms of regulations, legislation, not only here in Canada but also international. They also spoke a different language in terms of business concepts that we had no idea what they were talking about.

[3:25 p.m.]

Through trial and error, we went out and found this capacity, the people that understood the specific language that corporations and government were using against us. But in that whole time, never did we think that the legal profession was in any way connected to government, in no way. I think if we had found out that this bill was coming into play back in 2004, 2006, my band probably would have rejected it.

The scars of the Indian Act are still alive today in many First Nation communities, and especially in First Nations councils, who are elected to represent their membership in some of the most complicated topics that anybody has ever had to face in Canada.

Why it’s important that you understand this, especially from a First Nations perspective, is because I see that Bill 21 talks extensively about First Nations inclusion, including consultation. In terms of making a rule, for example, “the board must consult the Indigenous council respecting the extent to which the rule accords with the principles set out in section 7(b) and (c),” the guiding principles.

There’s also another clause talking about reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and the implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Well, we haven’t had legal representation historically, and this is why a lot of First Nations have to understand what’s being proposed here. What’s being proposed is that government is now, through legislation, going to get involved with the legal profession. Politics will get involved with the legal profession — at a high level, of course, but still involvement, taking away the independence of the legal profession.

In terms of First Nations, in terms of legal representation, in 1927, the federal government introduced section 141 into the Indian Act. It banned the solicitation or collection of funds to pursue a legal claim on behalf of an Indigenous person or group without the permission of the Department of Indian Affairs.

Former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker explained that the provision provided that Indians can have no recourse to the courts unless they have the permission of the minister to proceed. The blackout period lasted almost 25 years, until 1951, when section 141 was finally repealed.

This was a political government passing legislation to say that natives can’t have legal representation. It’s probably the last time a politician got involved with the legal profession. Rightly so. In my mind, it’s almost a conflict of interest to have the politicians in this place creating the laws and then sitting on a board to dictate the membership of a board, taking away the independence of a legal profession that at some times will have to fight against the government.

There’s no shortage of parties that want to take the government to court. That’s their right. They have the freedom to do that in Canada, and that should be black and white. There should be no watering down or confusing language in a bill that, let’s face it, nobody is going to read, 135 pages. Nobody’s going to read that, 317 sections. The people out there should know that what they’re really talking about is government taking away the independence of the legal profession.

[3:30 p.m.]

That is scary. It’s the politicization of a professional body that’s really there to protect — protect the justice system, protect us from all sorts of issues, including government, government-sourced issues. The further away government stays from the legal profession, the safer people will feel. And we’re talking about a self-regulated profession, a number of bars that are there to regulate their own lawyers.

You really think about the idea of UNDRIP being implemented through this new board and the appointment, Bill 21. Yet I don’t understand how to implement UNDRIP or DRIPA when it’s really just a framework bill. It’s not legally enforceable. So how are they supposed to implement that?

The NDP government itself argued in court that UNDRIP is not legally enforceable, and they had lawyers arguing that on their behalf. Gitxaała First Nation, the First Nation that was taking the government to court over it, had lawyers as well. But because nobody really understood UNDRIP, the B.C. government won the argument, and now UNDRIP is referred to as an interpretive aid. Now we see how it’s going to be implemented in Bill 21. But it doesn’t point out that UNDRIP is just an interpretive aid.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

In terms of the separation of government from the legal profession, Doig and Halfway River are currently in court with the B.C. government over treaty rights in regards to the Blueberry River agreement. Rights and title is one of the most complicated, most abstract, most interpretive case law out there. It’s not really the law of the land, but its case law dictates how the Crown is supposed to behave when dealing with Aboriginal rights and title. That includes treaty rights.

The lawyers that Doig and Halfway River hired, without prejudice, are arguing that the government omitted information, deceived Doig and Halfway River and brought dishonour to the Crown. Any First Nation, including Doig and Halfway River, is going to be surprised to hear that, No. 1, previously the legal profession was an independent body, independent from government, but No. 2, the days of independence are going to be over. So how is the First Nation supposed to trust government when government argues that DRIPA is just an interpretive aid and is not legally enforceable?

Then Doig and Halfway River, who are taking the B.C. government to court, find out that the legal profession…. Their independence will be taken away by Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act.

A political appointment to something so fundamental to democracy and freedom in Canada is just plain wrong. Justice should be blind to anything. Justice should be objective, not subjective, and there should be, in no way, any connection from the political side to the legal side, to the justice side. Maybe in other countries they have this, but not in Canada.

[3:35 p.m.]

And nobody is going to go research the constitution or Charter rights to figure this out in terms of what it means. People in here might. Lawyers might.

But the freedom that this society has built in Canada took years. It mainly was built on people that came here from different parts around the world that were oppressed, that didn’t have freedoms. They saw government overreach. They saw politics run amok. So they wanted a different country.

I agree that freedom is probably one of the toughest systems that you can implement, along with democracy. One of the toughest systems. But when you see how other people are treated around the world, you’ve got to admit it’s still a pretty good system. You have to admit that.

We should be fighting to protect that. That does mean keeping the legal profession separate from government. The self-regulation is already there. What the lawyers want is to continue that. If there are problems with it, let’s fix it. But let’s not do the heavy-handed approach and say: “Government has now got to be part of your bodies.” If we’re going to do this, if we’re going to protect against unfairness from government, then we’ve got to think about free societies, democracy and governance. We have to.

We do know that this government has been put on notice by the Law Society, the Canadian Bar Association, the Trial Lawyers Association and even the B.C. Civil Liberties Association about the challenges to this bill in terms of undermining the independence of the legal profession.

Here we are on second reading. This current government talks about how this bill addresses independence and self-regulation for lawyers. Yet there’s a clear disagreement on it, just in principle alone. And it’s not just us, as the official opposition, talking about this. It’s the association of lawyers, the 14,000 lawyers in our province who have been speaking to the government about the importance of this bill and how it undermines the independence of lawyers in our legal profession by eliminating self-regulation.

This was the same thing, the same issue, the same scenario that we experienced in terms of Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act. The member for Prince George–Valemount, the shadow Minister of Health, tried to debate every single clause of that huge bill. But she didn’t have enough time before the government shut down debate. And here we are, with less than two weeks to go in this session, and we’ve got this massive Legal Professions Act, Bill 21, along with a number of different issues that we’re actually debating in different rooms in this Legislature.

I’ve heard the member for Vancouver-Langara saying that he’s hopeful that he gets a chance to review the full 317 clauses of this bill but is skeptical, because there’s just not enough time, just like Bill 36, the Health Professions Act.

It’s been said that in Canada, if not the Commonwealth, this will actually be the first move by any Commonwealth government or provincial government in Canada to take away self-regulation and take away the ability of lawyers to elect a majority on the board that represents lawyers. We have to understand that, as MLAs, so we can go back to our constituents and tell them what this actually means for them in the future in terms of legal representation and how government will guarantee that the legal profession will continue to offer independent services to the citizens of British Columbia.

It makes you wonder why no other country has gone down this road. Most likely, it speaks to what this side of the House has been saying: “You’ve got to keep government and the legal profession separate.” It’s foundational to what this country is built on.

I look forward to third reading and listening to the questions put forward by my colleague, the member for Vancouver-Langara.

[3:40 p.m.]

D. Ashton: I look forward, for a few moments here, to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 21. Before I speak to it, I just want to give you a couple personal situations that I’ve run into with the independence of lawyers.

I’ll never forget, as a young kid, getting dragged up the stairs to my dad’s solicitor and the barrister that was also in the office and having the opportunity to really see firsthand what lawyers can do for you.

The gentleman went on after numerous years of service to many in Penticton to become a B.C. Supreme Court judge. As many know, it’s not applicable for an individual that is rising to the bench to give recommendations of where you should go. My father, being rather astute, said: “Well, who would you hire for a lawyer in Penticton?” No recommendation. So the gentleman mentioned a few.

We had a meeting. I was dragged into it again, and we had a meeting with an individual that kind of hit it off. When you’re in business, lawyers get to get to see how you think through acquisitions or family issues or deaths. They get to see how the family is and how interdependent you are.

After numerous questions and everything, we had decided upon the individual, and within about three years, he called us both in and said: “I’m sorry to inform you that I won’t be able to be your solicitor anymore because I’ve been called to the bench.” My dad again said: “Sir, who would you recommend?” The lawyer said: “Well, I’m not allowed to do that.” But my dad said: “Okay, well, who would you hire for a lawyer?”

He gave an individual, a female, very well-respected, at the largest law firm in Penticton. I remember walking in. I’m a little bit older now and knowing a little bit more about the business and that. I remember my dad sitting down, myself on one side of the table and the solicitor on the other side. No precursory discussion whatsoever. The first question out of my father’s mouth was: “Do you have any aspirations for the bench?” The young lady lawyer said: “No, sir, I don’t have any.” And he goes: “You’re hired.”

Again, lawyers get to know what you’re like. They’re there for that independency that you need. They give you both sides of situations, good lawyers do. You want an individual that’s independent. You want an individual that is able to provide you with the best legal advice possible, the best personal advice possible.

You also don’t want any conflicts, because in business, there are lots of tendencies where you do cross boundaries of government. You want fair. You want, not ambiguous, but an upright, straightforward answer to what is right and what is wrong in the direction that you want to go.

I really think…. Just like religion and politics never, ever mix, I really would hope that as my peer from Skeena had said…. With Bill 36, 135 pages in the bill, 300-plus sections to look at, coming in at an explicit time of where we literally have seven more days after today before that bill will be coming forward to get at royal assent…. I would just hope that common sense would prevail when there are drastic changes that are taking place.

[3:45 p.m.]

An example that I can give right now. I don’t know if other members of the House have had this, but I’ve had people come into our office since ICBC was changed. Here you have individuals that sustained major injuries and are limited now to what is possible to recover.

A young lady with an insurance company our company deals with…. She is literally one of the last settlements for a horrendous accident that she was involved in and has to wear the results of that accident, not only in her mind but on her body, for the rest of her life. If it had been underneath the current rules of ICBC….

Mr. Chair, I’m just using it as an example to Bill 21.

But if she had come in under the new one, it was a fraction of what she would have been able to receive to look after her, because she needs help for the rest of her life.

So this is one of the things…. I’m not going to come out and chastise the government for jumping in on this. They had their ideals that they want to project onto society on some of these issues, whether it was the health bill, Bill 36, that I had just mentioned, down to 21 now….

For the lawyers, there are places that government shouldn’t be. I really think that this is one of the places that government should not be. For the record, and it may have come out….

Mr. Chair, if you don’t want to give me grace on this…. But for the people that I represent, I would just like to read the letter that has come from the Law Society personally on it. It’s addressed to the Hon. Niki Sharma, Attorney General of British Columbia here at the parliament….

Deputy Speaker: We don’t use names in the House, Member.

D. Ashton: Oh, I apologize. I was just reading the top of the letter. I’ll just say to the Attorney General.

Deputy Speaker: And if the member can….

D. Ashton: I apologize.

Deputy Speaker: Yes, and the letter…. Good chunks have been read into the record, so you don’t need to read the entire letter, but please proceed.

D. Ashton: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your advice, and I appreciate that. Let me just give a couple of quotes out of it. One of the quotes is: “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.”

Well, here you have the society where a few in this wonderful Legislature have risen up through, saying to the government: “Hold on a minute, folks. There has not been enough advice coming from us, nor comments.” I think that that is very, very important.

They’re asking…. They urge the government to reconsider the passage at this point in time and take more time to consult, not only with the public but also the legal professions and especially, as we heard my peer from Skeena say, the Indigenous people of British Columbia to ensure that the revised bill creates legal regulators where everybody has a fair and equal opportunity.

I really think that there is time at this point, whether or not it gets through in this session, but it’s going to be incredibly important for the future. I really think we should be proceeding with caution and due diligence as a safeguard to the pillars of justice that we all respect in this province and in this country.

I think this is a critical issue at this point in time. I know our side would like to work towards amendments that preserve the independence that we’ve talked about. Other peers of mine have talked about, here…. The legal professions have brought forward…. I think that they do generally and genuinely realize that there is an opportunity for an improvement in the Legal Professions Act, but they want the opportunity of the input. They want the opportunity to be involved in the process to ensure, again, that there’s an arm’s length between the solicitor and the client and — I’m going to add one more to it — the government.

While the modernization of the legal professions, as I said, is a worthy goal, I don’t really think it should come at the foundations of our legal system. I just hope that government alleviates the repeated refusal to do this.

[3:50 p.m.]

I really think that the government needs some secondary thoughts on this, and if we all work together, we will have the opportunity for a comprehensive and a real genuine process that will involve all the stakeholders, involve everybody that is going to have something to do with this new act to ensure that the base, that big, solid foundation that’s required, is put into place and put into place properly.

I know that we on this side would like to implement some regulatory framework that protects the autonomy of the legal profession, again, from government influences. I guess that’s a good word. It’s not a word where there’s going to be direction being brought into it. However, a subtle influence, unfortunately, probably does not exist and should not exist when the profession is dealing with individuals, dealing with entities like “I” corporations or dealing with the Indigenous people of British Columbia.

I really hope, as this moves towards the committee stage, that all of us, especially on this side of the House — the B.C. caucus, the other two parties that are represented but not here at this point in time, plus the independent — will take a hard look at this. We’ll really have the opportunity to examine not only the bill but also have the opportunity to question the Attorney General on the processes that were involved in bringing this bill forward, why it has to be brought forward at this point in time, so that we’re able to maintain that incredible independence, maintain those high standards, that we all want of our legal professions.

Just an interjectory note. I don’t often repeat this. I came from council, as many of us did. We had a very well-known lawyer on council, a man who I didn’t really know when I got on council. You say some things that you really shouldn’t say in council meetings, and this was one particular one where the lawyer was carrying on, as a lawyer can. But we weren’t in court. We were in a council. I said a comment to him that I thought he was a bit of a peacock.

He looked over at me, and the mayor choked. He asked me what I meant by that. I said: “Well, you’re over there fluffing yourself up. Pretty soon, you’re going to spread your tail, and we can see your true colours.”

Let me tell you that that was one of the last things I ever said to him as a derogatory comment. All of a sudden, I gained that experience, not only on council, but in life experiences. I see my peer from Skeena is smiling backwards.

I gained the opportunity to realize that a gentleman of his stature in the community brought an awful lot to a council and an awful lot that we should have been listening to all the way along.

I think, again, that there are some very good individuals in here that have gone through the process of becoming lawyers and have gone through the opportunities that have been presented to them all through their life to have that independence. I would just hope that the Attorney General, also being a solicitor/barrister, would realize that there’s a lot at stake here and that there’s a lot that should be taken into consideration.

I realize that there are amendments also to the Notaries Act. These are individuals, as we know, that look after the wills of our loved ones or the wills of ourselves. They’re the individuals that, on more than occasions, help us proceed with the purchase of land and/or homes. We want to make sure that that’s done appropriately, and we want to make sure that that is done in a fail-safe way, that when they attach those blue corners to the document, that is a document you can take to the highest standards in the land.

We want to ensure that that’s done correctly, but we also want to say that we want to have that opportunity to hear what they have got to say about the direction that the government is trying to take this particular bill. I also understand that there were approximately just over 700 responses to this. I question, out of a population of four-plus million people in British Columbia: how much was the stakeholder agreement, not only from the solicitors, but also from other agencies around the Real Estate Association and other government bodies?

[3:55 p.m.]

Opportunities in our communities where those in the legal profession give that sound and sage advice that we all want and have them have the opportunity to discuss that with their clients, or people that are in the know, to say: “This is a direction of government. What do you think? Is this right, or is there something else that we should be taking a look at?”

I really am curious that all three of the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, the Law Society and the Lawyers Rights Watch Canada have all expressed concerns about the erosion…

[The bells were rung.]

Deputy Speaker: You can proceed now. Division vote in another chamber.

D. Ashton: …of lawyer independence under this new structure. It is crucial that any regulatory board remains free from political influence to uphold the integrity of our legal system. That’s a pretty bold statement that I would hope that the government, and those involved in the process and the creation of Bill 21, would rise to and listen to and think about.

When you see associations like that coming forward…. I think the end of it says: “uphold the integrity of our legal system.” Well, that’s pretty important in this country, this incredible country that is still one of the most democratic countries in the entire world.

I think we really, really ought to be taking a look at this. I’ve said this, and again, I know other people will say it. There is deep concern that Bill 21 is a compromise to the independence of our legal system. It is incredibly fundamental that the principle must be preserved to maintain public trust and the rule of law.

I really hope that those in the House that I see today and those that we know have stepped forward, on this bill, to bring their concerns forward…. I don’t think it’s out of line, at this point, as my peer from Skeena said, to reconsider the direction that government wants to take on something as deep and as thorough… The necessity is going to prevail on this when the changes do take place on how important that’s going to be.

We have the opportunity. We have three days left after today in this week; we have four days next week. Yes, there’s something transpiring in the fall, but oh my goodness, when something the depth of this is coming forward at the last moment…. I realize there has probably been a substantial amount of time in the preparation of this document, but I really think for the public to be able to have a look at this and to be able to think this through, to be able to talk to their peers in the profession and to be able to come forward and maybe add some suggestions….

We heard what had happened on Bill 36, and we’ve heard from the professions of their discontent on how this transpired. I would really think that the government would be hearing those concerns because there still is a lot of uncertainty in our health professions regarding Bill 36. Realistically, it’s too late on Bill 36.

I really, sincerely hope that the government will learn a lesson from that in bringing forward Bill 21. In the situation that it has been brought forward here in this Legislature, and how it’s been handled up to this point in time…. How we all have heard from those in our community that are going to be affected, how we have not heard from those in our community that may not even realize that it’s taking place at this point in time….

[4:00 p.m.]

That dissemination of information not only into the profession but those that are associated with the profession in ways…. Whether they’re a customer of a lawyer or an agency that is represented legally, to have the opportunity to sit down and ensure that what is being proposed, and which will become a bill and law very, very quickly, is right.

Mr. Chair, I would ask again, through yourself to my peers in the House, those who have the opportunity to talk to those in their party and also to the staff, I know, that are listening intently as we all speak about this: let’s just give this bill some sober second thought, give the opportunity of input throughout this province. Let’s not run into this.

I can never, ever forget…. Going back to that original solicitor that I talked about that was the first to go up to the bench, he had a beautiful…. It was porcelain. The name slips my mind of who makes them — an old, old English company. In his office, he had a picture of the female with the scales, wearing the blind, because justice should not be directed from anywhere. I would just leave that. Royal Doulton — it was a Royal Doulton piece and was a beautiful statue like this of the scales of justice.

So there it is. Justice shouldn’t be directed by colour or voice or whatever. Justice has to be there for justice with no influence whatsoever.

On that note, I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to step forward on this. Please, let’s just reconsider this. Let’s take some time, think this one through.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Greatly appreciated.

T. Wat: Today I rise to address Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act, 2024, that proposes significant changes, sweeping changes to the regulation of the legal profession in British Columbia.

Indeed, I stand before you with heavy heart and a deep concern and also a deep sense of disappointment that this NDP government is taking a dangerous pattern, aiming at centralized government control and government overreach.

We first noticed this trend in 2018, when the government was dealing with the engineers, with the fundamental centralization of regulation of the engineer profession. This was the first sign of this government’s dangerous pattern.

Then we have seen Bill 36 in 2022, the self-regulation of six government-appointed colleges for the health care professionals and the elimination of an elected position that existed under the former system that ensured professional independence from government control. When this bill was passed, the Health Professions and Occupations Act, that was highly controversial.

B.C. United MLAs were certainly opposed to that legislation, because we didn’t have the proper debate. The government imposed a closure so that my colleague the member for Prince George–Valemount, the shadow minister of Health, did not have the opportunity to complete the review of that bill. We only got a third through the bill. As a result of the lack of thorough debate of that bill and, of course, not enough consultation, we see the result of the crisis in our health care system.

[4:05 p.m.]

As an immigrant from Hong Kong, the same as, I guess, most other immigrants who have come to Canada not just for a better quality of life but, like myself…. When I left in 1989, Hong Kong was still a British colony. All Hongkongese did not have the opportunity to vote for the governor. We called the head of the Hong Kong government the governor, who was appointed by the British government and sent all the way to Hong Kong, somebody who might not even live in Hong Kong or understand what Hong Kong is like.

Living in a colony — at that time when I was there, it was about an over three million population — we had no say. We had no say in deciding who was going to decide the policy for Hong Kong. That’s the major reason why myself and my family had decided to uproot. It wasn’t easy because, in terms of living standard, we had a very good living standard in Hong Kong. It’s just that we felt that we should come to a country with full democracy, that as a citizen, we can get involved in the operation of government.

Plus, there should be full independence of the judiciary, the political system, the government. There shouldn’t be centralized control from the government, like what I had lived in the first half of my life in a British colony. Then, even in Hong Kong, as far as I remember, the legal profession still enjoyed independence, full independence, without getting the centralized control from the colonial government. That’s why I started off with my comment saying that I’m standing here, really, having a heavy heart and also a deep sense of disappointment in this Bill 21, the Legal Profession Act, 2024.

My colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara already spoke so eloquently for quite some time about the fundamental change to this legal profession. That’s why the major legal societies — the Law Society, the Canadian Bar Association, the Trial Lawyers Association, and even the B.C. Civil Liberties Association — have put this government on notice about the challenges of this bill in terms of undermining the independence of the legal profession and the concern that it would have for the legal profession. It is for the legal profession, for whom the lawyers are selected to serve on the bench, to serve in our courts and to protect the rule of law.

[4:10 p.m.]

The association of lawyers, the 14,000 lawyers across our province have been speaking to the government about the importance of this bill, about how it does undermine the independence of lawyers in our legal profession by eliminating self-regulation.

I was reading the opinion by the president of the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C., Michael Elliott. It really touched my heart that he reiterated, the same as the other lawyers association, that lawyers across B.C. are deeply concerned about this bill, Bill 21, for several reasons, in particular that it ends lawyer independence in our province.

As I was speaking from the beginning, I think it’s not only me. Canada is made up of immigrants from all over the world. As I said, most immigrants, like myself, have decided to come to Canada because we really look forward to and admire and respect the full democracy that we all enjoy. We expect independence of the judiciary, independence of the political system, independence of the executive council, and also independence of each professional body — not to be messed and controlled by the government. But here we are, seeing that one after the other, this government is trying to take over their independence, first the engineers and then the health professionals.

And now our Premier, himself a lawyer, of the legal profession, and the Attorney General, herself a lawyer, the two most important government officials…. The Attorney General proposed this bill, just during the end of the last session of the second term, without proper consultation with the legal profession, without engagement.

Again, that’s why I say I’m standing up with a heavy heart, because this is a dangerous pattern. This government is going on the path of lack of consultation, lack of engagement, and is taking away the independence of professional bodies. Especially, as I said, the Premier is a lawyer himself; the Attorney General is a lawyer herself. The two senior government officials should understand that lawyers must have independence in order to protect British Columbians from the government.

One of the reasons that the government has rationalized Bill 21 is by arguing that it will improve access to justice by lowering costs for British Columbians in need of legal assistance. Of course, access to justice needs to be improved in our province, but Bill 21 does nothing to improve it.

[4:15 p.m.]

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. Already, British Columbia is unique among all provinces in that it charges a 7 percent provincial sale tax charge on legal services, which makes these services most expensive and more expensive than any other province.

The PST charge on legal services was introduced in 1992 by the NDP government. The government of the day promised that the revenue generated by the tax would be used to fund the legal aid budget, thereby improving access to justice for those in need.

Unfortunately, revenues from the 7 percent tax on legal services began to be diverted in 2002, when a draconian series of cuts to the legal aid budget amounting to as much as 40 percent of the budget were implemented. Significant amounts of the revenue generated by the tax on legal services have been diverted into general provincial government revenues and spending ever since then.

In February this year, the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch noted in a statement that the amount of PST paid by British Columbia on the legal fees is estimated to be $230 million each year, with about $130 million allocated to Legal Aid B.C. This means that, of course, the government has underfunded legal aid by around $100 million every year and has no plan to fix that fundamental problem.

Instead of addressing the issue and directing the revenue from the legal service tax back towards funding legal aid or reducing the 7 percent tax to make legal services more affordable, the Attorney General has decided to embark upon a cynical path of distraction and diversion. Rather than taking responsibility for the policy failure of the B.C. government to properly fund legal aid, the government is attempting to distract and divide British Columbians through Bill 21 by instead blaming lawyers and other legal professions for the high costs of legal services.

Bill 21 does nothing meaningful to address or reform the structural issues of underfunded legal aid services. It does nothing to reduce or eliminate the diversion of legal services tax revenue away from legal aid funding. Bill 21 also contains no measure whatsoever to alleviate concerns about rising insurance calls from some legal professions if the scope of practice is broadened.

In fact, upon further inspection, it is very difficult to find any section of Bill 21 that will have any tangible impact on the cause of legal services or access to justice. It is more likely that this Bill 21 is a cynical detraction from the fact that the government is continuing to divert funding intended for legal aid services into general revenue instead. It is also, as I said earlier, a dangerous bill that is designed to give this government more control over the legal profession.

[4:20 p.m.]

When one of the primary functions of an independent legal profession in a functioning democracy is to act as a check and balance against government overreach, it is really time for this government to take accountability for their access-to-justice policy failures, shelve Bill 21, preserve the independence of the legal system and restore the funding for legal aid instead of diverting it.

When I was reading a practising lawyer in Victoria for 47 years’ commentary, Roxanne Helme, I felt really sad. I quote her for the first paragraph: “Over my long and wonderfully rewarding legal career, I have observed the propensity of socialist governments, invariably for their own mischievous purposes, try to paint lawyers as greedy villains.”

Towards the end, this seasoned lawyer concluded by saying that: “Consider the lot of lawyers in many established socialist venues, such as Russia, and what the society looks like in those places.” And: “The attack on the legal profession is extremely dangerous for the health of the just society we have, at our own peril….” She said this attack on the legal profession that she has witnessed over many years has been deliberate, incremental, persistent and sneaky.

B.C. United acknowledges the need for modernizing legal services and improving access to justice. But we are deeply, deeply concerned that Bill 21 compromises the independence of our legal system, a fundamental principle that has been aspired to by immigrants of my community. This must be preserved to maintain public trust and the rule of law. I must emphasize once again that I left Hong Kong — where I was born, where I was educated, where I enjoyed a good career — and uprooted my whole family to Canada because I respect that the government has our public trust and is governing according to the rule of law.

Bill 21 continues a troubling pattern, an overreach that mirrors action taken against, as I said earlier, all other professional fields, such as engineering and health care for Bill 36 and Bill 49. These professions have already experienced the consequences of increased government control, which ends the checks and balances for a free and democratic society. Checks and balances are crucial for a free and full democratic society.

Various legal advocacy groups have echoed our key concern with Bill 21. The proposed board composition under Bill 21 includes a significant number of government-appointed members, which could lead to potential government interference in legal regulations.

[4:25 p.m.]

All three — the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, the Law Society and the Lawyers Rights Watch Canada — have expressed concerns about the erosion of lawyer independence under the new structure. It is crucial that any regulatory board remains free from political inference 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 is vital that these changes do not compromise professional standards and the quality of legal representation available to the public.

The consultation process leading up to the bill’s introduction appears inadequate, with only 776 responses collected. This raises questions about the depth and breadth of stakeholder engagement, particularly concerning such a transformative piece of legislation that impacts a core pillar of B.C.’s democracy.

Despite promises of reduced legal fees and increased affordability, there’s no clear indication within the bill itself that these outcomes will be realized. This discrepancy between the government’s statements and the bill’s content needs to be addressed to ensure transparency and accountability.

Further, it is important to recognize the proactive steps taken by notaries in British Columbia to elevate their professional standards. Notaries have made significant strides to ensure that those practising in the expanded scope have the necessary knowledge and expertise. This commitment to maintaining high standards in their profession deserves commendation.

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 have proposed an alternative path. They suggested amendments to the Notaries Act that would have allowed them to voluntarily adopt these higher standards without the need for a broader 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 all know, this government chose not to take this path.

As the bill moves to the committee stage, the B.C. United caucus will vigorously examine each and every clause to ensure that the legislation aligns with the best interests of British Columbians and maintains the independence and high standards of our legal professions. The B.C. United caucus would implement a regulatory framework that protects the autonomy of legal professionals from undue government inference. This should be done while ensuring that expanding roles within the legal profession does not dilute professional standards.

Unlike the government’s repeated refusal to do so, we will continue to push for a comprehensive and genuinely inclusive consultation process that involves all stakeholders. While modernization of the legal profession is a worthy goal, it must not come at the expense of the foundational principles that govern our legal system.

[4:30 p.m.]

B.C. United stands ready to work towards amendments that preserve the independence of our legal profession and ensure that the reforms genuinely enhance access to justice for all citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this critical issue. Let us all proceed with caution and diligence to safeguard the pillars of justice in British Columbia, which have been existing for so, so many years.

C. Oakes: Today it is a privilege and an honour to rise to address Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act, 2024, which does propose significant changes to the regulation of the legal professions in British Columbia.

My previous colleagues have done an outstanding job of walking us through the challenges in this bill, and I just wanted to provide, perhaps, a few comments on what I’ve heard from my community and some of the concerns that constituents of Cariboo North have.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Bill 21 is a pattern that we’ve seen from this government, very similar to what we witnessed during Bill 36. I know the Health Professions and Occupations Act created significant challenges, not just in my riding but in constituencies across this province. I had many conversations with constituents on their considerable concerns about Bill 36.

Of course, we voted against that, but it’s just a process, and it’s a pattern. Bill 21 is a similar pattern of what we’re addressing and seeing today. That’s why you’ve seen such a vigorous debate from the B.C. United team, of standing up and defending our constituents.

I wanted to take a moment to read into the record something that was shared with me, because I think it’s important to be putting this on record. I’ll just read their words.

“Today we stand at a crucial crossroads in our society’s journey towards maintaining a delicate balance between government authority and individual freedom. Government overreach, in its many forms, poses a fundamental threat to the principles of self-governance and self-regulation that lie at the heart of a free and democratic society. It is a phenomenon that transcends political ideologies and party lines, for its implications are felt by citizens of all walks of life, irrespective of their beliefs or their affiliations.

“At its core, government overreach signifies a breach of trust between the government and those entrusted with the governance. It occurs when the powers vested in government institutions are abused or extended beyond their intended scope, encroaching upon the rights and liberties of individuals without adequate justification or recourse. However, amidst these challenges posed by government overreach, there lies an opportunity for us to reaffirm our commitment to safeguarding the principles of self-governance and self-regulation.

“It is incumbent upon us as citizens and stakeholders of democracy to hold our elected representatives and government institutions accountable for their actions. We must demand greater transparency in the decision-making process, ensuring that policies are formulated and implemented in the best interests of the people they serve. We must advocate for the protection of our fundamental rights and liberties, resisting any attempts to curtail them in the name of expediency or security.

[4:35 p.m.]

“Moreover, we must actively participate in shaping the future of our society. By fostering a culture of civic engagement and democratic participation, we can empower ourselves and future generations to resist the encroachment of government overreach and uphold the values of liberty and justice for all.”

That is what we are trying to do today. We’ve heard, from people across this province, concerns with this bill: a request to take time to go out and do further consultation; that voices have not been heard; concerns about the impacts that this will have, similar to Bill 36. For all of those who spoke up on Bill 36, I encourage you to speak up on this bill as well. This is truly a bill that is about government overreach and the impacts that it potentially could have in our communities.

I wanted to take a moment as well to read into the record, from a 1982 decision, the year that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force, when Justice Estey of the Supreme Court of Canada articulated the essential importance of an independent bar. Justice Estey said:

“The independence of the bar from the state, in all its pervasive manifestations, is one of the hallmarks of a free society. Consequently, regulation of these members of the law professions by the state must, so far as by human ingenuity it can be so designed, be free from state interference, in the political sense, with the delivery of services to the individual citizens in the state, particularly in the fields of public and criminal law. The public interest in a free society knows no area more sensitive than the independence, impartiality and availability to the general public of the members of the bar and, through those members, legal advice and services generally.”

At the heart of it, that is what this bill is about. This bill sets forward regulation that will eliminate self-regulation, undermining the independence of lawyers, going against what the Supreme Court of Canada said was fundamental to a free and democratic society. That should alarm all of us in this House.

Composition of the board under clause 8 of this bill sets forward that only five of the 17-member board will be elected by and from any lawyers. Today, in the current composition of the board of the Law Society — which is the regulator board of lawyers in this province — there are 32 members of this board; 25 members of this board are elected directly by lawyers. That’s 25 out of the 32, which is a majority.

There is a reason why they are independent — because, hon. Speaker, as you well know, there is great diversity in this province, and representation across this province looks very different. I’ve often spoken in this Legislature about the geographic challenges and differences that exist in this province. If you come to the Cariboo, the views of people living in our rural communities are often very different than the views that are often shared in some of the larger urban settings.

When representation by geographic area is eliminated and removed, again, it is a reason why it is necessary to speak out, speak up and speak against. The Law Society previously had regional, elected lawyers on a geographic basis, and they ran elections. This bill removes from the profession of lawyers their right to association for the purpose of self-governance and self-regulation, and lawyers’ rights to freedom of association would be limited to joining voluntary bar associations that have no governance or regulatory authority.

[4:40 p.m.]

With only five of the elected of up to 17 members board, lawyers will be unable to protect the public’s right to representation by lawyers or right of lawyers to fully discharge their professional duties free from the regulator or other interference by the state or other external actors.

That reason is why I speak up, I speak for and I encourage others to join this conversation on a bill and call for more time for consultation so that all voices in this province can be heard.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading on the bill.

Division has been called.

[4:45 p.m. - 4:55 p.m.]

Second reading of Bill 21 approved on the following division:

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

Bill 21, Legal Professions Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main House, we call Committee of the Whole for Bill 24, Energy Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 24 — ENERGY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 24; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 5 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the Committee of the Whole to order. We’re dealing with Bill 24, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.

On clause 1.

T. Shypitka: Clauses 1, 2 and 3 are all about repealing and removing the standing offer program clause.

Maybe, under the Chair’s guidance and the minister’s acceptance…. Could we treat clauses 1, 2 and 3 just under one umbrella for questioning? Would that be satisfactory?

The Chair: The minister agrees?

Yes.

T. Shypitka: Awesome. Thanks.

To get to the chase here and maybe the most obvious question, what is the government’s feeling about removing and repealing part 4 of the Clean Energy Act and all subsequent clauses to remove the standing offer program? What is the rationale behind that?

Hon. J. Osborne: Before I provide my first answer, welcome to my critic.

I want to introduce my staff. I’ve got assistant deputy minister Les MacLaren with me, and Zack Merilovich and Kristen Littler from the ministry as well.

The answer to the member’s question is…. The standing offer program, as he knows, has been suspended for five years, since 2019. It offered fixed-price contracts. It’s inconsistent with where government is going with respect to competitive procurement of new supply. That’s why we are proposing that the clauses be removed.

T. Shypitka: To the minister’s answer, then, by removing the standing offer program, the government will be removing a requirement for a general call for proposals, I guess, and implementing a more targeted, competitive model.

Can the minister explain the difference between what we had and what we’re going to see?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: With the standing offer program, fixed-price contracts were offered at about $120 per megawatt hour. The key difference is…. Through the competitive procurement process, which the spring 2024 call for power provides, for example….

It’s more consistent with the long-run marginal cost of energy from B.C. Hydro, through their IRP, of about $70 per megawatt hour. So quite a bit cheaper, meaning more affordable for ratepayers as well. A key goal here is to obtain least cost new supply for affordability.

A second distinction between the standing offer program and the new competitive call for power is the requirement, in the new call, for a minimum 25 percent First Nations ownership. The previous standing offer program did not require First Nations ownership.

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the minister for that.

She gave me a couple of answers there. One on the minimum requirement of 25 percent Indigenous-owned. That’s great news. The other part on the cost factor. Some of those longer-term contracts, I guess, energy purchasing agreements, were at $120 per megawatt hour in comparison to $70 per megawatt hour with this proposal. Would that $70 cost change in time?

Hon. J. Osborne: Factors that could affect the cost in the future, in subsequent calls, for example, might include inflation, differences in the physical geography of a site where an independent power project takes place and the cost that might be associated with that and, also, on the flip side, offsets by the advances in technology.

Solar and wind, for example, are becoming more affordable or cheaper over the long term. That could impact the price as well.

T. Shypitka: Would the supply of power be a factor?

Hon. J. Osborne: I might ask if the member might just expand a little bit on that, what he’s getting at, in terms of how supply could impact the cost or be a factor. I think that was the question.

T. Shypitka: Just the cost of power, if there’s less supply or, perhaps, even an increase in demand.

That would be another question. Would supply be a factor? Would demand of power be a factor in the cost?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The initial indicators in the spring 2024 call for power show a very strong response. That means we can expect to see a very competitive process, that there’s more than adequate supply to be able to meet the request for 3,000 gigawatt hours per year.

T. Shypitka: Well, the question was just straight up. We’re seeing a decrease in energy capacity in the province. That’s why we have a call for power. Would increased demand in the future, with a shortened supply…?

We’ve seen droughts throughout the province, through­out the country and throughout the world, decreasing our electrical capacity in dams throughout the world. Would this increased demand in the future, as we’re trying to electrify the economy and everything else, as well as the demand for power in some of these drought-ridden states south of the border…? Would that combination impact the $70 per megawatt hour that the minister has noted?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for that. I think I understand the question a little bit better.

Yes, of course, the reason for the 2024 call for power is because of the forecast of demand. Although Site C is coming online, we know that adding 3,000 gigawatt hours a year through the call for power is an important addition to the grid, not only in terms of supply but in terms of diversity as well.

I want to touch on that too because the member talks about drought impacts on the hydro system and specifically the impacts on price. The inflows into the hydro system are independent of the prices that we see for wind and solar. So although we are, it looks like, in a second year of a drier year, two years in a row of drought, that does not impact the prices of wind and solar and thus would not be expected to impact the bids that we’ll see through the call for power.

[5:15 p.m.]

I think it’s important now, too, to make the point that despite being in two dry years, obviously looking at the span of years where some are wetter and some are drier…. That’s one of the benefits of a really resilient backbone of hydro reservoirs that way and another reason why diversification by integrating renewables like wind and solar into the system will make it stronger in the long run.

But to simply answer the member’s question: no, I don’t think that the drought will impact the bids that we’ll see for wind and solar projects coming in to the call for power.

T. Shypitka: I just need to understand it a little bit more because the minister said that it’s independent. Wind and solar pricing is going to be independent of the pricing of electricity. Two different types of power, I guess, is what she’s trying to say. Maybe I’m wrong on what she said.

I need to understand how they work together, because if there is a higher demand, and we don’t have the capacity with electricity — with droughts and other things that she’s mentioned, inflation, geography, technology, all these other things — then there could be an increase in demand for wind and solar. If there’s a higher demand for wind and solar, the price would certainly go up because more infrastructure is needed, more projects need to be built, higher capacity needs to be recognized.

Is there not a correlation between the energy contracts, or the procurement process, I guess it would be, for this new model that we’re putting out instead of the SOP…? Is there no correlation between that and overall energy use in the province?

Hon. J. Osborne: To the member’s question around whether there’s a correlation between the price that would be paid for energy and the call for power and overall energy use, the answer is: none that we’re aware of.

As demand grows, the call for power, and future calls for power, will add more renewables into the system. We expect to see the price paid in those future calls will be influenced by the factors that I already listed: technology, geography, inflation. The cost of technology, wind and solar, is not impacted by the fact that there is a drought.

The reservoir system and, over a series of years, the way that water reservoirs are balanced and load is managed is not going to impact the prices that are bid on this call for power.

[5:20 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: All right. Thank you.

Was B.C. a net importer or exporter of power last year?

Hon. J. Osborne: Last year B.C. was a net importer of electricity. Over the last five years, taken altogether, we have been a net exporter. Over the last 15 years, of those 15 years, in eight years, we’ve been a net exporter and, in seven years, a net importer.

T. Shypitka: Sorry, in 2023. We’re not through 2024 yet. Was 2023 a net importer or a net exporter?

Hon. J. Osborne: That is correct. In 2023, we were a net importer.

T. Shypitka: The price that the minister just recited, the $70 per megawatt hour, could change, obviously. She spoke of a few things that could contribute to a hiring or lowering of that price: inflation, geography, technology. I think she also admitted supply and demand for that power could impact those prices. How was that pricing model…? Where did that number come from?

Hon. J. Osborne: The long run marginal cost of $70 per gigawatt hour is a figure determined by B.C. Hydro through their IRP process, and they do that by looking extensively at the resource options before them, advances in technology and, very importantly, the prices that are paid in procurement in other jurisdictions. Essentially, it’s the price of adding a new unit of supply.

The member is correct that we expect the bids for the call for power to come in close to that LRMC of $70, but I want to leave no impression that we expect it to hit that or to be exactly that. We have yet to see what the bids will be, and we’ll know more later this year.

T. Shypitka: Thank you. I didn’t quite get that. Could you just go over the model of how that pricing came about again? I’ve just got to write it down. Sorry.

Hon. J. Osborne: No problem. It was determined by B.C. Hydro through their integrated resource planning process, and they look at resource options before them. They look at advances in technology, and they look at the prices that are paid to procure energy, new electricity, in other jurisdictions.

T. Shypitka: The $120 per gigawatt hour recited under the standing offer program, EPAs…. How was that number derived at?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The $120 figure that I cited is a figure that was benchmarked on a prior call, around 2012, I believe. And when I say $120, that includes inflation since the contracts were entered into.

T. Shypitka: I’m just wondering if the minister can expand a little bit more on that. Was mid-C pricing part of that comparator?

Hon. J. Osborne: No, it wasn’t. This was based on acquiring supply from the market in B.C., not from the Pacific Northwest where the mid-C price pertains.

T. Shypitka: Can the minister just explain, then, the two different pricing models between the $120 and the $70? It seems like there’s a bit of a difference. I mean, maybe it’s just because those are longtime energy purchasing agreements, and they have different factors. Maybe the minister can just let me know what the difference is between those two and why they’re different.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Let me try to come at this question again slightly differently. The $70 long run marginal cost is the cost of adding a new unit of supply today. The $120 was based on a benchmark from prior bids, so a very different way of establishing a price, effectively.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

We don’t want a benchmark based on past bids because we need to update in terms of the technologies, the price of those technologies today and the scale. And I think it merits mentioning that the call for power is around utility-scale-sized projects, meaning that there’s an economy of scale there too, which will help to keep the price that’s bid lower and ultimately, obviously, the price more affordable for customers.

T. Shypitka: Why can’t the new pricing model be implemented in the existing SOP program? Why couldn’t that be amended that way?

Hon. J. Osborne: I think the simplest answer is just that they’re two incompatible systems, fundamentally. The standing offer program was a fixed-price contract, and the call for power is a competitive procurement process. It uses the forces of the market as people bid in to give the best price that they can, and that’s going to help us keep the cost of electricity down for British Columbians.

T. Shypitka: What would the minimum project size be for the new model?

Hon. J. Osborne: These utility-scale projects have a minimum of 40 megawatts and a maximum of 200 megawatts in size.

T. Shypitka: Can the minister tell me, then, how were those numbers derived? How did we get to those numbers?

Hon. J. Osborne: B.C. Hydro undertook an extensive consultation process working with industry and with First Nations, and the sizes were derived through that process.

T. Shypitka: Okay, we’ll get into that piece then. The minister made mention of Indigenous consultation. She also mentioned earlier that one of the differences between this and the standing offer program is that there’s a minimum 25 percent Indigenous ownership. A good thing.

Can the minister first tell me how many projects were part of the original SOP program when it was first implemented until 2019, when there was a halt?

Hon. J. Osborne: The answer is there were 25 projects under the standing offer program.

[5:35 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Okay. I might have miscounted. I got 26.

Can the minister then tell me, as I go through this, how much power was produced by those 25 projects?

Hon. J. Osborne: A total of 160 megawatts and 530 gigawatt hours per year.

T. Shypitka: I’m looking at the website on the applications and the projects that were part of it. Those are EPAs, sorry. Once again, to the minister, under the SOP program, there were 25 projects representing 136 megawatts. Is that what you’re…?

Hon. J. Osborne: One hundred and sixty megawatts and 530 gigawatt hours per year.

T. Shypitka: Can the minister then tell me how many of those SOPs were Indigenously owned or partly owned?

Hon. J. Osborne: B.C. Hydro is not privy to all of the arrangements that private developers may have made with First Nations. But we do know of five or six projects where First Nations hold an ownership stake.

T. Shypitka: In figuring it out on the 25 percent ownership, does the minister tell me, then, she didn’t know what some of the other contracts were comprised of on ownership with Indigenous…?

What I’m getting at is a lot of these could have been a lot more than 25 percent. By making it a minimum of 25 percent, it might actually do the reverse to what the minister might be setting out to do, and that’s to include more ownership in projects. I know it’s a minimum, but it is now a minimum. It is set in stone. I’m just wondering. The rationale of the 25 percent, where did that come from?

Hon. J. Osborne: I think this question really outlines one of the stark differences between the design of the call for power and the standing offer program of before. That is that it was never transparent what a minimum ownership or any ownership by First Nations in a power project would be.

Like I said, although B.C. Hydro is not privy to com­mer­cial arrangements or precise IBAs that power developers may have had or developed with First Nations, the clear criteria of this new call for power, that there must be a 25 percent minimum ownership stake for First Nations and, additionally, that there are credits given through the evaluation process for ownership, up to 51 percent, in fact, to offer even more incentive for First Nations ownership…. That is clear and transparent from the very beginning.

It’s challenging to compare to the past when we simply don’t have the information there. It’s very important and, certainly, an objective of this government, a priority for this government, to ensure that First Nations are benefiting from the projects in their territories. I see the member nodding, and I know he understands and, I think, agrees.

[5:40 p.m.]

How was the 25 percent determined? Again, that was determined through the engagement that B.C. Hydro undertook with First Nations in developing this call for power, both that minimum agreement and the additional evaluation criteria for up to 51 percent ownership.

T. Shypitka: Why not 50 percent?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yeah, 51 percent was the figure that was determined through that process of B.C. Hydro working with First Nations.

I think a majority ownership…. We’ve seen examples of other resource projects in this province where there’s a lot of pride in Indigenous ownership. That majority ownership puts the First Nation in a position of decision-making authority and truly feeling and having that sense of ownership over the project while partnering with independent power producers.

The design, again, of the actual bid will be up to the power producer working with the nations. They’ll together determine what the right structure is and then put that into the call for power — again, with a minimum 25 percent ownership stake. It could be up to 100. It’s not impossible that there would be projects being bid exclusively by First Nations companies.

T. Shypitka: No, the question was why wasn’t the minimum 50 percent?

Hon. J. Osborne: I think the simplest answer is that that is what came out of the engagement between B.C. Hydro and First Nations. So there would be a minimum 25 percent, but 50 percent is fine too.

T. Shypitka: It’s the minimum I’m asking for, and the minister said it’s because of the consultation between B.C. Hydro and First Nations.

It’s hard to believe that a First Nation wouldn’t want to be an equal partner — 50 percent, 50-50. That’s, to me, the definition of a partnership.

I guess I’ll ask the question on how many Indigenous First Nations were consulted before this bill was tabled. Let’s even go back a month, maybe April 1. By April 1, how many nations were consulted?

Hon. J. Osborne: I don’t have those numbers before me today of how many First Nations or which First Nations or First Nations organizations, specifically, were engaged by B.C. Hydro.

I think that would have been a great estimates question, but I think with respect to these clauses in the bill, maybe this is a conversation we can continue offline.

T. Shypitka: Well, estimates was last week. So after a week of maybe getting some more information on that….

It’s an important question. The minister is talking about how important 25 percent ownership of these new independent power-producing projects is, how important it is to have First Nations participation. I asked the question: why not 50 percent? That seems fair to me. That’s 50-50.

The fact that the minister doesn’t, maybe, even have a ballpark…. Can we say, of the over 200 First Nations in the province, were there over 100 consulted, or less than 100?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Between June 2023 and January 2024, B.C. Hydro engaged 99 First Nations — good guess, to the member — and this was done in 42 meetings with individual First Nations and a number of individuals that were also spoken with as well.

T. Shypitka: Maybe not a guess.

So of the 99, what did that consultation look like then? How engaged was the minister with these consultations? Was it a letter that was sent out saying, “This is what we’re planning on doing,” or was it an actual weighted discussion that looked for specific input? How many discussions would the average nation receive in coming up with the 25 percent and the cost changes and everything else?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: In the work that B.C. Hydro did engaging the nations, they would have sent a notification to all nations. Then, as I mentioned, there were 99 nations that they ended up engaging with directly, signalling those nations, I would assume, that were most interested in this. They were all offered opportunities for engagement sessions, and those 42 individual nation meetings took place.

I can’t answer the member’s question around the substance of those meetings — I wasn’t present myself — or whether a nation met with Hydro twice. B.C. Hydro will have a detailed engagement record, but that’s not something that I have at my fingertips today.

T. Shypitka: How confident is the minister, then, that DRIPA was applied to these negotiations or consultations?

Hon. J. Osborne: B.C. Hydro takes their obligations under DRIPA very seriously. In fact, they have developed a DRIPA implementation plan. It would be my expectation, of course, that the engagement that they undertook was consistent with that plan. I certainly received regular updates from B.C. Hydro around the engagement.

I’m satisfied B.C. Hydro has done everything they can to take that engagement very seriously in that manner. I think we all understand just how important that is.

T. Shypitka: Can the minister tell me, then, under whose guidance in B.C. Hydro that plan, those consultations were implemented?

Hon. J. Osborne: B.C. Hydro undertook this engagement with a team. That was under the guidance of the executive of B.C. Hydro.

[5:55 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: In 2019, when the SOP program was halted, can the minister tell me how many applications were in the queue to be accepted or denied?

Hon. J. Osborne: I don’t have the specific number. I’ll note that entries into the program were suspended before the program itself was suspended. When the standing offer program was indefinitely suspended in 2019, there were five projects, though, that were exempted in that process because they had significant First Nations involvement and/or they were part of impact-and-benefits agreements.

T. Shypitka: I have a list of applicants that were in the queue — current, accepted applications that hadn’t come out of the process yet — and I’ve got 14 of them. Maybe the minister can see the same chart that I’ve got and that’s on their website. It has the 14 projects, starting with the Nahwitti wind project and ending with the Zonnebeke wind energy project. I think it was a total of 137 megawatt hours.

Can the minister just maybe…? Does she see that chart that I have? Is that accurate, on the applications that were on hold when that came to an end?

The Chair: If I might remind the member, we’re not to read from technology. So if he’s able to get it printed out or something like that, that would help him, because I’ll have to remind him again if he does.

Hon. J. Osborne: Chair, thank you for the reminder about technology. I’m not able to access a website right now to confirm if the member is looking at the same website that I could be looking at but that I’m not looking at because I don’t have technology here to do that.

Maybe, again, that’s a conversation we can pursue later or somehow take that up.

The Chair: And we’re on clause 1, I understand — clauses 1, 2 and 3.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Chair, and forgive me for using the technology. I did have it printed out, and I don’t see that paper here. I did have it.

[6:00 p.m.]

The 14 projects that I brought to the minister’s attention represented some of those applications that were in process back in 2017. It represented about 137 megawatt hours.

Now, the minister already stated earlier that there were 25, I think she said, projects. I had 26. But at any rate, it was about 160 megawatts of capacity. I had 176, because I had 26. So maybe there was a missing one in there somewhere. But at any rate, it’s the size of the projects.

How many of the SOP projects that were accepted or in application were over 40 megawatts in size?

Hon. J. Osborne: None, because there was a 15 megawatt maximum.

T. Shypitka: That was a pretty easy question, I guess. I knew the answer, but I needed to hear it. With the new project and the new procurement on competitiveness, it puts the new applicants, or the people that can…. The application, I guess, would be over 40 megawatts.

Now, the old SOP obviously was 15 or less, and it benefited a lot of smaller communities, some that don’t need those big, huge projects. A couple maybe, perhaps in her own riding…. Without the technology, I can’t remember them. But the minister probably knows. I think there’s Canoe River project. There was another one — another First Nation community, I believe, in her riding — that benefited from these SOPs.

I guess the question is: with the smaller projects…? I can understand why B.C. Hydro would want to participate in only those projects over 40 megawatts, because after a certain critical mass of building infrastructure, they become a little bit more sustainable. However, that’s not the right fit across the province in how diversified we are, in that some of these smaller communities don’t need 40 megawatts. I’m just doing some rough math, but for every one megawatt of power, it represents about 400 homes. Some of these projects don’t need 400 homes.

Maybe the minister can answer. The sustainability on all this…. Sometimes it’s a bit of a loss-leader when you’re looking at these smaller projects that are like two, five or ten megawatts in size. There’s some give and take there to make sure that the community is looked after. Will this new program essentially eliminate those smaller calls for power in smaller communities?

Hon. J. Osborne: The member very correctly points out a difference between the standing offer program that was for projects less than 15 megawatts in size and the call for power, this competitive call for power, which focuses on utility-scale projects that are from 40 to 200 megawatts in size. Again, that’s to achieve a cost that doesn’t see an adverse impact on the rates that British Columbians pay, because we know how important that is. But we also know just how important smaller projects are for First Nations.

[6:05 p.m.]

It has never been lost on this government how much it means for a First Nation to have the energy independence that comes from that, the benefit to their communities and the ability to participate and have a stake in that energy future for their community.

There are two ways that are important for First Nations to participate, roughly. One would fall into securing more energy independence from fossil fuels and being able, particularly in remote communities that are not connected to the grid, to use renewables, for example — clean electricity to power their communities.

Government has a program to help address that with a CleanBC goal, in fact, of reducing diesel dependence in these communities by 80 percent, and also, for grid-connected communities, the ability to enable First Nations to take part in renewable projects. With the $140 million that government has provided to the New Relationship Trust and through the Indigenous clean energy initiative, this is a way that we will be able to work with First Nations to enable them to undertake independent power projects.

Because of the small size and the inability to reach that…. We’ve been talking a lot about the LRMC, the long run marginal cost, and trying to get purchase agreements that are close to that so that we keep rates down. This funding, provided through the New Relationship Trust, will help to make up that cost difference of a smaller project that just isn’t able to achieve that economy of scale. That is separate from the call for power.

The call for power is a very distinct, competitive process for these utility scale projects. Consultation with nations right now on the design of support for smaller projects is getting underway later this month.

T. Shypitka: I’d like to learn a little bit more about the $140 million. In my opinion, and maybe the minister can correct me, it represents largely a stopgap on getting away from the SOP. I alluded to some of the some of the applications that were in process. The minister couldn’t tell me how many were in the queue. She did mention, of course, the five that were exempt, and maybe we’ll go into that in a little bit later.

The $140 million — what is the criteria to access this money? Who can access it? Is there a limit on when they can not access it anymore?

Hon. J. Osborne: That has not been determined yet. The engagement between B.C. Hydro, PacifiCan, my ministry and First Nations is just getting underway. That’s precisely what that engagement is about. It’s about designing that program and how it can best support First Nations.

T. Shypitka: Well, it’s a little disappointing. If we’re going to do away with a program that was beneficial to not only communities in the minister’s riding, but across the province, and to those smaller projects that are under 40 megawatts in size that are doing their darnedest to get off of fossil fuels….

I think of the north coast, for example. There’s a nice run-of-river program going on for the last five years, and they haven’t been able to participate, to put in place their five megawatt project, put that power to the grid and make themselves come off fossil fuels.

In the last five years, when we were going through this process of limiting the SOP, why was this program not identified in more detail to the point, right now, where we’re going through a bill to get rid of the SOP? But we don’t know how that gap is going to be bridged. Who’s going to receive it, how are they going to receive it, and when can they expect to receive it?

Can the minister perhaps comment on why this is not clear before this bill is passed?

Hon. J. Osborne: The standing offer program has been suspended for five years. As we’ve talked about earlier this afternoon, it had no requirement for Indigenous participation. The commitment is there.

[6:10 p.m.]

The $140 million has been allocated, and the commitment is there, publicly, around the design of this program. With the timing, obviously, of the legislative session, we have two weeks left. It was government’s decision to undertake this now, because we’re confident that we’ll be working with First Nations, as I’ve been talking about — through the B.C. Indigenous clean energy initiative — to develop a program that helps to satisfy the needs of those nations that are looking for smaller projects to connect to the grid.

I want to be clear in separating out those remote communities that are not connected to the grid and that are reducing their dependence on diesel, for example, that there’s a separate program that government has to support those nations in doing so.

T. Shypitka: The minister said something interesting: because there are only two weeks left, the government feels confident enough to get it out. Is that the criterion for putting this bill forward today: “There are only two weeks left, and we haven’t crossed all our t’s and dotted all our i’s, but we’re going to do it anyway”?

Hon. J. Osborne: Like I said, government has made a clear commitment to work with First Nations on this. The $140 million has been passed through budget and allocated. The program engagement, as I described, is going to be getting underway in just a few weeks from now. I’m confident that we’re going to be able to develop a program that has First Nations ownership.

I do want to draw the distinction, once again: the previous standing offer program had no requirement for Indigenous participation.

T. Shypitka: But they did. There were Indigenous ownerships. The minister can’t say, because there was no clarity or transparency, but clearly, there was Indigenous participation. I totally applaud the 25 percent. That shouldn’t make up the bill. That could be part of the SOP. The minister doesn’t give any confidence to me at all. She’s confident that the $140 million is there, but she can’t tell us who, when, why and where, and all the questions on how to access this money.

It goes back to the consultation process. I can tell you firsthand I talked to several First Nations about this. I’ll say that for sure, at least a month ago, I talked to four that had no idea that this was happening.

Then within the last couple of weeks, I’ve got calls back saying: “Oh, we just talked to somebody from the ministry saying that this program is…. Don’t worry about it. We’re covered.” I’m hearing that from the minister now on this $140 million. I think that’s part of the consultation, because I heard it from at least a couple: “Well, they got us. It’s going to come our way.”

The minister doesn’t explain who’s going to get it. My only question is: why isn’t that in place, so that when we’re going through this bill in committee stage, we can be clear that it’s going to the right people for the right time?

I guess the other question would be: does this include non-Indigenous communities? There are a lot of communities out there that have equal challenges and that may not be Indigenous. Would this $140 million apply to them as well?

Hon. J. Osborne: The $140 million that’s being provided through the New Relationship Trust to help support a program for Indigenous-led, grid-connected projects will service those projects in communities that may or may not have Indigenous people living there. Or it could be communities that are side by each, for example.

It takes time to develop a program like this. That’s the work, as I described, that’s underway. The member is absolutely correct that under the former standing offer program, there are projects that have some First Nations ownership — I’m aware of five or six of them, as I had stated earlier — but there was never a requirement for that to take place.

[6:15 p.m.]

In the call for power program, the minimum requirement is there. It’s obviously a strong signal of the way things are moving with respect to clean energy and the expectation that our government and, I think, society have about the benefits of ownership for First Nations — enabling First Nations, and partnering and collaborating with First Nations, to see those benefits flowing to their communities through projects like wind, solar and other renewables.

T. Shypitka: With the new program, a question would be: who decides what proponents receive approval for the clean power? What criteria will be used to make these choices?

Hon. J. Osborne: If the member is referring to the program that’s to be developed through the New Relationship Trust and the $140 million there, then the question can’t be answered, because the program is not developed yet. That is the consultation that’s just getting underway now.

T. Shypitka: Maybe I’ll frame it differently. I apologize.

Just for the new program that’s coming, the 40 megawatts or higher, who decides what proponents receive approval for these projects, and what criteria will be used to make these choices?

Hon. J. Osborne: The call for power has a very transparent process, which is available online. Neither the member nor I have technology in the room, but I know he can take a look and see it there. The criteria are very clearly set out, and B.C. Hydro will make the final decisions.

The process, further to this, is overseen by an independent fairness monitor — again, just referring to the website that the member can look at to see exactly what criteria are being used.

T. Shypitka: The minister indicated that B.C. Hydro will be making the decisions. Will it be B.C. Hydro’s decision, or will it be cabinet decisions?

Hon. J. Osborne: It is B.C. Hydro.

T. Shypitka: So no orders-in-council will ever be used to decide any project at all. Okay.

B.C. Hydro has had to make these allocations in the past, but now there are far more potential users for the clean power that B.C. Hydro can supply, including LNG, hydrogen plants and expanding housing needs.

Is B.C. Hydro to decide on which industries will be endowed with it, or won’t be?

Hon. J. Osborne: B.C. Hydro has a tariff under which it supplies its customers, a BCUC-approved tariff, and it has an obligation to serve those within its service territory.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — TENANCY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Bill 14, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, reported complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Members, you heard the question.

Division has been called.

[6:25 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.]

Bill 14, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, read a third time and passed on the following division:

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:34 p.m.