Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 18, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 107

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. L. Beare

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Islamic Heritage Month and anti-Muslim racism

R. Singh

Food security and food prices

I. Paton

Muslim community and anti-Muslim racism

M. Elmore

Peter Bentley

A. Wilkinson

Action on poverty

B. Anderson

Vancouver’s Chinatown

T. Wat

Oral Questions

COVID-19 booster shots for seniors in long-term-care facilities

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

M. Bernier

Construction of rental units and HousingHub program

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Eby

COVID-19 circuit breaker relief grant for businesses in northern B.C.

D. Davies

Hon. R. Kahlon

Ambulance response times and service management

T. Stone

Hon. A. Dix

Hon. J. Horgan

K. Kirkpatrick

B. Banman

Speaker’s Statement

Role of Sergeant-at-Arms

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Sergeant-at-Arms

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 19 — Societies Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. S. Robinson

M. Bernier

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Societies Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Early Childhood Educators Act (continued)

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. K. Chen

Reporting of Bills

Bill 14 — Early Childhood Educators Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Early Childhood Educators Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

Hon. B. Ma

D. Coulter

S. Cadieux

M. Dykeman

B. Bailey

R. Leonard

H. Yao

Hon. R. Kahlon

M. Bernier

MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2021

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: I just want to advise all members of the House that there is an

Olympic gold medal in the gallery today. That Olympic gold medal belongs to

Andrea Proske, who was sitting at No. 4 in the women’s eights. In under six

minutes — as many of you will know, I often can’t get to the point in six

minutes — they travelled the distance to beat all comers, from beginning to

end, and to win the gold medal for us in the Tokyo 2020-21 Olympic Games.

[Applause.]

Yes. Hear, hear.

[1:35 p.m.]

It’s particularly exciting for me to introduce Andrea to the House and

to British Columbians. My wife, Ellie, and I were on the Lady Rose

leaving Port Alberni on our way to Bamfield in the late winter, I guess, in

January of 2020. There were very few people on the Lady Rose at

that time. I can tell you that a holiday in the Alberni Inlet is unusual for

that point in the year, but if you’re an avid scuba diver, it’s a place to

go.

Robin Swanson, who joins Andrea here today, is not only a physicist of

big bang theory fame. He also operates a cyclotron — which is not a Peloton,

member for Delta North, but a cyclotron. Robin and Andrea were travelling to

do some scuba diving, and Ellie and I took up a conversation, over the

course of the trip, which led to, actually, cookies being delivered to the

vessel on the way back from the camp that they were staying at, and then

text messages back and forth between Ellie and Andrea as she prepared for

the 2020 Olympic Games. Well, we all know COVID got in the way of that, and

an Olympian’s dream was almost dashed.

At 27, Andrea took up rowing late in her athletic career, and the

opportunity may not have come back had Tokyo not gone forward. Nonetheless,

she persevered. She continued to train, was supposed to be in the pairs in

Tokyo and was cut at the last minute. This is the story that I think should

stick with all of us: try, try again, as my mom used to say and, I’m sure,

all of your moms used to say. Andrea persisted and was named to the women’s

eights team.

Then a few months later, despite COVID, despite a delay, despite no

fans on the waterway, she joined the many, many women who had success in the

pool, who had success on the water, later on the soccer pitch and, of

course, on the ball diamond as well, to become now and forever an

Olympian.

Andrea’s story is an inspiration to all of us. She will be joining us

in the Hall of Honour after question period. I know all of you will want to

come by and touch, as I did, the gold medal. Andrea, when she was cut from

the pairs, went out and bought a pair of socks to cheer her up. Now she uses

those socks to hold her medal so that it doesn’t get scuffed.

She finished, of course…. I don’t know if any of you remember, but

certainly Ellie and I were glued to the television set to watch Lisa Roman,

Christine Roper, Madison Mailey, Sydney Payne and Avalon Wasteneys — the

British Columbians in the eights boat with Andrea.

Andrea, of course, was born in North Vancouver and makes her home now

in Langley. For the members from Langley, you’re going to want to get some

mail out right away on this one.

It is just exciting for me to have the opportunity to highlight many

of the British Columbians who were successful in Tokyo this past summer. Of

course, Christine Sinclair and Julia Grosso, on the soccer pitch. In

athletics, Jerome Blake took a bronze medal. Taylor Ruck, in the pool, took

a bronze. The bronze medal for our softball team, Danielle Lawrie, Emma

Entzminger, Larissa Franklin, Sara Groenewegen, Kelsey Harshman, Lauren

Regula, Jennifer Salling. Also, of course, in the boats, Caileigh Filmer and

Hillary Janssens.

I know that this is really exciting for me; I hope it’s exciting for

all of you. Would you please once again put your hands together for our once

and always Olympic champions. [Applause.]

M. Dykeman: I’m just thrilled to see our friend and colleague from

Abbotsford-Mission back today, MLA Pam Alexis. I was wondering if the House

could please join me in giving her a warm welcome back.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Hon. Speaker, joining us today in the members gallery, from Germany,

is a delegation from the state of North Rhine–Westphalia, led by Dr. Stephan

Holthoff-Pförtner, Minister of Federal, European and International Affairs.

The minister is here as the first official visit to British

Columbia.

Earlier this morning he had the opportunity to meet with you, hon.

Speaker, and, I believe, with the opposition leader and the Third Party

Leader as well. The Premier and I had the pleasure of meeting with the

minister, with Klaus Schmidt, the consul general, and with the entire

delegation this afternoon.

I would hope that this House can make them all feel very welcome

today.

N. Letnick: If you want to blame anyone for me being here, that would be Doris and

Norbert Kotscha, right up there. I’d like to make them feel very

welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Also, today I met with Michael and Brenda Bacon. All six of us are

grandparents and enjoying the life immensely. Please make them feel very

welcome.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m very pleased today to welcome to the House David Miller. David

wears many hats, all of them fashioned for a person who cares about the

environment, the economy, social equity and sustainability.

David currently serves as the chair of the board of directors for B.C.

Infrastructure Benefits, a Crown corporation we launched in 2018 to employ

underrepresented or underemployed workers on public infrastructure projects

operating under the community benefits agreement. I want to thank David for

helping make sure that British Columbians get access to good-paying jobs,

skill development and apprenticeships and for providing opportunities to

underrepresented groups like Indigenous peoples, women and people with

disabilities.

Now, David has and continues to hold a variety of public and private

positions. He’s also the director of international diplomacy and global

ambassador of inclusive climate action for the C40 Cities Climate Leadership

Group. He also is an economist and a lawyer. David also is very familiar

with public service. He served as the mayor of a small little town called

Toronto for seven years.

Would the House please make David feel welcome.

T. Wat: It is my pleasure to welcome my constituency assistant William Tu and

his two young friends Benny Lam and Jackson Su to this House this

afternoon.

This is the first time that my CA William has come to the Legislature

since he became my volunteer for my riding — I think more than four years

ago, when he was still a student at SFU, studying communications. He has

been working as my part-time CA for the last several years, and I’m so

pleased that he’s taking time off from his work to take his two young

friends to see democracy at work and to see what the life of the elected

official is like.

I’m so proud of these young people who are paving the way for the

future of British Columbia and also paving a multicultural and diverse

community in harmony.

Would the House join me in welcoming the three young guys.

B. Anderson: Yesterday was my mother-in-law’s birthday. You know what they say

about mothers-in-law? I have the very best one. She is incredibly kind and

compassionate. If I can’t get a hold of my own mom and I need some motherly

advice, I can always count on Marian Dixon from Cranbrook to pick up the

phone and give me some excellent guidance.

I’m grateful every day for you, Marian. Will the House please join me

in wishing you a happy birthday.

Hon. K. Conroy: I just wanted to add to the Premier’s introduction. He neglected to

introduce a very, very special person, someone that I refer to as Saint

Ellie, and that is the Premier’s wife, Ellie, who is up in the gallery as

well.

Hon. B. Ralston: Change is a constant here at the Legislature. In that vein, I wish to note that Andrew Cuddy, my senior ministerial assistant, is, as of today, performing the same role for the Minister of Forests.

His diligence, formidable work ethic and good advice will be as welcome in his new role as I will miss his help in my ministry.

Hon. L. Beare: Joining us today in the gallery are my lovely administration staff, Brianna Leppard and Shay McEwen. We all know how important our staff are in keeping our offices organized and keeping us running. I want to say a big thank-you to these two amazing women. Would the House please make them feel welcome for their very first question period.

M. Starchuk: This morning’s private member’s motion spoke to women working in

traditionally male-dominated industries. There are a number of MLAs who had

specific references to women firefighters in this morning’s

debate.

Joining us today are two of Vancouver Island’s heroes. Join me in

welcoming to the House firefighter Amy Tai from the Victoria fire department

and assistant chief Haida Fortier from the Esquimalt fire

department.

[1:45 p.m.]

S. Chant: Thank you for the opportunity to rise and make two introductions to

the House this afternoon. The first is my friend of over 40 years, who

recently retired from the Canadian Armed Forces as a chief petty officer in

the military police. Now, if you don’t know what a vastly underrated

position for females that is, think about it a bit.

The other important role that she holds is that she is godmother to my

daughters, Lindsey and Nicole. My daughter Lindsey Chant is also in the

gallery with Jennifer.

I hope the House will welcome these two generations of strong,

independent women.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Hon. L. Beare presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021.

Hon. L. Beare: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 22. This bill amends the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act. This act has not been substantially updated

since 2011, and we are quickly falling behind other jurisdictions. The

COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted people’s need for safe and convenient

online services. This bill proposes amendments to ensure government

provides the level of service people deserve, keeps pace with new

technology and enhances privacy protection.

The changes we’re proposing will strengthen government accountability and transparency by

enabling us to be more responsive to the needs of people by adding more

public bodies and charging new offences for destroying records to evade

FOI.

By updating FOIPPA’s data residency provisions, we will improve how people access

government services while we continue to ensure that the personal

information that people trust us with is protected. We will enhance

public sector privacy protections and increase accountability by

implementing mandatory privacy breach reporting and increasing penalties

for general and privacy offences under the act.

We are demonstrating the province’s commitment to diversity, inclusion, reconciliation and

equity by increasing information-sharing with Indigenous peoples, adding

Indigenous cultural protections and removing non-inclusive language.

Indigenous leaders, stakeholders and public body representatives have

been asking for these changes for over a decade. These amendments will

address their feedback and make it easier for people to access

information while also strengthening B.C.’s leadership role in

safeguarding information.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Beare: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ISLAMIC HERITAGE MONTH

AND ANTI-MUSLIM RACISM

R. Singh: Today I would like to extend my best wishes to Muslim Canadians as they celebrate Eid Milad-un-Nabi, the birth of the prophet Muhammad, one of the largest celebrations of the year. Eid Milad-un-Nabi marks the birth, life and teachings of the prophet Muhammad.

To make it even more special, I stand before the House today in recognition of Islamic

Heritage Month. It is a wonderful opportunity to highlight the

perseverance and generosity of Muslim communities and to learn more

about the history of Islam in Canada. Our Muslim sisters and brothers

have a rich history of contributions in B.C., whether it’s in arts,

culture, academics or business, and these contributions consolidate the

depth and diversity of an abundantly multicultural province.

While this is a time to celebrate the community, we also know that the community has

experienced significant challenges over the past few years. We have seen

a notable increase in hateful attacks against Muslims across Canada and

British Columbia, a substantial increase in anti-Muslim comments on

hijab, and these are just the incidents that are actually

reported.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hate has no room in our province, and it takes all of our collective voices to stand in

solidarity against hate. I’m proud of our commitment to tackle

race-based and faith-based hatred as well as discrimination of all kinds

in this province. It heartens me that we are moving forward on

anti-racism data legislation, which will help pave the way to a more

equitable and more inclusive province.

Last but not least, I would like to ask my colleagues here in the House, and others around the province, to join in celebrating Islamic Heritage Month by participating in local events in your community and learning more about various Islamic cultures and traditions that make our province so culturally rich and diverse.

FOOD SECURITY AND FOOD PRICES

I. Paton: On Saturday, we marked World Food Day, a day to celebrate our

agrifood system but also an opportunity to reflect on how we can make

the system more sustainable.

What does that mean? It means less food and the resiliency to

avoid shocks to the system, like extreme weather or a global pandemic.

It means limiting, not worsening, the impacts on our environment. It

means we can supply a wide variety of nutritious, safe food that is

available at an affordable price to everyone. That’s becoming more and

more of a challenge for people.

Just the other week I heard a story about how our grocery bills

are going up yet again. The cost of meat, dairy, fruits and vegetables,

in particular, is going up due to weath­er patterns, logistical

challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the ever-increasing costs of

production facing B.C. farmers and ranchers. This means more and more

people are clipping coupons, looking for deals, reducing the intake of

meat and taking other measures in a bid to save money on

food.

We can probably surmise that these are the realities faced by more

affluent folks in our society, who are still able to grocery shop

regularly but are noticing the hit to the pocketbook as well. It reminds

us that there are many others in our communities who are much more food

insecure and vulnerable. This is something that has been on the minds of

farmers in my riding of Delta South, as they reflected on the pandemic

and wondered how they could help those in need.

Over the past year, my constituency assistant and I have spent

many Wednesday mornings picking up 300 pounds of potatoes from our

generous Delta spud farmers and delivering them to the dedicated

volunteers at the South Delta Food Bank. I want to thank these farmers

and volunteers for ensuring that people in our community continue to

have access to fresh, nutritious food. I also want to acknowledge the

hard work they do each and every day as a critical part of Canada’s

national food security.

We know it takes more than farms to feed a country. It also takes

whole supply chains of feed, fertilizer and equipment suppliers;

veterinarians; crop specialists; transpor­ters; processors; and

distributors.

There are so many valued participants in our agrifood system, and

it’s up to all of us to support them on World Food Day and

beyond.

MUSLIM COMMUNITY

AND ANTI-MUSLIM RACISM

M. Elmore: Mawlid is the observance of the birthday of the Islamic prophet

Muhammad, which is commemorated in Rabi’ al-Awwal, the third month in

the Islamic calendar, and 12 Rabi’ al-Awwal translates to August 29,

year 570 in the Common Era. That’s the accepted date among most of the

Sunni and Shia scholars. This year that begins tonight, on the evening

of Monday, October 18, and ends on the evening of Tuesday, October

This day is celebrated the world over in mosques and homes with

the recitation of poetry, the sharing of food and charity. That is how

the robust and diverse Muslim community in B.C. will also celebrate this

important day of faith.

B.C. has a long relationship with its Muslim citizens. By 1911,

there were reputed to be over 500 Muslims here, mostly from Turkey and

Bulgaria, and they faced the racism that was rampant at that

time.

Right from their introduction, Muslim organizers were integral in

challenging the discriminatory laws that non-European communities faced.

Twenty-seven of the passengers on the Komagata Maru , which we

have spoken about many times here, were Muslim. Although the community

has been subject to some of the most vile and violent discrimination, it

endures and has grown to be­come a vibrant and integral part of

the fabric of British Columbia, with several mosques representing the

diver­sity, and many organizations that actively give back to the

larger society.

[1:55 p.m.]

Some of these communities include the Vancouver Madinah, Voices of

Muslim Women, Sisters Speak and the Muslim Food Bank and Community

Services Society, headquartered in Richmond with a space right next to

the Carnegie Centre, from which they serve food to the community in the

Downtown Eastside. In recognition of the contributions of the community,

this government has already declared October Islamic History

Month.

I want to also take this opportunity to give gratitude to all

Muslims in British Columbia and to ask that we all celebrate this very

important day for the community.

PETER BENTLEY

A. Wilkinson: On September 6, British Columbia bid farewell to Peter Bentley.

This is a name that’s known throughout the province. He was a kind,

gentle man who was known to make the most of every opportunity. In his

91 years, almost all spent here in British Columbia, he built a legacy

that all of us can be proud of.

Peter Bentley was born in Vienna in 1930. We all take note of that

date, because eight years later Austria was annexed by the Nazis. His

family fled in the dark of night, with nothing. They eventually settled

in Vancouver. They found light and safety here as darkness fell over

Europe. They also found endless opportunity, and they started a small,

small business in New Westminster. That business came to be known as

Canfor.

Peter believed in making the most of every opportunity in life. He

was tireless in making sure that people had the chance to get ahead, and

his legacy is enormous. From the growth and success of Canfor to the

opening and growth of the University of Northern British Columbia to the

establishment of the Vancouver General Hospital Foundation, which has

raised over $1 billion to support health care in British Columbia, Peter

Bentley was instrumental and essential to their success.

The list goes on, from bringing NHL hockey to British Columbia —

to keep the Leafs out of our territory — to the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame

and to Golf Canada. Peter was tireless in using his endless goodwill and

energy to make British Columbia a better place for everyone. He liked to

get things done, and he did exactly that. Our province has benefited

enormously from his loyalty, from his commitment, from his dedication,

from his energy, and we will miss him for that.

We wish his family every success, and our condolences, as his

family continues to move forward in building British

Columbia.

ACTION ON POVERTY

B. Anderson: I have lived in Latin America, Asia and Africa and have seen

people living in deep poverty. People don’t only live in poverty in the

global south but in each one of our communities in British

Columbia.

This morning I had anti-vax protesters outside of my office, and I

was checking in on my staff to ensure that they felt safe. My CA said:

“Thank goodness we have such a good relationship with the people that

hang out in our back alley. I know if I have to escape, they’ll have my

back.”

Many of these people, who we know by name and who frequently hang

out in our back alley, behind my office, live well below the poverty

line. Many of them are currently homeless or have experienced

homelessness. Our government is working hard not only to house these

peo­ple but to ensure they have the support they need through our

Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

Globally the number of people living in poverty is expected to

rise by approximately 150 million people this year due to the COVID-19

pandemic. That is why I rise today to raise awareness of the

International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. This year’s theme is

“Building forward together: ending persistent poverty, respecting all

people and our planet.”

In 2018, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act set targets to reduce

overall poverty by 25 percent and child poverty by 50 percent by 2024.

In 2019, B.C. lifted 185,000 people, including 81,000 children, out of

poverty.

[2:00 p.m.]

While this is great news, we need to make sure we aren’t slowing

down. We need to continue to ensure ade­quate supports are in

place and that people in B.C. — our friends and our neighbours,

including the people who hang out in my back alley — have the

opportunity to get ahead.All British Columbians need to know that we

have their back.

VANCOUVER’S CHINATOWN

T. Wat: B.C. is home to a wide array of unique neighbourhoods and landmarks. Symbols of pride, they exemplify the spirit of our hometowns.

In Vancouver, few places are as iconic a landmark as our historic Chinatown. The massive

arches of the Millennium Gate, the bright neon lights and colourful

cultural buildings of Chinatown stand as more than a symbol of our

city’s success. It is a testament to our multicultural heritage, the

hopes of so many new immigrants to our province and the dreams of

countless multicultural families that could be achieved in our great

province, as well as an homage to so many generations before us that

helped forge the prosperity and success that we all enjoy

today.

Like many communities across B.C., Chinatown has faced some incredible challenges over the

past 20 months. But the people who still call this great neighbourhood

home have and continue to show the resilience and spirit of hard work

that the people of Chinatown are known for.

Light Up Chinatown took place last September, an initiative by the Vancouver Chinatown

Foundation to kick-start the return of friends and visitors to our

beloved Chinatown. Through live entertainment, food trucks, light

festivals, decorations and much more, the Light Up Chinatown weekend

served as a way to show people that the area’s businesses and residents

are still here to welcome people to the neighbourhood and help restore

Chinatown to its former glory.

I was in Chinatown to experience much of this event and was so excited to see so many young people and families there of different ethnicities, not only Chinese Canadians, enjoying the many businesses and attractions that Chinatown has to offer.

Since the Legislature was not sitting in September, I would like to take this opportunity now to extend a very heartfelt thank-you to Carol Lee and the Chinatown Foundation, the Chinatown Business Improvement Area as well as the countless business owners, staff members and volunteers who made this weekend such a success.

Our work to save Chinatown is far from over, and there will be many events to come that will help promote and preserve this iconic neighbourhood.

Whenever you members are in Vancouver again, please take a moment to visit our historic Chinatown, see the Millennium Gate for yourself, dine and shop to help our small businesses and help save this historic site that, for more than a century, has been a symbol of all that makes our province great.

Mr. Speaker: Members, a reminder to all members that statements are to be only

two minutes long. Please keep that in mind.

Oral Questions

COVID-19 BOOSTER SHOTS FOR SENIORS

IN LONG-TERM-CARE

FACILITIES

S. Bond: The numbers are staggering. As many as 80 residents, more than 20

staff and at least ten deaths as a result of COVID, and that’s just at

Willingdon Care Cen­tre. It only has 95 beds.

Vulnerable seniors in long-term care were supposed to be getting

their booster shots starting weeks ago. But when it comes to

implementation, this Premier rolls out the plan and then fails to

deliver.

What we’re seeing is a slow, overly bureaucratic, uncoordinated

rollout, a patchwork across health authorities. And you can imagine my

shock when, in a Fraser Health document, it was confirmed — a timeline

for when booster shots may take place. “We expect that all eligible

resi­dents and tenants will be offered a third dose by

mid-December.” That is simply unacceptable, and the Premier knows

it.

Outbreaks and tragedies are mounting across the prov­ince,

including at Willingdon Care Centre in Burnaby. Mid-December is not good

enough for frail, elderly British Columbians. Our seniors need

protection, and they need it now.

[2:05 p.m.]

Will the Premier get up today and assure British Columbians and

their families that frail, elderly British Columbians will receive their

booster shot immediately, not by mid-December?

Hon. A. Dix: As the member will know, a number of British Columbians have started to get booster shots since the middle of September based on the recommendation from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization. On September 13, we started to immunize the extremely vulnerable. There are about 15,000 people in that category. On September 28, the day that the National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommended that we proceed in long-term care, we started the process of immunizing people in long-term care.

The standard is six months after second dose, which is, I think, where the member gets the information from. That immunization will be completed long before the middle of December.

So far, about 62 care homes, across all health authorities, have been immunized with a

third dose, a booster dose, and 60,000 British Columbians have received

either a dose to complete their course, their original course, in the

case of the extremely immunocompromised or in the second category of

moderately immunocompromised and the third category in long-term care.

That’s 60,000 — in addition to the 4.133 million British Columbians who,

of course, have received their first dose of a COVID-19

vaccine.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental question.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister. Those words are cold comfort

for families who are deeply concerned about their frail, elderly loved

one, who may have to sit in long-term care, not my words — Fraser Health

Authority’s words — and wait for their booster shot.

In fact, we know that the majority of residents in long-term care

and assisted living received their second dose in February. So the wait

is too long, and the minister knows it. The minister can reference NACI

all he wants. Let’s look at what this note from Fraser Health actually

says. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization warns that

delaying the third dose will increase the period during which

individuals “may have reduced protection” — reduced

protection.

Perhaps the Premier can get up and answer the question. Let’s look

at Saskatchewan. They started their booster shots on September 7.

Alberta started on September 1. Ontario started in August, and they have

provided third doses to 96 percent of long-term care residents. What do

we find here in British Columbia? A message that says: “Actually, you

might have to wait until mid-December.”

This is not a supply issue. We know that. The government has the

supply necessary. It is a failure to organize the rollout.

Let’s be clear. Frail, elderly British Columbians need and deserve

protection. Will the Premier stand up today and commit that frail,

elderly residents in long-term care and assisted living will receive

their booster shots immediately? It is all hands on deck. Time is of the

essence.

Hon. A. Dix: I agree it is a priority for all those in long-term care and

assisted living to receive a booster shot of a COVID-19 vaccine. That’s

precisely what we’re working to do — 62 care homes already and more

every day. We’re working systematically through the care

homes.

Those are not the only people who require a booster dose. As the

member will know, our extremely immuno­compromised population…. It

was recommended on September 13, I believe. We proceeded, and the vast

majority of them have already received their dose — that 15,000

people.

Over 60,000 people have received a booster dose of a COVID-19

vaccine. As the member also knows, with respect to many of the

innovations that have been done to protect long-term care in B.C., from

the single-site order to the 5,000 workers that have been hired to

supplement people in long-term care, British Columbia, I believe with

Quebec, was the first jurisdiction to implement mandatory vaccination of

all staff in long-term care homes as of October 12.

M. Bernier: With all due respect to the minister, if it’s such a priority, why

will it take until December to help these vulnerable people? We all know

many vulnerable British Columbians started receiving their second dose

at the beginning of the year. That was well over six months ago, so

protection is waning.

[2:10 p.m.]

Vulnerable seniors are worried and rightfully so. They’re waiting

on this government, and they’re not getting a clear message on how they

will be protected and get these much-needed boosters. The B.C. Care

Providers have been calling on seniors to receive this booster shot

since the beginning of September, almost two months ago. I quote from

them: “We all knew this was coming. We all knew the need was coming. We

were caught flat-footed.”

To the Premier, to his government, why were they caught

flat-footed? Why can they not just implement this now for the seniors

that need it?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, as I said in the answer to the first question, people across

the long-term-care sector, across long-term care and assisted living,

will receive their booster dose well in advance of December. So that is

not correct, and that is not the situation that we’re facing. To date,

62 care homes have been immunized in this effort.

In addition, I’ll just say that I was asked questions directly,

and I’m answering those questions directly. They will be done before

then. That is what I’m saying.

People in care homes across British Columbia know that they have

the protection that every worker in a care home now is vaccinated. That

is not without its challenges, as all members of the House know. That’s

why B.C. was first to do that, first to do single site, has provided

extraordinary resources in long-term care and, as the seniors advocate

report stated, has, I think — compared to the other equivalent

jurisdictions in the country — the best record of protecting seniors.

There is urgency in this.

This is not, I would say to the House Leader of the Opposition, a

laughing matter. It’s not a laughing matter for me. It’s not a laughing

matter for anybody. I say to you: we take it extraordinarily seriously.

That’s why the people at Immunize B.C. — who put on, I think, what is on

record as the largest immunization program in the history of the

province, with enormous skill and dedication — are applying themselves

to this task with that same skill and that same dedication.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River South, a supplemental

question.

M. Bernier: Well, the minister is correct. It’s not a laughing matter, but for

this government, it seem to be a confusing matter.

The minister and this government need to get on the same page as

the health authorities because the problem is that everybody is getting

a different message. No wonder people are confused. No wonder seniors

and family members in this province are worried.

Frankly, this government lost the public’s trust on this issue

after burying the Ernst and Young report with their response to deaths

in long-term care. Frankly, people don’t trust the messages coming from

this government, because it’s always changing and never the

same.

There’s a tragedy unfolding right now, as we’ve been talking

about, in the Willingdon Care Centre, where at least ten deaths have

been reported so far. Ten people have died. Those are families affected.

These are people that we’re talking about, not just deaths. These are

people.

The head of the B.C. Care Providers says: “If the residents there

had had their booster when Alberta and Ontario were giving out their

boosters, it’s highly probable this would not have happened. We’re

heartsick, because we’ve been asking the Ministry of Health about

boosters since the first of September.”

To the Premier, why, again, can we not do this now? Why are they

failing the seniors around the province and, specifically, now at the

Willingdon Care Centre?

Hon. A. Dix: I think members will know that, obviously, COVID-19 is devastating

in long-term care. It’s why, from March of 2020, our government has led

on this question. Our public health officer has led on this question.

It’s why we’ve had, I think, compared to other jurisdictions, including

the jurisdictions that have been used as examples here in this House,

the best record in responding.

That doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been extraordinary loss and

extraordinary tragedy that everyone involved feels every single day.

It’s why we put in place a single-site order to protect people in

long-term care. It’s why we ensured, before all those jurisdictions that

were mentioned here, that contracted long-term care homes had access to

PPE. It’s why we’re ensuring today that everyone will be vaccinated —

everyone — in long-term care and assisted living.

[2:15 p.m.]

That priority and that announcement was made and initiated the day

that NACI made the recommendation — the day. And 62 care homes have

already received that vaccination and more to come every day.

It is a high priority for obvious reasons, and we’re going to

continue to work with the same diligence that Dr. Penny Ballem and Dr.

Bonnie Henry, our leaders in this effort, have put in from the beginning

to ensure that everyone gets the protection they need from

COVID-19.

CONSTRUCTION OF RENTAL UNITS

AND HOUSINGHUB PROGRAM

A. Olsen: Today I’m hoping to better understand this government’s

perspective on housing. Does this government consider housing to be a

human right?

Hon. D. Eby: I think there’s been quite a dramatic shift in government’s

philosophy around housing since our CASA agreement with the Green Party

that brought the NDP into government in 2017. Now, that shift was a

shift from seeing housing as purely a market-driven commodity to seeing

housing as a human right. That shows up in a number of aspects of our

work, from our response to encampments to the speculation tax, which

says that if you’re holding housing empty, you should pay more because

that is costing the system more.

These are really important principles. We stand by

them.

I thank the member for the question.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: As I think everybody in this House knows, we have been languishing

in a housing crisis since the 2017 election. This morning when I opened

up my email from the Capital Daily, I read that the Canada Mortgage and

Corp. report doesn’t believe that Victoria’s housing market is

overpriced, even though the cost of a single-family home has increased

30 percent since pre-COVID and the average home costs 20 times the

median income.

Despite this government’s 30-point housing plan, the housing

market is increasingly less affordable. One response of this government

was to create the B.C. HousingHub to increase the supply of affordable

rental housing and home ownership through community, government,

non-profit and private sector partnerships. [Applause.]

Take your victory lap. That’s good.

Billions of dollars of public money are now being used to finance

new construction. It’s a smart program as long as that public investment

is not just more fuel on a red-hot housing market. I’ve heard many

stories that housing that is called affordable is still out of reach for

many British Columbians.

Again to the Attorney General and Minister Responsible for

Housing, what specific safeguards are in place to ensure that the

billions of dollars of public money that we are investing in the

HousingHub are going to build non-market solutions that British

Columbians can actually afford to live in?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question.

First, a few numbers. B.C. Housing just released their data around

housing registration. This is completed housing in the province, their

September report. I’m happy to say that in 2021, year to date, 11,000

new rental housing units have opened, just since the beginning of 2021.

And 2019 was the previous high, with 13,000 rental housing units opened

that year.

Let me just have a look at pre-2017 here. It’s tough — an average

of about 2,000 units a year. So right now we’re building five times the

number of rental housing units a year. In 16 years, the previous

government built 130 student housing beds. Let me just check. We’ve got

four times that amount under construction at one school, BCIT — one

school.

The member asked about safeguards. It’s an important question.

Safeguards are important, especially when we saw what happened under the

previous government and their combination of political donations and

housing policy.

[2:20 p.m.]

Safeguards are really important. We know that having a safe and

effective system in place of oversight is critically important. That’s

why we’ve commissioned a third-party business firm to come in and do a

review of B.C. Housing safeguards. We’re working with the Office of the

Auditor General to review B.C. Housing’s work, to make sure the money is

going where it’s supposed to. Oversight is vital. We’re providing that

in ways that we haven’t seen previously.

COVID-19 CIRCUIT BREAKER

RELIEF GRANT FOR BUSINESSES

IN NORTHERN

B.C.

D. Davies: Many small businesses in the north, particularly locally owned

restaurants, have been trying very hard to do the right thing as we

fight this pandemic, and it has not been easy. It’s come at a cost, not

just to their bottom lines but to their physical and mental

health.

The new restrictions for the north add more worry to these people

who are struggling to survive, struggling to pay the bills, to pay their

workers.

To the Premier, will the circuit breaker grant programs be

reoffered to those businesses in Northern Health facing these new

restrictions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No doubt, the last 19 months have been challenging for businesses

all across this province, and this Small Business Week we pay homage to

all the struggles that they’ve had. We are proud on this side of the

House that we have provided the highest per-capita support for

businesses and people throughout this entire pandemic.

Just in the north alone, that means $15 million has gone directly

to business owners so they can pivot their businesses and navigate this

challenging time. The new health restrictions that have come in place,

limiting alcohol serving till 10 p.m…. Businesses can still operate in a

safe way.

We’re going to continue to communicate with the local chamber and

businesses on the challenges that they may have, and we’ll see how the

pandemic proceeds into the future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Peace River North, supplemental.

D. Davies: I’m not sure what I heard there, but it certainly wasn’t what

business owners and small businesses across the north are wanting to

hear.

Let’s look at the program that’s been rolling out for the first,

second, third wave — a $156 million, of $470 million, combined small

business recovery grant and the circuit breaker. That’s only a third

that has been put out as of this summer. And $300 million still not put

out to these businesses that need it.

We’re not talking multinational corporations here. We’re talking

small businesses, ma-and-pa shops, men and women who are living in the

Peace country throughout the north that are supporting their

communities. It’s kind of like this government and the Premier live in a

bubble that they can’t look beyond and see the issues that are out there

that people are struggling with.

If you’re going to be imposing these restrictions, these

businesses need support. They need these circuit breaker grants to be

delivered so that they can continue to support their communities. But

here we are, 20 months later. We saw the failure in the first, second

and third wave of delivering these grants.

Will the Premier help out these small businesses across the north

that are barely holding on by a thread?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll start by saying the member’s numbers are completely off. I’m

not quite sure where he’s getting his numbers from. Hon. Speaker, $526

million has gone out the door to support small businesses throughout

this province, and $15 million in the region that the member’s from

going directly to businesses.

We lead the country in economic recovery. We’re leading the

country. We have more jobs right now than we did prior to the pandemic.

It didn’t happen by accident. It’s because people followed the health

guidelines led by the Minister of Health and Dr. Henry.

People are following the rules. They’re doing what they can.

They’re getting vaccinated. They’re using the vaccine cards. We had a

StrongerBC plan.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: A StrongerBC plan — billions of dollars of targeted supports

supporting those businesses with the needs that they need, built by them

because we listened to them when we built our plan. We have provided

hundreds of millions of dollars of support.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members will listen to the answer, please. You are wasting your

time.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re going to continue to support businesses through these

challenging times.

[2:25 p.m.]

AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIMES

AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT

T. Stone: On the evening of October 9, Kamloops resi­dent Sue Mark was

beyond worried. Her mother had fallen, and she may have broken her hip.

Her mother had fainted, and her mother has a history of stroke. Sue did

what anyone would do. She called for an ambulance. It took 15 minutes

for that phone call to be answered, and it took two hours before the

ambulance actually arrived — two hours.

Sue says: “This is unbelievable and so terrifying. A two-hour wait

could have been the end for my mom.”

My question to the Premier is this. Does the Premier think it’s

acceptable for a frail senior who has fallen, might have broken her hip

— a senior that has fainted, a senior that has a history of strokes…?

Does the Premier think it’s acceptable for that senior to have to wait

two hours for an ambulance to arrive in her moment of need?

Hon. A. Dix: I think that when you call 911 and you need an ambulance urgently,

you should get an ambulance urgently. That’s what I think, and that’s

why, since becoming Minister of Health, other than Mental Health and

Ad­dictions, we’ve increased the budget of the Ambulance Service

more than any other part of the Health Ministry. As you know, there’s

significant demand across the Health Ministry.

We’ve gone from $424 million, when we started, to $559 million.

We’ve seen, I think it’s fair to say, this year an unprecedented

increase in stresses on our ambulance system. We are acting by

increasing supports in remote communities, increasing 24-7 care in rural

communities, increasing care across urban communities as well, adding

ambulances, adding dispatchers and adding ambulance paramedics. I

believe — and I think I share the view of the hon. member — that when

people call for an ambulance, they should get one.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.

T. Stone: The minister can sit here and rattle off all kinds of numbers and

statistics. He can talk about budgets. At the end of the day, that’s

cold comfort for people that have lost their lives. It’s cold comfort

for the families of loved ones who have nearly lost their lives because

a call doesn’t get answered for 15 minutes or an ambulance takes up to

two hours to arrive.

That’s on this government. That’s this minister’s

res­ponsibility — to address those realities that are happening in

our emergency system, which, frankly, Mr. Speaker, is on the verge of

collapse.

Now, unfortunately, Sue’s experience is not an outlier. We are all

hearing stories just like Sue’s. I’ll share a couple more quickly. On

the same night in Kamloops, October 9, Elaine had this to say about her

experience calling 911: “I couldn’t get through last night. I waited on

hold for 30 minutes. BCEHS called me back one hour and 45 minutes later

to ask if I still needed an ambulance. I was already at the

hospital.”

Or Judy, who had this to say — again, about the same night in

Kamloops: “I called an ambulance for my mom who was unresponsive, and I

was put on hold. I called back four times, and I finally screamed:

‘Don’t put me on hold.’ It was a nightmare, an absolute

nightmare.”

Mr. Speaker, what does the Premier have to say to Sue? What does

he have to say to Elaine? What does he have to say to Judy and the

countless other British Columbians just like them who want to know when

the Premier is going to actually take the decisive action that’s

required to make sure that British Columbians get the emergency services

that they need when they need it?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for Kamloops–​South Thompson for bringing

these issues to our attention.

As the Minister of Health has already said, we have made

significant investments to try and beef up a system that was clearly

failing under the previous government. We have much more work to do. We

have much more work to do.

It’s not dissimilar…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Order, please. Order.

Hon. J. Horgan: …to references to long-term care, where, prior to coming onto this

side of the House, nine out of ten care facilities didn’t have

sufficient staff to meet the challenges. We’ve been working on all of

that. We’ve been doing it in collaboration, by and large.

[2:30 p.m.]

To the families that the member references, I absolutely

understand their complete frustration. It is unacceptable to wait that

long to get emergency services wherever you may live in British

Columbia. We have made that commitment since we came to government.

We’re going to continue to make the investments to put….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: During those four years, we’ve been making investments…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …to build up the capacity. It’s all well and good to stand up in

this place and say it’s not good enough, but you have to work with us to

bring these issues forward in a collaborative way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Yelling louder will not help, but keep it up. Keep it up.

Mr. Speaker: Members, when the question is asked, let’s listen to the question.

When the answer is given, let’s listen to the answer, please.

K. Kirkpatrick: To be clear, the system is failing under this government.

Erin Booth, in the Premier’s home of Victoria, needed an ambulance but gave up after

waiting 30 minutes on hold and took a cab. Almost two hours later, at

the hospital, while she was getting prepped for a scan, she got called

back, asking if she still needed an ambulance. She says: “I think our

current government is really into hiding what is actually going on,

trying to minimize it. There wasn’t even a triaging process, and anyone

calling is going to be faced with that wait.”

People should not need to call a cab to get to their hospital, but that’s where it’s at

under this Premier. So when is the Premier going to stop the talk and

start providing the care people need?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the new member for her question.

Again, sometimes I wonder if the opposition understands…. “They just arrived a couple of

days ago, and everything was fine when they got here.” It wasn’t. These

are complex systems that require nurturing and care all the time. It

requires investment. It requires investment not for four years, not for

four months but ongoing.

That’s exactly what we’re doing: the largest investments in B.C. history, budget over

budget, to increase emergency health services. That means hiring people,

something they didn’t want to do. That means making sure we’re putting

people in place. We’re putting infrastructure in place in the north —

$66 million for air ambulance, $66 million that went to new equipment

and more people. That’s what we were faced with.

I’d like to go back to the question about long-term care. The member…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …on that side of the House did not mention him by name, but the

person responsible for the private care facilities is a guy named Terry

Lake, who happened to be the Minister of Health for four years while

that government didn’t fund long-term care. They didn’t hire enough

people to do the job, and they didn’t invest in health care.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: All right. The first question is over.

Members, come to order, please.

B. Banman: Under this NDP government, under this Premier’s leadership, people

are dying, literally dying, waiting for medical care.

You can blame the other side all you want. Under your watch, right

now, people are dying.

Mr. Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

B. Banman: Despite record delays, despite a pandemic, this government has yet

to address the bureaucratic red tape that prevents those first on the

scene from saving lives. Firefighters are often the first to arrive, but

they are not allowed to provide any medical help or transport

peo­ple to the hospital.

The Auditor General released a report on access to emergency

services in 2019 that called for government action. Recommendations of

the emergency medical assistants licensing board on the expansion of

firefighters’ scope of practice were due September 6. That was a month

and a half ago. Right now people expect action and all hands on

deck.

[2:35 p.m.]

To the Premier: will you stop and please tell us what the

recommendations are? Stop hiding behind it. Will the government table

them today and act now to save lives?

Hon. A. Dix: I think the facts…. The member from Kamloops said it was unfair to

talk about investments. Well, investments reflect priorities of

government. When you double the investment, the rate of increase to the

Ambulance Service, that reflects double the interest in real terms.

That’s a significant difference.

From 2017 to 2019, 115 permanent positions added, 14 ambulances.

Between January 21 this year and June 21, 271 paramedics hired,

including 66 new scheduled on-call positions. On July 2, 322 new

paramedic positions were rolled out across the province.

The issues that the member refers to between ambulance paramedics

and firefighters have been around, as the member will know from his

experience, for decades. We are dealing with it by working with

firefighters, by working with ambulance paramedics. We will be

responding and bringing not just reports, not just recommendations but

change soon.

[End of question period.]

Speaker’s Statement

ROLE OF SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I would like to advise the House that I’ll be

recognizing the Government House Leader momentarily to present a motion

for your consideration regarding the appointment of the next

Sergeant-at-Arms.

As members will know, our Sergeant-at-Arms leads the Legislative

Assembly Protective Services, which ensures our safety and security on

the legislative precinct, enabling members to undertake our duties

without interference or interruption, thereby ensuring the continuity of

our demo­cratic system of governance. The Sergeant-at-Arms also

oversees the chamber, gallery and corridor teams and undertakes duties

as prescribed in our standing orders.

The Legislative Assembly undertook an external open recruitment

competition for the position of Sergeant-at-Arms. The successful

candidate in this competition was Ray Robitaille.

Ray has a passion for public service and a deep respect for this

institution. He joins us from a career in policing — specifically, the

Calgary police service, from which he retired in 2019 at the rank of

deputy chief of police. He was invested as a member of the Order of

Merit of the Police Forces by the Governor General of Canada.

Ray brings with him a strong track record of leadership, and I am

confident that he is very well suited to take up his new

responsibilities.

Ray, welcome to the Legislative Assembly. On behalf of all

members, we wish you the best as you take up the role of

Sergeant-at-Arms.

I would also like to thank Greg Nelson for his service as Acting

Sergeant-at-Arms since October 2019. His steady hand during a period of

great change has been most appreciated.

On behalf of all members, I wish to sincerely thank Greg for his

service to the Legislative Assembly in this capacity.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion concerning the appointment of the

next Sergeant-at-Arms.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move, seconded by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the member for Cowichan Valley:

[That effective immediately, Ray Robitaille be appointed Sergeant-at-Arms.]

Motion approved.

[2:40 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 19, Societies Amendment

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — SOCIETIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 19; S. Chandra Herbert in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: We are on Bill 19, Societies Amendment Act, 2021.

Did the minister want to jump up?

Hon. S. Robinson: I look forward to going through this bill clause by clause.

I want to introduce my staff team, here to help us get through this piece of legislation.

I’ve got Renée Mount­eney, my assistant deputy minister. I have

Andrew Avis, who is the director of business organizations, financial

and corporate sector policy branch, and Maria Montgomery, who is the

senior policy advisor, financial and corporate sector policy

branch.

I look forward to the members’ questions.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister, and welcome to her staff. We’ll spend

some time here going through some riveting stuff here on the Societies

Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

I know in second reading we talked about the importance of this

and why the act was brought in originally. But maybe I’ll just backtrack

for a moment on a few generals before we get into a few more specifics,

if the minister will indulge me.

My first question is…. The original consultation that I’m aware

of…. I believe the minister said, too, that it was in 2019. There was

some consultation that was done about looking at maybe some of these

changes that were brought forward. I guess my question is: are these

changes brought forward specifically and selectively only from that

consultation? Or have we learned anything through the last 18 months of

the pandemic and some of the stresses or challenges that maybe the

societies faced that they have maybe reached out to the

ministry?

Hon. S. Robinson: Specifically to the member’s question, almost all of this is

actually as a result of those consultations that were done prior to the

pandemic. The member will recall that we made some legislative

amendments to the Finance Statutes Amendment Act that allowed societies

to hold fully electronic meetings with members and directors as a result

of the pandemic. That work has already been done. This is about all that

consultation and that work that had gone on prior to the

pandemic.

M. Bernier: Okay. So a lot of the changes that have been brought forward,

then, were based on that two-years-ago consultation. I know we’re going

back a little bit, but the minister is fortunate enough to have her

staff next to her maybe to help.

To put things in perspective then, when that consultation was done

in 2019, what kind of feedback…? What kinds of numbers, approximately,

did we have through government then? What kinds of submissions through

agencies? Maybe give a bit of a cross-section.

I’m just curious on…. I mean, there are 115 sections here. As we

talked about quite a few, mostly, I would say minor…. A few are

significant changes. But I’m just curious. What kinds of numbers or the

feedback that came in, considering there are about 29,000 societies out

there…? Was it just from a few? Or was there a really a good uptake on

the consultation?

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much. Grateful for staff who are around to facilitate that.

Back in July, summer of 2019, the Ministry of Finance conducted a public consultation.

There was a letter sent to every deputy minister inviting them and their

staff who work with societies to provide feedback. Information about the

consultation was posted on public government websites — the Ministry of

Finance’s website, the corporate registry website and Societies

Online.

An email with the consultation letter was also sent to 27,000 societies and other identified stakeholders, including members of the public and the legal community who have commented on the Societies Act. Recipients included many Indigenous friendship centres that are structured as societies here in British Columbia.

[2:50 p.m.]

The ministry also engaged with the First Nations Summit, the Métis Nation B.C., the B.C.

Assembly of First Nations and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. As well,

both the Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government

and the First Nations Summit reviewed the draft legislation. So there’s

been a wholesale engagement.

Societies and public were able to provide their feedback by email to a societies consultation email account or by mail to the financial and corporate sector policy branch. What we received was over 150 responses to the public consultation from societies, from lawyers, other ministries and the public.

Many of the responses were positive, commending government for doing the consultation and proposing amendments to make the Societies Act more user-friendly. A few responses raised concerns about making amendments to a newer act. This was the basis of the consultation, as the member had requested.

M. Bernier: Too many years in a rock ‘n’ roll band. I had a hard time hearing

the minister. Did she say just over a hundred people responded? She can

nod if I am incorrect or if it was higher. Sorry. Maybe I’ll just have

you quantify that.

Hon. S. Robinson: It was 150.

M. Bernier: Out of 27,000…. So 150 agencies. The minister talked about that

going out to everyone. One of my questions then will be…. Since it is

only 150 respondents…. In the past, feedback on submissions when there

was a consultation like this would usually be posted publicly so people

would have an opportunity to see what kind of feedback was submitted. Is

that going to be happening here in this case?

Hon. S. Robinson: In response to the member’s question about reporting out…. There

are no policy changes. These were more technical and housekeeping in

nature. So as a result, there was no reporting out.

M. Bernier: My apologies if the minister misunderstood. It’s not from

government reporting out. It’s more of…. In the past when there’s been

consultation, the consultation feedback that comes to government — a lot

of times through redaction or others — usually gets posted online

publicly so people have an idea what kind of feedback was garnered by

government through a consultation process.

My question was more: is that information going to be posted

online or public? Not government responding back to them, but the

information that people gave to government.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much. Perhaps I didn’t communicate my previous

answer well.

As practice, we don’t communicate back what we heard on a

housekeeping, technical consultation around what this consultation was

about, which is more around feedback around how this legislation is

working or not working and how it needs to be tweaked. It wasn’t about a

large policy perspective, per se. It was more about what would make this

work better and better meet the needs of societies.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On clause 4.

M. Bernier: I’ll thank the minister for her last answer. I mean, there are

honestly some changes in here — not many but some that we have questions

on.

section 4, we’re talking about the meeting of members and

general meetings that are in here. They’re being changed. Can the

minister provide an overview of the obligations, I guess, around

minute-taking? How will those be facilitated now? How are those going to

change with this section?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This change is really about making it very clear, when reading

legislation, about what the expectation is — the type of meeting for

which societies must keep minutes. In this case, it’s the general

meeting.

M. Bernier: When I’m reading that, though, are there any other special

circumstances or any other areas where minute-taking will be required,

then, under the Societies Act? Or now with this change, is it going to

be just the general meetings?

Hon. S. Robinson: In this case, it is for the general meeting, unless their bylaws

state otherwise, and to provide clarity.

A prime example would be when a group gets together, of the

society, to plan an event. That doesn’t need to be officially minuted in

the way that is required under the Societies Act. They might want to, to

hold people accountable for the things that they said they would do and

then don’t do. Then that’s a whole different kind of

requirement.

This is for the Societies Act’s purpose. It’s for the general

meeting.

Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

On clause 9.

M. Bernier: Just a quick change here in clause 9 that I’m curious about. Can

the minister explain this change and why it was needed? This one here is

really about reporting remuneration of only the ten most highly

remunerated people within a society, if I’m reading that correctly. Can

the minister explain why that recommendation came forward or why this

change is needed?

Hon. S. Robinson: In short order, it’s truly about transparency. Societies are

independent, democratic agencies. Members of a society must have access

to the society records to ensure that the society is run appropriately,

including financial decisions. So to that end, the Societies Act

requires all societies to present financial statements and auditors

reports to members at the annual general meeting.

To comply with the act, the financial statements must contain a

note specifying any remuneration paid to directors and the cumulative

remuneration paid to employees and contractors. This mandatory reporting

requirement is just to help members of a society ensure that the society

is spending money appropriately.

Clauses 9 to 15 inclusive approved.

On clause 16.

[3:00 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair. If there are larger groups than that of clauses,

I’ll let you know. But for the next little bit, we’ll continue to do

this pace, if that works for the Chair.

On clause 16, I guess the first question I have is maybe at the

bottom. We’re eliminating — I’m trying to understand the rationale here

— the right to vote by proxy, in this situation, for the meeting of

directors. Can the minister maybe explain what kind of feedback she

heard, some of the challenges with that, of why we’d now be eliminating

proxy voting for directors? It looks like just for a meeting of

directors, when I’m reading through the entire act and the changes, but

I just want to clarify that.

Hon. S. Robinson: What this does is remove proxy voting for directors. I suspect the member opposite, perhaps, has been a director a time or two, as have I. When you think about how significant the bylaws and the liabilities to directors are, the thinking is that you need to participate in the voting in terms of the direction that society is moving in.

The Societies Act is really about appreciating and valuing the participation, so there was support in the consultation to remove this. But also, what I think is interesting now, given that there are online opportunities, the need for any proxy opportunity is further reduced because people can participate legally in a remote way now, which further adjusts our ability to do business and conduct business and be fully present without being physically in the same room.

M. Bernier: You’re reading my mind on where I wanted to go on that, then, to

clarify. With technological changes — as we’ve all seen over the last,

specifically, 18 months to two years — being able to use Zoom or other

tech platforms for communication…. Is that specifically changed anywhere

within this bill for the act, or was that already contemplated

before?

The minister is nodding yes. She might want to get up and add

that.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m just curious on…. I didn’t see any of those kinds of changes

being made anywhere in this bill. So when I see that a director cannot

vote by proxy, I just want to ensure that the other opportunities are

there. I know a lot of societies have their own different bylaws that

allow for or do not allow for technological attendance at meetings. But

I’m just curious, within the act, because I didn’t see anything within

this bill for change.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate where the member is coming from. It’s also an “and by

the way.” When this was put together, it really was the intent to make

sure that people are fully present to participate in moving a society

forward and that because of the liabilities to directors, they needed to

engage rather than to do a proxy.

It’s with the act we changed in May, the Finance Statutes

Amendment Act, where we amended…. It’s within that where we amended the

Societies Act to permit societies to hold fully electronic meetings of

members or directors. That really furthers this piece that says you can

participate. Even now you don’t need the proxy — even less now — given

that we have this change that was brought forward in May.

Clauses 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

On clause 19.

M. Bernier: On clause 19, I’m just trying to clarify a few things here. It

looks like the changes are more around the conflict-of-interest

portions, because we’re talking about material interests. The wording is

actually adding in the words “that is known by the senior manager or

reasonably ought to have been known” after the portion of “material

interest.” To me, that’s the conflict-of-interest requirements and

disclosure under those rules.

When the Societies Act consultation was going on, there was more

of a look, if I remember, at the due dili­gence side of things. So

I’m trying to, maybe, on this section, even though I know it’s only a

couple of words being added…. I’m just wanting to give the minister an

opportunity, I guess, to clarify in here. We understand its

transparency. I’m trying to pinpoint now whether it’s just

conflict-of-interest rules that are going to be contemplated. Are these

due diligence requirements? We do mention the word “reasonableness”

that’s coming in here. I’m just looking for a little bit of

clarification around how the ministry sees that ruling.

Hon. S. Robinson: This particular clause clarifies that senior managers who are reasonably unaware of their conflict of interest need not disclose it, as it is impossible to disclose an interest in a matter in which the senior manager has no knowledge. The test considers conflicts of interest that are known or reasonably ought to have been known, and it makes the conflict-of-interest rules that apply to directors consistent in its application to senior managers.

M. Bernier: Just one more for clarity. Can the minister…? Obviously, some

groups brought this forward. I’m trying to understand. I think the

overarching concept was already in there. I understand a bit of the word

tweaking. Is this more from a legal standpoint, around the

reasonableness of defense in case it’s challenged legally on

a…?

We talk about conflict of interest, and to the minister’s answer

there, as what somebody may or may not know. I’m just kind of trying to

clarify again why this change was put in. Was it more, again, from a

legal standpoint just for protection of the directors in case of a legal

challenge of something that took place?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, this is around just clarifying what might be a conflict,

but you can’t know it’s a conflict because you don’t have all of the

information. For example, investing in a mutual fund that’s broad, but

you don’t have all the specifics that might potentially be a conflict.

But you don’t know because it’s in a fund. So that’s just an example of

what this is trying to clarify.

Clauses 19 and 20 approved.

On clause 21.

M. Bernier: I’m glad you have good peripheral vision.

Just on clause 21, very simple. We’re changing a general meeting —

some of this — from 200 to 500 words. I’m just curious. Did we throw a

dart at the board? Where did 500 come? Why the change from 200 to 500?

Was that a very specific request from organizations, or did they just

say they wanted more opportunity to have more words on the paper when

they put a request?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s comment on this. I know that he is well

aware that it actually takes much more skill to say something in 200

words than it does in 500 words. But the feedback from the time this was

implemented was that that’s just not enough words.

So 500, I hope, should be sufficient. It’s more than double what

people had been networking with before, and we expect that that should

be sufficient going forward.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

M. Bernier: Another kind of very simplistic question on here. It’s just

another numbers one. I’m curious where this came from. When we’re

looking in this

section here, we’re decreasing the number of members

required for the purposes of notification from 250 to 100.

Where did that number come from? Why a hundred? Why only a

hundred? This is, again, around that, like specifically around the

threshold. I’m just trying to understand, because I know a lot of groups

have a lot smaller, some a lot larger, but where do we come up with the

hundred number for this?

Hon. S. Robinson: In this clause, we’re amending the notice of general meeting, and

what this does is it allows a greater number of societies to send the

notice electronically. This is about continuing to move into the modern

era. It helps save money for sure, reduces the need for an

envelope-stuffing party for societies.

Again, we heard feedback from many societies that being able to

provide the notice electronically is time saving, and it’s cost saving.

What we’re proposing to do is to lower the threshold to a hundred

members.

Clauses 22 and 23 approved.

On clause 24.

M. Bernier: Yes, just another very simplistic…. I know we’re changing some

numbers around. This one is adding a 500-word restriction to the

combined length. Were there any difficulties with the original

member-initiated proposals process, or why was this specific area

wanting to be changed?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is about being consistent. In the earlier clause, where we

went from 250 to 500 to demand a meeting — this is just about being

consistent. If you have a proposal, it’s the same consistent word

count.

Clauses 24 to 33 inclusive approved.

On clause 34.

M. Bernier: The minister mentioned earlier that I’ve always sat on a few

societies or boards, as I know she has as well. There’s a

section in

here…. We’re talking about dissolved societies, though, and

recordkeeping.

Can the minister explain, under these changes of a dissolved

society, how those records are going to be maintained, or how will they

be tracked by government? Where is the accountability that will lie…?

Who is truly accountable, and how does the government fit into that, if

a society is no longer in existence?

Hon. S. Robinson: I was just saying that I probably have records of societies that are dissolved that are probably 30 years old.

When dissolving, part of a dissolution requirement is appointing a recordkeeper, and their

contact information, including their address, gets sent to the registrar

of companies. They have to keep those records for three years. If

there’s a change of recordkeeper within those three years, that too

needs to be updated and needs to go to the registrar of

companies.

M. Bernier: Just for clarity, in 152.1 it is talking about the three years,

because I might be in the same position as the minister. If it’s the day

after three years, can you shred everything then? Is there a requirement

for government intervention to continue — the fact that those records

are still carried on in some format? Or is the requirement no longer

after three years on the dissolution of a society?

Hon. S. Robinson: I am very happy to tell the member that he could have a shredding

party. You don’t need to keep them after three years.

Clauses 34 to 50 inclusive approved.

On clause 51.

M. Bernier: Clause 51. We’re talking now a little bit about donations coming

to societies.

[3:20 p.m.]

When there’s one that is through a will, let’s say, as we’re

talking about, in some areas here, “public donations” ensures donations,

upon death, do not trigger unintended regulatory consequences owing to

the difference between member-funded and other societies.

It’s an interesting portion that I’m reading out there. Can the

minister give an example, then, of when or how this could

happen?

Hon. S. Robinson: I believe that the member is talking about testamentary

dispositions. I’m much more familiar with bequests, but that’s what

we’re talking about here.

What we heard from an advisory group is about ex­panding the

pool for member-funded societies, which generally don’t accept

donations, contributions, from the public. This just allows those that

were previous members to provide contributions to the member-funded

society.

M. Bernier: If I can, maybe in this section, too, I’ll ask. Donations are one

thing. Funding coming through into societies…. We all saw, through the

pandemic here, that there were some challenges, possibly, with some

societies when they were looking at applying for government funding or

COVID grants while they’re already having some societal government

funding, possibly, and some of the challenges that they could have with

that emergency aid.

I couldn’t find it, but is there anything in this that maybe helps

clarify, for these societies, some of the exemptions? Because,

especially in a circumstance, as we’ve seen…. We all stood in this House

trying to look at ways to help organizations, employers and societies,

in some conditions. But we did hear, as I think the minister probably

heard as well, that some societies were unable to or worried about

applying and receiving some of these emergency aids because of the

Societies Act and the way that it was worded, because of restrictions

through government funding.

Were any changes contemplated, or are they here somewhere that I

missed?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to express gratitude for the mem­ber’s thoroughness.

We did pass a regulation this sum­mer to exclude member-funded

societies from being challenged from taking some pandemic support,

recognizing that created some challenges. We addressed that through

regulation this last summer.

Clauses 51 to 64 inclusive approved.

On clause 65.

[3:25 p.m.]

M. Bernier: In

section 65, we’re looking at extending the period of time for

the societies to file a transition application from two years to six

years. Can the….

Well, it’s great to see the Premier in here showing off his gold

medal that he won in the hallway. Shiny gold medal. Yeah, he’s taking a

lot of pride in that. I don’t know if he’ll give it back. Maybe I

shouldn’t tell Hansard that the Premier is this excited. It’s the first

time he’s won something legitimately. It’s great to see. Anyway, I

digress.

On clause 65, extending from two years to six years. Can the

minister explain why the change from two to six? Was there a problem, I

guess, with some of the societies for that transition? Was there a

problem because of outreach and support? Why are we looking at having to

change it from two years? What wasn’t working before that societies were

saying they needed that much more time?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member was correct in his assumption around that there is a

reason for this. It’s taken a significant amount of time to get

societies to transition to redo their bylaws. I know that he knows this

— that they’re volunteers. The bureaucracy of making sure that

everything you’re doing is by the book is not what excites people to

step forward to volunteer and to deliver. Usually it’s about delivering

good service, taking care of the community and providing some benefit in

some way.

So it has taken some time to get all 27,000 up to speed. We have

about 600 left, and by extending it, we believe we can achieve that

goal. We don’t want anyone to be offside, and so this is about making

sure that we can help people transition and help societies

transition.

Clauses 65 to 115 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to take a moment to thank the member for his thoughtful questions. I know that with 115 clauses, it was a significant body of work on his part. So I want to thank him for being so thorough and representing so well, and I want to thank my staff who were diligent.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:30 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — SOCIETIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 19, Societies Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. S. Robinson: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 14, Early Childhood Educators Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — EARLY CHILDHOOD

EDUCATORS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 14; N. Letnick in the

chair.

The committee met at 3:32 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:32 p.m. to 3:38 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

K. Kirkpatrick: In “Inspections by the registrar,” could the minister explain what

would constitute or warrant entry into the facilities or the location of

one of these schools? What would actually bring that on and the minister

would feel it was warranted?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Thanks to the opposition member for continuing this discussion,

and thanks for the time that she’s spending on this very important

legislation.

For inspections, they are necessary to ensure that institutions

are providing the necessary education and training to develop required

competencies in their studies for their students. Authorities are also

necessary to ensure that inspections are efficient for both the

registrar and for the institution. The depth and scope of the

inspection, in practice, really depend on their

circumstances.

Normally, we may have an inspection upon the time of the

application, during a routine visit or when there is a

complaint.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that answer. It actually gives me a

bit more clarity on this.

Can I confirm with the minister: is this ever warranted by a

non-compliance issue, and is notification required — to give to the

institution — prior to one of these on-site inspections taking

place?

Hon. K. Chen: There is no requirement for notifica­tion before inspection.

However, in practice, most inspections will have advance notice. There

are circumstances where advance notice is not provided. This is

generally only done when the advance notice would compromise the

inspection.

K. Kirkpatrick: Sorry, I actually didn’t hear that very last piece that the

minister said. It would come at what point?

Hon. K. Chen: Only when…. Normally, we would give advance notice. But when we

don’t, this is normally only generally done because the advance notice

would compromise the inspection or the investigation.

K. Kirkpatrick: In a scenario where it would compromise the investigation, am I to

understand that would be a compliance issue, where there was something

egregious occurring in, perhaps, quality of programs or issues where the

facilities weren’t safe?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes, those are some of the examples.

K. Kirkpatrick: If there is a situation where there is a non-compliance issue

where there are concerns about safety or, sometimes, about enrolment

numbers not match­ing how many students — those kinds of things —

would it not make sense to contact the investigators through the private

training agency board? Is it not a duplication to have those powers

vested in both organizations?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: No, it doesn’t duplicate the work. The role of the registrar is

really to focus on the competency of the programs and make sure that the

program meets the requirement and the competency that’s

required.

For Advanced Education, for a public institution that’s offering

diplomas and certificates, they normally don’t review that part. Then

for the private training institutions branch, they also don’t review the

competency part. Again, we do work very collaboratively with our

Advanced Education partners to ensure that we don’t duplicate the

process.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Just so I can clarify. It wasn’t with

respect to…. An on-site non-compliance issue, where you would actually

go on site without giving notice to the institution, wouldn’t be for a

curricu­lum issue. That would be where there was something a bit

more egregious. There was a health and safety issue there. Or is that

not the case?

I mean, are there…? Let me just jump to…. This is the same, but a

little bit different. Regulatory reform requires you to go through this

checklist to confirm that whatever you’re doing in new legislation,

you’ve taken a look at how that legislation can work with other

legislation so that it’s not duplicating a particular

section.

It comes back to…. If there was some kind of egregious regulatory

issue, why would the minister, why would MCFD, have their own — I don’t

know what you call them — investigators or officers when there is

already something else that exists that does that same thing for an

egregious non-compliance issue with a school?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: To clarify, Advanced Education has reviewed the draft legislation to ensure that the provisions related to both public and private post-secondary programs are aligned with and do not overlap or interfere with Advanced Education programs and their existing authorities for post-secondary institutions.

No concerns were raised during this collaborative process. Advanced Education and MCFD

will continue to collaborate on the development of the regulations that

we’ll be bringing into the Early Childhood Educators Act when it’s

brought into force.

Also, just to clarify on the health and safety part, the registrar is really focused on

the competency of the programs. The health and safety is to ensure…. The

competency of the programs and the students and the quality of education

will ensure the health and safety of the children that they care for. In

terms of the health and safety of the institution or the students,

that’s really under Advanced Education.

Clauses 12 to 18 inclusive approved.

On clause 19.

K. Kirkpatrick: “Actions relating to approved programs.” To the minister, could

you give an example of a circumstance when the registrar would suspend

or cancel a program approval, yet that program would still be registered

under the Ministry of Advanced Education?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: If the program no longer offers curricu­lum that covers the

required competencies, students grad­uating from the program are

no longer eligible for the provincial certification. If the program is

not willing or able to update their curriculum to meet the standards and

come into compliance, the registrar may suspend or cancel the program’s

approval. Again, that being said, as we discussed before, if the student

already graduated when the program was still eligible, then they

continue to be eligible.

Suspension may also include a condition that lifting of the

suspension will not occur until such time as the curriculum is updated

to meet the requirement. Suspension or cancelling a program is really

the most restrictive action the registrar can take and would be taken in

situations where the issues of non-compliance are serious and the

program is unable or unwilling to come into compliance, which doesn’t

really happen very often.

Also, just to clarify, the registrar’s job is to make sure that

the program meets the competency under the ECE registry. The program is

eligible for registration under the ECE registry, but they can still be

approved by the PTI or Advanced Education.

K. Kirkpatrick: Does the registrar have a duty to or an expectation that they will

notify the Ministry of Advanced Education when an ECE school’s program

is cancelled or suspended?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes. The registrar’s office will normally work with the

institution and the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training

to support and reduce the impact on students.

Clauses 19 to 23 inclusive approved.

On clause 24.

K. Kirkpatrick: The registrar is able to exempt a person or a program from the requirements of this act. Would the minister be able to give an example of something that might be exempted either for a person or for a program?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes. For example, for individuals living in rural and remote communities where there is a shortage of certified early childhood educators, the experience requirement could be a barrier to registration. The registrar could, based on a situation, grant an exemption in the circumstances such as….

For example, the requirement to complete the 500 hours of work experience under the direct supervision of a Canadian-certified ECE could be reconsidered or waived.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just to clarify, that was for an individual ECE licensee. Does this also apply to exemptions that could be provided to some of the training institutions or universities?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes. We will be working really closely with Advanced Education and institutions to make sure there is engagement and consultation. That will occur during the drafting of the regulations to make sure we look at potential scenarios.

Clauses 24 to 53 inclusive approved.

On clause 54.

[4:00 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: This is a clarification just to, actually, help me understand how

this works, then. It’s related…. This is an amendment or a change. Or

it’s an addition.

The question is related to criminal record checks, where an ECE

worker is required to have a criminal record check. Currently, they need

to have a criminal record check specific to a particular employer so

that there isn’t, as I understand it, the ability for flexibility for an

ECE worker to work at different child care facilities unless they had a

CRC specific to that child care facility.

Will this replace the fact that with the registrar now, they are

having a criminal record check which has to be updated? Will that

replace the need for the individual criminal record checks at each of

the employers?

Hon. K. Chen: During the drafting of the regulations — that’s going to have a

lot more details to this legislation — we’re going to be working really

closely with PSSG and Ministry of Health to look at how we can ensure

there are no duplications and burdens on early childhood educators and

employers, while ensuring that we are protecting the health and safety

of young children.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister and her staff for the answer to that question.

This is more a statement. That would be a really great thing, because I know that it does stifle some flexibility and people being able to cover other shifts at other places.

So end my questions on this bill.

Clauses 54 to 57 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Chen: I now move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:04 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[4:05 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 14 — EARLY CHILDHOOD

EDUCATORS ACT

Bill 14, Early Childhood Educators Act, reported complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? We are waiting for the

minister, right?

Member for Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: I beg your and the House’s indulgence. I see that my neighbour

from across the river is back in her post. She was welcomed by members

of her caucus back to these proceedings just prior to question period,

but it is very good to see her up and about. I don’t know if that’s her

office or her home — I’m sure they’re both equally well laid out — but

it’s very good to see her up and about with a smile on her

face.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — EARLY CHILDHOOD

EDUCATORS ACT

Bill 14, Early Childhood Educators Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. N. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I’m wondering if we could take a ten-minute recess to

allow the minister to approach for Bill 21.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 4:08 p.m. to 4:17 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o .

2), 2021

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

This bill includes amendments to the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act. The proposed amendments will clarify and improve provisions in the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act that prescribe standards of review to be applied by the courts in judicial reviews of decisions made by the civil resolution tribunal.

Currently the standard of review provisions rely on cross-referencing between the Civil

Resolution Tribunal Act and the Administrative Tribunals Act. However,

this cross-referencing has led to uncertainty and confusion about how

these provisions are supposed to function in the context of the Civil

Resolution Tribunal Act. Proposed amendments would clarify this issue by

encoding provisions that prescribe standards of review for judicial

review of this tribunal’s decisions directly in the Civil Resolution

Tribunal Act, rather than adopting them by cross-reference.

The proposed amendments reflect the language of the Administrative Tribunals Act as closely as possible with respect to the standards of review prescribed by statute. This approach is meant to promote consistency and to signal that the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act standard of review provisions should be interpreted in the same way as their equivalent provisions from the Administrative Tribunals Act.

The Offence Act amendments in this bill respond to requests from modern treaty First

Nations to support the law-making and enforcement authority granted to

them under their representative final agreements. Each final agreement

with Tsawwassen First Nation, Maa-nulth First Nations and Tla’amin

Nation, respectively, provides the authority and responsibility for the

First Nation to enforce their laws, and to prosecute offences under

their laws in accordance with the

summary conviction proceedings of the

Offence Act in Provincial Court.

The proposed amendments will provide clarity within provincial law that violation tickets issued by treaty First Nations for offences under their laws can be disputed in B.C. Provincial Court under the

summary conviction proceedings of the Offence Act.

Under the framework created by this bill, treaty First Nation laws will continue to govern the issuance, service and process to dispute a ticket issued for a violation of treaty First Nation law. One of the purposes of the amendments is to clarify that the procedures under the Offence Act will apply once the Provincial Court receives notice that a person is disputing a violation ticket.

[4:20 p.m.]

This bill and the underlying policy work were developed in close partnership with treaty

First Nations. An important aspect of the bill is that existing and

future treaty First Nations will be able to choose whether to access the

Provincial Court for disputes of violation tickets issued under their

laws. The need for the legislation to be optional for treaty First

Nations was determined through the partnership. Overall, this bill

reflects government’s recognition of, and commitment to, self-government

and self-determination of Indigenous peoples.

This bill also contains provisions related to the Victims of Crime Act. The Victims of Crime Act is being amended in this bill as part of the aforementioned Offence Act. This amendment will clarify that a victim surcharge levy will not be payable on treaty First Nations violation tickets.

This bill also includes proposed amendments to the Representative for Children and Youth

Act, which I’ll refer to as the RCYA. The RCYA is the enabling statute

of the Representative for Children and Youth, an independent officer of

the Legislature. The statute sets out the appointment, functions and

powers of the representative. The amendments respond to some of the

recommendations of the last statutory review of the act undertaken by

the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth. Some

recommendations have been addressed previously through regulatory

changes, and others will be considered in the future.

The amendments in this bill will enable a greater number of vulnerable young adults to

benefit from the advo­cacy assistance offered by the

representative for access to specific government programs. A new

definition of “in­cluded adult,” which replaces the term “young

adult,” will expand the eligibility criteria for receiving assistance

from the representative. Specifically, the age requirement will be

expanded by three years, and other criteria will be broadened and

simplified. The amendments will also clarify a statutory definition in

relation to the representative’s functions respecting

children.

This bill also proposes amendments to the Safety Standards Act. This act governs high-risk technical equipment such as gas and electrical systems, boilers, elevators and mechanized amusement rides. The proposed amendment aims to increase public safety by addressing a critical safety imperative related to trampoline parks and other similar non-mechanized amusement devices. By adding amusement devices as a regulated product under the act, government will be able to establish regulations and adopt standards and codes for the safe operation and enjoyment of these amusement experiences. The goal is to give British Columbians confidence that fun family activities are also safe activities.

The bill contains proposed amendments to the Adoption Act and the Child, Family and Community Service Act, which I will refer to as CFCSA. These amendments include three objectives.

First, allow information-sharing under the Adoption Act to support First Nation adoptees to register for status under the federal Indian Act. The ministry previously disclosed adoption information to Indigenous Services Canada under a memorandum of understanding. However, legal counsel advised that amendments to the Adoption Act were needed to establish legal authority to share information for this purpose. This amendment will help about 30 adoptees each year who rely on the province to provide adoption information to support their status applications.

A second objective — to ensure the continued use of virtual technology to deliver services

under the CFCSA after the COVID-19 pandemic ends. The pandemic has

changed how services are delivered, such as child protection mediation,

and how the ministry communicates with children and families. Virtual

communication tools such as Zoom, Skype and Microsoft Teams have allowed

the ministry to continue providing services in a safe way.

However, confidentiality requirements under the CFCSA limit how these tools may be used to deliver alternative dispute resolution services. The amendments clarify confidentiality requirements under the CFCSA to ensure that virtual communication tools can be used to facilitate alternative dispute resolution services safely and accessibly.

The final objective is to align the CFCSA with the information-sharing requirements of the

federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth

and Families, which I will refer to as the federal act. Currently

information can only be shared for the purposes of the CFCSA.

[4:25 p.m.]

This is proposed to be resolved in the bill by creating two clear authorities in the

CFCSA: the authority for the ministry to enter coordination agreements

and information-sharing agreements under the federal act and the

authority for CFCSA directors to share information as necessary for the

administration of the federal act or an Indigenous child and family

services law. This allows directors and social workers to share

information with Can­ada, Indigenous governing bodies and

Indigenous peoples so that we can implement the intent of the federal

act.

Under the amendments, CFCSA directors are required to share information with Indigenous

governing bodies where there is an agreement in place under the federal

act. Where there isn’t an agreement, directors have the discretion to

share information for the purposes of the federal act but also under

Indigenous laws. Most Indigenous laws don’t have the force of federal

law yet, so the legislation ensures there is flexibility in implementing

the intent of the federal act. These proposed amendments will improve

access to information and enhance service delivery to those involved in

the child welfare system, who are disproportionately children, women and

Indigenous peoples.

Proposed amendments to the Oil and Gas Activities Act will enable the B.C. Oil and Gas

Commission to exempt a permit holder from requirements under the

Dormancy and Shutdown Regulation and impose conditions with

res­pect to that exemption. The Dormancy and Shutdown Regulation

imposes timelines on the cleanup of oil and gas well sites in British

Columbia.

There are cases where an exemption from the requirements may be needed. For example, if there is unforeseen equipment failure, the commission would need to provide a permit holder with more time to comply. An exemption with conditions can also be used to modify the standard requirements to improve efficiency, minimize unnecessary surface disturbance and increase the overall rate of restoration. The proposed amendment will support the timely restoration of well sites by providing flexibility for circumstances that cannot be effectively addressed in regulations.

This bill also includes proposed amendments to the Treaty First Nation Taxation Act. These

amendments will establish a regulation-making power to provide or enable

time-limited property tax exemptions for eligible treaty members or

constituents for property on eligible treaty lands of a taxing treaty

First Nation. This amendment supports broader work with treaty First

Nations on property taxation policy issues.

In the absence of other measures, a change in a treaty member’s taxation status following

the expiry of a treaty’s transitional tax exemption has the potential to

create adverse consequences for the administration and enforcement of a

taxing treaty First Nation’s property taxation system. This amendment

provides a mechanism for taxing treaty First Nations to temporarily

maintain the property taxation status quo on their treaty lands while

the broader treaty property tax work is underway. It was prepared

collaboratively and in consultation with all of the treaty First

Nations. It is also consistent with government’s commitments under the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act’s proposed amendments are proposed to

correct technical issues in the 2019 amendments made to the Business

Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The act was amended in May 2019

to regulate lenders of high-cost credit pro­ducts, such as

high-interest loans. The framework has not yet been brought into

force.

The proposed amendments clarify provisions affecting borrower cancellation rights around holidays. Transitional provisions are also being updated so the legislation properly applies to new and existing agreements. The amendments will ensure that the legislation functions as intended when brought into force. Housekeeping amendments are also being made to update language based on current style conventions.

Finally, amendments to the Passenger Transportation Act will postpone the special committee appointment date under the Passenger Transportation Act to on or before July 1, 2023. Currently,

section 42.1(1) of the PTA requires the Legislative Assembly to appoint a special committee by January 1, 2022, to conduct a review of the passenger-directed transportation industry, which includes taxi and ride-hail companies.

Due to the pandemic, the industry has not been operating in a normal state. Many operators have suspended or reduced services due to restrictions on non-essential travel and gatherings since B.C. declared a public health emergency in March 2020. Postponing the appointment of the special committee provides the passenger-directed transportation industry time to normalize its operations as the economy recovers and will enable the committee to review industry data that is representative of a normal operating state.

[4:30 p.m.]

M. de Jong: On Bill 21, a misc statutes amendment act, I think, as the House is generally aware, the usual practice is to explore this in far greater detail in the committee stage.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

It’s called a miscellaneous statutes amendment bill, which doesn’t mean the matters being

dealt with in its provisions aren’t significant and aren’t important. It

does refer to the fact that rather than being an entire bill focusing on

one area of public policy, in this case, there are six parts dealing

with a range of public policy areas.

I’m going to, in the time I have this afternoon, attempt to do what I usually do with

these kinds of bills, and that is to alert the Attorney General and his

colleagues, other ministers, and undoubtedly the staff that track these

debates to some of the issues that we intend to explore further at

committee stage, and hopefully that will be helpful to the Attorney and

his colleagues in terms of preparing and seeking the information that

would be relevant to that discussion.

In the first part of the bill, we have heard amendments to the Civil Resolution Tribunal

Act. The Attorney has alluded to the fact that there are not huge

substantive changes in the law here but merely an incorporation into the

act of language found elsewhere, in the Administrative Tribunals Act.

But I will want to canvass with him whether that causes any substantive

changes. I suppose, more particularly, in the time that the tribunal has

been operating, have any issues arisen that have prompted the

introduction of this amendment?

The amendments to the Offence Act are interesting, and I’ll say to the Attorney General

that when we come to that part of the committee stage debate, it might

be helpful for us to deal with that — and I’ll ask him to deal with it —

by pointing to examples, reminding people that we have First Nations in

the province who are treaty First Nations, being clear about who they

are, where they’re located, where these amendments are significant.

Amendments that relate to the issuance and adjudication of violation

tickets by treaty First Nations and the manner in which they’re

adjudicated are of more than just passing interest.

Rather than deal with them in the abstract, I hope the Attorney is able to walk the committee through what will take place following passage and enactment of these provisions and how they represent the drawing down of authorities and jurisdictions agreed upon in the comprehensive final agreements signed by the First Nations who are defined as treaty First Nations.

The legislation also deals with amendments to the Safety Standards Act, and I am aware, as I think many members of the House are, of some of the tragic circumstances that have led to the decision to refer to amusement devices.

I’m going to make this suggestion to the Attorney. I’m not sure he will agree with it, and

even if he does, I’m not sure he’ll be in a position to follow up. This

is one of those sections where the government has decided, and this is

not unique to this government, to add a term, to add a regulatory power

— in this case, relating to amusement devices. It’s a term that’ll

ultimately have to be defined. It would be very useful — I know the good

work that takes place within the offices of leg. council — if the

government and the sponsoring minister were to bring in a draft of that

regulation, because it can alleviate a lot of concern. It can alleviate

a lot of uncertainty.

[4:35 p.m.]

I think everyone will understand that today, in advance of debate, let alone passage of

the particular provisions, there wouldn’t necessarily be a final

regulation ready to go, but it’s pretty clear that the government has

something specific in mind here, and the people involved in the

amusement business…. The Attorney has referred to trampolines and

trampoline parks, but he’s also, in just his second reading remarks,

included reference to a definition that could capture a whole lot more

than just trampolines or trampoline parks.

part 2, I suspect some of my colleagues will want to explore the relationship between the provincial Adoption Act, First Nations and the federal Indian Act and, of course, the nature of the consultation that led to these changes in what has, over the years, always been a very difficult area in which to take good intentions, which there has been no shortage of, and codify them in a way that best protects the safety and the interests and the well-being of children in British Columbia, including, with respect to these amendments, Aboriginal children.

Part 3 of the legislation refers to amendments to En­ergy, Mines. My colleague, I’m

sure, will have some questions about the implications of those

amendments, the additional authority that will be granted to the Oil and

Gas Commission and what the rationale is, on the part of the government,

for advancing those particular amendments today.

The next part of the bill, dealing with finance amendments. These relate specifically to

the treaty First Nations and the granting, the authority they have —

again, I presume, and we’ll want to confirm this with the sponsoring

minister — drawing on the powers and authorities and jurisdictions

afforded them in the final treaty agreements signed with the Crown in

Right of the Province of British Columbia and the Crown in Right of the

The minister will, I hope, be in a position to explain the circumstances in which the utilization of those powers — the exemption, the property tax exemptions that they contemplate for, I believe, two years — might come into play.

Part 5 relates to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. We have heard in second reading the Attorney General acknowledge that these touch upon amendments that were introduced, debated and passed in this House some two years ago and then never enacted.

I hope whichever minister on the government side of the House is responsible for answering questions on this matter will anticipate the obvious question, which is: what happened? The House passed amendments two years ago that have not been enacted. What was the problem? When did the problem become apparent, and how do these amendments address that problem, if at all? And when should we anticipate, if they pass, as I suspect they will…? When does the government plan to enact them?

Finally, the provisions of the bill dealing with the Passenger Transportation Act and the

postponement of the appointment of the special committee of the

Legislature to review passenger-directed vehicle services and

transportation network services. The delay, for reasons we have already

heard, may well be justified, but I’m sure a few of my colleagues will

want to explore the rationale for the delay with the

minister.

As part of that discussion, I would think the minister would want to be prepared for questions, general questions, relating to an update on the evolution of passenger-directed vehicle services and the impact it has had already, with respect to other parts of the transportation services network, including the taxi industry.

[4:40 p.m.]

It may well be. I expect we will hear about how it is difficult to draw absolute conclusions from a period of time when people have not been moving about to the extent that they frequently do and the impact the pandemic has had on businesses relating to the movement of people. Nonetheless, I think it would be helpful for the minister to anticipate questions relating to the present status of that passenger-directed vehicle service sector.

I expect — well, not expect. I suppose it’s my job to advise the House that the

opposition, as is generally the case on a bill of this sort, will

register its questions and concerns in the committee stage and is

pleased to facilitate second reading passage now to allow us to get to

committee stage as quickly as possible.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to take a few minutes to speak to the Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2).

As my colleague from Abbotsford West has gone through many of the

pieces of this bill as well as the Attorney General…. There are

amendments to the Adoption Act, the Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Act, the child and family service act — among many others —

and Passenger Transportation Act.

The piece that we are going to be most interested in canvassing

questions about in committee stage, obviously, is the amendments to the

Oil and Gas Activities Act. One of the reasons we’ll be asking questions

is…. I listened quite closely to the minister just now as he spoke about

it. He essentially repeated the government communications on this act.

I’ll read it, and I’ll explain part of my confusion.

It says that amendments to the Oil and Gas Activities Act will

provide the Oil and Gas Commission with enab­ling powers to exempt

oil and gas development permit holders from requirements of the Dormancy

and Shutdown Regulation in circumstances that merit it — obviously,

we’re going to want to understand that a bit more closely — and to

impose conditions on the exemptions. The Dormancy and Shutdown

Regulation requires permit holders to clean up oil and gas well sites

within prescribed time periods. The exemption power will support the

timely restoration of well sites by providing flexibility to address

technical issues, minimize unnecessary surface disturbance and improve

efficiency.

So there is a little bit of an Orwellian twist in here, which is

that we’re going to allow the Oil and Gas Commission to give exemptions

on the timelines that are required of companies to clean up dormant

wells, and somehow that will make the cleanup more timely and

efficient.

I think it’s good to put this into a little bit of context. This

is an

article from May of 2020. I’ve also got a couple here from earlier

this year about…. As we know, the federal government provided funds to

clean up many of the dormant wells as part of the COVID funding that

came out in 2020, a $100 million fund aimed at cleaning dor­mant

oil and gas wells in British Columbia.

I think that it’s important to have it on the record and for the

House to know and for the public to know that currently there are

somewhere in the order of 25,000 oil and gas well sites in British

Columbia. That number is going to rise significantly because of the

decision of this government to help LNG Canada go forward with its plans

to massively expand LNG production in this province at a time when we’re

in a climate emergency. But to produce that LNG, it’s going to be a

whole lot of fracking in the northeast of B.C. So it’s good to

understand this, make these connections.

[4:45 p.m.]

We currently have about 25,000 oil and gas well sites. About 7,700

are dormant, meaning that they have been inactive for five consecutive

years, unlikely to return to service. So 30 percent of wells are

dormant.

Dormant wells are one thing. Another thing is orphan wells. These

are wells that are dormant, but the companies that own the rights to the

drilling have either gone bankrupt or are unable to clean up the wells.

We had about 348. That doubled because Ranch Energy, a Calgary-based

company, went bankrupt. So another 300 to 400 were added.

What is the problem with this? The problem is, I think, well

explained by Julia Levin. She’s the climate and energy program manager

for Environmental Defence. She’s concerned that most of B.C.’s funding,

this $100 million that we got, was earmarked for dormant sites that

likely still have owners rather than to clean up the fast-growing orphan

wells.

Ultimately, what this comes down to is still-viable companies

being able to get government funds, taxpayer funds, to clean up well

sites after they’ve extracted not just the gas but the profit. So it is

a kind of privatizing of profit and socializing of the cleanup. So in

addition to what we learned two weeks ago from the oil and gas royalties

review report that came out, the public has not been particularly

benefiting from oil and gas extraction in this province for quite a

while, and those benefits have actually decreased while the capacity for

oil and gas companies to claim credits against the revenues that they

would owe to government have steadily increased.

The Premier himself indicated, of course, this is going to take

serious looking at, but the reality is that we have a situation in

British Columbia where companies have been able to extract oil and gas,

leave a dormant site or an orphan site and then benefit from public

money to do the cleanup that should have been part of their job all

along.

Instead of an amendment to the Oil and Gas Activities Act that

further provides flexibility — which I’m a bit nervous about and will be

canvassing at committee stage — I think what the public would like to

see is an amendment to the Oil and Gas Activities Act that would ensure

that any company that’s doing any drilling is actually putting the costs

up front for the cleanup.

It’s a public resource. It’s a cost to our environment. It’s a

cost to our air and water. If a company wants to do that, the role of

government, the role of regulating agencies, should be protection of

public interest. To achieve that, if you want to have access to this

public resource, here are all of the costs up front that you’re going to

have to put in place so that when you are done extracting the oil and

gas, done extracting your profits, you don’t get to just leave or leave

your site dormant and then wait until public funding comes along and

helps you clean up.

It is disappointing to see that this amendment to the Oil and Gas

Activities Act doesn’t really address a very serious problem we have

that 30 percent of wells in the province are dormant wells needing

cleanup. It doesn’t address this very serious and growing problem of

orphan wells. It doesn’t ensure that the responsibility is clear and

laid out and expected of any company that is doing business with the

public