Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 111

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 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Take a Hike program for vulnerable youth

J. Routledge

Holocaust remembrance

M. Polak

Contributions of Ismaili community

A. Kang

Clubhouse International program and mental health

supports

L. Reid

Naming of laneways in Vancouver

S. Chandra Herbert

B.C. Seafood Alliance

I. Paton

Oral Questions

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and

legal advice to government

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Stone

Natural gas royalties

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Mungall

LNG development and transition to low-carbon

economy

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Mungall

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and

legal advice to government

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Johal

M. de Jong

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and

referral of issues to court

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

Point of Privilege (Reservation of

Right)

R. Coleman

Petitions

P. Milobar

Tabling Documents

Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2017

Personal Statements

Apology for comments made in the House

Hon. J. Horgan

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment

Act, 2018 (continued)

T. Shypitka

J. Isaacs

B. Stewart

S. Gibson

Hon. A. Dix

Bill 11 — International Commercial Arbitration

Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

D. Routley

A. Weaver

L. Krog

R. Sultan

A. Kang

B. D’Eith

Hon. J. Darcy

Bill 6 — Employment Standards Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains

J. Martin

Hon. C. Trevena

R. Coleman

R. Singh

B. Stewart

M. Hunt

Hon. D. Eby

Hon. R. Fleming

S. Gibson

A. Weaver

D. Routley

G. Kyllo

B. D’Eith

Hon. H. Bains

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

M. Bernier

C. Oakes

J. Rustad

I. Paton

J. Thornthwaite

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2018

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Darcy: It is my great pleasure to introduce several people who are here from New

Westminster today.

First of all, and I think they’re seated behind me up here, is the New

Westminster Youth Ambassadors team for 2018. This is a wonderful group of young

people who are everywhere in the community, volunteering for a wide range of

events. They are leaders of today and tomorrow in New Westminster.

They are Samantha Candelaria, Isabel Garcia, Chloe Hill, Nik Filusz,

Anastasia Sabinin and M.K. Thaosiri. Their chaperones are Victoria Henssler and

Carli Henssler and coordinator Lynn Radbourne. Lynn Radbourne has accompanied this

group as the director and has accompanied them every year for the last few years.

Also joining them today as a chaperone, and someone who’s no stranger to this

House, is former MLA, former Minister of Labour and New Westminster city

councillor Chuck Puchmayr. I would ask the House to make them very

welcome.

We have another introduction today. Joining us in the gallery over here is

the dynamic executive director of the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce, Lizz

Kelly, who has done just an amazing job since she took over that role — a couple

of years ago, I think — really advocating for businesses in our community. She’s

joined today by her partner, Shaugn Schwartz, who is actively involved in social

enterprise in the community. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to

the gallery today.

Hon. H. Bains: I’m really pleased today to recognize a number of first responders seated

in the gallery: Gord Ditchburn, of the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association;

Cameron Eby, Robert Parkinson, Sophia Parkinson and Lindsay Kellosalmi, from the

Ambulance Paramedics of B.C.; Jeremy Kerr, who’s a sheriff; and Dean Purdy, who’s

a corrections officer.

Joining them is a special guest, another corrections officer who some of

you may remember from last summer. Robert Gagnon has been called “the man who

walked through the flames for PTSD.” And indeed he did. Robert is a former

corporal with the Canadian Armed Forces who now works as a corrections officer for

Prince George.

Following his military career, Robert found himself struggling with

post-traumatic stress disorder. Through his own struggles, he became aware of how

many others, including first responders, were also needing services and support.

He decided to do something about it, and last summer Robert set off on the journey

of his life, as he walked solo from Prince George to the front steps of this

building to raise awareness around PTSD.

[1:40 p.m.]

He reached Victoria on July 25, after walking about 30 kilometres per day.

Along the way, he raised funds to help support an equine therapy ranch for

veterans in Quesnel and a facility in Kamloops that works with first responders

and veterans with PTSD.

He’s here to see some of the fruits of his labour as we make an

announcement related to supporting those who develop mental disorders as a result

of trauma in their workplaces. I thank him for his tireless efforts and wish him

all the best as he travels the road to recovery.

Would the House please join with me, making him and all other heroes in the

gallery very welcome.

L. Reid: I would ask the House to please make welcome Jackie Powell. She’s leading

Connections Place. Please do some follow-up — connectionsplace.org. She’s doing

some amazing work here in Victoria in terms of building a Pathways

Clubhouse.

D. Clovechok: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to welcome three outstanding

people from my riding back home. Wilda and Norbert Schab from Fairmont Hot Springs

are here today. Wilda is the past chair of the College of the Rockies and still

sits on that board and also is an incredibly successful businesswoman. Norbert is

a Lions Club superstar in our community. Glad to have you here.

Also, Mike Guarnery is here somewhere. Mike is the executive director of

the Kimberley Chamber of Commerce and also the vice-chair of Community Futures,

who we just met with and had a really nice lunch with.

If you would, please let this House make them feel welcome.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure today to introduce three members here from the

Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C. We have Neil Moody, the CEO; Matt

McCurrach, from Kamloops; as well as Alycia Coulter, the manager of government and

public relations. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the House today a great group of

people from the B.C. Coroners Service, public servants who continually work hard

and put in the hours to make sure that all unnatural or unexpected deaths in B.C.

are investigated with dignity, competence and compassion.

Please join me in welcoming chief coroner Lisa Lapointe, Carla

Springinotic, Lori Moen, Cara Massy, Susan Smallwood, Michael Egilson and Andy

Watson. Please would the House make them most welcome.

G. Kyllo: We’re joined today by three amazing individuals who do a lot of work for

Community Futures offices. They have 34 offices across B.C., providing services to

small businesses and entrepreneurs, largely in rural B.C. We’re joined by Mike

Guarnery. He’s the vice-chair of Community Futures B.C. Also joining him are

Cheryl Johnson and Troy Dungate. They’re directors with Community Futures. Would

the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. L. Popham: Today I have the privilege of welcoming the B.C. Seafood Alliance to the

chamber. The B.C. Seafood Alliance is an umbrella organization whose 17 members

represent 90 percent of the wild seafood harvested in B.C., worth almost $1

billion in sales annually. These companies represented by the alliance employ

thousands of people who harvest over 100 different amazing seafood products in

B.C. I look forward to meeting with them later this week. Please make them

welcome.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to introduce a friend and town councillor for the beautiful

town of Gibsons, an engineer who also sits on the regional board of the Sunshine

Coast regional district, my friend Jeremy Valeriote. Will the House please make

him welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nanaimo.

Member for Nanaimo?

L. Krog: Oh, thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s so rare I get to introduce somebody. I

got too excited.

I’d like the House to welcome, please, from Nanaimo, two people who enjoy

the good services of Hansard, my friend Peter Cannigan and his son Jason. I would

be remiss if I didn’t mention that Jason’s mother and Peter’s wife is the

secretary of my constituency association, and she does a wonderful job. Would the

House please make them welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Many colleagues on both sides of the Legislature today at lunch welcomed

members of the Community Futures organization here, led by Cheryl Johnson and her

team. They do great work in promoting business development and economic

development throughout the province, particularly in rural British Columbia.

They’re also an important source of business financing when other sources

sometimes may not be forthcoming.

They’re here today, and I’d invite the Legislature to give them a warm

welcome.

Hon. S. Robinson: I would like to join with the member for Kamloops–North Thompson in

welcoming the representatives of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C. to

this House. President Matt McCurrach and CEO Neil Moody are here on behalf of more

than 2,000 members building residential housing here in British

Columbia.

When we talk about our commitment to build the homes that British

Columbians need, we know that it’s these people who will be building many of those

homes. Would the House please join me in welcoming them here today.

S. Furstenau: I’m absolutely delighted to introduce Jenni Capps, who is in the gallery

today. I met Jenni for the first time when she was running for the municipality of

North Cowichan and I was running for area director in Shawnigan back in 2014. I

had the pleasure to also sit with her on the Community Safety Advisory Commission

at the Cowichan Valley regional district, where she was the youth representative.

She was also elected mayor of the Duncan youth council, and she is currently the

vice-president of the Cowichan Folk Guild.

Jenni is the mother of Athena, who is two years old, and this

extraordinarily accomplished young woman is only 25. I can’t wait to see what life

holds for this young person.

R. Leonard: I’d like to introduce to the House — I’m not sure if they’re here — a

teacher, Mrs. Joy Tansky. She’s a frequent flyer here from the Phil and Jennie

Gaglardi Academy. She’s here with her grade 11 students. Please make them feel

welcome.

M. Hunt: In the House this afternoon are going to be two groups from a school in

Surrey, which is Pacific Academy. Within that group are two friends of mine, or

family friends of ours, Stevenjohn Steunenberg and his son Wilhelm Steunenberg.

I’d ask the House to please make them welcome.

D. Routley: I’d like to introduce the Cowichan Valley manager of Community Futures,

Cathy Robertson, and to thank her on behalf of all the people in the Cowichan

Valley for all the work she does to support small business people, to develop

markets for the products of the Cowichan Valley and to support the fabric of our

community.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018.

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

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 9, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act,

2018. This bill amends the Workers Compensation Act to provide new mental

disorder presumption for first responders, sheriffs and correctional

officers.

Specifically, the presumption will cover mental disorders that may arise

from traumatic events experienced at work, such as post-traumatic stress

disorder. These mental disorders will be presumed to have been caused by one or

more traumatic events that an eligible worker was exposed to in the course of

their work, rather than having to prove in order to obtain workers compensation

benefits and support.

The new presumption for mental disorders will benefit paramedics,

police, firefighters, sheriffs and correctional officers — occupations that are

frequently exposed to traumatic events at work. In addition, the amendments

will extend the cancer presumptions that currently exist for local government

firefighters to federal firefighters working on military bases in British

Columbia.

These amendments recognize the important, dangerous and sometimes

traumatic work that the workers covered by these changes do every day to serve

and protect British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Bains: 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 9, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018, 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.

[1:50 p.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TAKE A HIKE PROGRAM FOR

VULNERABLE

YOUTH

J. Routledge: Remember when Take a Hike came to visit the Legislature last month? It’s

a full-time high school program for vulnerable youth. They use the outdoors to

engage students and help them learn. A full-time mental health professional is

embedded in each classroom for early intervention and prevention, and they have

an 80 percent graduation rate. Take a Hike has worked in partnership with the

Burnaby school district since 2014.

Earlier this year I got to see the program in action. Skyler, a grade 12

student, talked to me about what the program means to him. He explained that

all Take a Hike students have a story of defeat. As he put it, he had already

checked out during his first year of high school, and he found himself

wandering the streets instead of the halls. Within a month, he had felt like a

failure.

Skyler, a self-described rebel, artist and spatial learner, as he says,

“started skipping classes, sassing teachers and hanging out with the wrong

people.” Within a year, he’d become isolated from his friends and family, and

he turned to drugs to deal with anxiety. He was kicked out of school. “The next

year was a living hell,” says Skyler. “I was so far behind I didn’t think I

would ever finish school. That summer I hit rock bottom, and my mental health

was, well, mental.” Deciding he needed help, Skyler stumbled across the Take a

Hike webpage.

Fast forward to today. Skyler thrived in Take a Hike. During the

overnight trips, he got to know himself, and in Skyler’s words, he “got to

complete like a billion courses in one year.” Skyler is going to graduate this

year with high marks, and he plans to study psychology at university and become

an addiction counsellor. Skyler describes Take a Hike as the North Star that

guided him to success.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all the members who met with Take a

Hike when they were here and are working to bring this beacon of hope to their

communities.

HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE

M. Polak: On the 27th day of the month of Nisan, in the Hebrew calendar, we

recognize Yom HaShoah. Every year we stand in this House and remember the

horrors of the Holocaust. Every year fewer and fewer survivors join us for this

solemn occasion.

There will come a time, likely in my lifetime, when the living memory of

the Holocaust has vanished. It will be on that day, when no man or woman can

speak their truth and lived experience of those terrible atrocities, that the

responsibility will fall to us. It is our obligation never to forget and to

keep those memories alive for generations to come.

We must not push our darkest chapters away from the light, fearing that

they will tarnish the good that does exist in this world. Instead, we must

stand tall, well aware of the depths to which humanity can sink, and proclaim:

never again. It is only through acknowledgment of the terrible atrocities man

has committed against fellow man that humanity can truly reach for

greatness.

In Israel, this day is not simply Holocaust remembrance day; it is

Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day. Even during one of the most heinous

chapters in our collective human experience, there was still good to celebrate.

There was still love. There was still compassion. There was still bravery.

Oskar Schindler, Leon Biletskiy, Irena Sendler, Marianna Szenfeld, Armin

Wegner, Ella Lingens — a handful of the many righteous among

nations.

There is an old Jewish saying: “Whoever saves a single life saves an

entire universe.” On Yom HaShoah, we remember the victims, the survivors and

those heroes who saved an entire universe.

[1:55 p.m.]

CONTRIBUTIONS OF ISMAILI COMMUNITY

A. Kang: It is with great pride that I share with everyone the amazing work of

the Shia Ismaili Muslim community. In celebration of Canada 150, the Ismaili

Muslim community pledged one million hours of service for Canada as its

commitment to improving the quality of life for all Canadians.

The initiative also commemorates the diamond jubilee of His Highness the

Aga Khan, who is celebrating 60 years of spiritual leadership of the Ismaili

community worldwide. The symmetry between Canadian and Ismaili Muslim values of

voluntary service was highlighted by His Highness the Aga Khan: “The Canadian

spirit resonates with a cherished principle in Shia Ismaili culture — the

importance of contributing one’s individual energies on a voluntary basis to

improve the lives of others. This is not a matter of philanthropy but, rather,

of…‘enlightened self-fulfilment.’”

I use this achievement to encourage everyone to give a little more of

themselves to their community. Oftentimes you may feel it is hard to do great

things, that we are only one, but we all can do something with great

love.

In the Lower Mainland, the Ismaili community has partnered with, but is

not limited to, the Surrey Food Bank, the boys and girls club, the YMCA and

Habitat for Humanity, for approximately 149,000 voluntary service hours. Within

the one million hours of volunteerism, Ismailis across the nation volunteer as

mentors, support newcomers to Canada, provide care for seniors, raise awareness

for anti-poverty initiatives and many more. Malik Talib, president of the

Ismaili Council for Canada, proudly asserts: “Volunteerism and service to the

broader community are both central to Ismaili and Canadian values.”

Thank you so much to the Shia Ismaili Muslim community for all your

contributions.

CLUBHOUSE INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM

AND MENTAL HEALTH

SUPPORTS

L. Reid: One in four people worldwide struggle with mental illness. I’m a huge

supporter of the Clubhouse model, which cares for individuals with mental

health challenges. Pathways Clubhouse in Richmond has created an incredible

sense of welcome and delivers hugely successful programming. I couldn’t be more

proud of the leadership and of those who call Pathways home.

What I have in my home community, I wish for the city of Victoria. I am

pleased to lend my support to open a Clubhouse International

chapter in the

Victoria area. Clubhouses are local community centres that help people living

with mental illness recover and rebuild their lives. Clubhouse is a community.

More than a program or a social service, Clubhouse is, above all, a community

of people known as members who work together to achieve their common goals of

recovery and success.

Clubhouse International is a globally recognized model that has been

successfully implemented around the world. The city of Victoria would be

welcoming a known entity with a stellar reputation for assisting some of our

society’s most vulnerable. Clubhouse International works to alleviate and

reduce stigma associated with seeking mental health support. It provides a

safe, respectful space for those with mental illness to gather and support one

another.

Many individuals and their families are in desperate need of guidance to

locate resources in our community. However, they fear being judged if they ask

for help. Often families with those who are struggling need to know where to

start searching for answers. The Clubhouse space will be a tremendous source of

support for anyone needing a place to start the journey of recovery.

The general manager of Homewood Health’s mental health and addiction

treatment centre in British Columbia, Robert DeClark, master of social work,

welcomes the potential arrival of a clubhouse to Victoria. Clubhouses would be

of benefit to those of us working as professionals in the field of mental

health. It would provide another trusted resource referral to work within an

additional stigma-free environment and resources for those continuing on their

travel journey.

Again, Mr. Speaker, thanks to Jackie Powell for continuing to lead the

charge. She’s the chair of Connections Place. Please do anything you can to

provide assistance.

NAMING OF LANEWAYS IN VANCOUVER

S. Chandra Herbert: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would

smell as sweet.” So asked Juliet of her love, Romeo, and his family name,

Montague. Now, of course, were it not for the enmity between the Capulets and

the Montagues and the family names, we would never have heard of either Romeo

or Juliet, and they would have lived happily ever after. But that’s

theatre.

Shakespeare had it right. Names do matter. They give us a sense of self,

of history, of place, of direction, a sense of where we’ve been, of where we’re

going. But they also can sometimes be blinding and white out sections of

history or hide the real reality of this place that we call home. The story of

folks that look like me, white and male, is too often told, at the loss of

other stories, in place-names in this province, I believe.

In my community, though, we are working to make sure that other stories

that are just as important are also told. Laneways, because we are seeing such

a huge increase in density in my community, are now getting names.

[2:00 p.m.]

I used to know them as alleyways, but now the real estate folks call

them laneways, and we are now seeing those names respected with real stories of

heroism and difference. Rosemary Brown Lane — of course, a former MLA of this

House, the first black woman ever elected in Canada and a real human rights

leader for lesbian and gay people and women across this province and across

Canada.

Stovold Lane — Kay Stovold, the founder of West End Seniors Network.

Eihu Lane — an original settler at Kanaka Ranch, a community of Hawaiian and

Coast Salish people. And ted northe Lane — one of the first fighters for gay

liberation and gay equality. See-em-ia Lane — Mary See-em-ia was the

granddaughter of Chief Capilano, a resident of Kanaka Ranch as well. Jung Lane

— Vivian Jung, the first Chinese-Canadian teacher hired in

Vancouver.

These are stories that need to be told, and I’m so glad that they are

finally being told by honour and naming in my community.

B.C. SEAFOOD ALLIANCE

I. Paton: It’s an honour to rise in this House as Agriculture critic to welcome

the B.C. Seafood Alliance to the Legislature today. This group has come to

speak with MLAs on all sides of the House, as they do each year, to raise

issues of concern to our significant commercial fishing industry.

Growing up in Ladner, it seemed your summer job was either farming or

commercial fishing, and I have many commercial fishing friends still to this

day in my riding.

The B.C. Seafood Alliance was established in 1999 and is the most

representative commercial fishing organization in the province. The members of

this umbrella organization include traditional capture fisheries, seafood

processors, marketers and exporters. Among them are a number of companies right

in my Delta/Richmond area. They include Delta Pacific Seafoods, North Delta

Seafoods, Lions Gate Fisheries, Grand Hale Marine Products, SM Products, 7 Seas

Seafood and Albion Fisheries.

The B.C. Seafood Alliance has done great work to help the public

recognize how important B.C.’s seafood sector truly is and to encourage people

to support this key industry. It’s not too hard to convince people to buy the

high-quality seafood products that the alliance members are offering. They

provide a secure, safe and nutritious food source for Canada, and the world has

noticed. The demand for B.C. seafood exports continues to be high.

The organization also advocates for the effective management of B.C.

seafood resources, and it’s committed to conservation and sustainability. This,

of course, benefits all British Columbians. I expect we’ll be speaking with

them about those issues today as well as emerging issues that pertain to recent

legislative changes at the federal level. I know the alliance wants to work

with members of all levels of government to ensure all British Columbians

employed in this important industry are treated fairly and

equitably.

In closing, I ask all members of this House to join me in welcoming the

B.C. Seafood Alliance to the Legislature today and thanking this organization

for the great work that it does here in British Columbia.

Oral Questions

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

LEGAL ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT

S. Bond: According to the Environment Minister, in his estimates debate on Monday

and in a reference to the Premier, the minister said: “He was very clear that

as part of transition, he had been given the legal advice that stopping the

project was beyond the jurisdiction of B.C.”

Will the Premier today confirm that this was the legal advice he was

given?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. As she will know — she transitioned

into government once herself — you get a mountain of advice at that time.

Briefing books are prepared on a whole range of subjects from how you’re going

to meet your obligations to payrolls in the health care sector, in the

education sector; what your responsibilities are with respect to statutory

officers, and so on. It was within that context that the minister and I had our

discussion.

The member will also know that mandate letters are prepared by the

Premier’s office to all ministers to outline their responsibilities and their

obligations. I did that, as I’m expected to do.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, thank you very much, Premier, but candidly, you didn’t answer the

question.

[2:05 p.m.]

The Environment Minister didn’t stop there. He went on to say that the

Premier was told that even to talk about or frame his actions as trying to stop

the project would be “inappropriate and unlawful.”

Did the Premier receive the specific legal advice that was clearly

outlined by his Environment Minister in estimates debate?

Hon. J. Horgan: I was formerly a public servant. I worked for the province of British

Columbia, and I understand the responsibilities that officials have.

I also understand the responsibility of government. It’s important in

everything we do, not just in this House but in the discharge of our

responsibilities, that we ensure that we don’t incur any liabilities on behalf

of the people of British Columbia. The member knows that, as a former minister,

and I’m surprised she’s having this line of questioning.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a second

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, to the Premier, the last time I checked, when legal advice is

provided, I certainly did learn a lesson that probably you’d pay attention to

it.

It was a straightforward question to the Premier. Let’s assume that last

July the Premier was given legal advice that it would be inappropriate and

unlawful to talk about trying to stop the project. I see the Attorney has

leaned over. This was discussed in the estimates debate by his Environment

Minister and is on the record. So it’s not about that we can’t share legal

advice, because the Minister of Environment did a very good job of

that.

On January 1 of this year, the Premier said: “We’re still committed to

doing everything we can to stop the project.” Can the Premier explain how,

after warning his Environment Minister not to use that language, he continued

to use language that he had been advised was not only inappropriate but

potentially unlawful?

Hon. J. Horgan: A former Attorney General, although admittedly without a legal

background, would also understand that the responsibilities of the office of

government is to ensure that we do not incur liabilities in the discharge of

our obligations.

What we are doing — and the member will know this full well — is we’re

engaged in legal proceedings on behalf of the people of British Columbia to

ensure that we’re defending the interests of the province and the people who

live here. That’s our function as government, and I’m committed to doing

that.

T. Stone: Well, let’s try this one more time, with the Premier again. This is the

specific quote from his Minister of Environment in the Environment estimates on

Monday of this week. The legal advice was “that stopping the project was beyond

the jurisdiction of British Columbia, and to talk about it or frame our actions

around doing that…would be inappropriate and unlawful.” But this is what the

Premier has said: “We’re still committed to doing everything we can to stop the

project.”

Can the Premier explain why he continues to talk about stopping this

project when he has received explicit legal advice that it would be

inappropriate and unlawful to do so?

Hon. J. Horgan: I will just refer the members on that side of the House to our

interventions in the Federal Court, led by Chief Justice Berger — I think

someone who has the highest degree of respect right across the country. He is

taking our case to the court to determine whether it is inappropriate that

British Columbians absorb the risk of this project. That’s what we’re in court

defending: the rights of British Columbians, the right to make sure that the

government of B.C. can stand up for the people of this province.

I don’t understand why the people on that side of the House don’t get

it.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, that wasn’t the question at all. The Premier did not listen to

legal advice that he was provided. This wasn’t political advice. This wasn’t

advice from caucus colleagues. This wasn’t advice from environmental activists.

This was legal advice that was provided to him by the professional civil

service. The advice was to no longer talk about stopping this

project.

[2:10 p.m.]

He didn’t even listen to his own Environment Minister, who said earlier

this week: “When receiving legal advice about what we can do and what we can’t

do, to act on things in any other manner…would be a demonstration of

bias.”

The Premier’s rash actions have landed his government and British

Columbians into a big mess. Will he admit his mistake and fix it?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the legal advice pertained to the issuance of permits. I’ll remind

members, if they don’t recall, of when the member for Langley was the Minister

of Environment. She said she had the obligation and responsibility to withhold

permits if she, as a statutory officer, felt that there was some inappropriate

behaviour behind those permits.

That was the advice we got. If you talk to anyone from Kinder Morgan,

they will tell you that we have been diligently issuing permits as they’ve been

requested.

The principle about protecting and defending our coast is in court right

now. I invite members to go and read the transcripts. Read the presentation by

Justice Berger, a prominent jurist, not giving political advice — in fact,

standing up for British Columbians and taking our case to the Federal Court to

defend our coast. That’s what he’s doing. That’s what we asked him to

do.

We’re issuing permits. We’re not harassing the company. We are

demonstrating no bias when it comes to activities with the company, and we’re

in court to try and stop it. What’s the problem with that? What don’t you get

about that?

NATURAL GAS ROYALTIES

A. Olsen: There’s a global glut of natural gas supply. Despite what many in this

House claim, oil and gas activities play a minor role in B.C.’s economy. As my

colleagues have been raising in question period this week, the net revenue

collected from the natural gas sector in British Columbia has plummeted in

recent years.

In 2016, British Columbia lost $383 million from exploration and

development of our gas. Why? It’s because the tax credits earned were more than

the income received from the net royalties and rights tenders combined. Again

in 2017-2018, we gave companies more through royalty programs and credits than

we collected in royalties, fees and levies combined — all of this in the

context of an urgent need to transition to a low-carbon economy.

My question is to the Minister of Energy. Why is your ministry

continuing this unbelievable giveaway?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I was saying yesterday, in terms of our royalty credit program here

in British Columbia, it’s very important to note that the credits that are

accumulated are not necessarily disbursed. They’re not necessarily claimed by

companies.

Importantly, I will repeat again that the minimum royalty payments

ensure that a company always contributes to the province, no matter how many

credits they may have. In terms of this program, how it is working is ensuring

that British Columbians are getting a fair rate of return on their

resources.

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

supplemental.

LNG DEVELOPMENT AND

TRANSITION TO LOW-CARBON

ECONOMY

A. Olsen: Do we, the present generation, not owe future generations a sustainable

economy, a healthy environment and a safe, stable society? How much is that

worth? We are currently selling out the well-being of our kids for next to

nothing.

The current course of the Energy Ministry is to expand the corporate

welfare program started by the so-called free enterprisers on the other side.

It’s astounding. Oil and gas plays a minor role in British Columbia’s economy

but is responsible for a major portion of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet here we

are offering handouts to LNG like it’s the future our kids should inherit. Our

focus should be on becoming a leader in climate solutions. That is the future

of our economy.

My question is to the Minister of Energy. We know that the health and

well-being of our children is at stake. So why is your ministry doubling down

on the economy of yesterday instead of embracing transformation and rapidly

transitioning to a low-carbon economy?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for the question. There are a few points that he

makes that I have to differ with him on — for example, natural gas. Natural gas

heats more than 50 percent of British Columbian homes. It plays an important

role in our communities, in our broader province, in our economy, and in the

wintertime — I know, for my home and, I know, for most members’ homes — it

plays a very important role.

I’d also add that in terms of making sure that we’re moving to meeting

our climate targets and having an economy based on ensuring that we’re reducing

our greenhouse gas emissions, unlike the previous government, this government

is doing that. When we put together….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. M. Mungall: We’ve put together a climate council that is looking to build our

climate action plan, and when we get that plan, we’re actually going to do

something that the previous government didn’t do. We’re going to implement

it.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

LEGAL ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT

P. Milobar: Let me see if I’ve got this right. So far, the nonexistent answers have

been a little confusing.

The Premier is told at the very beginning, by government lawyers, that

he can’t actually stop the Trans Mountain project. It’s federal jurisdiction.

But clearly, the Premier still wants to stop the project, so he starts a trade

war, angers the federal government and destroys our business

climate.

Can the Premier explain exactly what legal advice he was given and why

he acted without regard for it?

Hon. J. Horgan: What we were advised was that we could not withhold permits without

reasonable expectations that that was being done in the interests of British

Columbia.

We continue to issue permits as they’ve been requested. What we are

doing and what I’ve said from the beginning is that we’ve entered into a court

proceeding, already underway before we were sworn in as government, to make the

case that the risks to British Columbia were not adequately addressed by the

National Energy Board. We’ve also put in place a legal team to bring forward a

reference with respect to jurisdiction.

I will remind the members of the words of someone very close to them,

currently. That British Columbia is “now prepared to go to the courts…whether

or not they have the jurisdiction is good news. It means they’re playing by the

rule of law.” That was the Premier of Alberta, just six weeks ago. I don’t

understand why she understands the appropriateness of using the courts to

resolve disputes, but those people don’t.

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

P. Milobar: The context of the questions on Monday was not around that issue. The

context of the questions was around the discrepancy of page 62 of the NDP

platform, the clause in the CASA agreement, the wording in the mandate letter

for the minister and why there was a change.

Last spring the Premier committed to “use every tool in our toolbox to

stop the project from going ahead.” On Monday, in this chamber, the Premier

said: “We have to be committed to the campaign statements that we made.” But

his Environment Minister, an hour later, has been unequivocal that the Premier

has received legal advice that this is inappropriate and unlawful.

Will the Premier confirm the legal advice he has received is that he

does not have the authority to stop the project?

Hon. J. Horgan: Government can’t demonstrate a bias when a proponent comes to receive a

permit. That’s what we’re doing. We’re ensuring that we’re not obstructing the

company when they come and ask for the permits that they believe they need to

carry on their work.

We can, as a government, go to the courts and make the argument that

defending our coast is paramount to us, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. I

don’t understand what the problem is with the member on the other side. If the

government of Alberta says it’s appropriate for parties to resolve disputes in

the courts, why don’t the B.C. Liberals support that?

[2:20 p.m.]

J. Johal: A brief recap. This is what we know so far. The Premier doesn’t have the

authority to stop this project. His minister says this was clear legal advice.

Everything else he has done since that time is simply distraction and delay,

and a legal delay that will cost a community like Valemount a work camp and

nearly 700 jobs.

The Environment Minister says the Premier does not have the authority to

stop the project. Is he correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m going to give a little history lesson to those on the other side.

Far be it from me to demonstrate that they’ve kind of overstepped themselves

here. But the member for Langley East will remember this incident quite

well.

The government of British Columbia cannot demonstrate a bias or obstruct

a permit that is being sought by a proponent if they have the legal right to do

so. I want to use the name Boss Power to remind those people on that side of

the House that when those members used their political authority to obstruct a

permit, it cost the taxpayers 40 million bucks. That was a decision they

made.

I’m not prepared to bring liability onto the people of British Columbia.

Instead, I’m going to court, making the argument, with Justice Berger, that the

risk is too great. That’s what we’re doing.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: I appreciate the Premier’s response, but he’s brushing the question off.

Let’s look at the evidence once again. The Premier has been accused of delay,

and now we know it’s true. He has known since the beginning that he didn’t have

the jurisdiction, but he had to placate his activist minister and, of course,

his activist friends.

To the Premier, was his minister correct that he never had the authority

to stop the project?

Hon. J. Horgan: Asked and answered. The question was, at the time: can the province of

British Columbia obstruct the issuance of permits? We cannot. Now, the members

on the other side should have known that. They cost taxpayers $40 million

because they didn’t live by the rule of law.

The Premier of Alberta says: “This means they are playing by the rule of

law.” It’s okay for her. Why isn’t it okay for them?

M. de Jong: Well, I suppose we have at least learned one thing today, and that is

why the Premier has muzzled his Environment Minister in this chamber in this

forum. He doesn’t like the fact that the public is beginning to learn about the

real agenda at play. How long is the Premier going to persist in this

charade?

His Transportation Minister has said clearly there isn’t anything the

government of British Columbia can do to limit the volume of bitumen being

carried on federally regulated trains. His Environment Minister has described

as unlawful and inappropriate any statements or any attempt to “use every tool

in the toolbox” to kill the Kinder Morgan project. Despite that, the Premier

persists in those statements. Specifically, on January 1, he said: “We’re still

committed to doing everything we can to stop the project.”

Will the Premier stand up and confirm that he has not been forthright

with British Columbians about the options available to British Columbians?

Worse, will he confirm that by his reckless conduct and words, he is attracting

the very liability that he says he’s hoping to avoid?

Hon. J. Horgan: I certainly welcome the enthusiasm from the member on the other side.

But it’s fairly clear where we’ve been from the start on this

question.

We have entered the courts to resolve disputes. We’ve entered the courts

to express our view that the risk of this pipeline, the risk of the

transmission of diluted bitumen across British Columbia for export to other

jurisdictions — not to create wealth in British Columbia, not to create more

opportunities for jobs in British Columbia but to send to some other

jurisdiction for remanufacturing — is not in the best interest of British

Columbia. And we’re doing that in the courts, in an open and transparent

way.

Again, as a QC, a former Attorney General, I find it passing strange

that the member doesn’t understand that.

Mr. Speaker: Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

[2:25 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Particularly strange are the comments of an Environment Minister who

goes to great lengths to distance himself and his government from the platform

commitments that, as recently as yesterday, the Premier persists in trying to

revive. That was then; this is now. Those were comments made before we were

sworn in as government.

The Green Party will be interested to know that the agreement that was

signed that actually gave birth to this government in no way binds the

Environment Minister or the Premier.

How long is the Premier going to persist in this charade? I ask it

again. Will he confirm to British Columbians a couple of things?

One….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, proceed.

M. de Jong: Will he confirm that he has acted in direct violation of the advice he

received from legal counsel, presumably from the Attorney General, because the

Attorney General made public commentary in this respect — advice he actually

forwarded to the Environment Minister — that he has acted in direct

contravention of that advice, that he has put the interests of British

Columbians at risk and, even worse, that he is attracting a liability to

British Columbia that he claims to want to avoid but, by his recklessness, he

is making very, very apparent and available to British Columbians?

Hon. J. Horgan: As exciting as it would be to play charades with the member on the other

side…. Three words. First word: sounds like…. Never mind.

Look, we said quite clearly that we were going to abide by the rule of

law, and that’s why we’re in federal court. That’s why we’re in provincial

court, and that’s why we’re developing a reference to a higher court to

establish jurisdiction to protect our coast, to defend the interests of British

Columbians.

We’ve asked the federal government to join with us. We asked the

government of Alberta to join with us. We’re trying to resolve this issue in a

way that makes sense to the people of British Columbia.

The people on the other side of the House are trying to whip up hysteria

rather than find concrete solutions to make life better for British Columbians.

Again, I remind them of Boss Power — $40 million of taxpayers’ money because

they demonstrated bias and would have got just absolutely creamed in court. So

instead, on the courthouse steps, before the member could testify for the

malfeasance, gave Boss Power 40 million bucks, and there we are.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

REFERRAL OF ISSUES TO COURT

A. Wilkinson: We’ve heard at length from the Premier about how this matter is before

the courts. Well, let’s remember the two court proceeding he’s talking

about.

The first one is the federal court proceeding he said that this

government entered after the election. On August 29, here’s what the judge had

to say about this government’s intervention in that proceeding. “British

Columbia does not appear to understand the basic ground rules of the complex

proceeding it is seeking to enter.” Further: “‘Constitutional limitations on

British Columbia’s ability to regulate the project’ are not in issue, nor is

the ‘regulatory regime that governs interprovincial pipelines.’”

“‘Profound questions about cooperative federalism in Canada’ have not

been raised. These issues are off the table.” Wrong courthouse. Wrong venue.

Wrong judge. And it’s not Chief Justice Berger. He’s not a judge at

all.

We have a Premier here who is doing his best to hide the facts. He says

there’s another proceeding about to get going. Well, here’s the answer in the

newspaper headlines: “Still Waiting on the Big Question.” “Pipeline court

question still not ready.”

When is this charade going to end? When is the Premier going to actually

stand up and tell this House and the province of British Columbia that his

Environment Minister was sent out to run interference? They have no intention

of stopping this pipeline, because they know they don’t have the constitutional

authority.

This is a giant charade designed to embellish the political reputation

of this Premier at the expense of British Columbians. When’s it going to

stop?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, it’s interesting that the fellow that was the Attorney General for

a week or so when the province could have intervened in an appropriate manner

chose not to do so. He left it up to others to make….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: While the Green-NDP members on that side of the House were waiting to

table a throne speech, or a clone speech, and delaying the inevitable, we had

to bide our time and wait to get to the court, and that’s why we’re

delayed.

What the Leader of the Opposition left out of his question was…. The

answer was: we were granted standing. We are in court. Thomas Berger…. Well,

you can call him whatever you like. I call him a great British Columbian and a

great Canadian. He’s defending the interests of British Columbians.

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

A. Wilkinson: The Premier’s own signature is on the mandate letter to his Environment

Minister, and it says that he is to take the steps he needs in the face of the

expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Apparently, it’s inevitable.

Apparently, this is all a charade. Apparently, this Premier has decided to

promote his political interests by accepting that Ottawa is eventually going to

tell him how to behave and that his constitutional challenge is actually a moot

point.

It has actually never gone anywhere, and this is all just a giant sham.

His job is to promote his own political career at the expense of British

Columbian jobs and at the expense of antagonizing Ottawa and causing a trade

war with Alberta. Is this Premier prepared to agree that his mandate letter

says it all? There’s no intention to stop the pipeline and every intention to

promote his own political career.

Hon. J. Horgan: I do like to unpack the questions that come from the Leader of the

Opposition, but I’m not quite clear what the question was in that charade

there. But I know he’s got a colleague that will play 20 questions with him

later in the caucus room.

Listen. We’ve been pretty clear on this. We went to the federal court.

We arrived late because of the delay tactics of those wanting to stay over here

rather than move over there. If ever you want to talk about promoting your

political career, it’s taking the platforms of two other political parties,

calling it your own and saying: “Please let us stay.”

What we have been doing from the beginning is respecting the rule of

law, ensuring that we do not harass the company, as the former government did

to Boss Power, at the expense of $40 million. We’re doing our best to discharge

our responsibilities, and simultaneously — two things at once; imagine that —

we’re in court defending our coast and making sure that the rest of our coast

is protected by a government that cares about British Columbia, unlike the

previous one.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

R. Coleman: I reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege.

Petitions

P. Milobar: I rise today to present a petition to the House from a high school class in

my community, Westsyde Secondary School, Mr. Reid’s class, in regards to lowering

the voting age to 16.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the 2017 Annual Report of the

Property Assessment Appeal Board.

Personal Statements

APOLOGY FOR COMMENTS

MADE IN THE HOUSE

Hon. J. Horgan: I just had a reference from my colleague the experienced member for

Langley East that I made a direct reference to him being before the court. I

apologize unreservedly for that comment before he brings forward his complaint.

My intent was to say that the government of the day ended up costing $40

million to the taxpayers. He’s more than welcome to bring forward his

complaint, but I apologize unreservedly.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

[2:35 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call continued second reading on Bill 5. In Committee A, I

call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — COMMUNITY CARE AND

ASSISTED LIVING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

T. Shypitka: Thank you for the opportunity to come back and regain the debate from

yesterday on the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act,

When I last left off, I was three-quarters through my little speech I’ve

got here, and there were a few heads scratching on the other side. I don’t know

if it was in regards to this bill, although we support the bill in its

fundamental form. It’s a good bill. Bringing transparency and reporting to

community care and assisted living is something that I think we can all wrap

our arms around.

I did make the comment that perhaps this bill needs a little tweaking.

We’ll look forward to that in committee stage — on doing just that. The comment

was that this bill may be slightly aggressive for those ground-level care

facilities, the ma-and-pa shops, where perhaps this bill may name or shame

people into getting a licence. Those that don’t want to go through some of the

rigorous reform of being licensed may just drop off the page. I think that’s a

realistic argument.

For example, my wife could have chosen to look after our two children

instead of putting them into daycare. With that, she could have very easily

taken a couple of neighbours’ children into the home. It would have been

unlicensed, but it would have been a loving, caring facility. But it may not

have been something she would have looked forward to if she had to bring those

standards of that facility up to a commercial level with the rigour that comes

with it.

What I’m saying is maybe a transitional type of form or a tiered system

for lower-level versus higher-level care facilities — commercial versus maybe

ground-up facilities, as you may want to put it — may be something to look at.

That’s really all I was getting at there.

[2:40 p.m.]

We will support the bill because we think that transparency is, in

general, a good thing, but we don’t think it will help the government to meet

the needs of parents for more child care spaces. In fact, it may just do the

opposite, as I said. We’ll be watching carefully to see if that

happens.

The bill also targets recovery houses. There are several in my region,

and I think, for the reasons that I just mentioned, transparency and reporting

is something we need in these facilities. For example, the crime reduction

strategy for Surrey, just made public in late 2016, recommended that a database

be created for all licensed treatment and recovery facilities. This will fulfil

that recommendation of transparency.

However, another recommendation of the crime reduction strategy is not

being followed by the government, and that is to establish an accreditation

board to develop programming requirements, housing and care standards and other

requirements for recovery houses in the city. Without such a board, it’ll be

harder to push some of those bad actors out of the system.

Also in the act…. It touches on assisted living. Seniors care and

assisted living is a big issue in my area. We’re going through some problems

right now with ensuring that people are getting the proper care hours that are

required. It’s a concerning one.

What I’ve been doing through my regional health authority is to bring up

to code that the hours of care are being addressed. For example, there may be a

decline in care hours, and then, because the reporting is biannual, those care

hours could be somewhat smoothed out every six months. For example, you may

have, during the Christmas holidays, staff not showing up and care hours go

down. And then in January, they may bump those hours to overservice, so that

when the reporting comes through, those hours look like they’re somewhat level

and they follow suit with the recommendations.

Through our health authority, we’re now doing some monthly reporting on

care hours. I think that maybe something like that…. I’m not too sure where

that fits into this bill. I’m sure we can maybe plug it in somewhere. I notice

the Minister of Health is maybe making note of that. I think it would be

something to look at — to do more consistent reporting, maybe monthly. With

today’s technology, I don’t know why we couldn’t do it in real time, almost,

with hours that are being plugged in.

With that, I support the bill. We look forward to going to committee

stage.

J. Isaacs: Thank you for the opportunity today to speak to Bill 5, the amendment of

the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. This bill primarily focuses on

universal care and provides information to parents and others who seek

information on a child care operator or facility.

A single website will provide parents with basic information, such as

whether or not a daycare facility is a licensed or unlicensed facility. Unless

otherwise exempted, it will provide a location of the daycare, the name of the

operator and the name of the facility. The website will also provide

information to parents and others regarding the outcomes of routine

investigations or inspection infractions, non-compliance issues related to

safety and care standards, as well as genuine complaints regarding the operator

or facility.

This website and reporting disclosure will be an important resource for

parents as they begin their search to secure daycare for their child. The

information will provide a means for parents to gauge the nature of the

infraction, to see if there are multiple infractions and to determine whether

or not those infractions have been dealt with in a timely manner and to the

satisfaction of a health officer. It will also report if the matter remains

outstanding.

From my own experience — and I have done it all, from grandparent care

to family care, taking my children out and having someone come in, licensed

daycare, live-in nanny, live-out nanny, before- and after-school…. The first

thing that comes to mind for parents who are choosing a daycare is the health

and safety record. But equally and just as important are the passion and

commitment the operator and staff clearly demonstrate — providing a loving,

learning and nurturing environment for children.

[2:45 p.m.]

It’s seeing for yourself how the operator and staff interact with

children and the accountability measures the owner-operator puts in place to

make sure that their business, whether it’s a private business or a

not-for-profit business, delivers a positive environment and the best quality

of care to children.

Without this kind of centralized reporting, parents often have to trust

their instincts, which usually come from visiting the facility, meeting with

the daycare provider and staff members and, perhaps, speaking to other parents

who attend the facility or getting a referral from another source.

The amendment will provide parents and others information on the

operator or facility within 30 days of that facility being licensed. This

information provides parents with some assurance that a health officer will

report an infraction or, where warranted, multiple infractions that come as a

result of an investigation or inspection. The reporting mechanism will also

include information as to the nature of the complaint, the action or actions

taken by the facility to repair the infraction and will further report and

update the website once the infraction has been properly dealt with.

The use of standard language for reporting complaints will ensure that

each facility is subject to, at the very least, a minimum standard of care for

operations and policy. Parents who seek this information will be able to look

at the data with a level of comfort, knowing that the same terminology and same

standard of care applies across the board to all licensed and unlicensed

daycares, regardless of whether they are privately owned or non-profit

businesses.

While the standardization and reporting of infractions is helpful, and I

support the transparency and full disclosure, the infractions remain on the

website for public viewing and scrutiny for five years. Many infractions may be

very minor and are sometimes resolved immediately or within 24 hours. So I

question whether it’s good policy to have a minor infraction remain on a

website for five years.

The public is certainly entitled to be aware of infractions, even minor

ones, and infractions of a serious nature certainly warrant a longer public

disclosure period. A clearer differential, though, between a minor infraction

compared to a serious infraction, would be helpful, so that parents could use

their own common sense and make the distinction of whether an infraction is a

minor concern or if parents should have concerns over a more serious

infraction. A ranking system that highlights the seriousness of the matter, as

well as a mechanism to drop off minor infractions over time, certainly prior to

five years, would provide more recent and relevant information for parents to

consider.

Having a minor infraction on a public website for five years may

actually cause unintended negative consequences to the reputation of the

operator, the owner and the facility. Therefore, the absence of a mechanism

that ranks the infraction as to the seriousness of the complaint is a concern.

The reliance in determining the seriousness of the infraction becomes the

responsibility of the interpreter, and that information is usually interpreted

by the parent.

Language barriers or cultural differences should also be taken into

consideration. A clear ranking mechanism, once again, that rates the risk of

level of seriousness of a violation or infraction will help eliminate any

guesswork for parents and allow them to immediately move forward with the next

steps — securing a daycare at that particular spot, that particular facility,

or eliminating the facility from their search.

Unlicensed daycares are permitted for a maximum of two children. The

maximum two children policy does not include children who are related to the

family. So grandparents can continue to care for their grandchildren and may

additionally care for a maximum of two other children before they are required

to be licensed.

What is interesting in this bill, however, is the clause 15.3(3), under:

“Publication of reports respecting unlicensed facility.” It states: “A medical

health officer must promptly remove information that was published under this

section if a licence is subsequently issued in respect of the community care

facility.”

In other words, if an unlicensed daycare operator, who has had an

infraction which has been publicly reported on the website, obtains a licence,

the infraction posted on the unlicensed operator or facility is dropped from

the website — dropped from public viewing and dropped from scrutiny. The newly

licensed daycare operator or facility starts with a blank slate.

[2:50 p.m.]

In other words, the blank slate is granted without restrictions when an

unlicensed operator obtains a licence, regardless of the seriousness of the

infraction. This obviously creates an unfair level of reporting and disclosure,

especially if there was a serious infraction.

Licensed daycare operators often have enormous expenditures when

establishing a building or a facility. For instance, there is a purpose-built

daycare centre in my riding that spent over $1 million just to purchase the

land and build that daycare. There is another operator who has five separate

facilities, and she and her business partner have invested $1 million into

their operations. Other facilities undertake high renovation costs to

accommodate a range of care options. Recently an operator told me they invested

$20,000 to replace the floor. This is the cost that operators have to

bear.

Removing the requirement to report an infraction of an unlicensed

daycare operator, as an incentive for the operator to license that daycare,

whether the infraction was minor or serious, is troubling, particularly if a

serious infraction occurred. Tightening of criminal record checks and quick

processing of approvals will go a long way to protect and ensure that the

safety of children is always paramount.

While we have policies and regulations to protect our children by

implementing the highest of standards, accidents can happen at any time. Such

tragedies are not predicated on whether a daycare was a licensed or unlicensed

daycare or whether the operator was a private business or a non-profit. We have

seen such incidents occur in all facilities.

For parents, it has to be about options and choice, options that are

best suited for the family and child who is seeking daycare. As a parent, I

want to have that choice of where I place my child — whether it is in the

loving arms of a grandparent, which is a lifelong family bond that no one can

replicate; my neighbour, whose child might be best friends with my child and

they spend all day playing together, a very healthy and creative environment;

or whether I want to place my child in a private or not-for-profit structured

centre. All of these options have positive attributes, but it is my choice to

decide what is best for my child or children.

We have to be abundantly cautious that privately owned family and

neighbourhood daycares — whether they offer full-time, part-time, before or

after school, or just provide care over the summer holidays — are not

eliminated as options and choices for parents because of excessive rules, fees,

public reporting or simply peer pressure. Removing options for parents can end

up having an adverse effect, reducing the number of spots rather than the

intended purpose of creating more spots.

Overall I see the amendment pertaining to the reporting of care for

children as a positive step to help parents find daycare facilities that may be

within their neighbourhood or close to their place of work. It provides

assurance that there are regulatory processes in place that are followed up on

and reported publicly. That greatly assists parents in choosing which operator

or which facility is best for their child.

The bill also includes a reporting of assisted living facilities and

residential care homes. I am very supportive of the work of the B.C. Care

Providers Association, B.C. Seniors Living Association and the office of the

seniors advocate in reporting the many challenges facing seniors who need care.

As a result of their work and engagement as advocates, the public can be

assured that there is this additional oversight.

There is one area of the amendment proposed in Bill 5 that does raise

some concerns. The new Residential Tenancy Act has clear language regarding the

landlord’s right to enter and access a rental unit. As the residents in

long-term care, residential care homes and assisted living homes are, in

effect, renting on a month-to-month lease, there should be more clarity

regarding the right to access, just to eliminate any misunderstandings or

miscommunications.

Many care homes are addressing the issue with an indemnity clause.

However, without clearer, more precise language, followed by regulation or

possibly legislation, the right to access could be challenged. The safety and

the security of residents would always be paramount.

I will turn to the last focus of this bill, which is in regard to

recovery houses. There are different recovery house models, and it’s important

to recognize the distinctions between them. For example, there are abstinence

homes where there are no alcohol or drug substances of any kind permitted on

site, and individuals who are living in the home cannot return to the home if

they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

[2:55 p.m.]

There are also harm reduction models where the recovery house is allowed

to have on-site consumption of drugs and alcohol. Two completely different

models with two completely different outcomes, and each model has a different

set of challenges.

There is a high percentage of relapse, and unfortunately, recovery

houses cannot control the behaviour of those living in the house. It often

results in behaviour that is not welcome in neighbourhoods, particularly where

families with children live. This is a challenge in itself — simply getting

approvals that accommodate a site for a recovery home.

There is also second-stage housing to consider. Second-stage housing

continues to provide the necessary support for recovery, and it is an essential

piece to managing an addiction and making sure that people do not return to the

situation or environment that was part of the abuse in the first

place.

Individuals and families who are at wits’ end and cannot see a path

forward to change the negative and harmful behaviour of their loved one often

pay enormous dollars for treatment in recovery homes and are often disappointed

with the results. While there is no doubt that ultimately the individuals must

be accountable for his or her recovery, not every recovery home has in place a

structured model of support. Too many times, this can result in individuals who

really struggle managing their own behaviour and, as a result, are in and out

of treatment, and there has been no monitoring or reporting of

outcomes.

We have seen evidence of this, particularly with unregulated homes which

may not offer structured programs. Without a minimum standard of care, which

should include the aid of an addiction specialist or in-house doctor, it is

difficult to determine the readiness of individuals to leave the recovery home.

Everyone has their own unique path to recovery, and assigning timelines can be

counterproductive to recovery.

As well, it can be difficult to find a treatment bed, recovery home or

second-stage housing. This is challenging when trying to access treatment in a

timely fashion. A database similar to that of the care provider registry would

allow the public to find available beds and locations. The database would also

disclose if the bed available was publicly or privately funded.

Inspections and investigations of recovery homes are necessary to ensure

a standard of care that people with addictions deserve. There is a need for

public transparency so that both the public and non-profit organizations, which

often provide the social services and other supports, are informed of

infractions and non-compliance matters. The only way of providing such

disclosure is with appropriate public reporting.

I would encourage organizations and stakeholders to continue to work on

defining and implementing models of care to create minimum standards of care

across facilities with different models. The reporting will be a first step to

determining some of the cracks that currently undermine recovery.

Organizations such as CARF, which is the Commission on Accreditation of

Rehabilitation Facilities, can be a first step to ensuring minimum standards

are set for the community and assisted-living facilities. Working alongside

non-profit organizations, CARF offers accreditation for community housing,

community integration, host family services — which are family homes —

supported living, respite services and rehabilitation facilities. Implementing

a standard of care ensures individuals and families can rely on proper

accreditation and support, accountable practices, transparency and

reporting.

I’ve laid out my concerns regarding the amendment to Bill 5. I believe

the amendments are the first steps to improve reporting and disclosure. I hope

that the government will take my concerns seriously, and those concerns my

colleagues have raised as well, as we move forward to committee

stage.

B. Stewart: I rise today to speak in favour of Bill 5, the Community Care and

Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018. While there are indeed issues with the

bill, it is my hope that the government is open to some friendly amendments

from our critic. I do support the principles laid out in Bill 5.

This bill targets child care facilities. Unlicensed daycares are legal

if they care for just one or two children. Usually, these are in the family

home.

[3:00 p.m.]

A facility caring for more than two children must, by law, be licensed

and adhere to the child care licensing regulation. Under this bill, the

government will now publish the routine inspections and special investigations

into child care facilities. The objective of this bill is therefore to provide

greater transparency for institutions that receive public funds, and I believe

that this is a good thing. Any effort of government to increase transparency

and accountability is a good thing. Any effort to increase access to

information and reports on child care facilities for parents is a good

thing.

As a father of three, I know how important child care decisions can be

for your children. Being able to look up reports on facilities that a parent is

considering is a valuable tool. However, in the end, this is a decision that

rests with parents.

The bill will serve a commercial purpose in that it will make for a more

level playing field. All licensed providers will be published on the same site.

All will have to abide by the same regulations. More daycares will be publicly

known and fewer will operate unlawfully.

I have yet to see any numbers that prove publicly regulated daycare has

higher safety outcomes, as suggested in this House yesterday by the Minister of

Children and Family Development. There was a recent death in one of the

unlicensed daycares here in British Columbia, but recently, also, in 2017, a

child died in public daycare in Quebec. So it doesn’t necessarily guarantee the

outcomes will be better in one situation versus the other.

If this government is using safety as the rationale for coercing daycare

providers into the government framework, I would like to see the numbers that

back that up. I also cannot understand why the government is going to be

actively inspecting unlicensed and unlawful daycare providers in B.C. rather

than cracking down on individuals who are skirting the law. This government

seems to be desperately attempting to inflate their numbers by peer pressuring

rulebreakers into a government system to meet a quota.

This may result in a situation where illegal daycares have been visited

by government officials, reported on and then left operating. The government is

caught in a tricky situation. Unlawful providers don’t license now because of

the extensive licensing requirements, even for the family child care category,

taking care of three to seven children.

I can assure you, as many of the members in this House, that Storyland

daycare in Lakeview Heights, operated by Mrs. Reiter, who operated with our

three children, never had any of these problems. I guess what I’m saying is

that a certain amount of common sense from people that operate these is

required.

Licensing requirements that are being proposed or are in effect require

a criminal record check, a program of activities, numerous written policies and

procedures, extensive recordkeeping, including a log of minor injuries that did

not require medical attention, a comprehensive file on each child and reports

to a local health authority and so on.

I guess I wonder if this makes my wife or I complicit if we bring our

three granddaughters and pick up their friends and bring them home. Although

we’re not offering daycare, there are many days when our daughter, who’s at

work or with her husband, needs to have that extra care.

While these requirements may be good, they are also burdensome. I would

suggest that a parent does not keep that kind of information, as I previously

mentioned, about his or her own children, and it doesn’t seem to be a problem

to the government, while providing additional care in the family home for three

or more unrelated children suddenly triggers many extra requirements. Common

sense would say we need to re-examine the licensing requirements and streamline

the process. That is not found in this bill.

Instead, the government is hoping to force unlicensed providers into

becoming licensed, and in doing so, some unlicensed providers, unable to

acquire the licensing, will shut down. Ironically, the unintended consequences,

which I know the minister, yesterday, was surprised by, is that this actually

may lead to an overall reduction if people decide to reduce to the level where

they can remain unlicensed.

[3:05 p.m.]

Some will definitely license, but others will simply drop a child or two

from their service, down to two children, so that they can continue to provide

care legally, unlicensed, and we will lose the remainder of those spots.

Lineups will grow, and parents will be further inconvenienced.

This government needs to make it easier for providers to license. After

this bill passes, the reasons that providers have not licensed in the past will

still remain. I will be supporting this bill as, on the principle of increasing

transparency, it is worthy of my vote. However, I don’t believe that this bill

will achieve anything of substance in terms of increasing the number of child

care spaces in B.C. In fact, it could have the opposite effect.

S. Gibson: It’s a privilege for me to rise to speak to Bill 5, the Community Care

and Assisted Living Amendment Act. I just came off three weeks of meeting with

my constituents. We were all there. I appreciate that opportunity at home in

the Abbotsford-Mission riding, and it’s great to be back here.

I want to speak to this bill this afternoon. One of the areas this bill

covers is child care and child care facilities, which is really important to

hundreds of families in my community. The rules governing the operations of

child care facilities won’t substantially shift. Facilities that care for more

than two children must continue to be licensed and follow the child care

licensing regulations. Unlicensed daycares will continue to be legal if they

care for one or two children. Public health officers can continue to

investigate facilities if there are concerns, and offences, penalties and

violations will continue.

In many ways, the fundamental structure of how child care takes place in

our province will largely remain the same. However, there are some changes I’d

like to take a few moments to address today. Under this bill, the government

will publish on-line inspections and special investigations of child care

facilities. That’s new.

Now, I’m supportive, as it provides greater transparency about

institutions that receive public funds, and because parents will also have

access to this information. That’s a good thing. This measure will provide

those using or considering to use child care with additional knowledge about

the quality of care in facilities that have been inspected or investigated.

That is positive.

Publishing information on a licensed daycare of a designated location,

using websites, will provide additional information and ensure that information

is disseminated. With more information publicly available, fewer daycares will

operate unlicensed. Now, I do have some concerns, however, that I want to just

raise briefly now.

While I’ve noted and mentioned that I agree with the government

publishing inspections and investigations and support the access to

information, increased transparency, I have some reservations about how the

material will be available without revision for five years. If an inspection

identifies an issue and the provider takes steps to correct it, the original

issue will still remain on the provider’s record for this period of time. I

join colleagues in echoing the concern that this could result in impact on a

facility’s record when there’s no longer cause for concern.

Similarly, I also have some questions about privacy. Within 30 days of

licensing, a health officer will publish the provider’s name and the name and

address of their business. Now, I agree with this, but it’s important to

balance transparency with individual privacy. I also feel this bill could have

the unintended effect of reducing available child care spaces.

[3:10 p.m.]

Parents who use unlicensed child care facilities will be eligible for

subsidies if their daycare becomes licensed, which means that we can reasonably

expect more providers to become licensed.

Often unlicensed child care providers do not seek out a licence due to

the requirements associated, including a criminal record check, written

policies and procedures and the duty to keep extensive records. These

requirements are significant and can be costly. Naming child care providers may

encourage some unlicensed providers to become licensed. In other cases, these

providers could opt instead to reduce the number of children in their care.

That’s a possibility.

For instance, a home-based child care provider caring for only three or

four children may decide not to license but instead take only two children into

their care, therefore legally removing that requirement for a licence. As a

result, a community would lose these spaces, and we could expect wait-lists to

grow. That’s a possibility. While licensed daycares operating in family homes

do have slightly relaxed regulatory requirements compared to larger centres,

they still tend to have more limited resources, which could create a burden on

their operation. This should be considered as government moves

forward.

Government has stated that this bill will help enhance safety. Now, I

recognize the safety of our children is of the utmost importance. I speak of

that as a parent and a grandparent. Parents, guardians and family members want

to know that when they leave their child in the care of a provider, everything

has been done to ensure their safety. But safety issues can, unfortunately,

occur in both licensed and unlicensed facilities. So I’d just like to raise a

point of caution, which there should be, regarding these outcomes.

While I support the transparency this bill will bring to child care in

British Columbia, it will be important to ensure that this bill meets the

objectives set out by government, without additional negative consequences.

This bill also will not help meet the need for new child care spaces —

something I think it’s important to acknowledge today here in this

House.

In addition to child care facilities, this bill also applies to recovery

houses for individuals dealing with addictions. The measures this bill outlines

for this type of facility are similar to the ones proposed for child care

providers, which includes posting information on line about inspections and

investigations of both licensed and unlicensed facilities. Again, I think

greater public transparency in this area is desirable, and I support this

measure. Colleagues have spoken about this type of facility in greater detail,

so I will conclude my remarks here.

This is a bill with some important elements but also some areas that

will require some caution and close observation. I look forward to seeing some

of these areas addressed in committee stage here in our Legislature.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister will close the

debate.

Hon. A. Dix: I want to thank all the members on both sides of the House for taking

part, for their interest in this area. I know that some of the people who spoke

— the member for Kootenay East — are parents, currently, who have been recent

users of the daycare system in British Columbia, the child care system. I know

that others are expressing the interests of their constituents and have certain

interests in the child care debate.

I just wanted to say a few things — first of all, that members raised

issues around the regulation of unlicensed recovery homes. As members of the

House will know, that deregulation happened, I believe, in 2002. That’s a

debate, though, that I think all members of the House are interested in because

I think the objective circumstances since then have changed.

[3:15 p.m.]

This bill doesn’t seek to do this. What this bill seeks to do, solely

and exclusively, is ensure a measure of transparency. It’s to allow, in other

words, the freedom of parents to know all of the information that the health

authority knows when they’re making the very important decision to put their

children in care — and that seniors and others know all the information the

health authority knows and the same information in Northern Health as they

would know in Island Health or in Interior Health or in Fraser Health about

long-term care and about assisted living.

The purpose of the legislation is that very transparency. They are

indeed modest but important changes. They’re modest because they are not the

changes that make dramatic changes in the whole child care system. We are doing

that through the budget and through other actions of the government that people

will know and we’ll debate publicly, I’m sure, in this Legislature and around

British Columbia.

We’re very excited. I think parents are very excited around B.C. about

the extraordinary changes being put into place by the program led by the

Minister of State for Child Care, along with child care providers across

British Columbia.

We are not, of course, debating the very significant changes to seniors

care because the budget tabled by my colleague the Minister of Finance is also

the most important seniors budget in a long time. It addresses the issue that

the overwhelming majority of care homes today, for example, do not meet

staffing levels and staffing standards.

Again, that’s not debated in this legislation, although there is

information about that that the seniors advocate provides, and it’s sometimes,

of course, the subject of controversy. But the seniors advocate, a position

created by the previous government, has created more openness and more

understanding amongst those who are making decisions around a care home.

Generally, that’s a good thing, even though that very openness, the reports

brought forward by the seniors advocate, is sometimes criticized by care home

operators.

There’s a natural tension there between the desire to show transparency

and the desire, if you’re running a seniors home, not to have bad or critical

or negative information about you on a website — in that case, the website of

the seniors advocate. In this case, the information posted is open and not

evaluative. I hear members of the opposition say that we should be ranking the

situation — not telling parents all of the information and having them make

judgments but making judgments first, before they can see it. The purpose here

is to be open and not evaluative.

I think members of the House, when they reflect on that, hopefully, will

agree that that is the right approach. Instead of defining in legislation what

is major and what is minor as safety concerns, families will be provided all

the information and allowed to make their own judgments. In a free and open

society — dare I say it? — even a free and open and Liberal society, that is

the kind of thing we would want. We would want, in fact, all of the information

available because it’s, after all, the responsibility but also the right of

parents to make judgments on that basis.

People have raised issues about unintended consequences. I want to be

clear that it has never been allowed. I mean, there were inspections and

inspectors working for the health authorities under the previous government,

ensuring that people didn’t function contrary to the law, unlicensed child care

facilities.

It is consistent with the law — this doesn’t change here, and it’s not

likely to change — to take care of two children, two or less, in a home without

a licence. But it is not consistent with that to take care of more. It has

never been allowed. So when members suggest that this will reduce the number of

child care spaces, they are wrong. This doesn’t change that at all. It wasn’t

allowed then, if I may refer to the previous period. It’s not allowed

now.

What we do insist upon, when negative reports come out — we saw a very

public case of how that can affect the lives of parents, a case that was

brought forward by advocates of those parents, who suffered a terrible loss and

made the case that they should have known things the health authority knew and

that they didn’t know them — is that those will be published on a website so

that parents have the opportunity in all cases.

No commercial advantage for one type of child care against another type

of child care — that there be knowledge everywhere of what the circumstances

are, that the information be open, that all of the information be available.

That is a fair system. That is not choosing one system over another. That’s not

choosing one type of child care over another.

[3:20 p.m.]

That’s ensuring that everybody is treated the same but, most

importantly, that parents are treated fairly and, in the case of seniors care

and assisted-living care, that sometimes family members, if they’re supporting

senior members in care, or the senior members themselves, most importantly,

have access to that very same information.

That’s what this act seeks to do. It is, in fact, a modest proposal that

does something that’s very important: makes our care system safer, gives more

rights to citizens, not less rights, and more information to citizens, not less

information. That is the purpose of it.

This is information that, in fact, is in the possession of the

government — these reports. It will be presented consistently in each case,

explaining what will be made available and what won’t, and fairly, so that

parents, seniors and others who use our care system have the ability to make

their own evaluation.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for committee

stage at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 11, the International Commercial

Arbitration Amendment Act, 2018.

BILL 11 — INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL

ARBITRATION AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The International Commercial Arbitration Act was a front-runner in

international commercial arbitration legislation at the time it was enacted in

1986. It’s now outdated and in need of modernization.

The International Commercial Arbitration Amendment Act will update our

existing legislation to reflect current international best practices. The

amendments will modernize British Columbia’s arbitration regime, enhance

British Columbia’s standing as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, support

international arbitration in language and concepts familiar to international

business parties and counsel, and provide an opportunity to position British

Columbia as an arbitration destination for international commercial

disputes.

British Columbia’s existing legislation is based on the UN Commission on

International Trade Law, UNCITRAL, 1985 model law. The UNCITRAL model law was

significantly updated in 2006, and we have not amended our legislation to

incorporate these updates.

The proposed amendments to the International Commercial Arbitration Act

incorporate the recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada in

response to the 2006 model law, as well as other recent best practices in

international commercial arbitration. The amendments will make the

International Commercial Arbitration Act an efficient and comprehensive piece

of arbitration legislation that will support international arbitration in

language and concepts familiar to business parties and counsel.

Modern international arbitration legislation will provide an opportunity

for British Columbia to position itself as an arbitration destination for

international commercial disputes. British Columbia is well situated as a

neutral venue for parties who do not wish to arbitrate in the United States or

Asia.

The most extensive update in the UNCITRAL 2006 model law is the addition

of a

section that deals comprehensively with interim measures and preliminary

orders. The bill contains the addition of this

section into British Columbia’s

International Commercial Arbitration Act.

The bill also adds a new privacy and confidentiality provision which

will limit disputes regarding the scope of common-law confidentiality as it

applies to international commercial arbitration under the International

Commercial Arbitration Act. This provision will clarify such obligations in

advance for the parties.

The bill also adds a new immunity provision for arbitrators which

protects arbitrators for anything done or omitted to be done in connection with

an arbitration, unless the act or omission is in bad faith or the arbitrator

has engaged in intentional wrongdoing.

Other significant amendments contained in this bill include clarified

standards for arbitral challenges, an expanded definition of “arbitration

agreement” that accounts for technological advances, an increased threshold

that must be met for challenges to arbitrator independence or impartiality, the

creation of appeals from negative jurisdictional rulings and the removal of

out-of-date language and references throughout the International Commercial

Arbitration Act.

The amendments will preserve a numbering scheme similar to that used in

the UNCITRAL model law in order to make the material easily referenced and

understandable by international parties. This bill will modernize British

Columbia’s arbitration regime with the goal of enhancing British Columbia’s

standing as an international arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

[3:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: Well, just to hear the Attorney General outline this bill…. Certainly,

it does come to this chamber after a bit of a hiatus, and I’m happy to see that

the government is finally starting to introduce some semblance of a legislative

agenda.

That being said, this bill is not part of the expected legislation that

the government campaigned on and later redeveloped in their agreement with the

Third Party. From what I understand, this bill is actually the result of two

years of work and consultation done by the previous government, under the

leadership of the previous AG. So it really isn’t part of the government’s

legislative agenda. It is merely a carryover from before.

Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to talk about

how important this particular piece of legislation is. International commerce

is very much a large portion of our economy. A great deal of our exports are

sent to other jurisdictions — south to the United States, across the Pacific or

east to the rest of Canada. Our small businesses, our major corporations and

everything in between all depend on international trade in order to

survive.

That is why, perhaps, recent events are so troubling. It appears to me

that this government doesn’t seem to really be thinking about international

trade as a priority. We see this government standing firm against a federally

approved pipeline to ship resources. We see them penalizing homebuyers from

other provinces. We see them increasing taxes by incredible magnitudes on the

businesses that international trade depends on. I think and I fear this

legislation may actually become pointless if this trend continues, for we won’t

have the types of commercial interests to arbitrate remaining in or coming into

contact with our province.

Moving on, in recent years, we have seen a number of cities that have

become known as venues for arbitration. These cities include such global

powerhouses as New York, Paris, London, Geneva, Hong Kong, Singapore and

Sydney. They benefit from this industry, as they bring highly trained and

skilled arbitrators and their supporting professionals. Vancouver should

continue to strive to join these ranks, and this legislation is a part of that.

It’s a first step, a next step.

Part of the importance of this legislation is also to consider our

unique situation. At the time of the original legislation coming into place in

1986, Vancouver wasn’t the international hub that it is today. In fact, Los

Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle — none of these jurisdictions have a similar

piece of legislation. We are the jurisdiction on the Pacific coast of North

America that has this tremendous advantage that we continue to be bold with. We

have many ties to the Asia-Pacific region, with many law firms, investments,

trade and so on. Being a centre for arbitration, unique to this coast, is

indeed a special advantage.

Additionally, Canada has a great deal of characteristics that make it an

effective referee in arbitration. Key among them are our perceived notional

neutrality, objectivity and political stability — although that last may not

continue, in the light of this government’s actions to deny federal

jurisdiction and constitutional authority. These qualities, additionally

combined with Vancouver’s geographic position and moderate climate, make

Vancouver an ideal choice for the international business world.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

British Columbia has its own International Commercial Arbitration

Centre. BCICAC is recognized as a national leader in arbitration. It offers

fully administered arbitrations and mediations, dispute resolution services,

upholding the highest standard in the domestic and international arbitration

community. The centre maintains panels of both international and domestic

experts and offers disputants a choice of rules, depending on the size and

complexity of the matter.

As the Attorney General has noted, B.C. was the first jurisdiction in

the world to adopt the 1985 United Nations Commission on International Trade

Law model law, which our current International Commercial Arbitration Act still

follows. This bill brings forward a number of needed ways to modernize that

act. I will have a number of questions to discuss in the committee stage, but

for now I’d like to make a number of comments on the proposed

amendments.

[3:30 p.m.]

The bill does incorporate terms and a general reference to UNCITRAL’s

Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, as originally adopted in

1985, with amendments adopted in 2006, including a more fulsome definition of

“arbitration agreement.”

Section 6(2) of the proposed amendments states that: “Questions

concerning matters governed by this Act that are not expressly settled in this

Act are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which this

Act is based.” While this may be a compromise to align the act with the

UNCITRAL model law, it will be important to consider how these general

principles will be interpreted or utilized under the act.

Additionally, there is other modernization of the act through amendments

to the sections dealing on legal proceedings. Amendment 9 of the bill raises

the test threshold for when there are justifiable doubts as to an arbitrator’s

independence or impartiality. This, as I understand, goes beyond UNCITRAL’s

model law but does track what England, Singapore and Australia have adopted.

This bears some discussion at the committee stage.

Amendment 11 imports much of the model law’s

section on interim measures

into the act, as outlined by the AG, with some variations. This adds a new

section to the act, addressing interim measures and preliminary measures. This

section would enumerate conditions for such measures granting as well as to

what grounds they could be recognized, refused and enforced on. In addition,

this

section of the bill provides an express provision for a court to refer the

request for an interim measure back to an arbitral tribunal, which I recognize

is a B.C. innovation.

In terms of the parties’ abilities to present their case, amendment 12

lowers the current requirement that each party must be given a full opportunity

to present their case. The alternative, now, is that each party must be given a

reasonable opportunity. Again, this is a slight departure from UNCITRAL’s model

law, and the standards for reasonableness, as it occurs in this bill, will be

important to discuss at the committee stage.

I also acknowledge that amendment 13 pulls into this act the sole

regulation dealing with legal representation.

For amendment 16 in the bill, I acknowledge that this amendment seeks to

follow the recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada on

enforcement and the consolidation of agreements. This amendment should be

discussed as to how it’s interpreting those recommendations.

Amendment 19 of the bill removes the ability of an award to be set aside

for something that might be seen to be contrary to public policy due to the

fact that an arbitration may have been funded by a third party. While this kind

of provision is also not in UNCITRAL’s model law, it will be useful to discuss

the competitive nature of this provision. Particularly, Singapore, which is one

of the world leaders in this field, has adopted a very similar concept into

their jurisdiction.

For amendment 21, I also recognize that this is another variation from

UNCITRAL’s model law, but I recognize that the privacy and confidentiality

requirements, which are currently in our common law, are certainly beneficial

to the parties in the arbitration proceedings and to have those set out up

front in the governing act.

In conclusion, this bill is one that I support, but I will have

additional questions and concerns that we will be canvassing at the committee

stage.

D. Routley: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to the amendments to the

International Commercial Arbitration Act. I will try to keep the excitement to

a minimum, because the content of this matter is so illuminating. But it really

is important, and it is particularly important to people who care about our

status as an international trade destination and a place of world-class

commercial significance.

[3:35 p.m.]

It’s important that B.C. take advantage of an opportunity that hasn’t

yet been seized by other west coast jurisdictions in order to position

ourselves, as the minister has indicated, as an arbitration destination for

international commercial disputes.

The International Commercial Arbitration Act is being amended, hopefully

with the support of all the members in the House, because I do believe it’s a

very positive thing for our economy and for our status. It’s being amended in

order to reflect more accurately and more currently the UNCITRAL model law,

which was introduced in 1985 but amended in 2006. In order for us to be in a

position to host international arbitration conferences or to host international

arbitrations, it is necessary and advantageous in either case to have an

updated act.

UNCITRAL is the core legal body of the United Nations. It is the UN

Commission on International Trade Law, and the standards that are set in the

model law allow countries to have interaction and settle disputes with common

reference points in the laws in their respective jurisdictions so that an

effective arbitration can be achieved that both sides will respect and that can

survive challenge in whatever jurisdiction is affected.

In order to make all of that happen, the Attorney General is proposing

that the act be amended to achieve the following goals. There will be,

hopefully, the addition of provisions that deal comprehensively with interim

measures and preliminary orders. There will be an addition of a new privacy and

confidentiality provision, which will limit disputes regarding the scope of

common-law confidentiality. As the previous speaker from the opposition pointed

out, it’s a slight departure from the UN model law, but necessary and, again,

advantageous in both cases to both the parties involved and the people affected

by the decisions.

This act will introduce a new immunity provision to protect arbitrators.

This will, of course, not protect arbitrators who have acted improperly or

dishonestly. There will be clarified standards for arbitral challenges and an

expanded definition of “arbitration agreement” that accounts for technological

advances. As the Speaker knows, many of our acts in the province of British

Columbia constantly require updating because of technological changes, and the

commercial trade law is certainly not immune from that.

This act will establish an increased threshold that must be met for

challenges to arbitrator independence or impartiality. This will create a more

steadfast system in B.C. — the creation of appeals from negative jurisdictional

rulings, the removal of outdated language and references throughout the

International Commercial Arbitration Act and the preservation of a numbering

scheme similar to that used in the UN Commission on International Trade Law

model law, in order to make the material more easily referenced and

understandable.

Of course, that would mean that the act that we would introduce will

maintain numbering throughout it that will reference from the UNCITRAL model

law as well as laws in other jurisdictions. This is something that will not

only help us, hopefully, attract more international arbitrations and have a

greater status in the commercial and international trade communities but will

also help Vancouver in their attempt to host, their bid to host, international

commercial arbitration proceedings.

In fact, currently, Vancouver is bidding on the 2022 International

Council for Commercial Arbitration Congress, one of the world’s most

prestigious arbitration conferences. So this updated legislation would not only

strengthen our status and our ability to host arbitrations but would also

strengthen Vancouver’s bid for this prestigious conference.

[3:40 p.m.]

With that being said, I’ll bring my remarks to a close but offer my

support to the act and encourage all members to support the act as a step in

further establishing and entrenching B.C. as a significant world leader in

commercial trade and international trade relations.

Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Third Party.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I had thought that there was a much longer

speaking list and that I would be speaking subsequent to other speakers. But I

do thank you for recognizing me.

I arise to speak in favour of the bill before us. That is Bill 11,

International Commercial Arbitration Amendment Act, 2018. As has been

mentioned, this is an important piece of legislation that modernizes our

existing International Commercial Arbitration Act, taking into account the

changes that were done by the United Nations Commission on International Trade

Law in 2006 in their updates to model legislation there.

This comes on the recent move that Ontario did to update its act in

March of 2017, where they did something very similar, in a very similar attempt

to modernize the original 1985 model law that was adopted by B.C. — we were one

of the first to do so, frankly — as well as other jurisdictions.

It’s clear as well that this is not something that was dreamt up

overnight, that obviously there has been some good work that was done unto this

over many years. So it’s important to credit both sides of this House for the

work that they’ve done to bring this to fruition to ensure that we actually

bring our arbitration law up to international standards, taking into account

the best practices that exist as outlined in the United Nations Commission on

International Trade Law’s model law.

As the government has noted…. The government has suggested that they

have a responsibility, and I agree, to ensure that standards are modern, that

they meet the standards of the bar and judiciary and that these standards have

the confidence of international and domestic clients. This is one of the goals

of modernizing our present legislation. In addition, virtually all provinces

and territories in Canada have incorporated UNCITRAL — sorry, I won’t say it

again; it’s the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, the

UNCITRAL, a model law of 1985 — into their respective statutes.

Each province or territory has a separate piece of legislation that

deals typically with domestic or international commercial arbitrations. In

fact, all Canadian provinces and territories as well, with the exception of

Quebec, have adopted and ratified the New York convention, allowing for the

recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards from its signatory states, of

which Canada and British Columbia are.

Ontario was in fact the first Canadian jurisdiction to amend its

legislation to reflect the changes made to the model law in 2006. As I noted,

this was done in March of 2017, last year. B.C. was setting the stage to do

that. Of course, we had something rather irritating occur between March and May

of last year. Irritating for some, but delightful for others. We had an

election, and that clearly would have ensured there were these sort of pieces

of legislation that take time to develop.

Obviously, the civil service had been working hard on this in

consultation with stakeholders as well as government, and this piece of

legislation smoothly passed through the transition from the former government

to the present government, and is brought here today for our debate — and

presumably adoption, based on the comments I’ve heard from both sides of this

House.

Federally, international commercial arbitration is governed by the

Commercial Arbitration Act. This deals with things like investor-state disputes

brought under NAFTA or CETA and similar agreements. NAFTA, of course, is the

subject of much debate as we speak here in this Legislature, due to

negotiations happening with our federal government, Mexico and the United

States.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’d like to provide a quote here from an individual. I’d like to get the

exact…. It’s the International Arbitration Review , edition 8, Canada,

by Gordon Tarnowsky, QC, Rachel Howie, Chloe A. Snider and Holly Cunliffe,

published in the Law Reviews of August 2017.

They say this: “Although similar in many respects, there are certain

marked differences in international commercial arbitration legislation among

Canadian jurisdictions. This situation can create unforeseen risk to

inter-jurisdictional entities that might ultimately resort to arbitration in

more than one jurisdiction, or to those choosing a city in Canada as a seat of

arbitration, if they are not fully aware of the variations.”

This is one of the reasons why it’s critical for us to adopt legislation

along the lines we have here, to modernize and bring the standards that are

adopted by the United Nations arbitration laws here, both nationally and

federally.

Australia did some recent work in this regard. Prior to 2010, domestic

legislation regarding arbitration varied between each and all of the various

different states in Australia. The model commercial and arbitration bill that

they agreed upon by the standing committee there of the Attorneys General

actually was a way of creating domestic arbitration law throughout Australia

that was uniform. They’ve all since adopted that, and we’re hoping to see such

things happen here in Canada as well.

There are a couple of benefits of adopting this law. Not only is it

important to have Vancouver become a host for international arbitration; it’s

one of the selling cards of Vancouver. A government led by Premier Gordon

Campbell did a very fine job of actually bringing British Columbia to its

pinnacle of international recognition as a go-to destination in the world,

culminating in the 2010 Winter Olympics.

Prior to that, of course, we have to give due respect to Bill Bennett,

who recognized…. He was probably the first that really went beyond the

parochial vision of British Columbia as only a province of Canada, with

bringing in Expo 86, I believe it was. I was in Vancouver, living there at the

time, at UBC. That, too, put British Columbia on the international arena as a

go-to destination. The 2010 Winter Olympics — another critical aspect in this

regard.

This is very much a bill that’s focused on Vancouver. Vancouver has

grown to become an international city, one that unfortunately has by-products

associated with that happening, one of which is, of course, the affordability

crisis that’s affecting Vancouver. Nevertheless, this is actually good for

business, this bill. This bill is good for business and for sending business

the exact type of signal that they need to say that British Columbia is open

for business, it’s open for international business, and it’s a go-to

destination if you want to actually have business in the new

economy.

I’m excited by the prospects of this emerging economy that’s happening

here in British Columbia. I’m less excited by the trials and tribulations of

members opposite as they sulk and complain about Kinder Morgan and

others.

There are so many opportunities in British Columbia. Adopting

legislation like this, legislation that modernizes our arbitration proceedings,

actually positions Vancouver as a leader, a go-to destination in the world,

along with places like Paris and New York — to come and actually have

arbitration cases settled in a very non-partisan way, in a way that’s viewed to

not have any particular biases. We have a good brand internationally, Canada,

in terms of brokers of deals and being fair-minded, and Vancouver and British

Columbia can lead in that regard.

It does have that other very important signal that it’s sending. In

Vancouver, in British Columbia, we want to be a focal point for international

business, and we want companies to come here. We want companies like Tesla to

come here. We’d love it in British Columbia if Tesla came to B.C. and built a

giga factory in Terrace, to ship those batteries to Chicago or Prince Rupert

via the railway that exists. We’d love companies to actually build in terms of

the innovation potential that we can offer here.

This is the direction we’re going. This piece of legislation is critical

to continue our path forward to building Vancouver as an international hub for

excellence and British Columbia, in general, with all its communities, from

north to south, east to west, rural to urban, suburban to single cabins on the

lake. We’re excited about the prospects for British Columbia.

[3:50 p.m.]

Another benefit of this bill, of course, is that there is, coming

forward relatively soon…. I believe it is in 2022 that Vancouver is bidding to

host the international United Nations conference. My notes here don’t actually

have the date. Well, they do somewhere, but they’re buried within my multiple

pages of notes.

In this international conference which is coming to Vancouver, it’s kind

of hard, as part of your bid, to put a bid in to host the international UN

conference on arbitration and then, at the same time, not have brought yourself

up to standards — standards that, since 1985, recognize that in fact we have

the preponderance of technology that exists today that didn’t exist then, and

many other such examples.

With that, I’ll say that, after speaking with both my colleague from

Saanich North and the Islands as well as my colleague from Cowichan Valley, we

are in support of this bill and look forward to committee stage and supporting

the bill through to final adoption in this Legislature.

L. Krog: It’s always a delight to stand up on the government side once again and

speak in favour of government legislation. It’s been a very long time, leading

up to last year, that I had that opportunity — I think 21 years, to be precise

— so it’s an unexpected pleasure that I wish to take advantage of today. For

the purposes of full disclosure, I want to assure the House that

notwithstanding my profession as a lawyer, I don’t participate in arbitrations

in any way — or mediations — have no training as such and therefore have no

conflict when it comes to providing support for this bill, introduced by the

Attorney General.

This is one of those examples where one questions why the B.C. Liberals,

who were in power for 16 long years, didn’t bother to make changes that are set

out in this piece of legislation. They would have had a wonderful opportunity

to encourage, in particular, Vancouver’s development as a major, world-class

city by ensuring that these changes were undertaken.

This act hasn’t been updated for 33 years now, I believe. It was 1985.

In fact, proposed amendments to the act simply incorporate recommendations that

were made from the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, which was a response to

the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, the 2006 model

law.

In fairness, I suppose one should say that it was really since 2006 that

the B.C. Liberals chose deliberately, for whatever reason, not to take

advantage of Vancouver’s incredible location and of British Columbia’s

incredible attraction to people from around the world, both in terms of its

geography, its people, its sophistication, its international reputation, its

wonderful airport — all of those things that would, in fact, attract the kind

of international commercial arbitration work that’s undertaken.

Now, I say as a lawyer, this does reflect a somewhat disturbing trend

that reflects badly on the justice systems, literally around the world, not

just in Canada. That is the slowness with which these kinds of disputes can be

dealt with — awards of damages or whatever made, as the case may be. The fact

is that justice systems face these challenges everywhere.

As a result, many large corporations, in particular, smaller businesses

and people engaged in family law litigation, for instance, are resorting to

methods and proposals that will resolve their disputes outside of our court

system. Now, you may say, on one level, that’s a good thing, particularly in

family law matters, where there is often great acrimony and an emotional

overlay to those disputes. It’s, I would respectfully suggest, a very good

thing for those disputes to be settled outside of a courtroom, through

arbitration.

What we’re dealing with today in this bill involves arbitration of

commercial disputes. I remember that some years ago it was Justice McEachern, I

believe, who acted for B.C. Hydro in the great B.C. Hydro construction case. He

became chief justice long after that. At that point, up until that time in

British Columbia, it was the longest-running trial in B.C.’s history. It

lasted, I think, over several months, into years, and there was a suggestion

that it perhaps lasted much longer than it should have, and it cost both sides

a great deal of money.

[3:55 p.m.]

That is what the essence of this bill is all about. It is about saving

money. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s a very good thing. Why should

corporate bodies who have the ability to prosecute these kinds of cases, to

bring their suits to a court system…? Why wouldn’t they turn to a system of

international arbitration that allows to get past the horrible jurisdictional

issues that are often raised? Which country is their proper forum? Which level

of court is the proper forum? There are all sort