Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 200

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

Statements

Anniversary of MLA for Abbotsford West

A. Wilkinson

Hon. M. Farnworth

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Chambers of commerce

C. Oakes

Gordon Stewart and Sheila Paterson

B. Ma

L. Reid

Cranberry Commons co-housing community

J. Routledge

Response to worker deaths in train derailment

D. Clovechok

Literary community in Esquimalt-Metchosin area

M. Dean

Oral Questions

Caribou protection and public engagement process

D. Davies

Hon. D. Donaldson

T. Shypitka

Money laundering in casinos

S. Furstenau

Hon. D. Eby

Forest industry and wildfire response in Nechako Lakes area

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

West Fraser Road status in Quesnel area

C. Oakes

Hon. C. Trevena

Bus service in rural B.C.

D. Barnett

Hon. C. Trevena

D. Clovechok

Tabling Documents

Letters to Transportation Minister requesting a bus service

Petitions

M. Bernier

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Protection of Public Participation Act

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

A. Olsen

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2019

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: Joining us today in the gallery and spending time to observe the

proceedings of budget day is a contingent of members of the board of

directors and senior officers of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, probably

the leading advocate for business and free enterprise in the city of

Richmond and well known to many members on both sides of the

House.

With us today are chair Barbara Tinson, along with vice-chair Fan

Chun, as well as Cameron Fleming, Brian Corcoran, Carolyn Robertson, Grant

Bryan, Clint Undseth, Dale Jackman and Chuck Keeling. President and CEO Matt

Pitcairn is here, as well as Shaena Furlong and Dan Sakaki. Would the House

please give a warm welcome to members of the Richmond Chamber of

Commerce.

Hon. H. Bains: It is my pleasure to advise the House that some of the people closest

to me are in the gallery today: my son, Kal Bains; and my nephews, Gobinder

Hothi, Jyoti Bangu and Manraj Bains.

Manraj Bains, by the way, wants to be here very quickly. I told him

that I’m not so sure if the opposition is ready to have two Bainses on the

government side at this time, at the same time, so I told him to

wait.

These are the people that work tirelessly on my campaigns with

fundraising and are key members of my team. Please help me give them a warm

welcome.

D. Clovechok: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce some folks

from Invermere here in the gallery. Bruce and Marlene McLaughlin are here.

They’re up there.

Welcome.

They’re great community members and super volunteers, especially with

Rotary. If the House would make them feel welcome, that would be

appreciated.

S. Sullivan: I’m very pleased to introduce a guest from Vancouver: Marie Rogers, a

very engaged citizen and business person. I’m very honoured to have her.

Please welcome her to the chamber.

Hon. G. Heyman: We all know, in this House — every member — the important work that

our assistants in our constituency offices perform for the people we

represent, as well as helping us do our jobs.

I am pleased to have us be joined today in the gallery by my two

constituency assistants, Nadja Komnenic and Lisa Dekleer. They are

incredibly hard-working. They understand issues. They do great research.

They are very empathetic with the issues and problems faced by my

constituents. I ask the House to make them very, very welcome.

Also joining us in the legislative precinct today will be one of my

constituents, Megumi “Amy” Anderson, who is a tireless volunteer on any

number of issues. She’s enthusiastic. I’ve had the pleasure of standing with

her, talking to people about issues ranging from housing to proportional

representation, both during election campaigns and outside election

campaigns. She is a great addition to the community of Vancouver-Fairview.

I’m sure members who have a chance to meet her later today will be impressed

by her energy.

[10:10 a.m.]

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and hurry to welcome two interns

who have joined our caucus team for this session. We have Iliana Turner and

Benjamin Foster. Iliana is from the University of Victoria; Benjamin, from

the University of B.C.

We’re looking forward to working with them and learning a lot from

them as they share the days with us. This will be their first question

period up there shortly with their colleagues. Would the House please make

Iliana and Ben feel very welcome.

B. Stewart: It gives me great honour and pleasure to welcome a good friend of mine

for almost 60 years here to the precinct. It’s interesting. He was telling

me a story yesterday that he was last here when Cliff Serwa was the MLA from

Okanagan West and was a guest.

Anyways, his wife, DeeDee Crickmay, who I went to school with, and his

four kids have helped build West Kelowna, formerly Westbank, through

Kinsmen, where Peter was awarded a life membership and has been a tireless

community worker, working on the district 5 executive, back in the days when

Rich Coleman was back as governor of Kinsmen.

He also built a business in West Kelowna, and he was showing me a

picture yesterday of when gas at his gas station was only 28 cents a litre,

and how he built that business into a phenomenal success, where the company

that he worked with recognized his efforts. He’s built a solid business in

real estate, but more importantly, he’s a talented fisherman, cook and

respected musician who headlined with Terry Jacks at Quails’ Gate and has

entertained many people in Prideaux Haven.

I’d like the precinct to welcome Peter Wannop.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Joining us today are our government caucus interns. There are five

bright, intelligent young people who are going to assist us in our work here

in the Legislature.

I’d like the House to make most welcome, from the University of

Victoria, Kenya Rogers; also from the University of Victoria, Jessica

Neilson; from Simon Fraser University, Gagan Lidhran; from the University of

British Columbia, Ella Champion; and from Simon Fraser University, Kim

Chhina. Would the House please make these young people most

welcome.

Statements

ANNIVERSARY OF MLA FOR

ABBOTSFORD

WEST

A. Wilkinson: Most of us in here, whether we like it or not, remember the lyrics

from “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.” The key song

goes:

It was 20 years ago today,

Sergeant Pepper asked the band to play.

They’ve been going in and out of style,

But they’re guaranteed to raise a smile.

Well, 25 years ago today, no less than the bandmaster of

Abbotsford West was elected for the first time. I think we can all say

that he’s been going in and out of style, but he’s guaranteed to raise a

smile.

May we please recognize the long service of the member for

Abbotsford West, Mr. Mike de Jong.

Hon. M. Farnworth: To add some words to the Leader of the Opposition, I remember the

day, 25 years ago, when the member from Abbotsford joined this House.

During that time, I got to know him, to work with him as House Leader,

both as Opposition House Leader and from this side of the benches.

Twenty-five years is a long time. Not many members of this House have

that privilege, and I think it’s a testament to the work that he’s done

in his riding.

I’d like to also note that, like many things, life comes full

circle. He started his career on the opposition benches, and it’s nice

to see him still on the opposition benches.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: I rise today to introduce two people to the legislative chamber. Ryan

Clayton is my constituency assistant in Saanich North and the Islands and

does an amazing job helping me and working with me in order to serve the

great constituents of Saanich North and the Islands. With him today is

Jessica Parker, who’s a practicum student in the school of social work at

the University of Victoria. She’s been working in our office for the past

month or so. Could the members of this House please make them both feel very

welcome.

[10:15 a.m.]

J. Rustad: It’s a pleasure today to have a constituent of mine down visiting the

Legislature. I think he’s down, actually, for a number of meetings over the

course of the week. That is Brian Frenkel, a long-serving councillor for the

community of Vanderhoof. He’s down with UBCM for those meetings. Would the

House please make him welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

C. Oakes: This week is Chamber of Commerce Week in British Columbia. I’m

proud to rise in the House today to recognize the extraordinary

commitments that chambers of commerce provide to communities across the

province. From Abbotsford to Atlin, chambers and boards of trade from

across British Columbia will be sharing stories of the great things

their members are doing and how their organizations have shown grit for

their members this past year.

It is with a deep sense of pride that I remind everyone here in

the Legislature that British Columbia is home to one of Canada’s biggest

and broadest chamber networks, a tight-knit business community of over

36,000 owner-operators supported by a network of 125 regional chambers

and boards of trade. If you can name a small town in this great

province, you can be assured that same town or city also has a chamber

or board of trade made up of small business owners

volunteering.

We should also remember that though chambers are certainly

business associations, always advocating for reduced red tape and an

environment that supports risk-taking and investment, your chamber

equally represents a healthy slice of the not-for-profit charity

community too. Recent data shows, on average, non-profit organizations

make up 20 to 30 percent of local chamber memberships.

Chambers and boards of trade aren’t just business organizations.

They are community organizations too. Just look at the Greater Westside

Board of Trade in the Okanagan, which each year grows fresh produce on

their site to support the local food bank.

From policy advocacy on issues affecting the province to projects

affecting local communities, chambers do it all, and we thank

you.

GORDON STEWART AND SHEILA PATERSON

B. Ma: Though 2019 is still young, North Vancouver’s New Democrats have

already said goodbye to two lifelong party stalwarts, both purveyors of

love and social justice until the very end.

Gordon Wilkie Stewart passed away on January 15, 2019, at the age

of 90, leaving behind his love of 63 years, Donna Stewart, and their

offspring. As a pastor and the director of a Christian summer camp for

many years, Gord was a mentor, a role model, a spiritual leader to many,

many people, who he led with love and kindness. His sense of humour and

good nature shone through his very being every moment of his

life.

Gord and Donna fought all their lives for the less fortunate. From

housing to climate change and electoral reform, they always believed

that better was possible. Gord left very well-loved, but most of all,

loved by his God and his soulmate, Donna.

Sheila Joan Paterson passed away on February 2, 2019, at the age

of 92. A fiercely passionate social justice activist until the very end,

I will remember her most of all for her sharp wit and fondness for my

cats. I first met Sheila in the 2015 federal election campaign in North

Vancouver, where she could always be heard loudly and firmly laying down

what was what with voters over the phone.

Those who did not know her for her limitless devotion to the New

Democratic Party, the Council of Canadians, the Metro Vancouver Alliance

and several other social and eco-justice organizations will know her as

a musician, as a wife, as a mother, as a Christian and as a talented

local actor known for her roles in The Crush , Prozac

Nation , Diary of a Wimpy Kid and The X

Files .

These are the people who make up the lifeblood of the New

Democrats. I am honoured to have known them. May they continue to watch

over us as we continue on with our work.

[10:20 a.m.]

FOR PERSONS WITH

HEARING IMPAIRMENT

L. Reid: Obstacles are often in the path of those who rely on chairs for

mobility. The door openers and ramps can help. But what about those who

are hearing impaired? What constitutes a deaf-accessible building? How

cognizant are we of the challenges facing our neighbours who are hearing

impaired?

There are resources which speak to deaf space and deaf-friendly

buildings. The following excerpts are from the research underway at

Gallaudet University.

“Deaf individuals experience many different kinds and degrees of

hearing levels. Many use assistive devices such as hearing aids or

cochlear implants to enhance sound. No matter the level of hearing, many

deaf people do sense sound in a way that can be a major distraction,

especially for individuals with assistive hearing devices. Reverberation

caused by sound waves reflected by hard building surfaces can be

especially distracting, even painful, for individuals using assistive

devices.

“Spaces should be designed to reduce reverberation and other sources

of background noise. Our built environment, largely constructed by and

for hearing individuals, presents a variety of surprising challenges to

which deaf people have responded with a particular way of altering their

surroundings to fit their unique ways of being. This approach is often

referred to as DeafSpace.”

We have much to learn about the thoughtful application of deaf

space design concepts and sustainable design principles. My thanks to

Gallaudet University for their work in this regard.

CRANBERRY COMMONS

CO-HOUSING

COMMUNITY

J. Routledge: How do we create enough affordable housing for all of us to live

together in harmony in what is arguably one of the most desirable places

in the world to call home?

That’s a question we are all grappling with, and there’s no one

answer. But I’d like to tell you about one of the answers that is

thriving right now in my community and has been for about 20

years.

Cranberry Commons is an example of co-housing. Co-housing is

defined as an intentional community of privately owned homes, clustered

around shared space. From the street, Cranberry Commons looks like any

other multiplex, but once you go through the front door, you’re entering

an urban village.

Twenty-two privately owned homes are built around a shared

courtyard. Some units have one bedroom; others have two or three

bedrooms. Some multigenerational families live separately but together

in Cranberry Commons. There’s a common room, where neighbours can gather

for potlucks, book clubs or movie nights. Adjacent to it is a huge,

well-appointed kitchen, which comes in handy if you’re canning, baking

or preparing a dinner party.

There’s a children’s playroom, which is magical in its design, a

hangout where teenagers can be teenagers, a vegetable garden, a workshop

where you can make things or fix things and a guest room.

As one long-time Cranberry Commons resident explained to me: “We

live in smaller homes, but we have built a community by sharing. In our

courtyard, you can have meaningful conversations with your neighbours

and know that there are people around you who care.”

Co-housing nurtures children, teens, young adults, parents, single

people and seniors. It connects people in ways that are real and very

meaningful. Co-housing not only builds affordable housing; it builds

safe, inclusive communities.

RESPONSE TO WORKER DEATHS

IN TRAIN

DERAILMENT

D. Clovechok: I rise today to speak of a tragedy that occurred in my

constituency, near Field, British Columbia.

On February 4, very early in the morning, a westbound grain train

derailed between the upper and lower spiral tunnels. When the train

derailed, three crew members from Calgary perished.

I know that I speak for all members in this House in offering my

thoughts, my prayers and my condolences to the families, the friends and

the colleagues of Andrew Dockrell, Dylan Paradis and Daniel

Waldenberger-Bulmer — three dedicated and respected railroaders, one

near retirement, one raising a young family and one who was only a few

months into a new and exciting career.

Despite the loss and grief, the proud railroaders in my community

have carried on. Their dedication to duty and their actions exemplify

their professionalism. When we think of those lost, I ask that you not

only think of their dedication and bravery but also the dedication and

bravery of so many others.

Think of all the first responders, including the Field volunteer

fire department, B. C. Ambulance Service, Parks Canada, the RCMP, CP

police, and so many others.

[10:25 a.m.]

Think of the crews who worked so hard and tirelessly to recover

the three men that we lost. Think about the locomotive engineers and the

conductors in Golden or Revelstoke — or anywhere, for that matter — who

boarded their trains without hesitation to work their shifts, even after

hearing of the tragic loss of their friends. That is what courage is

made of.

Think of the investigators for the Transportation Board of Canada

and Transport Canada, along with other agencies whose job it is to

reconstruct the accident and identify the factors leading to it. Think

of the crews who reconstructed the lines and had them back in service

days later, and think of the crews who continue to clean up today. Think

of the CP leadership on all levels and the caring and support they are

giving to their CP family, acknowledging that the grief is

nationwide.

Railroads have been the arteries of our economy for 150 years. Our

railroaders, all the women and men, are not only driving trains; they

are driving our economy. In doing so, they have formed a strong

brotherhood, a strong sisterhood, and they are the heart of my

community.

My riding of Columbia River–Revelstoke is home to hundreds of

railroaders, from Kimberley to Golden to Field to Revelstoke, and they

continue to grieve the loss of three of their own.

I ask the members of this House: when you have the privilege of

meeting a railroader, shake their hands and thank them for their service

and let them know that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them in this

very difficult time. We need to say thank you more often to our

railroaders.

Thank you for what you do for this country. Thank you for what you

do for this province. And thank you for what you do for all of our

communities. May Creator continue to bless you all.

LITERARY COMMUNITY

IN ESQUIMALT-METCHOSIN

AREA

M. Dean: I live in a very literary community. Esquimalt-Metchosin is

bursting with wonderful and highly decorated authors.

Esi Edugyan, for example, is only the third writer ever to win the

Giller Prize twice, for her novels Half-Blood Blues and

Washington Black , among her collection of acclaimed books,

including The Second Life of Samuel Tyne , written at age

Living with Edugyan in Colwood is local poet and novelist Steven

Price. Steven has earned numerous honours for his poetry, including the

Gerald Lampert Award in 2006 for Anatomy of Keys . In 2011, he

completed Into That Darkness and recently released By

Gaslight .

Also resident in our community is columnist Jack Knox, whose

writing always makes me smile and sometimes laugh out loud. He’s been

nominated twice for the Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour and

has won Jack Webster journalism awards, including the 2015 award for

Commentator of the Year.

Additionally, in the neighbourhood is Trudy Spiller, who is part

of the Gitxsan Nation. Her children’s book, Trudy’s Rock Story ,

has been translated into her traditional Indigenous language, as well as

into French.

Further west, we have international and multi-awarded novelist,

Polly Horvath — also Tom Henry, Ken Merkley, Jackqueline Chadwick and

Monique Anstee.

Living in a community of rich storytelling is an honour and an

inspiration, as we learn about ourselves and others. As Edugyan’s book

is described, it “asks the question: what is true freedom?” And as

Knox’s latest compilation explains: “It also tells the tales of those

you walk past on the sidewalk every day, people you don’t know but whose

hidden stories make you wish you did.”

Oral Questions

CARIBOU PROTECTION

AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

PROCESS

D. Davies: Over the past year, British Columbians have been kept completely

in the dark over the mountain caribou issue. Every time a public meeting

has been held, it’s been cancelled at the last minute. My colleague from

Peace River South, who has done a lot of work on this file, along with

myself, are wondering if the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource can tell our constituents why he refuses to meet with

us.

Hon. D. Donaldson: As the member knows, caribou populations didn’t disappear

overnight. The old government did little to protect them and instead

allowed them to reach near-extinction levels.

[10:30 a.m.]

We’ve taken upon ourselves to create a made-in-B.C. solution,

rather than allowing the federal government to institute a

section 80

order in order to protect the species at risk. In fact, just in January,

at the resource forum in Prince George, I met with members of the Peace

River regional district and the Concerned Citizens for Caribou Recovery

along with the Minister of Environment. We committed to engage in a

public process starting this month, once the partnership agreement with

the Saulteau, the federal government and the West Moberly First Nations

is finalized in a draft form only.

Mr. Speaker: Peace River North on a supplemental.

D. Davies: Well, we’re still waiting for these public meetings that have been

promised. In fact, yesterday the minister told CBC that meetings were

cancelled because of “concerns around safety.” I know the minister is

very comfortable talking to his activist friends but apparently not the

public. And I tell you, this has really bothered myself and the people

in my riding.

Is the minister really saying…? Are you concerned that people in

the north, in my riding, are dangerous?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Once again, I want to emphasize that we met with the Peace River

regional district and Concerned Citizens for Caribou Recovery, January

23 in Prince George. I’ll read from a media release — the joint media

release with them at that point. “The meeting concluded with a

commitment from the province to initiate public and stakeholder

engagement in early February on the draft partnership agreement to

recover caribou in the Peace region.”

That is our commitment. Once the draft agreement is finalized with

the federal government and the Saulteau and West Moberly First Nations,

we will then present the draft for public input. It is a draft statement

that has yet to be agreed on by all sides. Once that’s done, then we’ll

engage in a public engagement process in the northeast.

Mr. Speaker: Peace River North on a second supplemen­tal.

D. Davies: Again, those meetings that the minister did meet with were closed

meetings and go against the three or four public meetings that the

ministry was going to be having up in the northeast. Again, this

minister, who has no problem visiting an illegal camp to support

protestors that disrespect our RCMP officers and the rule of law…. The

minister’s vague allegation yesterday on CBC insulted countless members,

countless constituents, of my riding that just want answers to some

questions.

Why would the minister meet with these activists and not with our

constituents?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re getting two different scenarios from the member. He wants to

talk about the caribou issue in his constituency, and we’ll talk about

that. But first, I want to say that at the invitation of constituents

and hereditary chiefs, I visited a site, the Unist’ot’en Camp, to

determine safety conditions and determine if conditions will be done

safely under their watch. And that’s what I did. Visiting constituents

is part of an MLA’s job.

As far as the southern mountain caribou, it was listed as a

threatened species, federally, in 2003. I wonder who was in government

then. The federal government posted a recovery strategy in 2014. I

wonder who was in government then. Their inaction, the inaction of the

members on the other side when they were in government, put B.C. at risk

of the federal government posing unilateral measures.

We are determined for that not to happen. We will engage with the

public in the Peace River regional district and the communities there

when we have the draft agreement released.

T. Shypitka: I hear the minister over there bragging about a

made-in-British-Columbia solution without the assistance of British

Columbians. The people in the Kootenays have been completely shut out of

the process of the mountain caribou.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, Kootenay East has the floor.

[10:35 a.m.]

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

People who recreate, work and raise their families in rural

British Columbia deserve to be part of that process. By refusing to meet

them, the minister shows that he really doesn’t care about the opinions

of hard-working and fun-loving British Columbians in rural B.C. Why

isn’t the minister meeting with communities in the Kootenays?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We have a process that’s in place right now. We’re engaging in a

trilateral process with the West Moberly and the Saulteau First Nations

and the federal government to attempt to not have a

section 80 order,

under the Species at Risk Act, imposed by the federal government to try

to correct actions that the former government didn’t take, in order to

avoid that

section 80 order. We also have a process underway — and

public engagement has happened on this process — across B.C. and with

the federal government on caribou recovery.

So I don’t understand the member’s questions when it comes to

public engagement. I will go back to the media release that we jointly

did with the Peace River regional district: “As part of the engagement,

the province committed to sharing data and analyses on potential impacts

of the…agreement and made a commitment to work with the Peace River

regional district on evaluating impacts of the agreement on Peace

communities. The…agreement will not be finalized until engagement is

complete and potential impacts on communities and workers are

understood.”

This is the same type of engagement that we’ll do with communities

across B.C. when it comes to the recovery of caribou.

Mr. Speaker: Kootenay East on a supplemental.

T. Shypitka: Well,

section 80 says nothing about not consulting with British

Columbians. I’d like to make that fairly clear. The government has

failed to do even the bare minimum of consultation with local

communities. The secrecy of who is at the table is almost as bad as who

isn’t at the table. It’s creating suspicion and fear, especially in my

riding. The back country is rural British Columbia’s backyards. People

in the Kootenays are tired of this minister and the NDP government

making decisions for them down here in Victoria.

The question is to the minister. Why is the minister keeping rural

British Columbians in the dark on decisions that will directly affect

their lifestyle?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll repeat myself again to the member and for the previous member

as well. We are taking actions to ensure that we don’t get a unilateral

action by the federal government that could be to the detriment of

communities in B.C. We’re doing a made-in-B.C. solution. If we don’t, we

risk the federal government unilaterally making changes that could harm

B.C.’s economy.

Once we have a draft that’s ready for public release, we’ll be

taking that to communities not only in the Kootenays and the Cariboo

but, as well, in the Peace River regional district.

MONEY LAUNDERING IN CASINOS

S. Furstenau: Last week my colleague asked the Attorney General for answers on

what his government is doing to clean up the culture of corruption in

B.C. casinos. While the German report recommendations are important,

they do not go nearly far enough.

Last week we learned some disturbing new details related to this

story. We learned the RCMP, in fact, were quite concerned that B.C.

government officials may have leaked information that compromised RCMP

raids in 2015 on underground casinos. Those raids targeted specific

underground illegal gambling operations that were found hastily

abandoned. This raises serious questions. But when the media asked

questions on whether there’d been any investigations into the integrity

of information-sharing between the RCMP and the B.C. government, the

response was met with silence.

My question is to the Attorney General. Given this troubling

situation, have there been any investigations into the integrity of

information-sharing between the RCMP and the B.C. government?

Hon. D. Eby: I know the member is well aware that almost immediately on taking

on this role we asked Peter German to go in and do a review of what has

been happening — and how we can stop the money laundering taking place

in B.C. casinos — on an urgent basis, and he certainly did

that.

There are some big structural changes that are underway. First of

all, we’re removing oversight in relation to money laundering, as best

as we can, from the B.C. Lottery Corp. I say “as best as we can” because

they are a designated entity by FINTRAC. We’re working with FINTRAC to

figure out how we can get that all in the regulators’ hands.

[10:40 a.m.]

In terms of information coming out of the B.C. Lottery Corp., I’ve

actually written a couple of times to B.C. Lottery Corp. to express

concern about information leaving BCLC. I believe that they’ve taken the

steps necessary to address that issue. In terms of the larger issue,

potentially, of information leaving the previous government that was

raised by the news release, certainly I read the same report with

concern. Certainly, we’ve taken it under advisement in terms of larger

deliberations about next steps.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the response from the Attorney General. I think I

want to go a little bit deeper.

The story about alleged criminal information sharing as a way to

thwart the actions of the RCMP may go beyond just minor officials.

According to notes taken by the B.C. Lottery Corp.’s former head of

anti-money-laundering, high levels of B.C.’s government had also been

briefed. It appears that a lot of people, right to the highest levels,

had inside knowledge of this specific operation in 2015, which

unfortunately casts doubt on the whole branch of government.

We know that at this time, it wasn’t only the RCMP that was losing

trust in the officials of the B.C. Lottery Corp. B.C. gaming policy and

enforcement branch investigators were also losing trust. The RCMP had

noticed that the B.C. Lottery Corp. leadership had been unwilling to

address what was a clear acceptance of large amounts of cash very likely

linked to crime.

My question, again, is to the Attorney General. Clearly, more is

needed to get to the root of these troubling revelations. If police

don’t have confidence in branches of the provincial government, how can

British Columbians? What actions are the government going to be

proposing that will get to the root of this issue?

Hon. D. Eby: You know, you don’t really have to go to last week’s reports. You

can even go to reports in the Vancouver Sun from 2017 about

activities that took place as early as 2009. In 2009, there was a report

that said that known gangsters were gambling in B.C. casinos. There is

an issue with “a significant increase in the use of illegal gaming

houses in the province and the legitimization of proceeds of crime

through B.C.’s gaming facilities.” That was a second report, a memo in

People knew what was happening in B.C. casinos. I have no question

about that. I also have no question that inadequate steps were taken. I

think that is a matter of public record. I think it’s very

clear.

When our government took over, we said, “Tell the casinos to stop

accepting the money,” even though we knew it would cost 30 million

bucks. In addition, we’re in the process of examining one of Dr.

German’s key recommendations, which is to set up an independent policing

unit to deal with crime in casinos. This is in contrast to the previous

government, which, of course, defunded the integrated casino gaming

policing team.

So you can see there’s a significant difference in government

approaches to get to the bottom of this and provide resources. I am,

every day, as best as possible, asking the federal government to be

involved too, because we don’t believe that this is limited to casinos.

Nor do we believe that this is strictly a provincial issue.

FOREST INDUSTRY AND WILDFIRE

RESPONSE IN NECHAKO LAKES

AREA

J. Rustad: It’s been two years, and the Minister of Forests has done nothing

to help the forest-dependent communities in Nechako Lakes. Lumber price

is around $400 U.S., but mills are taking downtime while the government

drives up costs, and no plan to help workers in these impacted

communities. In addition, the minister continues to refuse to set the

allocation in the Prince George supply area.

When will the minister resolve the uncertainty and

uncompetitiveness that is hurting the communities in Nechako

Lakes?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m very happy to answer a question on forestry. It’s been a long

time coming in this Legislature.

The forest sector is a foundational industry for communities in

rural areas and, in fact, supports jobs in urban areas as well. Because

of world prices and trade disputes, there is some uncertainty,

especially in the Interior, and our thoughts go out to people who are

facing layoffs due to those forces that are at work. Unfortunately, in

the past government, they oversaw the loss of 30,000 forestry jobs, and

100 mills in rural communities were shut down that depended on those

jobs.

We’re taking this seriously. We’ve been working on the coast

forest sector revitalization plan. We’re now going to move into the

Interior to work on that, to ensure that more logs are processed

domestically. We’re working on the forest annual allowable cut, the

question the member had. That’s a determination by the chief forester,

and the allocation is a decision that I will be making in the near

future on that.

[10:45 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: On a supplemental.

J. Rustad: The minister likes his lines, but the facts, according to Stats

Canada, are that B.C.’s forest industry gained about 10,000 jobs under

the last government. The minister uses….

Interjections.

J. Rustad: Check Stats Canada, for the members that like to

chuckle.

The minister uses distractions because he’s also failing these

same communities through his lack of response to last year’s

unprecedented fire season. People stayed behind in an evacuation zone to

protect their homes and the properties because they did not trust this

government to do the job. Contractors weren’t allowed to go in early,

local people weren’t resourced, mass water delivery systems were shut

out, and there was no funding for recovery.

When will the minister take steps to modernize B.C.’s approach to

firefighting and change how people are supported?

Hon. D. Donaldson: First of all, again, it’s one of my first opportunities in a long

while to thank members of the B.C. Wildfire Service, the contractors and

community members who ensured that not one life was lost during the

wildfire season of 2018, the largest in B.C. history. When you look

south of the border and at the lives that were lost in the fires just in

California, for instance, that is a real testimony to the hard work and

dedication of the people I just mentioned.

It is a bit disconcerting for me to hear from the member, who

should be following this more closely, about his lack of knowledge about

our support for rural B.C. We announced in September a $50 million fund,

the community resilience initiative fund for communities to fireproof

their communities within municipal boundaries. It’s 100 percent funded,

unlike what happened under the previous program, under this

government.

Finally…. The list is endless, but I’ll just highlight this one as

well. On Saturday, a $100 million capital investment fund was announced

by the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for

communities in the northwest — right across to Vanderhoof, in the

member’s own riding — to help support them on capital infrastructure

deficits that were left by this previous government.

WEST FRASER ROAD STATUS

IN QUESNEL

AREA

C. Oakes: Nearly a year has passed since a washout destroyed several

stretches of West Fraser Road, a vital road that connects the

communities of Buckridge and ?Esdilagh First Nations to the city of

Quesnel, in my riding. The more than 200 residents from these

communities are now forced to travel on a dangerous, windy forest

service road. Constituents like Chief Roy Stump and small business

owners like Teresa and Dale Smith, to name a few, are fed up.

To the Minister of Transportation, when will West Fraser Road be

reopened?

Hon. C. Trevena: The member opposite has written to me about this, and I’ve heard

from many of her constituents. It is a very serious concern. The damage

to West Fraser Road in last spring’s floods was significant. It remains

closed for people’s safety. I do understand the impact that the closure

is having on people, and we are continuing to work on getting a solution

in the earliest time we can. But there is significant geotechnical and

hydrological assessments that are ongoing.

We are investigating options to re-establish service on that road.

Really, I think the member opposite knows the nature of the road, knows

the nature of the problem and knows that the Ministry of Transportation

staff in the field are working as hard as possible to ensure that that

road opens as soon as it can.

Mr. Speaker: Cariboo North on a supplemental.

[10:50 a.m.]

C. Oakes: The Quesnel school board is also feeling in the dark and left in

questions about West Fraser Road. Delay after delay after delay. They’re

concerned about students’ safety, and they’re concerned about students’

well-being. Children as young as five who travel to Quesnel by school

bus are now forced to travel on this dangerous forest service road that

requires two hours of travel each way. There are also financial concerns

for the school district, with the extra travel time, the need for a

different bus and, of course, increased maintenance costs.

Again, to the minister, when will West Fraser Road be reopened,

and when will there be financial contributions to support the school

district with these increased costs?

Hon. C. Trevena: I know that ministry staff in the region have been meeting

regularly with local authorities, with local governments, with the

school board to work with them on the problems that are being faced. I

think the member is also aware that, as I mentioned in my previous

answer, it is a very complicated site from a geotechnical perspective.

There are approximately 11,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools full of

debris in that area that need to be cleared. The area has got to be

stabilized. It is a significant damage to a piece of

infrastructure.

We are making the detour safe. We know that this is something that

school buses are using, communities are using, Indigenous peoples are

using. We know that this is an area that we’ve got to make as safe as

possible. We are working as hard as we can, as fast as we can. I hope

that the member opposite will work with us to talk with her community

about the magnitude of the problem, because it is a huge

problem.

BUS SERVICE IN RURAL B.C.

D. Barnett: Residents in the Cariboo-Chilcotin have been stranded without bus

transportation systems since last fall. For reasons no one can

understand, a company was given a licence even though they have no

vehicles to provide the service. Imagine a bus company with no

bus.

To the Minister of Transportation: can you tell me when residents

will actually get service?

Hon. C. Trevena: I know that many British Columbians around the province rely on

ground transportation. That’s why we worked assiduously when Greyhound

initially announced it was pulling out from northern B.C. and put in

B.C. Bus North in northern B.C., a B.C. Transit operation. When it then

announced that it was going to be pulling out from the rest of the

province, we followed the usual procedure but expedited it.

I think the member opposite is well aware that we have an

independent tribunal that allocates bus routes, the Passenger

Transportation Board. The Passenger Transportation Board took

applications from providers, people who wanted to operate the bus

services. They went through them and made sure that people were able to

provide the service, as by the application. The Passenger Transportation

Board is continuing to work with the provider that the member mentioned,

has given a number of times to allow that operator to get ready to

provide the service and continues to work with the operator to ensure

that everybody across B.C. has access to safe and affordable ground

transportation.

Mr. Speaker: Cariboo-Chilcotin on a supplemental.

D. Barnett: The sham of a licence is blocking anyone else from actually

providing service, and the ministry keeps giving the company extensions.

The Transportation Minister made a lot of claims last fall about

communities keeping bus service. Her promises are proving to be

absolutely false, and it is people in rural British Columbia who are

paying the price.

Once again, a question to the Minister of Transportation: when

will people get the service they were promised?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to remind the member opposite…. She talked about the

ministry. The Passenger Transportation Board is independent of the

ministry. They’re the ones who ensure that we have the buses on the

roads. They’re independent of the ministry.

[10:55 a.m.]

As minister, my responsibility is to make sure that people do have

access to safe, affordable transportation. That’s why we instituted a

B.C. Transit service in the north. That’s why we’ve been supporting the

Highway 16 project to ensure that people travelling on that dangerous

section of highway can continue to have safe and affordable

transportation. That’s why we expedited the applications.

Anybody can continue to apply for any of those routes at any stage

through the Passenger Transportation Board if they feel that there’s a

service, and in those areas where there wasn’t anybody who came forward,

we have had requests for expressions of interest. We’ve had a number of

providers come forward for that.

We are working with them and with the Passenger Transportation

Board to make sure that everyone across B.C. has access to safe,

affordable ground transportation, which I think that the members

opposite know that, when they were in government, they

ignored.

D. Clovechok: Under this Transportation Minister’s watch, communities across

this province are suffering from the loss of transportation services.

Fact. This has had a devastating impact on the quality of life of

students, of families and, most importantly, where I live, of seniors,

because they desperately need these services.

To the Minister of Transportation: when will these communities

that you have abandoned finally get the service they deserve?

Hon. C. Trevena: To clarify with the member opposite, Greyhound, which is a private

commercial operator, decided to pull out from the whole of western

Canada. They said that was it.

We have been working with the federal government on ensuring that

we can fill the gaps and that we can look at a national solution. We

have been working within British Columbia to fill the gaps, to make sure

we have service in as many places as possible, and we continue to work

to ensure there is service wherever it is possible.

Unlike the previous government, we know that there is a real need

for people to have affordable transportation, to have safe

transportation across this province, and we continue to work with both

communities, with commercial providers, and through the independent

Passenger Transportation Board to ensure that there is that service

available.

Mr. Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

D. Clovechok: Knowing and doing are two different things. British Columbians

have been left stranded by this minister. There is no ride-sharing

anywhere in this province. In Delta, they’re stuck in a tunnel. In rural

B.C., there is absolutely no bus service.

Again, the question to the minister: why is this minister leaving

so many rural communities, especially my seniors, stranded without any

transportation?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to say that under our watch, there has been a record

amount of investment in public transportation….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: We are funding transportation for First Nations. We are funding

public transportation. We are funding transportation within communities

and between communities.

The opposition, when they were in government for 16 years — 16

years…. Let’s remember this. They failed to work….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: Sixteen years — it just riles them. They were in government for 16

years. We are dealing with their legacy, whether it is ICBC, B.C. Hydro

or transportation. We continue to deal with the failings of 16 years of

B.C. Liberal government.

In Transportation, I continue to work with communities, unlike the

opposition when they were in government. We continue to work to ensure

that partners are brought to the table. And while they play politics, we

make sure things get done and things get fixed, after 16 years of

Liberal government.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

D. Barnett: I have a lot of letters here from seniors to the Minister of

Transportation, requesting a bus service.

[11:00 a.m.]

Petitions

M. Bernier: I rise to present a petition as well, from over 350 residents of my

riding for Ministers Heyman and Donaldson, urging for science-based

management and proper predator management to help deal with the caribou

recovery program.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 2.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — PROTECTION OF PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION

ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: Joining me here for committee stage debate on the Protection of

Public Participation Act is Russell Getz, legal counsel in the justice

services branch in the Ministry of Attorney General.

M. Lee: We canvassed at length, on second reading, the background to Bill

2 — and Bill 32, when it was first introduced in the last

session.

[11:05 a.m.]

I would just like to come back to some of the comments that were

made to frame bringing forward this bill by the Attorney General on

second reading. Perhaps we could just talk about a few areas that I’d

like to probe at this committee stage before getting into the specific

sections.

There was some reference to the fact that in terms of the reported

cases, what happened between the period of 1973 to 1983 contrasted with

2003 to 2013, going from 238, the number of cases, to 762 that might

require the need for a bill of this nature.

I’d like to ask first if the Attorney General would please comment

as to what the nature is of the baseline that the province of B.C. is

looking at in respect of establishing this bill at this time — the

number of cases that have been brought forward. What does the Attorney

General expect will occur in terms of cases to come after this bill

comes to pass, if it does?

Hon. D. Eby: The ministry doesn’t collect metrics on this kind of thing. It’s a

challenging piece to collect numbers on, as the member may know,

although there is a broader movement within the Ministry of Attorney

General to work with the courts to begin to collect better information

about different types of files, the speed with which they move through

the court system, and to work with the courts on improving the

efficiencies of our justice system.

There was a lot of question in 2001 when a version of this bill

was introduced. I went into some detail about the differences. In

particular, the commentary was about: do we need this bill, is it

necessary, can you prove that it’s necessary, and so on.

I think that, given a couple of significant Supreme Court of

Canada decisions that I canvassed — Torstar, Mair — the court was pretty

clear that they felt that there was a need to address the tort of

defamation in terms of ensuring protection for free speech. But the

court is limited in terms of the onus or the balance in the sense of the

procedural rules, so this bill attempts to…. It takes into account the

court’s concerns.

The court heard a lot of evidence about the need for reform, about

the free expression–impairing elements of the old tort. We had a letter

from 11, I think it was, senior eminent officials — former and current

members of the justice system — asking for this. We’ve seen advocacy

from journalists, from people who speak out in community on different

issues. So in terms of the question of the need, clearly there is a

need.

In terms of measuring whether or not there’s an increase or

decrease in the number of actions filed, that kind of thing, that was

sort of the point of the

article that I was referencing. It was that

there weren’t good metrics about this kind of thing. This associate

professor from UNB law was attempting to put some parameters around it

in terms of the Canadian context. I wish I had some numbers to share

with the member. I simply don’t. That would have been a shorter

answer.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response.

If we could talk a little more about the nature of the kinds of

claims that the Attorney General is seeing, that are being brought

forward. Can he describe for this House the kinds of claims that he’s

concerned about, apart from the ones that are through defamation through

the media sector, obviously, with other community groups? If he can just

give a general description as to cases in recent times that he would be

particularly minded for, for the purpose of bringing forward this

bill.

Hon. D. Eby: This bill is aimed at a couple of pieces. The ones that I’m

particularly sympathetic to are the concerns of journalists who are

tasked with getting stories out in the public interest.

If you’re a journalist and you get a defamation threat, as many —

I would argue most — investigative journalists have received, and you

sit down with the insurer, if your newspaper or news channel or whatever

has access to insurance to provide counsel, or you just sit down with a

lawyer, that lawyer would go through with you that: “Yes, you may have a

good case here in terms of this is in the public interest. You may have

a good defence in terms of responsible journalism. You may, at the end

of the day, be able to meet the burden on all these different

pieces.”

[11:10 a.m.]

What’s going to happen is this person…. If they file the

defamation suit against you, all they have to do is prove that your

story lowered the public’s or a reasonable person’s opinion of them, and

then the whole thing shifts to you to prove all of these defences.

You’re going to go through a full trial, and it’ll take years. The

approximate costs will be X, but it will be in the tens of thousands of

dollars to defend this claim.

You need to make a decision about: is this story worth going

ahead? Is it worth pressing ahead knowing that, ultimately, you may win

after a full trial, but you have to go through a full trial to defend

it? This is someone with a lot of resources or a company with a lot of

resources that is threatening this defamation action. They’ll be able to

go the distance. Generally speaking, this is the scenario. Then the

story is either spiked or withdrawn, or the journalist actually makes

the decision to go ahead.

I’m extremely reluctant to provide examples of specific cases,

because this bill talks about different elements that need to be proven

in order to satisfy it, in order to have a matter dismissed, that may

not have been argued, may not have been in front of the court because

this bill didn’t exist at the time. I can’t say with certainty that any

particular case would fall within this bill or would not fall within

this bill without knowing all the details of those cases.

But I do know. The people that have written to the government and

those that have advocated for these reforms in Ontario, in the Moran

panel, and in British Columbia — less formally, but certainly those

voices have been very present — say that there’s a significant problem

with — and I use the examples of journalists — stories not getting out

there simply because of a threat of defamation, never mind

litigation.

What we’re trying to do is say to people: “Look, it’ll still end

up in court, potentially, but at least you’ll have a procedural remedy

to get this dealt with sooner. You won’t have to go through a full

trial, and you’ll be able to incorporate some of the defences the

Supreme Court of Canada has come up with, at a much earlier stage. There

will be costs, but they won’t be nearly what they would be otherwise.”

That’s what we’re attempting to address here in the bill.

M. Lee: To what degree was the Third Party consulted when drafting this

bill?

Hon. D. Eby: This bill is modelled on the Ontario act, which then was used by

the Uniform Law Conference of Canada to create a model statute for

Canada. Our bill draws almost exactly from that model statute. There was

a lot of work done by Ontario and the Uniform Law Conference of Canada

in coming up with that model statute.

We also looked at the benefit of the fact that the bill didn’t go

through in the first session and that it was reintroduced, as it gave us

a chance to see the Ontario Court of Appeal decision that evaluated the

Ontario act and filled in some of the spaces that the act left in terms

of how the courts will be interpreting this. You could say, in a sense,

that we consulted the Ontario Court of Appeal, although simply by

reading their judgment.

Because it is based on a model statute, because it comes from

experiences in other jurisdictions, we did not rely on third-party

representations in crafting the bill. We wanted to have a consistent

bill, as much as possible, between the jurisdictions to benefit from the

jurisprudence that’s already starting to accumulate around the Ontario

act.

While we certainly did, to the extent that we could, let

stakeholders who had expressed interest know…. I believe we let the B.C.

Civil Liberties Association know and then the eminent jurists, current

and former — the people who had written to us to advocate for this

bill.

[11:15 a.m.]

We let them know that it was coming out. The bill itself was based

not on consultations with third parties but rather on the model

legislation that was put forward by the Uniform Law Conference of

Canada.

M. Lee: That question certainly can be interpreted to be asking about any

third party. I was also referring to the Third Party in this

House.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the clarification. I believe, actually,

that — I’m not 100 percent sure — it was part of the confidence and

supply agreement. It may have been. I don’t know. I just know it was a

shared interest, certainly, of the Green Party and the NDP that this

legislation be in place and a long-standing policy, I think, of both

parties that this be in place. Certainly, we share the Green Party’s

enthusiasm for bringing back these kinds of protections for free

speech.

I know that the Green Party, to the extent that I believe I can

say so, was pleased to see the bill come forward, wanted to see the bill

come forward and advocated to see the bill come forward. But again, the

bill itself was based on the Uniform Law Conference of Canada model

legislation and not on third-party — whether small letters or capital

letters — submissions. Certainly, the enthusiasm of the Third Party for

this is shared by our party, and everybody, I think, is glad that this

is finally coming in.

M. Lee: Apart from the Ontario Court of Appeal decisions, has there been

any further input from the Ontario government as to, or any review of,

the consequences of…? There was similar legislation in Ontario since

that date. Has there been any review or any consideration of how that’s

worked out in Ontario?

Hon. D. Eby: It sounds a bit funny to say it, because the bill in Ontario was

brought in, in 2015, but it is a bit soon, just given the speed of the

legal system, to say with certainty what the outcomes have

been.

One of the big landmarks and one of the big pieces that people

were looking to, to determine how the statute would be treated by the

courts and interpreted was the Court of Appeal decision that came out in

August. The case is 1704604 Ontario v. the Pointes Protection

Association and a number of other named defendants. I highly

recommend the decision to people who are interested to see how the

courts to date have treated this statute, as the Ontario Court of Appeal

is quite an influential court.

Certainly, we were pleased to see a decision that supported the

statute as we had brought it forward in the original session and as we

re-introduced it in the current session. It’s very helpful for people to

see that court decision come forward and to flesh out a little bit some

of the bones of the statute.

M. Lee: Just looking at the alternative models that might have been

considered, when reviewing the underpinnings for this particular set of

legislation, was there consideration given to some of the other models

that have been provided in the various states of the United States of

America that have adopted what has been a fairly wide-ranging set of

approaches to dealing with frivolous lawsuits? Were there any

alternatives considered by this government in looking at anti-SLAPP

legislation?

Hon. D. Eby: There are some fairly significantly different approaches in some

of the U.S. jurisdictions. They, of course, have a significantly

different system and a different constitution, although many similar

values around free expression and so on.

[11:20 a.m.]

One of the models that looked interesting at first blush was, I

believe, out of California, where they have triple costs where you can

prove that the litigation that’s been brought forward is essentially a

SLAPP suit. It has resulted in, essentially, a bar of people, a defence

bar that will act pro bono, or act for free, until the case is

concluded, for people who are facing these kinds of actions, because the

lawyers believe that at the end of the day, they’ll get triple costs and

pay for their costs on the file. They’ll take it on, essentially, on

contingency.

The challenge with that approach, again, is that it requires the

case to go all the way through and then for there to be a determination

of a triple-cost award. So we stayed away from the cost awards as being

the discipline to assist people in getting legal representation and so

on. I wasn’t as sure that the costs alone would be enough to encourage

lawyers to represent people for free in the hopes that ultimately they

would get a positive costs award. Although, at first glance, it seemed

more appealing.

Then we also had the benefit of another jurisdiction — namely,

Ontario — and the Uniform Law Commission of Canada set out a

made-in-Canada regime that incorporated all of the jurisprudence, all of

the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, into a very elegant

procedural motion that allows things to be heard much sooner.

It results in less burden on the courts — you don’t have to go

through a full trial — and less burden on defendants who are facing

these. It doesn’t hope that lawyers will come forward and represent

people for free in the hopes of getting a cost award, and it allows

people to raise these issues very early in the proceedings. There were a

number of benefits, ultimately, that led us in this

direction.

M. Lee: Just looking at these considerations, I would like to ask the

Attorney General in terms of what considerations were given to the

consequences. I appreciate, of course, the concerns around defendants’

freedom of expression, and certainly, we’ve discussed that at second

reading. It’s something that I acknowledge and recognize.

In terms of the plaintiffs’ considerations, what consequences has

the Attorney General looked at, in reviewing the nature and the

framework of this bill, as to the potential impact on plaintiffs who

have claims which might have some merit? Of course, I appreciate, again,

that this is the early mechanism to determine that. But in any event, is

there a concern here in terms of plaintiffs’ inability to bring forward

claims which do have merit in this new framework that will be put in

front of them as they might bring forward a claim against the

defendant?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined now by Darin Thompson, legal counsel, as well. I

appreciate his assistance here.

I’ll refer the member to

section 4 of the bill. We’ll get there

eventually. It has the balancing test, as I described it in my second

reading speech. This is the heart of the bill. It does rebalance the

approach to protecting free expression versus protecting reputational

rights. It’s recognized and it’s intended that that be the effect of

section 4.

The member is right that significant consideration has gone into

the impact that this will have, both on the defendants’ free expression

rights and on the plaintiffs’ reputational rights, because subsection

4(2) has two parts to it, (

a) and (b). Even if you are able to show that

“the proceeding has substantial merit” and that “the applicant has no

valid defence in the proceeding,” the court still will participate in a

weighing exercise about the impact on free expression versus the value

of the reputational rights that are being protected by the

proceeding.

[11:25 a.m.]

The intent here is to say: “You might get an award of $500 at the

end of this case, but the impact of that on free expression will far

outweigh that, and so, as a result, we’re not going to allow this to go

ahead anyway.” That is a change in the weighting between protecting free

expression and protecting reputational rights.

We are reweighting things to protect free expression because we

feel that the law, as it has evolved, has disproportionately weighted

reputational rights, and that’s had an impact on everything from

community members speaking about projects that impact their community to

journalists and to others in a way that is detrimental, ultimately, to

democracy. So we are reweighting this a little bit, but it is up to the

court to decide whether the reputational interest that’s at stake

outweighs the free expression impact. The proposed legislation here

provides the court with the opportunity to do that balancing

test.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Lee: First, to clarify again that the only difference between this Bill

2 and Bill 32 from the previous session is the amendment to this

section. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I believe that to be the case. The only substantive change is the

change to the coming-into-force date — essentially, which lawsuits this

would apply to when they were filed.

M. Lee: Appreciating that we did not reach the opportunity to have a

discussion of Bill 32 at the time in the previous session, but just to

understand the nature of the initial proposal by the government, can I

ask the Attorney General: why was the original provision drafted in that

way, in terms of application to any actions that might be in place at

the time, which would have an effect to deal with any claims?

Hon. D. Eby: I think, just as sort of a procedural point, but an important one,

the question doesn’t relate to a bill that’s in front of the House. The

bill that’s in front of the House starts the effect of this for

litigation that was filed on the day that the bill was introduced in the

House and later.

The reason for taking that approach is that we wanted to avoid a

sudden rush of litigation coming in after the bill was introduced but

before it received royal assent, which was an extended period because we

didn’t pass the bill in the first session, and this revised version was

introduced in the second session. We didn’t want a bunch of people suing

each other, trying to get things in before royal assent. We wanted to

communicate very clearly that there’s not a window — that as of the date

of introduction, the bill, if it passes, is in effect.

The broader question — I think good arguments could be made on

both sides of that. Ultimately, it was government’s decision to go with

the date of introduction rather than applying to all actions that are

currently in front of the court.

M. Lee: I think it’s important to understand the way that this government

was approaching this bill when it tabled that bill in the first place,

in the previous session, and then did not bring it forward, effectively,

to second reading or committee. We have the opportunity now to

understand the manner in which this bill was tabled in the previous

session, and now it’s been brought back into this session.

[11:30 a.m.]

Something that I would like to consider is a particular amendment

to this section, which I’ll speak to in a moment. That’s the reason why

I’m asking these questions — to get an understanding as to what was the

thinking of this government when it brought forward that particular

section of this bill in a different manner that would have provided no

notice, to any of the participants in our legal system, about a change.

It would have caught plaintiffs, defendants, off guard in terms of their

considerations of claims as they were bringing them forward, defamation

or otherwise.

That’s why I think it’s important to ask the question at this

committee stage, because this is the first opportunity that we had,

after that Bill 32 was first introduced.

Going from that, can I ask, specifically to the Attorney General,

as to why the date of May 15, 2018, was selected to have this particular

legislation come into effect?

Hon. D. Eby: The intention was to capture the date of first reading. I’m glad

the member is happy with the change of including the date.

M. Lee: I think we have a discussion to be had here as to date of first

reading, then. I appreciate that in Ontario the legislation stated that

it would be the day of first reading. The question is: the first reading

of which bill, though? When the government brought forward their Bill

32, it was of a different nature in the sense that this

section was in a

different formulation, and the bill died in that session, on the order

paper. The government did not move forward with that legislation. For

any plaintiff or defendant who is looking at this situation, it’s

arguable as to what notice they were provided, and whether they’re

provided with any meaningful notice.

That is why I would like to at this time table a simple amendment

to this section, which would have an effect that we would delete the

current text and insert in its place similar text which is the date of

the first reading of this Bill

Section 2

by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined

text as shown:

2 This Act applies in respect of proceedings

commenced on or after May 15, 2018

February 13, 2019 .]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll wait for the copy, but I think it’s pretty straightforward

about what it says, and the member has been pretty clear about why he is

putting it forward. The issue that I have with the amendment as proposed

is that it would essentially reward a group of people. It would reward a

group of people who saw the bill introduced and decided that because it

was going to apply, they would not file their lawsuit.

Then when the session ended and the bill died on the order paper,

they decided that there was a window to file a lawsuit against someone —

which they knew was a SLAPP suit that they knew was impairing free

expression, that they knew would be at risk, under this procedure that

we’re putting forward, of being dismissed — with the hopes that if the

bill was introduced, it would only have effect from the date forward

that the member suggested, which is the date of first reading of the

next version of the bill. It would reward all those people who filed

lawsuits, happy that the bill had died on the order paper, because it

would have compromised their ability to sue someone and affect their

free expression.

While I do understand the member’s stated policy reason for

wanting to have it be the date of first reading of this particular bill

that’s in front of the House, rather than the first time it was

introduced in the House, it would have the perverse effect of rewarding

that group of people who didn’t bring litigation forward — or who did

bring litigation forward and then continued with it, once they saw that

the bill had died, rather than discontinuing it, knowing that they would

be impacted by this bill.

[11:35 a.m.]

That’s exactly the group of people that we want the bill to

target. There are people filing lawsuits who know that when they’re

filing this lawsuit, it will have the effect of repressing someone’s

free expression and that there is little to no reputational harm that

they’re facing in the balance. That’s why we have the May 15 date in

there.

I thought for a moment there that we had a moment of radical

agreement in this Legislature, violent agreement, which would have

caused a lot of people concern, I’m sure, in terms of setting the May 15

date. But I see now that the member wants to do February 13.

That is the concern that I have with his proposed amendment. I

can’t see a principle basis on why someone who files a lawsuit in

January now gets to repress someone’s free expression when they had full

notice that, first of all, the government had introduced the bill. Plus,

I was in the media and all over the place saying: “Yeah, it died on the

order paper, but we’re re-introducing it, and it will come forward in

the next session.” I wrote letters to people, which said that, who wrote

to me about this bill.

So taking advantage of that window, being able to file their free

expression–repressing litigation, I just can’t see why we would reward

that kind of conduct.

A. Olsen: I’d just like to rise and request a brief recess. I’d like to have

a conversation with the members on the other side.

The Chair: Committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 11:36 a.m. to 11:43 a.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Chair: Are there any questions on the proposed amendment?

M. Lee: I just wanted to make one small comment, if I may. I appreciate

the recess called by the member for Saanich North and the Islands. I

just would like to say, in response to what the Attorney General had to

say, that there is a gap — it’s what I’m suggesting by proposing this

amendment — between what was unclear, at least to the B.C. Liberal

caucus members of the opposition on this side of the House, as to what

the government’s intention was with respect to Bill 32.

When it died on the order paper — despite what the Attorney

General indicated as to what was communicated out — I’m not sure that we

heard that communication on what the intention of the government would

be, in saying what the impact was on defendants and plaintiffs in this

intervening period of time. Given the fact that we don’t have clear

indications and data as to the status of various defamation suits, no

members of this House truly know the full impact of that period of time

the Attorney General is talking about.

From a procedural-fairness point of view, just like it was in

Ontario, the effective date of the act is the first reading of that

particular bill. So we do have this odd situation where the government

introduced legislation — which, I would suggest, was defective on its

basis, which is the reason why they pulled back on it. They didn’t move

forward with it. It’s a question, for all of the members of the public

who rely on this House, as to what that put us into. I’m just looking

for clarity, and that’s the reason why we’ve proposed this

amendment.

[11:45 a.m. - 11:50 a.m.]

The Chair: Members, the question is the amendment proposed by the member

for Vancouver-Langara.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 36

Cadieux

de Jong

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Reid

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Tegart

Sultan

Gibson

Isaacs

Thomson

Larson

Foster

NAYS — 40

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Malcolmson

Furstenau

Olsen

Glumac

Hon. D. Eby: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and

seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada