British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, April 21, 2015

20150421pm-Hansard-v23n9

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281 (P rint) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Afternoon Sitting Volume 23, Number 9

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fourth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development .......................................................................................................Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Thomson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ............................................................................................................................................. Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ...........................Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (Ind.) ......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacific Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Thompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) ..............................................................Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................ Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon.

John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) .....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacific Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke ..................................................

Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Thompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Thomson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers ..................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ...................................................................Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 34; Independent 3

CONTENTS Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 7443 Bill 19 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2015 (continued) L. Krog Hon. S. Anton D.

Routley Report and Third Reading of Bills ......................................................................................................................................... 7454 Bill 19 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2015 Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 7455 Bill 17 — Guide Dog and Service Dog Act Hon. S. Anton M. Farnworth A.

Weaver Reporting of Bills ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7462 Bill 17 — Guide Dog and Service Dog Act Third Reading of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................. 7462 Bill 17 — Guide Dog and Service Dog Act Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 7462 Bill 27 — Liquor Control and Licensing Act Hon.

S. Anton D. Eby Hon. S. Anton Bill 22 — Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act Hon. S. Anton D. Eby Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 7466 Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines (continued) A. Dix Hon. B. Bennett G. Heyman N. Macdonald Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued) Hon. T. Stone C. Trevena S. Robinson

TUESDAY , APRIL 21, 2015 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the abso - lute privilege today of welcoming someone back to this chamber who has not been with us in many years, Mr. Bill Chisholm, first elected in 1991, with me, and again elected in 1996. I would ask the House to please make him very, very welcome. Orders of the Day Hon. T. Lake: In this House I would call continued committee debate on Bill 19, the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, and in

Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, continued estimates for the Ministry of Energy and Mines. [1335] Committee of the Whole House BILL 19 — CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 19; R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 1:36 p.m. On

section 3. L. Krog: Referencing in particular that part of

section 3 which adds the

part 3.6, which enumerates those mat - ters over which the tribunal has jurisdiction over a claim concerning the Strata Property Act, I’m just wonder - ing…. Given that there was consultation with the strata owners associations and various groups related to that, is the government satisfied that the vast majority — or can they even tell me what percentage — of the kinds of claims that have ended up in Supreme Court are going to, in fact, be covered by

section 3.6(1)? In other words, is this going to provide the great bene- fit to the strata owners, the hundreds of thousands of strata owners in the province, that it is hoped that it will provide, as opposed to those rather more obscure sec - tions covered in

section 3.6(2)? Hon. S. Anton: The direct question was: how many claims from the Supreme Court would go into the tri - bunal? The answer is: perhaps not many. It is more likely that the tribunal will take claims that actually have not had a good venue to be heard up till now.

These are more minor strata disputes that were not well suited to the Supreme Court and consequently didn’t have a forum where they could be heard. [1340] Of course, I think the analysis of the strata corpora - tions and our analysis is that sometimes the failure to have a venue to hear those claims properly meant that in some cases they would be long-standing disputes within a strata. It was not a good situation for the owners or for anyone involved in the particular dispute. L.

Krog: I want to ask a question around the interplay between the Residential Tenancy Act and the claims that will now be adjudicated by the tribunal relating to strata properties. Is the Attorney General aware, have any concerns or can she offer any comment on the interplay between this legislation as proposed in the use of the civil tribunals and the existing Residential Tenancy Act, in terms of dis- putes that people may have tried to fit into the residential tenancy branch for resolution when in fact they weren’t really properly there and have been either turned away…?

In other words, what can she tell us about how this has worked out in practice over the last few years, and will this legislation provide some kind of solution? I gather the Attorney General can’t tell me what percentage of claims that were ending up in Supreme Court will, in fact, now be covered by this section. So I’m curious to understand the interplay, again, specifically in relation - ship to the Residential Tenancy Act and the residential tenancy branch. Hon. S. Anton: Of course, 3.6(

a) says that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the Residential Tenancy Act. But I think, if I’m not mistaken, that there was a question as to whether some of these matters would get shoehorned into the residential tenancy branch and now might actually more properly find themselves in the civil resolution tribunal. The answer is: not many — very few. Generally, these are more likely to be claims relating to bylaws and more minor matters which, as I said earlier, did not have a place, a good tribunal for dispute resolu - tion, up until this proposed civil resolution tribunal. L. Krog: Sub 3.6(1)(

a) says “the tribunal has jurisdic- tion over a claim concerning one or more of the follow - ing: (

a) the

interpretation or application of the Strata Property Act or a regulation, bylaw or rule under that Act. ” For practical purposes and subject to the obvious reading of sub (2), which lists the various sections of the Strata Property Act where the tribunal does not have jurisdiction, is, then — how shall I say? — the forum of first resort for

interpretation of where the Strata Property Act applies now going to be the tribunal process, as op - posed to the Supreme Court? [1345] 7443

British Columbia Debates7444 Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Hon. S. Anton: I just want to correct something I said a moment ago, a

section number. It’s 3.6(3)(a). I think I missed out one of those subsection numbers. I’m not sure that I have the question right. I think the question was: does 3.6(1)(

a) create a fairly broad appli - cation of the Strata Property Act into the civil resolution tribunal? The answer would be yes, it does. The object is that for things that, as I said several times, there was not a good venue for hearing those disputes, the civil resolu- tion tribunal will be that venue. L.

Krog: For practical purposes, if I have some in - triguing little claim — and I can’t, unfortunately, give the Attorney General an example today — that I think involves the Strata Property Act, then I would go to the tribunal process first in order to receive a ruling, in a sense, potentially, as a facilitation going to the adjudica- tion stage. An adjudication would say, “Y ou know, Mr. Schwartz, your problem belongs in Supreme Court be - cause the act doesn’t apply here, ” or that provision of the act falls to the Supreme Court on the basis of the reading of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, etc.

In other words, is this the forum of first resort for in - terpretation, as opposed to me going to Supreme Court and being told by a Supreme Court judge: “Mr. Schwartz, you’ve got to take it into the tribunal process, because that is specifically covered by the tribunal process”? Hon. S. Anton: I think the question is, for someone who has a claim, whether they might go to Supreme Court or start off in the civil resolution tribunal and how that would look if they started in the civil resolution tribunal. We want people to know early whether or not it’s the right venue.

As they go into the software program, the program itself will direct them, telling them either yes or no. They can stay in the civil resolution tribunal or, alternatively, say: “No, you have to go to the Supreme Court. ” [1350] If taking them through that front end of the software doesn’t resolve that, then there will be a staff person early on in the process who will be able to tell them: “Y es, we have jurisdiction in the civil resolution tribunal” or “No, you do have to go to the Supreme Court. ” L.

Krog: I guess it may be an obscure concern, but we’re asking an awful lot of people who sit on tribunals to perform the same function as has historically been given only to Supreme Court judges. Imagine for a moment that you receive a decision by way of adjudication under the civil resolution tribunal scheme that says, “Mr. Schwartz” — Mr. Schwartz is go - ing to survive a number of questions — “you go off to Supreme Court. ” The Supreme Court hears it, and says, “Sorry, Mr. Schwartz, but frankly, under the statute — and I’m a Supreme Court judge — my

interpretation is that you belong back down in the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act. ” It seems to me that it raises, just the intellectual con- cept of that happening, one of the problems that I foresee with the tribunal process. That is that you will be asking, very specifically by virtue of the wording, individuals who, as the Attorney General indicated yesterday, may well be lawyers but may well not be judges.

And because you can’t have access to counsel, people who’ll be making potentially complex arguments around what are, essentially, jurisdictional issues may see themselves, instead of going through a simple system where they trot into the civil resolution tribunal and get their decision and come out, get punted up to Supreme Court and punted back, at great expense, potentially, and a great deal of time-consuming waste.

One of the concerns that this raises — and it’s ob - vious — is: has anyone in the ministry considered, with this legislation, the possibility that you may require some highly experienced, potentially retired, judges, etc., who are very good at interpreting and deciding whether the act in fact applies to the particular fact pattern? When I’m a claimant, if you will, pitching to the tribunal and saying, “Y ou’ve got to solve the problem for me, ” and the tribunal is saying: “No, you go up. Y ou go back down…. ” I think the Attorney General can understand the scen- ario I’m talking about.

I’m just wondering, then: are we going to have some specifically well-trained legal people, in other words, to make those kinds of decisions — some- thing that involves, potentially, some serious legal con - sideration — as opposed to, “How much is the damage from the hot-water tank that broke in the tenant’s suite?” or whatever, or the damaged pot or the noise at night or whether or not you get to use the common property for your Christmas party — all those other kinds of more pedestrian claims? [1355] Hon. S. Anton: A couple of comments on the question.

First of all, an initiating party or a responding party can of course consult counsel. It’s not as though they have no access to counsel. They do indeed have access to counsel. It’s just in the hearing, if they get to that point, that they will be representing themselves. Secondly, the Supreme Court itself does have inherent jurisdiction, so they should not be bouncing any mat - ter back to the civil resolution tribunal. If people have found their way to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court can hear it.

Thirdly, for most disputes that are before the tribunal, if there’s a jurisdictional issue, it will be a fairly common and clear jurisdictional issue. It’s only if it’s a grey area…. Grey areas are not uncommon. They do happen. All of our tribunals deal with grey areas from time to time. Most tribunals will figure those grey areas out. Again, in the civil resolution tribunal, if it’s not clear as to jurisdiction, the case manager who sees the file initially can easily refer it to one of the tribunal members them -

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 21, 2015 7445 selves. We will have tribunal members who are strata ex- perts and who will be able to make those decisions. L. Krog: I appreciate the Supreme Court has the inher- ent jurisdiction. Is the Attorney General saying, for pur- poses of the record…? Obviously, at some point if this act falls in front of a Supreme Court judge for

interpretation, I think it would be helpful for the guides to the courts to know that the presumption behind this legislation is that if it gets to that stage, the poor claimant, whoever that may be, is not going to be punted back to the civil resolution tribunal. They will, in fact, have their day in Supreme Court, instead of having to do a U-ey and head back down the trail. I think it’s important for the Attorney General to understand the point I’m driving at and that she be pre- pared to say that that’s the expectation. Also, it does point out, in her response, one of the problems.

When I come back to counsel, you may con - sult counsel, but instead of having the potential of two lawyers advocating for the position in front of the ad - judicator, and giving the adjudicator the benefit of their experience and research and whatever else they will do, the system doesn’t allow for that. In fact, it comes back and is reliant upon the adjudicator having some, I would argue, potentially significant experience. I want to come back to the main point.

Is that the Attorney General’s assertion, then, that if a case such as I’ve indicated occurs, where you’re punted up to the Supreme Court, that in fact the expectation is a judge will hear that rather than punt it down? [1400] Hon. S. Anton: The answer to the question is found in

section 49, which we will get to at some point. To read from that section: “If the Supreme Court determines that all matters in a proceeding before it are within the jurisdiction of the civil resolution tribunal, the Supreme Court must dismiss the proceeding unless it is not in the interests of justice and fairness for the civil resolution tri- bunal to resolve the dispute. ” Then there are a number of considerations. L. Krog: In 3.6(1)(

e) and (f) — and I’ll read them out — it refers to: “(

e) an action or threatened action by the strata corporation, including the council, in relation to an owner or tenant; (

f) a decision of the strata corporation, including the council, in relation to an owner or tenant. ” What’s the difference between the strata corporation and the council? Surely, the council is the strata corpora- tion for practical purposes, and I’m just trying to…. Or is this a reference to a situation where no units have been sold by the strata corporation and, therefore, the strata corporation is the original developer-owner? What’s that making reference to when we talk about “a decision of the strata corporation, including the council”? Hon. S.

Anton: Some things in strata law require all the owners to take a vote, which is the strata corporation. Other matters relate, for example, to the application of a bylaw or the imposition of fines. Those are decisions which may be made by the council rather than the whole of the strata corporation. [1405] Sections 3 and 4 approved. On

section 5. L. Krog: With respect to

section 5, it talks about dis - closing a reasonable claim in 6(1)(b). I’m wondering what’s going to determine whether or not a case is reason- able. How’s that going to be decided? Is there any judicial

interpretation or some other statute where this has been employed that we can resort to? Do the people under - stand what may or may not constitute a reasonable claim? Hon. S. Anton: This is a sort of front-end filter to make sure that the claim does in fact identify an actual claim or an actual issue that needs to be resolved. L. Krog: Let’s imagine for a moment that Mr. Schwartz has come in. He wants to make his request for resolution. The tribunal has to give him his initiating notice, which is what starts this process. The tribunal says it doesn’t dis- close a reasonable claim. What’s Mr.

Schwartz’s next step if he believes it does disclose a reasonable claim? Hon. S. Anton: The goal of the tribunal is to resolve disputes. The goal of it is to provide a forum for people to conveniently go to. The goal is not to push out things unless there really is absolutely no claim at all. Somebody might be sitting down and writing a story of their life. As long as there is a claim, it is likely to be accepted. The remedy, if there were to be no initiating notice, would be at judicial review. L. Krog: Just to be clear, then. Mr. Schwartz goes to the tribunal.

The tribunal says: “We’re not giving you an initiating notice, because it doesn’t disclose a reasonable claim. ” He, potentially, on request, gets written reasons. He’s read the reasons. He’s still not satisfied. So his only remedy is to seek judicial review. That ju - dicial review, I presume, is in front of the Supreme Court, as opposed to the small claims court? [1410] Hon. S. Anton: As I said a moment ago, the goal of the tribunal is not to push things away but to allow claims in.

It would really have to be something that there was no claim or no issue before the tribunal before they were to not give the initiating notice. There are two ways that a person could proceed if they

British Columbia Debates7446 Tuesday, April 21, 2015 were unhappy with the result. They could go to judicial review. Presumably, they could file an application or a straight-up claim in the Supreme Court, although that doesn’t seem terribly likely. But again, it’s a possibility. L. Krog: Just to confirm, that application — what I’m getting at — requires it to be put before the Supreme Court, not the small claims court. [1415] Hon. S. Anton:

Section 12 adds

section 14.1, which is: “ A person may not bring a tribunal small claim as a claim in the Provincial Court unless one or more of the follow- ing apply. ” And there are five sections there.

Section (

c) says: “the tribunal refuses to resolve the claim. ” I must add to my answer from a moment ago, which is that in the case of a tribunal deciding not to give an initiating notice, that would, we think, form a refusal to resolve the claim. Therefore, it would fit within that 14.1(1)(c). It seems a little bit unlikely. Again, as I said, the tri - bunal’s goal is to be a recipient of claims and not to turn things away unnecessarily. The refusal to issue an initi - ating notice will only be brought where there really is no claim whatsoever to be resolved. L.

Krog: For practical purposes, if you file a claim in the small claims registry…. Right now they perform no adjudicative function at the registry. I file my claim, I serve it on the other side, I go to mediation or a settle - ment conference, and I end up at a hearing. If the Attorney General’s

interpretation with respect to — and this gets complex —

section 12 of the bill, which adds

section 14.1, which she has just quoted, and in par- ticular (1)(c), “the tribunal refuses to resolve the claim, ” then nobody is going to be in a position to stop me fil - ing in Provincial Court. In other words, the Provincial Court will not be expected to perform any adjudicative function at the filing of that claim. Making that claim in the Provincial Court small claims division, as opposed to the way this process works, where there is an adjudicative process, essentially, whether we call it that or not, by the staff where they determine when you are trying to get the right to….

When you file your request for resolution, they perform an adjudicative func- tion right then and there, essentially, deciding whether or not they will give the initiating party an initiating notice. Just to be clear, we’re not going to change the rules in small claims court. So if I’ve had my refusal at the tribu- nal — and I’m compelled to go there because that’s what the act says — then I’m free to go to small claims court. Nobody in small claims court can raise the issue and say: “Y ou should be back down in the tribunal process because you’ve been refused. ” Therefore, you have only that option.

It’s not judicial review, per se. It is essentially proceeding with it in small claims, assuming that small claims appears to have juris- diction on the face of it. [1420] Hon. S. Anton: The answer to the question is that under that

section the Provincial Court would not be bouncing it back to the civil resolution tribunal. But it’s a very hypothetical matter, because we’re talking about a case that, for the civil resolution tribunal, presents no dispute at all. There’s no reasonable claim, so there’s noth- ing there. I suppose that matter, theoretically, could be taken to the Provincial Court, and then it would be up to the Provincial Court to decide how to deal with it. But as I said, we’re not anticipating that it would be a terribly common matter. L. Krog: I’m trying to understand how this process is going to work, because this is a very important section,

section 5 of the act, adding these sections about how you initiate a claim. Y ou send your request for resolution, which is, presum- ably, going to be a fairly standard form, such as you’ d use now in the small claims registry. That’s going to be looked over by what sort of people with what level of training? How fast is that process expected to occur before you are either given the initiating notice, being a requester for a resolution…? In other words, is it going to be available 24-7? Y ou know, like we talk about….

I can file it at 2 a.m. and if it’s a simple case, am I going to get my initiating notice back within an hour or two? Or are we looking at days? In other words, how is this process going to roll out in a very practical, easy way? If someone’s listening at home today — and I’m sure there are many — they will be able to understand…? Hon. S. Anton: Thousands. L. Krog: “Thousands, ” the Attorney General says. I be- lieve her. The thousands listening at home today will be able to say: “Oh, that’s how the process is going to work. This seems really straightforward.

This is how long it’s go- ing to take, and this is what it’s going to look like. ” [1425] Hon. S. Anton: The goal is that the front-end process will, for the most part, be automated. The initiating notice should be generated simply through the program itself. There’s essentially a very short time period while that’s be- ing issued. There may be some exceptions to that. There will be exceptions for people who file paper initiating a request. There may possibly be some exceptions under the automation piece, in which case it may be a slightly slower process.

But the goal is that the whole thing would be fairly quick.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 21, 2015 7447 L. Krog: Just so I’m clear, if this is 2001: A Space Odyssey…. When the minister says it’s going to be auto - mated, does that mean — and I’m trying not to be too ob- tuse here — literally that there will be a computer program, specially designed software, that will analyze the electron- ic submission of the person requesting the resolution?

Then that “program, ” computer, whatever you want to describe it as being, will literally spit out an initiating no- tice if it appears to hit the boxes or ring the bells or what- ever cliché you may want to use, as opposed to somebody with a pair of human eyes looking at it at their computer and punching back and sending out the initiating no - tice? In other words, how does this process actually work? [1430] [D. Horne in the chair.] Hon. S. Anton: The whole process is still in develop - ment, so I don’t want to be too definitive on how it will play out.

Certainly, the goal is to have the vast majority of the initiated notices generated automatically. There may be ex- ceptions. Certainly, when people file manually, there may be circumstances where human eyes will be looking at it and deciding whether or not to issue the initiating notice. L. Krog: This reminds me to thank the Attorney General once again, and her staff, for providing a briefing with respect to this bill prior to us getting to committee stage and second reading. When we talk about the brand-new, purpose-built technology, the concept is literally that the…. It’s small, but nevertheless, the small….

I hesitate to use the term “adjudicative” process, because I don’t want to confuse the facilitation process with the adjudicative process as de - scribed in the act. But the decisions that will be made as to whether or not you get your initiating notice are go - ing to be made by a computer program as opposed to a person doing it. That is the concept behind the legislation. Without wishing to exaggerate, in other words, 2001, HAL, robotics, Brave New World — whatever you want to say — is here.

In other words, whether or not I get my initiating process is going to be decided by whether or not I’ve hit the right button, so to speak, when I elec- tronically filed my request for resolution. Am I correct? [1435] Hon. S. Anton: The technology will issue an initiating notice. However, if the technology, for whatever reason, does not issue the initiating notice, it will then be looked at by human eyes. A person, a case manager, will have a look at it and will decide whether or not an initiating notice ought to be issued. L. Krog: Just to get this straight.

Is the Attorney General saying that if anyone submits a request for reso- lution and if HAL ’s, — or whatever the computer’s name is — program doesn’t spit out the initiating notice, at that point it will automatically go to a pair of human eyes? Or will I, as the person submitting the request for resolution, get a notice saying: “The computer has rejected you, but we’re going to now give it a pair of human eyes?” I mean, how is that going to work? I’m sure the Attorney General can understand my amusement at this concept, that it’s just too….

Having started with fountain pens, it’s almost incomprehensible to me that we will have technology deciding whether or not I get to make a claim against somebody in a process being created by this bill. [1440] Hon. S. Anton: There are many instances in our lives which have moved beyond the fountain pen and which involve filing on-line forms. This is similar to many kinds of things that we do in our daily lives — filling in on-line forms.

As long as you fill in the fields and your answers are relatively responsive to what the fields are requesting, the question you’re asking or the form you’re asking for may be received. That’s exactly the case here. As long as you…. It’ll take you through the process and require you to fill in certain fields. If those are done and done properly, then you will get your initiating notice. If that is not granted to you at that point, a person will look at it and make that decision. L.

Krog: It gives me great comfort to know that at some point some pair of human eyes will actually look at something during the initiating process of this, where a decision, quite literally, has to be made whether or not to give the initiating party an initiating notice. I take it that this is going to be a request for a proposal. It went to PricewaterhouseCoopers, as I understand it. That was subcontracted to go to a Vancouver-based firm. It’s a cloud-based platform. Can the Attorney General tell the House anything more about the program, how it’s going to work? Who’s going to own it?

Is it the prov- incial government? Does it belong to the manufacturer? Hon. S. Anton: Remembering that we are dealing with

section 5 here, which substitutes a new 6 and 7 in the bill, the answer is that the province will own the soft- ware licences. But Chair, I would suggest we stick to the matter at hand. L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General’s desire to stick to the matter at hand. My job is to inquire as to how this legislation is going to work and what, specifically, this legislation means. How it’s to be delivered I think is per- fectly reasonable. I don’t intend to engage in too much of a discussion with the Attorney General on this, but at this point have we even tested this technology? [1445]

British Columbia Debates7448 Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Hon. S. Anton: The software is currently under de - velopment, and the goal for the platform is that it will work for more tribunals than the civil resolution tribu - nal. This relates to the tribunal transformation work that’s underway as well. The platform itself is called Salesforce. It’s a customer relationship management platform. L. Krog: I mean this a bit cheekily. The Attorney General speaks about it with the same confidence that I apparently do about technology, which I find rather ter- rifying.

It’s part of the reason I find this particular aspect of the legislation so difficult and problematic. It’s not just this civil resolution tribunal.

All of the vari- ous administrative tribunals are going to end up working with the same basic technology in terms of submitting requests for resolution in the civil resolution tribunal or whatever. [1450] Y ou know, with great respect, given Gordon Campbell’s web portal, given what’s happened with the health rec - ords technology and given what’s happened with the Ministry of Children and Families computer program that was supposed to create these wonderful things where anyone could pull up the file and any good social worker could work on it, I must admit the opposition has some obvious concerns about how this technology is actually going to work.

To follow on what the Attorney General has had to say, is the concept that it’s going to be used first in existing administrative tribunals and experimented with there, or is the experiment going to take place in the new civil resolution tribunal? In other words, is the guinea pig here, or is the guinea pig all the other administrative tribunals that were dealt with under Bill 18? Hon. S. Anton: There are many tribunals, and it is not necessarily the case that this Salesforce platform will be used for all of them. They will be determined on a case- by-case basis.

We will be starting, though, with the civil resolution tribunal. The next anticipated tribunal to use the platform would be the residential tenancy branch. D. Routley: Has there been a privacy audit done on this system in the conceptual stages? Hon. S. Anton: The answer to that question is not yet, but we are mindful of our obligations. D. Routley: Are privacy audits planned in the concep- tual and design phases, or will they wait until implemen- tation?

I’m asking the question suggesting that the answer should be in the design and conceptual stages since some of the other problems with the integrated case manage - ment system have been very difficult to cope with and engineer out of the system after implementation. The advice of the Privacy Commissioner has always been to do privacy audits in the design and conceptual stages. [1455] Hon. S. Anton: There are no privacy audits that we are looking at, at the moment, but we do intend to con - sult with the Information and Privacy Commissioner as the rules are developed.

That was a commitment that has been made for some time now. D. Routley: Is the system purely a software system? Is it cloud-based? Will information be stored in a cloud- based context? Hon. S. Anton: Just a reminder that we still are on

section 5. The answer is that it is a cloud-based system. D. Routley: The cloud-based systems may be vul - nerable to exposure. There’s a concern that inadequate tokenization of a cloud-based set of data could be sub - ject to re-aggregation and could, in fact, threaten the provisions in FIPPA, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that forbid the storage of per- sonal information outside of Canada. Is there anything the minister can offer as reassurance that personal information of British Columbians won’t be vulnerable? Hon. S. Anton: The application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is found in the current

section

Section 37 proposes some minor amendments to

section 90, but generally the intent of the

section remains the same as it is in the current act. [1500] L. Krog: I appreciate the assistance of my friend who is far more technologically astute than I am and more ac- quainted with this particular area. One more question around the issue of the reliance on computers and the Internet. I would be the first to ac- knowledge that many have access. But what’s the concept for people who don’t have access, who don’t have a home computer and who are seeking resolution of an issue? Are they going to be able to go to a government agent’s office, for instance?

Are they going to be able to go to a court - house, any kind of government office, in order to actually submit their claim, even if it’s via the Internet? Hon. S. Anton: There will be the opportunity for people to file in other ways — manually, for example. I don’t want to try and define all the ways that that will happen. That’s something the tribunal is working on right now. Most people will initiate the claim by computer but not everyone. Chair, if I might suggest a ten-minute recess.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 21, 2015 7449 The Chair: The committee will be in recess for ten minutes. The committee recessed from 3:01 p.m. to 3:13 p.m. [D. Horne in the chair.] L. Krog: Is there going to be any provision for those who may lack the appropriate language skills with respect to provision of services to people who do lack language skills or, alternatively, perhaps have some disabilities that prevent them from travelling — something to take into account those kinds of circumstances? [1515] Hon. S.

Anton: We are, of course, very aware that there are many people in British Columbia who do not speak English as a first language and, in fact, are chal - lenged by services such as the civil resolution tribunal, which will be dealing in English. We will be encouraging users to seek help and support from their friends and from family. We are considering what kind of services we may offer in other languages and what kind of inter - pretation services we might be able to offer, but those are not well defined at the moment.

Section 5 approved. On

section 6. L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General can just explain and confirm that the repealing of

section 10(2), the amendment, is to take into account that the process will now be mandatory as opposed to voluntary. Is that all we’re talking about here? Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct.

Section 6 approved. On

section 7. L. Krog: I wonder, again, if the Attorney General can just confirm

section 7’s contents. It talks about when the tribunal may refuse “a claim within its jurisdiction if it considers that any of the following apply. ” The reason for it? And is this substantively different from the existing

section 11? [1520] Hon. S. Anton: I think the question was: how much of this is new? So (

a) is not new; (

b) is new language but replaces the “frivolous and vexatious” language with “no reasonable claim;” (

c) is the same; (

d) is new; (

e) and (

f) are new.

Section 7 approved. On

section 8. L. Krog: With respect to

section 8, again, can the Attorney General confirm: is this substantively different from

section 12 as it exists now? Hon. S. Anton: The provisions here are new. The pro- posed former

section 12 will be repealed. The new sec - tions 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 are added. [1525] This allows the Provincial Court to order that the tri - bunal not adjudicate if it doesn’t have jurisdiction or if it’s not in the interest of justice or fairness, that it not fa- cilitate a settlement in the same conditions, and that the Supreme Court may order that the strata property claim not be resolved in the tribunal if, again, there’s no juris- diction or if it’s not in the interest of justice or fairness. L. Krog: Just to come at it from another angle,

section 8 — fairly lengthy, adding these three substantive, separ - ate sections — gives the authority to the courts to order the tribunal not to do something. Is there any part of sec- tion 8 or anywhere in the act, for that matter, that gives the power to the court to order the tribunal to do some- thing as opposed to not doing something? Hon. S. Anton: The provisions here are to order that the tribunal not do certain things, and there’s not a pro- vision that a court orders the tribunal to do something. L.

Krog: Given that this is structured in such a way that you start in what I will call the civil resolution tribu- nal process and then you can get bumped to Provincial Court…. Often with appeal processes, courts have the jurisdiction to order a new trial, for instance, or compel a lower court to do something. Was consideration given to that possibility, given the apparent hierarchy of this process? And, if so, why not include some provision like that in the act that gives them a positive and not simply a negative power, if you will? [1530] Hon. S.

Anton: It’s our belief that this is a better sys- tem designed this way in that someone with a dispute can take it to the civil resolution tribunal, where they will get more immediate and more accessible justice and resolu- tion of their claim. There may be people who believe that was not enough for them. W e anticipate that most claims will be resolved and finally resolved in the civil resolution tribunal. If ne- cessary, a person will be able to take their claim to a full trial in the Provincial Court with representation by counsel. The Provincial Court is not set up as an appeal body.

We believe it’s a better system to allow the full new trial,

British Columbia Debates7450 Tuesday, April 21, 2015 if needed, but as I said, we don’t anticipate that there will be a large volume of such cases. Sections 8 and 9 approved. On

section 10. L. Krog: Just so I’m clear, if I’m interpreting this cor- rectly, while the tribunal claim is pending, the limitation period is in fact suspended. Is that correct? [1535] Hon. S. Anton: The answer to the question is yes. Once the initiating notice is issued, the limitation period and the ultimate limitation period do not run. Sections 10 and 11 approved. On

section 12. L. Krog: It talks about: “the person is in a class of per- sons exempted by regulation. ” In other words, a person may not bring a “small claim as a claim in the Provincial Court” unless one or more are applying. Can the Attorney General give us some idea of what the anticipated classes of persons are who are going to be exempted by regulation? Does this relate back to what we’ve discussed already? Are we talking about something different? Otherwise, this House is being asked to ap - prove, essentially, a pretty free reign as to who will fall into that class of persons exempted by regulation.

I’m trying to imagine the factual situation or a prac - tical example which might assist in understanding what we’re talking about and why it’s necessary to include this provision. Hon. S. Anton: This is the piece we were dealing with earlier. We do not have an example of a class of persons that might be exempted by regulation. This was to allow the flexibility that we talked about earlier. If there is a class of person exempted from the civil resolution tribunal, the member of that class of person will be able to go straight to the Provincial Court. Sections 12 and 13 approved. On

section 14. L. Krog: This talks about the facilitated resolution process, facilitated settlement. Perhaps I could just in - quire: what’s the difference between a case manager and a designated facilitator? What are the qualifications that a case manager is going to require, and what qualifica - tions will the tribunal members require? In other words, what are these people going to actually look like, and who are they going to be? [1540] Hon. S. Anton: This

section deals with case managers. These are people who will be hired by the tribunal itself. They will be merit-based appointments. People will be hired for dispute resolution skills and subject matter ex- pertise, particularly relating to strata. They may or may not be legally trained, but they will definitely be expected to have good dispute resolution skills. L. Krog: I’m wondering if, for practical purposes, it’s contemplated that these would include people who have now worked in the mediation process and small claims quite successfully.

I believe most of them are independent contractors, essentially, working for government. Is that the kind of pool of talent we’ d be looking at and using? Some of those people, in my experience, have significant abilities and an understanding of how to resolve matters with parties. Hon. S. Anton: Those persons mentioned by the member have the kinds of skills that we will be look - ing for. These persons will be hired through the Public Service Act. Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved. On

section 18. L. Krog: This says: “If a tribunal small claim or strata property claim has not been resolved during the case management phase, the claim is to proceed to resolu - tion by tribunal hearing. ” I am just wondering: what if the court orders the tribunal not to facilitate under sec - tion 12.2? Hon. S. Anton: If the court has ordered that it not be in the civil resolution tribunal, it will be in the court, if the court has so ordered.

Section 18 approved. On

section 19. L. Krog: With respect to

section 19, it includes, again, a number of added provisions. In particular, I am looking at sub 30.1(4): “The Provincial Court may consider a de- termination under subsection (1) (

a) to (

c) when award- ing costs under

section 19 [costs] of the Small Claims Act. ” Are those the basic costs that are provided for under the Small Claims Act — in other words, the filing fee, etc. — or are there some additional costs contemplated by this? [1545] Hon. S. Anton: If the matter is one which is now be - fore the Provincial Court and the Provincial Court is

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 21, 2015 7451 determining costs, it may look back to the facilitated settlement stage in consideration of its costs that it will award under

section 19 in the Small Claims Act. L. Krog: Given that we’re dealing with a statute that hasn’t been proclaimed yet, and just so I can try and understand this back and forth, under

section 19, referring to

section 30.2, it says: “On terminating facilitated settle- ment, the tribunal” — not the small claims court — “may make an order requiring a party to pay another party to the dispute some or all of (

a) the fees paid, under this Act by the other party in relation to the dispute, and (

b) any other reasonable expenses and charges that the tribunal considers directly relate to the conduct of the proceeding. ” The obvious question is: what does that reference? Does that mean, for instance, that in a matter of some complexity…? I’ve had to consult some, no offence to the Attorney General, high-priced Vancouver firm with some great expertise. I’ve spent a couple of thousand dol- lars getting a very short letter telling me what I needed to know with respect to this claim. Will that be a reasonable expense and charge that the tribunal considers directly relate to the conduct?

Would it include me travelling some distance? Would it include hotel accommodation if I’ve had to attend in front of a facilitator, etc.? In other words, what’s contem- plated by this? My concern is that this provision may, in fact, allow for the imposition of costs on a party greater than presently exists under the Small Claims Act. [1550] Hon. S. Anton: The language in

section 30.2(1)(

b) re- flects the language contained in rule 20(2) of the small claims rules, which allows the small claims court to order other reasonable expenses and charges. L. Krog: Those, I believe, are awarded in the most re- markable sorts of circumstances. Is the contemplation here that that’s the kind of process? In other words, what do you really have to do to get whacked in the process such that you’ d have to pay something beyond the filing fee and the witness fee and things of that nature?

That, if it is substantive, flies in the face of the concept behind small claims, which was that ordinary folks could go in and not risk the cost process in, well, the old days, county and Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. In other words, it was a place where people could resolve their disputes. That’s the whole drive — this inexpensive process. That’s the drive behind the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act. Again, is that what the Attorney General is contemplat- ing? In other words, it’s only going to be the most sort of exceptional circumstances.

This will not be common- place that these kinds of costs would be awarded if, in fact, a facilitated settlement process is terminated. [1555] Hon. S. Anton: It is expected that expenses and char- ges awarded under

section 30.2 would be awarded with- in the spirit of the act. Certainly, one of the things that might be contemplated is if the proceedings have been frustrated because a person to the dispute failed to com- ply with the act or they were not acting in good faith. Those are the kinds of things that would be taken into consideration when considering any expenses and char- ges under that section.

Section 19 approved. On

section 20. L. Krog: Just to confirm, this removes a couple of existing sections. Is the impact of this…? Does that mean that additional parties to a dispute need not give consent in order to be included? Hon. S. Anton:

Section 20 proposes a change to sec - tion 31, which takes out consent requirements as a result of the shift to a mandatory model.

Section 20 approved. On

section 21. L. Krog: Are there any checks and balances in the case management system that allow for some leniency before refusing to resolve the case? Hon. S. Anton:

Section 21 proposes only a change of language. I can understand that the member opposite may deplore the loss of “frivolous” and “vexatious” and turning to “reasonable likelihood of success, ” being a bit of a traditionalist at heart, but that is what we are up to here. Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved. On

section 24. L. Krog: This says that “in the case of a final decision in a tribunal small claim, the tribunal may not make an or- der under this

section unless both of the following apply” — the time for a notice, etc., and no notice of objection has been made. How does this

section change the impact of

section 48 as it exists now? [1600] [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. S. Anton: The purpose of this

section is to en - sure that no enforcement order is made while there is still time for a notice of objection — in other words, within the 28 days mentioned.

British Columbia Debates7452 Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Sections 24 and 25 approved. On

section 26. L. Krog: Just to confirm, this is the

section which es - sentially means that the decisions of the tribunal, the operational procedures of the tribunal, are not to be re - viewed. Is that correct? Hon. M. Polak: Just for the interest of members, be - cause it wasn’t noted earlier, in Committee A they have now moved on to the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Hon. S. Anton: The judicial review no longer exists as it was laid out previously in division 4. For a small claims matter, there will be a notice of objection, if necessary, to the decision of the tribunal, which will lead to a new trial in Provincial Court. On a strata matter, the matter can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Section 26 approved. On

section 27. L. Krog: Now, this is the addition in provisions…. The notice of objection knocks you out of the tribunal pro - cess and puts you into small claims essentially. If you do that, then it means that the final decision of the tribunal is not enforceable. Then you’re off to small claims. I sup- pose one of the questions is…. [1605] These are the steps that you could go through to reach a final decision under the tribunal model. First, you’re going to start with the case management mediation processes — no settlement. Then you’re going to move on to a tribunal hearing on the merits of final decision.

Then the party files a notice of objection. A certificate is issued. Then you make the deposit application with the Provincial Court, or the application to set aside or reduce the deposit. Then, in some registries, you’re going to go to Provincial Court mediation, or some registries have a mandatory mediation process. Then, arguably, you might end up at a settlement conference or a trial management conference. Then finally, on the seventh step, you’re go- ing to end up at a Provincial Court trial.

Does the Attorney General acknowledge that those are, in fact, all the potential hoops that one will have to jump through, roadblocks — whatever cliché you want to use? Those are the steps that would and could exist under this new process, which is supposed to be simpler, quicker, cheaper and easier. Hon. S. Anton: We expect that the vast majority of cases will resolve in the tribunal. However, of course, there is a notice of objection — a possibility of going into the Provincial Court.

Whether or not all those steps remain necessary at the Provincial Court is not yet re - solved, but we will be working with the Provincial Court to determine whether each one of those steps is required. And of course, they are somewhat dependent on which registry you are in. L. Krog: Well, I’m almost frightened by the prospect that I’ll have to deal with another bill along these lines, involving the small claims court. That aside for a moment, proposed 56.3 says in sub (2): “The amount a person is required to deposit must not ex- ceed the total of the following: (

a) an amount prescribed by regulation that is less than or equal to the amount awarded by the civil resolution tribunal against the per - son; (

b) an amount prescribed by regulation as security for the costs of the other parties. ” [1610] I guess, for practical purposes, under the existing pro- posal you could, in theory, be required to deposit up to $25,000 plus an allowance for costs. Is that a correct in - terpretation of what the maximum allowable would be, assuming the numbers, as have been indicated by previ- ous answers from the Attorney General, remain the same — small claims jurisdiction presently $25,000? It may get boosted, but for present purposes it’s $25,000. Hon. S.

Anton: The maximum amount of the deposit will be the award granted by the civil resolution tribunal. There is the possibility there for regulation that will al - low a lesser amount than was awarded by the civil reso - lution tribunal. L. Krog: If the Attorney General can just confirm, that presently could be $25,000? It could be. I’m not saying it is, but it could be $25,000. Hon. S. Anton: The amount will be the amount limit- ed by the authority to the civil resolution tribunal, so it’s conceivable that one day it could be $25,000.

But we are proposing that it will commence at a lesser amount which has not yet been established, as we discussed earlier today. [1615] L. Krog: With respect to the regulatory powers under the act, I take it, then, that the Attorney General is offer- ing as a bit of hope for people who wish to file their no - tice of objection — or are thinking about what this may look like down the road if they get into the process — that there will be regulation around how much money will be satisfactory for deposit. Will there be regulation as to how that security is to be held, etc.?

Are these things that will be decided by OICs — in other words, cabinet regulation — or will it be decided by the tribunal itself? I appreciate that it appears there’s not going to be precedent built up. Will it be decided by the tri-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 21, 2015 7453 bunals in practice, or will the tribunal issue practice regu- lations? In other words, who’s going to create the system? And will that system ultimately, as I say, be a creation of…? Well, this is sort of building on building. Are we con - templating a regulation that will give that authority to the tribunals to decide all those things, or are we contemplat- ing that cabinet will make the regulations which will de- termine all these things — or some combination thereof?

In other words, again, practical question: how is that going to work in terms of setting up this process prescribed by regulation, presumably, that sets up the security for costs? Hon. S. Anton: It is the court which will be ordering the deposit. There may well be a regulation which deter- mines the maximum amount that the court can require, but it is the court that will actually make the order. L. Krog: But in fact, the government can, by regulation, prescribe those amounts. The court will decide whether there will be, but it will be cabinet that will decide what the amount will be. Hon. S.

Anton: The regulation will set the maximum amount. The maximum amount could be 100 percent of the award by the tribunal, or it could be 50 percent of the award set by the tribunal. I want to offer a range there because it simply has not been determined yet. Whatever that maximum amount is prescribed by regulation, that’s the maximum the court may require. The court may re- quire something less than that. L.

Krog: We are setting up this security process which is, I think it’s fair to say, without precedent in the small claims process that exists now and that may, in fact, be entirely prohibitive for a person who might have an argu- ably legitimate legal point to argue.

I’m concerned be - cause it’s not as if we have the benefit here of a Supreme Court judge who’s made a decision, and you’re going to the Court of Appeal, and someone is suggesting security be posted for costs or whatever the case may be, where there has been a person with significant training, experi- ence, knowledge, etc. [1620] When the Provincial Court judge is ordering that someone pay this security for costs, then that will be based on a decision, again, by persons who may not have any judicial experience per se, who may or may not be legally trained — presumably are.

I think that’s what the Attorney General is hoping or contemplating, but not ne- cessarily so. That strikes me as being a bit of a roadblock, if you will, for obtaining justice, if in fact this becomes the practice of the small claims court fairly regularly. If they’re taking, so to speak, the policy hint from government, the policy hint is: “We want all of this stuff resolved down in the civil resolution tribunal, and we don’t want it to come up to small claims court anymore. Here’s the policy that will discourage people from filing notices of objection.

We’re going to order the maximum amount that the regulation prescribes, which cabinet will determine. ” I’ d be interested in just hearing the Attorney General’s comments on the point I’m trying to make around the potential that people will have access, in some respects, to less justice under this proposal than they would under the existing process that takes you through the court system. Hon. S. Anton: One observation, first of all, which is that under

section 8 of the Small Claims Act there is the opportunity to appeal a decision to the British Columbia Supreme Court. In that case, generally you would be re- quired to make a deposit for costs and for the amount of the judgment. So there is some precedent for this kind of scheme. [1625] Secondly, the deposit depends on the circumstances in the civil resolution tribunal. If it’s an adjudicated claim, the Provincial Court may make an order for a deposit as a condition of the new process in the Provincial Court.

If the person has not responded in the civil resolution tri - bunal, the Provincial Court must make an order for a de- posit, although even then there is a provision for hardship. As in all these cases, we do rely on the normal good judgment of the Provincial Court. L. Krog: Just to confirm my understanding. We’ve got two divisions here under

section 27 — the “Objection to Tribunal Small Claim Decision” and then division 6, “ Appeal of Strata Property Final Decision. ” In a strata property final decision, which would be made by the tribunal, your next level of appeal is only to the Supreme Court on a question of law. There is no appeal per se to the small claims court. The Attorney General can nod if my understanding is correct. Let the record show the Attorney General nodded. Well, enough of Wynken, Blynken and Nod. Perhaps we’ll get back to the question. In this

section you can only appeal on a question of law, not a mixed question of law or fact. In other words, the record, so to speak, is what’s going to allow the Supreme Court to deal with this. I take it, just for practical purposes again, that we will have a written final decision in a strata property claim and that’s the only document, so to speak — in other words, the only evidence, if you will, the only material, that will end up in front of the Supreme Court. In other words, it’s not like we’re going to be ordering a transcript of what was given in evidence at the tribunal hearing.

It will be the decision itself. Am I correct in that? [1630] Hon. S. Anton: This is somewhat a reflection of the current provisions of the Strata Property Act. The Strata

British Columbia Debates7454 Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Property Act does have some arbitration provisions in it. In practice, they are rarely used. If they are used, there is a right of appeal from that arbitration decision on a ques- tion of law. So this new provision here is a reflection of that. As to what the record would consist of, it would con - sist of the decision and any evidence that was submitted to the tribunal. L. Krog: I’m going to assume that any evidence that was submitted…. Would that…? Well, is it even con - templated that there would be transcripts taken of the evidence of witnesses?

I presume the tribunal process could potentially involve witnesses. Would it include transcripts? Will there even be provision for recording of this, or is that, again, something for contemplation that may or may not be implemented down the road? Hon. S. Anton: The question, I believe, is whether or not there would be written transcripts of the proceed - ings at the tribunal. The tribunal may possibly engage in a number of pro- cesses in reaching resolution. It may be by Skype. It may be by e-mail. It may be by a hearing. The purpose here is that the tribunal will have a great deal of flexibility.

So the form of the record may vary from one case to an - other, but it is that record, in the form that it’s in, which may go to the court. Sections 27 to 30 inclusive approved. On

section 31. L. Krog: It provides: “If the tribunal cancels under sec- tion 37…an order that has been filed under this Part, the party that filed the cancelled order must not take any fur- ther steps to enforce that order, ” etc. Can the person…? Can anyone…? Is there a process by which you can object to the cancellation of a final de- cision or dismissal order under

section 36? [1635] Hon. S. Anton: This

section is a housekeeping section. The only things that are changing are the

section numbers.

Section 31 approved. On

section 32. L. Krog: These sections, as I understand them, under

section 32, and the changes made, essentially give full authority to the tribunal to make rules respecting the form and content of initiating processes and respecting the process to be followed if the court orders the tribu - nal not to adjudicate, facilitate; authorize the tribunal to make rules respecting reconsideration of an order for payment; make rules respecting the process to be fol - lowed and the orders available if the party initiating the process fails to respond. All of these decisions will not, in fact, be made by cab- inet.

They will be made by the tribunal or the tribunal chair or the tribunal in conjunction with other tribunals under clusters, or how is this going to work? Hon. S. Anton: The rules described in

section 62 are rules for the tribunal to make, not for cabinet. Sections 32 to 37 inclusive approved. On

section 38. L. Krog: Again, and I’m not going to let this pass with- out comment — another

section where we give enor - mous regulatory power to cabinet once again to deal with a process that’s been established, that was supposed to be established a while ago, that isn’t actually up and running and that we’re now amending with a 50-section bill to make it workable. I think it’s worth noting for the record, on behalf of the opposition, that this continual referral of so much of what is important in the bill, any bill, to cabinet for regu- lation later where the public has no ability to scrutinize, criticize or comment on it is a very unhealthy practice.

Having said that, I am satisfied that all of the other pro - visions remaining in the act are consequential, and I’m prepared to suggest that we go: sections 38 to 50. Sections 38 to 50 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and re- port the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 4:39 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. [1640] Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 19 — CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 Bill 19, Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I call Bill 17, entitled the Guide Dog and Service Dog Act, in committee.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 21, 2015 7455 Committee of the Whole House BILL 17 — GUIDE DOG AND SERVICE DOG ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17; R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 4:43 p.m. Hon. S. Anton: I’m joined by Toby Louie, the exec - utive director of corporate policy and planning; Judy Klima, director of policy and legislation; and Kristina Ponce, senior policy and legislation analyst.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. Hon. S. Anton: I move the amendment to

section 2 standing in my name on the orders of the day. [SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown: Access to public places 2

(1) A guide dog team, service dog team or dog-in-training team may, in the same manner as would an individual who is not a member of any of those teams, enter and use any place, accommodation, building or conveyance to which the public is invited or has access, provided that the individ- ual who is a member of the team ensures the dog that is a member of the team (

a) does not occupy a seat in a public conveyance or a place where food is served or dispensed to the public, as the case may be, and (

b) is held by a leash or harness.

(2) A person must not (

a) interfere with the exercise of a privilege under the right of entry and use specified in subsection (1), or (

b) charge a fee, in respect of the exercise of a privilege underthe right of entry and use specified in subsection (1), for the dog that is a member of a guide dog team, service dog team or dog-in-training team.] On the amendment. M. Farnworth: I see the member wanting to hurry and go “aye. ” I’m going to be in agreement with the amend- ment, but before we get to the vote part, I just want to go over a few things with this, because I do think it’s import- ant. It is one of the concerns that I do have about the bill in the sense of how it got here.

This particular amendment will replace the existing language that was in the bill when the government tabled it. It uses antiquated language — in the original bill, that is. It’s been pointed out that it refers to the right of access to public places for people with disabilities as an “exer - cise of a privilege. ” [1645] People with disabilities have a right to enter a public place. It is not the exercise of a privilege.

So I’m a bit puz- zled — and perhaps the minister can answer that ques - tion — as to how, in this day and age, a piece of legislation arrives here with the use of the term: “it is a privilege and not a right. ” It speaks to, in my mind, a piece of legislation that prob- ably has been sitting around for a long time waiting for the right time to table it, to introduce it to the House, but was done in a rushed manner and really did not go through the proper legislative review to make sure that the language is the appropriate language that should be used today. Hon. S.

Anton: The act itself is a licensing regime, a licensing act, and generally in licensing matters the word “privilege” is used. Technically, the terminology is the same — a “privilege” and a “right. ” However, there were concerns that we heard — as, obviously, the member op - posite heard — and the view of the stakeholders is that the term “right” is preferable. So we agree, I agree, and so I’m proposing the amendment. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the answer from the min- ister. But I think if you ask the general public…. I don’t know.

Maybe it is an administrative term, but there is a big difference between a right and a privilege. I think it’s important that that is on the record. I’m not criticizing the minister, in the sense that I understand why her answer is. A driving licence is a priv- ilege. Being a person with disabilities and being able to enter a place — it’s a right. I fundamentally think that it’s important that we have that on the record. But with that, we can move on to the next section. Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved. On

section 3. M. Farnworth: This is also an area that I would like the minister…. She can probably address the issue that I’m about to raise because it applies to a number of sec- tions in this bill. A lot of this is being done by regula - tion. So I just want to make sure from the minister what kind of time period she’s looking for in terms of enacting the regulations. How and when are they going to be de - veloped, and what’s the process that’s going to be done? I expect that that would probably be the same for all that in this section. But in this section, in particular, we’re talking about tenancy rights when it comes to guide dogs. I would just like the minister to clarify exactly what the

section is going to accomplish and the types of chan- ges it’s going to accomplish — in particular, the rights of people with disabilities and their service dogs when that service dog is no longer able to provide the function it does as a service dog but has clearly been a part of that individual’s life for a long time. It is not something that is

British Columbia Debates7456 Tuesday, April 21, 2015 to be discarded — or an individual be forced to move just because that particular dog is no longer able to provide the function it was trained for, and there may well be a new one. If the minister could just explain this, because I think this is also an important section. [1650] Hon. S. Anton: We will be working with stakeholders in development of the regulations. The target is to have them ready by later this year. The significance of

section 3 is that it extends the tenancy rights to retired guide and service dog teams.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. M. Farnworth: This

section deals with false represen- tation. I think all of us share the concern. What we have seen is a proliferation of people who seem to think that, you know, their companion animal is special. And it is special, but if it is not a properly trained and certified guide dog, it is not special to the same degree as a guide dog. That causes problems, particularly in terms of ac - cessing services or, often, sometimes creating issues that reflect on properly trained guide and service dogs, and disputes and problems arise. The fact that this

section is here…. I think we’re all agreed that that is the right thing to do, that people must not falsely represent a dog as being a member of a guide or service dog team, a retired guide or service dog team or a dog-in-training team. What I’ d like the minister to do is to elaborate as to how she sees this

section working. What kinds of guidelines are going to be in place? Are there going to be penalties in place? Are there going to be civic remedies in place? If the minister could outline for us those questions, I would appreciate that. Hon. S. Anton: I think we echo what the member is commenting on, which is that there are certainly many pictures circulating on the Internet of people with dogs being represented as being a member of a guide dog team or some kind of service dog.

The goal here is that a dog is properly identified and represented as being exactly what it is — namely, a guide dog or a service dog and part of a team. In terms of penalties and enforcement…. Number one, education. We have a progressive enforcement. Number one, the goal is education, so that people understand the rights of these teams. [1655] Secondly, it will be a progressive enforcement start - ing with enforcement officers who are officers under our security programs division. They will have the abil - ity to ticket. Thirdly, there are offence provisions which can be taken by prosecution if necessary. M.

Farnworth: Let’s just deal with each of them separ- ately. In terms of education, who does the minister see as being responsible for the education? Is it going to be the SPCA? Is it going to be government through a particu - lar ministry? Will that require funding to do that? And where will the funding come from? Hon. S. Anton: In terms of the education, government will be taking the lead under the Accessibility 2024 initia- tive. But we will, of course, as in many things, be looking to our partners and stakeholders to help us out.

Certainly, guide dog schools have expressed interest in that as well as business groups. There will be plenty of community partners who we will be looking to, to help us out on the education piece. M. Farnworth: In terms of the funding, then, the gov- ernment will be committing funding to this initiative. Hon. S. Anton: We will be doing this within existing resources. M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell us which min - istry’s budget the initiatives, resources, will be coming from? Hon. S. Anton: I’m going to look around the room to see if there’s another minister who’ d like to take this one on.

I’m not seeing any nods, so I think it’ll probably be coming out of Justice. M. Farnworth: Does the minister have an idea as to the size of the budget or the size of the resources required for this initiative? Hon. S. Anton: We have not targeted an amount at the moment, but we will be working with stakeholders to consider these things. M. Farnworth: I will take that answer for now, because I’m mindful that we have the estimates process for the Ministry of Justice still to come ahead. I just forewarn the minister that she can expect a question around this, and answers at that time would be appreciated.

The second part of this was that the minister talked about the progressive nature of enforcement and the people who would be able to be doing the enforcement. If the minister could outline how they see that working. I would assume that part of it clearly would be bylaw of- ficers at the local level who would have the ability. [1700] Second, I guess, what provincial officers would the minister anticipate having that authority? Thirdly, would

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 21, 2015 7457 this allow federal authorities, then, to be able to enforce the statute that we’re debating? The reason I say that is because if you ask many people…. I think one of the areas where you see the most egregious examples of a fake uniform, so to speak, or a fake coat on a guide dog is often in an airport. I myself have been on a flight where I’ve seen a tiny little Pomeranian in an official-looking “service dog–guide dog” regalia, or uniform. I’m not sure what the correct term is for animals, but the minister knows what I’m getting at. Hon. S. Anton: Cape. M.

Farnworth: Cape. Thank you. Y ou see an animal in an official-looking cape, and it’s being treated quite a bit differently. Now, it’s one thing for an individual to pay for a seat. Some airlines do allow the travel of companion animals, and that’s fine. But I think it’s entirely different in an air- port where you see a dog wearing a cape and it is not a guide or service dog. If the minister could answer that question as to who will be responsible and who would be doing the enforce- ment, I’ d appreciate that. Hon. S. Anton: The bylaw officers, no, because those are municipal.

The provincial authority will be inspectors appointed under

section 30 of the Security Services Act. Interjection. Hon. S. Anton: No for bylaw officers, because those are municipal bylaw officers. In terms of provincial persons who may issue tick - ets, they will be inspectors appointed under

section 30 of the Security Services Act, or alternatively, they could be peace officers. In terms of federal enforcement at airports, I think if there was to be enforcement in an airport, that would have to rely on peace officers — RCMP , for example. M. Farnworth: I’m a little surprised in the sense that one of the ways…. The minister has stated that clearly education is the preferred option, and I would agree with that, that what you want to do is to educate people: “This is the law of the province.

This is appropriate behaviour, or this is inappropriate behaviour. ” It would strike me that one of the most effective ways to do that is to have the broadest possible ability to, in essence, enforce the provincial laws. Has any thought been given to working with UBCM or having a common local government policy on this particular issue?

It’s one of those things where if the only time you’re going to get a ticket is if an individual em - powered under this particular piece of legislation is go - ing to be issuing you the ticket or the warning or the fine or whatever it’s going to be — and at the airport it would be, in essence, an RCMP officer — that’s not going to happen that often. [1705] That’s why I’m wondering if the minister could just elaborate on that. I think in order for this to be really ef- fective, the way that I think it would all be, it would be nice if there was a broader scope of ability to enforce it. Hon. S.

Anton: Bylaw officers are local government, and we’re not contemplating them at the moment. In terms of the Offence Act, there is a violation ticket administration and fines regulation. We intend to add this act to the provisions of that regulation. M. Farnworth: Okay. By doing that, what do you ac - complish? Does it broaden the pool of people who are able to actually, let’s say, ticket this particular offence — and, if so, by allowing who to make that ticket?

The other question on that is: in terms of people able to ticket the offence, would that include, for example, animal welfare officers or control officers with, let’s say, the BCSPCA? Hon. S. Anton: In terms of who can issue the tickets, as I mentioned a moment ago, it is under the violation ticket administration and fines regulation of the Offence Act. Item 1(

a) is police officer. I think I said peace officer earlier, but I should use the language of the act, which is police officer. The intention is to add this act to their pow- ers of enforcement of a violation ticket. Similarly, this is where the inspectors appointed under

section 30 of the Security Services Act are also found. [1710] M. Farnworth: Then it would not include, for example, animal control officers of the BCSPCA, if that’s correct. Hon. S. Anton: The question is the SPCA ’s role in any kind of enforcement. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, in

section 23.1, says: “ A person must not do, or attempt to do, any of the following without lawful excuse or authority: (

a) harm a service animal; (

b) touch, directly or indirectly, a service animal; (

c) interfere with or obstruct a service animal. ” And the definition of ser- vice animal is an animal trained for use “(

i) by a person within a prescribed class of persons, or (ii) for prescribed purposes. ” I hope the member is following this logic. The inten - tion is that the prescribed class of persons and prescribed purposes will be defined in regulation to include guide dogs or service dogs. In other words, it will become an offence to harm a guide dog or a service dog or interfere with a guide dog or a service dog, and the enforcement

British Columbia Debates7458 Tuesday, April 21, 2015 of those provisions will be up to the SPCA under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. M. Farnworth: I understand that, and I think that’s great. When the minister makes that statement…. I think the issue in this case isn’t so much the hurting or interfer- ing part, but rather, it’s the false representation part. That’s what I see is the problem. It is that false representation. When you’re talking about taking that

section and say- ing, “Y es, it will apply, ” it applies to…. But that doesn’t mention false representation, and that’s where I think there is a problem here. That is, who is enforcing the false representation? I think that’s one of the biggest problems that we face, particularly in education. I don’t think it takes a great deal…. I think most people instinctively know that you don’t hurt a guide dog. In fact, you don’t hurt any dog, and the laws are there.

But I think one of the reasons this legislation is here is to deal with one of the issues, this phenomenon, this growth of — as we’ve talked about the capes — the false representation of a guide animal. That’s the part where I’m wondering about who’s do- ing the enforcement. That’s why I’m concerned. What I’m hearing from the minister is that, yes, the enforcement applies under provincial statutes, and from what I hear from the minister, it is the RCMP who are going to be doing the enforcement.

That’s why I’m asking questions about a broader class of officer — or bylaw officer, if you like, in terms of the provincial level — or the SPCA, in terms of that enforce - ment when it comes to the false representation of a guide dog and those individuals who put a cape on their animal when it clearly isn’t a guide or service dog. [1715] Hon. S. Anton: The answer is as I gave earlier. It’s the inspectors or police officers. But let me add one thing about the inspectors, which is that they are from the same program which registers and certifies the dogs. The inspectors come out of that program.

They will have the body of knowledge needed to do the enforcement as necessary. M. Farnworth: I don’t want to belabour this section. We’ll be able to move on to other sections. But I do think the minister is going to have a problem with this

section in terms of…. If this legislation is to work the way that I think we all would like it to work…. What we have here is a

section that in reality and in practice, as opposed to theory, will be rather narrow in its ability to be enforced. I don’t think, you know, in terms of police officers…. It’s not going to be a high priority in the list of calls that police officers are going to be responding to. I think it may well end up being one of those things that…. Okay, you’ve pulled over a vehicle. You’re writing a ticket. Somebody walks by with a dog that’s clearly…. Y ou go: “Okay, you, I want…. Is that a certified animal? No? Well, here’s a ticket. ” I have a feeling that that’s how this is going to end up being.

Likewise, at airports, again, I think it will be more by happenstance as opposed to being on the lookout. That’s why I think that when the minister is looking at the regulations around this, it would be wise for the gov- ernment to look at expanding and broadening the pool that is able to enforce the legislation. I think the SPCA is one. I also think, perhaps, talk - ing with the Ministry of Community Development and local government about having a comprehensive policy that applies across the province so that bylaw enforce - ment officers in communities right across the province….

There is a comprehensive policy that applies to everybody throughout B.C. Y ou have the ability to do the enforce- ment that’s necessary. Otherwise, I think the real challenge is going to be that…. Y ou’re going to do an education program, but the reality is if people realize that, okay, yeah, there’s an education program but the consequences of either get - ting caught or being ticketed, or whatever the progressive enforcement is, are such that it’s rarely going to happen, then it’s much harder to change behaviour.

It’s much harder, I think, to get the people who take advantage of these capes and false representation. So I think there’s a real challenge here. I was just going to say: if the minister could give a re - sponse that, yes, these are issues that would be looked at in terms of regulation, I would be happy. I think it’s im- portant because, as I am sure there will be…. The min - ister is a lawyer and is well aware that if there is a court case or a court challenge, then one of the things that is often important…. A judge will look at: what did the Legislature intend when they made this law?

People don’t often realize it, but that’s what, in

part 1, the important aspects of this discus- sion are. What were lawmakers intending? If the minister could give an answer, I would appreciate that. [1720] Hon. S. Anton: We are very committed to making this program work. There’s a lot of interest in it from both sides of the House, which I appreciate. If we need to make adjustments, we will. But as I said, the goal is to start off with education — and enforcement, where needed, through the inspectors and police officers, as I described. If we need to make further adjustments or do more in the future, we will definitely be considering that.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. M. Farnworth: This particular

section is about certifi- cation and how to apply for certification for guide and

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 21, 2015 7459 service dogs. It lists a number of sections: “ …in the case of a blind person…in the certificate is a guide dog, and (ii) the blind person and the dog are a guide dog team. ” Another one deals with “the case of a person with a dis- ability, a certificate certifying that (

i) the dog identified in the certificate is a service dog, and (ii) the person with a disability and the dog are a service dog team. ” Can the minister just outline how this

section is going to work and how those changes will be seen by owners of service dogs and guide dogs? This is an important part of the legislation. Just outline how the certification pro - cess is going to work. Hon. S. Anton: The regime will include the registrar, who will be our government executive director of secur- ity programs, a current position. What this will do is cre- ate a standard application process for all types of teams to be certified by the registrar, which are active teams, train- ing teams and retired teams.

The registrar will be able to determine the form and manner of the application, and the type of information that is needed will be prescribed in the regulations. M. Farnworth: One of the areas that stakeholders have critiqued about the act is for dog teams and guide dogs from out of British Columbia. I think this is an area that the legislation needs to address.

Y ou know, we don’t want to create problems for people who are visiting the prov - ince or coming from other provinces that may have their own certification process. [1725] So I’ d like to move the following amendment: [SECTION 5, by adding the following section: 5

(3) A guide dog team or service dog team which have received accreditation from Assistance Dogs International or the International Guide Dog Federation are deemed to be certi- fied for the purposes of the Act.] On the amendment. M. Farnworth: I would table this amendment and ask for the…. The reason I submit this amendment is that that way, guide dogs that are internationally certified are able to come to the province and they are deemed by the province to be certified. That’s the nature of the amend- ment that I am submitting.

I hope the minister will accept it, because I think it has the potential to remove possible problem areas that I would rather we deal with now as opposed to down the road in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. Hon. S. Anton: My position on the proposed amend- ment is that it’s not necessary. We are very aware of the issue. We will recognize international schools.

The goal is that the registrar will issue a British Columbia certifi - cate, with a very quick turnaround if needed. [1730] If someone is coming from Germany and they have a dog which is recognized by an international school, they can simply send an e-mail to the registrar and the regis - trar will assess it and issue a certificate where appropriate. M. Farnworth: Here I was, I guess, being optimistic, and one should never be an optimist sometimes. This is the government that says: “We want to cut red tape. ” This is the government that says there’s way too much red tape.

This is the government that says: “We’re opposed to red tape. We’ve eliminated all these regulations. ” This amend- ment exactly does just that. What you’ve just said, Minister, is that if I’m a tour - ist in Germany or Japan and I have a disability, I’m blind…. Y ou’re now telling me that before I plan my trip to Canada, before I plan my trip to British Columbia, I have to find out whether you’re going to accept my cer- tification that my dog is a legitimate guide animal. I now have to go find a website. I have to send an e- mail to make sure that this is okay and then wait for that to come back.

We all know how slow, sometimes, that can be. “Have I filled the form in right, or have I filled it in incorrectly? Y ou just add one more layer of red tape to my visit. ” “I want to go visit B.C., ” and guess what. “Y ou’re just making my life more difficult, ” instead of saying right up front: “Y ou know what?

If you’ve got an internationally certified guide dog, you come to Canada and they ask you at the border. ” Or you’re in the airport and you’re asked by a police officer, or whoever is doing the certification, and they say, “Oh, sprechen Sie Deutsch?” or “Habla español?” or in whatever your language is: “Is your dog certified?” And you go: “Y ou know what?” Interjection. M. Farnworth: Exactly. “Y es, it is. Here’s the certification right here. ” How sim- ple is that? That’s logical, right?

Instead, by doing what you’re proposing, Minister, you’re putting the onus on the person who wants to come and visit British Columbia to check out to make sure ahead of time. Like, why? Why would you do that? Why wouldn’t you just put that up front in the legislation, if that’s what you want to do instead of…? Make it clear right from the outset. It’s no big deal to amend the legislation just because it’s suggested by the opposition. It shows a willingness on the part of government, that — you know what? — hey, it’s not a bad idea.

Minister, I’ d be the first one to give you full credit for adopting the amendment. It makes sense. I can see that some of your colleagues back there know it makes sense because they’re smiling in agreement. So Minister… The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

British Columbia Debates7460 Tuesday, April 21, 2015 M. Farnworth: …show, confirm with action, that you are the party that you like to think you are when you talk of doing away with red tape, removing barriers. By adopt- ing this very simple amendment, which says…. I’ll read it, just to make sure. “ A guide dog team or a service dog team which have received accreditation from Assistance Dogs International or the International Guide Dog Federation are deemed to be certified for the purpose of the Act. ” The people in the guide dog industry — that’s what they would like to see in place.

It makes life a little easier for people, whose life is already challenging because they need a service dog in the first place, who want to come and visit British Columbia. I’ d ask the minister to rethink this and look at it from the perspective of the traveller coming here, not from this perspective of how can we make people jump through another hoop. [1735] Hon. S. Anton: Part of this act, an important part of this act, is that we have a standard ID for both the dogs and the handlers. The ID which would come from other countries is not common to the standard ID that we will have in British Columbia.

Indeed, there are many forms of identification that come from other countries. What we would be suggesting is that everyone in British Columbia have a standard ID, but people who come from other places would not have the same stan - dard ID. That would be hard on the dog handler and on businesses. The advantage of the standard ID is, for example, both the handler and the business that the handler is propos - ing to go into can be satisfied that this dog team is prop- erly accredited. They can’t be satisfied with that if they’re given something that is unrecognizable because it comes from a different country.

As I said, the goal is to make sure that people coming from other countries can quickly get a British Columbia standardized ID so that they fit in the program. The whole purpose of this act is to create that standard iden- tification. M. Farnworth: I was going to let this go, but the minis- ter’s answer just contradicted what she said a moment ago, which is…. Okay. It’s Germany because “it’s Germany” was somehow the example that got raised. Y ou’re sitting in Germany. Y ou’re coming here.

The minister said that if you’re, let’s say, in Germany, and you were going to come to Canada, what you’ d do is send an e-mail to the ministry. The ministry would send back, saying: “Y eah, it’s okay for you to come here. ” But what the minister has just said is that you’ve got different stan- dards in different countries, so how do we know what the standards are, which is why we have to have a common B.C. standard. That is exactly what you just said. When you have an international accreditation, it should be valid when you come to British Columbia. We have a standard in British Columbia.

Ontario could have its own standard as well. It doesn’t even have to be outside of the country. Quebec could have its own stan - dard. When you come here, there should be, in essence, a recognition of the standard that exists in Quebec or a standard that exists in Ontario. [1740] Likewise, the standard that exists, I would imagine, in the case of Germany, of the European Union — it would be a common standard that applies throughout the European Union, for example — that would be recog - nized here instead of making people jump through a hoop. I think that’s what the government needs to do.

That’s what this amendment would accomplish. I know, unfortunately, that the amendment is going to be voted down. But Minister, I really do think you are creating an unnecessary hurdle when there doesn’t need to be an unnecessary hurdle. It’s one that could be dealt with very simply. Hon. S. Anton: If I was not clear, let me be clear. The training and the certification of the dog will be done…. The teams that we’re talking about come from the Assistance Dogs International or the International Guide Dog Federation schools. What I’m talking about is not the standard training but the standard identification.

Those dogs will have the standard training and will be perfectly acceptable in British Columbia, but they will have a different form of identification. It is that identi - fication which will be relied upon by both the handler and the business to say that yes, this is a properly ac - credited team. It is that identification which we will issue in British Columbia on request so that when the team comes to British Columbia, they will have the same stan- dard identification card that every other team in British Columbia uses, offering certainty to both that handler and any business that they propose to go into. M.

Farnworth: But the point is being…. That’s why the experts in the field have said: “Why not do that, and make that clear up front?” This is not just me that’s sug- gesting this. These are the people in the industry, in the field, themselves, who are saying that this is how the act could be improved. That’s the point. If you don’t want to listen to me in the opposition, that’s fine. But listen to the people who actually deal with this issue on a day-to-day basis. They’re the ones saying: “Look, if you do it this way, you’re not going to have the problems. ” Anyway, I will leave it at that for now. A.

Weaver: I’ d like to speak in support of this amend- ment briefly. The reason why, if I could do that, please, here at committee stage, is that there’s a pattern emerging here in what I’ve noticed in this session particularly — to a lesser extent in the last session.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 21, 2015 7461 The pattern is emerging where government is bringing forward legislation that it clearly has not had the time to think through. They’re now in a position where they say no to every amendment that’s being put on the table, even though many of them are reasoned and rational, like this amendment here — where the experts in the field recog - nize that this is creating an unnecessary burden of red tape on groups who will actually get certification else - where when there are international standards in place.

We’re seeing a pattern of ill-thought-out legislation, pushing everything to regulation, not listening to oppos- ition when criticisms are actually being raised — legit - imate concerns. We just have to witness the LNG tax bill, where these loopholes were brought forward. Government just blindly moves on without listening to the stakeholders. We look at the liquor pricing — not listening to the stakeholders there.

Time after time we get to the same situation where, after the fact, government is looking in the mirror saying: “What did we just do?” This is a beautiful opportunity for them to listen to a reasoned amendment brought forward by the official op- position on a topic where they have, if government hasn’t, actually consulted the people involved, actually got their insight and input into what is missing in this legislation. I urge the minister to support this amendment as brought forward by the member from somewhere in Vancouver. I’m sorry. I’ve forgotten, off the top of my head. Hon. S.

Anton: This is a very significantly thought- through act. The extensive consultation with stakehold - ers…. We are confident that the issue dealt with by the proposed amendment is dealt with in the act and the pro- posed implementation of the act. [1745] We want to make sure that people who have guide dog teams in British Columbia and are relying on those guide dog teams and their ability to go from place to place with those teams have the standard identification. Otherwise, we are not solving one of the problems that we’re setting out to solve, which is standard identification for teams. A.

Weaver: With respect, a well-thought-out piece of legislation does not bring out an amendment shortly thereafter that corrects archaic language to more mod - ern language. Clearly, as the member for Port Coquitlam pointed out, this seems to be rather hurried. If it were to be well-thought-out legislation, we wouldn’t be discuss- ing these issues. We wouldn’t be amending language that’s a decade — maybe even longer — out of date at this kind of last-minute notice. With respect, I think, again, that this very fine, very well-thought-out amendment put forward by the oppos- ition should be accepted.

It is accepted by the industry involved, by the stakeholders involved. This is yet another example of government marching to the beat of their own drum, not listening to anybody, no advice being given. They know best. But they don’t, and we’ll see it all come, I proffer, down the road again. [1750] [D.

Horne in the chair.] The Chair: The question is the amendment proposed by the member for Port Coquitlam. [1755] Amendment negatived on the following division: YEAS — 29 Simpson Robinson Farnworth James Dix Popham Kwan Austin Chandra Herbert Huntington Macdonald Karagianis Eby Mungall Elmore Shin Heyman Darcy Donaldson Krog Trevena D. Routley Simons Fraser Weaver Chouhan Rice Holman B.

Routley NAYS — 40 Sturdy Bing Hogg Y amamoto Michelle Stilwell Stone Fassbender Oakes Wat Thomson Rustad Wilkinson Pimm Sultan Hamilton Reimer Ashton Morris Sullivan Cadieux Lake Polak de Jong Anton Bond Bennett Letnick Barnett Thornthwaite McRae Plecas Kyllo Tegart Throness Bernier Larson Foster Martin Gibson Moira Stilwell Sections 5 to 10 inclusive approved. On

section 11. M. Farnworth: There are a number of areas that I would like to continue to raise questions. I also know that our time is limited, and we are wanting to get some legislation through. I think we’ve dealt with some of the key issues on here, but I do think there are some issues that the min - ister does need to look at. I’ll mention them

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150421pm-Hansard-v23n9
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150421pm Hansard v23n9
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4c71e014196e76c7a80307bc82b7694eb87b3bac

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).