Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 153

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

LGBT youth and SOGI 123 in schools

S. Chandra Herbert

Friendship trail between Mount Currie and

Pemberton

J. Sturdy

National Foundation Day in Korea

A. Kang

Society of Organized Services in

Parksville

M. Stilwell

Hari Sharma Foundation event recognizing community

elders

R. Chouhan

Scotty “Graeme” Ramsay

D. Barnett

Oral Questions

Opioid crisis and prescription monitoring

program

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Darcy

M. Stilwell

LNG development and water resources

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mungall

Youth overdose deaths and Safe Care Act

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Darcy

S. Thomson

Overdose deaths in private residences

J. Isaacs

Hon. J. Darcy

Tabling Documents

Environmental Appeal Board, annual report, 2017-18

Reports from Committees

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills Committee, report on revision of Health Act,

Veterinary Drugs Act and Trespass Act, July 2018

M. Elmore

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 38 — Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs

Recovery Act

Hon. D. Eby

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 38 — Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs

Recovery Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 37 — Land Statutes Amendment Act,

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

T. Shypitka

D. Davies

A. Olsen

D. Barnett

A. Weaver

Bill 36 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

3), 2018

S. Cadieux

Hon. M. Mark

S. Gibson

M. Lee

A. Weaver

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2018

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us today in the members’ gallery are some very special guests

from the Seoul metropolitan council in Korea. The council supervises the

operation of the city of Seoul, a city of 26 million citizens, one of the

biggest cities in the world.

I would like to recognize Seoyeon Ji, chair of the council steering

committee; Yu Yong, chair of the planning and economy committee; Kim In-jae,

chair of the planning and management committee; Kim Kyung-wu, chair of the

administration committee; Li Dohyeon, member of the administration

committee; Kim Jae-ri, member of the environment and water resources

committee; Kim Hyeon-jun, member of the culture, sports and tourism

committee; Hong Seo-ryong, member of the urban safety and construction

committee; Seong Arang, member of the transportation committee; and Chae Yu

Mi, member of the education committee.

As members can detect from the vast array of responsibilities of these

members, they have a huge jurisdiction that they exercise very carefully. I

had the honour of meeting with the delegation and discussing the strong

relationship between our two jurisdictions. Would the House please extend a

warm welcome to our visitors from Seoul, Korea, who are up there in the

gallery.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Brody Jones, who’s in the

precinct today. Brody is a firefighter and a medic who spent most of this

summer fighting fires across Vancouver Island and other parts of B.C. He’s

visiting the House today, is in question period today, and he’s sitting in

the gallery. I have yet to identify the spot where, but would the House

please make him feel very welcome today.

Hon. R. Fleming: I’m honoured to introduce a large delegation of folks today from every

education partner in the K-to-12 system today. I’ll get to that in a moment.

I want to thank them first, though, for travelling here today to the

Legislature. Some of them have come a long way to be with us.

We had a reception over the lunch break — members of the Legislature

from all parties. My counterpart, the opposition Education critic, the

former Minister of Education, was there, among others — the Green Party

Education critic as well.

These are partners that are standing up and fighting for diversity and

inclusion in our school system. They work with the Ministry of Education and

each other, each and every day, to make sure that schools right across

British Columbia are safe, respectful and welcoming places for every student

in British Columbia. Indeed, it was a pleasure to work with all of these

education partners over my time — a brief time, admittedly — as the

Education Minister, to carry on the important work that we have in teaching

our children the value of human rights and why standing up to discrimination

is, in fact, one of the most valuable things that they can learn with their

peers in our school system.

If you will, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the assembly to welcome, in no

particular order, all of our partners, who are extremely valued in the

system. Mr. Gordon Swan is here, the president of the B.C. School Trustees

Association. Glen Hansman, the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation, is

here. Andrea Sinclair is the president of the B.C. Confederation of Parent

Advisory Councils. David DeRosa is the president of the B.C. Principals and

Vice-Principals Association. Mr. Paul Faoro, the president of CUPE British

Columbia, is here with Justin Schmid, who’s their legislative coordinator.

Ed Noot, who’s the president of the Federation of Independent School

Associations, is here as well. Colleen Austin is president of the First

Nations Schools Association.

[1:40 p.m.]

Jo-Anne Chrona is the curriculum coordinator for the First Nations

Education Steering Committee. Julia Leiterman is with the B.C. Association

of School Business Officials. Tom Longridge is the president of the B.C.

School Superintendents Association, and Brad Beattie is the executive

director of the ARC Foundation.

Would the House please welcome this large group, which is inclusive of

every education stakeholder in the province of British Columbia, to the

House here today.

C. Oakes: It truly is my delight today to have the opportunity to introduce two

of my constituents, former neighbours of mine as well, and we miss you.

Daphne and Ryan are here from Quesnel. Their son is a very talented Métis

dancer. Would the House please help make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

LGBT YOUTH AND SOGI 123 IN SCHOOLS

S. Chandra Herbert: Imagine going to school every day and hearing people call you fag,

dyke, tranny — worse. Maybe you’re threatened or beaten up, the hatred

relentlessly picking away at your ability to exist, to live, to be your

true self.

For too long, lesbian, gay, bi and trans kids in this province

face this year in, year out. Ten years ago, when I first joined this

place, you could count on one hand how many school boards had any

official policies to help, and our province wasn’t much better. The kids

were left to deal with this situation, with this hatred,

alone.

It gives me great pride to be here today to say that LGBT kids and

questioning kids in our schools in every school board district, all 60,

and the provincial government now stand loudly, proudly, in support of

them and against discrimination. With school policies like SOGI 123,

curriculum, training and supports now exist to help these youth, youth

who face some of the highest degrees of bullying and hate in our

society.

It’s thanks to those who spoke out, who raised their voices, who

advocated for those youth for so long. Many of the best advocates, of

course, being the youth themselves.

I want to acknowledge both the former Minister of Education and

the current Minister of Education for taking action. It was too long,

but we got there.

There is a campaign of fear, of hate, being waged right now

against LGBT youth and SOGI 123. Politicians and those wanting to be

politicians using fear and hate to try and divide us, to target those

youth for their own personal, political gain. It’s

disgusting.

I believe that we are winning — the forces of love, the forces of

acceptance — because this week every single education partner in our

province united in a way we’ve never seen before to say no, to say they

stand up for every youth and they stand up for human rights. That gives

me incredible hope for the future.

If we continue to stand up for the vulnerable, if we continue to

stand up for everyone’s human rights in our schools, we will have a much

better society. I’m so glad that the vast majority of British Columbians

are there. Let’s keep going.

FRIENDSHIP TRAIL BETWEEN

MOUNT CURRIE AND

PEMBERTON

J. Sturdy: I’m pleased to rise today to share a community partnership success

story. Construction is finally underway on a pedestrian bridge across

the Lillooet River near Pemberton. This 117-metre bridge is the final

link in the ambitious friendship trail, which joins Pemberton and the

Lil’wat Nation’s Mount Currie with a non-motorized

connection.

The friendship trail is a seven-kilometre route, which was

originally envisioned 14 years ago by participants in the Leadership Sea

to Sky program and derived from a community-to-community initiative to

improve and deepen relationships between the First Nation and the

non-First Nations community. A safe, non-motorized, pedestrian-friendly

alternative connecting communities was identified as an important

need.

As in many rural British Columbia communities where public

transportation options are limited, infrastructure like the friendship

trail is an essential part of connecting people to their work, to

community services, to friends and family. The new route provides a

dramatically safer alternative to the shoulder of Highway 99 and will

also provide an amenity to the many visitors of the Pemberton

Valley.

[1:45 p.m.]

The friendship trail is also part of a larger Sea to Sky trail

project, a 180-kilometre, multi-use recreational trail linking Howe

Sound with D’Arcy and N’Quatqua on the shores of Anderson

Lake.

Funding for the friendship trail was provided through the

municipal and regional district contributions; federal gas tax funds;

Bike B.C.; the Whistler Blackcomb Foundation; and a grant from Innergex

Renewable Energy, who has been a great community partner — truly a

remarkable collaboration. Many individuals have also contributed to the

success of this project, and I know the whole community looks forward to

the completion celebration later this fall.

I’d like to recognize the persistence of the government partners —

in particular the village of Pemberton, the Squamish-Lillooet regional

district, the Lil’wat Nation — for their determination in bringing the

friendship trail to fruition.

NATIONAL FOUNDATION DAY IN KOREA

A. Kang: An-yong has-se-yo . Today, October 3, many British

Columbians of Korean descent are celebrating National Foundation Day,

Gaecheonjeol , which means “the opening of heaven,” marking

the start of Korea and its creation legacy.

The century-old legend goes like this. Once upon a time, the lord

of heaven, Hwan-in, had a son named Hwan-ung. Hwan-ung wished to live on

Earth, among its mountains and valleys, and he asked his father for

permission to descend from heaven with 3,000 followers. Permission was

granted.

On Baek-du san Mountain, an actual mountain on the border of China

and North Korea, he founded Sinsi, “the city of God,” where he and his

followers taught humans about arts, laws and morals.

While all this was going on, a bear and a tiger prayed to the gods

that they would become human and join the fun. Hwan-ung heard their

prayers, and he approached them with a proposition: for 100 days,

survive on just 20 cloves of garlic and a bundle of mugwort and stay out

of the sun. The tiger gave up after 20 days, but the bear stuck through

it. After the final day, the bear was transformed into a woman named

Ung-nyeo, literally “bear woman.”

She was grateful but still wished for a husband and a child.

Hwan-ung fulfilled that wish too. He took her as his wife, and together

they had a son named Dan-gun Wanggeom, who took over the throne after

his father. In 2333 B.C., he built the city of Asadal, the first city of

Gojoseon, otherwise known as ancient Korea.

This is a story of National Foundation Day, Gaecheonjeol .

Koreans now celebrate this story and their 4,350-year-old history every

October 3 with parades, fireworks and plenty of delicious

food.

Kam-sa-ham-ni-da .

SOCIETY OF ORGANIZED SERVICES

PARKSVILLE

M. Stilwell: There are so many caring organizations and volunteers in my

constituency of Parksville-Qualicum who give their time and energy

towards making the lives of others better. They are the backbone of our

communities, providing supports and services to people who may otherwise

have nowhere to turn.

One organization that has been making a difference in the lives of

children, families, adults and seniors for over 50 years is the Society

of Organized Services. The idea for the SOS was born around a kitchen

table in 1968 when three women — Pauline Touzeau, Edith Chamberlayne and

Betty Marocchi — saw the need to help children and seniors in the

community.

The mission to help those in need remains the same today. The SOS

has 30 different programs and services for people within school district

69. That includes driving people to medical appointments for no cost,

advocacy services for seniors, even providing graduation outfits for the

youth so that they look picture-perfect for their special

day.

It’s an important resource in the community, and I want to applaud

all and celebrate those who pour their heart, their time and their

energy into the organization, including the staff, the board of

directors and the more than 350 volunteers.

I’d also like to recognize Edith Chamberlayne, who has volunteered

the entire 50 years, serving as the organization’s president, a board

member and helping with various programs. At 92 years old, she’s still

actively involved in the 50-year anniversary events.

Verna Jenkins is also a 50-year volunteer, serving as an

ambassador for the SOS and helping in the thrift shop. Kay Burgoyne and

Irene Lambert have both served the SOS for 40 years.

[1:50 p.m.]

The dedication of these volunteers is both amazing and

heartwarming. They are helping to keep that idea that was born around

the kitchen table 50 years ago alive. To all of them, I say thank

you.

HARI SHARMA FOUNDATION EVENT

RECOGNIZING COMMUNITY

ELDERS

R. Chouhan: On September 23, Dr. Hari Sharma’s foundation organized an event

to honour four elders of the South Asian community whose presence and

contribution have enriched our lives as a community.

This year the foundation honoured 92-year-old Bibi Pritam Kaur, a

farmworker and union activist; 97-year-old Kushi Ram, a Dalit activist

and author; Setty Pendakur, an academic and former alderman of Vancouver

— in those days, city councillors used to be called aldermen; and the

fourth person, Charanpal Gill, president of the B.C. Organization to

Fight Racism and founder of the Progressive Intercultural Community

Services.

In 1980, Bibi Pritam Kaur played a very important role by

organizing farmworkers in the Fraser Valley. She never attended a school

and never participated in any political movement. However, when she

realized the bad working conditions in the field, she joined the

Canadian Farmworkers Union. She organized and led a march against a

labour contractor. She refused to be bullied and intimidated by her

employer. She helped her fellow farmworkers win back wages and get

better transportation.

Similarly, Charanpal Gill played an equally important role to get

justice for farmworkers. He played a leading role in fighting racism.

Later on, Charanpal founded the Progressive Intercultural Community

Services, also known as PICS. He started that organization with just

$80. Today the PICS annual budget is over $8 million.

None of these individuals did this to get an award. They did this

because they knew it was the right thing to do. I salute these leaders

for their passion and commitment to making our society a better place

for everyone. I also thank the Hari Sharma Foundation for selecting

these four individuals and recognizing their work.

SCOTTY “GRAEME” RAMSAY

D. Barnett: On July 9, 2018, Scotty “Graeme” Ramsay passed away. Born in

Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1938, he attended agricultural college before

working his way to Canada on a cattle boat. He worked for Bell Telephone

in Ontario and AT&T in Calgary, Alberta, before joining the

RCMP.

Following basic training in Ottawa, he was posted to 100 Mile

House in 1961. Over the next few years, he spent time in numerous

detachments in B.C. In 1965, he was posted back to the area he loved —

100 Mile House. In 1969, Scotty resigned from the RCMP. Scotty and his

wife, Carol, purchased the Tastee Freeze in 100 Mile and served up

burgers and ice cream for 22 years.

From 1969 to ’74, Scotty served as a volunteer ambulance driver.

When the government took over in 1974, Scotty was appointed the first

unit chief for 100 Mile House. He led this position for 25 years,

retiring in 1999.

Scotty was a volunteer provincial emergency program coordinator

for the 100 Mile House and area for 38 years. He belonged to the Lions.

He helped to develop a park and arena.

In retirement, he spent his time fishing, gardening, woodworking,

watching his B.C. Lions, or with his 10 a.m. coffee group at the local

coffee shop or Sunday revival meetings at the Dairy Queen. All the

worldly problems were solved at these meetings.

Scotty is survived by his wife, his sons, his daughter and

friends.

[1:55 p.m.]

Oral Questions

OPIOID CRISIS AND

PRESCRIPTION MONITORING

PROGRAM

A. Wilkinson: On March 14 of this year, we asked a series of questions of the

Minister of Mental Health and Addictions about the prospect of

implementing a prescription monitoring program so that those individuals

who find themselves seeking medical care and receiving prescriptions for

opioids could be referred to pain specialty clinics in the event that

they become chronically involved with the use of opioids.

Now, the minister has made a number of remarkable steps in

ameliorating and trying to mitigate this terrible pandemic of opioid

deaths. Nonetheless, there are outstanding questions, and all of us in

this House have an obligation to commit all of our joint efforts to this

cause, which has killed 774 British Columbians since we last raised it

in this House. This is not criticism of the minister. This is an

observation of just how dreadful this situation is.

The question to the minister is: has a prescription monitoring

program been developed, and can it be implemented?

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. The

old government, it must be noted, encouraged doctors to use PharmaNet

but, in fact, didn’t put the resources necessary into developing a

prescription monitoring system when they had a chance to do

that.

I am very proud of our government’s record on responding to the

overdose crisis. We are escalating our response literally every month,

every week, every single day in order to save lives and connect people

to treatment and recovery as soon as possible. But the reality, also, is

that the other side left behind a mental health and addictions system

that is fragmented, that has huge gaps and that doesn’t come close to

meeting the needs.

Our government understands the need to make improvements around

prescription medication in order to increase safety for patients, and we

are working closely with the Ministry of Health and the College of

Physicians and Surgeons to increase uptake on the PharmaNet database in

order to help address the issue. The college’s ultimate goal is to

mandate PharmaNet access wherever medications are prescribed, and that’s

certainly our goal as well.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, those of us who have been involved in clinical care know

that PharmaNet has been around for 25 years, and it has always been

cumbersome. It has always been difficult for practitioners to use on a

timely basis. So the minister raises a point which could well be

addressed, but it doesn’t yet address the issue that is at

hand.

Once again, not to attribute blame…. This is about solving

problems, not attributing fault. There is no room in this House for

fault on this question. This is a tragedy of epic proportions: 1,216

British Columbians have died since this government was sworn in. This is

not something to blame the minister for. This is something to find

solutions to.

The question remains. The coroner’s office found that 79 percent

of people who died of illicit drug overdoses had contact with health

services in the year preceding their death, and more than half of those

people had contact for pain-related issues. So there is an opportunity

in that clinical contact for more meaningful engagement with people who

are using opiates on a more chronic basis.

Minister, please, can we get a prescription monitoring program

going?

Hon. J. Darcy: As I have already stated, we are working very closely with the

College of Physicians and Surgeons and with the Ministry of Health, as

quickly as we can, in order to put this in place — something that,

frankly, has been ignored for a number of years. We believe that action

needs to be taken. We are taking action.

There is no magic bullet. There is no quick fix. There is not one

single thing that is going to solve this opioid crisis. We are talking

about a poisoned, unpredictable drug supply, a drug supply that is

getting more lethal by the week, with new analogues of fentanyl and

carfentanil that are even deadlier than the ones that came

before.

One of the principal focuses of our ministry at the present time

is to connect people to treatment and recovery as soon as possible, and

we’re using a number of innovative models in order to do that.

Increasingly, our staff in emergency rooms are connecting people after

overdose to an addictions specialist, to a health practitioner, in order

that they can start on a pathway to treatment and to

recovery.

[2:00 p.m.]

We are working in various places. Our safe consumption sites

increasingly have robust teams of staff who are also able to walk with

people and connect them with the treatments and the supports that they

need.

A very recent initiative that we’re very excited about is one

where we’re working very closely with police forces in various parts of

the province. I would note Abbotsford, in particular, as well as

Vancouver and Vernon, where police, when they’re dealing with someone

who has overdosed or who’s at risk of overdose, instead of arresting

those people or jailing those people, are doing everything they can to

connect them to the social supports that they need and the treatment

they need.

More needs to be done. We are working overtime every single day to

save lives, to connect people to treatment and to build a better system

for mental health and addictions care in the province of British

Columbia.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: While I thank the minister for her dedication to the task, and I

thank the minister and her government for the efforts that have been

made to reduce the tragic litany of death that’s happening all across

British Columbia, most of us know that British Columbia is the worst

location anywhere in the Americas for narcotic drug overdose deaths.

This is not a reputation that any of us want to persist. We have an

obligation as a House. This is why we’re here — to try and put this to

bed.

I ask the minister again. Since we last raised this in March,

there have been 416 people who’ve died after being in recent contact

with physicians about pain-related issues. These were missed

opportunities.

This is not a criticism of those physicians. It is not a criticism

of the minister. It is to point out an opportunity to try and save some

people from death. I ask the minister again: when can we expect a

prescription monitoring program to be implemented?

Hon. J. Darcy: As I have stated before, we are making up for lost time. We’re

making up for lost time when there could have been more work and more

resources put into doing exactly what the member opposite is suggesting

that we do. We are working hard, as I have said, with the College of

Physicians and Surgeons, with the Minister of Health, in order to put in

place a more effective PharmaNet monitoring system and prescription

monitoring system.

There is no one who takes this as seriously as we do. I’m sure

everyone in this House takes this seriously. I have the sad duty, the

heartbreaking duty, to meet with people every week, to speak with people

every day who have lost loved ones to overdose.

We are working on a variety of different fronts because there is

no magic bullet. We need to be providing a wide array of treatment

options. We need to be working on prevention. We are working on

prevention, and we will also be coming forward in the coming months with

a plan for child and youth mental health where we start early and where

we prevent these problems from happening in the first place.

In addition to that, my colleague the Solicitor General,

responsible for public safety, is also doing everything within his power

on the public safety front in order to interdict these drugs that are

coming into the country and introducing pill press legislation, which is

an important piece, as well, of enforcing laws and stopping these drugs

coming onto the street that are killing people — three or four people a

day.

M. Stilwell: I don’t think there’s any argument that we all want to find a

solution for the opioid crisis. But 14 months ago, the minister was made

responsible for the provincial response to the opioid crisis. Eight

months into her mandate, the minister committed to creating a

prescription monitoring program. Meanwhile, an average of four people

continue to die from opioid overdoses in this province each and every

day.

To the minister, when will a prescription monitoring program be

implemented?

Hon. J. Darcy: We are working very hard with our colleagues in the Ministry of

Health and the College of Physicians and Surgeons on improving a

prescription monitoring program. As I have stated before, there is no

magic bullet. There is no one single answer. To suggest that a

prescription monitoring program alone would have meant that three or

four people a day were not dying simply does not bear out in

reality.

[2:05 p.m.]

People are dying because of a poisoned drug supply. We need to

pour significant efforts, as we are, into saving people’s lives but also

into connecting people to treatment and recovery as soon as we

can.

We have invested significant resources on the front lines — saving

lives, expanding overdose-prevention sites and safe-consumption sites

and also expanding access to life-saving prescription medications as an

alternative to those unsafe, lethal drugs that are on the street. The

number of prescribers for opioid substitution therapy has almost

doubled, and the number of people on treatment for opioid addiction has

increased significantly.

We will continue to work on all fronts at once, because there

isn’t one single bullet. It takes a comprehensive plan. This is a very

complex issue, and we’re working overtime in order to try and turn the

tide on this terrible crisis.

Mr. Speaker: Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: We’re not suggesting that it’s the only solution, but it truly is

part of the solution. It’s an opportunity. This crisis is claiming more

victims every day while meaningful actions, like implementing the

prescription monitoring program, are not being acted on.

The minister has had 14 months. Will she commit today to having a

prescription monitoring program in place before the end of this

session?

Hon. J. Darcy: We are working very closely with the Ministry of Health and the

College of Physicians and Surgeons in order to do exactly that. This is

an important priority for us, as are the other actions that we have

spoken about. The majority of people who are dying on the street are

people who have been addicted to opioids for a considerable period of

time. We absolutely believe that we need to work on the prevention

side.

There are many pieces to prevention, including a prescription

monitoring program, but another very important piece of prevention is

ensuring that people have those supports and services really early on in

their lives so that we don’t get to this place of severe addiction to

opioids and other substances.

It is an important initiative. We are working hard on it. But

there is no single magic answer to this overdose crisis.

LNG DEVELOPMENT AND WATER RESOURCES

S. Furstenau: In the LNG investment announcement yesterday, the Premier stated

that the LNG Canada project would fulfil government’s responsibilities

to guarantee clean air, land and water for future generations that

follow.

In 2016, the fracking industry withdrew 862,000 cubic metres of

water from B.C. water sources for fracking. In 2017, this number jumped

to 1.6 million cubic metres. A new study found that this water use could

increase 50-fold by 2030. We tend to think of water as a reusable

resource, but water that is used for fracking, the study writes, is

essentially lost to humanity, due to its high levels of

contamination.

To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum, LNG Canada will

heavily contribute to the exponential increase of water used for

fracking in B.C. How will the minister be addressing these cumulative

impacts on B.C.’s water resources, which are already threatened by

impacts from climate change?

Hon. M. Mungall: The use of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from B.C.’s

ground has been going on in British Columbia since the 1950s. Over that

time, there’s been a variety of changes to the process to improve it so

that it reduces its overall impact on the environment. However, we can

always be doing more.

When we came into government, we recognized that. That’s exactly

why we put together a scientific review panel that is looking at the

hydraulic fracturing process. That panel has already met with 60 experts

from academia, industry, First Nations, environmental NGOs, the

regulator and government. They’ve been conducting workshops, and they’ve

been just putting their noses to the grindstone, working very, very

diligently to identify ways that we can improve on our water quality,

what we can do about water quantity, what we can be doing better about

induced seismicity and, of course, fugitive emissions as

well.

[2:10 p.m.]

This is, as I said, a long practice, but we can always be

improving it. This scientific review panel is looking exactly at that

issue and what we can be doing, and we anticipate their response later

this year.

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

S. Furstenau: If emissions do not start to dramatically decline in the next few

years, many millions of people, including British Columbians, will be at

risk from increased heatwaves, droughts, floods, storms and wildfires.

Our coasts and cities are already threatened by rising sea

levels.

In a world destabilized by climate change, basic human needs like

ready access to clean drinking water will be invaluable. In B.C., our

main challenge will be water storage. We will fluctuate dramatically

between flooding and drought. Our snow- and glacier-fed rivers will heat

and dry up.

Over the 20th century, fossil fuels allowed us to transition our

industrial practices, spur economic growth and lift people out of

poverty. We have now reached the limit of those gains, and if we

continue down this path, the improvements we achieved will be

drastically and permanently reversed.

To the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, in our rush to

approve LNG, has there been any scientific forecast of the impacts it

will have on our water resources, as the importance of these resources

is heightened by impacts from climate change?

Hon. M. Mungall: One of the things we’ve been clear about on this side of the

House, as New Democrats, is that we believe that any LNG project has to

meet four conditions. We’ve been clear about that since 2011. Those four

conditions are that any LNG project has to be able to provide good,

family-supporting jobs to British Columbians, first and foremost, and

training opportunities. We must have a fair rate of return on B.C.’s

resources for British Columbians. There must be meaningful partnerships

with First Nations. And lastly, but nowhere near least, any project has

to be able to fit within our climate action plan.

We have a climate action plan that is on its way. The leader of

the Green Party is heavily involved in developing that plan. I think we

can all agree that his expertise being involved in that is a very good

thing, and we’re all very happy about that.

I know that we’re going to end up with a robust, strong plan for

British Columbia. I think that it’ll be leading the rest of North

America in terms of what we’ll be able to accomplish. Any project has to

fit in that plan. We believe LNG Canada does.

YOUTH OVERDOSE DEATHS

AND SAFE CARE

ACT

J. Thornthwaite: Last spring I repeatedly asked the Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions to call the Safe Care Act for debate. The minister said: “We

will be bringing forward…this fall a plan for child and youth mental

health…. As part of bringing forward that plan, we will be looking very

closely at…all the existing proposed legislation….”

My question is to the minister. Will the minister bring the Safe

Care Act forward for this debate in this session?

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the member opposite for her question. Nothing is more

important, I’m sure, to anyone in this House than the safety and the

well-being of our children. As a mother, I have certainly been very

deeply moved by the strength and the courage of the parents and the

families who’ve met with me and shared the journey that their children

were on before they tragically lost their lives to overdose.

What I heard from those families, in addition to their heartbreak

at losing their children — no one could imagine anything worse — was

also a great deal about the challenges that they faced trying to get

support for their children in our current system for mental health and

addictions, especially in our system for child and youth mental health,

and how they went to one door after another after another that were

often closed to them, and they didn’t get the help that they

need.

Our focus as a government is to work on a child and youth mental

health plan that we will be bringing forward. As part and parcel of that

plan, we are looking at all potential legislation and all pieces of

policy that affect child youth and mental health and also that deal with

the issue of keeping our children safe from overdose.

[2:15 p.m.]

When we bring forward that plan, we will also bring forward

whatever conclusions we have reached based on the evidence, based on the

experience, here in British Columbia but also based on the evidence in

other jurisdictions about what makes the most sense and what we should

act on in order to keep our children safe.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, have talked numerous times to parents who have, sadly,

lost their children. But the minister has had 14 months to consider

legislation and hasn’t brought forward a single bill.

The Safe Care Act was introduced this February. The work has been

done. The minister promised she would review the legislation and bring

forward a plan this fall. My question, again, to the minister is: will

the minister call the Safe Care Act for debate this fall, yes or

no?

Hon. J. Darcy: We all care deeply about the safety of our children. As I have

said, there is nothing worse, I think, any of us can imagine than losing

a child, losing a child to overdose, losing a child to suicide. The

parents I’ve met with, no doubt the parents you’ve met with, have had a

lot to say about a lot of things that need fixing.

I totally understand that when a parent has lost a child to

overdose, they are looking for solutions that will fix that problem

quickly. These parents have been courageous enough to sit with me in a

round table and offer their ideas about what we need to do to improve

the system. We are working on that, and we will be bringing that plan

forward.

As I mentioned, we are looking at legislation. We’re looking at

policy, and we’re looking at the experience in other jurisdictions,

including Alberta, where there was just a review of the use of the safe

secure care act in that province. There are some really, really

important findings there that we need to look at. There were, in fact,

12 young people who died, who have been taken into involuntary care. Six

of them died as a result of an overdose.

There are findings that they have reached. We’re studying those

very closely. We’re also looking at things like the Charter implications

of any potential legislation or changes in policy, and we’ll be bringing

forward our conclusions, our findings, on that, based on evidence, as

part of a child and youth mental health plan.

S. Thomson: To the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the minister has

said there’s no magic bullet and we need every tool available at our

disposal to deal with this tragic situation. Already this year there

have been 12 more illicit drug overdose deaths amongst children between

the ages of ten and 18 years.

The Safe Care Act is one of those tools that could be made

available. Tragic deaths may have been prevented by the safe care system

and with this legislation. The minister continues not to bring the

legislation forward for debate or call the legislation.

Again to the minister, will she listen to the families of the

overdose victims, like the family of Elliott Eurchuk, and bring forward

this proposed legislation?

Hon. J. Darcy: I’ve met with the families and the parents of Elliott Eurchuk,

I’ve met with the parents of Stephanie from Squamish, and I have met

with at least 20 other parents across the province who’ve lost children

to overdose. Some of them believe that the Secure Care Act is the

answer. Others don’t. Most of them speak to me about how urgent it is

that we improve the voluntary system of care for children and youth

struggling with mental health and addictions in this

province.

We have a system that has failed too many families. We have

parents who have sought in vain for the help that their children need

and have not been able to find. I have parents who tell me that their

children struggled in schools from an early age and had mild mental

health illnesses that were never diagnosed. There wasn’t sufficient

support there. They became more severe mental health issues, and they

turned to substance use. They plead with me that we need to start early

and start in our schools.

[2:20 p.m.]

We’re working very closely with our partner ministries — the

Ministry of Education, the Minister of Children and Families and the

Minister of Health. We need to put in place, first and foremost, a

system of mental health and addictions care for our children and youth

that prevents these issues from happening in the first place. We will be

bringing forward such a plan, and we’ll be looking at legislation and

policy as part of that plan.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission on a supplemental.

S. Thomson: I’ve met with Brenda Doherty as well, a constituent of mine now

living in Kelowna. I’ve met with her and her family and have heard her

story, her tragic story, as well. She said: “My daughter was released

prematurely from hospital and overdosed a day and a half later. If there

had been legislation like the Safe Care Act in place, her death could

have been avoided.”

Again, for those families that are suffering from this — we’ve all

heard the stories; we’ve all had experiences with this — will the

minister heed the calls for this legislation and bring it forward for

debate?

Hon. J. Darcy: The opinions of parents on this issue are mixed. The opinions of

people who work on the front line caring for children and youth who are

struggling with mental health issues or addictions are mixed, and the

experience across the country is also mixed. We want to do absolutely

the best thing for children and youth who are struggling with addiction,

to keep them safe and prevent overdoses. We are working very hard on a

child and youth mental health and addictions plan that will do

that.

There is no one magic bullet that is going to fix this. We need to

start with prevention. We need to have a continuum of care, of voluntary

services. Surely the members opposite would agree that involuntary care

should only be considered as a very last option. Surely our priority

should be to build that system of voluntary care. We’re going to be

focused on that going forward.

OVERDOSE DEATHS

IN PRIVATE

RESIDENCES

J. Isaacs: The coroner’s investigations reported last week that 72 percent of

illicit drug overdose deaths occurred amongst people who were living in

private residences. These are not people that are using drugs in safe

injection sites. Victims are using drugs alone in their homes. Programs

targeting street overdoses may be making progress but will do nothing to

address narcotic overdoses in private residences.

How does the minister plan to address the lack of progress, to

reduce overdose deaths occurring in private homes?

Hon. J. Darcy: Yes, it is absolutely the case that the majority of people who are

dying of overdose are dying at home alone or in private residences. The

principal reason that people use drugs alone at home is stigma. It’s

stigma, and it’s shame. One of our major priorities as a government has

been — as part and parcel of responding to the overdose crisis but also

of taking the first steps to build a better system for mental health and

addiction — to tackle that stigma, because stigma isolates people.

Stigma traps people. Stigma means that people will not open up even to

their closest friends, family or loved ones about the fact that they are

struggling with addiction.

As the members opposite will know and as millions of British

Columbians will know, we’ve done an aggressive advertising campaign that

delivers a message. That message is that people who use drugs are real

people. They are our fathers, our mothers, our sisters, our brothers,

our co-workers, our fellow hockey fans. We need to support them. We need

to reach out to them. We need to have courageous conversations with them

in order to bring down the walls of silence and to bring addiction out

into the light.

In addition to that, we are working very, very hard — I’ve talked

about some initiatives already — to connect people when they are at risk

of overdose or if they have overdosed. If they’re in the health care

system, we’ll connect them to treatment programs and social supports as

rapidly as we can, not just send someone home from an emergency room

after they’ve overdosed so that they go home alone and potentially

overdose alone again. Connect them with social supports. Connect them

with treatment programs so that they have a pathway to hope.

[2:25 p.m.]

J. Isaacs: This is a crisis that requires urgent action, and platitudes are

not enough. Early prevention and long-term recovery strategies are

needed. It has been over 14 months, and there has been no comprehensive

treatment and recovery strategy from the minister.

Will the minister accept that the system that she is responsible

for is failing to address overdose deaths that are occurring in private

homes?

Hon. J. Darcy: I don’t know where to begin. Platitudes. With the greatest of

respect to the member opposite, I don’t think you’ve been hearing

platitudes from this minister or from this government in responding to

the overdose crisis.

What I believe you have seen, what I believe British Columbians

have seen, is a government that is committed to action, a government for

which one of its first acts in office was to create a Ministry of Mental

Health and Addictions and to fund the necessary actions to work to save

lives, $322 million over three years.

We are taking this on with every ounce of energy and courage that

we have, and I want to pay tribute to the people on the front lines. The

member opposite talks about platitudes. We have thousands of people

working on the front lines — first responders, people working in

community agencies, people working in health care, volunteers, peer

support workers who are giving their all every single day to save lives,

to connect people to treatment and recovery and to shine a light forward

so that we can help to put people on a pathway to hope. That’s not

platitudes. That’s courage and leadership, and I applaud those

people.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the 2017-2018 Annual Report of

the Environmental Appeal Board.

Reports from Committees

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL

CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS

AND

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

M. Elmore: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills for the third session of the 41st

Parliament.

On July 25, pursuant to the Statute Revision Act, the committee

concluded its review and examination of the revision of the Health Act,

the Veterinary Drugs Act and the Trespass Act, and recommended to the

Lieutenant-Governor that these statute revisions be approved and brought

into force.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 38, the Opioid Damages and Health Care

Costs Recovery Act.

D. Routley: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: Thank you, Members. I’d like the members to help me welcome Clayton

Balabanov and Susan Woodhouse, who’ve come to the Legislature today to

present to us, some of the members on this side of the House, information on

a local ride-share program called Oye.One.

[2:30 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 38 — OPIOID DAMAGES AND

HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY

ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 38; L. Reid

in the chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

Hon. D. Eby: I just wanted to take this opportunity to introduce…. I’m joined

by some staff here: to my left, Peter Lawless, counsel with Ministry of

Attorney General; Mollie Margetts, behind me, counsel, Ministry of

Attorney General; and to my right, Katherine Thiessen-Wale. She is the

director of legislation at the Ministry of Health.

I look forward to my critic’s questions on this important

legislation for the province.

Sections 1 to 13 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I just wanted to thank the member opposite. He’s obviously heard

our request that the opposition assist us in expediting the passage of

this bill, and I very much appreciate his efforts.

Section 14 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:35 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — OPIOID DAMAGES AND

HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY

ACT

Bill 38, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 37, the Land Statutes

Amendment Act.

[2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 37 — LAND STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 37; L. Reid

in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

section 1.

J. Rustad: In

section 1, there is a reference to changing the process from

which a boundary may be considered between British Columbia and Alberta.

Of course, that process has to be unanimous.

I’m just curious if the minister could provide some more detail

with regards to it. We talked a little bit in second reading about Yoho

National Park and how those sorts of things change, but what I’m curious

about in particular is the timing of bringing this forward.

This is an issue and that process has been an issue for,

obviously, many years, many decades or even longer, so I’m just curious

as to why there is a necessity or a need to be considering this at this

particular time.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The ministry has known about the need for this amendment for many

years but has not had the opportunity to prioritize and present the

change until now. This act, from what we understand, has never had

amendments to it, so it’s an opportunity to put the amendments

in.

I think the member knows this is not about a boundary amendment.

It’s the approval process of a resolution of a boundary.

J. Rustad: Yeah, I do recognize that it’s not an amendment unto itself. It is

the approval process that it’s going through. I do recognize this is one

of those things that has been outstanding for, well, basically since

Confederation, in terms of the definition.

Like I say, if the minister could just clarify, the purpose of

bringing this thing forward at this particular time just happens to be

because there’s legislative space and time to be able it do it. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, that’s correct. The member is right. There’s been changes on

the books in 1979, 1982, so this amendment is required in order for us

to address those changes. The Boundary Act amendments come at the

request of the surveyor general and the Land Title and Survey

Authority.

[2:45 p.m.]

Canada has also been working alongside the boundary commissioners

from B.C. and Alberta in trying to have the surveyed boundary line

confirmed as the official legal boundary at two points along the

B.C.-Alberta border. Alberta requires a similar amendment to their

boundary act, and Alberta has been in full support of consultation

around this process as well.

T. Shypitka: In regards to the process here on the boundary change or the

process of it, how would that affect areas such as the Flathead area in

the southeast corner of British Columbia? What type of consultation or

what kind of form of negotiations or conversations would you have with

local government or regional government?

Hon. D. Donaldson: It will have no effect on the Flathead area because this

legislation isn’t considering specific boundary changes. It’s around the

process, about how boundary changes would be handled.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities was consulted. There were no

concerns expressed by them. It’s around changes going from a sinuous

boundary, which is a boundary where climate could have an impact on

erosion and things like that, to a conventional boundary. So no specific

situation in the Flathead. It’s around a process, and UBCM was

consulted.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. Rustad:

Section 2. I think we talked a little bit about it in second

reading, specifically around the additions to treaty and the change that

is put in here. If I’m correct…. Maybe I’ll just ask the minister to

clarify that the intent of this

section is so that treaties themselves

will be supreme, I guess you could say, by order of legislation, with

regards to the potential of Crown land being added to treaty lands. Is

that correct?

Hon. D. Donaldson: To speak further to the intent of this section, when there’s Crown

land that comes into a treaty, under

section 50, there are certain

exceptions and reservations in favour of the Crown. An example is

subsurface rights.

These changes would not…. It just affirms a policy that’s already

in place. It was in place under the former government and this

government. Those kinds of exceptions and reservations shouldn’t favour

the Crown when there’s an addition of Crown land under

treaty.

[2:50 p.m.]

What this does is clear up that exception and disapplies

section

50, so when lands are added into treaty settlement lands post-treaty,

the treaty nation does not have to apply to the government to get a

separate order in order to be exempt from

section 50. This wasn’t the

policy of the previous government, and it’s not the policy of our

government to have these encumbrances.

J. Rustad: There’s going to be a number of questions, I think, on this

section from some of my colleagues, as well, in the

Legislature.

One question, though, that just arose from the minister’s

explanation was the reference to subsurface rights, and we’re talking

about the transfer of Crown land. I’m curious as to the reference to

subsurface rights and, in particular, what this could potentially mean,

given that there is discrepancy, obviously, between the Crown and First

Nations with regards to subsurface rights, unless it’s clearly laid out

in an agreement that has been reached between the Crown and the First

Nations. I’m curious as to why that particular reference was added into

this description.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m going to give an example to help the member understand this

section and to help it be clarified for the record. For instance, if

there’s a treaty that’s been settled and then, post effective date of

that treaty being settled — for instance, this might be a situation with

the Maa-nulth — there’s a request for addition of Crown land onto the

treaty lands, that land would now still be subject to

section 50, unless

we make these amendments. For instance,

section 50 could be dealing with

subsurface rights.

That’s not the policy that the previous government pursued. It’s

not the policy that we pursue. However, there is still the possibility,

under this legislation, without the amendments, that those kinds of

things could be negotiated.

[2:55 p.m.]

As it stands now, if we don’t have any issue with the land being

added to treaty and subsurface rights being part of that, then the

treaty First Nation still has to undergo the onerous task of requiring a

separate order, and that was never the intent of the previous government

or this government.

D. Davies: In the same section, of course, looking at treaty…. Is this

applying strictly to the modern treaties, or is it looking at historic

treaties? Of course, in my riding, we are part of treaty 8, the federal

treaty. So does this apply to that as well?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Modern treaties only. Specifically just Maa-nulth and Tsawwassen,

because they’re the only ones that have post-effective date terminology

in those treaties.

J. Rustad: I believe that my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands

would like to add a few questions in here, and then I’ll carry on with

some after that.

A. Olsen: I have some similar questions. I believe that they’ve been

answered — but just to clarify. As the minister has stated, the

intention of the government here is to provide easier access to First

Nations that are in the negotiating process or at the end of the

negotiating process — access to the mineral rights that are underneath

without having to do the

section 50 of the Land Act ministerial

order.

Does this change start to signify a different approach that this

government is taking towards the opportunities for Indigenous

communities?

Hon. D. Donaldson: This isn’t a reflection on negotiating processes. It’s simply

confirming the existing policy that treaty settlement lands are not

subject to

section 50 — and also in the overall spirit of trying to

realign legislation to reflect government policy around

reconciliation.

J. Rustad: I’ve just got one quick question I want to ask before I turn it

over to my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin.

You mentioned, in particular, that there were two modern treaty

nations that this applies to. Maa-nulth, I believe, and Tsawwassen were

the two that you mentioned. Are there plans in place to enact some

transfer of Crown land for the purpose of additions to reserve for those

two treaties?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: This

section in this amendment is contemplated specific to

requests that have come forward from the Maa-nulth. I’m sure the member

is quite familiar with that because he was the minister at the time, if

I am correct, when the Maa-nulth treaty was put into effect.

There are three parcels that the Maa-nulth are looking at that

this would apply to. We’re not aware of any other parcels, but that’d be

speculation on the future. Specifically, this will apply to those

parcels and similar situations that might arise in the

future.

J. Rustad: That does raise another interesting question in terms of the

timing of doing this. Having spent some time in government, when we

bring forward legislation, it’s usually to solve an issue that arose

that needed to be dealt with. I guess the question I have regarding this

is whether this is the case for this particular piece of this

section of

this legislation or whether this is similar to

section 1, where this is

just housekeeping that has been wanted to get done for a while and just

hasn’t made it up the legislative calendar until now.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the Maa-nulth have been waiting for a number of years for

this. This kind of amendment is at the request of MIRR. The Maa-nulth

could apply through a separate order, a ministry order, to have this

done, but this just clears up that process, which was the intent of the

policy of the previous government, our government, so they wouldn’t have

to go through another order to have this done.

D. Barnett: I have a few questions and some concerns about easements and

registration of easements in this section. It doesn’t really identify

them. To the fact that, from what I can understand…. Correct me if I’m

wrong, Minister. I would appreciate that.

Where there are registered roads, rights-of-way, hydro, gas,

pipelines registered on title now, should a registration on title be

given to First Nations through interim agreements with no public

consultation, who is going to notify the people who have these easements

on this particular land that this Crown land is going to change title as

part of either a treaty or an interim agreement when there’s no public

consultation out there now as to what is happening on the land base with

negotiations?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I believe what the member is referring to is part of an

acquisition and planning process that’s outside of this amendment. When

she talks about consultation, that’s something that happens outside the

amendment that we’re discussing right now.

[3:05 p.m.]

I want to assure her that these decisions that are referred to in

this

section are still discretionary at the end of the day. If an

easement is being considered, then it’s something that’s discretionary

between the government and how that gets transferred to a First Nation.

That’s something that’s still in effect. But the acquisition and

planning process around an easement, for instance, is something that’s

negotiated between parties. It’s not specifically related to the

amendment in this section.

J. Rustad: Just one bit, a last question of clarity, I guess, on this

act.

Some of the concerns that are always raised when land is

considered for transfer to reserves or transfer to treaty is the issue

of access and the issue, of course, of engagement or consultation

through the process. For example, when treaties are negotiated, at least

when I was part of the government, in terms of negotiating treaties, the

issue would be…. Access would never have been isolated or the properties

wouldn’t have been cut off, whether it be Crown land or whether it be

private land or these types of things. Access would always have been

assured through the process of transfer of property, and there would be

appropriate engagement with people that might have an interest

associated with it.

I’m just asking specifically if this proposed

section — I don’t

believe it would, but it’s worth asking — would change any of that

process or potentially create any sorts of challenges for people that

may be concerned about access, through a process that might see an

addition of Crown land to a treaty.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Once lands are added to a treaty, those lands are governed by the

substance of the treaty. So the member is right. That’s how the treaty

is worded, and the access issues that he talked about. That’s the

substance of the treaty. So that would apply to the lands being added

that we’re contemplating in this part of the legislation.

J. Rustad: I just want to give my colleague a moment. There’s an issue that….

She’s just looking back at that little

section that she wants to confirm

to be able to ask. That being the case, I’ll just ask one other quick

question around this.

The minister has mentioned the two treaties. I’m just wondering:

would this also apply for the Nisga’a final agreement? Would it also

apply for Sliammon or any of the other future treaty agreements that,

obviously, we’re hoping to be able to see reached and

finalized?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The Nisga’a and Sliammon treaty already disapply

section 50, so

that’s not an issue.

The member mentioned future treaties. If this bill passes through

the Legislature, this will apply in the future, and we won’t need to

negotiate, on every treaty, this disapplication of

section

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

[3:10 p.m.]

J. Rustad: This is now going into the meat, obviously, of this piece of

legislation that’s being brought forward, with regards to the electronic

components or the e-filing. There are a number of broad questions — I’m

hoping that the minister might provide us with a little bit of latitude

— that need some clarity around some technical details but don’t

necessarily reflect in any particular section. With the minister’s

discretion, I’m hoping we’ll be able to canvass some of those types of

things.

With that, just looking over at my colleague from

Cariboo-Chilcotin to see if she’s ready. If not, then perhaps I’ll ask a

basic question.

In second reading, there was the issue the minister had mentioned

with regards to the great care associated with digital security. This

comes up later in the sections in here, the concern around identity

theft. Specifically, I’d ask and I raise the issue about rural

residents, people that may not have access to being able to file

electronically. Can the existing process of paper filing actually be

done? Or is the intent here to move everybody over to electronic filing,

and the paper filing would no longer be available?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The paper copy system that exists now is not going to be

eliminated for the time being. We’re going to have a transition period,

and it’s going to take a while. It’ll be in the foreseeable

future.

You know, I’m quite attuned, as is the member from Nechako, around

the rural areas that might not have the ability to do the electronic

filing or the electronic signatures, and secondly, it might not be their

preferred way of communicating. Oftentimes, I like paper too. Maybe it’s

a tactile thing, and it’s probably why I have so many binders on the

shelves in my office. But yes, a paper copy system will still be in

place for a while as we do a transition period. We’re not going to have

a hard stop and eliminate one system and have electronic

only.

As far as the opening remarks to

section 3 that the member had,

definitely I’m amenable to having any kinds of conversations just to

provide clarity under this section. As well, if the questions don’t

actually apply to this act, I’ll let the members know.

D. Barnett: I understand, from what you’ve just said, that there still will be

paper title issues allowed. My question is: will you be keeping the

existing land title offices, or will the offices of the land title

shrink and those around rural British Columbia disappear?

Hon. D. Donaldson: As I said, I’ll endeavour to have a lot of leeway in the

questioning of this act. But the short answer to the member’s question

is no.

J. Rustad: One of the general questions that I thought would be an

interesting question to ask about, particularly, is…. Various covenants

or other types of issues associated with a particular title of the

property, whether it be roads or power lines or access to other

properties or these types of things…. Often those types of issues are

very complex.

[3:15 p.m.]

Often those sorts of issues sometimes can’t even be caught by

lawyers because it’s buried so deep into various processes, whether it’s

gazetted or other types of issues associated with it. So I’m curious

with the move towards electronic filing, which I support. I mean, I

think it’s great to be able to do this. But doesn’t this create a risk

that potential purchasers or transferors of property miss important

information associated with a title that sometimes can only be found

through a diligent search or components that come out of a lawyer’s

office?

There are many components further on down about refiling or errors

or penalties — these kinds of things. We’ll get into talking about those

when we go to those sections. But I’m curious, having obviously been

involved in a number of land transfers myself personally, about how this

sort of issue may be addressed if we’re encouraging everybody to move

away from the utilization of professional services.

Hon. D. Donaldson: This amendment and the move to provide better service through

electronic filing is really intended for the more straightforward types

of transactions where there’s been a change of address or a change of

name on title, things that don’t involve the complexities that the

member pointed out. Those more complex transactions will likely still

require a lawyer. People would be wanting to engage one when it comes to

those kinds of transactions. We’re really contemplating that these

changes will be more applicable for the straightforward

transactions.

J. Rustad: There are a number of other questions, I think, that will come up.

They might be of a more general nature, but we’ll try to catch them

section by

section as we go forward through the bill, if that’s okay

with the minister.

With that, I’ve got no other questions on

section

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

J. Rustad: On

section 4, the definition of “electronic signature.” It’s

pretty simple and straightforward. What I’m curious about…. Obviously,

there is a large process within government, across many ministries,

across a number of things. Does this actually change the definition of

electronic signature in any way for any additional legislation or any

other additional processes that carry on within government? Or is this

simply a separate act, and if future acts are looking at electronic

filing, they would also need the same type of definition?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yeah, the changes in front of us under Bill 37 would only apply to

the Land Act and Land Title Act applications.

[3:20 p.m.]

J. Rustad: More of a general question, I guess, not specific to this. So if

the minister can’t answer this, I understand that. Why wasn’t, I guess,

a broader perspective thought about? This is a great step in terms of

being able to streamline and do things digitally, but obviously, there

will be issues and potential conflicts between

definitions or processes

with other legislation.

Is that something that was contemplated when this legislation was

written? Or is that something that would have to be considered as a

streamlining further down the road as other legislation starts moving in

this direction?

Hon. D. Donaldson: This definition of “electronic signature” would apply to other

legislation that is connected to the Land Title Act and the Land Act,

such as the Property Transfer Tax Act. Those are some of the amendments

you’ll see in the legislation.

It explores and gives the surveyor general the flexibility for

different types of electronic signatures to be developed, including the

use of the B.C. Services Card. So the kinds of amendments that are being

considered here, and innovations, can definitely be something that would

be used in the future in other legislation as well.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

J. Rustad: It’s sort of a general question I just want to throw in there.

It’s not because of this particular section, but it just happens to be

where I placed a note on the bill to ask the question.

During second reading debate, there was a discussion with regards

to the security and the protection of information. In particular, if

there was a person who was fleeing violence or another type of situation

where they wanted to be able to have their information protected, this

would assist with that. Now, I was a little curious about that when it

came up as part of second reading debate.

More importantly, what I’m looking at is that often if you’re

looking around at property — you’re looking at various areas,

particularly in rural areas or around a lake or otherwise — there may be

a lot that you want to try to track down the owner of because you want

to talk to them about perhaps making an offer or doing a transaction or

these types of things. Or maybe you’ve got an issue. You want to build a

fence or otherwise, and you have to sometimes track down who the owner

is.

With the provisions that have been thought about in terms of

security within this piece of legislation, will this change, in any way,

the ability to be able to do a title search within the land titles so

that you may be able to track down who that owner is and be able to

contact them for any type of query or other type of issue that may be

arising?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: This section,

section 10, actually sets out offences that apply

under the amendments. The member is asking a question that applies to

sections further on, but I’ll answer it now. Then when we get to those

sections, we’ll have dealt with it already.

Title searches can still occur if a person knows the legal lot

description. I understand what the member is getting at, especially in

rural areas. If you know the lot description, you can still do a title

search to track down the owner.

What this legislation prevents is that if someone just wants to go

on a phishing trip and plug in a name and find out properties, that is

going to be restricted under this legislation. There have been cases

where people, for instance — and this is what I referenced in second

reading — might be fleeing a situation of domestic abuse and don’t want

that ease of information at somebody’s fingertips, to find out where

they might be living or a property they might own and live at

now.

There still will be some ability under this legislation, when we

get to further sections, to restrict the title searches by name, in that

instance. That’s a whole

section that we’re going to deal with later

around how that applies. Right now, if you know the legal description of

the property as it is now, you can still use title search to track down

and find the owner.

J. Rustad: I understand the need in terms of the general public to be able to

restrict the ability for things like a search, a query or a title search

associated with a name. But would realtors or lawyers or others that may

require to be able to do that as part of being able to provide their

functions have the ability to be able to carry on with that type of a

search, or are they going to be limited to just having to go after the

actual title to get a particular name?

I’m wondering if this impacts, in any way, the professions of a

realtor or a lawyer or others that may require to utilize the land title

process.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Again, I don’t believe these are specific under

section 10. But

when we get to the specific sections, we’ll know that we’ve addressed

this already.

The amendment in Bill 37 enables regulation, and those classes of

professionals will be set by regulation — for in­stance, lawyers,

financial institutions, professionals involved in real estate. That kind

of public policy will be set by regulation, and those are the kinds of

people that will still be able to access as it is now.

J. Rustad: Thank you, once again, for being able to address questions of a

more specific or general nature that are out of order. I promise to not

ask the same question when we get to the appropriate section.

Under

section 10, part of this

section looks at a person that

commits an offence. The person signs an electronic plan using electronic

signatures of another person or permits an electronic signatures of a

person to be used by another person to sign an electronic

plan.

[3:30 p.m.]

If you’re in a situation where somebody has managed to steal the

identity of an individual or breach other types of security and commits

an offence under this, is the onus on the individual to prove that

somebody did that illegally and used their name inappropriately? Or is

the onus on the land registries office to track that down before a

potential offence is laid against an individual?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: This refers to offences around the application of an e-signature.

There could be a couple of scenarios, as the member has pointed out.

Perhaps somebody is deliberately misapplying an e-signature, or perhaps

there has been a case of theft and somebody else is using that

e-signature inappropriately. Regardless, this

section deals with

offences. It doesn’t matter how it comes about. It’s the veracity of the

e-signature. That would be up to the registrar to catch in the

process.

J. Rustad: Just to clarify, if I remember correctly, if I’ve heard correctly

from what the minister just said, it would be incumbent upon the

registrar to track down who it was before a charge was particularly

laid, if there’s found to be an error. What I mean by that is:

obviously, if there’s identity theft, sometimes it’s almost virtually

impossible in the digital world to actually be able to identify who it

was that actually did that.

What I’m just concerned about is if you end up in a situation

where somebody is being accused, or a charge is being brought forward to

an individual that had no knowledge or understanding that this was even

going on…. Obviously, if they were in a situation where they had to try

to track it down, it would be very difficult for them to be able to

reverse or to change that charge.

Similarly, if somebody intentionally did an activity and then made

the claim that it was being done through identity theft and they

actually didn’t do this, how would you be able to determine whether or

not that individual should be charged? That’s the reason for the

questioning. Like I say, I fully support the idea of going to the

digital world, but it raises all kinds of interesting questions in terms

of how process will be handled.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I think what we’re looking at is that the process would be the

same as it is now. If the registrar learns of a breach, they will

cooperate with the law enforcement authorities.

I believe what the member is getting at is that there could be an

introduction of another element of risk when it’s e-signature rather

than the system as it is now, where there are hard-copy signatures.

That’s where we get into — and the other sections will describe this — a

two-factor authentication, where a person would have to have a card and

a PIN number. So we’ll reduce that risk of the possibility of, I guess

you’d say, fraudulent signatures being applied through increasing the

authenticity process with the two factors.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

A. Weaver: My colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands is in a

meeting right now. This is part of the problem when you’re a small

caucus and you’re point on a file. There are so many files that I’m

stepping in on. I’m asking a series of three or four questions on this

section. They’re not onerous.

The first question is this: is the e-filing system that’s being

introduced being built specifically for B.C., or is it based on a

pre-existing format?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. It’s an e-filing specifically for B.C.

land title. It’s not built off any other system.

A. Weaver: Further on this, my question would be: this e-filing system — how

does it resemble other e-filing systems in other jurisdictions? Is it

B.C. built, B.C. made, by B.C. companies, or is it based off some

third-party software? If there could be some more detailed analysis, a

description of how and where this e-filing system comes from.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The software is built by a B.C. company owned by the Land Title

and Survey Authority.

A. Weaver: That’s very helpful. The third question is: I’m wondering to what

extent safeguards will be built in with respect to protecting

information — in particular, personal information and sensitive data. I

do understand that some answer to this was done in previous sections,

but I’m wondering if there are specific examples that have been given in

the context of the software built in B.C. by the subsidiary or

corporation owned by land titles.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes. These electronic filing changes do not require any new

personal information to be provided and no sensitive information, such

as a SIN number or bank account information. There will be a requirement

for a credit card if there’s a fee charged, but the standard protocols

are in place around that.

[3:40 p.m.]

A. Weaver: The final question is: to what extent will there be an educational

component to help people actually access this filing system?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The Land Title and Survey Authority is working with the Continuing

Legal Education Society to update practice manuals and train legal

practitioners. There’s also a

section of the binder, which I haven’t

even read yet, around a whole communications plan.

D. Barnett: In

section 11, it says it is “amended in the definition of ‘true

copy’ by repealing paragraph (

b) and substituting the following” — an

exact copy.

I know what a true copy is. Could you explain to me what the

difference between a true copy and an exact copy is and why we’re

changing the definition?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Currently a true copy is a paper copy. The change makes it that it

can be an exact electronic copy or a paper copy.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

D. Barnett:

Section 41 is amended in the definition of “instrument” by

striking out “a true copy…” and substituting it with “an execution

copy….” Could you explain to me the differential between the two of them

and why the change?

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is a matter of clarification. Previously, a “true copy” was

being used as the terminology for at least three different things. Now

we’re defining and making sure that people know that an “execution copy”

is when there’s a witness required. When there’s a witness signature

required, that’s the definition of an execution copy.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

[3:45 p.m.]

D. Barnett: Under

Section 14,

section 69(1) says: “Before a survey is made,

the Surveyor General, subject to conditions the Surveyor General

considers necessary, may allow the survey to be posted by setting, at

proper intervals, monuments of a specified permanent

character.”

Could you please explain to me what that means? Now, I know that

when a survey is done, we have certain types of survey post pins that

are there permanently. Does this mean there is some change to the way

surveys are going to be done and what the survey characters are going to

be?

Hon. D. Donaldson: This one is, I believe, pretty straightforward. It’s not changing

how surveys are done. It’s expanding the circumstances where a block

outline survey can be done, which can then be finalized through the more

secure methods that the member pointed out. It helps developers or

landowners resurvey and reset destroyed markers and reduce the risk of

development projects being delayed because of the need to re-establish

markers. It enables the surveyor general to expand the circumstances

where those kinds of block outline surveys can be used.

Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved.

section 18.

J. Rustad: If I am reading this correctly,

section 18 is a rather large

section, so there might be a number of questions that come up with

regard to this

section by myself and some of my colleagues. I’ll start

with one question to the minister. Under

section 18(168.2)(2), it says:

“…in relation to a document, a person may not submit the document other

than electronically.” My understanding of this seems to be that if you

start the electronic process, you are forced to continue utilizing the

electronic process. That’s my reading of it.

What’s the intent of that particular

section of this piece of

legislation?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Under subsection 168.2(2), the registrar has the ability to decide

if it is appropriate, in the circumstances, to accept a

document.

[3:50 p.m.]

If you start the process electronically and then there’s some

issue or problem, some hardship, then the registrar has the ability to

make the exception and change the process so that the person could

continue without e-filing.

J. Rustad: If I understand what the minister has just said, there is some

discretion to be able to allow for the process to move.

I’m just curious, because the language in here seems to be: “…a

person may not submit the document other than electronically unless a

registrar decides.” I guess that does leave it up to the discretion of

the registrar, but at least, I guess, there are some assurances there

that the process, if there is a hiccup along the way, might be able to

be carried on without too much due process or due challenge or

issues.

Further in that section, under, I guess it is, subsection

168.2(3)(b), there is an interesting comment in here that I didn’t

notice anything before, which is…. Under (b), it says: “in the case of

an application to cancel the registration of a charge, that the

applicant….” And then it carries on.

The question that arose from that is: is there a fee or a charge

that will be applied to the ability to file electronically? And if there

is, and it seems to be that there is, is that fee similar to that which

would be undertaken under filing a paper copy through the existing

process? How will that be handled?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I commend the member for the detail in which he is looking at

these words. I’m able to advise him that, in this instance, the use of

the word “charge” is a technical term in the land title system and does

not refer to a fee.

J. Rustad: I appreciate that. I suspected that that was the case, but it did

raise the question as to whether or not there would be an expense or a

charge associated with utilizing the e-filing system — some sort of

fee.

I guess more of a broad question, then, not necessarily to this

particular section, is whether or not this process will have a fee. And

I imagine it will. I mean, most times when you utilize the service,

there are fees associated with it. But whether or not that fee would be

similar to or different from the existing process, if there is

one….

Hon. D. Donaldson: There will be no changes to fees.

J. Rustad: My colleagues from the Third Party, as well as my other

colleagues, have expressed an interest in subsection 168.22(1)(b), which

says: “

(1) The director may direct that a document,” and under (b), “may

only be submitted electronically.”

I’m wondering if the minister could provide a bit of an

explanation as to what that language is referring to and what is meant

by this particular section.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The wording is: “The director may direct that a document…may only

be submitted electronically.”

[3:55 p.m.]

That’s only there so that the director has the ability to direct

which documents will be submitted electronically. As we said before, the

director will still have the discretion to allow for paper copies to be

submitted as well.

A. Olsen: I guess my concern with this clause is that we’re trying to expand

the access to the system. To have a clause like this feels like it’s

limiting the access or potentially has the impact of limiting the

access. I appreciate the minister’s response that the director has the

ability to direct that a document be also submitted in a paper copy, but

that doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s the case.

I can think of all sorts of different examples of where British

Columbians don’t have access to be able to submit a document

electronically. They don’t have access to the Internet. They don’t have

access to a computer or a device. One of the things that I and my

constituency office — and I think probably all the members in this place

and their constituency offices — deal with all the time is language like

this that seemingly makes it increasingly difficult for British

Columbians to be able to do the business that they need. That’s the

reason why they come to our offices.

I guess, for me, I just need to be…. Not convinced, but I need to

feel confident that this isn’t going to unnecessarily cause undue duress

on British Columbians by having this clause in here and then creating a

bureaucratic backlog where they’re going to then have to request to have

a paper copy and explain why that paper copy needs to be a paper copy

and not an electronic copy. For me, that’s the concern that I have

around 168.22(b).

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just for the record, 95 percent of documents filed to the land

titles office are filed electronically right now, and 5 percent aren’t.

But I take the member’s point that there are situations where people

don’t have access. Maybe that’s representing the 5 percent that don’t

have the access or feel comfortable with the e-filing.

This is not changing the current situation. I’ll point out that in

168.22, it doesn’t use the word “must.” It says “may direct” and “may.”

Those are words that leave room for discretion. That discretion is under

subsection 168.2(2) that says: “…a person may not submit the document

other than electronically unless a registrar decides that it is

appropriate in the circumstance to accept the document.” It gives the

registrar that discretion in the cases where people aren’t able to

access broadband, if it’s required, or whatever else electronic filing

needs technology-wise.

The intent is not to push people who are already challenged

technically because of their geographic location or their familiarity

with technology to the sidelines. It’s to improve the electronic filing

system and still allow for the discretion of the director to accept

paper copies as well.

[4:00 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Ironically, I’ve been kind of sharing the duties on the committee

stage of this bill with my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head because I

was in one of the meeting rooms meeting with another minister on

connectivity and on a program which currently excludes Galiano Island

and Mayne Island within my riding. I know that this is not an unfamiliar

scenario in many communities across the province, as we work very

diligently to overcome the difficulties of connectivity in our vast

province.

As it turns out, those residents, my constituents on those two

islands, are not gaining access at this stage — we’re working on it — to

connectivity, which will allow them to do it. So I’m somewhat sensitive

today, at this point in time.

I guess, can the minister provide an example of a document that

would only be submitted electronically, like an example of one of these

documents that would only be acceptable in an electronic

form?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, we’re not aware of a document that can only be filed

electronically. We’re looking into that. But the point is that, as I

said, 95 percent of the documents are filed electronically. Five percent

aren’t. The intent of this part of the legislation is similar to what

was in legislation before, in that people can still file electronically

and through a paper copy.

A. Olsen: I guess, for me, I’m quite challenged by this, I have to say. It

seemingly is a small item. It seemingly is an item in which…. Why not

give the director the ability to make this decision? Frankly, I have run

into situations not dissimilar to clauses like this, which have my

constituents tied in knots because a director or a member within the

public service has made a decision. I can’t, frankly, understand what

condition would compel somebody to say only an electronic copy — unless

it can be demonstrated to me that there is a reason for us to say that

we give the power to someone to say only an electronic copy is

acceptable.

There is no question that we need to be moving towards a scenario

in which we are giving people expanded options to submit documentation.

I am significantly challenged in the notion of expanding it through this

amendment and then also giving a clause to say that we’re going to give

the power to someone to say, “No, actually you can only do it through

this,” which could have a substantial impact on our constituents in the

filing.

I think that it needs to be more compelling, frankly, than where

we’re at right now — that we would then limit British Columbians’

ability to submit a paper copy, if that was the only way that they were

able to do it, and somebody was saying: “No, you have to do this by

electronic form.”

[4:05 p.m.]

Is there nothing more compelling? Because I’m troubled to support

this

section going forward unamended, to just remove that

section (b).

Frankly, unless I can have a compelling argument that it absolutely

needs to be there, I don’t know why we would move it forward.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The language here is modelled off the current statute. Actually,

the statute is 168.111(1)(b). It states in there that the director has

the ability to direct that documents only be submitted electronically to

the land title office. This is just reformatting, and it’s modelled on

the existing wording in the existing legislation. It’s something that’s

been in effect for as long as the Land Title Act has been in the

legislation, since 1999. We haven’t had instances of what the member is

describing.

Again, the wording is that the director may direct a person to

submit electronically. It’s the same as the previous language. But if

they can’t, a person could still apply on paper, and those paper forms

will still be available. The intent, I suppose, is to provide better

service and a faster turnaround time. When the land title office is

receiving things electronically, it adds to turning things around

faster. However, they’re still able to deal with paper, and that’s still

a process that can be undertaken by people.

[4:10 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I thank the minister for his response. I mean, I think that

we’re…. Thank you for the response that this has been, I guess, in the

legislation, or it’s being modelled after the way it’s been. But

frankly, I don’t feel like I’ve been compelled to think that this is

necessary language.

In fact, if you look at the language: “The director may direct

that a document (

a) may be submitted electronically, or (

b) may only be

submitted electronically….” To me, I think that it’s actually covered

off paper copies. I think both sides are covered off through the first

clause, in reading it, and the second clause is actually only limiting

it. I’d be prepared to move a friendly amendment to strike

section (

b) from the clause so it just reads 168.22(1)(a).

J. Rustad: While the minister considers this, I would request if we can take

a brief recess.

The Chair: The committee will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:11 p.m. to 4:26 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the break.

I’m going to suggest that we allow members to ask questions on

other parts of

section 18. I understand there’s just a few more minutes

of that. Then I’ll get back to the issue that the member for Saanich

North and the Islands has raised.

D. Barnett: Designates, 168.4. It says a director may designate classes of

individuals as authorized to certify documents under this division. A

designation under (1) may be restricted to one or more classes of

documents or interests.

Could you please explain “designate classes of individuals” — whom

these people are?

Hon. D. Donaldson: These designate classes of individuals are, for example, lawyers

or notaries or land surveyors — professionals who can certify the

documents.

J. Rustad: In

section 18, 168.51, I believe it is, it talks about if a

digital copy is different from a hard copy. It seems to say that the

digital copy is considered to be the one that would prevail. I’m a

little curious about that because often, in the world of digital,

sometimes you can get little things that’ll go on versus an intentional

hard copy that often is the source of the digital. I’m just curious as

to why that would be the case.

Hon. D. Donaldson: In response to that question, this 168.51 is to ensure that only

documents certified by the registrar are considered the true

copy.

[4:30 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Moving on, the rest of the

section seems to be…. I mean, there’s a

few minor little questions.

One that sort of stands out as just a quick question is, of

course, under 168.58, which is the disposal of electronic documents.

There’s obviously quite a detailed process. I think the member probably

sat on a committee at one point, as I did, that looked into the disposal

of documents and the whole process around that. It has also been updated

for digital technology and digital disposal.

I’m just curious as to this particular

section and the need for it

— given the details in the archives with the process of retaining or

deleting records — and whether or not it actually lines up and is the

same as the details or rules associated with the archives.

Hon. D. Donaldson: There’s no change to the substance or process of how disposal

occurs now. It’s just been consolidated. As an example, sections 168.7

and 168.77 provide that the registrar may delete an application,

instrument or plan and any supporting documents in the event that these

documents are void due to their withdrawal or refusal — again, no change

to substance or process.

J. Rustad: One final question with regard to this section. That is 168.7.

Once again, it comes under the “Offences.” I touched on this earlier,

with regard to offences. I often find in the digital world that,

particularly when you’re writing emails or other things, you sometimes

hit the send button a little early. Sometimes information could be

reviewed a little earlier, before it gets submitted. I’m a little

concerned, obviously, that there are provisions for making submissions

of changes should you find that some of the information has been

submitted that may not be accurate or correct.

I’m just wondering whether there is latitude within the offences,

if information that is submitted is found to be in error — an

opportunity for the person to be able to fix that, as opposed to having

to go through the process of somebody proceeding with the potential of

an offence, even though it may have been done accidentally.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, exactly. That situation is covered in the language, where it

says: “if the person wilfully makes a false certification”. So there is

the ability if it’s an error.

We have consulted with the drafters. In response to the member for

Saanich North and the Islands’ well-considered comments on some of the

language in the

section we were referring to, which was 168.22, what

we’d like is some time for drafters to look at the suggestions that the

member has made, especially the implications on other sections of the

act.

In order to give time for that to happen, what I’m going to do is

I’m going to move that…. Then what we would do is bring the bill back,

once those drafters have had a chance to look at the suggestions. What

I’m going to do is move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:35 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 36 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 3), 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 36; L. Reid

in the chair.

The committee met at 4:40 p.m.

Hon. M. Mark: Before we begin, I’d like to acknowledge my staff who are with me

— Assistant Deputy Minister Tony Loughran and Rachel Franklin, the

director for legislation.

section 1.

S. Cadieux: I’d just like to go back. I listened to the second reading debate

of the bill yesterday and heard a number of members reference the fact

that this is an important change because it was going to allow members

of faculty and staff to sit on boards. I would just like to confirm or

have the minister confirm that, in fact, faculty and staff are not

precluded today from sitting on the boards of institutions. In fact,

they have a statutory place on those boards.

In fact, the

section of the College and Institute Act, the Royal

Roads University Act and the University Act…. They’re all the same. The

section being repealed says:

“A person is not eligible to be or to remain a member of the board

if the person is (

a) an employee of the institution, and (

b) a voting

member of the executive body of, or an officer of, an instructional,

administrative or other staff association of the institution who has the

responsibility, or joint responsibility with others, to (

i) negotiate

with the board, on behalf of the instructional, administrative or other

service of members of that association, or (ii) adjudicate disputes

regarding members of the instructional, administrative or other staff

association of that institution.”

I’d just like, for the record, for the minister to clarify that

that is, in fact, the case. Members of faculty and staff are currently

permitted to sit on the boards of institutions, and in fact, there is

statutory provision for elected members of those associations to

sit.

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to thank the member for the question. Of course, there

are provisions in the College and Institute Act that allow a member of

faculty of an institution, and elected by the faculty, to sit on a

board. That can be a support staff or elected by the support staff, and

under the University Act,

section 19, two faculty members elected by the

faculty staff. There are provisions…. There’s one person elected by and

from the employees of the university who are not faculty members. Under

the Royal Roads University Act,

section 5, a professor elected by

professors can be on a board, or an employee who is not a professor,

elected by the employees of the university who are not

professors.

I’m just leaning to the

section that we are repealing. It’s the

end that we are saying excludes a pool of people that could potentially

sit on boards, and it’s that exclusion that we are amending

today.

S. Cadieux: Thank you for that clarification, Minister.

I heard yesterday from the minister that the end goal here was to

add value to the post-secondary ecosystem, as the minister likes to say,

adding diversity and balance through making this change.

[4:45 p.m.]

I’ll ask two questions in this question. I think they flow

together. How exactly does making this change assist with filling out

board competencies on any of the boards, things like expertise in law,

finance, governance, communications — the sorts of things, skill sets,

that are looked to, to fill out the complement of a board? What is not

able to be done today for any of the goals around diversity and balance

that the minister has expressed, except where diversity means

individuals who happen to also be members of the staff or faculty and

also hold voting or administrative roles with their

associations?

Hon. M. Mark: I guess I just want to share with the member that when I was

looking at this act, I was trying to find evidence of why the group or

the pool of people was excluded in the first place. I couldn’t really

find any evidence. I think there was an allusion to maybe one

individual, one institution, but there was no evidence that said that

this group or pool of stakeholders were potentially not adding value to

the board composition.

To the member opposite, with respect to board competencies, there

are 25 public post-secondary institutions. All of those competencies are

looked for — lawyers, professional accountants, architects, you name it.

We are looking for the diversity that represents the community to serve

in the best interests of the institution and the community that they

serve.

When you exclude a pool of people, you’re then excluding the

possibility of having that diversity at the table. As I stated earlier,

when we looked at this bill, I couldn’t find any evidence, solid

evidence, that gives reason to there being a systemic problem of

individuals…. That is in the end part of the act that we’re amending,

which is not bringing that diversity and balance to the

board.

S. Cadieux: To the minister: I guess I’m a bit confused because, as we’ve

already heard from the minister, the reality is that faculty members and

staff members of institutions already sit on the boards. So

representatives of faculty and staff already have a place at the table,

certainly, to express opinions and such related to that.

Not surprisingly, there are lots of other people who wouldn’t be

considered for any board appointment at a given time, given a lack of

experience or expertise in an area or what have you. There are all sorts

of reasons somebody could be disqualified at any given time from sitting

on a board, and that’s at the discretion of the appointing body, which,

for the majority of seats on those boards, is the minister.

I guess I’m not entirely clear after yesterday. The minister

herself expressed that she was proud to have appointed First Nations

representation to each of the 25 boards. It’s absolutely laudable. It’s

a good thing. I am in full support. I see that as an example of creating

balance and diversity, and it was done without repealing this

section.

Can the minister point to any circumstance in any of the

post-secondary institutions where they have not been able to find enough

qualified candidates to fill the board vacancies?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: The question from the member is: how are we limiting, if we have

representation of staff and faculty? That is true — that we are limiting

the elected staff and faculty. So that prohibits the pool. It shrinks

the pool of people that can be represented on the board.

As I raised earlier…. I’m not sure. I don’t have the evidence of

how problematic this pool was, so I can’t answer your question of who

was so problematic that we had to change the law. Not us — the former

government changed the law in 2011 to prohibit this group of people. I

don’t have any evidence to show that that group of people, in their

elected status, was problematic to the board.

The amendments that were made in 2011 added other provisions to

address things like conflict of interest, which I’d like to raise. The

member just mentioned the point of First Nation. I’m First Nations. I

appointed First Nations people. Does that put me in a conflict of

interest?

Conflict of interest is a very interesting topic. It’s a very

delicate topic. But to the question of who we limited out of the pool,

the amendments to the act in 2011 prohibited the pool of elected faculty

and staff to be represented on the board. They could bring a variety of

experiences.

When I look back at the Hansard in 2011, hearing from

those that said they’ve served their faculty, they’ve served their

community, they’ve served the institutions that they loved for many

years, but that they might, at one point, decide to stand up for elected

office — like we have all done in these chambers — and that prohibits

them from sitting on the board.

I’m asking as many questions as you are.

S. Cadieux: Is there anything in the legislation, as it stands today, that

prohibits a former employee of an institution who formerly was a voting

member of the executive body or an officer that had the obligation to

negotiate or adjudicate disputes? Is there anything preventing someone

who formerly held that from being appointed?

Hon. M. Mark: No.

S. Cadieux: Therefore, the argument could be made, I would say, that for a

period of time an individual, while they hold a certain office, may be

excluded — as was the intention of this

section that is being proposed

to be repealed. In its insertion, the intention was to clarify and help

prevent conflicts from arising. So for a short period of time somebody

might not be able to serve. That wouldn’t prevent them from serving once

they no longer held that voting status on an association. I would argue

that, perhaps, being overly concerned with this

section is not

necessary.

I’ll move on a little bit. Yesterday the minister said that…. It’s

not an exact quote, but something to the effect that we are doing this

because we need the right leadership at the table. Does that mean that

the current appointees are not qualified or that faculty and staff,

elected representation, are not qualified? Could the minister please

explain what the right leadership is?

Hon. M. Mark: I would say balance and diverse leadership at all of the boards of

institutions. As an example, when you bring in and you appoint members

that are from Indigenous communities that haven’t typically been

represented, that that is strengthening leadership.

The word “right” is taken out of context. It’s not about right.

It’s about improving the representation at the boards. I appreciate

where the member is taking the words “right leadership.”

[4:55 p.m.]

I think the intent is diverse leadership, representation from all

groups and all sectors. Because for all of us that know…. I know that

the member opposite has SFU and KPU in her backyard. I know that members

opposite, on her side of the chamber, have CNC and UNBC. They all

represent the diversity of our province. Therefore, they should

represent the diversity of our community.

S. Cadieux: As I stated earlier, I don’t see…. The minister herself has

explained that adding balance and diversity to the boards by virtue of

an array of appointments is not impossible already, given the way that

the legislation stands. She has, by example, added a First Nations

component to every board, which, again, I commend. I think that’s very

worthy.

But by virtue of her last statement, the minister would then be

saying that, in fact, the diversity that the minister is trying to

achieve on the board, the balance that the minister is trying to achieve

on the board, is having executive members of unions on the boards. Could

that leadership — that same experience, that same leadership or

perspective — not be given by someone who formerly held that but is

still a member of the faculty or staff of an institution?

Hon. M. Mark: To the last point, absolutely, they could provide that leadership.

But what is for discussion is that we’ve excluded a certain group of

people. I would say, for the record, that the law…. There’s nothing in

the legislation that refers to unions. The member opposite and her

colleagues on that side of the House have referred to unions. There is

nothing in the law that says “unions.” It’s “elected faculty and

staff.”

The point of this bill is limiting the pool. All we’re trying to

do is to make sure that that pool is open to representatives that want

to serve on the board. For those of us that know in these chambers how

hard it is…. It is not an easy task to represent as a board of governors

— the work and the duty that entails and all of the standards that are

in place to make sure that it’s done in the best interests of the

institution and the students and the communities that they

represent.

Absolutely, they could provide the leadership. But we do not

believe that we are limiting the pool. If anything…. I will ask the

question again. I couldn’t find any evidence…. Perhaps the opposition

might have some evidence around why this law was made in the first

place, in 2011. Is there evidence that can be provided in these chambers

that show that there is a systemic problem that the pool should be

limited to members that were appointed or elected as faculty and staff

at a public post-secondary institution?

S. Cadieux: Well, respectfully, I’m not the minister, so I don’t need to

answer that question. But I will ask another question. That is….

Yesterday the Minister of Education, in his comments about the bill,

said: “It’s about time that we didn’t shut out people who have the most

experience and some of the most valuable perspectives and hamper their

ability to serve our great province and our institutions and that we do

a better job of running those institutions.”

To the minister: could you clarify perhaps or explain to me what

was intended there? To me, it would suggest that government, with this

shift, is suggesting that members of faculty and staff have better

perspectives to offer, that that’s what the statement says.

Is it the minister’s intention that, in fact, those faculty and

staff who have an obligation or who have the role of negotiating with

the board, on behalf of administrative or staff associations, the terms

and conditions of service of members, or adjudicating disputes regarding

members of instructional, administrative or other staff associations of

the institution should be running the institution through serving on the

board?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I think my expectation as a minister is that all members of the

board who are appointed are going to do their level best to represent

the best interests of the board. Is that best or better?

There is a high standard that is expected of all members that are

appointed to boards, regardless of their background, whether they’re a

lawyer, a professional accountant, a mother, a student, whether they’re

from the LGBTQ community, whatever they represent. The point is many

people that are on our boards represent multiple communities. They have

multiple identities. They carry multiple responsibilities because

they’re leaders in their communities.

Nothing has changed with our new government with respect to

members on the board. We’re always looking for community leaders to

represent the community institutions in their backyards.

S. Cadieux: Yesterday the Education Minister also referenced that this change

is coming about after extensive consultation and at the urging of those

consulted, which is quite different from what the minister is suggesting

brings this about, which is…. And the staff suggested that this comes

about from the staff or the ministry level in reviewing the legislation

and determining that this is potentially discriminatory and therefore

should be changed.

Could the minister please tell us who was consulted during this

extensive consultation? How was the consultation done? Is there a

report? And will the minister table any and all documents relating to

and arising from that consultation?

Hon. M. Mark: I guess first I will say we’re doing this now because it’s our

first real available opportunity to have this fall legislative sitting.

There were many complaints since the amendments were made, in 2011, from

over 1,000 stakeholders who said that this was discriminatory. I’m

quoting the words just because I want to be clear that I’m quoting all

of the things that were said in Hansard — discriminatory and

that it was heavy-handed to make these amendments.

Staff brought it to my attention when I was appointed minister,

and we reviewed it. I’m constantly engaged with the board of directors.

In fact, I re-hosted the first training with the board of governors in

Richmond two weeks ago, and I learned, asking my staff, that that board

training for appointed board members of public post-secondary

institutions hadn’t happened since the ’90s. I would say that I’m

actively engaged with the board and all the stakeholders involved with

the public post-secondary institutions.

[5:05 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: Then is the minister saying that the Minister of Education

yesterday, when he spoke and suggested that an extensive consultation

with…. “There has been a lot of consultation by the Ministry of Advanced

Education, Skills and Training with the business community, with those

involved in the sector and with community members about some of the

restrictions that were put in place a number of years ago around board

service. I think the results that came back from that consultation were

all of the same…. Whether it was staff and faculty associations or local

chambers of commerce, all parties sought to enhance the pool of people

that could apply to be a part of governing these

institutions.”

Given that statement, again I’ll ask the minister: has there been

a consultation with anyone, and will the minister tell me who that

consultation was with or table a document or table who the Minister of

Advanced Education is referencing? Or, as the minister suggested in her

last answer, is the minister relying on information from a debate from

2011?

Hon. M. Mark: I want to clarify for the member opposite the definition of

“consultation,” because consultation and engagement can be used in the

same terms. I wasn’t in the House when the minister spoke to the word

“consultation,” but I can say that I’m actively engaged. I don’t have my

calendar with me to show you how many times that I’ve met with the

presidents or how many times that I’ve met with the board members or the

public sector employers or any of the unions, but I’m actively

engaged.

I have heard from some of the unions that this has been an

amendment that has been challenging and restrictive, the same sentiment

that was raised from letters that were brought to this chamber in 2011.

So the issue hasn’t changed from 2011. The only thing that’s changing

today that’s being brought forward in these chambers is to amend the

section of the act that excludes those elected, appointed

individuals.

S. Cadieux: It still doesn’t answer my question related to the statements by

the Minister of Education, which I read out moments ago from

Hansard , that state that there has been extensive

consultation by the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training

with the boards, the institutions, the chambers of commerce,

etc.

[5:10 p.m.]

I would again ask the minister: can she confirm whether or not she

has held any such consultations on or has received any correspondence

from anyone other than a member of a union suggesting that it is

difficult to fill these board vacancies?

Hon. M. Mark: What I said in the chambers yesterday was that we were going to

bring things into balance. The amendments to this act will bring us into

balance.

Right now we’re the only province that excludes elected members of

faculty and staff. We want to level the playing field, as I’d mentioned,

to provide opportunity for members of the community — that have to go

through rigorous processes, I would add, that have to go through extreme

scrutiny, through the BRDO process, to be screened, to be appointed to a

board. Then there are so many other provisions in place to ensure that

they uphold the best interests of the institution.

I appreciate the questions from the member opposite. What we are

doing is amending the

section of the act that excludes appointed,

elected members from faculty and staff to be appointed to the

board.

S. Cadieux: I appreciate that the minister is pointing to other areas of the

country where the acts read differently and have different sections and

whatever. I don’t disagree. I would argue, though, that the minister is

not making the same argument to include significant conflict-of-interest

provisions inside the act as acts in other jurisdictions do. She is only

seeking to balance this one thing that she is not comfortable with and

dislikes and is, I guess, on advice of counsel, potentially

discriminatory.

Perhaps it is. I’m not going to argue the legality of that. I

don’t know. I’m just trying to get at the root of the necessity of this

change based on the commentary given by the minister, by her staff and

by members of the government in debate yesterday around why this is

happening and what purpose it serves.

Is the minister suggesting that the Minister of Education misspoke

yesterday when he suggested that the Ministry of Advanced Education had

consulted extensively with schools, community groups, chambers of

commerce, and so on, in regards to the necessity of this

change?

Hon. M. Mark: I’ll thank the member for the question. While there haven’t been

formal consultations, the word “consultation” was mentioned from my

colleague. The reference is to the countless petitions that we received

over the years. I have been briefed by my staff that there have been

petitions that this act has been prohibitive, interpreted as

discriminatory and that there was no evidence to suggest that it was

warranted.

I know that the member opposite isn’t in a position to answer my

questions, but as the minister, when I came in to look at my file, it

wasn’t clear why one segment of our society — elected members that work

as staff at public post-secondary institutions — is not allowed to serve

on boards. There is a threat. It has been put out publicly that there is

a threat on a constitutional challenge of our Charter of Rights and

Freedoms.

For all of that information, I will assert that there has been

engagement which, I will say on the record, can sometimes also be

interpreted as consultation. But if the member is asking for formal

consultation with respect to title and rights and law, with consultation

with First Nations, no. That is not the test that was carried out here.

But there is ample information, evidence, to suggest that many people,

over 1,000 people, felt discriminated by the addition of that act. This

is why we are suggesting and debating to remove it.

S. Cadieux: Fine. I’m comfortable with the term “engaged” or “engagement” or

“have had a conversation with,” whatever term the minister would like to

use to describe interacti