Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 271

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 35 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019 (continued)

Hon. C. Trevena

S. Thomson

Hon. S. Simpson

Hon. C. James

S. Furstenau

L. Throness

Hon. M. Farnworth

J. Rustad

S. Malcolmson

Hon. S. Fraser

D. Routley

Hon. K. Chen

M. Dean

Hon. R. Fleming

Hon. A. Dix

N. Simons

Hon. D. Eby

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2019

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 35.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2019

(continued)

Hon. C. Trevena: It is with great pleasure I take my place in the debate on Bill

35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2) of this

year.

I’ve also got to say that it’s with great pleasure that I stand in

this House to address the House on legislation. I know that members of

the opposition have been questioning the fact that we’re here, that

we’re having a fall session, that the only legislation that we’ve put

forward is a miscellaneous statutes act.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

A couple of points. One is that I sat in opposition for three

terms and was very aware of those many times we didn’t actually have a

fall session, that there was no business important enough to discuss. In

fact, the member for Abbotsford West, at the time, described it once as

“busywork” and unnecessary to be here. But it is necessary to be here.

That’s why we’re elected. We’re elected to represent our communities.

We’re elected to represent the people of British Columbia and do the

business of the people of British Columbia.

[1:35 p.m.]

This Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act is dealing with many

issues that are very relevant to the people of British Columbia. The

Minister of Children and Family Development spoke earlier about the

importance of the parts of the act that refer to her ministry and the

impact that these changes will have, and the impact that changes made in

previous legislation are having, on thousands of families. It is

extraordinary, the level of engagement, the level of involvement that

has been happening and the filling the gap of, as I say, 16 years of not

having issues of social welfare dealt with in an equitable way. At last

this is happening.

Children and Family Development, Social Development. There are

some very significant changes to Social Development, getting rid of some

really outrageous regulations that had come in under the previous

government, which denied people benefits — heartless regulation. I’ve

had people in my constituency office come and talk to me about some of

these issues, and they were impoverished by the legislation. The changes

in this act are going to change people’s lives.

On that, I’m going to make a segue — I excuse the pun for those

who are listening — to changes in the Motor Vehicle Act and the ability

to bring in, potentially, Segways. That is the responsibility of my

ministry in relation to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act:

amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act. Again, I think they are very

important.

There has been a lot of interest in bringing forward these

changes, a lot of encouragement. I know, from members opposite as well

as the general public and within our own government, we’re very eager to

see these amendments come through. People are changing the way they

travel, so it’s important that our regulations, through the Motor

Vehicle Act, recognize those changes and are modernized to match the

reality.

The changes in the act will establish a regulatory framework to

help people who use the new and, I think, very diverse modes of personal

transportation. We’re not talking about new modes of transportation;

it’s oftentimes the weird ones. It looks weird. We see the tourists with

the Segways, but people are using Segways. I know it’s a brand name, but

it is the upright Segway. It is the e-scooters. We’ve seen, in a number

of cities, the proliferation of e-scooters, and I’ll address that. It is

hoverboards and electric unicycles. It’s all the ones we’re seeing that

are not bikes.

There may also well be the opportunity to look at electric bikes —

we see regular push bikes and bike-share programs being used widely — to

have a look at where we might be able to expand on e-bikes to ensure the

safety of the users of these forms of transportation, as well as all

road users.

Currently a transportation device that doesn’t fall under the

Motor Vehicle Act’s definition of a motor vehicle, a cycle or a

pedestrian is not permitted to operate on highways or sidewalks. Some of

these new devices I’ve just been describing struggle to fit in any of

the categories. The changes proposed in this legislation will give

government the ability to address this gap.

I’m also very proud that the amendments are another step in our

active transportation strategy, which we introduced this last summer, in

June. They came from some of the conversations that we had through the

active transportation strategy. We had about 3,000 engagements in the

active transportation strategy, and we heard, loud and clear, that

amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act were identified as key — looking at

how to better protect vulnerable road users, be they pedestrians or

cyclists or these people using the new forms of

transportation.

[1:40 p.m.]

This legislation is enabling legislation, so it will allow us to

create regulations to clarify how new transportation devices are to be

used. I think, very importantly on this, they will also give government

a chance to partner with communities to create some pilot projects to

research and test how new mobility technologies work best here in

British Columbia. I think that there are, clearly, new ways for people

to travel. We need to make sure that our laws reflect the needs of our

communities.

We have seen, as I say, a proliferation of e-scooters. I’ll use

that as an example, because there has been a proliferation. Throughout

many cities in the United States, we hear of problems, whether they’ve

been in San Francisco, Austin or San Diego — often warm-weather places.

But the fact is that there is a proliferation.

People are riding very fast. They may be riding on sidewalks.

Maybe in Austin — it’s a bit of a party town — people are riding them,

not necessarily abiding by the rules of the law on what they have

consumed. So there have been concerns. I’ve got to say that we have, in

Canada…. They’ve started to be rolled out in various places in

Canada.

If I might just read a little bit from the National Post ,

in August, about the e-scooters. It says in the introduction of a piece

about the potential problems of e-scooters: “When a fleet of nearly 200

electric scooters debuted in Montreal in mid-August, riders kicked up

the kickstands and kicked off a week of complaints. The scooters were

introduced in Calgary and Edmonton this summer, and the top nuisance has

been the abandonment of scooters” in places where they shouldn’t be

abandoned, including, as one of the ironies, “the wading pool of the

Alberta Legislature.”

What we’re hoping is that by being able to work with communities

on pilot projects, we can really, literally, get the ground rules, work

out where they will be best used. Whether it be e-scooters, sometimes

electric bikes, sometimes these unicycles or other forms of

transportation, how can they be used? Should they be on a sidewalk?

Should they be on a roadway? What sort of safety measures need to be put

in place?

I know that we’ve already had lots of engagement from people. I

have effectively had an inbox full of people writing to campaign for

these sorts of mobility devices. We’ve had lots of people getting in

touch, saying they would be easy. It would help for using transit. You’d

just go to the transit station on your e-scooter. It gets you up the

hill; it gets you down the hill. There has been a huge campaign to bring

them in.

What we’re hoping is that with the amendments and working with

local governments, we can create the sort of change that really supports

the reality, but supports it in a very realistic way, supports it in the

fact that we will be able to assess what does and doesn’t work in

communities of different sizes.

I know the member for Kelowna–Lake Country is very, very engaged

in this, very eager to see it, and the community of Kelowna, the city of

Kelowna, is very eager to see that. I’m sure, as soon as this

legislation is passed, if it’s passed, and as soon as we start on a

regulatory framework, that Kelowna will be one of those communities

knocking at the door saying, “We want to have,” as the member said to me

after his speech earlier today, “not just scooters but all the other

forms of mobility devices and how we really make sure that they are

being used appropriately in our transportation network.”

Victoria, likewise, has been very eager. We’ve seen, in Victoria,

the bike-share program of just regular, as I call them still, push

bikes, the sort of bike I use. We’ve seen those coming in Victoria. And

Victoria, I know, has also been anticipating something on

e-scooters.

As the minister, it is my responsibility to make sure we’re

investing in safe and efficient transportation networks to really

connect people. I have been an advocate for active transportation for

many years. I think most people in this House, and others, know that I

am a cycle commuter, much less so now that I’m a minister. I don’t

actually have the distance to commute, because in Victoria it’s a

shorter distance, but at home I cycle a good number of kilometres to my

office every time I’m in my office.

[1:45 p.m.]

It really is an opportunity, through these amendments, to have

another step to ensuring we have a system that office people…. It

depends on the type of device you’re using, but it’s definitely a

healthy, hopefully affordable and definitely environmentally friendly

way to commute.

Most of what we call active transportation modes, using, I’d say,

the officialese…. For active transportation, people think of cycling;

they think of walking. They are clean, produce zero pollution and are

virtually free once you get your bike. So that will help communities.

But what will also help communities is ensuring that we have a system

that recognizes the needs of every person on the road or

sidewalk.

As I say, how these amendments are going to change road use as we

know it today, taking the Motor Vehicle Act from one of the 20th century

into the 21st century, is this working with pilot projects, with

communities to develop pilot projects. It is ensuring that those

projects will give communities a safe framework to regulate the

use.

We’re looking at a maximum of three years for the pilot projects.

It gives time to set them up, run them for a little bit, evaluate them

properly and see what works best for communities and road users. The

pilot project regulations can temporarily override some of the

provisions in the Motor Vehicle Act. I think that is important to note.

So when we’re drawing up our regulations for a pilot project, it might

allow a hoverboard or unicycle on a sidewalk — which, at the moment,

wouldn’t be allowed because there is no place for them. So there will be

some temporary changes through the pilot projects.

I really do look forward to seeing the innovation that communities

come up with for these projects, because I think there is a lot to

explore. It is really an opportunity to embrace a shifting

transportation sector. These pilot projects could include new types of

vehicles, so that also includes autonomous vehicles. They could include

these motorized personal mobility devices, to use the technical term,

which are e-scooters. Or they could also be looking at new approaches to

licensing, to driver training or to enforcement and how that is

done.

I do believe that by making these changes to the Motor Vehicle

Act, working with communities, we will be designing and creating routes

that are connected, accessible, safe and enjoyable and giving people the

opportunity to choose more active and more diverse modes of

travel.

Diversity is a key in addressing what also will be addressing

climate change here. Through our government’s CleanBC, we are committed

to reducing our impact on the environment. That has become very clear

and a lived experience, as it were, through our active transportation

policy, “Move. Commute. Connect,” which we launched in June.

When we were consulting, there was a lot of engagement from people

right across the province. We had public meetings. We did on-line

engagement. We did selected stakeholder engagement. There were more than

3,000 ideas generated during our engagement. People really want to

embrace it. We made a commitment to increase active transportation — to

make it easier and safe to get around while working on protecting the

environment. “Move. Commute. Connect.” is really helping communities to

integrate convenient and accessible systems.

We’ve got a very thick — it’s literally this thick — guide that

has been embraced by local planners and which helps them plan when they

want to build active transportation into their community plans. So I

think it really is going to be embraced and taken on. It was created

thanks to those hard-working community planners who worked with us and

people who believe in choosing active transportation, whether it is

these new modes of transportation or the traditional ones, as their

first choice, whether they’re getting to work or to school or going to

visit friends or do shopping.

[1:50 p.m.]

As part of the strategy, we did make a commitment to review the

Motor Vehicle Act to address the definition of “road users,” including

these new, emerging technologies. There are other changes still to be

made that we’ll be looking at, because I know that there has been,

really, a look from, particularly, the cycling community for certain

areas that still do need addressing. Everyone really should have that

ability to enjoy safe and accessible transportation. So working in

partnership, we will be able to get pilot projects off the ground and

create a framework for the future and support those transportation

projects.

The amendments will create opportunities for government and for

local communities to research and test these new mobility technologies,

how they best work in our communities, so we can avoid the problems that

other jurisdictions have seen. It’s not that we are late to the game,

but it’s definitely that we want to make sure that they work

well.

In Europe — you read about what’s been happening in Europe. In

Germany they’ve been having problems with, again, the proliferation of

these devices. I mentioned some of the Canadian jurisdictions where

they’ve been introduced. In San Francisco they were brought in, and then

they had to rein them back, and now they’re bringing them in, in a

slightly different way. So we are looking to see that we can get it

right.

We do know that there is, really, a direct link between our

transportation networks and climate change, and we all have a role to

play in protecting our environment. I think that’s been very clear over

the last number of weeks with the climate change campaigns and the

activism out there — encouraging people to be able to travel safely

without taking out their car or their truck, knowing that they can

travel safely, whether they are walking or cycling or using new

transportation devices.

It is part of our government’s commitment in making sure that we

are dealing with the climate emergency by dealing with active

transportation, making sure that the infrastructure investments are

designed for convenient and safe use. It’s all very well bringing in the

pilot projects and everything else. But what does it look like? How are

you going to use it? Are you using a bike lane? Are you using the

sidewalk? What are you using? As I say, working in collaboration with

communities.

There are a number of more minor changes in the legislation, which

I’m sure will be discussed when we come up to committee stage. We’re

language, we lose the reference to people afoot. They are no longer

there. They are simply pedestrians. But we also shed some rather, I

think, pejorative terms such as “invalid carriage.” So we do modernize

the language.

We also…. I think this is very important as well. I’ve been

looking, highlighting…. There has been a lot of interest in the

alternative modes of transportation side of it, the e-scooters and

hoverboards and so on, and that’s where I’ve been focused.

Very importantly, in this legislation, it does ensure that people

who are using medical scooters — whether it’s for, as a senior, if you

are disabled and you need to use a medical scooter or an assistive

device — are going to continue to be treated as pedestrians. So they can

continue to use the sidewalk. I think it’s very important to underline

that while we’re doing the pilot projects of all the new and glitzy and

fancy ones that every young person and, sometimes, middle-aged person

wants to ride on, we are ensuring that people are protected and they

will continue to be.

There is no doubt that we do need to work in collaboration with

communities, other levels of government to move active transportation

forward in British Columbia. I think that it’s very clear that making

life better for people is at the core of this government’s work, which

is why this piece of legislation is so important to us. It is, in many

ways, really making life better for people. I refer again to the

Minister of Social Development, who I know is going to be speaking

shortly about the changes this legislation brings. It’s going to have a

huge impact on many, many people, and it’s long overdue. It was much

neglected by the previous government.

[1:55 p.m.]

It’s what drives us, whether we’re in a social ministry or a

ministry such as mine, which is sort of a delivery ministry. It really

is what drives us — the need to ensure that the people of B.C. are

treated equitably and that there are solutions to the problems they

face, that their lives are better and that life is more affordable for

them.

I think that this is going to be an interesting debate that I look

forward to hearing. I know that members on the other side are largely in

support of the changes to the Motor Vehicle Act. I look forward to

working with them, working around the province with communities that

want to pilot projects and working on that when we get the regulatory

framework in place; looking at how we can pilot those projects and make

sure that we are giving people the opportunity to get out of their cars,

get out of their trucks, try new forms of transportation, try them

safely. I can’t underline “safely” enough.

There have been reports in the United States. The certain unsafe

use of these vehicles or unfortunate accidents of people not being aware

of these vehicles have led to several thousand accidents and, sadly, a

number of deaths. We don’t want that in British Columbia.

We want to make sure that when people are using these new forms of

transportation, they are doing so as safely as possible, that they know

the parameters in which they can work and that the other road users,

whether they are bus drivers or car drivers or truck drivers, also know

what the parameters are. That’s why I think working with communities,

working on pilot projects, getting it right, making sure it works for

all our communities is important.

As I say, I very much look forward to seeing this come into being

and seeing the first pilot projects get off the ground, whether it’s a

hoverboard floating along literally off the ground or somebody pushing

along on their electric scooter. Whether it’s one that they own…. I’m

sure it will start creating many, many opportunities for businesses that

want to come in, as they have done in other jurisdictions.

With that, I’m very pleased to have been able to talk about what

my ministry is doing here on the Motor Vehicle Act amendments. As I say,

I think it is very valuable to be here for a full session to get on with

the good work that the people of British Columbia are expecting us to be

doing.

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to rise to make some comments on second reading of

Bill 35, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019. I’ll

make a few comments on a couple of the elements of it and then have a

little bit more comment, particularly with respect to the amendments

that have been proposed around the Freedom of Information and Privacy

Act component that’s in this miscellaneous statutes.

As others have commented, miscellaneous statutes usually have a

lot of housekeeping and administrative changes and things like that in

it. But there are certainly elements in the overall scope of all of this

that need to be addressed and need to be probed and asked about,

particularly in the committee stage, which is really, in miscellaneous

statutes, where you get the substantive discussion going around on what

the reason, the rationale, is for the changes that are being brought

forward.

I will say, and echo of the comments of my colleague from

Kelowna–Lake Country, I’m disappointed in the speculation tax amendments

that are in this miscellaneous stats. When the Minister of Attorney

General introduced the legislation, when he brought forward and listed

this as being one of the pieces that was being addressed in this

statutes act, I had that fleeting moment of hope that maybe there was

something significant, a change coming to a tax that, obviously, we feel

has been misapplied and misinformed.

It was disappointing to see that it’s just simply some very, very

minor wording amendments in it. I had this sort of faint hope dashed

pretty quickly. I was thinking this morning that it was like the faint

hope I had with Canada’s national rugby team against South Africa last

night at three o’clock in the morning when I thought…. You had that

faint hope, and then 12 or 15 minutes into the game, that hope was

dashed. It’s kind of like the speculation tax amendments here as well.

But that’s just a bit of a digression.

[2:00 p.m.]

I wanted to again echo the comments of my colleague, as well,

around the Motor Vehicle Act amendments brought forward by the Minister

of Transportation — obviously something that I’m supportive of,

particularly for our community. I think Kelowna, Kelowna–Lake Country

and Kelowna West have really been leaders in the whole movement and push

towards the active transportation networks within our

communities.

Lots of investment being made in the community, including, for

example, the $7 million investment that we made when we were in

government in the Okanagan Rail Trail, connecting downtown Kelowna with

the airport, with the university area and all the way through to

Coldstream and up to Vernon.

The partnership that was developed there between the city, between

the regional districts, the province and the community, who really got

behind that project, did very, very significant fundraising for the

maintenance of the trail and the establishment of the trail bed. It has

been a huge success already in the community with the number of users on

that trail network. But it links, also, to the very active bike lanes

and bicycle networks through our communities, which are growing every

day.

There’s a new bike lane being put down in the community, so we’ll

obviously be very interested in the regulatory framework. I’m sure

Kelowna will be one of the early communities that comes forward with

proposals and ideas around this once they see the regulatory framework

and the processes that they’ll need to go through.

Obviously, the caveats are there around public safety — all of

those processes — as the minister outlined. I think that along with

that, as you get more and more of this use and the different electronic

mobility types that will be used in it, the education side of it is

going to be an important part as well, around the responsibilities for

people using those, responsibilities of drivers, all of those aspects of

it too — an active piece that will be needed as this moves forward and

gets implemented across the province.

I wanted to make a few comments around the amendments to the

Freedom of Information and Privacy Act that are proposed in here,

specifically the proposal to amend

section 33.1 in the act. This is a

technical amendment in a sense but is, I hope, designed to strengthen

the protection of privacy and information. Certainly, when we get into

committee stage on this, we’ll be asking the questions around what the

rationale was for this. What was the gap that is being addressed in

bringing this forward?

It provides technical amendments, and it essentially applies to

information that is being processed outside of Canada. Obviously, this

raises some questions on this. It’s clear in the legislation that it

doesn’t apply to storing information and data outside of Canada, which

is certainly positive, but it’s about the processing of that information

outside and some limitations on it. We’ll want to make sure that those

limitations and conditions where that happens are robust and provide for

that protection.

[2:05 p.m.]

From what I understand, this is an issue that has been there. This

is legislation that is designed to cover something that is already

happening or enabling something that is already happening. We know that

for universities, health authorities, schools, other organizations that

come under the purview of the government, a lot of the data processing

and infrastructure that helps do that resides outside the country, even

though the data is stored here. So we’re going to want to make sure that

these changes tighten up the processes as opposed to provide and enable

something that would actually loosen the restrictions or create more

opportunity for this.

We’ll also certainly be asking questions around: are these changes

something that were recommended by the Privacy Commissioner? Had he

identified gaps that needed to be addressed, in the rationale for

bringing these changes forward? Was there a privacy impact assessment

done on the proposed changes? Again, sort of all getting to the point

around: what is the rationale and what is the gap that’s being addressed

in bringing this forward?

I think it’s very important, particularly with recent developments

around freedom of information and things under the oversight of the

former minister. It adds a responsibility around ensuring that, as we

said, this increases and streng­thens the freedom-of-information

protection with the changes that are being processed.

Some of this, you’ll recall, came up during the debate in

estimates, both with the Minister of Citizens’ Services and the Minister

of Finance, around the building of the system that managed the

speculation tax and the significant concerns from many people about the

collection of personal information under the speculation tax — 1.6

million users, a system that was built to handle over 3.1 million users

in the system and a system that was built by a U.S.-based company that

had had previous data breaches and glitches in their system. Over 1.9

million users’ information was compromised in that process.

It obviously raises some concerns, and we’ll be wanting to

question a number of things. Whether this was in response to that, how

much of this type of processing that is being covered off here actually

takes place, and what the range and the scope of the issue is that’s

being addressed here will be questions that we’ll want to pursue in

committee stage as we go through it.

There’s also…. It refers to metadata. Metadata is not defined in

the legislation. My understanding is that it’s a dictionary term that is

being used to define what metadata is. But again, when you have these

processing processes and you provide for them, how is the personal

information that is in those systems protected and covered when you

provide the opportunity for this to take place? As I said, storage

remains in Canada, but processing by machines happens outside of Canada.

This is enabling something, as I pointed out, that already

happened.

[2:10 p.m.]

We’re going to want to, as I said, probe what the rationale was

and what gap is being addressed in bringing forward these amendments.

What role did the Privacy Commissioner, both in terms of raising this

issue, addressing it…? Was it a response to that, and did the Ministry

of Citizens’ Services, in particular, undertake a privacy impact

assessment in the legislation? I think it’s important.

The one other element in the legislation…. It talks about this all

applying where practicable. One of the questions we’ll want to probe

is…. That’s a qualifier about where all of this applies, so there are

obviously some circumstances where the provisions of this legislation

don’t apply because it may not be practical. What are those

circumstances? What are those conditions where the elements and the

conditions that have been placed in this legislation that you have to

meet now…? What are the examples of where it’s not practical to do that?

What risks does that provide to the protection of an individual person’s

private information and things?

Again, as I said earlier, in terms of the miscellaneous statutes,

it is the key issues and the questions that get raised in the committee

stage. That’ll be the important part of the discussion. We look forward

to raising those concerns and others that may come up over the next

couple of days before we get to committee stage — the opportunity to

address those in that process.

I appreciate the opportunity to raise those few comments on the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act bill, with particular reference to

that

section of it. I look forward to the continued debate and the

committee stage on the bill as we get into the specific elements of it

in the days ahead. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join debate around Bill 35,

the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2). In particular in my

comments, I’m going to talk about sections 87 through 104 of the

legislation. These are the sections of the legislation that apply very

specifically to policy and practices in my ministry and work that we’ve

done to make significant changes to a large number of policies and

practices over the last number of months.

We learned a lot during the consultation before the poverty

reduction legislation and the plan for TogetherBC. In that consultation,

it will be no surprise, we heard from a wide array of people. About

8,500 people spoke to us, the majority of those folks being people who

are living poor today. They talked to us about all the things that you

would expect them to talk to us about: about housing, about income,

about opportunity, about education, about safety and security — all of

those things you’d expect.

They also talked to us a fair amount about the culture of this

ministry — the ministry that was, under the previous government, Social

Development and Social Innovation and was changed to Social Development

and Poverty Reduction when this government came into office. I heard a

lot about that. It was about the culture, and it was about how people

felt when they interacted with the ministry. It was about how people

engaged the ministry and about policies of the ministry that people

believed were punitive and often unnecessarily punitive and unnecessary

in what they required and obliged people to do.

This was important to me because, as the minister, certainly one

of the cornerstones of the work that I’ve been looking to do over the

last couple of years — we’re making progress, and there’s always more to

do — is to shift the culture of this ministry. Shift the culture from

one that….

Well, maybe the best example of what that is all about is…. I can

reflect back to when I first took this position and the correspondence

that would come from the correspondence unit for my signature:

correspondence that would almost inevitably reflect, to whoever the

recipient of income or disability assistance was that we were

corresponding with, about how this was the ministry of last resort and

the last thing that’s available to you.

[2:15 p.m.]

It, frankly, was framed in a way that I believed was diminishing

to people, that undervalued people. Quite honestly, I simply refused to

sign those letters and sent them back. I sent them back because what I

was looking for and what we have focused on over the last couple of

years is changing the culture of the ministry to one that says: “How do

I support you as an income or disability assistance recipient to create

opportunities for yourself and your family to break the cycle of

poverty, to be able to move forward, to be able to support yourself and

your family and to be successful in the life that you envision for

yourself and your family?” That was where we wanted to go.

It became clear to me pretty early on that there were policy

issues around how the practices of our ministry worked that were

challenging to being able to make that shift.

I took the opportunity to go out and speak to folks in offices

across the province. I would take the chance to hopefully come in and

sit down with front-line workers, with EAWs and other front-line

workers, and spend an hour, an hour and a half, in an office, having a

discussion about how they viewed the work they did, where they thought

innovation could be had and where they thought we could effect

change.

I learned a lot from the people who, every day, go to work to do

this work. I learned a lot also about the frustrations they had, about

their inability to be innovative and their inability to look at ways to

support people who came in, who needed support and maybe just needed to

be dealt with in a little bit different way in order for that person to

start down the path to effecting the changes in their life that they

wanted to make for themselves.

We went away, and I directed the ministry to go and take a hard

look at a whole array of policies, many of them that had been brought to

our attention by effective advocacy organizations like TAPS here in

Victoria and other organizations that work in social justice, legal

affairs and legal advocacy, who raised a range of these issues to us. As

a result of those discussions, as a result of that work, we came up with

the first envelopes, two envelopes of policy, to change.

The first envelopes — and I’ll speak a little bit more about this

in a minute — were ones that could be changed through regulation. In

July of this year, we changed a number of those policies that can be

effected by regulation.

This included reducing the access times for the work search

period. Under the previous policy, a new applicant was required to spend

five weeks in the work search. We reduced that to three weeks, which is

the same amount that a returning applicant would need to look. Part of

the reason for doing this is that we wanted to ensure that we got in

under a month so that if people had a challenge around how to pay the

rent, how to cover those costs, we could get inside of a month and still

ensure that that work search happened and be able to ensure that we

could provide support for somebody who was in a significant or desperate

situation.

We ended the penalties for families providing room and board to a

family member. Under the previous policy, this was discounted. It was

not valued the same as if an adult was paying room and board to somebody

that they didn’t know. We have now said that we will treat people the

same way, regardless of whether they are a family member or not, in

terms of what we supply in terms of shelter allowance when providing

room and board to an adult child or a parent on assistance, and it will

be without financial penalty. It will be similar to living in a private

room-and-board situation separately.

We expanded access to the identification supplement. We have a big

challenge with people around identification and making sure that

identification is available for people to be able to support them, as

it’s such a critical piece of being able to get the support they need.

So we’re providing greater amounts of support now to ensure that people

have the ID that they need to deal with everyday life.

[2:20 p.m.]

We extended access and simplified the application process for the

persons with persistent multiple barriers category, PPMB. It’s the

smallest of the three categories of income assistance — disability

assistance, employable and PPMB — but it’s a

section that has

potentially real value, particularly in supporting people with complex

issues. Unfortunately, people with complex issues were excluded from

being part of PPMB. We’re effecting changes that will, in fact, allow us

to use PPMB as a tool.

We eliminated the transient category to ensure that persons

without a fixed address, with no dependent children and who are not

considered to be taking up permanent residence in the community still

are eligible to receive supports, as other people on income assistance.

We’re not penalizing people for their circumstance.

We increased the asset limits for people, increasing asset limits

for people around a vehicle. The previous limit was a $10,000 vehicle as

a limit on the vehicle. We’ve removed that and said that the primary

vehicle that somebody owns will be exempted. This came from people in

outlying and rural and northern communities who are on assistance and

who need a truck, who have a vehicle that often is valued at more than

that $10,000 because of the nature of the vehicle and where they live.

We weren’t prepared to penalize people and say, “You’ve got to sell your

truck,” when that truck is an important part of how they get around in

the north.

We also increased the asset limits for people on income assistance

from $2,000 to $5,000 for a single person and $4,000 to $10,000 for a

couple. We made relocating easier in terms of moving grants, and we

expanded access to nutritional supplements. Those were all things that

we were able to do through regulation. We did those earlier this year,

and they’ve come into force effective July 1.

What we’re doing with Bill 35 is a number of changes that require

legislative changes. They are changes that do a number of things that

are critical.

We are ending the requirement for people on income assistance to

pursue early CPP retirement benefits. The policy of the previous

government was that when you turned 60, you had to apply for early CPP,

take early CPP and get off of income or disability assistance. What we

know that did…. We know that if you take your CPP at 60, you’re losing

about a third, maybe a little more than a third, of your pension. We

were ensuring that people, for that very short number of years, 60 to

65, would be poorer after 65 because we’re taking a third of their

pension away.

We simply have ended that practice, and with that, we’re very

hopeful that we’re going to ensure that a number of people who are

getting into their older years and heading for Canada pension, in fact,

will be able to collect their total Canada pension after the age of 65

and be in a better place to be able to support themselves, rather than,

through provincial policy, entrench them in poverty.

If this legislation passes, we will eliminate the two-year

independence rule as a barrier to assistance. This change is

particularly important for vulnerable youth. We have a range of

situations. The current practice today is that you need to be able to

demonstrate that you are financially independent for two years before

applying for assistance. Young people are the people who are most hard

hit by this.

An example of that. A young woman who met the financial need and

other eligibility tests was denied assistance because she’d failed to

meet the threshold of 840 hours of work and $7,000 of gross income.

She’d been in school during the time, only worked a little bit

part-time. The result of this is that she was not eligible.

We know that, in particular, when we talk about young people in

this, we’re talking about this putting young people on the street. We’re

talking about this creating a situation where young people are

susceptible to exploitation. The last thing we want to do is entrench

people in poverty, entrench them in homelessness, as they transition

from youth to adult.

[2:25 p.m.]

I’m hoping that most of those young people never, ever get to my

ministry. But if they do, I’m not interested in telling them we’re going

to punish them because they didn’t get two years of independence. We’re

going to support them and, hopefully, with creating other opportunities

through the work of the Minister of Advanced Education, through the work

of Children and Families, through the work of other ministries, be able

to create opportunities for them to get the training, the skills they

need and to go to work — and to be supported by this ministry if they

require that support.

We also are modernizing the ministry’s definition of “spouse.” The

law currently says that if you’re together for three months, you are

deemed to be a couple. Now, we know that in British Columbia under the

Family Law Act, for purposes of family law, it’s two years for a

common-law relationship to be recognized. We know that for the Canada

Revenue Agency, for financial reasons, it’s a year. We have adopted the

practice of the Canada Revenue Agency around financial matters

here.

We will say to a couple that we will deem you to be single unless

you marry, of course, in a formal way. But for common-law purposes, we

will identify that relationship and recognize that relationship, not

after three months but after a year. There is no reason for us to treat

people differently than we treat everybody else because they happen to

be on disability assistance or they happen to be on income

assistance.

The second piece that connects to that relationship is that we

know that divorces, when they happen, take time and cost money. We know,

particularly for people on very modest incomes — like income assistance,

like disability benefits — finding a place to live can be incredibly

difficult. As a result, not just for people on income assistance — we

see this across the board — we are seeing increasing circumstances where

couples are separating and sometimes, for a period of time, needing to

live in the same house.

This provides singles’ assistance rates to married people who have

legally separated, have not yet finalized the divorce and are living in

the same residence independently, while it ensures fair treatment

between married and common-law couples.

We are seeing an opportunity here to be able to respect the

reality of our time, the reality of cost, the reality of housing

pressures and not penalize people, particularly not when there is a

separation going on and often what is a very stressful time in peoples’

lives as it is, and then we are adding to that stress.

We’re changing the definition of “dependant.” The change will

ensure that people retain their status as a stand-alone recipient and

therefore do not have their rate reduced or are not cut off assistance

unless they are truly in a dependency relationship.

Under the current definition, mostly women have been found

ineligible because a roommate sometimes helps out with children and the

help is characterized by the ministry as co-parenting, even though that

is not necessarily the case.

Here’s an example. In one case, the occasional purchase of diapers

and baby formula was enough to deem a dependency relationship, despite

the fact that two adults intentionally maintained separate finances and

did not support each other financially. The inference from the decision

was that the woman would be forced to rely on her co-resident and that

the co-resident somehow had an obligation to provide for her and her

child because of this minimal, sporadic support.

This change will ensure that that doesn’t happen. It will ensure

that dependency really means dependency. It will not be open to some

interpretation about somebody who helps you out once in a while creating

a formal dependency.

We have also changed the definition of “dependent child.” The

current definition does not recognize shared parenting situations where

separated spouses continue to live together, which has become more

common since the acts were first done in 2002.

[2:30 p.m.]

This provides certainty with this regulation. We’ll make sure that

no child loses out on the full range of supports they are entitled to

receive. We’ll ensure that the definition addresses varied shared

parenting situations, including those where parents are former spouses

who live in separate family units in the same home, but they have a

shared responsibility around a dependent child.

We’re ensuring documentation requirements do not create

homelessness. We have a current situation where when somebody can’t

produce the documentation immediately at the time of application, people

get cut off.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We’re changing that practice from cutting people off to one where

there is a penalty. There will be a modest penalty involved, but we will

support people with compassion by recognizing the difficulty vulnerable

groups may have in obtaining all the documentation they need.

For example, a homeless person might struggle to connect with the

necessary offices to obtain the documents they require around income

that they may have earned. We’re going to continue to support that

person while that process of accessing that documentation occurs. Today

there is no opportunity to support that person. They’re on their own

with no support. And far too often, when it comes to these issues of

documentation, it is those people who are most vulnerable and most

desperate who end up paying the price.

We’re enabling maximum repayment amounts so that we can bring

certainty when there is an overpayment. When we provide a benefit to

somebody that is a repayable benefit, and that occurs quite often, we

will ensure the minimum amounts or the maximum amounts that are paid

back so that it is not a situation that becomes prohibitive to somebody

being able to make those payments and still be able to live their lives.

When you’re on a very modest income, like income or disability

assistance, that becomes a very big deal.

The other changes that we’re making are around evidence on

appeals. We currently have a practice under the appeal board that

doesn’t allow for new evidence. This is unlike many other tribunals. But

the tribunal related to this ministry says that all of the evidence

that’s presented initially is all that can be considered. We’re changing

that to be in line now with most other tribunals — changes that will

ensure new evidence that is meaningful and substantive and should affect

the decision and affect an appeal will be allowed to be

submitted.

Currently that doesn’t happen. Sometimes appellants have to go

back and reapply, because the tribunal couldn’t consider that evidence.

They have to go back and begin again. We’re changing that to ensure that

if we have evidence that is meaningful and material, why shouldn’t the

tribunal be able to look at everything that is meaningful and material

and make a decision based on that instead of this bureaucratic

limitation? Particularly when other tribunals, in fact, have the

practice of being able to review new evidence as it comes

forward.

These changes collectively don’t cost a lot of money. But they

make a significant difference in terms of how we treat people and what

our relationship is with people on income assistance and disability

benefits — for the 200,000 people, give or take, who are supported by

the ministry that I’m responsible for.

As we move forward, we committed in TogetherBC and in the poverty

strategy around four foundational pieces: around affordability, around

opportunity, around reconciliation and around social inclusion. What I

know is that, particularly around those issues of social inclusion and

of opportunity, these changes will make a difference. They will affect

people’s lives. They will help people. They will be supportive of people

as we move forward.

[2:35 p.m.]

If we want people on income and disability benefits to be able to

effect a change in their life…. We talk about breaking the cycle of

poverty, and that is about creating opportunity. That means valuing

people. It means helping people to create the levels of self-confidence

that will lead to their resiliency. Because we all know, in this room

and in our lives, many of us…. We’ve all been knocked down and had to

get back up again, often many, many times. You need to have that

confidence, and you need to be valued in order to have that resiliency,

I believe.

If we want to break the cycle, then we need to do the work to

instil that in people who are vulnerable and who are struggling. There’s

nothing easy about this. There’s nothing simple about it. It’s not

simple to measure.

I do know that how we interact with people, how we engage with

people, how we relate to them — how we as a ministry value people who

come and need the support of the ministry that I’m responsible for —

makes a huge difference. Far too often these are people who have been

devalued in their lives, who have been put at risk, who have been

threatened, who are in a desperate situation. We are doing nobody any

favours if we, in fact, make that situation worse. What we’re doing here

with these changes — again, a group of a couple of dozen changes over

this year — is moving to make that happen.

I’m very pleased that this is moving forward. I look forward to

discussion in committee stage around this work. My expectation is, as

I’ve heard from people in the community and people who work in the

advocacy field that we’ve discussed this with, that this will start to

help people, and it will help make it easier for people to be supported.

It will also make it easier for people to move their lives forward. I’m

looking forward to committee stage.

Thank you for the opportunity to make some comments around this

bill. I do believe that this is a very important change for us at a very

modest cost and one that will prove very beneficial to people that we

need to be paying attention to in this province, people who need our

support and need our support to be able to have opportunities to build

the lives they want for themselves and their families.

Hon. C. James: I rise to speak in support of Bill 35, the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2019. I’m going to speak…. There are pieces in this act

that relate directly to the Finance Ministry and to taxation. So I’ll

just start with a few pieces related specifically to my portfolio. Then

I’d also like to touch on a number of other pieces within this act that

are important, not only to our province and to the work that we’re doing

as government but also, most importantly, to the public and certainly to

my constituents as well.

I think, as people will know, government often proposes minor

changes to acts to improve clarity, to give some consistency across

legal statutes. Certainly, that relates to the changes that are in this

act related to Finance. They are, no question, housekeeping measures,

and that’s part of why they’re in this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act.

I think it’s also important to recognize that these proposed

amendments are not unimportant, that these proposed amendments, in fact,

are part of good government. While they may not be as splashy as some of

the other big announcements that come out, they do in fact ensure good

governance, and I think we can’t underestimate the important pieces of

this work related to good governance in our province as well.

It is part of our job, all of us in this Legislature, to serve the

people of this province. Often when people think about what government

does to make their lives better, they think about the services that they

rely on. They think about what matters to them, what matters to their

family, the kinds of programs and services that they may access. Of

course, that’s going to be different for every family, depending on

their circumstances.

I think one thing I hear consistently from people is that with the

services that they do access, they expect that they get information in a

timely way, that it’s clear information and that it’s consistent across

programs and services. I think there is nothing more frustrating — and I

know all of us in our constituency offices will have heard this from

constituents — than when they get pushed from one service to another.

They don’t get consistent information. They get differing information

from differing places.

[2:40 p.m.]

Part of bringing forward what appear to be housekeeping amendments

to a bill often are proposed changes to, in fact, help the public, to

serve the public better, to provide that consistency and to ensure that

they are getting clear information when they need it, that they’re able

to get the programs and services that they want and that they have the

opportunity to do that.

The acts that are being changed in my particular area, just to

speak a little bit about the Ministry of Finance and those pieces, are

proposed changes to the Carbon Tax Act, the Provincial Sales Tax Act,

the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act. The amendments that are

coming forward are going to bring clarity and consistency, as I talked

about, and they specifically speak to when a tax director and how a tax

director will provide documents to a taxpayer.

Again, these may seem like very mundane kinds of changes, but it’s

important. If you’re receiving an information bulletin, if you’re

receiving a document from the tax director, you want to make sure that

it’s consistent, that you’re receiving it in the way that you expect and

that you have information around that. Those are the pieces that are

coming forward in those particular acts.

There are also some very minor changes — again, minor language

changes and consistency with the other acts — related to the Speculation

and Vacancy Tax Act as well. I know the member opposite raised his

disappointment that he wasn’t going to see more changes coming forward

to the speculation and vacancy tax.

In fact, I had a very good meeting with the mayors across the

province who are impacted and who live in the areas that receive the

speculation and vacancy tax. We had a very good discussion. It would be

no surprise to anyone in this House that there are mixed views around

the mayors’ table. But it was a very good opportunity to be able to

share the data that we had. The mayors shared their data as

well.

There are certainly some mayors who are keen to not be part of the

tax. There are mayors who asked to be part of the tax and, in fact, are

looking at additional support for their own municipalities to look at

vacancy rates. In fact, that information will come back now to the

Ministry of Finance, and my commitment is that by the end of the fall,

we’ll look and see if there are any kinds of improvements that need to

be made. That work is underway, and I certainly thank the mayors for the

time that they took in what, I believe, was a very productive

opportunity to hear from them directly.

Just a minute on taxes. I think people often forget, when you’re

talking about taxes and tax acts, what taxes really do for our province

and for the people of our province. I think it’s just, again, another

reminder about how important it is that we have the opportunity to be

able to raise revenues that provide a more efficient program and service

for many people in our province.

I often say that I think most people expect their governments to

take care of their money well. They expect programs and services, when

they need them, to be there for them. Those are kind of the basic

principles that they expect.

Again, people need programs and services at different times in

their lives. When your kids are going to school, you’re very involved in

the education system, and you think about that. When you have a family

member or a community member who may be ill and is in the hospital or

accessing medical services, you think about your tax dollars to pay for

those kinds of programs and services. Post-secondary education, seniors

care — all of those kinds of areas are touched by taxes.

I think often “taxes” has become a bad word for people to describe

resources that come to the province, but in fact, those provide services

and supports for all of our citizens in our province. I think that’s

why, again, I come back to the importance of these amendments that may

seem small but ensure that people get access to programs and services,

timely information and consistent information across the

board.

Just three other pieces I want to speak on quickly on this act, as

well, that I think are important, that are part of the Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act. One of them is the changes to the Assessment

Act, which will encourage the use of solar panel plants and expanding

solar panel plants. What this piece of the act, in fact, will do is

change the definition of “power plants” to include solar. It expands the

opportunity to be able to ensure that solar plants will have the same

access to exemptions around clean, renewable power and, hopefully, spur

on more of an opportunity.

[2:45 p.m.]

This is part of the CleanBC direction that we are taking as a

province that we very proudly have been working on with our minority

partners to be able to provide a very clear path to say that we have a

responsibility, as government, to address climate action, and we are

doing that.

Again, while this amendment may not seem like a large amendment,

to actually include, in “power plants,” solar power, I think, is a very

big step and an important step in looking at how we provide support for

industry, for new industry, for the direction where we can both be

creating jobs, doing our part to grow the economy, and making sure that

we’re protecting our environment and doing our piece there.

The second one that I want to touch on quickly is the issue of the

Motor Vehicle Act and the changes that are being made here. These

changes that are coming into place are going to establish a regulatory

framework to allow increasingly diverse modes of transportation. This is

an interesting piece for me because I had a constituent about six or

seven years ago now, a senior citizen, come into my community office,

who had just moved into the community of Victoria from another

jurisdiction across the country and who used a Segway.

I think people might be surprised to think of a senior citizen

using a Segway. It might not be the demographic that they might imagine

would be using a Segway, but the woman was passionate about her Segway.

She was passionate about utilizing it. It provided her with an

opportunity to be able to transport herself, to be able to manage in a

way that she couldn’t on foot anymore. She wasn’t ready for a mobility

scooter yet. That wasn’t where she wanted to go.

She was very keen. We had lots of discussions with the city; we

had lots of discussions with the province at the time. There wasn’t any

way to be able to work it out, because it didn’t fit in the Motor

Vehicle Act around licensing. It didn’t fit. It didn’t have a place to

be able to go.

I think it’s, again, a very interesting piece, although people may

brush aside miscellaneous statutes bills, to provide an opportunity for

those devices that don’t fall within the act right now. To be able to

look at pilots so that we can try out those

definitions and see if they

fit, making sure that we have an opportunity for both pedestrians and

vehicles — whatever kinds of vehicles they may be — to operate safely, I

think, is a very exciting piece.

I certainly know that my constituent, who was passionate about

this issue, would be thrilled to know that we are continuing to look at

this as government and that there’ll be opportunities, she would hope,

certainly, in the future to be able to utilize her Segway and be able to

navigate in Victoria in the way that works for her.

Then the last pieces that I want to touch on are the changes to

the Employment and Assistance Act and the Employ­ment and

Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. The minister spoke very

passionately about the work, and I want to say thank you to the minister

for the work that he’s done on bringing forward a whole range of

amendments, including these pieces that we’re talking about today in

this bill.

I think that we can’t underestimate the impact these changes will

have not only in substance but, even more than that, in the respect that

they show for people who are living in poverty and who are living with

disabilities. Often the changes — in fact, many of these changes that

have come forward — aren’t huge, huge cost items, but they make a huge

difference when it comes to treating people with the respect and the

dignity that they deserve and that they haven’t had because of many of

these changes in the act.

Again, I come back to my own constituents. I have a constituent

named Doreen Gee who has advocated, ever since I became an MLA in 2005,

for ending the need for people on income and disability assistance to

get early Canada pension. They’re required to take benefits at 60, and

that, as the minister has said so well, in fact reduces down the amount

that they have for the rest of their life, in their pension. That

challenge, that being treated differently, that not being able to make a

choice because it was an individual who lived in poverty…. She has done

an incredible job of advocating on this issue, along with many others in

my constituency who have come to my office over the years to raise their

concerns.

[2:50 p.m.]

This Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act changes that. It

provides the respect for people that they deserve, and it’s an

extraordinary change. I think, again, of the two-year independence rule

required for young people before they could access income assistance.

Again, I know very few people who could explain to me what kind of sense

that made. Most people are coming for income assistance because they’re

facing huge challenges, facing difficulties in their lives. To expect

them…. Then to say, “Go and fix it for two years. Go and look after

yourself, and then come back for services and supports,” makes no sense

and certainly doesn’t make sense to the people who are struggling the

most in their lives.

Again, people who are cut off assistance because they’re homeless

or at risk of homelessness. Basic common sense would say that people are

coming to income assistance because they’re having challenges, because

they’re struggling and having difficulties. If they were able to have

those difficulties go away, they would do it. There’s not a lot of

dignity for a lot of people who struggle on income assistance, who end

up having to use food banks, who end up struggling. This, again, just

provides the kind of respect and dignity that those individuals

deserve.

I think it’s also important to note…. Again, I think it speaks to

the change that we’ve seen in the government and a change in approach.

Again, I say thank you to the minister.

People with lived experience helped create these. People who have

lived in poverty or are living in poverty or are living with

disabilities helped create these changes. That speaks to that respect

for individuals and how important that is and what a difference it can

make in someone’s life when they have the opportunity to talk about

their experiences and to make a change for the better for themselves and

for other people. It’s not going to make a difference for people who had

to take early CPP. But those people were fighting for the next

generation that came forward and didn’t have to face that.

I think, just in closing, I want to say that I’m in full support

of the amendments that come forward. I just want to end with a reminder

that sometimes when members on the other side have talked about

miscellaneous statutes amendment acts and bills not having the kind of

important pieces and important work that we do as members of this

Legislature, I think this bill is a perfect example of how important it

is to recognize that good government and serving the people of this

province, all the people of this province, is part of our

jobs.

It may not get the headline. It may not be the top news story of

the day. But it can make a huge difference in people’s lives, and it is

part of our work. I’m very proud to be part of a government that is

doing this kind of work.

S. Furstenau: I’m happy today to be speaking to Bill 35, the Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act. Before I get to my prepared notes, I just want

to speak to some of the things that the Minister of Finance has just

raised and to note that I found many of her comments to be quite

inspiring. I thank her for them.

The minister was speaking, at one point, of taxes and the role

that taxes play in a society. I think that when we are here in this

place, and when we are in these roles that we are in as decision-makers,

we have to recognize that our work is always about asking ourselves:

what is the society that we want to be creating? The decisions that we

make in here and the places we put money, where we invest, determine the

nature of our society into the future. We have to be constantly

grappling with where we want to be going.

And the job is never done. We’re never there. We’re never

finished. There are always going to be new issues to solve. There are

always going to be reasons for us to be doing better work. There is

always going to be new evidence and new data that will help us inform

our decisions so that we’re making good decisions and that we’re

recognizing that, as a society, as the minister was pointing out, we are

made up of individuals, but it is collectively that we do our best. So

of course, we want a society that puts education and well-being of all

people, particularly vulnerable people, at the centre of our

decision-making.

[2:55 p.m.]

I just want to commend her for her comments and to note that I

appreciate the thought that has gone into recognizing that, yes, it’s a

miscellaneous statutes amendment act, but it does amend important pieces

of legislation, and it does bring in important changes that the

government has recognized need to be addressed.

The bill before us today does many things. I’m going to speak to

just a few of the items that I believe deserve some significant

attention.

First, I want to reiterate that First Nations, Indigenous

communities, have the inherent right to care for their children in their

communities. The government has said that First Nations requested the

amendment during their consultation on Bill 26, the amendments that are

in this act. As these amendments allow for more flexibility in providing

support and preventative services to families in need, it is integral

that Indigenous communities have the ability to look after their

children and deliver a broad range of services to their communities. For

that reason, I’m supportive of the changes to the children and family

services act that are in this bill today.

Secondly, the changes to the Employment and Assistance Act and to

the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act make a

number of changes to help vulnerable people access social services and

assistance. These are changes that are, as the minister just pointed

out, long overdue, and many of what’s before us in this bill are the

legislative changes that are needed to implement the province’s poverty

reduction plan.

Many of these changes may seem small, but they will make a

significant difference to the well-being of those who are receiving

social assistance. Many of the rules in place today are not based on

evidence, and they do, in fact, harm the dignity of British Columbians

who are receiving assistance. In particular, I was very happy to see

that the two-year independence rule for vulnerable youth is being

eliminated. B.C. was the only province to have this rule, and it

unnecessarily penalizes young people who are in need.

I also welcome the fact that we are moving to a more humane and

commonsense approach to how we offer assistance to those who are

experiencing homelessness and those who are at risk of becoming

homeless. Since 2002, we have been able to remove people’s income

assistance if they’re unable to produce documentation to prove who they

are. This can be a huge problem for people experiencing homelessness,

who may not have the same records or access to bank accounts that so

many of us take for granted. With these changes, there will be more

options for ministry staff to work with those experiencing homelessness

who aren’t able to produce adequate documentation.

It was already announced in TogetherBC earlier this year, but

another major change is the fact that we will now stop penalizing people

for failing to pursue early CPP benefits. Right now you have to pursue

early CPP, but if you pursue it, you get a reduced rate for the rest of

your life. This is an important change that will improve the financial

security and stability of low-income seniors.

As I’ve spoken about before, these are important improvements to

our system of social assistance. They make it less punitive and fairer.

But we still operate in a system where we penalize and micromanage

low-income and vulnerable people and where we treat poverty like a

problem to be managed rather than to be solved.

We must put the dignity and well-being of people, all people, at

the core of our decision-making. That is why I still believe there is a

deep need to explore basic income, which is based on the principle that

all people should have income security, all should be able to meet their

basic needs, and we shouldn’t force people to jump through hoops just to

be able to provide for the basic needs of them and their families. So

while I support the improvements and I applaud the improvements that are

before us today, I will continue to advocate for government to pursue

basic income, first through responding to the basic income panel report

that we will see later this year and then by using pilot projects to

test the idea in B.C.

Finally, there are changes to the Professional Governance Act

which will allow regulatory bodies to increase annual membership fees to

ensure that they have resources to transition to the new provincial

governance legislation during the next year. This is something, I

understand, that the regulatory bodies have indicated is needed, and I’m

happy to support these changes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this, and

I appreciate the changes that are being brought in.

[3:00 p.m.]

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to speak today to Bill 35, which is the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I’m going to speak to one

section

of it, and that is

section 19 of the bill, which amends the Trespass Act

of B.C. It adds a monumental change to the act. It adds a single word,

the word “airplane,” to the Trespass Act. They could not have made a

more minimal change unless they had inserted a comma. This is the

absolute bare minimum that they could do in opening the Trespass

Act.

The passage of legislation in this House is an opportunity for

change. There are about 140 hours of legislative time in this fall

session. That’s not a lot of hours. House time is precious. It’s

difficult to find House time. Yesterday the NDP gave up 2½ hours of

House time. That’s almost 2 percent of the entire fall session that they

gave away because they couldn’t find anything to talk about. We could

have been talking about this yesterday, but we didn’t.

The point I want to make here is that House time is precious. When

we open up

an act, which is a very seldom done thing, we ought to take

the opportunity to make some significant changes to the act. Instead,

we’re adding one word to the Trespass Act, and I don’t think that’s good

enough.

Today I want to talk about a missed opportunity. I want to address

an emerging situation on the ground in B.C. I want to begin by

describing a visit I had with a couple of constituents this summer. I

visited Creekside Dairy, where Julaine and Johannes Treur operate a

dairy farm in Agassiz, in my riding. Johannes is a fifth-generation

dairy farmer.

It is a beautiful farm. When I went on the farm, over the door

there’s a sign that says: “Certified by the SPCA.” It is the only farm

in Canada that is certified by the SPCA, where the SPCA lends its logo

and its reputation to this farm as a supporter of healthy animals. These

people really care about their animals.

I want to add, as an aside, that farmers across B.C. have a vested

and financial interest in caring for their animals. For example,

mistreated cows do not give a lot of milk. It is in the interest of

dairy farmers to have a herd that’s healthy and happy and well

fed.

When I used to milk cows for a farmer in my youth, we had a

milking parlour, and we would have soft music playing in the milking

parlour. You weren’t allowed to talk while you were milking the cows.

The cows got treated better than the hired hands. Why? Because they gave

more milk. It’s in their interest to do that. So it’s very unusual for

farmers to mistreat their animals.

Anyway, back to my visit. The Treurs are also a certified organic

farm. They follow all of the laborious regulations and requirements so

that they can certify their milk as being organic. I cannot imagine a

better model for a dairy farm that would be acceptable to people who are

concerned about animal welfare than Creekside Dairy.

Creekside also appreciates transparency. So Creekside has a

Facebook page. They want to be open to the world. They want to open

their farm up. They’re proud of what they do. They want to show off what

they do. For that, they have been attacked on Facebook by those who are

opposed to any farming that involves animals. Julaine showed me some of

the messages that she has received on Facebook, and it was shocking.

Many of them said things like, “I want to cut you up with a chainsaw,”

and things like that — just absolutely unbelievable messages, vicious

and violent things. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw

that.

The Treurs had to block 1,200 Facebook accounts that posted nasty

messages on their Facebook page — 1,200. That’s a lot of Facebook

accounts. There was an outpouring of vile accusations and insults and

threats directed against them, and it scared them. They live at the end

of a road in Agassiz. There’s not a lot of traffic that comes by. They

have small children. Now they say, they told me, that they’re watching

over their shoulders on every vehicle that comes near the yard. They’re

wondering: is this a neighbour, is this a friend, or perhaps is this one

of the people who commented on Facebook? Maybe it’s an enemy. Maybe it’s

someone who wants to occupy their farm or sabotage their farm or wreck

equipment or worse.

You just never know, Mr. Speaker. They have good reason to fear

because there are farms around Canada and the U.S. that are being

trespassed, that are being occupied by protesters who want to shut down

animal farming.

I would point out here that we have nearly five million people in

B.C. A small minority of them are vegan. I don’t have a problem with

vegetarianism or veganism. That’s all fine. That’s a personal choice. I

would support every person’s personal choice as to what they

eat.

[3:05 p.m.]

In my riding, we supply a good deal of the milk that’s consumed in

B.C. We have at least three of the largest dairy farms in Canada. We

supply beef and pork and eggs. We raise fish in land-based facilities

and an enormous amount of chicken and other birds. That’s important

protein, a source of food for well over four million people. A tiny

minority of ideologues feel justified in carrying out these trespasses

in a moral crusade to shut down this source of protein for everyone, and

they aren’t about to engage in the democratic process to do so, probably

because their views are not a reflection of a large number of people.

Instead, they engage in condemnation and insults. Even more threatening,

they are now physically, forcibly intruding onto the private property of

farmers around Canada and in the States.

Now, I’m a strong proponent of rights, as you know, Mr. Speaker.

People have and should have the right to protest what they want,

whatever they want. But everybody has rights, including farmers. Let the

right to protest happen on public property and give farmers the right to

their private property as well.

I want to give you, Mr. Speaker, a few examples of what has

happened just to show you what kind of an opportunity we’re losing here

today to make real, positive, significant change in the bill before

us.

In Alberta last month, in the early hours of Labour Day, dozens of

animal rights activists invaded Jumbo Valley Hutterite Colony, near Fort

MacLeod. The Hutterites are legendary in their skill in farming. I used

to work for the International Harvester Credit Corporation many, many

years ago. People would come in, in Manitoba. Hutterite colonies would

come in. They would buy combines, multiple combines at once, in cash.

Everybody knew that they were the best farmers around. They care about

farming. These people care about their birds — in this case, a turkey

farm. This particular farm is a free-range operation.

Some activists stood on the highway, but about 30 of them forced

their way onto the farm and occupied the farm and shut down the farm for

six hours. The rules of biosecurity were ignored. These activists could

have brought any disease at all into the farm, and it could have spread

to other farms. They didn’t care about that. They left with five

turkeys, which they said they were giving to an animal sanctuary. I

think they probably ended up on somebody’s dinner table

eventually.

In any case, there were no arrests. As yet, there have been no

consequences. Instead, they achieved all of their purposes. There were

six hours of negotiation by police. They shut down the farm for the

better part of a day. They basically forced the farmers to give them

animals that weren’t theirs. They were able to get national and even

international media coverage. They were able to trespass on private

property with impunity.

This is not an isolated event. This is a movement. Let me list a

few other things activists have done. They chained and superglued

themselves together outside of a Whole Foods store, not too far from

here, in San Francisco on September 30. But in the States, they take

trespassing more seriously, and the police arrested those

trespassers.

A number of activists chained themselves to a city hall in San

Diego, shutting down the building for a number of hours. I want to quote

what one activist said. This activist said…. “‘It’s a big step to stop

everyone eating animals, so they’re not going to go quite that far,’

said one demonstrator. ‘But what they’re trying to do is at least give

those animals the right to be rescued.’” Well, many activists do want to

shut down all animal farms, but the right to be rescued is a wide-open

door for activists to trespass.

Last year in Utah, five animal rights activists from a group

called Direct Action Everywhere took five piglets from a large farm.

They say they rescued them. But really, they stole them under the guise

of animal cruelty, which, of course, the owners of the farm hotly

dispute.

Closer to home, much closer to home in Abbotsford, Excelsior Hog

Farm was occupied late last April by about 200 people. They called

themselves animal liberation activists. Some people, again, stood on the

road, and others ran onto the property and occupied it. In addition,

they offered video of the inside of the barns, which proved that they

had already clearly trespassed on the farm previously.

Now, Abbotsford is very close to home for me. There are many

farmers and farm families I represent. Chilliwack represents the highest

farmer seats next to Abbotsford in B.C. — the two largest farming areas.

It threatens jobs, livelihoods and families in my riding. It threatens

an important source of protein for the people of B.C. This is serious

and important, and the government is ignoring it.

[3:10 p.m.]

No one would countenance cruelty to animals. No one wants that. We

all agree. But the charge of cruelty is a wedge issue that activists

will falsely use to get to their wider goal, which is to eliminate

animals as a source of protein.

What’s our government doing about this threat? We have a one-word

change to the Trespass Act to add airplanes to the list of things that

can be caught by that act. How many people trespass on an airplane?

Maybe one every five years or so? But here we have an imminent threat to

farms, just from last April, right in B.C., in processing facilities and

stores across B.C. The government is ignoring what’s actually happening

on the ground so that they can pass a one-word amendment to the Trespass

Act. This is a huge lost opportunity.

What are other governments doing? Let me talk about that for a

moment. Australia is doing something, and they’re doing something

significant. The government made an election commitment to protect the

privacy of farmers and has followed up by introducing legislation to

make it a criminal offence to incite another person to trespass on

agricultural land, with a punishment of a year in prison. Anyone

actually caught trespassing on a farm will get an immediate $1,000 fine.

They are protecting the rights of farmers. The Australian government is

protecting a major food source for millions and millions of people in

Australia.

What are other provinces in Canada doing? Well, in Ontario, the

Agriculture Minister has publicly said that he is considering protecting

farmers and farms through legislation, because there have been several

high-level protests there. Ontario is going to move to protect its

farmers.

In Alberta, just a few days ago, the Premier announced strong new

legislation. He did so on the site of Jumbo Valley farm, the Hutterite

colony which was invaded just a few weeks ago. Alberta is going to beef

up its trespass act to specifically address trespassing on agricultural

land. And he’s going to introduce penalties under the act, up to $10,000

for a first offence and $25,000 for a second offence. Repeat offenders

could face up to six months in jail.

Then there’s a

section on biosecurity. Penalties for trespassers

who breach biosecurity protocols on agricultural operations will

increase, up to $15,000 for a first offence and $30,000 for a second,

with the possibility of a year in jail, because of the huge consequences

of a breach in biosecurity, bringing in a disease which can kill

millions of animals, which we experienced in the Fraser Valley some

years ago. I’ll talk about that in a minute. It’s a threat to the entire

industry.

Alberta is taking real action. As a result…. There may be protests

on public land, and that’s fine. But sources of protein for the public

and the rights of individual farmers and the rights of individual

landowners will be protected by the government of Alberta. I applaud

them on that.

Our government is not learning from our neighbour’s leadership, so

we get nothing from our government. What we need are amendments to the

Trespass Act that do the following.

First, we need to have a separate provision in the Trespass Act

for food and food processing, such as packing plants, to address the

protection of our food sources and our farmers. Second, we need to put

in place strong penalties that will deter activists. We don’t want to

levy those penalties. We don’t want to slam anyone with them. We want to

prevent and deter that kind of behaviour so that public protests will be

confined to public land. Third, we need separate penalties for those who

breach biosecurity, because we know that someone who brings a disease

onto a farm can threaten the entire industry, not one farm

alone.

I was in my riding in 2014 when we had an outbreak of avian

influenza that literally went viral in the Abbotsford and Chilliwack

area. I went to visit the CFIA war room that they created. They created

a war room in Abbotsford. They flew people from all over the country. It

was December. People were interrupting their Christmas plans to be there

— experts from all over the country. The room was filled with 30 or 40

highly paid people, top officials.

It was a huge issue. They had to create different zones. They had

to quarantine farms. There was a huge amount of lab work. There were

8,400 tests of samples collected of different birds from around so that

they could diagnose whether these birds were ill. They had people going

to farms in hazmat suits. They were destroying birds in large numbers.

They were disinfecting premises. In the end, 140,000 birds were

destroyed, and countries closed their borders to our trade.

[3:15 p.m.]

The ramifications of a biosecurity hazard are far-reaching for all

of Canada. The government needs to address this issue. It was a huge

issue at the time, enormously costly to the industry and to the

government. We need to prevent that possibility through legislation.

Instead, the government is protecting airplanes today. Instead of doing

what they ought to be doing, the Agriculture Minister has done nothing.

She should be acting in support of the industry. I haven’t seen her get

up on this at all. She’s not said a word.

Why would that be? I think I can tell you why the government is

doing nothing. The NDP caucus is divided. There are so many

environmental activists within the caucus and influences upon the caucus

that they dare not disrupt the status quo. So many sympathize with the

activists that those activists are able, by far, to exercise hegemony

over this caucus to ensure that the government will do nothing. One day

the entire farming community, all Canadians, could be sorry because of

it.

It would remain to a B.C. Liberal government to take action to

protect sources of protein and farms, farm premises, food processing

facilities and farm families. I think that farmers across B.C. can rest

assured that should we be given the privilege of governing again very

soon, we will take the lost opportunity being squandered by the NDP

today. We would act to protect them.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise and to take my place in the debate. I

listened with interest to my colleague across the way, to his comments.

On many of them, I go: “Okay, yeah. Those are some very good points.

Those are some very good points that you made.” But then there were

others points that he made that…. Well, to quote my long-deceased

grandfather, he would’ve just said, “Bollocks,” because there was a lot

of nonsense there. There was a lot of nonsense there.

Division on the idea of protecting against cruelty to

ani­mals? Nonsense. Absolute, utter nonsense.

What I really take issue with in the comments of not only my

colleague who spoke a moment ago but other members on the opposition who

have spoken, in terms of the bill that we’re debating before us, which

is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act….

Why is it called a miscellaneous statutes amendment act? It amends

a number of different acts that, in a way, require specific amendments

to a specific

section of a bill but don’t qualify to be introduced as a

stand-alone amendment. Yet what we’ve heard from the opposition is that

somehow this is a waste of time, that debate time is precious. “Why are

we doing something like this? Something should be more

substantive.”

Well, I’d like to remind the member — he talked a moment ago about

lost opportunities — about the lost opportunities of 16 years that they

had when they could have addressed many of the issues that he talked

about. I know he doesn’t want to hear, but perhaps he could explain why,

for example, in 2016 there was no fall session. In 2013, there was no

fall session. In 2012, there was no fall session. In 2010, there was no

fall session. In 2008, there was a fall session for three

days.

Now, I understand he doesn’t want to hear that, but that’s a fact.

That’s a lost opportunity. That was a lost opportunity to deal with the

issues that he says are so important. But what was the response of the

government of the day? What was the response of the

government?

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll come to that in a moment, Member.

What was the response of the government of the day about not

sitting in the fall session? Well, let me just quote. “The government

doesn’t wish to advance any legislation” was the official position of

the government at the time. Another year they said: “We’re not going to

incur the expense of having the Legislature sit to simply have the

Legislature sit.”

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh my god, listen to that. Listen to that comment. After the

passionate speech from your colleague across the way who said that we

should be sitting to pass legislation, you then say: “Oh, we shouldn’t

be sitting because we’re not spending money.” My god. Talk about

divisions in a caucus, hon. Member. It’s illustrated right

there.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Through the Chair.

It’s really simple, Member from Langara. You don’t like to sit in

the fall, and when you’re asked why you don’t like to sit in the fall,

you say….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll come to that in a moment.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the Solicitor General has the floor.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The term was “bollocks,” not “bullock.”

Deputy Speaker: Members, calm down.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We’ll do the math.

Thank you, hon. Speaker. As the member said, we’ll do the math.

It’s really simple: zero days in many, many years when they had the

opportunity to sit in the fall.

Yesterday again…. The member clearly doesn’t know and the other

member clearly doesn’t know that when a bill is tabled, you don’t debate

it the same day unless by leave. That side of the House is the first one

to say….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Actually, you’re incorrect. The bill that was on the order paper

was, in fact, what we debated yesterday. Your side chose not to ask….

You chose not to ask the questions that you could have asked.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Hon. M. Farnworth: By the way, hon. Member, you may want to talk to your House

Leader. We both agreed that when we had finished the bill, depending on

what time it finished, then we would adjourn. So to hear them say, “Oh

my god, we’re not filling the time….” We will fill the time, hon.

Member.

I hope you’ll remember those comments come Thursday at…. Let’s

see. Usually, what time do you start asking me? About 5:30, 20 to six.

“Can we adjourn the House early so that we can catch the ferry or our

plane home?” Remember that on Thursday when you start to do that, when

you start doing that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. Order, please.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: If you want to talk about adjourning….

Deputy Speaker: Let’s come back to the bill.

Hon. M. Farnworth: If they want to talk about time not being spent in debate, just

remember that on Thursday.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, just a second. Let’s have some order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Anyway, back to the main thrust of the

bill, which, again, they seemed to have a problem with — that somehow

debating a miscellaneous statutes amendment act is something that is a

waste of time. They don’t think that it has the gravitas or the

substance that they themselves think a piece of legislation would

have.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, you most certainly did. Go back and read some of the comments

that were made by some of your previous speakers about: “Why are we

debating a statutory amendment act like this?” They made it pretty clear

that they didn’t think that this was a significant piece of

legislation.

I’d like to go through, for the member’s edification, just a

number of the key elements of this piece of legislation and why they may

not think that they’re important. We do think they’re important, because

parts of this act…. One of the changes under the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, which proposes to change amendments to 17 acts…. One of

the highlights is the Employment and Assistance Act and the Employment

and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act.

Now, what does this do? Well, for example, it includes ending the

need for clients to pursue early Canada Pension Plan retirement benefits

before the age of 65. You know what? It’s making people’s lives easier,

making people’s lives more affordable. They may not think that’s

important — and for 16 years, they clearly didn’t think it was important

— but we do think that’s important.

Does it require a massive bill to make that change? Does it

require a 25-page piece of legislation to make that change? No, it

doesn’t. All it requires is some simple amendments to existing

legislation, something that they could have done in one of those years

of those fall sessions that they never held. Talk about wasted time.

Talk about wasted opportunity.

They could have made people’s lives better, but they chose not to.

They chose not to, and the excuse usually given was: “We don’t wish to

advance any legislation.” Or it was referred to one year as “busywork.”

Busywork, hon. Speaker. They may think that bringing in amendments to

make it easier for people with disabilities, to make their life more

affordable, is busywork. We don’t.

[3:25 p.m.]

Another aspect of the amendments on this particular

section is

that they will protect vulnerable youth by eliminating the two-year

independence rule as a barrier to receiving income assistance. Again, a

fairness issue — helping people get on with their lives, helping the

most vulnerable.

Again, the opposition likes to talk about how they care about that

or they want to make changes, but the reality is that, as we’ve seen in

the past, they either took action such as clawing back bus passes or —

you know what? — a fall session is “busywork.”

Well, we don’t think a fall session is busywork. That’s why we

committed to having a fall session, and that’s why we’re following

through on that commitment by having a fall session — the second. We had

one last year, in our first year in government, and we’re having another

one this year in government. We’ll have another one in the next year of

government, and we’ll have another one in the next year of government.

And when we get re-elected to a second term, we will have a fall session

each and every year.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Now, we can go into a lesson on how parliament works for the hon.

member, to an understanding of how the parliamentary system works, but

clearly, I don’t think that there’s enough time in this chamber to

explain it to the member. That is that — guess what — we won. We’re over

here. They didn’t. They’re over there. It’s our intention, through the

policy work that we’ve been doing as government, to ensure that that

continues. But I digress.

Another element of this particular piece of legislation. Again,

the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act — changes which support families

by clarifying that child and spousal support provisions in a family law

arbitration award can be enforced through the family maintenance

enforcement program. Again, is that busywork? Does that strike you as

busywork? The idea that somehow you’re going to make a family

maintenance award, in the case of child custody, in the case of ensuring

that maintenance is paid to children — is that busywork?

To follow the logic of my colleague who spoke previously, he had

16 years to do that. They had 16 years to do that, and they didn’t,

because it wasn’t a priority. Because again, as I like to quote, “The

government doesn’t wish to advance any legislation,” as the B.C.

Liberals said on Sunday, the 16th of September, in 2008, for example —

or as they again said in a previous year, referring to the House as

“busywork.”

Well, we think these kinds of changes, which are minor in the

sense that they don’t need a huge amount of drafting to take place or a

significant stand-alone bill but come to this House in the form of a

miscellaneous statutes act, are absolutely worthy of the consideration

of this House and absolutely worthy of the debating time of this House,

which is what we’re here for. That’s why we’re proud to bring this

forward.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act — amendments around that. They

would enhance whistle-blower protection for public servants and

government contractors by clarifying what constitutes a reprisal and

confirming the act’s paramountcy over the disclosure provisions of other

legislation.

The bill would also add the new office of the Human Rights

Commissioner to the definition of “office” and correct cross-referencing

errors.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know what? I listen across the way to the heckling, and again,

it comes back to: what are they so opposed to? Enhanced whistle-blower

protection for public servants — something that never, ever would have

occurred to them when they sat on this side of the House, when we saw

what would happen when someone who worked had a computer keyboard

grabbed away from them and were told: “You will do as I say, or you are

gone.” That was the approach that was taken under that side.

[3:30 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I could say: “Delete, delete, delete.” But I know that’s been done

to death. So maybe I’ll use the word of the day, which is…. They may

think it’s busywork. They may think that making change is busywork. They

may think improving people’s lives is busywork. Guess what. We think

it’s essential. That’s why this bill is here, and that’s why we’re going

to vote in favour of it. It will be interesting to see whether they back

up their rhetoric, whether they vote against it or whether they side

with the people that this legislation is going to impact and vote in

favour of it.

Other areas in this act. The Assessment Act. Supporting clean

energy with amendments that would include solar power plants in the

definition of “power plants,” allowing them to be assessed in the same

way as other independent power producers and ensure they are eligible

for the same exemptions. These changes will encourage the future

development of solar power plants and tie into government’s CleanBC

goals of using more clean and renewable energy.

Hey, again, a simple, small change in a piece of legislation that

is going to help this province become even more a centre of clean energy

than it has been in the past. Again, that’s not busywork. That’s common

sense. That’s working in the interest of the people of the province of

British Columbia, not just in the interests of a few.

Maybe that’s why they seem to have a problem with fall sessions.

Maybe because if you’ve got the time to do it, you actually could do

amendments like this. You could do the kinds of amendments which, not

huge in terms of drafting time, are significant in terms of the impact

that they have on the lives of people.

Health Care Costs Recovery Act. Proposed amendments would require

defendants in class action proceedings initiated in jurisdictions other

than B.C. that include health services claims to provide written notice

to the provincial government. This would allow the government to be

aware of class actions, including those launched outside of B.C. that

include personal injury claims of British Columbians.

The Child, Family and Community Service Act. Minor amendments that

would clarify the intention that Indigenous communities have the ability

to plan for all their children and youth in care. It would also clarify

the intention that Indigenous communities are able to deliver a broad

range of supports and services to their children and families, as well

as to children who identify as non-Indigenous or members of other

nations.

If anything is more important in terms of families and kids, it’s

ensuring that they have the opportunity to grow up within their families

and that the services that they need and require, particularly when they

are vulnerable, are there for them.

The fact that it is an amendment in a piece of legislation that is

not complicated, that is so important…. Again, the idea that an

opposition would be dismissive of a Miscellaneous Statutes Amendments

Act, I just find incomprehensible. Incomprehensible.

Again, it’s being done in a fall session. With the fall session,

you have the time to be able to do additional legislation. You have the

time to be able to do not just major legislation or a budget, as takes

place in the spring session, but you have the ability to look at things

that — well, let’s be clear about it — for 16 years, were not a priority

of the previous government. Sixteen long years. For many people, 16 long

and bleak years.

That was the record of that government. The fact that we are

introducing legislation to deal with some of the injustices that have

been in place for a very, very long time, and we’re able to do it in a

way that…. You know what? It doesn’t take a huge amount of drafting

time. It doesn’t require a stand-alone bill. It’s a simple amendment.

You have to wonder: well, why wasn’t it done before? Why didn’t they do

this before?

[3:35 p.m.]

As we heard so eloquently from the member across the way: “People

have been waiting.” It comes back to…. I have to go, again, to 2016….

I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that in 2001, these things

weren’t on their agenda. These things were not on their agenda. They

were busy with the 25 percent tax cut. They were busy with other things.

It was not on the agenda. First Nations issues were not on the agenda

for them.

But guess what. In 2016, a mere three years ago — a mere three

years ago — they could have introduced this. But they didn’t. Why?

Because they didn’t sit a single day for a fall session. We know what

the attitude was. “It’s busywork.” Busywork. Or as was said a few

moments ago: “We didn’t have to spend any money.”

Well, what are we here for? What does the public send us here for,

other than to address the issues and concerns that they have, on their

priorities? Sitting there, to say that if we sat in the fall, we would

be expending money. Well, that’s what we’re supposed to be doing. That’s

what we’re paid to do. People understand that that’s what this chamber

is for.

The idea that somehow, and I’ll read it out again, we wouldn’t

want to bring in amendments that would clarify the intention that

Indigenous communities have the ability to plan for all their children

and youth in care…. You wouldn’t want to do that because you might save

a few dollars by not sitting. If anything says the difference in why

they’re sitting on that side of the House, I think those comments do,

without a doubt.

There are other elements in this piece of legislation that I know

colleagues will be talking to. I’ve talked about that one. I know my

colleague across the way has talked about the Trespass Act, which is

something that’s important to him. I’m glad that he rose and spoke on

that. He has given some really good points in terms of things that may

well find their way into, potentially, other legislation, which may also

come in a fall session, because this side of the House is committed to

doing fall sessions.

Let’s have a look at some of the others — oh, the Motor Vehicle

Act, for example. Proposed amendments would establish a framework that

will enable the use of increasingly diverse modes of personal

transportation. These amendments will create regulations for communities

to test out pilot projects surrounding emerging mobility technology,

such as e-scooters, Segways and more. These changes would clarify how

devices are to be regulated and are in alignment with the government’s

active transportation strategy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas

emissions and supporting multimodal forms of transportation.

Again, it’s a minor amendment, but what it does is it

re­flects the fact that our world, when it comes to technology, is

changing so very, very fast, changing very fast. People who were

restricted in their mobility before are finding increasing methods of

transportation to get around — personal devices.

We have companies coming to us that want regulations to change so

that the innovations that they’re developing — many of those innovations

taking place right here in British Columbia, in this province…. It would

allow them to advance their technology, bring their technology to the

public, establish jobs and establish innovation. In many cases, what it

requires is a minor amendment, a small tweak here or a small tweak there

that will allow something to happen.

[3:40 p.m.]

Again, too often those are the kinds of things that get lost

because they get subsumed by…. Well, who can forget Red Tape Reduction

Day? Remember that? We have Remembrance Day as a statutory day in this

province. We have Holocaust Memorial Day as a solemn day in this

province. We have Terry Fox, a solemn day in this province, recognized.

And a priority of the government? Something called Red Tape Reduction

Day. Not just a proclamation but “a solemn day.” That was a huge item on

their agenda.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No. They clearly didn’t think that was busywork. But I ask you.

I’d be really interested. If you went out to the public and you asked

the public: “What’s more important? Let’s make Red Tape Reduction Day a

statutory holiday. Or how about we bring in legislation that protects

Indigenous kids? Or how about we bring in legislation that ensures that

a family maintenance arbitration order is enforceable?” Which would they

say is more important?

Well, if they want to know why they’re sitting over there, I think

that would answer the question, because I think the priorities of the

public and the priorities of British Columbians would be with ordinary

families trying to get by, with ordinary families wanting to make an

improvement. Not something that….

I could imagine when they go out and they go to a rally and they

stand on the stage and the Leader of the Opposition at the time would be

up there. It would have one of those big megaphone things, the ones that

echo. It would be, “We’ve introduced Red Tape Reduction Day, Red Tape

Reduction Day,” booming throughout their convention, as opposed to: “You

know what? We made life better for Indigenous families. We made life

better for people struggling to raise kids, to ensure that family

maintenance orders are actually enforceable.” Those are the things in

this legislation…. As I said earlier, had they had regular fall

sessions, they’d have been able to do it. They would have been able to

do it.

I know that I have more time, but I also know that there are other

things that I have to talk about, other areas of government that require

my attention. So I will, in a few moments, take my seat and let other

people rise and speak to this bill.

I want to close by saying that just because the title of a bill

says “Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act” does not mean for one second

that it is any less worthy of debate in this House than a 300-page bill

of significant policy work, which is also just as important. Because

legislation like this…. While the amendments themselves may seem minor,

while they may not be long and verbose and wordy, they can have

significant impact on the lives of ordinary families, on the lives of

people in this province, on the economic well-being of this province, on

the long-term future of this province.

At the end of the day, that is our job, and that’s why we will

continue to have fall sessions as long as we are government. It’s

unfortunate that they did not have that same approach to governing when

we were on this side.

I just want to close by saying one thing. We will never, ever say

that having a fall session is about busywork. What it’s about is about

people. That’s what this side of the House is all about.

With that, I take my seat, and I look forward to hearing comments

from other members of the House.

[3:45 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Normally, I wouldn’t get up for Bill 35, a miscellaneous act,

unless there was something in the act that pertained particularly to me

as a critic or things that I’m passionate about. But I’ve just heard two

speeches, one from the Minister of Finance and one from the Government

House Leader. I have to say that they spoke passionately about wanting

to be able to support people, passionately about how governments should

be there to help and passionately about food banks and treating people

with respect. And I thank them. I’m glad that they’re passionate about

that.

The reality is this. Just last Friday forest workers, contractors,

had to go and hold a fundraiser and raise $6,000 so that forestry

families that are being ignored by this government, which we could be

talking about this fall, could actually go out and buy some food to feed

their families.

How shameful of this government to ignore the plight of forestry

workers in this province and the challenges that are being created right

across this province because of their policies. They have the audacity

to stand up and say that they respect people and they respect workers

and they respect families, when that is the pain they’re causing.

They’re ignoring it and refusing to talk about it in this Legislature

this fall.

Here is what they call busywork or the work that they figure they

need to get done. Let me just quote: “We were there helping them.” The

member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

J. Rustad: …who ignores the forest industry entirely, refuses to stand up and

actually support…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

J. Rustad: …the workers that are being impacted in his riding.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, come to order. Member, come to order.

J. Rustad: Madam, I would ask that he stand and apologize for that particular

comment that he just made. I find that comment that he made in this

House offensive. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast should stand

up and apologize for that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, we’ll come to order, please.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, we’ll come to order.

Please proceed, Member.

J. Rustad: Here’s the work that we’re talking about in here. There’s

passionate fertilizer being spread around over there. I get it. They’ve

got to fill the day. But here’s what’s being talked about.

For example, on page 31: “…the definition of ‘motor vehicle’ by

striking out ‘but does not include mobile equipment or a motor assisted

cycle;’ and substituting ‘but does not include mobile equipment, a motor

assisted cycle or a regulated motorized personal mobility device.’” This

is the kind of work that they’re talking about — that is, that they

talked so passionately about doing.

Here’s something even better to talk about, in

section 87, on page

28. It is amended, the definition of “dependant”, by adding “or” at the

end of the paragraph. That’s busywork. That’s good work. I mean, that’s

work that needs to be done.

How about on page 20,

section 65? And it does this at many

different places. It’s striking out the word “provide” and substituting

it with “give.” Yes, yes, that’s important work. And the whole time the

plight of the forestry workers in this province is being completely

ignored.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, please come to order.

J. Rustad: The reality is really simple. There are people who really are

hurting in this province, and they look to government for help. They

look to government to be able to step up and to be there. They worked

hard all their lives. They contribute to this society. They contribute

to this Legislature. They contribute to us as a province and as a whole.

They help to improve our quality of life.

They’re struggling, and they need help. They need the support of

government. They need people to stand up and fight. That, quite frankly,

is what we should be debating in this Legislature — a piece of a bill or

a piece of legislation or anything that this government could put

forward to provide some support and assistance for people that are

struggling, like our forest workers, in this province.

On top of it, I just heard from an endless stream of people in the

agriculture sector who are very concerned about Bill 52 and Bill 15 —

serious issues that are impacting them and their families. They want a

government that’s going to stand up and make some changes, as opposed to

creating the problems and the challenge that this government has done.

We could be putting that on the floor to debate. Yet it’s not even on

their agenda, once again hurting the families that help to feed this

province.

[3:50 p.m.]

It is shameful to see that this government is doing that. My hope

is, by standing up and raising this issue and putting a finger on it,

that this government will realize that they need to step up and provide

the kind of support for these workers…. It’s the advocation that we do

on this side of the House that’s so important to try to make sure this

issue gets raised, that it gets in this highlight, so that hopefully,

one day, government will recognize that it actually has to do something

to help these people.

Those are all the comments I need to make on this bill.

S. Malcolmson: By the end of our spring session, we were passing, on some days,

four pieces of legislation a day. The pace of work was astonishing. I

just stepped onto this train while it was already well under speed. It

was encouraging to see how quickly we were able to undo 16 years of

damage and neglect from the previous government, how quickly we were

able to bring, with cooperation along with the Green Party, a lot of

legislation into this House.

Now, this is an example of a whole lot of catch-up work — some of

the smaller pieces of work, but vital to be able to keep the work of

government moving forward and to be caring for people, some of our most

vulnerable communities, and to respond to the calls from local

government partners on what’s not working, unintended consequences from

legislation that we had already passed. It’s quite a

collection.

I’m going to run through a couple of the pieces that are

accommodated or are achieved by the passage of this miscellaneous bill

(No. 2). One is on the theme of protecting B.C.’s most vulnerable

people, addressing a number of commitments of B.C.’s poverty reduction

strategy. British Columbia, famously, was the only province in Canada

with no poverty reduction plan. I’m very proud that our government added

a dedicated minister, and his team are doing that good work to put that

poverty reduction plan in place.

We recognize that there is a huge backlog in my community of

Nanaimo, a lot of people that are really suffering from years of the

social safety net being undermined by the starving of funds and cuts to

the strength of the programs. I recognize and salute the folks that are

working on the front line, that have been really doing hard, hard work —

real shoulders to the wheel — while they haven’t had strong government

partners in place. We’re starting to see some of those changes come, but

there certainly is still a lot to do.

Passage of this bill is going to change people’s lives in a whole

bunch of different ways. One addresses financial insecurity of

low-income seniors. When this bill is passed, it will end the need for

people on income and disability assistance to pursue early Canada

Pension Plan retirement benefits if they’re younger than 65. It’s

important. It’ll make a difference in people’s lives. A second one:

protecting vulnerable youth by ending the two-year independence rule as

a barrier to receiving income assistance. Again, with just the passage

of an amendment, a one-line amendment, this is going to change people’s

lives.

A couple of areas in the definition and

interpretation of the word

“spouse,” something that has certainly seen a lot of evolution over the

last couple of decades. Two changes here. This change will increase the

amount of time that two people can live together in a common-law

relationship before reducing their assistance to the lower couples

support rate.

I’m reminded of my friend Kristal Grace Harm, who took an

opportunity to speak with the Minister of Poverty Reduction, to sit him

down and say: “This is the impact on me and my fiancé of us living

together. We’re afraid to get married because we are barely getting by

on the amount of support that we have right now for people with

disabilities.” So I love that maybe some of her advocacy has made its

way into this. I know how pleased she was to be able to speak with the

minister directly about this.

A second change is providing the singles assistance rate to two

married people who have separated but not yet divorced. That does

sometimes happen in this affordable housing crisis. Sometimes people

will end their romantic relationship but still live together. They’re

still living in the same residence, but independently. This change was

supported by West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund, a fantastic

organization doing really groundbreaking work in our province. I’m proud

of them.

[3:55 p.m.]

Raji Mangat, the executive director of West Coast LEAF, said: “We

are pleased to see changes to the definition of spouse that help in

ensuring that support is not predetermined on the basis of unfounded,

outdated and gendered assumptions about financial dependency in

relationships. This is an important step towards removing prohibitive

conditions in social assistance policy that adversely affect B.C.

residents experiencing or at risk of poverty.”

Another change in this leg