Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 152

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 38 — Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs

Recovery Act

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Hon. J. Darcy

S. Furstenau

R. Kahlon

N. Simons

M. Dean

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 36 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

3), 2018

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Hon. M. Mark

A. Olsen

S. Cadieux

S. Gibson

Hon. M. Farnworth

S. Sullivan

R. Kahlon

Hon. R. Fleming

Hon. C. James

Hon. B. Ralston

A. Weaver

Hon. L. Popham

Hon. K. Conroy

N. Simons

Hon. J. Darcy

Hon. D. Eby

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2018

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Eby: I call

second reading of Bill 38, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery

Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — OPIOID DAMAGES AND

HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY

ACT

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act will assist

government in pursuing recovery of health care costs incurred as a

consequence of the ongoing crisis involving the use of opioids in our

province. The costs of this crisis to our health care system are

staggering, and costs will continue to increase. The health care costs

incurred by the province include those for treatment of problematic use

and addiction, the cost of emergency services in response to overdose

events, the cost of hospital treatment and various other related

costs.

These measures of health care costs, of course, do not and cannot

account for the immeasurable personal losses, not to mention direct

financial costs to individuals, their families and friends and society

as a whole that are related to the crisis.

The hon. Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and I are strongly

committed to holding the parties who are responsible for this crisis

accountable. To that end, we announced on August 29, 2018, that as part

of its response to fight the overdose crisis in British Columbia, the

government had commenced a class action lawsuit against the more than 40

different manufacturers and distributors of brand-name and generic

opioid products in Canada.

The legal action commenced alleges that the pharmaceutical companies

responsible for marketing and distributing opioid products caused a

spike in addiction rates, including by marketing their products in a way

designed to increase demand while knowing of the addictive and harmful

nature of them.

The legal action seeks the recovery of health care costs incurred as a

consequence of those companies’ actions to market, promote and sell

opioid products as less addictive, less subject to abuse and diversion

and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other pain

medications.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

In many respects, the action that has been commenced against opioid

manufacturers is similar to the action this government took to seek

recovery of health care costs from tobacco companies in 1997. That

action, too, sought to make large, corporate entities accountable for

the devastating effects of their harmful products.

[1:35 p.m.]

Tobacco-related illnesses and disease costs the health system and

taxpayers many millions of dollars every year. Government took steps

then to ensure that tobacco companies would be forced to take

responsibility for the health care costs of tobacco-related illnesses.

The Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, as it was then titled, and is now, was

introduced in an effort to give the government and individuals the legal

authority to proceed to courts to collect hospital, medical and other

prescribed costs resulting from tobacco-related cancer, heart disease

and stroke related to tobacco consumption.

Subsequent amendments made to the legislation strengthened

government’s ability to seek accountability. That legislation

established a statutory tort of a tobacco-related wrong. That act was

novel in establishing that statistical or epidemiological evidence could

be introduced to establish damages.

As well, that act established provisions whereby liability could be

based on risk contribution. It meant that government or individuals

involved in court actions against tobacco companies did not have to

prove that each individual manufacturer of a particular brand of product

caused the harm, but rather, it was necessary only to provide that

cigarettes generally cause harm.

The original tobacco legislation was amended and strengthened with

provisions to shift the burden of proof in relation to certain aspects

of causation by requiring tobacco companies to prove that any breach of

duty on their part did not contribute to exposure to tobacco products

and resulting tobacco-related disease. That was appropriate when the

industry continued to maintain that nicotine is not addictive, that

smoking was a matter of free choice and that they did not use deceptive

practices to encourage people to smoke.

The legislation was tested repeatedly in the courts. And while it was

found to be extraterritorial in its reach, the underlying principles of

the act were found to be constitutionally sound. Those principles

include: the province’s entitlement to make a claim for recovery of

health care costs from companies, the province’s right to pursue claims

on an aggregate basis, the onus of proof being on the tobacco industry

on issues of causation, the apportionment of liability among companies

on the basis of market share, and establishing a mechanism for

disclosure of health care information while ensuring privacy of

individual insured persons.

As I indicated on August 29, government is introducing this

legislation to allow government to proceed in its litigation with opioid

manufacturers and wholesalers on a similar basis to that in the tobacco

case, which has been governed by rules set out in the Tobacco Damages

and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, as it is now known. Like the

existing Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, this bill

will establish the new statutory tort of an opioid-related wrong and

establish that government has a direct cause of action to recover the

health care costs, the cost of health care benefits, from those who have

committed an opioid-related wrong as defined.

Recovery is permitted in respect of opioid-related disease, injury or

illness. The bill will permit government to proceed by way of an

aggregate action, which does not require government to meet the burden

to establish the extent and magnitude of damages suffered by each

insured person individually. It will not be necessary to identify

particular individuals or to prove the cause of opioid-related disease,

injury or illness for any particular individual. Evidence will not be

required to be presented by government on an individual

basis.

This bill will allow government to accurately prove its claim, relying

on population-based evidence, and enable litigation to proceed as

efficiently as possible while preserving fairness. Recovery on an

aggregate basis will be facilitated by establishing presumptions with

respect to use and causation and shifting the burden to the defendants

to prove their activities did not increase use and their products did

not cause harm.

The act will allow statistical information derived from

epidemiological, sociological and other relevant studies to be

admissible to establish causation and quantify damages.

If actions for opioid-related wrongs are not commenced on an aggregate

basis, the bill provides that manufacturers who committed wrongs may be

held liable in proportion to the degree to which they contributed to the

risk. The class action that has been commenced will be continued under

this act, and this act will serve to extend the procedural rules

included within it to the action in progress.

M. Lee: I rise today to speak to the legislation at hand, Bill 38, the Opioid

Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. This legislation comes on

the heels of a lawsuit launched by the provincial government against

several dozen opioid manufacturers, as the Attorney General just

indicated, and follows several similar lawsuits in the United

States.

[1:40 p.m.]

I understand that this legislation and the lawsuit have taken a great

deal of inspiration from the previous lawsuit and related legislation

against tobacco companies, with the legislation that was put in place in

the early 2000 period. And that tobacco litigation, of course, is still

ongoing, regrettably, for close to two decades. I do further understand

that there has been some success on the legal action approach in the

United States with Purdue pharmaceuticals pleading guilty and paying

over $600 million in penalties.

Although, as the Attorney General has said, it may be even years, if

not decades, before any semblance of a settlement would be achieved from

a lawsuit against opioid manufacturers. I think we are all in agreement

with the members opposite when I say we support any initiative that

saves lives and holds those who might be responsible for creating this

devastating epidemic to account for their actions. The opioid crisis

continues to rage in our province and across North America. The focal

point of this crisis is centred in my own community and that of the

Attorney General’s, being Vancouver.

According to the B.C. Coroners Service, the Vancouver Coastal Health

Authority has the highest rate of illicit drug overdose deaths in the

province, with 36 deaths per 100,000 individuals, which is 20 percent

higher than the provincial rate of 30 deaths per 100,000

individuals.

The opioid crisis continues to claim lives at roughly four people per

day, and the rate of death in 2018 is equal to that of 2017. In fact,

July 2018 was one of the worst months on record with a staggering 130

overdoses on July 27 alone, but was surpassed by March 2018, which was

the worst in British Columbia’s history.

With that said, the peak of our overdose crisis was just a mere six

months ago. That is why we need a comprehensive treatment and recovery

strategy from this government to relieve the crisis. The nationwide

strategy essentially pioneered here in B.C. involves the four pillars —

harm reduction, treatment, enforcement and prevention. We also need to

take heed of what action other jurisdictions have taken and what other

models exist. We need to address this crisis now, and we need to ensure

that proper treatment and recovery options are available.

The government’s current strategy is focused on harm reduction, which

is a key component, but we need to continue to address the other three

pillars if we are to actually alleviate and effectively mitigate and

eliminate this crisis.

Hon. J. Darcy: I rise in support of this very important piece of legislation. We are

living through the worst public health emergency in this province in

decades. Before this day is done, tragically, three to four more people

will likely die.

I have in the course of the last 14 months as the Minister of Mental

Health and Addictions met with countless families who have lost loved

ones in this crisis and met with people working on the front lines of

this overdose crisis. And when I have met with them — all of them — in

all corners of this province, I have committed to do everything in my

power to save lives in this overdose crisis, to turn the tide on this

terrible crisis, to connect people with treatment and recovery as soon

as possible and, also, to do everything in my power to prevent crises

like this from ever happening again.

This legislation is part of that commitment, especially to ensuring

that crises like this never happen again by holding those pharmaceutical

manufacturers and distributors responsible for the part that they have

played and the role that they have played in this crisis.

The fact is that opioid manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers

put profits ahead of people, and the results have been devastating. They

misled physicians and the public regarding the risks and dangers of

their drugs, and they earned billions as a result.

[1:45 p.m.]

Here’s just one example. An advertisement that ran just a few years

ago that featured a very fit-looking jogger with a tag line — and this

is an ad about OxyContin — that said: “One to start and stay with.”

Another ad, again about OxyContin: “When you know acetaminophen will not

be enough, take the next step in pain relief.”

These pharmaceutical manufacturers knew the dangers, and they took

direct action to refute what they knew to be true, saying: “No, no,

these are less addictive than other drugs. There is no risk of using

them. In fact, use more of them.”

If there was any question that they knew the dangers and the risks, we

have only to look at settlements in the United States, statements of

claim, statements that were agreed to as part of settling lawsuits in

the United States. On May 10, 2007, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the

Western District of Virginia announced that Purdue, one of the principal

companies involved here, was pleading guilty to misleading marketing in

the United States.

In that one state alone, Purdue paid $600 million in criminal and

civil settlements. Three executives pleaded guilty as individuals to the

criminal misbranding and were fined $34.5 million. As part of the plea

agreement, an agreed statement of facts was issued and signed by Purdue

executives. The agreed statement of fact states that: “Purdue

supervisors and employees, with the intent to defraud or mislead,

marketed and promoted OxyContin as less addictive, less subject to abuse

and diversion and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than

other pain medications.” So they knowingly continued to market OxyContin

and other opioid variations when they knew full well about its addictive

qualities.

Since I was appointed Minister of Mental Health and Addictions 14

months ago, my top priority has been to do everything we possibly can as

a government to turn the tide on this terrible crisis and to connect

people to treatment and recovery as soon as possible. The scope of this

crisis is enormous. We are facing the poisoning of the unpredictable

toxic drug supply. The drug supply on the streets is becoming more

lethal every week, and this crisis is quickly going global. That is why

we continue to take bold and innovative action as a government. We are

escalating our response every month, every week, every single day, to

save lives and to connect people to treatment and recovery as soon as

possible.

Over the past year, we have moved forward aggressively on many

different fronts. We’ve dramatically increased the availability of

naloxone, which is now available at over 1,400 locations. Almost 28,000

kits have been used to reverse overdoses. We’ve nearly doubled the

number of overdose prevention sites and safe consumption sites. There

have been 856,000 visits, over 2,000 overdoses reversed and not a single

death. We’ve more than doubled the number of new people who are

receiving opioid substitution therapy and increased the number of

prescribers.

We’ve signed an agreement with the federal government with emergency

funding in order to find new and innovative ways to connect people to

treatment and recovery services when they need them, where they need

them. We’ve launched an overdose emergency response centre to

provincially coordinate the response as well as community action teams

in 20 communities across the province. We’ve expanded drug checking to

make sure that fentanyl test strips are available at all overdose

prevention sites across the province.

We’re working in very close partnership with Indigenous communities

and have invested over $20 million over the next three years in

partnership with the First Nations Health Authority, and we’ve expanded

post-overdose care in First Nations communities as well. And we’re

working very closely with first responders and also with police so that

they can, after a person’s life has been saved, act quickly to connect

people to social supports as well as treatment and recovery

options.

[1:50 p.m.]

We’ve also invested in preventive care through support for Foundry

centres, one-stop shops right across the province with wraparound

services. That is very much about one of the key pillars of our

strategy, and that is prevention. We’ve opened five new locations, four

more to come. Those are very much about ensuring that young people who

come in the door who are at risk because of addiction issues, because of

mental health issues, are able to connect with treatment services,

support services and counselling as soon as they walk in the

door.

Also, innovative resources like St. Paul’s HUB in Vancouver, the first

of its kind in Canada. It is about not just providing overdose

prevention services but also emergency care, short-term stay and

immediate referral to counselling and support services and social

supports in the community.

As far as another pillar of our approach, which the member opposite

referred to…. When he said that we’re really only pursuing harm

reduction, a harm reduction approach, that is simply not the case. We

have allocated money, as well, out of our commitment last September of

$322 million. There were significant new resources that were allocated

to the Minister of Public Safety so that they could work closely with

the RCMP and the federal government on strategies to reduce the import

of fentanyl into our communities.

We have also, as a government, done something the previous government

refused to do. That was to enact pill press legislation to ensure that

the only people in the province of British Columbia who can legally use

pill presses are those who are authorized legally to produce

pharmaceuticals.

In addition to what we’re working on as far as prevention — and you’ll

hear more about that in the months to come, about child and youth mental

health and investing in our schools in order to improve supports for

children and youth at an early age before mild and moderate mental

health issues turn into more severe issues and into addiction issues —

we are also taking the first steps now, after 16 years of neglect of our

system for mental health and addictions in this province. We are taking

bold steps forward to improve our system for treatment and recovery as

we speak.

That means expanding a wide range of treatment and recovery options so

that people can find the supports they need where and when they need

them. We have already announced that we will be opening a therapeutic

recovery community in the south Island in order to ensure that people

who are suffering from long-term addictions are able to live and work

and thrive in a community where they’re able to get the kind of support

they need to be able to become fully productive members of our society

when they leave that therapeutic recovery community.

We have purchased Woodwynn Farms in order to support the therapeutic

recovery needs of people throughout the south Island. We’ve increased

the number of recovery beds, intensive beds, in the Comox Valley. There

is a new youth treatment facility on the way in Chilliwack. We’ve more

than doubled the number of people living with opioid addiction who are

now receiving opioid substitution therapy, and we’ve significantly

increased the number of prescribers who are able to prescribe that form

of treatment.

Certainly the folks that gathered in my community of New Westminster

to celebrate Recovery Day just a few weeks ago — close to 20,000 people

celebrating recovery in the streets — were very, very excited that for

the first time in British Columbia, the government of British Columbia

was supporting Recovery Day activities, not just in New Westminster but

also across the province.

When the members of the opposition say that we have a single-minded

focus on harm reduction, we do not apologize for one second that we are

focused on saving lives. There is no pathway to hope unless people are

alive. But we are absolutely investing also in treatment and recovery

and also in prevention as well as in doing everything in our power to

interdict the drugs, the fentanyl that is coming into our

province.

I am pleased to see…. I wasn’t 100 percent clear when the member

opposite spoke. He said in very general terms: happy to support any

legislation, anything that makes a difference in this. I hope that means

that the members of the opposition will be supporting this legislation.

Those are certainly not the indications that we’ve received over the

last few weeks.

[1:55 p.m.]

When the Attorney General and I announced this legislation — the

lawsuit and the plan to introduce this legislation — just a few weeks

ago, what we heard from the opposition, frankly, was fearmongering. They

engaged in fearmongering.

They claimed to be concerned that this legislation and the legal

action that the Attorney General is taking would limit our response to

the overdose crisis, creating fears that resources would be misdirected.

So let me be very, very clear, and let there be no misunderstanding on

this score. There will be no resources and no funding taken away from

our efforts to combat the overdose crisis in order to pay for this

lawsuit — not a single penny. Our commitment remains as strong as it has

ever been, and we will continue to commit the resources necessary until

we have turned the corner on this terrible crisis.

We do have to wonder, though, why it is that the Leader of the

Official Opposition and the spokesperson on mental health and addictions

for the official opposition were so strong in their critique of our

government taking this legal action and introducing this legislation.

Frankly, British Columbians have certainly asked me — I have no doubt

that they’ve asked members of the opposition — why it is we have the

opposition party as well as the leader of the opposition siding with

opioid producers, pharmaceutical companies, instead of siding with the

people and families across British Columbia who are suffering, who have

suffered and continue to suffer from this crisis.

Again, I’ll be very, very pleased if the opposition has changed its

position on this, but the early indications were that the opposition did

not believe that we should be doing this and holding pharmaceutical

companies accountable.

Perhaps it’s the opposition leader’s past with big tobacco that

explains why he isn’t standing with us, or has not up until now, when it

comes to these opioid manufacturers and distributors and opposing the

devastating impact that their marketing practices have had on British

Columbia.

Last month, as I said, when we held a press conference and announced

this action, the B.C. Liberals attacked the government, claiming this

lawsuit was overly simplistic and will not save lives and that this

action put too much attention on opioid companies. Well, frankly, that’s

the point — to put attention on opioid manufacturers and distributors

whose actions did play a role in creating this crisis.

Perhaps it’s not a surprise when we dig a little deeper and we find

out that the opposition leader was part of the legal team representing

Philip Morris against the B.C. government in 2011. Big tobacco continues

to pursue B.C. for health care costs related to false

advertising.

In the past, the B.C. Liberals have accepted hundreds of thousands of

dollars in donations from opioid companies. So we do have to wonder —

again, very, very pleased if the official opposition has changed its

tune — whether those earlier statements and statements repeated as

recently as yesterday have anything to do with the opposition leader’s

record when it comes to defending big tobacco.

While the opposition has certainly equivocated at best, certainly,

British Columbians are of very, very singular mind when it comes to

supporting this legislation. We have heard from drug policy experts —

Alan Cassels, for instance, a pharmaceutical policy researcher, an

adjunct professor at UVic and also the communications director of UBC’s

therapeutics initiative, a world-renowned organization that provides

independent advice on pharmaceuticals. He has said: “We’re glad to see

British Columbia taking the lead on seeking justice for the opioid

crisis. There have been huge costs to our health care system just by the

sheer medical activity around saving people from overdoses. The impact

has been staggering, and the cost to the health care system as

well.”

[2:00 p.m.]

We have also heard parents who have lost their children to overdose

speaking out in support of the actions our government is taking. “It’s a

long time coming. Certainly these drug companies need to be held

accountable. They’ve deluded the public for so long.” That’s a quote

from Rachel Staples, the mother of Elliot Eurchuk, who died tragically

last year.

Leslie McBain, the mother of Jordan Miller — who, again, died

tragically of overdose — was quoted a few weeks ago as saying: “The

awareness factor is invaluable. All Canadians will understand there is

fault. Big pharma was criminal, really, in the way they marketed their

products.” Brock Eurchuk, Elliot Eurchuk’s father, says: “Today’s action

is a step in the right direction. It’s long overdue, but better late

than never.”

I am very proud to stand in support of the legislation introduced

today by the Attorney General. As I’ve said at the outset, our

government is escalating action every single day to save lives. We’re

also acting to connect people to treatment and recovery, and we are

moving as quickly as possible to repair the damage of 16 years of

neglect and build a better system for mental health and addictions

care.

We have given our word as a government that we will do everything in

our power to address the damage that opioids have done to people’s lives

in British Columbia. That’s why one of the many important actions that

we’re taking — but a very important action that we’re taking — is legal

action against more than 40 opioid distributors and manufacturers. These

companies made, distributed and sold opioid pharmaceuticals with

marketing that misled doctors and patients about their benefits and

risks, and they continued to do so long, long after the risks were

known. They profited from practices that helped to create this crisis,

and it is high time that they were held accountable. It’s time that they

were told that they should put people before profits.

We know that this legal action, this legislation, will not bring

people back. No amount of money will do that, but enacting this

legislation is the right thing to do, and I’m very honoured to stand in

support of this legislation.

S. Furstenau: I’m grateful for the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill 38, Opioid

Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. This is an important piece

of legislation. I’m glad it is before the House for debate. As

provincial leaders, we need to work together to reduce harm and stigma,

address the root causes of the crisis, and support people struggling

with mental health and addiction.

The ability to recovery costs would be an important advancement. It is

vital as we move forward, however, that we carry the weight of every

life lost and the struggle of every British Columbian still fighting the

opioid crisis. We need to do this for them, and if the province is

successful in its legal challenge — and I hope we are — the financial

remuneration should go directly to helping the most vulnerable and

helping those impacted by the opioid crisis.

Following on the important points raised by the member for

Vancouver-Langara and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, I’d

like to speak to the report released last week from the Ministry of

Public Safety and Solicitor General’s office, called Illicit Drug

Overdose Deaths in B.C. — findings of the coroner’s

investigation . This report provides more heartbreaking

context to this crisis that we are in. It states: “In recent years, a

significant increase in drug-related deaths has affected families and

communities across Canada. In British Columbia, unintentional illicit

drug overdose deaths increased from 211 in 2010 to an estimated 1,450 in

2017.”

More than 3,400 people have died of illicit drug overdoses in B.C.

since January 1, 2016. The coroner’s report summarized the data from

illicit drug overdose deaths occurring in British Columbia between 2016

and 2017. It identifies differences and commonalities among people who

have died of illicit drug overdoses, as well as the circumstances

surrounding those deaths.

I’d like to dedicate my time today to those findings and the people

behind them: 81 percent of those who died were male, 65 percent had

never been married, and an additional 18 percent were separated or

divorced. Most of them were in their 30s or 40s. The majority of people

lived and overdosed in private residences.

[2:05 p.m.]

And 13 percent of people in the study cohort were living in social or

supportive or single-room-occupancy housing; 9 percent were homeless; 44

percent were employed at the time of their death. Of those, 55 percent

were employed in the trades and the transport industry. And 79 percent

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

services in the year preceding their deaths, and over half of those

people, 56 percent, had contacts for pain-related issues.

More than half of the cohort were reported to have had a clinical

diagnosis or anecdotal evidence of a mental health disorder. More than

three-quarters of people were reported to have been regular or chronic

users of illicit drugs. The most frequently detected substances

included: fentanyl, 76 percent of deaths; cocaine, 51 percent; alcohol,

37 percent; and methamphetamine and amphetamines at 33

percent.

Illicit fentanyl was detected in a higher percentage of deaths among

15- to 29-year-olds compared with 30- to 49-year-olds and

50-plus-year-olds. The majority of the people had used their drugs

alone. This was true across all health authorities, health service

delivery areas and age groups. Even if they lived with others, they were

alone at the time of their consumption and death.

As Andrea Woo summarized in the Globe and Mail : “They are

mostly single men in their 30s and 40s, what otherwise could have been

the prime of their lives. About half lived with mental health issues;

about the same with physical pain. Half of them were employed, many

working in the trades, and when they overdosed and died, they were at

home, alone. Fentanyl was in their systems.”

While we can’t draw causational conclusions from this information, it

is clear that our province is unwell. It is clear that young men in

B.C., especially those who work in trades, are facing challenges. Can we

support them better? Is there something about trades in particular that

puts them at risk? Is our economy building healthy communities? Or is it

separating people? Is it causing pain, loneliness, making it harder for

people to make connections, maintain relationships and grow

families?

This spring the Guardian in England published an

article

titled “Many of My Childhood Friends Are Dead,” by Patrick

Blennerhassett. The U.K. publication was writing about Kamloops, B.C.

I’d like to read some of that

article to the House and into the

record.

“Our fathers were lunchpail baby boomers,” Blennerhassett writes,

“rigid backbones of the postwar world. Nobody asked them about their

feelings because they were too busy working. But by the time my

generation sprouted up, there was a new cultural and societal landscape:

less stable employment, more job competition and none of the positive

coping mechanisms to face the world.”

We learned “the traditional masculine characteristics of our fathers

and other men in cities across rural Canada: ill-equipped to handle, let

alone display, emotion; unable to properly cope with psychological

stress; and prone to view any form of vulnerability as weakness.

Stoicism and anger were the primary emotions — great when facing death

or danger but crippling in everyday life; excellent on the hockey rink

but useless for navigating the rest of the 21st century.”

Blennerhassett continues in his article:

“A recent study published in the Canadian Journal of

Psychiatry titled ‘Critical Issues in Men’s Mental Health’

outlines the ‘male depressive syndrome.’ Diagnosis is tough. Men won’t

report depression nearly as much as women, but they will lash out in

anger, abuse drugs and alcohol and take life-threatening risks.

“Most Canadian men, the study says, use ‘negative coping mechanisms’

to deal with their problems, which invariably makes them worse and can

lead to substance abuse, depression and ultimately suicide.

“Jeff Conners, a Kamloops-based counsellor who focuses on men’s

mental health, said men come into his office regularly with no road map

for how to talk about their struggles. Job losses are huge triggers for

depression and drug and alcohol abuse, and Jeff’s clients are weighed

down with countless mental health issues and abusive

dependencies.

“He said the important thing is to make sure the push to get guys to

address their feelings isn’t cast as a war against the other sex. He

noted 80 percent of men in Canada want to become fathers and are at risk

of passing on negative archetypes of masculinity down to their

sons.

[2:10 p.m.]

“‘I’ve seen this as an allied approach. We need to do this with

women,’ he said. ‘This isn’t men against women. One of the first things

I did when I started focusing on men’s mental health issues is I went to

the women’s resource centre, and I said: “Look, I’m not against you.

This isn’t ‘men’s rights.’ I just want healthy men, I want healthy kids,

and I want healthy communities.”’

“Conners’s suggested solution is simple: start more conversations.

Force men’s mental health issues out from under the rocks and into the

sunlight. Get guys talking to each other, their spouses, friends and

family, anyone.

“One night I had beers with friends,” writes Blennerhassett in his

article. “Each of us around the table knew at least a dozen guys we’d

lost over the years — to suicide, drug overdoses, workplace disasters

and car accidents…. Compiling the names of the deceased felt like a

never-ending search, and we felt like surviving soldiers of some grim,

randomized war.”

Circling back to Bill 38, the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs

Recovery Act, I agree with Minister Eby that the lawsuit is an important

step to address “corporate corruption and negligence” associated with

the opioid crisis. I also agree with the logistical necessity of trying

this case as a class action, and I feel hopeful it will build on the

success of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery

Act.

That said, as we debate the bill through the House, I hope we will

also keep the larger picture in mind. That picture includes thousands of

wonderful British Columbians already lost and countless others at

risk.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to stand up and speak in favour of the Opioid Damages

and Health Care Costs Recovery Act today. This is one of those topics

where, whenever it comes up, I think everyone has a story — whether it’s

a constituent, a neighbour or someone they know that’s been affected by

this crisis that we’re facing in this province.

I just want to share briefly. A few weeks into me deciding that I was

going to get into politics and knocking on doors, I knocked on a door of

a house two blocks away from my house. Every time I drive by, I still

think of this person. I knocked on the door, and I said to them: “Hi, my

name is Ravi Kahlon.” I told them what I was doing. The guy said: “I’ve

been waiting for you. Please come in.”

It was probably the scariest response I’ve ever had from anyone. At

first, I was thinking maybe I shouldn’t go in and should talk at the

door. But this man was being, I felt, genuine. He invited me in, sat me

down at his table and began to tell me about how his son had got into a

bad car accident — a motorbike accident, actually — and was struggling

with pain and was prescribed medication. From that, he got addicted and

started using street drugs.

He started to tell me how painful it was, as a parent, to not know

where your child is for three, four weeks at a time, having to drive

random streets to try to find the child and having them come home and

not knowing if they’re going to stay or not. It was, as a new candidate,

not something I was expecting and, quite frankly, was very emotionally

difficult to hear.

When I heard the Attorney General and the Minister of Mental Health

and Addictions come forward and say that we’re going to pursue

litigation against companies that knowingly marketed themselves….

Knowing that they were putting out a product that had addictive traits,

knowing that the people that were taking the drugs were getting addicted

to it and still marketing it as if it wasn’t, not disclosing it,

speaking and marketing to doctors and getting them to push this drug out

to people knowing that it had long-term implications is just wrong. I’m

so pleased that we’re taking this action.

It’s not the only action. There are, obviously, lots of things

happening. We have a new ministry dedicated to mental health and

addiction, which, I think, is a fantastic start — $322 million,

additional, being spent to take action. There are lots of things

happening.

What really triggered me was when I heard the Leader of the Opposition

say things like overly simplistic, will not save lives and too much

attention being paid on opioid companies. It really upset me.

[2:15 p.m.]

I think the Minister of Mental Health said…. In 2011, the Leader of

the Opposition was on legal counsel for a big tobacco company, Philip

Morris, against the province. I understand that at that time, he was

working for that company. He was being paid by them. But guess what.

We’re being paid by the people of British Columbia, so we should be

unanimous in this moving forward. I hope that the member for

Vancouver-Langara was the voice of reason and shared with the Leader of

the Opposition that this is important, that we all should be part of

this moving forward. That one story I heard can be multiplied by

thousands.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has been hearing that as

she travels throughout this province. Some have said: “You know what?

This case will be in court forever. It’ll be in court for weeks, months,

years. Who knows how long it will go?” Well, one of the companies that

the lawsuit is against has already admitted that they’re wrong. They’ve

admitted in other jurisdictions that they’ve made this calculated move

and are paying the price for it. So I think that it’s important for us

to ensure that we hold them accountable in this jurisdiction.

If it was an individual that was selling drugs or doing things, we

would all be a unanimous voice to go after them, and here is a company

doing that. I think it’s prudent for us to take action, so I’m grateful

to the Attorney General for making this move. It will bring attention to

these companies. It will bring attention to what they’re doing. I’m also

hoping that beyond the court case, when people take these drugs in

future, when people have loved ones who are prescribed these, they have

that sense of caution, knowing that there are challenges with this and

that there are long-term effects to it.

I don’t want to speak too much longer on this, but I did want to have

a chance to get up and say a few things. I really want to commend the

Minister of Mental Health and Addictions on the work she’s doing. I know

there was work done before by previous Health Ministers. This is not a

partisan issue in that sense. Everybody in this House believes that we

need to be doing more, always need to be doing more. But I want to

commend her on her work.

We had a round table in my community where we brought people in. Some

were people that worked in the social sector, some people had lived

experiences themselves with addiction, and some came just because they

wrote to me and said: “Hey, this is the challenge I have with my child

or loved one.” So we invited them all in. It was scheduled for one hour,

and the minister spent two hours plus in that room listening to people,

listening to their concerns. This came up over and over again. People

said: “When are we going to take action against these companies? Enough

is enough.”

I’m grateful that she took that advice. I’m grateful to the Attorney

General for taking this step. I’m actually grateful to hear from the

member for Vancouver-Langara that all members of this House will be

supporting this going forward. I think it sends a good message to people

of our province that we work for you. We don’t work for donors. We don’t

work for anyone else.

With that, I’ll leave that there and look forward to hearing more

support from the opposition.

N. Simons: I appreciate the comments of all the speakers who’ve spoken on this

topic. I’ll be adding my comments on Bill 38, Opioid Damages and Health

Care Costs Recovery Act.

When I first knew that we were going to be debating this today, I had

no inclination that it wouldn’t receive unanimous support, that there

was any doubt about it. It didn’t even cross my mind. I can’t think of

any reason why anyone wouldn’t support a bill that holds a company to

account for the damages it has caused to our society. Any suggestion

that this wouldn’t be unanimously supported in this House caused me a

little bit of consternation. During the words of the member for

Vancouver-Langara, I was somewhat reassured that, in fact, they will be

supporting this legislation, and I’m presuming that to be the

case.

[2:20 p.m.]

With that in mind, I’m pleased to be able to say that we as a

legislative body agree that one of our primary responsibilities is to

ensure that we protect the public not just against future harm but

against the concept that people can get away with a practice that

misleads the public. Here we’re talking about the manufacturers of drugs

that have incredibly negative effects on people when their addictive

characteristics are present.

In British Columbia, thousands of people have died. In every single

province across this country, people have died. We talk about the

numbers of deaths. We talk about the number of overdoses.

Sometimes we don’t talk about the families of those individuals who

are suffering, the families of the individuals who suffered, perhaps,

from an injury and pain and a drug treatment program that may have gone

bad. We don’t talk about the brothers and the sisters of the men and

women who’ve suffered or have died of overdose. In my community of

Powell River, on the Sunshine Coast, we had the highest per-capita rate

of overdose deaths. That, in my community of 12,000, is

significant.

We, as a legislative body, have a responsibility to deter future

prospects of pharmaceutical companies trying to get away with this

again. That’s why we have to do this. We have to not only make sure that

we raise awareness about the costs to our society and calculate the

damages that have cost us personally, communally, financially, through

the health care system, the emergency health care system, the criminal

justice system — unequipped or ill-equipped to deal with people with

addiction problems and mental health issues….

We have to think about the bigger picture — that if we don’t hold

these companies to account, who will? It’s our responsibility, because

it’s within our authority, not just legally but morally. I’m really

pleased that our government is proposing legislation that will make our

prospect of succeeding against these pharmaceutical companies more

successful and more efficient, faster.

Ultimately, what this legislation will do is allow the province to

present a case based on the aggregate data, the aggregate health care

information. We don’t have to go to every single person’s medical file

to determine what the cost was in their particular case, their cost was

to the justice system or to our social support network or the health

care system. We can look at the data in a broad way at the macro

level.

It also allows us to do so without unduly interfering with the privacy

of those individuals. The aggregate data will protect the privacy of

those whose information is held by medical services.

It will allow us to estimate the culpability of each manufacturer

based on their market share, based on what they have put into the

system. We’re talking about companies, corporations, that knowingly

misled or encouraged the public to use a drug that they knew would be

addictive. That would be considered a heinous crime.

The fact that our government is taking steps to remedy this is

necessary, and I would only expect that we would have unanimous support

for this. I understand that, in opposition, when an announcement is made

by government, it’s not always easy to find something to be critical of.

When this announcement was made in late August, the criticism was that

this wouldn’t solve the problem.

[2:25 p.m.]

But nobody said it would. Nobody said we were going to solve the

problem with this legal action. Nobody said we were going to solve the

problem at all. What we did commit to, and we committed to as

legislators here, was to contribute the necessary funds to try to get a

grip on the problem. There’s no easy answer. A clean drug supply,

obviously, but we’re not there yet. We haven’t figured it out. People

are still dying. Fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, are

dying.

We need to raise more awareness. We need to reduce the stigma. We need

to ensure that people who need prescriptions in order to get the supply,

get it. We need to increase our treatment programs. We need to make sure

our kids are resilient in school as they grow up, that they have proper

nutrition, that they have proper education and proper care.

Our government is taking extremely bold steps in those directions.

We’re trying to make sure that those who need child care get child care

and that they don’t have to spend more on their child care than on their

mortgage, already exorbitantly high.

We’re investing in communities in ways that will ultimately, I hope,

result in stronger, more resilient young people as they grow up —

happier and good, contributing citizens. That’s what we all hope for in

our community.

Harm reduction is part of that. Harm reduction is a necessary part of

that. It is not condoning of behaviour, as it’s often criticized for

being. It is not.

We all say that we support people who are in addiction and that it’s

their addiction that’s the problem, not them. We need to continue with

that philosophy. We need to realize that these people who are suffering

all come from different places, with all of their own experiences that

lead them to where they are. It’s not for us to judge.

It’s healthy for our society to be looking after this issue. It’s

important for us to recognize that as a society, we care about the

people who we may not even know. We care about the people because it’s

helpful for our community to remain cohesive. So we put the necessary

resources towards addressing a problem that we may not be intimately

familiar with, but we do it because we know our society benefits from

that.

Here we are as a government — in addition to the prevention, in

addition to the treatment, in addition to the harm reduction and to the

new ways of trying to reduce the harshest impact of this crisis — also

saying: “Don’t let this happen again.” We’re also saying to the

companies that think they can come in here and get away with causing

irreparable harm to our citizens: “We’ll hold you to account, and we’ll

pass laws that will make it easier for us to hold you to account. You

may have more money than us, but we represent the people.”

I think that our government is taking an important step to make sure

that our legal foundation is strong, and we can achieve the result we

need to achieve with this legislation.

M. Dean: Thank you for the opportunity to talk to this legislation, the Opioid

Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

This bill supports litigation launched in August 2018 against opioid

manufacturers and distributors aimed at recovering health care costs

related to their alleged wrongdoing. We believe that opioid

manufacturers and distributors deceptively marketed their products, and

as a result, the province has incurred significant costs.

As you’ve heard from my colleagues earlier on, there are a whole range

of costs associated with that. It’s not just the costs of

hospitalization, for example. It’s also the cost of chronic health

conditions that people have had arising from their addiction to opioids

and overdependency on opioids.

[2:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

So the province is starting legal action against pharmaceutical

companies to recover those health care costs. It’s alleged that the

pharmaceutical companies responsible for manufacturing and distributing

opioid products actually caused a spike in addiction rates, including by

marketing their products in a way designed to increase demand while

knowing of the addictive and harmful nature of them. The province of

British Columbia has incurred — and we continue to incur as well —

significant health care costs as a result.

On August 29, 2018, the government commenced an action under the Class

Proceedings Act against more than 40 manufacturers, framed as a means to

recover health care costs incurred as a result of their alleged

wrongdoing. To support the litigation, government also announced its

intention to introduce tobacco-style legislation for this fall session —

this bill — and that’s what we’re going to be discussing now.

This bill will allow the province to prove its claim against opioid

manufacturers and distributors in a more efficient way. The bill is

modelled closely on the existing Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs

Recovery Act. The bill establishes the statutory tort of an

opioid-related wrong, allowing recovery for opioid-related disease,

injury or illness.

Instead of bringing forward each individual expense record for British

Columbians to quantify overall expenses, the legislation will allow

government expenditures to be proven by reference to population, based

on evidence, statistical data and budget information, to get a

big-picture view of the health care costs.

This action is another step in our continued effort to take action in

response to the profound impact that the overdose crisis has had on

communities across B.C. We have a duty, we have a responsibility, to

hold these companies to account in view of the devastating impact which

has resulted from their deceptive marketing and distribution

practices.

I can tell you about a couple who live in my community. They lost

their adult daughter to an overdose. She’d struggled intermittently with

drugs, with addiction, with homelessness, probably for about 20 years.

Her family had supported her. They’d been there for her unconditionally,

but even they couldn’t provide all the supports that professional

services might be able to offer, yet she reached a position of

stability. She was engaged in some theatre activities. She was planning

forward. She was making plans for her own future.

However, she died from a fatal overdose, and as her parents say, she

should not have had to die alone. As we know, in fact, many overdose

victims die alone. The majority are men. In just July this year, we lost

134 lives to illegal overdoses, and I know everybody here sympathizes

with — and our hearts are broken for — families throughout B.C. who are

grieving the loss of loved ones.

What these numbers show us is that B.C. is still dealing with an

unpredictable and toxic illegal drug supply. The overdose crisis

continues to be a top priority for our government, and we are working

every day to increase our response and to continue saving

lives.

Even in 2017, over 186 women in B.C. lost their lives due to

unintentional overdose. They represented one in five who died but one in

three of patients seen in emergency departments for overdose. So we

still need to continue to improve our understanding, and our response to

the patterns and trends that we observe needs to continue to

improve.

[2:35 p.m.]

Every day we are working to build a better, more coordinated system of

mental health and addictions care to support the needs of all British

Columbians. We created the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, and

government invested $322 million over three years to support the

ministry-led coordinated response to this overdose crisis.

These actions are spearheaded by the new overdose emergency response

centre and are focused on saving lives, ending stigma, building

treatment and recovery networks, creating a supportive environment,

advancing prevention and improving public safety.

In my constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin, we will actually have a

dedicated place for therapeutic recovery for between 50 and 100 men

opening very soon. We recognize that those at the greatest risk of

overdose are people who are using drugs indoors, in private residences —

men aged 30 to 59 in particular. We are working to knock down the walls

of silence and stigma so that people aren’t afraid to talk about drug

use and addiction and to encourage those who are silently struggling to

feel safe to ask for help.

While it might seem that there are clear linkages between this

litigation and the current overdose public health emergency, today’s

action is about those deceptive marketing practices. We’re saying that

the practices used by opioid companies to market their products were

deceptive to doctors and patients, and this had consequences for

people’s health, including the negative impact of increased demand and

which could have included overdose. So we’re not saying this is the sole

cause of the crisis, but we’re saying it’s implicated within

it.

We’re actually tackling this crisis in lots of different ways. We’re

starting legal action against pharmaceutical companies to recover health

care costs resulting from this deceptive marketing. The claim is that

opioid manufacturers marketed their products to increase demand without

regard for the consequences of taking those drugs.

Think about how many vulnerable British Columbians have suffered, have

been taken advantage of and had their lives affected for a very long

time. For example, 40 percent of perinatal women in B.C. saw a doctor

for their mental health, and of those, 12 percent received depression

services. What a time of vulnerability. Can you imagine for those

British Columbian women to actually have been deceived in that

situation?

This statement of claim asserts that opioid manufacturers and

distributors knowingly and directly undertook deceptive production,

marketing and distribution practices that caused the government of

British Columbia to incur significant health care costs.

We’re in the process of quantifying the financial impact, including

unnecessary health care costs to B.C. health care plans. The total

amount has yet to be determined, but the costs will include things like

the treatment of problematic use and addiction, the cost of emergency

services in response to overdose events, the cost of hospital treatment,

and it goes on and on.

I know how expensive and pervasive these costs are. I ran a

community-based social service agency. We offered the only local

substance use treatment services for the whole of the community, and we

were overstretched. By the time of 2016-2017, we had long wait-lists. We

had extremely high pressure on our services. There were no other

services for adults who needed mental health and addiction supports and

services, and the level of service in our community had not increased in

all the time that I’d been running those services, which was over ten

years.

Relatively, those services are really good value, but because of the

strain in the community, we were seeing more people in hospital, more

people readmitted to hospital, more people actually being put on more

medications, and all of this has been costing the B.C. government,

increasing over time.

[2:40 p.m.]

We need to make sure that we move to a trauma-informed method of

prevention and understanding, supporting people with mental health and

addictions issues and needs. We need to move towards more harm reduction

and actually helping people get themselves away from substance abuse and

substance reliance.

The benefits of the way that we’re approaching this are to allow us to

prove our claim in a more efficient manner, similar to litigation

against big tobacco. So rather than bringing forward each individual

expense record for British Columbians to tally overall expenses, this

legislation will allow government expenditures to be proven by reference

to population based on evidence and statistical data and get that

big-picture view that I mentioned. This, in turn, will help to reduce

pressure on the courts and promote expediency and efficiency.

That’s what we need. In all areas of action that we’re taking to try

and tackle the opioid crisis, we actually need all of those methods to

be done as quickly and efficiently, successfully and effectively as

possible.

To finish, Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that we offer all the

support that we can to the families. We are working hard to tackle the

opioid crisis in any way that we can. We’ve given our word as government

that we will do all we can, and this is just one aspect of

that.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the Attorney General to close the debate, second

reading.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to all my colleagues in the House for sharing their comments

in relation to this bill. It’s a very important piece of litigation for

the province to ensure accountability for the companies that we allege

made these harms so much worse through their misconduct.

I appreciate the comments of the member from the opposition in terms

of his support, as I understand it, for the bill from the opposition

party, and of the member of the Third Party for her comments in relation

to the support of the Third Party.

I will note that in terms of the comments of the member of the

opposition, I’d encourage him to get a briefing from the Minister of

Mental Health and Addictions on the many, many initiatives of government

in relation to the opioid overdose crisis to understand a little better

what we’re doing. His comments were not, with respect, complete in terms

of government’s many initiatives in this regard.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

[2:45 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 38 approved unanimously on a division. [See

Votes and Proceedings .]

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be

considered at the next sitting after today.

[2:50 p.m.]

Bill 38, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s amazing, for a dead language, how enthusiastic people get when

it’s used.

With that, I call second reading debate on Bill 36, Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

BILL 36 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 3), 2018

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Bill 36 amends a number of statutes. Amendments to the College and

Institute Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the University Act

will remove the board membership eligibility restriction respecting

employees who have responsibility to negotiate with the board the terms

and conditions of service of members of the association or adjudicate

disputes regarding members of the institution.

The repeal of these provisions will allow staff and faculty with

negotiating and dispute adjudication roles or their respective staff or

faculty associations to be eligible to serve on the boards of

institutions. These provisions intentionally and unnecessarily limit

representation on public post-secondary boards. The repeal of these

provisions will support broader representation on public post-secondary

institutional boards and enable greater efficiency in the board

appointment process, especially at institutions with smaller populations

from which to select board members.

The amendments to the Milk Industry Act modernize the definition of

“dairy plant” by eliminating the outdated and archaic parts of this

definition and creating a new authority to exempt, by regulation, places

or activities from the definition of “dairy plant.” This will eliminate

unnecessary regulatory burden, as requested by the restaurant industry,

without compromising food safety.

The exemption authority will be used to develop a future regulation

that will identify places or activities where dairy products can be

manufactured without a dairy plant licence. Any exempted places will

continue to be regulated as food premises and will have to adhere to

strict safety requirements. The new exemption powers will be used to

update and broaden the exemption related to frozen premixes — for

example, ice cream, frozen yogurt and sorbet — and allow restauranteurs

to provide unique menu offerings or ethnic foods made in a traditional

style without a dairy plant licence.

The amendments to the Mental Health Act will authorize the appointment

of retired physicians to sit on the review panel of the Mental Health

Review Board. These amendments will also retroactively validate review

panels constituted under the old law and the resulting decisions. These

amendments will bring the legislation in line with current and

appropriate practice. They address the shortage of practising physicians

on the review board due to limited availability, loss in clinical wages

and potential conflict-of-interest situations. Above all, these

amendments will provide an effective means for the Mental Health Review

Board to recruit consistent and capable members to resolve cases for

citizens in a timely manner.

The amendment to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act will clarify that

the Public Guardian and Trustee may, as a corporation sole, become and

act as a director of a client’s company. As the Business Corporations

Act requires a director of a company to be an individual, it is

currently unclear whether the Public Guardian and Trustee, as a

corporation sole, can be a director. The amendment will ensure that the

Public Guardian and Trustee can act as a director of clients’ companies

in order to meet its obligations to clients by protecting their

financial interests.

[2:55 p.m.]

The amendment to the Offence Act has a specific provision to expressly

authorize tele-informations. When it isn’t practical for a peace officer

to appear in person before a justice, they may swear an information

using a written telecommunication, thereby making better and more

efficient use of police and judicial resources.

The Criminal Code specifically allows for the swearing of

tele-information for criminal offences, and

section 133 of the Offence

Act specifically incorporates provisions of the Criminal Code if no

express provision has been made in the Offence Act. Instead of relying

on that authority, this amendment will provide express authority for

tele-information within the Offence Act.

The amendments to the Supreme Court Act were suggested by the chief

justice and primarily deal with masters and registrars. Masters handle

pretrial applications, case management conferences, settlement

discussions and similar matters. The proposed legislation confirms the

chief justice’s administrative authority over masters, including such

things as where they preside.

The legislation codifies long-established practices on a master’s

salary, benefits, retirement and security of tenure. Masters receive the

same pay and benefits as provincial court judges. The amendments set out

the parameters of a master’s option to elect senior status, which,

similar to provincial court judges, allows a master to work part-time

while collecting a pension.

The legislation also codifies the chief justice’s administrative

authority over registrars. Registrars handle disputes relating to costs,

the amount of lawyers’ bills, the settlement of orders and similar

matters.

Finally, the proposed legislation better organizes the Supreme Court

Act. The proposed legislation does not change existing practices or

laws. Rather, it codifies practices that have existed for many

years.

The proposed amendments to the Business Corporations Act, Cooperative

Association Act, Credit Union Incorporation Act, Financial Institutions

Act and Societies Act will ensure that all audits are performed by

qualified individuals. The current legislation creates a potential

loophole in which a chartered professional accountant may be authorized

to perform an audit whether or not that person has been authorized by

the professional organization of Chartered Professional Accountants. The

proposed legislation will protect B.C. companies and other entities that

may be affected by a similar loophole by ensuring that all audits are

performed by qualified individuals.

Finally, Bill 36 makes amendments to the Safety Standards Act. The

Safety Standards Act governs high-risk technical equipment such as gas

and electrical systems, boilers, refrigeration plants and elevators. The

proposed amendments aim to increase safety both for the general public

and workers. They do so by addressing gaps and strengthening existing

safety oversight tools so that regulators can do their jobs more

effectively.

For example, the amendments prohibit advertising to do unauthorized or

grey market work. They also authorize an on-line database of information

about people who do regulated work, including enforcement history, so

the public can make informed decisions about who to hire.

M. Lee: I wish to rise to speak to some of the parts of this Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act, and I know that other colleagues of mine will

continue on to talk about certain parts of it as well.

Let me just start off by making a few comments about

part 1, which is

amendments to advanced education, skills and training in terms of

various acts relating to the College and Institute Act, Royal Roads

University Act and the University Act itself. I appreciate the Attorney

General’s comments just now in terms of wanting to make governance at

those institutions more effective, particularly for smaller

institutions.

I think all legislators in this House would want to work towards that

end, to always improve governance for all of our public institutions as

well as our professional bodies. But I can tell you that members on this

side of the House are very focused on the changes that this government

is bringing about across all levels of governance in this province and

that we will be very mindful to look at, in detail, the rebalancing of

these responsibilities, the composition of these boards and bodies that

are being looked at by this government.

When those changes are being made, one has to question in this House:

why are they being made? For what purpose? What objective? In what

interest of the public is the government proposing rejigging the

governance structures of these boards and professional

bodies?

[3:00 p.m.]

This is a good example, of course. When we look at the proposed

changes in this Bill 36, it’s simple: just delete this

section 59(8) of

the College and Institute Act. But when you look at the

section itself….

Members on this side of the House have had a brief opportunity by way of

a briefing only a few hours ago, given the rapid nature in which this

legislation is being introduced and being discussed. Having said that,

that particular provision is a provision that says that a person is not

eligible to be or remain a member of the board if the person is an

employee of an institution and a voting member of the executive body of

the institution that has the responsibility to negotiate with the board

or adjudicate disputes involving members of that institution, at the

staff level or otherwise.

It’s one thing to say in our academic institutions, in this context….

I know from my time as a student body president, on a presidential

search committee, as part of an alumni UBC board as well as chair, that

all universities and colleges want to ensure they have good stakeholder

involvement by faculty and staff. That’s something that I think all of

us would recognize. But the question for this provision in these

particular acts that are being proposed to be amended here would remove

something that is there for a good reason. When they’re representing in

a bargaining or negotiating context or adjudicating disputes, clearly

those individual employees are performing a role and responsibility that

is for the particular interests of the staff, the employees that they’re

representing. That is in a direct adversarial role to the board of that

particular institution.

In the briefing that we heard today, only a few hours ago, we

understood that, well, the model for this structure is there in other

universities and colleges across other parts of this country. I will say

I know that my colleague from Surrey South will have more detailed

comments about that, but I question that as well, as I did in the

briefing, in the sense that surely, of course, there are

conflict-of-interest guidelines at the board level — and there

are.

To start to move around this legislation, with the composition of

these boards, to eliminate what has been a reasonable, appropriate

restriction, we’ll need to put more weight on the rules and the

guidelines of each of those boards of these colleges and universities

across this province, at least the ones to which these amendments

pertain, because at the end of the day, we need to ensure that all our

institutions, public as they are, are being governed in the most

appropriate way and that we’re not resetting composition of the board

that will lead to bad governance.

I will look forward to joining my colleagues from Surrey South and

Abbotsford-Mission to talk about, in detail, the framing of this

particular set of amendments, with the existing governance rules for the

colleges and universities for whom these provisions apply and the way

that the board of these institutions is comprised, meaning the

appointment mechanism by government or election by faculty, staff and

students. These are the aspects that I think that will need a

line-by-line detailed review at the committee level.

I’ll just move on to the items around

part 3, which are the Attorney

General Ministry’s amendments.

[3:05 p.m.]

I think, in terms of looking at the Mental Health Act, I appreciate

the further clarification in the case of retired medical practitioners,

their ability to continue to serve on boards that the minister may

continue to establish and govern. I do think that we need to continue to

look at how these boards are being structured by government and the

roles that non-professionals are playing on these boards.

This is probably not the best example of that, but we do know that in

the case of engineers, geoscientists and the like that there is a real

move by this government to hamper and impede the ability of those

professional organizations to govern themselves. We will have more

comments to make about that in other contexts, but I just wanted to note

that we’ve heard from many British Columbians about their concerns about

the way this government is seeing those with professional training in

this province and how they govern themselves in an appropriate way and

in a responsible way.

I’d like to comment briefly about the Offence Act, recognizing that

the definition of “any means of telecommunication” will be important to

understand at the committee level, the extent of that. I appreciate that

there’s an existing Criminal Code

section that provides for that, under

the Offence Act, to draw that in. But I think we will want to look at

that more in detail.

In terms of the codification, as I understand under the Supreme Court

Act, in terms of the responsibilities of the chief justice and the

Attorney General, we’ll be wanting to look at those roles and

responsibilities. I understand there has been some good level of

consultation on that. That’s something I’d like to more thoroughly

understand and recognize in terms of the roles that are assigned and

codified in this act.

Then lastly, in terms of the changes to

part 5, the Municipal Affairs

and Housing amendments…. There may be another colleague of mine who may

speak to this. But in the event that he or she doesn’t have that

opportunity here as we go forward, I just wanted to make a general

comment that the scope of the minister’s powers to make regulations for

safety standard purposes and standards will be something that we’ll want

to be looking at, at committee level, because it is a broad

scope.

I appreciate that we are all wanting to ensure that there is the

appropriate registry for contractors to ensure that there isn’t grey

market kind of work that’s going on, as the Attorney General is

referring to, for public safety reasons and for consumer purposes

reasons. But the scope of the minister’s powers to make regulations for

safety standards is something I think we’ll want to come back to in

detail to have a thorough understanding as to the breadth of that scope

and the ability for the minister to set down those standards.

I look forward to further conversation and discussion at the committee

level.

Hon. M. Mark: It is my honour to stand in these chambers. First, I’d like to

acknowledge the traditional territory of the Lekwungen-speaking people,

members of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, the land that we

are gathering on today.

I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. I look forward to

a robust conversation and debate at committee about the purpose and the

intent about bringing into balance, through the amendments to the

University Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the College and

Institute Act.

We are amending legislation to remove discriminatory restrictions on

people who want to serve on the boards of our public universities,

institutes and colleges. We are bringing forward amendments to bring

balance to our public post-secondary board structure.

Under Bill 18, the Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2011,

the government of the day passed legislation making certain members of

the faculty or staff association ineligible to serve as an elected board

member. Quite simply, we are levelling the playing field to ensure that

there’s representation that reflects the diversity of our

province.

[3:10 p.m.]

Prior to 2011, legislation governing boards provided little in respect

of members’ overall duty to the institution or conduct, and did not

address conflicts of interest on the part of board members. Removing

these restrictions allows boards to more accurately reflect an

institution’s stakeholders. This is especially important for public

post-secondary institutions with smaller populations from which to

select board members.

Any real or perceived conflicts of interests are already managed

through bylaws in place at our public post-secondary institutions. These

proposed changes will increase the pool of candidates from which board

members may be selected.

The repeal of these provisions will support broader representation on

public post-secondary institutional boards. It will enable greater

efficiency in the board appointment process while still enabling boards

to manage potential future situations through maintaining statute

provisions and their own bylaws.

We want to ensure that the public post-secondary system works for

people. Our government was elected on three pillars: making life more

affordable, delivering services that people can count on and building an

economy that works for everyone.

We have 25 public post-secondary institutions in B.C. We have a robust

ecosystem. But in order to guide those institutions, we need to have the

right leadership at the table and we need to have a balanced approach to

that representation at the table. For the first time, Indigenous

representation on every board is at all of those 25 public

post-secondary institutions. This isn’t something that happened in 2017

or 2016; it happened in 2018 — because we value the diversity of our

province and we want to support our ecosystem.

We are going to continue to make sure that there is representation

from community leaders and community members who are going to serve the

best interests of our public post-secondary institutions and serve the

interests of students that go to our schools to advance their education.

And there are robust measures in place to address any matters of

conflict of interest, perceived conflict of interest and what have

you.

I look forward to our conversation and the comments from the members

opposite, here and moving forward at committee. But ultimately, the

amendments here are about bringing into balance the representation of

those members on our boards.

A. Olsen: I want to rise today and speak to Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 3).

I just want to say that in general, as we have had a very high-level

opportunity to scan this piece of legislation — of course, we expect

these types of legislation to come forward and certainly appreciate the

opportunity to go through them in detail — we also shared the same

initial concern with the members of the official opposition when we had

the first read of it.

We’ve had an opportunity today to have a briefing with respect to

sections 1 to 3 of the bill. As a caucus, and as our staff, the advice

that we got…. We were told that it was fine and that there were other

pieces of legislation that covered the conflict-of-interest aspects of

this bill.

That being said, I think that, as the member from Langara raised, the

opportunity to look through the piece of legislation in detail…. I will

be tracking that conversation and that discussion very closely. And we

do have questions. Of course, we want to make sure that we are, as a

House and passing this legislation, covered on the important aspects

that were raised by the member.

At this stage, I’m going to take my seat and just say that we’re happy

to follow the bill as it goes through. We support many, many aspects of

it in principle, and I look forward to hearing the debate as it unfolds,

and participating in the committee stage of this bill.

[3:15 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: It’s my privilege to speak to Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statues

Amendment Act (No. 3). I’ll direct my comments to the changes impacting

the appointments to post-secondary boards under three acts — the College

and Institute Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the University

Act.

Now, the general approach of government, I believe, should be to

remove potential conflicts of interest. So I think it’s rather odd that

the changes that are being proposed look to set up those conflicts,

rather than remove those conditions. The existing acts are clear in that

the employees with the responsibility to negotiate with the board on the

terms or conditions for employees or who had a formal role in the

adjudication of disputes regarding members of the institution weren’t

eligible to sit on the board.

These limitations, I believe, played a role in preventing conflicts,

whether they be real or perceived, for either the board or the employee.

The lines were certainly clear. But the legislation seeks to repeal that

limitation, and that raises real concerns that those conflicts could be

perceived. I’m not saying they would be real. I am saying that

perception is left open.

I think we have a great post-secondary system. I think that our

post-secondary system is well respected. It’s respected in that it has

provided excellent service to British Columbians and to students and our

communities and that it’s governed well. I think, though, that this

could potentially have an unintended consequence of tarnishing that

reputation. The reason that I think that is that, with the possibility

of a change to the board structure….

In the briefing we were given, it was suggested by staff that the

reason for repealing this

section is that it could be discriminatory and

that no other institution in Canada has a similar provision. Fair

enough. I’ll be curious to look into that further. Certainly, in the

first of the university acts that I reviewed from outside the province,

the University of Western Ontario, they indeed don’t have a provision

like that. However, they do have a provision that prohibits staff or

faculty or a member of a governing body of another institution from

sitting on the board of an institution. Theoretically, I would see that

as equally discriminatory.

It also provides, within that legislation, specific

conflict-of-interest provisions that suggest that no member of the board

can participate in or undertake discussions of matters related to the

remuneration or benefits, terms of employment, rights or privilege

available to employees at a university that are directly related to

compensation and that are negotiated in a collective fashion for a class

or group of employees of the university, if that person is, indeed, an

employee of one of those organizations.

Conflict of interest does theoretically prevent individuals who are

already on the bargaining committee of a union or faculty association

from participating in, very much, what the work of a board of an

educational institution is. That raises, for me, the issue that perhaps

a board could get out of balance and, perhaps, be in a situation where

they actually could not function as a board because they couldn’t reach

quorum to get to decisions. It’s unlikely, but it’s possible if you

remove that obligation.

Regardless, I’m sure we will, through discussion in committee, get me

to a point where I feel comfortable that that won’t come to fruition.

However, I want to go back for a minute to a major concern. That is:

why? Why now? The minister mentions bringing into balance and levelling

the playing field to get to diversity. I’m all in favour of diversity.

Absolutely. But I think there are other ways to get to that, not the

least of which would be to change the university acts that we have to

actually provide statutory positions for members from diverse

groups.

[3:20 p.m.]

We do that already. There are seats for student representatives, seats

for faculty and staff representatives, a seat for the president. I don’t

understand why we wouldn’t go that route if we were looking to ensure

First Nations representation, gender balance, or things like that.

However, that isn’t what we’re here debating today or looking at today.

What we’re looking at is just a wholesale removal of a clause that,

while it might be seen by some to be discriminatory, also could be

argued to be there for very good reason — to prevent perceived

conflict-of-interest situations.

Now, the minister and the staff have said that this is about bringing

balance. That’s fine. Then, I guess, if I’m looking at this as an

individual member of the faculty, I want to know that my faculty

representatives, my executive on my association and my bargaining unit,

are there for me, to represent my best interests. If I’m the university,

I want to know that my board is there, first and foremost, for the

university. In fact, the codes of conduct for the universities demand

that of their board members. But I see that that creates a big problem,

if somebody is actually trying to do both of those roles at once. How

can you have your loyalty sit with both organizations at

once?

Conflict of interest is real, and that’s why we have a body of law

that talks about it and deals with that. We also have policies, I agree,

within the institutions — although I would argue, if we are going to

move in this direction, that perhaps the conflict-of-interest policy and

bylaws at the universities should be rolled into the acts, as they have

done in other jurisdictions, to be really upfront and clear, because

they are not the same from university to university. That, in of itself,

presents a problem.

I think curiouser still is that today we are hearing from the

government that the argument for making this change, for the repeal of

this

section of legislation, is that we are preventing what could be a

discriminatory practice. I find that distinctly curious, given that just

a couple of hours ago, here in this chamber, the same government had

great difficulty and chose to argue that it is not discriminatory to

preclude 85 percent of workers from working on infrastructure projects

in this province because of an association or a lack of an association.

How is that different?

We are suggesting that by choice of associations, choice of role to

serve as a member of a bargaining unit or a tribunal, you then shouldn’t

be able to sit on the board of the institution. You’ve made a choice;

you have a loyalty. That’s great. You have a role. It doesn’t prevent

you from ever sitting on that board, but for that period of time, it

does.

The government says: “No, that’s not fair; that’s discriminatory.

These people should be able to hold both positions.” But that same

government, then, does not think it’s discriminatory to say that because

someone is not a member of a union, they shouldn’t be able to

participate in the infrastructure projects in this province. To me, you

just can’t have it both ways, and I’d really like to discuss further,

with the minister at committee stage, how they square that

circle.

[3:25 p.m.]

I think the reality is that the proposed repeal signals a direction

that this NDP government wants to go in. I find it troubling that they

would prefer to set up the potential for conflicts of interest on the

boards of our very trusted post-secondary institutions. I’m curious to

explore with the minister why exactly she thinks this is necessary, why

or how it brings balance, how it levels the playing field to get to

diversity on the boards.

I’d like to understand the challenges that the minister feels are

going to be alleviated with this change. I’d like to know: what about

the board structure of these universities isn’t working? Who exactly is

the government seeking to benefit with the change? I think we need to

plan to safeguard the reputation of the institutions and to provide the

opportunity for real and perceived conflicts of interest to be managed,

if we’re going to make this change.

Is the minister going to propose additional changes to legislation

that would limit the number of seats that could be held on the board by

somebody that also holds positions that would be in conflict with the

board? I think we want to be able to make sure that the boards remain

operational and functional. I think that’s important. We’ll look forward

to the committee stage of the debate and look forward to discussing why

this change is necessary now, all of the possible implications and how

they are to be mitigated.

S. Gibson: It’s a privilege for me to follow my colleague from Surrey South with

her thoughtful ruminations on this legislation. I, too, will add some

comments on Bill 36, particularly focusing on areas related to

post-secondary board appointments.

I picked up on the minister’s remarks a moment ago, particularly

focusing on the word “discriminatory.” I feel that, when we get into

committee stage, that’s perhaps the focus we need to take, because

clearly there’s also a discriminatory dimension to this, which we are

starting to engage with as opposition.

I have a particular interest in post-secondary education, having

served for some years in that environment. When I looked at this, I was,

frankly, a little troubled. Whenever I look at legislation like this,

where there’s so-called tweaking that takes place, I become mildly

alarmed that there’s something else going on. Really, the public good

has to be, above all else, at the top of the priorities. As the member

for Surrey South commented, we need to get to the heart of this and find

out: “Okay. Why is this coming up at this time?”

Conflict of interest is something that we, as MLAs, don’t just talk

about; we live it. We submit regular records to a statutory officer,

regarding conflict of interest. We realize that if we violate that,

there’s concern, both officially and unofficially, with the public.

Conflict of interest gets to the heart, as well, of this proposed

legislation, Bill 36.

The board, after all, is the employer. The board operates the college

or university — some 25, as we’ve heard, around our province. The union

president or executive member — their job is to represent the interests

of the union. We would say: “Well, that’s not surprising.” Well, it’s

surprising when they get them together because, of course, there are

going to be tensions. That’s a healthy thing. Those tensions are indeed

healthy.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The members may be advocating for working conditions, compensation,

benefits, others, and there are times when the interests of the employer

and, if you will, the employee represented by the union come into

conflict. There’s a tension there, a natural tension. However, with this

case being made to allow that individual to serve in this board

environment, it kind of changes the equilibrium.

[3:30 p.m.]

On most boards, there are already faculty members. They are there

right now. There are staff members there right now. This compromise that

is being proposed would seem to run counter to the current culture.

Again, getting back to the word “discriminatory,” I begin to wonder just

what currency it has. These staff members, as I’ve mentioned, and

faculty members that serve on boards — their role is to do so as

university representatives, not representatives of the particular

viewpoint or constituency. That’s the difference.

I think it might be analogous to our role here as MLAs. We have

members on that side representing a certain party. Here, on this side,

we represent a certain party. But for all sides of this House, when

people come to talk to us as constituents, we take off our partisan hat

and help them the best way we can. That’s our role, and we do that,

hopefully, with the best interests of our constituents.

However, in advancing this viewpoint, that individual, who will now be

allowed to serve, has a particular agenda. Remember, currently there are

faculty members and staff members already there, but they do it in their

role as representatives of the university or college. Ultimately when

you have to make a decision in that role, you’re going to have to

decide: do I do it for the benefit of this side of the agenda, of the

constituents, or this side? That choice is going to be difficult to

make.

I want to make another comment, if I may. If union leaders, in their

role, serve on the board as advocates for that role, for their union,

here is a couple of problems that I want to alert government to, and

perhaps they haven’t thought about this. It was alluded to a little bit

earlier by my colleague from Surrey South.

Here’s what happens. A decision is made by the board which is contrary

to the union member, who is now serving on the board under this current

proposed legislation, Bill 36. The problem is that when the decision is

made, that individual, presumably, will dissent on a particular item

related to employee interests — compensation, benefits, working

conditions. Then what will they say when the decision is made? Will they

came out and say: “I was against that,” or will they be quiet and

acquiesce and support the good of the collective? Tough

choice.

The second point to make, which is related to this, ancillary to my

first comment, is the fact that boards deal with confidential matters,

often related to employer relations. Confidential. But that member will

be attending all those meetings. You see the problem here? It’s a little

more complicated than, I think, government had thought when they first

suggested this.

As someone that’s had the pleasure of working in that environment, I

can see that this could be a bit problematic. I want to recommend, with

respect, that government reconsider this dimension. It could be a

problem. I want to suggest that.

In

summary, it’s the potential for conflict of interest that I think

we need to be aware of. It could happen. Clearly, it’s something that

could happen provincewide in all of our institutions. Conflict doesn’t

have to be real. It can be perceived. It can be something that the

public notices.

The boards of colleges and universities sit at the pleasure, for the

most part, of government. They’re there to protect the interests and

reflect the standards of the community. All the staff, faculty and

students expect that the board will operate in their best

interests.

I’m looking forward to the debate that will be continuing at committee

stage. I want to ensure that we do the very best for our institutions.

We have fantastic universities and colleges in this province. They work

well together. There’s great synergism.

[3:35 p.m.]

In fact, we are the model for all of Canada. Many prov­inces would

like to emulate what we do — the amount of warm relationships, collegial

relationships, between our colleges and our universities. So why is

government making this change? Let’s get to the bottom of that, please,

and let’s determine that we’re doing something in the best interest of

the public good of our universities and colleges.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure just to take a few minutes to talk about what I’d

remind the member — that it is the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

It is not the conspiratorial theory statutes amendment act. Perhaps what

I might do is just sort of outline exactly what a miscellaneous statutes

amendment act is and how they come about.

Now, laws in this place are made in a number of ways. There’s

legislation that comes forward on the basis of it being part of a party

platform, which is debated at election time and parties campaign on

that, regardless of whether it is our party or the opposition party or

the third party. They come in with an agenda of work that they want to

do that requires legislation. That’s commonplace to all

governments.

Also, there is often legislation that government is required to do

because, for example, the federal government changes statutes or does a

new public policy shift. An example of that would be the legalization of

cannabis. It was not on our platform agenda. It wasn’t on the platform

agenda of the official opposition. But it was a change made by the

federal government that the province then has the requirement: it must

do something, and therefore, legislation comes forward.

What also happens is that within ministries themselves, and within

governments, we have extremely capable public policy–driven individuals

within the ministry whose job it is to work on what is happening within

governments, the day-to-day administration of public policy, who over

time identify issues that they know government has to deal with — that

often can back up in the form of a queue of changes that must be made to

keep up with times — to keep up with changes in terms of precedent or

court rulings or changes in public attitudes, to deal with priorities

that emerge over time within ministries.

Those come forward as well. Often, they are small changes. They are

changes that are important but don’t meet the definition of a

stand-alone piece of legislation. There’s nothing untoward about them.

They’re not brought forward in some nefarious way, a cabal of MLAs

getting together to sit: “Okay, how can we do something? And if we do

this, will it impact this?”

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Wish that we could, exactly.

As somebody once said about conspiracy theories and the problem with

conspiracy theories: if government was ever that smart — any government

was ever that smart — to actually be able to put in place a conspiracy

theory, then we really would all be in trouble. Conspiracy theories are

best left to novelists and Hollywood writers to create TV shows to

entertain us as opposed to think that they are something that government

either has the interest or, more importantly, has the ability to

actually put together.

The fact is that the changes in this legislation are changes designed

to deal with specific issues and specific problems, and there’s nothing

untoward about that. That’s why they’re in a miscellaneous statutes

bill.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now, it’s always important…. I know the opposition will go through

each of the proposed changes,

section by section, at committee stage,

where ministers will be here with the staff to answer fully and

comprehensively the questions that arise out of those changes. It’s

actually quite interesting when you look at some of the

changes.

Let’s take the Milk Industry Act.

Section 4 is amended by repealing

the definition of “dairy plant” and substituting the following: “‘Dairy

plant’ includes, subject to the regulations, every place or building

where (

a) milk is received from dairy farmers, or (

b) dairy products are

processed, manufactured or pasteurized.” Then it goes on….

Nothing too controversial about that, nothing conspiratorial that I

can see about that. I mean, cows get milked. Milk goes to the dairy.

Then at the dairy, it’s turned into yogurt; into cheese; 2 percent milk;

skim milk; full-cream milk; regular yogurt; plain yogurt; sour cream —

let’s not forget that; or my favourite, the extra-strength cream, the 15

percent milk fat stuff.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, exactly. I love that stuff too.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Ah, but that’s not from cows, hon. Member. That’s from nuts —

okay?

Anyway, what this

section will do is recognize that we also have

extremely stringent food safety rules and regulations in place that

apply at restaurants. One of the abilities of this will be that they

will now be allowed to make their own yogurt or paneer, for example. And

that’s a good thing. I know my colleague across the way appreciates

paneer just like many of us do in this chamber.

There are small-scale producers for whom this will benefit, and it

will be very much a welcome change. It’s something that came about

because of work done within the ministry, work done to ensure that it

meets the needs of individuals. It’s not violating any health standards,

and it’s recognizing that the world is changing and that we can be

flexible.

That’s

section 4, for example. Nothing I can think of that’s

conspiratorial about that.

How about

section 6 and the Mental Health Act?

Section 24.1(3) (

a) and

(

c) of the Mental Health Act, 1996, c. 288, is repealed and the

following substituted: “(

a) a medical practitioner or a person who has

been a medical practitioner” and “(

c) a person who is not referred to in

paragraph (

a) and is not a lawyer.” Well, what this recognizes is that a

medical practitioner could actually serve on a board. Oh my god. A

doctor, a highly educated individual.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know. I mean, talk about a risk. Do we really want medical

practitioners to be able to serve on a board dealing with mental health?

God forbid such a thing could happen. But again, this is the kind of

change that you’re seeing in here. It’s a practical change recognizing

that — you know what? — a lot of people have something to contribute,

and physicians should have the ability to serve on a board where mental

health issues are under consideration. Shocking. Again, it makes sense

to me.

There are changes to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The

Supreme Court of British Columbia is continued under the name and style

of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It outlines that the court

consists of a chief justice, who is called the Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court. Now, I have no idea how anybody could think that is

conspiratorial or that there is….

Interjection.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: My colleague says it’s Robert Ludlum material, and she may well be

right, which is why I think that maybe, just maybe, those who think that

this is a conspiratorial bill should remember that, really, Robert

Ludlum is expert at that — Hollywood writers, just not

governments.

There’s a lot in this legislation. Like all bills, it deserves the

scrutiny, and I’m glad to know that that will take place because I’m

sure that when we get to that committee stage and the questions are

answered, the member who preceded me will, in fact, find that his fears

are unfounded.

The amendments to these acts will remove discriminatory restrictions

on the membership of colleges, institutes and university boards. That

strikes me as pretty straightforward. Removing these restrictions will

result in boards that more accurately reflect stakeholders, especially

at institutions with smaller populations from which to select board

members. Most of the conflict-of-interest legislation in the acts will

remain intact, and potential issues can be addressed through boards’

bylaws. The boards have the ability to do that.

An Hon. Member: Not if it doesn’t work.

Hon. M. Farnworth: But it will work, hon. Member.

That is why it’s so important, as I said, that we get to the committee

stage to be able to fully explore these questions. I remember when I sat

on that side of the House and a miscellaneous statutes bill was

tabled….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Exactly. I have lots of experience, and I’m sure through the passage

of time, hon. Member, you too will catch up.

Anyway, clearly, this is a

section that members on the other side have

questions on, and we look forward to them.

Safety standards. Changes to the…. Let’s go back to where we were. We

went through

section 6, which was Mental Health Act. In

section 7, there

are some changes to the Offence Act: “

(1) A peace officer may lay an

information by any means of telecommunication that produces a writing.

(2) A peace officer who uses a means of telecommunication for the

purpose of laying an information must, instead of swearing an oath, make

a statement in writing stating that all matters contained in the

information are true to the peace officer’s knowledge and belief, and

such a statement is deemed to be a statement made under

oath.”

Wow. Hardly radical stuff. Hardly stuff that lends itself to anything

but thinking: Wow, it’s kind of common sense. Why haven’t we been doing

it already? And maybe we could have if we’d sat in the fall in previous

years, but that’s okay. We’re doing it this fall.

There are changes to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and, as I

said, changes to the Supreme Court Act. There are changes…. That’s a

long one — senior masters and legal stuff that’s probably best dealt

with by the Attorney General.

Finance amendments, again, which are important.

Section 205 of the

Business Corporations Act is repealed and the following substituted —

that the person is “a member of, or is a partnership whose partners are

members of, a provincial institute of chartered accountants within

Canada.” Again, straightforward change that the Minister of Finance will

be addressing at the committee stage.

There are changes in terms of the Cooperative Association Act and some

to Financial Institutions Act.

Here’s a great one. Again, I’m not sure how one could be

conspiratorial about this, but it’s a change to the Societies

Act.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know. The Societies Act. Not secret societies — societies. So this

is about persons qualified to act as an auditor. Imagine that.

Government is spelling out what the qualifications are to be an auditor

when it comes to a society.

[3:50 p.m.]

Section 112 says:

“A person is qualified to act as an auditor of a society only if the

person is (

a) a member of, or is a partnership whose partners are

members of, a provincial institute of chartered accountants within

Canada, (

b) a member of a provincial organization of chartered

professional accountants within Canada, authorized by that organization

to perform an audit, (

c) a professional accounting corporation as

defined in the Chartered Professional Accountants Act ,

authorized by the CPABC as defined in that Act to perform an audit, or

(

d) a registered firm as defined in the Chartered Professional

Accountants Act , authorized by the CPABC” — Chartered

Professional Accountants of British Columbia — “as defined in that Act

to perform an audit.”

I think even Robert Ludlum would have a hard time trying to make a

conspiracy out of that one. I’m sure, at committee stage, we can explore

that, as the members so desire.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Perhaps in one of his many plays.

Then there are changes to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage

District Act.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, exactly. Now, I don’t know about you, hon. Member, but I have a

hard time trying to think of a secret government cabinet committee

sitting down and going: “Okay. We’ve got something really bad we’ve got

to do here, and the only way we can do it is by making an amendment to

the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act.”

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Exactly. That would really smell. That one just reeks of conspiracies.

Absolutely. Member, you are so right. That just reeks of a conspiracy

theory right there.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, no. Hiding the conspiracy, burying the conspiracy in a….

No.

Well, let’s see what else it looks like could be really bad. Uh-oh,

there are changes to the Legal Profession Act.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, exactly — more, more.

The Notaries Act, okay. This one looks really bad. This one is

repealed and the following: “The accounts of the foundation must be

audited annually by a person appointed for that purpose by the directors

who is (

a) a member of a provincial organization of chartered

professional accountants within Canada, authorized by that organization

to perform an audit….”

Now, that’s some grand conspiracy right there. Clearly, government got

together and decided: “Wow. Maybe we should actually have people who

audit societies be members of an actual chartered professional

accountant association.” I don’t know.

Let’s see. Here we go, safety standards — Municipal Affairs and

Housing amendments, Safety Standards Act. “Minister’s powers to make

regulations for safety standards.” Sounds pretty straightforward.

“Failure to pay fee, penalty or money owed.” No. That’s, again, I think,

conspiratorial right there.

I think I’ve made my point, and I know that I don’t have too much

time.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I hear the member saying: “I’d like you to keep going.” The problem

is….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I wish. At four o’clock, unfortunately, I have to yield the floor,

because the real conspiratorial work is taking place in my office —

right? — not in this legislation. The secret is out, on the

record.

[3:55 p.m.]

Anyway, I listened with interest to the comments of the previous

speaker, and I understand, given that that may be how government

functioned when he sat on this side of the House. But I want to assure

members that the miscellaneous statutes bill is an attempt to deal with

a number of issues that would not normally qualify as a stand-alone

piece of legislation but are, rather, packaged into a piece of

legislation that is an omnibus bill, which is a miscellaneous statutes

bill.

That is standard practice for any government throughout the history of

this province. There is nothing untoward in it. What it ensures…. If the

opposition is doing its due diligence — which I know they will, because

they’re starting to learn how to do that — they will address their

questions in committee stage.

I know that the ministers will answer any concerns they have and that

they will see that this piece of legislation is, in fact, a piece of

legislation that addresses and deals with a number of outstanding issues

in this province, in different sectors of our province, in some cases

that have been nagging for quite some time but have made their way to

the top of the legislative pile. Others will, in fact, really make some

significant improvements for people in B.C.

With that, I take my place and look forward to remarks that others may

have.

S. Sullivan: It is typical for this government’s playbook to hide conspiracies

within innocuously named bills like the miscellaneous statutes amendment

act. I have, in fact, been looking for the nefarious sleeper clauses and

insidious amendments embedded throughout. I have not found them yet, but

I am looking.

They do seem to be innocuous: clarifying regulation-making powers,

powers of provincial safety managers in relation to training and

examination and the power to refuse, suspend or revoke an authorization

of fees unpaid. I am sure there’s something evil there. Expands the

disclosure of enforcement action details. Provides the registrar options

to publish registry details. We’ve got amusement rides. We’ve got

boilers of pressure vessels. I’m sure there’s something really

suspicious within those.

So far, I have not found these conspiracies, but I will continue to be

vigilant in looking for them.

R. Kahlon: I have the pleasure to speak in favour of this amendment act. Let me

pull up my notes here. I’m waiting for the House Leader to give me the

indication on what it is he would like to continue to do

here.

Let’s start with the College and Institute Act and the Royal Roads

University Act. First off, let me share with the members the hope of

this. We are amending legislation to remove discriminatory restrictions

on people who serve on boards in universities, institutes and colleges.

Removing these restrictions will allow boards to more accurately reflect

the institution stakeholders, especially at institutions with smaller

populations from which we select board members.

Of course, we’re always engaging with our board members. I think it’s

important to do. Sometimes we hear critiques that we’re engaging the

public too much, but I think you can never listen to the public too much

about things that matter to them.

Partly, also, we’re selecting…. Part of this is consultation with

major stakeholders, including industry associations, boards of

governors, staff, faculty associations and institutions themselves.

These proposed changes only increase the pool of candidates from which

board members may be selected.

[4:00 p.m.]

We’ve heard lots of things today. As the House Leader was mentioning,

this amendment act is essentially to do some housekeeping. I know that

the member from Vancouver, who spoke briefly before, will continue to

dig and find those small details that are hidden everywhere. But we will

hope he doesn’t find any, because that was not the intention of this

amendment act.

Some of these changes…. The Mental Health Act. This amendment will

authorize the appointment of a retired physician to sit on a review

panel, the Mental Health Review Board. The amendments will also

retroactively validate review panels constituted under the old law.

These amendments will bring legislation in line with the current

appropriate practice. They address the shortage of practising physicians

on the review board, due to the limited availability, loss in clinical

wages and potential conflict-of-interest situations. These amendments

will also provide an effective means….

Interjections.

R. Kahlon: I think I’m hearing heckling from the other side. I actually would

welcome heckling right now.

Interjections.

R. Kahlon: Gentle heckling. This is actually the most exciting part of the debate

all day for many folks here.

Interjections.

R. Kahlon: Sorry? They’re saying: “Louder and more.”

Let me mention the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. This amendment

will clarify the public guardian and trustee may, as a corporation, so

become and act as a director of a client’s company. As the Business

Corporations Act requires a director of a company, a public guardian

trustee can act as a director of a client’s companies in order to meet

the obligation to clients by protecting their financial interests.

Pretty standard housekeeping stuff there.

We’ve got the Offence Act that needs the amendment. This amendment

adds specific provisions to expressly authorize tele-informations, which

are sworn statements made by a peace officers. When it’s impractical for

peace officers to appear in person before a justice, they must submit a

sworn statement using a written telecommunication method. Pretty

straightforward, I think. I think all members in the House would

agree.

This is, in a way, removing red tape. I know everyone in this House

likes to remove red tape, and I think this is partly doing that. The

Criminal Code specifically allows us for the swearing of

tele-information for criminal offences. So I think this move will be a

more efficient use of police and judicial resources.

There’s a change to the Supreme Court Act. The proposed amendments

clarifies the Chief Justice administrative authority over masters who

handle pretrial applications, case management, conferences, settlement

discussions and similar matters — and registrars who handle disputes

relating to costs that amount to lawyer bills, the settlement of orders

and similar matters.

This legislation better organizes the Supreme Court Act and codifies

long-established practices on salary, benefits, retirement, security of

tenure. It does not change existing practices or laws.

Also there are changes to the Business Corporations Act and

Cooperative Association Act, the Credit Union Incorporation Act,

Financial Institutions Act and Societies Act. These amendments close the

potential loophole in current legislation in which chartered

professional accountants may be authorized to perform an audit,

regardless of whether that person has been authorized by professional

organizations of chartered professional accountants.

The proposed legislation will protect B.C. companies under entities

that may be affected by similar loopholes by ensuring that all audits

are performed by qualified individuals. I think we would all agree that

that is a very important thing.

[4:05 p.m.]

The Safety Standards Act governs high-risk technical equipment, such

as gas and electrical systems, boilers, refrigeration plants and

elevators — all very, very important, exciting stuff. The proposed

amendments address gaps and strengthen existing safety oversights and

tools. They also authorize an on-line database of information about

people who do regulated work, including enforcement history.

I think that one is particularly important. I know of someone who had

some work done on their home recently, and they had a gas pipefitter

come in to do some of the work. This is about two years back. Then they

realized, when they did renovations in their home, that the work wasn’t

done properly. Then, when they did some digging, they realized that the

person doing the work was a student, who actually wasn’t

certified.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, if I might caution you against the use of hand-held

devices during debate.

R. Kahlon: Oh sure, no problem. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

As I was saying, this person had been doing work on this home. The

person that had the work done did not know that he was not certified.

Two years later, when they got the home renovations done, they were told

that in fact it was a very dangerous situation because the work hadn’t

been done properly. So I think this piece is very important, because it

ensures that people that come in and do the work…. Whether it’s working

on gas lines and so on within a house, it’s done appropriately. So I’m

grateful for that change.

I think people that are everyday consumers will appreciate that. It

ensures that people that come in and do the work have the appropriate

qualifications. And they have to state it, so it’s a good protection for

consumers.

It’s also good for the industry, I think, to ensure that people that

don’t have the certifications aren’t doing work and undercutting people

who have spent years getting their certifications and perfecting their

trade. I think it’s an important piece to ensure that the market doesn’t

get undercut, that wages remain for those folks who have put their

commitment in to go to school and get their studies done and ensure that

they’ve got the appropriate accreditation.

So as the House Leader was mentioning, this is housecleaning. There’s

nothing secretive behind this. It’s mostly pretty straightforward, as my

colleagues across the way have noted. Hence the reason why this moved

along so much faster than we had expected.

The amendments to the board membership eligibility in the University

Act and Royal Roads University Act and the College and Institute Act are

also having some changes. Again, this is very basic housekeeping. It

removes some basic restrictions.

The people that step up and do this important work — that step up and

serve on our universities and institutes and boards…. It takes a lot of

time, and there’s not much upside and not much reward. These people are

doing the best they can for serving the community, serving the public.

We want to ensure that the best people are in those roles. If we can

clean up and ensure that restrictions are removed and have the best

people possible…. I think that’s something that everybody in this House

would welcome.

The risk of real or perceived conflicts of interest are already

managed through bylaws in place at our post-secondary institutions.

Removing these restrictions will allow boards to more accurately reflect

an institution’s stakeholders, especially institutions with smaller

populations, from which select board members are going to be

selected.

I think it’s important that the boards and government-appointed

institutes reflect the population within the community that they’re

serving. Sometimes there’s a limited pool of talent. So these changes

will allow for people to serve perhaps longer terms. It just removes

som