Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, October 20, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 110

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. K. Conroy

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Community Inclusion Month

D. Coulter

Semiahmoo House Society

T. Halford

Community action table on homelessness in

Langley

M. Dykeman

Wesley Mitchell and Ivan Paquette

S. Bond

Dialogue Richmond and garbage cleanup

initiative

H. Yao

Small Business Week and shop-local

initiatives

T. Stone

Oral Questions

COVID-19 booster shots for seniors in long-term-care

facilities and community

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

Coverage of COVID-19 testing and treatment costs for

immigrants

T. Halford

Hon. A. Dix

Access to safe supply

A. Olsen

Hon. S. Malcolmson

LifeLabs labour dispute and COVID-19 testing

C. Oakes

Hon. A. Dix

M. de Jong

COVID-19 vaccine policies for teachers and school

staff

J. Tegart

Hon. J. Whiteside

Truck driver training and ICBC road tests

T. Shypitka

Hon. M. Farnworth

P. Milobar

Question of Privilege

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Farnworth

P. Milobar

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 2021

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

A. Olsen

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. M. Dean

Hon. B. Ralston

T. Shypitka

S. Furstenau

E. Ross

Question of Privilege

(continued)

Hon. M. Farnworth

P. Milobar

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2021

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: N. Letnick.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to welcome to the House today Andrew Wynn-Williams from the Canadian

Manufacturers and Exporters Association.

This is Manufacturing Week, and the CME is holding a Women in Manufacturing

Success Forum that promotes manufacturing careers for women. B.C. is the only

prov­ince that has seen more women enter manufacturing since the pandemic

started than any other province, and a large part of that is due to the work of

Andrew and his entire team.

Please can the House make Andrew welcome today.

S. Bond: I am very pleased today to be able to introduce two guests in the chamber

from Prince George. We don’t often get the opportunity to welcome friends here

because of the distance to travel. Joining us today are Colleen and Jim

Fitzpatrick.

[1:35 p.m.]

I have gotten to know Colleen and Jim over the years and so appreciate

their contributions in our community and beyond. The Fitzpatricks are the proud

parents of three sons, and I know they love being grandparents.

One of their sons, Cpl. Darren Fitzpatrick, served in the 3rd Battalion,

Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, and tragically lost his life in the

service of our country as a result of injuries from an improvised explosive device

while on foot patrol west of Kandahar city. Darren was 21 years old.

Colleen has been a National Silver Cross Mother, with Jim and her family by

her side.

Thank you, Jim and Colleen, for sharing your son with our country. We are

truly grateful for you and other families whose loved ones pay the ultimate price.

I am very honoured to introduce you to the Legislature today.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m really honoured to be able to introduce some guests as well today. Some

have travelled from quite a long way to be here, and some of them are ministry

staff members that I rely on every day.

Chief Troy Batiste of the ?Esdilagh First Nation is with us

today.

Chief, it’s an absolute honour to have you with us here. I know it’s a long

trip from Quesnel. I understand how forestry is incredibly important to your

members, and I’m looking forward to continuing our work together as B.C. continues

to move its forest policy and commitments to reconciliation forward.

I’d also like to welcome, from the ?Esdilagh First Nation, general manager

Jeff Magwood and band coordinator Rhonda Christenson.

It’s a pleasure to have you both with us today as well.

Also with us are some staff members that I rely on — in fact, we all rely

on — to ensure that we use the best science and policies to manage our vital

forest resources. With us is our chief forester, Diane Nicholls. Diane is a

registered professional forester, a statutory decision–maker, a scientist, an

important resource who determines timber harvest levels in the province. She is

also the very first woman to ever hold this position in B.C. and, in fact, the

first woman in Canada to hold this position as well.

Also from the office of the chief forester, we have Leith McKenzie, the

acting manager of sustainable resource management; Rachel Pollard, the acting

director from the resource practices branch; and Ariel Taylor, the acting manager

with Indigenous consultation and negotiation.

I’d like to ask everyone to please join me in making all these guests very

welcome.

S. Furstenau: I have a couple of introductions to make today.

I’m delighted to introduce Joel Sagar, who is a grade 9 student at Steveston-London high

school. Joel emailed me back in August. He said: “I ask you to lift my voice and

other younger voices to the members of the B.C. Legislature about the actions that

our lawmakers must take to lessen the already disastrous impacts of climate change

and protect the future of the next generation.”

I extended an invitation to Joel to come and spend the day at the

Legislature. Very delighted to be resuming the shadow days. Joel has come along

with his parents, Anneke Wijtkamp and Shawn Sagar. Would the House please make

them feel very welcome.

Also in the gallery today are Sarah Miller and Claire Hume, along with baby

Sadie Joyce Hume Heathfield. Claire and Sarah have been the extraordinary dynamic

policy duo of the B.C. Green caucus throughout the entire stretch of the

confidence and supply agreement from 2017 to 2020. They have left an indelible,

lasting, important mark on legislation and policy in this building.

I am so grateful for everything they have contributed and done, for the

wisdom, for the extraordinary ability to process information, to write and to

bring a vision of a future in all of their work that we would be proud to

achieve.

Would the House please make Sarah and Claire most welcome.

Hon. K. Chen: I am glad to introduce two guests in the chamber joining question period

with us today. I actually met them through the Speaker when I was working as a

constituency assistant for the Speaker in 2007, when we were both younger and with

more hair.

Interjections.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: He does have better hair. Oh, gosh.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Next member.

Hon. K. Chen: Sorry. I hope I can continue, hon. Speaker. Okay.

The two guests that I’m introducing today are…. The first one is Marcel

Marsolais, who was the former CUPE 409 president, who represented support workers

from the New Westminster school district, who has done a lot for public education

and who is also a neighbour to both the Speaker and me, living in my constituency.

The second person is Gary Hall, who was the former lawyer and legal expert for the

B.C. General Employees Union.

I would like to ask the House to make them feel very welcome and thank them

for their contributions for our community in Burnaby.

C. Oakes: It is truly an honour to see Chief Batiste here, as well, from our riding,

and to provide members of this House with my gratitude for the work that ?Esdilagh

has done. Particularly, I know members of this House have heard me talk about West

Fraser Road and the impact it has had on so many people in the community. I really

appreciate all of the support and work that the ?Esdilagh First Nation has done to

move that file forward. It’s critically important.

The Chief is a neighbour of my family. So it’s lovely.

Please pass on to my family that all is going well here.

He has a lovely family as well.

Would the House, again, please help make the Chief welcome.

K. Paddon: I would like to share with all the members that I have two guests in the

precinct today and tomorrow, Eevah and Marina Macdonald.

Eevah is a determined young woman. She’s 11 years old. She’s been

experiencing some bullying and racism, and I did invite her out to be with us all.

At four o’clock today, we’ll actually be in the Hall of Honour, and I invite

everybody to come meet her in person.

Her mother is in health care and long-term care as well. Marina has raised

a fierce daughter. You can meet her today as well, if you like.

Tomorrow I’ll be sharing Eevah’s words with everybody here.

Thank you very much. Please make them welcome.

R. Russell: It’s my privilege today to wish a very happy anniversary to Linda and

Cornelius DeCock in Osoyoos. They are celebrating their 65th wedding anniversary,

which is a pretty remarkable accomplishment. They shared some stories with me

about just recently having four generations of the family out and about fishing

together, which is pretty remarkable.

Please wish them a happy anniversary with

me.

K. Greene: I did want to speak a little bit about Joel, who is in the gallery with us

today. He’s got a long commitment to environmental issues. He’s in grade 9 right

now, but as far back as 2014, he raised $4,000 for the Orphaned Wildlife

Rehabilitation Society. He’s very involved in the community.

I had a wonderful conversation with him last week about environmental

issues, about old growth, about reducing GHGs and about how the future looks for

young people. He’s one of those really engaged young leaders, and I think he’s

going to do amazing things for British Columbia.

Please make him feel welcome.

F. Donnelly: My brother Liam is having a birthday this Sunday. I would like the House to

give him, my little brother, a happy 54th birthday wish.

A. Walker: I’d like to introduce the House to three very special people to me in the

gallery above us: my wife’s aunt, Sally Salter; aunt, Barbara Karlson; and cousin,

Kristin Karlson. We don’t get to choose our in-laws, but if I did, I could not

choose any better.

Could the House please make them feel welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I have three guests I’d like the House to welcome from the B.C.

Psychological Association: Dr. Lesley Lutes, Dr. Simon Elterman and Alexina

Picard.

Will the House please make them welcome and thank them for their

work.

Mr. Speaker: Anybody else, in the House? All right.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. K. Conroy presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forests Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 23, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act,

2021. Forests are at the heart of our identity here in B.C. They are essential

to a healthy environment and provide good jobs to tens of thousands of British

Columbians.

This bill proposes amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act to

reshape B.C.’s forest management framework by aligning aspects of key forestry

legislation with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act,

repositioning government as the provincial land manager in partnership with

Indigenous nations and reasserting the public interest in forest management by

introducing new tools to establish resilient forests.

This bill also supports government’s commitment to align provincial laws

with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by

strengthening the role of B.C. Indigenous nations in forest planning and

decision-making with their traditional territories.

We have heard from a broad range of British Columbians that the

sustainability of their public forests is important to the long-term health and

well-being of the prov­ince’s economy, environment and communities. These

proposed amendments will result in beneficial changes to the forest sector,

like improving processes for reforestation after large wildfires and more

collaborative planning between Indigenous nations and government, as well as

industry and other stakeholders.

Long-overdue changes to the Forest and Range Practices Act will

establish a new forest landscape planning framework that will be implemented

over time to fully replace the current forest stewardship planning regime. Key

plans in the new framework include the forest landscape plan and the forest

operations plan.

The proposed amendments also enhance requirements under the existing

forest management framework to allow government to better respond to critical

issues during the transition to the new forest landscape plan framework. These

changes will enhance management control over for­est roads to protect

public safety and the environment, support the ability of government to manage

and respond to wildfires, provide land managers with new or expanded tools to

help ensure forest management practices reflect the public interest, enhance

compliance and enforcement tools and expand authorities to charge fees relating

to the use or occupation of public lands.

Forestry policies put in place two decades ago have limited our ability

to fight climate change, protect old-growth forests and share the benefits with

Indigenous and local communities. These amendments will change that.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COMMUNITY INCLUSION MONTH

D. Coulter: I am honoured today to acknowledge October as Community Inclusion Month

in British Columbia.

The province has proclaimed this month for the past 23 years to

highlight the rights, achievements and contributions made by people in our

communities living with developmental and intellectual disabilities. It’s a

month to celebrate inclusion and diversity as well as a time to recognize the

dedication of the individuals, self-advocates, families, friends, caregivers

and volunteers who continue to provide support and care while working to create

inclusive communities for all British Columbians.

I think it’s safe to say the idea of community and connection has taken

on new importance since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While many of us

have experienced separation from friends, loved ones, neighbours and community

members, we know that some have felt the physical and social isolation much

deeper than others.

[1:50 p.m.]

People living with developmental and intellectual disabilities are at an

increased risk for facing barriers like pov­erty and isolation. That’s

why now, more than ever, we want to raise awareness and ensure our communities

are welcoming and inclusive.

Inclusion B.C. has been a long-standing champion for Community Inclusion

Month, and as their theme this year, they are shining a light on the importance

of inclusive housing. Inclusive housing offers people with developmental

disabilities a choice in where they live and who they live with. It provides

people with housing that is safe, stable, affordable and accessible, and it

fosters independence while helping to build relationships among people and

supporting vibrant, diverse communities where everyone can feel like they

belong.

I’d like to invite all members to join me in recognizing October as

Community Inclusion Month, as we work together to create a more inclusive

future for all British Columbians.

SEMIAHMOO HOUSE SOCIETY

T. Halford: I want to follow up on the words of my colleague the member for

Chilliwack. I want to speak on the Semiahmoo House Society. It’s a non-profit

organization located in Surrey–White Rock. It exists to provide quality

services and support to people with disabilities and their families in the

community.

The philosophy of Semiahmoo House is simple. Its foundation is based on

inclusivity. In short, it is everything that a community should strive to

be.

They believe that people who have disabilities should be valued and

included fully in their communities with the same rights and responsibilities

as people living in our province and our country. They believe that all people

have the right to control their own lives through personal choices about

relationships, jobs, living arrangements, spirituality, travelling and

recreational activities and that all people have the right to give back to

their communities through volunteering and helping others. Everyone is entitled

to live a happy, full and meaningful life.

They also believe these rights can be reinforced and protected by making

sure that people are connected to and supported by friends, family, staff and

the community. Many members of the Semiahmoo House are people that I grew up

with, people that I worked with and went to school with, and it is so

heartening to see them in our community giving back each day.

When you come to White Rock and visit one of our small businesses, you

may encounter a friend from Semiahmoo House. One employer told me that the

single best decision she has made was hiring an individual from the

society.

I recently had the privilege of visiting this cherished part of my

community, and to say I felt inspired would be an understatement. This society

is everything a community should strive to be. This society is what White Rock

and Surrey are all about.

COMMUNITY ACTION TABLE

ON HOMELESSNESS IN

LANGLEY

M. Dykeman: Thank you for the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak of an

important initiative underway in the community of the Langleys. The Langley

municipalities consist of the township of Langley and Langley city. My riding

of Langley East is wholly within the township. The city and a smaller portion

of the township of Langley are represented by my friend and colleague the

member for Langley.

The populations of the Langleys have risen significantly over the past

several years, increasing density and changing demographics. With the

significant population growth, we’re seeing an increase in those experiencing

homelessness. With two municipalities, the challenge is to ensure we’re not

competing for the same resources and that resources go to the correct places to

service the areas of greatest need.

To address this, I consulted with the Ministry of Social Development and

Poverty Reduction on how we could best coordinate. They suggested a community

action table and helped me identify those to invite. I’m fortunate to represent

a generous and dedicated community where my call was answered, and they all

came to the table.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank those who have joined,

including Fraser Holland, Stepping Stone Community Services, who is our chair;

Mayor Froese of the township of Langley; the MLA for Langley; Mayor Val van den

Broek of Langley city; Patrick Ward, township of Langley, who provides

resources like admin services; John Kruger, the community integration

specialist; RCMP representatives; Fraser Health; Ishtar Women’s Resource; Lower

Fraser Valley Aboriginal Society; Encompass Support Services; Lookout Housing;

B.C. Housing; the intensive case management team of Langley Community Services

Society; and the Gateway of Hope. I’m grateful for their time and

dedication.

We’re excited to embark on a journey together to reduce the stigma of

poverty and homelessness, identify funding in areas of need, look at the larger

challenges related to all the other social issues that are related and ensure

that we work with our community so that all affected and impacted have an

opportunity to come together to address these challenges.

[1:55 p.m.]

WESLEY MITCHELL AND IVAN PAQUETTE

S. Bond: I rise today to recognize two very special peo­ple who have made a

real difference in the fight against COVID-19 in my community. As doctors,

nurses and health care workers have battled the pandemic over the last year and

a half, Wesley Mitchell and Ivan Paquette have been supporting them at the

University Hospital of Northern of British Columbia and Jubilee Lodge day after

day, week after week.

Wesley and Ivan wanted to find a visible way to show our incredible

health care workers that they were appreciated and supported. Since the

pandemic began, these two inspirational leaders have been joined by dozens of

other drummers, now called the UHNBC drum group, as they gathered outside the

hospital to drum and raise the spirits of health care workers and patients

struggling with the virus. The scene is a powerful one: drumming and singing

traditional songs of prayer and healing for those working tirelessly, those

suffering and even those who have lost their loved ones.

If you attend, you can look up and see doctors, nurses and patients in

the windows gaining strength from the beating of the drum and the songs shared

from the heart. The UHNBC drum group has been at the hospital in wind and rain,

sleet and snow, freezing temperatures over the past 19 months. Their goal was

to bring a bit of positivity and hope. They have done that and so much

more.

Wesley and Ivan and all that have drummed with you, thank you for your

dedication, your passion and your heart. You will likely never know the full

impact of your actions, but we know you have made a difference when we needed

it most. Together, you have brought comfort, kindness and care. Long after the

pandemic ends, the gifts that you have given to so many will never be

forgotten.

DIALOGUE RICHMOND

AND GARBAGE CLEANUP

INITIATIVE

H. Yao: Cigarette butts, used face masks, drink bottles, plastic bags and

Styrofoam containers are some of the common eyesores residents of Richmond have

to put up with when we go out for a stroll. Garbage in our community is not

only unpleasant to look at, but it also can be further broken down into smaller

inorganic materials by regular human activities. With a mild wind and a light

breeze, those inorganic materials can make their way into our ecosystem or,

worse yet, food system.

That’s why I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to a small

group of young adults: Kiran Ubi, Jonathan Chen, Amy Li, Emily Zhao and Terry

Chu. They’re a board of directors of a local society called Dialogue Richmond.

Dialogue Richmond society is a non-profit organization with a goal to promote

inclusivity and connectedness to build a socially responsible

community.

This year, on October 2 and 11, based on the theme of Thanksgiving,

Dialogue Richmond hosted their second annual Clean Neighbourhood project. The

for people to connect while engaging, socially responsible, by asking community

members to pick up litter around their neighbourhood. The project had 66

participants, picked up 30 bags of garbage and raised over $14,000 for the

society.

I personally enjoyed the opportunity to join the volunteers, picking up

garbage and financially supporting a fundraiser for the society. I also want to

take a moment to express my gratitude to our local elected officials: MLA for

Richmond North Centre, MLA for Richmond-Steveston, Richmond city councillor

Bill McNulty, Richmond city councillor Carol Day and Richmond city councillor

Michael Wolfe. It is truly inspiring to witness a community coming together to

beautify and to better our neighbourhood together.

In addition to the ongoing projects, Humans of Richmond is another

project they are working on. It captures different memories, attitudes, wisdom

and life experiences that Richmondites want to share. You can find those

stories on Facebook and Instagram by searching Humans of Richmond.

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

AND SHOP-LOCAL

INITIATIVES

T. Stone: Small Business Week is a time to show appreciation for the backbone of

B.C.’s economy. Small businesses account for 98 percent of all businesses in

the prov­ince, employing more than one million people and contributing to

almost 35 percent of B.C.’s GDP.

[2:00 p.m.]

From restaurants, fitness studios and app developers to farms and

ranches, small businesses create jobs, connect people and fuel innovation. They

contribute much to our communities and make our communities unique and

vibrant.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented immense challenges to small

businesses, as many have been forced to shut down and lay off staff. Now many

are facing a labour shortage. I encourage everyone to demonstrate your support

by shopping local this week and beyond to help businesses survive and thrive.

Order takeout or delivery. Visit a local gallery. Buy gift cards to use now or

later as the holiday season approaches. Or help promote some of your favourite

big difference to these hard-working people in our local

communities.

As we look to recovery, it’s important that our government and society

stand by small businesses, many of which are still struggling as they pivot to

new business models in a time of constant change. Let’s show our local

entrepreneurs and mom-and-pop shops that we care. Let’s help them be resilient,

and let’s help them find a way forward for the long term.

I know it isn’t easy being a small business owner, having owned my own

business in the tech space for 15 years, but I can tell you this. I’m proud of

entrepreneurs and small business owners who take risks and innovate and of

people who turn ideas into opportunities. Frankly, we should all encourage this

risk-taking and celebrate their successes.

During Small Business Week and Small Business Month here in British

Columbia, let’s take the time to acknowledge the courage, determination and

dedication of each and every small business owner in this province. By

supporting local entrepreneurs with your resources, talent or investment,

you’re making your community stronger and our province a better place to live

for all of B.C.’s families.

Oral Questions

COVID-19 BOOSTER SHOTS FOR SENIORS

IN LONG-TERM-CARE

FACILITIES

AND COMMUNITY

S. Bond: I think we can all agree that vulnerable seniors in this province need

to get their booster shots as soon as possible. But B.C., as we’ve learned, is

lagging far behind Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario in ensuring that seniors

get the protection of a booster shot.

Boosters have been offered to all eligible seniors in Ontario, but on

Monday, we learned that very few long-term-care facilities in B.C. have

received this critical pro­tection. B.C. will not catch up to Ontario

until mid-December. That was according to a document from Fraser

Health.

This tragically slow rollout is putting people’s lives at risk.

Yesterday it was reported that there are now 67 cases involving 52 residents

and 15 staff at Cottonwoods Care Centre. Thirteen people have died.

To the Premier, has the Fraser Health Authority issued a new directive

with new timelines, as promised here, in the House, on Monday?

Hon. A. Dix: I was clear on Monday; I’m clear now. The timeline is to get it done as

soon as possible. To date, as of yesterday, 107 care homes had received the

third booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The decision to proceed with care

homes was made on the day it was recommended by NACI.

We’re proceeding with, I think, considerable speed in that task, and

we’re going to continue to do that in the week or two ahead. We’re making very

good progress, and we’re going to complete the task.

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

S. Bond: We should start from the premise that B.C. is behind in the first place,

and the minister may want to try to explain that. He also avoided the specific

answer to the question. It was Fraser Health that issued a document that caused

anxiety and concern and that told residents and their families

straightforwardly that they might have to wait until the middle of

December.

My question was clear. I will ask the minister to clarify whether or not

he said to Fraser Health: “This is not good enough. We need the timeline to be

expedited.”

In addition to that, we know there are frail seniors who live in

community. In fact, the vast majority of seniors choose to live in community.

This week B.C. seniors advocate Isobel Mackenzie said: “We’re clearly seeing

the impact of the waning protection. To date, we don’t have data on how many

seniors have been vaccinated with the booster shot and what the plan is for

seniors in the community, many of whom are as vulnerable as people in long-term

care.”

[2:05 p.m.]

We have Fraser Health Authority sending out a bulletin: “You might have

to wait till mid-November.” We have no plan for seniors in community that has

been announced, despite it being promised. We also have zero data, zero

transparency.

It should be a straightforward answer from the minister. Did he inform

Fraser Health that they must expedite their timeline? When can frail seniors

who live in community expect a plan from this minister and this

government?

Hon. A. Dix: To the member: I can tell you there may be people who care as much about

long-term care as I do, but I don’t think there are very many who care more

about it. Having dealt with this pandemic, I know the member…. We’ve talked

about long-term-care homes that have had outbreaks in her community and the

impact at Jubilee Lodge on families. We know this.

From the moment the decision was made to give booster shots, the message

was “go,” and we are going. We have a respected health care leader, Dr. Penny

Ballem, leading our immunization campaign. I think she has led it with

integrity and speed. Most British Columbians, overwhelmingly, I believe, have

respected the experience they’ve had in getting vaccinated.

We are proceeding with third doses. We announced the first 15,000 to the

most clinically vulnerable people — people who had not had the full effect of

their first course of a COVID-19 vaccine. That was around September 13. So far

— the member wants data — 65,000 third or booster doses have been delivered in

B.C. As I noted just a moment ago, 107 care facilities have been vaccinated.

Now their residents have been vaccinated. We’re going to continue to proceed

apace.

It’s based on vulnerability and, of course, when the sec­ond dose

occurred. The member will also know that Dr. Henry was a leader on the question

of the gap between first and second doses. Her position, as the evidence has

come forward, has been supported by the facts. It was supported by the facts.

Many people called for a 21-day gap, as some jurisdictions had initially,

between first and second doses. Dr. Henry followed the evidence and followed

the facts. We’ve fully discussed this, and I think that the Leader of the

Opposition supported this at that time.

What we’re doing is the same thing: laying out a plan to protect people

based on their vulnerability and the need for a third dose based on the science

and based on the evidence. That’s what we’ll continue to do.

COVERAGE OF COVID-19 TESTING

AND TREATMENT COSTS FOR

IMMIGRANTS

T. Halford: During the pandemic, immigrants and newcomers to B.C. were covered for

the cost of COVID-19 treatment in order to protect public health. We’ve just

learned the Premier is ending that coverage on November 1 and will start

charging newcomers, with thousands in costs, in the middle of the fourth

wave.

This will most certainly discourage many diverse communities and people

returning to B.C. from seeking medical treatment. Sanctuary Health member Omar

Chu says: “I can’t believe that the province would make a decision that would

be so harmful to our society as a whole in B.C. It makes people even more

afraid than they already are to seek medical care for COVID-19. It is

unconscionable.”

It’s a simple yes-or-no question to the Premier. Will he extend the

coverage while the pandemic continues?

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know that in March 2020, a decision was made by me and

the government to provide COVID-19 costs for individuals in B.C. who are not

eligible for MSP. It was extended on July 31, 2020, to April 30, 2021. It was

extended again to October 31, 2021, and most recently it’s been extended to

April 20, 2022.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Halford: I want to thank the minister for the answer. A sincere thank-you for

that. I will say this. As of 5 p.m. yesterday, the Ministry of Health was

doubling down — that on November 1, those individuals would have to pay for

their treatment.

The minister has obviously had a change of heart, but my question is

this: why does it take this long to get to the right answer? Why do this

minister and this Premier continue to make sure that people don’t have the

information and, at the last second, attempt to provide some

clarity?

Will the Premier, will this minister, today provide written confirmation

that this change is in place, or do we have to FOI it?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Thanks to the member for his question. His concern is an important

issue.

As I say, the extension has been uninterrupted. The support and the

coverage have continued consistently since March 20, 2020. It’ll continue right

now through to April 20, 2022. Obviously, it’ll be reviewed again in advance of

that.

The member asked a question. He got the answer he wanted. That’s good.

It’s the answer I want too.

I think the reason for it, I want to say, because there’s another group

of people who are awaiting their status…. There’s a backlog at the federal

level at IRCC in terms of status for people. That coverage continues for that

group of people as well, uninterrupted.

ACCESS TO SAFE SUPPLY

A. Olsen: Does the Minister of Health support a regulated, de-medicalized, safe

supply of the illicit substances that are poisoning nearly six British

Columbians a day?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The tragic increased toxicity of illicit street drugs has taken so many

lives in British Columbia over the five years of the public health emergency,

and despite the number of lives lost dropping in 2019, for the first time, and

for the first two months of 2020, the pandemic has shot drug toxicity so high.

As the coroner has noted, this is directly responsible for the terrible

increased loss of life.

Two weeks into the pandemic, my friend and predeces­sor, Judy

Darcy, along with the support of Dr. Bonnie Henry, brought in a project that

they’d already been working on. It needed to be brought in immediately to allow

prescribers to connect people who are at risk of overdose with a prescribed

safer supply.

We’ve talked about this many times in the House. We had feedback, both

from people who use drugs and from medical practitioners, that people needed

more options. That was the basis for the expansion of the prescribed safer

supply that Dr. Henry and I announced in July of this year.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: I didn’t ask the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions for her

opinion on the matter. I asked the Minister of Health. I understand that the

government can stand up whatever minister they want to answer whatever question

is asked; however, it’s a specific question to a specific minister.

I ask again. Does the Minister of Health support a regulated,

de-medicalized, safe supply of the illicit substances that are poisoning nearly

six British Columbians a day?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I am honoured to be asked by the Premier to be his Minister of Mental

Health and Addictions. British Columbia was the first province in Canada to

establish a ministry and a minister with this single focus.

I’m grateful to the health authorities that deliver both substance use

and addictions treatment and mental health supports. With the Minister of

Health, we are asking a lot, as a province, of our health authorities right

now. They are fighting two public health emergencies. They rolled out an

unprecedented vaccination campaign in our province’s history, and we are asking

health authorities to report to two ministers — both myself, in Mental Health

and Addictions, and the rest of the health care file to the Minister of Health.

We work well together.

Again, I’ll say we’re the only province in Canada to offer people at

risk of toxic drug overdose a prescribed safe supply. It is saving lives. I

wish it was saving more. We’re working hard with the health authorities to

expand it every day.

[2:15 p.m.]

LIFELABS LABOUR DISPUTE

AND COVID-19

TESTING

C. Oakes: Workers at LifeLabs have issued a 72-hour strike notice. This is an

essential testing laboratory that not only provides critical health services

but does COVID tests across the province. The idea that access could be

restricted during a pandemic is adding stress to those who desperately need

results.

To the Premier, what is the Premier’s plan to ensure that people won’t

lose access to tests?

Hon. A. Dix: Obviously, we are always concerned about these matters, as the member

would understand.

I’m aware that the B.C. Government Employees Union and LifeLabs are in

negotiations and that strike notice has been put in place. We obviously support

the collective bargaining process and want it to arrive at a successful result,

as I know the member would as well, as all of us would, because that is the

way, and the best way, to resolve these issues in our province.

I just wanted to note that there will be minimal impacts on patient

services. There will be no impact on COVID testing sites. Most LifeLabs patient

services centres will remain open, and service centres, particularly in remote

and rural locations, will be at 100 percent capacity. So there are plans being

put in place, of course, to deal should the labour situation result in job

action.

I want to say that action has been taken and a plan is being put into

place to ensure that there are continuing efforts, together, as a province, to

deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, which both LifeLabs and, I know, the BCGEU all

support and will continue to be there for British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: As the minister knows, we have good reason to be raising concerns about

testing delays. We’ve had these conversations about what we’ve experienced in

the North.

In northern British Columbia, we’ve seen testing delays up to 14 days.

In fact, at the Quesnel and District Chamber of Commerce, they’ve advised me

that there are 27 emails right now from a variety of different individuals. We

are seeing wait times between 12 and 16 days — 12- and 16-day delays on getting

results back on tests. In Surrey, we’ve heard from parents that tests are being

delayed more than a week.

We know we have challenges right now with getting results on important

tests. This strike will result, potentially, in office closures that are

conducting vital tests, not just for COVID but other tests as well.

To the Premier, we want assurances that what has hap­pened in

northern British Columbia with delays in test results…. We’ve seen people

impacted, parents impacted by delays in testing. We want those assurances….

Patients want the assurances that there will be no interruption to vital

tests.

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know — we share this information, and we will be sharing

it again this week with the opposition, in terms of our testing volumes in

Northern Health — that those volumes are the highest they’ve been at any time

in the pandemic. Of course, the amount of COVID-19, in this case, in the North

is higher than at any point in the pandemic. More people are getting tested and

have got tested. Yesterday I believe it was about 720 tests across Northern

Health.

A crucial product involved in the testing, a reagent, was in short

supply. We didn’t get our national supply a week or so ago, and that affected

testing for a short period of time. That platform is back at full

capacity.

We’re going to continue to work to make sure people get the tests they

need and to encourage, of course, with respect to the issue between LifeLabs

and the BCGEU — their collective bargaining effort — that that be successful so

that it would have absolutely no effect on health care in B.C. Should it have

an effect, we are preparing, obviously, for that situation to ensure that

patient services and the health of patients are not affected.

M. de Jong: To follow up, to the minister, here is the anxiety that I think he is

confronted by in the House today and that he and the government will be

confronted by in the hours and days ahead. A key part of the strategy through

these months — for the province, for public health officials — has been the

capacity to test. He reinforced that here again.

[2:20 p.m.]

Notwithstanding his report here today, he is also aware, as my colleague

has mentioned, about significant delays that are taking place in places around

British Columbia to secure tests and test results.

Now, the union representing the workers that have done that vital work

have indicated that they are prepared to withdraw services, order the

withdrawal of services. That is going to have an impact. It has to have an

impact.

What people are asking the minister and the government today, armed with

that information, is: what plans are in place? What will that impact be, first

of all? It most certainly, even with essential service levels, will result in

less tests being performed.

What is the nature of the impact, and what contingency does the minister

and the government and the Premier have in place to address those impacts so

that tests can take place in the way that they must?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, obviously, we’re preparing. Should that be an eventuality, we’re

preparing a plan for that. But what I’m saying is that the COVID-19 testing

will continue, certainly, at its current levels and beyond that.

As you know, we have about the capacity to process 22,000 tests a day in

British Columbia. We’ve had a record number of tests in September. We’ve never

reached that level since the beginning of the pandemic. And we intend to

continue our aggressive testing strategy to support peo­ple and their

families.

There are challenges. The farther you get from the BCCDC, or the farther

you get from Northern Health’s central locations, there are some timing

challenges. So it is longer. The turnaround time is longer, for example, in

Northern Health than in other health authorities, where that distance is

shorter, but staff is working very hard to address those issues that face us

now and preparing for this instance.

Our priority is the health of British Columbians, and we are going to

ensure that that health and that testing system are supported throughout this

period.

COVID-19 VACCINE POLICIES FOR

TEACHERS AND SCHOOL

STAFF

J. Tegart: Parents, teachers, staff and trustees want the Premier to show some

leadership instead of hiding from the tough decisions. Teri Mooring of the BCTF

says: “Any vaccine mandate would need to be provincially implemented and done

equitably. We can’t have unequal treatment of workers in the public education

system.”

The Premier’s abdication of leadership on school safety is risky, and

it’s wrong. Will the Premier protect our children and prevent a patchwork

vaccine mandate in our schools?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question. I think we all know the safety

of staff and students has been our top priority throughout the

pandemic.

I want to take a moment to just thank all of our education partners,

trustees, all of our staff employee groups, all of the district and provincial

leadership for the cohesive message around the importance of vaccinations that

all of those provincial organizations are delivering, across our sector, to

their respective memberships. I am very proud of the work that those

representative groups are doing right now, at my request, to come together and

to develop a set of provincial standards and guidelines that can assist boards

in their decision-making as employers.

As the member knows, having been a school trustee, boards of education

are the employers and the ones who are appropriately placed to set workplace

rules of this nature. We are going to continue to work together as a sector to

ensure that, as we have done since the beginning of the pandemic, this sector

moves together to put kids first and foremost, to ensure that kids continue to

have access to in-person learning.

Mr. Speaker: Fraser-Nicola, supplemental.

J. Tegart: I, also, would like to thank those co-governors in the system, in the

school system.

[2:25 p.m.]

I can inform the minister that I’ve heard from a number of school boards

who are very concerned about the actions of this Premier and this government.

They think and are sharing with me their concerns about the fact that this is a

public health issue, a provincial public health issue, and that they are being

put upon by this government to make a decision that should be made

provincially. They are very, very concerned about that.

To the Premier: will you commit today that you will take the leadership

needed to keep our kids safe in the class­room and ensure that there will

not be a patchwork pattern of vaccinations in our schools?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Again, thank you to the member. I know we share a concern about what

happens in schools, for kids and for the staff who work in our school system as

well.

I have had a chance to spend quite a bit of time with school board

leadership from across the province and superintendents very recently, as we

discuss these very issues. I can appreciate that boards of education, who have

been incredible leaders throughout the pandemic, are hearing from their

communities a diversity of opinions about many matters related to the pandemic.

I know that they are committed to working collaboratively with their partners,

with their staff, with the ministry on the steps that we are taking to move

forward with respect to the question of vaccinations for school

staff.

TRUCK DRIVER TRAINING

AND ICBC ROAD

TESTS

T. Shypitka: Commercial drivers registered for road tests before the October 18 MELT

deadline should have been grandfathered, plain and simple. Now they’re facing

thousands of dollars in extra costs, and some of them may even lose their jobs.

This is all because of ICBC testing delays.

Two weeks ago I stood in this very same spot, and I asked the minister a

pretty simple question: what was he prepared to do about this? His quote was

this: “We are aware of the issue with ICBC and the road tests, and we are

working to ensure that people who need to get the tests are able to get those

tests.”

I’m not certain if the minister was aware of how big this problem was,

but the minister made a big promise. He got the hopes of a lot of people in my

riding and across B.C. pretty excited about the fact that hope was on the

way.

It’s just another failed promise. It is the NDP. NDP: never delivering

promises. Hashtag it if you want. I’m not sure.

Why did the Premier make a promise that would allow commercial drivers —

many of these people young British Columbian drivers, by the way, looking to

start a new occupation, a new way in life — a chance of relief, before he

snatched it away?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. When he raised the question,

I said that, yeah, we are aware that there are issues and that we would see

what we could do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear the answer, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I also told the member, and I told the member across the way, that if

they have names, to drop them off to my office. They did. They dropped off nine

names. I can tell you each one of those cases was investigated.

I can tell you that one of the individuals was able to get a test done.

I can also tell you this — that there were a number of the cases that had got

their licence after the deadline. So they have to take the test. Absolutely

each one of those cases was investigated thoroughly.

I can also tell the member this. We have been working with the Trucking

Association — ICBC had — since the beginning of the year to let drivers know

that they needed to have a test. ICBC put on extra capacity to ensure that they

were able to do that. They worked with the industry to notify

people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: ICBC worked with the industry to put on extra capacity. The overwhelming

majority of driv­ers in this province have managed to comply. There are

some that did not.

We looked into the cases that the member put forward, each and every one

of them. As I said, I can tell you that one of them was able to. Others were

not able to. I can also tell you this. In one of the cases, the individual had

already failed twice.

This entire program is about safety, hon. Speaker — safety, first and

foremost. It does not mean that they can’t drive; it just means they’re going

to have to have a test to ensure that they’re safe on the roads.

[2:30 p.m.]

P. Milobar: The bluster doesn’t help the people that are looking to get tests, but I

appreciate the minister needs to crank things up. The minister may want to

actually listen to his own words from two weeks ago in this House. It wasn’t

that he would look into it and see what he could do. It was: “We are aware of

the issue with ICBC and the road tests, and we are working to ensure that

people who need to get the tests are able to get those tests.” That was the

complete answer. For once, it was actually a short answer.

The problem is the minister is not delivering on that answer. The

minister’s staff says: “Since March, both the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure and ICBC have communicated how the transition will be

managed.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the question, please. Members,

question.

Continue.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is from the minister’s office. “Since March, both the Ministry of

Transportation and Infrastructure and ICBC have communicated how the transition

will be managed, including that ICBC would not be increasing the number of

class 1 road test appointments.”

Now, no one is disputing that MELT is needed, and no one is disputing

that higher safety standards should not happen. But people that were unable to

book road tests under the old regime are now faced with $10,000 to $15,000

extra in cost because this minister and this Premier were unable to provide the

tests in a timely way.

COVID always was the excuse. It’s always someone else’s fault with this

minister and this government. It’s never their responsibility. It’s always

point the finger.

Again to the minister, we canvassed, and we came up with a long list of

names. Why will the minister not stay good with his word and make sure these

people are able to have their tests provided by ICBC in a timely fashion? Then

we can get on with the MELT program as it should be.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, we were provided with a list. We looked at each and every one of

the cases. As I told the member, yes, one was able to. There were reasons why

the others weren’t.

Let’s be clear. This is about safety. It’s about road safety, and it’s

about….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, a question was asked. Now is the time for an answer. So let’s

listen to the minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Let’s be clear how this came about — because of a terrible tragedy in

Humboldt, Saskatch­ewan. That’s how this came about. British Columbia and

the trucking industry recognized that we needed to have the best safety

standards in this country, and that’s exactly what’s been delivered.

It was worked with the transportation industry at the beginning of

March. The trucking industry was notified repeatedly about the need to get

tests. ICBC did have to…. The overwhelming number of drivers in this province

got the tests. The cases that were brought forward — as I pointed out, every

single one of those was looked at.

What this is…. It’s about safety.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I wish the opposition would realize that.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege

A. Olsen: I intend to speak to the question of privilege that I raised yesterday

regarding Bill 22, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment

Act, and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act special

committee that has been appointed.

Section 80 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

FOIPPA, requires that the Legislative Assembly appoint a special committee to

undertake a “comprehensive review” of the act, and that committee must report back

to the assembly within one year of being appointed.

Section 80 requires a time-limited review that once the committee has begun

its work, it must report back to this House on a specific date. That date is

public information, as are the terms of reference. As a result, it sets an

expectation that the special committee will be undertaking a public consultation

within that prescribed time.

[2:35 p.m.]

On December 14, 2020, the Legislative Assembly agreed that a special

committee be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act in accordance with

section 80 of that act. Members of the committee

were appointed, with the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam as the convener and I as

the member appointed as the member for the Third Party. On April 12, 2021, the

first session of the 42nd parliament was prorogued, and the committee was

dissolved.

The second session began with a Speech from the Throne on April 12, 2021,

and on June 16, 2021, the Legislative Assembly agreed that a special committee be

ap­pointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act in accordance with

section 80 of that act. On August 23, 2021, the committee

convened for the first time and elected the member for Port Moody–​Coquitlam

and the member for Nechako Lakes as the Chair and Deputy Chair respectively. On

October 18, 2021, the Minister of Citizens’ Services tabled Bill 22, Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021, with the most

substantive amendments to the FOIPPA in the last decade.

The powers of this special committee are outlined in the terms of

reference. They include appointing subcommittees, sitting while the House is

adjourned, retaining Legislative Assembly staff to support the work and

“conducting consultations by any means the committee considers

appropriate.”

This is a serious matter and a breach of privilege of the members of the

committee. The Minister of Citizens’ Services’ attempt to amend the FOIPPA while a

special committee is currently consulting with the public undermines the work of

the special committee. If this precedent is allowed to stand, there is a real

threat to all work undertaken by committees, special or select standing, appointed

by this Legislative Assembly to complete statutory obligations if the minister

moves to amend legislation while a committee is still consulting the

public.

The minister has argued that parts of this act need to be amended because

the ministerial order is going to expire, and there is a desire to entrench the

powers granted in that ministerial order into law prior to the expiration. There’s

a remedy that does not include amending the legislation. The government can extend

the ministerial order until after the consultation is complete and the committee’s

report has been filed with this House.

In 1993, Madam Speaker Joan Sawicki ruled on a matter of privilege. In that

ruling, Madam Speaker wrote:

“It is, of course, a breach of privilege to privately solicit members of a

Committee when acting in a quasi-judicial capacity or to threaten a member of a

Committee in an attempt to influence them in the discharge of their duties. In

addition, it is the acknowledged practice of this House to preclude any reference

in detail to specific issues before a Committee prior to the report of the

Committee, or discussions of evidence being presented to a Committee, but to allow

general reference to a subject matter even though that matter may have been

previously referred to a Select Standing or other Committee.

“The rationale of this practice is to avoid any direct intrusion into the

functioning of Committees which might pre-empt the Committee’s activities. The

House itself, at the same time, does not totally preclude itself from alluding to

a particular subject matter which it has referred to one of its

Committees.”

Bill 22 is “a direct intrusion into the functioning of committees which

might pre-empt the committee’s activities.”

The Parliament of Australia faced a similar situation in 2018 with respect

to the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018. A committee of the Parliament

of Australia was tasked with the review of the act, and the government introduced

the amending bill. The members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on

Intelligence and Security offered several comments that are applicable in this and

to be considered:

“The committee is mindful of its statutory duty to review the operation,

effectiveness and implications of the act, as required under

section 60A of the

act. However, the introduction of the SOCI bill and its effective alteration of

elements of the act that would be reviewed transformed the committee’s ability to

undertake the review.

“As outlined above and earlier in this report, the focus of submitters and

witnesses was primarily on the bill, and this required a parallel focus from the

committee as well. Trying to review the operation of

an act that had not had a

number of its key provisions utilized, with a bill to fundamentally amend that act

before the committee as well, was a challenging exercise. Ultimately it was an

exercise that the committee could not undertake effectively in the face of

overwhelming concern regarding the SOCI bill’s potential impact.

[2:40 p.m.]

“Accordingly, the committee is using this report as commentary on the SOCI

bill with recommendations for change as well as a vehicle for finalizing the

statutory review. However, the conclusions of the statutory review are that the

shifting landscape that the bill created did not allow for the statutory review to

be analyzed in a way that created an evidence base to meaningfully recommend any

change. This is also reflective of the fact that the recommended changes from

Bills One and Two will alter the landscape even further.”

The Special Committee to Review the FOIPPA is not an open-ended process.

The Legislative Assembly constrained the work of the Special Committee to Review

FOIPPA to one year ending in June 2022. As a result, there should be no confusion

about when the statutory obligations of the committee are complete and when it

would be appropriate for the Minister of Citizens’ Services to consider amendments

to the act. The House has no knowledge of what is happening at the committee until

the committee has reported to this House. The committee has not reported to this

House, and the work continues.

Mr. Speaker, I have fulfilled the requirements of the procedure for raising

a question of privilege, include transmitting a copy of the motion that I intend

to move to the table.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We reserve our place to respond to that later.

P. Milobar: I, too, would like to reserve our place to speak to this later.

Mr. Speaker: Member, thank you so much for raising this. Our Chair will try to deal with

this matter as soon as possible. We take it under advisement. Thank

you.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 21, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 21;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

Hon. D. Eby: This is, as we noted in the second reading speech, a bill of multiple

statutes being amended. So there’ll be staff in and out of the chamber here

today. For the initial set of sections, ideally, we can do sections 1 through 3

and 23, the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act sections.

With me are Darin Thompson, legal counsel, policy and legislation

division, and Nina Bindra, legal counsel, legal services branch.

I look forward to the members’ questions.

On clause 1.

M. de Jong: Some of this will, as I pointed out in second reading, merely be for the

Attorney to confirm. My read and comparison tells me that the newly proposed

section 56.6 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act — the language — will mirror

precisely that language which exists in the Administrative Tribunals Act today.

Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The member has a correct understanding.

M. de Jong: And the newly proposed, in clause 1, 56.7 of the Civil Resolution

Tribunal Act actually mirrors the existing

section 56.7 of the Civil Resolution

Tribunal Act — no changes there.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct, but it’s not exact. The intent was to mirror, as

closely as possible,

section 58 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

M. de Jong: I asked my question clumsily and incorrectly. I think if I break this

down, the proposed subs 56.7(1)(

a) and (

b) appear to mirror precisely the

language in the existing act. When we get to sub (2), the difference I noted

relates to a difference of sub 58(2)(

c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act,

most particularly the deletion of any reference to privative clauses — that

term which, of course, has great import when considering matters of judicial

review.

Can the Attorney explain what, if any, substantive significance flows

from the deletion of the reference to privative clauses?

Hon. D. Eby: The significance is…. The effort here is to respond to a court decision

that imposed a standard of review that was not what was intended. So to create

ease of reference for people who head off to a Supreme Court for a judicial

review, some of whom may be lay litigants and aren’t familiar with the

Administrative Tribunals Act, the idea was to try to import directly into the

legislation the Administrative Tribunals Act provisions.

Because this legislation for the civil resolution tribunal already has a

privative clause, all that the drafters thought — and what’s put in front of

the House — needed to be imported was the applicable test for legislation that

has a privative clause. They didn’t need that extra

section that says, “If

there is a privative clause, then this is the test that applies,” because there

is a privative clause in the legislation. Just importing the relevant test in

from the ATA, the Administrative Tribunals Act, achieves that goal.

It’s not meant to change the standard by removing that, just to simplify

the text.

M. de Jong: I heard two things there. The last part that I heard, which I understood

to mean no substantive change to the test…. Maybe that is the relevant part of

the answer, that the wording has been adopted to enhance its readability, but

it has not been done with a view to, in any way, altering the substantive test

for securing judicial review.

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct.

M. de Jong: Still in

section 1. The proposed 56.9 seems to me to mirror precisely

the language in sub 59(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Is that

correct?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. At a risk of sounding a bit pedantic — not

intended — just for the record, it imports subsections 58(3) and 59(4). But

that is a distinction without a real difference, because in the Administrative

Tribunals Act, those sections both have to stand independently because it

depends on the on the particular tribunal. But for this legislation, they can

both be combined into one because it is part of an integrated whole of the

Civil Resolution Tribunal Act.

The short answer is that the member is correct. The longer answer is

that the drafters had other thoughts that were incorporated in here as well

that I wanted to reflect in my answer.

M. de Jong: That’s all helpful. I expect that when we move to

section 2, it will

pass very quickly, and similarly the transitional provisions in

section

I’ll tell the AG why, besides wanting to confirm the na­ture, that

became a question for me. Some of this, maybe, we can chalk up to the hyperbole

of politicians and some of it to the overenthusiasm of communications

officers.

I’m not going to belabour the second reading debate. Suffice to say I

had a slightly different take on it than the Attorney. But I will observe this.

At one point, one of his colleagues referred specifically to the sections on

the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act as representing — the word she used — a major

change. I’ll take that with a grain of salt — what politicians in this chamber

will say from time to time.

What caught my attention, I suppose, more importantly, was in the

communications material released by the government communications branch, which

attributed to these amendments…. What they said is that these amendments will

improve access to justice for parties involved in judicial review of CRT

decisions.

I don’t know. I’m all ears. I’m not critical of the amendments, having

just established they don’t change anything. I’m kind of curious to hear how

they are, in the words of the member for Langley, a major change, or perhaps

more importantly, will in any appreciable way improve access to

justice.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. First of all, in terms of our

disagreement about the second reading speech, the member shouldn’t be so hard

on himself. I said I thought his speech was good, so I don’t know why he would

disagree with me. But that’s fine.

The general intent here is to try to make the legislation accessible to

self-represented litigants, which is an access-to-justice issue. I agree with

the member that in terms of the panoply of this government’s access-to-justice

initiatives — of which I’m very proud and happy to go into in detail — this is

a modest one, compared to the broad piece.

[3:00 p.m.]

This is an important piece. When we reform the law, when we respond to

court decisions and so on, part of the lens that’s put on it is: if someone is

representing themselves — the member saw this in the Court of Appeal Act, for

example — can they understand the law if they read it? How can we make it more

understandable and accessible for them?

It’s part of a broader approach to access to justice that includes how

our statutes are written and how accessible they are. It was a significant

impact on how we intended the civil resolution tribunal to operate, how their

decisions would be reviewed by superior courts — the court deci­sion that

we’re responding to. So for some people, that was a major impact, and members

will have their own perspectives on this significant piece of

legislation.

I take the member’s point. This is a response to a court decision and a

relatively modest access-to-justice piece, but we like talking about access to

justice. That’s not a bad fault to have, I say.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. de Jong: Only to indicate to the committee that I don’t have any questions on

clause 2, nor do I have any questions on the transitional provision in clause

23. I don’t know that we have to pass 23 out of order or the Attorney is

satisfied that I don’t intend to ask any questions at that point.

Interjection.

Clauses 2 and 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Hon. D. Eby: This is the miscellaneous statutes amendment bill. We do have different

staff for each section. I’m going to thank, very much, Darin Thompson and Nina

Bindra, for their assistance. I’ll be joined shortly by Kate Phillips, legal

counsel, legal access policy division, and Tyler Nyvall, legal counsel, policy

and legislation division.

Previous to my rising, I had an off-the-record conversation with the

critic, who asked me to provide a bit of context for the following set of

sections and what is intended to be achieved with these amendments.

What I propose to do is provide some perspective with respect to a

specific treaty, the Maa-nulth treaty. These are provisions that create the

ability for B.C. Provincial Court to have jurisdiction to hear prosecution of

offences under treaties. The example of the Maa-nulth treaty has a specific

section,

section 13.33.1, that says, in that treaty, that the Provincial Court

has the jurisdiction to hear prosecution of offences under Maa-nulth

laws.

[3:05 p.m.]

Implicit in that provision is that no other person or body has that

jurisdiction. Therefore, the expectation is Maa-nulth will be turning to

Provincial Court for all prosecutions in relation to their laws, which includes

proceeding by way of violation tickets, because they’re a kind of

prosecution.

There’s a treaty requirement on the First Nation, which is actually not

a requirement. It’s a right. It’s a right to have their short form prosecutions

processed through B.C. Supreme Court. The problem is that under our provincial

law, the Offence Act doesn’t align with that requirement that’s in the treaty.

We sign this treaty. We agreed. We come to Provincial Court, and it would be

prosecuted through Provincial Court, and then the Offence Act doesn’t line up

with that.

It’s not about us being considerate. It’s not about us trying to engage

in reconciliation or anything else, although it is part of reconciliation. This

is a treaty obligation that we have to the Nations where it’s mandated that we

entered into this agreement, and we need to bring our laws into alignment with

those treaties.

I’m happy to go into more detail about the kinds of tickets that

Tsawwassen, for example, may be providing or so on, but I hope that provides

some context for why this is appearing in front of the House, what our

intention is here. It’s to bring provincial law in line with treaties that we

have signed and entered into.

M. de Jong: That is helpful. I’ll try to ask these questions as they relate to

specific sections, but I think on

section 4, maybe a slightly broader

conversation. I’ll preface it by pointing out to the committee and to the

Attorney General both acknowledgment of, understanding of and support for what

is being undertaken here.

I think, given the unique nature of what’s being done, it’s worth

spending a few moments to ensure that, at least on the record, people

understand that there is not something new being created here. It is

facilitating agreements that have been signed in the past.

In addition to some alterations to existing

definitions — the

“enforcement officer,” which includes now, with sub (b), a “ticketed amount,”

which includes a reference, and we’ll maybe come to that in a moment — there

are two new terms being added: “treaty first nation” and “treaty first nation

law.” That captures a specific set of First Nations, at this point. Hopefully,

one day it will include a growing number.

I wonder if the Attorney might simply place on the rec­ord. Today

these amendments are relevant to treaty First Nations. Who are those treaty

First Nations? The Maa-nulth that he referred to, of course include five

legally distinct First Nations.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. The Maa-nulth First Nations are five different

groups, five different nations. Huu-ay-aht First Nations are included.

Ka:’y­u:’k’t’h’ or Che:k:tles7et’h’ First Nations are part of this. The

Toquaht Nation is part of this, the Uchucklesaht First Nation is part of this,

and the Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ, formerly Ucluelet

First Nation, is part of this as well. It also includes the Tsawwassen First

Nation and Tla’amin Nation.

It does not, though…. Members’ minds might turn to

Nisg̱a’a as a treaty nation, obviously.

The Nisg̱a’a ob­served the legislative

development process but chose not to participate or have the amendments apply

to their nation at this time, so it does not include them.

M. de Jong: The Attorney correctly anticipated the question I was going to ask about

the Nisg̱a’a. I couldn’t remember…. For

other purposes, the Nisg̱a’a is included as

a treaty First Nation.

[3:10 p.m.]

What mechanism distinguishes them in this case from being captured by

these provisions? Are they captured by these provisions but chose to not

participate, or are they excluded from the definition, for these purposes, of

treaty First Nation?

Hon. D. Eby: They are a treaty First Nation. They had the option to participate or

not in terms of having it supplied to them, and they elected not to have these

amendments applied to their nation. So it was their decision to make. At any

time they could, if they wished to, enter into participation in

this.

M. de Jong: To be clear…. I might not use the right term here. The opt in — the

nations are drawing down on their power from the treaty, correctly and

appropriately — would be to choose to have violation tickets issued by the

Nisg̱a’a Nation adjudicated in the

Provincial Court, and that’s the part of this that the

Nisg̱a’a have chosen not to opt into. If

they did in the future, the mechanism would exist for them to do so?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct.

M. de Jong: I think there were two reasons that I just wanted to take a moment to

establish on the record. One, I suppose, relates to the geographic aspects.

This will ultimately have implications for people who may not be members of

these First Nations but who may be issued violation tickets, and it will be

relevant to how they either settle or those tickets are adjudicated.

I will say that there’s another, perhaps self-serving, reason for going

through that exercise. Merely to point it out is sometimes frustrating to hear,

in the course of political discourse, that nothing occurred in the realm of

relations with First Nations for a lengthy period of time when I occupied a

seat on the other side of the House. In fact, the Attorney has confirmed that

comprehensive final treaty agreements were negotiated with seven First Nations.

We are happily adjusting laws that breathe further life and allow for the

operationalization of those treaties.

I suppose that in a truly self-serving manner, the fact that I think my

name is on all or most of those treaties as the minister responsible…. I hope

the committee will not think it too self-serving to point out that a lot of

things did happen, a lot of positive steps. The evolution of that probably also

explains why the Attorney shouldn’t anticipate great opposition to the

provisions that are here before the House, because they flow from comprehensive

settlement agreements that were negotiated by the previous

government.

To get into just a little more detail, I’m looking at the definition of

“ticketed amount,” and (a), I believe, is just the existing language. Then (

b) is the reference to treaty First Nation law. Is there any…? If we were to try

to ask ourselves: “Okay, what laws would be governed by a violation ticket…?”

Do these provisions apply to anything by which action is commenced by violation

ticket? Or is there a separate mechanism, either under the jurisdiction of the

First Nation or elsewhere, that determines which laws and which violation

tickets are governed by these proceedings? Or is it any treaty First Nation law

that generates a violation ticket? That may be the answer.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Let me just take a moment to thank the member for his public service,

both in the office that I hold and, for many years, as Minister of Finance.

Without question, he made his mark on the B.C. government and on the

province.

I’ll say this. There were many things I disagreed with, but there were

some that were supported across the aisle. I believe that these treaties were

part of that, so I wanted to recognize that on the record.

With respect to his question, he’s right. It is any provision of these

treaties — a law that arises from it — that could result in a violation ticket.

Those are the tickets that could be adjudicated in Provincial Court.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney for his kind re­marks. I’m still in sub

(b). I just didn’t understand the last phrase: “…if 2 fines are established for

the contravention, the fine payable at the time of payment.” I just didn’t know

what that meant or what an example would be where you would have two fines

established for the contravention and the fine payable at the time of payment.

What’s an example of that?

Hon. D. Eby: This is a provision that exists already in the Offence Act, and it is

slightly modified in these proposed amendments to apply to an alleged

contravention of a treaty First Nation law. The two fines are typically where

if you pay the ticket within a prescribed period, it’s a lower amount, but if

you don’t pay within that window, then the amount goes up for your payment. So

then you result in a fine that has two components to it, based on when you

pay.

M. de Jong: Okay, that’s good. That’s an answer that makes sense to me.

I’m down at sub 4(b), sub-sub (b), which begins: “a law made by a treaty

first nation in accordance with a provincial or federal enactment that

delegates law-making authority to the treaty first nation.” My question on this

is as follows.

We’ve established there’s a pretty exclusive club right now that belongs

to, that is captured by, the definition “treaty first nation”: the seven we’ve

mentioned plus the Nisg̱a’a, if they were to

choose to avail themselves of this. I take it, therefore, that any other First

Nation that has received delegated authority or statutorily delegated authority

but something short of a final agreement, that qualifies as a treaty First

Nation, is not in a position to avail themselves of these provisions. Is that

correct?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I was teasing the member a little bit earlier about the second reading

speech back-and-forth there, but I do appreciate doing committee stage with the

member, because I often do learn something, even though I’ve spent time with

staff on the bill.

The member’s question has resulted in an interesting answer from staff

that I’ll share with him. If a government delegates a law-making authority to

First Nations in the province, whether the federal government or the provincial

government, it is possible, under these amendments, that a nation could ask,

even though they aren’t a treaty First Nation, to be considered as a treaty

First Nation for the purposes of these provisions to be added by

regulation.

The member will see, under 4(b), the definition of “treaty first nation”

is “a treaty first nation prescribed by regulation.” So to the extent that

government is delegating a law-making authority to a First Nation in the

province, that nation could request to be added to the regulation and have that

violation notice prosecuted in the Provincial Court.

M. de Jong: Okay. I don’t think I’m going to quarrel with the intent. I think I

might take a little bit of issue with the mechanism for doing so. It sounds

like what the minister and the government want to do is create a mechanism by

which a First Nation that may not have a final comprehensive agreement but has

received delegated authority over some areas can take advantage of these

mechanisms to allow the Provincial Courts to adjudicate violation

tickets.

I don’t think I quarrel with that, but it sounds like the mechanism for

doing that is to designate them a treaty First Nation. I think that’s going to

become awfully confusing. My experience goes back a few years, but there are

also some First Nations for whom that term “treaty” has, for them, some

negative implications.

I guess the first question is: have I understood that correctly? The

prerequisite to taking that step is to designate a First Nation as a treaty

First Nation, even if they don’t have a treaty?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. It’s a defined term. A treaty First Nation is a

nation that is defined in the regulation. There is not a restriction on

government that would prevent a non-treaty First Nation from being designated

so for the purposes of this act alone and only in the circumstance of the

delegated authority or jurisdiction from government to create an

offence.

I’ll take the member’s point about potential confusion, but the impact

on anybody receiving a ticket or participating nations would be arguably very

minimal. The request would come from the nation to government. They want to

participate in this program, and they’ve created a violation, and they want to

go through Provincial Court. They would be added by regulation if they had that

delegated authority or jurisdiction or that authority through a

treaty.

M. de Jong: Well, I know enough about the complications of this area to know we’re

not going to redraft this on the fly. I think there would have been a better

way to do that. To create the legal myth, for an individual purpose, that a

First Nation is a treaty First Nation when they are not, I think is going to be

fraught with…. Maybe at some point in the future, there is to include a

subdefinition of a non-treaty First Nation as prescribed by

regulation.

Thanks to the explanation from the Attorney, I get the mechanism. I

don’t think it’s a great mechanism. Not that the world is going to stop

turning, but it’s not the best way to do this.

That’s it on 4, hon. Chair.

[3:25 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Part of the reason why I like following the debates between these two

members is because I learn something as well.

I just have a question with respect to the line of questioning that was

coming from the member for Abbotsford West on treaty First Nation. How do

historical treaties…? We’ve got a number of historical treaties in the

province. How do they fit within the definition as has been discussed here in

the last few minutes?

Hon. D. Eby: The immediate answer is: we don’t have any understanding that any of the

historic treaties create a jurisdiction for a violation for law-making ability

that would create a violation that could be enforced in Provincial Court. The

longer answer is that there are many agreements that have been entered into

with, for example, Treaty 8 First Nations that could have those kinds of

provisions in them. So they would fall within this discussion that we’re having

about a defined treaty First Nation under the amendments that are in front of

the House.

If one of these nations had that jurisdiction, whether it was through

the historic treaty or through a modern agreement that was not a full treaty,

they could request to be included in this provision and have those offences

prosecuted in Provincial Court.

A. Olsen: Just one final question on this. The right within the Douglas treaties

to hunt and fish as formerly…. Presumably, there would have been some

law-making capacity within those communities. So when there is an historic

treaty that identifies the right to do something as formerly…. For example, the

right of the SX̱OLE, the reef net fishery,

had a whole series of laws and rules around it that we’re following.

I don’t know the answer to this question. I’m very curious, in fact.

Does that treaty, in protecting the right to do something as it was, presumably

including making laws around it…? How would that apply to this legislation

we’re debating today?

Hon. D. Eby: I remember how excited I was to learn something about the bill, even

though…. Staff have just advised me that the member for Abbotsford West’s

questions and the member for Saanich North and the Islands’ questions have

created a bit of a flurry behind the scenes. Leg. counsel was contacted, and

they said, actually: “What are you guys talking about? Treaty First Nation is

defined in the

Interpretation Act.”

That is the

interpretation that we intended that should be used in this

bill. Treaty First Nation means a treaty First Nation, which explains a couple

of things. First, that the member for Abbotsford West’s instinct that this was

a rather clunky mechanism, which is not my experience with leg. counsel;

they’re usually very careful about this kind of thing…. His intuition was

right. That is not what leg. counsel intended. That’s not what government

intended. Treaty First Nation is defined in the

Interpretation Act.

And to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, the questions about

jurisdiction that flows from the historic treaties, the treaty First Nations

are defined in the

Interpretation Act, and I will get that member the

definition for that. I don’t believe it includes the Douglas treaty.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney for indicating the conversation that’s taking

place. I guess we are obliged to ask: are his officials and leg. counsels

sufficiently concerned about this to want the committee to hold off?

My sense is this might be a fairly…. This is not something we’re going

to fix on the fly here. But are they sufficiently exercised about this to want

to have the

section held back to consider further?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t know where staff are at, but I am sufficiently concerned to want

to be 100 percent sure when advising the House about the meaning of this

provision. I’ll suggest that we stand this

section down and proceed to the

other sections.

This

section stands alone, in terms of the definition of a treaty First

Nation. We can return to this

section once I have a clear answer for the House,

before members have to vote on it.

The Chair: The Attorney has suggested we stand down clause 4. We will come back

to that after proceeding through all the other clauses.

Clause 4 stood down.

On clause 5.

M. de Jong: The

section amends the existing

section 11 by eliminating the words

“under

section 14.”

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

This is about commencing proceedings. I understood this to mean that the

reason

section 14, which lays out all of the information and details and

requirements of a violation ticket…. That reference in

section 11 had to be

removed because it is now possible, or it likely will be possible, for

proceedings to be commenced in two different ways: a violation ticket under

section 14, but also a treaty First Nation violation ticket.

Does that explain the need to delete, in

section 11 of the Offence Act,

the reference to

section 14?

Hon. D. Eby: The definition of a violation ticket already refers to

section 14, so

removing the reference “under

section 14” eliminates that redundancy. Also,

given the proposed amendment to the definition of “violation ticket” to include

violation tickets issued under treaty First Nation laws, removing the reference

section 14 also allows

section 11 to include violation tickets that are

issued under those laws.

The member is right. I would just add on to it that the effort here was

to remove the redundancy, as well, in the definition of “violation

ticket.”

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

M. de Jong: We’ll deal with clause 6 in two parts.

So 14.2(1) lists the existing provisions of the Offence Act that will

apply to a treaty First Nation law, and then sub (2), those sections which

won’t apply. The

part in sub (1) that I wanted to quickly canvass says that

section 8 of the Offence Act will continue to apply in relation to disputes of

a violation ticket.

Section 8 is the jurisdiction

section of the Offence Act, and it speaks

to this: “…every justice has jurisdiction to try, determine and adjudge

proceedings to which this Act applies in the territorial division over which

the justice has jurisdiction.” Does that mean a prerequisite to this working is

that a justice, a judge of the Provincial Court, must secure jurisdictional

authority over treaty settlement lands?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It’ll take me a moment to get an answer for the member on his question.

I’ll say just in brief that it’s not the intent of government — the meaning to

which the member has ascribed this section.

The Clerk was kind enough to pass up the

Interpretation Act so that I

could read it into the record. Actually, I’ll wait until we go back to

section

4, just to avoid confusing things. If the member could give me one second,

we’re just going to clarify why we do not believe that that meaning is relevant

to this section.

The Provincial Court has designated a courthouse for treaty First

Nations. This was done years ago so that each nation has a designated

provincial courthouse where these matters will be determined.

M. de Jong: Not to belabour the point, as I recall, a designated courthouse might be

different than vesting, in a judge, jurisdictional authority. Or maybe it’s

not. Maybe one goes with the other. I wonder, though, given the composition of

the…. It’s the treaty that I’m thinking about and the complexity of the treaty,

where First Nations were understandably very concerned about preserving

jurisdictional authority over treaty settlement lands.

Whilst I accept and understand what the Attorney is saying about having

designated a courthouse as the place where disputes would be settled — that is

a practical issue and it’s important that that was done — is the Attorney

satisfied, pursuant to

section 8, and having regard for what the treaties say,

that a Provincial Court judge has the required jurisdiction to adjudicate

disputes emanating from treaty settlement lands?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m worried we may be talking at cross-purposes here. I’m not 100

percent sure that I’m getting the member’s question.

There are a couple of pieces, I’ve been advised. First of all, in the

Tsawwassen First Nation treaty, for example, it’s really explicit. It says that

jurisdiction for offences created using the authorities under the treaty will

be adjudicated in Provincial Court. The Provincial Court has designated

specific courthouses, and Provincial Court judges have jurisdiction. They have

it provincially, but there’s a designated courthouse where there’s this

expertise, and so on.

If there’s a dispute over territory…. The only disputes that this

legislation is intended to apply to are violations of laws that are put in

place by the nation, pursuant to the treaties, under the jurisdiction that they

have assumed under the treaty, and not any other disputes.

[3:40 p.m.]

I think that is responsive to the member’s question, but I’ll take his

advice about it if he wants to clarify a little bit more for me and walk me

through what his question is.

M. de Jong: I think we’re getting there. I may have expressed this clumsily, and

I’ll just take one more crack at it by way of an example.

I’m driving along in Huu-ay-aht territory, and I get a violation ticket

for speeding issued by the treaty First Nation that is the Huu-ay-aht. I show

up in…. I’m not sure where it would be there, probably Port Alberni. I’m not

sure which Provincial Court, but I’m assuming Port Alberni. I’m a smart guy, a

smart aleck, and I say to the judge: “Well, that’s fine, except I don’t think

that, Your Honour, you have jurisdiction. I don’t think you have the

territorial division over which the justice has jurisdiction. I don’t think

that includes treaty settlement lands.”

I think the Attorney General is saying, “Fear not. It actually does,”

and all of those mechanisms are in place to ensure that it does. That was the

essence of my question.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for slowing it down for me. Yes, that’s correct. All

of the pieces are in place for appropriate jurisdiction.

M. de Jong: Let’s drop down to sub (2). These are the provisions of the Offence Act

that will not apply in relation to the dispute of a violation ticket issued

under a treaty First Nation law. The first one referenced there is 16(1). So

16(1) is the response to a ticket and specifically, I guess, a non-response.

What we would call this is a default judgment against the person getting the

violation ticket, the deemed guilty. You get your speeding ticket. You don’t do

anything. You’re deemed to be guilty. That provision does not apply, we are

told.

Was that part of a request? What’s the rationale, and was there an

expression of interest on the part of treaty First Nations to establish their

own rules around that? What’s the reason for deleting sub 16(1) from the

operation of the act as it relates to treaty First Nation laws?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member has asked about, essentially, a default judgment. The way

that this is structured is that the default is going to be under the law

established by the nation, rather than by the Offence Act.

Coming up in

section 10, the member will see that we are proposing an

amendment to subsection 16(2). The proposed amendment to 16(2), which does

apply — 16(1) does not — says that failure to respond to a ticket includes a

person who “is deemed to have pleaded guilty” under subsection (1) “or under a

treaty first nation law.”

This construction is intended to put in the hands of the nation what

timelines they feel are appropriate for deeming someone to have pleaded guilty

and allows them to have control over their own laws and how they are ultimately

prosecuted.

The default provision of the provincial law, sub 16(1), is removed by

this section, and sub 16(2) is left, and it creates an enforcement mechanism,

essentially, for the deeming provision under the First Nations treaty law

rather than under the provincial law.

M. de Jong: Okay. Two things, I guess, flow from that. Having made the decision to

proceed in that way, I guess what follows are, on a provincial basis, violation

tickets adjudicated under the Offence Act. There’s one set of rules around

timely response. I guess we have to contemplate that in the case of treaty

First Nations and treaty First Nation laws, there may well be different default

provisions as established by individual First Nations. Is that a fair

conclusion?

Hon. D. Eby: That’s a fair construction, and it’s in ac­cordance with the

agreement that was struck in the treaty that the nations would be able to do

that. So it’s our treaty obligation to enable that.

M. de Jong: I expect there…. Well, maybe I shouldn’t expect anything. Rules of

procedural fairness, though, would suggest that a violation ticket issued in

respect of a treaty First Nation law would need to include the specific

requirements for timely response and the consequences that flow from

non-response. That’s my expectation, and I see the Attorney nodding.

I guess the question is — we both assume that is the case: what’s the

mechanism by which we can assure people that that is the case?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right in terms of what our expectations are. In this

place, they’re not relevant. What these amendments are doing are

operationalizing the authorities within the nations to set these provisions for

themselves: deeming provisions, what the violations are, what the amounts of

the fines are. All of these kinds of things are within the treaty. The

authority is within the treaties, and these amendments are attempting to

operationalize that.

The amendment that’s coming up under

section 10 of this bill that’s in

front of the House is to operationalize the ability to have a deeming provision

if the nation wants to do that. What that looks like and what the timing is,

and so on, will be determined by the nation in accordance with their treaty

rights.

[3:50 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Well, let’s go down to

section 18 again. That’s a provision that doesn’t

apply. On the surface, it kind of makes sense, because it refers to the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. But elsewhere in the bill before us, there

are provisions that specify that where we see reference to the Insurance Corp.

of British Columbia, we should read in treaty First Nation. I take it this is

not one of those places, and the decision was made that this doesn’t need to

exist.

It’s a provision that allows, in this case, the Insurance Corp., under

certain circumstances, to cancel a violation ticket. Did treaty First Nations

want to preserve….? Or should I assume, by virtue of its inclusion in

part 6,

that they did not want to preserve some governance authority to cancel a

violation ticket prior to adjudication?

Hon. D. Eby: The core of it is — my understanding from staff — that cancelling a

ticket should be preserved within the authority of the issuing nation as

opposed to the Insurance Corp. of B.C.

Section 18 relates to cancelling a

violation ticket that doesn’t disclose an offence on its face. If you wanted to

a cancel a ticket like that, you’d need to go to the relevant nation to do

that, not to ICBC. This was a cooperatively drafted set of provisions with the

nations.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney. No, I get that. I understand that. But I

wondered about the reference elsewhere in the legislation that said, “Where you

see Insurance Corp. of B.C., read in treaty First Nation,” so that were the

provision to remain, it would make clear the treaty First Nation’s authority to

cancel a ticket, unless I have read the cross-references

incorrectly.

Hon. D. Eby: The nations don’t need this

section to have that authority to cancel a

ticket. So reading through other provisions where it says ICBC, reading in the

First Nation is not necessary, because all of those provisions and authorities

are contained within the treaty rights of the nation to establish offences,

cancel tickets and these kinds of things. This is about the prosecution of

valid tickets in Provincial Court.

M. de Jong: Then simply to…. Two final areas in this section. Sub 81(8) is the

general regulatory provision as it relates to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I take it that

section is redundant insofar as

treaty First Nation laws and treaty First Nation violation tickets is

concerned?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. It’s not necessary.

M. de Jong: And then finally on this sub-subsection (2)(f), I just found the

language really general and not the kind of thing I have been accustomed to see

from leg. counsel. The following provisions do not apply: sections 16, 18,

18.1, 31, 81, oh, and by the way, anything else that doesn’t apply to violation

tickets. Are we certain that in the hallowed spaces of drafting precision that

that phraseology is sufficient to avoid confusion somewhere down the

line?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Once burned, twice shy. The member’s Spidey sense was tingling about

another provision, and I assured him that that was…. And then I had to correct

myself on the record.

Let me say this. I am advised that the drafting of this provision is

deliberate. The Offence Act is an antiquated statute that has not been

modernized. It is very complex, and the sections are interrelated. There were

twin concerns, both of inadvertently listing a

section that did not apply, that

perhaps some case, somewhere, said could potentially apply, or the reverse:

inadvertently not excluding a

section that applies to, for example, long-form

information and having it apply inadvertently to a violation ticket.

The drafting choice was made to, say, for a court that is asked to look

at a violation ticket in a

section of the act, make sure that the sections of

the act that don’t, in the court’s opinion, apply to violation tickets should

not apply. Those that do, should.

The concern of the drafters was inadvertently applying the wrong

sections to First Nations offences or inadvertently excluding a

section that,

actually, a court, it would turn out later, might need. So the member is right.

It is unusual drafting, and it is due to the unique and unusual nature of the….

Well, not unique, but certainly due to the nature of the Offence Act as being

quite an old statute with many overlapping provisions.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

M. de Jong: I’m looking at 7 and the amendment that is contained in 3.1. So this is

an amendment, now, to

section 15 of the Offence Act, which relates to disputing

a ticket, and it lays out a person to whom a violation ticket has been issued

by a treaty First Nation under treaty First Nation law, where they’ve been

served or it’s been mailed, and that person may dispute the allegation of the

ticketed amount indicated on the ticket in accordance with the procedures and

with the time provided under the applicable treaty First Nation law.

I think the practical question that flows from this for the average

person is: what’s the attorney’s expectation, and what assurance, if any, has

he received from the treaty First Nations about the ability to access those

laws? Let’s start there, since everything flows from the treaty First Nation

law, which will, in this case, give birth to a violation ticket that may well

apply to engage someone who is not a member of that treaty First

Nation.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Modern treaty First Nations do have to maintain a public registry of

laws under the final agreement. But if there was a dispute about that or there

was some confusion about it or if the provision was not there, our treaty

obligation is to enable the treaty First Nations to issue these tickets and to

have them prosecuted in Provincial Court. It wouldn’t be for us to amend the

Offence Act to put additional requirements that were not part of the final

agreement into the final agreement through amending the Offence Act

later.

Happily, I’m advised by staff that the modern treaties do include that

requirement of maintaining a public registry of laws.

M. de Jong: The expectation, therefore, would be a collection…. Dinosaurs like me

still go to paper copies of revised statutes. But the expectation is that there

would be, online, a collection of Huu-ay-aht or Tla’amin or Tsaw­wassen

laws which the recipient of a violation notice could consult to determine

precisely the law that they are alleged to have transgressed and then defend

themselves accordingly if they chose to.

Hon. D. Eby: The treaty First Nations, per final agreement with government, are

required to maintain a public registry. What form that takes and how the

nations establish that public registry…. There is discretion in how the nation

does that. The requirement, on their end, is a public registry, and on our end

is the ability to enforce violations of those laws through Provincial

Court.

I just wanted to be clear about what expectations may be in this place

versus how the obligations are realized. The obligation is a public registry.

The obligation is on the treaty First Nation, and there is discretion in how

they realize that, but there does need to be a public registry. Similarly for

us, there does need to be a mechanism to enforce this through Provincial

Court.

M. de Jong: Last question on this point. And it is a question. Would it be fair to

has received a treaty First Nation violation ticket, pursuant to a treaty First

Nation law, would very much go to the question of procedural fairness and, were

reasonable access not afforded, would be potential grounds for

dismissal?

Hon. D. Eby: The extent to which a registry was public, and that a nation fulfilled

its obligation to have a public registry so that the law could be known, could

potentially be an issue for court and could potentially be considered in a

particular ticket prosecution.

M. de Jong: Do the remaining provisions of

section 15, as they relate to disputing a

violation ticket, continue to apply?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby:

Section 7 of this bill, (a)(3.2), reads: “For certainty, subsections

(1) to (3) and (4) do not apply to a dispute of a violation ticket issued under a

treaty first nation law.” That is a subsection that’s added to

section 15, so

it excludes the application of those subsections of

section 15. The member will

see the other sections, as amended, in the bill in front of the

House.

Clause 7 approved.

The Chair: I understand that the Attorney has information regarding clause 4. Is

that correct? Does the member for Abbotsford West wish to go back to clause

4? Or would you like to wait until the end of the bill?

Interjection.

The Chair: Attorney, is that okay?

On clause 4.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The definition of “treaty first nation” in the

Interpretation Act says,

as follows: “‘treaty first nation’, as the context requires, means (

a) a first

nation that is a party to a final agreement, or (

b) the government, as

constituted under the final agreement and constitution, of such a first

nation.”

That definition applies to this bill that is in front of the House and

restricts the applicability of these amendments to treaty First Nations which

are First Nations that are party to a final agreement. Just to clarify, in my

initial answer, when I listed the nations, we talked about

Nisg̱a’a being eligible but deciding not

to participate. That is the group of nations that this bill will apply

to.

If the members would please disregard my answers to the questions that

went down that meandering road, and led to some confusion in the House, I

apologize for that. Hopefully, with that clarity, the members will be able to

understand what they’re voting on, Mr. Chair.

M. de Jong: Yes, I think that’s helpful. The conversation we had about the ability

of other non-treaty First Nations taking advantage of this legislation doesn’t

apply. They wouldn’t be able to do that?

Hon. D. Eby: That’s correct. The regulation-making

section would be for other treaty

First Nations that enter into a final agreement with government.

Clause 4 approved.

Clauses 8 to 13 inclusive approved.

On clause 14.

M. de Jong: Not a huge point. It involves money, so I guess it’s always a relevant

point. This refers to the transfer of ticketed amounts. We’re dealing with a

situation in which a person gets a violation ticket issued with respect to a

treaty First Nation law — a treaty First Nation violation ticket that is, I

guess, challenged and adjudicated in Provincial Court, with a finding of guilt,

and a fine is assessed.

That fine is paid to the provincial Crown — if I’m getting any of this

wrong, I’m sure the Attorney will correct me — but the revenue is due to the

First Nation, pursuant to the treaty agreement.

As I understand it, this provides the authority to transfer that amount

to the First Nation, but it’s a very specific kind of authority. It’s a

statutory appropriation, meaning that it’s not captured by a vote in this

Legislative Assembly. It is an entitlement. Well, it’s an obligation, but there

is also a statutory authority on the part of the provincial Crown to transfer

that money on to the First Nation without the requirement of seeking spending

authority in this chamber. Is all of that a correct description of what is

taking place here?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, that is correct.

M. de Jong: I’ll ask this question, knowing that these were matters that were

considered at the time these seven treaties were negotiated, but it is a direct

flow-through. There’s no deduction for court costs or for administrative costs?

The amount of the fine…. If it’s a $100 fine — administered by the Provincial

Court judge with respect to a violation ticket — then, upon receipt of that

$100, the full amount is transferred to the treaty First Nation?

Hon. D. Eby: That’s correct, and it’s consistent with the treaty language.

M. de Jong: I had one other question, but I think we’re going to get to that. I can

advise the committee that my next question related to the application of the

victim fine surcharge, which I think shows up in

section 22.

[4:15 p.m.]

I was going to ask, just for the convenience of staff, that if we passed

sections 14, 15 and 16, and then were to go briefly to the two sections on the

Safety Standards Act and the Victims of Crime Act, it would save having the

Children and Family folks come in and out twice. I guess the first order of

business would be 14, 15 and 16.

Clauses 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

M. de Jong: I wonder if we might deal with sections 20, 21 and 22? I don’t think

we’ll be long, but that’s the Safety Standards Act and the Victims of Crime

Act. I can tell the Attorney that on

section 22 my only question was going to

be the rationale for not applying the victim….

The Chair: We’ll stand down clauses 17 through 21.

Clauses 17 to 21 inclusive stood down.

On clause 22.

M. de Jong: The provision makes it clear that the provisions of the victim surcharge

levy do not apply with res­pect to violation tickets and fines collected

under treaty First Nation violation tickets. What was the rationale for that?

It struck me that the Attorney might have been confronted by arguments from

First Nations that said: “We wouldn’t mind having access to those additional

resources as well.” What gave rise to the inclusion of

section 22?

Hon. D. Eby: This was at the request of the treaty nations. I’m advised that one of

the reasons — there may have been others — for it was that, most likely, the

most frequent folks who are going to be issued tickets under treaty First

Nations laws are treaty First Nation members. The treaty First Nations did not

want to be adding additional levies onto their constituents which are not

necessarily going to return a benefit back to the community.

The victim surcharge levy goes to provincial programming, which is

provincewide. That is the policy rationale for that.

Clause 22 approved.

The committee recessed from 4:18 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 20.

The Chair: We’ll bring this committee back into session. We are on clauses 20

and 21, Safety Standards Act.

[4:20 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I think we have heard in part about the circumstances that have given

rise to the need and the desire to amend the Safety Standards Act — which, in

the instance involving a trampoline, was indeed tragic. I think the motivation

here is not in any way, shape or form in doubt. I do think we have a role,

though, and a job to try and make sure we’re hitting the mark with this and not

having unintended consequences.

I had a look at the Safety Standards Act and the Safety Standards

Regulation that exist and that already apply. As one of the defined regulated

products, we have amusement rides, and now we’re going to have a regulated

product: activity amusement devices. Now, I’m going to say that I’ll try not to

take more time than is necessary here. I have to believe that is a purposeful

choice. We didn’t amend it to say “amusement rides include trampolines,” which

I suppose would have been another way to be certain that we are capturing the

situation with trampolines.

The government and the Attorney have chosen to create a new definition.

I don’t know if it’s a sub-subdefinition. It looks the way it’s numbered like

it is. I don’t even know what the significance of that is — sub (i.1). But

anyway, I guess that’s just a numbering system to slot it in there without

having to renumber everything else.

What distinguishes an amusement device from an amusement ride, because

lot of stuff flows from that.

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, the member is right. This, although feeling a bit arcane, is an

incredibly relevant provision to a number of families in the province because

of tragedy — a family in Richmond who lost a dad who jumped into a foam pit and

broke his neck, a family in Victoria whose daughter broke her back jumping into

a foam pit. These were both at so-called trampoline parks. That is the mischief

that this is aimed at.

We would like Technical Safety B.C. to oversee this growing sector.

Understandably, in the rainy Lower Mainland, and not specific to the Lower

Mainland either, these indoor kinds of amusement parks are growing across the

province, so we would like Technical Safety B.C. to be in there and have a look

to make sure that these kinds of tragic outcomes don’t happen when a family

goes out for a fun weekend.

The difference between an amusement device, which is what we’re adding

here, and an amusement ride, which is already regulated, is that an amusement

device is generally not mechanized and relies on either gravity or human power.

An amusement ride, which is already regulated, is typically mechanized and

usually move a rider through a set course, like roller-coasters or other rides

at the PNE. Those are already regulated.

“Amusement devices” could be seen, I understand, to be very broad. I

mean, there are so many things that are potentially amusing. Amusement devices

could be really anything. It could be a TV. It could be a baseball glove. But

it’s not. It’s a term of art, I understand from industry, that’s understood by

industry. It’s the same term that is used in the standards that are proposed

for adoption under the regulation.

There will be limits in the regulation requiring the provincial safety

manager to do a risk assessment before any other amusement devices are

considered for regulation. That risk assessment is going to include criteria

like the type and severity of potential injury, the likelihood of an injury

occurring, the ability of patrons to control their exposure to risk, whether

users include children and young adults and whether regulatory oversight can

reduce risk and eliminate hazards.

[4:25 p.m.]

On that note, I will point out that I’m joined in the House today by

Aman Gill. He’s the manager for safety policy, building and safety standards

branch, within the Ministry of Attorney General, who’s assisting me here

today.

It is an application of that policy before any amusement devices are

added as being regulated. That’s how we’ll ensure it doesn’t capture a whole

array of devices that peo­ple could probably imagine in this place. I

heard the Leader of the Third Party ask about a specific definition for the

term, and that’s why I went a little more into depth than the member’s question

might have indicated.

M. de Jong: The Attorney’s answer is helpful because it partly illustrates, I guess,

the issue arising from, again, what I believe is a very well-intentioned

proposal to amend the act. It is all of those other devices that could

conceivably be captured by this.

The minister, I think, is saying that this is designed to address a

specific type of activity, but the government has chosen not to redefine an

amusement ride, for example, to include a trampoline park, which would have

been one way to make very clear what the objective is.

If we go to the regulations, “amusement ride” is de­fined. I won’t

read it into the record. It includes recreational railway, which is

interesting, but the mechanical part of it that the Attorney referred to, I

think, is reflected in that definition.

Has the Attorney got a draft definition that he can pro­vide to

the committee for what may well become a very important term going forward from

a regulatory point of view: amusement device? Do we have a

definition?

Hon. D. Eby: We don’t have the final proposed language for regulation, but the

working definition currently is — subject to potentially significant work by

leg. counsel, so I provide it simply in the nature of advice to the member to

give an indication of where we’re headed, as opposed to that this is likely to

be the final language: an “arrangement of technical systems that individuals

move through or on primarily by their own action or gravity and are not

mechanized.”

Some of the intent here is that when you’re talking about a trampoline

versus a foam pit versus some of these…. It’s a rapidly evolving area, so just

making sure that we’re capturing the intent here of the specific types of parks

where these injuries took place, but also that they may choose to modify their

devices to avoid oversight, for example, and that are trying to capture, in our

definition, sufficiently the intent so Technical Safety B.C. can apply their

policy around the likelihood of serious injury, the population that’s using it

and so on in determining whether or not to regulate a particular

device.

M. de Jong: We’ve all seen, even if we haven’t partici­pated, the advent of

facilities like skateboard parks. I’m told, when I toured the Rick Hansen

centre for spinal cord research, that the greatest cause of spinal cord injury

now is mountain biking. Now there’s a mechanical dimension to that. We know

that taking your mountain bike on a mountain bike trail is not, I don’t think,

an amusement ride in the way that the act…. Does that park, if it’s a formal

location…? Is the definition going to be broad enough to capture that kind of

activity, or a skateboard park?

[4:30 p.m.]

The relevance, I think the Attorney can understand, is further on in the

regulation. Ironically, the one for amusement rides is contained in something

called the elevating…. It’s the elevator regulation that has the amusement

ride. I’m guessing that what the government contemplates is a similar set of

regulatory provisions which govern everything from who may do work on an

amusement ride, classes of contractors licences for work.

Again, to bring this back, I don’t think the concern is about those

kinds of provisions applying in the case of the specific example the Attorney

General has referred to, but the possibility that the breadth of this

definition could begin to capture…. The Attorney…. I think he came up with this

on the fly, but is there going to be a whole new, broad level of regulation for

people who sell electronics, TV and entertainment devices, amusement devices —

games, I guess? Again, there’s a mechanical dimen­sion to that, but it’s

a pretty personal mechanical dimension.

The Attorney has spoken about the direction the government is headed in.

I suspect in the days ahead we’re going to refer to — not in this context —

something the Privacy Commissioner had to say about another piece of

legislation, where he talks about having the ability to look at regulations in

the context of…. I think that this is one of those cases where it would have

been helpful — that’s why I mentioned it in second reading remarks — to have

some certainty around the definition of an amusement device. We know what it’s

intended to include, but it may be far broader than that.

I guess my question to the Attorney is, once that term has been embedded

in the act, I presume the government intends to devise regulations somewhat

similar to what ap­ply to amusement rides, tailored to the unique

circumstance of an amusement device. At the moment, we are thinking about all

of those things without really knowing what an amusement device is.

Hon. D. Eby: The overall philosophy of Technical Safety B.C. around these things is

to only regulate in areas where there’ll be a meaningful safety benefit and not

to interfere with the overall experience of people when they’re going through,

currently, mechanized rides and soon, hopefully, if the House sees fit to

approve this, non-m