Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 198

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

Speaker’s Statement

Division on throne speech debate

By-Election Results

MLA for Nanaimo

Hon. J. Horgan

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Witness Security Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

Bill M201 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Passenger Transportation Services) Amendment Act, 2019

J. Sturdy

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives program and Christmas fund

J. Yap

Message of appreciation and city of Nanaimo

S. Malcolmson

Forward House Community Society

M. Stilwell

Ruskin dam and Kwantlen First Nation

B. D’Eith

Public trust in government and Legislative Assembly

A. Weaver

Stolen Sisters march for missing and murdered Indigenous women

M. Dean

Oral Questions

Ride-sharing regulations and conflict-of-interest concerns

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Bond

Money laundering in casinos

A. Weaver

Hon. D. Eby

Ride-sharing regulations and conflict-of-interest concerns

M. Polak

Hon. J. Horgan

Speculation and vacancy tax

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. C. James

T. Stone

L. Throness

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government Services Committee, budgets of

statutory offices, December 2018

B. D’Eith

D. Ashton

Police Complaint Commissioner Appointment Committee,

December 2018

R. Singh

M. Morris

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Police Complaint Commissioner

R. Singh

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Protection of Public Participation Act

Hon. D. Eby

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2019

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

M. Stilwell: Joining us in the House today are two dear friends of mine from my

community of Parksville-Quali­cum: Sharon Recalma and Michael Recalma,

the Chief of the Qualicum First Nation. Whether the Chief dresses up as

Santa at my Christmas parties or he rings the kettles at the Salvation Army

at Christmastime, speaks at school programs or judges chili competitions

with me, he always brings his kind heart and his sense of humour.

Parksville-Qualicum is located on the traditional territories of the

Qualicum First Nation, and I am proud to work closely with Chief Recalma to

create opportunity for our communities through collaboration and friendship.

Would the House please make Sharon and Chief Recalma feel very

welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: In the chamber, we have Chief Michael Wyse from the Snuneymuxw First

Nation, who is joining us, along with Bill Yoachim and other constituents of

Nanaimo.

I want to acknowledge your presence here in the chamber and, Chief

Wyse, for your words at the swearing-in ceremony for the member for

Nanaimo.

Will the House please join me in welcoming Chief Wyse and the members

of the Snuneymuxw First Nation.

D. Routley: I, too, would like to welcome some guests from Nanaimo. They are here,

of course, for the new member for Nanaimo. But there is a lot of overlap in

Nanaimo. It’s a tale of two cities and two ridings, and many of the people

that we share as constituents are also dear friends.

[10:10 a.m.]

I’d like to introduce some of those today. From the Snuneymuxw First

Nation: Chief Michael Wyse; his wife, Kora Wyse; Coun. Erralyn Thomas; Paul

Wyse-Seward; Angie Wyse Seward. And Geraldine Manson is here. She’s the

elder-in-residence at Vancouver Island University and a wonderful asset to

all communities in the Nanaimo area.

From Gabriola Island, we have Jenny Marcus; Jill Haras; Jay Friesen;

John Capon; Tawny Capon; Laura-Jean Kelly; Cameron Murray; Howard Stiff;

Brenda Gartner; and my dear friend and mentor, Jan Pullinger, former MLA

from the area, the first women’s minister in British Columbia, the first

woman elected from Nanaimo and a hero to me.

Welcome to all of them, and thank you for being here.

Hon. J. Sims: As a teacher, it’s always wonderful when I bump into some of my

students. Today here at the House, I had the pleasure to meet up with two of

my grade 10 students, who I taught social studies. I think I did some

coaching with them too. They reminded me today.

It is my great pleasure, and it was wonderful to reconnect with them

in Nanaimo and here again in the House: Paul Wyse-Seward, Bill Yoachim.

Apparently, they were both in the same class. I can assure you that I did my

very best to teach them.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to rise to wish a very, very happy birthday — belated

birthday, I must say; it was yesterday — to my dear mother, Donna Spencer. I

love her with all my heart. Another one who’s very close to my heart and

whose birthday is today: my son Dev, who is turning two. Happy birthday to

them both, and happy Valentine’s Day to the rest of you.

B. D’Eith: I wanted to welcome John and Susan Little to the House. I had the

pleasure of meeting John during the by-election. I really appreciated all of

the warmth from Nanaimo and all the wonderful support. Would the House

please make them very, very welcome.

Speaker’s Statement

DIVISION ON THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: Before we move on, hon. Members, I wish to address the division

that took place yesterday afternoon. There having been no other members

who wished to speak on the debate before the House, that being on the

Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Chair put the

question, pursuant to established practice. When no other members rise

to participate in debate, the question on the motion is put.

The Chair acknowledges that a speaking list may have been

developed. However, the Chair is not bound by speaking lists and

recognizes members as they may stand in their place, indicating that

they may wish to participate in debate, in accordance with Standing

Order 36. As no member rose, the Chair rightfully put the question on

the motion. Pursuant to the request for a division, the division bells

were rung at 5:14 p.m.

Prior to the proceeding, the Chair wanted to ensure that this

unexpected division was in order. By the time the Chair received

indication from the table that putting the question and the call for

division were, in fact, in order, it was 5:24 p.m. Pursuant to Standing

Order 16, the chamber doors should have properly been locked five

minutes after the division call, which would have been at 5:19 p.m. I

recognize that the timing of the division was irregular, with the doors

remaining unlocked to 5:24 p.m. Therefore, this aspect of division did

not conform to Standing Order 16.

The standing orders provide a maximum of sitting days of debate on

the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. As yesterday marked

the first debate opportunity on the Address in Reply, the notice window

for amendments had not even elapsed. As a result, there was some

confusion and uncertainty with respect to the question and the

unexpected timing of the division.

[10:15 a.m.]

On the question before the House yesterday, the motion was adopted

with 43 ayes and 40 nays. To my knowledge, the fact that the chamber

doors remained open for an additional five minutes beyond the time

permitted in Standing Order 16 did not result in any additional members

entering the chamber. Therefore, I conclude that the result of the

division would have been the same.

By-Election Results

MLA FOR NANAIMO

Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: I’ve been called upon to read a letter of certification from the

Chief Electoral Officer regarding the by-election in Nanaimo.

February 12, 2019

Hon. Darryl Plecas, MLA

Speaker of the Legislative

Assembly

Room 207, Parliament Buildings

Victoria, B.C. V8V

1X4

Dear Mr. Speaker:

On November 30, 2018, this office received your warrant advising of

a vacancy in the Legislative Assembly resulting from the resignation of

Leonard Krog, member for the electoral district of Nanaimo.

On direction from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I issued a

writ of election for the electoral district of Nanaimo on January 2,

2019, ordering a by-election to be held to fill the vacancy. The writ

specified general voting day to be January 30, 2019.

The by-election was held in accordance with the provisions of the

Election Act, and the completed writ of election has been returned to

me.

In accordance with

section 147(2) of the Election Act, I hereby

certify the following individual to be elected to serve as a Member of

the Legislative Assembly: Sheila Malcolmson of the B.C. NDP for the

electoral district of Nanaimo.

Sincerely,

Anton Boegman

Chief Electoral Officer

British

Columbia

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer of the

results of the election of the member be entered upon the

Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Horgan: First, I’d like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded

territory of the Lekwungen-speaking peoples, and I want to welcome

everyone here to a bright, brisk Valentine’s Day. I certainly had my

Valentine’s wish come true on January 30, when the good people of

Nanaimo elected the new member, who I will introduce in a

moment.

This new member I approached when it became apparent that Leonard

was moving on to become the mayor of Nanaimo. The call of the community

was so great that he left this place that he loved so much to go and

serve people on the council there.

I started canvassing people in the area, and I came to the first

person that was on my list, the most qualified person, I felt, to take

up the seat in Nanaimo, one that has been fiercely represented for

decades by outstanding members. I asked Sheila Malcolmson if she would

join us here.

She was already occupied in Ottawa, as you know, as a Member of

Parliament. She spoke with her family, with her husband, Howard, and

they decided that Victoria would be a good place for her to continue her

fight for the people of Nanaimo, whether it was becoming focused on

protecting our coast, whether it was providing housing for the people in

the region, whether it was making sure that Indigenous reconciliation

was a high priority. All of the issues that are before us in this House

are a passion of Sheila’s.

So it is with great honour that I present to you Ms. Sheila

Malcolmson, the member for the electoral district of Nanaimo, who has

taken the oath, signed the parliamentary roll and now claims her right

to take up her seat. [Applause.]

The hon. member for Nanaimo took her seat.

Mr. Speaker: I welcome the member for Nanaimo to this assembly.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — WITNESS SECURITY ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Witness Security Act.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

[10:20 a.m.]

I am pleased to introduce Bill 4, the Witness Security

Act.

The proposed Witness Security Act will provide an important tool

to police and Crown to address gang and gun violence, which resulted in

B.C. having the highest proportion of gang-related homicides across

Canada. This legislation will establish a provincial program that will

protect and support key witnesses essential to successful criminal

prosecutions in British Columbia.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: 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 4, Witness Security Act, 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.

BILL M201 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(PASSENGER

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

J. Sturdy presented a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes

(Passenger Transportation Services) Amendment Act, 2019.

J. Sturdy: I move that a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Passenger

Transportation Services) Amendment Act, 2019, of which notice has been

given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for a first

time this session.

Potentially, the introduction of this bill could have been avoided

if the bill had been passed last session. In fact, we introduced this

exact same bill last fall, which would have facilitated ride-sharing

today. No other jurisdiction has attempted to regulate ride-sharing in

the way that this government is now proposing. When companies have equal

opportunity to compete with one another, the consumers will benefit from

lower prices and more choice.

This bill will allow for a level playing field for existing and

new operators, including vehicle licence and vehicle standards,

insurance requirements and service and supply flexibility; standardized

provincial licensing, safety enforcement, consumer protection

requirements; removal of red tape and overlap within the system; removal

of restrictions related to supply so that the number of providers on

B.C. roads from both existing and new operators will be determined by

consumer demand; removal of boundary restrictions so that the drivers

have the same access to provide services wherever and whenever a

passenger needs a ride; and removal of local government ability to

require chauffeur permits, business licences and other restrictive

requirements and provisions to ensure availability of accessible

services.

This bill would also provide a framework for replacing class 4

driver’s licence requirements with a class 5 requirement for drivers,

both existing and new operators, and ensuring that a level playing field

is in place that supports consumer and driver safety.

It’s time to bring functional ride-sharing to this province.

British Columbians have been waiting long enough.

[10:25 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading on the Miscellaneous

Statutes (Passenger Transportation Services) Amendment Act,

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and

Proceedings .]

J. Sturdy: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M201, Miscellaneous Statutes (Passenger Transportation Services)

Amendment Act, 2019, 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)

RICHMOND CARES, RICHMOND GIVES

PROGRAM AND CHRISTMAS

FUND

J. Yap: The non-profit agency Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives, RCRG, had a

very successful 2018 Christmas fund season and deserves hearty

congratulations.

RCRG runs the Richmond Christmas fund program to help Richmond

residents who do not have the financial means to celebrate Christmas.

It’s a program built on generosity to ensure everyone can share in the

holiday spirit. Each year the program assists over 2,000 low-income

residents and distributes grocery vouchers to individuals and families

in need.

The achievement of this year’s program is certainly one for the

record books. Between November 24 and December 15, 2018, Richmond

Christmas fund helped a total of 2,394 people — including 795 children,

210 teenagers and 342 seniors — which was up 11 percent from 2017. The

fund gave out 2,140 grocery vouchers and distributed 8,000 toys, as well

as many books and gift cards.

This would not have been possible without a series of fundraising

events, including the Steveston Beer Fest, Richmond Auto Mall’s Window

of Hope, the Richmond RCMP annual toy drive and pancake breakfast and A

Not So Silent Night, which raised nearly $65,000, making it the single

most successful fundraiser in Christmas fund history.

I’d like to thank RCRG chair Pat Watson; executive director Ed

Gavsie; their 142 volunteers, who contributed over 2,000 hours for the

program; and more than 260 individuals, businesses and community groups

that donated to the Christmas fund.

Thank you for bringing the Christmas spirit of giving to Richmond

residents in need and adding value to our community.

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION

AND CITY OF

NANAIMO

S. Malcolmson: With great thanks to the voters of Nanaimo, to the volunteers —

hundreds of them — and to my family and friends, many of whom are here,

I’m honoured to represent Nanaimo and to be the second woman to

represent Nanaimo in this Legislature, following in the strong footsteps

of Jan Pullinger, former cabinet minister, who’s here today.

The environment I learned from my mother and my grandmother.

Social justice I learned from my father and my grandfather. And from my

community…. In my role as trustee, as Islands Trust council chair, as

Member of Parliament, I’ve learned everything from my community —

community front-line organizations, from the business groups, from

coastal communities.

[10:30 a.m.]

Nanaimo is generating success stories that are reverberating

across the country on sustainability and reconciliation, lessons that

the province and the country can learn from. With Vancouver Island

University at the heart of our city, with a strong Snuneymuxw First

Nation council led by Chief Michael Wyse, with the new Nanaimo city

council led by Mayor Leonard Krog, I am ready to hit the ground running

to work with these community organizations, to work on this time of hope

and optimism for our community.

We are in an exciting time, and we are ready to work together to

build, to keep building, a better Nanaimo. I’m honoured to be part of

this new

chapter for my city and my community. And with great thanks to

my family, friends, voters and community members, I’m honoured to be

here working with you all.

FORWARD HOUSE COMMUNITY SOCIETY

M. Stilwell: One thing that makes me proud is the compassion and inclusion

volunteers and organizations share and show every day in

Parksville-Qualicum. Today on Valentine’s Day, I want to show my love

and appreciation for one such organization, the Forward House Community

Society.

What started as a crisis line in 1982 has grown into Forward

House, one of Vancouver Island’s best psychosocial rehabilitation

programs for people living with mental health challenges. It currently

serves more than 80 clients, and in 2018, the society opened a satellite

office in Qualicum Beach.

Coping with mental health issues and addiction recovery can be

hard and isolating. At Forward House, people can find support and

opportunities for meaningful social interaction and community inclusion.

There are opportunities to join recreation activities, expressive

therapy like yoga and music, education programs and to have a warm meal

around a kitchen table. It truly is a place of warmth, support, hope and

respect.

The society has also made its building more accessible, and it’s

currently working with another organization on different initiatives to

help address harm reduction issues and support those experiencing mental

health or addiction challenges in our region.

Executive director Sharon Welch has done an amazing job at the

helm of Forward House and in partnering with other organizations to

promote mental wellness in Oceanside. Lots of great work has been done

by the board of directors, the staff and the countless volunteers, like

Dawn Smith, who has lent her time to Forward House for 16

years.

Please join me in acknowledging the hard work that Forward House

does and in thanking everyone who helps to make it a success.

RUSKIN DAM AND

KWANTLEN FIRST

NATION

B. D’Eith: In 1930, the Ruskin dam was built in the heart of Kwantlen

territory with no consultation or communication with the nation, in an

in area of huge spiritual and cultural significance to the Kwantlen.

However, through the challenging, decade-long Ruskin dam and powerhouse

upgrade project, B.C. Hydro and the Kwantlen First Nation worked

together to support each other on what the Kwantlen representatives have

described as a new journey.

When a 9,000-year-old archeological site was discovered in the

middle of the project, B.C. Hydro worked with Kwantlen elders and

leaders to preserve the site with the dignity and respect that the

Kwantlen First Nation deserved.

During the upgrade process, the close relationship that developed

led to an amazing project, the installation of six massive Indigenous

art panels created by world-famous artist Brandon Gabriel on the new dam

piers. I was honoured to be a witness of the unveiling of the art and to

hear the stories behind this one-of-a-kind artistic

expression.

Brandon Gabriel explained that the artwork tells an ancient story

of the Kwantlen people. While his ancestors were making their way to a

mountaintop after a great flood, they saw animals struggling for

survival, so they brought them into their canoes for safety. These

animals — the raven, the salmon, the frog and the mountain goat —

appeared on each pier panel. The Kwantlen wolf clan crest appears as

bookends on both ends of the pier to show the story of the Kwantlen

history and identify Kwantlen territory.

[10:35 a.m.]

I want to say thanks to the Indigenous relations Lindsay Thompson

and President Chris O’Riley of B.C. Hydro and Chief Marilyn Gabriel and

Brandon Gabriel for their heartfelt presentations. And thanks to

everyone from Kwantlen First Nation and B.C. Hydro, including my

long-time friend, project manager Boyd Mason, for showing how true

reconciliation works — listening, working together, being respectful and

creating the space and time to build trust and lasting

friendships.

It truly was a wonder to behold, and I invite all of you to come

to visit it.

Huy chexw a .

PUBLIC TRUST IN GOVERNMENT

AND LEGISLATIVE

ASSEMBLY

A. Weaver: Each and every MLA in this room is proud and honoured to serve as

the elected representative for their community. While each of us has a

different story as to what brought us to politics, we’re all here

because we believe in working for the public good.

Yet I stand here today troubled — troubled that day by day, we’re

learning of new allegations of wrongdoing across government. This

troubles me because the narrative that is building is that B.C. is a

haven for unethical behaviour and that, whether deliberate or not, our

government has been complicit.

To our collective shame, we learned this year of the Vancouver

model, a term used by organized crime around the world because of how

easy it was to launder money here. This Legislature also has been rocked

to its core by allegations brought on by improper spending occurring

right under our noses.

Trust is the foundation of our democratic authority. If the public

loses trust in its government, that authority is lost. British

Columbians are calling for answers, and it’s up to us to ensure that

answers are given and that those who are responsible are held

accountable for their actions.

As we embark on this new session, let us collectively reflect upon

the role that each and every one of us can play in rebuilding public

trust in this institution. We have a lot of work to do, for trust is

built up over the span of years, and it can be lost with the blink of an

eye.

Now is the time for us to reform the way this Legislature

operates, and that’s precisely what British Columbians want and deserve.

My colleagues and I in the B.C. Green caucus stand by ready to assist in

any way we can.

STOLEN SISTERS MARCH FOR MISSING

AND MURDERED

INDIGENOUS WOMEN

M. Dean: Today, because of years of work led by Indigenous women, family

and community members and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant,

thousands of people will gather on the territories of the Musqueam,

Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations to commemorate the lives of

the women and girls who have been murdered or gone missing in

Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

February 14 is a day of remembrance when community comes together

to honour and celebrate the lives of all the women who were unjustly

taken from their families and communities. We honour the determination,

courage and resilience of the families and communities that keep their

memories alive. It is also a day to hold those in authority to

account.

For 28 years, the February 14 annual Women’s Memorial March has

been a leading voice, calling for action to end violence against

Indigenous women and girls. Our government shares this commitment to

work together to support the safety and well-being of women and girls

and to doing all that we can to prevent the conditions that caused them

to experience violence, poverty, homelessness and racism in violation of

their human rights.

Thank you to the organizers, volunteers, my colleagues and all

those who continue to advocate for change. While we cannot be with you

in person in Vancouver or Prince George, we’ll be at the Stolen Sisters

March in Victoria on Saturday. We march in step with you in spirit and

recommit to our promise to work alongside you so that women and girls

can thrive in our communities free of violence, intolerance and

fear.

Mr. Speaker: Nanaimo–North Cowichan wishes to make an introduction.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I’d like to introduce Dr. Ben Williams, who’s in the audience. He is

the executive medical director at Nanaimo hospital and a very dedicated

member of the Nanaimo community. Please help me welcome Dr. Ben

Williams.

[10:40 a.m.]

Oral Questions

RIDE-SHARING REGULATIONS

AND CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST

CONCERNS

P. Milobar: Yesterday the Transportation Minister was asked about the NDP

parliamentary secretary who has a direct family link to the taxi

business. But that member still sits on the ride-sharing

committee.

The bottom line is this: a member of the government should not be

involved in making recommendations for ride-sharing when their family

owns a taxi licence.

To the minister, who has now had a day to think about it, does she

agree that her colleague should step down from the committee?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. I see we’re going to be

spending a half an hour on this today. If the official opposition wants

to demonize small business people, if the members of the opposition want

to be judge, jury and executioner….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s a bit ironic, because not a week and a half ago, we had

overtures from the opposition: “Why can’t we all work together?” If we

all want ride-sharing, which we do — we passed legislation to that

effect — why demonize the son of a hard-working business person because

he happens to drive a taxi for a living? Why demonize people who work 12

to 14 hours a day, just because it’s politically expedient?

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, that has to be one of the weaker attempts at deflection that

I have heard in the 18 months I’ve sat on this side of the

House.

This is not about the taxi industry. This is not about a gentleman

earning a living driving a taxi. This is about the conduct of a

parliamentary secretary, and this is about the government’s inaction

around that conduct.

The NDP parliamentary secretary has been sitting on the committee

that’s been asked to help to make the rules and make recommendations

around ride-sharing. He has done so without disclosing that his father

owns one of only 234 taxi licences in the province, a very restricted

group. Apparently, he doesn’t even know Moe Sihota. This does not pass

the smell test for the average British Columbian.

Again, will the minister ask him to step down from the

committee?

Hon. J. Horgan: The committee members have no decision-making authority. The

committee members are seeking input from the public. It would strike me,

and I think it would strike most normal-thinking people, that if you

have an individual that has some experience in an area that you’re

investigating, that would be a positive thing.

I don’t know what the member’s father did for a living. Quite

frankly, I don’t care. But I do believe that he has every right to stand

in this place and ask inane questions.

Keep going, my friend. I’m going to defend the member for Delta

North, because his father is a small business person that I thought you

people supported.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a second supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson has the

floor.

P. Milobar: I think I will take the Premier up on his offer to ask another

question.

There really is nothing wrong with the holding of a taxi licence.

There’s nothing wrong with family members holding a taxi licence

whatsoever. What is wrong is not disclosing it and playing a leading

role in trying to create the rules around it. Frankly, if this

government doesn’t understand that basic tenet around real and perceived

conflict of interest, it’s going to be an interesting next few

months.

I don’t think most British Columbians believe that someone with

this bias should be involved with this file in any way when it comes to

recommending rules for ride-sharing. The minister yesterday said the

buck stops with her. However, we have the Premier answering today, so

maybe it doesn’t really stop with her.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall allow the member to finish the

question.

P. Milobar: My first two questions asked if they were going ask the member to

step aside — will they actually show some leadership, whoever the buck

stops with on that side of the House, be it the minister or the Premier

or maybe the chief of staff, and actually just make the change, instead

of waiting for a member to decide on their own whether or not they

should be part of a committee?

When will the Premier or the Transportation Minister or the chief

of staff, with a long history of this file as a city councillor in

Vancouver, actually do the right thing and make a committee

change?

Mr. Speaker: Members, before the Premier begins, in anticipation of more noise,

if we could be sure that the response is heard. Thank you.

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I assume that all members of this place are acting with the

utmost of integrity. I will take direction from the conflict

commissioner when it comes to conflict of interest — not members of the

B.C. Liberal Party, thank you very much.

I will just add that the member for Peace River North asked

questions in this place about aggregate contracts at Site C. His former

company has aggregate contracts at Site C, but I did not believe for a

second that there was any conflict there, because he’s an honourable

member, and he wanted to protect the interests of his

community.

When the member for Surrey–White Rock talked about maintaining

Advantage B.C., which gave tax breaks to companies that she had in her

stock portfolio, I didn’t call that a conflict. I called that a

different perspective on economic development. So when the member for

Delta North participates with other members of the Legislature in a

collegial committee process and he brings expertise that they know not

about, I would see that as an asset, not a conflict.

The member is in this place because he got an education and he was

raised by a man who worked day after day after day to make a better life

for his family. That’s what the taxi industry is. They’re not enemies of

British Columbia. They’re good, hard-working people. That they produced

a fine young man like the member for Delta North is a good thing, not a

crime.

S. Bond: The Premier has been in this House long enough to know the

definition of perceived conflict. This isn’t about the taxi industry or

whether you own a licence. There’s nothing wrong with that. This is

about a member’s perceived conflict of interest.

Yesterday, apparently, was the first time that the Minister of

Transportation learned of the parliamentary secretary’s perceived

conflict. The perception clearly calls into question — and the Premier

can stand up and bluster all he wants — the results of the work of a

committee that the minister has tasked with making recommendations on

ride-sharing regulations. But according to the parliamentary secretary

himself, staff have been aware of this all along.

I’m sure the minister has now had the time to look into this.

Perhaps she can tell this House which staff knew. And why wasn’t she

told?

Hon. J. Horgan: With respect to the member for Delta North’s father and his

vocation, he has, at his initiative, asked the conflict commissioner for

a ruling on this. Again, I appreciate that we’ve got another 20 minutes

of braying from the other side. I’m happy to continue to stand up and

say this.

I’m proud of the member. I’m proud of his father. I’m proud of all

hard-working British Columbians that are very proud of their children

coming here, particularly the mother and father of the member for

Nanaimo, who are here seeing this integrity in action.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, we appreciate that the Premier has a particularly intimate

knowledge with the definition of perceived conflict. It speaks volumes

that now the Premier doesn’t seem to understand the questions that this

raises in the minds of British Columbians about the validity of the

committee process. It’s about perceived conflict, and the Premier well

knows that.

What British Columbians expect…. It is not about whether someone

owns a taxi licence. They expect a fair and unbiased process. Frankly,

the Premier and the minister should too. It is not unreasonable to

expect that a committee dealing with ride-sharing regulations should not

include members who have a perceived conflict of interest. That is not

an unreasonable or, as the Premier would characterize it, an inane

question.

Can the Premier assure the House and British Columbians today that

the member has no other family connections to the taxi

industry?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member for Delta North has written to the conflict

commissioner. He’s following up today. I expect that the conflict

commissioner, who we charge, all of us in this place, to ensure that the

lines that the members are talking about are not crossed…. I will await

the decision from that office rather than take advice from the member

for Prince George–Valemount.

[10:50 a.m.]

MONEY LAUNDERING IN CASINOS

A. Weaver: Last week’s explosive investigative report on CTV’s W5

alleged that the B.C. Lottery Corp. displayed wilful blindness to money

laundering in B.C. casinos. Since the early 2000s, multiple

whistle-blowing attempts were allegedly ignored. From 2008 up until last

year, these warnings were coming with increasing frequency, yet they

were still ignored.

It goes deeper than that. Those who tried to expose the racket

were penalized. Does this sound familiar? The reports issued on the

escalating crisis by the previous executive director of the B.C. gaming

policy and enforcement branch were shelved, and at times, senior staff

were even told that they should not talk about money laundering. It’s

astounding. After continually warning of a massive escalation of

suspected dirty money infiltrating casinos, the top gaming investigators

in B.C. lost their jobs.

My question is to the Attorney General. What action is this

government taking to clean up this alleged culture of

corruption?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. One of first things that we

did on forming government was actually let British Columbians know about

what was happening in our casinos, that our regulator believed that our

casinos were the hub of an international, large-scale, money-laundering

ring. British Columbians did not know that.

The member mentioned the Vancouver model in his two-minute

statement. The reason British Columbians know about that now is because

Peter German talked with the university professor who was teaching

anti-money-laundering professionals about the Vancouver model of money

laundering at the same time as officials here were saying that there was

no issue with money laundering in our casinos. Can you imagine

that?

The action we’ve taken is to, first of all, let British Columbians

know about what was going on, and second, to tell the casinos, even

though we knew there was a potential $30 million hit to the budget —

even though we knew that — to stop accepting the cash. It cut suspicious

cash transactions by 100 times from the peak of July 2015.

I can also tell the member that we have the regulator in the

casinos at peak hours now. Previously they were only there Monday to

Friday, nine to five. I don’t know if the member has ever found himself

in a casino, but it probably wasn’t Monday to Friday, nine to five. Now

the regulator is there when people are actually in the casino, which

seems like a good idea to us.

B.C. Lottery Corp., under the supervision of the regulator…. The

member was in the House when we passed the legislation to make those

40-plus recommendations from Peter German, all underway.

I thank the member for the question, very much. We’re taking a lot

of action on this file.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: There’s little doubt that this problem occurred under the watch of

the previous government. However, it is now this government that’s in

power, and it’s this government’s responsibility to actually get to the

bottom of this.

As the Province reporter Mike Smyth pointed out, the NDP

loves talking and talking about money laundering. According to other

whistle-blowers in the industry, there was not only a culture of wilful

blindness, but some executives were actively justifying the money

laundering. Some said that it would occur anyway and that, therefore, at

least the government casinos could be used to recycle the dirty money

into productive uses. The seemingly pervasive theme across casino

executives and within the BCLC was that the money should not be

questioned.

According to whistle-blowers at the centre of this, their

behaviour was not unwitting. It was deliberate. A former senior director

of investigation for B.C.’s gaming policy enforcement branch has even

said that the BCLC could have stopped this at any point. They did

not.

My question, again, is to the Attorney General. Those responsible

in his ministry must be held accountable. What is his ministry doing to

ensure that British Columbians are getting the answers they deserve

today — not some time in the future, but now?

Hon. D. Eby: You know, it’s a bit ironic to be given information that was in

the Peter German report as evidence of the fact that the government

hasn’t been taking action to get the information out. The reason why CTV

and others knew about Joe Schalk and others who were fired when they

tried to ring the alarm bells was because that was in Peter German’s

report. I’ve actually written to them to congratulate them and thank

them for their work in defending British Columbia’s interests. We’re

getting the information out to British Columbians. We’re trying to stop

the activity that’s taking place.

Now, I’ve heard the members on the other side, in the official

opposition, say: “Oh, we had lots going on. We were trying to stop money

laundering.” We asked them: “Okay, well, give us the cabinet documents.

Give us access to cabinet documents. We’ll keep that confidential. We

won’t release that information. We’ll use that to inform our

anti-money-laundering response so that we don’t repeat the work.” Did

they give us the documents? No, they did not.

[10:55 a.m.]

I can tell the member that it was just about eight weeks ago that

the Silver International federal prosecution fell apart. We expected

that British Columbians would hear a lot of information on that

prosecution. We were incredibly concerned when it fell apart. I

presented to a federal finance committee on this issue.

We now have a federal minister tasked directly to work with B.C.

on this issue. The federal government is committed to work with us. We

have a civil forfeiture action underway that I can’t talk about. It’s

currently in front of the courts. The Ministry of Attorney General

lawyers resisted an application to give the money back to the alleged

money launderers in the Silver International case. This case is ongoing.

The independent prosecution service, provincially, is looking at the

federal materials to see if there are provincial charges that are

appropriate. I could go on and on, and I would love to.

RIDE-SHARING REGULATIONS

AND CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST

CONCERNS

M. Polak: Yesterday when the parliamentary secretary was asked, “Are any

other members of your family involved in that industry?” his clear

answer was no.

Is the minister aware that this statement is not

accurate?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate the enthusiasm of the Opposition House Leader

on this question. I’ll just repeat what I’ve been saying: I believe that

having a well-informed member of the Legislature is good for all British

Columbians.

I don’t suggest for a minute that the member for Delta South, a

farmer, should not talk about agriculture. That would be ridiculous. For

someone who has a family connection — their father, who raised them from

birth to a seat in this Legislature — to be somehow inappropriate to

talk about issues that are relevant to a whole bunch of British

Columbians is ridiculous.

The committee works together in a collegial manner to come up with

recommendations to the final decision-maker — who is not the member for

Delta North nor, thank goodness, the member for Richmond-Queensborough,

but in fact, it’s the Minister of Transportation.

We have asked, through to the member, the conflict commissioner

for a ruling. Again, based on the track record of the 12 years I sat in

opposition, I’ll await a ruling from him rather than listen to the

people on the other side.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the official opposition on a

supplemental.

M. Polak: It’s my understanding that moments ago the parliamentary secretary

confirmed the existence of another direct family interest, that of his

uncle, who has cabs in Surrey and Vancouver.

To the point about the conflict commissioner, I have to ask: why

did the letter to the conflict commissioner not contain that

information?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, is it my second cousin, first removed, that is going to be

responsible for the actions of me in this place and in my community? I

rather think not. Again, there are numerous examples around this house,

in all parties. Should the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head not be allowed

to talk about post-secondary education? Should he not be able to vote on

advancing more resources to the University of Victoria because he’s on

leave from the University of Victoria? That’s ridiculous.

I appreciate it’s early in the session. The opposition seems to

have a fairly empty basket of issues to bring before the public. I mean,

I would have thought it. They didn’t want to talk about the throne

speech.

I guess they don’t want to talk about B.C. Hydro. We have a report

that demonstrates that. It’s because of the quick-witted thinkers on the

other side, those pro-business people, who are condemning taxi drivers

but supporting investors and shell companies from Ontario, which we now

owe $16 billion to. They don’t want to talk about that.

They don’t want to talk about money laundering — the biggest

challenge we have in our community. I haven’t heard a word about

fentanyl. I haven’t heard a word about housing, because it all fell

apart on their watch.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

SPECULATION AND VACANCY TAX

J. Thornthwaite: There are currently 1.6 million letters being sent to British

Columbia homeowners who now must prove to the NDP that they are not real

estate speculators. Once again, this is NDP tax policy made up on the

fly.

[11:00 a.m.]

Someone thought this negative-option billing — a practice, by the

way that is banned in the private sector — was a smart idea.

To the Minister of Finance, why is this government viewing British

Columbians as being guilty until proven residents?

Hon. C. James: Mr. Speaker, I think all on the other side need to start with one

question: why are we looking at a housing crisis? It’s because of

inaction on the other side. The old government’s choices left us with

skyrocketing house prices, speculation in the market, and we’re taking

action to address this.

Now, I recognize that the opposition has spent more time

criticizing a process that takes three minutes than they ever did

talking about the housing crisis in British Columbia. We are moving

ahead, we are addressing the housing crisis, and we are making sure that

families and workers in British Columbia have the ability to live in the

community that they work in — unlike the other side.

Mr. Speaker: North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: We all know that this speculation tax has absolutely nothing to do

with speculators. Using the government’s own numbers, British Columbians

will spend over a quarter of a million hours on paperwork annually. Our

offices have been flooded with complaints from stressed-out British

Columbians, and I’m sure the other side has too.

However, British Columbians, like the 78-year-old widow in

Coquitlam who was passed from call agent to call agent and couldn’t get

a straight answer for days…. Our seniors deserve better.

Why is this poor 78-year-old widow being labelled as a speculator

by this uncaring minister?

Hon. C. James: As the member knows well, the vast majority of people are filling

out their forms on line. It’s taking less than three minutes, and

they’re getting it done. Like us, they want to stand up for housing and

affordable housing for British Columbians.

Now, the other side can continue to stand up for speculators. The

other side can continue to stand up for people who choose to leave

second and third and fourth homes vacant. We are standing up for

communities. We are standing up for people in British Columbia, and we

are taking action on housing. I’m proud of that.

T. Stone: I suppose the only thing worse than the speculation tax itself is

the flippant attitude and comments coming from the Minister of Finance

with respect to the stress and anxiety and worries of hard-working,

taxpaying British Columbians, including a lot of seniors that are really

feeling anxious about this tax policy.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

T. Stone: So we’ll try this again with the Minister of Finance, another

hard-working family here in British Columbia.

Ken Jillings has a small cabin that has been in their family over

60 years. Now, it’s a small cabin, approximately 1,000 square feet, with

a current assessed value of approximately $25,000. Ken and his family

use this cabin on a year-round basis. However, now, under this

government…. The government wants to force the Jillings to either sell

the family cabin or force these seniors, who are on a fixed income, to

pay thousands of dollars for this so-called speculation tax each and

every year.

Ken and his family are not part of some wealthy 1 percent, and

they are certainly not speculators, so my question to the Minister of

Finance is this. Why is the Minister of Finance targeting the cabins of

hard-working British Columbians, just like the Jillings

family?

Hon. C. James: The member knows I’m not going to talk about specific tax cases,

but there are unique circumstances that people are facing. That’s why we

have the ability for people to be able to phone in and get their

specific circumstances looked at. That’s why there are a number of

exemptions.

[11:05 a.m.]

The member mentions cabins. In fact, British Columbians have an

exemption for anything up to $400,000 in value. So if the member’s

information is correct, the person would not pay the speculation

tax.

I do think it’s interesting to just take a minute to remember that

the vast majority of British Columbians support this direction. In fact,

even the member for Kamloops–South Thompson…. When he was running for

leadership of the B.C. Liberals, part of his platform said we should

levy vacant-home owners with a yearly property tax surcharge.

Interjections.

Hon. C. James: I’ll just take a minute, Mr. Speaker, to make sure people know how

strongly he felt. He said that we should levy vacant-home owners a

yearly property tax surcharge unless they take steps to rent out their

property. Even the member from Kamloops south supports the direction

we’re taking on housing.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson has the

floor.

T. Stone: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Despite the minister’s claims to the contrary, she and her

government are targeting the family cabins of British Columbians. Now,

Ken writes: “We are neither foreign owners nor domestic speculators. We

are seniors on fixed incomes and longtime, taxpaying B.C.

residents.”

Again to the Minister of Finance, why is the minister imposing

this unfair tax on Ken Jillings and his family?

Hon. C. James: Once again, as the member knows, I’m not going to speak about

specific tax cases because we want to make sure that the information

that is being given is accurate. But if the cabin is under $400,000 in

value, as the member says, then the member is exempt from the

speculation tax.

We have a number of exemptions: people who have tenants, people

who are going through hardship, people receiving medical treatment,

people with disabilities, people who commute long distances for work.

There’s a long list to ensure that we are making sure that people look

at renting their property out. They take a look at getting rid of

speculators, because young people are struggling in this province,

workers are struggling in this province, and employers can’t find people

because they can’t afford the housing. We are addressing this issue to

make sure that we support families and that we support growing the

economy in British Columbia.

L. Throness: Let me bring this home to Chilliwack. Ken and Karla Graham have

lived in Chilliwack for 35 years, but for the past five years, their

work has taken them to Vancouver, so they live there. They still come

back to Chilliwack on the weekends. They’re going to retire

there.

Here’s what he said to me. “We have not speculated. Our employment

opportunities took us to Vancouver. I am so frustrated with this

impossible government.”

Ken and Karla are hard-working British Columbians. They’re not

speculators. Why is the government punching them in the gut every year

with a $4,000 bill?

Hon. C. James: An entire generation of young people have been left without the

hope of ever owning a home or being able to find a place to rent because

of skyrocketing house prices, because of the increasing challenge when

it comes to vacancy rates in communities.

This is an issue that is impacting all of British Columbia. This

is an issue that we ran on in the election, that the public demanded

action on. Unlike the other side, who ignored this crisis and left young

people to their own devices — left them without hope in British

Columbia, left our economy struggling because we can’t find employers —

we are taking action. We are going to move ahead on our 30-point plan on

housing.

The speculation tax to address vacant properties and address

speculation is a key part of that, and we’re already starting to see a

difference. We’re already starting to see affordability when it comes to

houses in the Lower Mainland. We’re starting to see the price of housing

addressed.

In fact, the B.C. Real Estate Association reports that there have

been changes. Our action is working.

[End of question period.]

[11:10 a.m.]

Reports from Committees

FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT

SERVICES

COMMITTEE

B. D’Eith: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select

Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the third

session of the 41st parliament, entitled Annual Review of the

Budgets of Statutory Offices .

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

Motion approved.

B. D’Eith: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

B. D’Eith: I move that the report be adopted, and in so doing, I would like

to make some brief comments.

This unanimous report summarizes the committee’s review of the

budgets of the province’s statutory officers, including a start-up

budget for the Human Rights Commissioner, a new independent

officer.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to acknowledge and thank

all statutory officers and their staff, as well as the Human Rights

Commissioner transition team within the Ministry of Attorney General,

for their work in supporting this process and facilitating a

constructive dialogue over the last year. Committee members appreciate

their efforts and commitment to responsible stewardship of public

funds.

I would also like to thank all of the committee members and

especially the Deputy Chair, the member for Penticton, for their

dedication and contribution to this report — and, of course, all of the

Clerk’s staff.

D. Ashton: I would concur with the remarks from the member for Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows and thank him for his exemplary

chairmanship.

I would like to say to the statutory officers a large thank-you

for what they do for all the citizens of British Columbia. I appreciate

their incredible hard work and efforts and continue to ask them to

provide their services thoroughly, expeditiously and cost-effectively as

possible for all that they represent.

Additional marks for it as a committee that I’ve had the

incredible pleasure of serving on for several years. It’s one of the

committees where, I have to say, all three sides of the House work very,

very well together in listening to what the citizens of British Columbia

are requesting of government and in being able to forward those requests

and comments to the government. As has been shown on numerous occasions,

the government does listen and does its best — all governments do their

best — to address the issues that are brought forward to that

committee.

Motion approved.

POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER

APPOINTMENT

COMMITTEE

R. Singh: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee

to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner.

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

Motion approved.

R. Singh: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

R. Singh: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like

to make some brief comments.

This report constitutes the committee’s unanimous recommendation

to appoint Clayton Pecknold as B.C.’s next Police Complaint

Commissioner. Mr. Pecknold has an extensive professional background in

law and policing and brings valuable experience in working with a broad

range of policing, civil liberties and community

organizations.

Committee members were impressed with his vision for policing, his

record with Indigenous communities and vulnerable populations and his

commitment to public accountability. Combined with his leadership,

integrity and values, the committee concluded that Mr. Pecknold was

uniquely qualified for his position.

Mr. Pecknold is here in the gallery with his family. Would the

House please join me in welcoming him.

Following the retirement of the former commissioner, Mr. Stan

Lowe, on January 31, the committee unanimously agreed on February 1 to

appoint Mr. Pecknold as the acting commissioner, to ensure continuity in

the office.

[11:15 a.m.]

On behalf of the committee and all members of the Legislative

Assembly, I would like to thank Mr. Lowe for his service and

contributions to the province as Police Complaint Commissioner over the

last ten years and wish him well in his retirement.

I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Deputy

Chair, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, and all committee members

for their dedication and collaboration.

M. Morris: I’d like to echo the words from the Chair. The committee worked

very well. It was comprised of all three parties. We had an extensive

list of very, very well-qualified candidates.

I have to say that Mr. Pecknold’s vast experience and very

significant experience in this field bode him well in this. I look

forward to him taking over the chair as the Police Complaint

Commissioner. I think the public and all the police departments in

British Columbia will be well served.

Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

R. Singh: I ask leave of the House to move a motion appointing Clayton

Pecknold as Police Complaint Commissioner for the province of British

Columbia.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

POLICE COMPLAINT

COMMISSIONER

R. Singh: I move:

[That Clayton Pecknold be appointed as an Officer of the

Legislature, to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Police

Complaint Commissioner, pursuant to the Police Act (RSBC 1996,

Chapter 367) for a five year term commencing on February 14,

2019.]

Motion approved.

Point of Order

T. Redies: I rise to request that the Premier withdraw his comments earlier today

with respect to me.

Mr. Speaker: That’s a point of order? Thank you.

Hon. J. Horgan: The intent of my comments was to highlight that all of us have family

members and issues that may overlap with our responsibilities in this place.

If the member took issue with that, I certainly apologize.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 2, Protection of Public

Participation Act, 2019.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — PROTECTION OF PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION ACT

Deputy Speaker: Members, those who do not have House duty, maybe you can proceed

outside.

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

[11:20 a.m.]

This is a bill that is intended to protect an essential value of

our democracy, which is public participation in the debates of the

issues of the day, and in particular, to respond to a mischief that has

arisen, which is people who are powerful and wealthy and able to afford

lawyers initiating lawsuits or threatening lawsuits against individuals

who are critical of them in order to stop them from participating in

that public debate.

What the bill proposes to do is strike a balance between a couple

of values. One is the value of protecting an individual’s reputation or

a company’s reputation. The other is the value of a robust and rigorous

debate that the courts have described as freewheeling, that can be

heated, that can result in intemperate comments. But that’s part of

public debate, and it shouldn’t be met with threats of litigation to

stop people from talking about the issues of the day. Those are the

values that this bill is aimed at addressing.

I’m going to start my remarks today by taking on a bit of an

introduction to the defamation action, traditionally; some changes that

the Supreme Court of Canada made to it; and the history in British

Columbia. We actually had a bill like this in 2001 that the previous NDP

government introduced. It was repealed months later by the incoming B.C.

Liberal government. We’ll talk about how that happened and what the

issues were that were discussed at that time. Then I’m going to go

through the act to discuss why it reads the way it does and what the

government’s intent is in introducing this bill.

The law of defamation is really a very old example of what’s

called a tort in the law, which is a cause of action, basically, a way

that you bring a case in front of a court. Historically, this is

something that would have protected the aristocrats, protected very

wealthy people from commentary from the common folks about them, and

it’s structured that way. It’s structured in a way that is quite unique

in terms of different ways of bringing forward a claim in court, or a

tort, in that the way that you prove it is very strange.

There’s very little burden that’s placed on the person that brings

the claim in court. The majority of the burden is placed on the

defendant to prove that what they said was true or to prove that what

they said was somehow otherwise justified. You don’t even have to prove

damages in a defamation action. So if someone insulted me, I could sue

them. I don’t even have to prove that there’s been any financial

consequence, professional consequence, to me. It is actionable simply

because the person defamed me.

If you want to sue someone for defamation, the key piece that you

have to demonstrate to the court is simply that somebody published

something — they said it; they wrote it down — that would cause a

reasonable member of the public to think less of you. That’s it. That’s

all that you have to prove. Once you’ve crossed that hurdle, everything

goes onto the defendant — the person who published it, the person who

said it — to demonstrate that either what they said was true or that

they have some kind of justification or that it was fair

comment.

Issues that you might see in other causes of action that the

plaintiff would have to prove in order to get over that initial hurdle,

like malice…. You don’t have to prove that there was malice. You don’t

have to prove that their intention was bad. It’s presumed that whatever

the person said is false, so the defendant themselves has to prove that

what they said was true, which can be quite difficult

sometimes.

As you look at this, you see that all the plaintiff has to do is

just: “This guy said this about me, and now people think less of me. A

reasonable person would understand that.” And then they sit down, and

that’s their whole case. Then everybody else on the defence side has to

stand up. They have to prove that it was true. They have to prove that

they did it without malice. They have to prove that it falls within a

number of different defences. You can see why it might be tempting to

use this cause of action or to threaten it against somebody to stop them

from talking about something that you don’t want them to talk about,

whether or not it’s justified.

Damages, in this, are presumed. The court just assumes, without

any proof, that you’re entitled to compensation when this happens to

you. Damages are meant to compensate you for an abstract concept, which

is to vindicate your reputation. Unlike other causes of action, where

you have to prove fault, you have to prove that you were actually

injured, none of that exists in defamation in its traditional sense, the

common law.

So you can see why, as this has happened and rolled out in

different cases over many years in common-law jurisdictions, the

common-law countries have been changing their defamation laws to respond

to this — the unfairness of it; the uniqueness of it; the structure of

it to favour the aristocrats, historically, against being criticized by

the rabble; and the fact that society has moved on in many

ways.

[11:25 a.m.]

Valuing free speech is a key part of democracy, and I’ll talk

about the Supreme Court of Canada’s work to recognize that in the

Charter era, where free speech is specifically recognized as a value and

protected in the constitution.

Now, I’m going to give a little credit here to someone I’m relying

on in this first set of my remarks, who is someone named Hilary Young.

She’s an associate professor in the faculty of law at the University of

New Brunswick. She did an empirical study of how defamation law is

actually used in Canada.

Actually, it was part of the debate in the 2001 period — when B.C.

introduced its own legislation — which was: “Oh, you feel like this law

is being abused” or “You feel like there’s a problem.” The opposition

and then government said: “But there’s no proof that there’s actually an

issue.” She did some work around, “Well, let’s look at the actual

numbers. How many of these actions were brought forward? What does it

look like?” — that kind of thing.

I think that, generally speaking — and we’ll find out from the

opposition where they are on this — there’s a recognition that this

tort, or this cause of action, can be abused. The Supreme Court of

Canada has recognized that in some of their judgments since then, in

2008 in particular and 2009 — that era.

Between 1973 and 1983, there were 238 reported cases related to

defamation. But then between 2003 and 2013 — another ten-year period, a

couple of decades later — there were 762 reported cases on defamation.

So it looks like the number of reported cases more than tripled in 30

years. Now, there’s a possible explanation for this, which is that more

cases are reported now — population has grown, courts may be more used.

But we’re also seeing that defamation is used significantly, because

this is the very tip of the iceberg.

The cases that actually go to court, have the court decide on

something, issue a judgment and then have that judgment reported are a

very small fraction of the defamation cases that are threatened, that

are filed, that may actually go forward to hearing, because you may have

a decision without a reported decision. When you hear 762 cases in the

decade between 2003 and 2013, that is a fraction of a fraction of a

fraction of the number of threats of defamation that went out, for

example, to reporters, to community members, to others who are raising

concerns about different issues in their communities. That gives you a

sense about the scope of that.

This professor did some very interesting work about the rates of

liability in cases involving journalism. Typically, SLAPP suits are

talked about in the sense of an activist group which is out there

protesting something or encouraging a boycott. There have been some very

high-profile cases.

Not often enough is the issue related to journalists talked about,

so she looks at the rate of liability in cases involving journalists.

These are cases where somebody is suing a journalist for a journalistic

publication that is alleged to be defamatory or to have caused the

public to think less of the person that’s the subject of the news

report.

In the 1973-to-1983 data, there were 73 final court decisions

involving journalists; 64 percent resulted in liability being found

against the journalists, and 36 percent did not. The majority of the

cases found that the journalist had actually defamed someone, and the

journalist had to pay damages.

In that context, you can understand some of the discussion about

what’s talked about as “libel chill” or the fact that investigative

stories get spiked or the fact that people feel nervous that they might

be sued for defamation, because when these cases go to court, even when

journalists are backed by news organizations that historically have had

resources to defend these cases, they’re losing the majority of cases.

They’re relying on legal advice — you’ve got a reasonable case; let’s

push this thing ahead — and they’re losing the majority of the

cases.

Keep in mind, again, that these are only the cases that go all the

way to being reported by court. These aren’t the letters that are the

threats that result in a story being spiked. These are the cases that

went all the way through trial, had a decision, and the decision was

reported.

One would hope that, following the introduction of the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms,

section 2(b), the freedom-of-expression

protections…. It specifically mentioned journalists and protecting free

speech. You’d think there would be a shift in what was happening in the

courts in terms of the values that the Charter talks about. There was a

bit of a shift, but there was still a significant number of these cases

that were resulting in liability being found against journalists. From

2003 to 2013, of the 89 final decisions involving journalism, 31

resulted in liability — one in three, or 35 percent.

[11:30 a.m.]

These are journalists attending court, most likely represented by

counsel advising them that they were in the right in making the report

and so on. They’re still being found that they had defamed someone and

being found that they had to pay damages. When compared with

non-journalists, the court actually was more likely to find liability

where a journalist was involved in a litigation compared with a company

or an individual that had no relation to journalism.

It’s kind of strange that in a Charter era, where free speech is

specifically protected, especially in relation to journalists, in our

constitution, it’s more likely that a journalist will be found to have

defamed someone than someone who is not a journalist when the matter

goes to court.

I’m going to talk about a case called Grant v. Torstar , a

Supreme Court of Canada case. It changed the law related to journalists,

talking about responsible communication, trying to clarify, responding

to this concern that journalists were facing libel chill. They weren’t

able to report on the issues that they felt that they should be able to,

a subject of wide commentary in media.

In the first five years of that defence being established, it only

succeeded in three reported cases. The conclusion of the author of this

empirical study was “perhaps its effect is not yet apparent” in the

data. That went to 2013, a surprising finding.

We have a little bit of an empirical basis for how many defamation

cases are going forward. The question, though, is about how many of

these cases are what would be called SLAPP suits or considered cases

brought with bad intent to stop someone from talking about something

they should be talking about. How often is this happening?

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association tackled this question in some

of their materials. They’re advocates for reform of the law. You would

think if an organization was advocating for reform of the law, they

would have done some significant work in trying to put numbers on this.

Their conclusion was:

“It’s difficult to know how prevalent SLAPPs are in Canada, not

least because many individuals and groups are effectively silenced with

the mere threat of a suit, let alone having a case actually filed

against them. However, even just looking at the cases that do become

public, which may be only a very small portion of cases, it is evident

that SLAPPs are a serious threat to freedom of expression and the public

discourse needed for democratic debate. Community groups opposed to

local development or industry activities, environmentalists and

journalists are prominent among those targeted for SLAPPs.”

So “they don’t know” is the short

answer.

Media critic Jesse Brown, on his podcast Canadaland ,

often talks about…. I listen to his podcasts with one ear, because

sometimes I find Mr. Brown very challenging. He often talks about, and

has journalists on his show talking about, receiving these threats of

libel and the impact that they have on the ability of reporters to bring

forward stories, including very significant stories that have had the

effect of shifting public opinion, or that could have the effect of

shifting public opinion, if only the story could be told. But they

aren’t, because people are very nervous about being sued, especially

journalists that work in organizations that don’t have the resources to

defend a case.

The context of defamation law — the traditional context I’ve

talked about, protecting the aristocrats from the commentary of the

rabble, ensuring that the rights of the powerful are protected from

critique — has been modified in Canada without this law already. This

was one of the key defences of those that tore down the 2001 effort by

the then NDP government to get a handle on these cases: “Look, the

courts can already address these issues.” I’d like to talk about some of

the measures the courts have put in place, at that time and since then,

to try to contain these issues.

First of all, I’ve talked about

section 2(b), which is the

section

of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects freedom of thought,

belief, opinion and expression. I’m going to read it because I think

it’s important to actually hear the language. Everyone has the following

fundamental freedoms: “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and

expression, including freedom of the press and other media of

communication.”

One thing to note in this is that, just in the text itself, it

talks about freedom of expression for individuals and then singles out

freedom of the press as well and freedom of other media communication in

this Internet age that we live in — obviously, freedom of speech on line

as well as off line. So the courts have had the opportunity to consider

this

section in the constitution and its implications for law in

Canada.

[11:35 a.m.]

One of the things that they talk about in this section, one of the

underlying values that they talk about in this section, is that this is

premised on a fundamental democratic value. That is that the search and

attainment of truth comes from the participation in social and political

decision-making and the opportunity for individual self-fulfilment as a

citizen in participating in that through expression.

It’s a very fancy way, I think, of saying: “Look, as a democracy,

it’s messy.” But the only way it works is if people get to come out and

speak their truth about what they see in the world. If they are

repressed in that by government, by law, by some other mechanism, then

our democracy is less fulfilled as a result.

I always paraphrase the court with great fear, because, obviously,

the Supreme Court of Canada, the key cases…. I encourage anyone that

wants to test my

interpretation of what the court actually said to read

Irwin Toy v. Quebec or Ford v. Quebec , which talk

about these values, and get it directly from the court

itself.

The second thing is that the court has really talked about,

through their actions and through their judgments, free expression being

valued above every other value in terms of being instrumental to

democratic governance. It includes the right to hear. As a citizen, I

have the right to hear somebody else’s free expression. If that’s

interfered with, my rights are being interfered with because I didn’t

get to hear that person’s opinion — as well as the person expressing the

opinion, their right to say what their beliefs are, what their opinions

are, and so on, without interference.

That’s the purpose of it, and that sounds wonderful. So you say:

“Well, with a constitution that has

section 2(b), with a constitution

with all these judgments that say all these wonderful things about truth

and democracy and expressing yourself, why do we need this bill? Why

would we ever need it? This is already here.”

Well, the issue is that

section 2(

b) in the constitution only

applies directly to government action. There’s a case called The

Dolphin Delivery — the earliest days of the Charter. You learn

it in first-year law school. It talks about the fact that the Charter

applies to government action only. Now, as soon as lawyers are involved,

of course, it’s not immediately obvious what government action is. But

it’s clear that the majority of defamation cases do not involve the

government actually. They involve two private actors.

The courts have tried to reconcile the fact that there’s this very

high value on free expression in our constitution, yet that part of the

constitution does not apply directly to a dispute between two private

parties. So the way the court has tried to square that circle and say

that we’ve got this historic, archaic tort of defamation that protects

the royals from comments from the plebes and we’ve got this Charter that

says free expression of everyone is incredibly valued and we’ve got to

protect it from government interference is to say that

section 2(b)’s

values, or the values that underlie the constitution, apply to the

common law or the law that applies to disputes between two

parties.

They talk about this in a case called Grant v. Torstar

that I’ve referenced already. I’m going to go into some detail about the

case. I’ll give you the quote just so that you know what I’m talking

about, because it’s easier to hear it from the court directly. This is

from paragraph 44 in Grant v. Torstar.

“The constitutional status of freedom of expression under the

Charter means that all Canadian laws must conform to it. The common law,

though not directly subject to Charter scrutiny where disputes between

private parties are concerned, may be modified to bring it into harmony

with the Charter. As Justice Cory put it in Hill v. Church of

Scientology ,” a 1995 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada,

“‘Charter values, framed in general terms, should be weighed against the

principles that underlie the common law. The Charter values will then

provide the guidelines for any modification of the common law which the

court feels is necessary.’”

These are the values that the court…. When I talk about the

historic tort of defamation and where we are currently, this is why

Canadian defamation law has shifted. The court has tried to apply the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this free expression value, to an

ancient common-law right to go to court and to sue someone, and to take

the sharp corners off, essentially, to find new ways for people to

defend their right to free expression against a tort that was expressly

designed to, frankly, prevent free expression.

[11:40 a.m.]

One of the other cases that talks about this application of

Charter values to the common defamation law is a case called WIC

Radio and Rafe Mair v. Kari Simpson . It’s a 2008 decision of

the Supreme Court of Canada.

In that case…. I’m going to go into that one in some detail, but

just to close off this discussion about Charter values, this is a

dispute between three private individuals: the radio station, Rafe Mair

and then Kari Simpson, who was suing Rafe Mair and the radio station for

comments that were made on that radio station. The court

said:

“This is a private law case that is not governed directly by the

Charter. Yet it has common ground in the argument before us that the

evolution of the common law is to be informed and guided by Charter

values.

“Particular emphasis was placed on the importance of ensuring that

the law of fair comment is developed in a manner consistent with the

values underlying freedom of expression. However, the worth and dignity

of each individual, including reputation, is also an important value

underlying the Charter and is to be weighed in the balance with freedom

of expression, including freedom of the media.

“The court’s task is not to prefer one value over the other by

ordering a hierarchy of rights…but to attempt a reconciliation. An

individual’s reputation is not to be treated as regrettable but

unavoidable roadkill on the highway of public controversy, but nor

should an overly solicitous regard for personal reputation be permitted

to chill freewheeling debate on matters of public interest.

“As it was put by counsel for the intervener, Media Coalition: ‘No

one will really notice if some media are silenced. Others speaking on

safer and more mundane subjects will fill the gap.’”

Here you see the court really wrestling with a couple of different

Charter values and applying them to the tort of defamation. One is the

value of the inherent dignity of all citizens, including reputation. The

other is the value of what they call the freewheeling debate.

Again, given that the courts are performing this balancing,

doesn’t it make sense that we don’t actually need this bill that’s in

front of the House? The courts already do this. They’re weighing these

important discussions about an individual or a corporation’s reputation,

and they’re weighing the value of the freewheeling debate. They are

already doing this. Why do we need this bill?

Don’t worry. I will get there. I’ve got the full two hours to get

there. The best way to understand the context for why we need this bill

is to look in detail at those two cases, those two Supreme Court of

Canada cases — the 2008 decision of Mair and Simpson, which I was just

talking about, and the Grant v. Torstar decision in

The reason why you want to look at them in detail is because,

while the court definitely considers the values of the constitution and

takes the sharp edges off defamation law, creates these defences, and so

on, and is doing this balancing, it’s important to recognize what

happened in these cases in terms of the experience of the people who

actually lived through this entire court process. The only way to

understand that is to look at the cases in some detail.

In WIC Radio and Mair v. Simpson , I’m sure it was a very

public controversy. I don’t recall it. But Rafe Mair, certainly, I do

recall. He’s passed away, but he was a very outspoken radio host that

talked on a number of different and controversial topics, and the court

specifically recognized this. At one point they say: “Mr. Mair was a

radio personality with opinions on everything, not a reporter of the

facts.” In any event, he is eulogized, in some sense, in the Supreme

Court of Canada decision that bears his name.

There was someone named Kari Simpson who was an activist opposed

to any positive portrayal of what she called “the gay lifestyle” in

schools. She would go to PAC meetings and public meetings and make

comments about her not wanting to have any positive portrayal of the gay

lifestyle in schools.

Mr. Mair disagreed with that. In fact, he disagreed profoundly

with that. From the headnote, the court said: “In his editorial, Mair

compared Simpson in her public persona to Hitler, the Ku Klux Klan and

skinheads.” So it’s perhaps understandable that Ms. Simpson brought an

action against Mr. Mair and WIC Radio saying that he defamed

her.

[11:45 a.m.]

In his defence, Mr. Mair said: “No, I certainly didn’t intend to

impute that she condoned violence. I just wanted to convey that say she

was an intolerant bigot.” That was his defence.

I think it’s important to actually hear the words that Mr. Mair

said on his radio show that resulted in a multi-year court battle, just

to give some context. This is what Bill Good said. This is what the

court singled out as some of the key commentary that imputed that this

person was tolerant of violence.

“Before Kari was on my colleague Bill Good’s show last Friday, I

listened to the tape of the parents’ meeting the night before where Kari

harangued the crowd. It took me back to my childhood when, with my

parents, we would listen to bigots who, with increasing shrillness,

would harangue the crowds. For Kari’s ‘homosexual,’ one could easily

substitute ‘Jew.’

“I could see Governor Wallace. In my mind’s eye, I could see

Governor Wallace of Alabama standing on the steps of a schoolhouse

shouting to the crowds that no Negros would get into Alabama schools as

long as he was governor. It could have been blacks last Thursday night

just as easily as gays.

“Now, I’m not suggesting that Kari was proposing or supporting any

kind of holocaust or violence. But neither, really, in the speeches when

you think about it and look back…did Hitler or Governor Wallace…or Ross

Barnett. They were simply declaring their hostility to a minority. Let

the mob do as they wished.”

That was the text of the allegedly defamatory speech that went all

the way to the Supreme Court of Canada about whether or not Ms. Simpson

was entitled to financial damages for having that read on the radio

about her. So the court looked at this.

As I said, they were trying to balance a couple of things. One was

Ms. Simpson’s personal reputation, and the other was Mr. Mair’s position

as a radio commentator providing his opinion about Ms. Simpson’s

actions. This case is very much about the court. This is one of the

earlier examples of the court grappling with these Charter values that I

was talking about with free expression — Mr. Mair’s free expression

versus the value of Ms. Simpson’s personal integrity as a citizen and

her ability to express herself as well without people saying that she

was Hitler.

When you put those things together, the court really wrestled with

it. It’s interesting because the court talks about the fact that public

debate and discussion is not a tea party — that it is a vigorous

back-and-forth. This is the court, from the decision. “When

controversies erupt, statements of claim often follow as night follows

day not only in serious claims, as here, but in actions launched simply

for the purpose of intimidation. Chilling, false and defamatory speech

is not a bad thing in itself. But chilling debate on matters of

legitimate public interest raises issues of inappropriate censorship and

self-censorship. Public controversy can be a rough trade, and the law

needs to accommodate its requirements.”

Public controversy can be a rough trade, and the law needs to

accommodate its requirements. The court is saying: “Look, you can’t be

applying a standard of a civil tea party to public controversy. It is a

rough trade.” So we need to find a way that people can express

themselves in this rough trade and not hold them to a standard that’s

not appropriate.

In this decision, the court also talks about something that was

key to the debate in 2001. Obviously, it happened seven years later. Mr.

Plant, then at the time official opposition critic for the Attorney

General was asking: “Is the SLAPP legislation necessary? Do we need it

in British Columbia? There’s no evidence that there’s a

problem.”

Well, he was answered in 2008 by the Supreme Court of Canada. This

is the court again: “The traditional elements of the tort of defamation

may require modification to provide broader accommodation to the value

of freedom of expression.” This is the key line. “There is concern that

matters of public interest go unreported because publishers fear the

ballooning cost and disruption of defending a defamation action.

Investigative reports get spiked” — and here the court uses quotation

marks for the word “spiked” — “it is contended, because, while true,

they are based on facts that are difficult to establish according to the

rules of evidence.”

Now, the court is talking about the fact that all you have to do

is prove that someone said something about you. It lowers them, in your

eyes, and then it’s totally up to the defendant to prove that everything

that they said is true in order to defend themselves, to rely on some

other test. So the court goes through all that balancing of values and

so on, and they set out a test for journalists.

[11:50 a.m.]

This is important because this is the first time that the

journalists have been pulled out as a separate entity, essentially, in

terms of the considering modifying the test for defamation. So they make

the decision to modify what’s called the honest-belief element of the

fair comment defence.

What they say is…. This is important to journalists everywhere,

and they should know this — right? — because they might be sued. It’s

that when somebody is making a comment…. Particularly, this is in

relation to Mr. Good in his role not particularly as a journalist but as

someone that’s commenting as a professional commentator or opinion

holder or opinion columnist or whatever. We have a number of opinion

columnists in the Legislature that will rely on this, I’m sure, if they

ever need to. Hopefully, not. But their opinions are protected by the

courts, and they’re not held to an inappropriate standard.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

If you want to comment on something, like Mr. Mair did, first of

all, you have to be talking about something that’s a matter of public

interest. The court talks about that in this decision. The comment must

be based on fact. Mr. Mair’s comment was based on fact in relation to

statements that were made at a public meeting of parents. The third

thing is that the comment, though it can include inferences of fact,

must be recognizable as comment. You can’t pretend it’s a news story and

then later say: “Oh, that was actually just commentary. I was just

providing my opinion.” It has to be obvious that it’s your opinion on

the facts. Finally, you must satisfy an objective test. Would any person

honestly express that opinion based on the facts?

The court goes through this with Mr. Mair’s comments, and they

find that, yes, it was a matter of public interest. Yes, it was based on

specific facts. Yes, it was recognizable as comment. And yes, the court

believed…. They were flattering, particularly. They said that it was “an

opinion that could honestly have been expressed on the proved facts by a

person ‘prejudiced…exaggerated or obstinate in his views.’”

I don’t think Mr. Mair would take any exception to that in

relation to the comment, the subject matter and to what he said. I think

he would quite value the fact that he would be considered obstinate in

his views about the equality of gays and lesbians. But in any event, he

met all the elements of the test.

Then finally here — and very important — is that even though the

comment satisfies the objective test of honest belief, that defence

could be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was

“subjectively actuated by express malice.” In other words, if the

plaintiff can show that you did this because you intended to cause harm,

out of malice, then it can be overcome. That’s the court trying to

balance this sort of thing.

Also, the court notes, and this is critical to why this bill is in

front of the House, that “the defendant must prove the four elements of

the defence before the onus switches back to the plaintiff to establish

malice.” There are a lot of technical terms in there. It takes a second

to unpack it. But it means that if you say something and someone sues

you and you’ve got this defence available to you, you have to go through

and prove every single element before the plaintiff has to do anything —

which is unfair.

And it favours people who are able to bring litigation, who can

afford lawyers to sue people to stop them from talking about something,

because it puts the burden on them to then prove the defence. That’s one

of the aspects of the bill that’s addressed. Keep in mind that this case

went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada — trial level, Court of

Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada — before Mr. Mair had, at least,

limited sanction from the court for making his comments. Whatever anyone

might think of what his comments were, the court said: “This is part of

the rough trade of public debate, and it’s okay.”

But can you imagine the amount of time, the amount of money, the

amount of effort…? And he had the backing of what then…. Today’s media

environment is quite different. Media had more resources to defend these

kinds of claims. We’re not in that environment today. That is one of the

reasons why we’re bringing in this bill.

Noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate. And I seek to

reserve my place to resume again.

Mr. Speaker: I heard you say you seek leave to speak again.

Hon. D. Eby: I seek leave to speak again. That’s exactly right. Can you hear me

over the uproarious applause?

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada