2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016 (continued)

K. Corrigan

A. Dix

S. Robinson

N. Macdonald

R. Fleming

D. Eby

Hon. S. Anton

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act

Hon. N. Letnick

L. Popham

V. Huntington

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment (continued)

G. Heyman

Hon. M. Polak

L. Popham

K. Conroy

G. Holman

B. Routley

D. Routley

J. Rice

V. Huntington

N. Macdonald

S. Fraser

[ Page 10887 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Continuing debate on the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once the dust settles across the way here, I’ll be glad to suggest to the House that we’ll also be continuing Committee A on the Ministry of Environment estimates.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(SIGNED STATEMENTS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

K. Corrigan: I’m continuing on from the remarks that I made this morning on Bill 5, Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, and I will repeat, a little bit at the beginning, what the background is on this.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

There was a report from the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia that goes right back to the mid-1970s. In that report, the Attorney General referred the following tasks — it was a project — to the Law Reform Commission. They were to “(

a) examine the extent to which the Statutes of British Columbia require or provide for the use of affidavits and statutory declarations in non-court matters; and (

b) explore the rationale behind those uses and consider the desirability of eliminating the need for them or developing less complex alternative devices designed to achieve the same end.”

That was a very extensive report with recommendations in 1976. They are still relevant, and they provided a useful blueprint to modernize and simplify the law.

[1335]

Basically, what the report was about, what was carried forward into another report of 2006 of the B.C. Law Institute…. What they say is that there is a place in British Columbia for sworn statements to be taken.

For example, when you have evidence in a court case, when you have criminal trials, when there are hearings and investigations, those kinds of things, you do need to have sworn statements, whether that’s by affidavits, under oath, affirmation, statutory declarations or solemn declarations. But there are also an awful lot of times in British Columbia where sworn statements are taken and, along with that, all of the inconvenience and costs and work that are associated with sworn statements when it’s not entirely necessary.

So the purpose of this piece of legislation and the report of 2006 by the B.C. Law institute…. I believe that many of the recommendations that were in that report are being carried out or fulfilled in Bill 5.

The point was to look at the statutes of British Columbia and figure out what kinds of situations — relying on the report — required sworn testimony, sworn statements, and which could simply be done by way of a signature, keeping in mind that there are downsides to doing this. The downside is that there is a certain solemnity, a certain veracity, a certain reliance that is associated with somebody swearing a statement.

You have to recognize that when you take away, for example, that process of a lawyer or a notary affixing their seal, asking an individual whether they swear that the contents of the document are true, signing it along with them, that adds some gravitas to the situation and solemnity. It is believed, and I think the evidence is there, that people are more likely to think twice about not telling the truth. Also, those sworn documents, of course, can later be used as the basis for a prosecution under the law.

When you take away that requirement that you have those sworn processes, then you have to be sure that you’re protecting the public interest as well. It’s not an easy task. For example, when you do have a hearing or where you have evidence, where you have criminal proceedings or court proceedings, you don’t want the written testimony to simply be in writing or a signed statement, although those can sometimes be introduced for some reasons.

On the other end of the scale, when you’re doing something that is routine, where there is not a great deal on the line, where there are perhaps only two parties involved, a whole variety of types of things…. I won’t go into them all, but there’s a whole variety of types of statements where you simply don’t need to have a sworn statement.

What Bill 5, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, is doing is providing a whole bunch of changes — thus the word “miscellaneous” — in various acts: the Land Act, Weed Control Act, the Land Title Act. There are health amendments — the Hospital Act, Continuing Care Act and Hospital Insurance Act. There’s a whole variety of pieces of legislation where it has been decided that it’s okay to have a signed statement instead of a sworn statement.

One of the things you have to be careful of is that people then do not take their responsibilities as seriously. Because the documents, even though they’re not sworn now, may not have a seal on them or may not be done under oath, still represent the same thing, the same level of importance. You want to be able to rely on that information.

What this act also does is it provides for, in some cases, where it’s not already there…. In those pieces of legislation, it adds a further provision that says that if you are

[ Page 10888 ]

now going to sign a statement, as opposed to, earlier, have an oath or swear an affidavit…. If you’re going to sign a document and you lie, then there is now a new provision for an offence to be attached to it.

[1340]

You can see that many of the amendments do provide for the fact that if you get to sign a statement instead of swearing an oath, the added piece is to just make sure that you tell the truth. If you’re not telling the truth, then there will be an offence attached to it.

It’s interesting. This is another balancing act that had to be done by government under this legislation. With some of the changes, the amendments where affidavits are no longer required…. Although the affidavit is no longer required — you can simply sign a document — there are no offence provisions aligned with it or attached to it or added to it.

So government has made a decision. I think when we get to the committee stage, it will be interesting to ask questions about the decisions that have been made about false signed statements that do or do not have offences attached to them — in other words, a way to prosecute — and whether the right decision has been made by government in terms of which provisions, which types of signed statements, could, if somebody lies, essentially, have an offence that they could be charged with, presumably under the Offence Act, I would assume.

The basic recommendation of the 2006 report by the British Columbia Law Institute was that “the requirements to give a sworn statement on occasions upon which their sole purpose is to reinforce the veracity of statements required in out-of-court” — and I think that’s important — “situations pursuant to a provision in a provincial enactment be repealed and replaced with a requirement to give a signed statement without the formalities embodied by a sworn statement.”

One of the main reasons for this is the cost — and the lack of convenience. You know, to get an affidavit sworn, you’d have to go to a lawyer, go to a notary. You have to make an appointment. It costs you, usually, 20 bucks or something like that. This adds a burden to the individuals and a cost to individuals, particularly if you have a number of affidavits that you have to swear. It takes time, and it is inconvenient.

So that’s the basic premise. There are, of course, exceptions, and I’ve mentioned them already. But the report did say that there should be a number of exceptions. In other words, there should still be situations where we retain the requirement for affidavits or sworn evidence. That would be, for example…. The main one would be investigations and hearings. The commission recommended that the requirement for sworn statements found in the provisions listed in category A, investigations and hearings, not be repealed.

There are good reasons for that. In most cases, the person conducting the investigation or hearing has a discretion not to impose any formalities of verification.

Secondly, another reason why you want to keep affidavits or keep sworn statements in investigations and hearings is that complying with the formalities does not cause significantly higher levels of inconvenience and expense in this setting. In other words, if you are in an investigation or a hearing, you’ve already set the situation up where you’re not going to have to go off. You’ve already been sworn in, so you’re going to have to go through that process anyway. Having a sworn statement is not going to add any extra inconvenience.

The third is that the nature of the requirement in category A — in other words, the investigations and hearings — is less likely to lead to invalidity if it’s inadvertently breached.

The Law Institute concurred with that. I do believe that the legislation is also consistent with that.

Overall, I do believe that most of the provisions in the Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act are consistent with the report. There are a number of provisions. There are a number of recommendations that have not been implemented in this bill. I believe that when we get to committee stage, we can ask about that.

[1345]

The Law Institute created draft legislation which had 201 provisions, which could have further reduced unnecessary delay and inconvenience, and the bill only has 39 provisions, although I believe that some of those 201 may have been changed since 2006, but not all of them.

I think that’s probably all I need to say on this particular bill, and I will take my seat.

A. Dix: I rise to speak in support of Bill 5, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act. I’ve just been receiving some sartorial advice from someone that I trust in these matters, the Minister of Advanced Education.

This piece of legislation is actually an important piece of legislation. I think it’s important that people recognize that sometimes legal changes that have the most impact on the public are legal changes that are the least controversial. They come forward over time because of the practical difficulty in following laws that were maybe appropriate in a certain time but whose appropriateness has changed.

In this case, we’re part of an extremely long process of reform. What is essentially being proposed here is the shift for a whole bunch of obligations for individuals in the province of B.C. to move from sworn statements to signed statements.

In other words, we’re taking away the obligation for people under those circumstances when they’re making a declaration — for example, declarations around whether, in the case of one of the provisions of the act, someone is deemed a francophone and, therefore, falls under the

[ Page 10889 ]

authority of the Francophone Education Authority. We’re shifting the responsibility in those provisions or the requirement on individuals from a sworn statement to a signed statement.

We’ll go through the list of bills, the very significant list of bills and acts of legislation that this affects, including, in this piece of legislation, the Local Government Act; the School Act; the Cooperative Association Act; the Credit Union Incorporation Act; the Gaming Control Act; the Insurance Premium Tax Act; the Land Act; the Land Title Act; the Water Sustainability Act; the Weed Control Act; the Continuing Care Act; the Hospital Act; the labour relations code; the Election Act; the Recall and Initiative Act; the Trustee Act; the Wills, Estates and Succession Act; the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act; the Rent Distress Act; the Liquor Distribution Act; the Employment and Assistance Act; and the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act.

What we have are particular provisions by which people can make declarations are being shifted from sworn declarations to signed declarations. Now, this has a number of advantages and the reason in general and reflects the evolution of the law over time.

In other words, even though there was a proposal in 1976 by the then Law Reform Commission, one that was advanced further in 2006 by the B.C. Law Institute, in spite of the fact that we’ve been through a long process of that, in fact, of course, in practical legislation, such as the Land Title Act itself, we’ve been moving towards signed statements and away from sworn statements for some time except in specific circumstances.

Members will know that one of the most significant election cases…. I know we have a former mayor of Vancouver here and an MLA from Vancouver, the Minister of Advanced Education. Well, we have a former mayor of Penticton here. One never wants to not genuflect towards that.

In this case, I’m referring to something that occurred in Vancouver, which the Minister of Advanced Education will be well aware of, that is actually specifically and significantly relevant to this act. That was a famous recount in Vancouver municipal politics involving Philip Owen, who’s also a former mayor of Vancouver, and Bruce York, who’s a former councillor of the city of Vancouver. An election was essentially overturned on these very questions.

[1350]

In other words, legislation forced sworn statements. They weren’t properly sworn. The legislation was overturned, and there was a full municipal by-election.

I don’t think I was in the same headquarters as the Minister of Advanced Education that night, but I remember the subsequent by-election which elected Mr. York, who was a remarkable figure in Vancouver and in British Columbia politics in many, many ways. We had quite an election night celebration in 1984 after Mr. York beat Mr. Owen.

What that resulted from, in fact, was a law that was, in some respects, inconsistent with the practical realities of election day and of ensuring a fair election. Nonetheless, the law was applied, as it ought to have been. A new election was called, and the result was the result. However, it must be said that all of that was done at significant public cost.

That was the specific example of how this shift, in terms of applying a law and the challenges of applying a law that requires sworn statements that may or may not be necessary, can impact, in a practical way, the electoral process. Indeed, two of the provisions that I listed off at the beginning of my remarks relate to both the Election Act and the Recall and Initiative Act.

Now, why would one want to move from sworn statements to signed statements? Well, principally and significantly, where it has no other impact — as it might do in, say, a legal case or a ceremonial oath of office of some sort — we move in that direction because, of course, of issues of convenience and cost. Anyone who has had to go and seek a sworn declaration, for whatever reason, knows that even though that doesn’t always cost money….

In other words, some people provide that service for free, effectively, in their work. Nonetheless, the cost of finding people and of establishing and getting a sworn declaration — where it is not otherwise necessary, where it is sufficient to have a signed declaration with the penalties associated with that signed declaration — makes a lot of sense.

The first and important reason why one would move towards a signed declaration is one of convenience. This is particularly true in something such as the Election Act. It’s particularly true, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of making and declaring statements around one’s eligibility for certain services.

It ought to be sufficient to be able to lay out and make a signed declaration with all of the consequences associated with that, including legal responsibilities and so on of the individual. It should be sufficient, in those cases, to be able to sign a declaration and not to have one sworn. One can imagine the case of someone who would be eligible for francophone education having to go through that process.

Seeing those kinds of changes, as we see in the legislation, seems to be a useful process — for example, in enrolling a student under those circumstances. It doesn’t mean that the declaration is any less important. It just means that, as a practical matter — when, for example, there are 4,000 or 5,000 students in the Francophone Education Authority who must, in that case, declare or demonstrate their eligibility for that program, which is based on a series of requirements — it would be sufficient for such an individual to be able to sign a declaration and to declare legally what they’re saying to be true and not to have to find some sort of third-party sign-off on that.

The first set of reasons, which make a lot of sense…. It was the reason why, prior to 1976, a very significant

[ Page 10890 ]

Attorney General of British Columbia, Alex Macdonald, who was a considerable populist…. It’s fair to say, I think, that history records him in terms of the long-acting impact of what he achieved as Attorney General, one of our most significant Attorneys General.

He saw this as a reform that was necessary to bring about and set the Law Reform Commission on its path, a path to reform this aspect of law; to make, essentially, the law easier for individuals to work with; and to reduce not the obligation on the individuals but the details and the financial demands on the individuals that come with sworn statements.

[1355]

Alas, the NDP government lost the election of 1975. This isn’t the only thing that British Columbia lost as a result of what happened on December 11, 1975. Nonetheless, it was one of the reforms when we went from a New Democratic government to a Social Credit government that was lost in the process. That’s the first thing.

The second reason, I think, fundamentally, is that if you go through laws — and this will be an issue for committee stage — the application of sworn statements against signed statement is so inconsistently upheld. In other words, sometimes the same kind of action is required under one set of laws of signed statement — because the law had been updated over time — and then the exact same measure under a different statute required a sworn statement.

One of the things that we are attempting to do in, effectively, cleaning up the act and taking these measures, in the case of these several dozen pieces of legislation, is to bring some form of consistency to the law — in other words, what it does.

This is important for us to do over time. I think it’s absolutely always vitally important, when one considers the application of laws, that it be readily understandable, that there be circumstances in which a sworn statement is appropriate — circumstances relating to statements related, for example, to court proceedings, and others where it’s sufficient to have a signed statement — and that the members of the public understand the logic behind one and the other.

Frequently, what we have in the system…. You see these detailed in the Law Institute’s report at some length. In spite of calls from the Minister of Advanced Education, I’m not, in fact, the designated speaker on this question, but I refer him to the excellent report of the B.C. Law Institute and the report of the Law Reform Commission in 1976, which speaks to these things.

But it is an important point of law when individuals and citizens interact with legal instruments, the laws of the province, that why a law is in place and it be consistent and understandable…. What I think this statute does, and it’s something we’ll discuss at committee stage, is set forward certain standards that apply to signed statements and other standards that are applied to sworn statements.

Finally, I think the distinctions between the two changed the obligations, in a sense, not one wit. In other words, the legal obligation for both — the legal obligation of the declaration to be truthful, etc. — is exactly the same in both cases. We’re making it clear in this process that it is sufficient that people understand their legal obligation be truthful without any other need for a sworn statement — that that should be sufficient. In fact, that strengthens the idea that the sworn statement is relevant and important in the application of law in British Columbia.

Now, there are some issues which have bedeviled this process over time. One I think is a very practical matter which, I suppose, given that the report of the B.C. Law Institute well applied in the case of individual legislation, has not been applied this generally up to this point. It’s just the very need to find legislative time to enact it, and this hasn’t been a priority.

Even though this is in some ways, without weakening the strength of legislation, a simplification of the process for individuals in dealing with laws, the government has chosen over time to not act on this, either because it wasn’t a sufficient priority or because they hadn’t allocated sufficient time to legislative draft people.

I want to talk about a couple of the issues involved, though, which I think are important elements and ones that certainly are critically outstanding and that the redoubtable member for Nanaimo will raise at committee stage. In particular, I deal with an issue that I think was seen as being of significant importance in the modern context.

As you know, the issue of identity theft has become increasingly a preoccupation of people across North America and, indeed, across the world in recent times. The question would be the shift in statements from signed statements to sworn statements and whether that impact weakens some of our protections against identity theft. One can imagine by making it, in effect, easier to make declarations in one’s own name doesn’t make it easier to pursue provisions of identity theft.

[1400]

I think this was probably a consideration, both of the government and of the B.C. Law Institute, when they went forward with this legislation. It appears — at least to me, on the surface, reading these pieces of legislation — that these pieces of legislation are not ones that would ordinarily lead one to worrying about issues of identity theft. They’re practical pieces of government legislation, and it wouldn’t be worth, in some respects, the effort to engage in that kind of process.

I think, secondly and very importantly, that the sworn statement may or may not be a sufficient deterrent in any event. Then, thirdly, whether in fact such a sworn statement, if it was viewed as a safeguard, has been and would be, in the long run, a sufficient safeguard to help…. After all, we have this issue of identity theft. Looking through cases of identity theft, there isn’t, at least according to the

[ Page 10891 ]

Law Institute — and I think this is a fair conclusion — any clear indication that the failure to have sworn statements leads, in itself, to the problem of identity theft.

This is why, I think, as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and as a member on the opposition side, we are supportive of this legislation. We are hopeful to have a fuller discussion of the legislation at committee stage.

As I said, I think it’s important, in concluding, to understand how changes get made and how, often, difficult it is for individuals without power, without legal advice, without services — how difficult it is, frequently, for them — to have access both to government and to the full expression of their democratic rights in a society. It is often very difficult.

All of us, through the years and our time involved in politics, have worked with individuals — for them to often have to fight to use their expression and their right to vote. We have made, in this Legislature, significant changes over time that make it easier, although in other legislatures in North America, we are in a pattern and in a process where people, for partisan reasons, are making it harder.

I think it’s vitally important, when we come forward with legislation, for us to be inspired by what inspired Alex Macdonald when he launched this process — unbelievably, 41 years ago. What Alex Macdonald believed was that people had the right to access law. He took steps, from legal aid to Hansard in this Legislature — bills that he brought in to give people access to university, access to the law, access to education — to create fairness and to establish human rights as a priority in life.

This legislation, this act, which seems much more prosaic than all of those things, is a reflection of that spirit and something we need to consider — that laws in our province, the ones that we pass, should be easily attainable, both by the powerful and by those with less power. That’s what Alex Macdonald believed. So when he set off and he presented a process to shift, in this case, from something that affects people in their individual lives — often more than many of the other bills we’re going to pass in this session of the Legislature and past sessions of the Legislature….

He understood that — that people should be able to express themselves and not have to swear in front of others when that is not what they have. That access is not what they have in their position. They shouldn’t have those impediments put in their way. That’s why while this legislation, as I say, is not controversial in that sense, it’s important and worth dwelling on.

The question that we will have at committee stage, as a result, is: are there, in fact, other provisions in the statutes of British Columbia for which this should be applied? It is our obligation to ensure that people are not denied access to their legal rights in our society because of a lack of means. There are lots of ways in which we’ve gone in the wrong direction over the last number of years on that question. The fact that people don’t have access to basic legal aid, for a whole series of issues, is an impediment to justice for those without income. That is a fact. It needs to be considered, not just in legislation but in budgetary decisions of government.

[1405]

When we see opportunities, as in this case, as has been the glacial progress on this issue — nonetheless, an opportunity to improve conditions for individuals in our society, to improve conditions and the rights of individuals in our society to access law in a simple, artful and truthful fashion — we should embrace those opportunities. That is why I, and other members of the opposition, will be supporting this bill before the Legislature now.

S. Robinson: The previous speaker, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I think really captured the issues that I would like to speak to. I echo some of his sentiments in supporting Bill 5, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act.

When this first came across my desk, I thought: “Okay, gee, it’s another little piece of legislation amending previous legislation that will be about crossing some t’s and dotting some i’s and just fixing up and cleaning up some legislation.” When I took a closer look at what was really going on and what the details were, it captured my attention, partly because this was something that was started back in 1976.

This has been a piece of work that was actually initiated by the NDP government that brought forward a report from the Law Institute. That report sat on a shelf through subsequent governments. Then, in 2006, another report to update the 1976 report was brought forward. That, too, sat on a shelf.

I come from local government. It’s a place where I’ve spent a number of years, and it’s a place where you hear directly from constituents because they’re right in front of you when you’re making decisions. There’s nothing that citizens hate more than yet another report to sit on a shelf and gather dust, and both of these reports gathered lots of dust.

So I’m pleased to support some of the actions that this government has chosen to make in addressing the sworn statement issue. I thought I would take a look at this 2006 report, because I wanted to get a solid understanding of what the thinking was at the time. Where did these reports that are influencing these changes that we’re going to be asked to vote on come from?

What I thought was interesting was the 2006 report that came from the B.C. Law Institute wrote about this as a report on unnecessary requirements for sworn statements. This is part of their introductory note. I just want to read into the record a little bit about this report and what the introductory note says. I think it’s important to set the tone for what we’re being asked to debate in this House and what we’re going to see at committee stage.

[ Page 10892 ]

This 2006 report refers back to the 1976 Law Reform Commission of British Columbia that published its report on extrajudicial use of sworn statements. Clearly, the government of the day had a sense and had respect for citizens and said: “Why are we making it difficult for citizens? Why are we putting barriers when it comes to the legal requirements of providing their signature, providing their name and requiring them to swear, requiring them to spend money and to have witnesses, when we have to take people at their word?”

This initial report, brought forward by the NDP, was submitted in 1976. Of course, we know that the NDP didn’t win the election in ’75, so the Socreds had this in their hands and didn’t do anything with it. What’s also really interesting in this introductory note is they describe the use of the term “sworn statement.” Again, we need to understand why it is that we’re doing away with this sworn statement. What is it about it that’s problematic?

It’s meant to, according to this report, “embrace statements under oath or under affirmation, affidavits, solemn declarations and statutory declarations.” They recognize that all of these things are barriers. They’re barriers to people who are participating in the legal system.

They also note that there is a resemblance among all of these various documents — whether it’s a statutory declaration, a solemn declaration, an affidavit or some other oath — and that, really, it’s about assuring the truth of the statement. That’s the essence of all of these pieces.

[1410]

Now, when people come to engage in some sort of legal process, having it witnessed, having to pay for it to be witnessed, is a barrier to actually participating in the judicial process. So there’s really good value in addressing the barrier of having to issue an affidavit, having to do a sworn statement.

Now, the 1976 report provided a framework for analyzing those provisions requiring sworn statements and recommendations for modernizing and simplifying the law. At the end of the day, that was really what this was about. It’s about modernizing and simplifying.

The challenge, when I think about it, is this process started in 1976. I was in high school. Here we are. I’m an adult woman, and my children are even finished high school, and we’re dealing with stuff that was coming up in 1976. The dust on these reports is thick. I’m sort of disappointed that previous governments had not seen fit to actually address it.

Now, the Law Institute created the actual legislation. I thought that was really interesting. It’s kind of like: why did it take so long? I’m always sort of curious about the process, right? You start on something. The AG, in the 1970s, said: “We need to be looking at this.” It goes to a report; that’s good process. The report comes back. The government has changed. It’s no longer a priority for that government. It probably just sits and gathers dust, and people forget that it even existed. In 2006, someone discovers it and says: “Well, look at this. Let’s take a look and see what’s in here.” They blow off the dust, and they read it, and they say: “Gee, nothing has changed.”

It’s now, I’m guessing, 2004 or 2005. It’s the current government. They see fit to do something about it. That’s great — hats off to them. But 2006 is when they got an updated version.

Now, back in 1976, you know what? It’s disappointing that the Socreds didn’t act on it, but there was a change in government, a change in priorities. They decided that they were going to put their energies and their resources somewhere else. Governments get to do that, because all governments make choices. We know that. The people across the way know that.

What’s fascinating is that in 2006, somebody in this government saw fit to go and ask for an updated report. That’s a good thing. It’s a good process. Let’s take a look and see where we’re at with this, and let’s see if we can address some of these changes that were started. But ten years? Government hasn’t changed. It’s the same government. So for ten years they sat with this and really did nothing, until the dust got thick, I suppose, and decided that they needed to act on it. Perhaps they didn’t really have a whole lot of legislative agenda for this session and thought: “Well, this one’s been sitting on the back burner. Maybe we’ll bring that forward.”

They can’t use the excuse that it takes a long time to write legislation. I mean, it does take a long time. It absolutely takes a long time. It’s complicated legalese. You have to make sure that all of the pieces fit and that they don’t contradict each other. It’s a fair bit of work, and my hat’s off to those public servants who toil with putting together this legislation, some of which is incredibly thick. I have a pile here that I need to read as I prepare for some other bills.

What’s interesting about this is that the report was brought forward by the B.C. Law Institute. They actually wrote the legislation. They did the heavy lifting. They wrote all the pieces that we needed to look at. This was a cut-and-paste that government could have done.

Now, I believe that you have to take your turn and review it, make sure that it fits and that it doesn’t sort of contradict what government is looking to do. But the reality is that the heavy lifting was done by an outside party. We didn’t have to hire staff or find the people who’d write the legislation who would actually do the hard work here. It was actually done by a third party.

I find that quite interesting. I guess when we get to committee, there’ll certainly be some questions about that.

[1415]

The other thing that I noticed is the Law Institute did create draft legislation for 201 provisions. I’m trying to imagine what the request was back in the day. I would imagine it went something like this: “Can you identify in all these statutes, all these laws, that we have on the books where we require sworn statements, affidavits and the

[ Page 10893 ]

like? Flag those for us and identify where it would make sense to just have people sign, because we want people to have easier access to the law and to more fully participate.”

So the Law Institute went ahead and did that. They had 201 provisions which would reduce unnecessary delay and inconvenience. That’s something that I think we all want. I think it’s what British Columbians want. It’s a place where people can more fully participate and understand the legal process. However, this bill, Bill 5, only has 39 provisions. So like I’ve said before in this House, sometimes it’s not what government is doing that’s the question. It’s the empty space; it’s the stuff that they’re not doing.

I’m really very interested in how you picked these 39 if there are 201 that are recommended by the Law Institute. Now, these are people who really know their business. They’re lawyers. They read this day in and day out. God bless them, too, because it’s legalese and can be pretty dry. My hat’s off to the lawyers in the House and outside this House because this sometimes isn’t very exciting stuff, but it’s important stuff. Important stuff and exciting stuff often don’t mean the same thing. So I’m glad that there are people in British Columbia who get excited about this, because it’s important.

I am really interested in why 39. Why these 39? What about the remaining, the others? Are they just less important? Really, government can’t use the fact that we didn’t have enough time or we didn’t have the staff resources because, if you recall, the legislation is already written. The work has already been done. It’s a cut-and-paste. Somewhere, someone has decided that these 39 are the important ones, and so I’m interested in trying to understand what that is.

Now, I suspect some of them have changed since 2006, because we often see these miscellaneous statutes amendment acts come through, which are interesting. You’re sort of saying, “So it’s all thrown together in some sort of hodgepodge,” and you try to decipher if there’s anything in there that’s more important than other things that you want to speak to.

It makes it a little difficult for us in opposition to identify it. Regardless, I understand why you would take these one-offs and put them into one miscellaneous statutes act. But I’m pretty confident that the remaining 100-and-some-odd aren’t all fixed. So I’m very, very interested. Why these 39? And why hasn’t government said we’re going to do all of the remaining ones? That’s, I think, an interesting question.

Overall, I think it’s also important to note — I just want to make one more note to this conversation, this debate — the B.C. Law Institute has said: “And don’t do any more of this.” In other words, don’t keep asking for sworn statements when they’re not needed. I think that’s really important to note. I think that as legislators, we want things to be official. We somehow believe that that’s important and that “official” means having it witnessed or having a sworn statement.

I’m curious, given that this report was in the hands of government since 2006…. I haven’t had time to do the research, and I don’t know that I want to spend the time doing the research. But from 2006 to 2016, has government created more red tape around having sworn statements? I’m going to bet that in all likelihood, they did. I don’t know for sure. I just think it’s the nature of government. I really hope that going forward, as we continue to look at providing legislation for British Columbians, we pay very close attention to what this is really about.

[1420]

On the one hand, we have a bill that is going to look at the Local Government Act, the School Act, the Cooperative Association Act, the Credit Union Incorporation Act, the Gaming Control Act, the Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Land Act, the Land Title Act, the Water Sustainability Act and the Weed Control Act, etc. We’ve got a number of acts here that we’re going to be looking at.

We need to remember, going forward: are we going to create more of this red tape? Are we going to create more sworn statements when, in fact, it’s not necessary? What’s the criteria for deciding that?

I think the Law Institute has done a great job, but it really calls into question what happens. When a government gets a report back in 2006, does somebody actually read it? If somebody had actually read it back in 2006, then between 2006 and 2016, there should not be any unnecessary sworn affidavits, sworn declarations in any of the legislation.

If there are requirements for affidavits like that when it’s really not necessary, then what that says is that this government didn’t read the report. They didn’t act on the recommendations there. That concerns me, because as taxpayers paying for these reports, the expectation is that government will read them and will act on them in a timely way.

Having said my piece about this, my piece around, you know, this is a good start, I do have concerns about reports not being addressed in a timely way and not seeing legislation come forward based on the recommendations of those reports.

I certainly have questions about 201 provisions that were recommended in 2006. With all the legislation written and here in front of us, we only have 39 provisions. What’s stopping government from addressing the remainder?

With that, I’d like to take my seat.

N. Macdonald: Well, I guess that we’re speaking here on the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I would have thought that there might be some Liberals who would have stood up to speak.

I mean, I’m going to be honest with you: this is not the most exciting act to me. This is not the type of legislation that I gave up a teaching career to come and participate in. Nevertheless, it is significant to the writers of the bill,

[ Page 10894 ]

and it certainly was significant to at least one group in the province, which is the Law Institute, which over the years has been pushing the government to complete a project that really started in 1976 when many of these changes were proposed.

These are not significant changes, it appears, in any way. Essentially, what the bill does is it takes existing legislation…. There are a number of pieces — the Land Title Act, the Water Sustainability Act, the Weed Control Act — a series of pieces of legislation that have existed, some for a relatively short period of time and some for a very, very long period of time indeed.

It basically changes in each of these pieces of legislation the requirement for a sworn statement and puts in, instead, a requirement for a signed statement. It’s fairly dry, as I say, but no doubt important, certainly to the Law Institute and to, no doubt, some of the organizations that work with the various pieces of legislation.

This is, as I say, not a new idea. Many of these things were first put forward in 1976. There was a report done, as previous members have talked about, in 2006, where government was again told that it would be useful to move on these provisions and change the piece of legislation.

Here we are in relatively early days in the legislative session with this bill in front of us. In fact, it’s not unusual to have miscellaneous statutes amendment acts. In this Legislature, there are two of them in front of the House right now. In the past, it has been fairly common for two or three miscellaneous statutes acts to come before the Legislature.

As people will perhaps know, basically what a miscellaneous statutes amendment act is it takes existing legislation and changes these things.

[1425]

Now, as opposition, whenever you get a bill like this, you often look at it, and it can be pretty dry. I have to be honest. I admire lawyers tremendously for the discipline that they have. I in particular….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Well, a lawyer and a doctor. These are both professions where attention to detail is absolutely essential.

There’s no doubt that changing a word or changing a requirement often has significance beyond how it looks in the legislation. These can be substantive changes. As someone who wasn’t trained in law, to come into the Legislature…. I mean, I work with lawyers, and I see the skill set they have. I try to emulate their attention to detail and their self-discipline. There’s no question that they can have significance.

One of the reasons that an opposition has to look at a miscellaneous statutes act is that in my time here, there have been some really significant changes that have been snuck in, in these pieces of legislation. Now, as I look at Bill 5, there seems to be very little opportunity to have snuck anything in. They’re basically the same changes, essentially, with each of the pieces of legislation.

I think it might be interesting to members to perk up the afternoon with a few stories about past pieces that were put into a miscellaneous statutes act not dissimilar to what we have here.

Back in 2006 — I think it was 2006; it may have been 2007 — we had a miscellaneous statutes amendment act that made changes to the Local Government Act. It was quite an obscure and difficult-to-understand piece of language, but the essence of it was that it allowed government — a minister, in fact — to create a municipality. They could create that municipality without requiring the approval of the regional district.

It was quite an odd piece of legislation. You could easily have gone and read the provision, and since it wasn’t in context and the minister who presented the legislation…. These are pieces of legislation that are presented by the Attorney General rather than individual…. Even though the legislation will be under the care of particular ministers, it’s the Attorney General or Justice Minister that actually presents it.

I can remember in that particular piece of legislation that there really wasn’t an explanation of certain parts of the changes. Certainly, the provision that I came to be very interested in, which was changes to…. I’m just trying to think. It was actually 2006-2007. There were a couple of years there.

The first one, I think, was changes to create what came to be the municipality of Jumbo. It was put in the legislation. It was very difficult to find. Just like in Bill 5, where you have what seems to be a fairly innocuous piece of legislation, you could have within it changes that are actually significant. Just as in Bill 5, you’re dealing with a lot of legislation.

Back almost eight or nine years ago, we had changes that allowed the creation of Jumbo Glacier Resort and the municipality that has been since set up. Now, obviously at the time, when it was recognized, we spent a lot of time actually trying to fight those changes, and I remember, as with Bill 5….

Deputy Speaker: Member, on second reading of Bill 5.

N. Macdonald: Sure. So just as with Bill 5, the need to go through these things…. And I look forward to committee stage to go through. The significance is that there can be interesting pieces in here.

[1430]

As I said, many years ago we did find pieces that were not obvious to us initially but turned out to be. I think the member who is now the Speaker was here when Charlie Wyse was a member. I can remember Charlie Wyse speaking for two hours on a particular motion or a particular element of the miscellaneous statutes act. In any

[ Page 10895 ]

case, they can be significant. Often, if they’re hidden in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, they’re hidden for a reason, so you have to go through carefully and make sure that none of the changes are particularly significant.

As it stands, as I go through this and read about the various changes, I see that, really, since 1976, we have organizations that have asked for these changes. The language seems as straightforward as one could imagine, but you still have to look with the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I can remember, as well, that it was this device that was used to make changes to allow IPPs to come in without local governments having a say as to whether it was appropriate or not. The IPP legislation and that whole initiative, of course, will have cost the people of British Columbia $55 billion over the next 35 years, so that’s a pretty significant change and a pretty significant swing and miss.

I have to say that in both those instances, the opposition didn’t miss what the government was trying to do, regardless of the fact that it was really hidden in such a subtle way. I’m referring there to the Ashlu provisions that were in a previous Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Really, this is a bill that, while it is described by government as getting rid of red tape — well, that seems a bit of a stretch to get it into the message box government has — it is, nevertheless, a change that those that are interested have been asking for, for a long time.

As to why it has taken ten years or why it is here now, I guess that’s rather beside the point, because we are here with it. I see no reason why one wouldn’t support what is really a legislative piece of housekeeping, and it is the intention of the opposition to support that. I look forward to any comments that may come from the government side as to any justification they may have. With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague to continue the debate.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the chance to get up and speak this afternoon to this miscellaneous bill, which deals with the long-overdue transition allowing, under a number of acts, shifting from sworn statements to signed declarations. That will make administration both cheaper and faster and more than legally sufficient to denote things like consent and various legal standing and potentially to be used in the event of a dispute, where a signed document will be just as valid and interpretable as a sworn declaration.

I notice that under this bill, the School Act is touched upon. It’s interesting. We have had a number of amendments to the School Act just in the last year. Of course, in the case of this bill, we’re basically dealing with something that has been dormant for more than four decades.

In the case of the School Act, which is touched upon by Bill 5, we’re talking about legislation that has been changed quite considerably just in the last 12 to 15 months, most significantly under what was Bill 11 in the last spring sitting of the Legislature, in 2015, when there was quite a radical change to the School Act that, basically, gave new powers to the minister and upset the balance that had evolved over many, many decades in governing education or co-governing education between both the elected school districts and the provincial Ministry of Education.

[1435]

Now, we’re not dealing with anything quite as significant as that today. We opposed those changes to Bill 11 in 2015, because we felt both that there had been insufficient notice given to all the parties involved and stakeholders involved in governing education and because the scope of the changes were so radical and so unwarranted.

Today we’re dealing with something that is considerably different and seems to be confined primarily to the part of the School Act that deals with the Francophone Education Authority. I’ll touch upon those details and, in my remarks, perhaps frame some questions that may arise again at committee stage of this bill.

Let me just say what a pleasure it is to have waited — since the time I was a toddler in diapers, 42 years ago, having had to be elected and re-elected a couple of times — to be now before this House this very afternoon to be able to speak to a bill of such massive consequence as this piece of legislation. It’s indeed a thrill, and if I am taken 42 years back again and bawling by the end of this afternoon, I hope you’ll forgive me.

Other members have talked about the context of the bill before us this afternoon, which does indeed go back such a long, long way, to the 1970s. Undoubtedly, the warm afterglow of winning the ’72 hockey summit may have had some influence on the government of the day bringing this bill before the House. There was a spirit, in provinces like British Columbia and across the country, to modernize every facet of society, including its laws.

Then we had a very strong, progressive, reforming government — many of its accomplishments have stood the test of time — come along. By 1974, in the midst of having passed and created the agricultural land reserve, having created a new institution and Crown corporation known as the Insurance Corporation of B.C., having passed literally hundreds of bills in a very short space of time, the limit of the ambitions of the Barrett government were so unbounded that they also, in 1974, struck a commission to look at the very issue that today, in 2016, the day after a leap year day, we are finally returning to look at — work where the ball began to roll all those years ago.

In 1974, the commission was struck. In 1975, the government used the Law Commission to circulate a working paper. Government changed, I believe, in that year. Nevertheless, momentum continued as the transition to

[ Page 10896 ]

a different government occurred in 1976, and a report was issued.

That is when — I don’t think we have a very full explanation for it — the work of that commission, the working paper and the report that was issued, lay dormant for 30 years. Premiers came and went — Bennett, Vander Zalm, Johnston, the Harcourt government, Clark, Miller, Dosanjh, Campbell — without having ever revisited the work that was set in motion in 1974 and continued from 1976.

Obviously, a lot happened in those intervening years, both in this place and on this continent and around the world. I’m not just talking about lapels getting wider and hemlines moving up and down. Fads came and went, all sorts of things.

[1440]

But the persistence and the need for this law reform apparently never went away. Lo and behold, when it was finally taken up again in 2006, and a report that largely reviewed the 1976 report was conducted by Ann McLean, the chair of the B.C. Law Institute, it was a straight-up revisitation of the recommendations that were made all those years before.

I think that will largely remain a mystery — how the importance of being able to move from sworn statements and modernize a number of statutes to allow for signed declarations to be sufficient…. That will remain a mystery.

For the purpose of debate this afternoon, we should also consider how this will change things in the future. We have had all those intervening decades. Originally, I thought this bill might have been primarily about privacy issues. It may have sought to modernize statutes, allowing electronic signatures and other varieties where technology has outpaced the statutes that govern the legal framework of various laws in B.C. But it’s not, primarily, about that, although it is in part.

The bill before us, as I understand it — it moves a number of acts, some very old pieces of legislation, to allow signed declarations — is necessary for a few reasons:

(1) It will be cheaper to administer.

(2) It will be significantly faster to be able to be able to accomplish.

(3) It will give the kind of consent that is required to make it clear that both parties that require an exchange of legal proof — that there is consent to conduct whatever action we may be discussing and that that, in fact, will be sufficient.

I think everybody can be in favour of government being more efficient and cheaper when it does not involve losing any necessary element of veracity or conclusiveness. When we say it’s cheaper, it’s primarily because these sworn statements will no longer require a lawyer or a notary public to be involved.

In some cases, they technically do — even under the School Act, I suppose, if it were challenged on amended sections where you have the francophone school authority doing very basic functions like, literally, enrolling a parent’s child into a school that comes under the authority of that provincewide school district, which is a very unique institution that we have in our province. In fact, it’s such a unique institution right now that….

Members of this House may or may not be aware. The Supreme Court of Canada is actually interpreting constitutional and Charter obligations around French language services to children of francophones in B.C. as we speak, with this bill before the House. So it’s interesting that we are seeking to make things more administratively simple at the very same time that francophone parents in B.C. are seeking to have services provided that they are constitutionally owed to them. But I digress — and not for the first or the last time.

The sworn statement requirement, as I understand it now, in the various statutes covered by this miscellaneous bill, which is quite diverse…. We are talking about things ranging from the Gaming Control Act to the Insurance Premium Tax Act to the Weed Control Act, the Land Title Act, the Water Sustainability Act, the Hospital Act, the Hospital Insurance Act and so on and so forth, including the labour relations code and the Election Act. It’s a very elemental piece of legislation.

[1445]

My understanding is that sworn statements can take a variety of forms, and by legal definition, they all amount to the same thing. A sworn statement, as defined under our laws, can be in the form of a person who is sworn in, so to speak, under oath or who makes a statement under oath. A sworn statement can be made on affirmation, it can be made by a written affidavit, it can be made by a statutory declaration, or it can be made by a solemn declaration.

As my colleague the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville asked earlier…. I don’t have an answer to this, but I will look forward to a stage in debate when members of this House are provided an answer to this.

There is one interesting question, I think, that does deserve an answer above all. That is: how did we go from quite a sweeping identification of literally hundreds of statutes, where sworn statements are the modus by which a person is able to fulfil that act…? Hundreds of those were identified for modernization, where a written signature would now be the new requirement, as it was suggested by the 1976 report and as it was validated in the 2006 report. How do we move to something where we went from recommendations covering hundreds of laws in B.C. to just mere dozens? I don’t know the answer to that.

I have read into the record a number of the acts that will be touched upon in Bill 5. I don’t know which ones were considered and then discarded for being modernized in this way, allowing for signed declarations. But under questioning at committee stage by our critic the member for Nanaimo, perhaps the Attorney General will be able to describe the internal process that winnowed

[ Page 10897 ]

down the hundreds that were identified to the dozens that were eventually included in this bill.

But it is apparent, I would think, that there are obviously some areas of law where you do not want to get rid of the use of sworn statements. The report of the law commission goes over a few instances where that would be undesirable. One of those would be in the courtroom setting in particular, where you want to have a sworn statement because it reinforces the need for veracity of any written or verbal communication that is made by anybody participating in the court process.

Part and parcel to that, I would think, would be a reminder that there are penalties for perjury and other such sanctions that could be used where a sworn statement made in the full knowledge of that individual was found to be untrue. I would understand where, in our different statutes, we would not want to change the use of sworn statements in those kinds of circumstances.

The other one was purely around almost ceremonial aspects of various laws. These could have been caught up originally in the suggestion that a mere signed declaration would be sufficient, but upon reconsideration, it was probably seen to be undesirable. That is around various ceremonies where legal duties and paperwork must be completed and sworn statements must be made, where, to quote the report, it is necessary or desirable “to introduce an element of solemnity or dignity on ceremonial occasions.”

I think we’ve all been to citizenship ceremonies, for example, where you simply would not want to take away from the occasion by reducing the act of becoming a Canadian to signing a mere piece of paper. It’s something to be celebrated in large groups, something to be presided over by a judge, by elected officials like ourselves, as we all do.

[1450]

Another great example of that would be the process where we use sworn statements that we used in this very place just a couple of weeks ago. Two new members of the Legislative Assembly, having been elected, having been certified by the Chief Electoral Officer, came before this very place, walked — as they are permitted to on that very occasion — down the aisle between the two sets of desks here and participated in a ceremony where they made sworn statements. We don’t want to change that, even if it is more of a function of the standing orders of this place than a law. I use it as an example, nonetheless.

The third example, maybe, where we wouldn’t want to be hasty in discarding sworn statements and introducing signed declarations is where you must involve a disinterested person in proceedings. I will quote the report, “where his or her offices will be of benefit to one or more of the parties involved.” Again, these are circumstances where government’s interest in having processes be made cheaper and faster are not well served. Where, literally, serving notice on a person requiring them to comply with an order to provide a sworn statement of some kind to, for example, a tribunal….

We have a tribunal system that is under legal judicial review right now. I’m thinking of the Environmental Appeal Board decision as it relates to Shawnigan Lake and the potential devastating contamination of the water supply of that community of some 7,000 residents. There have been statutory decision–makers who have forced things on the community that were completely unsatisfactory to parties involved.

There have been third-party attempts to bring to the attention of government and the proponent evidence of water sampling that demonstrates contamination and environmental and human health risk. The process has unfolded where it has involved the Environmental Appeal Board, which is one of the many tribunals we use in British Columbia. In that process — and I think this is a great example — disinterested persons, some who may or may not be governed by professional acts and legislation covering them….

In this instance I’m thinking of professional biologists, who are, in fact, covered by a self-enforced act. But there is a quasi-judicial importance to these tribunals, where you want to have evidence that is presented that has been served on the different parties involved in the process — sworn by neutral officials who have their own legal responsibilities in relation to the gathering of that evidence or the gathering of the statements that will be presented as evidence.

You want to have that precisely because of the next stage that happened. I’m still using the example of the Shawnigan Lake water contamination. We now have a judicial review of this tribunal system in our province. I think everybody is waiting, particularly the residents of Shawnigan Lake, as to how that will unfold, but we have the court system looking at how the lower quasi-judicial system has performed.

Part of the review, of course, is going to involve all of the forms of sworn statements that were provided to the tribunal originally and that had led to the decision which, I think, erroneously — we’ll wait for the court’s decision — upheld the decision to allow the proponent to keep depositing hazardous material in a watershed.

So those are the kinds of things where you would never want to move to mere signed declarations and a lower level of security, and a lower level, potentially, of integrity to those documents that will eventually be reviewed by a court.

That is not the case in sections of Bill 5 that is before us. I will speak, in my role for the official opposition as the critic for Education, around sections 2, 3 and 4 of this bill, which relate to the School Act. I do want to just outline, a little bit beyond the explanatory notes provided in Bill 5, what the changes will be.

[1455]

[ Page 10898 ]

I did dig out the School Act to look at, in reference to the amendments to it in Bill

Section 2 will replace the use of an affirmation of the kind that we have been describing here in our contributions to this debate this afternoon. It will replace that affirmation “with the use of a signed statement as the method of applying to become a member of a francophone education authority.”

I think that’s important, because there is a requirement that if you wish to send your child to a francophone school, you have to demonstrate that either on the paternal side or the maternal side of the family, or both, you are part of the Francophonie. Right now, according to the School Act, that is considerably more difficult than it ought to be.

Obviously, you have to present all types of papers, including your own school records. If you are the parent of a child you wish to send to a school under the Francophone Education Authority, you will have to show that, indeed, either the mother or the father went to a French school themselves. So there is a considerable onus upon parents already. And I don’t know, in actual fact, what form of sworn statement is required, but to even require a sworn statement seems to be a little over the top for parents who simply want to take the first step to enrol, to express interest and enrol their kids in the Francophone Education Authority.

Similarly with

section 3. Right now there is a requirement for a signed affirmation that deals with the application of enrolment of that child in the francophone educational program. So you literally have, within two steps of getting your child into a francophone school that’s governed by that provincewide school authority, the requirement for sworn statements.

Now, I have no idea — I’d be interested if the Minister of Education has an answer to this, or the Attorney General — how many principals and other administrators at individual francophone schools actually comply with the School Act, which is at least 40 years out of date in requiring the use of, I would think, a notary public or a lawyer to witness the application process of getting your kid into a francophone school and then the process for enrolling your child into that school.

I have no idea whether lawyers are making a good living off of enrolling kids into the Francophone Education Authority. I’ll let my colleagues answer that, who may have some experience with it and may have billed hours in that regard. But I suspect none of the schools do, in fact, use this.

Then you have a problem that we all try and avoid as lawmakers here. You try and avoid having laws that simply have not kept up with the times, that aren’t enforceable and that have literally no purpose. In those two processes, both making an application and then enrolling a child into the francophone school authority, it ought to be completely sufficient to use one’s signature, as we do on all kinds of application forms in our daily lives.

So it is not something I disagree with. In fact, I commend the government, after 42 years, on being able to gather up the strength and courage to include this in a bill that we have before us this afternoon, to make that modernization. There’s no argument from this side of the House with regards to those particular changes. I can’t speak with as much authority on other areas that we are dealing with.

[1500]

It seems to me that when you have legislation that deals with the financial services sector — for example, the Credit Union Incorporation Act; or cooperative enterprise, the Cooperative Association Act; or the gaming industry, because the Gaming Control Act is included in this bill before us; or the Insurance Act as well — one can understand why government might be more cautious. You’re into serious legal contract law that involves the exchange of financial services or the deposits and the movement of funds and money between individuals, between government and individuals and between government entities.

You can appreciate that in those cases, which are in and of themselves, in some cases, very slow-moving, transactional processes of government, it may be more appropriate to retain sworn statements as the method of legal proof, because there may be significant challenges that come later in the event of disputes. I don’t know. I will leave it to other critics who are patiently awaiting their turn to speak to Bill 5. I am interested in that.

In terms of the sections around the School Act, these are routine, obvious reforms. None of us know why they had to wait 42 years to happen. They went on so long that my parents couldn’t even enrol me in the school system at that time because I was not of age. And they are here before us this afternoon.

I’ll tell you what deserved much more debate than a routine consent form for francophone parents was the bill I referred to earlier in my remarks, and that was Bill 11 from the spring 2015 session. That was legislation with no proper motivation, with no consent, with no consultation — period. It was like a bolt from the blue, changing a historic relationship that we have enjoyed for more than 40 years, a balance of powers between the Minister of Education, the executive branch of government and elected school officials that was completely collapsed.

Now in British Columbia, a year after Bill 11 was rammed through this place, we have a government that can use new

interpretations of the School Act to impose almost anything it wants on a school board — any financial decision, any “special advisor” report. I think that’s a real, live example that I use, not a hypothetical one, in the case of Vancouver.

Because of Bill 11, we may see the spectacle of the Minister of Education and this government literally using new powers it awarded itself, through amendments to the School Act, to shut 25, 30 schools down in neighbour-

[ Page 10899 ]

hoods all across Vancouver because there’s a political dispute between elected school officials in their administration of the budget, which is given to them by this government, and what the minister can now do.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill this afternoon.

D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to rise today on this bill. After 42 years, it’s a good piece of legislation to see and definitely the right direction in terms of making our laws more understandable and encouraging public respect for the rule of law — that things make sense, things that they’re asked to do make sense. It’s a pretty straightforward suggestion.

As someone who has had the privilege of practising law in British Columbia, I’ve got a relationship with notarizing documents. I’ve had experience with it. It’s a very powerful symbol — as a lawyer, the stamp that you’re given when you’re called to the bar.

I remember as a kid in my dad’s office that he had a stamp. We used to use it to stamp envelopes and all kinds of stuff as a way to pass time while he had to watch us on a Saturday and maybe he had a little extra work to do in the office.

But it was when I was called to the bar, when I was articling with the federal Department of Justice…. My principal was a man — he’s still a federal prosecutor — named John Walker. When I swore the oath in front of him, as a new lawyer — to say that I would uphold the law, that I wouldn’t advance causes that didn’t have merit to them, that I wouldn’t take advantage of people, that I would conduct myself with integrity — part of that oath meant taking this stamp as well.

The stamp represented not just the ability to notarize documents. There are a number of members here who have taken various oaths, including the oath of this office, and they feel that significance.

[1505]

For a lawyer, in my experience, receiving that stamp from the federal Department of Justice was a symbol and a message from them to me that they expected that when I used this stamp, when I notarized documents — court forms or other forms — I would keep those principles in mind and conduct myself with integrity.

It’s interesting, because you get this symbol as a lawyer, a stamp that you’re supposed to use, and then it turns out that you very rarely have to actually use it. I don’t know how many of my friends in the House who have a stamp that’s sat in a drawer as they didn’t really need to use it very often.

Actually, I had opportunity to swear many, many documents as a lawyer — more like a notary than a lawyer — because I worked in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. When I was working there, I swore a number of affidavits, sworn statements and statutory declarations by people who live there about everything from their housing conditions to allegations they were making about how they had been treated by police officers or related to allegations of what their lives were like working in the sex trade.

It was a very powerful tool used by an organization called Pivot Legal Society in their affidavit campaigns to communicate, in the sworn statement, that this wasn’t just an interview with someone. This was someone, when they were putting down their statement, who was willing to take the risk of being charged with perjury, a criminal offence, if they made a false statement in this document. It gave it that extra emphasis. This was a significant document.

This is the context of Bill 5, which amends the requirement for this ceremony, this declaration, “This is who I am,” “I’m swearing this is true,” “I’m swearing that this is what is happening,” “I’m swearing that I have the appropriate documents” and so on. So it’s a big deal. It’s a serious thing.

To remove that requirement is not something that we should take on lightly as legislators. That’s why it’s very helpful to have this report from the B.C. Law Institute.

Now, hon. Speaker, you’ve heard some of my friends go through this history of the B.C. Law Institute report, in particular the fact that this is not a new report — 1974 the first report, 1976 finally released. It was requested in ’74 by the NDP government and revisited in 2006 by the B.C. Law Institute, so ten years ago. We’ve waited a decade since then for these amendments to come forward.

It’s important to recognize — because we’re being asked to take on this task of saying, “Okay, you no longer have to do this very serious thing; you no longer have to risk a perjury charge; you no longer have to risk a criminal charge if you make a false declaration”— that we have confidence in knowing who the Law Institute is, in fact. This is a non-profit organization that’s dedicated to promoting clarity and simplification in the law in British Columbia — an honourable and respectable goal and one that is desperately needed, I have say — and adapting the law to modern needs. What a great idea.

They promote the improvement of the administration of justice, they promote public respect for the rule of law through their reports, and they promote scholarly research on the law. That is how we end up with the Report on Unnecessary Requirements for Sworn Statements , 2006. This, I believe, is the basis for a number of the pieces which the Attorney General’s office has brought forward before us in Bill 5.

I say a number because there are a number of recommendations made in this report which are not followed by the Attorney General’s office for reasons known only to that office. I hope the Attorney General will speak to that in her closing remarks on Bill 5.

It’s helpful for people to know what a sworn statement is. What does this mean? It has a whole bunch of different appearances in our law. It could be a statement made

[ Page 10900 ]

under oath in a courtroom. It could be on affirmation under a statutory document, on an affidavit, or it can be a solemn declaration made in front of a decision-maker of some type. They’re used for all kinds of different reasons. I will be leaning heavily and with great appreciation on the B.C. Law Institute’s Report on Unnecessary Requirements for Sworn Statement s. If people are interested in reading more about this, it’s where most of my remarks are coming from, as a matter of fact.

There are three main functions for these types of sworn statements that we’re removing in this legislation. One is “to reinforce the veracity of written or oral communications.” We want to know that what you’re saying is true. The second is “to introduce an element of solemnity or dignity on ceremonial occasions.” We were all here when the members for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Coquitlam–Burke Mountain were sworn in. It was a very dignified ceremony, and the oath of office was part of that ceremony.

[1510]

Finally, it’s “to interpose a disinterested person in proceedings” where that person’s offices “will be of benefit to one or more of the parties.” This is the notary or the lawyer who is sitting across the desk from you, who says: “When you sign this form, understand that if you’re lying, you could go to jail. That is a criminal offence.” It’s a disinterested person to communicate to you the threat of making a false statement, for example.

Now, the 2006 report noted that there is a requirement for all of these statements. This leads to some of why this legislation is in front of us. You can make one of these sworn statements only in front of a notary or a lawyer or another person who statutorily has the ability to take these sworn statements. So there are a few reasons for doing this again.

This is also what they go into. Why is it, we would ask, that a lawyer or notary be present for when you swear these kinds of things? First, again, it makes it more formal and more solemn. Second, this is a perspective…. At the time, in the law, when many of these things were passed, it was that it would bind the conscience of the person swearing. When they swore, they understood that they faced not just legal consequences but spiritual consequences, that they could have to explain to a higher power why it was that they swore something that wasn’t true in that higher power’s name. It’s a very serious consequence for people who hold those kinds of religious beliefs.

Finally, it raises the possibility of criminal liability. There’s a witness there. The witness says: “Listen, I told this guy that if he wasn’t telling the truth, if he didn’t have the documents, he could go to jail. He signed it anyway. He swore it. That’s my evidence, Your Honour.” And then the guy is off to jail for perjury.

There are a number of reasons for asking that this person be in front of them. The Law Institute added a fourth, which was confirmation of identity.

One of the things that is drilled into you as a baby lawyer — well, as a law student, before you’re a baby lawyer — by the Law Society is that you darn well better have the person’s ID in front of you whose sworn statement you’re taking. Without the ID, you yourself could be hauled in front of the Law Society or the notary society as failing to verify that person’s identity. That has become kind of a default bonus of this process — that a person’s identity is verified.

Despite all of those excellent reasons for requiring lawyers or notaries to be present and to swear statements of this kind, the B.C. Law Institute said that despite all of those things, there are lots of situations where you could address all of those issues — confirm identity, ensure honesty, reinforce solemnity — with a simple amendment to the Offence Act and a requirement that a person face criminal consequences if they lie.

They cut all of these many requirements down. They had eight different categories where you require a sworn statement in front of a notary. They said: “We’re not going to make you drive across town, see the notary, pay the notary, pay the lawyer and make an appointment. Just know that if you do this and you make a false declaration, you could face serious criminal consequences and that you could face a violation of the provincial Offence Act.”

There are a couple of questions that arise for me in light of the legislation that comes before us, given that recommendation from the B.C. Law Institute.

The first is that I don’t understand why there is not an amendment in the Offence Act that mirrors what they suggest would replace those very serious consequences that they were talking about. It doesn’t appear to me that it’s in there. Maybe the Attorney General…. Maybe I missed it. That’s a distinct possibility. I’m certainly prepared to be wrong on that. But I would ask that she address this.

Why is it — when on page 17 of the B.C. Law Institute report, they say, “Please amend the Offence Act if you’re going to do this” — she has not done that?

The second question I have relates to my role as Housing spokesperson. The B.C. Law Institute says pretty clearly: “Please exempt

part 5 of the Land Title Act from our recommendation of removing these requirements.” Yet there is a

section of this act that removes the sworn statement requirement from the Land Title Act. It is not part of

part 5. It’s

part 14, I believe.

I would appreciate it, again, if the Attorney General would address why it is that this requirement of a sworn statement around a floating charge on a land title has been removed, given the recommendations of the Law Institute that sworn statements and identity verification, in particular, were particularly important for the Land Title Act and why she feels that

section 14 wasn’t captured by that recommendation.

[1515]

Those are my remarks on this act. I certainly am glad to see that some of the Law Institute’s recommendations

[ Page 10901 ]

are being implemented after a decade. I encourage the Attorney General to peruse the full B.C. Law Institute catalogue of recommendations around statutory reform — they do wonderful work for us — and try to find other opportunities to make our laws more progressive and easier for people to understand and to promote the rule of law in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister will conclude the debate.

Hon. S. Anton: There have been a number of points raised. I won’t address all of them right now. We can come back to them in committee stage.

One thing I definitely cannot speak to is the 30 years between the law commission report and the B.C. Law Institute report. I can’t say as I was paying close attention to this issue during those 30 years. But we are paying attention to it now, at this point, because these kinds of sworn statements do cause people a lot of extra time and energy.

There’s a certain amount of time and energy, of course, going through a detailed bill like this, a lot of different consultations with different ministries. But really, in the scope of things, in the scope of people’s lives, the time and energy that people spend going to get a sworn statement for what, in some instances, can be a fairly minor matter, does consume a lot of energy, time and money in some cases. So I’m glad that we have been able to return our attention to the matter and bring it before the House on this occasion.

This is, of course, part of our red-tape-reduction initiative, making life easier for British Columbians. Government not getting in the way. People can go about their businesses, their schools and, as has been mentioned, go about other things that people need to do without undue burden.

There was a question regarding the reduction of seriousness. This was the heart of the analysis in the Law Reform Commission report and the B.C. Law Institute report, and that was the analysis that my ministry, the Ministry of Justice, in conjunction with program areas and ministries responsible for the legislation in the bill, undertook. And as members will have noticed, not all provisions that used to have sworn statements have been switched to a signed statement. Only those that ministries and program areas, along with their advising solicitors, deemed appropriate are being suggested for change.

There was a question of whether or not notaries and lawyers would lose work from this. I am very fond of the lawyers and the notaries, but I don’t think that we necessarily need to conduct things and make rather minor nuisances to provide work to those two bodies. But I do speak of them with great respect, as I work closely with them and I like them both very much. They work very closely with government, and they did work with us on this matter — the changes. We did speak with them on this matter. The changes will not have a significant impact on their work, but they will have a significant impact on making things easier for the citizens of British Columbia.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 5, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Thomson: I call committee stage of Bill 11, the Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act.

[1520]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL

PRODUCTS CLASSIFICATION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:21 p.m.

Hon. N. Letnick: I’d like to introduce the people with me today — Derek Sturko, deputy minister; Linda Bates, senior manager, legislation; and Jane Connell behind me, senior legislative assistant. I look forward to discussing this bill

section by section, and I cede the floor to the hon. critic.

section 1.

L. Popham: Actually, I’d like to start with a question around the explanatory note, if I can. This bill replaces the Agricultural Produce Grading Act, the Agri-Food Choice and Quality Act and the Food Products Standards Act with a single act. Would the minister mind explaining to me the intent of those three acts prior to them coming together?

Hon. N. Letnick: The three acts — the APGA, the ACQA and the FPSA…. The first one had to do with grades, the second one, the ACQA, is certifications, and the FPSA is standards. There were several limitations of the current statutes. For example, only grade standards and certifications are enabled. No other forms of classi-

[ Page 10902 ]

fication that could be used to provide useful information to consumers were available through those three acts.

Existing prohibitions are not sufficient in those three acts to enable government to restrict the use of certain words in marketing — for instance, organics. Existing certification systems are limited to agricultural products, which does not include fish and seafood. There is a possible interest in the future, of course, in the certification of fish and seafood products as well. That’s why we’ve combined them into this new act.

[1525]

L. Popham: When the minister announced this legislation, he made it very clear — in fact, he made his announcement with the certified organic community — that this would allow consumers to be more confident in their purchases and allow the certified organic farming industry to increase their revenues.

Because the minister made this announcement with that community, it was in my great interest to go through the bill. I think they’ve been asking that for a long time. But as the minister knows, and as I know, there is no definition or words that say “organic” or “certified organic” in this bill at all. The minister has already explained to me that the intent is to add those in the regulations at a later date, but in fact, the minister has also said that this legislation would kick into place by 2018.

At this time, in

section 1, I would like to propose an amendment to the bill that defines “organic” and “certified organic.”

[Section 1 is amended by adding the following

definitions:

“certified organic” means meeting the prescribed production or quality standards required by this act;

“organic” means produced in a way that promotes and enhances biological diversity based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony;]

On the amendment.

L. Popham: I hope the minister is open to adding those

definitions in.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for her comments and her thorough review of the act. I really appreciate that and also appreciate the fact that she took time to get a briefing from staff. That helps considerably.

Also, earlier today, I believe — if not today, it was recent — the hon. member did discuss the need to have extension officers for organics. In case the hon. member didn’t know, we do have an industry specialist. I’m sure she’s aware of Susan Smith, who I believe was at the conference as well. I asked what percentage of her time is devoted to organics. It turns out that 75 percent of her time is organics, and 25 percent is for vegetables. So while it might not achieve the one FTE that the member is looking for, 75 percent is very strong on organics.

Specifically to the proposed amendment, it’s outside the scope of the bill. The bill contemplates establishing programs through regulation. The bill is enabling and only speaks to categories of classification programs, while the detailed programs would be brought into force by regulation. So the

definitions for “organic” and “certified organic” and anything else, for that matter, that we would want as a label would be properly established in regulation and not in the bill itself.

I would have to decline the amendment.

L. Popham: Thanks to the minister for pointing out how dedicated we are to the certified organic industry by committing 75 percent of a full-time employee to that industry. I obviously don’t think that’s enough, although I appreciate the work that that person does. I believe that one, at least, would be probably more appropriate.

I’m disappointed that the minister won’t commit to adding these

definitions in. Because the minister took so much time with the certified organic community to make this announcement, I think they’re questioning the same thing. Can the minister tell me specifically why this would not be included in the legislation? Why are we leaving it to regulation?

[1530]

The Chair: Minister, you are very soft-spoken. Could you please speak up so we can hear you. Carry on.

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m tempted to actually speak a lot louder now. Yes, I will speak louder so that everyone can hear me. Obviously, I didn’t speak loud enough for the hon. member across the way to hear my first answer, which answered her question. So I will repeat it for everyone to hear.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

This amendment is outside the scope of the bill. The bill contemplates establishing programs through regulation. The bill is enabling and only speaks to categories of classification programs, while the detailed programs would be brought into force by regulation. The

definitions for “organic” and “certified organic” would be properly established in the regulation. To paraphrase: the bill is set up in such a way where if we wanted to set up a label like organic, we would do it through regulations accompanying or subsequent to the introduction of this legislation.

That could also be used for other considerations. As I said a few minutes ago, the current suite of bills that we have don’t contemplate anything to do with seafood. So if we wanted to do something like 100 percent B.C. seafood, that’s another opportunity — or 100 percent B.C. wine. Rather than having to list them all in legislation, we set up the framework, and then we could add them through regulation, as needed.

[ Page 10903 ]

Was that loud enough for you, hon. Chair? Yes, it was. Okay. Thank you.

L. Popham: I have the effect on the minister of making him want to raise his voice.

I understand the administration part of why regulations happen. I guess I want to know more specifically: why did we not make this…? Why was it not important enough to make it legislation? If the certified organic industry was important enough to make an announcement with, why are they not important enough to have specific legislation in the province of B.C.?

Hon. N. Letnick: The Certified Organic Associations of B.C. was instrumental in bringing this legislation forward. They were also very supportive of this legislation. So, contrary to what the hon. member is saying, they actually support this legislation coming forward.

The certified organic organizations of B.C. are extremely important in continuing to help agriculture grow and to achieve the goal of $15 billion by 2020. This legislation not only will help them grow their industry but also help other very important parts of agriculture and agrifoods in British Columbia. Like I’ve already mentioned, the wine industry, the seafood industry and a number of others will also be able to benefit from this legislation.

The legislation is here. I’m sure if the member opposite would canvass the members of COABC, she would find that they are supportive of the legislation going forward.

L. Popham: In fact, I did canvass the members, and I found out that they were surprised that the words “organic” and “certified organic” were not in the legislation. It took them by surprise.

Can the minister comment on that?

[1535]

Hon. N. Letnick: This act is enabling. It enables the provision for protected labels. One very important protected label will be the organic protected label. Another potential very important protected label might be 100 percent B.C. wine. It could be 100 percent B.C. seafood. It could be a number of things.

I would hope that the member opposite would agree that it makes much more sense to have those items come through in the form of regulations than to have to come back to the House and amend legislation every time that you wanted to include a new protected label in the province of British Columbia.

L. Popham: Well, how I do feel is that I think adding those words in definition makes this legislation stronger. I don’t know what we have to lose.

Do we want to be inconvenienced by coming back to change a bill if there were to be a change being made? In some ways, I think that makes it stronger, because then we don’t have the ability, by regulation, to make changes that both sides of the House do not understand. I don’t know what we have to lose, really, at this point by adding that in, except for making it stronger.

I’m going to move on at this point. I’m going to move to the

interpretation

section where we see the word “administrator.” I’d like to know: how many administrators are there in the province right now that administrate certification programs?

The Chair: The amendment is on the table.

Amendment negatived on division.

The Chair: Back to

section 1.

Hon. N. Letnick: There are two administrators currently in the province. One is the Certified Organic Associations of B.C., or COABC for short. The other one is the B.C. Wine Authority.

L. Popham: Does the minister see other administrators being enabled by this legislation?

Hon. N. Letnick: With each voluntary certification program, you would need an administrator. For example, the fish and seafood example I gave before — if government went ahead and put that in the regulation, then we would need another administrator for that program.

L. Popham: So the certification administrator possibilities are endless? We could have many? There’s no restriction on how many administrators could happen within each field of administration or each sector of administration?

Hon. N. Letnick: You first have to have the voluntary certification program. Once you have that, then you have the administrator to make sure that it moves forward. They go hand in hand.

[1540]

V. Huntington: Under the

interpretation section, I’m interested in the presumptive nature of the definition under “distribute.” I find “or offer to provide food or an agricultural product to a person, whether directly or indirectly” somewhat presumptive. I wonder if the minister could describe how he thinks the regulation would unfold with that presumptive nature of offering to provide?

Hon. N. Letnick: If the member would expand a little more on what she means by presumptive, in terms of this particular section?

V. Huntington: Well, it seems to me that your “includes to provide” is an action that a distributor or a

[ Page 10904 ]

person offering to distribute…. It’s the action taken. I’m assuming the regulation will then grow to…. It looks specifically at that action and how it unfolds, directly or indirectly. But how will the regulation cover an “offer to provide”? An offer to provide is something that has not happened, that is not of an action, so to speak. If the minister understands.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for the question. It was a good question. The whole act…. I think an example might make it easier.

If I’m going to provide the member with some eggs, and they’re not meeting the grade that I said they were going to…. If I provided them, I’m guilty of an offence. If I even offered to provide those eggs at a grade and I’m not able to provide them, then I’m also guilty of an offence. So it’s not only the provision of the eggs to the member but also if I just offer to provide the eggs and perhaps I don’t have those eggs. That’s when I would be guilty of an offence.

V. Huntington: I guess my confusion is that an offer to provide isn’t an offence in itself. If you don’t provide, then you haven’t committed an offence in normal understanding of what is to create or commit an offence. If I’m offering to give you an egg that hasn’t been graded properly but don’t end up giving you that, how can I have committed an offence? You’re creating, I think…. An offer is not a threat — unless you’re defining “offer” as a threat of some sort.

[1545]

Hon. N. Letnick: I always like examples. I think they bring life to the legislation. So here we have VQA wine. I can offer to sell you VQA wine, or I can provide you with a VQA wine. In either case, the intention is to provide you with VQA wine. If I provide you with the wine and it’s not VQA…. This is contrary to that; you understand that part.

If I offer to provide you VQA wine and I don’t have access to VQA wine, my intention is to deceive you, right? Here again, that would be offside.

We’re just checking right now to see whether this is common language we have in other statutes. But it’s all about the intention to provide you something or offer to provide you something that we don’t have in possession.

V. Huntington: But surely, that is an issue of contract and contract law. If you’ve provided me something and I have paid for something, or you’ve provided me with the understanding that I am going to get X and I actually get Y, then that’s an issue of contract, surely. I just don’t understand how an offer can be a crime or an offence when the action has not yet taken place.

Hon. N. Letnick: The current wording of the act is consistent with the acts that it’s replacing. It really comes down to the intent to provide someone with a product falsely. I’m not too sure if she wants us to use a third example, besides eggs and wine, to make the case.

V. Huntington: Well, I certainly won’t make a motion to amend a law or words in legislation that have already existed, but I do think that it is unnecessary. I think this relates more to contract law or the failure to do what one said one would do. But not just to offer to do something wrong — it just doesn’t seem the correct way to legislate, in my opinion.

L. Popham: I just wanted to go back to the beginning of the

interpretation

section and talk a little bit about “administrator” again. The minister has said that COABC is an administrator and VQA are administrators. Did I understand that correctly?

Hon. N. Letnick: COABC and the B.C. Wine Authority.

[1550]

L. Popham: In this

interpretation, “administrator” means “a person authorized under

section 4 [administration of certification programs] to administer a certification program.” As far as I can read, “administrator” means “person authorized,” and COABC and VQA, or Wine Authority, are not people. They’re organizations. So does this need amending?

Hon. N. Letnick: This is a standard

interpretation of the word “person.” It can include an authority, and it is consistent with the other acts as well.

L. Popham: I’m going to move on to “agricultural product.” I guess my question is: why is agricultural product given such a counterintuitive definition? Bill 11 states, in the definition section, that agricultural products are defined as “not intended for human consumption.” I guess my first question is: is this a typo?

Hon. N. Letnick: If the hon. member looks further down, she’ll see that “food” is defined. Basically, agricultural product means anything that’s not food.

L. Popham: I think it contradicts common sense, to tell you the truth. A key principle of legislative drafting is that the words are to be given ordinary meanings, grammatical meanings. Page 3 of B.C.’s Principles of Legislative Drafting mentions this.

It’s also inconsistent with how we use the term regularly. For example, in the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the definition of agricultural product includes any food or drink wholly or partially derived from an animal or plant.

Another example is in the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. An agricultural product is de-

[ Page 10905 ]

fined as “any food in its raw or natural state, including all fruits that are washed, colored or otherwise treated in their unpeeled natural form prior to marketing.”

Why in our legislation, in B.C., is an agricultural product defined in such an inconsistent and illogical way?

Hon. N. Letnick: The term “agricultural product” is carried over from the Agri-Food Choice and Quality Act, one of the three acts that this act is replacing.

I’ll just give a couple examples of what would fall under agricultural product — leather. It’s not really meant to be a food, in most cases, but good for shoes. Also, hemp cloth is an agricultural product, which is also not meant usually for human consumption. That would also be considered not a food, which is defined further down on the page.

L. Popham: Okay. I still think it’s inconsistent. I guess the intent of updating these three acts and putting them into one was to update what was old legislation and bring it into modern times. So does the minister have an appetite to change that?

Hon. N. Letnick: I do appreciate the member’s opinion. However, the legal advice is not to make the change.

[1555]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain the intent of this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: In the first part, it describes the activity, and in the second part, it shows that the program exists. For the legislation to work, both parts need to be acted upon, both the activity and the program existing.

L. Popham: I guess my question is: do all farmers and food producers fall under this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: “For the purpose of distributing or marketing to other persons” — so anyone who is actively engaged in distributing or marketing to other persons. We also have to remember that it involves the grading, standards or certification. So you have to do both.

L. Popham: In

section (a): “that a person (

i) possesses, rears, grows, harvests, processes, transports or stores in British Columbia for the purpose of distributing or marketing to other persons.”

I guess my question is: could that actually be “and stores” or “or stores”? I’m worried, at this point, that we’d be importing something into B.C., not grown in B.C., certified outside of B.C. But if it’s stored in B.C. and then distributed or marketed, it would qualify in this act.

Hon. N. Letnick: I just want to canvass this a little further to see if I understand the concept. Is the member concerned about products that are coming from outside the province into B.C., then falling within the limits of this legislation?

If she is, that’s a federal matter, as far as what comes in and goes out of the province. So if I can get a little more clarity on what the concern is.

L. Popham: Well, I guess that I’m interested in that, because if we have goods that are being certified outside of B.C. and we’re certifying and that’s the check mark that we need to allow those products to be sold as certified organic in B.C. under our label, under this new legislation.

[1600]

I understand that it’s a federal guideline and legislation there. But I guess I’m wondering: are we putting in any…? I guess what I’m worried about is that we’re going to be having different standards of certification allowed in B.C. being sold under the certified organic B.C. or certified B.C. or whatever administrative program sets up, and then the intent of this legislation changes.

The intent is to give consumers absolute confidence that they’re buying something that right now is certified organic British Columbia if they’re buying certified organic. I’m not sure, if we have another administrator set up, that certified B.C., which I think the minister has mentioned at some point in time…. Is this going to dilute what we consider certified organic at the moment in B.C.?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, examples, I think, always speak loudly. If someone outside the province got certified federally for a product — let’s say, in this case, being organic — and then was coming into the province, in that case, that would be fine. If someone, however, said they were organic outside of the province and sent a product into the province, then we, when we set up the regulations, would have to set it up very carefully to make sure that everything that’s sold in B.C. that says “organic” is certified.

L. Popham: What about this example? A product was grown in B.C., but a certification agency or administrator from Quebec or Ontario was used to certify it. Would that qualify?

Hon. N. Letnick: Not unless we recognized that body specifically in our regulations.

L. Popham: Will there be room for other agencies to be approved by the province? How would that work?

[1605]

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, it could be in the regulations. We don’t know now. We are continuing to consult with the industry to see what’s appropriate. But in theory,

[ Page 10906 ]

there could be other bodies besides the COABC and the federal regulators as well.

L. Popham: I guess — and the minister may also have this concern — it’s just basically a red flag for me, the idea that another province with an administrator that’s using much lower standards than COABC is able to be considered as an administrator within B.C., or approved as an administrator that we would be able to use our “certified organic” check mark on.

How can we stop this from happening? What’s the process to make sure the standards are as good as or better than ours?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s about the process. It’s about making sure that we identify what our provincial needs are and whether or not these other bodies meet those needs — of course, in consultation with the industry. It’s impossible to say here, unequivocally, that nobody else will be able to do this.

I would suspect…. Fair play would lead us to a point where we would consult with industry. We would see whether or not these other bodies you’re referring to met the standard. If they did, then it would be up to government, through the regulations, to decide whether or not to include them in the list.

L. Popham: One of the concerns that I have, or the concerns that have been brought to me…. When we’re looking at the level of standards for certified organic, one of the things that is becoming more interesting is the idea that some products that we consume have genetically modified ingredients, and some don’t. The COABC organization does not allow any genetically modified products or ingredients, or even additives to their soil. This would include the dairy industry.

Can the minister see, at any point, where GMO feed would be allowed in and be certified B.C.? Has the minister considered that?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s a good question. In the case of the administrator…. Let’s say the Certified Organic Associations of B.C. is the administrator. They come up with the standards that to get certified through them, you have to have no GMO involvement. Then we are adopting their standards, or them as the administrator. So everyone that would want to use this protected label would have to comply with the standards as set up.

[1610]

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

L. Popham: So

section 3. I’d like to propose an amendment.

[SECTION 3 is amended by adding the following subsection:

(

e) in order to be labeled “organic” a food must be certified by meeting the prescribed quality or production standards, known as certified organic in British Columbia.

(

f) the Lieutenant Governor in Council must establish a protected label for agricultural products produced and marketed as organic in the province of British Columbia. ]

On the amendment.

L. Popham: I think that this is very important, although, obviously, in

section 1 we weren’t able to add in the

definitions of “organic” and “certified organic,” because they’re apparently coming in regulation. But I think this is the intent of this bill. I think that without this in legislation, I’m not sure that we can make the claims that this bill is currently, at this state, when it passes, protecting the certified organic industry. There’s no indication that it’s doing that at all, because we’re not using these words.

Is the minister open to this amendment?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m sorry to disappoint the member again. As far as (

f) is concerned, we don’t have the ability to impose our will on the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, so saying that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council “must establish” would do that and, therefore, is not acceptable.

On (e), the proposed amendment is outside the scope of the bill as well. The bill contemplates that there will be grade certification, protected labels and standards applied to foods. They will be prescribed in regulation following the current practice. We discussed this already.

Organics is not a form of classification. It could be prescribed in future as a protected label, which we’ve already signalled is our intent. What is proposed in the amendment is what is contemplated under the regulation-making authority in

section 47(5).

L. Popham: I understand that the minister has good intentions, but what if this minister is not the Minister of Agriculture in the future? This bill does not have….

Interjection.

L. Popham: I could be, but then perhaps the intent would be there.

It’s a serious question, because if this minister is committed to the certified organic industry but the next minister is not, how do we have any…? Because this isn’t in legislation, how do we know that this is going to happen? We have to have trust, and I’m not sure that laws are built around trust. Laws are built around laws, because we want something to happen or we don’t want something to happen.

How can the minister guarantee that organic and certified organic is the intent of this bill?

[ Page 10907 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: While I appreciate the influence that the hon. member provides to me, I would like to say that I’m here as the minister representing the ministry and government. It’s government’s and the ministry’s intention and my intention to move forward with what was committed when we announced this bill. She can put faith that the government will follow through on its commitment.

L. Popham: Well, can the minister agree that there’s no requirement whatsoever in this bill for organic claims to be certified at any point in the future?

Hon. N. Letnick: I will try to readdress what I’ve said before. The purpose of the bill is to provide a framework under which we capture three very old statutes, modernize them and provide for opportunities for protected labels of many kinds.

[1615]

The first kind that government has signalled they would like to move forward with is the organics protected label, and I’ve also provided other examples.

L. Popham: So what the minister is saying is that it’s a possibility, but it’s not a guarantee?

Hon. N. Letnick: I think I’ve already answered the question.

L. Popham: I don’t think the minister has answered the question. Does this bill guarantee that organic claims are to be certified at any point in the future? Is this in law, or is it just a great idea?

Hon. N. Letnick: This bill was, in large part, driven by the organic sector of British Columbia. We are working very closely with them. We’ve consulted with them. We continue to consult with them. They’ve asked for a period of time through which they can adapt some of the growers out there and producers that are using the term “organic” to give them time over the next three years to transition, to apply for certification.

It really is a testimony to many, many people in the organic sector, and it is every intention of the government to continue to achieve that goal, where in British Columbia, if you are going to say that you are organic, you have been certified organic.

L. Popham: Where does it say that in this bill?

Hon. N. Letnick: Once again, the bill is a framework under which we can move forward with the protected labels, like “organic.”

L. Popham: And when does that take effect?

Hon. N. Letnick: The government announced that people would have until 2018, three years, to get their certification if they want to use the protected label “organic.” So between now and 2018, the government intends to bring in regulations to make that happen.

In the meantime, in the near future the government will be bringing in regulations from the three old bills to coincide with this particular piece of legislation, should it pass the House.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain the intent of this section?

[1620]

Hon. N. Letnick: The powers of the administrators before were actually in the regulations, and they were somewhat inconsistent. Based on legal advice to bring them to consistency, we put them, actually, in the act itself.

V. Huntington: This is a question related to subsection 4(2)(d)(i): maintaining a register and “making the register available for public inspection during normal business hours.” Just a simple question. Will that register be on line and available all the time, or is it going to be a hard copy that people have to go into the store to find?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, to the member opposite, for the question. It would be up to the administrator to decide how to do that. We just make it compulsory through the legislation.

L. Popham: Can the minister see any conflicts of interest arising from this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: We haven’t heard of any through our consultations at all. So no is the answer.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain the intent of this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: This particular

section prescribes the responsibilities of an operator subject to certification, grading standards, the grading standards program. It’s a carryover from the other three acts. It’s been modified, of course, a little bit to update the language. We have a similar provision in the Animal Health Act as well.

[ Page 10908 ]

L. Popham: Will, by regulation, fees for inspections be drawn up from this section?

I probably wasn’t that clear. I’m seeing “request of an inspector” written into this legislation; 5(1)(b)(ii) allows inspectors to require product testing. I’m assuming there would be a fee or a charge for that. I’m thinking maybe it would be passed on to the farmer, or perhaps this is a government service. I don’t know. I would be curious to know.

[1625]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for identifying what the issue was. Inspectors would be provided by the government through normal taxpayer payments. If there is need for testing, that would be paid for by the operator.

L. Popham: I noticed that the recordkeeping — and this might be standard — needs to be kept on location for five years. These records, I would assume, would be certification records, if it was for certified organic farms. Currently, I believe, the certification records are held with COABC. Does the minister see that there’s any direction for records to be held at the farm, with COABC and a third copy to be registered with government?

Hon. N. Letnick: We do have a little bit of time in the next two or three years as we work towards our 2018 goal. We’re going to consult with the key stakeholders as to what would be making most sense. Would it make more sense to have it on your person? Would it make more sense for government to keep the registry? For COABC, the authority, to keep it? There’s no definite answer to that question just yet.

L. Popham: When reading through this section, a lot of it, I guess, is based on if somebody is not complying to what they’re supposed to be complying to. In part (2), it says: “On receiving a report under this section, the minister may order the person making the report to take one or more prescribed actions.” Can the minister tell me what those prescribed actions are?

[1630]

Hon. N. Letnick: So “one or more prescribed actions.” They would be prescribed in the regulations, which aren’t developed yet. It could vary from one protected label to another protected label.

L. Popham: I understand it would be in regulation. Could I have just one example of what a prescribed action could be?

Hon. N. Letnick: For example, if they don’t have proper certification, one of the prescribed actions would be they have to go get it within X number of days. That could be one of them.

L. Popham: In

part 3, division 2…. Can the minister explain this part to me? I don’t quite understand it.

Hon. N. Letnick: Hope I’m not too fast.

Orders under division 2 are subject to review and reconsideration. That’s what three means.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

L. Popham: Could the minister explain the intent of this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: This is carried over and modified from the APGA. It prescribes the activities that are not permitted under a prescribed grading program unless conducted in accordance with the regulations.

L. Popham: Could the minister give an example?

Hon. N. Letnick: Absolutely. If a grading program is prescribed in regulation for a food, persons, for example, must not transport or distribute ungraded or improperly marked food, market food as having been graded if it’s not, market food as having a grade if it does not, possess ungraded food in a container with a grade mark attached. Those are four examples.

L. Popham: Can the minister see that this would have any implications for people producing products and selling them at farmers markets?

Hon. N. Letnick: Where they sell it isn’t the issue. It’s: are they meeting the grading requirements? So if you’re selling a Canada grade A egg and you’re not meeting the requirements, whether you’re selling it at a farmers market or at a retail store, it’s still the same contravention.

L. Popham: I’m just going to give the minister an example of something that I’ve learned. Perhaps it’s in regards to this section. I’m not quite sure.

If a certified organic poultry producer were to drop their live birds off at a slau