Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 293

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25B)

Remembrance of historical events

J. Routledge

Krow’s TRANSformation film on transgender

issues

J. Thornthwaite

Transgender Day of Remembrance

M. Dean

Protection of Thompson River steelhead

J. Tegart

Commercial fishing industry

J. Rice

Vickie Sangster

I. Paton

Oral Questions

Labour dispute in transit system

A. Wilkinson

Hon. H. Bains

J. Johal

Logging practices and protection of whitebark

pine

S. Furstenau

Hon. D. Donaldson

Protection of wildlife species at risk

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Labour dispute in transit system

M. de Jong

Hon. H. Bains

Community benefits agreement and advice to

government

S. Bond

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Gaming policy and enforcement branch, annual report 2018-19

Petitions

Hon. C. Trevena

T. Stone

Personal Statements

Withdrawal of comments made in the House

Hon. H. Bains

Tabling Answers

Hon. C. Trevena

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole

House

Bill 37 — Financial Institutions Amendment Act,

2019 (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

S. Cadieux

Reporting of Bills

Bill 37 — Financial Institutions Amendment Act,

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 37 — Financial Institutions Amendment Act,

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 45 — Taxation Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. C. James

T. Stone

S. Furstenau

N. Letnick

S. Chandra Herbert

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

Hon. C. James

Committee of the Whole

House

Bill 39 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor

Corrections) and Statute Revision Amendment Act, 2019

P. Milobar

Hon. D. Eby

A. Weaver

Reporting of Bills

Bill 39 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor

Corrections) and Statute Revision Amendment Act, 2019

Committee of the Whole

House

Bill 40 —

Interpretation Amendment Act,

L. Larson

T. Shypitka

Hon. D. Eby

M. Bernier

A. Weaver

Tabling Documents

B.C. Judicial Compensation Commission, final report, 2019

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 41 — Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. S. Fraser

M. de Jong

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: We’re joined today by a group of dispute resolution experts who are

gathered here in Victoria — this might be helpful for the House — for the

ADR Institute of Canada’s 45th annual general meeting and national

conference.

It’s my pleasure to introduce to the House Andrew Butt, president of the

ADR Institute of Canada; Elton Simoes, president of the ADR Institute of

British Columbia; Barbara McNeil, president of the ADR Institute of Alberta;

Viki Scott, representing the ADR Institute of Ontario; Andrew Wychenka,

representing the ADR Institute of Manitoba; and Janet McKay, executive

director, ADR Institute of Canada.

Will the House please welcome these very necessary dispute resolution

experts to this House here today.

Hon. A. Dix: Canuck Place Children’s Hospice is, I think, loved by people around

British Columbia who have given it enormous support over the years. I want

to welcome to the House today Denise Praill, who is the chief development

officer, and ask everyone to wish her welcome.

M. Stilwell: Joining us in the House today is one of the funniest people I’ve met this

week. She’s on tour with the Steve Patterson holiday special of The

Debaters . She’s an award-winning Canadian comedian, writer and

columnist. Last night she successfully debated that Mrs. Claus is, in fact,

superior to Santa’s elves. Would the house please welcome DeAnne

Smith.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Today is the National Day of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims. We’re

joined by several road safety law enforcement leaders who, just a few hours

ago, received awards recognizing their outstanding efforts to make

communities safer.

Please help me welcome Chief Const. Neil Dubord of the Delta police

department, who’s also chair of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police

Traffic safety committee; Const. Brad Robinson, representing south Vancouver

Island traffic services, E division traffic services, with the B.C. RCMP;

Oak Bay constable Eric Thompson, who’s with the capital regional district

Integrated Road Safety Unit, E division traffic services, B.C. RCMP; Const.

Martin Schmidt, representing the West Kootenay Integrated Road Safety Unit,

E division traffic services, B.C. RCMP; Sgt. Aaron Kazuta of the Vancouver

police department, representing the Uniform Gang Task Force, Combined Forces

Special Enforcement Unit with the B.C. RCMP; and Cpl. Ryan Shaw,

representing the Uniform Gang Task Force, Combined Forces Special

Enforcement Unit, B.C. RCMP.

Would the House please join us in making these distinguished guests most

welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I

have some very special guests to introduce today. My newly elected MP, Terry

Beech, as well as his lovely wife, Ravi, and the special baby, Nova, is up

there. On behalf of the member for Burnaby North as well as

Burnaby-Lougheed, I’d like us all to make them welcome.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Joining us today in the gallery and in the precinct are representatives

and members of the Community Futures of British Columbia.

[1:40 p.m.]

Mike Guarnery is CFBC chair from the East Kootenays; Troy Dungate,

Community Futures B.C. vice-chair from Fraser–Fort George; Tom Hoffman, CFBC

director from the Cariboo-Chilcotin; John Farrell, CFBC director from the

Pacific Northwest; Bob Annis, CFBC past chair and director from Cowichan;

plus a number of staff — the executive director of the organization, Cheryl

Johnson, Debra Arnott, Karen Eden, Cathy Robertson and others I might have

missed.

want to thank them for their work, through the 34 offices through rural

communities in B.C., supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. Thank

you for the very informative meeting we had this morning. Would the members

please make them welcome.

have one more. Joining us today, all the way from Hazelton, B.C., 1,000

kilometres north of here, is my wife, Anne. Would the members please make

her welcome.

A. Kang: I

have a few friends who are in the gallery today. They are part of the

delegation from the Greater Victoria Taiwanese Canadian Association. These

friends are actually from the Minister of Education’s riding. On his behalf,

I would like to welcome Hung Shu Fen, Michael Magone, Chi-Hsin Sung, Naoki

Takahashi, Yuka Kawai as well as Kesorn Meecharoensiri. I would like the

House to please make them very welcome.

R. Sultan: In

the galleries today, we have several distinguished citizens from West

Vancouver. Old friends John and Cathy Cave are accompanied by their grandson

Austin Millius and John’s cousin Kevin Pearse, visiting from England. Now,

it is said that Austin’s mother, Kristi, was perhaps the youngest elected

politician ever in the history of West Vancouver. So we’re looking forward

to Austin following in his mother’s footsteps. Would you please make them

welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m

really pleased. I’ve got two very special men in my life in the gallery

today. One of them is my husband, Ed, the former MLA for Rossland-Trail. I

have to tell you that in all the years I’ve been elected, I think this is

maybe his tenth time that he’s joined us in the gallery. It’s great to have

him here.

The

other very special person in my life is my 91-year-old father, Ben

Thor-Larsen. I have to beg your indulgence a bit here. My dad is an avid

curler, and at 91, he won the award in Castlegar for the…. It’s like the

superstar of curlers. What he has to do for this award is: he has a little

hand-carved red truck that he has to take with him everywhere he goes and

get pictures and, after the year, take it back to the curling rink and show

them where he’s gone.

would like to please beg indulgence of you all. If you see my father

approaching you with his little red wooden truck, if you would please have a

picture with him so he can take that back to the Castlegar Curling Club and

show where he has been on his journeys.

Please join me in welcoming these people.

D. Barnett: I,

too, would like to recognize two people from my riding — I get very few,

like many of us: Karen Eden, the CEO of Community Futures Williams Lake, and

Tom Hoffman, who is the chair of Community Futures Williams Lake. Please

welcome them here again today.

Hon. C. James: I

also have constituents who are visiting me today who are leaders in the

Taiwanese community, part of the group that is visiting and touring today:

Chi Ping Chung, Sia Nishamura and Regine Sue Tatchell. Would the House make

them very welcome.

A. Weaver: I

have a number of leaders from the Taiwanese community here in Greater

Victoria to introduce from my riding today. They are Kayshi Chuang, Julia

Meiling Chen, Kathleen Chuang, Enning Hu, Youhau Cheng, Huawei Wang, Joe Chi

Chung, Jin Hue Cheng as well as Sung Mi Kim. As you can tell, we have a very

vibrant Taiwanese community in Victoria.

[1:45 p.m.]

that note, hon. Speaker, and with your permission, I would also like to

announce to the House that today is the beginning of the 24 Hours of

Reality. This is 24 hours of talks being held around the world, over 1,700

talks on the importance of climate change. I just attended one at Oak Bay

High School.

the spirit of the ongoing competition between Reynolds and Oak Bay, I

proudly was presented an Oak Bay Barbarian rugby jersey. I’m looking forward

to Oak Bay playing Reynolds this year in the upcoming rugby season and

trouncing them, as we did back in the 1970s.

Hon. L. Popham: I

also have leaders from the Taiwanese community visiting from Saanich South

today. I have Lee Chung Ming, Wan Chu Sang and Jo Sue Martin Velasquez

Rochene. Welcome to the chamber.

Hon. G. Chow: I

also would like to introduce members of the Taiwanese community leaders.

They come from a diverse community. This one is from Premier John Horgan’s

riding, Ms. Julie Lee. Also, Sueh Yung Lu. I’d like to welcome them here. If

the House would do the same for them. Thank you.

J. Rice: I,

too, have two constituents today in the House. Both work for Ecotrust

Canada, an important not-for-profit in my hometown of Prince

Rupert.

Chelsey Ellis is a third-generation commercial fisherman with a bachelor

of science in biology. She has over eight years of experience on the water

through work as a biologist, observer and commercial fish harvester. She has

worked on the ground as a deckhand in B.C.’s spot prawn, Dungeness crab,

live rockfish and salmon gillnet fisheries.

also want to note — this is really cool — she’s currently working towards

obtaining her chief mate…. I think we say a 150 tonne ticket. Did I say that

correctly — a 150GT ticket? I’m not exactly sure what it is, but I know it

means a big boat.

also want to introduce Shannon Lough. She’s originally from Ottawa and is

now a proud Rupertite. She’s been sharing stories from the chambers of

parliament to salmon runs in the Skeena. She has a master’s degree in

journalism from Carleton University. She felt compelled to work in a rural

community where her reporting could make an impact, and that she is doing.

She is an engaging storyteller and is Ecotrust’s communications and

engagement manager.

Would the House please make them both feel welcome.

Hon. S. Fraser: I

rise today to acknowledge the Minister’s Advisory Council on Indigenous

Women, also known as MACIW.

This council meets with me throughout the year. Today they are undertaking

their important deliberations here at the Legislature, as leaders and

advocates with respect to issues impacting Indigenous women and girls. I

deeply value their perspectives on decisions we’re making as

government.

The council was created in 2011 to provide advice on how to improve the

quality of life for Indigenous women across the province. Over the years,

their role has continued to evolve. Now the focus includes collaborating

across government as we work towards advancing towards a collective vision

towards reconciliation. This includes our efforts towards implementing the

UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action and, of course, the 231 calls to

justice stemming from the federal missing and murdered Indigenous women and

girls inquiry.

are honoured to have this group of highly regarded women sharing their

voices, wisdom and perspectives with government. I would like to acknowledge

chair Chastity Davis, vice-chair Barbara Ward-Burkitt, Elder representative

Dr. Lorna Williams. I would like to share this opportunity to acknowledge

MACIW with my colleague the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

Thank you very much.

M. Dean: I,

too, would like to acknowledge the members of the Minister’s Advisory

Council on Indigenous Women.

my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity, I truly appreciate how

hard the council is working to build understanding of Indigenous,

gender-based analysis across government. The council has been instrumental

in ensuring the inclusion of Indigenous women’s voices. They provide advice

on housing, poverty reduction, education, Indigenous justice, child welfare,

policing and so much more. The council is also advising the province on its

response to the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous

women.

[1:50 p.m.]

have really enjoyed spending a bit of time with them over the past couple of

days. I ask the House to acknowledge members Coreen Child, Patricia

Barkaskas, Sarah Robinson and Monique Gray Smith, and also youth

representative Raven Lacerte. I believe there are three members not present

in the House today, including Helen Knott and Lauren Brown. I thank the

members that are here today for the opportunity that we can show our

appreciation and acknowledgment of the members of the Council on Indigenous

Women, and I raise my hands to their work.

also have leaders from the Taiwanese community from Esquimalt-Metchosin here

today. We have Shang Su, Ming Lee and Seo Yun Kim. Please would the House

make them very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

REMEMBRANCE OF HISTORICAL EVENTS

J. Routledge: Last week we attended ceremonies all over British Columbia where we

promised to remember those who went to war so we could live in peace.

But do we remember why they were called upon to sacrifice their lives,

their health, their youth in the name of freedom? It was the philosopher

George Santayana who said, “Those who cannot remember the past are

condemned to repeat it,” words that are inscribed on a plaque at the

Auschwitz concentration camp.

Many people in my community are voicing their fear that civilization

is once again teetering on the brink of violent upheaval. They turn on

their TVs and see white supremacists marching in the streets. They hear

their neighbours openly blaming immigrants for their own feelings of

vulnerability. They watch those in positions of great power seeking to

undermine public confidence in democratic institutions, in the media, in

science, and they see it working.

It is unnerving how much of what is happening around the world today

resembles what we now know was taking root in Germany and Italy almost

100 years ago — the deliberate spread of misinformation, the systematic

degradation of political discourse, rhetoric that portrayed life as a

dog-eat-dog struggle in which one could only gain at the expense of

another and the fanning of the flames of regional and national

grievance, all creating a sense of crisis that encouraged citizens to

voluntarily hand over their freedoms to demagogues in exchange for the

promise of predictable order and safety.

Last week we remembered those who had to die because their leaders

didn’t see what was coming. Leaders today do not have that excuse. We

can see what’s coming. While we may feel small in the face of what is

happening on the world stage, we can at least agree to refrain from

stoking the narrative of rage, fear and mistrust.

Krow’s TRANSformation

FILM ON TRANSGENDER ISSUES

J. Thornthwaite: Yesterday I had the privilege to welcome some important guests to the

Legislature. After many years of hard work, Gina Hole Lazarowich, joined

by the subjects of her documentary, presented her film to members of the

House. Gina is a constituent, but she’s also a successful producer and

film-maker.

Her latest project, Krow’s TRANSformation , is premiering

tonight on OUTtv. It follows the three-year journey of a former teen

model into his true, authentic self. After six years as a globe-trotting

female fashion model, Krow embarked on the journey towards physically

becoming a man at the age of 18. Throughout the documentary, which has

received international acclaim, we not only witness Krow’s physical

changes; we also witness some of the heartbreaking interviews with his

friends and family to see how his transition impacted those close to

him.

I was honoured to participate in the film Krow’s

TRANSformation , an important documentary not only showcasing

Krow’s journey through transition but also the importance of empathy

towards others. Man, woman or however you identify, we are all human at

the end of the day.

[1:55 p.m.]

Today is Transgender Day of Remembrance, where we are encouraged to

pause and reflect on the many hurdles people in the transgender

community face as they attempt to lead their everyday lives with their

families, at their workplaces or in their communities.

I thank Gina, Krow, Kas Baker, Ashton Sciacallo, Nancy Van

Neste-Baker, Michael Baker and Lisa Jacobsen for joining us last night

to view the film. Hopefully, documentaries such as this can help reduce

stigma, make us understand and promote inclusivity and empathy for all

transgendered people and their families.

TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

M. Dean: Across the world over the past year, 300 trans and gender-diverse

people were murdered. Most were trans women of colour, their average age

just 31. They’re sisters, daughters, aunties and friends of ours and

people in our neighbourhoods. They had jobs and careers, ran businesses,

and many of them worked in the sex industry.

November 20, today, is a day when we honour the memory of those

innocent lives lost due to transphobia. Every day trans and

gender-diverse people are victims of horrifying hate violence, including

extortion, physical and sexual assaults and murder. This violence and

the discrimination against trans and gender-diverse people perpetuates

an ongoing cycle of oppression. It is made worse with other oppression

such as racism, sexism, xenophobia and anti–sex worker sentiment and

discrimination.

Every day, and especially on days like today, I stand firm with my

colleagues in our commitment to continue the fight to end gender-based

violence. We reaffirm our commitment for fighting for a better world,

where the acceptance of self-expression and gender identity isn’t up for

debate — a world with equal opportunities, safety and the freedom to be

who we are.

Today I was so proud to be joined by colleagues and transgender people

and allies and raise the transgender flag at the B.C. Legislature for

the first time in history, a moment that is long overdue. We stand with

trans people in B.C. and around the world and commit to a better society

— one that is safe and truly inclusive for all.

PROTECTION OF

THOMPSON RIVER

STEELHEAD

J. Tegart: I am born in the watershed of the Nicola River, along with thousands

of others of my species. Who am I? I hang around for a couple of years

to build strength and agility for my next phase of my life. What am I? I

leave the Nicola watershed, swim down to join the Thompson River in

Spences Bridge, join the Thompson down to the Fraser and go out to the

Pacific Ocean.

Have you guessed who I am yet? I’m not cute and cuddly like a polar

bear or a grizzly bear. I’m fierce and mighty. You don’t see pictures of

me on protest signs or post cards, but you should. I am an iconic

species in British Columbia, and my species is in trouble.

I am a mighty Thompson River steelhead, and I am here to tell you that

if something isn’t done soon, I won’t be around in the future. When I am

born, I’m surrounded by thousands of fish just like me. We make an

arduous journey to the Pacific Ocean, and when we return to our spawning

grounds, back up the Fraser into the Thompson and back to the Nicola

watershed, there are only 80 of us left.

We run the gauntlet through Vancouver Harbour into the Fraser River,

where we encounter gillnet fishing. After being caught once, I am hurt.

After the third and fourth time, I am exhausted, and I wonder if I can

make the journey home.

Into the Thompson I go, past fishermen who travel from all over the

world to catch and release me, into the Nicola and Coldwater watershed

to spawn and then start the journey again. I’m doing my part to sustain

my species, but I am in desperate need of assistance from all of

you.

I feel like no one cares. I feel like I’m forgotten. I feel caught in

political games. I am being managed into extinction.

[2:00 p.m.]

COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY

J. Rice: Tomorrow, November 21, is World Fisheries Day. I’d like to take a

moment to acknowledge not only the importance of the fishing sector to

my riding of North Coast but to say thanks for the important

contributions of the fishing sector to all of B.C.

Commercial fishing is one of the founding industries of this province.

Its significance can be seen painted on the ceilings of the B.C.

Legislature, and B.C. is actively working right now towards a

made-in-B.C. wild salmon strategy. The fishing sector is a cornerstone

in the economic and social fabric of B.C.’s coast.

Fishing is deeply rooted in our history and our culture. But fishing

communities are struggling, and fishermen nowadays are often portrayed

as the culprits in all the negative impacts felt by fish. I personally

feel they are given a bad rap, an unfair rap. There are many influences,

including fisheries mismanagement, poor policies, warming oceans and

habitat destruction that impact our global fisheries. The extraordinary

efforts that went into an emergency response to the Big Bar Slide this

summer are telling of the impacts of climate change.

Close to home, independent fish harvesters need protections to rebuild

the backbone of the rural middle class along our coast. Tens of millions

of dollars of licences and quotas granting access to Canada’s public

fishery have been snapped up by corporate interests. Speculators are

buying up fishing access to lease to fish processors and rent back to

fish harvesters for profit, taking income directly out of their pockets

and out of coastal communities.

Policies need to be put in place to ensure that fishing licences and

the benefits they provide are for local fishermen and for local fishing

communities, not for speculative investors, international shareholders

or seafood processors to stifle competition for our resources. The

economic viability of the next generation of fishermen and our coastal

communities depends on improving these policies.

Tonight MLAs have an opportunity to meet with fishermen from different

sectors from all over the B.C. coast to learn more about these

challenges and the awesome opportunities. They are serving up what I

understand is a seafood extravaganza, five-star, not to be missed. When

you go, don’t forget to thank a fisherman.

VICKIE SANGSTER

I. Paton: I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and a local icon, Vickie

Sangster, who, at age 62, passed away a few weeks ago after a

five-and-a-half-year-long battle with cancer. Vickie Sangster was a

tireless volunteer in Delta with a passion for giving. Everyone in Delta

knew that if you wanted to get something done, you gave it to

Vickie.

As a proud Rotarian, Vickie was awarded Rotarian of the Year, the Paul

Harris Fellow award and an honorary lifetime membership. As a Rotarian,

Vickie was involved in many community building projects across Delta.

Her greatest accomplishment in the community was championing the Rotary

water park and musical garden in Diefenbaker Park in Tsawwassen. Vicki

later became an adviser for the Ladner Rotary water park.

In addition to her work with Rotary, Vickie was a director with the

Delta Sports Hall of Fame and a team leader with the Butterflies of the

Delta Hospice Cottage. She also volunteered countless hours making soup

for Food on the Corner. In 2014, Vickie was honoured for her

extraordinary contributions to our community and awarded Delta’s Citizen

of the Year.

In the spring of 2014, Vickie received the devastating diagnosis.

While this terminal diagnosis did not define her, it did form the route

of her journey for the next five and a half years. With her family by

her side, Vickie valiantly fought the fight and became a medical miracle

in the process. During this time and without a single complaint, she

continued to live her best life and enjoyed many trips and amazing

moments with her family and friends. Her zest for life was a true

inspiration to everyone she encountered.

Two weeks ago a remembrance service was held for Vickie. It was truly

inspiring to see hundreds of people from all walks of life come to pay

tribute to Vickie. Her life has made an impact on so many. If anyone’s

list of accomplishments was half as long as hers, it would be said that

that person lived a full and impactful life.

Vickie is survived by her husband, Don, her three daughters — Sonya,

Bridget and Deanna — and her granddaughter, Autumn.

Vicki’s motto in life was: “You only live once,” YOLO. And what a life

she lived. She was a true icon in the community and a true inspiration

to all who knew her.

[2:05 p.m.]

Oral Questions

LABOUR DISPUTE IN TRANSIT SYSTEM

A. Wilkinson: Today marks the 20th day of job action in the Metro Vancouver transit

system. This job action has already affected 1.4 million rides per day,

close to one million people using the system to get to work, to get to

school, to get to their appointments.

It’s critically important to the people of Metro Vancouver. It’s

already been a source of frustration to the people who live in Metro

Vancouver, and we have seen absolutely no action whatsoever from the

government. The union announced that it now plans to conduct a

full-scale system shutdown next Wednesday through Friday. This will

bring Metro Vancouver basically to a standstill as the 7,000 people who

work at Vancouver General Hospital can’t get to work, for

instance.

This is critical, and sadly, we have seen no sign of any activity

whatsoever from the government benches. We have no sign of any activity

from the Premier, and the Minister of Labour is so totally invisible on

this file that no one even knows his name.

The obvious question that arises: if we’re trying to address the

critically important infrastructure in Metro Vancouver that keeps the

system running, that keeps our society functional, when is this Minister

of Labour going to actually do something rather than sit in his office

and smirk?

Hon. H. Bains: Yes, obviously, it is very difficult news for all those who use

transit on a daily basis on the Lower Mainland. No one wants disruption

of services that we all depend on. It hurts families, hurts workers.

That’s why we are urging both sides to get back to the bargaining

table.

I must make this clear. They are in no position to give any lessons to

anybody when it comes to collective bargaining. The only thing they know

about collective bargaining is how to tear up collective agreements that

were negotiated through collective bargaining. We’re not doing that.

It’s a matter between the employer….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister.

Hon. H. Bains: It’s a matter between the Coast Mountain Bus Co. and the union. They

have negotiated successfully numerous collective agreements without any

help from anybody. So that’s why I’m asking them to get back to the

table, and that’s where the solutions and the fair deal can be found. I

expect that they will be back at the bargaining table and negotiate a

collective agreement that they can both live with.

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

A. Wilkinson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour talks about taking lessons

in labour relations. There aren’t going to be any lessons at UBC,

Kwantlen, Douglas College, Emily Carr. They’ll all be shut down

Wednesday through Thursday.

He calls for patience. Well, there are different kinds of patients who

aren’t going to have any visitors. They’re not going to have any nurses.

There are going to be no LPNs to take care of them. There will be no lab

technicians to take their blood and measure it.

What does this minister think is going to happen when the transit

system shuts down entirely next Wednesday through Friday? He sits in his

office here in Victoria and takes his car to Surrey and says: “I guess

that’s tough. It’s because of the collective bargaining process.” What

are people supposed to do in a city of 2½ million people while this

minister sits on his duff and does no work at all?

Hon. H. Bains: As I said, we are looking for a speedy conclusion to the labour

disruptions in Metro Vancouver with a free and fair negotiated

agreement.

[2:10 p.m.]

The opposition would like you to believe that somehow they pretend to

care about the ridership, the people who ride transit. But they didn’t

care about the transit riders. When the mayors came to them for help,

they said: “Suck it up.” They didn’t care about the riders when the

expansion to south of the Fraser was being discussed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: They and the Premier of that time said: “Well, we’ll have a

referendum.” As a result, ten years have gone by, and we have nothing to

show for south of the Fraser, thanks to them. Certainly, they didn’t

care about the riders when they eliminated….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the Minister of Labour has the floor. Thank

you.

Hon. H. Bains: All they care about is how to take a political advantage over labour

disputes. We’re not doing that.

They didn’t care about the riders when they eliminated the disability

pass. We all remember that. Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: They know, if they ever look in the mirror…. If they ever talk to

anybody who has done any collective bargaining, they know that the best

collective agreement comes at the bargaining table. Negotiations take

place not in the media, not in this chamber. At the bargaining table. We

are urging both of them to get back to the bargaining table and get a

collective agreement.

J. Johal: The Metro Vancouver transit system looks completely different from 18

years ago, when the last strike took place under the previous NDP

government. Today there are 58 additional bus routes, 520 additional

buses and 1,400 additional bus operators, and annual ridership has

increased by 206 million boardings a year. It’s an essential

service.

Current contract talks could not be more stalled, and it’s time for

both sides to work towards a resolution. The strike has now dragged on

for three weeks. Why has the Minister of Labour failed to appoint a

mediator?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, I didn’t hear the question. Sorry.

J. Johal: Mr. Speaker, this is an essential service. The member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale has been missing in action on this issue. The

Minister of Labour has entered some sort of NDP witness protection

program. He has not been heard from by the people of

Vancouver.

I ask, once again….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

J. Johal: This strike has dragged on for three weeks. Why has the Minister of

Labour not appointed a mediator?

Hon. H. Bains: As I said, they’re not in a position to give lessons to anybody about

collective bargaining — none whatsoever. They have shown no respect to

the working people in this province, especially….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, I’m concerned, again, that we’re eating into time

which could be spent asking questions. Thank you.

Hon. H. Bains: When the Leader of the Opposition was going through his leadership

campaign, he said that the B.C. Liberals were sitting 30,000 feet up,

out of touch with reality. With their actions and what they’ve done in

the last two years, they haven’t come down an inch. And if they keep it

up, they’ll be sitting on that side of the House for a long, long

time.

You know what? The workers of this province are really happy they’re

in the position to ask questions, not to answer questions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

[2:15 p.m.]

J. Johal: The transit system exists today. It’s more essential to people’s lives

than ever before. People use transit to go to work, go to school. They

have no other choice when it comes to transportation options. Both sides

not negotiating holds the public hostage.

Over the last three weeks, the Premier and his Labour Minister have

shown zero leadership. So I’m going to ask the same question again, and

I hope he can answer that question on behalf of the people of British

Columbia and the residents of Vancouver. Why has the Labour Minister not

appointed a mediator?

Hon. H. Bains: I don’t know if the member has ever been involved in collective

bargaining. I don’t think so. If he has, he would know….

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Hon. H. Bains: If he had, then he wouldn’t be asking a stupid question like

this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please allow the minister to respond.

Hon. H. Bains: Their history on labour relations. You talk about 14 years of a fight

that they picked with the teachers — 14 years — and the Supreme Court of

Canada took only 20 minutes to say that what they did was illegal. The

International Labour Organization cited that government more than once —

that they were not complying with the international labour laws. That’s

what they did.

The best collective agreement is negotiated at the bargaining table.

That’s why I’m urging both sides to get back to the bargaining table and

hammer out a fair collective agreement.

LOGGING PRACTICES AND

PROTECTION OF WHITEBARK

PINE

S. Furstenau: The whitebark pine tree was listed as endangered under the federal

Species at Risk Act in 2012. In 2017, the federal government released a

proposed recovery strategy for the whitebark pine in Canada. Forty-two

percent of the global population of this species lives in B.C., but

since the species was listed as endangered, more than 19,000 cubic

metres of the trees have been logged.

In 2013, Lake Louise Ski Resort in Alberta logged a patch of trees

that included just a few dozen whitebark pine. The company was fined

$2.1 million for what the judge called reckless behaviour. But in B.C.,

no fines, no restrictions, no guidelines for companies to avoid logging

and endangered species, and 19,000 cubic metres logged.

My question is to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations and Rural Development. How, in 2019, is his government

allowing the continued logging of the whitebark pine despite its

endangered status?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I appreciate the question from the member. I believe she has two

aspects to that question: one around public lands and one around private

lands.

First of all, on public lands, our government is committed to

conserving B.C.’s diverse biology, and that includes the whitebark pine.

It’s a species that grows in upper subalpine elevations. It grows above

the tree line. It has limited commercial value, and provincial practices

specify the species is not to be logged.

[2:20 p.m.]

We are working with the federal government on the implementation of a

recovery plan, including a rust-resistance screening program. The major

threat to whitebark pine is blister rust. So we’re planting seedlings

that are resistant to that. We’re working with the Conservation Data

Centre on pine-mapping technology as well.

However, her question also brought up concerns, I believe, around

logging on private managed forest lands. That act has not been reviewed

since it was first established in 2003. We heard concerns about

activities on private managed forest lands and that program, so we

initiated a review. That review was launched. It’s now complete. We had

27 in-person sessions, received over 1,200 submissions, and we’ll be

releasing a what-we-heard report…. It was released earlier this

month.

We’ll be engaging with local governments and First Nations to get more

feedback on that report and implementing our final report and

recommendations from that in the new year. That has to do, again, with

the whitebark pine.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

PROTECTION OF

WILDLIFE SPECIES AT

RISK

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for a thorough answer to things I didn’t

quite ask.

I did note the report. I did review it recently, and one of the things

that stood out was the predominance amongst stakeholders, citizens,

interest groups, First Nations, local governments about the lack of

conservation and protection of ecosystems on private managed forest

lands.

British Columbia invests less in the protection of wildlife per person

or per hectare than any other state or province in the Pacific

Northwest. The discrepancy is startling, with Washington state, for

example, spending 23 times more per square kilometre to protect

wildlife.

Earlier this year the B.C. Wildlife Federation released a report

noting the following. “While the human population, resource extraction

and threats to habitat and wildlife have increased significantly, the

funding and capacity to support natural resource management have

declined. This is the opposite of other jurisdictions and the opposite

of what British Columbians expect.”

I note the very powerful statement given by the member for

Fraser-Nicola about the decline of steelhead as an example of what we

are seeing right now in respect to endangered species around this

province.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy. Without provincial legislation dedicated to protecting species

at risk, how does he intend to mitigate the loss of wildlife in our

province, particularly at a time when climate change has already begun

to alter entire ecosystems?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

One of the reasons that species-at-risk legislation is included in my

mandate letter — and the reason that I have assured the member and the

public in the past that we are working on it and that we intend to bring

it in, in this mandate — is what we inherited after 16 years of failed

promises from the former government. The failure by the former

government to take any meaningful action has meant that it has become

harder to protect B.C.’s ecosystems and species, and we’ve created

instability for Indigenous communities and industry.

We have, for the last two years, been consulting broadly with

communities, with Indigenous nations — over 120 Indi­genous nations and

22 regional sessions — to work together with communities, industries,

stakeholders, Indigenous people and environmental scientists to find a

path forward to protect B.C.’s species at risk in a way that works for

everyone. We take that seriously. We’re continuing to work on that. We

have and will continue to take action in the meantime as we try to get

the legislation right.

We did, for instance, sign an agreement with Canada and the Syilx

Okanagan Nation to establish a national park in the South

Okanagan–Similkameen. This is a region that is home to 11 percent of

Canada’s species at risk. I look forward to working with the federal

government, with the nations and with British Columbians to bring these

kinds of protections to this irreplaceable region and others throughout

British Columbia.

[2:25 p.m.]

LABOUR DISPUTE IN TRANSIT SYSTEM

M. de Jong: I’ve sat in this chamber with former Social Credit labour ministers. I

have sat here and listened and debated with a number of NDP labour

ministers. I have, obviously, worked with labour ministers that were

B.C. Liberals. I was one of them. I have never, ever heard a labour

minister of any political stripe dismiss the suggestion of the

appointment of a mediator as being stupid — ever.

Would the minister stand in the chamber and explain to British

Columbians, who are going to be at their wit’s end because of a labour

dispute, how it is he feels it’s appropriate to characterize the

appointment of a mediator, who might help bring settlement to that

dispute, as being stupid?

Hon. H. Bains: I said this before. No one likes to see disruptions of services that

we all depend on. It hurts families. It hurts workers. There are so many

people in the Lower Mainland who depend on transit to go to work or

comply with their responsibilities. That’s why we’re asking both sides

to get back to the table, because that’s where the best negotiated

agreement will come from.

We will stand for a fair and free collective bargaining process, and

that’s what I’m encouraging both parties to use and utilize. They’re

both mature when it comes to collective bargaining. Both have a history

of collective bargaining and concluding collective agreements numerous

times without any outside help. That’s where the best collective

agreement will come from — at the bargaining table, not in this chamber,

not in the media.

That’s why I think the opposition should join with us and encourage

both sides to get back to the bargaining table, because that’s where the

negotiated agreement will come from.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: The minister operates under the ambit of legislation that provides him

with a set of tools. They are a limited set of tools by which he can

provide assistance and guidance and encourage the resolution of disputes

that are going to impact and have already impacted hundreds of thousands

of people.

He has just dismissed as stupid the use of one of the basic tools that

governments and labour ministers have utilized for decades. He has

dismissed it as a stupid idea. He sits here, and he says to the

opposition and others: “Join with us.” When a suggestion is made to him,

when a legitimate question is put to him, on behalf of the British

Columbians that are going to be inconvenienced — “Will he appoint a

mediator?” — he says to the questioner: “You’re being

stupid.”

Why should British Columbians have any confidence in a labour minister

who has such a poor grip on the tools that are available to him to try

to resolve a labour dispute in British Columbia? And will he apologize

for using that kind of language?

Hon. H. Bains: Like I said, we need no lessons from that side of the House when it

comes to collective bargaining. No suggestions.

I will remind the House. It was that side, when they were on this side

of the House, who were actually engaged in provoking strikes. They were

engaged in provoking strikes by tearing up collective agreements,

throwing thousands of workers on the street — tearing up a collective

agreement that was legally negotiated for decades by these workers. So

they are not in a very good position to suggest anything when it comes

to collective bargaining.

[2:30 p.m.]

We are serious, and we are going to respect the free and fair

collective bargaining process. We are allowing both parties to get back

to the table. We encourage them so that they can have a collective

agreement and so that the people who are dependent on the transit are

not inconvenienced.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND ADVICE TO

GOVERNMENT

S. Bond: Yesterday we learned about a confidential briefing that was provided

to the government earlier this year regarding the proposed union

benefits agreements. Here’s what the briefing note said about the

agreements: “High risk and incompatible with fixed-price and

fixed-schedule contracts.”

Can the minister stand up today and tell British Columbians

specifically what she and the government were told about the possible

consequences of moving forward with a proposal to look at union benefits

agreements?

Hon. C. Trevena: We have the utmost confidence in our community benefits agreements.

That’s why we’re proceeding with them on projects in the transportation

sector, and we’ll be looking at them for other infrastructure projects.

We believe that when we build B.C., when we build the infrastructure of

B.C., we need to invest in the people of B.C.

This is something that the opposition…. The opposition, in 16 years of

government, never realized that you have to invest in people. They have

left us with a huge skills shortage, a huge skills gap that we are

addressing through community benefits agreements. We’re going to be

making sure that people get trained and ensure that they get to be able

to complete their red seal apprenticeships.

We’re very comfortable with moving ahead with community benefits

agreements. We’ve been very clear with people about it, and we will

continue to proceed with our community benefits agreements for the best

outcome for everyone in British Columbia.

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

S. Bond: Well, I think it’s up to British Columbians to decide about whether or

not the union benefits agreements are actually a good thing. What’s

critical to that is, actually, this minister standing up and answering a

straight-up, simple question.

We asked the minister: what advice did this minister, this government

and this Premier receive about potential consequences? Let me help her

out. Here’s what the briefing note said. According to the briefing note,

the government was warned that if the Premier insisted on a backroom

deal, it would result in fewer bidders and higher costs. I think British

Columbians deserve to know that this government got advice that the cost

of those projects would go up. There would be higher risks related to

scheduling and completion dates.

Can the minister for once, just once, stand up in this Legislature and

tell British Columbians: did she receive that advice? Did she, the

Premier and the government decide to move on anyway, knowing that the

ultimate payer of the extra cost would be the taxpayers of British

Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: I find it very, very difficult to take that this opposition tries to

preach to us, as government, on the cost overruns and the potential

risks of infrastructure projects, when their history — their history —

is one of overruns.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: May I just remind the House that when they were government, we saw

overruns of up to 82 percent — 82 percent. We are very confident that

the community benefits agreements are going to be serving the people of

British Columbia very well. We have seen the outcome.

We’ve seen the opposition, when they were in government, as well as

having massive cost overruns on infrastructure projects, use the same

model. They used the same model on, if I might go through them, the

Brilliant dam, Revelstoke unit 5…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: …Waneta dam expansion. In 2015, Mica unit 15, Mica unit No. 6 and the

John Hart generating station.

[2:35 p.m.]

This is a system that has been used for many, many years. We are very

happy with that system, and we’ll be continuing to use it.

J. Thornthwaite: Well, from that answer, it appears that perhaps the minister has not

even seen the briefing note. Let me remind the minister what this

briefing note said about her community benefits agreements, which are

really union benefits. The community benefits agreements have risks

staying on time and on budget and risk cost overruns, because all of

these union rules are more expensive. What that means is that…. The

Premier’s friends-and-insiders deal means workers are denied

opportunities, B.C. contractors lose work, taxpayers pay more, and the

public gets less.

Now, apparently, this minister is denying that this briefing note

exists. I quote again: “High risk, fewer bidders and higher

costs.”

Will this minister tell us whether or not she’s seen this briefing

note, and if she has, will she please table it for the House?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the Government House Leader has the floor. Thank

you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ve listened with interest to the questions from the opposition, and

what’s been really interesting is that they go: “Have you heard? Have

you heard?” Well, we heard loud and clear from families and parents

across this province who want more opportunities for their kids than

they ever saw when that side of the House was in power.

We heard from parents who wanted their daughters to be able to have

skilled apprenticeship training. That’s what community benefits are

about. We heard from First Nations who want to see their kids have the

opportunity that other families have — that they can get skilled trades.

That’s what’s happening under community benefits agreements.

They want to know that when public money is being spent, it benefits

British Columbians first, not some vested interests. It provides

opportunities for communities large and small, families right across

this province. That’s how the dams in this province, under W.A.C.

Bennett, were built. That’s what we’re doing to build opportunity for

the future of young people in the province of B.C.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I

have the honour of tabling before the Legislative Assembly the 2018-19

annual report on the operations of the gaming policy and enforcement branch.

The annual report has been submitted to me by the general manager of the

gaming policy and enforcement branch, and I’m tabling this report before the

Legislative Assembly as required under

section 29 of the Gaming Control

Act.

Petitions

Hon. C. Trevena: I

have a petition with 2,528 signatures from Citizens for Quality Health Care

about lab services in the north Island.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I

seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Donaldson: I

see, in the gallery, that a friend of mine has joined us — Bill McBain. I

owe a lot to Bill. He was my campaign manager. He’s batting a thousand. In

2009, 2013 and 2017, he managed a winning campaign for me in Stikine. Would

the House please welcome Bill McBain.

Petitions

T. Stone: I

have the pleasure of presenting a petition with 282 signatures from the

people of Kamloops who support a series of changes to the Mineral Tenure Act

in regulations.

[2:40 p.m.]

Personal Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS

MADE IN THE

HOUSE

Hon. H. Bains: During question period, I used language that was not parliamentary. I

withdraw my remarks.

Tabling Answers

Hon. C. Trevena tabled the answer to question 2 on the order paper. [See

Votes and Proceedings .]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In

this chamber, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 37, Financial

Institutions Amendment Act. In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued

committee debate on Bill 41, UNDRIP, the United Nations declaration

act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 37 — FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 37; J. Isaacs

in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

Sections 45 to 48 inclusive approved.

section 49.

S. Bond: Good afternoon to the minister and her staff. Looking forward to

continuing the discussion on the bill. We worked our way through

yesterday, where we managed to agree on an amendment, which was a

good-news story, and we’re working our way toward another one, I

believe.

Section 49 is a

section that actually talks about investigatory

powers. I’m wondering if the minister can clarify whether or not this is

an expansion of investigatory powers or whether it’s a clarification of

those powers.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member, and welcome back to committee stage again.

Just for those who are watching, a reminder that I have Tara Richards

here, my assistant deputy minister; Kari Toovey, who is the director of

financial and corporate sector policy branch; and Sally Reid, who is a

senior policy advisor for that branch.

The member asked about the investigatory powers. These are expanded

investigatory powers. The act has not been updated. These powers have

not been updated since 1996. So it was updating them to be able to be

more consistent with existing acts — for example, the Cannabis Control

Act and the land title transparency act. The investigatory powers are

consistent with those acts.

S. Bond: Thank you for that. So perhaps the minister could, then, just give us

an idea of how…. While this

section is bringing into alignment the

powers that will be in place, are there things…?

Well, maybe we’ll take it from this perspective. Let’s take credit

unions, for example. What kinds of investigations would require these

powers? Are there things that are new to the credit union sector that

investigations would be approached in a different way? I’m assuming that

during the discussion around the bill and the feedback process, this

kind of discussion would have taken place. So maybe just a sense of when

these powers would be necessary and if there’s anything new that credit

unions would be unaware of.

Hon. C. James: Credit unions are aware because this has been part of the consultation

process, back and forth. So they are aware, obviously, of the section.

Why would you need, or what kinds of actions would precipitate, an

investigatory power? It would really be anything that wouldn’t be in

compliance with the act.

Market conduct, for example — a requirement around market conduct.

Perhaps somebody is not compliant. There could be records, for example,

that someone was keeping at home that would require someone to be able

to access those records. Preventing obstruction. Don’t destroy documents

that might be needed for an investigation. It’s really meant to fill in

the gaps for any kind of investigation that would have to do with

compliance with this act.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. When we’re talking about things like…? The

sections would include “Powers of entry,” “Warrant to enter residence”

and “Powers on inspection.” The list goes on.

[2:50 p.m.]

Would it be fair to say…? Could the minister tell us whether or not

the language is the same or similar to the other acts that she

referenced? Is it really taking the same kinds of powers that are

expressed in other acts and simply transplanting them into this

one?

Hon. C. James: The intent is similar, and some of the language is similar. I wouldn’t

say it’s identical, because there are obviously pieces that fit with

credit unions and insurance companies in this act. Certainly, the intent

is similar. It’s meant to mirror what’s in other acts and to update — as

I said, modernize. Nothing has changed since 1996, when the act was put

in place, when it comes to these pieces, so it’s updating and mirroring

what’s in other acts.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. In the minister’s initial comments, she

mentioned….

My colleague and I have talked a lot about the need to modernize and

update the language, and there’s certainly no disagreement there. We

just want to ensure that this isn’t an expansion of those powers. So

while the language may be varied to fit the sector better and to fit the

act more accurately, I think what the minister has said to us, and I

just want to confirm, is that this doesn’t place these financial

institutions in a more rigorous or onerous position when it comes to

investigations. Could the minister just confirm that for us?

Hon. C. James: Yes, I think that’s a good way of putting it. These aren’t special

powers to go after credit unions or go after insurance companies. These

are investigatory powers that are used in modern acts that provide

opportunities if someone isn’t in compliance and an investigation needs

to occur. It gives the opportunity for those approaches to be

utilized.

Sections 49 and 50 approved.

section 51.

Hon. C. James: I’ll move an amendment to

section 51 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

SECTION 51, in the proposed

section 218 (1), by

deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined

text as shown:

(1) Despite any provision, other

than

section 44 (1) (b), (2), (2.1) and (3) of the

Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act , an An

individual or entity that creates, compiles or receives information or

records under this Act or under an agreement referred to in

section 219

or 219.01 of this Act must not, subject to subsections (2) and (3) of

this section, disclose the information and records.]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. James: Just to speak to the amendment because I think this is an interesting

process. I think it’s helpful to talk a little bit about why the

section

was in the act and why the amendment is coming forward.

This is a

section that speaks about collecting information from

financial institutions — insurance, credit unions. It’s not unique to

one or the other. The regulator will collect information of all kinds

for a variety of purposes, for their job as regulator, to regulate

financial institutions.

There has been concern raised, and there are concerns raised, by the

organizations that are regulated under this act — credit unions,

insurance companies — about sensitive information and whether there was

protection for sensitive information, because their information, when it

goes to the regulator, is accessible through FOI. There is protection in

place. It’s not that there’s no protection.

There is protection around utilizing the information for the purpose

that it’s collected — for the regulator to use that information for the

purpose it’s collected — but the freedom of information does provide an

opportunity for people to be able to apply and then access it, if it’s

there. So we certainly, in developing this act, felt that it was

reasonable to be able to protect that information, to put in place an

override of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a

revision — that’s what’s in the original act that we brought forward —

to be able to protect that sensitive information.

[2:55 p.m.]

Alberta and Saskatchewan both have overrides and protect the

information, so it wasn’t unusual for that to occur. There were

concerns, however, when the legislation was finished. And we’re working,

as we do with each piece of legislation, as the member would know, with

the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. There were

concerns that it was too broad. The Privacy Commissioner felt that the

override could set an undesirable precedent and that overrides should

only be in very, very limited usage.

Because of that, because there was a disagreement with the officer,

we’ve accepted the Privacy Commissioner’s advice. That’s what the

amendment does that’s coming forward. It removes the override. But I

think it’s important to note that we still believe that the work needs

to occur to balance the need for information for the regulator and

protection of sensitive information that comes forward. We think that is

the job — to provide that balance. We felt the override provided that

balance. The Privacy Commissioner did not. So that’s a piece that we are

continuing to work with the Privacy Commissioner on.

We’re bringing forward the amendment to remove the override, but that

doesn’t stop the work. In fact, the work will continue. We have received

information from the regulator with concerns. We are certainly

collecting that information and continuing to work with the Privacy

Commissioner around if there is another way of being able to protect

that information that meets the Privacy Commissioner’s requirements

around the act and would meet the privacy issues for credit

unions,

I think it’s important to note that the information that they provide

now will continue to be protected under the existing rules that are in

place — the rules that say it can only be used for certain purposes. But

it is important, again, to note that it can be overridden through the

Freedom of Information Act. We continue to be concerned about that, and

we’re going to continue to work with the Privacy Commissioner to see

what solution can be found that meets both needs.

S. Bond: I know that my colleague and I particularly appreciate that

explanation. It is definitely a precarious balance. Any time you’re

dealing with information that is personal and proprietary — all of those

kinds of things — there is a need to find balance. I think we also need

to be fair in this chamber. You know, oppositions typically take

governments to task when the Office of the Privacy Commissioner makes a

recommendation and government ignores it. We would be having a

conversation of a different sort.

Here we now see where the minister has listened to the concerns of the

Privacy Commissioner. On the other hand, that then raises concerns on

the part of the financial institutions — in particular, credit unions. I

think that’s to be expected because, as the minister herself pointed

out, she also remains concerned about the potential release of that

sensitive information.

As we consider the amendment, first of all, I think that, again…. I’m

a strong believer in that’s how good legislation is developed. There’s

some give-and-take, and you try to figure out how to get the best public

policy positions. So I think removing the override, while causing

concern, also reflects an important need to listen to a statutory

officer who says: “This is pretty important.” I think we’re trying to

find a balance here.

What this bill does, in this section…. It does authorize disclosure in

certain circumstances. I guess I would like the minister to…. She has

alluded to it. But I think to bring some comfort to…. Probably the

Privacy Commissioner is feeling better today. I would say the pendulum

has now swung where credit unions, in particular, are feeling concerned.

What advice or response could the minister provide to those credit

unions about the concerns that they have?

First of all, without an exception to the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act, private information of an individual or a

business could potentially be released. I think we both agree on that.

Will there be further dialogue also with the credit unions and the

Privacy Commissioner, ongoing dialogue, to say: “Look, we understand the

need to have a narrow scope when you’re talking about a complete

override, but on the other hand, I think there’s a legitimate concern

about the release of sensitive information.”

Can the minister just give us a sense of how she sees the next steps

taking place when there now is concern on the other side of the

equation?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the most important piece in all of this is that the

protections are in place under the act. Protections are in place about

protecting the privacy and the information that comes. Proprietary

interest is part of that.

That does, again, give some comfort that the private business

information is protected, which is a legitimate concern that is coming

forward. Someone would have to go through an appeal of that protection,

so there is another step in there as well. So those steps are in

place.

I think, understandably, the credit union or insurance sectors feel

that still leaves them at risk if someone did appeal and if the Privacy

Commissioner ruled in favour. That is possible. That certainly is

possible through the act.

The protections are in place, and we are continuing our discussions.

We have, obviously, had discussions with credit unions and insurance

companies. We’ll be bringing that information to the Privacy

Commissioner. I’m sure they’ll be making their voices heard as well.

We’ll be continuing the work and to look at: is there another amendment

or is there another way of putting protections in place for this sector

so that they feel comfortable?

I think the work is ongoing, the voices are continuing to be heard,

and we’re working closely with the Privacy Commissioner.

S. Bond: In order to provide some context and maybe…. You know, this is for

insurance companies and credit unions alike. I mean, I think that

circumstance…. If we look at the overarching responsibility of the

Office of the Privacy Commissioner, whenever a review is done, there is

the option for the Privacy Commissioner, not just in this sector but in

other areas, to do exactly this.

Could the minister confirm that this actually aligns with the

responsibility of the Privacy Commissioner to balance the need for

transparency and…. Hence the concern with the override, which I think

was a legitimate concern — that it would simply be a blanket exemption.

I think there was a legitimate concern there. In fact, we would have

been having a different line of questioning had the minister not decided

to provide an amendment.

I think, perhaps, one of the messages we would hope to send together

is that this is not an unusual practice. This is how the Privacy

Commissioner functions, in terms of making a decision to review the

information very carefully and then, after doing that consideration,

having a look at it, very thoughtfully deciding if there is going to be

a release of information.

To put it in context, it happens elsewhere, not just in this act.

Could the minister confirm that?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes. This is a usual process. It is up to the Privacy Commissioner.

It’s part of the mandate of that office and the officer who is in there,

the Privacy Commissioner, to go through this process and, from their

perspective, be able to look at that balance of protection of privacy

and public access to information. That’s exactly the role and the

job.

I think, as the member has pointed out, it’s also the job of the

elected officials, based on the information that’s out there, to put

their best foot forward when it comes to balance as well. I think that

all of us in this House try and find that same balance between the

privacy of personal privacy and business privacy, compared to access to

information, and then if there’s a disagreement, to work through

that.

I hope, as the member will see, that’s what the amendment is put

forward for — to provide the opportunity to have that worked through, to

be able to find that right balance that’s going to meet the needs of

both parties. We’re not always going to agree. This has come forward

with other acts with previous governments, with the current government.

I think that’ll continue to happen, but that’s the push-and-pull that is

a healthy part, from my perspective, of having an office of privacy in

place.

S. Bond: And certainly, as I mentioned earlier, I would not and don’t intend to

endorse the minister not responding to a concern at the Office of the

Privacy Commissioner. It’s a pretty important expectation. In fact, we,

as the legislators on the opposition bench…. One of our questions would

be: “Have you talked to the Privacy Commissioner and what is the

perspective there?” So I think that it was a reasonable reaction to the

Privacy Commissioner’s concerns.

Perhaps the minister can just walk through this with us, because we

did receive a couple of specific concerns about what the amendment might

make more complicated. In particular, I’m speaking about the Credit

Union Association. There was a concern expressed that FOIPPA might

discourage information-sharing between the regulator and the newly

created risk management committees.

That’s in

section 22 of the legislation’s amendment to

section 135.1

of the FIA — extraprovincial credit unions and other regulatory bodies.

So a sense of: is it going to cause reluctance or concern or discourage

information-sharing in general? I’m wondering if the minister could just

comment on that.

Hon. C. James: The member has identified exactly why we believe the work needs to

continue. We believe that that’s possible, that in fact people will be

reluctant to share information if they believe that it could be

overturned by the privacy act and the Privacy Commissioner and their

information could be released.

I think that it is a genuine concern. It’s exactly the reason that we

feel that the work has to continue. If the override was too broad, then

let’s look at how we can narrow that down, but how we can also provide

that protection. It’s critical to be able to have that information. It’s

critical for the regulator to be able to have that information. The

regulator has written to us expressing that concern. So that’s exactly

the reason we believe that the work needs to continue.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I would certainly concur. When we’re

looking at trying to be more transparent and look at the management of

that information, the last thing that we want to do is have this appear

to be a barrier where people simply don’t share information anymore. I

think that is something that we need to think about.

I think that the other thing…. I think that the ongoing work is very

important. I have one other area I want to canvass ever so briefly, but

I want to just check and see. It’s been a while since I’ve had to deal

directly with the Privacy Commissioner’s office, though I remember that

work well.

Is it within the mandate of the Privacy Commissioner, for example, to

now, having seen the minister and the government respond by saying,

“Okay, we understand that the override is too broad…”? Is there a

willingness to have the conversations that are necessary to provide

certainty to the sector as well?

[3:10 p.m.]

Is there a sense that the office will participate in that ongoing work

that says: “We understand this is very sensitive information”? People

and companies want that protected. We want transparency, but we also

want to protect that personal information and information that might

impact credit unions and insurance companies.

Is there a willingness, and is there space within the mandate of the

Privacy Commissioner’s office, to actually have those discussions, to

look at…? There are some concerns out there. What can we do to help to

alleviate those concerns?

Hon. C. James: We’re having all those discussions with the Office of the Privacy

Commissioner. I think it’s important to note, back to the role of the

office, that the role of the office is always to, on each individual

case, make those decisions. I don’t think we’d get a blanket letter, for

example, saying, “This is privacy information, and we’re protecting it,”

because it would take away the role of the Privacy Commissioner to make

those judgment calls around each appeal that came forward.

I don’t want to leave the impression that that would be the kind of

direction that I believe would be possible, because I don’t think it

would be. I think that would take away from that role. But I think the

opportunity to have a conversation about: where is the balance from the

Privacy Commissioner? Where does it tip, and where do we believe that it

would be there?

We certainly are having those good conversations and bringing the

perspectives forward of not only the credit unions and the insurance but

also the regulator and the reason the regulator believes this is

important and why the information is important to gather. This isn’t

simply gathering information for the sake of information. There are some

very valid reasons, when it comes to regulation, to be able to have this

information. So presenting all of that information, as well, during

these discussions.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I think that’s a pretty pragmatic response.

I don’t think we could guarantee those things. I would concur that the

dialogue and the individual circumstances do matter.

The other relationship — and relationships matter in this work — and

the other area where I know there’s been expressed concern is that the

amendment…. Without the sort of exception to FOIPPA, there could be

additional strain between, say, for example, credit unions and the

regulator, because information could actually be released without an

exemption, without an exception. So I think that’s another important

dynamic that we need to pay attention to.

As this work progresses…. Again, we recognize the delicate situation

here. We know that it is important when the Office of the Privacy

Commissioner is concerned about the scope being too broad. There is

going to be a reaction to that as well.

Will the minister commit today to continuing her engagement, which has

been significant, with insurance companies and credit unions to make

sure that there’s a higher degree of comfort, as best she can? I mean,

ultimately, she’s not the Privacy Commissioner. But there is an

understanding of the anxiety that’s been created by now moving away…. We

had an anxious Privacy Commissioner. Now we’ve got an anxious sector,

and we have to find our way sort of up the middle there.

I’m certain I know what the answer will be. But I think it’s important

today for credit unions and insurance companies to know that the

minister understands their concern and, certainly, will engage with them

as the next steps related to this

section unfold.

Hon. C. James: Yes, certainly. I have regular meetings with each of those sectors,

certainly with the credit unions. In fact, I know we’ve got one booked

for January. I know it’s gone on the calendar already. So there would be

a very short time period between the legislation and the opportunity to

be able to have those discussions and ensure that their voices are being

raised.

Amendment approved.

Section 51 as amended approved.

Sections 52 to 56 inclusive approved.

section 57.

[3:15 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: This

section allows for council members to be paid salaries and

expense reimbursements. Can the minister explain to us what that

structure will look like or what the intent is there, why it’s being

changed?

Hon. C. James: This is simply an update. Members right now are being remunerated, but

nothing has changed since 1990. So this will simply mean that they will

follow the rules that are laid out by Treasury Board for agencies,

boards and commissions.

Sections 57 to 59 inclusive approved.

section 60.

S. Cadieux: This

section establishes the rule-making powers for the Insurance

Council specific to restricted insurance agents. We talked briefly about

those yesterday in an earlier section. Just for more clarity, could the

minister explain what sort of insurance is contemplated under this

section and what is not?

Hon. C. James: The specifics are still to be determined, but the kind of insurance

you’re looking at under this

section would be, as we’ve talked about

previously, credit insurance, travel insurance, warranty

insurance.

I think we left our discussion yesterday saying that car insurance

through ICBC was separate and apart from this act, and a question around

whether private car insurance would also be separate and apart from this

act. It is.

I wanted to clarify that from a question that came up

yesterday.

S. Cadieux: With respect, then, to warranties, is there a lower threshold to where

this applies or doesn’t, or an upper threshold at which time this does

apply? The reason I ask — obviously, curious. When you buy a new iPad at

London Drugs or Best Buy, you’re offered insurance protection, extended

warranty on that product, not from the company but from the store. Could

this potentially reach into that level? Or is there a set threshold at

which this applies?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: As we’ve talked about previously, this really is looking at larger

products. In fact, some of the other jurisdictions, when they’ve

expanded and looked at including these kinds of products, have actually

put a threshold in place.

That will be part of the discussion as the specifics are worked on —

whether we want to go with that model and put a threshold. We’re not

looking at the small warranty on a very small appliance or something, as

the member well points out, at a drugstore or a place where you buy

something. We’re looking at larger products. But that may be a route to

go — maybe the threshold, as other jurisdictions have done.

S. Cadieux: I think that the reason I’m questioning this is because, of course,

we’re putting in place the option to create rules outside of government

with an agency that has got authority once this act has passed. So the

question, then, is: how do we know they’re not going to reach beyond

where they should?

When I look at threshold…. You buy travel insurance for one day from a

financial institution or travel agent, perhaps, if this is allowed. Or

you could pay that same amount of money for an appliance or when you buy

an iPad, for example. There’s a question here: when does it apply? When

does it not? Who’s going to be affected?

All of a sudden, are all of the sales people at London Drugs going to

be told: “Well, now there’s a big training requirement for you in order

to sell this insurance, because, well, if we’re going to require it on a

threshold basis for travel insurance, we’re now going to extend it to

you”? Is there a process by which there will be reach-out to potential

organizations affected well in advance of a decision that something

needs to be looked at? How will that come about? Who’s going to decide,

at what point, that something needs to be brought into this

section?

Hon. C. James: The framework will be set out in regulations. That goes through

cabinet. There’s a check and balance there.

I think that travel insurance is a really good example of the

magnitude of, perhaps, the cost — not necessarily the cost of buying

travel insurance for one day but the cost of someone who could have a

catastrophic something happen on that one day, which could be a very

large insurance payout.

That’s really what we’re talking about when we’re talking about

magnitude. It may not be the cost. You may be out the $250 on an

appliance you bought, but the cost of a huge, catastrophic health care

accident, for example, could have a huge payout. So it may not be the

cost of the insurance itself. It may be the cost and the risk of the

payout that might be there. That would be set out.

Certainly, rules, if rules are made…. This talks about the

regulations, setting out the regulations, but, again, if it’s

rule-making, as we talked about before, it has to go out for

consultation. That is required. It has to come for the minister’s

approval. So there are lots of checks and balances that are built in

there that are going to be critical to developing these new regulations

and the new structure.

[3:25 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: With respect to this and/or — I guess, theoretically — other pieces,

can we expect any sort of standardization when it comes to insurance

wording? Is that something that we’ll be looking to regulate or look

at?

Again, obviously, here we are talking then about the big pieces, those

things that have potential real impact on an individual and on a company

should something go wrong — travel, large purchases. We also know that

this is an area where most citizens have a great deal of challenge

understanding what they’re buying and what they’re not. I would assume

that the standardization of wording is somewhat bigger than us, given

that the insurance companies are often not located here.

Could the minister suggest what she envisions this

section to look

at?

Hon. C. James: I think this is exactly as we talk about consumer protection or

consumer education — precisely the reason that we’re looking at actually

including some of these products. Currently they’re exempt from the

licensing, so therefore, there isn’t any kind of requirement or

discussion about standardization. This gives the opportunity to have

that conversation and to be able to look at standardization.

We certainly expect in the insurance industry, because they go across

provincial borders, that there will be a discussion and, in fact,

probably some standardization. This provides that opportunity that isn’t

there if they aren’t licensed.

Sections 60 to 77 inclusive approved.

section 78.

S. Cadieux: Can the minister confirm that the intent of this

section is to prevent

banks from receiving insurance on their deposits with credit

unions?

Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s correct.

S. Cadieux: Again, just for clarity. So this ultimately, then, ensures there’s no

doubling up of the deposit insurance guarantees between financial

institutions, in a sense?

Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s correct.

Section 78 approved.

section 79.

S. Bond: This

section talks about regulatory powers and the Ombudsperson. In

this section, there are regulations that will compel membership in a

complaint resolution organization. That’s contemplated in subsection

(a). Can the minister confirm if this would be an Ombudsperson

organization and whether or not the process itself would contemplate a

two- or a three-step process?

[3:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. James: The details, the specifics will be determined in regulations. That’s

still a discussion, and I think that’s an important piece, actually.

This is an example of where it’s critical that the sector be part of

these discussions and part of the determination that is made. So those

will be laid out in regulation.

This

section impacts the credit unions because the insurance sector

already has two ombudspersons. They have a choice of determining which

organization they want to be under already, so no decision has been made

right now. That’s a discussion, as I said, still to come.

There is a banking ombudsperson, and that’s what other provinces have

done. In Alberta, for example, the credit unions use the existing

banking ombudsperson. It’s cost-effective, the structure is in place,

and it’s experienced. That may be the same route that the credit unions

wish to go here in British Columbia, but again, that’s a conversation

that is critical to be had. No decision at this point has been

made.

Then the member asked about one-step or two-step. If the member is

asking how things get to the ombudsperson, which I think is important,

they will be required to take their concerns to the existing structure

first. Then the ombudsperson would make a determination around whether

those steps have been taken — and whether they should be sent back to

the local organization that they are raising the concern about — before

they go through the ombudsperson step. I think the usual process that

the member would be familiar with is the process, likely, that will be

put in place.

S. Bond: The minister may have anticipated my next set of questions, then. If

you look at the Saskatchewan model, it does have a three-step approach.

It very much reflects, I think, what the minister was just saying — that

the credit union must address the complaint internally first. They work

on it first; elevate the concern to the central institution. I was

thinking about our time as school trustees and how we used to start with

the teacher and work at those…. The minister and I used to advise our

parents to start locally and move up.

In Saskatchewan, the three-step process is: start internally, elevate

to the central institution, and then elevate to the OBSI. Does the

minister contemplate a similar framework to that approach?

Hon. C. James: That’s really part of the discussion that needs to occur with the

credit unions, but I think that’s a usual kind of step to ensure that it

really is a legitimate concern and complaint and that it’s been tried to

be dealt with at the local level. That’s obviously the best solution,

rather than elevating things up. Yes, that’s exactly the kind of process

that is contemplated.

[3:35 p.m.]

S. Bond: Subsection 79(

g) talks about electronic insurance, basically. It talks

about an electronic agent when you look at sub (

g) and then (e.3), and

then below that.

When it comes to electronic insurance, can the minister give us any

sense of the details or the regulatory approach that she envisions

there? What kinds of requirements will be made? I mean, there are some

very clear things in terms of documents and use and storage of

information for people who use an electronic agent but perhaps just a

bit of a broader discussion of the regulatory approach that will be

taken when we’re talking about the online provision of

insurance.

Just for people who might be getting all excited about us talking

about ICBC, we determined yesterday that that was a separate entity.

This is talking about other types of insurance, like travel insurance

and all of the things the minister listed — completely separate from

ICBC. But just a bit of a sense of….

What does the regulatory regime look like when it comes to the online

provision of other types of insurance?

Hon. C. James: Right now, interestingly, the act doesn’t define, doesn’t specify,

whether you can be on line or can sell on line or can’t sell on

line.

What we’re doing through this is ensuring that if someone is utilizing

on line and is moving in the online direction, in fact, exactly the same

protections will be in place. That’s really what this is defining. It’s

the same protections if you went in and bought the insurance. The same

protections and regulatory regime that would be in place there would

also be in place if you were buying on line so that there isn’t a

discrepancy there between the two processes.

S. Bond: I know that we’ve talked, over the course of a couple of days, about

how part of the purpose of this is modernization. I would assume that

this is one of the key ways that we would be modernizing this

act.

I mean, typically, if you walk in, there are certain expectations and

a regulatory framework. We want to make sure that as the sector, the

industry — financial institutions in general — moves more to an

electronic process, there is a comparable and similar approach to

regulation around that. Is that a fair

summary?

Hon. C. James: Yes, I think that’s a fair

summary. You don’t want someone to be

penalized because they happened to buy it on line. You want to make sure

that there are similar protections and similar regulatory regimes in

place.

Sections 79 to 88 inclusive approved.

section 89.

S. Cadieux: The majority of what’s left in the next bit is fairly self-explanatory

and follow-up, for the most part. So just a few questions.

On this section, are there any limits on the use of names under this

section, or are credit unions generally flexible in their use of brand

names?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: This

section provides them with the ability to do that but also within

parameters. I think the sections before that talk about the fact that it

needs to be clear they’re a credit union. If they are a subsidiary or a

branch of another credit union, they need to make that clear. This,

again, gives them the flexibility to use the trade name, but it also

makes sure that consumers are clear about who they’re dealing with,

which I think is important.

Sections 89 to 104 inclusive approved.

section 105.

S. Cadieux: What is the inclusion of unincorporated associations meant to

accomplish? Could the minister give just a few examples of such groups

that would be captured here?

Hon. C. James: This just allows, basically, a streamlining process for opening

accounts for a number of associations. The member asked about examples.

For example, it would be Girl Guides, Toastmasters, sports groups. This

will streamline the process for those individual groups and

organizations to be able to be members.

Sections 105 to 107 inclusive approved.

section 108.

S. Cadieux: Could the minister please describe how this changes the issuance of

shares, compared to what’s currently the case? I’m not sure what we’re

actually changing with this section.

Hon. C. James: This doesn’t change anything. This is a practice that’s there already.

The

definitions were laid out, but there wasn’t a framework for issuing

those shares. This provides the framework. It isn’t any different than

what is being done now. It just provides the clarification in this

section. It doesn’t add any new pieces or take away pieces that are

there.

Sections 108 to 110 inclusive approved.

section 111.

[3:45 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: I think we covered capital liquidity and those issues quite a lot

yesterday. But just for clarity again, this

section anticipates that the

Financial Services Authority will make its own rules respecting capital

base and liquidity for credit unions and, potentially, relax or

eliminate restrictions that exist currently. Is that correct?

Hon. C. James: This, again — as we’ve talked about in a large chunk of the act and,

particularly, this end

section — really looks at a more modernized

framework. It doesn’t specifically say that those pieces will be

changed, but it does provide the framework so that if there were

changes, they could occur.

Sections 111 and 112 approved.

section 113.

S. Cadieux: My reading of this is that sections 113, 114, 115 and 116 essentially

increase requirements for members to submit or put forward formal

resolutions or ask for or get special AGMs. Am I correct in that reading

that it’s, essentially, just a firming up of some of the rules around

that?

Hon. C. James: Yes. This is, again, another piece of modernizing. These ratios and

the membership haven’t changed, and the world of the credit unions has

changed a lot since the 1990s. You have many more large credit unions

than you did previously. There’s been an amalgamation of a number of

credit unions. So this just reflects the change in membership and,

therefore, the change in percentages when you’re looking at members to

be able to bring forward motions at general meetings, etc.

Sections 113 to 120 inclusive approved.

section 121.

S. Cadieux: Can the minister suggest or provide examples of what sorts of

contraventions are envisioned that credit unions could or would make

that would require the increased fines under this amendment? Or are the

fines here just being modernized to align with other acts or standards,

and in which case, which ones?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: We’ve talked about the challenges of acts that haven’t been updated in

30 years. Again, these amounts have been changed to be consistent. There

are no new fines. These are the same areas, but the amount has been

raised to match, 30 years behind on fees. Yes, they’re consistent with

not only other jurisdictions but other acts as well.

Sections 121 to 133 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the members for a very good discussion and a very good, I

think, opportunity to be able to show people what good government can

be, across the aisle.

With that, I’ll move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

S. Bond: On behalf of my co-critic, we want to thank the minister and

particularly thank her staff. We appreciate their participation in the

process and the good work they do as public servants. We appreciate that

very much.

Again, thanks to the minister for what I think was a thoughtful and

reasonable approach to complicated tax policy. Not exactly the most

scintillating debate, but I think it is part of what we do as

legislators. I want to thank the minister for her time and also for her

willingness to listen to the concerns raised by my colleague, myself and

the credit union sector in particular. Her response was much

appreciated.

The committee rose at 3:52 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:55 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 37 — FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 37, Financial Institutions Amendment Act, 2019, reported

complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. C. James: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. C. James: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 37 — FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 37, Financial Institutions Amendment Act, 2019, read a third

time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:56 p.m. to 4:02 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. James: I call second reading of Bill 45, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act,

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 45 — TAXATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 45 be read a second time now.

These amendments to two tax acts are aimed at reducing demand for

products our government believes are harmful to British Columbians and

that present particularly worrisome risks to the health of British

Columbia’s youth. Amendments to the Provincial Sales Tax Act, increased

taxes on vapour products and amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act raise

taxes on cigarettes and other forms of tobacco. With this bill, British

Columbia will be the first province to have introduced legislation to

increase the price of vaping using the tax system.

I want to begin by putting this in the context of government’s

approach to vaping. I want to recognize, in particular, the Minister of

Health. He’s been hard at work developing the vaping action plan for

some time, and last week announced our government’s plan. The Ministry

of Health sees the PST increase on vaping products as a critical

component of the 10-point plan to address concerns around

vaping.

While the issue of vaping and particularly youth vaping has been

steadily growing, it’s taken on a new urgency with the kinds of cases

that I know all of us have been paying attention to. In fact, the

September notice report came out from our provincial health officer

regarding vaping-related illnesses.

I know there isn’t a member in this House who hasn’t heard the

concerns that have come forward from parents, from teachers, from

grandparents, from youth themselves, who have been talking about the

expansion that we’ve seen of youth vaping all across our communities.

But we’ve also seen it in our classrooms, and we’ve seen it at home.

This is a very serious health risk. It’s a growing risk and concern that

has to be addressed.

Why does vaping matter? Well, in fact, normalizing vaping puts our

youth at risk for lifelong nicotine addiction. The potential for a young

person to actually start with a zero-nicotine vape and then move on to

the nicotine vapes and then perhaps move on to cigarettes is a

concerning trend and certainly a path that we have to

address.

[4:05 p.m.]

With the passage of this bill, our government will increase the PST on

vaping products from the current general rate of 7 percent to a new rate

of 20 percent, effective January 1, 2020. This represents an early

action in support of the broader government plan’s objective to

discourage vaping.

On that same date, it will also become more expensive to smoke. This

bill increases the tax on cigarettes to 29.5 cents for a total of $59

per carton. It also brings the tax on loose tobacco, and other tobacco

products that are not cigarettes or cigars, to 39.5 cents per

gram.

We know the history in British Columbia. We know that tobacco taxes

are effective at driving down smoking rates. We see it when we look at

the numbers here in our province. Tax increases, as we all know, are

rarely popular moves. But our government takes great pride, in fact, in

having introduced legislation to increase tobacco taxes in 2017, in 2018

and now, if this bill passes, in 2019.

High prices are also a very important tool in persuading non-smoking

youth and adults alike to stay away from tobacco and vaping products.

Youth are particularly price-sensitive. That’s part of the reason,

again, we’re bringing forward this legislation. In fact, it does matter

to youth when you take a look at pricing.

These measures are aimed at reducing the consumption of vapour and

tobacco products. Our government is taking these positive steps because

we know the critical nature of the impacts of vaping, particularly on

youth, and tobacco itself on youth and adults. We know, also, the costs

to not only that individual and their family but the costs to our health

care system and the costs to all British Columbians. These costs are, in

fact, shouldered by all British Columbians.

We believe it’s incumbent on government to do everything we can to be

able to work on behalf of British Columbians to ensure that health care

services are there for everyone and that those services remain

affordable for taxpayers. Part of doing that is ensuring that we’re

doing the prevention work to be able to keep youth from connecting with

vaping.

With that, I’ll look forward to the discussion on second reading. I

know that the member has been quite engaged and involved in this issue

and, I know, has been given credit, as well, by government and the

Minister of Health for the kind of work that he has put into vaping. I

look forward to the member’s comments.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson. [Applause.]

T. Stone: There’s nothing like starting with a rousing round of

applause.

I am very pleased to be able to stand here today to take my place in

debate on second reading of Bill 45, the Taxation Statutes Amendment

Act, 2019. I do appreciate the introductory comments of the Minister of

Finance insofar as setting some context here for the nuts and bolts

which are actually dealt with in this piece of legislation.

The bill, in and of itself, is quite a straightforward and simple,

short piece of legislation, certainly compared to a number of previous

bills that have been before this House even just this week. But the

context within which this bill and these proposed tax changes fit…. The

context of that bears a little bit of discussion here, I

believe.

Before I get too deep into my comments, I want to acknowledge that I

have been very appreciative of having tremendous support from every

member of the B.C. Liberal caucus, every member of the official

opposition, and many members across the way in government and with the

Third Party.

With respect to the colleagues in my caucus, in particular, I want to

pay a great big thank-you to the official opposition critic for Health,

the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. I think all members of this House

know that he takes very seriously and works with a tremendous amount of

passion and purpose in pursuing accountability, on the one hand, of

government priorities and commitments and progress on health-related

matters but also looks for opportunities to work across party lines, to

work with members of the government in the advancement of good public

policy.

[4:10 p.m.]

I’ll let the member go into more detail, perhaps, in his remarks. I

understand he may have a few things to say about this piece of

legislation as well.

I will end this part of my remarks by simply saying that I went to the

member early on, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. We had a

discussion about mutual concerns that we had with respect to surging

rates of youth vaping, and from that day forward, I’ve had his

support.

I know he’s had my back in supporting the efforts that were embodied

in a private member’s bill that I introduced and that were embodied in a

tremendous amount of advocacy, effort and energy that I and many other

members of the official opposition really advanced to try and raise the

profile of this issue, to shine a bright light on a growing health

challenge affecting many of our youth.

As I have spoken about many times in this House, I have three

daughters. They’re 15, 13 and ten.

Now, a couple years ago — a year and a half ago, possibly even a year

ago — I really had no idea what vaping was. It’s not an activity that

I’ve ever tried. It’s not an activity that I was, therefore, really

aware of.

I’m a dad, and my two older daughters are in middle school now, up in

Kamloops. Every opportunity that I get when I’m home, which is not as

often as I would like it to be, I insist on driving my girls to

school.

Now, my youngest child is in grade 5. She doesn’t mind if I pull up to

the front door of the school and give her a big hug and a kiss. With my

other two daughters, the protocol now is at least two blocks before or

after the school. Other parents in the chamber know exactly what I’m

talking about. They would be mortified to be seen with me. Of course, on

top of that normal mortification is the fact that I’m the MLA for

Kamloops–South Thompson.

I would drop off my two older daughters. In order to point my vehicle

in the right direction to head to my office, I would have to go around

the back side of their school, and there was the vape pit. Now, again, I

had no idea what the kids were doing initially. I thought: “Are they

smoking?” There would be up to 100 kids. These are kids that are 13, 14,

15 years old. At 8:30 in the morning, on any given school day, that vape

pit was full.

I started asking questions. I started asking other parents what was

going on. I went into the school — again, off hours so I wouldn’t

embarrass the girls, my daughters. I went in, and I talked to the

principal and vice-principal and a number of teachers in the school. I

made some inquiries with the school district. I really wanted to

understand what was going on, because I didn’t get it at that point. I

quickly learned that what was happening at my daughters’ school was

happening at middle and high schools all over British Columbia and,

increasingly, all over North America — surging youth vaping.

Now, e-cigarettes and vaping products have actually been around for

quite some time, my understanding is for the better part of a decade.

The earliest e-cigarettes were actually developed as a smoking cessation

tool. The more I’ve learned about this, the more I’ve researched it, the

more people I’ve talked to, the more people that have taught me what

this industry is all about — how the products work, how we got to where

we are today — I have learned that you really have to look at this as a

spectrum.

On the one hand, from a harm reduction perspective, there is a role

that I think we can all land on and agree is important for adult

smokers. There is a role for vaping and e-cigarettes to play in helping

adult smokers come off of the traditional combustible cigarette, which

is very harmful. I don’t think we need to canvass that at all. I think

that’s generally understood by everyone in society to be a very

dangerous habit.

When you’re talking about 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds and

15-year-olds — and, in some cases, even younger than that — vaping,

there is no harm reduction in that discussion. There is only

harm.

[4:15 p.m.]

When you’re talking about nicotine levels that are through the roof in

a lot of these products, these vaping products…. Our children, who have

never smoked a cigarette in their lives, have never been exposed to

nicotine in any other manner, are trying it out because it’s cool,

telling them how cool and sexy and innovative this is. They try it, and

they get hooked on that nicotine in very short order. We’ve got a

problem. That’s harm.

The more I dove into this, I quickly realized that the statistics are

pretty jarring. There has been a 74 percent increase in vaping rates

amongst youth, grades 10 to 12, in Canada this year over last year. Now,

think about that: a 74 percent increase in one year. It’s to the point

where today — the estimates vary, the range varies — generally speaking,

most research suggests that approximately 30 percent of all students in

B.C.’s high schools in grades 10 to 12 are vaping. That is a terrible,

tragic statistic.

One company in particular which has become increasingly prominent in

British Columbia is a company called Juul. This is now, I believe, the

world’s largest producer of vaping products.

A story that a very well-respected

journalist wrote for Reuters earlier this month actually was able to

dive deeper than anyone ever has in understanding what this company,

Juul, really did in its early days. They’ve only been around for a

handful of years. What they did to go from having no revenue to being a

multi-multibillion-dollar company…. If not the largest vape company in

the world, they’re certainly No. 2.

Last year Altria, one of the largest

tobacco companies, invested $12.8 billion for a 35 percent stake in

Juul. Most of the major vape companies are now owned by big tobacco

companies. We’ll talk about more of that in a moment.

When you look at the history of Juul, as

told by many former managers, former executives, former employees —

people who couldn’t work for this company anymore because of many of the

choices that this company made in its early days, choices that were

mostly about targeting our youth to drive revenue for their company — it

makes you nauseous. It makes you angry. As a parent, it makes you darn

angry.

I’m going to quote a few sections from

this news story, again, with respect to the history of Juul. I want to

share some of this context because the story of Juul is quite similar to

the story of many other large vape companies. They very specifically,

early on, after launching in 2015 — that’s only four years ago — made a

very deliberate decision to target youth as the key strategy to drive

revenue for their businesses.

Now, this particular news story, which

was written by Chris Kirkham and was published or filed on November 5,

2019, had this to say about Juul’s decision to target youth.

“Inside the company, the first signs that Juul had a strong appeal

to young people came almost immediately after the sleek device went on

sale in 2015, according to the former company manager, who spoke on

condition of anonymity. Employees started fielding calls from teenagers

asking where they could buy more Juuls, along with the cartridge-like

disposable pods that contain the liquid nicotine”

[4:20 p.m.]

Its former manager goes on to

say:

“Company leaders also clearly understood the long-term benefit of

young users on its bottom line…. It was well-known that young customers

were ‘the most profitable segment in the history of the tobacco

industry,’ because research shows that nicotine users who start as

teenagers are the most likely to become lifelong addicts.”

And further:

“Following the product’s launch, it took nearly three years — and

pressure from regulators and U.S. senators — before Juul, in April 2018,

announced what it called a comprehensive strategy of measures to curb

youth sales. By that time, a leading U.S. government youth tobacco

survey showed that more than three million U.S. high school students,

one in five, had tried an e-cigarette in the month prior. More than a

quarter of those vaped at least 20 days a month. The latest available

data from the same survey, in September of 2019, shows yet another

increase.”

At that point, and this is only a couple

of month ago, more than one in four high schoolers, or just under 30

percent, reported using e-cigarettes in the previous month.

These companies very deliberately

targeted our youth. They targeted our youth with fancy packaging. They

targeted our youth with vape juice products with fancy names: Dracula

Blood, Fantasia, Nuke Heads, just to name a few. These flavoured vape

juice products were developed in a whole wide array of kid-friendly

flavours: mango, cotton candy, candy floss, crème brûlée, bubble gum,

gummy bear, and on and on the list goes.

Now, these products weren’t just

developed with flavouring that kids would really be attracted to. They

weren’t just sold with names like Nuke Heads and Dracula Blood, and so

forth. They weren’t just sold in fancy packaging. They were also

delivered to users in sleek, modern, compact delivery devices that are

easy to conceal, that look like little USB sticks. They were marketed

and advertised directly to our youth using really good-looking young

campaigns.

Then, of course, the clincher of them

all. Increasingly, these vape juice products were loaded with nicotine.

That’s the final secret ingredient — not so secret — of these big vape

companies, these big tobacco companies, to hook people and hook our

youth on these vaping products.

When you stand back and you look at the

incredible rise in the use of vaping amongst our youth…. As I said, 30

percent in grades 10 to 12 are vaping on a regular basis. When you see

it with your own eyes and when you understand that research suggests

very negative health consequences — not just of the nicotine, which

we’ve all known is the most addictive substance on the face of the

earth, but all of the other chemicals that are in vape juice — and when

you see the rapid rise of people across North America getting sick and

when you see, unfortunately, that dozens have lost their lives in the

United States, it was time for some action.

My compliments on the day when the

government announced their action plan were sincere. They were

heartfelt. Most of what I had been calling for was in the action plan in

some form or another. I’d had numerous conversations with the Minister

of Health. I see a serious intention on the part of the government in

this action plan to combat youth vaping.

If there was any element of criticism

from me on the day, a week ago, that this action plan was launched, it

was that it really shouldn’t have taken this long.

[4:25 p.m.]

I had introduced a private member’s bill

in this chamber seven months ago. Now, my private member’s bill was not

nearly as comprehensive an action plan as what was announced by the

Minister of Health last week, but I called for a ban on flavoured vape

products. I called for tighter re­stric­tions on retail sales. I called

for tighter penalties for non-compliance on the retail side.

I would note that those three items, in

some form or another, are contained in the action plan. The government

didn’t go so far as to ban all flavoured products, but there are some

significant steps on that path of seriously restricting the number of

flavours that are available to anyone — the weeding out of kid-friendly

flavours and the provision that flavoured vape products, that narrower

range of flavouring that will still be available for sale, will only be

available for sale in vape stores, where there is a requirement that you

must be 19 years of age to enter. These are tighter retail controls.

There are stiffer penalties. There is enhanced enforcement.

I had also called for a ban on

advertising and marketing. That was not provided for in my private

member’s bill, but certainly — till I was blue in the face — I was

calling for that as well. I’m pleased to see that the government is

moving in the direction of banning advertising, at least where it can,

in provincial jurisdiction and provincial assets.

I have been calling for restrictions on

nicotine levels. That is a significant feature of this action

plan.

I have been calling for a very serious

commitment to education — awareness, prevention and support — not just

through a package of posters and buttons and pamphlets but an actual

program in every middle and high school that’s delivered by youth to

youth.

That, certainly, is how the Minister of

Health talks about what is in the action plan that was launched last

week. That’s one of the areas I’m going to be paying very close

attention to, moving forward, to make sure that the investment that has

been suggested actually materializes. I’m a bit skeptical, at this

point. The language that the minister has used and the government has

used doesn’t go as far as the type of behavioural, interactive,

youth-led, youth-focused prevention program like Preventure, which is a

program I talk about often.

Preventure is a program that was

developed in Montreal a number of years ago. It’s a program that works

by having children self-report their personality style. It focuses on

four key personality traits that make people vulnerable to addictive

behavior, whether that be vaping or smoking or alcohol use or other drug

use. The four key personality traits that make people vulnerable that

this program focuses on are impulsivity, thrill-seeking or

sensation-seeking, sensitivity to anxiety, and hopelessness.

As I said a moment ago, the program

works by having youth discuss those behavioural traits with one another

and tell one another what they feel they might be susceptible to on a

spectrum of each of those four personality traits. There are workshop

sessions. There are follow-ups. There is partnering that takes

place.

Of course, for this kind of interactive

program, which…. By the way, where it has been piloted in a number of

schools, including most recently up in Vernon, it has been shown to,

year over year, drive down smoking rates, drive down alcohol rates and

drive down addiction rates. There’s a lot of hope that if it was

deployed and deployed well and funded — funding is a big part of a

successful deployment — this program could go a long ways, perhaps more

so than almost any other component of this action plan, at really

driving down youth vaping rates.

[4:30 p.m.]

I haven’t heard from the government that

that’s what they really have in mind. I hope I’m wrong on that. But

that’s one area that I’m going to paying very, very close attention to,

moving forward.

I introduced my private member’s bill

last April. There was a significant rise of momentum that built up to a

crescendo this fall of parents and teachers and school trustees and

health officials. You name it. People were beginning to become aware of

what vaping was, what its dangers are, and how it’s impacting our

youth.

I want to acknowledge the city of

Richmond for stepping up not that long ago and saying: “Notwithstanding

what the provincial government is going to do, notwithstanding the fact

that the federal government has a role to play here,” which I know that

the government of British Columbia articulates as well…. The city of

Richmond decided: “We’re going to ban advertising of vape products and

vape companies on municipal infrastructure in Richmond.” So they are

moving forward with that. That’s good.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I applaud the efforts of West Kelowna

and Coquitlam and Lake Country for bringing forward resolutions at the

recent UBCM convention in Vancouver in September, calling on the

province to take action on vaping.

I received a stack of letters from

school districts in every corner of the province, all taking time to put

into writing not just the frustrations that they’re all feeling

increasingly but their absolute determination to do everything that they

can, as partners in this, working with the province and working with the

federal government and others to drive down youth vaping

rates.

The Langley school district said: “On

behalf of the board, we want to express our concern in relation to the

effects of vaping on the health and safety of our youth and the

challenges this activity has created for our school district

administrators and educators.” We need action.

The board of education, school district

No. 67, said: “As a district, we are seeing a dramatic rise in the use

of vape products in students ages 13 to 18.”

School district 41 in Burnaby said:

“We’re urging the School Trustees Association to advocate with the

provincial government to make resources for youth on vape health

implications and cessation widely available and to revise current

resources and services for smoking cessation to specifically include

vaping in youth.”

The Quesnel school district

said:

“Our school board, representing the communities of Quesnel, Wells,

and Nazko, strongly urges the province to ban flavoured vape products,

outline stringent retail controls and ensure a program of retail

compliance is put in place. Online advertising needs to be regulated and

particularly advertising on sites frequented by our youth. In addition,

our B.C. government needs to fund evidence-based prevention programs in

every high school and middle school in the province. We are writing to

urge you to enact legislation that keeps our children safe and healthy.

Our children deserve an immediate response.”

The school district in

Kootenay-Columbia, school district 20, said:

“We have witnessed firsthand the surging rates of vaping in our

youth, and we’re exhausted. We’re exhausted from having to deal with the

youth vaping in classrooms, in school hallways, on school buses and

pretty much anywhere they live, work or play.

“Despite our best efforts to educate youth about the real negative

impacts of vaping on their health and despite the fact that the health

risks associated with vaping have become front-page news, the vast

majority of youth believe that vaping is not harmful to them, or at

least not as harmful as smoking cigarettes. The vaping industry has been

masterful at marketing their products to youth and by messaging that

their products are safe.”

Of course, we know they’re not.

School board 83, North Okanagan–Shuswap,

said: “Vap­ing is made much more appealing to young people through the

marketing and sale of supplies geared towards youth — i.e., flavours and

discreet devices. As partners in the care of the students of B.C., we

call on the government of British Columbia to pass tougher restrictions

on the sale of e-cigarettes.”

The Central Okanagan school district

said: “The topic of students’ use of vaping products is a concern of the

board of education, and we urge you to advocate for and support tougher

regulations on the sale of e-cigarettes and vapour products to minors,

including banning the marketing of vaping products to

children.”

[4:35 p.m.]

School district 42 in Maple Ridge–Pitt

Meadows said: “Our school district takes youth vaping seriously, and our

district is committed to doing the work at the school level to educate

our students and families about vaping, and we hope that the Minister of

Health will further support that work by taking action at the provincial

level.”

I’ll end on this one. There’s a whole

bunch more. Sc