Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 3, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 322

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2020 (continued)

S. Furstenau

Hon. R. Fleming

Bill 2 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2020

Hon. C. Trevena

M. Hunt

Hon. C. Trevena

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. C. Trevena

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 7 — Arbitration Act

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

M. de Jong

Reporting of Bills

Bill 7 — Arbitration Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Arbitration Act

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

T. Shypitka

B. Ma

S. Sullivan

R. Singh

D. Barnett

Speaker’s Statement

Third reading of Bill 7

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

L. Throness

Hon. K. Conroy

S. Furstenau

Hon. K. Chen

J. Sturdy

TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2020

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Education

Statutes Amendment Act, and in the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call

continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Children and Family

Development.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2020

(continued)

S. Furstenau: It’s delightful to hear the sounds of little

Lu̓á in the House, our young

visitor who is here.

I’m appreciative to have this opportunity to speak to Bill 8, the

Education Statutes Amendment Act. This bill makes amendments to several

sections of the School Act and the Independent School Act that are

intended to provide clarity on a number of items. Some of the aspects of

the bill include introducing a

section to the School Act that clarifies

that it is within a school board’s mandate to provide before- and

after-school care or allow a licensee to use school board property for

the purpose of providing before- and after-school care.

We in the Green caucus see this as a positive step for several

reasons. It provides clarity around proper use of school board property

for child care, and it recognizes that using school board property for

before- and after-school care is an efficient and effective use of space

that provides a much-needed service while, ideally, reducing the

challenge that many parents face — namely, that school hours are not

necessarily the same as work hours.

It is also a step towards recognizing the connection of education

from the earliest years and the role that high-quality ECE-informed

child care plays in building the foundations for lifelong learning. I

recognize that this bill does not speak specifically to early childhood

education facilities on school properties, but I applaud the minister

for the step he is taking to ensure that before- and after-school care

can and should be integrated into all of our schools.

I would be remiss not to point out what I think are important next

steps. I have long been advocating for the early learning and care

system that is being developed by Minister Chen to be moved to the

Ministry of Education in recognition that early childhood learning is

learning and that early childhood educators are incredibly valuable

educators and, as such, should be part of the continuum of education in

our public education system.

I’m particularly excited about the vision that has been brought

forward by the Cowichan community for the new high school that was

recently announced in Duncan. I think this speaks to what this bill is

leading us towards, which is the recognition that a school is far more

than a place where kids go to learn things; it is a valuable and

integral part of all of our communities. That is what the new high

school in the Cowichan, in Duncan, will be. It will be an integral and

central part of our community. Located in the same area as Vancouver

Island University and the Cowichan Community Centre, the school will be

part of a community commons, “an anchor within our community,” as school

district 79 chair Candace Spilsbury put it.

[1:40 p.m.]

Indeed, all schools are anchors within our communities, and the

more that we invest in them, the more that we make them the centres of

our neighbourhoods, the better we all are for it. In so many ways,

schools have enormous untapped potential, sitting largely unused after

the school day ends, on weekends and during holidays. This provision to

ensure clarity — that, yes, before- and after-school care in schools and

on school property is an absolutely appropriate use of school property —

is a good step towards remedying this underused potential of our

education institutions.

We don’t need to stop there. Early childhood education, arts and

theatre spaces, community gathering spaces — the list goes on for the

potential uses of school property. I hope we can recognize that the more

these properties are used, the stronger our communities are for it. I

hope this is indeed one step towards harnessing a much greater potential

that lies in our schools and school properties, our anchors within our

communities.

It’s actually quite nice to be reminded of the work we’re doing

here, with little Lu̓á making his

coos in the background, because we are here to serve future generations.

He is a great reminder of that.

This bill also modernizes language in the School Act and the

Independent School Act around online learning, changing the language

from “distributed learning” to reflect the reality of today. In

addition, the bill clarifies the issuing of graduation certificates by

schools operated by First Nations, fulfilling a commitment by the

province under the B.C. Tripartite Education Agreement, in alignment

with the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. The bill also

adds a

section that will authorize the assigning of a personal education

number to any child who is a resident in B.C.

Finally, this bill introduces changes related to the review of the

K-to-12 funding model in B.C., including new delivery models for online

learning, ensuring that school boards adhere to particular governance

and management practices and repealing the learning improvement fund. I

look forward to canvassing all of these measures during committee

stage.

High-quality public education is the necessary core of a thriving

society, an innovative economy and a healthy democracy. It is the

position of our caucus that government’s highest priority should be the

goal of having the best-educated citizens in the world, and we should

always be striving to find ways to do better. As we navigate the very

significant transformations that are happening in our world right now,

we should always remember that educators — whether early childhood

educators; elementary, middle school or high school educators; or

post-secondary educators — should be recognized not just as essential to

the well-being of our province but as incredibly valuable parts of that

well-being.

While this bill focuses on specific amendments to the School Act

and the Independent School Act, I encourage government to continually

seek ways to ensure that our education system is getting the care and

the investments that it needs so that our educators can give the best

care and greatest investments to the learners that they encourage,

support and teach each day.

Deputy Speaker: Looking for further speakers to this bill.

If not, I call on the Minister of Education to close

debate.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to those who participated in

the debates this morning and this afternoon. I want to thank the critic,

the member for Peace River North, for his contributions. I know he has

raised a number of questions which we’ll get into at committee stage of

the debate. We look forward to that. I want to thank the Minister of

State for Child Care for her thoughtful remarks as well. I think she

illustrated why government is pursuing at this time the amendments in

this bill to advance the creation of tens of thousands of spaces in

British Columbia that parents need in communities right around the

province.

I also thank the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale for sharing

the experience of her constituents and adding, I think, to the debate

some of the other benefits around transportation improvements that come

from having co-located child care facilities in the school system. I

want to also thank our closing speaker, the House Leader for the Third

Party, for her support for the bill and for her interest at committee

stage to ask additional questions where I will have ministry staff

assisting me to do our level best to answer each and all of

them.

[1:45 p.m.]

With that, I would close debate and let the motion stand for a

vote.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 8, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2020, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. James: I’d like to call Bill 2, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, for

second reading.

BILL 2 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. C. Trevena: I move that Bill 2 now be read a second time.

I’m very pleased to speak to legislative amendments to the Motor

Vehicle Act that will require standardized training as a pre-licensing

requirement for various classes of licensing. To support road safety and

better train drivers, British Columbia is moving towards a driver

licensing model that may require applicants for certain classes of B.C.

driver’s licence to demonstrate that they’ve completed a driver training

course in addition to completing the regular training that is required

by ICBC.

Provinces from Ontario west, as well as some U.S. jurisdictions,

have already introduced such a system for truck driver training. We are

learning from them as we develop our approach, as well as acknowledging

B.C.’s unique geography, as we work on developing the correct sort of

training.

This is what is known in these jurisdictions as mandatory

entry-level training. The calls for such a move have increased since the

very sad incident, the tragedy involving the Humboldt Broncos, in which

a truck driver who had little training slammed into the hockey team’s

bus. We all know the devastating consequences of that. I myself have met

with family members here in B.C., as well as others whose loved ones

have been killed in truck accidents. It is definitely time to

act.

This legislation in front of the House today is enabling

legislation. It will allow for pre-training of other classes of licences

if it is felt that it is needed, but at the moment, our government is

considering the trucking industry. Amendments in this bill to support

the model will enable government to require standardized training as a

pre-licensing requirement for various classes of driver’s

licence.

Any prescribed training courses will need to be ap­proved by

ICBC and provided by a person or organization who is authorized by ICBC.

Authority will also be added to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to

provide exemptions and to delegate authority to ICBC to provide

exemptions and to determine if the training a driver has received in

other jurisdictions meets B.C.’s standards. As I say, I want to make

sure that B.C.’s standards are rigorous.

The bill also includes changes to update, align and clarify

aspects of the Motor Vehicle Act to support the operations of

RoadSafetyBC and ICBC. The amendments will improve administration for

the superintendent of motor vehicles, the courts and ICBC by clarifying

authorities and ensuring that business processes align with legislation.

The legislation will also repeal sections of the Motor Vehicle Act that

are no longer in use. It’s quite a broad act, which covers areas for

myself, as the Minister of Transportation, as well as my colleague the

Solicitor General.

[1:50 p.m.]

Some of the amendments include enabling sheriff vehicles to

operate as emergency vehicles for the safe transport of those in their

custody, defining B.C. residency requirements for drivers’ licences and

updating requirements, authorizing ICBC to cancel a driver’s licence

that was issued incorrectly and providing ICBC the authority to extend

drivers’ licences that expire during a state of provincial or local

emergency.

Amendments also create a 60-day limitation period for applications

for judicial review of administrative decisions made by the

superintendent of motor vehicles, change the authority to make

regulations for motor-assisted cycles and, finally, clarify the rules

around using electronic devices in a hands-free manner for drivers in

the graduated licence program.

With that, I close my remarks. I’m hoping that there will be full

support and look forward to hearing the debate as well as the discussion

when we get into committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

I recognize the Minister of Education.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s not to take my place in debate

but to seek leave from the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Fleming: I would ask members of the House to join me in welcoming a group of

grade 11 and 12 students from Reynolds Secondary

School. I’m very, very proud that I happen to be

in the House this afternoon during their visit to the chambers. I’m very

proud of this school. It’s in my constituency and is an exemplary of

excellent academic achievement and great community social responsibility and

awareness. I would ask the House to make these students most welcome here

this afternoon for bill debate.

Debate Continued

M. Hunt: I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill 2. Unfortunately, for the

students that are here…. Maybe, actually, it’s fortunate, since the

Minister of Education is also here, the member for Victoria–Swan Lake.

When we think of this House, and particularly the video clips that go

out of this House, it’s usually question period, as an antagonistic

question is asked and an antagonistic answer is given. We go back and

forth, and the pounding of the desks…. I’m really pleased to rise to

speak to Bill 2, because in fact, as the new critic for Transportation,

I actually think that this is a very sensible piece of

legislation.

One of the reasons I got involved in politics many, many years ago

was because of the lack of common sense in some of the legislation that

we have and/or the

interpretation of that legislation in the real world.

I’ll bring up one of those points here that’s being addressed by this

legislation. But I’m really pleased to be able to speak to this, because

I think we are bringing some creative, small, sensible changes to

support the safety of our roads in B.C. The changes put forward in this

bill provide actionable variations to the strong laws that are already

in place, eliminating some redundancy and also increasing public safety

measures.

Now, there are some great commonsense changes here that I’ve

already referred to that will serve to make roads safer, like, for

example, allowing sheriff vehicles to operate as emergency vehicles. I’m

sorry, but I thought that was already the case. I’m surprised to find

that it’s not the case. But it means that they can actually activate

their emergency lights and their sirens in an emergency situation, just

the simple one of: what if a prisoner that they’re transporting has a

medical emergency? Well, you want them to get to the resources they need

as quickly as possible. But currently that doesn’t seem to be

possible.

Of course, what about the horrible incident of maybe a prisoner

escapes custody, and they can’t speed in order to reapprehend the

person? I tell you, I’m really pleased to see these. What about people

caught in wildfires or states of emergencies? Again, what a simple,

commonsense piece that should have been here a long time ago, but

obviously, someone didn’t pick it up, or the situation hadn’t happened

to somebody so that somebody complained. Usually, that’s how we find out

there’s a problem with legislation. It’s when somebody has the problem

and they say: “I’ve got this problem. Help me.”

[1:55 p.m.]

But during an emergency situation or an evacuation for wildfire,

they don’t have to be worried about what’s going on with their driver’s

licence renewal. It can automatically be extended for them and be dealt

with once things calm down and we get past the emergency or whatever

that disruption is.

Another one that I thought would have been in the legislation…. I

am utterly surprised. Madam Minister, I give you warning that I am going

to ask this question when we get to committee stage, but residency for a

B.C. driver’s licence? I thought that was the case. When I moved here

many, many, many years ago from Alberta, I know I had 90 days to get my

licence changed on the vehicle, to get my driver’s licence changed. I

thought that was the law. Obviously, there’s some little piece here

somewhere that needs to be amended. My curiosity hopefully will be

satisfied as we get into committee stage.

But also, for example, the issue of ICBC being able to delete a

driver’s licence. Normally you’d sit there and say: “What? This is

terrible.” But those of us that have had the challenge with new

immigrants, particularly those who are coming from a nation where they

speak a completely different language….

They adopt western names. The name that is on their passport may

not be the name that’s on their driver’s licence, but they’re known by

this name. Some wonderful employee interpreting the law says that it

must be the same as your passport. You go: “But nobody ever calls me

that, and nobody knows that.” It only makes sense, again, to be able to

delete a driver’s licence and to be able to make appropriate changes and

amendments.

Then, a notable piece in the legislation, obviously, is the

inclusion of ICBC approving standardized training for certain classes of

licences. They obviously prescribe that training courses be approved by

ICBC. I have a class 2 licence. In having a class 2 licence, I had to

take courses. In order to be able to get the privilege of being able to

prove I could drive the vehicle, I had to take courses first of all —

obviously the air brake course as well.

This is not something new and radical, but again, it’s something

that simply makes sense. Of course, it makes sense that the government

also needs to be able to have exemptions to that for people transferring

into British Columbia with their current licence. They need to make

sure, as the minister has suggested, that the standards are

similar.

There are equivalencies. We have equivalencies in all sorts of

other things. It only make sense that we have it here when it comes to

our driver’s licence and the training programs involved. One of the

challenges that you discover when you cross a provincial boundary is

that all of a sudden, there’s a new set of rules as you cross that

boundary. We need to have some consistencies across Canada so that we’re

all working together.

Of course, we understand that perfectly when it comes to class 1

driver’s licences and the whole situation in Saskatchewan. All you have

to do is say the Humboldt Broncos, and everybody knows. Okay, yes. Well

understood. Very happy to see that happen.

But then there are some sneaky things that are in this bill, some

sneaky things that, when you read the bill, you wonder: what is this?

There is some stuff in here about alternate forms of transportation. You

know, the problem is that legislation follows technology.

We can’t predict where technology is going, so things like

e-bicycles, scooters, hoverboards, those sorts of things…. They haven’t

been thought of in previous legislation because of what they are, but

they need to get included into legislation, simply because they’re out

on our roads. Whether we like it or not, they’re out on our roads. It

needs to be addressed. It needs to be looked at. So that’s also in it. I

have my curiosity up about a number of things in this bill. I look

forward to committee stage on it.

In conclusion, there does not appear, as far as I’m concerned, to

be any areas of significant concern at this time. Therefore, we’ll

generally be supporting the amendments that are being brought forward. I

look forward to the discussions and exploring some of these proposed

amendments as we get to committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Any further comment? I’ll now turn things over to the minister for

her closing remarks.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very pleased that there is clearly going to be support for

this bill and, I hope, a good, thorough analysis of it as we go through

committee stage. I’m looking forward to that.

My colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale was so collegial that I don’t

want to make any political comments, as in they did have 16 years of

being in government, when they could have found some of these loopholes.

I wouldn’t say that, because it is important to work on. I mean, really,

this is all about safety. It is all about common sense. And I’m glad my

critic, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, recognizes that and will be

sharing that with his colleagues.

As he acknowledges, the mandatory entry-level training isn’t

groundbreaking. Yes, we already have the air brakes training, and when

I’ve gone out to training schools, they say: “We’ve already got

mandatory entry-level training.” This is going to be much more rigorous.

This is really going to bring our drivers and people who are working in

the trucking sector up a level. They’re going to be doing significant

training before they can get their driver’s licence.

I think this is something we’ve seen evolving through the other

provinces. Ontario is the first, and we have seen it evolve through the

other provinces. It’s not that we are laggards; it is that we have a

different geography, different considerations when we’re looking at how

to do it in B.C. I think there is very wide acceptance that this is the

only way to be going forward for this industry.

It’s an important industry for us. We have, really, a very heavy

volume of people working in the trucking industry. With the port, we are

the main deliverer for a lot of western Canada. I think that there is a

real onus on us to get it right, and that’s what this bill will allow us

to move on with as an enabling piece of legislation.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Trevena: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 2, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2020, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. James: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Arbitration Act. If

we could perhaps just take a couple of minutes’ break, a recess,

while we bring in staff and the minister.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll take a five-minute recess in preparation for committee

stage.

The House recessed from 2:02 p.m. to 2:08 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — ARBITRATION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7;

S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 2:08 p.m.

The Chair: I’ll call the meeting to order on Bill 7, the Arbitration

Act.

I recognize the House Leader.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:15 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call throne speech debate.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. C. Trevena: I left off talking about the throne speech last week, and I just

wanted to recap, because it really is a superb throne speech. Our side of

the House, obviously, is completely committed to what has been outlined in

it. It outlined our continued commitment to really making life more

affordable. The fact that we’ve eliminated MSP fees is saving families up to

$1,800 a year. We announced new measures to make ICBC insurance less

expensive and bring more fairness for drivers, taking the legal fees out of

the system and dropping insurance rates by about 20 percent next

year.

We are attacking the housing crisis right across the province, and in

my own constituency, we’re making significant moves on housing. We’re on a

path to universal child care, where every family has access to quality,

affordable child care. We have removed those very unfair bridge tolls that

were impacting people for where they lived. They were paying thousands of

dollars just to get from home to work or back. We also froze ferry fares and

actually took them back down in certain areas, and we reintroduced the very

popular free seniors travel Monday to Thursday. We raised the minimum wage

to $14.60, and by 2020, it’ll reach $15.20. So people across the province

are already seeing the benefits.

When I was last talking about the throne speech, I was focusing very

much on my own constituency and the benefits that people have seen, through

the work of our government, in the north Island, a place that I’m extremely

proud to represent. I’d like to use my remaining time in the throne speech

to talk about my ministry.

As I mentioned at the beginning, I’m extraordinarily proud and

privileged to be British Columbia’s Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure at a time when we’re making record investments in

infrastructure, in our transportation system in British Columbia. We have,

this year in the budget, more than $7 billion worth of infrastructure

projects through my ministry. It’s an extraordinary amount. These are the

big ones — the Pattullo, Highways 91 and 17, the very big ones — as well as

the smaller ones.

[2:20 p.m.]

I know that my colleagues across the way from Delta South and other

areas always want to know what we’re going to be doing about the Massey

crossing. It’s very clearly there that we are advancing. The Massey crossing

is there. Through the budget and in our declaration, this is something that

we are absolutely committed to. We know that people are living in congestion

there. We know that there needs to be a move.

We know that we’ve got to be improving the situation for people, but

to do it in a way that is inclusive, to ensure that we have Metro mayors on

board so that whatever is done in that corridor reflects the regional growth

strategy of that area of the Lower Mainland. We don’t want to be imposing

something that engineers may think is great but does not reflect, really,

the values of the people living and working in those communities and who

develop that.

I’m really, really extremely pleased those priorities are recognized

both on growth and on transit. It’s going to have dedicated transit lanes.

Whatever the crossing is decided upon, it will have dedicated transit lanes.

So an already busy transit corridor will become able to be a more efficient

corridor because we’re not talking about having to stop the HOV lanes at the

edge of the present tunnel and then restart it. People will have a clear

shot through. I think it will encourage more and more people to use transit

through that very popular corridor already. It really does reflect

that.

Recognizing the regional growth strategy, recognizing the needs of

communities is something that we, as a prov­ince and as a government,

are extremely committed to. One of the parts that has been reflected both in

the budget and in intimations in the throne speech is the integrated

transportation development strategy and, specifically, looking at Fraser

Valley and how we can be ensuring that there is a truly efficient use of our

transportation corridors.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

I say transportation corridors because it isn’t just the main

highways. It is how we can make sure that we are integrating all the

different aspects, whether it is the highways or rail or the secondary

highways, how we can make sure that we are developing these for best use, to

make sure that there is that free flow so that people can get more easily

from Chilliwack to Abbotsford or Abbotsford to Langley or Langley to Surrey

— that this is a more easy connection, as well as looking at how that fits

in with general planning.

Instead of just saying, “We are rushing to find a solution because

Chilliwack has grown, and therefore, we need to make the highway six lanes

and that’s the answer….” That’s not a sensible way of going forward when we

are in an era of climate change. We can see the growth patterns. We can see

how communities are changing and evolving.

That’s why our ministry will be working with Ministry of Municipal

Affairs and working across government to develop this integrated

transportation development strategy provincewide. So it will be Lower

Mainland and then specifically in the Fraser Valley — how we can ensure that

we are getting the ability, whether it’s people on the north side of the

Fraser at Mission or Maple Ridge or Pitt Meadows, how they have an easier

access — as well as those on the south side of the Fraser.

We look up the corridor, as far as Hope. People are clamoring for

relief, but it isn’t always the relief of winding highway. That being said,

our government has announced, after years and years of pressure and years

and years of calls where nothing happened, a widening of Highway 1, putting

in HOV lanes beyond the existing expansion that’s happening at

216th.

We’re going to be working with the federal government to ensure that

people do have an easier commute, easier movement of goods, because we are

also seeing that that corridor — when you look at Highway 1 — as significant

for the movement of goods, and we need to make sure that is as fluid as

possible.

It’s a very exciting time to look at the whole picture of how we are

evolving through the most densely populated part of our province, in Metro,

out through the valley, as well as looking at: what does integrated

transportation mean? What does that sort of development mean for the

Okanagan, where we’ve already had some work done?

[2:25 p.m.]

How is it going to work in other areas? In the south Island, we’re

working on the south Island transportation strategy. The south Island had

been ignored for many, many years as well. That’s why we’ve put a focus on

that area of south Island transportation — again, looking at it integrated,

looking as a whole, not looking piecemeal and saying: “Well, you’ve got that

bus lane going in there, so that’s fine.” But what does it mean in the

bigger picture? I think these are, really, very exciting times.

As I say, we have the largest investment in infrastructure in B.C.’s

history with $7.6 billion through my ministry alone. That includes

everything from the Taylor Bridge up in the north, the West Fraser Road —

we’re going to be rebuilding the West Fraser Road — to work in the Fraser

Valley. There is a huge amount happening both in the areas of the highest

concentration as well as areas which are rural and areas which are more

remote, because everywhere needs good transportation. People need good

highways so they can feel safe. They need good transit links so if they

can’t afford to drive, they can get connections.

This is something I’m also very proud of our government for. When

Greyhound pulled out of British Columbia, we were able to step in and put in

a public bus service in the north, in some of the more challenging areas,

the more remote areas, where we knew that people wouldn’t have the ability

to travel. Bringing in B.C. Bus North and making sure that people in those

remote areas, whether you’re travelling from Fort St. John north or from

Prince Rupert south and east…. There would be a regular public bus service.

We’ve seen a great uptake on that.

I’m also very proud of what our government has done in the continued

investment in the Highway 16 Corridor — again, working with Indigenous

communities here — to provide a public bus system so that people have

alternatives. Our government is committed to investing in the transportation

corridors, investing in the highways of our province, as well as investing

in transit.

It would be remiss of me as an Island MLA and somebody who lives on

one of the islands not to mention B.C. Ferries. There are 22 million

passengers who travel on B.C. Ferries every year. All have been benefiting

from our government’s measures to improve service and improve affordability

and improve the responsiveness and the links between the B.C. Ferries, as an

entity, back to the people whom they’re serving. We put it back in the

public interest. We’re putting the public interest into the ferries because

of the Ferry Act. So now when the B.C. Ferry Authority is working, and B.C.

Ferries, they’ve got to consider the public interest — not a commercial

interest, but the interest of the people.

As I say, we are working hard to build those safe, smart

transportation solutions for now, as well as the future. One of the big ones

that we’ve announced and we’re really proud that we’re moving ahead with….

Again, it was ignored. It was a call from the mayors for years — a piece of

infrastructure that people say is falling apart, but it is definitely well

past its replacement date. That’s the Pattullo Bridge.

It’s a vital link for people who live in the Lower Mainland. That link

between Surrey and New Westminster is absolutely vital. It is one of the

oldest bridges in Metro Vancouver. It does need replacing. It’s needed

replacing for many, many years. I’m going to say even longer than 16 years

but definitely it’s been there on the mayors’ priority list for a long

while. We are building it. We’re going to build it.

As with all the infrastructure that we are building, it is going to be

toll-free. That means that people who are using this infrastructure will not

have to pay to use it. They already pay for it through their taxes. The

taxes become public money. We then invest that in infrastructure. I’m

extremely pleased that, as we move ahead with the Pattullo, it is going to

be toll-free. It’s going to be a better commute.

I know there are a lot of questions. People say: “Well, why is it just

four lanes? Why haven’t you gone six lanes?” We listened again. We listened,

this government. We listened to the mayors at the time who said that they

wanted to have a four-lane bridge that could be expanded to six lanes. It

may be, in the future, expanded to six lanes. But at the moment, it is a

four-lane bridge.

[2:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I’m very aware that I only have a few minutes left in my speaking. I

just really wanted to acknowledge that as we move forward with our projects,

whether it’s in the Lower Mainland with something like Pattullo or out on

Highway 1, the work we’re doing on Highway 1 and moving into the final phase

of the Kicking Horse Canyon, we are making sure that our public investments

really provide public benefits.

When we’re doing the major projects, we are using community benefits

agreements, which means we’re not just building the infrastructure, but

we’re investing in the people of this province. We’re investing in training.

We’re investing in opportunity for people who have not had the ability to

access work, access training. We’re going to be really ensuring that whether

it’s Indigenous people, whether it’s women, whether it’s people who, for

whatever reason, haven’t had access to training in these projects will have

that.

It’s three projects to start with. At the moment, it’s the Pattullo.

It is Broadway, which is a project…. We only get half an hour to speak,

unfortunately. I could also be talking about that work that we’re doing. But

it’s on that, and it’s on certain of the Highway 1 four-lanings and the

Kicking Horse project, which is going to be very, very exciting. I’m looking

forward to seeing that one move ahead.

It provides more training, and it really does reflect the values of

our government — that we are investing in people, that we want to make

opportunities for the people of British Columbia and that we have faith and

trust in the people of British Columbia. We’re working, as a ministry, to

provide that basic, safe and efficient transportation system but an

affordable system and a system that really reflects the values of the people

of British Columbia.

With that, I take my place in debate and move adjournment of

debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Bill 7, the Arbitration Act, 2020, com­mittee

stage.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — ARBITRATION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

Hon. D. Eby: Joining me this afternoon in the House to assist, Darryl Hrenyk

will be here shortly from the Ministry of the Attorney General, Jonathan

Eades and Tarynn McKenzie. I just want recognize that Jonathan and

Tarynn have done a lot of work around modernizing both the international

arbitration act and now, today, the domestic Arbitration Act and thank

them on the record, along with the drafters who worked with them and the

whole team on this particular piece of legislation, as well as the

international act as well.

I look forward to the questions from the critic.

section 1.

[2:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: I just wanted to start by asking if the Attorney General could

walk us through the process that was followed in terms of consultation

and review for this new domestic Arbitration Act?

Hon. D. Eby: The majority of Bill 7 is actually based on the Uniform Law

Conference of Canada 2016 uniform act. That bill itself was prepared

after lengthy engagements with arbitrators and non-arbitrators to get

their feedback.

There is also the Attorney General’s arbitration advisory group.

This is a voluntary group comprised of arbitrators, arbitration counsel,

litigation counsel, corporate counsel, business people and government

representatives. Now, there was a legislative subcommittee of that

group, as well, that was established.

One of the legislative subcommittee members was the chair of the

Uniform Law Conference of Canada working group who prepared the Uniform

Law Conference of Canada 2016 uniform act, so that was a very helpful

resource for us to have.

Another member of that subcommittee was part of the original

advisory committee who recommended the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model

Law as B.C.’s International Commercial Arbitration Act in

A further member is co-author of the leading text Commercial

Arbitration in Canada . So we have quite a distinguished group

that has been assisting us throughout this process.

Now, members of that subcommittee addressed the topic of domestic

arbitration reform and the government’s objectives, and they addressed

that at several different conferences involving arbitrators and

non-arbitrators. There were discussions from the floor at those

conferences. We specifically requested questions, comments and concerns

about the Uniform Law Conference of Canada uniform act that this bill is

based on, as well as proposed changes to key provisions from attendees

at conferences and invited direct follow-up with the ministry at each

conference.

Now, I want to also recognize the BCICAC, which is the arbitration

group that we anticipate will be the designated group in the

regulations, as they are in the current act. They were also represented

on the legislative subcommittee throughout the review and preparation of

the amendments to the international act. Many of those carried over into

the domestic act.

Then, for the domestic Arbitration Act amendments, this also

included multiple meetings with the BCICAC over a two-year period.

Either I attended, the Deputy AG attended or ministry staff attended

these meetings. Proposed revisions were discussed with the BCICAC board

members at length. Given that the BCICAC, which is soon to be the

Vancouver international arbitration centre, will have unique and

important functions under the reforms, we wanted to make sure there was

frequent and continuing dialogue between us and the BCICAC.

M. Lee: Thank you for that overview of the nature of all of the

consultation that’s gone on. If I could just ask the Attorney General to

comment specifically on the level of consultation that was done with

those who are non-arbitrators, those in the business community for whom

this new domestic Arbitration Act will be much more user-friendly. If I

could get a better sense from the Attorney General about that level of

consultation and comment from non-arbitrators.

Hon. D. Eby: As I outlined in my answer, there were many conferences at which

both arbitrators and non-arbitrators participated. The uniform law that

this is based on was the product of engagement with arbitrators and with

non-arbitrators. There are business people and folks from the BCICAC who

have been involved in the development of this who work closely with

business people and with the business community on this. There were

several opportunities for engagement, and that feedback was included in

this as well.

M. Lee: With that, the view to be confirmed here is that the Attorney

General and his team at the ministry is of the view that this is a

workable act, certainly for the business community. Has there been any

consultation with other leading business organizations in this

province?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I wanted to point out that the BCICAC is not exclusively

arbitrators — far from it. There are many business people involved in

that group.

Also, the member asked specifically about business organizations.

The Vancouver Board of Trade had a representative on the Attorney

General advisory group that assisted in the development of this and the

international statute.

M. Lee: In terms of the work that was done on this Bill 7, Arbitration

Act…. That work was reviewed with the legislative subcommittee, from

what I am hearing. Were there any recommendations by that subcommittee

that weren’t accepted in the drafting of this act?

Hon. D. Eby: We can’t recall any.

M. Lee: There have been some joint studies that have determined…. There’s

a 2018 joint study by Queen Mary University, in London, and White and

Case, one of the global law firms out of the U.K., which found that the

five most preferred seats of arbitration are London, Paris, Singapore,

Hong Kong and Geneva.

In the nature of ensuring that British Columbia and Vancouver

continue to be a leading global centre for arbitration, both

internationally and domestically, was there any inclusion of experts

from any of those jurisdictions as part of this review and makeup for

this new act?

Hon. D. Eby: One thing that we were not short of was expertise, both domestic

and international, although I do underline that this is the domestic act

that is proposed to be replaced here today.

Henri Alvarez was one of the participants in the Attorney General

advisory group. I’m advised that he would be considered one of the top

20 international arbitrators in the world, arbitrates around the world.

Gerry Ghikas, the same — a very well-recognized international

arbitrator. He worked in Europe and also in the United

States.

Then to my right, Jonathan Eades, who is in the Ministry of

Attorney General, is an arbitrator, himself, of considerable talent, who

worked in Paris, Geneva and Washington.

So both in-house and outside of house, we had international

experts in arbitration bringing their expertise to this — the domestic

act amendments.

M. Lee: Just turning to the definition of “arbitral tribunal.” That term

is not set out in the Uniform Law Conference of Canada’s model law,

which, of course, we’ve covered as being a key touchstone for this bill.

However, the definition is the same as what is set out in UNCITRAL’s

model law. So which was the model for this particular definition, and

why was that the case?

Hon. D. Eby: The member may notice, as we go through, that there are pieces

that do depart from the model domestic law but are consistent with the

model international law — the UNCITRAL model. The goal was to find

harmonies between the domestic and the international act, assuming that

British Columbia arbitrators would be working in both areas.

[2:45 p.m.]

Enabling those practitioners to move seamlessly between the acts

as much as possible was a great benefit. So where possible, staff tried

to find the appropriate harmony between the two in order that, in B.C.,

we could have acts that make sense for people who practise here as well

as people who come from international jurisdictions to British Columbia

for an arbitration.

M. Lee: I just wanted to come to the next definition, which is the

“designated appointing authority.” That was one definition that I noted

in my second reading remarks and the Attorney General responded to.

Perhaps we can just recap that discussion.

The reason why I raised it is that through the long-standing

nature of the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration

Centre, there’s been tremendous support over successive governments for

the importance of that organization. It has been seen to be a leading

organization with respect to both international and domestic

arbitration. As the Attorney General confirmed in his second reading

speech, it is the intention — through regulation, of course; through

section 67 — that that centre be designated as the designated appointing

authority for the purpose of this act.

I have raised, and I would raise here again at this committee

stage, the importance of this centre. Certainly, my expectation would be

that the government and the ministry agree that the centre should serve

this important role under this act as the designated appointing

authority and that the reason why it’s not named in the act is around a

name change. It is the intention of the centre to change its name to the

Vancouver international arbitration centre.

On that first reasoning that was provided at second reading, as I

understand it in my follow-on discussion with the centre, it’s the

intention of the centre, certainly, to make that change but that it

would not change its name legally — that the foundation name, which is

the BCICAC Foundation, will still be the legal name of that

organization. Any subsequent name change is really a branding

initiative. It’s not a formal legal name change, which I would have

suggested, in any event. The organization we know “formerly known as the

BCICAC Foundation” would have been sufficient for the

purpose.

On that first point, perhaps I could ask the Attorney General why

it is that we would need to do it by regulation. My view would be that

we can give the centre the prominence it has earned and continues to

provide in the role that it plays in this province and therefore have

the BCICAC Foundation name, which is the legal name, set out in the act

itself. So then when parties, non-arbiters, are looking and navigating

through this act, they will easily see where they can turn to as the

designated appointing authority being that centre.

If I could ask the Attorney General to further address that

point.

Hon. D. Eby: I am concerned that there’s a perception that by putting the

BCICAC — the Vancouver international arbitration centre, as they’re

going to become — into the regulations, it’s somehow seen to be less of,

for some reason, for this organization. They will have a

head-and-shoulders advantage over any other service provider in Canada

because they’re specifically named in the regulations and will be the

designated appointing authority. It’s a great honour. It’s a great

recognition of their work.

[2:50 p.m.]

There’s a statutory practice, which is a good one…. To enshrine a

specific organizational name into your statute is to invite the

possibility that something happens to the organization. There’s a

financial crisis, and they become bankrupt or insolvent. The board

resigns, and the organization dissolves. They change their name.

Something else happens that causes you or them to require a change. Then

you have to assemble the Legislature and pass an amendment to the

statute. When you put it in the regulation, then you can make those

amendments far more easily.

The intent of the statute, the intent of this

section is that

there will be a designated appointing authority. I’m advising the member

and the House that it’s government’s intention to appoint currently the

BCICAC as that. It’s my understanding that in the regs it will be called

the Vancouver international arbitration centre. That has the advantage

of avoiding brand confusion. It has the advantage of being futureproof,

and it recommends itself in a number of ways.

It is not to take anything away. In fact, in this new statute,

they will have a number of significant advantages that other similar

organizations in other provinces simply don’t have.

M. Lee: Well, I think that the main consideration, I believe, is with the

length of this act — that the desire is to make it user-friendly. I

appreciate the consideration around an organization that might go

bankrupt or the board resigns en masse or a number of things like

that.

But this is not a new organization. This is an organization for

which both the international and domestic arbitration acts in this

province have governed over many, many years. With all of the

significant buildup, including in contractual agreements that I used to

work on as a lawyer for 20 years, there’s reference to that centre in

many contracts in this province.

So the stability of that organization I don’t think is at question

here. I don’t believe I’m hearing the Attorney General question that.

Nor am I hearing the Attorney General question whether there’s any

possibility that the centre will not be named by regulation as the

designated appointing authority.

With that in mind, I would like to table an amendment to have the

BCICAC foundation name directly put in this act so that parties can

readily identify who the designated appointing authority is so that —

whether they’re lawyers or non-arbiters or other business parties — they

won’t have to go search out and find indirectly, through regulation, who

that designated appointing authority is.

I believe, in proposing this amendment, that this would be a

simple amendment, which I can pass through you to others here, to this

act for that purpose.

Section 1

by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined

text as shown

“designated appointing authority” means

the entity designated under

section 67

[designated appointing

authority]

the BCICAC Foundation (the British Columbia International Commercial

Arbitration Centre Foundation) ;]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: I’d urge members to vote against the amendment, not because of the

spirit of it, which is certainly to recognize what is government’s

intention, but just to recognize good statutory practice, which is not

to enshrine the name of an organization that is changing its name into

an act when it’s going to be reflected in the regulations. Any

practitioner of arbitration or anyone sophisticated enough to look up

the act would also be looking at the regulations, necessarily. It

doesn’t address an issue, and, in fact, it potentially creates issues of

brand confusion.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Lee: Speaking to the amendment, I understand the Attorney General’s

view on that in terms of the name. But again, it demonstrates, perhaps

in a small way, the level of consultation that’s occurred with the

centre, because I understand, in my communication with the centre today,

that they have no intention of changing the legal name to the Vancouver

international arbitration centre. This will be, effectively, a brand

name, which….

There may be other considerations about how an organization will

have their legal name being the BCICAC foundation, which is still the

same legal name they have today, and what I’m proposing in my amendment

that I just tabled — to be directly placed in this definition in the act

— and also being known in the future as the Vancouver international

arbitration centre.

That, as I understand in speaking with individuals representing

the centre, is merely a branding initiative, and the legal name will not

change. So I don’t believe that there would be any confusion that my

amendment would bring on by virtue of directly putting the legal name of

that centre in the act.

Amendment negatived.

M. Lee: If I can ask, on the definition of “interim measure,” where has

the genesis of that definition derived from? I think it is potentially

making a slight departure from the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Hon. D. Eby: That definition is in the UNCITRAL Model Law, as well as in the

domestic model law, and it’s put up at the front as a drafting practice

for ease of reference.

M. Lee: That includes sub (e). Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes.

M. Lee: The definition of “place of arbitration” — where was that

definition derived from?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s slightly modified from the Uniform Law Conference of Canada

model law. In that engagement with the Attorney General’s advisory

group, for some people, it’s their practice to refer to the place of

arbitration. For others, it’s their practice to refer to the seat of

arbitration. To avoid confusion, the definition was included just to be

that a place of arbitration means either a place or a seat of

arbitration.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Lee: Dealing with the application of this bill, or the act, if the

Attorney General can share any statistics on the estimates around how

many domestic arbitrations are occurring in any given year, pursuant to

the domestic arbitration act.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Part of what some people appreciate about arbitration is that they

can have a private arbitration — it’s just between the parties — and

have the matter decided quickly, efficiently and privately. So it is

difficult to know how many arbitrations there are in the province. For

those in which there is involvement of the BCICAC, staff advised me that

that number would be in the hundreds but that there are many of these ad

hoc arbitrations that would not be recorded in any of that data that the

BCICAC would record.

M. Lee: Just in terms of the Uniform Law Commission’s model law, there are

differences in this particular

section from the equivalent

section under

that model law. Could I ask the Attorney General to explain the

significance of any of those differences?

Hon. D. Eby: The purpose of this

section is to set out when B.C.’s domestic

Arbitration Act does and does not apply. Under the existing act, it

provides that it applies to an arbitration agreement in a commercial

agreement, an arbitration authorized by another enactment, any other

arbitration agreement or a family law arbitration. The present act does

not apply to several listed trade agreements or agreements between

governments, with some very limited and particularized

exceptions.

Now, the significance of the

section that the member has asked the

question about is that first of all, it’s based on a provision from the

Uniform Law Conference of Canada — as he notes, the Uniform Arbitration

Act. Application is determined by whether the place of arbitration is in

British Columbia.

The proposed provision provides expansive default rules for

determining when the place of arbitration is in British Columbia.

Specifically, subsection (4) confirms that certain specified provisions

of the act apply “…whether or not the place of arbitration is in British

Columbia.” This is needed for circumstances when parties outside of B.C.

seek various forms of relief from B.C. courts, including stays of court

proceedings and enforcement of non-international arbitral

awards.

Subsection (5) provides that the act does not apply to

arbitrations covered by the ICAA, the International Commercial

Arbitration Act, family law arbitrations, several prescribed trade

agreements or agreements between governments, with limited,

particularized exceptions. The ICAA is, of course, our B.C. statute for

international arbitrations. Regulations under the act will prescribe

agreements — including the New West Partnership Trade Agreement, the

Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement and others that are

referenced in the current act — as not being included.

Subsection (6) clarifies that the act applies with any necessary

modifications if another enactment authorizes or requires

arbitration.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Lee: Just looking at this particular

section deeming waiver of right to

object. Again, in comparison with the ULCC’s model law, there are

certain carve-outs that are in

section 3 of the ULCC model law. If I

could ask the Attorney General to comment on those particular carve-outs

and where they sit within this

section or other portions of the act

itself.

Hon. D. Eby: The ideas behind the model domestic law and the international act

in British Columbia are the same — meant to be captured in this section,

the same ideas as with the model domestic law. However, the advice that

we received from the AG advisory group was that it would be a good idea,

and good practice, to include

section 4 of the International Commercial

Arbitration Act in British Columbia, to ensure consistency between the

two acts for domestic practitioners.

[3:05 p.m.]

Given that the ideas conveyed and the purpose are the same, it

provided ease of reference for people, but also, in the event that

something did go to court or there was some

interpretation of this

section, that it would apply equally to both sections as well. It’s been

very slightly restructured from the international commercial arbitration

provision to comply with our domestic drafting standards.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

M. Lee: My colleague, the member for Abbotsford West, will also have some

additional questions which I think are appropriately raised on this

particular

section in respect to the bill itself.

Just before we go there, on the more technical point, this

particular

section relating to judicial intervention, the nature of

these provisions is also somewhat different from the ULCC model law.

There are some departures which I’d, again, like the Attorney General to

explain — of any significance that are set out there.

Hon. D. Eby: This is largely the same answer as I gave for the previous

section.

It harmonizes the domestic act with, this time,

section 5 of the

International Commercial Arbitration Act. The member will note that in

4(b)(ii), there is an additional protection there for the designated

appointing authority that we were talking about before, the

BCICAC.

I do want to underline the importance of this

section because

there can be confusion in the courts. It’s to underline that arbitration

and administrative law are different regimes. It’s important for

lawyers, practitioners, others, judges to recognize that an

arbitrational tribunal is not an administrative law decision-maker, and

the review standards are different and should be different, because

arbitration is set up in a way to provide a quick and an efficient

determination of disputes, and the parties are intended to agree that

that determination is final and binding. We want to give people capacity

to be able to agree to that among themselves. So this

section really

underlines that.

M. de Jong: The part of the bill we’re considering, sections 1 through 4,

“Interpretation and Application” — I’ve just got a few questions. I want

to assure the Attorney General that I’m not intending to spend a whole

bunch of time on this, but the line of questioning relates to, broadly,

application. It may actually have been more appropriate to consider the

questions as part of

section 2, but I hope the Attorney will, when he’s

heard the questions, see fit to try to answer some of these

questions.

It relates back to the discussion we had in the fall that led to

the passage of the UNDRIP legislation. This bill and this

reconfiguration of the rules around arbitration and the Arbitration Act

might be the first example of a rewrite of legislation to occur since

that legislation enshrining the UN declaration has taken place and was

proclaimed in British Columbia.

[3:10 p.m.]

The member for Vancouver-Langara and I had an extensive discussion

with the Attorney General’s colleague about the process that would be

followed with respect to adjusting the laws and aligning the

laws.

The law in British Columbia,

section 3 of that statute, says: “In

consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples in British

Columbia, the government must take all measures necessary to ensure the

laws of British Columbia are consistent with the

Declaration.”

The Attorney’s colleague spoke about a process and a lens that

would be created that, I got the impression, would have application in a

case like this where laws are being rewritten. So I’m curious whether

that lens and that process was applied here. If it was, how was it? If

it was, how has it impacted, if at all, the product that we have before

us in the assembly today, in the committee today?

Hon. D. Eby: Now, I’m not aware of any inconsistency between this act and the

UNDRIP legislation, but I don’t understand the member to be suggesting

that there is any such inconsistency. It is certainly an intellectually

interesting question. Given that the UNCITRAL Model bill is a UN

document and the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples is,

similarly, a UN document and the documents are coming from the same

international body, one presumes, at a minimum, they would be

consistent. But knowing real life and legislation, that’s not always the

case.

The interesting thing about arbitration and one of the potentially

enabling pieces of the legislation is that the parties can agree about

whichever legal standards they would wish to apply, which could include

departing from British Columbia law in order to have the matter

resolved. So theoretically, it’s certainly potential for an Indigenous

organization or a First Nation to use this act and to use legal

standards that they felt were most appropriate for them.

This is a voluntary statute in the sense that the court system

remains. It doesn’t displace the court system. This is for parties who

by agreement, by contract or otherwise go into the arbitral process. It

sets out the guidelines for that, but the parties can agree among

themselves to apply whatever legal standards they wish.

I’m not sure this is a great example of legislation affecting

Indigenous people or concern around inconsistency between domestic

legislation. But all legislation that the government brings forward…. My

colleague is correct. Certainly, part of the assessment that we do and

part of the discussion that we have is about whether it has an impact on

Indigenous people and if so, how. If it does, what is our obligation in

terms of consultation and engagement?

M. de Jong: All of that is helpful. When we had the conversation with the

Attorney’s colleague, he had this to say about the process that we could

expect, going forward, following the proclamation of the UN

declaration.

[3:15 p.m.]

“If there are new laws,” he said, “new legislation coming forward,

then we’ll work with them” — Indigenous peoples — “on those to make sure

that the measures we do take to align laws with the declaration are

consistent with that action plan and the priorities that we work with

them on.” He continued: “This, of course….

Section 3 is specifically

entitled — the measures to align laws with the declaration.”

He seemed, in the course of that statement and elsewhere in the

conversation we had with him, to speak to, going forward, a specific

process or procedure for engagement. The Attorney has mentioned a

general intention on the part of government. But consistent with what

the Attorney’s colleague said, was there specific engagement with

Indigenous peoples around this piece of legislation?

Hon. D. Eby: The member will know that under previous administrations, just

like under this administration, there has been an interest in

arbitration and ensuring that British Columbia has a regime that makes

sense to people.

I am not aware, ever, of an opposition raising concern about

potential impact on Indigenous rights or inconsistency with the human

rights of Indigenous people and arbitration-related initiatives — and

for good reason. I don’t think there is any inconsistency. I don’t hear

the member raising any inconsistency, any concern at all.

Taking his question, assuming it is in a spirit of genuine

intellectual curiosity rather than mischief-making, I would say that

there is no, to my mind, apparent inconsistency, any threat of any

potential concern in relation to the rights of Indigenous people in

relation to this act. But every piece of legislation does go through

that lens, including this one. I can advise the member that we’re not

aware of any impingement or risk here, especially given the fact that

this is a voluntary regime that you can either participate in or not.

It’s up to you.

But if the member is particularly interested in Indigenous justice

issues and those kinds of things, we have a very significant

two-year-long engagement that’s been going on with the First Nations

Justice Council in developing an Indigenous justice strategy. That may

be what the member is referring to when he’s curious about whether we’re

talking to Indigenous people about how they resolve concerns, how the

state interacts with Indigenous people in relation to the justice system

— writ large, how we incorporate Indigenous law into our justice

system.

That conversation is ongoing. The draft strategy is under active

consideration by Indigenous leadership groups and was a product of many,

many engagements across the province. Perhaps that is what the member is

referring to. This is not that. This is totally different.

M. de Jong: Look, I get the sense that this is rapidly descending into some

kind of an argumentative thing, which I don’t intend it to do. It is not

necessarily an intellectual curiosity, although that’s an interesting

turn of phrase.

In November of last year, the government, through its

representative and in securing unanimous support for a piece of

legislation, described a very different process — in fact, a statutorily

dictated different process. He described in detail how that was driven

by the terms of the legislation that was before the House at that

time.

[3:20 p.m.]

We are curious to know how, if at all, that new process, which is

now a requirement under

section 3 of the UNDRIP legislation, played out

with respect to the preparation and presentation of this legislation.

What I think I hear the Attorney General saying is that it did not —

that there has been an exercise in place for some time and that he and

the government followed that exercise, and there was nothing different

about this.

That’s fine if that’s…. That wasn’t the impression that we were

left with when his colleague the Minister of Indigenous Relations spoke

to us.

Look, I don’t know if there is anything in this legislation that

Indigenous peoples would be concerned with, if there’s anything in this

legislation that might preclude an approach to arbitration that is

unique to Indigenous peoples. I don’t know that.

I do know that the government and the minister’s colleague said,

only a few months ago, that following passage of the UN declaration

legislation into law, there would be a very different exercise procedure

employed. If it wasn’t, that’s fine. Then I have my answer. But if it

was, then I am legitimately curious about what that exercise was or what

that different procedure was.

Hon. D. Eby: In relation to Indigenous people in the province, the question

wasn’t: do you like the Arbitration Act or not? There was not an

engagement: do you like the Arbitration Act or not? Do you have feedback

on that?

The engagement was one step back. It was: how does the justice

system work for you? How can it work better for you? The Arbitration Act

is one part of British Columbia’s justice system. I acknowledge the

member’s question. We could have gone and said: “Do you like the

Arbitration Act or not?”

We took a step back, and we said: “How does the justice system

work for you?” They said: “Not especially well, as a matter of fact. We

don’t see ourselves represented. We don’t see our laws represented. We

see a disproportionate number of our community members in jail. We see a

connection between the child welfare system and jails. We don’t find

that it assists us in resolving disputes in various ways, various

disputes that we might have at the nation level, at the local level. So

we think you need a justice strategy for Indigenous people.”

So it would be a bit strange to go and say, “Do you like this one

piece of the justice system that we’re doing?” when in fact we’re

engaged in a multi-year strategy with Indigenous people about ensuring

that their concerns in relation to justice are addressed.

I take the member’s question, now that I understand it a little

bit better, about whether this specific act was taken to a leadership

group or workshops with Indigenous people or otherwise. It was not. What

went to a leadership group and workshops with Indigenous people, justice

leaders and others was a much bigger question that encompasses the

justice system as a whole.

I am very much looking forward to the justice strategy that is

coming from that setting out a course for us to reconciliation with

Indigenous people through the justice system and supporting those

communities and First Nations in resolving disputes to the extent the

government is able.

M. de Jong: Well, that too is a helpful answer. I think the Attorney has

cottoned on to the nature of my inquiry.

Am I then to understand that with respect to legislation emanating

from the Attorney’s ministry, that broader approach is the one that will

be followed? I will say — and I won’t speak for the member for

Vancouver-Langara — that I was left with the impression, perhaps

incorrectly, when I re-read the remarks from the minister’s colleague,

that with respect to legislation, particularly wholesale rewrites of

legislation, there was going to be a more specific process employed and

a more specific engagement of the sort that the Attorney has

mentioned.

[3:25 p.m.]

That doesn’t appear to be the case. That more general approach

that the Attorney has described — is that what we should expect going

forward, with respect to at least legislation from the Attorney

General’s ministry? I won’t ask him to comment on other departments and

other ministries of government. Would it be incorrect for me to assume,

with respect to legislative initiatives of this sort, that there would

be more direct involvement or a more specific review undertaken by

Indigenous leadership groups?

Hon. D. Eby: Any time there would be an apparent or even a speculative impact

on Indigenous rights, the member could reasonably expect that my

ministry would be engaging with Indigenous people about that as part of

the process that we committed to through the UNDRIP

legislation.

In terms of the justice system as a whole, with clear recognition

of the fact that government capacity, First Nations capacity, is what it

is, which is limited on both sides, we — it wasn’t just us; in

cooperation, engagement and consultation with First Nations people —

felt it much better to ask the big question: where are we going with the

justice system? How do we get to where we need to be with the justice

system from a First Nations perspective? What’s our strategy? We’ve been

working on that for a couple of years.

That is definitely a keystone piece within my ministry. So the

member can reasonably expect that on justice-related matters, that is

our engagement with First Nations people, our partnership with them on

creating a justice system that works for them and that works for British

Columbia as a whole, because it doesn’t work for British Columbia when

30 percent of the population in prison are Indigenous people and that

that’s gone up from 10 percent in the ’90s. That’s not an acceptable

situation.

That’s just one example. There are much larger examples around

dispute resolution, generally, in the context of the Arbitration Act,

how First Nations are able to or are facilitated to reach resolution

around issues to the extent that they wish assistance or support from

government on that. So, yes — short answer to the member’s question.

That is the UNDRIP piece within the Ministry of Attorney General, and it

encompasses the entirety of how the justice system works with Indigenous

people.

M. de Jong: I think my last question on this point…. When the Attorney’s

colleague was discussing the procedure going forward, he talked about

the obligation that each ministry would assume for the development of a

workplan. In fact, that’s a term used in the previous

legislation.

Is the process that the Attorney has just described part of the

workplan for the UN declaration on Indigenous rights as it relates to

the Attorney General’s ministry? If it is, I’m interested to know that.

If it isn’t, at what stage is the development of that workplan that the

Attorney’s colleague referred to within the Attorney General’s

ministry?

Hon. D. Eby: The idea behind the UNDRIP legislation is partnership with

Indigenous people. I do feel we’re getting a bit away from the bill, but

in any event…. The member does know I’ll be up in estimates in the very

near future, and I’d be happy to canvass these with him.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

But the idea behind the UNDRIP legislation is partnership with

Indigenous people. I can’t think of a better partnership for the

Ministry of Attorney General than to go to Indigenous people and say,

“How can we improve the justice system?”— to come up with a plan, for

them to come up with a plan and for government to work with Indigenous

people on the realization of that plan. That plan is our workplan. It

will be our workplan for many years, and I look forward to working with

Indigenous people on that.

[3:30 p.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate the nature of this discussion and do think it’s

appropriate to have in the lead-up to the delivery by the government of

the action plan that’s contemplated under

section 4 of Bill 41. There’s

an expectation that that action plan will be determined by this

government with First Nations leadership. That was what the member for

Abbotsford West and myself heard from the Attorney General’s colleague,

the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, through the

lengthy committee debate and discussion about that bill.

In the absence of clarity around what that action plan looks like,

in my view, it’s an appropriate question to be asking about every single

piece of legislation that this government introduces in this House.

Certainly, we will have the opportunity in the near-term future. The

briefing that I was pulled out of to go through this committee process

at this time was Bill 13, the misc stats bill. There certainly are

aspects of that bill which…. Certainly, the government has gone about to

ensure that the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the

declaration. In many cases, you find, for example, changes in

terminology between the use of the term “Aboriginal peoples” to

“Indigenous peoples.”

I think there is certainly going to be progress that this

government is making. You would expect, to meet the requirement under

Bill 41, that this government must take all measures necessary to ensure

the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the declaration. I do

think it is more than just an intellectual exercise that we’re going

through. I think it’s a real discussion to be having at this

juncture.

For example, and this is how I would frame the question for the

Attorney General to address, we know that

article 40 of UNDRIP refers to

Indigenous peoples having “…the right to access to and prompt decision

through just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and

disputes with States or other parties” — in this case, dealing with the

Arbitration Act, we’re dealing with parties — “as well as to effective

remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective

rights. Such a decision shall give due consideration to the customs,

traditions, rules and legal systems of the Indigenous peoples concerned

and international human rights.”

I would have thought, of course, that the exercise the government

would be doing through its ministry, when it’s looking at legislation

that it’s proposing in this House since the passage of Bill 41 — that

that review would be taking place.

I do appreciate and I do understand in terms of the previous

discussions with the Attorney General — and by his invitation to my

colleague, the member for Prince George–Valemount, and myself, in each

of our critic roles, to attend Justice Summit…. So we’re certainly

aware, through that lens and through other visits to First Nations

courts, of the initiatives that the Attorney General has in looking at

the entire strategy — the justice strategy dealing with Indigenous

peoples here in this province. But I believe that that is actually a

separate discussion.

What’s required under Bill 41 is a specific review to ensure the

consistency with UNDRIP. That is what this government committed this

province to do under Bill 41. So again, to the Attorney General, if he

could please comment on whether there was any review done by this

government, by the Attorney General’s ministry, on this particular bill

that’s tabled here in this House against

article 40 or any other

applicable articles to UNDRIP as attached to Bill 41.

Hon. D. Eby: As I advised the member for Abbotsford West, every piece of

legislation that we bring forward, if it’s seen as having any impact on

Indigenous rights, whether material or speculative, then we would engage

with First Nations on that issue. I’m not aware of any inconsistency or

any even speculative inconsistency with UNDRIP, and I welcome the member

to provide any that he is concerned about.

[3:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: We spent, at length, time permitting, the opportunity to go

through the various articles of UNDRIP. Knowing the nature of these

principles that were attached to Bill 41, I think they are high-level

principles for which there was quite an extensive discussion around

their applicability in British Columbia and in this country. So when we

look at

article 40, I would have thought that there would be some

consideration about the customs, traditions, rules and legal systems of

Indigenous peoples and how any decision through an arbitration process

under this domestic Arbitration Act would impact or be formulated in a

consistent nature to those customs, traditions rules and legal systems

of Indigenous peoples.

That, I think, is what

article 40 is speaking to. From my

viewpoint, having looked at this only in the days that this government

tabled this bill for consideration in this House, I would have expected

that there would be a more detailed consideration around

that.

Again to the Attorney General, can I ask him to comment on the

specific nature of

article 40 and whether there are specific components

of that

article that were considered in the design of this commercial

arbitration act?

Hon. D. Eby: As I advised the member, we did a review of the proposed

legislation and did not see any inconsistency with the UNDRIP

legislation or any other aspect of Indigenous rights. Maybe the member

doesn’t understand — it’s possible he doesn’t — how arbitration works.

You have to agree to participate, and it’s party-driven. You can set

your own legal standards. It’s not coercive. It’s not the state

compelling anyone to do anything.

With respect to how Indigenous people resolve their own disputes

and whether they want to use the Arbitration Act or not, it’s totally up

to them. If they want to go through the justice strategy, prioritize

having Indigenous-based resolution of issues — whether they’re

commercial, interpersonal, family or otherwise — that is the mechanism

by which we will be working with First Nations people on ensuring that

they have dispute resolution processes that work for them.

M. Lee: I appreciate that arbitration under this act is certainly

voluntary, with the parties having to agree in terms of this application

and go through the designated appointing authority, being the BCICAC, by

regulation. I appreciate that that will be the case.

Perhaps I could ask the Attorney General to explain to this House

how an arbitration process will take into account the customs,

traditions, rules and legal systems of Indigenous peoples. How would

that work under this act?

Hon. D. Eby: I talked about the legal standards that can be determined by the

parties, which could include any number of First Nations traditions,

legal perspectives or otherwise. The process is similarly flexible, and

hearings or processes could look like anything that the parties wish

them to look like. Remote communities could be accommodated through

video conference and other processes.

[3:40 p.m.]

This is a very flexible statute that enables parties to choose the

ways in which they want to resolve their disputes. So I’m struggling to

understand the member’s concern about inconsistency, given that this is

a party-driven process. Any party that felt that their views or legal

standards or traditions were not being respected simply would not

participate in the arbitration — they would just go to court — which

will remain an option.

M. Lee: I do appreciate the time that we’re taking on this particular

consideration around this bill, just to further the context around why

members on this side of the House, and I think all members of this

House, should want to focus on this. It’s because, as we know, there are

many disputes in this province today. There will be disputes tomorrow

and the day after. To the extent that the Arbitration Act or any other

legislation that this House is passing is subject to further

expectations, let’s say, by First Nations leadership or Indigenous

peoples not being met, by virtue of the heightened expectation on the

implementation of Bill 41, that’s exactly why we’re having this

discussion today.

It’s entirely possible, I would expect, that when the government

goes through and completes this exercise around the action plan, an

exercise that we had heard, from the Minister of Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation, would take a matter of months…. Well, now we’re

closing in on four to five months. We will have the opportunity, of

course, to get an update from the minister in estimates as to the status

of that action plan.

But in the absence of understanding about the steps that are being

taken in that action plan, I do know…. As the member for Abbotsford West

was taking us through some of the quotes, the statements, that the

minister had made in the committee stage debate on Bill 41, he was very

careful to say that the exercise to review and ensure that the laws of

British Columbia are consistent with the declaration would be something

that government wouldn’t dictate to Indigenous peoples. That would be

something that would be done jointly. That’s the reason why there’s

section 4 of Bill 41 itself that contemplates consultation and

involvement with Indigenous peoples.

I appreciate what the Attorney General is saying, and he’s

confirmed to this House today that the assessment has been done and that

in their view, there is no inconsistency with the declaration, but I

would like to question that part of it. It seems to me that the

understanding my colleague the member for Abbotsford West and myself had

on Bill 41, that there would be a joint consultation-determined action

plan — I’m not hearing that that has actually occurred in this

case.

Is there any consideration around the lack of consultation with

Indigenous peoples on the exercise to ensure that this bill, as

presented, is consistent with the declaration?

Hon. D. Eby: I guess it’s a matter of perspective about what the Ministry of

Attorney General has done here. The member believes that the most

appropriate course of action under the UNDRIP statute would be to engage

on the Arbitration Act and say, “Do you like the Arbitration Act? Don’t

you like the Arbitration Act?” even though there is no apparent nexus

with any potential infringement or compromising inconsistency or other

issue with Indigenous rights.

That’s his test about whether we’ve met the standard of the act.

My test is: does the justice system work for Indigenous people? I know

the answer is no, because I worked for a lot of Indigenous people, and

the justice system didn’t work for them. When we go to Indigenous

people, and say, “Does the justice system work for you?” and they say,

“No, it does not,” and they come up with a plan about how we can make

the justice system work for them over a two-year process and engagement

with justice workers and Indigenous people across the province, about

how we can design a dispute resolution process that works for Indigenous

people…. That’s what the justice system is. It’s entirely a dispute

resolution process. That seems to me to be entirely in the spirit of

UNDRIP and a remarkable and, frankly, historic engagement with

Indigenous people on justice issues, of which arbitration is one

example.

[3:45 p.m.]

The member says there hasn’t been enough engagement. It’s his

perspective; it’s not my perspective. My perspective is we are doing

historic engagement with Indigenous people about dispute resolution and

the justice system.

The member is invited anytime to sit down and provide feedback on

the justice strategy, and he’s had the opportunity to be at some of

these remarkable meetings with Indigenous people where we went through

that whole process together. He sat at those tables, so I know he’s

aware of the engagement. He just doesn’t feel that it applies adequately

to this bill. We have different perspectives on that.

M. Lee: I appreciate the Attorney General’s response and certainly the

workup around the justice strategy and the process that the Attorney

General has been going through. As I said earlier, I appreciate —

through justice summits and otherwise — being informed and having some

level of input and some discussion, at least, in those forums for

discussion.

As I mentioned previously, my concern, though, is compliance with

Bill 41. I appreciate the Attorney General’s response on that, which is

at a different level of response referring to the overall review and how

the justice system is not working for Indigenous peoples in this

province and how it can be improved. I recognize and acknowledge that

effort.

All I’m focused on, as was my colleague from Abbotsford West, is

how Bill 41…. The commitment, the expectation — heightened as it is in

this province — the lack of clarity in the absence of the action plan,

the absence of any public review…. The 23 hours we spent in committee

session was to get a better understanding of those provisions and how it

would work.

This, in some sense, is a continuation of that. Again, Mr. Chair,

as I say, the reason for that, in part, is because we don’t have the

action plan in front of us. So this will be an important line of inquiry

for some bills. I’ve heard the Attorney General’s explanation of his

review, or his response, on this. But I will just register my concern

that I would hope and urge that this government comes to its action plan

so that we have better clarity as to how bills like this are being

reviewed and consulted upon for the purpose of compliance with Bill

Having said that, I’m going to now, if I can, move to another

question. We are completing

section 4. So I’m going to suggest that we

can vote on that section, and I’ll continue with other sections to

follow.

The Chair: Any further discussion on

section 4?

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

M. Lee: I just have a few more questions like this, which are similar, and

the Attorney General may refer back to some of his previous responses,

but it’s just this consideration around

section 5. Again, there are some

differences with the ULCC model law. Again, if the Attorney General can

comment on whether any of those differences are significant or

substantive.

Hon. D. Eby: The difference is subsection 4, and the

section reads: “The

reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause

constitutes an arbitration agreement if the reference is such as to make

that arbitration clause part of the contract.” So everything else in the

section is Uniform Law Conference of Canada model law. Subsection 4 has

been added from the international arbitration act that we’ve been

referring to. It specifically is to recognize that if there is a

reference in a contract, if there is an arbitration clause in a

contract, that is considered an arbitration agreement.

[3:50 p.m.]

Again, it provides that harmony between the international and the

domestic for ease of practitioners moving back and forth between the

two.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

M. Lee: I just wanted the Attorney General…. If he could comment on the

reference here in terms of the Scott v. Avery clauses, those

types of clauses — whether there is broad consensus on the utilization

of this type of clause.

Hon. D. Eby: These clauses relate to a case called Scott v. Avery , and

they require duplicate effort — first, arbitrate, and then, litigate.

It’s contrary to the spirit of arbitration, which is intended to be

final and binding dispute resolution. There are many common-law

jurisdictions…. In fact, to our knowledge, all Canadian common-law

jurisdictions override Scott v. Avery . Instead of treating such

clauses as void, the statutory language deems them to be arbitration

agreements. This permits the parties to resolve their disputes by final

and binding arbitration without the need to subsequently litigate the

dispute. The proposed modernized language is Uniform Law Conference of

Canada–recommended, in addition to being consistent with other

common-law jurisdictions in Canada.

Sections 6 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

M. Lee: Just on

section 14, “Appointment of arbitrator.” This

section

provides for a significant role for the designated appointing authority,

in that when “…the parties fail to agree on the arbitrator, the

designated appointing authority must, on request of a party, appoint the

arbitrator.” Could I ask: how frequently would the expectation be that

parties, when there is a case of two appointed arbitrators, fail to

agree to the third one? How often do we expect that this provision will

actually be utilized?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. The purpose of this

section is to ensure

there are mechanisms for the appointment of arbitrators, whether by

party agreement or statutory default, and that it operates efficiently

and fairly. This is something that the BCICAC already does as part of

their book of business.

We don’t have a handy statistic for the member about how often

they find themselves in that situation. Again, that would be one

subsection of, potentially, all the arbitrations taking place in British

Columbia, because there may be — there likely are — arbitrations taking

place without BCICAC involvement. So even if we had that data, we

couldn’t provide a comprehensive number.

[3:55 p.m.]

But it is important, because arbitration can be hampered when

there is no agreed appointment process or the agreed appointment process

fails. The international act has a legislated backstop for arbitrator

appointment in the absence of party agreement. The recommended provision

here closely tracks the ICAA language with modifications for our

domestic context.

The member will note that this

section deals with two related

subjects: first, what happens if the parties don’t agree on a process;

second, if there is an agreement but one or more of the participants in

the appointment process fails to act. Obviously, to my mind, it wouldn’t

be the majority, but it certainly is something that seems realistic, in

terms of a potential need for the act to respond to.

The proposed provision will ensure — in the absence of agreement

or if there’s an impasse — that BCICAC, as the designated authority,

will appoint an arbitrator. In the domestic context, the BCICAC is

better placed than…. Some might think the chief justice would be well

placed to make an appointment, given that the chief justice is the

statutory default appointment authority in the ICAA, the international

act. But given BCICAC’s access to the names of arbitrators and its

knowledge of arbitrator expertise within B.C. in the domestic context,

we felt it made more sense to have them take on this role.

If the BCICAC fails to make an appointment within seven days of a

request to do so, the court then takes on jurisdiction to make an

appointment on application. That’s a fail-safe to the

fail-safe.

M. Lee: I just wanted to ask the Attorney General if he could also comment

on the expectation around the BCICAC in terms of its role under this

act. What expectations…? They have, of course, their own rules for the

centre — which, I understand, will be streamlined in the context of what

is set out in this statute. If the Attorney General could comment on

what his expectation is for the centre in terms of the rules themselves.

What changes will be made to those rules, and what changes might be made

to the governance structure of the centre as it fulfils its role under

this domestic Arbitration Act?

Hon. D. Eby: The centre is a private organization, and they will make decisions

about governance and their rules. The member is right, though, in that

the centre is engaging with the Ministry of Attorney General staff

regularly, to discuss some of their intentions in relation to the rules.

We understand them to be adjusting their rules to dovetail with the new

act and that that work is underway as we speak, to make sure that the

rules are consistent with the new act.

For example, the BCICAC would have a new function under this

legislation, which is to resolve disputes with respect to fees — this is

something they haven’t done before — in order to expedite the delivery

of an arbitration award. So they’ll need new rules to incorporate that.

That’s one example of where they are surely looking at changes to the

rules. I’m not aware of any changes to governance in terms of the

organization — again, a private entity that will make those decisions

about what best suits their organization.

Sections 14 to 51 inclusive approved.

section 52.

[4:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just to ask the Attorney General. The nature of the importance of

these roles — that is, to withhold an arbitral award…. What is

contemplated in terms of the ability of the function that the BCICAC

will be playing under this provision as the “designated appointing

authority”?

Hon. D. Eby: This is a Uniform Law Conference of Canada–recommended section.

The purpose of it is to permit an arbitral tribunal to withhold an award

until it has received full payment of fees and expenses, and to extend

the time for giving the award until security is provided, as well as to

allow a party to apply to the appointing authority — which the BCICAC is

intended to be, under the regulations — for direction that the arbitral

tribunal deliver the award, on payment in trust to the appointing

authority, of fees and expenses.

[4:05 p.m.]

A

summary determination of fees and expenses, a direction that

fees and expenses be paid out of the trust moneys or a direction that

any balance of moneys in trust be paid out — those would be key BCICAC

functions as designated authority under the regs.

This

section also permits a party to apply to the Supreme Court if

the appointing authority fails to make an order within 30 days, a

safeguard there if there’s an issue with the BCICAC. The BCICAC here in

this

section is providing an escrow function in the event that one party

doesn’t wish to pay fees.

The significance of this is that when parties fail to make payment

of arbitral fees and expenses, withholding an outstanding arbitral award

can serve as security to ensure that payment. Most commonly, it’s one

party that doesn’t want to pay its share of the arbitral tribunal fees

and expenses. The party who believes it has lost the arbitration is

usually the one who doesn’t want to pay. They have no interest in having

the arbitral award given to the parties, because they lost.

The proposed provision provides a mechanism to secure payment of

the arbitral tribunal’s fees and expenses and to allow the arbitral

tribunal to release the arbitral award to the parties. It’s obviously an

important function in the whole process. The proposed provision will

ensure that arbitral awards are released in a timely manner and that

arbitral fees and expenses are paid.

Sections 52 to 57 inclusive approved.

section 58.

Hon. D. Eby: I have a proposed amendment to this section. This proposed

amendment is meant to address what was identified as an issue of

insufficient clarity about whether there needed to be a single justice

of the Court of Appeal or a panel of the Court of Appeal determining

leave on the set-aside of an arbitral award. It clarifies that when

leave to appeal is sought, the application is to be brought before a

single justice. It’s not obvious from the text in the proposed bill that

that was the intention.

While the purpose of the amendment is fairly straightforward, the

text that is struck out and substituted is somewhat lengthy to read out,

so I’d ask members to refer to that paper copy for reference.

I’ll note for the member that this is an identical amendment

proposed to

section 61. I’ll be raising it for that

section as well as

section 59. I guess I’ll be up three times, for proposed amendments 58,

59 and 61. All of the amendments have the same intent: to just clarify

that our intention was that, for leave to set aside an arbitral award,

it be a single justice of the B.C. Court of Appeal rather than the court

sitting in a panel.

I move the amendment to

section 58 that is in the possession of

the Clerk.

SECTION 58 (6), by adding the underlined text as

shown:

(6) A party may appeal a Supreme Court decision under this

section to the Court of Appeal with leave of a justice of the

Court of Appeal .]

Amendment approved.

Section 58 as amended approved.

[4:10 p.m.]

section 59.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 59 that’s in the possession of the

Clerk.

SECTION 59, by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the underlined text as shown:

Appeals on questions of law

(1) There is no appeal to a court

from an arbitral award other than as provided under this

section.

(2) A party to an arbitration may appeal to the Court of

Appeal on any question of law arising out of an arbitral award

(

a) all the parties to the arbitration consent,

(

b) subject to subsection (3), the a

justice of that court grants leave to appeal under subsection

(4).

(3) A party to an arbitration may seek leave to appeal to

the Court of Appeal on any question of law arising out of an arbitral

award unless the arbitration agreement expressly states that the parties

to the agreement may not appeal any question of law arising out of an

arbitral award.

(4) On an application for leave under subsection (3), a

justice of the Court of Appeal may grant leave if

it the justice determines that

(

a) the importance of the result of the arbitration to the

parties justifies the intervention of the court and the determination of

the point of law may prevent a miscarriage of justice,

(

b) the point of law is of importance to some class or

body of persons of which the applicant is a member, or

(

c) the point of law is of general or public

importance.

(5) If a justice of the Court of Appeal grants leave

to appeal under subsection (4), it the justice

may attach to the order granting leave conditions that

it the justice considers just.

(6) On an appeal to the Court of Appeal, the court

may

(

a) confirm, amend or set aside the arbitral award,

(

b) remit the arbitral award to the arbitrator together

with the court’s opinion on the question of law that was the subject of

the appeal.]

I move the amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This is an identical amendment to

section 58 in that it clarifies

the intent that when leave to set aside an arbitral award is sought, the

application should be brought before a single justice rather than a

panel.

Amendment approved.

section 59 as amended.

M. Lee: Just on

section 59 as amended. I had some questions going back to

section 59 as proposed under Bill 7.

This is an area, of course, where there has been significant

streamlining of the appeal provisions under this bill as compared to the

existing statute. If I could ask the Attorney General to comment on what

the feedback has been in the consultation process around the change to

this appeal process.

Hon. D. Eby: There has been support for this amendment. The reasons are that

the grounds of appeal are unchanged from the present provision; however,

what is changed is the lengthy four-step review process, which could see

two appearances at B.C. Supreme Court and two appearances at the B.C.

Court of Appeal. It’s now streamlined to allow direct leave to appeal

applications and any appeal, where leave is granted, to proceed before

the B.C. Court of Appeal. So this is a significantly stream­lined

process.

Further, parties can also take advantage of expanded authority

under this section, which they didn’t have before, in that they can opt

out of appeals altogether. Or they can use the services of the BCICAC

that provides arbitration appeal panels on questions of fact, questions

of mixed fact and law, and questions of law. So there are a number of

options available for parties.

The bottom line is that not only is autonomy expanded, in terms of

choosing whether there are no appeals or a particular court or BCICAC,

but it’s significantly streamlined in the event that people do decide to

go to court, avoiding four potential appearances and streamlining that

to leave and then the appeal itself at the Court of Appeal.

Section 59 as amended approved.

Section 60 approved.

section 61.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 61 that’s in the possession of the

Clerk.

SECTION 61 (7), by adding the underlined text as

shown:

(7) A party may appeal a Supreme Court decision under this

section to the Court of Appeal with leave of a justice of the

Court of Appeal .]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This is an identical amendment to the amendments in sections 58

and 59, intended to clarify that leave to appeal to set aside an

arbitral award take place before a single justice rather than a panel of

the Court of Appeal.

Amendment approved.

Section 61 as amended approved.

Sections 62 to 72 inclusive approved.

section 73.

[4:15 p.m.]

M. Lee: I wanted to take this opportunity to ask the Attorney General…. In

terms of the move of these provisions from this Commercial Arbitration

Act to the Family Law Act — I do appreciate that ministry staff has

forwarded me, through the briefings — that makes greater sense in terms

of where those arbitration provisions ought to sit.

If I could ask the Attorney General: is there any impact of these

amendments that the Attorney General foresees in terms of how

arbitration will be used under the Family Law Act by virtue of this

change?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined here by Darryl Hrenyk on the Family Law Act amendments

and appreciate his assistance here.

To the member’s question, it’s government’s intention that the

policy remain the same. There is some modernization of the language, but

the intent of these amendments was to maintain the same policy and to

move these sections into the Family Law Act, where a person who might be

involved in a family law dispute of some kind would look, presumably, to

find out what their options are rather than looking into an arbitration

act, a totally different statute. We’re putting it into the Family Law

Act so that it’s more intuitive for people.

M. Lee: Just to ask the question here. Are there any adjustments or

revisions that are necessary under the Family Law Act to contemplate the

move of these provisions to that act?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two sets of consequential amendments, one to the Family

Law Act and one to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. For the

Family Law Act,

section 245 is amended to add regulation-making powers.

These sections obviously came from the Arbitration Act and were brought

to the Family Law Act.

[4:20 p.m.]

The Arbitration Act had certain regulation-making powers in

relation to family law arbitrations that aren’t in the current act, so

those regulation-making powers needed to be included in the Family Law

Act.

The member didn’t ask, but anticipating his question, the Family

Maintenance Enforcement Act was amended — in particular, that the

definition of a maintenance award should include an arbitration award

just so that it’s very clear that if there is a support award that’s

made through the arbitration process, the Family Maintenance Enforcement

Act officials can, in fact, enforce that, just as they could a court

judgment or other type of maintenance award.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response and addressing the Family Maintenance

Enforcement Act as well. I appreciate that.

Just one other question, then, relating to the reg-making powers

under

section 74 of this bill. We are not actually on that section. But

given that it’s related, just in view of the Attorney General’s

response, can I ask: are there any particular regulations in the area of

arbitration for family law disputes that are contemplated at this time

that the government would be looking to make?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that staff haven’t identified any yet.

Sections 73 to 82 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:23 p.m.

[4:25 p.m.]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 7 — ARBITRATION ACT

Bill 7, Arbitration Act, reported complete with

amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. D. Eby: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. D. Eby: Now.

Mr. Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 10.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: It is

an act, Bill 7, Arbitration Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ARBITRATION ACT

Bill 7, Arbitration Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call throne speech debate.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

T. Shypitka: It gives me great privilege to speak to this fifth session in the 41st

parliament and my response to the throne speech, going back to the throne

speech.

I just want to say a quick congratulations to my Auntie Anne and Uncle

Steve, who just had their 60th wedding anniversary not too long ago. So hats

off to them. My mom and my dad are watching right now. They obviously don’t

have much of a life.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Yeah, they probably are watching the Brier right now. You’re probably

right there.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

But just to speak to the throne speech. I just want to highlight a few

things here in this speech. This is the fourth throne speech that we’ve

heard from the government. Actually, it kind of floored me a little bit. It

doesn’t seem like it’s been four throne speeches, but it has been four. I

think I alluded, the last time I was here, that this would be a time of

reflection, you would think — for a government to say: “You know, after four

throne speeches, we’ll be able to realize the fruits of our labour now and

see all the plans that we said we were going to put in. Now we’re going to

see all the good things that have come from it.”

We really just haven’t, and I’m going to explain why. I’ll explain a

little bit about the promises that were made and the promises that were

never kept. I think when we go back to the election in 2017, we all heard a

few themes on what the NDP was going to do. We heard that through their

throne speeches. A big one was on affordability. That was the big promise

that they were going to make. I’ll break down some of those components of

what affordability meant to this government and what we haven’t realized as

a province.

I’ll go to a statistic first, right off the bat. According to

Demographia International Housing, Vancouver is the second-most unaffordable

housing market in the world now. It has crept up the ranks. It’s not a list

you want to be on the top of, and we’re No. 2 right now.

There’s a large reason for that. Since being in government, the NDP

have introduced…. Well, it was 19 new or increased taxes. We’ve now seen

that creep up to 23, and I’ll explain those other four here a little bit

later.

[4:30 p.m.]

These taxes made up about $5.7 billion per year since the last

government was in place. But with this budget that we’ve seen since the

throne speech, we’ve seen now that it’s going to go up to about $8.8 billion

by 2022. So what does that mean to the average person on the street? Well,

what it means is that it’s going to add about $2,400 per year per family,

making life not affordable for British Columbians.

MSP. They claim it’s the largest tax cut in B.C. history — and we’ll get

some applause over there, I’m sure — but let’s just really look at what a

tax cut is. A tax cut to government is taking away a tax, taking away

revenue by means of taking away a tax, and giving the benefit back to

British Columbians as less tax. But what has happened is they replaced the

MSP with the employer health tax, which is actually a bigger tax burden to

British Columbians. So it wasn’t a tax cut. It was a replacement of a

tax.

This tax has affected municipalities, not-for-profit

organ­izations, health services and police and fire services. The

chamber of commerce has been very adamant about how this has impacted small

and medium-sized businesses across the province. Business owners, especially

in the hospitality industry, have been really damaged by this tax. To say

that it was a tax cut really is very misrepresentative, in my

opinion.

Despite the efforts to claw back spending, government expenses are

still over budget by about $550 million. These are big numbers that people

should be concerned with. There’s over one billion in infrastructure

projects promised in 2019. They’re all on hold now. That came out in the Q2

highlights last year. Spending with this government is up about $11.4

billion per year since the last government was in place. So even though it

seems like a catch phrase, we truly do have a tax-and-spend

government.

One of the other big promises that we heard in throne speech after

throne speech and right from the election time was on the 114,000 affordable

homes throughout the province. It doesn’t take a mathematician to figure it

out. It’s about 11,400 a year, on average. Over the last three fiscal years,

we should have around 35,000 built already. But we’ve got about 2,400 right

now to show for it. I’m not condemning those 2,400 homes, by any means, but

I need to shed a light on yet another broken promise that we’re seeing. It’s

becoming a bit of a theme here.

To address the housing crisis, our party has always said to increase

the supply through a free enterprise system, provide some incentives to move

the market in a positive direction. But what we’ve seen is just the opposite

with this government. The MLA advisory 2019 Year in Review states:

“Many larger-scale developments took a pause​…​with less than

4,000 concrete presale units released in 2019, compared to over 12,000 in

2018.” This is a decrease in concrete presale inventory by 75 percent.

That’s quite substantial. So our supply is going down. Our demand is

increasing. We have 70,000 new people come to the province. Therefore, we’re

seeing the prices of homes going up again.

Housing starts were down 40 percent last month. In greater Vancouver

and even in my riding of Kootenay East, prices are going up. Strata

councils, as we’ve heard through many debates in the House here, are in

crisis mode as they watch their insurance premiums skyrocket, in some cases

up by 400 percent. This is not according to us; this is according to the

insurance brokers of B.C. So affordability is not what we’re seeing

here.

Then, speaking of housing, another promise that we heard was the

renters rebate. It was a $400 renter rebate that was promised, and in this

budget that we’ve seen, it’s not there. That’s something we heard in the

throne speech many times.

The other one, the other big promise, was the $10-a-day daycare. This

was a big deal right across the province when this promise was made. I told

the story once before. I got in a pretty heated argument with a constituent.

He thought that B.C. Liberals were standing in the way of $10-a-day daycare.

It was pretty heated and pretty emotional.

[4:35 p.m.]

I told him, back in the election, that I don’t know where it was

costed. In the election campaign, $10-a-day daycare and 114,000 affordable

homes were never costed in their plan. But they threw it out there anyways.

It was a good little tidbit for people to grab on to. Now we’re seeing after

four throne speeches that we’re not seeing any real breakthrough on

providing $10-a-day daycare.

I would say there are only 2,500 $10-a-day daycare spaces in the

province, which represents about 2 percent of the total space. I think the

total space is about 114,000. There are only 25 that have $10-a-day daycare,

and that’s a pilot project that ends at the end of March.

I’m sure that they’ll try to pick up the slack and keep it going. But

none of these are new spaces. They were all operating before. They said

they’d funded 10,400, but later admitted that there’s only…. Sorry, this is

on daycare spaces. They said they had funded 10,400, but later — now —

they’ve admitted that only 2,055 are actually open and working.

After nearly two years of trying, it remains to be seen when or if the

others will actually open. So far, they’ve just outright failed and led

people down the garden path. I’ve heard some comments about some people that

were lucky enough to get the $10-a-day daycare. In their own words, they

said it was like winning a lottery. I have to agree. You know, when only 2

percent of the daycare spaces are $10-a-day daycare, it’s 2 percent win and

98 percent fail. So I agree that it would be like winning a

lottery.

When you’re in a jurisdiction or a riding where one person on the

street has got $10-a-day daycare and the person next to them has not, it

seems like there are winners and losers. It’s not really even for

everybody.

The softwood lumber industry was another big deal. I know that, then,

the Premier — he was the MLA for Langford–Juan de Fuca — came to my riding

and said that he was going to be the champion for softwood lumber. He was

going to make it all go away and be a champion for the forest

industry.

Well, we all know what has happened since then: 6,000 families out of

work, the longest labour dispute in forestry history has happened, 100

curtailments, ten permanent and indefinite shutdowns just in 2019 alone.

People have lost their homes. They’ve lost their equipment. Some of them

haven’t worked for eight or nine months. That’s got to take a significant

toll on people. Once again, another real fail on this government’s

part.

I’ll go into mining a little bit. That’s my critic role. The

competitiveness of the B.C. mining sector is deteriorating real fast. It’s

due largely to costs and regulatory complexity. The survey of mining

companies…. The Fraser Institute’s annual survey came out here just a week

or so ago, and it doesn’t paint a very good picture. For the first time in

over ten years, there’s no Canadian jurisdiction, actually — not just

British Columbia, but no Canadian jurisdiction — in the top ten. We have

fallen from…. As this little chart says, we’ve gone from first place to

third place real quick. Europe is now in first and Australia is in second

place.

But if we look at B.C., in particular, at some of these tables I’ve

got here…. The investment attractiveness index is an index that the Fraser

Institute uses to grade investment attractiveness throughout the world.

British Columbia is not doing very well. Where are they here? We are in 19th

out of 76 jurisdictions, where in 2015, we were 18 out of 109 jurisdictions.

So we’ve fallen from, if I do quick math here, probably about the 14th

percentile to about the 46 percentile, dropping rapidly.

There’s also another index they’ve got. It’s called the policy

perception index. The policy perception index “provides a comprehensive

assessment of the attractiveness of mining policies in a jurisdiction and

can serve as a report card to governments on how attractive their policies

are from the point of view of an exploration manager.”

[4:40 p.m.]

This one is really troubling. We can see the chart here. We go from

No. 1 all the way down to the bottom of the chart. We are just ahead of Río

Negro, which I guess is encouraging, but we’re behind Tasmania, Turkey,

Bulgaria. Alberta is up there. Their policy seems to be doing pretty good,

but in B.C., our policy is not looked upon as being very

favourable.

This is trouble. This a very big concern, because the government, in

their throne speech, said that they were going to be champions and bring

great opportunities to British Columbians. Mining is one of our foundational

sectors of our province, one of our main places that we get employment and

all of the good things that come with it. We’re seeing it slip

big-time.

I dare say that this also was reflected with oil and gas, LNG, with

our policy. It’s not looked upon as very favourable. We heard about the

Frontier project in Alberta that was shelved. I mean, there are lots of wa