British Columbia Hansard — 3 March 2020, p.m., Issue 322 (41st Parliament, 5th Session)

20200303pm-Hansard-n322

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 322 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fifth Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services...................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ..................................................................................................... Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness.............................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party .................................................................................................................................................................Adam Olsen Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker............................................................................................................................................................. Simon Gibson Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................ Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Associate Law Clerk ..............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel............................................................................................................................................ S.

Suzie Seo Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ......................................................................... Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)................................................................ Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) .....................................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP)..............................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) .......................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)...........................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP).......................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)........................................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP)...................................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) .................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (NDP).................................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ..................................Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Langley East Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (NDP)...........................................................Kootenay West Darcy, Hon. Judy (NDP) ............................................................. New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................... Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................................Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)................................................................ Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ................................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon.

Adrian (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon. Doug (NDP)...................................................................... Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP).............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP).........................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ........................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) ......................................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal).............................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon. Scott (NDP) ..................................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ...................................................Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP).........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon.

John (NDP) ................................................ Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ........................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP).................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal).................................................Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)............................................................................... Delta North Kang, Hon.

Anne (NDP)......................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)..............................................................................Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................. Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ........................................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ..................................................... Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal).............................................

Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) .....................................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) ........................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)....................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)..................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ........................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon.

Michelle (NDP)......................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal).......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon. Darryl (Ind.) ........................................................... Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................. Langley Popham, Hon.

Lana (NDP)............................................................... Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) ............................................................Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................. North Coast Robinson, Hon.

Selina (NDP) .........................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)................................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) ....................................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................. Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ................................................................Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ......................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)..................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Jinny (NDP) ........................................................................ Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) .........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)...............................................

Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)..........................................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal)........................................ West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)................................................ Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ...........................................West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)......................................................

Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ...............................North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) .......................................................Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) ................................................................North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr.

Andrew (Ind.)................................................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) ................................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)............................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission............................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South....................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen...................................................................... Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds................................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin .............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ............................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Kent ...............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley .............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North.............................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin ..............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ..............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley .....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East.........................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim................................................................ Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo......................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ................................................................... Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster........................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast ...........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island.............................................................................. Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................................... Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour........................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head............................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum.......................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast....................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough.........................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre ......................................................................... Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine....................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................................ Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ......................................................................... Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock .............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek........................................................................ Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ............................................................... Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ....................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill.................................................................. Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; Independent 2; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................ 11445 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) .................................................................................................................................... 11449 Hon. C.

Trevena Committee of the Whole House.......................................................................................................................................... 11451 Bill 7 — Arbitration Act Hon. D. Eby M.

Lee M. de Jong Reporting of Bills................................................................................................................................................................... 11464 Bill 7 — Arbitration Act Third Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................... 11465 Bill 7 — Arbitration Act Throne Speech Debate(continued) .................................................................................................................................... 11465 T.

Shypitka B. Ma S. Sullivan R. Singh D. Barnett Speaker’s Statement ............................................................................................................................................................... 11479 Third reading of Bill 7 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................................................................ 11479 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 Lu̓ á 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 clar- ity on a number of items. Some of the aspects of the bill include introducing a

section to the School Act that clari- fies 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 chal- lenge 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 Van- couver Island University and the Cowichan Community Centre, the school will be part of a community com- mons, “an anchor within our community, ” as school dis- trict 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 appro- priate use of school property — is a good step towards remedying this underused potential of our education insti- tutions. 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 littleLu̓ á making his coos in the back- ground, 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 align- ment 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 deliv- ery models for online learning, ensuring that school boards adhere to particular governance and management 11445

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 govern- ment’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 edu- cators — 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 encour- age, 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 gov- ernment 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, 2020 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 train- ing 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 reg- ular training that is required by ICBC. Provinces from Ontario west, as well as some U.S. jur- isdictions, 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 mandat- ory 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 acci- dents. 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. Amend- ments in this bill to support the model will enable gov- ernment to require standardized training as a pre-licens- ing requirement for various classes of driver’s licence. Any prescribed training courses will need to be ap- proved 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 exemp- tions and to delegate authority to ICBC to provide exemp- tions 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. 11446 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 3, 2020

The bill also includes changes to update, align and cla- rify aspects of the Motor Vehicle Act to support the oper- ations 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 require- ments, 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 pro- vincial 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 gradu- ated 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. Unfor- tunately, 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 interpret- ation of that legislation in the real world. I’ll bring up one of those points here that’s being addressed by this legis- lation.

But I’m really pleased to be able to speak to this, because I think we are bringing some creative, small, sens- ible changes to support the safety of our roads in B.C. The changes put forward in this bill provide actionable vari- ations to the strong laws that are already in place, elimin- ating 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 emer- gency lights and their sirens in an emergency situation, just the simple one of: what if a prisoner that they’re trans- porting 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 dis- ruption 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 Tuesday, March 3, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11447

90 days to get my licence changed on the vehicle, to get my driver’s licence changed. I thought that was the law. Obvi- ously, 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 dif- ferent 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. Y ou 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 cer- tain classes of licences.

They obviously prescribe that train- ing 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 — obvi- ously 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 train- ing programs involved. One of the challenges that you dis- cover when you cross a provincial boundary is that all of a sudden, there’s a new set of rules as you cross that bound- ary. 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 under- stood. 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. Y ou 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 legis- lation 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 con- cerned, 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 dis- cussions and exploring some of these proposed amend- ments 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, thor- ough 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, recog- nizes that and will be sharing that with his colleagues. As he acknowledges, the mandatory entry-level training isn’t groundbreaking.

Y es, 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 signi- ficant 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 west- ern 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. 11448 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 3, 2020

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 pre- paration 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 out- lined 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 sig- nificant moves on housing. We’re on a path to universal child care, where every family has access to quality, afford- able 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 trans- portation 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 trans- Tuesday, March 3, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11449

it 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 prov- ince 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 high- ways 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 eas- ily from Chilliwack to Abbotsford or Abbotsford to Lang- ley or Langley to Surrey — that this is a more easy con- nection, 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 popu- lated part of our province, in Metro, out through the val- ley, as well as looking at: what does integrated transporta- tion 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 rur- al 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 govern- ment for.

When Greyhound pulled out of British Colum- bia, 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 altern- atives. 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 some- body 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 com- mercial 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 11450 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 3, 2020

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 Main- land. 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’ prior- ity 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 Pat- tullo, it is going to be toll-free. It’s going to be a better com- mute. 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 mak- ing sure that our public investments really provide public benefits. When we’re doing the major projects, we are using com- munity 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, wheth- er it’s women, whether it’s people who, for whatever reas- on, 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 talk- ing 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 Kick- ing 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 min- istry, 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 adjourn- ment 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 Min- istry 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 interna- tional act as well. I look forward to the questions from the critic. On

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 fol- lowed 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, Tuesday, March 3, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11451

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 adop- tion of the UNCITRAL Model Law as B.C. ’s International Commercial Arbitration Act in 1986. 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 top- ic of domestic arbitration reform and the government’s objectives, and they addressed that at several different con- ferences 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 dir- ect 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 subcommit- tee throughout the review and preparation of the amend- ments 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. Pro- posed 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-arbit- rators, 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 rep- resentative 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 arbit- ration, 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 Attor- ney 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 Min- istry of Attorney General, is an arbitrator, himself, of con- 11452 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 3, 2020

siderable talent, who worked in Paris, Geneva and Wash- ington. So both in-house and outside of house, we had interna- tional 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 inter- national 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 har- mony 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 Brit- ish 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 organ- ization with respect to both international and domestic arbitration. As the Attorney General confirmed in his second reading speech, it is the intention — through regu- lation, 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 com- mittee stage, the importance of this centre. Certainly, my expectation would be that the government and the min- istry 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 organiza- tion. Any subsequent name change is really a branding ini- tiative. 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 promin- ence 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 internation- al 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 regula- tions 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 organ- ization 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 amend- ment 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 Vancou- ver 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 advant- ages that other similar organizations in other provinces simply don’t have. M.

Lee: Well, I think that the main consideration, I Tuesday, March 3, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11453

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 organiza- tion for which both the international and domestic arbit- ration 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 law- yer 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 regula- tion, 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 1by 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 Ar- bitration 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 cer- tainly 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 reg- ulations. Any practitioner of arbitration or anyone soph- isticated 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 organ- ization 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 Vancou- ver international arbitration centre. That, as I understand in speaking with individuals rep- resenting 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 meas- ure, ” 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 ref- erence. M. Lee:That includes sub (e). Is that correct? Hon. D. Eby:Y es.

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 arbitra- tion. 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. On

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 11454 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 3, 2020

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 agree- ments 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 Brit- ish 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 “ …wheth- er 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, includ- ing 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 Com- mercial Arbitration Act, family law arbitrations, several prescribed trade agreements or agreements between gov- ernments, with limited, particularized exceptions. The ICAA is, of course, our B.C. statute for international arbit- rations. Regulations under the act will prescribe agree- ments — 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. On

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 Attor- ney 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. On

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 signi- ficance 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 under- line 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 stand- ards are different and should be different, because arbitra- tion is set up in a way to provide a quick and an efficient Tuesday, March 3, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11455

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, sec- tions 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 Indigen- ous 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 pro- cess 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 doc- ument and the documents are coming from the same international body, one presumes, at a minimum, they would be consistent. But knowing real life and legisla- tion, 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 leg- al 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 affect- ing 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 con- versation with the Attorney’s colleague, he had this to say about the process that we could expect, going forward, fol- lowing the proclamation of the UN declaration. [3:15 p.m.] “If there are new laws, ” he said, “new legislation com- ing 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 consist- ent 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 else- where in the conversation we had with him, to speak to, going forward, a specific process or procedure for engage- ment. 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 pre- vious 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 inconsist- ency 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 11456 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 3, 2020

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 Indigen- ous 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 mem- ber is referring to when he’s curious about whether we’re talking to Indigenous people about how they resolve con- cerns, how the state interacts with Indigenous people in relation to the justice system — writ large, how we incor- porate 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 des- cending 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 prepar- ation 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 Indigen- ous 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 col- league 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 disproportion- ate 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 vari- ous 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 Indigen- ous 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 spe- cific 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 Tuesday, March 3, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11457

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 leader- ship 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 per- spective? 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 Col- umbia as a whole, because it doesn’t work for British Col- umbia 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 facil- itated 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 Gen- eral, and it encompasses the entirety of how the justice sys- tem works with Indigenous people. M. de Jong: I think my last question on this point….

When the Attorney’s colleague was discussing the proced- ure going forward, he talked about the obligation that each ministry would assume for the development of a work- plan. 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 col- league 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 get- ting a bit away from the bill, but in any event…. The mem- ber 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 partner- ship with Indigenous people.

I can’t think of a better part- nership 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 deliv- ery by the government of the action plan that’s contem- plated under

section 4 of Bill 41. There’s an expectation that that action plan will be determined by this govern- ment 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 com- mittee 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 gov- ernment 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.

Y ou 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 indi- vidual and collective rights. Such a decision shall give due 11458 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 3, 2020

consideration to the customs, traditions, rules and legal systems of the Indigenous peoples concerned and interna- tional 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 deal- ing 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 com- ment on whether there was any review done by this gov- ernment, by the Attorney General’s ministry, on this par- ticular 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 oppor- tunity 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, tradi- tions, rules and legal systems of Indigenous peoples and how any decision through an arbitration process under this domestic Arbitration Act would impact or be formu- lated 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 com- ment on the specific nature of

article 40 and whether there are specific components of that

article that were con- sidered 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 inconsist- ency 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. Y ou have to agree to participate, and it’s party-driven. Y ou 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 mechan- ism 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 accom- modated 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 dis- putes.

So I’m struggling to understand the member’s con- cern about inconsistency, given that this is a party-driven process. Any party that felt that their views or legal stand- ards 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 fur- ther 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 dis- Tuesday, March 3, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11459

putes 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 implement- ation of Bill 41, that’s exactly why we’re having this discus- sion today.

It’s entirely possible, I would expect, that when the gov- ernment 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 care- ful to say that the exercise to review and ensure that the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the declara- tion would be something that government wouldn’t dic- tate to Indigenous peoples. That would be something that would be done jointly. That’s the reason why there’s sec- tion 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 inconsist- ency with the declaration, but I would like to question that part of it. It seems to me that the understanding my col- league the member for Abbotsford West and myself had on Bill 41, that there would be a joint consultation-deter- mined action plan — I’m not hearing that that has actually occurred in this case.

Is there any consideration around the lack of consulta- tion 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 Indi- genous rights. That’s his test about whether we’ve met the standard of the act. My test is: does the justice system work for Indi- genous 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 meet- ings 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 per- spectives 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 Gen- eral’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 Abbots- ford West, is how Bill 41….

The commitment, the expect- ation — 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 ses- sion 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 pur- pose of compliance with Bill 41. Having said that, I’m going to now, if I can, move to another question. We are completing

section 4. So I’m 11460 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 3, 2020

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. On

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 consider- ation 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 sig- nificant 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 arbitra- tion 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 arbit- ration 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 interna- tional and the domestic for ease of practitioners moving back and forth between the two.

Section 5 approved. On

section 6. M. Lee: I just wanted the Attorney General…. If he could comment on the reference here in terms of theScott 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 calledScott 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 res- olution. There are many common-law jurisdictions…. In fact, to our knowledge, all Canadian common-law juris- dictions overrideScott 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. On

section 14. M. Lee: Just on

section 14, “ Appointment of arbitrator. ” This

section provides for a significant role for the des- ignated 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 arbitrat- or. ” Could I ask: how frequently would the expectation be that parties, when there is a case of two appointed arbitrat- ors, 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 appoint- ment of arbitrators, whether by party agreement or stat- utory 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 arbitra- tions 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 sev- en days of a request to do so, the court then takes on jur- Tuesday, March 3, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11461

isdiction 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 co

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20200303pm-Hansard-n322
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20200303pm Hansard n322
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d316bd9727f5a1f40391a932c76386e135b4ba80

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).