Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 139

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Ramadan

G. Begg

B.C. Beef Day and ranching industry

D. Barnett

Flood preparedness

J. Rice

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

S. Bond

Lyme disease

N. Simons

Notaries public

J. Yap

Oral Questions

Use of email by Advanced Education Minister and

response to freedom-of-information request

S. Bond

Hon. J. Sims

M. Stilwell

Support for digital technology supercluster

initiative

A. Weaver

Hon. B. Ralston

Use of email by Advanced Education Minister and

response to freedom-of-information request

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Sims

J. Johal

M. de Jong

Hon. M. Farnworth

Point of Privilege (Reservation of

Right)

Hon. M. Mark

Motions Without Notice

Referral of statutes to Parliamentary Reform

Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 30 — Cannabis Control and Licensing Act

(continued)

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

A. Olsen

T. Wat

Reporting of Bills

Bill 30 — Cannabis Control and Licensing

Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 29 — Voluntary Blood Donations Act

(continued)

N. Letnick

Hon. A. Dix

Reporting of Bills

Bill 29 — Voluntary Blood Donations Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 33 — South Coast British Columbia

Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2018

S. Sullivan

Hon. S. Robinson

J. Rustad

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

S. Bond

D. Barnett

Hon. C. James

A. Weaver

T. Redies

E. Ross

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts and

Culture

Hon. L. Popham

D. Clovechok

M. Stilwell

T. Shypitka

D. Barnett

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: We’re honoured here today and this week to be joined by people

involved in the ALS Society of B.C. Everyone knows the society does so much

here in British Columbia to support people living with ALS — to provide not

just support but support for research and hope. We’re very honoured to have

them here: Dr. Andrew Eisen, ALS B.C. president; Dr. Heather Durham, member

of the advocacy committee; Paul LeBlanc, member of the advocacy committee;

Susan Brice, member of the advocacy committee; Rick Poliquin, member of the

advocacy committee; Ann McArthur, an ALS director; Jim Williams, ALS

director; Wendy Toyer, ALS B.C. executive director; and Barbara Vassey, who

is Ann McArthur’s companion. I wish everyone in the House to please bid all

of our guests welcome.

D. Clovechok: I would like to take a minute to introduce some folks today from the

B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, specifically my neighbour, who is the

president of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, Brian McKersie. I had the

opportunity this past weekend to help him brand all of his calves. People

asked him: “How many calves have you got, Brian?” He said: “Oh, a bunch.” So

that’s the number that we did.

I also want to recognize Holly Jackson is up there, Kevin Boon, Grant

Huffman, Larry Garrett, Rick Mumford and Werner Stump. So if the House could

make them welcome.

Good to see you here.

S. Bond: On behalf of the opposition, I would like to join with the Minister of

Health in thanking the members of the ALS Society of B.C. for being here

today. They are extraordinary people. I have had the pleasure of meeting

them and working with them.

Dr. Andrew Eisen is actually probably the founder of much of the work

that has taken place with ALS in our province. Dr. Heather Durham is an

incredible researcher and contributor. But as we look down the list, these

are incredible difference-makers.

I do want to recognize Susan Brice, who is not only here as a member

of the advocacy committee but was a former member in this Legislature and

has gone on to do some incredibly good work with ALS and other

organizations.

And perhaps just a special thank-you to Ann McArthur and her

companion, Barbara, who are here today. We know that it takes a great deal

of effort to make the trip here to Victoria. We know that you’ve been a very

passionate advocate, and we just want to express special gratitude for you

making the effort to be here today in the Legislature.

I join the Minister of Health in welcoming you on behalf of the

opposition.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: As we all know from the incredible aromas in this chamber, it was B.C.

Beef Day here on the precinct. Our government declared today B.C. Beef Day

once again, and we’ve had some representatives join us from all around the

province. Some of them have been introduced, but I’m going to introduce them

by association.

The B.C. Cattlemen’s Association here today brought Brian McKersie,

Larry Garrett, Kevin Boon, Grant Huffman and Rick Mumford.

We had the Association of Cattle Feeders — Joe Heemskerk, Doug

Haughton, August Bremer and Andrea van Iterson.

We had the B.C. Breeder and Feeder Association — Ken Fawcett, Carol

Fawcett, Connie Patterson and Lindy Gilson.

I have to tell you that this is an incredible group of people that

work really hard around our province. They’re part of our diverse economy.

Almost to the day, I think I can say that I was waiting for years to not

just become the Minister of Agriculture but to get one of those amazing

hats.

Thank you so much, and welcome back to the Legislature.

J. Yap: I have six introductions today, six wonderful people who are in the

precinct. I hope they will make it to question period to join us. From the

Notaries Public Society of British Columbia, with us today are: Rhoda

Witherly, president; Jessie Vaid, first vice-president; David Watts, second

vice-president; Filip de Sagher, a director; John Mayr, executive director

of regulation; and the CEO of the Notaries Public Society, Jacqui

Mendes.

I’ll be having a little bit more to say about the wonderful work that

notaries public do in our province during statements, but please, Members,

give a warm welcome to the notaries visiting us today.

Hon. H. Bains: In the gallery, I’m really, really pleased to introduce to you the

young workers committee of the B.C. Federation of Labour, along with Denise

Moffitt from B.C. Fed. With her are Kari Michaels, Caitlin Davidson-King,

Kyle Knapton, Geoff Stephens, Milena Kollay and Ryan Milligan.

This young workers committee is here to talk to the MLAs about

improving the Employment Standards Act, improving the labour code, improving

health and safety — overall, trying to convince all of us to have better

working conditions for all working people. Please help me give a warm

welcome.

Hon. D. Eby: I’d like to join the member for Richmond-Steveston in welcoming the

Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia, the B.C. notaries. I look

forward to meeting with them later on today. The member introduced all of

them. I won’t repeat it, but I will add Ron Usher, general counsel for the

notaries, who’s here, as well, with them. I look forward to meeting with

them later this afternoon. The House, if you would please join me one more

time in making them feel especially welcome.

T. Wat: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome representatives from

Korean Air. Not only are they representing Korean Air, but they are my very

good friends for many years. In the gallery, we are joined by Mr. Brian Yung

Dong Lim, the regional manager of Korean Air, and sales managers Douglas Yu

and Stacey Ko. They work so hard in promoting the trade opportunities, the

tourism opportunities and business opportunities between Korea and British

Columbia. They also support the Canada free trade agreement that came into

effect in 2016.

Korean Air operates daily flights between Vancouver and

Seoul.

I wish the members of the House will join me in welcoming this group

to the Legislature.

R. Kahlon: I’d like the House to welcome Mark Gordienko. I think he’s here in the

chamber. Mark is the former president of the ILWU Canada-wide. He’s retired,

and he rode his bike today to Victoria to watch question period. I hope the

House will join me in making him welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome two of my very good friends, Ken

Brownlow and Debbie Brownlow. They’ve both helped me out a lot on election

campaigns, and we’ve been fast friends, good friends, for a long time now.

They visited us today together with their friends Tom Skarvig and Nikki

Skarvig. Would the House help me make them very welcome.

I would like to just briefly add my thanks to the ALS Society and — I

won’t list off the names — one person in particular, Dr. Andrew Eisen, who

was, in fact, one of my father’s physicians when my dad had ALS. The work

that Dr. Eisen has done for this province and people affected by ALS can

never be underestimated and never thanked enough.

The society itself does so much to support families struggling with

this. I know that all members will know that when we hear of people who have

been afflicted with something that has afflicted one we love or ourselves,

we immediately understand the dramatic severity of that to the circle around

those people and how that circle expands. The people who give care are in

need of care themselves and support, and that, I think, from my perspective,

is the most valuable thing that the ALS Society provides people, along with

the hope for a cure.

With the deepest sincerity, I thank Dr. Andrew Eisen for everything

he’s done for the people of British Columbia.

D. Barnett: I know they’ve been introduced, but I don’t very often get people from

the Cariboo-Chilcotin coming to this wonderful place. Today I have two of my

constituents who are longtime ranchers in the Chilcotin, Grant Huffman and

Rick Mumford, who are both members of the Cariboo Cattlemen’s Association

and members of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. I would ask the House once

again to welcome these two fine gentlemen here.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Jobs, Trades and….

Hon. B. Ralston: Technology, especially today. The tech conference is on today, Mr.

Speaker.

I want to acknowledge, in the gallery or the precinct, an incredible

group of Canadians who are part of the Persian diaspora, which is very

strong here in British Columbia — Mahbaibeh Mohebkhah, Hesam Teimouri,

Romina Mahboub, Afshin Kiasat, Maryam Malekpour, Amir Bajehkian, Sima

Ghaffarzadeh, Houman Kabiri Parvizi, Kasra Ghorbaninejad, Mahdi Shooshtari

and Milad Toutounchian. Would the House please make those people

welcome.

R. Glumac: I will continue the introductions of the group that is here today.

They represent many tech professionals, data scientists, CEOs and engineers.

I would like to introduce Azin Rahimzadeh, Ehsan Hamidi, Fez Rismani, Golnaz

Falaki, Hamed Khatami, Edeem Karoue, Iman Makarami, Kamran Tayabi and, from

my own riding, a community leader for a long time and well known and well

respected in the community, Fred Soofi. Would the House make them feel

welcome.

C. Oakes: Like many farm kids, I had the opportunity, growing up…. My parents

started the Breeder and Feeder Association in the Cariboo region, and it’s a

really important organization. I know that with the work that they’re doing,

they want to expand it onto Vancouver Island and into Vancouver. It’s a

really important association that does such great work, especially in the

Interior and the north. I have a constituent here today, Lindy Gilson. I’d

like to thank the group for the incredible work and keep it up.

B. Ma: I’d like to join in with my colleagues in introducing the remainder of

the Iranian-Canadian technology professionals that are joining us in this

House today. I’d like to introduce Mahta Ghaznavi, Mahyad Aghigh, Mehdi

Hashemi, Mehraveh Seyedalikhani, Mohammad Akhlaghi, Mona Kavianipour, Sahra

Dilmaghanyan, Sajad Seifian, Vahid Ahsani and Zahra Zaker. Can the House

please join me in wishing them all a very good

به مجلس خوش

آمدید

which is “welcome to the Legislature.”

[1:50 p.m.]

M. Dean: Well, in the gallery joining us today are 35 grade 5 students from

Victor Brodeur School in Esquimalt, and they’re here with their teacher

Daniel Bernatchez. Will you please make them very welcome.

A. Olsen: I’d just like to introduce another group of students from Gulf Islands

Secondary School on Saltspring Island and students from all of the southern

Gulf Islands. Ms. Louise Doucet and her grade 11 French social studies class

are going to be in the precinct in a few minutes. Could the House please

make them feel welcome.

J. Rustad: I know the cattlemen have been introduced, but I wanted to say a few

words as well. The cattle industry, in my riding in particular, is a

stabilizer, economically and socially. It’s a very important component of

the communities throughout my riding of Nechako Lakes, as I know it is in

many ridings throughout the province.

I particularly want to say thanks to Ken and Carolyn Fawcett, as well

as Larry Garrett and all the cattlemen that are here. They do a great job

raising the beef that we consume, even though much of it gets finished in

Alberta. They’re looking at expansion. They’re looking at great

opportunities, and I just want to thank them for the efforts that they

do.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

RAMADAN

G. Begg: It is the world’s second-largest religion and the fastest-growing

major religion in the world with over 1.8 billion followers, or almost

25 percent of world’s population. A 2015 Pew Research Center report

found it is on track to surpass Christianity this century.

Canada is home to a rapidly growing community of more than a

million of its members. They are descendants of immigrants who came to

Canada in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It is the faith of

Islam, and its followers are Muslims.

Muslims all over the world, including a large number here in

British Columbia and in my riding in Surrey, are now observing one of

the holiest months of their calendar. They will fast during the daylight

hours in this ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar, called

Ramadan.

The purpose is to remind people of the goodness of what they have

and show equality with the poor. Ramadan is a time for study and

self-discipline. It is one of the five pillars of Islam and marks the

month that the Quran was first revealed to the Prophet

Muhammad.

For many Muslims, it means a month of fasting from sunrise to

sunset, forgoing food and water. When fasting, Muslims will have one

meal before dawn and share another meal with friends and family after

sunset.

The fast is not simply about denying food and water. It also

involves, arguably, the more taxing challenge of avoiding ill speech,

arguments, loss of temper and malicious behaviour. The goal of fasting

is to get closer to God and keep one’s mind focused on a spiritual

plane, while helping and caring about those members of the society that

are less fortunate.

Muslims will observe this holy month by focusing on prayer and

reading the Quran, while generously giving to good causes and their

neighbours. It is a period of reflection, patience, self-restraint and

generosity that is intended to bring Muslims closer to Allah.

Ramadan started last evening this year and ends on the evening of

Thursday, the 14th of June, when Eid will be celebrated and Muslims will

gather with family and friends to eat and pray together.

To all the faithful who observe this event in British Columbia,

Ramadan Mubarak .

B.C. BEEF DAY AND RANCHING INDUSTRY

D. Barnett: It is an honour to rise today. Another important day in British

Columbia is B.C. Beef Day. I am sure that you have heard me say this

before, and I’m sure that you will hear me say it again: British

Columbia cattle is a key component of our economy.

[1:55 p.m.]

When we speak of agriculture in this province, most people do not

understand how much of our industry is the production of beef. There are

over 4,000 ranches operating in British Columbia, and approximately

545,000 cattle.

This day is a day of celebration, but it is also a day of

awareness. The Cattlemen’s Association has always flourished with the

environment in mind, and we are working hard to adapt to a changing

climate. Cattle are kept happy and healthy through clean drinking water

and green earth, and so are we.

I would like to finish by thanking our ranchers and barbecuers

today for treating everyone to a fine feast and for feeding our

province. This industry contributes $600 million annually to the

province’s GDP and is well worth a day of celebration. Today there are

ranchers, cattlemen and -women from all over the province who came to

the Legislature. They shared a wonderful barbecue with politicians,

staff and the public — as always, great-tasting, wholesome and safe beef

— just in time for summer. I know it was delicious, and I hope you all

had a chance to stop by. They’re always very gracious.

Our hard-working ranchers have done us another great day at the

Legislature in British Columbia. Thank you to the ranchers.

FLOOD PREPAREDNESS

J. Rice: There are nearly 2,000 properties under evacuation order and

another 3,000 under evacuation alert, due to freshet and flooding events

across B.C. The current forecast for B.C. is for continuing warm weather

into the long weekend. Now, that may sound like a lot of fun for people

going to the cottage or the golf green this weekend, but for some, this

will mean more flooded homes, lost property and irreplaceable keepsakes

and memories. The higher-than-normal snowpack, combined with these warm

temperatures, translates into the potential for overland

flooding.

These conditions call for increased vigilance in the communities

of the southern Interior and the lower Fraser Valley. We are doing

everything we can as a province to prepare for more flooding in the days

and weeks ahead. During this trying time, we want British Columbians to

know that we will be there to help. To date, we have activated the

Provincial Emergency Coordination Centre on the Saanich Peninsula to

support regional operations centres in Kamloops, Prince George, Surrey

and Nelson to provide assistance to local governments.

We’ve made disaster financial assistance funding available to

those affected in the regional districts of Kootenay-Boundary,

Okanagan-Similkameen, Central and North Okan­agan, Columbia-Shuswap,

Thompson-Nicola and many areas in the Cariboo. We are making this

funding available to help residents, local governments and First Nations

rebuild so they can rebuild the process of healing.

We’ve deployed over two million sandbags to local governments to

protect homes and public infrastructure. We’ve provided a total of 12

sandbag machines to Cache Creek, Oliver, Vernon, Willowbrook, Kelowna

and Prince George. Over 300 B.C. Wildfire Service firefighters have been

deployed to assist with sandbagging throughout B.C. We have additional

resources ready to deploy to Prince George, Kelowna and Chilliwack in

support of communities in the path of expected high waters. We’re

working with local governments to protect communities and are monitoring

the increased risk closely.

British Columbians are resilient. We will pull together and meet

these challenges, and our government will be there to protect lives and

to restore homes, businesses and communities.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

S. Bond: Imagine losing the ability to walk, talk, eat, swallow and,

eventually, breathe. That is exactly what happens to someone when they

are diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. There is no

cure for ALS, and few treatment options for the majority of people

living with the disease. That is why the ALS Society of B.C. is so

important.

[2:00 p.m.]

The mission of the organization is to provide direct support to

ALS patients, along with their families and caregivers, so that people

living with ALS can have the best quality of life possible. I have had

the privilege of seeing the work that is done firsthand, and I’ve heard

the stories of gratitude from families in my community and beyond.

Through fundraising and research, the goal is to make ALS a treatable,

not terminal, disease.

Today we are joined in the gallery by many members of the ALS team

here in British Columbia. Their passion, their hard work and their

dedication is making a difference. To each of them, we express our

sincere thank-you.

June is B.C. ALS Awareness Month. To mark the beginning of the

awareness month, several landmarks will be lit up in purple, including

our Legislature, the Royal B.C. Museum and other locations in the

province. During the month of June, there will be events held throughout

the province to raise funds and awareness, including the Walk for ALS

and the B.C. Golfathon for ALS.

As a regular participant in the Prince George Walk for ALS, I want

to encourage each MLA in the Legislature to consider attending an ALS

event during the month of June. By participating, you will demonstrate

your support for the families in your constituency that are impacted by

this life-changing disease. By walking together, we can help stop ALS in

its tracks.

LYME DISEASE

N. Simons: May is Lyme Disease Awareness Month. In B.C. and across Canada,

thousands of people live with Lyme disease or have a loved one affected

by it. It would be difficult to find a more misunderstood disease than

Lyme. It’s becoming a global epidemic, with an estimated two million new

infections in 2018.

Lyme disease is most commonly spread by the bite of an infected

tick, and climate change is facilitating the spread of these ticks. Lyme

disease is easily misdiagnosed, often going for years without detection

and then becoming completely crippling and sometimes fatal.

It’s often called the great imitator, as its symptoms mimic those

of fibromyalgia, MS, Alzheimer’s, chronic fatigue syndrome and other

psychiatric and cognitive disorders. Doctors are often not given the

proper education to recognize symptoms, and the standard tests don’t

find Lyme because the illness may not have yet dispersed throughout the

body.

The disease should be treated in the early phase. Four weeks of

antibiotics given immediately usually cures it. But when not treated, it

becomes a complex chronic disease generally viewed as untreatable here

in North America.

Some steps are being made. Last year the federal government funded

$4 million for a Lyme disease research network. The Quebec legislature

recently recognized the need for an action plan and has struck a

committee to develop one. B.C. might consider following their lead with

a plan that includes advocates’ and patients’ input, a strong public

awareness campaign, better diagnostic testing and supporting patients

with treatment options.

You’re most likely to come in contact with Lyme disease from May

to September. So as we all migrate to the great outdoors, remember that

ticks live in some of our favourite outdoor places like grassy fields,

the woods, gardens and nature parks. After a hike or a walk in these

areas, check yourself and others. Be tick and bug aware, and protect

yourself and your family.

NOTARIES PUBLIC

J. Yap: Once again, it’s my pleasure to welcome B.C. notaries to the

Legislature today. Each year they make a point of coming to Victoria to

engage with MLAs on both sides of the House, update us on developments

in the industry and share the issues of concern that come up in the

course of their important work.

Indeed, notaries provide many valuable services to the people they

serve in communities across British Columbia. They are unique legal

advisors who provide clients with guidance and support in areas like

land law and assist them with personal planning tools, like wills,

powers of attorney, representation agreements and advance

directives.

In carrying out these duties, notaries have developed a stellar

reputation for providing work of the highest standard. They are

individuals of impeccable character and integrity. They are supported in

that work by the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia, which

is committed to the advancement and protection of the public interest by

ensuring that those high standards are met. The organization also

provides ongoing educational programs for its members to increase their

skills and knowledge.

Notaries in B.C. not only provide important legal services to

individuals, families and businesses; they also put a high priority on

public service in their local communities. Many of them are very

involved personally in the community, supporting fundraising, social

services, charities, business associations, youth sports and

recreation.

[2:05 p.m.]

I hope all members will join me in warmly welcoming the notaries

here at the Legislature today, thanking them for all that they do. If I

may, Members, when you next meet one, give a notary a hug

today.

Oral Questions

USE OF EMAIL BY ADVANCED EDUCATION

MINISTER AND

RESPONSE TO

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUEST

S. Bond: The Minister of Advanced Education was asked through a

freedom-of-information request to produce any and all emails and text

messages she sent in the month of February. The government’s response to

the request was sent on May 10. It reads: “Although a thorough search

was conducted, no records were located.” Well, you can imagine our

surprise when yesterday the minister said the missing records apparently

exist in her Outlook folders.

To the Minister of Advanced Education: why did she fail to provide

the requested records, especially in light of her enthusiastic response

yesterday?

Hon. J. Sims: All ministries are required to adhere to the common records

management policies. How they implement those requirements do vary

slightly between ministries, depending on the culture there. While the

same rules generally apply, each ministry works differently, and

practices and procedures could vary.

However, let me assure everyone in this House that, in most cases,

the office of primary responsibility in all cases tasked with

maintaining minister’s office records is the deputy minister’s office.

All directions and records of decision are provided, either via email to

the deputy’s office; or in writing via documents like decision notes

that document the decisions, options in front of the minister, policy

recommendations, etc.

All of these directions or decisions are communicated in various

ways. In some cases, it may be through email. In some cases, it may be

through signing a note and, in many cases, a staff person sending a note

to the deputy, the issue notes that are considered part and parcel of

the game — for example, a staff person sending a note to the deputy’s

office, approving it on the minister’s behalf.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the response.

Hon. J. Sims: Often and many times, it may be a staff person sending a note to

the deputy’s office, approving it on the minister’s behalf. The

direction is then kept appropriately in the deputy minister’s

office.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: I’m astounded by the answer from the minister that’s just been

provided, suggesting that each ministry works differently. There are

clear requirements for ministers and ministries, and they better be

consistent. Wow.

Let’s remind the Minister of Advanced Education what she said

yesterday when she was eager to leap to her feet and explain her missing

emails. “You are able to create folders, so I have sent, inbox and

drafts, and I have a whole bunch of drop-down folders.”

The minister said she had been briefed, so she knew she had an

obligation, as does every minister, to produce the records regardless of

their location, but she didn’t — zero records for an entire month in a

minister’s office.

Can this minister explain why she didn’t produce the sent emails?

Where are they, and what does she have to hide?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. Every ministry

follows the rules that exist for keeping records and government

decisions. Every ministry follows those rules.

[2:10 p.m.]

Despite that, there can always be some variations on exactly who

is placed in charge of those official records. In most of the

ministries, that is in the hands of the deputy minister. The decisions

that are made, the issue notes that are signed and the emails that

confirm a decision or direction go to the deputy minister and are kept

on record, and records can be found.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Again, to the minister’s response, let’s be clear. The ultimate

responsibility for following the rules and ensuring that if an FOI

request is made, it is followed, lies with the minister. Let’s be clear.

This minister and her staff have a duty to thoroughly search for

records.

The minister went out of her way yesterday to confirm she had a

briefing. Yesterday she acknowledged the existence of records. She told

us they’re in the drop-down folders in her Outlook account. But the

official response was that no records were located.

There are really only two options here. Either it was the minister

herself who didn’t disclose the records, or those were her instructions

to her staff. To the minister, which is it?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. Each and every

ministry staff are directed and required to adhere to common record

management policies. Those are written down. They have not changed when

the change of government happened. Those same rules are being followed

by the public service.

Directions and decisions are communicated in various ways. In some

cases, it might be through an email from the minister’s staff. For

example, a staff person sending a note to the deputy’s office approves

it on the minister’s behalf. That direction is then kept, appropriately,

in the deputy minister’s office.

We hold ourselves to a high standard. Some recent examples have

fallen short of that standard. Our government and its staff have been

directed to manage records properly, and we will be providing additional

training. We are directing staff to take a cautious approach to ensure

no mistakes are made.

M. Stilwell: Yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education claimed to be an

expert when it came to freedom-of-information rules. In fact, she jumped

to her feet. But today she’s not jumping so fast because apparently she

has something to hide.

Yesterday she said: “I was fully aware and briefed.” Let me read

for you a quote taken directly from our FOI training document: “Search

diligently for any records…. Do not try to play games.” Who is it that’s

playing games with these emails? Is it the minister, or were these the

instructions she gave to her staff?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleagues for that question. I’m really quite

pleased that they have such a high level of interest in freedom of

information now that they are sitting on the other side.

Let me make it clear. Ministries’ staff keep records of decisions

made by the government. They follow the recordkeeping practices as

outlined in policies that have not changed since the opposition was in

government. Those rules are being followed. The appropriate holder of

the official records on the decisions is the deputy’s office. That’s

where the records are kept.

[2:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: The minister says there’s such a high level of interest from this

side of the House, but given the high level of interest when you were in

opposition, you’d think you’d be getting the rules right

today.

It’s unbelievable that there were zero documents found. Not a

single thing done by the minister in February — it’s not possible. The

training document prepared for the minister is called “Key Tips on FOI.”

It reads: “If public servants ask whether you have records that respond

to an FOI request, search diligently for any records. Do not try to play

games.”

To the minister: what are you hiding in these emails?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question as well. Let me

repeat, I don’t know how many times, in each ministry, our staff do

receive training, and they will get more training to make sure that they

are following the rules that exist for appropriate recordkeeping and

following the rules as laid out in policy and also as confirmed by the

information and privacy officer.

I want to assure my colleagues across the way that records and

decisions of government are being kept. They are being kept in the

deputies’ offices, and appropriate guidelines are being followed. We do

hold ourselves, in light of the past history of the opposition, to a

higher standard. We admit that some recent examples have fallen short of

that standard.

Our government and its staff have been directed to manage records

properly. We will be providing additional training to staff and those

who have records. We are directing staff to take a cautious approach to

ensure no mistakes are made. In a small number of cases where best

practice may not have been followed, we have taken proactive steps to

address it and to comply with the rules.

It is important that rules and best practices are followed and

that decisions are documented. Our government is committed to doing just

that.

SUPPORT FOR DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

SUPERCLUSTER

INITIATIVE

A. Weaver: In February, B.C.’s economy received a huge boost with the news

that our digital supercluster won over $150 million in federal funding.

The supercluster offers an opportunity to bring together the private

sector and our post-secondary institutions and government to solve

problems and accelerate innovation in key sectors in our province like

health care, forestry and manufacturing. This will help B.C. be more

competitive as we respond to changing global trends.

The supercluster will generate more than $5 billion in GDP growth

and tens of thousands of jobs over the next ten years. It already has

hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding and private sector

commitments, with over 300 partners. For the province to be able to

participate in this groundbreaking initiative, all we need to do is

contribute $1.5 million per year for five years.

My question to the Minister of Jobs, Trades and Technology is

this. Will this government seize the opportunity before them, make at

least the minimal contribution required and take a seat at the table of

the digital supercluster?

Hon. B. Ralston: I share the Leader of the Third Party’s enthusiasm for the

supercluster proposal. The federal government took the initiative by

creating a fund and having a nationwide competition. British Columbia

put together a consortium, as the member has mentioned, of over 300

companies — institutions, non-profits, start-up companies — led by some

of the biggest companies in the province, and was successful. It has

huge potential to create jobs, economic activity and research here in

the province.

[2:20 p.m.]

Just this week the supercluster group appointed Sue Paish, who

will be known to many people here, as the CEO of the supercluster. The

structure, the governance model, is all being worked out. She was just

hired earlier this week. Once that structure is in place, we will

certainly consider provincial options to support this exciting

initiative.

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

A. Weaver: The digital supercluster provides a generational opportunity for

this government. Familiar words, actually.

Government can bring the biggest issues B.C. faces to the table,

harnessing the ingenuity of our private sector and our exceptional

post-secondary institutions to find innovative solutions to our most

complex and difficult problems in areas like, for example, health care,

where precision health can enable more effective and targeted treatment

for patients; or in areas like our natural resources and manufacturing

sectors, where partnerships will increase efficiency and productivity,

creating more jobs in rural B.C. and helping us to get better returns

for our products.

My question again is to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and

Technology. Why wouldn’t government do everything in its power to

support this initiative and to make sure that it has a seat at the table

— that it seizes the power of the supercluster to tackle the most

pressing challenges we face today?

Hon. B. Ralston: Indeed, that’s exactly what the government is doing. This

opportunity is a very exciting one. There are some challenges, as Sue

Paish puts together her team, devises a governance structure. There are

some issues about the ownership of IP that will come out of the research

that’s going to be done, the way in which the funds will be divided

among the companies involved.

There are some challenges. I’m convinced that the group is

definitely up to it. We are excited by the opportunities.

As the member mentions, there are huge challenges that we here in

British Columbia can solve. In fact, just today, over across the water

at the tech conference, there’s a group of 3,000 people meeting, talking

about the opportunities presented to all regions of the province, all

citizens of the province, by the promise of the digital transformation

that we’re undergoing.

The supercluster is part of that, and we intend to do our

part in

spurring that group on to success.

USE OF EMAIL BY ADVANCED EDUCATION

MINISTER AND

RESPONSE TO

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUEST

P. Milobar: Yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education trotted out a

pathetic excuse about a whole bunch of drop-down folders, and that just

does not pass the smell test. This is yet another minister who broke the

rules and was trying to game the system.

What was the Minister of Advanced Education deliberately hiding in

the documents she is required to produce under the Freedom of

Information Act?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. As I have repeated

a number of times. and I’m quite happy to talk about it for the rest of

QP as well. let me tell everyone in this chamber that records of

decisions are being kept. They’re being kept in the ministry. Decisions,

whether they are issue notes that have been signed or whether they have

been emails approving decisions, are all kept in the deputy minister’s

office. So those records do exist.

Let me assure everybody across the way that we hold ourselves to a

very high standard, and we won’t take any lessons from the other side.

Our government and our staff have been directed to manage records

appropriately, follow the written guidelines and rules that have been

given to them but also follow the direction we received from the

information and privacy officer.

We are directing staff to take a cautious approach to ensure no

mistakes are made. In a small number of cases where best practices may

not have been followed, we have taken proactive steps to address it and

comply with the rules. We are making sure that there is additional

training being provided.

It is important that rules and best practices are followed for

each and every one of us and that decisions are documented

appropriately. Our government is committed to doing just

that.

[2:25 p.m.]

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

P. Milobar: Well, that, quite frankly, is ridiculous. If the records exist,

they should be released. It sounds like they’re being deliberately

withheld, further to FOI rules.

These are the facts. The Minister of Advanced Education was asked,

through a freedom-of-information request, to produce any and all sent

emails. The response back was: “No records were located.” But yesterday

the minister alluded to the records existing in custom folders she

created.

Either the minister is deliberately hiding emails or she has

instructed her staff to hide them. Which is it?

Hon. J. Sims: I really do want to thank my colleague for that question and for

the line of questioning.

The opposition here is deliberately conflating their own

embarrassing history of breaking records management rules with our

government’s policies, which are within the rules and consistent with

best practice.

They were caught breaking the rules by deleting emails after an

FOI request came in. That’s a clear violation of the rules, and it was

wrong. To make things worse, they were triple-deleting to cover their

tracks. That’s also wrong, and that’s why it’s now also against the

rules. Even when someone blew the whistle on both these practices, they

lied about it.

You know, we do hold ourselves to a higher standard. Our

government and our staff have been directed to manage records properly,

and we will be providing additional training to staff to make sure that

that is happening.

We are directing staff and ministers to take a cautious approach

to ensure no mistakes are made. In a small number of cases, where best

practices may not have been followed, we have taken proactive steps to

address it and comply with the rules.

It is important that rules and best practices are followed, and we

are going to make sure of that.

J. Johal: The Minister of Advanced Education has tried to hide her emails

from freedom-of-information requests by creating, in her words, a “whole

bunch of drop-down folders.” Let’s see what the Privacy Commissioner has

to say about this. “Searching for emails…”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question clearly.

J. Johal: “…in a thorough manner includes searching in the inbox, the

sent-items folder and any folders custom-created by the

user.”

The minister is in direct violation of the rules. What is she

hiding?

Hon. J. Sims: As I have said a few times today, and I will say it again,

ministries and ministry staff keep records. When a decision has to be

made, either an issue note is signed…. I’m sure those who were ministers

on the other side will remember those. When a direction has to be given,

an issue note is signed or an email is sent or something is sent to the

deputy minister’s office in writing.

We are not a government of Post-it Notes. We are following the

rules and policies that exist. Records are being kept, and the holders

of those official records are the deputy ministers.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: Just yesterday this minister got up and told all of us on this

side of the House that she was going to teach us how to use Outlook. Now

she refuses to get up. This is what B.C. taxpayers are paying for. It’s

sad, and it’s pathetic — sad and pathetic.

[2:30 p.m.]

What is clear…. The minister and her staff received clear advice

upon taking office: “Do not try to play games.” The guidelines from the

Privacy Commissioner are also explicit. It’s against the rules to use

custom folders to hide documents. The minister knows this, because she

was fully aware and briefed, as she said.

What is in this minister’s emails, and what is she

hiding?

Hon. J. Sims: I will say one thing to my colleague, and thank you for that

question. What I want to say is that all the vim and vigor that’s coming

from the other side because they have a newly found respect for

government records and the need to keep those records…. I will say that

when the opposition was in government, they not only triple-deleted;

they actually made sure that no information could be found, by

triple-deleting.

Right now the practice is that every ministry has a process, and

they follow the rules that exist for keeping records. What happens is

that when a minister has to give direction — either a decision or a

direction for work to be done — issue notes are signed, emails are sent

through the staff, and the deputy minister’s office keeps the records.

Records are being kept. Nothing is being triple-deleted.

I will tell you that we as a government are committed to the

highest of standards, and it’s because of that that we are placing

additional training for staff and for ministers to make sure and take

all the extra precautions, because we know how important it is for

official records to be kept and that rules are followed. Rules are being

followed, and we will continue to do so.

M. de Jong: It’s quite a spectacle. Yesterday the Minister for Advanced

Education was positively glib. She was dismissive. She ridiculed the

opposition. She described herself as an expert in this process. She was

very forthcoming about the fact that there were email records, but she

had….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question.

M. de Jong: But she had very cleverly placed them in folders, folder drop

boxes that weren’t accessed and weren’t provided in response to the

request, the lawful request that was made for those records. Here the

minister, confronted by the fact that she is in violation of the

guidelines, the rules and the law, refuses to be answerable, refuses to

be accountable.

If she wishes to be taken seriously as a minister of the Crown, I

ask her now, today, here, to stand up and confirm for the House that she

has reviewed the emails that she hid and that she will be releasing them

forthwith so that people can see what she was hiding.

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague across the way for his question. Let

me assure my colleague, as I have assured other colleagues who have

stood up, that all ministries are required to follow the rules, policies

and guidelines that exist for appropriate recordkeeping. That happens

according to the rules, which have not changed since that side sat in

government, and records of decisions are kept in the deputy minister’s

office.

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

[2:35 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I hope the Minister of Citizens’ Services won’t be offended by

this, but the opposition takes very little comfort from her assurances,

given her own record of the past with respect to adhering to the

guidelines that she is responsible for enforcing.

This represents a tool for communication, the email

system…

Interjections.

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

M. de Jong: …and ministers and their staff may choose to avail themselves of

the use of that tool to the extent that they wish to. But if they do

choose to avail themselves of the use of that tool, they have an

obligation to do so according to the rules and to provide records when

they are asked for.

This minister not only hasn’t done that; she stood in this House

yesterday and acknowledged that she’s hidden records in drop boxes and

folders. And today she refuses to be answerable for the very admission

that she made yesterday. It’s time….

Being a minister is hard work. I’m the first to admit it. But it

comes with a code of accountability. If this minister wants to be taken

seriously, she’ll stand up in the House today and answer for why she has

hidden records that should have been released to the opposition under

FOI rules.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again we see games-playing on the other side. We see the

twisting by a party in opposition who, during the entire time in

government, did not follow the rules around freedom of information, who

have stood in this House for the last 30 minutes and twisted the words

of the minister that she said yesterday, accusing her of things that she

did no such thing and made that clear yesterday.

They have stood up and deliberately twisted the way in which

records are kept when they know full well that if they want the records,

they’re kept in the deputy minister’s office. That was the way when they

were in government, and that’s still the rules today. Nothing has

changed. What is sad and pathetic is that once again they have

demonstrated that they have learned nothing from the last 16 years, and

that’s why they’re sitting over there and deserve to be over

there.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. M. Mark: I reserve the right to rise on a point of personal

privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion to refer four statutes to the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders

and Private Bills.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

REFERRAL OF STATUTES TO

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[The revision of the following statutes be presented to the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills for examination and recommendation pursuant to

the Statute Revision Act [RSBC 1996]

Chapter 440:

• Health Act [RSBC 1996]

Chapter

179 ;

• Veterinary Drugs Act [RSBC 1996]

Chapter

363 ;

• Trespass Act [RSBC 1996]

Chapter 462 ;

and

• Workers Compensation Act [RSBC 1996]

Chapter

492 .

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills by the Legislative Assembly, the Committee is

empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees

and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and

during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the

Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to

deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee debate on Bill 30; in

Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates of the Ministry of

Finance; and in

Section C, the Birch Room, the estimates of the Ministry of

Tourism, Arts and Culture.

[2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 30 — CANNABIS CONTROL

AND

LICENSING ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 30; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

M. Morris: With respect to sub 12(2), it says: “The general manager may

disclose information obtained under this Act, other than personal

information, if the general manager considers that disclosure is

necessary to protect public health or public safety.” And he can do

that, in the following subsection, without the consent of the

individual. Can he give me an example of what kind of information that

might pertain to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Product recalls, for example, would be an example of

that.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

M. Morris:

Section 14(h). Basically, it says: “A person must not possess

cannabis unless one or more of the following apply…(

h) the cannabis was

lawfully purchased from a location outside British Columbia, the

cannabis has been brought into British Columbia and the amount of such

cannabis in the person’s possession is not more than the amount

prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.”

[2:45 p.m.]

I’m just wondering where the burden of proof is. If he’s in

possession of this cannabis, how does he prove that it’s legal

cannabis?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be through either a sales record or receipts or proper

packaging. If you’re in a vehicle, for example, the rules require that

your cannabis be in proper packaging. So all of those things would be

used.

M. Morris: That takes me to sub (i): “the cannabis is a cannabis plant that

is growing or has been grown in accordance with

section 56 or was

produced from such a plant.” Again I ask: how do you prove

that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is intended to deal with an individual who has the four

plants and has grown them for their own personal use. It is and,

practically speaking, would be very difficult to prove that it came from

somewhere else. But the reality with this is you would be….

The 30-gram limit would be, in essence, the control measure,

because if you had more than 30 grams in your possession, then,

obviously, you’ve got an offence. But this is intended for the

individual who’s grown the four plants and has grown them for their own

use, and they’re able to have the 30 grams in their own

possession.

M. Morris: Thank you for that. Again, the little senses go out in me from an

enforcement perspective. This is an opportunity — even though it’s a

small amount, 30 grams; maybe it might be 35 grams next time or whatever

— to inject some illegal cannabis into the system, if you look at all

the recreational cannabis users there. Has there been any thought given

to tightening that particular

section up to prevent that from

happening?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would say not beyond those that I just outlined a moment ago —

the 30 grams, the packaging and all of those issues. Again, this is in

terms of the general application in terms of possession, but if the

member does have ideas or thoughts, we are certainly open to them by

policy.

This is an issue that, in essence, all the provinces are having to

deal with, and they’re dealing with it in a very similar manner to what

we’re doing in B.C.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

M. Morris: I’ve got an amendment that I’d like to introduce. I’ve got copies

here. I’d like to move the following amendment on

section 15.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’d like to amend

section 15 by adding the underlined text as

shown on the amendment I’ve just handed out.

SECTION 15

by adding the underlined text as shown:

15.1 A person must not sell cannabis within

300 metres of a school or community centre. ]

On the amendment.

M. Morris: The reason I put that in there is that this is an important

section: “A person must not sell cannabis unless one or more of the

following…” is applicable.

One of the weaknesses, in my view, with the legislation surrounds

the protecting of our youth from the impact of retail cannabis. Having

minimum distances where these retail outlets can be located, I think,

helps at the end of the day in limiting the availability of retail

cannabis to youth — particularly those that are going to high school,

those that are associated to or attending our school institutions

throughout the province here.

This is something that I think is reasonable and probably…. I’ve

seen many municipalities — Vancouver is one of these municipalities —

that have very similar kinds of provisions within their bylaws as well.

So I think that the province should take a lead role in this.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s intent with this motion. Under this

legislation, and under the policies that we’ve had in place, this issue

is one that is in the purview of local government. Many municipalities

have already been in touch with us that they have the ability to

determine the distance. Whether it’s zoning, distance from schools or

distance from community centres, a number of municipalities have already

indicated to me that they’re looking at a distance even greater than

that.

Therefore, I would say that I can’t support this amendment — not

because I don’t think the intent is a good one. Rather, local government

has that authority, and in terms of dealing with these applications,

it’s part of their zoning process, their approval process. Everything

I’ve heard from local government to date indicates that they are every

bit as concerned about the issue of location in relation to schools and

community centres as that member is and that I have also indicated

publicly.

That’s why I would not support this particular amendment. It’s not

that I don’t share the member’s concern, but I think local government is

well equipped, and I indicated that they will be dealing with this issue

in their zoning processes, in their approval application

process.

The Chair: Member, before we allow the member to make any further

comments, we’ll wait till the member for Saanich North and the

Islands gets a copy of the amendment so that if he has any comments,

then he can look at it. Let’s wait for that.

While the member for Saanich North and the Islands is looking

at the amendment, maybe the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has

further comments.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Morris: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. I did have an extra copy; it

just was on my desk. I apologize for that.

I just feel that it sends a strong message out. It indicates that

the province is very serious about this. You know, we’re not only

looking at…. We have a number of small communities throughout the

province here, as well as the larger ones in urban B.C. We have rural

areas, as well, that have rural schools situated.

I think maintaining a minimum standard here, to set the bar at a

certain level, sends a pretty strong message out, notwithstanding the

fact that municipal government officials have contacted the minister and

advised him on what their intentions are. Again, this is just another

strengthening of one of the greatest concerns that we have here. Access

to youth, I think, needs to be paramount.

A. Olsen: I would like to reiterate something which the B.C. Green caucus

has identified to our colleagues in the opposition. While this is a

seemingly simple amendment, the opportunity to have the discussion, the

awareness of them…. This has certainly not been a surprise. We’d like to

reiterate the opportunity that the official opposition has to have these

discussions about these kinds of amendments with us in advance so that

we have the opportunity and the benefit to be able to review

them.

At this stage, I think the Solicitor General, the minister

responsible, has identified, with respect to local governments, the

decision-making of local governments to be able to define the kind of

composition and community that they are going to have. I think that this

bill is quite strong, both on the clarity with respect to minors

possessing cannabis products as well as the offences that are in place

for those that would sell to cannabis products to a minor.

With that, I think that it’s not an amendment that we’re going to

support. But again, I think that the spirit of the bill does really

clearly articulate that it is not supported in any way to be producing

or supplying cannabis to a minor. With that, I’ll take my

seat.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

M. Morris:

Section 19: “A person who brings cannabis into British Columbia or

who receives cannabis that was sent to them from outside British

Columbia must within the prescribed time provide the prescribed

information to the prescribed person in a form and manner satisfactory

to that prescribed person.”

Prescribed, prescribed, prescribed…. I understand a lot of that is

waiting for the federal bill to be passed.

What time are we looking at here? The minister…. Obviously his

staff has looked at this. We’ll be bringing this in…. This is a little

bit confusing here. If I could get some clarification around

it.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is correct. This does anticipate the federal level, the

federal legislation. Once that is in place and we do know exactly all

the details, we do intend to move quickly on this section. It is

intended, at this point in time, to deal very much with people who are

producing outside of the province, common carriers who would be

transporting product from outside of the province. That’s why this

section is here, and it’s dependent, in part, on the federal

legislation.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

M. Morris: Sub 20(2) says: “Unless the regulations provide otherwise and

subject to subsection….” My copy ends there. I don’t know whether I’ve

got a faulty copy or whether there was a misprint there.

Interjection.

M. Morris: Subsection (3). Okay. For some reason, it didn’t show up there.

Thank you.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

section 22.

M. Morris: On the application under this part for licences, an application

under this part must have a bunch of information in there. But under sub

(1)(d), “include other information and records that the general manager

considers relevant to the application or that class of application,”

would that include information about previous dispensaries?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it could.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

M. Morris: “Fit and proper determination powers.” Under section (4): “Without

limiting another power of the general manager under this Act to make

inquiries and conduct investigations, when the general manager is

determining if a licensee or an applicant is fit and proper, the general

manager may make inquiries and conduct investigations that the general

manager considers necessary, including, without limitation, background

investigations and prescribed checks, in respect of (

a) the licensee or

applicant, (

b) an associate of the licensee or applicant, or (

c) a

person having a connection to that associate.”

I’m just curious as to what infrastructure is in place to allow

the general manager to do this. This is going to take a lot of resources

and a lot of coordination, particularly at the outset, once this is

proclaimed and we have these applications coming forward. What does that

look like?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is an expertise in the LCLB which will be utilized. But more

importantly, because these will be extensive background checks, we will

be using the expertise in the security programs branch within the

ministry.

Sections 23 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

[3:05 p.m.]

M. Morris: Just to be clear, in this

section here, “Mandatory requirements,”

in sub 26(3): “For the purposes of subsection (2) (c), the applicant

must (

a) be the owner of the establishment or proposed establishment, or

(

b) have an arrangement that the general manager determines (

i) gives

the applicant a degree of control over the establishment or proposed

establishment….”

I’m wondering how this reflects…. I’m assuming that there’ll be a

number of applications coming in for multiple locations — for one

applicant to have, perhaps, a chain of stores. Do the mandatory

requirements to have that hands-on control…? How does that apply to one

single application who intends to have several stores?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Each store would have to have a separate application. You’re not

going to be able to come in and go: “I want to apply and have seven

stores.” You’re going to have to go in. Each one will have to have a

separate application. You will either have to have complete ownership of

each application, or you will have to have, if it’s a lease arrangement,

control over that lease arrangement.

M. Morris: Sub 26(4)(a): “a person who has arranged, or agreed to arrange,

with another person to sell the cannabis of a federal producer to the

exclusion of the cannabis of another federal producer.” It gets into

what they can sell and what they can’t.

I know all of the cannabis will be distributed through a central

retailer. Does the cannabis retailer have the option to just sell one

product from the cannabis distribution centre, or would they be

obligated to sell all the products that are in the cannabis distribution

centre?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This

section is intended to prevent market domination by one

producer, for example. But you, as a retailer, would be able to choose

what products from the cannabis distribution branch you wanted to

retail.

M. Morris: I was just handed another amendment I’d like to introduce for

section 26 here. I’ll give time for it to be circulated and read. It’s

just right at the very end of that section.

[3:10 p.m.]

I’d like to move the following amendment on

section 26 by adding

the underlined text that’s shown on the document, sub 26(5):

SECTION 26 by adding the underlined text as

shown:

(1) The general manager must not issue,

renew, transfer or amend a licence if, in the general manager’s opinion,

it would be contrary to the public interest.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the general manager must not

issue, renew, transfer or amend a licence if one or more of the

following apply:

(

a) the applicant is not an individual, partnership, corporation

or Indigenous nation;

(

b) the applicant is a minor;

(

c) subject to the regulations exempting a class of licence from

this paragraph, the applicant does not meet the ownership or control

requirements set out in subsection (3) for the establishment or proposed

establishment;

(

d) the establishment or proposed establishment, or equipment or

facilities in respect of which the licence is proposed to be issued or

has been issued, does not comply with this Act, the regulations or the

(

e) in the general manager’s opinion, the applicant is not fit

and proper;

(

f) any prescribed criteria are not met.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) (c), the applicant

must

(

a) be the owner of the establishment or proposed establishment,

(

b) have an arrangement that the general manager

determines

(

i) gives the applicant a degree of control over the

establishment or proposed establishment that will allow the applicant to

comply with the requirements relating to establishments set out in this

and

(ii) is of a satisfactory duration.

(4) Without limiting subsection (1), the general manager must not

issue, renew, transfer or amend a licence, other than a licence of a

prescribed class, to or for

(

a) a person who has arranged, or agreed to arrange, with

another person to sell the cannabis of a federal producer to the

exclusion of the cannabis of another federal producer,

(

b) a federal producer or the federal producer’s agent,

(

c) a person who is so associated with, connected with or

financially interested in a federal producer or federal producer’s agent

that the person is, in the opinion of the general manager, likely to

promote the sale of cannabis of the federal producer.

(5) Without limiting subsection (1), the general manager must

not issue, renew, transfer or amend a licence for [three] years

after the coming into force of this Act to an applicant who has

illegally produced or sold cannabis in the previous four years,

including those who have owned or operated a cannabis retailer where

cannabis has been illegally sold. ]

On the amendment.

M. Morris: The reason I have that in there is that the infiltration of

organized crime into the cannabis market right across Canada — and right

across North America, quite frankly — is quite prolific. I think this

gives an opportunity for those that have been illegally distributing

cannabis to prove, themselves, that they’re not involved in organized

crime and that they maintain a legal, lawful lifestyle for a period of

time prior to them applying for a licence to get back into the retail

business of selling cannabis in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s amendment and the issue that he’s

bringing forward. This amendment is around organized crime and illegal

crime, and that is one of the key goals around the federal government’s

decision to legalize cannabis but also the framework with which we, in

the province, are operating and which we have said is one of the key

priorities for us.

That’s one of the reasons why when we’ve looked at what’s been

taking place in British Columbia in how best to go about reducing the

role of organized crime, we have said that an individual with an

existing retail operation is not precluded from applying for a licence,

but they are not going to be grandfathered.

They do not get any special consideration. They have to go through

the same hoops as everybody else. In fact, they have to go through a

background check, and it will be an extensive background check that

looks at all aspects of who the applicant is and what it is they intend

to do. If they are able to get through that background check, then, if a

municipality deems that they’re fine with it, from their perspective,

they pass a background check. Then and only then would they get a

licence to be able to operate.

Municipalities have already made it clear that there are existing

“dispensaries” where they have not approved the location, who have not

complied with bylaws or with local government instructions. They’ve made

it clear that they will not be getting local government approval.

Therefore, they will be illegal, and they will have to close.

Local governments have said, though, that there have been those

where they have given local approval, who have complied with all of

their requirements — their licensing procedures and the fees for those

licences, which are significant — and feel that they should be able to

apply. We’ve said yes, they can apply, but there’s no grandfathering, no

guarantee.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think that the strengths in this legislation will be able to

deal with the issue and the concerns the member has raised around

organized crime, which I share. This

section has been developed with

considerable consultation around it at the local government level, with

law enforcement and within the surveys that we have done with the

public. So we’re confident that the section, as it is, will do the job

that we want it to do.

A. Olsen: In reading this amendment, I would just suggest that…. From my

initial read and having not a lot of time to think about the

ramifications of this, it appears to me that the first part of this….

Sorry, I’ll start with the last part. The second part of this:

“…retailer where cannabis has been illegally sold.” That might be

somewhat easy for us and for the general manager to be able to

determine. There are some very public locations, and perhaps we’d be

able to identify those people.

The first part of this: “…illegally produced or sold….” I think

there are also some challenges to this to understand. These people are

going to have to self-identify or something — yes, as they’re in the

application process. I’m not sure…. There have been some concerns that

have been raised by the official opposition, by the critic, about the

cost that’s going in. I can imagine that this would increase the cost of

that.

I won’t repeat what the minister said, but I will echo that there

are very strong aspects of this bill already that recognize that there

has been a certain amount of activity either at the production or at the

sale level and that the choice in this bill is not to necessarily pass

judgment or to exclude but, rather, to say: “You’re going to have to go

through the process with everybody else, and it will be up to,

ultimately, the authority to determine whether or not you get a

licence.”

I feel that there are some big unknowns here in being able to

quantify what this means to the process and will not be supporting the

amendment.

M. Morris: Just a couple more comments on that. The illegal trafficking that

has been taking place over the past number of years through these

dispensaries — it’s what they’re termed these days — indicates to me

that the individuals that operate those and have produced the product

for those dispensaries have been flaunting the law. They’ve been

operating outside of the law. To me, that’s a red flag that that

surfaces. Somebody that doesn’t really care what the law says is going

to do it anyways. Past behaviour is an indication of what future

behaviour might look like.

The other concern that I have is the fact that individuals that

have been involved in these illegal dispensaries the past number of

years have connections with producers that are producing illegal product

in Canada and British Columbia and might have a propensity to maintain a

relationship and to maintain their supply from that.

Those are just some of the concerns I have. I think that this

strengthens this legislation so that we ensure that we only have

operators in there that are guaranteed and that have a proven history of

obeying the law.

A. Olsen: In hearing the member speak, I don’t know that this actually

ensures anything, to be honest with you. I think that it is more

language and another point, but I don’t know that it actually ensures

anything.

I think that there has been…. The member speaks quite strongly

about illegal behaviour at dispensaries and the ability for people to

access for medical. Certainly, there has been, perhaps, a stretching of

the law. But these have been operating, and there has been a test within

our society. I don’t know that we can ignore that. I don’t know that we

can….

I mean, if it was as cut and dry, as black and white, as the

member of the official opposition had said, then the RCMP and police

forces would have a much clearer approach to this. I think that what

we’ve seen in our cities is that the police forces and the court system

are not quite as black and white as the member would like us to

believe.

[3:20 p.m.]

Part of the reason why we are having this discussion right now,

why the federal government campaigned on this in the last election and

why we are discussing and debating this is because it’s not as black and

white, and it has not been as black and white, as the member continues

to stand up and make this appear to be black and white.

For me, to suggest that this is going to ensure some­thing…. I

don’t think it does. I think the only thing that it ensures is…. It

ensures an increased amount of unknowns for the general manager, who

already has a significant number of unknowns to be dealing

with.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 26 to 30 inclusive approved.

section 31.

licences but not to a class of licence.” Again, one or more licences

under one individual or under the control of one individual.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. It could be specific terms

and conditions that apply to a licence holder who has a number of

licences, or it could also apply to a number of licences held by a

number of different owners but not applying to the class as a

whole.

Section 31 approved.

section 32.

M. Morris: Sub 32(1)(d): “advertising and branding, including the use of

words, phrases, designs,” etc. It says, “or other branding elements…that

could indicate that the licensee is associated with the government or is

exercising a function of the government, is associated with another

business,” or sells medical marijuana. I’m just wondering. That sort of

insinuates that a licensee can sell both recreational marijuana and

medical marijuana. Why would that last subsection be in

there?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. This

section deals with…. You

can’t use the word “pharmacy.” You can’t use the term “dispensary.” You

can’t do “pharmacy” with an “f” or a phonetic pharmacy or dispensary.

That’s what this deals with.

Sections 32 and 33 approved.

section 34.

M. Morris:

Section 34(1): “Despite

section 154 (2)…of the Community

Charter , a council as defined in that Act may delegate its

powers and duties under

section 33….” So it may delegate its duties

under this section. Is that to a consultant? Could that be just to

anybody, or what’s meant here?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: They would have the ability to, similar to what is in the Liquor

Control Act that was put in place in 2015…. It could be that council

could delegate to the chief administrative officer, for example, and

let’s say, in fact, in this election year, some municipalities may well

choose to do that.

Sections 34 to 37 inclusive approved.

section 38.

M. Morris: It’s a long section. I should have looked ahead in my notes

here.

Just looking forward to 38(11)…. So there’s “A monetary penalty

imposed,” and it “must be paid within 30 days”. What recourse does the

manager have if it’s not? I think that it might be explained further in

the act, but I’m just wondering. If it’s not paid within 30 days, what

recourse do we have?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are debt collection provisions later on in the

act.

Sections 38 to 40 inclusive approved.

section 41.

M. Morris: This relationship between actions of a general manager and the

offences…. Just a little bit of clarification, if I could.

If the licensee has received a monetary penalty for illegally

selling a product that’s not grown under federal regulation or whatever

the case may be, can he also be charged with an offence? If he’s

received a monetary penalty for one thing, can he be charged with an

offence for one of the other provisions under the act as

well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are specific offences set out with administrative penalties

against them, so it could be a case of either-or. So if there was an

offence and you ended up having been dealt the administrative penalty,

you would not be charged for that offence. That being said, if there

were other offences, you most certainly could be charged for those other

offences.

[3:30 p.m.]

M. Morris: If a monetary penalty is administered…. The individual has been

found to be not in compliance with two or three different items or

different provisions. A monetary provision is provided. Is there still

an opportunity to charge for an offence under one of those areas that

he’s paid a monetary penalty on?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: If an administrative penalty is imposed, you wouldn’t face a

charge for the contravention. But if there were other areas, other

contraventions that weren’t covered by administrative penalty, you most

certainly could be charged.

Sections 41 to 45 inclusive approved.

section 46.

M. Morris:

Section 46(3): “A former licensee must maintain records required

to be maintained under the licence for 6 months after the former

licensee’s licence expires or is cancelled.” I am curious as to why the

six months and perhaps not a one-year period or two years.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The six months is consistent with the Liquor Control and Licensing

Act.

M. Morris: The conditions around licensing under the cannabis act are a

little bit different circumstances, I think, perhaps a little more

serious than under the liquor act. I’m just wondering if there has

been…. I’ve seen a lot of similarities between the two pieces of

legislation, but because of the differences, I suppose, in cannabis

versus alcohol, I’m just wondering whether the minister would ever

consider or has considered extending that period to 12 months. You know,

the investigations sometimes take a long period of time, and if the

records disappear, particularly as we’re starting off in this process,

where we’ve got a number of people applying for licences, I think it

might be prudent to look at a longer period of time.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make a couple of points. One, this is in alignment with the

Liquor Control and Licensing Act. Two, if the manager…. Or if there is

an investigation, they have the ability to say, “We want the records

now,” and they’d have to be produced. But I also think the member has a

point, and I’m prepared to look at this issue down the road. We’ll take

a look at it.

Sections 46 to 51 inclusive approved.

section 52.

M. Morris: Just so I get it clear in my mind here, 52(1): “Subject to

subsections (2) and (3), an adult must not possess in a public place an

amount of cannabis that is more than (a) 30 g of dried cannabis, or (

b) an amount of cannabis that is equivalent, as determined in accordance

with the regulations, to 30 g of dried cannabis. (2) Subsection (1) does

not apply to an adult if (

a) the cannabis the adult possesses is medical

cannabis, (

b) the adult is carrying the prescribed proof…(

c) the amount

of medical cannabis the adult possesses is not more than the amount

permitted under the Cannabis Act….”

Can an adult be in possession of both? Can he have medical

marijuana, and can he also be in possession of 30 grams of recreational

cannabis?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not that plus 30 grams. So you can have what you’re allowed to

have for medical, but then you can’t have an additional 30 grams above

that.

M. Morris: Okay. I appreciate that. But subsection (3) also talks about how:

“Subsection (1) does not apply to cannabis that is a cannabis plant.” My

question is…. If the plant has got buds on it, it’s probably ready to be

harvested. How does that apply to this as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The next

section actually deals with that. What this

section says

is you can’t be walking down the street with a flowering or budding

plant.

Sections 52 and 53 approved.

section 54.

M. Morris: Again, the maximum allowable amount of cannabis, a couple of

things in here: “

(2) This

section does not apply to cannabis that is a

cannabis plant.

(3) A person must not possess at one location an amount

of cannabis that is more than the maximum allowable…of cannabis” — which

I’m understanding is 30 grams; and: “

(4) If 2 or more persons occupy the

same location and there is an amount of cannabis at the location that is

more than the maximum allowable…each person is deemed to have

contravened subsection (3).”

Have we determined the amount of dried…? This often refers to the

plants that you are growing at home, so the amount of dried cannabis

harvested from the plant. If we have a large plant, four plants that

we’ve harvested from, I think they’re going to, obviously, produce more

than 30 grams, or they could. How does this reflect the maximum

possession limit allowed? It seems to me that this is going to allow

more than the 30 grams.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points on this particular section. This deals with the

indoor cultivation of cannabis with the maximum four plants that you are

allowed. It applies to the amount that you would reasonably harvest, or

harvest off four plants, dried. What you have in your home is what you

have in your home. But when you’re outside in public, you would only be

able to have 30 grams in your possession. If there are four people

living in the house, it still only means that you could have four

plants.

In terms of what would be reasonable off four plants, that is

going to be prescribed by regulation. That is something that more work

will be done on as we develop the regulations around that.

M. Morris: I guess what this appears to me is…. An individual can grow these

fabulous four plants at home and harvest them but had just come back

from the retail store with his 30 grams that he got in there, as well. A

day later, he says, “I guess my plants are ready for harvesting now,” so

he can harvest them. Is this

section allowing that individual to have

whatever the prescribed amount is going to be from the four plants as

well as the 30 grams from a retail outlet?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It will be the prescribed amount; it will not be the prescribed

amount plus 30 grams. So whatever the prescribed amount is from the four

plants that you have in your home, that’s what you can have. You can’t

do that and then say: “Oh, I want to add another 30 grams.”

M. Morris: Just one more clarification on this section, and then my colleague

from Richmond will have a question.

In respect to the definition, “‘location,’ in respect of a person,

means a place, other than a public place, that the person occupies as a

residence or workplace or for any other reason.” I’m just wondering — I

might be stretching it here: when we have cubicles in an industrial

plant, or where we’ve got a piece of heavy equipment that’s working out

in the bush that is not a vehicle, where the operator might be sitting

inside the machine, can he be legally in possession of this kind of a

substance?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That would be a workplace issue, in a sense, if you’re in a piece

of heavy equipment. But this is also about possession, which is separate

from workplace use and impairment.

[3:45 p.m.]

M. Morris: Just one more stretch question on this, I guess. According to this

section, they can have possession of up to 30 grams in a location, a

workplace. The definition of “location” in respect of a person means “a

place, other than a public place, that the person occupies as a

residence or workplace or for any other reason.” So a person must not

possess at any one location “an amount of cannabis that is more than the

maximum allowable amount of cannabis” — the 30 grams.

I’m just wondering. If we have an employer that wants to take one

of his employees to task, I think there might be a policy saying that we

don’t want cannabis on the premises here. Will this legislation

typically allow them to have that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This legislation would not override a workplace policy in regard

to possession.

Sections 54 and 55 approved.

section 56.

T. Wat: Before I raise a question to the minister relating to this

section, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the

misunderstanding the minister might have, based on my comments in this

House on Monday. The minister seemed to think that the remarks about

minors in response to the second reading of Bill 30 were my position. In

fact, I’m doing my duty as an MLA for Richmond North Centre relating the

concerns of some of the constituents and Richmond city

councillors.

In my statement, I was referring to the city of Richmond’s main

concern that minors between the ages of 12 and 18 can possess up to five

grams of cannabis. This was in fact stated by Richmond city councillor

Chak Au. If the minister remembers, he was the NDP candidate running

with the minister’s political party in the 2017 election. So I take this

opportunity to put on record that I was relating the concern of my

city’s residents and councillor to the minister.

My question to the minister on

section 56. This bill would not

prevent someone who has been convicted of child neglect from growing

cannabis in a household where children reside. Of course, we respect

parental rights and the family unit. But that does not mean government

should allow children to have access to cannabis in their homes where a

parent has been, very unfortunately, found to be a neglectful parent in

the eyes of the law, which is quite a high standard. I would like to

hear the minister’s comment on that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The law does not deal with this issue on a whole range of commonly

found items within a household. That can range from medications to

alcohol to tobacco to exotic pets to other plants. I mean, there are

many plants, for example…. A common one that I can think of is at

Christmas, the giving of a poinsettia. The poinsettia is

poisonous.

[3:50 p.m.]

Many household plants are poisonous. The law does not discriminate

in that regard, and therefore, what the law does expect and what is

expected is that parents take precautions and are responsible in terms

of how potential hazards in their home are dealt with. In that sense,

cannabis is no different in that regard. That’s why there’s not a

special provision that deals with the point that you are raising. There

is an expectation that parents assume proper parental

responsibility.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for the explanation.

Personally, I do think that cannabis — marijuana — is different

from the Christmas plant that the minister is referring to. If somebody

is growing cannabis, he must have the intention of consuming the

cannabis. In this case, it’s different.

I’m talking about parents who have been found to be neglectful

towards their children. I’m concerned about children whose parents have

been found by law to be neglectful, and he’s consuming the marijuana

that he grows in his house. He might attempt to use the marijuana

together with the children. That’s where my concern is.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d also make the following observation, and I understand the

point the member is raising. This legislation does not deal with that.

However, other existing legislation does deal with that, and that would

be the child welfare legislation, which is around the care and neglect

of children. There are provisions in that act that would be able to deal

with parents who are being neglectful of children around whatever,

whether it be cannabis or whether it be something else.

T. Wat: Can I assume that the other children and the act that you’re

referring to will be dealing with the situation that I’m talking about,

Minister? I just want confirmation of that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: If, for example, a court felt that a child was at risk because of

with that issue.

M. Morris:

Section 56(f): “the cannabis plant is not from a seed or plant

material that the adult knows is illicit cannabis.” How would that be

determined? Is government intending to…? I know the federal government

is talking about tracking things from seed to sale. When a homeowner

wants to plant his four plants, he goes to a cannabis retailer and buys

four seeds, and they’re registered. Or is there some tracking system

that’s in place for the homeowner to produce a document if he’s ever

questioned?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The reality is that that is going to be very difficult. There is

no seed-to-sale tracking after you have purchased your seeds.

You can have up to 30 seeds in your possession. I know there’s

misinformation out there that you can only have four seeds, but you can

have up to 30 seeds, which, as we talked about earlier, is the

equivalent under the federal legislation.

The reality is, of course, that’s very difficult to deal with. But

this

section is there because there may well be those occasions where an

investigation may, in fact, find that someone may have been selling

illegal seeds. There are records, and they say that. That may well be a

situation. But most people, I expect, will be wanting to abide by the

law, and they will be able to purchase legal seeds through a

distribution branch and a retail outlet.

M. Morris: I’m just going to push that one a little bit more. Just wondering

if the minister is privy as to what the federal legislation might look

like. They have said many, many times that they will be tracking things

from seed to sale. I’m curious how they’re going to do that. We’ve got

analysts involved that we spoke about in the previous days on

this.

But if a person goes to a retail outlet in British Columbia and

buys a package of seed, is there documentation for that that individual

would have in his or her hands to produce to authorities if they’re ever

challenged on that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, let’s put it this way. That’s why we’re still waiting to see

what the federal legislation looks like. As I said, this is one of those

areas. This is an evolving process. I suspect that there are areas that,

once the federal legislation has passed, we’re going to continue to be

dealing with and that will evolve over time.

But what we’re doing right now is within what we know and what we

anticipate. Again, it’s going to depend on, at the end of the day, what

the final federal legislation looks like.

M. Morris: Just one more on this one. I’m assuming that if I go into a retail

cannabis store and I buy either cannabis or another product in there,

it’ll come in a package that has an excise label on it of some kind or a

tracking number on it of some kind. I’m just wondering whether that same

tracking number or excise number will be attached to cannabis seeds,

which would be separate from the cannabis products

themselves?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be yes. They’ll be packaged with a stamp on them,

just like everything else.

Sections 56 to 62 inclusive approved.

Section 63.

M. Morris: Just a clarification. I think it’s correct. Under 63(3), a person

“must not smoke or vape cannabis in a prescribed area of any the

following places: (

a) a park within the meaning of the Park Act.” I’m

assuming that that would be covered under a provincial park, where

people are camping and where there are children are running

around.

But section (3) says a person must not smoke “in a prescribed area

of any of the following places.” Does that mean that if we have a

campground with 200 camping spaces in it, there might be a prescribed

area where you can’t do that? Or will the entire park be off-limits to

smoking or vaping?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are developing those regulations and looking at all the

different aspects and the natures of parks, because there’s also a wide

variety of parks. Some are very remote, and you’re not going to have

issues of children running around. Then there are, of course, other

parks which have very much a high propensity for families with kids to

be using. Those regulations are under development, and those are the

kinds of issues that we’re looking at in terms of the formatting and the

prescribing for those regulations.

Sections 63 to 67 inclusive approved.

section 68.

M. Morris: This one is quite an impactful

section — the vicarious liability

for principals, teachers on a school property, restaurant owners,

operators of public institutions. I’m just wondering. When I look at the

section here…. “If a person consumes cannabis in contravention of

section 61 (a) [in or on school property], the education authority,

superintendent and principal are each deemed to have contravened that

section and are…liable for the contravention.”

Again, that applies to public places. I’m just wondering what

kinds of steps that a principal or somebody needs to take to ensure that

they’ve met the baseline in making sure that it doesn’t happen there,

because it probably will.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This

section is actually consistent with what we have already in

place for tobacco and vapour products, under the Tobacco and Vapour

Products Control Act. In terms of the base that the member is talking

about, what it would mean is that it’s similar to the tobacco and vaping

issue, which is reasonable steps having been taken. There is a general

understanding of what “reasonable steps” means, certainly as it does in

regard to the tobacco and vaping, and it would be the same with

this.

Sections 68 to 73 inclusive approved.

section 74.

M. Morris: Again: “A minor must not operate a vehicle, whether or not the

vehicle is in motion, while there is cannabis in the

vehicle.”

Just to comment on this particular section. I think it goes to the

social responsibility that we spoke about yesterday. There’s a huge part

of this legislation that is educational in nature, to make sure that we

get out to the young folks ahead of the game here so they all know what

the ground rules are here. I just wanted to make that comment, because

it’s fairly clear in here, but I think that educational responsibility

is huge here.

Sections 74 to 93 inclusive approved.

section 94.

[4:05 p.m.]

M. Morris: Just some clarification, I suppose, on

section 94. “The monetary

penalty is, as determined by the director…an amount equal to 2 times the

retail value of the cannabis” that the person bought. So when we have

government retail outlets and private retail outlets and we’ve got a

range of price for that different product there, is that two times the

retail value that the individual might have paid for at a particular

store, or is it a set retail value that the province might

have?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is about cannabis that is seized from an illegal dispensary,

so it would not apply to a licensed retail store. There are other

penalties that deal with those.

Section 94 approved.

section 95.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the amendment to

section 95 on Bill 30 that is in

possession of the Clerk. What the amendment will do is it will amend, as

follows,

section 95(1).

SECTION 95 (1), in the definition of “compliance order”,

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

text as shown:

“compliance order” means an order of the

general manager director under

section 94 (7)

other than an order based on a signed waiver referred to in

section 94

(5);]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This amendment corrects a typographical error.

Amendment approved.

Section 95 as amended approved.

Sections 96 to 98 inclusive approved.

section 99.

M. Morris: I just want some clarification on the “injunction under subsection

(1) regarding a contravention may be granted whether or not this Act

provides for a penalty” — buying, selling or producing. I’m sort of

looking for an example of where this might come into play. Where the

Supreme Court, on application by the director…. Is this to prevent

somebody that just continually flaunts a law and sells, or are there

other circumstances here?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it is.

Sections 99 to 106 inclusive approved.

section 107.

M. Morris: This is an interesting one for me. I just need to understand what

this is about.

Section 107: “If a person seizes cannabis under this Act, the

person may post a notice informing the public of the seizure.” And then

sub (2): “A person must not remove, alter, destroy or deface a notice

referred to in subsection (1) without the permission of the person who

made the seizure.” Who is the person here who makes the

seizure?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be the person authorized under the act. It could be the

general manager. It could be law enforcement. In much the same way as if

there’s a liquor violation posted on a door, you can do that.

Sections 107 to 112 inclusive approved.

section 113.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Morris: I’m just curious. We’ve got people that will be applying for

licences as soon as this act comes into force. Does the ministry have

training programs all ready to go in place? There are a lot of

references to training for the licensees and for staff. I’m sure there’s

going to be a rush to get all this training done. Is the ministry

prepared for this?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Training programs are currently under development. That work is

currently taking place. As with liquor, there may well be occasions when

training takes place after the opening, but that training will be

required.

M. Morris: So will that be like Serving It Right? Will it be on-line

training, or will it be face-to-face training?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The program is still under development, but it is similar to

Serving It Right.

Sections 113 to 128 inclusive approved.

section 129.

M. Morris: So 130, “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations

exempting the following from all or part of one or more provisions of

this Act…” — there’s quite a list here. Oh, I’m sorry —

Section 129 approved.

section 130.

M. Morris: As I was saying, there’s quite a list here: “(

a) a person or

entity; (

b) a class of cannabis; (

c) a form of consumption of cannabis;

(

d) a thing; (

e) an action….” I’m just wondering if the minister can

provide me with some examples of what that’s about.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This

section is intended to deal with those situations that arise

where we may be required to make an exemption to comply with the Charter

of Rights and Freedoms.

Sections 130 to 133 inclusive approved.

section 134.

M. Morris: I’ve got an amendment, which I should have passed out

earlier.

[4:15 p.m.]

I’d like to move the following amendment on

section 134 by adding

the underlined text, as I’ve shown for subsection (g).

Section 134

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

text as shown:

134 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make

regulations as follows:

(

a) respecting fees and charges payable under this Act,

including, without limitation, fees payable

(

i) by licensees and applicants for licences,

(ii) by applicants who apply under

section 40 or 95 for a

reconsideration of an order under

section 38 or 94,

(iii) for training programs referred to in

section

113,

(iv) for the registration of cannabis workers, and

(

v) for another service or benefit obtained or required by a

person;

(

b) allowing all or part of the fees referred to in paragraph

(a) (iii) to be collected and, despite

section 14 (1) of the

Financial Administration Act , retained by a person who

provides a training program as remuneration for the provision of the

training program;

(

c) specifying when a fee or charge payable under this Act must

be paid;

(

d) respecting the waiver of fees and charges;

(

e) respecting the circumstances in which a fee or charge paid

under this Act is to be refunded, including the application and

information requirements for the refund, and specifying a minimum refund

amount;

(

f) respecting the method or manner for payment of fees, charges

or monetary penalties, including conditions or requirements relating to

the payment . ;

(

g) allowing the minister to designate all or part of the

fees referred to in paragraph (

a) for the purpose of funding an

educational program. ]

On the amendment.

M. Morris: As we’ve talked about, the social responsibility associated with

bringing legalized cannabis to the fore in British Columbia and Canada,

I think, is significant. The educational component is a big part of

that. We did talk about it yesterday. I think enforcing that and

ensuring that there’s a mechanism to fund this massive educational

program that takes place is a necessary component to getting off to a

good start.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his amendment and the spirit in which it’s

intended. I’ll just reaffirm what we’ve said repeatedly throughout this

entire process: that we view education and protection of young people as

paramount. One of the issues, though, with this legislation is that I

will be working with the Finance Minister in determining exactly what we

need and what we require. It is conceivable that, certainly in the

beginning years, it may be more than what the fees and licences bring

in.

Certainly it’s something that I’m prepared to look at in the

future. At the current time, though, we do have the Treasury Board

process. We do have those things in place. We have identified this as a

priority, and it will most certainly continue to be a

priority.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 134 and 135 passed.

section 136.

M. Morris: Just some clarification here. It’s the regulation the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make “authorizing a treaty first

nation to make laws in respect of cannabis that apply within the

boundaries of its treaty lands, and (

b) respecting the enforcement of

those laws.” I’m just wondering whether those laws could be contrary to

the existing provincial legislation that we’re talking about

now.

Interjection.

M. Morris: I’m just wondering whether any legislation that a First Nations

council may pass would supersede the provincial legislation that we’re

speaking about now. I’m more concerned about retail sales set up within

the First Nations territory where they might differ from the provincial

legislation requirements for licensees and training and the other

provisions there.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This provision is intended to ensure that treaty First Nations can

have an authority to make laws with respect to cannabis on treaty lands,

which is generally consistent with the authority the

Nisg̱a’a Nation has under its

final agreement in respect to intoxicants on

Nisg̱a’a land and the authority

First Nations are expected to have with respect to intoxicants on

reserves under the federal Indian Act.

M. Morris: This pertains to the Nisg̱a’a

lands only, then?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not just to Nisg̱a’a but to

treaty. So the Tsawwassen, for example. The Sliammon would be another

example.

Sections 136 to 157 inclusive approved.

section 158.

[4:20 p.m.]

M. Morris: I’m just curious on this one,

section 158: “Section 26 is amended

by adding the following subsections:

(4.1) In determining the

priorities, goals and objectives of the municipal police department, the

municipal police board must take into account (

a) the priorities, goals

and objectives for policing and law enforcement…established by the

minister.”

We’ve got it as part of this legislation. Is this to ensure that

police departments no longer will ignore the illicit sale of cannabis,

the distribution systems that are currently in place? I know there’s

been a lot of…. Many police departments have let these kinds of

activities carry on. I’m just wondering whether, because now we’ve got

this legislation in place and the minister wants to make a strong

statement, this will be a priority for government and for the minister

to ensure that a hard line is taken with the illegal dispensaries and

illegal products in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: While the province cannot and doesn’t direct the operational

decisions of police forces, what we are saying is that municipal police

boards should be taking into account the priorities, goals and

objectives that we are setting forth with this legislation. And as we’ve

said, what we want to see is a reduction in the illegal black market. We

want to see legal markets in place, and police boards are going to need

to take that into account.

M. Morris: I’m happy to see that, because it does provide some definition to

what needs to be done here to address that and to make sure that this

legislation does get off with a strong start and that the illegal

cannabis trade is abruptly halted in this province to the extent

possible.

Sections 158 and 159 approved.

section 160.

M. Morris:

Section 160, “

(3) For greater certainty, vapourizing a substance

containing cannabis is not smoking cannabis for the purpose of

subsection (2).

(4) A tenancy agreement entered into before the cannabis

control…” so smoking in a rental unit, I suppose. I’m wondering. They’re

allowed to vaporize cannabis, but they’re not allowed to smoke cannabis.

This is what I’m reading in here. There are no restrictions on

vaporizing cannabis?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that is correct, because vaping doesn’t create the smoke and

the odour nuisance that smoking does.

Sections 160 to 163 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 30 — CANNABIS CONTROL

AND LICENSING

ACT

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Next sitting.

Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, reported complete with

amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Bill 29, Voluntary Blood Donations Act, committee

stage.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 29 — VOLUNTARY BLOOD

DONATIONS

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 29; L. Reid

in the chair.

The committee met at 4:27 p.m.

Hon. A. Dix: I wonder if we could have a five-minute recess just to make sure

the opposition critic and the Third Party critic can be here. I’m sure

we could start quickly after that.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. This House will recess for five

minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:28 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

section 15.

N. Letnick: Over the last few days, we’ve debated estimates in the Douglas

Fir, in the little House. We moved up then to the Birch Room in the

little, little House, and now we’re in the big House for this

bill.

[4:35 p.m.]

I think the Ministry of Health has seen quite a large amount of

this precinct, and I think this is where it ends for this session. Sad

day, of course. The next 15 minutes, half an hour, and then it’s all

over. I think this is the furthest apart that we’ve ever been over the

last few days.

The minister, I’m sure, would like me to get up and ask him

questions in question period. I might actually get that chance some day.

All we need to do is for his team to…. Well, I won’t go

there.

Anyway, back to the bill,

section 15. Could the minister please

answer why there is an option to verbally make a compliance order to a

person if there is the risk that the verbal communications have no

physical record?

Hon. A. Dix: As in

section 10, where we said that the orders could be made in

writing or verbally, in the circumstances here, it’s if the order is

required when an inspector is at a site or a facility and needs to make

a verbal order because it’s impossible, in effect, under those

circumstances to make a written order. It would always be followed up

with a written order.

This simply says that a verbal order, as suggested in

section 10,

is valid if it’s made — and this is important — to the person named in

the order or the owner, manager or other person in charge of the

facility that’s to be inspected or that is the subject of the order.

That’s the nature of a verbal order. It can’t be made to an assistant in

those circumstances. So if there’s a verbal order, that’s the

circumstances of it. It, of course, would be followed up with a written

order, and that’s what we allowed in

section 10.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that it would be followed

up with a written order. That satisfies my concern with

section 15. And

just in case the minister has other work to do, I have nothing up to and

including

section 19.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

N. Letnick:

Section 20 is the point at which I would like to lift from the

table the proposed amendments. I’d like to move in the Committee of the

Whole an amendment to the act as

section 20.1. That’s on the orders of

the day. A question, a concern: do I have to actually read the amendment

itself into the record, or is the fact that it has been

submitted…?

Interjection.

N. Letnick: It’s on the order paper; I don’t have to read it? Okay, so if I

can speak to it just briefly….

The Chair: Just move it, Member. Move it and speak.

N. Letnick: I’m moving it.

SECTION 20.1, by adding the following

section:

Amendment to this

Act

Annual Reporting

20.1 The Minister of Health is required to

annually report the percentage of blood, plasma and plasma-derived

products sourced for use by British Columbia’s medical services

that:

(

a) comes from outside of British Columbia, and

(

b) was sourced by donors who received inducement as defined in

section 2 (2) of this Act.]

On the amendment.

N. Letnick: Yes, it’s moved, and now I’ll speak to it. Okay.

As we noted in the first part of the bill yesterday, Canadian

Blood Services’ goal over the next few years is to increase, by

approximately 2024, the self-sufficiency of plasma and plasma products

in British Columbia — I guess in Canada as a whole, but in British

Columbia as well — by up to 50 percent.

[4:40 p.m.]

Right now some estimates have us anywhere from 15 to 20 percent,

and the goal is to increase that triple, by three times.

Their proposal to the governments of the country is — who, by the

way, operate with CBS at arm’s length, not totally independent but

almost, in that case…. They require approximately $855 million, almost

$1 billion, to get to that goal of self-sufficiency. So that means that

right now we’re about 70 to 80 percent relying on other jurisdictions

for our plasma and plasma products. As the minister has already

acknowledged, most of that comes from paid sources.

If the goal is to achieve 50 percent self-sufficiency, and if the

government believes it’s important enough to bring this legislation

forward, as it does in Bill 29, then I believe and the members of the

opposition believe that what we need in this act is something that would

hold information available to the public so that we can see how CBS and

their masters — at arm’s length, granted, but still — the governments

are doing in reaching those goals.

So every year they’ll be reporting out, whether it’s in the

Ministry of Health service plan or other way, to ensure that we continue

to move towards a place of achieving the self-sufficiency that the CBS,

who, through this act, along with government, will basically have a

monopoly on this process.

With that, I have moved the motion. I understand the minister has

a different proposal, and I look forward to hearing what that proposal

might be.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much to the member for putting forward this

amendment and engaging in this discussion.

Earlier this hour, I gave a letter to the member in response,

because what we want to do, I think, is achieve the purpose of what he’s

suggesting. The letter makes a substantive case why we shouldn’t make

this amendment in this particular form now but also proposes a solution

so that we would get to the information, on an annual basis, that the

member seeks and assess progress. I think his proposal is absolutely

legitimate and absolutely one that we’re prepared to act on together,

along with our colleagues in the Third Party.

I want to read into the record, if that’s okay, the relevant parts

of the letter.

“I appreciate the intent of the proposed amendment in promoting

greater knowledge of British Columbia’s needs for plasma products and

making more transparent the degree of self-sufficiency in this province.

However, it is my view that, as drafted, the provision is unworkable and

may not be successful in securing the desired information.

“Given that it is Canadian Blood Services, not the province, that

possesses this information, it is not feasible for the Ministers of

Health to be accountable for reporting the specified information. It’s

also impractical to place an obligation directly on Canadian Blood

Services in the bill.

“In addition, the Canadian blood and blood products system uses a

pooled model where blood and blood products are moved across the country

according to need, so information on where the blood or components was

collected and processed within Canada is not readily available. Products

used within British Columbia come from a supply that is shared by all

provinces and territories, making it impossible to track the original

source in all circumstances.

“As I noted, I appreciate the intent of the amendments and suggest

that there may be measures other than those specified in paragraphs (

a) and (

b) of the draft

section 21 that may be of interest. Accordingly, I

would propose that by the end of the session, May 31, 2018, the member

from Cowichan, the Third Party Health critic, meet to advance a means by

which we could report annually to the Legislature and the people of

B.C., and I make an undertaking to do exactly that, consistent with that

offer.

“This report would include relevant information concerning the usage

of blood and plasma products in British Columbia. For example, I would

expect that CBS can advise of the specific products that are derived

from plasma and those which are manufactured from paid donor plasma. As

well, data may be available on Canadian sufficiency in plasma for

fractionization or immune globulin.

[4:45 p.m.]

“I believe these measures would provide meaningful indicators of

CBS’s progress towards achieving sufficiency in plasma, and I trust that

securing this information will alleviate the need for the

amendment.”

In short, I think we should meet together. We should identify the

information required that should be tabled in the House every

year.

As Minister of Health, I’d make an undertaking on the part of the

government to provide that by, say, one year from today so that we’re

providing the House and the members consistent information about the

progress towards the goal in plasma self-sufficiency, and if required

over time, we could consider in discussions whether making that

provision a statutory provision might be part of a future miscellaneous

bill.

In so making that suggestion, I’m saying that we’re opposed to the

amendment as it’s presently constituted but supportive of the spirit of

the amendment and intend that the government will follow through, I

think, on the intent of the hon. member. I believe we can set a pattern

for years to come where appropriate information is brought to members of

the Legislature on an issue of common interest.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the letter that he provided me, as

he said, some time ago today. I also appreciate the undertaking that the

minister has made to meet with the Health critic for the Third Party and

myself to come up with a process by which we can report out to British

Columbians on an annual basis progress on this issue and maybe other

issues that we come up with when we get together for that meeting. I

didn’t want to complicate the bill with it today, hoping that this

amendment would actually pass if it was as simple as possible. That’s

why I pared it down to what it was, on behalf of the official

opposition.

Should the amendment fail — we all know how this place works; it

sounds like it will — I will immediately set some time up to meet with

the minister, at his convenience, and with the member of the Third Party

and get the ball rolling.

The other piece that I also want to thank the minister for is his

openness for looking at an opportunity, once we do decide how this

information or what information should be reported, in a miscellaneous

stats bill in the future to make it part of this legislation so that

future ministers, whoever they may be, and future governments would

still be bound by whatever we come up with. We all know that in this

place, things can change very quickly, and we don’t want the corporate

memory of this conversation to be the only thing we rely on when we are

reporting. It really needs to be in the legislation so that there is

some flame to the feet of whoever is in government — to make sure that

progress is made on the issue of self-sufficiency.

With that, I will be supporting the amendment, but should it fail,

I will be immediately supporting the minister in his kind

offer.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

N. Letnick: On

section 21, could the minister please explain why

section 5 of

the Offence Act does not apply for this act or its regulations?

Section

5 of the Offence Act states: “A person who contravenes an enactment by

doing

an act that it forbids, or omitting to do

an act that it requires

to be done, commits an offence against the enactment.” So if the

minister could please explain why the Offence Act does not

apply.

Hon. A. Dix: Interesting. Subsection (1) provides that

section 5 of the Offence

Act does not apply. This is necessary because under

section 21 of the

Voluntary Blood Donations Act, the breach of specific sections of the

act will be an offence. If

section 5 of the Offence Act were to apply,

contravention of an